Not to excuse governments of any kind, but under Gaddafi, Libya was one of the wealthiest and most progressive populations in the area, the other notable one being Iraq under Saddam. He was regarded by most of the population as "The Hero of The Revolution."
Gaddafi tried to dissolve the Libyan government at one point and go back to "tribal." Those invested in that institution simply refused to dissolve.
Probably his biggest crime was to actively promote gold backed trade.
Which is probably what got Hitlery, the Republicans, et.al. and their Goldman-Sachs etc, cohorts out for his blood -- and got Uncle Sam to fund rag-tag fringe government-wannabes -- and Uncle's war machine -- to send the men, women, and children of Libya back to the stone age.
There are two questions at the top of the [Pearl Harbor] foreknowledge list: (1) whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an "overt act of war" directed at Hawaii, and (2) whether Japan's military plans were obtained in advance by the United States but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short....
The latter question was answered in the affirmative on October 30, 2000, when President Bill Clinton signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act. ...Congress was specific in its finding against the 1941 White House: Kimmel and Short were cut off from the intelligence pipeline that located Japanese forces advancing on Hawaii. ...these congressional findings should be widely seen as an exoneration of 59 years of blame assigned to Kimmel and Short.
But one important question remains: Does the blame for the Pearl Harbor disaster revert to President Roosevelt? --December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning: Robert B. Stinnett, Newsroom: The Independent InstituteThat question was answered when Mr. Stinnett's persistent FOIA requests finally obtained the key documents, which, as he puts it, had been "Immediately after December 7, 1941, ...locked in U.S. Navy vaults away from the prying eyes of congressional investigators, historians, and authors."
In getting these key documents, Mr. Stennett got slightly lucky: They had been transferred from the Navy to the National Archives which hadn't recognized the, ah, "sensitivity" of the material yet. His final FOIA went to the The National Archives.
How long does it take to expose a major conspiracy? To uncover the Pearl Harbor conspiracy, it took luck and approximately 59 years of persistent effort. With Uncle Sam kicking and screaming all the way.
The following letter is in response to the view that wiindigos/kunlangeta/psychopaths, since they're a product of biological evolution, likely serve a useful purpose in human society.
That view was ably put forward by Joe O'Donnell in response to What Went Wrong With The Worldwide Socialist Revolutions, L. Reichard White, - LewRockwell
This is an essential topic because the character of human nature is at stake -- along with all the attendant political implications.
= = = =
Hi Joe O'Donnell! [Lew]!
Thanks for that intense email!
The problem is, after ~three decades, the population genetics models don't work in explaining humans. They're missing a key point.
We humans are indeed talented predators but for obvious reasons -- and like nearly all species -- we have strong built-in genetic inhibitions against killing our own kind.
Even so, we can still be violent and dangerous when the situation calls for it -- and even when it doesn't because we are also guided by non-genetic factors, usually called "culture," as well. Culture can be captured and morphed by genetic minorities -- and financial interests. The ~one percent (1%)~1% of us which are psychopaths -- and Eisenhower's "militaryindustrialcomplex," for example.
When asked, "Are humans more murderous than other animals?" E.O. Wilson himself shed significant if indirect light on our reluctance to kill our own kind -- despite these negative psychopathic/economic influences in modern "Western" cultures. Like this:
Edward O. Wilson: No. The data from long-term behavioral studies of groups such as lions, hyena's and chimpanzees show that the per capita murder-rate in animal-societies that do engage in murderous aggression is much higher than in human beings. ...I believe that is true even if you throw in the rate of mortality due to direct aggression during war in the modern area. ... --Interview with Edward O. Wilson, "father" of sociobiology, March 27, 1997Wilson's observations -- despite our "western" cultures being hijacked by psychopaths (and some of us learning to be "situational psychopaths") and thus far more murderous than most of our small-group ancestors -- are likely the indirect result of the extreme down-side in killing our own kind -- which is much more damaging to us than suggested by the older exclusively genetic models most folks still subscribe to.
Because we survive mostly by brains not brawn. And those brains each contain unique knowledge, experience, and information which if lost could be fatal to the entire group. Jesarad can find that water hole for the semi-annual desert crossing, for example.
Tellingly, that older population genetics camp has missed this point and thus been struggling with a few intractable stumbling blocks for several decades. Particularly "altruism" and free-riders. And genuine heros. Here for example: The Carnegie Hero Foundation http://www.carnegiehero.org
Genetics alone simply can't reconcile these phenomena with a purely genetic explanation. The best effort, as far as I'm aware, was the totally inadequate attempt to apply "kin selection" to us humans.
Attempts to cast our small-group ancestors as inherently violent as depicted in film and fable also miss the point that key information existed only in perishable brains which must be kept alive and intact for the good of the group. So we instinctively attempt to keep each other alive. Even folks we don't like. [Bill Maher interviews Sebastian Junger] Usually, even strangers -- who have really unique information, knowledge and experience. Marco Polo, perhaps.
The notion of inherently violent tribes was being fiercely debated awhile back and is as misguided as the Fallacy of the Chief.
Even when exacerbated by the "enclosure movement" from hunter-gatherer to farming, the pro-violence side was, IIRC, losing badly. (When you farm, you can't just leave if another group shows up, you may have to stand and fight to protect your crops.)
A few clues - - -
Speaking in terms of evolution, we find that war is not a permanent institution of mankind. ... The chaotic brawls, the internecine fighting of the lowest savages have nothing in common with the institution of war. --Polish-born anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, Harvard, September 17, 1936 
Desmond Morris, in his fascinating book Manwatching, for example, shows that the instinctive fighting style of human beings seems to be rather carefully optimized to keep us from injuring one another. Films of street scuffles show that "instinctive" fighting consists largely of shoving and overhand blows to the head/shoulders/ribcage area. --Eric S. Raymond, The Myth of Man the KillerHere's an example:
Pakistani police slap protesters into police van Democracy NOW!, Nov. 14, 2007
-- or watch a couple of Jerry Springer shows. AND his Security guys exhibit what appears to be a refined technique used in some tribes to break up fights.
New England's first Indian war, the Pequot War of 1636-37, provides a case study of the intensified warfare Europeans brought to America. Allied with the Narragansetts, traditional enemies of the Pequots, the colonists attacked at dawn. ... The slaughter shocked the Narragansetts, who had wanted merely to subjugate the Pequots, not exterminate them. The Narragansetts reproached the English for their style of warfare, crying, "It is naught, it is naught, because it is too furious, and slays too many men." In turn, Capt. John Underhill scoffed, saying that the Narragansett style of fighting was "more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies." Underhill's analysis of the role of warfare in Narragansett society was correct, and might accurately be applied to other tribes as well. Through the centuries, whites frequently accused their Native allies of not fighting hard enough. -James W. Loewen, LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME, (New York, NY: Touchstone 1996), p. 118Reflected by this, for example - - -
...we preferred hunting to a life of idleness on our reservations. At times we did not get enough to eat and we were not allowed to hunt. All we wanted was peace and to be left alone. Soldiers came and destroyed our villages. Then Long Hair (Custer) came...They say we massacred him, but he would have done the same to us. Our first impulse was to escape but we were so hemmed in we had to fight. - Crazy Horse/Tashunkewitko, ibid.However, I've noticed lately what I subjectively interpret as a desperate attempt to resurrect the "human-as-violent-and-dangerous" meme, which has an active economic constituency in the law-and-order industry -- and Eisenhower's "militaryindustrialcomplex."
When I was following things more closely, Lawrence Keeley was the hit-man for those cinema staples.
The latest effort I'm aware of -- I have it somewhere -- is an attempt to interpret the remains of something like 30+ dead, including children, as some sort of intertribal warfare. Even if true, given the percentage of the total population over history, not terribly alarming -- and about par for the "human-as-violent-and-dangerous" course.
Cowboys and Indians & War. Fun when video games. But when you have real skin -- or real kin and/or friends in the game, then permanent disability, PTSD, etc. And that's in small groups. Do it the "modern" way, add huge debt, etc. And millions of motivated enemies.
So no, our small-group ancestors had things right: Psychopaths have at best a VERY limited usefulness. As suggested in What Went Wrong With the Worldwide Socialist Revolutions, possibly when "wars" (which they like and cause) can't be avoided. And they need to be recognized and watched VERY closely. Better to follow the Yupik tradition.
Health, happiness & long non-violent life,
L. Reichard White
P.S. Has anyone other than Marvin Minsky and the cognitive science folks recognized the non-genetic -- or perhaps meta-genetic is a better phrase -- and central role memes play in previously misunderstood "group selection?"
This role explains so-called altruism, heros, why the purely genetic arguments don't work well with humans, why our ancestors might well push psychopaths off the ice when no one was looking, and why even baboon troops are better off without them.
Marvin Minsky: I adore Richard Dawkins' conception of memes--that is, structured units of knowledge that are able, more or less, to reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves from one mind to another. A few million years ago, some of our ancestors evolved some brain machinery that was specialized for representing knowledge in a serial and "explicit" fashion, rather than in a parallel and "implicit" manner. These early primate ancestors of ours began to be able to transmit the fruits of their experience by vocal signals--and eventually that led to rapid advances both in already existing abilities to learn and represent knowledge and, perhaps more important, in the social evolution of new ideas. By improving each brain's ability to do serial processing, the entire society was enabled to accumulate knowledge in parallel. Consequently, the very nature of evolution has changed. In the Darwinian scheme, we can evolve only at the level of genes; however, with memes, a system of ideas can evolve by itseelf, without any biological change. Yet still, we see many of the same phenomena, with evolutionary fitness struggles and all--as when some philosophy evolves a new and convincing argument about why its competitors may be wrong. The interaction of meme propagation with Darwinian evolution has given rise to a new order of things. In particular, it makes possible such phenomena as "group selection" that are less well supported in simpler species. I don't see this much appreciated in the thinking of most other evolutionists, but I and many of my friends consider it an idea of tremendous importance. --Marvin Minsky on RICHARD DAWKINS' "A Survival Machine" in John Brockman, The Third Culture, (New York, NY: TOUCHSTONE 1995), p. 87
ALSO of INTEREST?
 Of course, notice Malinowski unconsciously hierarchically places our ancestors well below him on the totem and further disses them when he refers to them as "lowest savages." return
You raised some good questions from UNCOMMON SENSE: Freedom and the Indians Don! Reminds me of Jared Diamond's questions from "Guns, Germs, and Steel." FWIW, let me take a shot at answering them - - -
1. "What is the explanation for the greater technological progress of the less civilized Euros?" --Don Duncan
Trade. The main thing pale-face contributed to the world was the mastery of trade including "money" and double entry bookkeeping which enabled specialization and division of labor, and thus the extremely efficient production of "stuff" as George Carlin was apt to put it.
This didn't come without extreme down-side effects, however.
Also the "scientific method," basically a simple technique for asking questions -- and finding and checking the answers.
2. "Why are native Americans poor, suicide prone, and alcoholic, more than all other ethic groups?" --Don Duncan
I'm not sure "all other ethic groups" applies. As far as "alcoholic" apparently there is a genetic predisposition.
As to the rest, more than likely because their basic culture -- the culture of egalitarian hunter-gatherer freedom -- was forcibly replaced with regimented, fenced-in, pale-face hierarchy. Like this:
"The white world puts all the power at the top, Nerburn. ... When your people first came to our land they were trying to get away from those people at the top. But they still thought the same, and soon there were new people at the top in the new country. It is just the way you were taught to think."
"In your churches there is someone at the top. In your schools, too. In your government. In your business. There is always someone at the top and that person has the right to say whether you are good or bad. They own you.
... "When you came among us, you couldn't understand our way. You wanted to find the person at the top. ... Your world was made of cages and you thought ours was, too. Even though you hated your cages you believed in them. ...
"Our old people noticed this from the beginning. They said that the white man lived in a world of cages, and that if we didn't look out, they would make us live in a world of cages, too." --Lakota elder Dan, Kent Nerburn, Neither Wolf nor Dog, New World Library, 2002, pg.1573. "Why doesn't a freer, happier life translate into material wealth?" --Don Duncan
Well, to a certain extent, that question is backwards. The more important question is, why doesn't "material wealth" translate into a freer happier life?
At what might be called the "spiritual" level, there's a conflict between material goods and freedom. First, producing "stuff" requires self-discipline and takes hours from free spontaneous behavior. Further, a surplus of material goods requires not only time but also stable locations. Farms and factories for example. And then you have to maintain stuff.
Then there are the "addictive" properties of the newest I-phone, the latest movie, hot showers, etc. which tends to "encourage" folks to spend even more hours of their lives accumulating "stuff." And/or "money" to buy stuff later.
At some point, the production of stuff should be efficient enough to free most people from the necessity of spending much time acquiring even an advanced level of "stuff."
At a talk he called, "I Dreamed I Was A Libertarian In My Maidenform Bra," L. Neil Smith suggested an 8 hour work week -- and that was July 31, 1982, at The Nevada Libertarian Party "CANDIDATE'S CONVENTION" in Las Vegas.
What went wrong? I'm sure you know. On the surface, it was this:
In the 1930s, Lord Keynes predicted that some day everyone would have a four-bedroom house, at which point, the American dream having been fulfilled, people would lose their incentive to work. Keynes believed that peoples' affluence would eventually outstrip their appetites--that their demand for goods and services would reach a plateau, beyond which the amount of money they spent would represent a smaller and smaller percentage of their income. Therefore, he argued, the government would have to adopt fiscal policies designed to keep people from hoarding too much of their income. --Unlimited Wealth by Paul Zane Pilzer, pg. 17The banksters along with their government-gangster cronies just used that argument as another excuse to loot folks.
That affluence is exactly what's supposed to happen. But as you well know, Don, the "government" -- along with it's brown-nosers, suckups and hangers-on -- particularly the bankers -- have done quite well with adopting "fiscal policies designed to keep people from hoarding too much of their income." Translated, that becoms, "steal peoples' money -- and thus the hours of their lives spent earning money -- using taxation and inflation."
L. Neil was right but over-estimated the necessary work week. The difference between that even shorter work week and your real-world work week is what the government/banking axis costs the average "citizen" who buys into the establishment bullshit. Bastiat nailed it:
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --Frederic BastiatThere are now two "forces" that I see likely to seriously disrupt the current "order."
1. Income disparity caused by the "Reverse Robin Hood" effect of fiat money and fractional reserve banking, and
2. Increasing automation which will make most jobs obsolete, possibly reaching a tipping point in maybe 10 years according to Pew Research -- and maybe sooner according to gonzo futurist Ray Kurzweil.
And, closely related, will the robot revolution result in R2D2 or Terminator 2?
Your guess is as good as mine as to how this will all turn out.
According to the Liar-In-Chief's latest, his Government will try to hunt down anyone "it" unilaterally decides threatens it anywhere in the world. "It" will call them "terrorists" of course.
Obama warns the worldIf 70 year old crippled-up farmer Mohammed in backwoods Pakistan gets a splinter trying to gather fire wood and NSA over-hears him cussing the U.S., possibly because drone strikes mistakenly killed his family who were keeping him alive, he may be a "threat to national security," Or, perhaps, just a threat to "the national interest," neither of which has anything to do with "we the people."
Either way, Mohammed could be targeted by Hellfire Missiles or even fuel-air "Daisy Cutters" if the Einsteins in D.C. or Centcom are having a bad day. Or a U.S. Liar-in-Chief, well, lies about him, his village, or his country. Or his sub-liars do.
Valiant V: Never said that it wasn't "out of control" L, merely that "spontaneous order" is fiction and anybody who has *ever* worked with groups of people knows that from experience.
That [people] are too STUPID to elect leaders remotely worthy of the responsibility given them shows that these people are incapable of running their own lives, much less participating in a "self-directed" society.Val, you've just aptly indicted the opposite of "spontaneous order," and done it very well. See, what's different in "spontaneous order" society is that only folks who have a direct stake in a particular activity get involved, NOT everyone. Like in a business organization instead of a political party.
That direct stake -- and direct easily revocable voluntary involvement makes all the difference. If a group wins, only those involved win, ditto if they lose. Either way, if they discover something useful, sooner or later, everyone wins.
And there's no dilettante-attracting tax-money lottery from the tax-pool created as a result of previous winner-take-all "democratic" votes.
We moderns have devolved so far that "we" can't even conceive of how that works.
But here's a clue you've seen before - - -
"People [native Americans] who do not vote for an issue -- whether they abstain or vote against it -- often resent having to abide by it and insist that they should not be affected by the final decision since they did not themselves affirm it. A number of Indian groups -- such as the Hopis here in the Southwest -- are still divided over the issue of their constitution, those who voted against it or who did not participate in the constitutional election, insisting that they should not be bound by the vote of the others." -James E. Officer, Journal of American Indian Education, Volume 3 Number 1, October 1963, INFORMAL POWER STRUCTURES WITHIN, INDIAN COMMUNITIESHere's how that will work in the not too distant future:
The extremely subtle -- to we moderns at least -- and malevolent aberration to the true voluntary democracy practiced by the Hopi, etc. (and likely soon everyone), is coercive "winner-take-all" democracy, foisted on us by the hierarchical controller mentality.
In coercive "winner-take-all" democracy, you attempt to dragoon everyone who votes -- or even theoretically could vote -- into going along with the majority. Everyone is forced to go along, even those who couldn't vote. You've heard it thousands of times: "The majority rules." Why? Why try to lump ~319 million extemely diverse individuals into one imaginary group -- and then call it USA? Etc.?
The hierarchical establishment uses "the majority" -- more honestly phrased "the majority of those who vote" -- as an excuse to rule you, repress you, and rip everyone off. That simple winner-take-all con enables them to use you as tax and cannon fodder. I bet they even have YOU believing in it - - -
The operational difference between the two "democracies" is that with winner-take-all democracy, the hierarchical rulers, their brown-nosers, suck-ups and hangers-on (bankers for example) play with OPM (Other Peoples' Money), that is taxpayer money, rather than with their own money. This means, among other things, they take much bigger risks -- and regularly put all our eggs in one basket.
Here's what's really going on:
What those calling themselves planners advocate is not the substitution of planned action for letting things go. It is the substitution of the planners own plan for the plans of his fellow-men. The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at the one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan." --Ludwig von MisesAnd, with the evolution of Extortion Futures (U.S. Treasuries etc.) -- which must be paid-for by future taxpayers -- they are now gambling, not only with your present earnings but with the future earnings of you, your kids, grand kids, and the yet unborn.
Intergenerational warfare anyone?
"So, does this mean that you like and support ISIS (or ISIL or whatever)?"Thanks for asking!
First, if you read my article, it's fairly clear that ISIS is largely a fantasy creation of the U.S. War Party (Democrats + Republicans) and the MilitaryIndustrialCongressionalComplex that Eisenhower warned against in his farwell address.
Clearly it's been hyped beyond all reason. For example, IF ISIS is real and the beheadings weren't completely staged, Saudi Arabia beheaded at least 8 people last month. So shouldn't "we" bomb them?
At any rate, ISIS is none of my business -- nor is it Washington D.C.'s business. Remember George Washington's admonition in HIS farewell address to avoid foreign entanglements.
The reasons used to be crystal clear. Even as late as 2001, Americans understood:
~"You could kill all the terrorists in Afghanistan, all the terrorists in the world. You could hang Osama bin Laden in sight of the White House. You still wouldn't have solved the problem because you will have created a whole new generation of terrorists." --Col. Richard Dunn writing in the Washington Post, quoted on ABC THIS WEEK, October 21, 2001ISIS is direct proof that Col. Dunn got it exactly right.
Remember the idiots (I'm being kind) in D.C. got "us" involved in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq (twice so far) etc. by mistakes and lies. Which is directly responsible for the current mess.
They're busy creating our childrens' children's war.
So, "approve" or "disapprove" has nothing to do with it. "It's none of my business" is the operational phrase. Who, knowing the history, would want to get "us" involved again?
What do you think?
Health, happiness & long life
It wasn't till maybe a year later that I finally realized what COULDN'T have happened in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. I'd seen the demolition of the Dunes Hotel in Vegas in person in 1993, and, because of the news coverage and advance PR, knew implosions -- or even just controlled demolitions -- couldn't be done without weeks of engineering and preparation.
I also knew steel-framed structures, because of "local structural integrity" -- like those commercials dropping a bowling ball on a mattress without spilling a neighboring glass of water -- simply don't collapse as the buildings did on Sept. 11, 2001. Unless engineered and prepped. Especially Building 7, which wasn't even hit by a plane.
And I knew of Building 7 because Bob Pisani covered it all afternoon on CNBC, and kept saying they were considering "bringing it down." And CNBC had cameras on it when they "pulled" it. So I knew, because of the way it collapsed -- and that CNBC knew when it was coming down -- that it was an implosion.
Here's what it looked like - - -
It didn't occur to me that it simply couldn't have been engineered and rigged to be "pulled" at ~5:30 PM in the ~eight hours since the WTTC towers came down, let alone in that chaotic 9/11 disaster zone. Ergo, it HAD to have been set up ahead of time.
Which finally occurred to me about a year later. I sat up in bed, realizing, "Son-of-a-bitch -- someone had to have wired Building 7 ahead of time!"
Certain things proceed from that realization - - -
Sometimes enlightenment is a slow process.
You don't need a competing theory, guess or myth to disprove or debunk an existing theory, guess or myth.
For example, if someone claims "The moon is made of green cheese," all I have to do is point out that, say, the moon isn't green. Or, "There aren't enough cows in the world to make that much cheese," etc. I don't have to give a chemical analysis of actual lunar material -- although that might be nice.
Likewise, you don't need a competing theory to disprove or debunk the U.S. Government 9/11 myth.
The equivalent to "the moon isn't green" is "World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed at ~free-fall speed into it's own footprint at ~5:30 P.M. on September 11, 2001."
Dan Rather, the most well-known TV news anchor at the time, described Building 7's collapse (directly below), like this "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down ..."
None of the hundreds of thousands of steel-framed skyscrapers in the world -- either before or after 9/11 -- have ever fallen even remotely like that. Except ones that were engineered and prepped ahead of time. And even most of those don't collapse into their own footprint -- without being even more carefully engineered and prepped. Ahead of time.
If the government myth can't explain that -- and it can't -- it goes straight down the crapper.
And that's for very good reason: Such steel-framed skyscrapers are designed by architects and engineers, based on the laws of physics, NOT to collapse at all, even under extremely adverse conditions, not to mention straight down into their own footprint.
And history demonstrates they don't. Ever. Unless engineered and prepped ahead of time. So give up your silly myth. Clearly the moon isn't made of green cheese. And Building 7 didn't implode without being engineered and prepped ahead of time.
Certain things proceed from that observation - - - can you think of any?
The truth often has an uphill battle against the establishment, which constantly fights to keep it's position despite the best interests of "we the people." Preside-nt Eisenhower warned against the MilitaryIndustrialCongressional Complex for example.
These folks sometimes resort to false-flag operations. Operation Northwoods was the most well-known template. And then there are the fools, dupes and paid operatives the establishment manages to get to do it's propaganda for it.
But an even more relevant example was the Manhattan Project -- involving over 120,000 folks -- which wasn't known to the American public until after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. The folks pulling this off even covered up the first nuke test -- Trinity in Socorro County, New Mexico -- by spreading the myth in the press that the mushroom cloud -- and the big bang folks heard -- was an ammo dump exploding. Worked like a charm.
Secrecy in such operations is enabled by the now well-known, "need-to-know" operational protocol. Almost no one knows enough to expose the whole operation. They don't know "The Big Picture."
In fact, often participants don't even know enough to be sure they were involved in the first place, even when the story hits the headlines. And certainly not enough to get and hold media attention. Even when the media isn't the 5th Branch of Government.
Let's take a current (2014 A.D.) real-life example of how effective the government/media amalgam is at keeping things out of the public eye. There have been all sorts of leaks about the N.S.A. spying operations for decades. Heck, I even did a couple of articles. This one in 2006 for example - - -
But I didn't get famous. Or even noticed apparently. Which, given the heat on Ed Snowden and Julian Assange -- and other less successful whistle blowers like William Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, etc. -- is probably a good thing.
Do you even know, without Googling them, who Mr. Binney, Mr. Drake and Mr. Kiriakou are?
Snowden only managed to stick on the U.S. media "teflon curtain" because 1. he got enough data to PROVE "The Big Picture" and 2. He eluded Uncle's tentacles by luckily -- and I emphasize "luckily" -- escaping from Hong Kong to the Moscow airport. Where he was in limbo for weeks. And clearly, it wasn't his preferred destination.
Further, based on the experience of previous whistle blowers, Snowden's greatest fear was that folks wouldn't pay attention. And it was a nail-biter for quite awhile whether or not they would.
You can get a really up-close and personal travelogue of just how Uncle stomps folks who try to tell what "he" considers "his" secrets from this NPR piece which includes William Binney and Thomas Drake in their own words:
Now there are approximately 1.4 million other folks -- including ~483,000 private contractors -- who could have done what Edward Snowden did. That's about 12 times as many as the ~120,000 folks involved in The Manhattan Project -- who could have blown the whistle but didn't. Or maybe like Binney, Drake, etc., just slid right off the Teflon Curtain.
So one way or another -- maybe both -- Uncle managed to keep "his" ongoing massive N.S.A. spy-operation, involving over 1.4 million operatives, effectively secret for well over 10 years.
Even the folks who dislike the truth about 9/11 don't fantasize anywhere near 120,000 folks involved let alone 1.4 million. Yet, in over a decade, only one of the 1.4 million -- Ed Snowden -- managed to gather enough information to prove The Big Picture -- and barely managed to blow the whistle successfully.
And given that Uncle even finessed the Trinity nuke test, "he's" pretty good at keeping secrets. So, for example, the notion that "surely someone would have come forward by this time" in the case of 9/11 just doesn't cut the mustard.
THESE OTHER WHISTLE-BLOWERS MAY BE OF INTEREST:
Dr. Norman Finkelstein
There's a technique that the illegitimate U.S. establishment has used at least twice to completely overturn important guarantees ass-u-me_d to be solidly grounded in common sense and established in law for ANY free society.
The first is enshrined in The Constitution, particularly like this:
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken." --UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article I, Section 9.Keeping in mind that Article I, Section 9 is more primary and hasn't been repealed, how do you reconcile the 16th Amendment with it -- which seems to completely contradict it? Like this:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." --UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article XVI [16th Amendment] (1913)The simple answer, painfully extracted via uphill legal battles through a reluctant legal system, is that the Income Tax was a tax on corporate privilege -- essentially hush money paid for limited liability -- measured by corporate "income," and had nothing at all to do with flesh-and-blood humans, who get no such privilege.
In fact, my grandfather didn't have to pay but the con-job was at that time that it would be "patriotic" if he did. Also it was promoted as a status symbol to make enough money to even make the cut. My grandfather declined to pay and said, according to my mother, that this approach was all a con-job and eventually they'd trick everyone into paying.
And of course, they did.
In fact, if you go to court for "Willful Failure to File" so-called "Personal" Income Tax -- and if you get the corporate privilege arguments right (judges managed to suppress that approach for quite awhile until the Cheek decision) -- the IRS attorney will try to produce a previous tax return of yours and tell the jury that by signing and filing "your" 1040 etc. you have legally volunteered and thus are indeed required to pay.
Now days (2014 A.D.) of course, the whole illegitimate government apparatus conspires to convince and intimidate everyone into "volunteering" even though you can probably still find the dregs of truth in statements like "ours is a voluntary tax system." So, by the use of B.S., legalese, and brute-force intimidation, they've turned previously free Americans into cowed tax slaves.
As Bastiat put it:
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --Frederic BastiatAnd, Val, our discussion on so-called "Drivers Licenses" reveals another similar con-job. And it's the second point that defines the trend-line which reveals a "legal system that authorizes [plunder] and a moral code that glorifies it".
Clearly, restricting travel completely discredits any country that claims freedom. It's simple common sense. And in fact, that obvious common sense was enshrined in early U.S. jurisprudence. Like this:
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." --Justice Tolman, Robertson v Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.And this:
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion - to go where and when one pleases... The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. --II Am. Jur. (1st). Constitutional Law, Sect. 329, p. 1135.and further...
"Personal liberty - consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." --1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."(emphasis added) --Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare v Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon v Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am. Jur. (1st) Highways Sect. 163.and...
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."(emphasis added) --Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.There are many other cases. Just ask.
Despite this clear common sense principle, legally defined as well, once again, the establishment successfully foisted corporate/business limitations onto us flesh-and-blood humans, who, incidentally, are completely superior to those folks clearly recognized as "public SERVANTS."
In the following cases, as with the so-called "Personal" Income Tax, you can see how this commercial-activity bait-and-switch was once again pulled off:
"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." --State v Johnson, 243 P 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins v Homes, 155 P 171; Packard v Banton, 44 S Ct 257; and other cases too numerous to mention.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." --Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P 2nd 82; Willis v Buck, 263 P 982.and...
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." --State v City of Spokane, 186 P 864.There are a bunch more such cases. Just ask.
So, when the illegitimate establishment drilled you into believing "driving is a privilege," "driving is a privilege," they neglected to tell you that was only if you were engaged in commercial activity.
Clearly then, the first and probably only thing you should say to a uniformed highway brigand who pulls you over with flashing lights is (and record the interaction), "What made you think I was engaged in commercial activity, officer?"