It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

Social Forums Current Events
41

Sure, be cautious.

Well, then some steps should be taken to somehow give some kind of justification to the contracted, non-government workers, in this case, who know that what the government was doing was not constitutional. The NSA more or less assumed that people would either out of fear or indifference ignore the fact that they were not just in certain instances breaking the law, but as a rule, systematically, and nearly universally.

You could give some kind of vague justification for tracking everyone’s communications. Alien invasion perhaps. But Snowdon’s a smart guy. He would probably know that no threat actually justifies blanket no warrent invasion of privacy of everyone.

And if the government had a sense of some specific threat, they could make moves to get legislative support in general.

Perhaps there is some kind of threat that would require being able to look at everyone’s communications without warrents. I can’t see what that would be, but all

all

actions take risks.

Allowing a government to have this kind of power is also a risk.

He weighed the risks

and exposed illegal activity.

Either way he goes he is taking a risk.

The US has a tradition of concern about government power. This informed his choice.

In fact governments should want citizens to seriously consider revealing large scale law breaking by portions of the government. Perhaps the NSA or a faction in it is preparting a coup.

It’s been years now and no one has come forward with any justification for what was done. Nothing that justifies tracking everyone’s communication without warrent.

It seems like you are arguing that if there might be something that could potentially justify some kind of massive law breaking by a government, then it is wrong to reveal it.

But the problem is that there is no risk free option for the potential whisteblower. And governments should know this. It is a risk they take when they decide they need to break the law. They will know that the people they hire may feel a greater obligation to the law than to the contract they signed. I would guess as a consultant for a private contracter, Snowdon had to sign all sorts of non-disclosure forms, and these had all sorts of threats. They should know that a sense of patriotism or the prevention of evil actions - saying in some sort of ethnic cleansing was on the table.

I even think that whistleblowers should be shown a lot of leeway if it turns out some secret threat that is unique was the reason.

And the Republicans have been big on privitizing the intelligence services to shift massive tax dollars to the private sector.

Well, a contract with a private contractor will perhaps be less binding, in the minds of the workers, than the chain of command. Or perhaps not, since there is so many values inherent in being the armed services or the intelligence services that open the door for whistleblowing.

And at the same time added urge to cover things up. I think it would have been extreme naivte on his part to think that his bosses at a private company with the NSA as a prime customer are going to say, sure, let’s reveal this. And talking internally also opens the door for measures to silence him. That is a risk.

I will be shocked if robust protections are in place for things that have to do with systematic abuse of power by those who are independent of administrations. Those are the people we want to protect, even more. Because the current slide towards fascism is not stopping regardless of which party is in charge.

Sure. And I think whistleblowers and others like them are often willing to take such risks. Then we as a society need to work out our response.

When you have a general war on whistleblowers we are taking huge long term risks, and both parties seem happy to let that war continue in general.

42

My understanding of US law is that the House and also the Senate have the constitutional right to be unjust. If they do not fear re-election concerns, they can do almost anything for any or no reason at all.

In the US, the people are tasked to hold the Congress accountable via voting replacements. When the people lose the right for their votes to have affect, they can no longer control their government. And they lose their vote’s ability to have affect when they lose their ability to hear the truth. Most Americans believe the cabal of media corporate propaganda.

The weakness of the US system stems entirely from having a corrupt united media. They are the global socialist elites controlling the narrative by which people gleam good people and bad people.

The six US united media corporations have committed treason against the USA (united by the Associated Press). They control the US Congress, not the other way around. And they can only be held accountable by choosing to inform the people of their own misdeeds. The global socialist billionaires will never allow that to happen even if the corporation board members tried, which they have no reason to do.

They know that people love to be lied to as long as the people feel comforted by the lie. The US education system teaches them when to feel more comfortable or uncomfortable (virtue signaling).

In a land of free speech, how is united propaganda extinguished?

43

Your wish, was their command… Boom!

44

What do you mean by “socialist” here? The wealthy people in charge of mega corporations are not socialist in the classic sense. Do you just mean “team blue”?

45

What I mean by “socialism” is the traditional definition - any governing body that controls the means of production (jobs, hiring policies, and products) and the economy (wages, interest rates, credit privileges, and currency availability).

What is NOT socialism is humanitarianism. Socialism is inherently and necessarily a power protectorate. Every governing body must protect itself from competing forces. I think your Fixed Cross has been talking about that. Rebellion or resistance must be eliminated at all cost, else all power is lost. The by far number one method for ensuring dominance over a population is the “carrot on a stick” method also called “bait and switch” - promising a wonderful future of free everything, cushy lifestyles, and no more of those EVIL people OVER THERE who have been making our lives miserable. “All you have to do is give us more authority to control all of those OTHER people all around you”. Yet they never actually deliver any of it except as needed to help take even more power away from the population. In the case of the US political parties, yes that has become the “blue team”.

Lying and being hypocritical almost defines the socialist power tactic. Your AOC congress woman provided a perfect example in two ways. First she was simply hired to be the puppeted actress for a man who could not have won an election, millionaire “boyfriend” socialist Saikat Chakrabarti. She simply espouses whatever agenda he puts forth. She is a fake and socialist puppet to sell socialism. And then second was her absurd Green New Deal - the carrot to ward off the globalist terror campaign of global warming. After a great failing of the campaign, her chief policy advisor (Robert Hockett - Lawyer and law professor at Cornell) openly admitted that the only real purpose of the Green New Deal was to reform the US economy into a socialist structure. The entire campaign, still going on today, was and is a lie used to usurp control of the US economy. And they have actually admitted it (under pressure).

The end result of socialism to the cause an extreme separation in class between the poor and the privileged. Note that is the exact opposite of what the socialist proposes openly. The primary tactic of the socialist is to hypocritically propose the opposite of the truth so as to disguise their control of the narrative - the carrot on the stick used to lead the population in any direction at any time.

A typical defense for the socialist is to play word games, redefining words to mean at times the opposite of what the population knew them to mean. This allows for greater ease in the deceptions involved in usurping authority and power over populations - an absolute requirement of socialism.

Another typical defense of socialism is to pretend that it isn’t already there (“the greatest trick of the devil”). When monopolies are formed a limited form of socialism is formed. Socialism is merely a monopoly over all social life, the population. This pretense generally comes in the form of, similar to AOC, a public puppet with hidden agendas and directors - “mega corporations” collaborating in secret , a cabal. The claim is “it is not us. It is THOSE EVIL GUYS OVER THERE!!” - those evil “mega-corporations”.

And then to top it all off, to ensure that the system continues and maintains the privileged families atop the mountain, enemies (such as ISIS or “gun violence”) are secretly created so that there is an ever present incentive for the population to yield all authority to the socialist order. Faux elections based upon controlled propaganda and false flag “reality” tragedies are then used to give the public appearance of being “democratic” and altruistic even though democracy and socialism are extreme opposites. They then call it “Democratic Socialism” (an oxymoron word game for public appeal).

If socialism continues without total failure, it gradually becomes Communism as the necessary extreme required to sequester and control the minds and hearts of the population (Communist China being such an example of socialism allowed to grow into communism).

46

WEll, the socialist power elite is doing a very poor job, then, in furthering their own power. They have privitized a very large amount of facets of government - including large parts of the military and intelligence services, let alone more tradition things called on to be privitized - and the commons. IN the last 50 years these socialists have eliminated all sorts of government oversight of most industries, reduced taxes, seen to it that the the wealthiest have ever larger parts of the pie, that money controls elections to an even greater degree, that corporations can be even larger - now larger and more powerful than many countries. I mean, these ‘socialists’ don’t seem to know what they are doing. They have created international bodies that do not allow governments to regulate corporations. Corporations can via proxies tell counties what laws they can have and not have, what products they must produce, how much money they can spend on social services - which is less and less. These ‘socialists’ must be unbelievable dumb, to a degree so incredible that they must be, on some unconscious level, corpratists: lovers of corporate power.

47

Try not to be so easily fooled.

When a government issues a license, it immediately gains control of the license holder. Don’t let the words “I own the business” fool you.

And just because it says “Corporation” on the tin, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a governing body. Money controls. Follow the money to the actual controller and governor.

President Trump could not have freed up all of those corporations if they had not already been under government “regulation” control (socialism). And note what immediately happened when he did - huge economic free flow and growth - anti-socialism.

48

quora.com/How-did-Karl-Marx … s/57676367

49

Just another deception.

That article describes “socialism from above” and “socialism from below”. The first is imposed by an already powerful “ruling class”. The second is the tricky one, the carrot on a stick. The “socialism from below” proposes that the population/workers will own everything. But what does that mean? A ruse.

Any group that is to be organized must have leaders - a ruling class. When those leaders take control of the propaganda ministry, the media, any “democratic” efforts immediately come under their control. They merely become the next generation of those same “socialism from above” people. After the short delay required to move from a “from below” origin, they must - must - maintain their power as the “from above” socialists.

And even if such a growth and conversion did not immediately take effect, through time, it certainly must because it would always be tempted and never be able to be prevented. Do you think a corrupt ruling class is going to let you overthrow them? Just look what they are attempting with President Trump, Zelensky, and Netanyahu. They never give up trying to gain and hold control through any means necessary.

So whether it begins from above or from below, it ends up in the same place - a mind controlling communist cult.

50

You can’t maintain a society when the people actively and viscerally hate each-other, undermine, and compete instead of cooperate (against a foreign society).

Infighting leads to self-destruction. Can the Modern-Post-Modern Political Left co-exist with the Right?

51

Are you willing to allow cultural-marxist “teachers” teach your Elementary School children that homosexuality and transexuality is “natural”, should be tolerated, and that young boys can “choose” to castrate… or aren’t you?

Where do you draw the line?

Are you going to guard your children from perverts, or aren’t you?

Are your children yours? Or are they property of The State?

Answer the fucking questions!!!

52

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ub0nxzWqOQ[/youtube]

It’s a clever thing, that if you are far-right, “alt-right”, and intelligent, then you must engage buggery, and “identify” as a homosexual, to be given a ‘pass’. I really wonder and criticize the nature of “homosexuality”. What if it were, instead, a symbolic gesturing of deferment and submission to a greater implication? That, if you were to want to “speak against” the core ideologies and degeneracy pervasive throughout civilization, then you must be “taken down a notch” and humiliated? This is my impression on somebody like Ruben, as-if they were “faking it”, like Milo Yinappolous, and in so “faking it”, they are finally given a ‘pass’, somewhat, to say what they originally wanted to say, or to think what they wanted to think? And consider this philosophy forum, the nature of anonymity, and the sacrifices required to “think freely”. Isn’t it dangerous, at least?

Now, in this conversation, there are a few powerful themes. The State, versus Religion. Secularism, versus Abrahamism. Yet, are they even different?? The “Protestants” in early US history, the Colonials, the Settlers, the Puritans and Mennonites, what were they really “Protesting”? Answer: Catholicism. The historic division and challenge, of (European) religion, has been between Catholics and “everybody else”. Rome versus the Gauls (Germany meaning Allemand “every man”). Christian versus Pagan. Here’s a quick-theory. Europeans never quit being “pagan”, at least, not completely. And so the spread of Christianity, by Catholicism, is against the European nature, by which even Modern-Post-Modern people still hope to rebel, and reawaken whatever ancient spirits they originally had inside.

Think of the Matrix and the compulsion to “keep waking up” from a dream/nightmare. The Ancient spirit keeps trying to reawaken, but the Subversion, Suppression, and Repression keeps pushing it back down. This represents the uprising and upheaval of Nazi Germany, and the significance of the 20th Century. If the locks and chains are taken off, if they’re removed, then Calamity/Armageddon/Destruction will result. But why and how?

The American Protestants are a (per)version of Christianity. One version of many. Thus, one variant of a virus, out of many variants. And the spread is very powerful and invasive. Can people be vaccinated, can it be cured? Can Man remove himself from “God”? Historically, the answer is No.

Because what is Secularism today, except a shadow-religion? US Protestants (Anglo-Saxons), classically the enemies of Rome (Catholicism), did not want to establish a Central Church in USA. So what happened? The State became The Church. And the masses, seeking purpose, protection, and parentage, first go to The State, when they do not have God as a choice.

In the video I linked, this is more relevant and prevalent than ever before. Because now, in 2019, average people see, view, and recognize “The State” as The Church, and the institution that they must travel through, to receive, or to do, anything at all. So the female speaker is correct in the video, to conclude, that Post-Modern peoples, the masses, the average person, has the understanding backward (inverted), identifying the affect as the cause.

My summation: when people don’t have a Religion, a God, they will make a new one. And this “Secular-Protestant-Humanism”, is the New Religion. And this “Deep State” is merely symbolic, of the types of tyranny and fanaticism to come, on the horizon. Because when you are a follower, a slave, a serf, at heart, in the blood, then you don’t really have a choice do you, except to follow? And if you have no guidance, then the masses of people will merely wait around, for a Messiah to come. Followers waiting for a Leader.

Any “leader” will do.

53

“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world. Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.” - Lenin

54

I don’t think Lenin would dress his sons in pink dresses, frills, and apply makeup to their faces, do you?

55

And not that they didn’t have a chance.
Besides,communism is an inverted Christianity

56

lol i hear this all the time, but marxist thinkers and their philosophies couldn’t be less christian. what’s happening is, naturally ocurring instinctual behaviors like compassion, sympathy, collective cooperation, charity, tolerance and the like, have never before in history received greater proselytization than that by christian dogma. hence, by ideological shorthand, philosophers can’t help but to perceive any narrative containing ideas of, and sentiments towards, these things as ‘christian’, and forget entirely their evolutionary origins in human behavior.

and yet when such behaviors are practiced by enemies of marxism - which they now can’t help but seeing as idealistically ‘christian’ - suddenly it’s acceptable, virtuous, and a sign of strength. so it’s okay to be compassionate and sympathetic and charitable and all that so long as you don’t call yourself a ‘christian’ while being so. but here you see the mass confusion again; these things are not christian. there is no christianity… that is just a name given to a set of abstract ideas which have claimed both the source and origin of these human instincts and social behaviors.

lol… if confucianism dominated the west instead of christianity, enemies of marxism would be calling communism inverted confucianism.

57

no. pink fatigues and/or uniform, maybe, but certainly not dresses. a dress is impractical for a revolutionary soldier. frills might be acceptable though. certainly stylish. it would depend on the additional time and materials needed to produce such uniforms.

58

…Inverted Judaism mostly…cough**cough

…Christianity is a Jewish slave religion with a slave morality…cough**cough

59

nah it’s not ‘inverted’ anything, really. if at all, it would maybe be an extension of Henri de Saint-Simon’s thought, who was one of the first in europe to create a thorough critique of industrialized society.

call em whatcha want; idlers, parasites, capitalists, duddint matter. but these niggas gots ta go.

now this was before marx and engels, see, and then engels wuz like ‘hey yo karl, this dude might be on to something’, and so began the work of the dynamic duo of historical materialists.

60

Are you sure?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pDtgWUtdUM[/youtube]