FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today


To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - George Orwell, 1984

"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war and until there are no longer first-class and second-class citizens of any nation, until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes. And until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race, there is war. And until that day, the dream of lasting peace, world citizenship, rule of international morality, will remain but a fleeting illusion to be pursued, but never attained... now everywhere is war." - - Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia - Popularized by Bob Marley in the song War

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Political Correctness

The Progressive Panopticon of Political Correctness









Around the time that the United States Constitution had been hammered out, across the way in the UK, social theorist Jeremy Bentham was coming up with the Panopticon.



Bentham had denounced the ideas of the Declaration of Independence as "subversive of every actual or imaginable kind of Government". He demanded that force be used to "teach this rebellious people" that "there is no peace with them, but the peace of the King".



After the "Peace of the King" failed in the United States, Bentham turned to his obsession with the Panopticon. The Panopticon would be a prison in which all the prisoners could be watched all the time to achieve, in Bentham's words, "a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example."



Bentham's Panopticon never worked, but the internet has made the Panopticon and its ability to obtain "power over mind" a reality. In a "quantity hitherto without example".



Social media has made private discourse public. In the Wilson days of WWI, when hysteria was at its peak, people could be arrested for private conversations. But that was the exception, not the rule. It was only in the worst Communist societies that informants were so rife that private discourse was almost completely stifled. But the internet shreds the line between public and private.



The new informer doesn't file a report at the local KGB office. He participates in a social media collective which among its hobbies plucks some obscure "problematic" remark out of the social stream and turns its speaker into a target for a mob. A lynch hashtag is born and someone loses their job. All of this is done with the self-pitying catastrophic crybullying so typical of social justice warriors who scream that they're the victims even while they're gleefully destroying someone else's life.



It's no coincidence that this foul habit emerged out of Communist China where morality mobs targeted petty offenders on the internet in collective shaming rituals that sometimes escalated into violence or suicide. The Communist dictatorship that gave us the Cultural Revolution helped give birth to its hideous CyberStalinist offspring which enforces political correctness through bullying.



Social media made the surveillance society possible. Even in the early days of the internet, the metaphor of the Panopticon was revived to predict its future. Art students still continue to churn out laboriously pretentious projects involving surveillance cameras and faceless mannequins. But it's the voluntary participation in social media that provided material for surveillance.



The old internet was anonymous. The new internet was data hungry. Nearly every major dot com is built on collecting and making use of information about people. Google, Facebook and a hundred other companies offer free products in exchange for personal data. Free apps for smartphones are built on gaining access to your address book. Everyone is trying to build the biggest and most comprehensive database for selling ads and manipulating user behavior.



That is where the Panopticon really begins. Surveillance without intervention is voyeurism. Surveillance with intervention is tyranny. The awareness of surveillance changes behavior. That was the fundamental idea of the Panopticon. Surveillance alone was power. To rephrase Focault, "we become the principle of our own subjection." The awareness of surveillance changes how we live.



All tyrannies understood that to control people they had to follow the Panopticon's model in which the people were to always perceive themselves as being potentially under surveillance. It was the perception that mattered more than the reality, eliminated the difference between private and personal, transformed Homo Sapiens into Homo Sovieticus (or Homosos in the dissident jargon), a self-righteous hypocrite, a politically correct criminal to whom Doublethink was natural.



Social media makes it easy to impose collectivist virtue signaling behaviors. Get a rainbow avatar to celebrate gay marriage. Retweet this social justice clickbait to show you're outraged at the thing that "the internet" is outraged by. Demonstrate that you engage in goodthinkful social justice thoughts and are guiltfree of crimethink.



The echo chamber, the political bubble, is also a Panopticon. Herd behaviors are rewarded. Dissent is punished. No one is quite sure who on their friend list might turn on them, denounce them for some "problematic" remark or lack of enthusiasm for a cause, cripple their social networking, their careers and their social life. Panic in the herd is routine. A social justice social media message is somehow wrong. A joke turns out to be offensive. The 21st century Winston Smith begins to breathe hard, apologizes for his political error and vows to educate himself on proper intersectionality principles.



He edges closer to the telescreen which is always watching him and always shouting at him to pay attention. It's the "paying attention" that matters more than the message.



The less you think, the safer you are. In a politically correct society, every idea is potentially "problematic". The safest attitude is to pass on approved ideas in exactly the terms which they were uttered. Any independent thinking or deviation even in support of the cause is dangerous. It may be "Problematic". It may be "Doubleplusungood Crimethink". It's safer just to retweet. To express ambiguous outrage and support for whatever is on the timeline Telescreen. To just appear to be part of the collective "outrage of the internet", to shame someone else for Social Justice Crimethink.



Instead of being shamed yourself for some problematic social justice offense.



Orwell's 1984 envisioned the Telescreen as a Panopticon erasing the privacy of the home.



"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork." But social media and social justice warriors make for a much more efficient erasure of not only personal space, but mental space.



Thought Policing is the goal of Political Correctness. Crowdsourcing it makes it possible for a small number of angry activists and their amateur imitators to terrorize a large population.



The left has always understood the supreme value of controlling discourse. The media manufactured a consensus, shaping public opinion by creating the illusion that its view was public opinion. When Obama says that X "is not who we are", he is manufacturing our consensus and imposing his value system as our own. Push polls, personal perspective and man-on-the-street stories help reinforce this artificial consensus by personalizing it. But the media was always a basically crude tool.



Most Americans get their news from the media, but distrust its biases. Jon Stewart and his imitators radicalized the media by making bias into the news and eliminating the line between entertainment, editorial commentary and information, even while castigating the media for exactly these habits. The media eagerly embraced Stewart's savaging by turning up the bias and virtue signaling to eleven.



But in a Panopticon, the guards are meant to see all the prisoners, but never to be seen. The media is always seen, but can never see in. The media could speak through its Telescreen, but its Big Brothers couldn't listen in. It could not force the public to participate in its discourse. Often the public just tuned out the more bothersome media agendas.



Social media can see in. It avoids the problems that the NSA and any government surveillance program faces trying to sift through a ton of data by crowdsourcing it to the activist informer. Everyone can be the KGB now. Everyone can not only love Big Brother, but be Big Brother.



At least for 15 minutes or so.



The left's ultimate goal is the total politicization of society by eliminating personal space. The USSR originally did not want to build kitchens in homes, because it wanted workers eating in cafeterias. The kitchen is a private family space. A cafeteria is a public space that could be controlled. Even when the cafeterias failed, families were kept in collective apartments where dozens of people lived together in mutual hostility and distrust. In such a space, nothing is private or personal.



To totally control the individual, it is necessary to completely eliminate his personal spaces, his capacity for authenticity and individuality. In such an environment, every man becomes a convict, a prisoner of a social collective, a drone in a hive and a cringing beast in a frightened herd.



That is the Panopticon. It's the world that political correctness is building for us. It's made possible by technology and the eagerness of the crybully to put up a new iron curtain for his safe space.



Political correctness politicizes every area of life from food to literature to entertainment to clothes. Nothing is apolitical and therefore nothing is personal. The individual cannot be allowed to exist. He must join the collective. No government has made the Panopticon work perfectly, but the collective can.



The left is simply the war of an ideological collective against the individual. It is the war of the political against the personal. It is the war of power against freedom. It is the war of the progressive Panopticon against the mind of man.








Edward Cline said...
This is another marvelous essay by Greenfield. It is a word of wisdom and warning to all those hooked on or obsessed by being on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, which, on one hand, can bring together like-minded people, but, on the other, lay the seeds of conformity and even betrayal to the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, who runs Facebook and is not to be trusted to keep his collectivist fingers out of your business. It's Zuckerberg who heeded Muslim Mother Merkel's wish to have suspended or erased the Facebook accounts of vocal opponents of her orchestrated invasion of Germany by Muslim hordes.



Y. Ben-David said...
Obama's arrogation of the right to determine "what we are and what we stand for" is also reflected in his infamous comment repeated ad nauseum "X is on the wrong side of history". Of course we know that Marx came up with this in is claim that he was a "prophet" who had finally discerned the iron laws of history which move on inexorably to the ultimate triumph of Communism. Obama has now claimed that same role in deciding who is on that 'right side' and those who aren't (including Israel in his eyes) must be eradicated.



Anonymous said...
Brilliant! The war in heaven was based on the same idea, namely Satan would force us all as one mass back to Him without a choice, while God's plan would leave it up to the individual, and let us individually decide who's side we would choose in the end.



This required freedom and liberty, which we have been fighting for ever since. That war is being played out each day on earth. May we continue to fight the good fight.



Robin said...
The Panopticon reference is so pertinent, especially with the Behavioral Sciences and Nudging research Bloomberg and Cass Sunstein are so fond of being incorporated into what will constitute Learning under the Every Student Succeeds Act signed by Obama last week. Talk about invisibly observing. That's the essence of formative assessment and adaptive digital learning software embedded into class activities.



When the human mind, what it has internalized, and how it is likely to respond are what now counts as student assessment required under federal law for K-12 funding, there truly are no longer personal spaces. Yet who knows to look behingd seemingly innocuous terms like Competency to recognize citizen sculpting for a fundamentally transformed America and global community?



george t said...
I read a dozen articles every day. This is the most disturbing and thought provoking information I have come across in recent memory. All hail SK!



epochehusserl said...
At what point do you see this ending? I dont see it lasting forever.



Anonymous said...
"The left's ultimate goal is the total politicization of society by eliminating personal space."



I think they'd settle for a lesser goal just now - that being domination of "The Internet."



Their MO? Drive all people of good conscience, who do not want to participate in the shaming rallies, off of social media, the Cloud, and comments boards - all of it.



The effect of all this scolding is, of course, honorable people with civil ethics are shunning social media altogether, and, in doing so, they are ceding the globe's social media soap-box to the raucous Turks.

-s



D.D.Mao said...
This herd think mentality has unfortunately seeped into the comment sections of many right wing internet sights as well. I'm not referring to any offensive comments posted but to merely voicing opposition to the group think of the website. On Breitbart for instance you will be banned for voicing opposition to Donald Trump and on NRO you can be banned for expressing an opposing view on the Republican party. This limiting of exchanging ideas and views isn't necessarily done by the sight itself but by the self appointed participants who either "flag" you or report you as a "@troll".This is supposedly done with the intent of keeping trolls from ruining the site but the end results is all you hear is the echo of your own voice.





While Mr. Wm.Buckley built his "Firing Line" television show on the premise of exchanging ideas with people of all faiths, nationalities and political persuasions for 20+ years the Conservative wing has now seemed to accept to take the same low road the left has used for years by shutting down any avenue of open public discussion. We then question why we wind up with unqualified demagogues who get elected solely on sound bites from low information voters.



Rudyard Kipling said...
All of you are on report.



RAM said...
We're always under Divine surveillance, and He has absolute power to act on this, which ought to prompt us obey His law, as opposed to the twisted directives of our twisted society.



Gus Gianello said...
The lovely left. Lets call it what it is. Collectivism, the herd mentality. The safe harbor of the failed, the failures, the animals who choose not to think. You can also call them metrosexuals, gender-queer, etc. It is very odd that they claim to be unique and yet are uniquely like every one else. When you use a rainbow emblem because everyone else uses a rainbow emblem, how does that make you an individualist? Individualism is refusing to see what the herd sees. Hate what you choose to hate, love what you choose to love. No, we are not all in it together. We are only together if I freely choose to associate with you. There is no community in a prison, but we are all so very alone. Collectivism is a prison, because it prevents the real community of an association of like-minded and free people.



Bruce Hanify said...
One of the things I've seen very clearly from my Facebook usage is that my left-leaning nieces and nephews won't have any trouble turning me into the thought police when that day comes. I have lived long enough to see this country lose its ability to speak clearly and fearlessly. It is quite disturbing. I recently wrote a piece on it called 'Political Shaming.'



exnjute said...
To echo previous posters, this is indeed a brilliant, thought provoking in depth look at history and society today. Thank you for this great essay Daniel.



Brooks Imperial said...
Yes, but this essay, albeit perhaps the finest example of its type, joins a chorus of internet-enabled writers and multimedia speakers who extol liberty and seriously critique, 24/7, every Leftist manifestation in the world. They're the ones everyone reads and follows.



Orwell forecast a scenario under the control of Big Brother, but this fear of "power over mind," regardless of whether such controlling forces exist, appears to be impotent. Turns out all those self-interested citizens using their free access to the online totality of mankind's intellectual currency, aren't much controlled by Big Brother.



The ability of the Force to influence behavior only works on the weak minded. ;-)



Anonymous said...
You could always delete your social media accounts.



careyrowland said...
Thank you, Mr. Knish and commenters for this heads up. It explains a lot.



Anonymous said...
So here it is, the ultimate description of good vs evil. Evil always devising ways to enslave while good seeking only to break all forms of bondage. Evil is determined to make everyone conform to its standards. But, historically speaking, evil dynasties do die out and new forms of society rise up for short periods because the one thing that can NEVER be altered is human nature which is egocentric enough to finally rebel against oppression.



Unfortunately the flaws in human nature are also the seeds that the predator class know how to use to birth new evil dynasties. Reminds me of lyrics by Leonard Cohen



I can't run no more

with that lawless crowd

while the killers in high places

say their prayers out loud.

But they've summoned, they've summoned up

a thundercloud

and they're going to hear from me.



Ring the bells that still can ring

Forget your perfect offering

There is a crack, a crack in everything

That's how the light gets in.



jdf said...
Or you could simply say I don't give a shit. And actually mean it. At which point, you would begin walking upright.



Soothsayer said...
Socialism and Islam have much in common; ruthlessness and a desire to govern every aspect of the individuals life.



Anonymous said...
‘That´s not who we are’ El-husseino

Question.

um… so after all there is a good ‘we’ for the western Judeo-christian-mostly-white world or ‘we’ is a partition only including the fundamentally transformed acolytes?

Billy-Hilly answer.

Depends what you mean by ‘we’ (Billy), What difference does it make at this point (Hilly).

Good grief, leftist speech really needs hermeneutics.



Michael Brahier said...
It's not just the left.



procon said...
Thank you for explaining to me why I do not listen to T.V. newscasts or very many shows, why I do not own a cell phone, why I would never go onto Facebook or Twitter, and why Orwell's "1984" was written as a warning rather than entertainment!



A masterful piece you've written!



Tim Gilley said...
The SJW's are Stalin and Mao without the millions dead.

18/12/15

David Foster said...
A related post (by me)...Freedom, the Village, and the Internet



http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/38851.html




Anonymous said...
THE internet/social media is the most perfect on line real time surveillance mechanism ever devised.



Are you surprised it was developed by DARPA?



Now think about this. When was the last time a truly revolutionary technology was unveiled?



Jet engines really haven't had a quantum leap in decades.



My guess is there are technologies in use today we cannot even imagine.



Jack Parker said...
As long as these people who control the PC dialogue remain in Cyberspace, this will continue to grow. They are all just avatars in everyone's minds. They will never be held accountable for their actions by any real mob because they are invisible as are their sycophant suck up followers. When their home addresses get published in the same media they use, then it gets quite different. Then, real repercussions can occur while they are maybe walking their dog or reading a book or sleeping. It's all of a sudden not some fantasy land game anymore when the mob of angry knuckle draggers hunts you down and confronts you while walking your dog or shopping. Nothing will get their attention until the people's whose lives they've ruined show up for some retribution, up close and personal. Even the evil know it is a just world.



Didact said...
The only thing missing from this is that there is already a fightback underway against the SJWs. Vox Day's superb book SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police needs to be read and understood by every real conservative.



Above all, when under attack by SJWs, the first thing to remember us: never apologise! Doing that will be the worst mistake you ever make, and they'll use that to destroy you.



Svoboda said...
Yes, Brilliant! The personal antidote, might I suggest, is to psychologically individuate. Interestingly, even the so-called out-groups will at times try to pressure individuals to concur with whatever the group consensus is. This issue is part of the nature of being human, although taken to a hugely exaggerated degree in our nearly completely politicized world - a world so largely politicized only due to the degree of power and control the political world has over the lives of citizenry in at this point whatever country they live.





The Progressive Panopticon of Political Correctness









Around the time that the United States Constitution had been hammered out, across the way in the UK, social theorist Jeremy Bentham was coming up with the Panopticon.



Bentham had denounced the ideas of the Declaration of Independence as "subversive of every actual or imaginable kind of Government". He demanded that force be used to "teach this rebellious people" that "there is no peace with them, but the peace of the King".



After the "Peace of the King" failed in the United States, Bentham turned to his obsession with the Panopticon. The Panopticon would be a prison in which all the prisoners could be watched all the time to achieve, in Bentham's words, "a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example."



Bentham's Panopticon never worked, but the internet has made the Panopticon and its ability to obtain "power over mind" a reality. In a "quantity hitherto without example".



Social media has made private discourse public. In the Wilson days of WWI, when hysteria was at its peak, people could be arrested for private conversations. But that was the exception, not the rule. It was only in the worst Communist societies that informants were so rife that private discourse was almost completely stifled. But the internet shreds the line between public and private.



The new informer doesn't file a report at the local KGB office. He participates in a social media collective which among its hobbies plucks some obscure "problematic" remark out of the social stream and turns its speaker into a target for a mob. A lynch hashtag is born and someone loses their job. All of this is done with the self-pitying catastrophic crybullying so typical of social justice warriors who scream that they're the victims even while they're gleefully destroying someone else's life.



It's no coincidence that this foul habit emerged out of Communist China where morality mobs targeted petty offenders on the internet in collective shaming rituals that sometimes escalated into violence or suicide. The Communist dictatorship that gave us the Cultural Revolution helped give birth to its hideous CyberStalinist offspring which enforces political correctness through bullying.



Social media made the surveillance society possible. Even in the early days of the internet, the metaphor of the Panopticon was revived to predict its future. Art students still continue to churn out laboriously pretentious projects involving surveillance cameras and faceless mannequins. But it's the voluntary participation in social media that provided material for surveillance.



The old internet was anonymous. The new internet was data hungry. Nearly every major dot com is built on collecting and making use of information about people. Google, Facebook and a hundred other companies offer free products in exchange for personal data. Free apps for smartphones are built on gaining access to your address book. Everyone is trying to build the biggest and most comprehensive database for selling ads and manipulating user behavior.



That is where the Panopticon really begins. Surveillance without intervention is voyeurism. Surveillance with intervention is tyranny. The awareness of surveillance changes behavior. That was the fundamental idea of the Panopticon. Surveillance alone was power. To rephrase Focault, "we become the principle of our own subjection." The awareness of surveillance changes how we live.



All tyrannies understood that to control people they had to follow the Panopticon's model in which the people were to always perceive themselves as being potentially under surveillance. It was the perception that mattered more than the reality, eliminated the difference between private and personal, transformed Homo Sapiens into Homo Sovieticus (or Homosos in the dissident jargon), a self-righteous hypocrite, a politically correct criminal to whom Doublethink was natural.



Social media makes it easy to impose collectivist virtue signaling behaviors. Get a rainbow avatar to celebrate gay marriage. Retweet this social justice clickbait to show you're outraged at the thing that "the internet" is outraged by. Demonstrate that you engage in goodthinkful social justice thoughts and are guiltfree of crimethink.



The echo chamber, the political bubble, is also a Panopticon. Herd behaviors are rewarded. Dissent is punished. No one is quite sure who on their friend list might turn on them, denounce them for some "problematic" remark or lack of enthusiasm for a cause, cripple their social networking, their careers and their social life. Panic in the herd is routine. A social justice social media message is somehow wrong. A joke turns out to be offensive. The 21st century Winston Smith begins to breathe hard, apologizes for his political error and vows to educate himself on proper intersectionality principles.



He edges closer to the telescreen which is always watching him and always shouting at him to pay attention. It's the "paying attention" that matters more than the message.



The less you think, the safer you are. In a politically correct society, every idea is potentially "problematic". The safest attitude is to pass on approved ideas in exactly the terms which they were uttered. Any independent thinking or deviation even in support of the cause is dangerous. It may be "Problematic". It may be "Doubleplusungood Crimethink". It's safer just to retweet. To express ambiguous outrage and support for whatever is on the timeline Telescreen. To just appear to be part of the collective "outrage of the internet", to shame someone else for Social Justice Crimethink.



Instead of being shamed yourself for some problematic social justice offense.



Orwell's 1984 envisioned the Telescreen as a Panopticon erasing the privacy of the home.



"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork." But social media and social justice warriors make for a much more efficient erasure of not only personal space, but mental space.



Thought Policing is the goal of Political Correctness. Crowdsourcing it makes it possible for a small number of angry activists and their amateur imitators to terrorize a large population.



The left has always understood the supreme value of controlling discourse. The media manufactured a consensus, shaping public opinion by creating the illusion that its view was public opinion. When Obama says that X "is not who we are", he is manufacturing our consensus and imposing his value system as our own. Push polls, personal perspective and man-on-the-street stories help reinforce this artificial consensus by personalizing it. But the media was always a basically crude tool.



Most Americans get their news from the media, but distrust its biases. Jon Stewart and his imitators radicalized the media by making bias into the news and eliminating the line between entertainment, editorial commentary and information, even while castigating the media for exactly these habits. The media eagerly embraced Stewart's savaging by turning up the bias and virtue signaling to eleven.



But in a Panopticon, the guards are meant to see all the prisoners, but never to be seen. The media is always seen, but can never see in. The media could speak through its Telescreen, but its Big Brothers couldn't listen in. It could not force the public to participate in its discourse. Often the public just tuned out the more bothersome media agendas.



Social media can see in. It avoids the problems that the NSA and any government surveillance program faces trying to sift through a ton of data by crowdsourcing it to the activist informer. Everyone can be the KGB now. Everyone can not only love Big Brother, but be Big Brother.



At least for 15 minutes or so.



The left's ultimate goal is the total politicization of society by eliminating personal space. The USSR originally did not want to build kitchens in homes, because it wanted workers eating in cafeterias. The kitchen is a private family space. A cafeteria is a public space that could be controlled. Even when the cafeterias failed, families were kept in collective apartments where dozens of people lived together in mutual hostility and distrust. In such a space, nothing is private or personal.



To totally control the individual, it is necessary to completely eliminate his personal spaces, his capacity for authenticity and individuality. In such an environment, every man becomes a convict, a prisoner of a social collective, a drone in a hive and a cringing beast in a frightened herd.



That is the Panopticon. It's the world that political correctness is building for us. It's made possible by technology and the eagerness of the crybully to put up a new iron curtain for his safe space.



Political correctness politicizes every area of life from food to literature to entertainment to clothes. Nothing is apolitical and therefore nothing is personal. The individual cannot be allowed to exist. He must join the collective. No government has made the Panopticon work perfectly, but the collective can.



The left is simply the war of an ideological collective against the individual. It is the war of the political against the personal. It is the war of power against freedom. It is the war of the progressive Panopticon against the mind of man.








Edward Cline said...
This is another marvelous essay by Greenfield. It is a word of wisdom and warning to all those hooked on or obsessed by being on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, which, on one hand, can bring together like-minded people, but, on the other, lay the seeds of conformity and even betrayal to the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, who runs Facebook and is not to be trusted to keep his collectivist fingers out of your business. It's Zuckerberg who heeded Muslim Mother Merkel's wish to have suspended or erased the Facebook accounts of vocal opponents of her orchestrated invasion of Germany by Muslim hordes.



Y. Ben-David said...
Obama's arrogation of the right to determine "what we are and what we stand for" is also reflected in his infamous comment repeated ad nauseum "X is on the wrong side of history". Of course we know that Marx came up with this in is claim that he was a "prophet" who had finally discerned the iron laws of history which move on inexorably to the ultimate triumph of Communism. Obama has now claimed that same role in deciding who is on that 'right side' and those who aren't (including Israel in his eyes) must be eradicated.



Anonymous said...
Brilliant! The war in heaven was based on the same idea, namely Satan would force us all as one mass back to Him without a choice, while God's plan would leave it up to the individual, and let us individually decide who's side we would choose in the end.



This required freedom and liberty, which we have been fighting for ever since. That war is being played out each day on earth. May we continue to fight the good fight.



Robin said...
The Panopticon reference is so pertinent, especially with the Behavioral Sciences and Nudging research Bloomberg and Cass Sunstein are so fond of being incorporated into what will constitute Learning under the Every Student Succeeds Act signed by Obama last week. Talk about invisibly observing. That's the essence of formative assessment and adaptive digital learning software embedded into class activities.



When the human mind, what it has internalized, and how it is likely to respond are what now counts as student assessment required under federal law for K-12 funding, there truly are no longer personal spaces. Yet who knows to look behingd seemingly innocuous terms like Competency to recognize citizen sculpting for a fundamentally transformed America and global community?



george t said...
I read a dozen articles every day. This is the most disturbing and thought provoking information I have come across in recent memory. All hail SK!



epochehusserl said...
At what point do you see this ending? I dont see it lasting forever.



Anonymous said...
"The left's ultimate goal is the total politicization of society by eliminating personal space."



I think they'd settle for a lesser goal just now - that being domination of "The Internet."



Their MO? Drive all people of good conscience, who do not want to participate in the shaming rallies, off of social media, the Cloud, and comments boards - all of it.



The effect of all this scolding is, of course, honorable people with civil ethics are shunning social media altogether, and, in doing so, they are ceding the globe's social media soap-box to the raucous Turks.

-s



D.D.Mao said...
This herd think mentality has unfortunately seeped into the comment sections of many right wing internet sights as well. I'm not referring to any offensive comments posted but to merely voicing opposition to the group think of the website. On Breitbart for instance you will be banned for voicing opposition to Donald Trump and on NRO you can be banned for expressing an opposing view on the Republican party. This limiting of exchanging ideas and views isn't necessarily done by the sight itself but by the self appointed participants who either "flag" you or report you as a "@troll".This is supposedly done with the intent of keeping trolls from ruining the site but the end results is all you hear is the echo of your own voice.





While Mr. Wm.Buckley built his "Firing Line" television show on the premise of exchanging ideas with people of all faiths, nationalities and political persuasions for 20+ years the Conservative wing has now seemed to accept to take the same low road the left has used for years by shutting down any avenue of open public discussion. We then question why we wind up with unqualified demagogues who get elected solely on sound bites from low information voters.



Rudyard Kipling said...
All of you are on report.



RAM said...
We're always under Divine surveillance, and He has absolute power to act on this, which ought to prompt us obey His law, as opposed to the twisted directives of our twisted society.



Gus Gianello said...
The lovely left. Lets call it what it is. Collectivism, the herd mentality. The safe harbor of the failed, the failures, the animals who choose not to think. You can also call them metrosexuals, gender-queer, etc. It is very odd that they claim to be unique and yet are uniquely like every one else. When you use a rainbow emblem because everyone else uses a rainbow emblem, how does that make you an individualist? Individualism is refusing to see what the herd sees. Hate what you choose to hate, love what you choose to love. No, we are not all in it together. We are only together if I freely choose to associate with you. There is no community in a prison, but we are all so very alone. Collectivism is a prison, because it prevents the real community of an association of like-minded and free people.



Bruce Hanify said...
One of the things I've seen very clearly from my Facebook usage is that my left-leaning nieces and nephews won't have any trouble turning me into the thought police when that day comes. I have lived long enough to see this country lose its ability to speak clearly and fearlessly. It is quite disturbing. I recently wrote a piece on it called 'Political Shaming.'



exnjute said...
To echo previous posters, this is indeed a brilliant, thought provoking in depth look at history and society today. Thank you for this great essay Daniel.



Brooks Imperial said...
Yes, but this essay, albeit perhaps the finest example of its type, joins a chorus of internet-enabled writers and multimedia speakers who extol liberty and seriously critique, 24/7, every Leftist manifestation in the world. They're the ones everyone reads and follows.



Orwell forecast a scenario under the control of Big Brother, but this fear of "power over mind," regardless of whether such controlling forces exist, appears to be impotent. Turns out all those self-interested citizens using their free access to the online totality of mankind's intellectual currency, aren't much controlled by Big Brother.



The ability of the Force to influence behavior only works on the weak minded. ;-)



Anonymous said...
You could always delete your social media accounts.



careyrowland said...
Thank you, Mr. Knish and commenters for this heads up. It explains a lot.



Anonymous said...
So here it is, the ultimate description of good vs evil. Evil always devising ways to enslave while good seeking only to break all forms of bondage. Evil is determined to make everyone conform to its standards. But, historically speaking, evil dynasties do die out and new forms of society rise up for short periods because the one thing that can NEVER be altered is human nature which is egocentric enough to finally rebel against oppression.



Unfortunately the flaws in human nature are also the seeds that the predator class know how to use to birth new evil dynasties. Reminds me of lyrics by Leonard Cohen



I can't run no more

with that lawless crowd

while the killers in high places

say their prayers out loud.

But they've summoned, they've summoned up

a thundercloud

and they're going to hear from me.



Ring the bells that still can ring

Forget your perfect offering

There is a crack, a crack in everything

That's how the light gets in.



jdf said...
Or you could simply say I don't give a shit. And actually mean it. At which point, you would begin walking upright.



Soothsayer said...
Socialism and Islam have much in common; ruthlessness and a desire to govern every aspect of the individuals life.



Anonymous said...
‘That´s not who we are’ El-husseino

Question.

um… so after all there is a good ‘we’ for the western Judeo-christian-mostly-white world or ‘we’ is a partition only including the fundamentally transformed acolytes?

Billy-Hilly answer.

Depends what you mean by ‘we’ (Billy), What difference does it make at this point (Hilly).

Good grief, leftist speech really needs hermeneutics.



Michael Brahier said...
It's not just the left.



procon said...
Thank you for explaining to me why I do not listen to T.V. newscasts or very many shows, why I do not own a cell phone, why I would never go onto Facebook or Twitter, and why Orwell's "1984" was written as a warning rather than entertainment!



A masterful piece you've written!



Tim Gilley said...
The SJW's are Stalin and Mao without the millions dead.

18/12/15

David Foster said...
A related post (by me)...Freedom, the Village, and the Internet



http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/38851.html




Anonymous said...
THE internet/social media is the most perfect on line real time surveillance mechanism ever devised.



Are you surprised it was developed by DARPA?



Now think about this. When was the last time a truly revolutionary technology was unveiled?



Jet engines really haven't had a quantum leap in decades.



My guess is there are technologies in use today we cannot even imagine.



Jack Parker said...
As long as these people who control the PC dialogue remain in Cyberspace, this will continue to grow. They are all just avatars in everyone's minds. They will never be held accountable for their actions by any real mob because they are invisible as are their sycophant suck up followers. When their home addresses get published in the same media they use, then it gets quite different. Then, real repercussions can occur while they are maybe walking their dog or reading a book or sleeping. It's all of a sudden not some fantasy land game anymore when the mob of angry knuckle draggers hunts you down and confronts you while walking your dog or shopping. Nothing will get their attention until the people's whose lives they've ruined show up for some retribution, up close and personal. Even the evil know it is a just world.



Didact said...
The only thing missing from this is that there is already a fightback underway against the SJWs. Vox Day's superb book SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police needs to be read and understood by every real conservative.



Above all, when under attack by SJWs, the first thing to remember us: never apologise! Doing that will be the worst mistake you ever make, and they'll use that to destroy you.



Svoboda said...
Yes, Brilliant! The personal antidote, might I suggest, is to psychologically individuate. Interestingly, even the so-called out-groups will at times try to pressure individuals to concur with whatever the group consensus is. This issue is part of the nature of being human, although taken to a hugely exaggerated degree in our nearly completely politicized world - a world so largely politicized only due to the degree of power and control the political world has over the lives of citizenry in at this point whatever country they live.







UN Condemns UK government's 'Mean-spirited and Callous Approach' to Poorest, in Damning Report

UN Condemns UK government's 'Mean-spirited and Callous Approach' to Poorest, in Damning Report



'I have spoken with people who depend on food banks and charities for their next meal, who have sold sex for money or shelter, children who are growing up in poverty unsure of their future,' says UN special rapporteur

By May Bulman

The United Nations has condemned the British government's "punitive, mean-spirited and often callous" treatment of the country's poorest and most vulnerable, in a damning report.
The UN's special rapporteur said policies and drastic cuts to social support were entrenching high levels of poverty and inflicting unnecessary misery in one of the richest countries in the world, adding that Brexit was exacerbating the problem.
“The United Kingdom’s impending exit from the European Union poses particular risks for people in poverty, but the government appears to be treating this as an afterthought,” said the UN's expert on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, at the end of a 12-day visit to the country.

“During my visit I have spoken with people who depend on food banks and charities for their next meal, who are sleeping on friends’ couches because they are homeless and don’t have a safe place for their children to sleep, who have sold sex for money or shelter, children who are growing up in poverty unsure of their future,” Mr Alston said.The report goes on to document a series of findings which combine to present a withering assessment of Britain's approach to its poorest citizens, detailing a predicted 7 per cent rise in child poverty, a 60 per cent increase in homelessness since 2010 and exponential growth in the number of food banks.

“I’ve also met young people who feel gangs are the only way out of destitution, and people with disabilities who are being told they need to go back to work or lose benefits, against their doctor’s orders."
He said successive governments had overseen a systematic dismantling of the social safety net, suggesting the introduction of universal credit and significant reductions to support had undermined the capacity of benefits to relieve poverty.
“British compassion for those who are suffering has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous approach,” he said.
“As a ‘digital by default’ benefit, universal credit has created an online barrier between people with poor digital literacy and their legal entitlements. And the ‘test and learn’ approach to the rollout treats claimants like guinea pigs and can wreak havoc in real peoples’ lives.”
Delivering the report in London on Friday, Mr Alston said “not nearly enough” was being done to address the challenges and described a “state of denial by ministers” regarding the state of poverty in the UK.
 
He added: “[Ministers] have an overriding set of objectives to cut the welfare system, cut what they see as dependences. I cannot believe that they are as happy with the system as they told me they were.”
Referencing reforms to the benefit system, the UN rapporteur said universal credit was a "sudden tonne of bricks approach" that is "utterly inconsistent with the essential underpinnings of not just human rights, but the whole British sense of community and the values of justice and fairness".
He added: "The system epitomised by universal credit, but not limited to that, is in fact driven by the desire to get across a simple set of messages: the state does not have your back any longer. You are on your own.
“The government’s place is not to be assisting people who think they can’t make it on their own. The government’s place is an absolute last emergency order, and what goes along with that is a sense that we should make the system as unwelcoming as possible.
“The command and control approach reflected in universal credit is that sanctions should be harsh, immediate and painful – and yet all of the evidence that I’ve seen indicate that sanctions are usually counter-productive, that they create fear and loathing among claimants and they impose immense hardship."
When asked about the kind of future the UK faces, Mr Alston said: “Britain is heading towards an alienated society where you have pretty dramatic differences between the upper classes and the lower classes. 
“The era of connectivity, social media and so on make it much less sustainable to have these two dramatically different societies - of people living the high life but people on the other hand not able to afford a tin of banked beans.”
Describing the state of affairs for poor groups on a local level, he said local authorities, which he said performed a "vital role" in providing a social safety net, had been "gutted" by a series of government policies.  
Mr Alston added: “The public land that is being sold off, the libraries that are being closed down, the youth services that are being sized down. Soon, there will be nowhere for them to go.
“They will find themselves living in an increasingly hostile society because community roots are being broken. There is real reason for concern.”
When asked by The Independent to what extent the government's immigration policies contributed to poverty, Mr Alston condemned the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK and urged ministers to consider giving people seeking asylum the right to work.
“Expecting asylum seekers to survive without any access to government services on £37 a week is unrealistic and very punitive. Enabling those people to seek work is a minor concession that should be contemplated,” he said.
Responding to the findings, Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Margaret Greenwood urged the government to listen to the people being pushed into poverty by its policies.
“Universal credit is failing miserably, leaving families in debt, rent arrears and at risk of becoming homeless. Three million children are growing up in poverty despite living in a working household," she added.
“Labour will stop the roll out of universal credit, end the benefit freeze and transform the social security system so that it supports people instead of punishing them.”
This article was originally published by "The Independent-   
==See Also==

UN Special Rapporteur's Preliminary Findings On Extreme Poverty In The UK



UN Condemns UK government's 'Mean-spirited and Callous Approach' to Poorest, in Damning Report



'I have spoken with people who depend on food banks and charities for their next meal, who have sold sex for money or shelter, children who are growing up in poverty unsure of their future,' says UN special rapporteur

By May Bulman

The United Nations has condemned the British government's "punitive, mean-spirited and often callous" treatment of the country's poorest and most vulnerable, in a damning report.
The UN's special rapporteur said policies and drastic cuts to social support were entrenching high levels of poverty and inflicting unnecessary misery in one of the richest countries in the world, adding that Brexit was exacerbating the problem.
“The United Kingdom’s impending exit from the European Union poses particular risks for people in poverty, but the government appears to be treating this as an afterthought,” said the UN's expert on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, at the end of a 12-day visit to the country.

“During my visit I have spoken with people who depend on food banks and charities for their next meal, who are sleeping on friends’ couches because they are homeless and don’t have a safe place for their children to sleep, who have sold sex for money or shelter, children who are growing up in poverty unsure of their future,” Mr Alston said.The report goes on to document a series of findings which combine to present a withering assessment of Britain's approach to its poorest citizens, detailing a predicted 7 per cent rise in child poverty, a 60 per cent increase in homelessness since 2010 and exponential growth in the number of food banks.

“I’ve also met young people who feel gangs are the only way out of destitution, and people with disabilities who are being told they need to go back to work or lose benefits, against their doctor’s orders."
He said successive governments had overseen a systematic dismantling of the social safety net, suggesting the introduction of universal credit and significant reductions to support had undermined the capacity of benefits to relieve poverty.
“British compassion for those who are suffering has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous approach,” he said.
“As a ‘digital by default’ benefit, universal credit has created an online barrier between people with poor digital literacy and their legal entitlements. And the ‘test and learn’ approach to the rollout treats claimants like guinea pigs and can wreak havoc in real peoples’ lives.”
Delivering the report in London on Friday, Mr Alston said “not nearly enough” was being done to address the challenges and described a “state of denial by ministers” regarding the state of poverty in the UK.
 
He added: “[Ministers] have an overriding set of objectives to cut the welfare system, cut what they see as dependences. I cannot believe that they are as happy with the system as they told me they were.”
Referencing reforms to the benefit system, the UN rapporteur said universal credit was a "sudden tonne of bricks approach" that is "utterly inconsistent with the essential underpinnings of not just human rights, but the whole British sense of community and the values of justice and fairness".
He added: "The system epitomised by universal credit, but not limited to that, is in fact driven by the desire to get across a simple set of messages: the state does not have your back any longer. You are on your own.
“The government’s place is not to be assisting people who think they can’t make it on their own. The government’s place is an absolute last emergency order, and what goes along with that is a sense that we should make the system as unwelcoming as possible.
“The command and control approach reflected in universal credit is that sanctions should be harsh, immediate and painful – and yet all of the evidence that I’ve seen indicate that sanctions are usually counter-productive, that they create fear and loathing among claimants and they impose immense hardship."
When asked about the kind of future the UK faces, Mr Alston said: “Britain is heading towards an alienated society where you have pretty dramatic differences between the upper classes and the lower classes. 
“The era of connectivity, social media and so on make it much less sustainable to have these two dramatically different societies - of people living the high life but people on the other hand not able to afford a tin of banked beans.”
Describing the state of affairs for poor groups on a local level, he said local authorities, which he said performed a "vital role" in providing a social safety net, had been "gutted" by a series of government policies.  
Mr Alston added: “The public land that is being sold off, the libraries that are being closed down, the youth services that are being sized down. Soon, there will be nowhere for them to go.
“They will find themselves living in an increasingly hostile society because community roots are being broken. There is real reason for concern.”
When asked by The Independent to what extent the government's immigration policies contributed to poverty, Mr Alston condemned the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK and urged ministers to consider giving people seeking asylum the right to work.
“Expecting asylum seekers to survive without any access to government services on £37 a week is unrealistic and very punitive. Enabling those people to seek work is a minor concession that should be contemplated,” he said.
Responding to the findings, Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Margaret Greenwood urged the government to listen to the people being pushed into poverty by its policies.
“Universal credit is failing miserably, leaving families in debt, rent arrears and at risk of becoming homeless. Three million children are growing up in poverty despite living in a working household," she added.
“Labour will stop the roll out of universal credit, end the benefit freeze and transform the social security system so that it supports people instead of punishing them.”
This article was originally published by "The Independent-   
==See Also==

UN Special Rapporteur's Preliminary Findings On Extreme Poverty In The UK





Thanking Vets For Their “Service” – Why?

Thanking Vets For Their “Service” – Why?


Let’s begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that US Americans don’t like wars.

Depending on the context, the small word “why” can be totally innocuous or it can be just about the most subversive and even sacrilegious word one can utter.  This is probably why I love this word so much: it’s ability to unleash tremendous power against all sorts of sacred cows and unchallenged beliefs.  So,today I want to ask everybody why so many people feel the need to thank veterans for their “service”?

But first, let’s debunk a few myths:

First, let’s begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that US Americans don’t like wars.  That is totally false. US Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them.  In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply “forget” it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most US Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

Next is myth #2: the truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the USA since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one! All the wars fought by the USA since 1945 were wars of aggression, wars of choice and most of them were completely illegal to boot (including numerous subversive and covert operations). At most, one can make the argument that US veterans defended the so-called “American way of life,” but only if one accepts that the said “American way of life” requires and mandates imperialist wars of aggression and the wholesale abandonment of the key concepts of international law.


Finally, there is the ugly dirty little secret that everybody knows but, for some reason, very few dare to mention: the decision to join the (all volunteer) US military is one primarily based on financial considerations and absolutely not some kind of generous “service” of the motherland for pure, lofty, ideals.  Yes, yes, I know – there were those who did join the US military after 9/11 thinking that the USA had been attacked and that they needed to help bring the fight to those who attacked the USA.  But even with a very modest degree of intelligence, it should have become pretty darn obvious that whether 9/11 was indeed the work of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or not (personally I am absolutely certain that this was a controlled demolition) – this atrocity was used by the US government to justify a long list of wars which could not have possibly had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, after all, the US decided to attack Iraq (which self-evidently had nothing to do with 9/11) and not the KSA (even though most of the putative hijackers were Saudis and had official Saudi backing). Besides, even if some folks were not smart enough to see through the lies and even if THEY believed that they joined the US military to defend the USA, why would the rest of us who by 2018 all know that the attack on Iraq was purely and solely based on lies, “thank” veterans for stupidly waging war for interests they cannot even identify? Since when do we thank people for making wrong and, frankly, immoral decisions?!

Now let’s look at another basic thing: what is military service? The way I see it, military personnel can roughly be split into two categories: those who actually kill people and those who help those who kill people kill people. Right? If you are a machine gunner or a tank driver, then you personally get to kill people. If you are a communications specialist, or a truck driver, or an electrician, you don’t get to kill people yourself, but your work is to make it easier for those who kill people to kill people. So I think that it would be fair to say that joining a military, any military, is to join an organization whose main purpose is to kill people. Of course, that killing can be morally justifiable and, say, in defense of your country and fellow citizens. But that can only be the case if you prepare for a defensive war and, as we all know, the USA has not fought such a war for over 70 years now. Which means that with a few increasingly rare exceptions (WWII veterans) ALL the veterans which get thanked for their service did what exactly? If we put it in plain English, what fundamental, crucial decision did ALL these veterans make?

In simple and plain English, veterans are those who signed up to kill people outside the USA for money.

Sorry, I know that this sounds offensive to many, but this is a fact. The fact that this decision (to join an organization whose primary purpose is to murder people in their own countries, hundreds and thousands of miles away from the USA) could ALSO have been taken for “patriotic” reasons (i.e. by those who believed in what is most likely the most lying propaganda machine in history) or to “see the world” and “become a real man” does not change the fact that if the US military offered NO pay or benefits, NO scholarships, NO healthcare, etc. then the vast majority of those who claim that they joined to “serve” would never have joined in the first place. We all know that, let’s not pretend otherwise! Just look at the arguments recruiters use to convince people to join: they are all about money and benefits! Need more proof? Just look at the kind of social groups who compose the bulk of the US military: uneducated, poor, with minimal career prospects. The simple truth is that financially successful folks very rarely join the military and, when they do, they usually make a career out of it.

As somebody who has lived in the USA for a total of 21 years now, I can attest that folks join the military precisely for the same reasons they enter the police force or become correctional officers: because in all those endeavors there is money to be made and benefits to enjoy. Okay, there must be, by definition, the 1% or less who joined these (all violent) careers for purely lofty and noble ideals. But these would be a small, tiny, minority. The overwhelming majority of cops, correctional officers and soldiers joined primarily for material and/or financial reasons.

By the way, since that is the case, is it not also true that the soldier (just like the cop or the correctional officers) has ALREADY received his/her “gratitude” from the society for their “service” in the form of a check? Why do folks then still feel the need to “thank them for their service”? We don’t thank air traffic controllers or logging workers (also very tough careers) for their service, do we? And that is in spite of the fact that air traffic controllers and logging workers did not choose to join an organization whose primary goal is to kill people in their own homes (whether private homes or national ones) which is what soldiers get paid for.

Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way: veterans are killers hired for money.  Period.  The rest is all propaganda.

In a normal sane world, one would think that this is primarily a moral and ethical question. I would even say a spiritual one. Surely major religions would have something relevant and clarifying to say about this? Well, in the past they did.  In fact, with some slight variations, the principles of what is called a “just war” have been known in the West since at least Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.  According to one source they are:

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
(Check out this article for a more thorough discussion of this fascinating topic)

Now Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are hardly heroes of mine, but they are considered as very authoritative in western philosophical thought. Yet, when checked against this list of criteria, all the wars fought by the USA are clearly and self-evidently totally unjust: all of them fail on several criteria, and most of them (including the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan) fail on all of them!

But there is no need to go far back into the centuries to find authoritative western thinkers who clearly denounce unjust wars.  Did you know that the ultimate crime under international law is not genocide or crimes against humanity?

Nope, the supreme crime under international law is the crime of aggression. In the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the supreme crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes.  He wrote:  “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

So from the 4th century through the 20th century, the people of the West always knew what a just war was, and they fully understood that starting such a war is the supreme evil crime under international law. But this goes beyond just major wars. Under international law, the crime of “aggression” does not only refer to a full-scale military attack. Aggression can be defined as the execution of any one of the following acts:

Declaration of war upon another State.
Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
A naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State.
Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.
Finally, it is important to note here that by these authoritative legal definitions, every single US President is a war criminal under international law! This, in turn, begs the question of whether all the wars fought by US soldiers since 1945 were indeed waged by a legitimate authority (as mentioned by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas above)? How can that be when the Commander in Chief himself is a war criminal?

Let’s sum it up so far: we have folks who agree to become killers (or killer-assistants), who do that primarily for financial reasons, who then only participate in illegal and immoral wars of aggression and whose commander in chief is a war criminal.

And they deserve our gratitude why exactly?!

Maybe because so many veterans have been hurt, maimed, traumatized? Maybe because once they leave the armed forces, they don’t get the social and medical support they need? Perhaps merely because wars are horrible? Or maybe because the veterans were lied to and deceived? Or maybe because some (many?) of them did try to stay human, honorable and decent people in spite of the horrors of war all around them? When we think of the horrendous unemployment, homelessness and even suicide figures amongst veterans, we cannot but feel that these are people who have been lied to, cheated and then discarded like a useless tool. So maybe saying “thank you for your service” is the right thing to say?

Nope! These are all excellent reasons to feel compassion and sympathy for veterans, yes. But not gratitude. There is a huge difference here. Everybody, every human, and I strongly believe every creature deserves compassion and sympathy. But it is one thing to say “I feel compassion for you” and quite another to say “thank you for what you did” because that implies that the deed was a moral, good, ethical deed, and that is entirely false.

Major General Smedley Butler put it best when he wrote:

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.

If we agree that war is, indeed, a “racket” and that it is conducted “for the benefit of the very few” then it would make sense for these “very few” to express their gratitude to those whom they hired to enrich them.  And, in fact, they do.  Here is the best example of that:

Of course, Google is no more dependent on wars of aggression than any other US corporation.  The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war.  The so-called “American way of life” but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in the past, and it won’t be attempted for as long as the USA remains the cornerstone of the AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind.  But until that day arrives the “American way of life” will always imply wars of aggression and the mass murder of innocent people whose only “sin” is to dare to want to live free and not be a slave to the Empire.  If you believe that those who dare to want to live free in a truly sovereign country deserve to be murdered and maimed, then yes, by all means – thank the veterans from the bottom of your heart!

But if you don’t believe this, offer them your compassion, but not your gratitude for their crimes.




Joseph F Barber,is a freelance writer and editor of the blog FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.it is my message to we the people and the citizens of our world to stand free and your ground feed another if you can ,I tell you this as it come from with in my soul There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience. 

"I don't know how to save the world. I don't have the answers or The Answer. I hold no secret knowledge as to how to fix the mistakes of generations past and present. I only know that without compassion and respect for all Earth's inhabitants, none of us will survive - nor will we deserve to." Leonard Peltier

Pro Deo et Constitutione – 
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis 
Paratus et Fidelis 


Founder Veterans Project ,  Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber


“Serving my country was a life-changing experience for me. It was during those years that I realized the importance of commitment, dedication, honor, and discipline. I have never laughed so much; nor have I ever prayed so much. I made life-long friends. The leaders and heroes I served with helped shape me into the man I am today. I feel honored to have been a part of such a great tradition and grateful to others who have walked the same path. Thank you!” 

I believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for one self, one's own family or one's nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the key to human survival. It is the best foundation for world peace
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 


Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.” Act now - Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country Since 2013, Veterans Project & The Family Assistance Campaign has provided free food assistance to more than 20,000 Veterans and their family members, distributing 445,000 lbs. of food. Feed Our Vets mission is to help Veterans in the United States, their spouses and children, whose circumstances have left them on the battlefield of hunger, and to involve the public in fighting Veteran hunger, through: (1) Community food pantries that provide regular, free food to Veterans and their families, (2) Distribution of related goods and services, (3) Public education and outreach.

 I am Joseph Barber,Master carpenter and Builder, and all around adventure of life.I was a soldier for some time hard job but yet wonderful quite the education you might say,love the Ocean and anything to do with it. Listen to how we speak about freedom and you'll gain tremendous insight into our true attitudes about freedom and, therefore, our relationship to one another I am and author of sorts and write articles for what I call FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience in our world today so many have forgotten those truths that have made us free  “They say you can’t change the past despite the fact it never stops changing you – but that doesn't mean we have to sit back and take it. It may change us, but we have ultimate control over how we let it.”

Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.” You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.

We believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for one self, one's own family or one's nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the key to human survival. It is the best foundation for world peace.

Pease forward this to as many of your contacts that you can and ask them to support this cause and to forward it to their contacts as well.
Thanks for your support if you would like to make a donation please do so by going to our gofundme/urbansurvivalpacks or contact me personally Joseph F Barber founder  @ 760 643 6134 to make a Contribution to the  family assistance campaign  or the Veterans project by contacting  :Suzanne Button Manager , contact the project @ 442-251-6553 



People who believe in the sanctity of life

https://digg.com/u/Docbarber
THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE CAMPAIGN 

Sponsored  by Tradesmen Company@Joseph Barber Master carpenter Builder / Tradesmen

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX LIVE OUTSIDE THE CAGE 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – 
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis 
Paratus et Fidelis 



Good day all you beautiful people with your $10 donation we can feed a person for two days and it also helps us build our homeless survival packs that we give out 
Helping Homeless Veterans
Meals for Homeless Veterans
Giving the Gift of a Warm Meal

From Your Hand to the Homeless Veterans and citizens and children


Thanking Vets For Their “Service” – Why?


Let’s begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that US Americans don’t like wars.

Depending on the context, the small word “why” can be totally innocuous or it can be just about the most subversive and even sacrilegious word one can utter.  This is probably why I love this word so much: it’s ability to unleash tremendous power against all sorts of sacred cows and unchallenged beliefs.  So,today I want to ask everybody why so many people feel the need to thank veterans for their “service”?

But first, let’s debunk a few myths:

First, let’s begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that US Americans don’t like wars.  That is totally false. US Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them.  In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply “forget” it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most US Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

Next is myth #2: the truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the USA since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one! All the wars fought by the USA since 1945 were wars of aggression, wars of choice and most of them were completely illegal to boot (including numerous subversive and covert operations). At most, one can make the argument that US veterans defended the so-called “American way of life,” but only if one accepts that the said “American way of life” requires and mandates imperialist wars of aggression and the wholesale abandonment of the key concepts of international law.


Finally, there is the ugly dirty little secret that everybody knows but, for some reason, very few dare to mention: the decision to join the (all volunteer) US military is one primarily based on financial considerations and absolutely not some kind of generous “service” of the motherland for pure, lofty, ideals.  Yes, yes, I know – there were those who did join the US military after 9/11 thinking that the USA had been attacked and that they needed to help bring the fight to those who attacked the USA.  But even with a very modest degree of intelligence, it should have become pretty darn obvious that whether 9/11 was indeed the work of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or not (personally I am absolutely certain that this was a controlled demolition) – this atrocity was used by the US government to justify a long list of wars which could not have possibly had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, after all, the US decided to attack Iraq (which self-evidently had nothing to do with 9/11) and not the KSA (even though most of the putative hijackers were Saudis and had official Saudi backing). Besides, even if some folks were not smart enough to see through the lies and even if THEY believed that they joined the US military to defend the USA, why would the rest of us who by 2018 all know that the attack on Iraq was purely and solely based on lies, “thank” veterans for stupidly waging war for interests they cannot even identify? Since when do we thank people for making wrong and, frankly, immoral decisions?!

Now let’s look at another basic thing: what is military service? The way I see it, military personnel can roughly be split into two categories: those who actually kill people and those who help those who kill people kill people. Right? If you are a machine gunner or a tank driver, then you personally get to kill people. If you are a communications specialist, or a truck driver, or an electrician, you don’t get to kill people yourself, but your work is to make it easier for those who kill people to kill people. So I think that it would be fair to say that joining a military, any military, is to join an organization whose main purpose is to kill people. Of course, that killing can be morally justifiable and, say, in defense of your country and fellow citizens. But that can only be the case if you prepare for a defensive war and, as we all know, the USA has not fought such a war for over 70 years now. Which means that with a few increasingly rare exceptions (WWII veterans) ALL the veterans which get thanked for their service did what exactly? If we put it in plain English, what fundamental, crucial decision did ALL these veterans make?

In simple and plain English, veterans are those who signed up to kill people outside the USA for money.

Sorry, I know that this sounds offensive to many, but this is a fact. The fact that this decision (to join an organization whose primary purpose is to murder people in their own countries, hundreds and thousands of miles away from the USA) could ALSO have been taken for “patriotic” reasons (i.e. by those who believed in what is most likely the most lying propaganda machine in history) or to “see the world” and “become a real man” does not change the fact that if the US military offered NO pay or benefits, NO scholarships, NO healthcare, etc. then the vast majority of those who claim that they joined to “serve” would never have joined in the first place. We all know that, let’s not pretend otherwise! Just look at the arguments recruiters use to convince people to join: they are all about money and benefits! Need more proof? Just look at the kind of social groups who compose the bulk of the US military: uneducated, poor, with minimal career prospects. The simple truth is that financially successful folks very rarely join the military and, when they do, they usually make a career out of it.

As somebody who has lived in the USA for a total of 21 years now, I can attest that folks join the military precisely for the same reasons they enter the police force or become correctional officers: because in all those endeavors there is money to be made and benefits to enjoy. Okay, there must be, by definition, the 1% or less who joined these (all violent) careers for purely lofty and noble ideals. But these would be a small, tiny, minority. The overwhelming majority of cops, correctional officers and soldiers joined primarily for material and/or financial reasons.

By the way, since that is the case, is it not also true that the soldier (just like the cop or the correctional officers) has ALREADY received his/her “gratitude” from the society for their “service” in the form of a check? Why do folks then still feel the need to “thank them for their service”? We don’t thank air traffic controllers or logging workers (also very tough careers) for their service, do we? And that is in spite of the fact that air traffic controllers and logging workers did not choose to join an organization whose primary goal is to kill people in their own homes (whether private homes or national ones) which is what soldiers get paid for.

Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way: veterans are killers hired for money.  Period.  The rest is all propaganda.

In a normal sane world, one would think that this is primarily a moral and ethical question. I would even say a spiritual one. Surely major religions would have something relevant and clarifying to say about this? Well, in the past they did.  In fact, with some slight variations, the principles of what is called a “just war” have been known in the West since at least Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.  According to one source they are:

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
(Check out this article for a more thorough discussion of this fascinating topic)

Now Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are hardly heroes of mine, but they are considered as very authoritative in western philosophical thought. Yet, when checked against this list of criteria, all the wars fought by the USA are clearly and self-evidently totally unjust: all of them fail on several criteria, and most of them (including the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan) fail on all of them!

But there is no need to go far back into the centuries to find authoritative western thinkers who clearly denounce unjust wars.  Did you know that the ultimate crime under international law is not genocide or crimes against humanity?

Nope, the supreme crime under international law is the crime of aggression. In the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the supreme crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes.  He wrote:  “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

So from the 4th century through the 20th century, the people of the West always knew what a just war was, and they fully understood that starting such a war is the supreme evil crime under international law. But this goes beyond just major wars. Under international law, the crime of “aggression” does not only refer to a full-scale military attack. Aggression can be defined as the execution of any one of the following acts:

Declaration of war upon another State.
Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
A naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State.
Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.
Finally, it is important to note here that by these authoritative legal definitions, every single US President is a war criminal under international law! This, in turn, begs the question of whether all the wars fought by US soldiers since 1945 were indeed waged by a legitimate authority (as mentioned by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas above)? How can that be when the Commander in Chief himself is a war criminal?

Let’s sum it up so far: we have folks who agree to become killers (or killer-assistants), who do that primarily for financial reasons, who then only participate in illegal and immoral wars of aggression and whose commander in chief is a war criminal.

And they deserve our gratitude why exactly?!

Maybe because so many veterans have been hurt, maimed, traumatized? Maybe because once they leave the armed forces, they don’t get the social and medical support they need? Perhaps merely because wars are horrible? Or maybe because the veterans were lied to and deceived? Or maybe because some (many?) of them did try to stay human, honorable and decent people in spite of the horrors of war all around them? When we think of the horrendous unemployment, homelessness and even suicide figures amongst veterans, we cannot but feel that these are people who have been lied to, cheated and then discarded like a useless tool. So maybe saying “thank you for your service” is the right thing to say?

Nope! These are all excellent reasons to feel compassion and sympathy for veterans, yes. But not gratitude. There is a huge difference here. Everybody, every human, and I strongly believe every creature deserves compassion and sympathy. But it is one thing to say “I feel compassion for you” and quite another to say “thank you for what you did” because that implies that the deed was a moral, good, ethical deed, and that is entirely false.

Major General Smedley Butler put it best when he wrote:

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.

If we agree that war is, indeed, a “racket” and that it is conducted “for the benefit of the very few” then it would make sense for these “very few” to express their gratitude to those whom they hired to enrich them.  And, in fact, they do.  Here is the best example of that:

Of course, Google is no more dependent on wars of aggression than any other US corporation.  The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war.  The so-called “American way of life” but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in the past, and it won’t be attempted for as long as the USA remains the cornerstone of the AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind.  But until that day arrives the “American way of life” will always imply wars of aggression and the mass murder of innocent people whose only “sin” is to dare to want to live free and not be a slave to the Empire.  If you believe that those who dare to want to live free in a truly sovereign country deserve to be murdered and maimed, then yes, by all means – thank the veterans from the bottom of your heart!

But if you don’t believe this, offer them your compassion, but not your gratitude for their crimes.




Joseph F Barber,is a freelance writer and editor of the blog FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.it is my message to we the people and the citizens of our world to stand free and your ground feed another if you can ,I tell you this as it come from with in my soul There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience. 

"I don't know how to save the world. I don't have the answers or The Answer. I hold no secret knowledge as to how to fix the mistakes of generations past and present. I only know that without compassion and respect for all Earth's inhabitants, none of us will survive - nor will we deserve to." Leonard Peltier

Pro Deo et Constitutione – 
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis 
Paratus et Fidelis 


Founder Veterans Project ,  Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber


“Serving my country was a life-changing experience for me. It was during those years that I realized the importance of commitment, dedication, honor, and discipline. I have never laughed so much; nor have I ever prayed so much. I made life-long friends. The leaders and heroes I served with helped shape me into the man I am today. I feel honored to have been a part of such a great tradition and grateful to others who have walked the same path. Thank you!” 

I believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for one self, one's own family or one's nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the key to human survival. It is the best foundation for world peace
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 


Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.” Act now - Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country Since 2013, Veterans Project & The Family Assistance Campaign has provided free food assistance to more than 20,000 Veterans and their family members, distributing 445,000 lbs. of food. Feed Our Vets mission is to help Veterans in the United States, their spouses and children, whose circumstances have left them on the battlefield of hunger, and to involve the public in fighting Veteran hunger, through: (1) Community food pantries that provide regular, free food to Veterans and their families, (2) Distribution of related goods and services, (3) Public education and outreach.

 I am Joseph Barber,Master carpenter and Builder, and all around adventure of life.I was a soldier for some time hard job but yet wonderful quite the education you might say,love the Ocean and anything to do with it. Listen to how we speak about freedom and you'll gain tremendous insight into our true attitudes about freedom and, therefore, our relationship to one another I am and author of sorts and write articles for what I call FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience in our world today so many have forgotten those truths that have made us free  “They say you can’t change the past despite the fact it never stops changing you – but that doesn't mean we have to sit back and take it. It may change us, but we have ultimate control over how we let it.”

Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.” You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.

We believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for one self, one's own family or one's nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the key to human survival. It is the best foundation for world peace.

Pease forward this to as many of your contacts that you can and ask them to support this cause and to forward it to their contacts as well.
Thanks for your support if you would like to make a donation please do so by going to our gofundme/urbansurvivalpacks or contact me personally Joseph F Barber founder  @ 760 643 6134 to make a Contribution to the  family assistance campaign  or the Veterans project by contacting  :Suzanne Button Manager , contact the project @ 442-251-6553 



People who believe in the sanctity of life

https://digg.com/u/Docbarber
THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE CAMPAIGN 

Sponsored  by Tradesmen Company@Joseph Barber Master carpenter Builder / Tradesmen

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX LIVE OUTSIDE THE CAGE 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – 
Libertas aut Mors Semper Vigilans Fortis 
Paratus et Fidelis 



Good day all you beautiful people with your $10 donation we can feed a person for two days and it also helps us build our homeless survival packs that we give out 
Helping Homeless Veterans
Meals for Homeless Veterans
Giving the Gift of a Warm Meal

From Your Hand to the Homeless Veterans and citizens and children




Trump Quietly Orders Elimination of Assange

Trump Quietly Orders Elimination of Assange


By Eric Zuesse
November 16, 2018 "-   On June 28th, the Washington Examiner headlined “Pence pressed Ecuadorian president on country’s protection of Julian Assange” and reported that “Vice President Mike Pence discussed the asylum status of Julian Assange during a meeting with Ecuador’s leader on Thursday, following pressure from Senate Democrats who have voiced concerns over the country’s protection of the WikiLeaks founder.” Pence had been given this assignment by U.S. President Donald Trump. The following day, the Examiner bannered “Mike Pence raises Julian Assange case with Ecuadorean president, White House confirms” and reported that the White House had told the newspaper, “They agreed to remain in close coordination on potential next steps going forward.”
On August 24th, a court-filing by Kellen S. Dwyer, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, stated: “Due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure [than sealing the case, hiding it from the public] is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged. … This motion and the proposed order would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter.” That filing was discovered by Seamus Hughes, a terrorism expert at the Program on Extremism at George Washington University. On November 15th, he posted an excerpt of it on Twitter, just hours after the Wall Street Journalhad reported on the same day that the Justice Department was preparing to prosecute Assange. However, now that we know “the fact that Assange has been charged” and that the U.S. Government is simply waiting “until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter,” it is clear and public that the arrangements which were secretly made between Trump’s agent Pence and the current President of Ecuador are expected to deliver Assange into U.S. custody for criminal prosecution, if Assange doesn’t die at the Ecuadorean Embassy first.

He is, right now, alone, sick, in pain, silenced in solitary confinement, cut off from all contact, and being tortured in the heart of London. … He has been detained nearly eight years, without trial, without charge. For the past six years, the UK Government has refused his requests to exit for basic health needs, … [even for]vitamin D. … As a result, his health has seriously deteriorated. … A slow and cruel assassination is taking place before our very eyes. … They will stop at nothing. … When U.S. Vice President Mike Pence recently visited Ecuador, a deal was done to hand Julian over to the U.S. He said that because the political cost of expelling Julian from the Embassy was too high, the plan was to break him down mentally…   to such a point that he will break and be forced to leave. … The extradition warrant is held in secret, four prosecutors but no defense, and no judge, … without a prima-facie case. [Under the U.S. system, the result nonetheless can be] indefinite detention without trial. Julian could be held in Guantanamo Bay and tortured, sentenced to 45 years in a maximum security prison, or face the death penalty,” for “espionage,” in such secret proceedings.On November 3rd (which, of course, preceded the disclosures on November 15th), Julian Assange’s mother, Christine Ann Hawkins, described in detail what has happened to her son since the time of Pence’s meeting with Ecuador’s President. She said:
Her phrase, “because the political cost of expelling Julian from the Embassy was too high” refers to the worry that this new President of Ecuador has, of his cooperating with the U.S. regime’s demands and thereby basically ceding sovereignty to those foreigners (the rulers of the U.S.), regarding the Ecuadorian citizen, Assange.
This conservative new President of Ecuador, who has replaced the progressive President who had granted Assange protection, is obviously doing all that he can to comply with U.S. President Trump and the U.S. Congress’s demand for Assange either to die soon inside the Embassy or else be transferred to the U.S. and basically just disappear, at Guantanamo or elsewhere. Ecuador’s President wants to do this in such a way that Ecuador’s voters won’t blame him for it, and that he’ll thus be able to be re-elected. This is the type of deal he apparently has reached with Trump’s agent, Pence. It’s all secret, but the evidence on this much of what was secretly agreed-to seems clear. There are likely other details of the agreement that cannot, as yet, be conclusively inferred from the subsequent events, but this much can.
Basically, Trump has arranged for Assange to be eliminated either by illness that’s imposed by his Ecuadorean agent, or else by Assange’s own suicide resulting from that “torture,” or else by America’s own criminal-justice system. If this elimination happens inside the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, then that would be optimal for America’s President and Congress; but, if it instead happens on U.S. soil, then that would be optimal for Ecuador’s President. Apparently, America’s President thinks that his subjects, the American people, will become sufficiently hostile toward Assange so that even if Assange disappears or is executed inside the United States, this President will be able to retain his supporters. Trump, of course, needs his supporters, but this is a gamble that he has now clearly taken. This much is clear, even though the rest of the secret agreement that was reached between Pence and Ecuador’s President is not.
Scooter Libby, who had arranged for the smearing of Valerie Plame who had tried to prevent the illegal and deceit-based 2003 invasion of Iraq, was sentenced to 30 months but never spent even a day in prison, and U.S. President Trump finally went so far as to grant him a complete pardon, on 13 April 2018. (The carefully researched docudrama “Fair Game” covered well the Plame-incident.) Libby had overseen the career-destruction of a courageous CIA agent, Plame, who had done the right thing and gotten fired for it; and Trump pardoned Libby, thus retroactively endorsing the lie-based invasion of Iraq in 2003. By contrast, Trump is determined to get Julian Assange killed or otherwise eliminated, and even Democrats in Congress are pushing for him to get that done. The new President of Ecuador is doing their bidding. Without pressure from the U.S. Government, Assange would already be a free man. Thus, either Assange will die (be murdered) soon inside the Embassy, or else he will disappear and be smeared in the press under U.S. control. And, of course, this is being done in such a way that no one will be prosecuted for the murder or false-imprisonment. Trump had promised to “clean the swamp,” but as soon as he was elected, he abandoned that pretense; and, as President, he has been bipartisan on that matter, to hide the crimes of the bipartisan U.S. Government, and he is remarkably similar in policy to his immediate predecessors, whom he had severely criticized while he was running for the Presidency.
In any event, the destruction of Assange has clearly been arranged for, at the highest levels of the U.S. Government, just as the destruction of Jamal Khashoggi was by Saudi Arabia’s Government; and, just like in Khashoggi’s case, the nation’s ruler controls the prosecutors and can therefore do whatever he chooses to do that the rest of the nation’s aristocracy consider to be acceptable.
The assault against truth isn’t only against Assange, but it is instead also closing down many of the best, most courageous, independent news sites, such aswashingtonsblog. However, in Assange’s case, the penalty for having a firm commitment to truth has been especially excruciating and will almost certainly end in his premature death. This is simply the reality. Because of the system under which we live, a 100% commitment to truth is now a clear pathway to oblivion. Assange is experiencing this reality to the fullest. That’s what’s happening here.
==See Also==

Trump Quietly Orders Elimination of Assange


By Eric Zuesse
November 16, 2018 "-   On June 28th, the Washington Examiner headlined “Pence pressed Ecuadorian president on country’s protection of Julian Assange” and reported that “Vice President Mike Pence discussed the asylum status of Julian Assange during a meeting with Ecuador’s leader on Thursday, following pressure from Senate Democrats who have voiced concerns over the country’s protection of the WikiLeaks founder.” Pence had been given this assignment by U.S. President Donald Trump. The following day, the Examiner bannered “Mike Pence raises Julian Assange case with Ecuadorean president, White House confirms” and reported that the White House had told the newspaper, “They agreed to remain in close coordination on potential next steps going forward.”
On August 24th, a court-filing by Kellen S. Dwyer, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, stated: “Due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure [than sealing the case, hiding it from the public] is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged. … This motion and the proposed order would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter.” That filing was discovered by Seamus Hughes, a terrorism expert at the Program on Extremism at George Washington University. On November 15th, he posted an excerpt of it on Twitter, just hours after the Wall Street Journalhad reported on the same day that the Justice Department was preparing to prosecute Assange. However, now that we know “the fact that Assange has been charged” and that the U.S. Government is simply waiting “until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter,” it is clear and public that the arrangements which were secretly made between Trump’s agent Pence and the current President of Ecuador are expected to deliver Assange into U.S. custody for criminal prosecution, if Assange doesn’t die at the Ecuadorean Embassy first.

He is, right now, alone, sick, in pain, silenced in solitary confinement, cut off from all contact, and being tortured in the heart of London. … He has been detained nearly eight years, without trial, without charge. For the past six years, the UK Government has refused his requests to exit for basic health needs, … [even for]vitamin D. … As a result, his health has seriously deteriorated. … A slow and cruel assassination is taking place before our very eyes. … They will stop at nothing. … When U.S. Vice President Mike Pence recently visited Ecuador, a deal was done to hand Julian over to the U.S. He said that because the political cost of expelling Julian from the Embassy was too high, the plan was to break him down mentally…   to such a point that he will break and be forced to leave. … The extradition warrant is held in secret, four prosecutors but no defense, and no judge, … without a prima-facie case. [Under the U.S. system, the result nonetheless can be] indefinite detention without trial. Julian could be held in Guantanamo Bay and tortured, sentenced to 45 years in a maximum security prison, or face the death penalty,” for “espionage,” in such secret proceedings.On November 3rd (which, of course, preceded the disclosures on November 15th), Julian Assange’s mother, Christine Ann Hawkins, described in detail what has happened to her son since the time of Pence’s meeting with Ecuador’s President. She said:
Her phrase, “because the political cost of expelling Julian from the Embassy was too high” refers to the worry that this new President of Ecuador has, of his cooperating with the U.S. regime’s demands and thereby basically ceding sovereignty to those foreigners (the rulers of the U.S.), regarding the Ecuadorian citizen, Assange.
This conservative new President of Ecuador, who has replaced the progressive President who had granted Assange protection, is obviously doing all that he can to comply with U.S. President Trump and the U.S. Congress’s demand for Assange either to die soon inside the Embassy or else be transferred to the U.S. and basically just disappear, at Guantanamo or elsewhere. Ecuador’s President wants to do this in such a way that Ecuador’s voters won’t blame him for it, and that he’ll thus be able to be re-elected. This is the type of deal he apparently has reached with Trump’s agent, Pence. It’s all secret, but the evidence on this much of what was secretly agreed-to seems clear. There are likely other details of the agreement that cannot, as yet, be conclusively inferred from the subsequent events, but this much can.
Basically, Trump has arranged for Assange to be eliminated either by illness that’s imposed by his Ecuadorean agent, or else by Assange’s own suicide resulting from that “torture,” or else by America’s own criminal-justice system. If this elimination happens inside the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, then that would be optimal for America’s President and Congress; but, if it instead happens on U.S. soil, then that would be optimal for Ecuador’s President. Apparently, America’s President thinks that his subjects, the American people, will become sufficiently hostile toward Assange so that even if Assange disappears or is executed inside the United States, this President will be able to retain his supporters. Trump, of course, needs his supporters, but this is a gamble that he has now clearly taken. This much is clear, even though the rest of the secret agreement that was reached between Pence and Ecuador’s President is not.
Scooter Libby, who had arranged for the smearing of Valerie Plame who had tried to prevent the illegal and deceit-based 2003 invasion of Iraq, was sentenced to 30 months but never spent even a day in prison, and U.S. President Trump finally went so far as to grant him a complete pardon, on 13 April 2018. (The carefully researched docudrama “Fair Game” covered well the Plame-incident.) Libby had overseen the career-destruction of a courageous CIA agent, Plame, who had done the right thing and gotten fired for it; and Trump pardoned Libby, thus retroactively endorsing the lie-based invasion of Iraq in 2003. By contrast, Trump is determined to get Julian Assange killed or otherwise eliminated, and even Democrats in Congress are pushing for him to get that done. The new President of Ecuador is doing their bidding. Without pressure from the U.S. Government, Assange would already be a free man. Thus, either Assange will die (be murdered) soon inside the Embassy, or else he will disappear and be smeared in the press under U.S. control. And, of course, this is being done in such a way that no one will be prosecuted for the murder or false-imprisonment. Trump had promised to “clean the swamp,” but as soon as he was elected, he abandoned that pretense; and, as President, he has been bipartisan on that matter, to hide the crimes of the bipartisan U.S. Government, and he is remarkably similar in policy to his immediate predecessors, whom he had severely criticized while he was running for the Presidency.
In any event, the destruction of Assange has clearly been arranged for, at the highest levels of the U.S. Government, just as the destruction of Jamal Khashoggi was by Saudi Arabia’s Government; and, just like in Khashoggi’s case, the nation’s ruler controls the prosecutors and can therefore do whatever he chooses to do that the rest of the nation’s aristocracy consider to be acceptable.
The assault against truth isn’t only against Assange, but it is instead also closing down many of the best, most courageous, independent news sites, such aswashingtonsblog. However, in Assange’s case, the penalty for having a firm commitment to truth has been especially excruciating and will almost certainly end in his premature death. This is simply the reality. Because of the system under which we live, a 100% commitment to truth is now a clear pathway to oblivion. Assange is experiencing this reality to the fullest. That’s what’s happening here.
==See Also==



U.S. Optimistic It Will Soon Prosecute WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange


U.S. Optimistic It Will Soon Prosecute WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange 


Officials hopeful indictment could spur Ecuador to turn him over
By Aruna Viswanatha & Ryan Dube

November 16, 2018 "The Justice Department is preparing to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and is increasingly optimistic it will be able to get him into a U.S. courtroom, according to people in Washington familiar with the matter.
Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Assange, the people said. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.
The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments. Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated sharply since last year’s election of President Lenin Moreno, who has described him as a “stone in our shoe” and said his continued presence at the embassy is unsustainable.

An expanded version of this report appears on WSJ.com.
An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign. Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over.

==See Also==
======

Secret indictment of Wikileaks founder accidentally disclosed


Note

We ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscie  to your social media accounts and post links to the article from other websites.
Thank you for your support.

Peace and joy

U.S. Optimistic It Will Soon Prosecute WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange 


Officials hopeful indictment could spur Ecuador to turn him over
By Aruna Viswanatha & Ryan Dube

November 16, 2018 "The Justice Department is preparing to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and is increasingly optimistic it will be able to get him into a U.S. courtroom, according to people in Washington familiar with the matter.
Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Assange, the people said. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.
The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments. Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated sharply since last year’s election of President Lenin Moreno, who has described him as a “stone in our shoe” and said his continued presence at the embassy is unsustainable.

An expanded version of this report appears on WSJ.com.
An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign. Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over.

==See Also==
======

Secret indictment of Wikileaks founder accidentally disclosed


Note

We ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscie  to your social media accounts and post links to the article from other websites.
Thank you for your support.

Peace and joy


Saying ‘Men Aren’t Women’ Now Qualifies as ‘Hateful Conduct’ On Twitter.

Saying ‘Men Aren’t Women’ Now Qualifies as ‘Hateful Conduct’On Twitter.


Twitter’s crusade against “hate speech” has vanquished yet another meany face. A prominent Canadian feminist says that the company flagged a tweet she wrote which meekly suggested that men aren’t women. Isn’t Twitter fun?
Meghan Murphy, editor of Canada’s leading feminist news portal, Feminist Current, was recently informed by Twitter that two of her tweets had violated the platform’s rules against “hateful conduct.”
One of the offending tweets stated that “men aren’t women,” while the other asked: “How are transwomen not men?”


This is fucking bullshit @twitter. I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE

8,681 people are talking about this
“This is f*cking bullshit @twitter. I’m not allowed to say that men aren’t women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore?” Murphy tweeted. “That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE.”

This is fucking bullshit @twitter. I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE

View image on Twitter
What ARE we allowed to say here??? How tf is simply saying 'men aren't women' hateful??? I am losing my goddamned mind over this. Enjoy your brave new world, sjws. Here's your fucking social justice.

795 people are talking about this
The feminist writer and commentator expressed disbelief over her “hateful” infraction in a series of follow-up tweets.
Murphy said that “trans activists” had been targeting her account for several months, and that it was clear that someone had been combing through her tweets and reporting them for “hateful conduct.”
Whether she was censured by a human or an algorithm, many on Twitter – even those who said they didn’t agree with Murphy’s views – expressed outrage that “men aren’t woman” could be labelled as hateful.
“I don’t agree with everything you say, but I absolutely support your unalienable right to do so. Shutting down dissenting speech is quite the opposite to what those people claim they are fighting for,” another Twitter user wrote.


This is fucking bullshit @twitter. I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE

8,681 people are talking about this
Twitter announced last year that it would begin a comprehensive crackdown on abusive behavior. But in the months since, the company has been dogged by accusations that it uses its ban hammer to purge conservative or politically-incorrect views from its platform.
The recent de-platforming of conspiracy guru Alex Jones has been followed by a number of baffling bans targeting alternative media.
The site appears to have developed rather thin skin, deleting up to 1,500 accounts that used the popular ‘NPC meme’ to satirize left-wing activists. Twitter claimed that the meme-wielding jokers were Russian bots.
Critics of the social media site have repeatedly noted that while Twitter will take swift action against right-wing voices who make threatening or hateful comments, the same standards are not applied to those on the left.
Silicon Valley has become increasingly paranoid about potentially offending its users – or allowing alternative viewpoints on its platforms. Google, for example, recently introduced “inclusive” emojis. Its salad emoji, which included eggs, was apparently a war crime against vegans.

Reprinted from RT News.

Saying ‘Men Aren’t Women’ Now Qualifies as ‘Hateful Conduct’On Twitter.


Twitter’s crusade against “hate speech” has vanquished yet another meany face. A prominent Canadian feminist says that the company flagged a tweet she wrote which meekly suggested that men aren’t women. Isn’t Twitter fun?
Meghan Murphy, editor of Canada’s leading feminist news portal, Feminist Current, was recently informed by Twitter that two of her tweets had violated the platform’s rules against “hateful conduct.”
One of the offending tweets stated that “men aren’t women,” while the other asked: “How are transwomen not men?”


This is fucking bullshit @twitter. I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE

8,681 people are talking about this
“This is f*cking bullshit @twitter. I’m not allowed to say that men aren’t women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore?” Murphy tweeted. “That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE.”

This is fucking bullshit @twitter. I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE

View image on Twitter
What ARE we allowed to say here??? How tf is simply saying 'men aren't women' hateful??? I am losing my goddamned mind over this. Enjoy your brave new world, sjws. Here's your fucking social justice.

795 people are talking about this
The feminist writer and commentator expressed disbelief over her “hateful” infraction in a series of follow-up tweets.
Murphy said that “trans activists” had been targeting her account for several months, and that it was clear that someone had been combing through her tweets and reporting them for “hateful conduct.”
Whether she was censured by a human or an algorithm, many on Twitter – even those who said they didn’t agree with Murphy’s views – expressed outrage that “men aren’t woman” could be labelled as hateful.
“I don’t agree with everything you say, but I absolutely support your unalienable right to do so. Shutting down dissenting speech is quite the opposite to what those people claim they are fighting for,” another Twitter user wrote.


This is fucking bullshit @twitter. I'm not allowed to say that men aren't women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE

8,681 people are talking about this
Twitter announced last year that it would begin a comprehensive crackdown on abusive behavior. But in the months since, the company has been dogged by accusations that it uses its ban hammer to purge conservative or politically-incorrect views from its platform.
The recent de-platforming of conspiracy guru Alex Jones has been followed by a number of baffling bans targeting alternative media.
The site appears to have developed rather thin skin, deleting up to 1,500 accounts that used the popular ‘NPC meme’ to satirize left-wing activists. Twitter claimed that the meme-wielding jokers were Russian bots.
Critics of the social media site have repeatedly noted that while Twitter will take swift action against right-wing voices who make threatening or hateful comments, the same standards are not applied to those on the left.
Silicon Valley has become increasingly paranoid about potentially offending its users – or allowing alternative viewpoints on its platforms. Google, for example, recently introduced “inclusive” emojis. Its salad emoji, which included eggs, was apparently a war crime against vegans.

Reprinted from RT News.