If you grew up in the 90’s, and were lucky enough to have access to TV without your parents around, you may have watched Jerry Springer in all its glory.

From girls in the audience flashing their breasts in exchange for bead necklaces, to fights breaking out on stage after a “ding ding” sounds off to start them, to Jerry himself throwing out his opinions in the matters, it made some of us feel like our lives were that much more “normal”.

But what of Jerry to call out ANYONE, even Trump, for a lack of dignity? Ben Shapiro, the sometimes good friend of freedom, had a funny response:

Just to put that into perspective:

Dignity….riiiiiiight.

Just a snippet from Springer’s illustrious past:

Springer was elected to the Cincinnati city council in 1971. He resigned in 1974 after admitting to hiring a prostitute. The episode was uncovered when a police raid on a Fort Wright, Kentucky massage parlor found a check Springer had written pinned to a wall in their office with “for services rendered” written in the memo.

The post That Feeling When Jerry Springer Calls You Out On Your “Dignity” appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

I know many people believe that “one should join politics to do ‘greater good’ for the society” but they fail to consciously understand that politics is a profession designed to degrade, dictate and debauch the liberties of all individuals except for the establishment.

Therefore, politics is a medium to organically achieve the disastrous conclusions.

It’s the power that attracts the miscreants toward politics, otherwise, why wouldn’t you become an entrepreneur, social volunteer, educator, anarchist or an agorist to serve the economic needs, anthropological desires and empathetic expectations of the people?

I am sure that you would not join the Taliban group to “change” the theme of Islamic terrorism “from within”. Similarly, what’s so magical about ‘joining politics to change politics from within’?

In this case, the only good thing about Taliban terrorists is that:

1) they do not fund the media,

2) camouflage people’s opinion,

3) fake electionery promises,

4) lobby with cronyists and

5) deliver unaccountable GDP results.

Whereas, politicians enjoy the monopoly on terrorizing the system.

Amazon Gold Box – Deals of the Day – Today’s Deals

They say, “It is not ok if you are uninterested in politics because every function of our lives is determined by the activities of the politics”. I think this is untrue and baseless.

Every activity is, in fact, determined by freedom, reason and human action.

It’s the politics which turn things upside-down through legislations, regulatory captures, and legal robbery.

Read: Why democracy choose bad policies?

Watch: Why politicians don’t cut spending?

Anyway, good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws or constitution. To become a good person, you do not need a ruler. You need voluntary or apolitical rules. And, as long as we have the supply of politics, the world will never know peace.

Either by left way or right way, the virtual aim of the politics is to dominate, conscript, expropriate and inspect the life, liberty, and property of individuals. Debating “who is the lesser evil” is idiotic, incoherent and imbecilic. It does not matter who is in power because politics is anyway the art of strengthening the master-slave relationship. It is also the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the ‘democratic’ government at the cost of individual liberty (refer democide).

Conclusion: Imagine that you detach from legitimizing the whole saga on the voting day and become a person of humane conscience.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post You Should Not Join Politics. This is why. appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Okay, my wife made me watch the Comey hearings and commentary, so here are my thoughts.

1. Comey is a pompous holier-than-thou ass.

2. He has a reputation as non-partisan straight shooter, but everything he has done since last summer is politically calculated.  Comey didn’t seem to have a problem referring to the investigation of Clinton as a “matter” which is the political game of semantics to skirt law and official processes.

3. It is extremely clear that his “exoneration” of Clinton

a) overstepped the boundaries of his job,

b) was a complete fabrication and twisting of the law (Scott Horton had a great interview about Clinton and how intent is not required for violations of classified material), and

c) politically motivated.

4. Despite #3, he cutely says that it’s not his place to know if Trump obstructed justice.

5. He admitted to leaking his own memos for political purposes, specifically to provoke the appointment of a special prosecutor.

6. He is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the FBI, which seems to be more interested in swaying politics and fostering domestic terrorists than fighting crime.

Amazon Gold Box – Deals of the Day – Today’s Deals

7. President Trump was an idiot for not requesting Comey’s resignation on day 1.  And his tweets were even worse.  Trump dug this pit, and now he has to wallow in it.  For someone who is famous for his blunt, “you’re fired” he certainly flubbed the firing of Comey. Had he done it on Day 1, no one would have blinked. If he had allowed Comey to leave gracefully, this whole mess might have been avoided. There are all sorts of things that Trump could have done differently. But hey, at least it makes for good political theater.

8. And both liberals and conservatives have very different takes on what happened. Republicans seem to think that Comey completely exonerated Trump. Liberals seem to think he buried Trump. And Trump seems unsure claiming that Comey both exonerated him and is lying.

Here is Tucker Carlson’s take on what happened:

And on a lighter note, here is John McCain as he engages in a bizarre and incoherent questioning on the FBI’s Trump investigation.

For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom:

The post James Comey Revelations appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Otherwise, you would have a difficult time in organising the slaves and call yourself “the government”.

To destroy your nation’s economy, you need to abhor freedom of others. If you lack this quality, you are not “mentally fit” to envy and expropriate others. All your actions can be justified by a piece of paper called “constitution”. There’s nothing to worry about, except anarchists.

Second thing, you should never learn economics. What matters is sociology because it helps us to “screech autistically” and attain the status of victimhood, followed by a biased understanding of the history subject.

By the way, if you come across any “critical thinker” or “learned person” then it is your moral duty to shun his/her opinion without using facts, but sentiments.

Anyway, the above premises are the fundamental and foundational qualities to embrace the civility of a good politician. Only Ron Paul can be a bad politician because he does not support this guide/blog. I condemn him for that.

To begin with:

Power does not corrupt. Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. It’s the limited power which corrupts the economy wholly. In fact, unlimited power is the science of getting things done without being accountable at all. Without power, you cannot choke down your imbecilic imaginations on anyone’s soul.

Money is the Kim Kardashian of the economy. If you don’t know how to spank (spend) the paper then you are unfit to be a politician. All you have to do is print the paper out of thin air. It is uneconomical to back the paper with gold or any other commodity because it would end up empowering your slaves and they would devalue you later.

Muscles: Kindly sign up with your nearby local mafia gang without letting them know that you’re the best mafia in town. Delude them but pay them handsomely. You need muscle power, along with money power, to get the people obey you decently. Call them “cops” instead?

Monopoly: Imagine people listening to you or obeying you without questioning you or regulating you? It is possible if you prioritise the power of monopoly without sharing it with others. As long as you have the monopoly with yourself, people won’t take you jokingly. Your uncontrollable attitude towards monopoly will determine the course of people’s aptitude and political altitude.

Sadism: All your political speeches should look diplomatic and manipulative. If any trait is missing then you won’t achieve the aim. I know that you are always orgasmic to screw people’s wealth but please ensure that you’re not letting them know, otherwise who would suck their liberties? Try to camouflage your opinions as if you’re the only romantic person in the economy, without letting your people know that you’re going to economically BDSM them, without their consent.

Propaganda: Buy as much as media you can, but on the mainstream level. Anyway, social media memes have limited reach. If some of the media houses don’t gibe with your ‘policy’ then over-regulate their “freedom of expression”. Automatically, the media would love to appreciate your narcism (if you can make them sleep with you over a bottle of whisky). Propaganda is an art of showing yourself clean when you’re not. Imitate the propaganda models of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, or Trumperica, to begin with.

Regulation: Your chances of getting re-elected is lower if you minimise the regulations. Already people are addicted to submission, fear and violence so it makes sense for you to supply them with more laws, rules and regulations. Make the “book” more technical, biblical and draconian so that you can create more jobs and consultancy firms and the regulatory captures. If you minimise the regulations, you lose your presence  in the history of global economy.

Ideology: Don’t use “isms” at all but do translate the theory into action. For example: You can say that “we believe in democracy” (which is, of course, a mild version of communism) without letting the “social scientists” know that you’re actually doing fascism or communism. I know that you cannot “convince” the mass society all-the-time but you can surely “confuse” them with the ideologies. Develop a “public sphere” and [discursive] “marketplace of ideas” so that people fall for it, and you end up diverting them from the unimportant issues like economics freedom, property rights, judicial independence, etc.

People’s wealth is your wealth. Your wealth is your wealth only. Just don’t forget to use the term “people” in your speeches or else people won’t fall for your Ponzi schemes. The best way to get more wealth from people is to tax their every function, including non-economic ones. They would believe that you’re creating the wealth in the economy, and that’s what matters for the economy of “social security”. When it comes to taxation, always ignore knowing that it is the “compulsory fee” which we pay for the uncivilization.

War: Anything you can do constitutionally is fun. For example: You will be charged for murder if you’re not from the government. You can have more wars so that you can create more jobs through inflation, wealth through defence industries, and popularity through media. War is the health of your political stability. It should make you look powerful, no matter how you’re.

Fair Trade: There is nothing called “free trade”. I mean it is so insane to learn that people can voluntarily trade with another without coercion. The idea of “fair trade” makes sense because it can help you to play with the currencies and trade conflicts at your political whims. The more you bring fairness in trade, the more people would legitimise your defence policy.

Conclusion: If you’re not convinced to be a politician then you need to reread this piece.
_______________________________________________________

About the author
Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee.

Twitter a/c
@meritocratic
_______________________________________________________

The post A Political Guide To Destroying Your Economy appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Recently, it has come to my attention that Mark Zuckerberg advocated for a universal income in a recent commencement speech. I have mostly been avoiding commenting on or thinking about it because it as tragic as it was predictable.

It comes as no surprise to me that Mark Zuckerberg has finally crossed the threshold into politics. After all, DJT proved that America is OK electing a big name billionaire businessman, and Bernie proved that the welfare state has an irresistible ring to it. Why not Zuckerberg? (And yes, please read that in the Zoidberg voice!) Simultaneously, the clear interest Facebook has had in social tinkering- its meaningless banning of people offering firearms for sale, its intentional dividing of people into echo chamber audiences, its vow to put a stop to “fake news” while the so called “real news” sources are all laughably corrupt and slanted- tells us that Facebook is not just about making a great advertising platform and social meeting place anymore.

I’m a huge fan of the free market. It’s no secret that I think it is better than the government at everything, and more moral. So it’s a sort of irony that the people who are most successful in the market have a tendency to promote welfarism and things of that nature. What is the point, then of listening to what any less successful people have to say, right? Zuck is better than you at your own game that you claim to love. Doesn’t that mean his ideas are better? Doesn’t that mean that, not only does he have the market figured out, but he has good governance figured out too? 

Not so fast. There are a number of problems with listening to what billionaires have to say about politics.

First and foremost, is the prime example of our Dear Leader Mr. Donald J Trump. I am not going to elaborate on his many errors since entering office, because that would be a rabbit trail too convoluted and deep for what I am trying to say. Suffice it to say, knowing how to convince other people to make contractual arrangements to you that are mutually beneficial- at least in the praxeological sense, if not in terms of how people feel about it- does not make a political leader. The economics of politics is nonsense. It is economic chaos. It is backwards incentives, arcane bureaucracy, and corruption, and ambition.

Zuckerberg is no different and no more superhuman than Trump. The rules of government intervention into anything are that of trying to clench a fistful of sand or non-Newtonian liquid in your hand; it just spurts out and leaves a mess somewhere else. This is the nature of non-voluntary interaction, which only accomplishes unnatural distortions instead of letting society, such as it is, grow organically. There is a phenomenon in which highly intelligent, highly educated people with real PhD’s and real knowledge in certain fields come to believe that because they are highly successful in one thing, that their opinion is relevant across the board.

I’d like to refer to this as, “Ben Carson Syndrome”, named after the man who can successfully operate on your brain, but cannot successfully comment on politics without sounding like an insane person. While he might be well meaning, Zuckerberg is suffering from this condition when he goes from his expertise as a social media and marketing platform wizard to governor and economist. Like the race car driver who does not understand thermodynamics or engineering yet can do laps in the winner’s circle, Zuckerberg is a successful operator in a system he does not fully comprehend. A supreme athlete, not a supreme analyst who spends years watching films and understands all the minutia of the game.

The fact of the matter regarding universal income or aid of some sort is that we already live in a world where if Zuckerberg really wants it, he can do it himself with the resources he has. Him, and the other billionaires who proclaim the religion of welfarism, could at any time (barring company infighting) turn their own resources onto the problems they see in America. If they wanted to do like Otto Von Bismark did to Germany years ago and make the entire nation dependent on them for welfare payments like dogs salivating for treats, they could.

Curiously, they do not. How are they going to give people what they feel they deserve? How will they achieve this equality they champion? Why, the government, of course! The government, which is already over 20 trillion dollars in debt. The government, which cannot even make a train company profitable. The government, whose hobbies includes blowing up brown people in exotic places. The government, who pays for things by taxing the middle class directly and the poor indirectly through inflation of the money it controls. What does this mean? It means Zuckerberg gets to sound like a hero and make a sop to all the poor unfortunate souls at his commencement saddled with college debt who will later be soaked for the very policies he is championing and suckering them into. You see, if we are all busy robbing one another through the government, and satisfied with our universal salaries, we won’t feel a need to plunder poor ol’ Zuck. It is the easiest thing in the world for people like him to talk of extraordinarily expensive policies, when he could give up 95% of his net worth and still live like an Olympian god compared to the hoi polloi, who can hardly afford to lose another dime.

Here’s the thing about billionaires-turned-socialist: They can afford it. WE cannot. Just because someone succeeded in a system I love doesn’t mean I have to listen to their harebrained ideas. Zuck absolutely loves capitalism when it makes him a billionaire and gives him the unimaginable power to influence millions of social lives, and provide business opportunities for small fry- like me!- who are grateful to have the platform available to us for our entrepreneurial pursuits and experiments. I am just now waking up to the opportunities platforms like Facebook are providing, and I am honest to God grateful for it. When you’re on the top though- there’s only one way to go. You start going on defense. All of the sudden, competition isn’t how you win, it’s how you lose. You aren’t the scrappy little guy clawing your way to the top. You’re the fat old guy trying to protect what you have. If there’s one thing government is good at, it’s protecting the status quo of businesses, and keeping upstarts from going anywhere. Not only economists, but even other successful “market athletes” who aren’t super informed on economics like Gary Vaynerchuck- a huge fan of Zuckerberg- talks about this phenomenon, how all his old rich white guy friends all the sudden want to make a law so they don’t have to compete anymore.

So when a billionaire like Mark Zuckerberg starts appealing to government to solve the world’s problems, you know where this is going. It’s about covering your flank, championing a “solution”, shifting the cost on someone else, and looking like a hero all the while.

I’m not buying it. And neither should you.

The post ​The Curse of the Billionaire Politician appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

What matters to them is their own “political ego” and nothing else.

But, it isn’t my business to decide the best political opinion, statement or scientist because ‘politics is inherently a waste of time, energy, mind and wealth’.

Read the following reasons to know why, and figure them out at your discretion without feeling guilty, low and manipulated:

1.  Debating politics would not change anything except your personality and social impression, which would ultimately make you look stupid in the end.

For example: You have a political opinion about A. Your friend (frenemy) has a political opinion about B. You justify the debate as a “social process of enlightenment” but what would you or your opponent do with the opinion, when the views have simply backfired, and changed nothing, during the process?

If you believe that your political opinion will “simply and suddenly” change the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent nature of the government then you’re absolutely wrong.

Why should a “characterless gang of the armed leaders” give a fuck about your opinion when you’re not part of their monopoly game?

Ask yourself because the burden of proof is not on me.  

2.  Sharing political opinions is not an act of information-sharing, enlightenment and cognitive emancipation because you’re simply speaking what your government wants you to.

You may believe that you have “freedom of speech” in this case but you’re not doing anything new, simply because your political opinion is manipulative, subjective and asocial.

For example: You believe that government should X and not Y. Your opponent believes that the government should undo X and do Z instead. What you fail to realize  is that the government is going to do what it wants without giving a fuck about your political enlightenment because the economics of the government is dependent upon expanding its power and minimising your freedom at the expense of everyone else.

Your political opinion may lean from left to right or vice versa, but your opinion is simply static within the political spectrum of the system. If you believe that your opinion should make sense then try to pose an apolitical statement and see how your frenemies and government reacts to it.

3.  Well, do you remember the time the slaves banded together to beg their masters for freedom, and they succeeded? Or, the time the Jews pleaded with the Pharaoh to let them free, and they were successful? Such events never happened and would never happen, and it’s easy to understand that such scenarios are silly, right?

Sadly, many of the loudest “political voices” believe that doing the same thing i.e. “asking our chivalrous master to voluntarily cede the parasitical power, is the only way of achieving equality and liberation”. They believe that if you just vote (harder) for the “lesser evil”, all of our problems will be solved! Little do they realize that voting for a lesser evil is still choosing an evil. You don’t need a political opinion to quantify the size of the evil.

You simply need a psychologist to help you understand that there’s only one evil, and that is the government. Lysander Spooner, once said:

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

Conclusion:

Debating politics may not be an important tool for those who are newly introduced to the ideas of freedom. Neither it will ever be the solution to attaining freedom. Politics is antithetical to freedom since you are conceding that you require a master. Debating politics adds more fuel to the fire.

Freedom does not come from permission.

Stop wasting your time in debating and trying to lengthen the master’s leash around your neck. Freedom will be won when you take control of your life. Freedom comes from recognizing that you are a free, beautiful, and independent human being. Don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise through “political discussions”.

If #PoliticalDebatesMatter then do follow these steps:

The post 3 Reasons Why Discussing Politics is Waste of Time appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Misunderstanding anarchism is also an auxiliary activity of the mainstream media, public schools, bureaucrats, politicians, and the ignorant populace.

Their imagination isn’t only limited to the belief that ‘government is a magical institution’ but it also extended to the practice that everyone else should also survive within the limits of their perspectives.  If you attempt to reason or discourse with them then they will ensure that you’re ashamed and defamed.

Thus, the burden of proof is not on the anarchists to prove “why freedom is vital” but on the pro-slavery advocates to prove “why people should be forced to live in a system of organised chaos (government)”. 

Worse, some who call themselves “anarchists” don’t even know the meaning of the term. These people fall, in general, into three classes:

1) advocating that state should be abolished and then replacing the society with collectivism spirit, wherein “anarchists” should not be allowed to reap fruits from their own labor,

2) advocating that state should be abolished and then replacing the ‘welfare policies of Stalin’ with the ‘welfare policies of Mao’, and

3) advocating that the state should be abolished and then replacing the society with ‘Trump’.

Therefore, it is also necessary to save anarchism from such “anarchists”.

Many ignoramuses continue to believe that “anarchism is terrorism” because they’re taught to believe that anarchists blow up the buildings, bridges and ‘roads’. This is the height of today’s modern education, in fact.

Anarchists are not the ‘violent creatures’ who believe that people have a compulsory obligation to follow incoherent and illusionary ideologies like republicanism, communism or parliamentary democracy. Instead, anarchists are the ‘voluntary creatures’ who intend to tranquilly denounce the general belief i..e “there should be rulers to police, discipline and indoctrinate the populace”.

Please note that anarchism is not an anti-freedom philosophy that calls for the initiation of violence on peaceful people who simply disagree or dissent, otherwise, why do you think the government officials had such a hard time defining the word “terrorism”?

The answer is that every time they defined the word ‘terrorism’ they admitted to this stunning fact that the government’s action utilises the use of terror on peaceful people. A government can only survive via the initiation of violence of individual’s property rights.

Without the use of terrorism, the government would cease to exist, and a propertarian society would ensue wherein peaceful people are free to do as they wish as long as they don’t infringe on others. In social relations between people, certain voluntary social norms will have to be accepted, namely, the obligation to fulfill a freely accepted agreement.

In this case, it is advisable to ratiocinate [form judgments by a process of logic; reason] that:  anarchism is not anti-rules, but anti-rulers.

To sum up, anarchism is self-government (or its equivalent, self-administration). Self-government is the best form of government, which people rarely talk about because they have more faith in a ‘few strangers’ ruling them and others at the expense of everyone else.

Self-government starts with self-discipline. If you cannot discipline yourself then you have no right to misunderstand anarchism. You can move to North Korea to get policed morally and bodily before bashing the theory of anarchism for the sake of criticism.

The post Misunderstanding Anarchism appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

From Sessions recusing himself from inquiries into any matters related to investigations into Trump and Russia connections, a seemingly never ending conspiracy theory concocted by the left and Never Trumpers like John McCain, to Steve Bannon being removed from his position as chief strategist, the swamp seems to be filling up rather than being drained. And all this comes on the heels of Trump’s military action against Syria on April 6^th.

The claim, once again, was made that Syria’s president Bashar Assad attached his own people with chemical weapons.

This same exact claim was made back in 2013!

But what is interesting back then was that it was never proven that Assad was the one who launched the attacks; a point to which even the New York Times omitted when they compiled a list of Assad’s alleged atrocities. Many people, including Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said the 2013 gas attack in Syria appeared to have been launched by “Syrian rebels” and not the Assad government.

Additionally, The Daily Mail reported on leaked emails from a defense contractor getting approval from Washington D.C. to have U.S. controlled rebel groups launch the attacks and blame it on Assad who the U.S. has been eyeing for years to force out in a regime change. Fast-forward to 2017 and we’re witnessing deja vu. If at first you don’t succeed, try again?

However, this time before an investigation could even be launched, missiles were launched from what appears to be a trigger happy Trump. Just before the attack many anti-war figureheads and lawmakers were cautioning Trump not attack Syria, to conduct a proper investigation, and to, at the very least, bring all evidence before Congress and ask for permission for a proper declaration should the evidence be convincing enough. But Trump ignored everyone and conducted the strike anyway. Following the strike it was harder to determine if Trump did more damage the targeted air base in Syria or to his own support base.

Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars took to Twitter to declare, “I’m officially OFF the Trump train.” He later clarified that he wasn’t disavowing Trump but that he wasn’t about to be a Trump-bot and support everything Trump does, especially when it goes against what Trump said he would do prior to being elected. However, that didn’t stop mainstream media from having a field day with Paul’s comments. But Paul has not changed his opinion in general; he’s merely holding Trump’s feet to the fire, as everyone else should. In a tweet from March Paul said:

“If there’s one area Trump will f#@k up, it will be in foreign policy. Half of his advisors are CFR globalists. That swamp was not drained.”

That doesn’t sound like a Trump sycophant to me; it sounds like someone who demands a politician do what they say they will do. This principle is something that partisan political followers don’t seem to understand. Their mantra is ‘support your party no matter what they do, or what they fail to do.’ This is everything that is wrong with politics.

Much like the 2013 chemical weapon attacks; this attack has all the hallmarks of a false flag. That was Ron Paul’s assessment as well. Ron Paul said that there was “zero chance” Assad conducted these attacks by asking what possible benefit would launching such an attack bring to Assad. Why would Assad gas his own people; an action that would only please ISIS, the same group he’s been busy fighting against? It only makes sense if you don’t know what’s actually happening in Syria. 

In a recent interview an Independent Canadian Journalist, Eva Bartlett, exposed the general media narrative as completely agenda driven and inaccurate.

Additionally, Tulsi Gabbard, a Congresswoman from Hawaii happened to meet with Assad in January. She got to see first hand what was actually happening in Syria. She was interviewed after she returned by CNN’s Jake Tapper who quickly tried to illicit a negative comment from her about Assad and reinforce the media’s narrative that he is a monster who killed thousands of his own people.

Gabbard responded by iterating that Assad was elected by the Syrian people in a fair election and she recounted her experience talking with people on the street who expressed admiration for their president and more notably asked her why the U.S. and their allies were giving weapons and aid to rebel groups like Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, and ISIS.

Tapper immediately tried to deny that the U.S. has been aiding ISIS and other terrorist groups but as we learned from Wikileaks email releases, the U.S. indeed has been involved in protecting and arming such groups. Gabbard then reiterated that everyone she spoke to on the ground in Syria said that there are no so-called ‘moderate’ rebel groups, further illustrating the lies the main stream media keeps pushing about what’s going on in Syria.

Following her visit to Syria in January Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul co-sponsored a bill called the Stop Arming Terrorists Act; an attempt to prevent the U.S. from sending any form of aid to known or suspected terrorist groups abroad. Following Trump’s Syria strike Gabbard criticized Trump’s actions on the Tucker Carlson Show, calling the action “counter productive” and “reckless.”

So who exactly has been cheering Trump’s Syria strike? 

Jihadist’s, something Ron Paul also pointed out as a qui bono factor, neo-con’s and globalists like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, and war loving lap dog media and their counterparts, as Glenn Greenwald points out. And who has been criticizing him? The bulk of his biggest supporters and base. Apart from Paul Joseph Watson’s comments on the Syrian strike, Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage expressed concern saying that he was “very surprised” about the attacks and believed a lot of his base are likely ‘scratching their heads’ in disbelief over the attack.

Michael Savage, a man of whom Trump said “I wouldn’t be president without this man,” is now asking the questions, “Do you want war with Russia?” and “Who got to you, Mr. President?” Savage then asked “Who is whispering in your ear and could have made you make this dramatic change towards Russia in just three days?” This is a very good question. And some are speculating the answer are those closest to him. Not his top advisors, no; but none other than his own daughter and son–in-law.

This is not the first time his daughter has swayed her father.

During the first presidential debate Trump looked oddly lethargic as Hillary pounded him like a slab of meat, while Trump fans were waiting for that sudden Rocky comeback moment that never happened. It was later learned that Chelsea Clinton, long time friend of Ivanka Trump convinced her to ask her father to ‘play nice’ during the first debate, for which Trump clearly agreed to do with the understood promise that Hillary would play nice as well. Clearly that’s not what happened as we all witnessed, and thus Trump learned a valuable lesson, which is: never trust a Clinton.

However, the other lesson he didn’t seem to learn was that he couldn’t trust his own daughter either seeing as how she was the one ‘whispering’ in his ear in the first place to forego his better judgment. Then juxtapose that with Ivank’s husband Jared Kushner, a democrat whose father gave money to the Clinton’s. Kushner has also been accused of feeding talking points to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. Kushner and Bannon have been at odds ever since Trump brought his into the White House and the more influence Kushner and Ivanka seem to have over Trump the further from his base he gets.

As the Independent noted, Trump may face ‘open war’ from Breitbart News if Bannon is removed from the White House. After all, it was news outlets like Breitbart, Infowars, and Drudge who got Trump elected in the first place. If he completely betrays his base, they will turn on him. Time will tell how this all plays out but one of the best analyses I’ve heard of what is actually happening to Trump as we speak was laid out by, author and political commentator Joel Skousen in a recent interview on the Alex Jones Show.

 The question now remains: will Trump turn course and not fully abandon his base or allow the Neo-Cons that he’s allowed himself to be surrounded by completely take over?

The post Trump has been Neo-Conned, has the Trump Train Officially Derailed? appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

What  happened

This was all brought on by the chemical weapons strike carried out by the Syrian military.  There are some who wonder if Assad, actually had called for the strike.  There is a lot of reason to doubt that Assad and Putin had tried to pull this off. They were winning. Hard to win when you commit and an obvious war crime to anger the entire western word, who already hate you for your friends. (Russia, Iran) That reason alone makes the whole thing incredible. Assad had no motive to try to anger the US, yet here we are.

What is more, the last time Assad was accused of using chemical weapons, he was later proven to be innocent and the weapons used had belonged to the rebels. The New York Times is convinced that Assad has carried out this attack and others, claiming this is part of his strategy.  This ignores a fact such a plan is suicidal. It is all well and good if these are simply rebels, but that is not the case. Many of the rebels are backed by the US and have been since the early days of the war in 2011. Knowing the biggest power in the world, has their eyes on you conflict, makes any attempt at chemical or other banned weapons, incredibly dangerous.  If Assad didn’t use chemical weapons, back in 2013, why would he now?
The scary reality

We committed an act of war against a country, with significant military backing from a nuclear power, with little evidence.  There is no way this goes anywhere profitable for the USA or our allies. We are becoming the Air Force for our most bitter enemies. All this does, is advance the cause of ISIS. If we ever want to see peace return we need to pull out of the region entirely and let the native people work this out.

It could be too late 

A Russian warship, today are on their way, toward our ships in the Mediterranean. The tensions are at an all-time high and I don’t know if it can survive this strain. We may be on the verge of the biggest war, since Iraq, and of course it is approved by the media. For all the claims of him being a Russian plant, he isn’t doing a great job of it.

What this means

I was on episode 7 of the Actual Anarchy Podcast. During the show, I talked about how I wouldn’t judge President Trump based on his first months in office but did say Trump will be defined by his actions with Syria and Iran. His actions tell me he will not be reelected. The Trump moment has passed and we are dealing with the fallout. Many of his supporters have been calling him out for this, revealing how important an anti-war message will be moving forward. These people, for the most part, have been jumping off the Trump train, and who can blame them? Between this new war, and Trump Care, there is little left for the populist right to be happy about, and without the media propping him up, Trump cannot maintain the illusion of control.

We need to remember this was never about who was president, it was about who would keep us from the next war.

Turns out we never had a chance.

The post The Trump Moment is Over appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

The last 2 weeks has been rough for Donald Trump and his supporters. First there was the political assassination of the Michael Flynn. Now his enemies were looking to add Milo Yiannopoulos to the political body count.

Milo, a gay, Jewish, conservative provocateur, who has given the left fits, (And been the inspiration for a massive riot)  was on a YouTube podcast a little over a year ago, in this live-stream he made some comments about the age of consent, and about his own life and sexuality.  Recently the video resurfaced, but cut to make Milo look as though he was supporting pedophilia. I am not going to get into why that is false, but will suggest everyone see the whole segment and then decide for yourself.

The Left and Right both have pounced on this and both have been trashing Milo.

So has this worked?

Turns out the Dangerous Faggot is a harder take out than Flynn was. Milo responded to his critics in a press conference, where he read a prepared statement. He dismissed the notion that he was advocate of pedophilia, pointing to the people he has outed in his career.

He also took that chance to call this out for what it was:

“But let’s be clear what is happening here. This is a cynical media witch hunt from people who don’t care about children. They care about destroying me and my career, and by extension my allies. They know that although I made some outrageous statements, I’ve never actually done anything wrong. These videos have been out there for more than a year. The media held this story back because they don’t care about victims, they only care about bringing me down. They will fail.”

The claim isn’t bold one.

Over the last few years there have been multiple people in and out of media, who have been trying to normalize pedophilia. The most notable ones are some of Milo’s biggest detractors on the left. Publications such as Salon, and the Guardian, have in the past made statements either softening the issue of pedophilia or worse defending it .

There have also been celebrities who have defended or normalized such behavior.

Look at Bill Maher, Lena Dunham  and George Takei .  All three, among others, have spoken on the issue sounding much more damning than Milo.

One will notice in all the above cases, aside from Milo, there has been practically no outrage. I feel like I am seeing parallels with the Catholic Church and the MSM.

This is the real beginning of the media war.

Milo also announced in the press conference he would be resigning from Brietbart and launching his own media platform. The Alternate media is only going to strengthen, and we are going to see the media attacks on them get more vicious, and wild, as they start to lose their hold on the American people. Milo while I disagree with him on a vast number of issues, (thanks to the fact he is basically a step up from Jeb Bush so far as his own views) he is still a positive and honest voice for use to have fighting against the media.

Make no mistake, you may dislike Milo but the real enemy isn’t him it is all the people trying to bring him down.

The post Media Doesn’t Care About Pedophiles appeared first on Actual Anarchy.