BATR 2020 Election News
Showing posts with label Depostism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Depostism. Show all posts
Friday, June 07, 2019
Wednesday, January 02, 2019
Populists Have Elites On The Run & 2019 Might Deliver The Coup De Grace
The best way to view the current populist moment is as a delayed response to the top-down cultural revolution that occurred in the Seventies. In that decade, new attitudes towards marriage, family life, relations between the sexes, the role of the nation and the meaning of citizenship came to be codified in many Western societies. By the beginning of the Eighties, new forms of cultural authority had been established by the political elites.
This so-called cultural turn is often attributed to the influence of ‘Cultural Marxists’ burrowing away in universities. But this analysis overlooks something important – that the cultural turn took place right under the noses of Thatcher and Reagan. It was in their era that the new post-Sixties cultural values were institutionalised by Anglo-American cultural elites.
In retrospect, it seems clear that the anti-traditional cultural turn that occurred under the watch of the Thatcher / Reagan political order was an attempt by Western political elites to establish a new foundation to their authority. Most strikingly, the emergent cultural oligarchy perceived themselves as mediators and gatekeepers in a globalised world where public life is impacted on by issues and problems that supposedly transcend the nation state and national control.
They devoted much energy to de-nationalising public life, and delegitimising the attitudes and values held by citizens. This was the era when the dogma that there is no alternative to globalisation really took hold. The belittlement of sovereignty – both national sovereignty and popular sovereignty – was a central task of the new cultural establishment. In a very short period of time, many people found that their long-held belief in the values of community, nation and family was being dismissed as outdated, irrelevant and even prejudiced.
Read the entire article
This so-called cultural turn is often attributed to the influence of ‘Cultural Marxists’ burrowing away in universities. But this analysis overlooks something important – that the cultural turn took place right under the noses of Thatcher and Reagan. It was in their era that the new post-Sixties cultural values were institutionalised by Anglo-American cultural elites.
In retrospect, it seems clear that the anti-traditional cultural turn that occurred under the watch of the Thatcher / Reagan political order was an attempt by Western political elites to establish a new foundation to their authority. Most strikingly, the emergent cultural oligarchy perceived themselves as mediators and gatekeepers in a globalised world where public life is impacted on by issues and problems that supposedly transcend the nation state and national control.
They devoted much energy to de-nationalising public life, and delegitimising the attitudes and values held by citizens. This was the era when the dogma that there is no alternative to globalisation really took hold. The belittlement of sovereignty – both national sovereignty and popular sovereignty – was a central task of the new cultural establishment. In a very short period of time, many people found that their long-held belief in the values of community, nation and family was being dismissed as outdated, irrelevant and even prejudiced.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
This Is Not America: Paul Manafort is Being Tortured in Solitary Confinement by Dirty Cop Mueller and His Corrupt Gang
The corrupt and criminal Mueller team worked with Obama Appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson to place President Trump’s former Campaign Manager Paul Manafort in solitary confinement. This was a conscious action to literally torture Manafort for working with Trump during the campaign.
Mueller, the U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel appointed to investigate any possible collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign, has charged Manafort with multiple counts of conspiracy, money laundering, tax crimes, false statements, and anything else they can wad into a big ball and throw up against the wall to see what sticks.
After his arrest, Manafort was placed on house arrest on a $10 million-dollar bail, until the government recently accused him of witness tampering and convinced U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to revoke his bail, and remand him to jail pending trail.
To a casual observer, this would seem justified, however, to anyone that has been through it, or has witnessed the government’s selective and political prosecutions over the past few decades, they would tell you that it is all a part of a prosecutorial strategy.
Read the entire article
Mueller, the U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel appointed to investigate any possible collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump’s campaign, has charged Manafort with multiple counts of conspiracy, money laundering, tax crimes, false statements, and anything else they can wad into a big ball and throw up against the wall to see what sticks.
After his arrest, Manafort was placed on house arrest on a $10 million-dollar bail, until the government recently accused him of witness tampering and convinced U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to revoke his bail, and remand him to jail pending trail.
To a casual observer, this would seem justified, however, to anyone that has been through it, or has witnessed the government’s selective and political prosecutions over the past few decades, they would tell you that it is all a part of a prosecutorial strategy.
Read the entire article
Friday, June 29, 2018
American Totalitarianism and the Culture of Fake News
American citizens have a problem telling the difference between facts and opinion. That’s the finding of a recent survey carried out by the respected Pew organization.
It was found that only a quarter of the people polled were able to correctly distinguish between a factual statement and an opinion claim. In other words, the majority of those Americans surveyed wrongly believed that information presented to them purporting as facts were indeed facts, when the information was actually merely a subjective claim or opinion.
For example, when an opinion statement like “democracy is the best form of government” was read to them, most of the respondents defined that as a fact. Only some 25 per cent of the more than 5,000 people surveyed by Pew could correctly differentiate between facts and subjective statements.
Moreover, as the Reuters report on the study, put it: “They tend to disagree with factual statements they incorrectly label as opinions, Pew said.”
The latter tendency suggests that Americans are easily misled by false information, and perhaps more disturbingly, that they are closed-minded towards information that challenges their prejudices.
Read the entire article
It was found that only a quarter of the people polled were able to correctly distinguish between a factual statement and an opinion claim. In other words, the majority of those Americans surveyed wrongly believed that information presented to them purporting as facts were indeed facts, when the information was actually merely a subjective claim or opinion.
For example, when an opinion statement like “democracy is the best form of government” was read to them, most of the respondents defined that as a fact. Only some 25 per cent of the more than 5,000 people surveyed by Pew could correctly differentiate between facts and subjective statements.
Moreover, as the Reuters report on the study, put it: “They tend to disagree with factual statements they incorrectly label as opinions, Pew said.”
The latter tendency suggests that Americans are easily misled by false information, and perhaps more disturbingly, that they are closed-minded towards information that challenges their prejudices.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
California Considering Creating Advisory Group For Fake News With Orwellian Bill
In an Orwellian move straight out of 1984, California has proposed a bill to consider creating a “fake news” advisory group in order to monitor information posted and spread on social media, CBS reported.
Senate Bill 1424 would require the California Attorney General to create an advisory committee by April 1st, 2019. Further, the council would need to consist of at least one person from the Department of Justice, representatives from social media providers, civil liberties advocates, and First Amendment scholars.
The advisory group would be required to study how false information is spread online and come up with a plan for social media platforms to fix the problem. The Attorney General would then need to present that plan to the Legislature by December 31st, 2019. The group would also need to come up with criteria establishing what is “fake news” and what is just biased information.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes the bill, calling it “flawed” and “misguided.” The group argues the measure would make the government and advisory group responsible for deciding what is true or false. It also points out the First Amendment prevents content-based restrictions, even if the statements of “admittedly false.”
Last year the previous iterations of California’s crusade against fake news Assembly Bill 1104 or “The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act,” included making it against the law to publish and spread so-called “fake news” that could potentially impact a political race.
Read the entire article
Senate Bill 1424 would require the California Attorney General to create an advisory committee by April 1st, 2019. Further, the council would need to consist of at least one person from the Department of Justice, representatives from social media providers, civil liberties advocates, and First Amendment scholars.
The advisory group would be required to study how false information is spread online and come up with a plan for social media platforms to fix the problem. The Attorney General would then need to present that plan to the Legislature by December 31st, 2019. The group would also need to come up with criteria establishing what is “fake news” and what is just biased information.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes the bill, calling it “flawed” and “misguided.” The group argues the measure would make the government and advisory group responsible for deciding what is true or false. It also points out the First Amendment prevents content-based restrictions, even if the statements of “admittedly false.”
Last year the previous iterations of California’s crusade against fake news Assembly Bill 1104 or “The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act,” included making it against the law to publish and spread so-called “fake news” that could potentially impact a political race.
Read the entire article
Friday, June 08, 2018
Monday, May 28, 2018
UK Protesters Flood the Streets to Demand the Release of Imprisoned Journalist Tommy Robinson
Protesters in the UK have flooded Downing Street to demand the release of independent journalist Tommy Robinson.
Robinson, 35, was arrested in the UK on Friday for suspicion of breaching the peace while livestreaming a report on the trial of a child grooming gang. He is now serving a prior 13 month suspended sentence for a similar offense.
In this dystopian nightmare, the father and husband was transported to jail to begin his sentence just hours after his arrest — without the ability to appeal the judge’s decision.
Supporters of Robinson immediately called for a protest to take place the following day and hundreds have answered the call.
Incredible scene on Downing Street right now as protestors gather in solidarity for jailed journalist Tommy Robinson, who was arrested for merely covering a story.
The UK government had attempted to silence any conversation about his situation by issuing a ban against the press covering the case. Unfortunately for their plan, they cannot control social media and their effort appears to have had a Streisand Effect.
Read the entire article
Robinson, 35, was arrested in the UK on Friday for suspicion of breaching the peace while livestreaming a report on the trial of a child grooming gang. He is now serving a prior 13 month suspended sentence for a similar offense.
In this dystopian nightmare, the father and husband was transported to jail to begin his sentence just hours after his arrest — without the ability to appeal the judge’s decision.
Supporters of Robinson immediately called for a protest to take place the following day and hundreds have answered the call.
Incredible scene on Downing Street right now as protestors gather in solidarity for jailed journalist Tommy Robinson, who was arrested for merely covering a story.
The UK government had attempted to silence any conversation about his situation by issuing a ban against the press covering the case. Unfortunately for their plan, they cannot control social media and their effort appears to have had a Streisand Effect.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Monday, March 05, 2018
Massive outpouring of support for the Health Ranger after outrageous YouTube censorship of entire channel, wiping 1700+ videos spanning 10+ years
As we reported over the weekend, YouTube terminated the entire Health Ranger video channel on Saturday, wiping out over 1,700 videos and approximately 350K+ subscribers. This was done, of course, as part of the YouTube left-wing PURGE now being carried out against non-establishment speakers who are being targeted for political reasons.
YouTube’s censorship rampage also wiped out all my videos on the donkeys I rescued, the range-free chickens I raise and even the beautiful ice crystals I captured on video over the winter. In its censorship sweep, YouTube is obliterating thousands of videos without cause, violating the civil rights of informative internet users and functioning as a criminal techno-cartel.
My channel wasn’t alone in this, of course. YouTube’s censorship rampage has targeted thousands of other indy media channels over the last two weeks, issuing strikes against content that was uploaded many years ago (and is just now being flagged by ridiculously biased left-wing “trusted flaggers” such as the outrageously biased SPLC group). RightSide Broadcasting’s live event has also been blocked by YouTube, reports The Gateway Pundit.
It’s not about cracking down on so-called “conspiracy theories,” either. YouTube just announced it’s sponsoring a left-wing video creator who says the 9/11 terrorists attacks were an “inside job” — almost identical language to what InfoWars uses, but of course InfoWars gets selectively targeted for banning.
Read the entire article
YouTube’s censorship rampage also wiped out all my videos on the donkeys I rescued, the range-free chickens I raise and even the beautiful ice crystals I captured on video over the winter. In its censorship sweep, YouTube is obliterating thousands of videos without cause, violating the civil rights of informative internet users and functioning as a criminal techno-cartel.
My channel wasn’t alone in this, of course. YouTube’s censorship rampage has targeted thousands of other indy media channels over the last two weeks, issuing strikes against content that was uploaded many years ago (and is just now being flagged by ridiculously biased left-wing “trusted flaggers” such as the outrageously biased SPLC group). RightSide Broadcasting’s live event has also been blocked by YouTube, reports The Gateway Pundit.
It’s not about cracking down on so-called “conspiracy theories,” either. YouTube just announced it’s sponsoring a left-wing video creator who says the 9/11 terrorists attacks were an “inside job” — almost identical language to what InfoWars uses, but of course InfoWars gets selectively targeted for banning.
Read the entire article
Monday, February 12, 2018
Tuesday, January 09, 2018
Monday, December 25, 2017
Polls Increasingly Confirming that America Is a Dictatorship
Gallup headlined on December 18th, “Americans View Government as Nation’s Top Problem in 2017”. Their report made clear that though this finding was unprecedented, it’s part of a longer-term trend, toward Americans naming America’s own “government as the most important problem facing the nation.” In a democracy, the public do not view the nation’s government to be (as in America) their enemy (which is the case if they view the “government as the most important problem facing the nation”). Americans increasingly view the Government as their enemy.
In a dictatorship, only the people who control the government are satisfied with the government; but, in a democracy, the public are satisfied with the government — or else that government will be replaced in elections by people who control the government and who do provide government that the public approve of. In the United States, we’re instead moving in the exact opposite direction: steadily going from one government to another, none of which wins the public’s approval; and the present American government winning the public’s approval even less than its predecessors did. This is not the situation that exists in authentic democracies. It’s what one expects to find in a country that’s ruled by a dictatorship. Dictators don’t need to worry so much about polls, because they don’t represent the public; they exploit the public — they use the public.
The only scientific study that has yet been done on the question of whether the U.S. is, in fact, run by a democratic government, or instead by a dictatorial one (specifically by an oligarchy, or a government that represents only the richest citizens), was published in September 2014, and it found clearly that the U.S. is definitely not a democracy, but the other type: that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”, whereas “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy”; and, furthermore, that, “The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater” than their statistics indicate, because the researchers weren’t able to measure the impact that the super-rich have on policy, but only the impact that the rich have on policy (versus the impact that the total American public have on policy). The rich control America’s Government, but whether the richest do, wasn’t able to be researched, as of 2014.
This academic study’s scientific methodology was so good, so that no one, as of yet, in the more than three years since its publication, has been able to find any flaw in its data or methodology. Its headline, like its writing, was as dull as possible, “Testing Theories of American Politics”, and this (and especially its atrocious writing) might at least partially explain why America’s mainstream press overwhelmingly has ignored that seminal and landmark study in the social sciences, and especially has ignored that study’s enormous implications, regarding contemporary U.S. politics and government. (A vastly clearer presentation of that study, and of its findings, can be found here in this 6-minute video summary of it.)
Read the entire article
In a dictatorship, only the people who control the government are satisfied with the government; but, in a democracy, the public are satisfied with the government — or else that government will be replaced in elections by people who control the government and who do provide government that the public approve of. In the United States, we’re instead moving in the exact opposite direction: steadily going from one government to another, none of which wins the public’s approval; and the present American government winning the public’s approval even less than its predecessors did. This is not the situation that exists in authentic democracies. It’s what one expects to find in a country that’s ruled by a dictatorship. Dictators don’t need to worry so much about polls, because they don’t represent the public; they exploit the public — they use the public.
The only scientific study that has yet been done on the question of whether the U.S. is, in fact, run by a democratic government, or instead by a dictatorial one (specifically by an oligarchy, or a government that represents only the richest citizens), was published in September 2014, and it found clearly that the U.S. is definitely not a democracy, but the other type: that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”, whereas “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy”; and, furthermore, that, “The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater” than their statistics indicate, because the researchers weren’t able to measure the impact that the super-rich have on policy, but only the impact that the rich have on policy (versus the impact that the total American public have on policy). The rich control America’s Government, but whether the richest do, wasn’t able to be researched, as of 2014.
This academic study’s scientific methodology was so good, so that no one, as of yet, in the more than three years since its publication, has been able to find any flaw in its data or methodology. Its headline, like its writing, was as dull as possible, “Testing Theories of American Politics”, and this (and especially its atrocious writing) might at least partially explain why America’s mainstream press overwhelmingly has ignored that seminal and landmark study in the social sciences, and especially has ignored that study’s enormous implications, regarding contemporary U.S. politics and government. (A vastly clearer presentation of that study, and of its findings, can be found here in this 6-minute video summary of it.)
Read the entire article
Friday, November 10, 2017
Thursday, November 09, 2017
Climate Engineering Is A Gateway To Global Government
As the U.S. House of Representatives held its first hearing on climate engineering it is becoming clear that the technology will lead to international governance.
On Wednesday the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing held the first House hearing on the controversial subject of climate engineering or weather modification. The hearing, titled “Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology,” brought together members of the House committees as well as representatives of think tanks, scientists, and researchers in the field to discuss the future of geoengineering research and whether the Trump administration should allocate funding.
The push for discussion of geoengineering from the Trump administration should come as no surprise. Back in January 2017, Activist Post reported that “the U.S. Global Change Research Program quietly recommended new studies looking into two specific areas of research involving geoengineering.” With the release of their report, the GCRP became the first scientists in the federal government to formally recommend studies involving geoengineering.
Participants in Wednesday’s hearing include Full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas). Witness testimony came from Dr. Phil Rasch, chief scientist for climate science, Laboratory Fellow, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Dr. Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center; Dr. Douglas MacMartin, senior research associate, Cornell University; and Ms. Kelly Wanser, principal director, Marine Cloud Brightening Project, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington.
Before the discussion began, the committee members established a working definition of geoengineering. According to a 2013 congressional report:
Read the entire article
On Wednesday the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing held the first House hearing on the controversial subject of climate engineering or weather modification. The hearing, titled “Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology,” brought together members of the House committees as well as representatives of think tanks, scientists, and researchers in the field to discuss the future of geoengineering research and whether the Trump administration should allocate funding.
The push for discussion of geoengineering from the Trump administration should come as no surprise. Back in January 2017, Activist Post reported that “the U.S. Global Change Research Program quietly recommended new studies looking into two specific areas of research involving geoengineering.” With the release of their report, the GCRP became the first scientists in the federal government to formally recommend studies involving geoengineering.
Participants in Wednesday’s hearing include Full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas). Witness testimony came from Dr. Phil Rasch, chief scientist for climate science, Laboratory Fellow, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Dr. Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center; Dr. Douglas MacMartin, senior research associate, Cornell University; and Ms. Kelly Wanser, principal director, Marine Cloud Brightening Project, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington.
Before the discussion began, the committee members established a working definition of geoengineering. According to a 2013 congressional report:
Read the entire article
Thursday, June 01, 2017
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
The Department Of (In)Justice Goes After Guns In Further Capital Controls
The US government is attempting every possible angle to ensure Americans don't
have access to guns. The latest is a new twist on capital controls being
instituted by the Department of (In)Justice.
The DoJ is why financial institutions are refusing services to companies as diverse as gun shops, bitcoin businesses, marijuana dispensaries and even the porn industry.
Just last week a gun shop in Florida had an old bank account closed after their local bank was bought out by Wall Street interests.
The Miami News Times writes,
The DoJ is why financial institutions are refusing services to companies as diverse as gun shops, bitcoin businesses, marijuana dispensaries and even the porn industry.
Just last week a gun shop in Florida had an old bank account closed after their local bank was bought out by Wall Street interests.
The Miami News Times writes,
The Libertis’ battle with BankUnited began last month. For seven years, they say, they had no problem with the Miami Lakes-based bank. T.R. had run a gun store in the Garden State, and when he opened Top-Gun Firearms on Calle Ocho, BankUnited operated the account.Read the entire article
But when T.R. decided to retire and let Elizabeth take the store online — under the new name Discount Ammo-N-Guns — the Libertis found themselves suddenly under fire.
A March 12 letter mysteriously informed them that BankUnited was closing their checking account “pursuant to the terms and conditions listed in our Depositor’s Agreement.” It gave the Libertis three days to transfer their cash elsewhere. When the Libertis called BankUnited for an explanation, they were politely informed that none would be forthcoming.
“I was very angry,” Elizabeth says. “They were very inconsiderate. We had all our credit cards going through that bank. All of a sudden, we had to run and find another bank to keep our business going. We shut down for two weeks, and they wouldn’t even tell us why.”
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
FBI Visiting Gun Shops to Investigate "People talking about Big Government"
In keeping with the tradition of the FBI’s position on gun rights, it appears the Bureau is working overdrive to monitor and harass gun owners and the gun shops that sell to them.
While government surveillance of gun purchases and gun owners is nothing new, a recent visit by an FBI Counterterrorism agent to a Columbia, South Carolina gun shop has only reinforced the knowledge that the U.S. government is growing more and more concerned by the prospect of a well-armed populace – particularly one that prefers to live without constant government interference in their personal lives.
While the narrative surrounding “counterterrorism” operations used to eviscerate civil liberties after 9/11 was initially based upon the threat of Muslim fundamentalists, that narrative has clearly shifted to a focus on gun owning, law-abiding American citizens - both those who are politically active and those who are blissfully ignorant of current events.
For many, this shift of focus has been quite the surprise. Thus, when the Columbia, South Carolina gun shop in question was approached by an FBI counterterrorism agent on Monday, April 14, the individuals who spoke with him were somewhat alarmed to realize that the agent's concern was not fundamentalist Muslims but Americans who promote small government.
According to an individual who was present during the visit (this person will remain anonymous for obvious reasons), the agent pulled up in a regular vehicle in plain clothes and took a look around the shop as if he were considering a purchase before approaching the staff and announcing that he was with the FBI Counterterrorism unit.
While government surveillance of gun purchases and gun owners is nothing new, a recent visit by an FBI Counterterrorism agent to a Columbia, South Carolina gun shop has only reinforced the knowledge that the U.S. government is growing more and more concerned by the prospect of a well-armed populace – particularly one that prefers to live without constant government interference in their personal lives.
While the narrative surrounding “counterterrorism” operations used to eviscerate civil liberties after 9/11 was initially based upon the threat of Muslim fundamentalists, that narrative has clearly shifted to a focus on gun owning, law-abiding American citizens - both those who are politically active and those who are blissfully ignorant of current events.
For many, this shift of focus has been quite the surprise. Thus, when the Columbia, South Carolina gun shop in question was approached by an FBI counterterrorism agent on Monday, April 14, the individuals who spoke with him were somewhat alarmed to realize that the agent's concern was not fundamentalist Muslims but Americans who promote small government.
According to an individual who was present during the visit (this person will remain anonymous for obvious reasons), the agent pulled up in a regular vehicle in plain clothes and took a look around the shop as if he were considering a purchase before approaching the staff and announcing that he was with the FBI Counterterrorism unit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)