“They might not love Big Brother, but they knew he was part of the family now.” Tim Weiner, Enemies: A History of the FBIThe FBI has been under fire in the past year for various and sundry crimes against logic and probity and this is much more deeply ingrained in the culture of the political agency since its founding. It was developed as the original secret police organization for the US government to wield to seek its political ends. The sacking of Comey the Commie is simply the latest above-ground evidence that the agency is broken for its ostensible purpose of crime investigation and simply exists as an American analog to the Cheka, NKVD, KGB and Gestapo. It even reflagged its purpose with the blank check moniker of national security. It has relied on Lysenko-style science that would make the Russians blush in embarrassment. Fingerprint and hair analysis are simply the most recent blunders of applying junk science to crime fighting. Louise Robbins, the crackpot anthropologist, developed a cottage industry of nonsense sending folks to prison for bootprints. Many in the “just-us” system fell for it hook, line and sinker. Much like the scientism that informs the climate alarmism that has so damaged proper science in the last generation, the FBI has invested much of its reputation on the “scientific” notions of fingerprints and hair analysis but all turns out to be dust and shadows. The FBI conducted the criminal pursuit of an alleged terrorist on March 11, 2004, several bombs exploded in Madrid’s subway system with 191 killed and 1,460 injured.
"Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism “It is the greatest truth of our age: information is not knowledge.” - Caleb CarrEmmanuel Macron is a facile and Machiavellian intriguer of the highest order. I will leave to others in the commentariat to discuss his bona fides for French President, his abhorrent collectivist notions of governing and all the other platitudes that point to a creature that has provided the planetary if not historical model for the dangers of the Peter Principle. He is a man out of his depth, which may be anything beyond a minor provincial council position and even that would be a stretch. Like Hollande, the toxic socialist doppelganger to Obama in France, Macron will be more of the same. I do take solace in Hollande’s communist 75% super tax being an abject failure. The French fully embrace Napoleon Bonaparte's tried maxim: "In politics, stupidity is not a handicap." Macron is marketed as a center candidate in France but a centrist candidate in the French polity is just to the left of Barak Obama. We are hearing now that his campaign emails were hacked. I hope that this gives a revealing glimpse into the Marxist sausage factory that is En Marche!. Like the kabuki of the Democrats and Republicans in America, the party selections in France are collectivist in their orientation in every respect. And, of course, all the usual suspects are coming out of the woodwork to blame the Russians.
“Vitali Kremez, director of research with New York-based cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint, told Reuters his review indicates that APT 28, a group tied to the GRU, the Russian military intelligence directorate, was behind the leak. He cited similarities with U.S. election hacks that have been previously attributed to that group.”The singular reason for the Kremlin being targeted as the bogeyman is that France has a deep state and intelligence community (IC) apparatus that is always pimping for more money or power. Sound familiar?
“No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person, unless they do it in so open and authentic a manner as to make themselves personally responsible for his acts. None of the voters in this country appoint their political agents in any open, authentic manner, or in any manner to make themselves responsible for their acts. Therefore these pretended agents cannot legitimately claim to be really agents. Somebody must be responsible for the acts of these pretended agents; and if they cannot show any open and authentic credentials from their principals, they cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals. The maxim applies here, that what does not appear, does not exist. If they can show no principals, they have none.” —Lysander SpoonerHow many of you have heard the noise that your bodily fluids belong to the government road pirates when they demand it if they suspect you of impaired driving? Somehow, they have managed to circumvent your self-ownership with legal mumbo jumbo and of course, intimidation. I want to break this down simply. If you did sign a form, then your local badged Orcs would have “express” written consent to chemically test you. Most state codes ape the Federal statute and say that simply by driving on a highway in your state that you are “deemed” to have consented to have a blood or breath test. That is, you never really consented so the State will “deem” you to have consented. Now many will complain that absent drunk driving laws and enforcement, some will perish. This may be the case but it is still pre-crime. What if we substituted drunk driving with weapons, would the same circumstances dictate that "weapons checks" would prevent most crime? If impaired driving is such a problem, why is anyone allowed to have motor vehicles within five miles of a bar or liquor establishment or restaurant? The severity of punishment has no statistical relationship to reducing the crime as a pre-crime prophylactic. In the end, if your impaired driving causes property damage, bodily injury or death, you should be held accountable but not before you do harm. Mark Crovelli makes an interesting observation:
"Another option would be to simply recognize the fact that people are responsible for their actions, and only fine and incarcerate them if they actually cause harm to another person. Yes, this option would mean that we would have to leave drunk drivers alone unless they actually hurt someone, just as we now do with drivers who are sleepy or are decrepitly aged. But, is this not the same standard that we employ in other areas of criminal law? We do not deem it morally or legally acceptable for the police to raid the poorer areas of our cities to search out and incarcerate people they think will become criminals one day, simply because the poor are more likely to commit certain crimes. We do not deem it morally or legally acceptable for the police to round up and imprison people according to race, based upon the fact that certain races commit disproportionate amounts of crime. Why, then, do we allow the state to do precisely this to drunk drivers, based solely on the assumption that drunk drivers may harm other people, when we would condemn it if it was done to any other segment of society?"They will deem you doing so. Can you imagine purchasing or leasing any good or service and that is how you seek remuneration or warranty service if not expressly stated but simply deemed. Coercion is the converse of consent, and no consent is needed to defend against invasions. I’ve explained why voting and the fairy tale called “rule of law” have no more bearing on reality than your ability to keep everything you earn even once you assume room temperature. I’ve told you that the American tax rate exceeds 100%. Lysander Spooner threw a grenade on this absurd idea of implied consent and blew it to hell. “Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it is written; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not then sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract.” Implied legally means “it never actually happened.” But the state needs to have implied consent because what sane human being would sign off on surrendering so much wealth and resources but do at the point of a gun? Who would have time for instance to read 3.8 million words in the tax code? All of Shakespeare’s words add up to approximately one million words. James Cox avers:
“Not only is the theory of “implied consent” logically flawed, but it also obviously does not describe reality. Any “government” that had the consent of its subjects would not need, and would not have, “law” enforcers. Enforcement happens only if someone does not consent to something. Anyone with their eyes open can see that “government,” on a regular basis, does things to a lot of people against their will. To be aware of the myriad of tax collectors, beat cops, inspectors and regulators, border guards, narcotics agents, prosecutors, judges, soldiers, and all the other mercenaries of the state, and to still claim that “government” does what it does with the consent of the “governed,” is utterly ridiculous. Each individual, if he is at all honest with himself, knows that those in power do not care whether he consents to abide by their “laws.” The politicians’ orders will be carried out, by brute force if necessary, with or without any individual’s consent.”So if you don’t find yourself cajoled, fined, kidnapped, maimed or killed depending on your level of resistance to the government agent’s demands. So his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the statist violence brokers issue logically infers that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. They own you but they’ve simply readjusted the optics for slavery to fit into the new century and give the plantation workers the illusion of freedom.
“There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” - Marcus Tulius CiceroPublisher’s Note: This may be one of the longer essays published here at ZG but I think the screed is worth your time. T.E. Lawrence deserves careful study. I hope I am wrong and the silver spaceships drop from the sky and every child gets a unicorn of their own but it is much better to look at the landscape around you and measure the possibilities. Ecology is the study of consequences in closed and open systems; the ecology of conflict is real and bears examination. Take the time you have to prepare for the coming Endarkenement. -BB
“Men have looked upon the desert as barren land, the free holding of whoever chose; but in fact each hill and valley in it had a man who was its acknowledged owner and would quickly assert the right of his family or clan to it, against aggression.” – T. E. LawrenceVietnamese General Giap (who vanquished both the French and the Americans) was asked who his greatest influence was in conducting guerrilla campaigns in Vietnam in an interview with (soon to be infamous) French General Salan in 1946: “My fighting gospel is TE Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom. I am never without it.” Nor am I and I keep a copy both at home and my office. My copy at home is my dog-eared and duct taped copy from my former days in the Army. I adore the book and have read it three times but it can be a hard slog for readers unfamiliar with the British idiom and not well acquainted with the history that led to the Arab Revolt. For the best introduction I have found to the mess that is now the modern Middle East, read David Fromkin’s brilliant book: A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. For those who won’t take the time to read it, the distillate of his teaching can be found in his 27 Articles. Some are totally irrelevant to any fight we may be concerned with in North America such as 10 but some, such as 12 and 22, are timeless and effective combat multipliers. Lawrence, of course, was Arab-centric in his nostrums but many of these can be universally applied with a little intellectual effort. The election of Trump has really drawn the curtain back on the Deep State for all to hear. This will lead to the hardest times America has known since the War of Northern Aggression tore the continent asunder in the nineteenth century. Hard times will be a subtle way to describe it. The US government will react in the same barbaric fashion it does in every crisis: it will wage war abroad and on its own citizens and systematically strangle every notion of freedom and liberty remaining across the fruited plain. It will clothe all of these noxious behaviors in the most patriotic tones and cries of threats to national security will scare the woolen-clad subjects into paroxysms of bleating and begging for coddling and protection from their masters. There will be conflict on American soil again and the guerrilla style of conflict will soon be the only means of opposition for the few who fight for the right to be left alone. However one anticipates your personal involvement in the emerging crisis, Lawrence provides the basic building blocks for seeing how that fight may be conducted.
Do you have a smartphone? Get rid of it. Rationalize it all you want but it is robbing you of some of the best aspects of being alive and in the now and present. Reading doesn’t take place until your eyes are off the page. It disturbs mindfulness, ruins cognition and simply makes you distracted to advancing as a human being. Those aren’t friends on the ‘net, those are distant acquaintances who behaves in a way distinctly different from their meatspace proclivities. Once you’ve liberated yourself and gotten a dumb phone, buy a Faraday bag and you are set. Talk to people with your mouth, write letters, as a matter of fact, write. Writing makes you smarter, more contemplative and simply brighter in apprehending the world you. You will relish the newfound return to “unavailability”. I’m not a technophobe but I am one of a handful of humans who has never had a FaceBorg account and I am the better for it. My editor told me to have a Twitter account and that constantly fights for my attention and may very well be my existential albatross to bear instead of FB or a smartphone. You will discover that if you take the leap from smartphone to dumbphone, keep a careful eye on your provider bills. People have learned the hard way that when it comes to cell phones, it’s easier to get into the system than to get out of it. You may become nomophobic. Fight it. Coined by researchers in the United Kingdom, nomophobia is defined...
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr SolzhenitsynThe federal government apparatus in America has de facto and de jure federalized all police forces. All the cheap talk by the race hooligans of every pigmentation is fatuous and disingenuous at best. There is no political actor in Washington who has even challenged the narrative and script that every government supremacist edict in America descends from the Feds. Trump will not change this. All government is based on theft through taxation.The forcible transfer of your wealth or your friends and families from one pocket to that of the undeserving and unearned. Thousands of years of human barbarism posing as the state testify to this. Don't believe it? If overnight, all speeding infractions only garnered insurance points and no filthy loot for the road pirates to obediently collect for their political masters, what would highway patrols and cops do? As a matter a fact, if all "illegal" drugs become decriminalized overnight, what would the 19,000 police departments strewn like landmines and unexploded ordnance across the fruited plain do. If every law on the books whose sole victim was the state was removed and decriminalized over the next few days, what would these overfed and trigger-happy Leninists do? Police forces don't exist in a vacuum. They have one sole purpose: to enforce the bloody spear-point of the will of their political puppet-masters. Planet-wide, that is the one true function. From the blunted secession movements like Vermont and Texas to the Drug War to the increasing militarization of the thin black and blue line, one thing becomes crystal clear: the police in the 19,000 departments across America are simply the pointy end (if not intellectually dull and diminished) of all politics. This isn’t simply an American phenomenon. It’s planet-wide and historically correct that absent these armed and uniformed thug forces, no political bad actor could deprive one human being of their liberty and individual volition. The news and the interwebs are packed with stories and analysis on the emerging police state that is blanketing America. I have written extensively as has the brilliant William Grigg on the morbid details of the police state in all of its grotesque and totalitarian glory. Now we hear the usual suspects in the government media complex mewling and writing in panic at a war on police. No such war exists, yet.
This is the world the "war on cops" has made; one in which police kill unarmed people regularly yet claim to be under attack themselves. Even as some high-profile commentators have proclaimed that Black Lives Matter, they still act as if police lives matter more. Pundits who lament the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile protest the "horrific murders" and "cold-blooded killings" of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Were Sterling and Castile's deaths not horrific? Why is there no attention to the blood temperature of the officers who killed a 37-year-old man for selling CDs on a sidewalk or who pulled over a 32-year-old man for a broken taillight and a "wide-set nose" and ended up shooting him to death in front of his girlfriend and her four-year-old child?As of this date, the cops have stacked up hundreds of corpses murdered this year in the streets (this number does not include what I suspect is much larger corpse-count in the vast Federal and satrap gulag system across the country). I have to make my standard disclaimer that I think this is highly suspect as a lower number due to mis-, under- and non-reporting by the authorities on these Helots murdered across the country. Of course, British newspaper has to provide the numbers because the fiscally strapped Feds can’t bother with maintaining such a database.
“These “hapless morons” are off their fucking couches, engaging in the physical violence that the Right yammered about for the last eight years, without doing fuck all. I’m not condoning it… willingness to engage in violent direct-action is going to get a whole fuckton of “prepared militias” killed dead…”Like Bill Buppert, I cannot disagree with any dismantling of the Fedgov by Trump, but I hold no illusions that it will actually shrink. These are the times to continue working on the skills, techniques and procedures to complete your mission in life. Fine Motor Skills There is a common argument in the firearms world that we lose fine motor skills during the fight. I do not doubt there is truth to this. But there seems to be a level of Derp contained in some of these arguments. The argument goes that we must power stroke the slide, i.e., use our hands to come over the top and physically run the slide on a handgun or run the charging handle on an AR-15 in order to perform a reload. Both of these weapons have slide/bolt releases and can be released without running the action of the weapon. The argument says that we have to do this, because we cannot physically hit such small buttons under stress. We must use fine motor skills to reload the gun, so it’s better to run the slide on a handgun than hit the slide stop. The problem with this argument is shooters already are using many fine motor skills in the shooting process. For instance, if you shoot five rounds in a gunfight, you have to draw the pistol. Then you have to acquire your sights, which is a fine motor skill. You have to press the trigger, which is a fine motor skill. You do this five times and then acquire another sight picture after your last shot. 11 fine motor skill reps were just performed. If you shoot the gun dry and have to reload, you press the mag release, another fine motor skill. You have to insert the magazine, lining it up with the mag well and seating it, arguably another fine motor skill. So we can perform ALL of those fine motor skills, but in order to send the slide home, we have to rack the action vs. hitting the slide stop/release? (I don’t care what you call it, so please save the comments) You do the math.