It looks like the uSSA is not alone in this government “crack down” on “extremists.”
By definition, most an-caps could be included in 90% of the “list of 72 types of Americans” considered to be “extremist.” I’ve always said that Lew Rockwell was my “mine canary.” When they come for old Lew, I’m outta here. — jtl, 419
by Michael Snyder via End of the American Dream
You have heard of the “No Fly List”, right? Well, now the Tories are pledging that if they win the next election in the UK they will establish a list of “extremists” that will have to have their social media posts “approved in advance by the police” before they post them. There are also plans to ban “extremists” from broadcasting and speaking at public events. The stated goal of these proposals is to crack down on terrorism, but in the process the civil liberties of the British people are going to be flushed down the toilet. And the American people need to pay close attention to what is going on in the UK, because whatever police state measures are implemented over there usually also get implemented over here eventually. For those that believe that we need to do “whatever it takes” to fight terrorism, there is a very important question that you need to ask yourself. What if the government decides that you are an “extremist” because of what you believe? What will you do then?
When I saw a report in the Telegraph today entitled “Extremists to have Facebook and Twitter vetted by anti-terror police“, I could hardly believe it.
Do the British people actually want a “no social media list” that will essentially ban people from using Facebook and Twitter even though they haven’t actually been convicted of doing anything wrong?
The following is a brief excerpt from that article…
Extremists will have to get posts on Facebook and Twitter approved in advance by the police under sweeping rules planned by the Conservatives.
They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will lay out plans to allow judges to ban people from broadcasting or protesting in certain places, as well as associating with specific people.
The plans — to be brought in if the Conservatives win the election in May — are part of a wide-ranging set of rules to strengthen the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy.
This sounds like an Orwellian nightmare for the British people.
And who is an “extremist” anyway?
We are being told that those that belong to ISIS are extremists, and nobody would argue that.
But the article in the Telegraph makes it sound like any group “that spreads or promotes hatred” would be considered extremist. And under these new proposals, even belonging to such a group could get you thrown into prison for up to 10 years…
The Home Secretary will also introduce “banning orders” for extremist groups, which would make it a criminal offence to be a member of or raise funds for a group that spreads or promotes hatred. The maximum sentence could be up to 10 years in prison.
So what does all of that exactly mean?
Would anti-abortion groups be considered “extremist”?
Would groups promoting traditional values be considered “extremist”?
Would groups protesting against the abuses of the British government be considered “extremist”?
Would Christian churches ultimately be considered “extremist” because they don’t agree with the radical liberal agenda of the central government?
Essentially what the Tories propose to do is to tightly regulate all speech. And there is no way to do that without turning the entire United Kingdom into a totalitarian hellhole.
Meanwhile, the United States continues to march down a similar road.
For example, we now live in an environment where a 16-year-old kid can be suspended from school and arrested by the police for writing a story “about using a gun to shoot a dinosaur”…
In another case of school officials adhering to ridiculous zero tolerance policies, a student from South Carolina was suspended and arrested by police recently after writing an imaginative story about using a gun to shoot a dinosaur.
The offender, 16-year-old Alex Stone of Summerville High School in a suburb of Charleston was in the course of completing an assignment where students were asked to write something brief about themselves, much like Facebook status updates.
Stone told reporters that he found himself in hot water with teachers for being over imaginative and mentioning the word ‘gun’.
This is utter insanity, and it is getting worse with each passing day.
And it is not just kids that have to deal with this kind of thing. A Big Brother police state control grid is being slowly constructed all around us. And authorities are preparing for the day when they will have to use lethal force to keep the population in line. Just check out the following excerpt from a recent Infowars report…
A document released by the U.S. Army details preparations for “full scale riots” within the United States during which troops may be forced to engage in a “lethal response” to deal with unruly crowds of demonstrators.
The appearance of the document amidst growing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, with the National Guard now being called in to deal with the disorder, is an ominous coincidence.
The document makes it clear that the techniques detailed therein are to be applied both outside and inside the “continental United States (CONUS)” in the event of “unruly and violent crowds” where it is “necessary to quell riots and restore public order.”
The training manual outlines scenarios under which, “Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots.”
So precisely who is the government so concerned about anyway?
If ISIS and other Islamic terror groups are the problem, why train to fight against Americans?
Sadly, the truth is that much of the focus in the “war on terror” has been turned inward during the Obama administration. Many officials in the federal government now insist that “homegrown terror” is the greatest threat that we face.
And you may be quite surprised to learn who the government considers “potential terrorists” to be. The following is an extended excerpt from my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents“…
Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link. As you can see, this list covers most of the country…
Are you starting to understand?
When government officials speak of the need to crack down on “extremists” and “potential terrorists”, that is a very dangerous thing.
The truth is that they could be talking about you.
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.