Month: April 2017

Deus ex MIC

Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government … doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety… It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible. – George Carlin


‘Our’ government wants submission. They achieved the soft version, and now they are working toward the hard. You can’t have a constitutional republic if you allow government to act like a police state. You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow government to operate like a dictatorship. You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow government to treat anyone it choses with disrespect and ignore the rule of law. If you’re inclined to accept this because you believe you’ve done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, whatever government crimes you accept for whatever reason, expect that these same practices can and will be used against you when the government sets its sights on you.

EThe entrenched bureaucracy running things are counting on ‘consumers’ who cannot think beyond next week. Those in charge are always building the long-term future and very few citizens can imagine or choose to ponder where they are heading. If you want to illegally take territory/control, you can invent a threat justifying the takeover. The bureaucrats count on your inability to grasp what’s going on and on your apathy when it comes to thinking about any future. If we ignore any Genocide, no matter who is involved, then we reap what we sow and it’s only a matter of time till we are next.

The militarized, unelected bureaucracy is running the vast majority of the government no matter who is ‘president’. This is the hidden government that has no respect for you, treating citizens like enemies through SWAT raids by militarized police, provoking division and conflict among ‘consumers’, making peaceful revolution impossible and attacking everyone who doesn’t submit. ‘Our’ government has caused an environment where violence has become inevitable. In the future planned by ‘our’ Pentagon, ‘we the people’ are enemies of the state.

Since 1945 America has squandered our financial and military resources in multiple, unending wars, unwinnable in any true sense of the word, as well as in trillion dollar trade debts and fiscal imbalances. ‘Our’ leaders have run amok provoking major global financial crises, destroying small mortgage holders, and creating massive unemployment followed by low-paid unstable jobs leading to collapse in living standards for the working and lower middle classes. Faced with systemic crises, the ruling regimes have responded by expanding Presidential powers in the form of presidential decrees. To cover-up the decades-long series of debacles, patriotic ‘whistle-blowers’ have been jailed and police-state style surveillance is everywhere.

Ever notice how our immigrants come in waves each time we start a new problem somewhere from Korea to NAFTA.

spending-by-countryThe American economy is fatally flawed because of its excessive dependence on military spending. Americans aren’t propping up NATO because of some strange gallantry, as the egocentric American view sells it. NATO is a crucial military platform for American involvement and geopolitical control. American military forces in the Middle East and Asia are vital for American power projection in those strategic regions. American hegemonic interests are totally reliant on its military network for its intrusion into the affairs of others.

The fatal problem for Americans is that with its ‘capitalist’ economy declining as a historic standard, not only from a cyclical downturn, America can’t maintain the gargantuan spend on its military as it’s done since 1945. The annual American military budget of $600 billion is equal to the combined spending of the next seven biggest national budgets, including China, Russia, Britain and France: perhaps half of the worlds military spending and that only counts the surface spending.

What the American agenda appears to be is: offload the cost of its crippling military-industrial complex to its ‘partners and allies’. If nations around the world can be browbeaten into spending more on military weapons, then America stands to gain from trillions-of-dollars-worth of purchases. America will get the rest of the world to bail out its chronically bankrupt, failing economy.

The last thing that’s needed is a new arms race the Empire is creating with Russia. Both sides need to focus on the needs of their own populations, not on ratcheting up tensions. America’s military spending isn’t just taking money out of vital services; it’s also exacerbating tensions and making the world a more dangerous place.

The Washington Post reports “The $52.6 billion ‘black budget’ for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny. Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses the money or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress.” In addition, there was reported “a separate $23 billion devoted to intelligence programs that more directly support the U.S. military.” So, a grand total spent on ‘intelligence’ in that year was $75.6 billion. And, actually, none of it has “been subject to public scrutiny.” ‘Defense’ and ‘intelligence’ are the only portions of the federal budget that have never “been subject to public scrutiny”.

Every night on American television news programs, pundits, politicians, and retired generals perform their tricks, stating that the world at large had better cooperate with the Empire or else. This noise appeals to some ‘consumers’, but the rest of the world also sees this crap.

Americans are force fed propaganda and misinformation about virtually every foreign country and their own. What would you do if you discovered we’ve become what we have always said we oppose? We all lose when the powerful inflict violence, humiliation, and disrespect on others. Every time a SWAT no-knock team crashes through a door, that’s questionable violence. Every drone strike that kills innocent civilians is ultimately attacking you. Every roadside stop that ends with an unwarranted strip search will eventually include you. Every law that criminalizes the speech or activities of those whose views don’t fit with the ‘mainstream’ is government-sanctioned bullying. Politicians are only as effective, trustworthy and accountable as they are made to be and they’re only made to be so when ‘consumers’ stay informed and active in the government machinery. The Patriot Act didn’t make us safer but turned American citizens into suspects.

Government officials like to claim that everything they’re doing is for your security, to keep America safe in their war against terrorism. What they’re really achieving is weakening what made America. A lot of Americans today have a little idea why we have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights. We’re being manipulated by government out of fear because most of us don’t know or understand our vastly reduced liberties, what it took to obtain them and how hard it will be to get them back. There’s an obvious double standard in the Empires actions and its opinions expressed about the actions of other countries.

Once government assumes power, unconstitutional or not, it doesn’t surrender it. The militarized police aren’t going to stand down. The NSA will continue to collect electronic files on everything you do. More and more Americans are going to face jail time for offenses that prior generations couldn’t imagine.

Foreign policy in the Empire has been in the grip of a Republican-Democrat consensus that argues that the Empire must maintain absolute military superiority over all real and potential rivals, forever. If you look at history from the perspective of the slaughtered and mutilated, it’s a different story.

– Craig Dudley




The Flip Side of Liberty

A disunited people till the end of time, suspicious and distrustful of each other, [the Americans] will be divided and subdivided into little commonwealths… with no center of union and no common interest. -Josiah Tucker


Both statists and true political liberals alike chase a rather nebulous and incorrect concept of freedom. The latter seek freedom from consequences, whether economic, criminal or social, while the former allege to seek freedom of consequences, namely the ability to exert as much control over their individual lives as humanly possible. Read those last sentences again, because a fair number of you will skim and then waste your time in the comments section misconstruing what I stated. We hold the banner of freedom aloft as if it is a self-evident concept, an atomistic idea that presents a complete philosophical premise absent of any and all context. The word is mindlessly thrown around with the vigor of the asinine ‘USA, USA!’ chants started at modern day Coliseums by those there for the bread and circuses. Few care to consider the requirements for such freedom to exist and manifest itself into a stable society, and why so few examples exist of free societies. A telling example is Nassau and other pirate havens that existed ex lex during the heydey of the British Empire. While democratic in nature, these spontaneously created micronations, for lack of a better term, almost immediately developed a code of conduct, social norms, contract law and primitive corporate entities with the crew acting in a shareholder capacity. What resulted was a simpler, yet still British, social construct; in one of the few places that even Locke would have considered a geographical tabula rasa. Why would men at the bleeding edge of society, outcasts and criminals, seek to recreate the very thing that actively sought to kill or imprison them? Because whether they acknowledged it or not, culture breeds a code of conduct and whether by a ruler or choice, a functioning society always has limits to behavior.

200_sWe approach the concept of freedom in the US as a sixteen year old would a new car, disregarding the inherent cost in favor of blinding naïveté. The dynamic of the various comment sections largely frequented by the hard right ‘freedomista’ crowd comes to mind. Nearly all profess to believe in freedom of speech, yet few understand it and even fewer can actually exert agency absent groupthink or be productive in such an environment. Social, economic and political matters, far more nuanced and complex than a simple comment section, would be even more of a disaster and the concomitant rebuke by the general public would be resounding and final. Simply, even if it were possible through some miracle to instantly grant every person within the US the maximum amount of freedom in every area of their life, they would reject it. The responsibility required to maintain such a condition is simply beyond the current culture’s ability to maintain a functioning society. The result would quickly convince a majority of the public to demand a return to the ‘old days’ and a less free condition. In a sense, the true liberals end state is every bit as unobtainable as the statist’s. To put a finer point on it, at current course and trajectory, the patriot movement is simply unwilling to present an alternative and gaslight feasible courses of action because of simple selfishness. We are no different than the larger culture we are a part of, and it is because we choose to be so.

belligerent-5The ugly truth that is apparent, particularly within the patriot movement, is the fantasy that voluntary subrogation of freedom is not an essential element in a functioning society and all meaningful human relationships. We run around spouting kitschy slogans and pretend every person on the planet is an atomistic individual, and further more that they desire such an existence. A family of rugged individuals is not a family. My wife at a physical level is an individual with free will and the ability to do as she pleases. However, the substrate of our relationship is one of voluntary submission to achieve a goal, namely that of a healthy, Christian marriage with a single head of the family. Many since the poison of third-wave feminism infected the culture have tried the anarcho-capitalist approach to marriage, with each member of the family acting as their own little fiefdom and the main impetus for decisions being selfishness. The fruits of such a relationship can be pointed to in the children it has produced, the proliferation of anxiety, anti-depressant and other mood-altering medications and the psychological dynamic of children and adults being forced into emotionally damaging roles in the relationship. A generation incapable of visualizing normal relationships, lost and searching to plug the hole created in them by abandonment and surrender of traditional male role models and maternal archetypes. Most of us agree that those in a family do things they otherwise would not for the benefit of the larger entity. We go to work to feed our children, despite that in a capitalist approach they are net consumers and do not provide any valuable goods and services to the ‘corporation.’ I doubt very much that most men would pick Disney World as a vacation spot or choose to play princess absent the desire of their children. How many of you would part with your money for candles or throw pillows without a wife? To a great extent we all have the freedom to spend our money on ourselves and ignore everything but the most basic needs of our children. However, freedom is not a substitute for morality, nor is it an inherently moral condition. Every night millions of parents restrict their children’s movement to prevent them from being kidnapped or getting run over by cars while wondering about the neighborhood in the middle of the night. What few fail to address beyond the shallow ‘freedom to shoot whatever guns I want,’ is the question of whether it is prudent and moral to exercise that freedom at a given point.

The prerequisite for this freedom we all profess to want is a sense of responsibility to our family, community and culture. Self-control is required in the absence of external control. The Gordon Gecko version of freedom, with naked capitalism your only moral compass cannot be sustainable. ‘I am at war with all’ mentality prevents cooperation in even the most basic sense, and fails to harness the most powerful economic engine in the world, division of labor. Again, much of it is reduced to the distinction between permissible and moral. Most likely it is why there was such an emphasis in the 1770’s about a constitutional republic being possible only with a moral people. Perhaps one of the greatest economic and social benefits of Christendom is the distinct coloring faith gave to society. The Bible promotes a long-term, selfless view of the world and heavily emphasizes an individual’s fealty to not just his family but also the larger corporate body of his community. Humans are distinctly short-term in their goals and foresight, but the amelioration of much of this selfishness greatly contributed to the progress and advancement seen post-Reformation. Whether reactionary or not, the patriot movement has never emphasized building a common culture and cooperation as much as it has dissent and individualism…much to our detriment I may add. Many seem to take a perverse pride in being antagonistic as if it is ‘edgy’ and cool. Culture and codes of social conduct will always arise, whether codified by a ruler or not, and to ignore them is to be in a state of arrested development forever. The failure to grasp there is an expectation of self-rule and fealty to the larger community within the context of freedom is precisely why we have not progressed. We are selling freedom as license and not as a true alternative to the statist worldview.

The implication here is not that freedom is bad or that I am somehow a closet statist, though I doubt this will prevent those with reading comprehension difficulties from their ranting. Rather, it is an implication of our behavior. Like the statists, we would prefer to have our cake and eat it too. To go back to the first example, we laud the ability to say whatever we will, yet choose to spew caustic and ignorant things. We name call and write things better left to gas station bathroom stalls, while making petty attempts to drag down those few actually contributing substantive thought for no more discernible a reason than simple sport. Am I supposed to want this writ large? Why would anyone want that level of internecine cannibalism and pettiness in matters of life and death? If such an attitude cannot work with two, three or five people who live together, then pray tell, what does that look like in a community? The general trend I have seen in popular culture and within the patriot movement is the use of freedom as a conduit for excess. Perhaps the most striking example is freedom of expression to most in America now is no more than the freedom to shock, degrade and peddle obscenity in an attempt to conflate excess with art.

The far more uncomfortable and introspective question we should be asking ourselves is not whether we have the freedom to do one thing or another, but whether we should do that. Rather than wave the 1st Amendment around as a permission slip to be a liability and egomaniac, consider whether that is an appropriate course of action. The inability of us to work together in any meaningful way and an extremely large minority to even be civil with one another leaves us the option to rage impotently as our enemies dictate nearly every course of action while we preen and posture. Strangely enough if we put half the effort in positive cooperation or even a fraction of that venom a) directed at people who weren’t on our side and b) contributing rather than simply critiquing, we may have accomplished slightly more in the last decade than a group of college kids managed to in the six months since Trump became elected. The results speak for themselves. I write this, not out of an offended SJW point of view, but as a cold assessment. Keep wasting people’s time and bickering over asinine details and you will continue to bleed talent. The contributors know exactly what I’m talking about and I can guarantee have had moments they want to throw the computer at the wall and just walk away. I have no desire to limit anyone’s freedom because of philosophical and religious beliefs, but the vast, vast majority of people do not hold those views. If we cannot be accountable with what freedom we do have, then there will always be a market, and a desire, by others to have it controlled for us. Fling enough poop against the wall and the normal people leave, and at some point the neighbors will start complaining and not asking ‘How can I implement that in my own life, you’re such an inspiration!’ How are you using the freedom you have and does it encourage other’s to support the idea that people don’t need an overreaching government? The public will not be convinced by esoteric moral philosophizing about the rights of man, but by our actions. Go prove my pessimism wrong.


Don’t Panic

Among the critics of the Administration's legal measures is a counter-terrorism expert who helped establish the “rendition” program.

The black helicopters did not show up. I have not been renditioned for thought crimes. Rather, work and personal projects have taken precedence over beating the dead horse of the Syrian strikes and likely convincing exactly no one of the insanity currently residing in the White House. Say what you will about 3D chess and make a few more excuses for the megalomania of our foreign policy, but the policy positions voiced in the campaign are now being broken. First it was the ACA, now it is Syria. Another instance makes it a trend, and we will have to face the ugly reality that once again the evil of the office has either corrupted or simply revealed the holder for what he is. Par for the course, but some of you already knew that. Either way, my take on things won’t change it. More regular posting will resume when things settle down, until then take the nice weather as an opportunity to make strides in your own capabilities. Be worth more because you can do more, because you know more. Anfangen ist leicht, beharren eine Kunst.



And so it begins…


LI-RHC-EL-040cToday the US launched 59 cruise missiles under the pretense that the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria launched a chemical weapons attack on Tuesday. As of 2200 EST there has been no response from the Russian government, though prior to the strikes Russia’s deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov stated “We have to think about negative consequences, negative consequences, and all the responsibility if military action occurred will be on shoulders of those who initiated such doubtful and tragic enterprise…look at Iraq, look at Libya.” CNN is reporting that Russia was not informed of the strike. On a side note, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the US’ entrance into World War I today. Keep it wired tight ladies and gentlemen. You had your rest, consider this at the very least, a wake up call.



Guest Post: The War Conspiracy

This review has been sitting on my computer for a few weeks now, and given the rather encouraging response to the last post I decided to publish it. Take from it what you will, though I generally respect people who take the time to footnote their work and provide facts to back up an assertion. Some of it may be ‘old news,’ but it bears reading for the sole fact that the current generation of sociopaths cut their political and military teeth during that era…Tom Ridge, John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Colin Powell, George W. Bush, Will Westmoreland, Henry Kissinger ect. We all know what to expect if a naval ship sinks under dubious circumstances.



Jesse and I were communicating about a book I’ve been reading and he suggested a ‘book review’ because of its contents. The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War was written by Peter Dale Scott in 1972 and was revised in 2008. It could easily have been titled ‘The Road to 9/11.’

warconThe book is filled with one detail after another of the sort that would cause ‘our free press’ to freeze if they were required to review it. Those ‘company’ writers would have no choice but to call the whole book a ‘conspiracy theory’. The term, conspiracy theory, was created by the CIA as a tool to counter the truth escaping about their murder of JFK. At the time this book was written Vietnam was a primary concern of most thinking humans in the world and this book shows why it was and should have been. I won’t go into many of the details as it would become a question of where to start and stop but in short, if you ever believed the Oswald killed JFK ‘theory’ you’ll have fresh evidence herein to begin your investigations anew, even without seeing the Zapruder film.

The evidence in this book is backed up with so many footnotes that some pages are more footnote than copy. It mostly covers the Vietnam War and its surrounding victims. There are sorties into other adventures by America but its main focus is the war, how it began, where it could have been ended, and why it wasn’t. Vietnam could have easily been a large part of why JFK was murdered. He was standing in the way of ‘progress’ by the deep state. He clearly intended to leave Vietnam to its own solutions, and had made steps in that direction that LBJ countered a few days after the murder. Dallas was clearly ‘Seven days in May,’ the same movie JFK encouraged and believed plausivble, and could have been a blueprint for his murder.

Confusion and corruption were the reality of American government at the time though it was more carefully hidden than it is these days. This book indirectly explores the difference between those who believe that the ultimate security of a constitutional democracy lies in openness and those who look instead to authority. So far, those choosing central authority have been winning. Their tools are many of the calamities we’ve seen since JFK’s murder which they created and extending to 9/11 which was another inside job. The book shows what some of the mechanisms are and were.

Secretary of defense, McNamara was encouraging JFK to leave Vietnam though he was a ‘loyal team player’ and in the documentary ‘Fog of War’ went on record saying that the whole war was a mistake/crime, from the beginning. There was one LBJ oval office tape I remember hearing wherein LBJ is speaking with McNamara and says he doesn’t think Vietnam can be won, so who was pulling his strings? One answer could be, as covered in the book that the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in some configuration was meeting in Hawaii days before JFK’s murder making plans to move one hundred and eighty degrees from orders he had given to leave Vietnam and escalate as they had been saying they wished to do. LBJ was on record soon after the murder saying he wasn’t going to be the one who was accused of losing Vietnam.

I will quote one paragraph found towards the end of the book; “I wish to summarize again the first striking similarity between 11/22/63 and of 9/11/01: the dubious detective work on those two days. Less than fifteen minutes after the president’s assassination, the height and weight of Kennedy’s alleged killer was posted. Before the last of the hijacked planes crashed on 9/11, the FBI told Richard Clarke that they had a list of the alleged hijackers.” This was before they found the passport of an alleged hijacker blocks from the towers in the street. Curious how such evidence defies the laws of physics coming thru the flames and survives; must have jumped from his pocket before detonation.

A great economic interest group in America, the Military/Industrial/ Congressional Complex, as President Eisenhower initially identified this political machine, lives on a gigantic yearly flow of funds from ‘our’ Government budget, and this flow depends on the perceived threat of an enemy for its existence. No ‘enemy’ would mean hundreds of billions of dollars a year for this vast interest group would disappear. This is why Trump’s initial proposal to establish better relations with Russia has been scrapped: the Military/Industrial/Congressional Complex has a vested interest in having Russia as an enemy.

There seem to be two threads constant throughout this book. The main one is that unseen forces control America headed by military interests and the second is that anywhere they go it seems heroin and other drugs become the main export. The book explores our national military obsessions showing how they own America and everyone in it because, in America, it’s more enjoyable to have fun than to investigate what’s being done in our name, and to us. I think that anyone who reads should get this book and make room to be educated.

-Craig Dudley

April: Books you should be reading

I am a firm believer that the greatest weapon is the mind. As such, I have elected to post a list once a month of books I believe every well-rounded person should read. Suggestions can also be made in the comments section, and I will take them into consideration. I am of the opinion that there are no bad books, simply poorly written ones and bad people. I often read books I disagree with, and as such it should not be assumed a spot on the list is tacit approval of the ideas discussed in the book.


Decline of the West – Oswald Spengler 

In this engrossing and highly controversial philosophy of history, Spengler describes how we have entered into a centuries-long “world-historical” phase comparable to late antiquity. Guided by the philosophies of Goethe and Nietzsche, he rejects linear progression, and instead presents a world view based on the cyclical rise and decline of civilizations. He argues that a culture blossoms from the soil of a definable landscape and dies when it has exhausted all of its possibilities. Since its first publication in two volumes between 1918-1923, The Decline of the West has ranked as one of the most widely read and most talked about books of our time.

Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics – Francis Parker Yockey

Imperium is the first sequel the literary world knows to Spengler’s monumental The Decline of the West. In fact, the author of Imperium does more than even Spengler attempted — he defines and creates the pathology of Culture in all of its infinitely urgent importance, including the discipline of Cultural Vitalism. Imperium rejects the Nineteenth Century: the parched fossils of its thought — Marx, Freud and the scientific-technical world outlook; its exhausted political nostrums — the pluralistic state, liberalism, democracy, communism, internationalism; all of which fail to satisfy the organically vital realities of politics. Imperium presents unique and almost esoteric political, social and historical definitions and explanations which shall become more widely known — indeed, commonly understood — if our West survives.

Street Without Joy: The French Debacle in Indochina – Bernard Fall

A classic account of the French War in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Learn from the mistakes of others. A fascinating read about a lesser-known conflict.

My Reminiscences of East Africa: The East Africa Campaign of the First World War by the Most Notable German Commander – Paul Emil Von Lettow-Vorbeck

The author of this book was one of the most remarkable commanders in the entire war not only in the East African Campaign, for he was never truly beaten in battle though quite often the odds were decidedly against him. This was a German with a genius for guerrilla warfare whose achievements could rival the exploits of Lawrence of Arabia. Inevitably, his account of his experiences during the First World War, originally published shortly thereafter, make essential and riveting reading for all those interested in the subject.

For Whom the Bell Tolls – Earnest Hemingway

A classic and my favorite Hemingway novel. Required reading for anyone who considers themselves a well-read person. What would you die for?

Jesse James