Music With A Message 04: "Disappear" by Emily Barker

  It is sometimes said that the best music isn't the most popular. After listening to this underrated track, you might understand why some people say that. Emily Barker is an obscure singer/song-writer from Australia whose music has been featured as the theme for BBC's 'Wallander' and 'The Shadow Line' dramas. Her style is mixture of the Americana and Folk categories with a hint of Country-esque texture.

  'Disappear' features a unique take on the aforementioned styles, and blends them together marvelously. The sound of it manifests a sense of valor that is almost reminiscent of a pirate sailing the seas, while at the same time promoting the unmistakable feeling of being present at a calm but aging English pub. The rhythm and lyrical delivery demonstrate mastery that I would say is almost unparalleled by any artist I've ever heard. However, the true genius, in my opinion, comes in with the lyricism. Her lyricism is wise and clever, with excellent use of metaphors, symbolism and story-telling.

  She tells a story of someone who has had bad experience or bad luck when it comes to love. Someone who, according to Emily, can only manage to mess things up. This is causing internal distress, and is making the person want to run away, or disappear, from the aim of cupid's arrow.


Due to a lack of widespread fan base, there are not a lot of videos up on YouTube. The original track can be heard here. If you follow that link, you'll also be able to read the lyrics if you scroll down a little.


Here is a YouTube live session of the song:

Hard Truths - BOMBSHELL: 29 Pages Reveals U.S. Ally Implicated In 9/11 Involvement & Terrorism

  What you are about to read will change the way you see the government. The following information will open your eyes to the power of corruption and greed. You will realize that the last 3 presidents (including Obama) are guilty of treason for being implicit in protecting an 'ally' that has direct ties to the 9/11 attacks on American soil and terrorism. Ex-POTUS Bush Jr. is especially guilty of treason for betraying the American people by bringing this country to war in Iraq where the death toll surpassed a million (including thousands of American soldiers) while protecting an enemy. His administration had knowingly blocked information that would have implicated Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks.

"Real revolution starts at learning. If you are not angry, you are not paying attention." - Tim McIlrath

You are about to learn exactly what that means.

The 29 Pages & It's Contents

  A little background before proceeding. Shortly after the attacks on 9/11, Congress launched an investigation into the terrorist attacks. The Joint Inquiry on the 9/11 investigation began to uncover a lot of information about the nature of the attacks, who was involved, and how they accomplished what they did. The FBI, which conducted the actual investigation for the Inquiry, experienced push-back from the Bush administration and was complicit in redacting damning information pertaining to Saudi Arabia's government involvement and connections to the 9/11 attacks in the official public reports. The information that was especially implicating of Saudi involvement was gathered up and classified by the Bush administration, and those classified pages are known as the 28 (really 29) pages. On July 15, 2016, the information was finally released to the public (right in time for Congress to go on their 2 month recess of course.)

 [Here is the full released documents.]

  Under 'Part Four-Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security', which is on page 6, the first 3 sentences state that:

While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government. There is information, primarily from FBI sources, that at least two of those individuals were alleged by some to be Saudi Intelligence officers. The Joint Inquiry's review confirmed that the Intelligence Community also has information, much of which has yet to be independently verified, indicating that individuals associated with the Saudi government in the United States may have other ties to al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

  Those first 3 sentences alone should be of great interest to the general public, because we are currently close allies with the Saudi government.

Obama with the King of Saudi Arabia. Source.

  Next, on page 7 the document begins to discuss information regarding the contacts that some of the 9/11 hijackers had. They provide a list of individuals who either were either hijackers or were terrorists by association. The list of names includes: Omar al-Bayoumi, Osama Bassnam, Shaykh al-Thumairy, Saleh al-Hussayen & Abdullah Bin Ladin.

  Omar al-Bayoumi's profile strongly suggests Saudi government involvement on 9/11. According to FBI reports, Omar al-Bayoumi had been receiving financial support from early 2000 to late 2001 from a Saudi company that was affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense. The company also had ties to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qa'ida. Reports further stated that 2 hijackers from 9/11, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi arrived in San Diego in the February of 2000. After their arrival, Omar met with an individual from the Saudi consulate and then proceeded to meet with the Khalid and Nawaf at a public setting. Shortly after the arrival of Khalid and Nawaf, Omar began receiving an augmentation on his 'allowance' from the Saudi company, which he used to provide financial assistance to the hijackers. The reports indicate that during all of this, Omar was having extensive communication with Saudi government establishments in the United States.

  Osama Bassnam has a rather incriminating profile as well. Bassnam was a close friend of al-Bayoumi, and they were collaborating in their extremist plot. Bassnam met the hijackers through al-Bayoumi, but told the FBI that he did "more for the hijackers" than al-Bayoumi did. This wouldn't be surprising considering the declassified pages state that Bassnam lived across the street from them. It was reported that Bassnam had numerous ties to the Saudi gov't. One of the past positions he held was in the 'Saudi Arabia Education Mission.' Some people within the Muslim community that talked to the FBI told them they believed Bassnam was also a Saudi intelligence officer. A CIA memo stated that Bassnam received a fake passport and funding by Saudi gov't officials, including the Saudi ambassador to the United States. His wife also became involved here and reportedly received a large amount of money from Princess Haifa of Saudi Arabia, supposedly for "nursing services", even though the FBI found no evidence Bassnam's wife was involved in "nursing services." In 2002, after the 9/11 attacks, Bassnam traveled to Houston and met with an unidentified individual. During this visit, he received a large amount of money from a member of the Saudi Royal Family.

  I'm going to skip over most of the document because there is a lot of information to sort through, however I want to go ahead to page 21 to hone in on something of interest. The documents states:

Several individuals on the East Coast whom the hijackers may have met may also had connections to the Saudi Government. After the terrorist attacks, the FBI discovered that, during September 2001, an individual named Saleh al-Hussayen stayed at the same hotel in Herndon, Virginia where al-Hazmi was staying at the time. According to FBI documents al-Hussayen is apparently a "Saudi Interior Ministry employee/official." He claimed not to know the hijackers, but agents in the FBI's Washington Field Office believed he was being deceptive. The interview was terminated when al-Hasseyan either passed out or feigned a seizure requiring medical treatment. He was released from the hospital several days later and managed to depart the United States despite law enforcement efforts to locate and re-interview him.

  There is not much an explanation needed there. I believe that to be quite self-explanatory, and anyone should be able to see how a narrative is beginning to play out. We don't want to think we were lied to, but this information acquired by the Joint Inquiry proves that Congress had a lot of reason to be led to the conclusion that Saudi Arabia was our enemy, not Iraq. In fact, in the entire document I don't think I saw Iraq get mentioned once. Saudi Arabia gets mentioned over and over and over again. If you don't feel a deep sense of betrayal and rage rising to the surface yet, then allow me to continue.

  What do we know about Saudi Arabia? It turns out that most Americans don't really know a whole lot about the nation. Allow me to shed some light.

A Short Analysis On Our 'Ally'

  We here in the United States have the pleasure of living under a secular government, however some rulers in other nations believe the best way to govern a nation is largely through the doctrine of the Quran. The Saudi regime that is currently in place can best be referred to as a 'theo-monarchy.' Specifically, the strain of Islam that is centered in Saudi Arabia is known as 'Wahhabism.' The problem here is that the Wahhabi strain of Islam has long been known to promote Islamic extremism. The Saudi royal family does not seem to outright announce that they are Wahhabi Muslims, but the rule of law via Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia strongly suggests this is the case (see this for background information.) I must add that Sunni Salafism is another strain of Islamic that promotes extremism that is common in Saudi Arabia. Either way, the Saudi government is guilty of violating human rights. Take for example that back in 2014, Saudi Arabia passed a law in which atheists/non-believers and political dissidents are seen as terrorists and "enemies of the state." The Saudi gov't finds many ways to deal with these "terrorists", one of those ways is through state-sponsored beheadings. That's right, if you even dare question the existence of Allah you could land yourself a medieval-style beheading. Because that's how you convince atheists around the world that you're confident in your beliefs and that you're on the moral high ground (you can find more information on Saudi human rights violations here.)

  As if that wasn't bad enough, it is a known fact that Saudi Arabia has funded terrorist networks. What this means is that Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of extreme Muslim ideology that promotes violence and death to "infidels." Furthermore, extreme forms of Islam teach anti-Western, but especially anti-American views. The fact that Saudi officials have not properly addressed this issue in their country and instead perpetuate violent Sharia Law, make it obvious that the Saudi government is complicit in global terrorism. They have been caught funding terrorist groups, the foundation of their nation is based on Islamic extremism, they violate human rights, and the 29 pages now reveals to us that they may have had a central role in the 9/11 attacks. 

Why?

  Why does the United States of America, the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world associate itself with a barbaric and arguably evil ideology? If Washington states that there is a "war on terrorism", then we should all be very, very alarmed. How could U.S. intelligence not realize that a major source of global terrorism is one of our biggest allies? 

Maybe this can answer your question:

  In other words, who cares if Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11, we need their oil. You can't make this up.

  

Some intelligent discussion about 9/11 and Saudi Arabia:

  Conclusion

  The conclusion is simple: we were lied to. The Bush administration single-handedly blocked damning information about the Saudi role in 9/11 because Saudi Arabia was too important for our oil interests. Furthermore, the Bush administration wanted to move forward with the invasion of Iraq, and the information on Saudi Arabia would have severely hampered this agenda. 

  Keep something in mind though: 2,977 innocent Americans died on 9/11. The government seized information and obstructed justice in the name of oil interests. We went to Iraq instead of confronting Saudi Arabia. 

  161,927 – 180,812 is the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion of Iraq. 4,497 American soldiers were killed since the beginning of the Iraq war. 

  Partisan politics is irrelevant. Both sides of the aisle in D.C. are guilty to some extent, so this concerns all Americans. We have allowed the government to hijack justice in the name of money interest, that is unacceptable. So many innocent lives have been lost in this grand scheme. As Major General Smedley Butler would say, war is a racket. And if you're not seriously pissed off right now, then you're still not paying attention.

Psychology: Scout Versus Soldier Mindset

   Chances are that you've gotten into a heated political argument with someone recently or in the distant past. Whatever the case may be, there is a good chance that you, the other party - or both of you - were executing a textbook example of the 'soldier mindset' (motivated reasoning.)

Picture is from Google images

   In the battlefield, we all know what soldiers do. But let's recap. An infantry soldier's job in war is to attack viciously and defend passionately. When people become overly attached to their preconceived notions, they defend these beliefs passionately - even at the expense of good judgment and logic. A good hypothetical case is if we imagine a political argument between yourself and another party. You say X should be a certain way because so and so reason. Your opponent says X should be a different way because so and so reason while presenting hard evidence. In this made up scenario, your response to this was to say that the source for the information was obscure and too biased. However, the evidence presented to you by your opponent was completely factual and supported by multiple independent parties as being verified truth. This entire exchange is a great example of the soldier mindset. The truth is that this mindset is harmful to our intellect and knowledge database because it causes us to dismiss information that directly opposes our own convictions. Soldier mindset harms objectivity and therefore harms credibility. In extreme cases - the soldier mindset is harmful to the life of others.

   Take for example racism. Someone who is vehemently attached to the idea that his/her race is superior to that of another race or races will dismiss the biological evidence that directly contradicts this belief. At the expense of rationality, this person can commit acts of discrimination and even hate crime against another race or races. Soldier mindset can also affect news. News organization may dispose of journalistic code of honor and choose to air certain stories that portray a convenient bias or may even alter factual information.

   The case of Alfred Dreyfus is a famous, historical case that demonstrates the damage that can be done when one is in a blinding soldier mindset. Mr. Dreyfus was a French officer in 1894 that was found by a military court-martial as being guilty of treason. He was sentenced to life in prison. From the get go, the poor mindset was used to justify the systematic targeting of Dreyfus. The French military had gathered intelligence that a soldier in the service was spreading secrets on to the Germans. Under the spell of antisemitism and very faulty 'evidence', the French military pinpointed Dreyfus as being the treasonous soldier. After a shaky trial, his devastating conviction was set. The court had found little evidence that Dreyfus was truly guilty, but was behaving irrationally due to their inability to see past their antisemitism. This move in attacking viciously at the expense of good judgment led to the conviction of an innocent man. Years later, an officer named Colonel Picquart who was very suspicious of the entire ordeal, decided it was time to consider that Dreyfus was really innocent after gathering intelligence that secrets were still being given to Germany. When this information was presented to the French military courts, they dismissed it as asinine. Picquart did not give up though, and after years of court battles and public upheavel, Dreyfus was eventually pardoned in 1906.


   So now I'd like to redirect the focus on a specific character, Colonel Picquart. Picquart is the epitome of the opposite of soldier mindset - 'scout mindset.'

From Google images

Picquart was even antisemitic himself, however he was motivated to find the truth, even if that truth didn't conveniently fit into a narrative that he and everybody else wanted. The person with the scout mindset doesn't care much for what fits into their preconceived notions, but instead cares more for the big picture. They care more for what the reality is, even when that reality is unpleasant. Rather than being rooted in tribalism or defensiveness like the soldier mindset, the scout mindset is emotionally invested in the virtues of curiosity and open-mindedness. Being a scout will allow you to tear down your own emotional attachments to ideas or beliefs, and discover new information that provides you with a better understanding of the world. Considering the times that we live in, there is nothing that we need more than people who are able to lift the veil and see things for what they are - even if that is not convenient. Additionally, those who are scout-minded happen to have better judgment. This is not illogical to conclude either, as it allows for someone to acquire better and more accurate information.

   It goes against human nature to try and be like Spock from Star Trek all the time, but it is surely best for yourself and for others to consider that maybe things aren't the way you believe them to be. Always consider that the information you possess and seek isn't necessarily what's closest to accuracy as possible, but rather what's closest to your own bias as possible. Open your mind and let in the flow of information to permit yourself to get as close to truth as possible.

-----

Information is credited to Julia Galef.
A nice summary can also be found here.

Political Philosophy: Perceived Fundamental Flaws In Libertarianism

[WARNING: This is a long post!]

FOREWORD:

   The libertarian crowd is very passionate about their political ideology, so everyone must be careful so as to not take what I say out of it's proper context. This is not a personal attack against or bashing of the people who are libertarians, but rather a detailed critique as to why I believe the ideology to be fundamentally flawed.

   With that being said, do not believe that I have the idea that our current system in the U.S. is perfect, because it is not. It does have it's flaws. However, I do not think the whole libertarian belief system is a way to move the nation (or the world for that matter) forward. Notice I did say that the whole libertarian belief system is not a way to move forward, this is because some aspects of libertarianism I find to be more appealing, and I believe a lot of people would agree with me.

What is 'Libertarianism'?

Well, according to Merriam-Webster, generally defined it is:

"LIBERTARIANISM: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

 
   This definition is loose, but it gives you a general idea of libertarianism. Once you dig deeper into libertarianism though, you will learn that there are varying degrees of libertarian. You can have libertarians like Gary Johnson who 'harder' libertarians call a Republican 'lite', or you can have anarchist-libertarians like Adam Kokesh. All of these different types follow the general definition seen above and in reality are varied around the beliefs of Ron Paul, who is a very cherished figure of the libertarian community.

   I will specifically adopt the Ron Paul type of libertarianism and refer to it in this critique. If you are a libertarian reading this but you are more of the Gary Johnson type, less of this will apply to what you believe.

Image is from 'reddit'

Non-Aggression Principle

   So now that all that is out of the way. Let's move on. Let's talk about the libertarian notion of the 'non-aggression principle.' According to the Mises Institute wiki, the non-aggression principle is "an ethical stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate." They define aggression as "the initiation of physical force against persons of property. the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property." They elaborate that the non-aggression principle is different than pacifism, because the non-aggression principle does not rule out necessary action in the name of self-defense.

   Seems legitimate. Of course, the fine details of the non-aggression principle make it so that taxation is considered theft. For this reason, libertarians see taxation as illegitimate and inherently oppressive, since it is the seizure of their property. Furthermore, government itself is seen as an inherently immoral institution. There are varying degrees of this deep opposition to government, however in the case of Ron Paul he is basically one step away from anarchy.

   One problem with the entire non-aggression principle is that strict adherence to it's ethics can lead one to arrogance and even hatred to all other ethics that do not adhere to it's own principles. This is because people who oppose the non-aggression principle, even slightly, can automatically be painted as oppressive and evil. It is easy to blame someone of being immoral and evil if you can say "you want the state to oppress people!" This is something I have personally noticed among the libertarian crowd. For this reason, it is very difficult to have disagreement against libertarians without invoking an intense emotional accusation of being evil. In the defense of libertarians, it is nothing about the people themselves - it is strict adherence to the ethical stance that triggers this type of reaction.

From 'pinterest'

   The truth is that if you oppose the non-aggression principle it does not make you evil. It does not mean that people who oppose it want to hold you up at gunpoint and steal your wallet, nor would they see that as a good thing if they witnessed it happen to you. There are many individuals who oppose this principle, and many of these people are good. If you see things as black and white, you may disagree. However, there are legitimate justifications for not fully embracing the principle. For one thing, the non-aggression principle presents itself as the core stance of libertarianism. Due to this, there is no way that taxation can be enacted in a libertarian society without violating the principle. Why? Because the libertarian belief system would lead one to the conclusion that the state forcibly taking your money "at gun point" is theft of your property. So, to reiterate: they believe that only workers should have complete control of what they choose to spend their money on, and that their hard earned money should not be taken from them. If this is the case, then wouldn't the logical stance be that workers should have control over the wealth they produce rather than give most of it to the capitalist class?

   Nevertheless, without taxation it is not possible for government to function doing the things it does today. To a degree, I think that is a good thing. What stops me from complete agreement is when we get to some of the reasonable things that government does, like funding of education, healthcare programs, retirement programs, jobs creation/infrastructure, military, etc.

   The non-aggression principle places property rights and "freedom" ahead of the basic needs of humanity. There is no reciprocal relationship in libertarianism that allows for each individual to contribute his or her share to allow for the survival and continuation of the collective. The rejection in the non-aggression principle is the rejection of responsibility in taking a part for the species as a whole. There is no real recognition of every person's right to life. As an example, education will not be funded by the government because it is immoral, and so on and so forth.

Freedom & The Free Market

   How about freedom? libertarianisms say that they are the true party of freedom. By freedom, they refer to allowing an individual to carry out their practices as they wish, without interference of any kind. This is why true libertarians generally support anarchist-capitalism (an-cap.) The problem here is that the term "freedom" as it is defined in libertarianism is very simplistic. Is it freedom when people are forced subject to the harsh reality of the free market?

   From the legalization of drugs to ancap, it surely seems that libertarianism supports maximum freedom. It is true that libertarianism allows for the pursuit of one's most selfish desires, almost unabated. Businesses would be able to practice as they please, and individuals could do all the drugs they want. However, ultimate freedom trumps the freedom of others. How so? take for example an alcoholic. An alcoholic is someone who is addicted to the recurring use of ethanol, no matter how bad the consequences may be. In any society, an argument can be made that the decision of alcoholics to continue to use alcohol affects others. This in turn, can be likened to an oppression of your freedom. A family alcoholic continues to use alcohol and despite harmful effects it has on health, it can also place tension in households between family members, and create abusive environments. This is why and how ultimate freedom can be it's own form of oppression (I will return to this later on, bear with me.)

From 'quickmeme' (I didn't make this though.)

      Let's hone in on anarchist-capitalism. An-cap means no state regulation and no taxation. With the elimination of the state, society would run in favor of private property, free markets, and individual sovereignty. Society is supposed to improve itself through the discipline of the free market. Police departments, firefighting departments, military, courts - virtually everything, would be privatized. The idea behind this is like killing two birds with one stone; you get maximum freedom and superior quality of life, goods & services. The ideology has a strong attachment to the belief that the free market will always produce superior quality goods & services. I find this to be a misunderstanding of how the free market truly functions. Why? because it often has shown us that instead, it produces superior marketing.

From 'Business Insider'

   This is due to the nature of the business model within the context of a free market economy. In a majority of cases, the question is not "can I produce a really great X?", but rather "how can I make the most profit selling X while maintaining the lowest possible production costs?" What is a specific example of this? McDonald's. Just last year, McDonald's grossed a whopping $15.46B (believe it or not, last year was actually a bad year for McDonald's shares.) McDonald's is known for it's world famous Big-Mac, and it is arguably one of the most successful restaurants of all-time. But when people go to McDonald's, they don't expect amazing, world-class burgers that are truly the best of the best. The food is the same in basically in any of the chains around the world, and the food is simply okay. It's not great food, but it's okay. And a lot of people would probably just outright say it's disgusting. However, one thing McDonald's does do is world-class advertising. In 2014 (I couldn't find advertising information from 2015), McDonald's spent $1.42B in advertising, on the U.S. alone. That is a decent chunk of their annual profits.

   What's my point? My point is that the free market does not always mean superior products, and McDonald's proves it. You might say, "well McDonald's is so successful because they are the creators of modern day fast food" or something along those lines, to which I would reply that your point does not help your case. If we take this logic and apply it to education, we are looking at the potential for a product that is not superior in quality, but superior in it's marketing techniques. To give entrepreneurs the opportunity at profiting at the cost of developing children is a questionable idea. The free market needs losers, while public education is supposed to understand that no children should be left behind. Likewise, forcing families that live in poverty to send their children to private school may prove impossible or extremely, extremely difficult financially. This wouldn't just adversely affect a small number of families either, the 2010 Census Bureau reported that 16.4 million of children in the United States lived in poverty (source.) Every year since that last report, poverty has increased. A more general poverty study by the Census Bureau reported that in 2014, poverty in America was up to 46.7 million people. Do you see the problem with privatization of everything yet? (There is an article that goes further in-depth on the adverse effects of privatizing all education here.)

 
   Let's rewind a little and go back to talking about libertarianism's philosophical premise of freedom. On the subject of freedom, libertarianism is fairly straightforward. As I've already mentioned, a main goal of libertarianism is the considerable shrinking or abolishment of the state because the state is a coercive force. However, upon closer inspection it appears that the abolishing of the state in favor of full "freedom" really only shifts the coercion of the state to the coercion of free market forces. This is because full privatization puts you at the will of the owners of whatever privatized entity is in question. Furthermore, here's some food for thought. Wouldn't a private entity owning the house you live in, the car you drive, the income you earn, etc. be an infringement upon your true freedom? Someone who controls a part of your needs, controls you. For example, you can't just spend money as you wish, because you have to calculate how much money will go into your housing loan, utilities, car payments, student loans, etc. and spend accordingly. Also, this private entity can theoretically seize what you have away from you. Much like the way many fear the government can take what you have away from you. By definition, that means you aren't really free. With libertarianism however, free market forces will also be in control of roads, all land, sewer management, prisons, police, firefighters etc (and what about air, water?.) It seems that people would be trading government that is at least theoretically accountable to them, with CEOs and boards of directors from companies that have no interest in representing the interests of the people - only the profit motive above all else. Without taxation, people would have to voluntarily pay for these things. As noble as it may sound to say you've eliminated taxation, how do any of these things stay afloat? Will people really voluntarily pay for all these services?

Corporations doing whatever they want is a good thing? From 'tech in Asia'

  In other words, no, I don't think libertarianism really advocates for true freedom. I also want to really hammer home on the subjects of how corporations can be oppressive in a free market. Do business practices always work in our best interest and make us all better off? I would answer absolutely not. In fact, this is something that I don't think is up for debate. No one should even try to argue that corporations always make us all better off. The truth is, when we look at the current global situation we are witnessing what happens when the 'ugly face' of capitalism is left unchecked. The global power elite is composed of global decision makers in key positions of power to influence the economy, media, and policy. The global power elite (an introduction to the subject) specifically consists of people like high profile journalists, members of the corporate community (this is a big one), politicians, members of the military industrial complex, banking industry, multi-billionaires etc. Besides the subversion of international and national democracy, the global power elite has built a power structure that allows for them to shape the law arena so as to protect their elite class and their privilege. Here in the U.S., the power elite have influenced policy in tax codes so as to help create their "hidden" welfare state. On a global level, the power elite stash vast amounts of money in tax havens. But what is really important is that the inconsideration of the global power elite will have an adverse effect on everyone.

   Profit is the prime motive for a business as I've mentioned already. Because of this, foods that are linked to causing cancer will be of no concern to the food industry. Imagine, this is already the case. Yet, it would surely be worse under a completely free market. What other failures of corporations are there? Far too many to try and mention them all. However, another thing is that it is no secret that many corporations have never minded polluting and destroying the environment. This in turn, affects the very health of the air we breathe. In China for example, industrial activity has led to incredibly thick layers of smog in cities like Beijing. All these things I talk about would be exacerbated if corporations could do whatever they want. Another example of a major failure of the free market is the recent BHS collapse.

   The man solely responsible for the collapse of BHS (which is a retail store chain) is Phillip Green. In short, billionaire Phillip Green was the owner of BHS for about 15 years. Under his reign, the corporation fell into demise, and cost 11,000 jobs. Furthermore, Green's greed and lack of corporate governance plunged the value of the company and drained the corporate pension fund for workers. The company's deficit fell to $749 million. Green figured that his company was about to fold, but he didn't want to let it happen under his watch. So what he did was proceed to sell BHS to a buyer for $1 and 30 cents. No, I'm not kidding. The buyer who Green sold BHS to was completely inexperienced and had no idea what to do with the company. However, Green pocketed $552 million from the transaction (by selling company dividends.) Due to this blatant disregard for others and selfishness, 20,000 pensioners are now facing risk of significant cuts to their pension incomes. The British gov't has already called Green's actions a display of the 'ugly face' of capitalism. What's to stop dozens of other BHS's from occurring if corporations aren't bothered by pesky government regulations?

Trickle-Down Economics & Democracy

From 'quiet mike'

   As we draw near the end of my perceived flaws of libertarianism, I'd like to continue forward with several last points. First of all, in anarchist-capitalism, the idea is that people's wages and jobs won't be affected adversely, instead there would be more job creation and more wealth for working class Americans if we completely eliminated the middleman from the equation (all government regulation.) However, this prevalence of the 'trickle-down economics' theory has already proven to be false.

   When we look at history, it is simply a fact that in the 1960s, the U.S. top tax rate was 70% (that's not even the highest we've ever had) and the country was seeing the greatest growth in median household income in modern history. During this period, economic growth was at about 5.4% per year. You can not reasonably deny that the middle class is what truly powers an economy. Why? Because when workers have more money, they spend more. In turn, this fuels the economy, thereby making the middle class the true job creators. An ancap economy would function exacerbating what we already witness, which is tens of millions getting paid to Wall Street traders while thousands of farmers are barely getting by. This is not an accurate reflection of what job is necessary for society, but rather a system that is shaped by status and bargaining power.

   The truth is when we give tax breaks to the wealthy, the majority of the time they hoard it and there is no proof that they overwhelmingly invest it back to the economy. If what I just said was false, then logically we wouldn't have the current levels of income inequality that we currently have in the U.S. Right?  

Source from 'google images'

                                                                                      The Reagan era is what introduced us to trickle-down economics, and as you can see, that's just about the time when income inequality began to skyrocket. Meanwhile the bottom 99% has seen little wealth "trickle-down", as you can tell.

   The Walton family, who is the Walmart family that is worth billions, saw their wealth increase to $90 billion in 2010, which is 22% more than what they had in 2007. In that same time period, the median family wealth in America fell by 40%, at least according to data from the Federal Reserve. Where is the trickle-down there? To make matters worse, Walmart has been accused of paying their workers low wages and 'shameful labor practices.' As we can see, there is a reason why I do not buy trickle-down economics, and why I especially don't buy the idea of expanding trickle-down economics to anarchy for the rich and corporations.


   On the subject of democracy, I definitely am no fan of libertarianism. Libertarianism is strictly anti-democracy because it does not legitimize the 'oppression' of the majority that restrains freedom of others. This is especially a problem if the majority limits property rights in the name of the common good, or common interest. Libertarianism splits as to what the solution is, as some who aren't anarchist-libertarians advocate for monarchy (which doesn't make sense if democracy is seen as oppressive) while others would obviously prefer anarchy. In my opinion, I don't really think you can get more fair than democracy. The alternatives aren't convincing. It makes sense to support a system in which you give people a voice, and the largest amount of people who agree on a certain issue should get there way. Why do I think this is the fairest system? Because there is simply no way to please everyone. Democracy is the closest thing though.

                                                        In Conclusion....

                           

   Although liberals and conservatives have their differences, it seems to be the case they both recognize a legitimate role of gov't and taxation. Libertarianism is definitely the "radical" ideology when it comes to being compared against modern liberalism and conservatism.

   I would like to reiterate that the biggest flaw (in my opinion) about the libertarian ideology is that libertarians do not admit to a human right to life. The ideology places the individual "freedom" above any sort of obligation to continue the cooperation that leads to the well-being and survival of the collective. Libertarianism presents itself as the true moral philosophy, when in reality its model of society is the opposite of what I would consider morally fulfilling. On one end you have communism, and on the other end is the laissez-faire economy - both seem to be terminally deficient in their understanding of balance between human greed and placing the community above the individual. Libertarianism, like communism, I ultimately regard as being quite naive. That anyone can believe that you can allow for the individual to pursue all their selfish desires with no obligation to the collective and expect good to come from it is beyond me. To choose between the two extremes and pick a balance that works best for the ultimate survival and thriving of society is what should be the goal.

   However, I am not prepared nor am I willing to dump the libertarian ideology. In fact, I find libertarianism to be useful in its social dimension to help further the idea of reasonable personal freedom and liberty. Specifically, the ideology forces you to take a powerful stand against constant war and foreign interventions unless absolutely necessary. Furthermore, libertarians are non-bullshitters that don't play around when it comes to bringing justice to corruption in government and the political system, as well as maintaining deep loyalty to constitutional rights and being vocal opponents of infringements upon certain liberties.

****
I want to be challenged. If something smells fishy to you, or you have any sort of issue with my analysis, please challenge my position. I am willing to hear arguments and change my position if it comes down to it, as I would expect you to do the same. Drop your comments below.

News - Lifting The Veil: #Munich Shooting and Syrian 'Collateral Damage' Exposes Media Bias

   The main theme of this blog is to help people gain an understanding of the world we live in, and themselves. I attempt to do this by finding a key balance between intellectual content that triggers deep thought and critical thinking about a variety of topics, as well as through the building of emotional intelligence. This post is going to serve as an appeal to emotional intelligence and logic. I wish for people to continue with their open-minds and attempt to answer these very curious and even difficult questions.

   In the past several hours, a suspected terrorist attack has occurred in Munich, Germany (4 hours from where I am.) The details are coming in as I write this, but here is what is known at the moment:

An undetermined number of shooters has reportedly opened fire in the Olympia shopping mall in Munich. Shooting has also been reported on nearby streets. There is also an unconfirmed report that a shooting has occurred in Karlsplatz square in the central part of the city. More unconfirmed reports say a shooting has occurred at Lsartor square. At this moment, there are officially 10 casualties and an undetermined number of injuries.

Photo obtained from 'Russia Today' news website

   Thankfully, this does not appear to be another massive casualty event like what we observed in Nice, France.

   With that being said, not long after the shooting, President Obama has come out and expressed his grief for our German ally. But when it comes to understanding the value of human life, Obama has not always stood by the side of the people. His interests seem to be very specific. Now, do not hear me wrong, the murder of people is always a sad thing. Especially when it is done in the name of a violent, radical form of Islam. I am in no way saying we should not grieve with Germany. What I am saying is we should question the mainstream media narrative, because it is a powerful tool that shapes people's opinions.

From 'rocket news'

   Let's consider news that came out of Northern Syria just a few days ago. Several news websites (here and here) had gathered reports that as many as 85 innocent civilians were killed in U.S.-led airstrikes on Syrian soil. 85 innocent civilians killed behind the authority of U.S. led airstrikes. In the Nice attack, 84 people were confirmed dead. Needless to say, the scores coming from Syria are not as definitive or accurate as the scores from Nice, meaning that more or less people may have been killed.

   The killing of up to 85 innocent civilians is not just a failure of intelligence gathering, it is a national embarrassment. Furthermore, the killing of this many innocent people is similar to the very act of terrorism we are fighting against. Some people might say that it's not like terrorism and that "that's the reality of war" and dismiss these reports. That kind of thought process is shameful and disgraceful. Why? Because it gives people a reason not to feel a sense of responsibility to prevent such acts from happening in the future. Do intelligence agencies not understand that mistakes of this magnitude is breeding ground for the rise of radical Islam? It gives people from these regions a reason to want to wage jihad against the West, because we are killing scores of innocent people. So when we talk about fighting the war against terror- we need to take a step back and rethink what that means. To these people, we are the terrorists. The killing of innocent people creates more terrorists. It is a vicious cycle. 

   So we accidentally killed 85 innocent people (possibly) in Syria, including 11 children. This was all over the news right? The President addressed the nation like he did with Nice and now Munich, and admitted to our awful mistake in Syria and apologized, correct?

   Incorrect.

   The killing of 85 innocent civilians in Syria was covered very lightly by mainstream media and was mostly reported in alternative or online-based news sources. This is exactly the kind of media bias that people like myself despise. The truth shall always be set free, whether it makes us look good or bad.

From 'pinterest'

   And then now this disaster in Munich has struck and it is all over mainstream media. CNN, NY Times, Fox, BBC, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, Al Jazeera etc. are all reporting on it - and it is on the 'Breaking News' banner for every single one of them. Then again, how much more can we expect when the mainstream media is also mysteriously silent when it comes to CIA-funded 'moderate' Syrian rebels known as Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zinki recording themselves enthusiastically sawing off the head of a child? This isn't conspiracy insanity, this is reality.

   It seems to me that the mainstream media is protecting something. You tell me what you think that is. As always, continue to question everything and seek understanding of the world, and yourself.


----------------------------
*Update: 7/23/16 12:37 p.m.
I've made the assumption based on the EU terror trend that the gunman or gunmans had ties to radical Islam, but as details continue to roll out of Munich, it may not actually be the case in this attack. If this is confirmed, I apologize in advance for the assumption fallacy. Also, confirmations seem to indicate that there was only one gunman but I will wait further before fixing this in the post.

**Update: 7/25/16 3:44 p.m.
10 deaths (including shooter), 35 wounded. The shooter was not inspired by radical Islam. Was mentally disturbed, depressed, and had an interest in mass shootings in general.

News: Entertainment Star and King Troll Alex Jones Cries Wolf

   Alex Jones, who is the host of the Alex Jones radio show and the founder of the online "news" website Info Wars decided it would be a brilliant plan to go to the Young Turks media set at the RNC during a live recording and cause trouble. After Jones arrived at the TYT set and began harassing the crew, tempers began to flare. The entire confrontation almost caused a physical fight between Cenk Uygur and Alex Jones himself. There are two perspectives of the ordeal, below is the TYT version and the Alex Jones version. It is abundantly clear who is the aggressor here and who was mostly in the wrong. Even after the blatant evidence that he is a buffoon, AJ insists that he is the victim and has not apologized for the incident.


This one below from Alex Jone's perspective. Notice who he says in the video title that TYT "flipped out" on them (which is true) but conveniently keeps out the fact that at no time was Alex Jones, Roger Stone or his self-parody crew invited to the set.

Here below we see a shorter version of the same thing. Again, make up your own mind about this, but even if you despise TYT (I'm not a big fan) and disagree with everything they say, you can't honestly say that Alex was doing a noble thing here.*

________

*Many Alex Jones parrots seem to think that this is somehow TYT's fault. To be fair, it's not like AJ "Infowarriors" are keen on logic or reasoning skills (at least the name is pretty cool.)

Music With A Message 03: "Just Breathe" by Pearl Jam

   Pearl Jam, one of the most successful rock bands of all time. Eddie Vedder remains as one of America's most beloved vocalists. But he is not overrated. Eddie has struck the world with his signature baritone voice, mesmerizing vibrato and mastery in vocal flexibility and style. He is able to switch from immensely soothing low-mid to grouchy mids to distorted hyper-compression vocals.

   The following song is an ode to a loved one, but sung as if the person is dying or has already died and has left this song behind as a memory. This is arguably of the best rock ballads of all time: