Since Feeding the Homeless Is Now Illegal…

Feeding and clothing the homeless in the land of the free has now become a revolutionary act. Luckily, however, there are still good people willing to carry out that act.

In December 2014, the Dallas city council enacted Ordinance No. 29595, which makes it illegal to serve food to the homeless without jumping through a statist myriad of bureaucratic hoops, including a fee, training classes, and written notices.

One should not need to file multiple forms and pay a fee to obtain a permit to give food to those in need who are willingly ready to accept it. The folks at Don’t Comply know this.

Matthew Short, with the aptly named organization, Don’t Comply, and dozens of volunteers from children to adults alike took to the streets of Dallas this week to hand out food, sleeping bags, clothing, and tents to the area’s less fortunate.

As TFTP has reported on numerous occasions, often times, police will swoop in and shut down those who would dare defy the authority of the state and conduct charity without a permit. However, most organizations aren’t like Don’t Comply.

As they took to the streets this week, many of the members of the organization open carried their weapons. This was done—not out of an act of intimidation—but merely to assert rights as well as protect them.

The resultant heavily armed group of do-gooders effectively staved off any attempts by police to shut down the charitable efforts.

In talking with TFTP, Short tells us that although police drove by fairly often, they never stopped and never attempted to intervene.

Success.

MORE

Putin Has His George Washington Moment

Has Putin had his George Washington moment?

On his death bed, old and sick, he will curse that day, for his personal failure.

He will see the damage he did, to Russia, to the whole world, in that one second, when he let timidness, or greed, or lust for wealth, power, the “good life”, get the better of his desire to put things right.

He will curse his decision, Knowing as his earthly body dies, that he screwed up badly, and it is beyond his ability to fix, or pay for his mistake, in this life.

On his deathbed, he would willingly trade all the days from then to present, all the women, all the money, all the power, for Chance to go back and fix that one mistake, even if he had died doing his duty.

But it will be too late.

Putin, if the English language stories are true, (wish i spoke and read Russian, don’t, don’t have the time to learn),Putin, when he announced his draw down of Russian Troops in Stria, said these troops could go home as they had achieved victory over ISIS in Syria.

That is a lie.

Not sure if it is just a lie, or a damned lie.

ISIS is alive and well IN Syria AND on her borders.
Continue reading

What Happens After the Next 9/11

Is a police state in the US possible? Absolutely.

That’s because people are essentially the same the world over, regardless of their culture, religion, race, or what-have-you. A certain percentage of them are sociopaths.

There is a standard distribution of sociopaths across time and space. It’s a function of Pareto’s Law, better known as the 80-20 rule. 20% of the people do 80% of the work. Another 20% are responsible for 80% of the crime. 20% of the population always winds up with 80% of the wealth. And so forth, through all areas of human endeavor. This observation can be represented by a bell-shaped curve—a “standard distribution”—with a small minority at each extreme, but the large majority in the middle. The people who will take us to a police state are sociopaths—criminal personalities who don’t respect the liberty or property of others. And sociopaths gravitate towards government, and eventually come to control it.

My view is that 80% of human beings are basically decent, get along, go along types. 20% are what you might call potential trouble sources, that can go either way. But then you take 20% of that 20% and you’re dealing with the sociopaths.

When social conditions reach a certain stage these really bad guys come out from under their rocks and take advantage of the situation. We’re seeing that right now in the US, across the political spectrum. Just as we’ve seen in the past in hundreds of places throughout history.

A major tipping point occurred sixteen years ago, on September 11, 2001, with the attacks in New York and Washington. They were disastrous. But not nearly as disastrous as the government’s reaction to them.

Among them the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Anybody that speaks German knows that a reasonable translation of Homeland Security is Geheime Staatspolizei, which is usually abbreviated to Gestapo. Anybody that goes through airline security these days should ask themselves, “Where the hell did they find these people? Didn’t they have jobs before they went to work for this moronic agency?” The answer is that there are people out there who like wearing costumes, are willing to boss, herd, interrogate, and go through the dirty laundry of their fellow citizens. They take their jobs seriously and you better not even look at them sideways. There’s no reason to believe it’s going to get better as they groove into their jobs, and their employer cements itself into place. More likely the trend will accelerate.

Is America currently a police state? Well, let’s see. You can still get in your car and go anywhere, although you might be stopped by the police and you might be detained if your papers aren’t in order. Or the officer thinks you’re not properly respectful. Or you have “too much” cash.

Was there any particular day that Germany became a police state in the 1930s? I’m not sure you can put your finger on any one particular day, even after Hitler was legally and democratically elected. It was a progression, with new laws, new regulations, new taxes every day. While more fear and hysteria were worked up among the populace. Kristallnacht didn’t occur the day after the National Socialists took power.

It’s a case of the frog being put in a kettle of water where the temperature is gradually raised to a boil. That’s what’s occurring in the US. After 9/11, in addition to Homeland Security, we got the Patriot Act, with, among other things, its suspension of habeas corpus. That means that the government can lock anybody up for any reason and not even have to tell them why. Accuse them of being an “enemy combatant”—a neologism that justifies anything, and is robotically and thoughtlessly accepted by Boobus Americanus—and anything is possible. Including a trip to a CIA black site in some Third World hellhole. This is something I thought was settled in Western Civilization with the Magna Carta and King John. But we’re going backwards in most areas of personal freedom. And America, of all places, is leading the way—even while falling behind economically.

I don’t know if I can put my finger on exactly when we’re going to go over the edge, but if I was going to guess I would think the real catalyst is going to be the next 9/11-type event. And I don’t doubt it’s going to happen.

How are we any different than the Germans in the 1930s? This was one of the most civilized, best educated countries in Europe and they fell into the abyss. I suppose we’re a bit different. Americans are addicted to welfare, anti-depressant drugs, food, and electronic devices. That should certainly give us a better outcome…

There’s a joke I like to tell. Let me ask you this: Which is the gravest danger? Is it the ignorance, or is it the apathy of the average American today? Stumped? Here’s the answer: I don’t know and I don’t care.

Doug Casey

Why America Was Never Great Again-Real Jew News

Recently, when the trickster trumpster, mouthed off about moving the “capital”, of the little crime cabal occupying Palestine, Holocusting the indigenous Palestinian people, from Tel Aviv, (which needs the big one dropped on it), to Jerusalem, which is recognized by the whole Arab/Islamic world, as an Islamic city. It is so recognized, and supposably protected by UN rules, I saw some Jews i thought of as real Americans, piss their pants in joy, at the thought of shoving the Israhell flag, collectively, up the Islamic worlds ass!

We are talking starting a damn war, in which more dumbed down American children will die, be screwed up for life, for something which is none of America’s damn business.

I knew America had a Zionist problem.

It appears, when the lone American is on that hill surrounded by savage zionist, with only his true Jewish friend at his back, and he ask his Jewish friend, what are we going to do now.

His Jewish friend says back, What you mean we, Goy!

Hello Houston!

We have a problem!

No more fence straddling.

One is either an American, or an enemy of America and Americans.

John C Carleton

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1256

What Are Rights?

What is a right? Do rights exist? They are intangible, yet philosophical constructs can be real.

A right defines a state of being; it describes a condition. “Right of way,” is how we describe who has first use of a road. People can certainly ignore the concept of a right of way. But that doesn’t void the concept. Right of way still serves as a tool to establish who is liable should a car accident occur.

In the same way, a right serves as a natural basis for who is wrong in a given dispute. It establishes who should be held accountable in a legal setting. And “legal” does not just refer to our current court system. Common law is a natural law system which solves disputes.

Saying someone has a “right” is a statement about an individual’s condition in nature. That is why rights are expressed in the negative. It is not something that must be provided or given (positive action). A right is a declaration of the natural state of a human. A right is the concept that another human should not disrupt (negative action) this natural state.

Therefore, there is only one natural right, from which all other rights stem: self-ownership.

Self-ownership means your body is your property. You can do whatever you want with it until your actions affect other individuals without their consent.

The legal basis of a right is the concept that only an individual gets to decide what happens to his or her body. The basic right of self-ownership condemns non-consensual interference with another person’s body. Therefore the initiator of aggression, the person who violates another’s self-ownership, is naturally, and legally, in the wrong. And therefore, the aggressor should be held liable for the violation.

In nature, an individual is at peace until acted upon by an outside force. Whoever wields that force is naturally in the wrong.

A “Right” is any action taken by an individual which does not measurably impact any other individuals without their consent.

Since non-aggressive action is, therefore “within our rights,” it should elicit no aggressive response. Any aggressive response to non-aggressive action is itself a violation of rights.

You are within your rights whenever you are not violating someone else’s. If you are respecting the self-ownership of others, every action you take is a right.

Therefore, speaking your mind is a right. Lying to defraud someone of her property is a violation of her rights.

Carrying a gun or other weapon to protect yourself is a right. Pointing that gun at an innocent person is a violation of his right to exist free of death threats.

Some would argue that since every action has some effect, it is impossible to live without violating others’ rights. That is why a violation of rights must be measurable.

Peeing in the woods does not violate anyone’s rights because there is no measurable impact. Dumping raw sewage in a river is a violation of rights because it infects water downstream.

It may sometimes be hard to decipher if a right has been violated. But this does not change the fact that rights do in fact exist as a concept to remedy disputes.

What Rights Are Not

Some people think rights are anything that they feel they should have, like education, food, and shelter. But if people are forced to provide a “right” for you, their right to self-ownership has been violated. They are being forced to do something with their body–provide something–against their will.

Things like food, shelter, healthcare, and education do not occur in nature, they must be created. This requires labor. People must work to extract and manipulate resources. People must study to learn skills. People must work to deliver products and services.

But forcing people to work against their will is called slavery. That is clearly a violation of self-ownership.

That is the concept of positive rights. It requires an individual to act.

Self-ownership means you have the right to not be forced to act against your will.

These concepts of rights are contradictory. Both cannot exist.

Someone may have good intentions in attempting to force people to chip in for others’ food, healthcare, and education. But if we want all human interactions to require consent, then we cannot also force people to provide things for others.

Otherwise, we devolve into right by force. Aggression becomes okay when used to force others to provide a right. And then, of course, the right to self-ownership goes out the window.

But positive rights are insidious. Sex is the most basic human desire. So why shouldn’t sex be considered a right, as important as education? But what if there is a man no one wants to have sex with? Someone would have to be forced to provide him with his right to sex. Of course, that would involve rape.

Less extreme examples are a variation of violating consent. Suppose no one is available to teach a man. Should a teacher be forced against her will to provide him an education?

Therefore a right cannot be something that must be provided. It is the absence of aggression, not the presence of a good or service.

You may not kill me, because I have the right to life. That concept stops aggressive action.

You must give me food, because I have the right to eat. That concept allows aggressive action.

When you say, “I have the right to speak my mind,” it is simply a way of saying, “It is wrong for someone to stop me from speaking my mind.”

It doesn’t mean these rights won’t be violated. It just means whoever violates you is naturally wrong.

The concept of rights is a legal basis to settle disputes. It gives victims a grounding, objective concept to assert that they are owed recompense for a wrong committed against them.

Self-ownership is a concept required in order to avoid the most atrocious human rights abuses, like slavery, murder, and rape. Without this view of rights, all manner of evil can be justified in the name of providing for others.

When you see someone suffering, it is tempting to force others to help them. But two wrongs do not make a right.

MORE

Israel Ramps Up Ethnic Cleansing in Order to Further Judaize Jerusalem-Global Research

Another name for Ethnic Cleansing, is, Tha-dha- Holocusting!

Now where have i heard about one people Holocusting another before?

Oh yes, the Judaic religious cult, keeps whining about the Germans “holocusting the religious cult in Germany, while they Holocaust the Palestinians in Palestine.

Sorry, neither side gets a humanitarian award, but the religious cult is Holocusting a people in the peoples own land.

The Germans Holocusted an immigrant people who had taken over the German Economy and were morally assaulting the German youth, in Germany.

Sorry, Germans look like the lesser of the two evils to me.

John C Carleton

Israel Amps Up Ethnic Cleansing in Order to Further Judaize Jerusalem

Manufacturing Dissent – The New Culture War

Noam Chomsky famously talked about manufacturing consent, a propaganda tool of the elites to control people. However, another equally potent way to control people is by manufacturing dissent. This is otherwise known as ‘divide and rule’, a strategy usually restricted to foreign policy, but now being directed at the American people by the American elites. Neo-Nazis, Alt Right, Antifa, destruction of statues, and Americans assaulting one another are all signs of a divided nation that’s in the throes of a manufactured ‘culture war’. While the ruling class is laughing it up, the middle and working classes are ensnared in what I would call a Societal Autoimmune Disorder (S.A.D.). Between 2008 and now, we have been cleverly steered away from ‘Occupy Wall Street’ to ‘Occupy One Another’.

In a united America, people would be focusing on the economy of reverse Robin Hood that has left 78% of Americans living from paycheck to paycheck; the unsustainable debt that shackles college students and the whole nation; the theft by Wall Street, banksters and the Federal Reserve Bank; the endless, maniacal wars that the military-industrial complex demands; the erosion of civil liberty and privacy; the unhealthy, fake food made from GMO and toxic chemicals; the rise in numerous chronic diseases; and the inexorable rise in healthcare costs, to name a few.

However, many Americans are oblivious to all of that and are busy fighting each other, if not physically then in their own heads and on social media. Whites against blacks, men against women, straight against gay, citizens against immigrants, Christians against Muslims, right against left and so on. There is no logical, mature discussion. Two groups meet to see who can yell louder and nastier.

Multiculturalism is hard, but it’s made infinitely more difficult when people are taught to focus on their differences, dig up old wounds, demonize entire groups of people, and embrace victimhood. Many Americans are now programmed to be acutely aware of race, gender, ‘identity’ etc. In addition, people are being actively encouraged to get ‘triggered’ by other people’s opinions, words, expressions, and even emotions.

In spirituality and psychology, from Buddha to the most successful people of the 21st century, collective wisdom teaches us that if you want to be happy, you should learn to ignore other people’s opinions and judgments, the things you can’t change and, in general, the trivial events that occur all around you every day.

Instead, we have a new generation of social engineers who tell people to be hyper-vigilant, constantly on the lookout for every conceivable way they could possibly take offense, the wrong words, wrong phrases and wrong opinions expressed in the wrong tones.

MORE

 

The Magic Trick

In 1913, one of the goals in the creation of the Fed was to have an entity that had the power to create currency, which would mean the power to create inflation.

In 1791, the first Secretary of the Treasury of the US, Alexander Hamilton, convinced then-new president George Washington to create a central bank for the country. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson opposed the idea, as he felt that it would lead to speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption. He was correct, and in 1811, its charter was not renewed by Congress.

Then, the US got itself into economic trouble over the War of 1812 and needed money. In 1816, a Second Bank of the United States was created. Andrew Jackson took the same view as Jefferson before him and, in 1836, succeeded in getting the bank dissolved.

Then, in 1913, the leading bankers of the US succeeded in pushing through a third central bank, the Federal Reserve. At that time, critics echoed the sentiments of Jefferson and Jackson, but their warnings were not heeded. For over 100 years, the US has been saddled by a central bank, which has been manifestly guilty of speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption, just as predicted by Jefferson.

From its inception, one of the goals of the bank was to create inflation. And, here, it’s important to emphasize the term “goals.” Inflation was not an accidental by-product of the Fed—it was a goal.

Over the last century, the Fed has often stated that inflation is both normal and necessary. And yet, historically, it has often been the case that an individual could go through his entire lifetime without inflation, without detriment to his economic life.

Yet, whenever the American people suffer as a result of inflation, the Fed is quick to advise them that, without it, the country could not function correctly.

It’s a given that all governments tax their people. Governments are, by their very nature, parasitical entities that produce nothing but live off the production of others. And, so, it can be expected that any government will increase taxes as much and as often as it can get away with it. The problem is that, at some point, those being taxed rebel, and the government is either overthrown or the tax must be diminished. This dynamic has existed for thousands of years.

However, inflation is a bit of a magic trick. Now, remember, a magician does no magic. What he does is create an illusion, often through the employment of a distraction, which fools the audience into failing to understand what he’s really doing.

And, for a central bank, inflation is the ideal magic trick. The public do not see inflation as a tax; the magician has presented it as a normal and even necessary condition of a healthy economy.

However, what inflation (which has traditionally been defined as the increase in the amount of currency in circulation) really accomplishes is to devalue the currency through oversupply. And, of course, anyone who keeps his wealth (however large or small) in currency units loses a portion of it with each devaluation.

In the 100-plus years since the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Fed has steadily inflated the US dollar. Over time, this has resulted in the dollar being devalued by over 97%.

The dollar is now virtually played out in value and is due for disposal. In order to continue to “tax” the American people through inflation, a reset is needed, with a new currency, which can then also be steadily devalued through inflation.

Once the above process is understood, it’s understandable if the individual feels that his government, along with the Fed, has been robbing him all his life. He’s right—it has.

And it’s done so without ever needing to point a gun to his head.

The magic trick has been an eminently successful one, and there’s no reason to assume that the average person will ever unmask and denounce the magician.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.