War law: Crystal-clear to see in letter and intent, the easiest way for YOU to help end dictatorial US rogue state empire by demanding arrests for OBVIOUS lie-started Wars of Aggression. Your choice is YES or NO for war, not Trump or Clinton for only war
“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.” ~President Kennedy, June 10, 1963
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” ~ 1st Amendment to the US Constitution
Perhaps the widest gap between what is lawful and what our .01% oligarchs do is in the ongoing armed attacks on other nations. This is also perhaps the most important policy measured by human lives, resources, and money.
Because war law is so easy to understand in crystal-clear letter and intent, supported by two treaties that the US Constitution requires as our “supreme law,” and US military are required by Oath and training to refuse unlawful orders (with officers required to arrest those who issue them), perhaps also this is a leverage point for everyday people to:
Accurately and confidently know the law.
Demand arrests of Left and Right US “leaders” because the wars are not even close to lawful.
Cause a lawful end to the dictatorial US rogue state.
War law is just as easy to understand as “stop sign law” when driving, and far easier than most sports laws, such as when a football punt is or is not legal, or baseball’s “infield fly” rule. Because everyday people care enough to know traffic law and sports rules, the idea of knowing war law can be accomplished by refreshing what you’ve already learned by reading this article (and confirming its accuracy as needed).
As you know from education and your real-world life, laws are simply rules.
A well-designed rule helps produce a desired result, such as traffic law to make driving as safe and efficient as possible, and baseball rules to create a fair and fun cooperative competition/game. For examples, in the US we all drive on the right side of the road, and in baseball the team batting gets three outs before the other team has their chance at bat.
Law is meant to be crystal-clear so that all participants can best accomplish an agreed-upon result. A law that is unclear or unhelpful for the result/game must be redesigned or removed, while clear and helpful laws are appreciated and enforced (law enforcement and umpires in our two examples). Our examples in driving and baseball are indeed clear rules that everyone knows and plays by. Important to our application for war law, if a baseball team pretended they could have four outs, this deception would be recognized and immediately stopped by the involved community’s strong understanding of the law (including the fans who would strongly voice this obvious violation).
War law, as we’re about to document and prove, is clear and helpful for the outcome of denying military armed attack as a foreign policy. This is an outcome 95%+ of humanity agree is desirable, especially after all our families’ awful sacrifices through two world wars.
Conversely, war-mongers for empire will do their best to be silent about war law, lie that it’s so unclear that any dictatorial claim of “self-defense” is valid, and take every evasive maneuver imaginable for the public (especially military and law enforcement) to never understand war law and/or never recognize how US wars are Orwellian unlawful.
To give you the punch line now for clarity of what war law states, and without disagreement our colleagues and I are aware of from anyone who points to the law with explanation:
Unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.
That’s the letter of the law. The intent is soooo strongly worded in both relevant treaties, as you’ll see, and is simply to end the scourge of wars chosen by governments as foreign policy (in historical context of empires looting the world for resources: natural and human).
Our condition today is of OBVIOUSLY unlawful Wars of Aggression (and started with lies known to false as they were told), as the facts to follow clearly demonstrate for anyone caring to look and apply basic high school-level of education already learned.
Importantly, Left and Right “leaders” and corporate media, including Clinton and Trump, will never ever ever ever ever remind us that war is illegal, with current wars in Orwellian opposition.
The appropriate “vote” of We the People for this presidential election is “No” for more illegal war, and “Yes” to stop the wars and arrest those who orchestrated them. Without public demand, these illegal wars will only continue.
Unlawful Wars of Aggression: The US/UK/Israel “official story” is that current wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.” The Emperor’s New Clothesfact here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific in war law, and US/UK/Israel armed attacks on so many nations in current and past wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.”
Addressing three nations and several wars again seems ambitious for one academic paper, and again, these are all simple variations of one method:
Ignore war law.
Lie to blame the victim and claim “self-defense.”
“Officials” and corporate media never state the Emperor’s New Clothes simple and obvious facts of war law and war lies.
Proving unlawful wars with massive deception is easier when the scope is broadened to see the same elements in three cases.
Importantly, a nation can use military, police, and civilians in self-defense from any attack upon the nation. This is similar to the legal definition of “self-defense” for you or I walking down the street: we cannot attack anyone unless either under attack or imminent threat. And, if under attack, we can use any reasonable force in self-defense, including lethal.
Two world wars begat two treaties to end nations’ armed attacks forever. They are crystal-clear in content and context:
Kellogg-Briand Pact (General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy as official title)
United Nations Charter.
Both are listed in the US State Department’s annual publication, Treaties in Force (2013 edition pages 466 and 493).
This is important because all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution are sworn to honorably refuse all unlawful war orders; military officers are sworn to arrest those who issue them. Indeed, we suffer criminal dishonor if we obey orders for armed attack when they are not “self-defense,” and family dishonor to so easily reject the legal victory won from all our families’ sacrifices through two world wars.
Treaty 1. Kellogg-Briand: General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy:
The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”
So, in the most clear framing of a rule as possible, the first two parts of the treaty state “never war” and “always peace” to resolve conflicts.
Treaty 2. United Nations Charter:
It’s helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation’s legislature’s consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation’s armed attack.
The preamble of the United Nations includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”
The UN purpose includes: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace…”
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…
Article 24: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.
Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan (or Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Iran [here, here, here], Russia, or claims about ISIS or Khorasans). The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation’s government.
The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.
American Daniel Webster helped create the legal definition of national self-defense in the Caroline Affair as “necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.
In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.
Another area to clarify is the US 1973 War Powers Act (WPA).The authorization by Congress for US presidential discretion for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq references WPA. This act, in response to the Vietnam War, reframes the Founders’ intent of keeping the power of war in the hands of Congress. It also expressly limits the president to act within US treaty obligations; the principle treaty of use of war being the UN Charter.
This means that presidential authority as commander-in-chief must always remain within the limitations of the UN Charter to be lawful orders. It’s not enough for Congress to authorize use of force; that force must always and only be within the narrow legal definition of self-defense clearly explained in the UN Charter. Of course, we can anticipate that if a government wanted to engage in unlawful war today, they would construct their propaganda to sell the war as “defensive.” The future of humanity to be safe from the scourge of war is therefore dependent upon our collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in BS–Emperor’s New Clothesclaims of self-defense.
The first round of US current wars, the attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, continues this history as a deliberate act of unlawful war, not defense that was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The burden of proof the US would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his letter to the UN Security Council invoking Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.
Article 51 requires self-defensive war coming from an attack by a nation’s government, which the CIA and FBI refute in the case of the Afghan government with the terrorism on 9/11. Self-defense ends when the attack ends. The US war began four weeks after 9/11 ended; making the US war one of choice and not defense. Article 51 ends self-defense claims when the UN Security Council acts. Resolution 1373 provides clear language of international cooperation and justice under the law, with no authorization of force.
This evidence doesn’t require the light of the UN Charter’s spirit of its laws, but I’ll add it: humanity rejected war as a policy option and requires nations to cooperate for justice under that law. The US has instead embraced and still embraces war with its outcomes of death, misery, poverty, and fear expressly against the wishes of humanity and the majority of Americans. These acts are clearly unlawful and should be refused and stopped by all men and women in military, government and law enforcement.
Some war liars argue that UN Security Council Resolution 687 from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire. The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it.
The categories of crime for armed attacks outside US treaty limits of law are:
“Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”
“UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he “changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars.
“Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force:
[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.
We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.
“The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.”
The UN Charter is the principle law to end wars; designed by the US to produce that result. That said, West Point Grads Against the War have further legal arguments of all the violations of war from US attack and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, including further analysis of the UN Charter and expert supporting testimony. Another resource for documentation and analysis is David Swanson’s War is a Crime. Ironically, Americans would never allow a favorite sport such as baseball or football to be similarly destroyed by such Emperor’s New Clothes lies to those rules/laws.
Lawful war analysis: Negroponte’s letter invokes a legal Charter Article of self-defense in contrast with the loss of over 3,000 lives on 9/11. The letter portends legal evidence of al-Qaeda’s “central role” in the attacks and claims military response is appropriate because of al-Qaeda’s ongoing threat and continued training of terrorists. This reasoning argues for a reinterpretation of self-defense to include pre-emptive attack while lying in omission that such an argument is tacit agreement of current action being outside the law.
Importantly, after accurately defining “self-defense” in war, the JAG authors/attorneys explicitly state on page 6 that war is illegal unless a nation is under attack from another nation’s government, or can provide evidence of imminent threat of such attack:
“Anticipatory self-defense, whether labeled anticipatory or preemptive, must be distinguished from preventive self-defense. Preventive self-defense—employed to counter non-imminent threats—is illegal under international law.”
However, despite the US Army’s law handbook’s accurate disclosure of the legal meaning of “self-defense” in war, they then ignore this meaning to claim “self-defense” as a lawful reason for US wars without further explanation (details here).
President George Washington’s Farewell Address, the culmination of his 45 years of political experience, warned of the primary threat to America as “the impostures of pretended patriotism” from people within our own government who would destroy Constitutional limits in order to obtain tyrannical power:
“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.”
“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”
Lincoln also wrote that “pre-emptive” wars were lies, and “war at pleasure.”
Those of us working to end these illegal Wars of Aggression have found zero refutations of our documentation that address war law. All we’ve ever found are denial and unsubstantiated claims of “self-defense” while having to lie about the legal limits in that term.
Note: other sections of that paper may be useful that just as clearly demonstrate Israel’s illegal war on Gaza, criminally complicit corporate media to “cover” these crimes, all “reasons” for these wars were known to be false as they were told, and the fundamental fraud of creating what is used for money as debt.
2. Demand arrests of Left and Right US “leaders” because the wars are not even close to lawful
Therefore, We the People have an obvious solution: lawful arrests of .01% “leaders” for the most egregious crimes centering in war and lies to start them.
This is a 1st Amendment responsibility to maintain our constitutional republic under law rather than what we’ve become with war: “leaders” dictating/saying what we can do completely removed from limitations of the law. Left and Right .01% “leaders” completely violate the rules, and only from public ignorance with corporate media propaganda.
Let’s consider an analogy that is fitting, and would be obvious:
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Barack Obama drive a military tank together as their “job.” However, these facts are the problems:
They drive it on the wrong side of public freeways.
Obama drives the tank intentionally over cars, Cheney mans the cannon to blast targets of choice, and W. Bush is on the turret firing a machine gun.
This has been happening since 2002 with millions killed, tens of millions harmed, and with trillions of dollars in damage (ok, that’s the real war’s cost and not possible with one tank, but work with me on this analogy).
Their “official reasons” why this is legal:
In emergencies, sometimes drivers have to violate the law.
Mrs. Cheney, based on our best intelligence, is pregnant and about to deliver.
The three people in the tank make a carpool, and are given additional driving privileges.
The tank has white decals stating it’s a zero-emissions vehicle.
Cheney’s shelling of a wedding is “pretty well confirmed” as an intelligent choice to take out several terrorist families in one strike, and “well worth the cost.”
Of course, anyone caring to refute these “official reasons” in writing would compose an essay similar to the one you’re reading to refute all claims with sufficient documentation that their actions are not even close to lawful, with all “reasons” known to be lies as they are told. The short version:
Bush, Cheney, and Obama create an illegal emergency, and are not responding to one.
Mrs. Cheney is 74 years old, with no evidence of pregnancy, and with near-certain biological impossibility to be pregnant.
A tank is not allowed on a freeway, driving on the wrong side of the freeway is illegal, and that three people make a carpool is not relevant.
White decals would not apply to a tank, and this point is not relevant to the crime of mass-murder and injuries, with trillions in damages.
All three men commit mass-murder in Orwellian contradiction to law, with their “reasons” all known lies and ridiculous attempts to deflect from OBVIOUS murder.
The tragic-comedy of our analogy is that the damages from lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression are exponentially worse. The actual categories of crime include:
Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.
Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).
Our condition requiring YOUR voice is what Benjamin Franklin predicted would be the eventual outcome of the United States. On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Ben met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin warned: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished:
“This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” – The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39.
These warnings extend to all social science teachers of the present:
“As educators in the field of history–social science, we want our students to… understand the value, the importance, and the fragility of democratic institutions. We want them to realize that only a small fraction of the world’s population (now or in the past) has been fortunate enough to live under a democratic form of government.” – History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, pgs. 2, 7-8
Do you have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to at least act with the honesty of a child to speak the Emperor’s New Clothes truth? Remember, I’m just asking you to use your voice in a democratic republic to ask US military and various law enforcement to honor their Oaths and do the job we pay them for: protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no greater enemy than those committing treason to war-murder US military by lying them into invasive illegal Wars of Aggression.
3. Cause a lawful end to the dictatorial US rogue state
In conclusion, this essay has reminded you of what you already know: laws are meant to be simple and helpful, what you’ve suspected about the wars is demonstrated as true with a few clear facts, and that your voice is essential if we are to maintain our republic from devolving into dictatorship (literally being dictated/told what the rules are rather than knowing them ourselves).
To remind you of other history that demonstrates this has been an ongoing problem of what is most accurately described as a rogue state: a “top ten” list of state crimes supporting today’s arrests in a constitutional republic:
The CIA had several covert wars; perhaps most important in today’s context of war on Iran: “Operation Ajax” that overthrew Iran’s democracy and installed a US-friendly and brutal dictator. When that dictator was overthrown and Iran refused another, the US aided Iraq to unlawfully invade and attack Iran from 1980-1988; killing up to a million Iranians. If the US lied and acted twice to unlawfully overthrew Iran’s democracy within many of our own lifetimes, shouldn’t we assume first another lie-started unlawful war today?
The two “reasons” for war with Iran are as false as the “reasons” for war with Iraq: Iran never threatened Israel, and Iran’s nuclear energy and medicine programs are IAEA-verified as completely safe and lawful.
If We the People don’t speak, we will have more of the same.
And if We the People speak as simply and confidently to stop a tank driving on the wrong side of the freeway or a baseball team trying to get four outs instead of three, we’ll win this contest with ease.
National security and a brighter future is not a function of fear, manipulation, and psychopathic control. Our best security follows cooperation, justice under the law, dignity, and freedom. Surely you recognize that all promised natural rights in America are now gone, and the 99.99% are herded by the .01% as their work animals.
Working for your best imagined self-expression of virtue may include a unique contribution from the inside of your agency. You, as Darth Vader and Professor Snape in fictions that are popular for strong resonance to a real story we all want told, can reclaim your hearts and honor to be our heroes.
Truly, aren’t you ready now to re-embrace love and honor as your path?
Please consider the wisdom of a “Scrooge conversion” to act for the benefit of all humanity rather than your self-proclaimed loveless “masters.” From Dickens’ 1843 text:
“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.”
4-minute video of Darth Vader’s choice to serve love, family, and community rather than vicious psychopathic hatred:
Public attraction to the stories of Star Wars and the Harry Potter books/movies recognize that our society’s jump to civilized relations for all of us might require support from people within the “dark side” acting as covert agents for building a brighter future.
Both Darth Vader (see video) and Professor Snape realized they were only tools of powers above them, things to be manipulated rather than sentient beings of free will. The severest irony is they both recognized their service to the “dark side” included deaths of their loved-ones and even themselves whenever convenient to their “masters.” That was Snape’s ending, although his path was taken with honor to infiltrate the darkness (4-minute video):
But that should be an obvious conclusion to those working in the real-world version of these analogies. We see it in the macro picture of millions killed every year through war and poverty, and in micro with individuals who we know.
For years, I have recommended Truth and Reconciliation to exchange full truth and return of public assets for no prosecution and a guaranteed provided comfortable retirement. Indeed, I am prepared to speak on the .01%’s corporate media to present this option with full confidence it is the most efficient in ending the crimes and avoiding a violent end-game as the .01% are recognized for who they really are by the 99.99%.
“Every day, I saw more evidence about the evils humankind will inflict on their fellow humans to gain or maintain power…What is more, those who choose not to empathize may enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it through our own apathy…If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped transform for the better. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.” – J. K. Rowling, Harvard Commencement, June 5, 2008.
Will you continue to defend your loveless and psychopathic “masters,” or reclaim your hearts and humanity for the Everyday People these .01% annually kill in the millions, harm in the billions, and loot by the trillions of dollars? Playing For Change’sartistic 3-minutes:
Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu
Note:Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go tohttp://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here).
Reporter and activist Abby Martin was aggressively detained yesterday while covering the Democratic National Convention. She talks about how she was never technically arrested but processed at an elementary school with a bunch of other civil disobedience activists.
Jeremy Corbyn is a good guy, he was never meant to get to power, he represents the people, not just the British people, but humanity itself. People like this aren’t meant to get to power as they are the enemy of the corporations and the Elite.
So what’s really going on here, why is it suddenly so urgent for powers in the UK to remove Corbyn from power? The truth is amazingly simple and is not being discussed in the mainstream media. In less than one week from now, the inquiry into the Iraq War (Chilcot Inquiry) is going to release it’s findings, Corbyn was strongly opposed to the Iraq War and he would like to see the key figures who backed it brought to justice, such as Tony Blair.
It is suspected that the inquiry will be a whitewash. The people currently trying to oust Corbyn from his leadership position are those who voted for the war, so they are living in fear of having their careers and reputations tarnished by their bad decision, they are hoping for a Chilcot whitewash which will go unchallenged. Corbyn would not allow a whitewash to go unchallenged, he would demand a real inquiry, and would call for Tony Blair to be tried for war crimes.
It isn’t just the politicians who are trying to get rid of Corbyn before Chilcot, but dark forces in the shadows who instigated the Iraq War, that’s why the media is also onboard and even David Cameron. Jeremy Corbyn has overwhelming support from his party members, as they want an honest leader with a solid moral compass.
If you’re in the UK (unlike me), I’d recommend you do what you can to help Jeremy Corbyn, you can join the Labour party to vote for him in any upcoming leadership contests. Also make sure you spread the word that this is really about Chilcot, that will make it a lot harder for the Iraq War criminals to get away with yet more deceit, lies and dirty tricks.
As a former CIA spy who has trained over 7,500 officers from over 66 countries, Robert Steele has over 18 years experience across the U.S. Intelligence community and an additional 20 years experience in commercial intelligence and training. He is also a former Marine and he is the co-founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity.
In accord to open source everything, Robert’s motto is: The truth at any cost, lowers all other costs.
Essentially, when information, technology and resources are opened up as the commons to all, the true cost plummets and the well-being of our planet and all living beings here begin to thrive, as well as our social, political and financial systems.
In Robert’s own words, the open source revolution will transform our world for the better and for all.
“Sharing, not secrecy, is the means by which we realize such a lofty destiny as well as create infinite wealth. The wealth of networks, the wealth of knowledge, revolutionary wealth- all can create a nonzero, win-win Earth that works for 100% of humanity. This is the ‘utopia’ that Buckminster Fuller foresaw, now within our reach.”
Similar models to Steele’s open source everything also include The Venus Project: Beyond Politics, Poverty and War, which calls for a holistic approach to changing the systems on this planet in a way that utilizes technology and human ingenuity to provide a high standard of living for every person by opening the planet’s resources for the use of all– in a strategically sustainable and efficient manner.
Another model that is similar is Sustainable Human’s gift-based community in which all who participate are volunteers and everything created is done to “spread knowledge, ideas and alternative ways of living that enable humanity to live in harmony with the rest of life on Earth. ”
All of these models are wonderful and appropriate to envision, and what is certain is that most of the social systems we have in place currently, must go. Fundamental change is necessary.
In an interview with The Guardian, Robert David Steele was asked his opinion on the idea that the U.S. is on the verge of revolting against the elitist 1%:
“The preconditions for revolution exist in the UK, and most Western countries [including the U.S].
The number of active pre-conditions is quite stunning, from elite isolation to concentrated wealth to inadequate socialization and education, to concentrated land-holdings to loss of authority to repression of new technologies, especially in relation to energy, to the atrophy of the public sector and spread of corruption, to media dishonesty, to mass unemployment of young men and on and on and on.”
What then needs to happen for this to begin? Steele says:
“Preconditions are not the same as precipitants. We are waiting for our Tunisian fruit seller. The public will endure great repression, especially when most media outlets and schools are actively aiding the repressive meme of ‘you are helpless, this is the order of things.’
When we have a scandal so powerful that it cannot be ignored by the average Briton or American, we will have a revolution that overturns the corrupt political systems in both countries, and perhaps puts many banks out of business. Vaclav Handel calls this ‘The Power of the Powerless.’ One spark, one massive fire.”
Interestingly, this interview was conducted almost exactly 2 years ago. Have we not seen the divide between the 99% and the 1% continue to grow in that time? Humanity will not remain quiet for much longer. We are indeed close to some big and positive changes.
Perhaps this massive scandal/event we are waiting for is the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation or maybe it is Britain’s vote to leave the EU, potentially triggering a cascade of revolts throughout Europe and then the world, or perhaps it will be a large enough group of people becoming aware of the global collateral accounts, the world’s largest financial/gold cover-up which has relation to JFK’s death and the events of 9/11; a story which just three weeks ago Robert David Steele started to write about publicly:
“It never occurred to me that accidentally becoming the top Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, partially associated with my being the lead for Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) for 25 years across 66+ countries, would be vastly more important than everything I ever learned across multiple graduate degrees, as a former spy, and as co-founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA).As I encounter disbelief about Neil Keenan and his role as the main juncture between the Dragon Society and the West as we move toward a global economic re-set, I have to remind myself that 80% of the public still thinks JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald; J. Edgar Hoover was a moral man; the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty by accident, and 9/11 was carried out by a bunch of “rag heads” armed with box cutters.
I must emphasize that it was not the books that underlay my absolute confidence in Neil Keenan and the Dragon Society and the broad outlines of the coming global re-set, but rather the people behind the books that I have taken the trouble to meet, sometimes under quasi-clandestine circumstances. Sterling and Peggy Seagrave – Peggy has passed – stand out.
The public endorsement of Neil Keenan and his team’s efforts to open the global collateral accounts from Robert David Steele is another clear indication that these accounts are indeed real and that those who are working with Neil Keenan (positive factions within The Pentagon and CIA, Russian Intelligence, presidents and prime ministers of multiple South American countries and several Asian countries, among many other political, financial and intelligence and military groups who are all quietly and sometimes openly working for humanity’s best interest) are legitimate.
The global collateral accounts have such a deep and complex history, which can be read in great detail here. In short, they are off-ledger accounts backed by gold, silver and many other assets which were originally intended for humanitarian projects.
JFK signed what is known as the Green Hilton Memorial Agreement with President Sukarno of Indonesia, which was to use these accounts to issue a new US Treasury Note (backed by gold and silver) and end the Federal Reserve’s control over the global financial system.
Neil Keenan is now getting very close to opening these accounts for the intended purposes of transforming our world for the better through many humanitarian projects as well as the release of free energy technologies and an overhaul in the global financial system. Russia, China, Iran, Indonesia and almost the entire Eastern hemisphere is supporting this plan in one way or another.
Perhaps Robert David Steele’s ideas on an open source world will be part of the coming humanitarian projects.
As almost anyone can see when they look around either at their own lives or the world at large, everything is changing. Everything is in flux. Everything happens in cycles. The time for positive global change is now.
For more information on some of the topics mentioned above, check out these articles:
We have to start with Brexit, which scored a victory last night. Britain leaves the EU. Bang. Other European countries are ready to put the same referendum up for vote. And George Soros is making money from having invested in gold earlier in the month. Naturally. The vulture never sleeps.
Speaking of money making money, the “hysterical aftershocks” in trading markets, right after the Brexit victory was projected, are all synthetic and artificial manipulations, laid on to prove a point: see what happens when a country defects from the New Order? Meanwhile, the people who had real jobs yesterday still have them today. Life goes on. Britain will still be able to engage in trade with other countries, despite Obama’s warning that they’ll have to stand in the back of the line to make deals with the US. Nonsense. Blather. Obama is failing in his job as front man for Rockefeller Globalists. If he can’t get Senate ratification on the TPP and the TTIP deals now, he’ll be the CFR’s failure of the decade. Hillary, who came out against Brexit, is looking like a clown with egg on her face.
So…what is Britain leaving when it leaves the EU? It’s departing a giant robot, a structure of untold numbers of sub-androids, bureaucrats who have been making life miserable for Europe. Higher debt, unlimited migration, blizzards of regulations, grim political correctness. All in the service of a coming utopia, of course.
The real job of the EU is dehumanizing people, for the sake of humanity. That’s how faceless robot-bureaucrats operate.
The EU is an illusion of authority, in the sense that it pretends to be in exclusive possession of knowledge that will make life better for all of Europe.
The EU built itself as a machine, a structure so maze-like, so complex that “it must be valuable.” It resembles a super-computer. “We have trillions of pieces of vital data. We can plan the future more competently than any smaller entity. Leave the details to us.”
The EU is in all these ways a copy of the Deep Global State, of which it is a part. And now we come to the second section of this article, which I wrote first, as I was becoming aware of the result of the Brexit vote. Consider it background. The Deep State has, of course, not gone away. A much greater degree of dismantling is necessary. Technocracy itself has to be understood and defeated, because it is the leading edge of the new Globalist society…
The State is now involved in making people into robots and robots into people.
Behind all the technological promises and heraldry, this is what’s happening. People are already beginning to feel a fierce unshakable loyalty to machines—and a religious adoration. Up the road, robots will be wise counselors and guides and priests. This is civilization’s version of magic.
Technocracy and theocracy are the same op. They are rule by fictional figures. And the knowledge supposedly possessed by these figures doesn’t exist.
Whether a person or a machine can dispense three pieces of information or three trillion, and whether the dispensing takes a year or a microsecond, the “authority” surrounding the dispensing is window dressing. It doesn’t have any inherent power. It’s laid on in the same way a movie set is built (or a green screen is deployed) to confer authenticity.
The following two statements are remarkably similar: the Pope is infallible; super-computer XYZ is infallible. The latter statement is a modern substitution for the former. It wouldn’t be a great surprise, at some point, to witness the election of a Pope that is a computer. The College of Cardinals might discuss whether to present him as a robot wearing the official costume of office. They might even decide this robot should ride in the Bubble Mobile with its protections, to avoid damage. Vatican technicians would assure the Pope uttered, from time to time, humanitarian messages in a credibly human voice.
On the other side of the op, as humans are fitted into tighter slots in the New Planetary Order, they would, more and more, resemble machines in thought and action. Losing their individuality, through sacrifice for the greater good, they would naturally seek out signs and signals of what they no longer had—and they would find those human traits in robot-computers, which would be built with great care to deliver an imitation of life.
Sit a very young child down in front of a crude robot called a television set, and show her an animated cartoon of Cinderella dancing in the hall of a great palace, and the child experiences trance-like ecstasy. Why, up the road, wouldn’t a sufficiently “mechanized” adult find the same joy, viewing an animated hologram of a remarkably convincing robot that hands out ideological imperatives on the oneness of all creatures on Earth?
—On the subject of taking individuality from humans and placing it into robots:
“Every one of our androids is different. Our company believes in imbuing each of our ‘messengers’ with a unique set of characteristics. This isn’t a sales technique. We’re dedicated to the mission of diversity. Personality isn’t something to be buried under a surface of sameness and conformity. It should be front and center. After all, our robots are conscious.”
They aren’t, but who pauses to notice? Wave after wave of fictional propaganda is launched to make the case that machines are alive. The major target of the campaign is the educated class.
“It is now an established fact that evolution took place through higher and higher orders of information-processing functions. Indeed, the complexity of processing is the definition of consciousness.” Gibberish.
In this technological and pragmatic civilization, many humans already consider themselves, first and foremost, problem solvers. However, recognizing their skills are lacking, especially when it comes to personal issues, people are more than willing to surrender the job to machines. Computers will provide undeniable answers and advice. Of course, to make this system work, the problems and the people will have to be reduced down to manageable proportions—flattened, short-circuited, cartoon-ized. People will need to see themselves as biological machines with only a handful of basic needs. And some historian will one day write:
“Humans were operating on flawed self-destructive programs. The best of them realized this. And so, out of need and desperation, they invented machines that could guide them and work around those errors. This was the patch that was laid on, until we could precisely identify both the programs and the flaws, flush them out of the system, and install new software in the brain.”
This is the future.
Unless individuals, with the power they actually do have, reclaim what is theirs, and dump the whole ridiculous apparatus.
The EU—that machine—is one small part of the whole op.
It is a machine, whose purpose is turning humans into robots and robots into humans.
That’s the bottom line of highly centralized authority in the modern age.
Coda: warning: the BBC is reporting that the British Parliament must ratify the referendum result. And the UK withdrawal from the EU will take place “within two years.” It’s a withdrawal negotiated between the British government and the EU. So various conditions and side-deals could be slipped into the equation.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Beginning June 5th 2013, a series of explosive articles ran in The Guardian (and subsequently a handful of other newspapers/magazines) detailing a vast web of global surveillance (engineered by the U.S. National Security Agency and U.K. partner GCHQ). The revelations were backed by large troves of primary information (code-names/programme descriptions) and internal documents (charts and diagrams) apparently directly sourced from the NSA.
A storm of controversy soon erupted over the breadth and ubiquity of this global surveillance. Forthcoming details on the myriad of previously secret programmes made it clear that email, text, phone data and communications were being scooped-up, recorded and analysed on a mammoth and almost unimaginable scale around the world.
On June 9th, 4 days after the earth-shaking leaks began, the then 29 year-old Edward Snowden identified himself as the source of the leaks. Secreted in a Hong Kong hotel room, Snowden volunteered his motives and personal history to a voracious media and public. What followed in the succeeding 2 weeks resembled an international spy-thriller, as Snowden fled from one safe-house to another throughout Hong Kong, always one step ahead of the press and (presumably) U.S. law enforcement.
The details are sometimes contradictory, but apparently Snowden then boarded a flight from Hong Kong June 23rd en route (via Moscow and Havana) to safe haven in South America. Oddly, sometime during that flight the U.S. government revoked Snowden’s passport, causing him to be stranded in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport. After a lengthy period (somehow, and somewhat miraculously, avoiding both assassins and journalists for over a month) Snowden received legal asylum and left the airport to begin a new life in the Russian Federation.
Meanwhile, various news outlets continued a drip-feed of dramatic and ‘Orwellian’ revelations.
Snowden had become an iconic figure. Celebrated by ‘progressives’ as a whistleblower and hero, derided by ‘conservatives’ as a traitor and fugitive – he lives presently (we’re told) with his girlfriend in Russia, and appears (sporadically) as an advocate of communications privacy and government accountability.
Further theatrics were provided by the incidents of an Ecuadorian Presidential plane being forced to land, numerous international political leaders’ communications being routinely tapped and fierce debate about the probity of Snowden’s actions and the actual spying regime he exposed. American conservatives and pundits denounced his ‘treason’ and pleaded for his ‘extrajudicial assassination’ while others hailed his patriotism.
It was a thrilling, captivating and microscopically reported tale.
Yet somehow…it doesn’t quite stack up. Some thread of doubt remains, some scent of faint incredulity lingers.
Questions provoked by the official narrative are partly logistical, partly philosophical and decidedly pragmatic.
For starters: are we really to believe (especially in light of his own revelations of an all-pervasive clandestine surveillance regime) that Snowden, after booking a flight to Hong Kong (and soon after – numerous hotel rooms) all admittedly on his own credit card, could not be immediately traced and apprehended (or ‘neutralised’) shortly after (assumedly) the entire U.S. security apparatus had been alerted to his actions and movements? Is it really plausible that possibly the world’s most wanted man (at that moment) could just ‘go-to-ground’ and evade the ‘all-seeing-eye’ for a full fortnight in a cosmopolitan and highly-accessible city?
Some sources report that Snowden gave up his rental home in Hawaii (as he was ostensibly ‘transferring jobs’) just days before he ‘fled’ to Hong Kong and global infamy. How convenient.
Snowden also comes from a family steeped in security state nomenclature. His grandfather was a rear-admiral and subsequently a senior FBI official (present at the Pentagon on September 11th 2001) while apparently “everybody in my family has worked for the federal government in one way or another.” Snowden himself enjoyed stints at the CIA and NSA before landing at defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Surely it would be starkly traumatic for one so tethered to the military-industrial-complex, to suddenly turn ‘traitor.’
Still other questions rudely interrupt the ostensibly chivalrous tale.
To put it bluntly, Snowden is possibly just a little too young to be a convincing whistleblower. 29 year-old whistleblowers are statistically a rare thing indeed. By definition – zealots must start with zeal. Only over time is it plausible for the zealot to become wizened by the ugly machine of which he is but a cog. Just a handful of years before turning tumultuous ‘whistleblower’ Snowden was to be found on internet tech-forums waxing enthusiastically about the security state. His ‘gestation’ from true-believer to ground-quaking operative seems unusually and unconvincingly brief.
Fellow whistleblower William Binney is more likely (at least by age) to be the real deal. Over three decades in spy-craft he reportedly became increasingly frightened by the metastasising spectre of the national-security-complex. His revelations, while similar in tone to Snowden’s and predating them by over a decade, were greeted with little fanfare (and considerable personal harassment and marginalisation).
By contrast, Snowden was granted immediate and enthusiastic access to the most venerated organs of ‘controlled opposition’ and officially sanctioned stenography. Each outlet sticking dutifully to their established charter and brand demographic.
While (by some sleight-of-hand) still able to present itself as ‘progressive’ and ‘independent’, the New York Times is neither. Socially liberal yet aggressively war-like in foreign policy tastes (just how elites like it), the NYT has led the charge to countless illegal and immoral invasions/wars/actions and interventions, baying for rivers of blood from Iraq to Syria and beyond.
Likewise, the U.K Guardian gives oxygen to a raft of somewhat nebulous social concerns with po-faced righteousness, while yet being a clamorous cheerleader for bombing and murder from Libya to Ukraine (how many times can one newspaper repeatedly invent the ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine’ and retain any kind of credibility?).
Similarly, there is something decidedly absurd about the pretence of exclusive Snowden techno-anarchist sound-bites gracing the pages of neocon-beltway-bible The Washington Post.
And yet those glorified minarets of state/private propaganda champion a supposedly dangerous traitor/whistleblower absconded into enemy territory? It doesn’t add up.
Indeed, The Guardian tasked one of its most voracious experts in officially-sanctioned fellatio (Luke Harding), to mint the approved novelisation of poster-boy Snowden’s exploits. Harding’s long stint of feeble, flaccid journalism in thrall to MI6 and deep-state enabling has finally found just recompense in a big-time Hollywood pay-cheque (his book adapted for Oliver Stone’s forthcoming Snowden biopic).
As a blunt instrument of propaganda, Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper” might indeed make Leni Riefenstahl blush, but could the Snowden gambit be a far more insidious and subtle secret-state strategy?
In purely practical terms alone, the ‘Snowden revelations’ have been an unmitigated victory for the national security state. A global public that was previously blissfully unaware of its position as central target of mass surveillance has now been thoroughly (and generally, comfortably) acclimated to that very idea. A raft of recent studies conclude that the Snowden revelations have had a marked chilling effect on people’s online habits and expressions of dissent.
Indeed, for a permanent cyber-Panopticon to be truly effective as a means of social control, the inmates (the global public) must be at least peripherally aware of its existence. Assuming it does actually exist and one of its aims is (logically) the abortion of popular dissent (through mass scale self-policing), a gargantuan surveillance apparatus also has clear uses as a giant blackmail machine (this would neatly explain the perpetually compliant response from the legislature and judiciary) and as a profound and unimaginably effective tool of social engineering.
Perhaps we are already there? Various leaks about Facebook and the Pentagon’s partnered experiments in ‘crowd herding’ and ‘emotional contagion,’ along with the underreported long-term history of tech corporations (Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc.) co-parenting with the NSA-CIA-Pentagon-DARPA nexus, hint that the entire electronically mediated womb-environment of today might just be one vast dark Psy-Op (interestingly, Vladimir Putin once referred to the internet as a ‘CIA Project’).
Software already exists to constantly monitor social media, analyse (in real-time) public trends and responses, and generate automatic (i.e robotic) comments/posts supporting (or denigrating) a chosen policy/worldview/opinion/initiative/product. We know (ironically largely via Edward Snowden), that our rogue intelligence agencies have been busy launching battalions of cyber-warriors and studying the psychology of online relations and the very architecture of our intrinsic belief systems.
After endless reams of circus commentary and vast volumes of hot air, the net result of the Snowden saga has in fact been the legitimation, legalisation and expansion of the very same unwarranted, unconstitutional, unnecessary (and surely intrinsically illegal) indiscriminate surveillance regime.
‘Mission creep’ has become a stampede, as supine governments rush a candied ‘national security’ wish-list of mass surveillance (and police state) initiatives past a bewildered and disenfranchised public. Nowhere is this more rudely obvious than in Australia, Canada, the U.K and the U.S itself, all of which have increased the state’s options for surveillance and data retention in the months since the ‘Snowden revelations’ (while performing a pantomime of ‘debate’ and ‘consultation’).
The ‘terrorist’ bogeyman (looking understandably tired and unconvincing) has been trotted out yet again to justify all this breathless chicanery. That these nations are all working from the same international (intelligence agency?) playbook seems in little doubt – the timing, wording and circumstances of (for example) recent surveillance ‘reforms’ in Australia, Canada and France being so strikingly similar. Likewise, a similar series of dubious provocations, sieges and ‘terrorist’ attacks predictably and magically manifested themselves just prior to the legislation being tabled – the public must, of course, be cajoled in the right direction.
Is it not possible that we have been completely gamed? The mysterious and messianic figure of Edward Snowden, introduced to acclimatise the global public to the very idea of an endless, all-pervading surveillance state (entirely unaccountable with unstated goals and limitless technology). Snowden as ‘progressive’ Trojan Horse (perhaps much like Barack Obama before him) to activate and mobilise the public passion, only to see it hijacked and channeled into Room 101. After much ‘debate’ from captured politicians and a puppeteer punditry the (entirely noxious) ‘security regime’ is solidified and expanded – the illusion being, that ultimately ‘democracy’ functioned and the population actually ‘chose’ omniscient observation – for the ‘greater good.’
Snowden himself perhaps reminds one of an articulate Lee Harvey Oswald-like character, a brave young patriotic warrior in deep-cover embrace with the Russian bear, dancing a dangerous and duplicitous deep-state deception. Knowingly (or unknowingly) a tool of clandestine forces. Snowden should bear in mind that he too, if he outlives his usefulness, might be thrown to the lions (just like Oswald was).
Imagine for a moment that the Snowden saga is a test. Having built a labyrinthine structure for social control (a compliant media and cowered public that cheerfully delivers itself up to enormous data-mining projects like social media): in fact, an almost entire reality-set constructed and delivered electronically – surely one would be tempted to test it? To see if complete movements, debates, paradigms and world-views could be generated out of whole virtual cloth and controlled? A test-tone, a electro-static ripple, a tremulous shock-wave to the online body electric.
Would it really be possible to introduce an idea (global omniscient surveillance) itself intrinsically repugnant, and yet shepherd it through a controlled release (and discourse) to have it ultimately accepted, completely present and yet essentially invisible? To test the various nuances and feedback loops in media (and online social media) that now might just grant remote Panopticon control of an entire population and their ‘internal landscape’? An electronically mediated ‘reality’ where ideas and beliefs are mere manifestations of algorithms and software?
Conservatives, progressives, activists, lethargists – all actors in the traveling circus of ‘representative democracy’ and ‘online society’?
Just as Americans wouldn’t want U.S. tax, immigration and regulatory policy to be controlled by an imaginary American Union office based in Buenos Aires, many British don’t like their country being controlled by European Union bureaucrats in Brussels.
That is why the latest polls show more British side with the “Leave” than the “Remain” campaign ahead of the Brexit referendum on June 23.
Americans wouldn’t like an American Union — call it the AU for short — responsible for 60% of laws, which is the share in Britain that come from the EU in Brussels rather than from Parliament in London. We wouldn’t like an AU telling us we couldn’t deport criminals or control our borders, as the EU does to Britain.
We wouldn’t want an AU ruling that we could no longer buy food by the pound, but would have to buy it in kilos because in Latin America food is measured in kilos. That is what the EU tells Britain. Everything from tomatoes to butter to flour has to be sold in kilos.
Americans wouldn’t like an American Union telling us how many hours we are allowed to work. According to EU law, Brits cannot work for more than 48 hours a week, averaged over 17 weeks. People who do work more have to sign a form saying that they agree to opt out of the 48-hour week. People who work in certain occupations, primarily transportation — airlines, shipping, trucking — aren’t permitted to opt out and cannot work more than 48 hours even if they want to do so.
Congress didn’t pass a cap-and- trade emissions trading program when it was proposed under a Democratic Congress in 2009-2010. America wouldn’t like to have such a program imposed by an American Union. But the U.K. has to take part in the EU Emissions Trading System. It requires 15% of electricity to be generated by renewables by 2020, even if this raises the price of electricity for British households.
To meet these EU regulations, the U.K. is burning wood pellets from the U.S. because wood is considered a renewable. America exported over 4 million short tons of wood pellets to Europe in 2014, and about 80% went to the U.K. The U.K. is converting its coal plants to burning American wood. Although environmentalists favor renewables, many, such as Debbie Hammel of the Natural Resources Defense Council, believe that burning wood harms forests and increases carbon emissions.
Americans wouldn’t like an American Union setting standards for cars and trucks. But that’s what the EU does to Britain with its numerous automobile directives.
“Defeat devices,” which allow emissions to appear lower when the car is tested, are banned, but as the Volkswagen scandal has shown us, this has little effect. The EU red tape doesn’t always bring results.
The object of these rules is harmonization. One aspect of the EU is to get rid of national identity, to create a U.S. of Europe. No matter that countries like their national identity. They do not want to be merged into a blended whole. The blandness of the EU is one reason that nationalist parties, such as UKIP in the U.K., the National Front in France, and the Catalan nationalist parties in Spain have grown in power.
Some suggest that the British economy will be more stable if it stays in the EU. But the EU itself has massive economic problems, with a growth rate of 1.4%, underfunded public pensions, and bloated welfare obligations. Its lack of control over its borders has resulted in over a million refugees and economic migrants, some of whom are linked with ISIS and are planning terrorist attacks. Under EU law, all have to be housed and fed at EU taxpayer expense. This is no recipe for stability.
President Obama should appreciate Britain’s desire for independence, said British historian Andrew Roberts in his acceptance speech on winning the Bradley Prize in Washington on Wednesday.
Yet Obama visited Britain in April and tried to bully the British into remaining in the EU by telling them that “the U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue” in any trade deals—even though Britain is one of America’s biggest export markets. Roberts said that when the U.S. wanted help in fighting Iraq, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair didn’t put America at the back of the queue, but pledged his complete support.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Korean War, Britain stood with America. The EU is taking decisions ever further away from Parliament, in contempt of national sovereignty. No wonder the Brits are fed up. Just as the U.S. wouldn’t want to live under an American Union, and declared freedom from England 240 years ago, now Britain wants to declare freedom from the EU.