Online Freedom: Are We Past the Point of No Return?

Online Freedom: Are We Past the Point of No Return? | internet-freedom-censorship-american-flag | Civil Rights Government Government Control Internet Censorship Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Special Interests US News

By: Carla, therightsideoftruth.com | 

Internet freedom is on the decline. It has been ever since companies began centralizing control over where users congregate, and things have only gotten worse with ever increasing government intervention. Some might see said claims as alarmist and will say things aren’t “that bad,” citing dictatorships such as North Korea as examples of true restriction of internet freedom. But this comparison doesn’t do justice to the extent to which online freedom is being limited.

Truly, the enemy is among us, and it has been for quite some time. Self-interested organizations including big record companies, movie studios and even the government have been slowing chipping away at individual freedom as they fear losing control over the economy and the people.

Beyond that, government organizations continue to tighten their grip as internet freedom threatens the status quo. The real question we need to be asking, though, is this:

Are we past the point of no return?

The Patriot Act

In the West, specifically in the US, the first serious threat to digital freedom came with the passing of the Patriot Act following the September 11th terrorist attacks. Immediate action was taken to increase surveillance on American citizens, but the National Security Administration didn’t stop there.

Spying on emails, chats and forums, the organization set out under the auspices of government officials to locate and track anyone with a dissenting viewpoint, terrorist or otherwise. Doing so makes it a lot easier to accuse someone of having criminal intentions.

On the bright side, this data gathering also resulted in more information than can possibly be processed—ever. The result is somewhat optimistic, in that the government can’t hope to deal with each and every voice with which they don’t agree.

Censorship and Digital Rights

Areas of censorship and digital copyright laws bring together an unholy alliance far worse than exclusive government interest—we’re referring to combined corporate and government interest, not dissimilar from fascism.

This happens on two fronts. The first, mediated mostly by companies, is geo-blocking content by country. A good example is how copyrighted content on YouTube can’t be watched in the US, but it can be in other countries. This can be circumvented to some extent by clever use of a Virtual Private Network (VPN), but an ongoing battle between companies and consumers continues to be waged.

The other instance of censorship is mediated by governments. From shutting down “illegal” websites such as ThePirateBay to flat out preventing citizen access to parts of the internet, governments are using their muscle to limit freedom and are showing no signs of slowing down.

In fact, it seems more likely this activity is increasing, with more and more countries preventing external access on a selective basis. Countries infamous for this include China, Iran and North Korea, but don’t be fooled—even Western countries engage in some degree of IP blocking when it suits their agendas.

WikiLeaks

One look at WikiLeaks and it would seem that online freedom is alive and well. But, is that truly the case? From time to time, we hear major stories about leaks related to political scandals or even celebrities. Some of these change our opinions, while others get ignored.

What we can tell you is politicians are not ignoring announcements made on WikiLeaks. To this day, we still have “wanted” notices out for known leakers such as Edward Snowden threatening life imprisonment or worse (though it’s worth noting Snowden’s actions are considered treason).

Those that choose to ignore the warnings and examples made of previous leakers on WikiLeaks can expect similar treatment. And if sharing inconvenient information online can result in criminal charges, exactly how free are we to share? Anonymity isn’t guaranteed online by any means, no matter how extensive our efforts might be.

Social Media

One place anonymity continues to erode is on social media. In an unprecedented shift from the older days of the net, nearly all users are encouraged to represent themselves online not as handles, avatars or screen names but as their real identities. A significant percentage of users have fallen in line with this new trend, and there doesn’t seem to be any sign of it stopping.

While you might argue that transparency online is a good thing, it doesn’t come without cost. Lack of anonymity means much more serious consequences for posting or sharing thoughts that go against common social mores or shared beliefs, no matter how flawed those beliefs may be.

This further erodes our freedoms online because it stifles dissenting voices that fear the backlash frequently associated with sharing different opinions. These fears aren’t baseless either; sharing unpopular views online can be political or career suicide if those ideas rattle the wrong cages.

On top of all these problems, social media giants such as Facebook are running new campaigns aimed at stopping “fake news,” which might help in some cases, but this ultimately serves as a move to quash opinions they don’t care to see online.

Danger! Point of No Return Ahead

For all the above points, the question still remains—is there any turning back? Can our online freedoms ever be truly secured and protected from outside intervention? By now you’ve most likely noticed there are plenty of factors and parties trying to ensure limitations to our freedoms.

But there is hope. While we may never return to the “wild west” of the internet, our combined vigilance can prevent things from getting considerably worse. By using our votes and dollars, we have the unique power to point things in a positive direction.

The cost, of course, is our time. If we collectively hope to maintain our online freedom, we can’t simply sit on the sideline and hope someone else will start a petition or write their government representative. You personally must do something. What that is will be up to you.

How will you make a difference?


Carla is a blogger that writes on topics ranging from online censorship to politics and the latest news. She regularly contributes to http://therightsideoftruth.com and enjoys a lively discussion and critical thought.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Online Freedom: Are We Past the Point of No Return? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Less Government. More Freedom.

Less Government. More Freedom. | bald-eagle | Civil Rights Federal Reserve Bank Government Government Control Losing Rights Sleuth Journal US Constitution & Bill Of Rights

What would America look like today if the dream of our Founding Fathers of a limited central government had actually been realized? We have become so accustomed to big government that many of us simply assume that this is the only way that things can be done. But the truth is that things don’t have to be this way. We can have the kind of very limited federal government that our forefathers originally intended, but it is going to take a great deal of education and an enormous amount of political engagement in order to get there. In every generation, Americans have had to stand up to defend the cause of liberty and freedom, and it will be no different in our generation. Just like during the Revolutionary War, there is no guarantee that we will be able to save America from the forces that are trying to destroy it, but if we sit back and do nothing they will win by default.

Just because there is no war to fight does not mean that the threat that we are facing is any less serious than what other generations of Americans have had to face. Over the last several decades, the U.S. Constitution has essentially been shredded, and at this point our republic is basically hanging by a thread. If we surrender to the left in this generation, the country that our forefathers envisioned may be gone for good.

Today I would like to share with you an excerpt from my upcoming book. It will be released about halfway through 2017, and when it is out you will be able to find it on my author page. As you will see, limited government is something that I am quite passionate about…

*****

“Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.” (George Washington)

Big government tends to suck the life out of everything. If you doubt this, just look around the globe. In nations where a central government dominates every aspect of society, the people seem quite lifeless. Of course an extreme example of this is North Korea. Their entire culture is centered around a philosophy known as “Juche”, and in this philosophy the “leader” essentially becomes an object of worship. Literally everything in North Korea revolves around the state and the “leader”, and as a result most of the population resembles a horde of mindless zombies.

On the other hand, the most dynamic societies throughout human history have always been the ones where people have had a tremendous amount of freedom to express their passions and creativity. There is a reason why we saw an unprecedented explosion of remarkable inventions in early America, and there is a reason why so many millions of immigrants have risked their lives to get here. Liberty has always been such a rare commodity in our world, and almost all governments eventually become tyrannical. That is why it is so imperative that we defend the liberty that we still have in this nation.

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a country where freedom and liberty would be maximized. Of course there always must be some sort of government, because otherwise you would have total anarchy. We want potential thieves and murderers to be frightened of the power of the law, and we are thankful for those that protect us from them. But way too often it is government that becomes the greatest threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that is the sort of tyranny that we desperately wish to avoid.

Today, there are literally hundreds of thousands of statutes, rules and regulations on the federal level, and when you throw in the state and local levels you get a total that is in the millions. Virtually every aspect of our lives is very tightly regulated and controlled these days, and this has been going on for so long that most people have begun to accept it as normal.

But the way our society works today is definitely not “normal”. Let me share with you an example from the state of California that makes my blood boil. If you can believe it, government officials actually fined one farmer 2.8 million dollars for plowing his own field

The California farmer who became the poster child for EPA reform under President Donald Trump is being fined $2.8 million by state and federal regulators for plowing his own field in Tehama County.

According to a story in the Redding Record Searchlight:

“The case is the first time that we’re aware of that says you need to get a (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permit to plow to grow crops,” said Anthony Francois, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation.

“We’re not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations,” he said.

However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller agreed with the Army Corps in a judgment issued in June 2016. A penalty trial, in which the U.S. Attorney’s Office asks for $2.8 million in civil penalties, is set for August.

(http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/05/27/california-farmer-poster-child-for-trumps-epa-regulation-rollback-california-farmer-fined-2-8m-for-plowing-field/)

In early America, they would have howled with laughter if someone would have suggested that farmers should be required to get permission from the government in order to plow a field and grow food.

This is just one example that shows why I am proposing that the Environmental Protection Agency should be completely shut down. I am very much in favor of protecting the environment, but I believe that the citizens of each state should decide how their own natural resources are managed.

And at this point it has become exceedingly clear that the EPA is wildly out of control. Prior to the Trump administration, the EPA had been operating under Bill Clinton or Barack Obama for 16 of the previous 24 years, and it is absolutely packed with radical leftists that are obsessed with promoting their own political agendas. Instead of trying to fire everyone, the easiest thing would be to just end the agency and start completely over.

If you are not with me yet, perhaps another outrageous example will persuade you. The following comes from Fox News

A Wyoming man threatened with $16 million in fines over the building of a stock pond reached a settlement with the Environment Protection Agency, allowing him to keep the pond without a federal permit or hefty fine.

Andy Johnson, of Fort Bridger, Wyoming obtained a state permit before building the stock pond in 2012 on his sprawling nine-acre farm for a small herd of livestock.

Not long after contruction, the EPA threatened Johnson with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $37,500-a-day fine — claiming he needed the agency’s permission before building the 40-by-300 foot pond, which is filled by a natural stream.

(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/10/wyoming-welder-facing-16m-in-fines-beats-epa-in-battle-over-stock-pond.html)

Could you imagine being threatened with 16 million dollars in fines for constructing a pond on your own property?

This isn’t how America is supposed to operate.

I really don’t understand how we can still claim to be “the land of the free” when we allow leftist control freaks to dominate our lives down to the minutest detail.

The left always wants government to become bigger and bigger and to get more and more control. They want a government that is going to guide them safely through life and that will give them everything that they need. But every time government grows, liberty and freedom are diminished.

Yes, liberty and freedom can be dangerous and messy sometimes. But living free sure beats being told what to do every single moment of every single day.

One of the things that greatly troubles me is that progressives almost completely dominate our system of public education. Our public schools have now become liberal indoctrination centers, and survey after survey has shown that each successive generation has moved to the left compared to the preceding generation.

That is why it is so imperative that we end federal interference in education and return control of our schools back to the local level. I would shut down the Department of Education and I would cut off every penny of funding for Common Core.

Even though we spend far more on education than anyone else in the world, we are producing absolutely disastrous results. The following comes from a CBS News report

Half of American Millennials score below the minimum standard of literacy proficiency. Only two countries scored worse by that measure: Italy (60 percent) and Spain (59 percent). The results were even worse for numeracy, with almost two-thirds of American Millennials failing to meet the minimum standard for understanding and working with numbers. That placed U.S. Millennials dead last for numeracy among the study’s 22 developed countries.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-millennials-well-educated-but-unskilled/)

Our public schools are failing badly, and we need to get them fixed. But we also need to greatly support parents that are pursuing other educational avenues such as homeschooling and private schools. At this point I completely understand why any parent would want to keep their kids out of our horrific public schools, and ultimately our entire system of education needs to be completely rebuilt from the ground up.

Big government sucks the life out of the economy as well. Over the past ten years, the U.S. economy has grown at an average yearly rate of just 1.33 percent, and the only other era in U.S. history when economic growth was so bad was during the 1930s.

The business community is being absolutely strangled by rules, regulations, red tape and excessive taxes, but the Democrats always want to pile on more. Big corporations can hire lots of people to comply with all of the demands that government places on them, but small businesses and entrepreneurs are rapidly becoming an endangered species.

Today, there are less Americans that are self-employed than there were 27 years ago. In April 1990, 8.7 million Americans worked for themselves, but in April 2017 only 8.4 million Americans were working for themselves.

That may not sound that bad until you realize how much our population grew over that time frame. In 1990, the population of the United States was 249 million, but today the population is 321 million.

So the percentage of Americans that are working for themselves has gone way, way down.

The solution is to get the government off of our backs. The greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history was between the Civil War and 1913. During this era there was no income tax, no IRS and no Federal Reserve. Many on the left would consider that to be a recipe for disaster, but instead there was an explosion of innovation and industry that was absolutely unprecedented. The following is how Wikipedia describes the economic conditions during this period of time…

In the last third of the 19th century the United States entered a phase of rapid economic growth which doubled per capita income over the period. By 1895, the USA leaped ahead of Britain for first place in manufacturing output.[175] For the first time, exports of machinery and consumer goods became important. For example, Standard Oil led the way in exporting kerosene; Russia was its main rival in international trade.[176]Singer Corporation led the way in developing a global marketing strategy for its sewing machines.[177]

The greatly expanded railroad network, using inexpensive steel rails produced by new steel making processes, dramatically lowered transportation cost to areas without access to navigable waterways. Low freight rates allowed large manufacturing facilities with great economies of scale. Machinery became a large industry and many types of machines were developed. Businesses were able to operate over wide areas and chain stores arose. Mail order companies started operating.[119]Rural Free Delivery began being implemented in the early 1890s, but it was not widely implemented for a decade.[178]

Companies created a new management systems to carry out their operations on a large scale. Companies integrated processes to eliminate unnecessary steps and to eliminate middlemen.[119]

An explosion of new discoveries and inventions took place, a process called the Second Industrial Revolution. The electric light, telephone, steam turbine, internal combustion engine, automobile, phonograph, typewriter and tabulating machine were some of the many inventions of the period. New processes for making steel and chemicals such as dyes and explosives were invented. The pneumatic tire, improved ball bearings, machine tools and newly developed metal stamping techniques enabled the large scale production of bicycles in the 1890s. Another significant development was the widespread introduction of electric street railways (trams, trolleys or streetcars) in the 1890s.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States#Late_19th_century)

But the progressives couldn’t leave a good thing alone, and in 1913 the Federal Reserve was established and a federal income tax was instituted.

Since that time there have been 18 distinct recessions or depressions, and now we are entering another one.

We are always asking our politicians to “fix the economy”, but the truth is that the best thing that they can do is to get out of the way.

If you take the shackles off, free enterprise works exceptionally well.

Those that follow my work on a regular basis already know that I believe that the Federal Reserve should be shut down, that the IRS should be phased out, and that the federal income tax should be reduced as much as possible with the eventual goal of eliminating it completely.

It has been said that nothing is inevitable except for death and taxes, but there is nothing that says that we must have an income tax.

We have had an income tax for so long that most people could not imagine life without one. But the United States absolutely thrived without one during the decades prior to 1913, and today states such as Texas and Florida are doing quite nicely without a state income tax.

There are lots of other ways to fund the government that do not involve an income tax. And actually only 46.2 percent of all federal revenue is brought in through taxing individual incomes. If we cut the size of government in half, we might even have some money to spare.

Of course considering the fact that we are 20 trillion dollars in debt, the truth is that we don’t have a single penny to spare, but I think that you get my point.

I just hope that you are able to see that life is generally better when government is reduced to the proper size and scope.

We should be able to say what we want to say without fear of retribution.

We should be able to live out our convictions and worship as we please.

We should be able to protect our own homes and do what we want with our own property.

We should be able to raise our own children and make our own health decisions.

We should be able to be free from the fear that the government is watching, tracking and monitoring all of our electronic communications.

In every human heart there is a hunger to live free, and big government is the enemy of freedom.

The dreams that our forefathers once had for this nation may have faded, but they aren’t dead just yet.

A new generation of patriots is rising, and we are determined to take our country back.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Less Government. More Freedom. appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

UK Prime Minister Wants Government Control Over Internet Content

UK Prime Minister Wants Government Control Over Internet Content | theresa-may | Government Government Control Internet Censorship Losing Rights Special Interests World News

Theresa May opposes internet freedom, the last frontier of free and open expression, a platform for activism, the only reliable independent, commercial-free source of news, information and analysis.

She and other Tory hardliners wants it regulated, a scheme to impose government control over content, allowing what it considers acceptable, prohibiting what it wants suppressed – the way all police states operate, waging war on freedom.

May’s Tory Manifesto wants Britain to become “the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the Internet.”

“Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree,” it says.

Tories want government control over what people write, post and share online, the end of UK online freedom if enacted into law.

Britain’s new Investigatory Powers Act requires Internet companies to maintain records on customers’ browsing histories, along with ministerial power to breach online privacy, including encrypted content – on the phony pretext of assuring no “safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online.”

They even wants online adult content sites harder to access, exceptions requiring ministerial permission.

“We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm,” the Manifesto states.

“In harnessing the digital revolution, we must take steps to protect the vulnerable and give people confidence to use the internet without fear of abuse, criminality or exposure to horrific content.”

“Our starting point is that online rules should reflect those that govern our lives offline.”

“It should be as unacceptable to bully online as it is in the playground, as difficult to groom a young child on the internet as it is in a community, as hard for children to access violent and degrading pornography online as it is in the high street, and as difficult to commit a crime digitally as it is physically.”

“We will introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law.”

The Tory scheme isn’t about “protect(ing) the security of people and ensur(ing) the fairness of the rules by which people and businesses (must) abide.”

It’s a blatant police state attempt to control online content, prohibiting what Tories want suppressed, government acting as gatekeeper.

May’s notion of “forward together” is a giant step backward.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post UK Prime Minister Wants Government Control Over Internet Content appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

It Is Time To Put The ‘Limited’ Back In Limited Government – Abolishing The EPA Is A Good Place To Start

It Is Time To Put The ‘Limited’ Back In Limited Government – Abolishing The EPA Is A Good Place To Start | environmental-protection-agency | Civil Rights Environment EPA Government Government Control Government Corruption Losing Rights Politics Sleuth Journal Society US Constitution & Bill Of Rights

The constitutional republic that our founders intended to create has become a monster, and it is time to tame that monster and restore the federal government to its proper size and scope. The left loves big government, because it allows them to impose their progressive vision of how the world should work on all the rest of us. This is why so many control freaks are drawn to liberal politics like moths to a flame. Power and control are very addicting drugs, and those that crave these things on the left are never satisfied. That is one of the reasons why the federal government just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. If our constitutional republic is going to survive, we have got to start putting the “limited” back in limited government.

Our forefathers tried to guarantee that the federal government would always be less powerful than the states by making the Tenth Amendment abundantly clear…

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I don’t see how anyone could possibly misunderstand that, but over the decades the left has worked very hard to make the Tenth Amendment as meaningless as possible.

If we want to see the Tenth Amendment restored, we are going to have to be willing to fight hard in the court system, in statehouses all over America, and in the halls of Congress.

And a good place for Congress to start would be to abolish the EPA. It is one of the federal agencies that is most wildly out of control, and fortunately there are a few good members of Congress that get this.

On February 3rd, U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz introduced a one sentence bill in the House of Representatives that would abolish the EPA at the end of next year

Introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL1), H.R. 861 totals a mere one sentence: “The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.” That’s the same date of termination as another Republican bill to end the Education Department, which GovTrack Insider also recently covered. Gaetz is serving his first term in Congress and this is the first bill he’s ever introduced.

I would certainly vote for such a bill in a heartbeat, because as Gaetz has explained, the EPA is suffocating small businesses all over America

Gaetz, a freshman, took aim at the EPA in a leaked email, obtained by The Huffington Post, saying Americans are “drowning in regulations” enforced by the agency.

“Our small businesses cannot afford to cover the costs associated with compliance, too often leading to closed doors and unemployed Americans,” Gaetz wrote in the email, which was circulated among possible co-sponsors.

If enacted, the bill would will give power back to the states and local governments, Gaetz said.

“To better protect the environment we should abolish the EPA and downstream resources to states for more effective & efficient protection,” Gaetz said in a Facebook post Friday.

Today, the EPA is packed with leftists that love to promote their political agendas by constantly coming up with even more business-killing rules and regulations. These unelected bureaucrats have been on a rampage in recent years, and most of what they are doing is unconstitutional according to the Tenth Amendment.

Here in Idaho, the EPA has been a thorn in the side of miners, loggers and small businesses for decades, and it is a problem that has grown worse over time. At the moment, there appears to be little hope that the bill to shut down the EPA could get through both chambers of Congress, but that doesn’t mean that we will stop trying.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has taken some positive steps to try to rein in the EPA. The following comes from Time Magazine

But that doesn’t mean that the EPA is safe. In fact, some of the agency’s defenders worry that it faces a far more stealthy threat of being hollowed out. President Trump’s choice to run the agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is known for targeting the agency with more than a dozen lawsuits.

Environmental groups and policymakers fear Pruitt will dismantle many of the agency’s core functions methodically over time rather than trying to knock out the agency with one fell swoop.

He will almost certainly try to unravel the Clean Power Plan, President Obama’s primary regulation aimed at addressing climate change, a multi-year process that could require careful reconsideration of legal and scientific arguments. He might also weaken—or shutter altogether—the EPA’s enforcement office, according to an Inside EPA report.

Some of you may think that I don’t care about the environment since I want the EPA shut down.

That is not true at all. I believe that we are facing some huge environmental problems and that we should all do more to take care of the planet that we share.

But I also believe that the people of all 50 states should be able to determine how their own natural resources should be managed.

The EPA has become a highly politicized organization, and it has become one of the favorite tools of the left for moving the “green agenda” forward. And of course this “green agenda” is being promoted on a global scale by the United Nations.

Have you ever heard of Agenda 21? Well, it has been given a makeover and it is now known as “Agenda 2030”. When it was first launched in 2015, Agenda 2030 was being touted as a “new universal Agenda” for humanity. The following information about Agenda 2030 comes from the official UN website

This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognise that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.

All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet. We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.

If you read over the 17 sustainable development goals which you can find right here, you will quickly notice that they cover virtually every form of human activity imaginable.

That is become the “green agenda” is really just a nice way of introducing “global governance” to an unsuspecting public.

The leftist control freaks at the UN literally want to closely regulate all human activity on the entire planet, and they are telling us that they need to do this in order “to save the world”.

But as I discussed, we aren’t going to allow the left to steal our country from us, and we are going to greatly resist all attempts to erode American sovereignty.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post It Is Time To Put The ‘Limited’ Back In Limited Government – Abolishing The EPA Is A Good Place To Start appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Comply Or Lose Your Job- HR 1313 Would Force Vaccinations and DNA Submission (VIDEO)

Comply Or Lose Your Job- HR 1313 Would Force Vaccinations and DNA Submission (VIDEO) | comply-vaccinations | Civil Rights General Health Government Government Control Losing Rights Medical & Health Multimedia Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

A new bill, HR 1313, has been introduced by North Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx which is designed to give employers absolute power over the employee by mandating whatever they deem to be proper “heath prevention” measures. These measures would include submitting DNA records as well as mandatory vaccinations and other perceived “health preventive” measures designed for the “greater good” of the general public. The result of not complying with this new law of course would be losing your job.

This kind of legislation thus gives large corporations government-like political status and god-like powers over the individual and further widens the gap between the rich and poor. But even more importantly this kind of legislation strips away intimate individual medical privacy and further solidifies the global control grid being created by the ruling elite as they attempt to complete their new world order plans of permanent human enslavement. No need to imagine how this “future” new world order enslavement will look like anymore. We’re seeing it all being rolled out in real-time and in broad daylight for the world to see.

As I discuss in my video below, all of this is part of the Communist-Globalist “peaceful revolution” strategy which is designed to financially neutralize the individual by first making the individual financially dependent on the state or the rulers, and then the threat of having all their food and survival (work related) income taken away is enough to “peacefully” silence the individual into submission.

Writer Dena Schmidt at NaturalHealth365.com writes regarding this latest bill:

While Republican congresswoman Virginia Foxx is the main sponsor of H.R. 1313, she is not the originator of the legislation. It is actually part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

Obamacare already threatens to assess penalties, surcharges and higher health insurance premiums to businesses and workers who refuse vaccinations – which the healthcare legislation refers to as “disease prevention.”

Solutions:

It’s time to pay attention and fight back. Organize your counterattack smartly, effectively and efficiently. Start somewhere and then build from there knowing that every voice counts. Below Schmidt explains some of the politics behind this resolution and offers a way to take action:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) calls the H.R. 1313 bill a threat to both businesses and the people employed by them. Instead of allowing for free choice in health and wellness decisions, the legislation would attempt to implement a “carrot and stick” method for “strongly compelling” businesses and workers to accept the agendas of big pharma and its paid-off government officials.

The National Vaccine Information Center is urging concerned citizens to contact their own representatives and senators to express their views about H.R. 1313. When doing so, please remember to express your opinions intelligently and respectfully – you are far more likely to be heard if you are firm but polite when explaining your point of view.

All of this serves to remind us that science has been undermined by the ruling elite and that government pseudoscience has taken its place. This politicized science is then used to make claims which are then used to take away your rights. So first let’s be mindful of how this problem began and then let’s fight back with awareness, information-spreading and do what we can to introduce our own new bills to secure our right to privacy and health. Let’s remind both governments and large corporations that our right to natural health and personal physical and mental well being is inalienable and cannot be taken away.

Related video

Additional links below:

Contact Congresswoman Virginia Foxx here

Contact your local representatives here


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Comply Or Lose Your Job- HR 1313 Would Force Vaccinations and DNA Submission (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Goodbye U.S.S.R And Hello U.S.S.A. (VIDEO)

Goodbye U.S.S.R And Hello U.S.S.A. (VIDEO) | surveillance | Civil Rights Government Government Control Losing Rights Multimedia National Security Agency Society Surveillance

“If You Have Nothing To Hide You Have Nothing to Fear”, said once Joseph Goebbels, former Nazi Minister of Propaganda. We all know what happened while the Nazis and their American collaborators were in power. Yet, the quote cited above is exactly what the handlers of the U.S.S.A. use to justify its existence.

The same quote was used by William Hague and pretty much every other law enforcement official who believes in the need to have a worldwide Surveillance State. Even lay people who are interviewed on the streets of America and Europe often repeat the words of the former Nazi Propaganda Minister.

However, since not everyone agrees with Goebbels, many politicians and bureaucrats need to create reason for them to believe. The best reasons to make people believe what would be otherwise un-believable, is the typical ‘little known outside threat’ and the premise is always the same: we all need to surrender something we hold dear in order to do away with the threat.

For instance, in spite of what many western politicians say about Russia and how its actions supposedly resemble the U.S.S.R., the fact is that Russia is not the USSR. It is not even close to it being the U.S.S.R..

Ad-hominem attacks on Russia and its leaders, of whom I am not a fan of, are attempts to distract people from a greater global threat: the U.S.S.A..

The U.S.S.A. has been in the works for decades and its power has been expanded based on false premises, such as the Russian menace, the ISIS threat or the Al-Qaeda rising tide of global terrorism.

The United Surveillance States of America (U.S.S.A.) and its branches in Europe, Asia and Oceania are the threat we have all been distracted from by way of unfounded fear, misinformation, propaganda and outright ignorance.

This entity is not only charged with spying on billions of people worldwide, but also with carrying out offensive cyber attacks on infrastructure at home and abroad.

It collects billions of bytes of metadata whose associated content is later used, when possible, as a tool to blackmail anyone who may become an obstacle to the advancement of the U.S.S.A..

The U.S.S.A. is not only composed by American and allied monitoring agencies, but also by global communication networks and media conglomerates that, either voluntarily or by way of force (inter-connectedness, built-in back doors, direct and indirect threats, etc) serve as bridges to the larger U.S.S.A. infrastructure to capture, filter and direct information on everything and everyone that is somehow making use of digital resources almost anywhere on the planet.

Although much of the blame on the existence and operation of the United Surveillance States of America has been rightfully placed on the United States National Security Agency (NSA), as its name describes it, the existence of such a massive surveillance infrastructure would not be possible without the collaboration of similar entities in Europe, Asia and Oceania, to cite a few.

It is true, America is the central command of the U.S.S.A., but this globally operating multi-headed cyber beast could not do the work it does without the collaboration of partner organizations in other parts of the world.

A documentary titled “America’s Surveillance State”, whose content is based on declassified and leaked documents as well as testimony from former ‘intelligence gatherers’ such as Thomas Drake, Russ Tice and Edward Snowden, unveiled details about the strength and reach of the U.S.S.A. and how, despite political rhetoric from seating presidents and congressmen about its despotic existence, it continues to grow out of control.

The following is the six part documentary which shows how the U.S.S.A and not the U.S.S.R. is the most significant threat to all of us. This is so not only because it is out there sniffing it all, but also because people have become accustomed to it. It is part of their lives and most of them do not even see it as an inconvenience, much less as a threat.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post Goodbye U.S.S.R And Hello U.S.S.A. (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

The Illuminati Goal Of Abolishing Private Property: Reborn In Globalism

The Illuminati Goal Of Abolishing Private Property: Reborn In Globalism | feudal-society | Civil Rights Globalism Government Control Illuminati Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Special Interests US News

By: Jon Rappoport |

There is a direct line from Adam Weishaupt’s secret society, the Illuminati, which he formed in Bavaria in 1776, to Karl Marx, and onward to the modern Globalist agenda.

One of the key shared ideas: the abolition of private property.

Many people hold a negative view of Weishaupt, the Illuminati, and especially Marx, and so it fell to Globalists to couch their ideas about property in more acceptable terms.

That feat (one of many attempted) was expressed, in 1976, by Carla Hills, US Trade Representative and a key member of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. Hills is credited as the principal architect of the Globalist NAFTA Treaty, which has destructively affected the US and Mexican economies.

Patrick Wood, author of the classic, Technocracy Rising, unearthed Hills’ brief statement on private property. I’ve broken it up into three parts, so I can comment after each mind-bending point.

Carla Hills: “Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.”

Her use of the term “human settlements” is curious, as is her reference to “crucial role it [land] plays.” Is she trying to take us back to an ancient period in human history, when people were first abandoning nomadic existence and turning to agriculture and fixed communities? It appears so. She wants us to think of land in terms of “oh, look, we can stop wandering and live here, and this space of soil will play ‘a crucial role’ in our future.” It’s been centuries since private ownership of land became a reality. But Hills doesn’t like acknowledging that. And through her use of “human settlements,” she also wants us to believe that the ancient concept of an entire community moving on to land to live is the only valid view. An individual staking a claim to land or buying it is verboten. It’s a corruption of the natural order. I assume Hills wasn’t living on a kibbutz or in a commune when she wrote her statement, but we’ll leave that problem for another time.

Hills asserts that private ownership of property isn’t ordinary and can’t be thought of that way. Individuals shouldn’t “control it.” And the free market causes problems. Well, of course, the free market causes problems, if you assume that no one should own more land than anyone else. And yes, private ownership, based on hard work, is inefficient, if that means some super-government can’t take land away “for the public good.”

Hills stops short of saying government should own all land, but that’s where she’s going.

She continues: “Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.”

Social injustice, that familiar theme. Some people might own more land than others. That’s not right. That’s unjust. There should be no reward for hard work and intelligence. No. Instead, there is only planning from above. The wise demi-golds, who have our best interests at heart, can decide all the uses to which land is put. They can own huge tracts of land themselves, because they are gods. But the rest of us must submit to the development schemes they lay out. Only bitter clingers, who actually work for a living and strive and make their own way in the world, believe in private property. They’re for social injustice. They don’t want to give way to Greater Sharing.

Finally, Hills states: “Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”

Kinder and gentler vision. Just launch a plan to give EVERYONE a decent dwelling and healthy conditions. That’s how land should be used and thought of. No more private property. EVERYONE, of course, includes people (in unlimited numbers—no ceiling) who come here from anywhere in the world. And they come because here they get justice. They should get free housing. They should get “healthy conditions.” No problem. Everyone gets a 20-foot by 20-foot square box to live in.

What could go wrong?

Carla Hills is couching her statement to avoid the heavy philosophy and militant threat and totalitarian thrust of the Illuminati and Marx, but she’s on the same page. She’s “sustainable” and “green” and “kind” and “thoughtful” and “caring.” She’s perfect for self-styled liberals and the virtue-signaling Clueless.

She’s part of the tradition that wants to take down the individual spirit and stuff it in the collective.

I know many people (and I’m sure you do, too) who have worked hard, bought land, built a home, raised children, who would nevertheless applaud Carla Hills’ statement. They’ve succeeded in compartmentalizing their minds. It never occurs to them that if the Globalist dream came true, they would wake up one day with their homes and property ripped out from under them. If they think about it at all, they think they can have it both ways. They can continue to live as they’ve been living, but somehow, at the same time, social justice will be served.

They’re in a dream. It’s so pretty.

There is no iron hand, no Lenin, no Marx, no Stalin. All 400 million or so people in the US have lovely little free cottages nestled in valleys, and it’s spring, and the trees are flowering.

Down a country road, in his wheelchair, comes arch-Globalist George Soros, cackling and humming and talking on the phone to his broker. He’s flanked by bodyguards. Perched on nearby hills, snipers are in position, just in case a threat develops.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post The Illuminati Goal Of Abolishing Private Property: Reborn In Globalism appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All?

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-vs-minarchy | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Anarchy vs. minarchy: which is better? Can we be free with a limited government? Can we be safe in a stateless society? Is voluntaryism the answer?

Anarchy vs minarchy is the contrast between the idea of a society with no government (anarchy) or a small, limited government (minarchy). For many awake and aware people, the current state of the world is so dysfunctional that they have gone beyond the point of trying to justify our current governmental structures. For this growing number of people of all nations and cultures, it’s no longer about left vs right, Democrat vs Republican, socialism vs conservatism or all the other false dichotomies that abound on the political spectrum. For many of us, there’s simply no point in investing time and energy into an illusion – the political illusion – while pretending it actually makes a difference. Why argue who is going to be the better slavemaster or the lesser of 2 evils? We are really only left with 2 choices: between having a small government or having no government. So which would be better for humanity, minarchy or anarchy?

Definitions of Anarchy, Minarchy and Voluntaryism

First of all, the words anarchy and minarchy come from the Greek words “an-” (meaning without), “arkhos” (meaning rule, chief or ruler) and the Latin prefix “min-” (meaning small). Thus, anarchy is a society or nation with no rules (i.e. government-sanctioned law), rulers or a ruling class, whereas minarchy is one with a minimal amount of rules, rulers and a ruling class. Care must be taken not to confuse minarchy with monarchy! Also, instead of the term anarchy, it may be more apt to use the word voluntaryism, which describes a stateless society where all human interactions are voluntary and where no central authority exists to make or enforce laws.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-voluntaryism-479x240 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Can we set up a society where every interaction is voluntary? That is the goal of anarchy or voluntaryism.

Anarchy ≠ Chaos

Before we begin, it’s important to address a common misconception, that anarchy = chaos. Anarchy does not equal chaos! You can still have organization, cooperation, harmony and trust in a society where there is no central authority. It is up to the individual members to act in such a way to create that society. You can even have hierarchy in a voluntary society, where members voluntarily choose to structure an organization like that (e.g. for purposes of speed, coherence and efficiency). However, such hierarchy would never be forced on anyone, because the organizations containing it would be voluntary associations.

Likewise, it’s important to stress that anarchy does not mean utopia either. It’s naive to think that everyone will just magically get along and there will be no criminals or evil if we just remove government. However, as I will get to later, the point is about humanity evolving in terms of responsibility so that we can face these problems in a different way.

The Pros of Minarchism: Arguments For a Small, Limited Government

Many people who become anarchists or voluntaryists first become minarchists, because the idea of imagining the abolition of all government in a single step is very daunting for most. Minarchists believe that we can’t do away with government altogether, because it’s necessary and fulfills too many vital, essential roles that would be difficult or impossible to otherwise fulfill. These are the top reasons and justifications usually proposed for minarchy:

– Need for a central register in society (e.g. to be the one “official” list of titles to property, which plays a key part in dispute resolution);

– Need for central planning and centralized authority for good organization;

– Need to have some mechanism to control and offset other power gangs in society, such as the Mafia and the Corporatocracy;

– Criminal justice (i.e. catching criminals, providing the arena and the judge for trials of suspects); and

– Health safety protection (e.g. forcing quarantine in case of an outbreak).

Some people also advance the claim that government (and governmentally-approved corporate structures) are the reason that Western nations evolved faster than other nations. In this entertaining debate at Anarchapulco, Mark Skousen makes the points that we need minarchy to force a criminal suspect to actually come to the courtroom and stand trial, to ensure quarantine in emergency situations, and to enforce eminent domain (the right government takes upon itself to be able to force buy anyone’s property for national and municipal organizational purposes).

The Cons of Minarchy: Arguments Against a Small, Limited Government

His opponent, Larken Rose, vehemently denies that minarchy is a good idea. He points out the following reasons why:

– Minarchists advocate the “arch” or the existence of a ruling class. All monarchists are statists. They still believe in external authority. They still advocate some kind of government; they just think or want that such a government only do what they want it to do;

– Who decides what the “minimum” amount of power is that a government is allowed to wield? It will always be arbitrary;

– The constitutional limits written down to supposedly restrain minarchy governments don’t work. No one pays attention to the limits, and it’s ultimately not possible to enforce them;

– A constitution almost always provides for its own amendment, so anyone can “legally” and “constitutionally” change the entire constitution piece by piece. Look at how the Weimar Republic “legally” gave Hitler massive power and became the totalitarian state of Nazi Germany;

– Practically speaking, has minarchism ever done what it was promised to do? Like communism, it may be good in theory, but has a government EVER existed that only protected individual rights and never grew larger or out-of-control? Look at the US experiment: it was based on the theory of limited government, but has now grown to become the biggest empire in the history of the world (far more tyrannical than King George ever was), engaging in routine tyranny such as mass surveillance, theft via mandatory and excessive taxation, torture, assassination, foreign intervention and continuous imperialistic war around the world;

– Morally speaking, it’s fundamentally wrong (and impossible) to delegate rights you don’t have. How can a government claim any moral right to do what people cannot morally do? Where did government get its supposed right to steal, punish, imprison and kill, when it’s only made up of people, and no single person has that right himself or herself? Why does “government” suddenly have magical and extraordinary moral rights?

But We “Need” Government … Don’t We?

The usual knee-jerk response from people is that we “need” government and we can’t possibly do away with it completely. But does this stand up to closer scrutiny? Do we really need government to perform all the functions it currently does, or could we open a market for various businesses to compete? For example, could we have a free market for garbage collection? Utilities? Road-building? Dispute resolution? In all cases, there’s no logical reason why we couldn’t allow private businesses to perform these functions and services. Sure, it some cases it’s easier to have competing business (utilities) than others where central planning makes it more efficient (road-building), but couldn’t people find a fair way to get together and pay for these voluntarily in groups, neighborhoods and associations? Anarchists such as Stefan Molyneux have developed the idea of a free market of DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations) who function as private defense agencies and arbitrators, and whom people employ when they go into contract with each other as a trusted 3rd party. Indeed, big corporations such as PayPal, eBay and Visa already have such private arbitrators anyway, preferring to use them than governmental courts.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | tyrant-appears-as-protector-plato-479x225 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Without Government, Who Would Protect Us From Evil?

As stated above, anarchy does not mean an automatic utopia. From a voluntaryist point of view, removing government is a great step towards freedom, but many will be scared of the idea. “Who will protect us from evil?” they ask. The answer is, quite simply, that we all have to face it regardless of the existence of government or not. There will still be people and groups trying to trick, steal from and control others. Anarchy can’t protect against all evil. Nothing can. We have government right now, and such conniving people and groups still exist! The big problem is that all too often government becomes the vehicle for such evil rather than a protector against it. As Plato said, when the authoritarian comes on the scene, he appeals to people’s fears and base needs for safety and security. At first, he’s a savior and a protector; later, he’s a tyrant.

When you create a center of power, you create an incentive and invitation for dark forces to seize control of that center of power – then they can magnify and “force multiply” (to use a military term) their dark agenda. Has there ever been a governmental situation where this did not happen? As I discussed in the article The Top 3 Reasons Why the System Keeps Perpetuating Itself, you can use the analogy of the ring of power from the Lord of the Rings. Creating a ring of power (a metaphor for a ruling class, a government and a belief in authority) is dangerous in and of itself, because you are creating an artificial construct which you can never guarantee will be always used for good. We all know the famous phrase that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There’s no way around it!

We all know that politicians are puppets of a darker force. Put simply, the dark force behind government uses government to carry out its plans. What we see in practice, time and time again, is that government ends up enabling the very thing it was supposedly created to stop or protect against! So many insiders have told us this is exactly how the game works. For example, remember the story of Smedley Butler, who exposed how corporations try to win over the centralized coercive power of government to sanction their crimes, and wrote how he regretted becoming a “high class muscle man” for the corporatocracy.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | who-will-guard-the-guards-juvenal-quote | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Who will guard the guards or guardians? It’s a problem as old as time itself. A quote from the ancient Roman author Juvenal.

Government has shown itself to be a vehicle for an astonishing amount of evil. Government is an idea – nothing more – yet the practical implementation of this idea has caused untold death and destruction. The term democide was (according to Wikipedia“revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel (1932–2014) as ‘the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder’”. In other words, democide means death by government. Democide was the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century, responsible for around 262 million victims according to Rummel, including genocides like Stalin’s Great Purges, Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward and the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State. Yes, communist and fascist governments may be a worse flavor of evil, but so-called liberal democracies like the UK and US have been drenched in blood for centuries now.

Can the Free Market “Guard the Guardians” Better?

Of course, there is no guarantee that anarchy will stop all evil, but perhaps the free market can do a better job than a minarchist system. First off, people so inclined would be happy to take charge of their own defense (by owning and using guns, by taking self-defense courses, etc.). But the defense of your person, your property and your family could also be outsourced to a private group or organization that you trusted. One idea is that, in a free market, DROs could just be like private defense agencies who are vying for your business. The first thing they would have to do would be to convince you that they aren’t a threat themselves and that they are not going to try to seize power over everyone. They would have to have grand guarantees and promises (e.g. Molyneux suggests something like they have to give all their money to charity and close down business if they are caught lying). They would be subject to the scrutiny of the market. If they were found to have deceived people, their business would suffer. People would have the choice to use or not use them.

It has been pointed out that the weakness of libertarianism as a philosophy is that is strong on big bullies (centralized government) but weak on small bullies (local gangs, abusive parents/spouses, etc.). For instance, how would a voluntary society deal with domestic abuse within a family? One answer is that DROs could be called just as cops are now, and while they wouldn’t have the “legal authority” to attack or imprison the abuser (because there would be no such thing as legal authority in an anarchist society), they could certainly use force in self-defense just as any other person would, regardless of if they have a badge and uniform or not. People would have to participate more in forming local groups to resolve conflict and achieve justice for victims. While this may sound scary to some, remember this: as much as government may help some victims of abuse, government also shields and covers up the perpetrators of massive abuse (a great example is how government members participate in pedophilia at the highest levels all across the world).

Again we are left with the awkward realization: government commits and encourages more evil than it stops, or to put it more accurately, the concept and creation of government allow evil and evildoers to amplify their influence and control people more than if government simply did not exist.

Government Creates and Protects Mafia and Corporate Monopolies

Even if you ignore the egregious evils of governmental democide, which some may try to explain away by saying it’s government gone bad, the fact remains that government itself often protects the “bad guys” rather than the “good guys”. By having the power to make law for an entire area, government can create monopolies (e.g. money issuance) and black markets (e.g. prohibition on alcohol). The international banking cartel led by the Rothschilds has prospered mostly because the government has given away its own power to create currency, and has made it legal and mandatory for everyone to accept fiat currency or paper money. Without that governmental decree, the banksters would face more serious competition in the forms of alternative currencies, and people would have more options against them. This is a classic case where government serves and encourages evil rather than protects us from it.

Government itself is a monopoly. It can be defined as the organization within a given geographical area that claims the sole right to rule and the sole right to initiate violence against others who do not obey its decrees. It sets itself up as the sole authority. Once you have a monopoly, you remove the power of the free market and competition. The end user or consumer no longer has options. New World Order conspirator John D. Rockefeller once said, “Competition is a sin”. As a monopoly, government removes itself from the normal pressures that companies face in an economic environment where companies have to perform well or else risk going out of business – and therefore has no real incentive to do its job properly.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-government-is-not-reason-eloquence-force-washington-quote | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

When an organization gains a monopoly, it shields itself from ostracism – a great tool of anarchy. Ostracism is the technique by which citizens in a free and voluntary society can make their preferences known, and a kind of way that they “vote” by who they associate with, what products they buy and with whom they do business. Collectively, it forms a network of economic checks and balances which are far better than anything the Constitution could ever protect against (and after all, the US Constitution is just “a goddamn piece of paper”

 in the eyes of tyrants).

Government is not a servant; that’s the lie fed to us. Government is a violent master. Government is first and foremost violence, and secondarily an organizational tool. The above quote is attributed to first US president George Washington.

Removing the Belief in Authority and Taking Responsibility

True anarchy or true voluntaryism takes place first inside your mind, not in the outside world. It all comes down to the belief in authority, to the notion that we have to have a ruling class, or that any ruler can be legitimate in a world where we are all born equal. A careful analysis shows that government cannot justify its political authority, no matter whether you use the arguments of social contract, implicit consent, explicit consent or consequentialism. All of these arguments can be overturned with logic to show that government is simply force masquerading in a variety of disguises such as consent, duty or so-called benevolent dictatorship (an oxymoron). Believing out of fear that we have to have government (no matter what) is a symptom of mind control.

True anarchy is not chaos or disorder, but rather removing the belief in authority, and keeping the rest. It’s overturning the idea that politicians and government get an exemption from morality. There is no need to do away with organization and cooperation; there is a need to do away with the initiation of violence.

Underneath it all, there is a general tendency in some people to be lazy and scared. We want a final arbiter or decider because we don’t want to have to work out things ourselves. Yes, it can be tricky, complicated and difficult to resolve disputes and conflicts, especially when they go into grey ares. It takes responsibility, effort and skill in dispute resolution. But can we justify outsourcing this just because we don’t feel like being more responsible? Or putting out too much effort? Or because we imagine we don’t have the skills and we don’t want to push ourselves to develop them? Can we really justify creating this fictitious seat of power, this morality-free zone, just because we feel too uncomfortable trying to work these things out ourselves? My answer is that we cannot justify it, nor can we even possibly outsource it, for every government necessarily has within it the seed of power, corruption and violence; otherwise, without the power to coerce, it would not be government.

Conclusion: Trust Our Cooperative Tendencies

In closely comparing anarchy and minarchy, it is difficult to justify the minarchist position. When you put them under the microscope, government and political authority are not legitimate; they are force. The terms limited government and government by consent are oxymorons, because there are no good examples in the real world of a government that stays limited forever, and a government never really has the consent of all its citizens, most of whom are simply born into an existing system of coercion by coincidence of birth (and taught through indoctrination to never question it).

The stateless society trusts the inherent tendency among humans (and Nature) to cooperate. Yes, there is competition in life, but the greater part is cooperation, symbiosis, trust and harmony. It is possible to find win/win solutions that don’t require the need for an outside authority, and to take that model and apply it to a whole society. To continue to believe in authority is to create a game where you may win or you may lose; it’s creating a throne or seat of power which “bad guys” can overtake. It’s well nigh time for humanity to grapple with the question of anarchy vs minarchy, to move beyond the fears which are holding us back from creating a more free society.

Sources:

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUjwmC7byCM

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/system-perpetuation-top-3-reasons/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/political-authority-no-real-basis/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/satanic-pedophilia-network-exposed-australia/


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Internet Privacy Protections Gone

Internet Privacy Protections Gone | internet-privacy | Government Losing Rights

(image: © Images.com/Corbis)

Last Thursday, majority Senate Republican members passed SJ Res. 34, a joint resolution, rescinding FCC broadband privacy rules.

On Tuesday, House members followed suit, Trump sure to sign the measure into law, letting telecommunications and cable companies sell private customer information for profit without their permission – an infringement of their privacy rights.

Free Press Action Fund head Craig Aaron said the following:

“Ignoring calls from thousands of their constituents, House Republicans just joined their colleagues in the Senate in violating internet users’ privacy rights.”

“Apparently they see no problem with cable and phone companies snooping on your private medical and financial information, your religious activities or your sex life.”

“They voted to take away the privacy rights of hundreds of millions of Americans just so a few giant companies could pad their already considerable profits. Facing a growing public outcry, they rushed through this vote before more people could find out what was at stake.”

Essential online protections are gone, with no prospect for replacing them by this Congress and administration. Personal information is now a commodity to be sold for profit. Our private lives don’t matter.

Congress and the administration side with predatory profiteers, ignoring the rights of ordinary people.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) blasted the move, saying telecommunications and cable companies “will have free rein to hijack your (online) searches, sell your data, and hammer you with unwanted advertisements.”

“Worst yet, consumers will now have to pay a privacy tax by relying on VPNs to safeguard their information. That is a poor substitute for legal protections.”

ISPs will have “new powers to harvest your personal information…” They’ll monitor customers online, create personal/sensitive profiles, selling them for profit.

EFF vowed to contest the new measure in court, along with preparations to demand a future Congress reverse what this one passed.

On March 28, a White House office of the press secretary statement said “(t)he administration strongly supports House passage of S.J.Res. 34.”

When presented to Trump, “his advisors (will) recommend that he sign the bill into law.”

Public sentiment opposing it doesn’t matter. Business prioritizes override it.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Internet Privacy Protections Gone appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO)

New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO) | medical-doctor | Civil Rights General Health Government Government Control Government Corruption Losing Rights Medical & Health Multimedia Parental Rights Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

A new law quietly passed last December contains a waiver of informed consent that eliminates the requirement of pharmaceutical companies to let you know if a medication or vaccine given to you or your child is experimental.

Wow. One last Christmas surprise from President Obama.

This is according to Section 3024, “Informed Consent Waiver for Clinical Investigations” of H.R. 32, the “21st Century Cures Act.” Here’s the wording of the text:

Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.

“Clinical testing” is not clearly defined. Furthermore, who the heck gets to decide what “minimal risk” is? The pharmaceutical companies? The FDA? Medical professionals? How incredibly patronizing.

I don’t know about you, but before taking medication or allowing my children to, I want to know all of the details. What are the risks? What are the potential side effects? What is the worst thing that could happen if we don’t take it?

I want to be fully informed and make my own decision, and anything less than that is a type of condescension that makes my blood boil. My children and I are not Big Pharma’s lab rats.

I hadn’t heard a thing about this until my friend Melissa from Truthstream Media send me the horrifying video below and I knew that I had to let you folks know right away.  Sign up here to stay up to date with the latest news and information that relates to your freedom and well-being.

This video is a must-watch and explains it in far more detail.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS