Libertarian Writer and Talk Show Host
From George W. Bush to Barack Obama to Donald Trump, we have seen candidate after candidate attest that we should not wade into the affairs of other countries only to argue as president why we must and then do it whether the argument compels or not.
In reviewing some old notes, I found in a May 2017 document a “What to Watch Out For” (#WTWOF) to myself:
Read more“No Nation Building” ==> “Let’s Build Democracies!” Rinse. Repeat.
Like everyone else who listens to any amount of mainstream media on a regular basis, I heard the story of the racist kids from Kentucky wearing Make America Great Again hats and taunting a tribal elder in DC at the Women’s March. I tuned it out as a psyop immediately for numerous reasons. With stories like this I am often reminded of the scene in The Mission where the cardinal, about to order devastation upon the Indians in Paraguay, is rightly troubled by what he is set to do. His aide tries to comfort him by saying, “The world is thus, Your Excellency.” The cardinal replies, “Thus have we made the world.” Reports of obnoxious and overtly racist kids crashing the Women’s March wearing MAGA hats and attacking Native Americans are meant to convince us, “The world is thus.” I see how inorganically these incidents (to the extent they are ever accurately reported) have emerged and I think, “Thus have we made the world–are we making the world.” And I refuse to participate by engaging in the dialectical bait even intellectually. But the story did end up engaging me in the end….
At first the dialectic was “privileged white racist Trump supporting teenage boys menace peaceful Native American elder engaging in a call to prayer.” Not much of a dialectic really–who’s on the other side of that? The boys are not sympathetic–a dialectic has to have adherents on both sides to drive toward a pre-planned solution. (The dialectic is simply understood as Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis or Problem-Reaction-Solution.) This wasn’t really a dialectic, just another pulse in the “Trump’s America Is a Racist America” meme. But then something strange happened. As other videos emerged, it became clear that the story offered by the Native American, Nathan Phillips, and his supporters, was false, and the media had accepted their narrative of this out-of-context moment with very little to go on but bias. No matter…as Saul Alinsky advised, if your original goal isn’t achieved, take the outcome as it is and turn it toward your own interests anyway. That is, you get lemons? Make lemonade.
And so it was done…
The Wall Street Journal today ran a story about gigantic touchscreens appearing in hundreds of McDonald’s in California, New York and Florida. The article was about the technology and the implication, of course, is that we free marketers should rejoice in progress even at the expense of jobs. My problem with this assumption is that <<continue reading>>
This article first appeared at www.yourpropagandareport.com.
The prospect of Giuliani being Secretary of State is, horrifically, not dead. I’m no fan of Romney–he is obviously a play-actor who comes off like the gentlest guy in the world but is fully immersed in the Deep State, from his family’s decades-long involvement in politics to his clearly staged ranting about Trump, this guy is likely a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Giuliani, on the other hand, is a wolf in wolf’s clothing, and that’s the absolute worst thing you could have in the country’s top diplomat. Would you want this guy as the last barrier between the United States and war?
An article in The Wall Street Journal today presents the problem with Giuliani’s candidacy as having potential for cronyism and conflicts of interest–no doubt a very real risk, as we’ve seen before–but the potential for World War III on this guy’s watch is a far greater risk.
Rudy Giuliani Lobbies to Be Secretary of State
Former New York City mayor says his experience makes him uniquely qualified
After leaving the mayoral office in 2001, Mr. Giuliani founded Giuliani Partners, a management-consulting and security firm that advises companies and foreign governments on policing, security planning and counterterrorism….
Mr. Giuliani has been an outspoken proponent of regime change in Iran and scrapping the nuclear accord reached with Tehran last year. He has regularly appeared at events supporting an Iranian opposition group, called the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which the U.S. State Department designated as a terrorist organization from 1997 through 2012. His speaking fees for those events ranged from $25,000 to $40,000….
Mr. Giuliani said those concerns were unfounded and unfair. He said “90%” of the work undertaken by the firm is done on behalf of companies, not governments. “I don’t even know how to peddle influence,” he said.
It took me about 24 hours to completely dismiss the idea that Trump’s victory was a victory for “the people” who managed to defeat the highly controlled media and election process. That’s not to say there isn’t a paradigm shift in how I see the world, there is: seems like there are indeed two factions in the upper echelon (if not the uppermost echelon); there is more of an element of responsiveness to the zeitgeist of the masses than I had realized (though this in itself may be a sophisticated manipulation, but it’s based on an inherent recognition that the zeitgeist must be controlled or obeyed); and there may be a major shift in strategy and tactics to get us to the world government that I am still convinced is on the agenda. The false flags and psy ops are obvious, but the path from these ham-handed mechanisms to the end game are more subtle and sophisticated and harder to see. In an effort to peel yet more layers of the onion than I had previously realized existed, I have come upon a few websites that were way ahead of this outcome, or at least were onto something bigger.
Here they are:
As for my pre-election disposition, I was 100% convinced Hillary was the chosen one–just could not see around that because I believed she would be the one capable of silencing the anti-war left for the final invasions of the Middle East. But there were two things I failed to realize:
The first–that Hillary might not have been able to control her faction even with media support–would be a paradigm-shifter for me in that I believed after Obamacare was foisted upon us and then Obama was re-elected anyway while the Tea Party and the Liberty Movement were subverted, meant that we would eat anything we were fed. This might not be true.
The second point makes me kick myself because that, along with several other red flags, was something I had noticed and talked about: They were clearly setting us up for post-election conflict. I failed to realize, however, the broader implication and many clear warning signs: they are embracing, promoting and channeling conflict at every turn from the Bundy Ranch to Black Lives Matter–it’s all conflict all the time, so who cares if there are some anti-war protests in the mix? Might even be useful.
Here are a few of the other warning signs I saw and ignored, blinded by the conviction that Hillary was The Chosen One:
But the absolute crazy thing is that since May 2016 I kept saying that there would be a massive pollster fail–that we were being set up for that–then I proceeded to scratch my head as to what form it would take! Duh.
There’s one more shoe to drop, in my opinion. The Secret Service has been setting up a legacy of incompetence over the past few years that must have a purpose, so who is in the crosshairs? Could be the Obamas, could be the Clintons, could be Trump himself (though again, he is a major operation and is unlikely to be wasted), or it could mean something completely different–I’m past trying to figure out the path! But I will continue to highlight the flags and am still convinced the end goal is totalitarian world government, but hey, I could be wrong!
One final thought…no matter what happens and no matter how transparent or opaque the actors or actions may be, the only thing we can be sure of is our principles. If we keep in mind Thou Shalt Not Steal & Thou Shalt Not Kill and hold our agents in government to that standard, and if, for our own protection, we are unyielding in our defense of the Bill of Rights (perhaps citizens on the left will realize the importance of the Second Amendment et al, especially States’ Rights, now that they don’t like the man in DC!), we don’t have to know who is doing what why, we can stop them anyway–that’s why their top priority is an attack on our ability to understand and defend our principles. But even if we don’t stop them, we can go down with our souls in tact if we stick to our principles.
In preparing for The Propaganda Report, I go through my newspapers since the last episode and see what I highlighted. This week, I saw an article I had flagged about Alphabet Inc. Chairman Eric Schmidt. It seemed an innocuous enough article, though it did make the Googlaire seem both altruistic, citing his work with Timshel (more on that later), and ethical–according to “leaked emails” he recommended a competitor over his own company for a project. (Funny how the “leaked emails” can reveal how above-board and well-meaning some people are!)
Here are a few excerpts from the article:
Alphabet’s Eric Schmidt Gave Advice to Clinton Campaign, Leaked Emails Show
The executive backed a startup that helped develop some of the technology behind Mrs. Clinton’s website
Mr. Schmidt in April 2014 backed a startup dubbed Timshel that helped develop some of the technology behind Mrs. Clinton’s campaign website, including functions to sign up supporters and accept donations, according to the emails….
A Timshel spokeswoman said in an email that it develops technology “to help nonprofits, foundations, social entrepreneurs and social-impact organizations build and activate communities.”…
Mr. Schmidt suggested using Amazon Web Services as a cloud provider. Amazon.com Inc.’s cloud service is the chief rival of Google’s cloud product.
I flagged the article because I recalled having investigated Schmidt’s Deep State ties in the past. In reviewing my old research on him, I saw that he was a member of the Trilateral Commission (as was Jeffrey Epstein, the main character in this week’s episode of the Propaganda Report), and a Bilderberger, like Vernon Jordan, the subject of an article I posted this week on Jordan’s positively Orwellian pleading for Big Tech to save us from “unfiltered information.” The weird thing is
Recently, President Obama said he wanted a truthiness test for information. (To hear it, click the link and go to chronomark 1:00:00 and listen for about four and a half minutes.) I believe he was focusing on scientific information (climate change in particular, of course), but he made an interesting analogy with the news media.
We are going to have to rebuild, within this wild, wild west of information flow, some sort of curating function…
It used to be there were three television stations, and Walter Cronkite was there…generally people trusted a basic body of information…
There has to be some sort of way we can sort through information that passes some sort of truthiness test.
This wasn’t quite as bad as it sounds out of context (almost!), but I recalled his words while reading the newspaper today and it made me think Obama was revealing a broader mindset that is about to be rolled out.
The first article I read was about a recent appearance by Melania Trump during which she, no doubt sweetly and innocently (I mean that, I’m not being sarcastic),
lamented an increasingly coarse culture in which users of social media, especially children, belittle each other.
“Our culture has gotten too mean and too tough, especially to children and teenagers,” Mrs. Trump said. “We have to find a better way to talk to each other, to disagree with each other, to respect each other.”
I didn’t think too much about Melania’s comments and didn’t put them together with Obama’s until later, when
In my notes from February 2015, I wrote this under the heading Drug War 2.0:
If they legalize pot but still want to fund black ops they need to ramp up opium.
Then on my January 2016 show, The Year Ahead, the first prediction I made was this (starting at around 5:00 in hour 1):
I began to suspect that we might have a shift towards emphasizing heroin when I saw that George Soros was behind the legal pot movement…Obviously the establishment is sanctioning this trend in the different states for pot to be legal and that got me puzzling, because I read somewhere that 70% of the illegal drug trade is pot. (Now it’s hard to get the real stats.) And at the same time I have read plenty about how the illegal drug trade does fund black ops—CIA operations that can’t get Congressional funding–the most famous example of which is Iran-Contra…I thought the pot being legal has to be replaced by something else like heroin, which by the way has grown tremendously more now in Afghanistan since we took over from the Taliban than before…Or if the black ops money doesn’t get replaced then maybe the funding structure will be different, so the CIA will take a back seat and the NSA will do some of that stuff because the NSA gets funded directly. So I just feel like the heroin thing has a much bigger backstory than you’re gonna think, and it will be in the news more–kind of like free advertising…I think we will hear more of that [story] as the year progresses.
As I’ve noted before (see The Ferguson Effect), I’m not saying predicting an outcome is proof of causation, but it certainly supports the proposed thesis. My thesis in all these cases is the same: these are not unintended consequences, but foreseeable consequences that are either inevitable or intentional. So forgive me if I differ with Don Winslow, who, in one of this week’s WSJ Notable & Quotable, offers a “free market” explanation for the reported rise of heroin coinciding with the legalization of pot…
Notable & Quotable: How Marijuana Begat Heroin
‘Looking at the American drug market as it existed, Guzmán and his partners saw an opportunity.’
The article starts:
Okay, I’m going to say it: The heroin epidemic was caused by the legalization of marijuana.
Not too far off–I would say, “The heroin epidemic was caused by the same people who arranged for the legalization of marijuana.”
Weed was a major profit center for [the dominant cartel in Mexico, the Sinaloa], but suddenly they couldn’t compete against a superior American product that also had drastically lower transportation and security costs.
In a single year, the cartel suffered a 40 percent drop in marijuana sales, representing billions of dollars. Mexican marijuana became an almost worthless product. . . . Once-vast fields in Durango now lie fallow.
According to Winslow, in a move of “classic market economics,” Sinaloa decided to undercut pharmaceutical pricing on opiods by leveraging “some of the best poppy fields in the world.” But it was US government policy that provided the underserved market Sinaloa needed to make up lost pot revenue:
From the first Zika articles, the dots were easy to connect if you were looking for them:
Zika virus…Catholic countries…severe birth defects…birth control…abortion…
But maybe you haven’t yet noticed that every single thing in the mega-mainstream media like The Wall Street Journal is there for a reason and that reason is not to inform you but rather to manipulate you. If you haven’t gotten there yet (though I’m guessing you’re pretty close!), you might not read every article with an eye to what the manipulation is. Once you see the pattern, however, you can’t help but play my little newspaper-reading game: What’s the Agenda?
So if you were actually looking for the ZIKAgenda, you probably would have found it, and if you weren’t, you could have found it in my article on the subject back in February: ZIKAgenda. (This article is still worth a quick read.)
It took six months but at last, the ZIKAgenda is stated in no uncertain terms in Monday’s Wall Street Journal…
Zika Virus Spread Renews Focus on Abortion Debate
Some Southern states, most vulnerable to spread of the virus, tighten restrictions
The renewed debate leapfrogs the questions of birth control and abortion in Catholic countries, which I highlighted in my February article, and gets right to pushing the envelope here at home focusing on late-term abortion:
Unfortunately, the debate over GMO labeling continues in the form of “to label or not to label” and is focused on the federal government. As is typical, stipulating that this is an issue on which the federal government should decide for all, has backfired. Calls for GMO labeling at state, local and federal levels has led to a counter-productive Frankenstein that ultimately requires a convoluted nod to disclosure while eradicating the principle of subsidiarity, cramming down federal law over state law, and even interfering with private parties from labeling as they see fit.
The libertarian solution is and always has been to allow the competitive free market to reward suppliers of non-GMO foods in accordance with the demand for them. If a place like Whole Foods Market wants to offer and label non-GMO foods and people want to pay more or go out of their way for them, those economic actors can get what they want while those who don’t worry about GMOs can get what they want from proprietors who also don’t worry about GMOs.
I am not for mandatory labeling, but I also staunchly oppose federal law dictating the parameters of state legislation in violation of the Tenth Amendment and even more vehemently oppose any law dictating the extent of non-fraudulent, good faith transparency in voluntary labeling.
Here are some articles on what has been dubbed “The DARK Law” (Denying Americans the Right to Know). Unfortunately, the articles that deal with this invariably advocate for mandatory labeling, which, as I said, I do not support. I did look for articles from libertarian sources that discuss the issue without advocating for federally mandated labeling and couldn’t find them. I did however find articles at reason and Cato lauding the federal cram-down as ends-justifying-means. (This is the kind of disappointing policy compromise I have noticed “corporate libertarians” often favor in lieu of taking a hard line on principles.)
Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts GMO Labeling Legislation
President Obama Just Signed The DARK Act Into Law
Obama’s GMO embarrassment: Why the new labeling bill just signed into law is a sham
I have tried to find hard scientific evidence on the damage done by GMOs and was unable to find anything I considered conclusive, but of course I’m an open source investigator and not a scientist in the field, and the cards might be stacked against us laymen in our efforts to find the truth. Here are two items that make me think the cards are stacked:
The first, a TED talk by Sharyl Attkisson…
The second, the story of Jane Akre & her husband Steve Wilson on their lawsuit against Fox in which it was ultimately ruled that the FCC policy against falsification was not a “law, rule, or regulation.”
Monsanto Forced Fox TV to Censor Coverage of Dangerous Milk Drug
Not two minutes ago, I wrote above about not finding a rational discussion of GMO labeling in mainstream libertarian media, but just now I found on reason.com the following extensive hit piece on the journalists who won–then lost–their suit against Fox regarding the Monsanto case discussed in the article above.
The Strange Case of Steve Wilson
How a fraudulent crusader snookered the left-and is threatening the First Amendment
I am happy for reason to set the record straight on any subject whatsoever (assuming that’s what they’re doing), but I find it strange that they chose to go after these reporters (reason‘s position in the matter not being one with any particular libertarian angle), but do not fully vet the GMO issue which is crying out for a libertarian treatment to counter both the “mandatory labeling” crowd and the “prohibit labeling” crowd.
I have believed that Donald Trump’s campaign was an inside job ever since his initial comments about Hispanic immigrants gained traction by an obviously manipulated story about a woman shot on a pier in San Francisco as well as a ridiculous story about El Chapo (likely a psyop in himself) angrily tweeting at The Donald within 24 hours of allegedly escaping prison. Since then, Trump has received BILLIONS of dollars in free media advertising, in large part from CNN which has a long history of putting agenda before ratings and whose agenda most certainly is NOT to have a Republican in the White House.
Stories that build through media and government spin serve agendas in my observation, and once you get the hang of the pattern it’s easy to see them unfold from the earliest stages–so it was with The Trump Train. There is also a well-established rule for such operations: use them to serve more than one agenda if possible. Again, The Trump Train fits the bill.
With the histrionics between Trump & Cruz unfolding like a scripted reality show, it seemed more was in the offing than merely getting Hill the win. I surmised aloud that the goal would be to reshape the GOP nominating process to pr
event not another Trump, but another Ron Paul, who actually did give the establishment a run for its money as evidenced by their “ignore you better still” approach to his powerful challenge. I also worried aloud that the establishment would take this opportunity to neuter or co-opt the Libertarian Party. Is this what’s happening now? I always say if it’s easy to predict the consequences of certain actions, they are unlikely to be “unintended.” What do you think, is this stuff part of the plan?
Ted Cruz’s Backers Push to Shape GOP Convention
Supporters of the former presidential candidate seek to change rules to give conservative activists more sway
Republican leaders might totally overhaul their primary process
William Weld as Gary Johnson’s Vice Presidential Choice to Be Officially Announced Tomorrow
But the ’90s Massachusetts governor’s past stances might trouble many Libertarians who care about more than just fiscal issues.
Austin Petersen Catches More Endorsements from the Media Right for His Presidential Campaign
Mary Matalin and Erick Erickson on board for the Libertarian who thinks he can best sell the Party to conservatives.
Just for the record, I am not a member of the Libertarian Party–I go the Full Rothbard–and I’m not a fan of the sanitized–even corporatized or compromised–libertarianism found at Cato, the Reason Foundation & Fox News, but I have always supported voting Libertarian as a way to register your protest to the liberal-fascist center represented by both the Republicans and the Democrats.
Last year I added a glossary entry “coercive engineered migration” about a phenomenon described in Kelly Greenhill’s book, Weapons of Mass Migration, in which she uses as her best example Qaddafi threatening Europe with uncontrolled migration from Africa if they didn’t comply with his demands.
The theory behind coercive engineered migration is that relatively weak foreign rulers can effect policy change in democratic Western countries by forcing politicians to make a choice: either capitulate to their demands or be faced with a choice to either accept a flood of migrants or to refuse migrants and expose your country and its citizens as hypocrites. It was a very effective tactic and now, having bombed Libya into the stone age and set up Qaddafi to be killed, the West is using his tactic against its own people.
From charging European countries exorbitant fines upward of $300,000 per migrant refused, to threatening uncontrolled African migration if Libya is not taken in hand, the ruling elite of the EU and the US are, by hook or by crook, getting Europe to consent to participating in the military conquest of the Middle East.
Here is today’s propaganda from The Wall Street Journal: Arm our version of a government in Libya or be overrun…
U.S. and Others Open to Arming Libyan Government
Secretary of State John Kerry and top diplomats meet in Vienna to discuss anti-Islamic State measures
The Vienna meeting was co-chaired by Italy, Libya’s former colonial ruler, which is concerned about the country’s stability because of the threat of uncontrolled migration. Libya’s Mediterranean coast is a main departure point for migrants to southern Europe.
My distinction between recognizing the free exercise of the rights to work and travel and calling out coercive engineered migration has drawn some fire from libertarians, and I understand why, but one of my arguments for resisting this tactic is that the more effective it is the more it gives the powers that be–and even the powers that wanna-be–an incentive to continue to use it by destabilizing regimes from within through radical Islamic fifth columns and economic destabilization and without through mercenaries and military action.
To me, it is an inescapable conclusion that radical Islam and the migrant crisis are tools being used by the global military industrial complex for the subjugation of the Middle East. What else would explain the West’s policy of toppling secular Arab strongmen who kept radical Islam in check? The pattern is undeniable, from Qaddafi to Hussein to Assad in recent memory, to the mid-Twentieth century regime changes of the secular governments of Iran and Afghanistan. (Am I missing any? Oh yeah–using the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser in Egypt and against Assad père in Homs, though those attempts at regime change were unsuccessful.)