![IMG_0342[1]](https://i0.wp.com/starvinlarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/img_03421.jpg?w=325&h=243&ssl=1 "IMG_0342[1]")
First part of a series- worth the read if you want to know the history of the M-1.
From the Cheaper than Dirt blog here
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Globalist Strategy: Use Crazy Leftists And Provocateurs To Enrage/Demonize Conservatives
Posted: August 26, 2017 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedWill Charlottesville Be a Pretext for Toughening Police State Laws?
Posted: August 25, 2017 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized
“The aftermath of 9/11 transformed America into a police state. Obama continued what Bush/Cheney began – cracking down hard on fundamental freedoms, subverting constitutionally protected rights.
Will Charlottesville be used as a pretext for more of the same? Violence last weekend was reprehensible. Responsible parties should be held fully accountable – federal, state and local laws adequate to handle things.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions opened an investigation into possible hate crime charges. Bipartisan leadership in Congress urged hate crime and terrorist charges against James Fields, accused of mowing down counter-demonstrators, causing one death and numerous injuries.
Federal hate crimes legislation was first enacted in 1968 – defined as threatening to use force “to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating in a federally protected activity, such as public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations, or helping another person to do so,” according to the Justice Department.
Additional hate crimes legislation followed in 1988, 1996 and 2009 – expanding the federal definition of this crime.
As of mid-July 2016, the Justice Department charged 258 individuals with hate crimes – since 2009 alone.
The so-called Shepard Byrd Act (October 2009) made it a federal crime “to willfully cause bodily injury, or attempt to do so using a dangerous weapon, because of the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin,” according to the DOJ.
It expanded previous hate crimes legislation. Is further expansion likely post-Charlottesville? Did Fields commit a hate crime and/or terrorism, or was he solely ideologically motivated against anyone opposed to his point of view?
He already faces murder and other charges. No evidence suggests he targeted individuals for their race, religion, national origin or other factors hate crimes legislation specifies.
The 1968 Civil Rights Act criminalizes use of force to injure or intimidate anyone “participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly.”
It usually targets voting rights violations, not incidents like Charlottesville, though it’s appropriate using it to press charges against individuals responsible for violence last weekend.
AG Jeff Sessions called the deadly car ramming attack “domestic terrorism,” saying
“we will charge and advance the investigation toward the most serious charges that can be brought…”
So far, Fields is charged with second-degree murder, malicious wounding, and failure to stop at the scene of an accident resulting in a death – under Virginia law.
Will federal hate crime and terrorism charges follow? Will current federal laws be expanded to be harsher?
Will civil liberties suffer another body blow? Will tyranny advance further toward becoming full-blown?
US history is littered with repressive laws – Constitutional protections targeted since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts restricted First Amendment freedoms.
Police state harshness defines US policy, civil liberties grievously harmed. Anything goes in the name of national security is OK.
For the first time in US history, Patriot Act provisions created the crime of domestic terrorism. Section 802 applies to anyone allegedly engaged in “dangerous to human life” actions.
US citizens and permanent residents are vulnerable to accusations of violating federal, state, or local laws if they:
intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
influence government policy by intimidation or coercion; and/or
affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
The devil is in the definition. Peaceful demonstrators can be targeted like violent ones. The First Amendment doesn’t discriminate against points of view hostile to government practices.
Academic, media and speech freedoms are fundamental in all free and open societies.
Using Charlottesville or similar violent incidents elsewhere as pretexts to compromise constitutional rights is what tyranny is all about.”
“I still believe in liberty. I still agree with privacy and the right to have the government leave me alone. I still believe all of those things. I also, however, believe that our time is best spent working on the things we CAN change, the things we CAN accomplish — and all of the things on that list come under one heading:
local, local, local.”
“There’s a certain peace in accepting a situation as it is, as I talked about yesterday. For many who still believe that camo and rallies are the way to change the status quo, acceptance means, on some level, taking away their purpose. I get that it’s a hard thing to accept; if you’re not ‘working for the cause,’ what else is there? When you’re suddenly not spending insane amounts of time and (often someone else’s) money on the ‘fight for liberty,’ what are you supposed to do with yourself? It can cause some severe psychological effects for those who are engrossed in it.
I get that sentiment. My own thought progression has occurred over several years as well. I’ve done the rally thing, the open activism thing. I’ve given speeches at events and sang the anthem in front of tens of thousands in DC. At each and every action, my heart was 100% in it — I believed in the necessity of fighting, and the hope that we could change things.
Over time, those beliefs were challenged again and again by watching what was going on around me. I can’t tell you how many times I had to find a way to either cease being ignorant, or cease being honest. Little by little, the books I read, the things I saw, the facts I had to accept changed me.”
Read the rest at The Patrick Henry Society here
CNN-‘White supremacists by default’: How ordinary people made Charlottesville possible
Posted: August 25, 2017 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedThis is a nausea inducing read,it shows that to the left/leftist media white people are the enemy and everything wrong in the country today is the white man’s fault.
(CNN)Blame President Trump for his tepid moral response. Call the neo-Nazis and white nationalists thugs. Fill your Facebook and Twitter accounts with moral outrage.
But the tragedy that took place in Charlottesville this month could not have occurred without the tacit acceptance of millions of ordinary, law-abiding Americans who helped create such a racially explosive climate, some activists, historians and victims of extremism say.
It’s easy to focus on the angry white men in paramilitary gear who looked like they were mobilizing for a race war in the Virginia college town. But it’s the ordinary people — the voters who elected a reality TV star with a record of making racially insensitive comments, the people who move out of the neighborhood when people of color move in, the family members who ignore a relative’s anti-Semitism — who give these type of men room to operate, they say.
”You have to have millions of people who are willing to be bystanders, who push aside evidence of racism, Islamophobia or sexism. You can’t have one without the other,” Naison says.
“We are a country with a few million passionate white supremacists — and tens of millions of white supremacists by default,” he says.
Many people prefer to focus on the usual suspects after a Charlottesville happens — the violent racial extremists who are so easy to condemn. Yet there are four types of ordinary people who also play a part in the country’s racial divisions, Naison and others say:
No. 1: The ‘down-low’ segregationists
Many of the white racists who marched in Charlottesville were condemned because they openly said they don’t believe in integration or racial equality.
But millions of ordinary white Americans have been sending that message to black and brown people for at least a half a century.
They send it with their actions: They don’t want to live next to or send their children to school with black or brown people, historians say.
Busing, a nationwide campaign to end school segregation by shipping students of color to white schools, collapsed in large part because of fierce opposition by white parents. “White flight” — white families fleeing city neighborhoods after people of color moved in — helped create the modern suburbs.
Think only white supremacists oppose integration? These ordinary white Boston parents protested busing in 1974.
This isn’t the Jim Crow segregation that one reads about in the history books. It’s the covert or “down-low” segregationist movement that has shaped much of contemporary America since overt racism became taboo in the 1960s, says David Billings, who wrote about growing up white in the segregated South in his memoir, “Deep Denial: The Persistence of White Supremacy in United States History and Life.”
“Across the country, white people withdrew from the ‘public’ sphere and migrated to ‘whites only’ suburbs to evade racial integration,” Billings wrote. “The word ‘public’ preceding words like ‘housing,’ ‘hospital,’ ‘health care,’ ‘transportation,’ ‘defender,’ ‘schools,’ and even ‘swimming pool’ in some parts of the country became code words that meant poor and most often black and Latino. The word ‘private’ began to mean ‘better.”’
This white separatism continues today. Whites move out so often when nonwhites move in that sociologists have a name for the phenomenon. It’s called “racial tipping.”
This separation also occurs in the private lives of many white Americans, according to one pollster. In 2013, Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, made a splash after conducting a survey where he found that 75% of whites in the United States didn’t have a single person of color in their social circle — they only had white friends.
Jones polled a complex subject. Many people of color self-segregate as well, and some American neighborhoods are so segregated that residents never come in contact with people of other racial or ethnic groups.
Yet some white Americans are driven by the same impulses that drove some of the white racists in Charlottesville — racial separation.
“White people in the past century and a half have made a conscious effort to resegregate themselves,” says Edward Ball, author of “Slaves in the Family,” a memoir about coming to terms with learning his family owned slaves.
“We have to work hard to make our social lives reflect our values, because white people do not choose the company of people of color generally,” he says.
Ball once wrote that “unconsciously or inadvertently, all of us white folks participate in forms of supremacist thought and activity.”
The angry white men in Charlottesville were just being open about their white supremacy. Ball says he wasn’t surprised by their boldness.
“Their climate is now better for them,” he says.
No. 2: Those who say ‘yes, but…’
President Trump’s critics blasted him for not coming out strong enough against the white racists who marched in Charlottesville. Trump initially denounced the “egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides.” It was the “many sides” qualifier that infuriated some people. They wanted an unequivocal denunciation of racism from a leader.
Trump’s “many sides” response, though, wasn’t that abnormal in the context of US history. It used to be the norm for white political leaders to draw a moral equivalence between racists and those who suffered from their acts of brutality, historians say.
It’s the “yes, but” rhetorical maneuver — condemn racism but add a qualifier to diminish the sincerity of what you just said.
White families fleeing people of color helped create suburban America. It’s called “white flight.”
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. ran into this “yes, but” response so much that he wrote about it in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”
He wrote:
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace, which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action…'”
President Dwight Eisenhower took the “yes, but” approach when he complained he couldn’t move too fast to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision to integrate schools because people had to respect the Southern way of life, says Carol Anderson, author of “White Rage” and a professor of African-American studies at Emory University in Atlanta.
A recent Washington Post article gave other examples: When Southern governors like Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Earl Long of Louisiana were pressured in the 1950s to end segregation, they called both the NAACP and the White Citizens’ Councils, a rabid segregationist group, “extremists.”
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once said moderate whites who refused to take a stand on racial justice angered him more than the KKK.
“You get that equivocation,” says Anderson, “that trying to make a system that absolutely strips people of their humanity on par with people demanding their humanity.”
That “yes, but” approach is often used today to discredit the grievances of the Black Lives Matter movement, another professor says. Whenever an unarmed black or brown person is shot by police, some deflect the issue by saying, “Yes, but all lives matter.”
“When a police officer shoots an unarmed black person, even then it’s controversial to say racism is a factor,” says Erik Love, a sociologist at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. “We say, ‘Why don’t we talk about these other issues. What about the crime rate, what police officers need to protect themselves.’ And suddenly we’re not talking about race anymore.”
No. 3: Those who choose chaos
There’s a famous line from the classic film, “Casablanca.” A police officer is closing down a casino, declaring, “I’m shocked — shocked — to find that gambling is going on in here!” — all while pocketing his casino winnings as they’re being handed to him on the sly.
That line could apply to Trump supporters who say they’re frustrated by the President’s statements on race since Charlottesville erupted.
How could you be shocked?
“This is who he is, this is what he does,” says Anderson, the Emory University professor. “‘Mexicans are rapists and criminals.’ That’s what he said in his first speech. Their complicity comes in the form of self-denial instead of owning it.”
For those who say they voted for Trump despite his intolerance, Anderson offers this analogy: Minister Louis Farrakhan.
Farrakhan is a leader in some parts of the black community because of his message of self-help and black empowerment. He reached peak popularity in the 1990s, but he also preached anti-Semitic, anti-white, anti-Catholic and anti-homosexual rhetoric. And the organization he leads, the Nation of Islam, has taught that white people are inherently evil.
Fordham professor Mark Naison says America is at a scary place now where open, communal warfare could erupt.
“If he was running for office and black people voted in droves for him, the narrative would be, ‘They’re supporting a racist,”’ she says.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, an acclaimed writer on race relations, made a similar argument after Trump’s election in an interview with Vox’s Ezra Klein, where he responded to commentators who said not all white voters who supported Trump endorsed all of his ideas.
“As my buddy said, is that what you said to the followers of Louis Farrakhan? No, nobody says that to the followers of Louis Farrakhan. No, they blasted him as an anti-Semite, which he is, and say, ‘how can people follow this bigoted message?’ That’s the ultimate testament — that you could be Donald Trump and be President. There is no black person who could have the kind of vices Donald Trump has and, hell, be governor. Maybe you could be mayor somewhere.”
Many voters knew Trump would bring something else to the Oval Office — chaos. That’s why they chose him. He’s their first reality TV president, one writer says.
Many voted for Trump because they liked the persona he cultivated as the star of “The Apprentice.” Reality TV rewards characters who say rude and reprehensible things, characters are often cast as racial stereotypes, and those who provoke the most chaos get the most attention, says Joy Lanzendorfer, author of the Vice article, “How Reality TV Made Donald Trump President.”
“He would say horrible things about people, act out and break the rules, but people weirdly respected it,” she says. “They said he was a winner, and that’s how a winner wins.”
It’s not, however, how many would want a nation’s leader to handle a racial crisis.
No. 4: Those who look the other way
Ari Kohen knows something about the cost of hate. When he looked at images of neo-Nazis chanting “Jews will not replace us!” in Charlottesville, he thought of his grandfather, Zalman Kohen. He was living in rural Romania in 1944 when the Nazis rounded him up with the help of his neighbors and sent him to a death camp.
His grandfather survived, moved to the United States and lived until he was 90. But he never returned to Romania, says Kohen, an associate professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
“He could never forgive his neighbors,” he says. “These were people who, maybe they didn’t love Jews, but these were people who lived next to each other. They knew his family and he knew their family. The idea that they could all stand by while life was completely and forever changed for large portions of their community — he could never understand it.”
Many scholars have been vexed by the same question. When they examine genocidal events like the Holocaust, many come to the same conclusion:
Never underestimate the ability of ordinary people to look away.
Some do it with family members. Kohen says the hundreds of white racists who descended on Charlottesville must have family or friends who noticed their behavior beforehand. He suspects that some refused to confront them.
“There’s this wink and nod, everyone knows that this person is going down a dangerous path and people passively go along with it,” he says. “They don’t want to rock the boat. This is family or a friend. It’s hard to distance yourself from people you care about.”
When ordinary people refuse to speak out, a country can descend into violence — as it did in Northern Ireland.
This passivity extends to how people react when their country’s leaders become intolerant, others say. Once you see it coming, you have a duty to act, says Naison, the activist and Fordham professor.
“If you don’t speak up when this sort of ideology is being promoted at the highest level, you end up being complicit in the actions taken by its more extreme adherents,” Naison says. “Once the demons are unleashed, you’ve become a co-conspirator.”
Naison says he doesn’t think most Americans realize how dangerous it is in their country right now. He’s warned people who voted for Trump.
“I told these guys, you can’t control this; you’re playing with fire,” Naison says. “Open, violent communal warfare is scary. You can’t control it. Look at what happened in the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Israel.”
There’s also evidence, though, that millions of ordinary Americans from all walks of life don’t want that kind of America. Heather Heyer, the demonstrator who lost her life in Charlottesville, was a young white woman who marched in solidarity with black protesters. Millions of Americans have since taken to the streets or social media to stand against what happened there.
Former President Barack Obama even weighed in with a photo and quote that’s become the most liked tweet ever on Twitter.
Obama quoted Nelson Mandela, the South African leader who knew something about hate and reconciliation. In his 1994 autobiography “Long Walk to Freedom,” Mandela wrote:
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
Yet to get to that place Mandela talked about, it may be necessary to not just look at the usual suspects people condemn when racial violence spills into public view.
If you want to know why those white racists now feel so emboldened, it may help to look at all the ordinary people around you, your neighbors, your family members, your leaders.
But first, start by looking at yourself.
From CNN here
How To Rein In Censorious Technology Giants
Posted: August 25, 2017 by gamegetterII in Uncategorized
Over the past decade, the large technology companies of Silicon Valley have transitioned from a mindset of attempting to make government censorship impossible to a mindset of attempting to make government censorship unnecessary. Those with views which are in opposition to the progressive narrative have increasingly found their posts removed and accounts suspended on the social media platforms created by these companies. Though this is not a new problem, it has escalated since the firing of James Damore from Google and the unrest in Charlottesville. Those who are not part of the progressive movement, such as conservatives, libertarians, reactionaries, and the alt-right are increasingly finding themselves shut out of open discourse online, having to either signal compliance with the left or risk being de-platformed on the most popular social media sites. Though the alt-right has borne the brunt of this so far, it is unlikely to stop there, as the contemporary left does not value discourse in the same way as their classical liberal predecessors. There are several proposed responses to this situation, but none of them are likely to effectively deal with the problem. Let us examine these to discover their shortcomings, then craft a novel response that is more likely to succeed.
The Mainstream Libertarian Response
In the mainstream libertarian view, the large size of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, GoDaddy, Paypal, and others are astonishing success stories of free-market capitalism. They tend to view these technology companies as private businesses whose owners should be able to freely choose with whom they will associate or not associate. Indeed, many libertarians view ostracism as a nearly universal positive, working to reward preferred behavior while punishing dispreferred behavior. If these companies behave improperly, mainstream libertarians believe that the market will punish them by elevating an alternative to prominence.
Though ostracism on the basis of behavior is nothing new, the crowdsourcing power of the Internet has transformed it into a political weapon that can be used to ruin people unjustly. Moreover, it is capable of dividing an entire society along ideological lines. When reasoned discourse is shut down and unpopular viewpoints are suppressed by howling irrational cyber-mobs, those who are de-platformed are likely to have their internal victim narratives confirmed, radicalizing them further. This may serve as a precursor to a novel type of civil war, one which arises when the heated rhetoric that is naturally produced as a byproduct of democracy escalates into political violence and there is no peaceful outlet to reduce tensions before they consume the entire society.
In a free market, censorious behavior from the largest companies would be of little concern. As John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, “The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” But it is also true that those in positions of power view checks, balances, and competition as damage and seek to route around them. Technology giants accomplish this partly by lobbying governments to regulate their industries in a manner that they can capture, as any other large companies would. But they have another weapon which can be even more potent: they can use their platforms to keep their upstart competitors out of search results and application stores. This can keep their competitors from gaining the brand recognition necessary to build the user base to become successful social media platforms. This was less of a problem in the early days of social media when turnover of the most popular sites was higher, but the near-monopolies of the largest companies are no longer as vulnerable.
The Conservative/Alt-Right Responses
In the view increasingly expressed by conservatives and alt-rightists, the Internet is an essential aspect of life in the 21st century, and the technology companies that deny people access to the most popular social media platforms, domain hosting services, and payment processors are curtailing both the civil liberties and economic opportunities of those people. The largest technology companies are effective monopolies, in that these firms are the only sellers of products and services that have no close substitutes. In response, they call for the state to regulate these companies as public utilities, much as they do to providers of electricity, water, and natural gas. This line of thinking also leads to support among these people for net neutrality regulations. Some argue that government regulation is even more necessary in this case, as the network effects and first-mover advantages of the largest technology firms mean that a competitor cannot provide the same quality of service even if there are no significant barriers to entry into the business of creating social media platforms, search engines, and payment processors.
However, treating social media as a public utility is likely to cause more problems than it solves. When governments began regulating other industries, innovation in those industries slowed. The companies which were nearly monopolistic either remained so or became real monopolies, as competition became even more difficult. Freezing current troublesome companies in place as major players rather than allowing upstarts to displace them is an undesirable outcome. This is exacerbated by the fact that public utility regulations are just as vulnerable to regulatory capture as any other regulations. It is also strange to equate losing social media presence with losing access to goods and services like clean water or garbage disposal, as one can live a healthy life without access to social media. Furthermore, the cost of regulation is likely to be high, and the regulated businesses will pass this cost onto their customers.
Read the rest @ The Zeroth Position here
New cheap “Ham Radio” transceiver from QRP Labs
Posted: August 25, 2017 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedCheck out all the other posts while you’re at it-tons of good info…
Misleading clickbait headline- But it Still Triggered PETA… Firefighters rescue piglets from fire, devour them as reward
Posted: August 24, 2017 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedEating sausages made from the grown and butchered hogs isn’t exactly “devouring piglets rescued from fire”.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/firefighters-rescue-piglets-fire-devour-reward-article-1.3435691
Starvin Larry 