Michael Tracey
@mtracey

"Expect a swift public rehabilitation of the Espionage Act, previously known as one of the most pernicious laws on the books: used to prosecute Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Daniel Ellsberg and others. Now it'll become a benevolent tool of Preserving Democracy™"

The Espionage Act of 1917 is a United States federal law enacted on June 15, 1917, shortly after the United States entered World War I. It has been amended numerous times over the years. It was originally found in Title 50 of the U.S. Code (War & National Defense) but is now found under Title 18 (Crime & Criminal Procedure). Specifically, it is 18 U.S.C. ch. 37 (18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.)

[en.wikipedia.org]

It was intended to prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment, to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of United States enemies during wartime. In 1919, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled through Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the freedom of speech of those convicted under its provisions. The constitutionality of the law, its relationship to free speech, and the meaning of its language have been contested in court ever since.

"Espionage act", "patriot act", "Inflation Reduction Act" etc. notice a patter?

A dissident is a person who actively challenges an established political or religious system, doctrine, belief, policy, or institution. In a religious context, the word has been used since the 18th century, and in the political sense since the 1920s, coinciding with the rise of totalitarian governments in countries such as Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

The term dissident was used in the Eastern bloc, particularly in the Soviet Union, in the period following Joseph Stalin's death until the fall of communism. It was attached to citizens who criticized the practices or the authority of the communist party. Writers for the non-censored, non-conformist samizdat literature were criticized in the official newspapers. Soon, many of those who were dissatisfied with Eastern bloc regimes began to self-identify as dissidents.[4] This radically changed the meaning of the term: instead of being used in reference to an individual who opposes society, it came to refer to an individual whose non-conformism was perceived to be for the good of the society.[5][6][7] In Hungary, the word disszidens was used in contemporary language for a person who had left for the West without permission (i.e. a defector), by illegally crossing the border or travelling abroad with a passport, but not returning and (sometimes) applying for asylum abroad. Such persons' citizenship was usually revoked, and their left behind property (if there was any to their name) would revert to the state.

Soviet dissidents were people who disagreed with certain features in the embodiment of Soviet ideology and who were willing to speak out against them.[8] The term dissident was used in the Soviet Union in the period following Joseph Stalin's death until the fall of communism.[4] It was used to refer to small groups of marginalized intellectuals whose modest challenges to the Soviet regime met protection and encouragement from correspondents.[9] Following the etymology of the term, a dissident is considered to "sit apart" from the regime.[10] As dissenters began self-identifying as dissidents, the term came to refer to an individual whose non-conformism was perceived to be for the good of a society.[5][6][7]

Political opposition in the USSR was barely visible and, with rare exceptions, of little consequence.[11] Instead, an important element of dissident activity in the Soviet Union was informing society (both inside the Soviet Union and in foreign countries) about violation of laws and of human rights. Over time, the dissident movement created vivid awareness of Soviet Communist abuses.[12]

Soviet dissidents who criticized the state faced possible legal sanctions under the Soviet Criminal Code[13] and faced the choice of exile, the mental hospital, or penal servitude.[14] Anti-Soviet political behavior, in particular, being outspoken in opposition to the authorities, demonstrating for reform, or even writing books - was defined as being simultaneously a criminal act (e.g., violation of Articles 70 or 190-1), a symptom (e.g., "delusion of reformism" ), and a diagnosis (e.g., "sluggish schizophrenia" )

[en.wikipedia.org]

I think Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his Warning to the West speech summarized communism well.

“Communism is as crude an attempt to explain society and the individual as if a surgeon were to perform his delicate operations with a meat ax. All that is subtle in human psychology and in the structure of society (which is even more complex), all of this is reduced to crude economic processes. The whole created being—man—is reduced to matter. It is characteristic that Communism is so devoid of arguments that it has none to advance against its opponents in our Communist countries. It lacks arguments and hence there is the club, the prison, the concentration camp, and insane asylums with forced confinement.”

Alex Jones was someone many thought was on the fringes , just a conspiracy nut. Today Alex Jones is a label they put on anyone they see as threat or personally, hate. Alex Jones is Trump today, tomorrow it will be you or me.

Trump surrounded himself with some of the worse people on the planet and bit time backstabbers. Instead of pardoning Snowden and Assange he remained buddy with one Mike Pompeo. And there you have it.

......................

Academic Agent: "You are the virus."

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." ― "War on Terror" speech by George W. Bush, 2004 Video

The response of so called "war on terror" is more war of terror than war on terror.

F. Fürstenberg wrote in 2007 in the New York Times [“Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons”], in connection with the French Revolution – upon the etymology of the word “terrorist”as well:

“… The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor, of course, to ‘Islamofascism’. A ‘terroriste’ was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during La Terreur. (Reign of Terror)”

La Terreur. (Reign of Terror) - refers to a period during the French Revolution after the First French Republic was established in which multiple massacres and public executions occurred in response to revolutionary fervor, anti-clerical sentiment, and frivolous accusations of treason by Maximilien Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety.

Several historians consider the "reign of terror" to have begun in 1793, placing the starting date at either 5 September, June or March (birth of the Revolutionary Tribunal), while some consider it to have begun in September 1792 (September Massacres), or even July 1789 (when the first killing took place), but there is a consensus that it ended with the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794 as this led to the Thermidorian Reaction.

Between June 1793 and the end of July 1794, there were 16,594 official death sentences in France, of which 2,639 were in Paris.

In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted:

"On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; The response of the so-called war on terror is more a war of terror than a war on terror.

In 2007, F. Fürstenberg wrote in the New York Times ["Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons"], in connection with the French Revolution – upon the etymology of the word "terrorist"as well:

The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor, of course, to Islamofascism. "A ‘terroriste’ was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during La Terreur (Reign of Terror)."

(Reign of Terror) -refers to a period during the French Revolution after the First French Republic was established in which multiple massacres and public executions occurred in response to revolutionary fervor, anti-clerical sentiment, and frivolous accusations of treason by Maximilien Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety.

While some historians believe the "reign of terror" began in 1793, with the starting date being either 5 September, June, or March (birth of the Revolutionary Tribunal), and others believe it began in September 1792 (September Massacres), or even July 1789 (when the first killing occurred), there is agreement that it ended with the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794, as this led to the Thermidorian Reaction.

Between June 1793 and the end of 1794, there were 16,594 official death sentences in France, of which 2,639 were in Paris.

In his book, Inside Terrorism, Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term "terrorism" becomes distorted:

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. "What is called terrorism," Brian Jenkins has written, "thus seems to depend on one’s point of view." The term implies a moral judgment; and if one party is successful in affixing the label "terrorist" to its opponent, it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.Hence, the decision to call someone or label some organization a terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; it is not terrorism. "

During World War II, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Race’s Liberation Army) were branded ‘terrorists’ by the British.

More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the mujahedin ‘freedom fighters’ during the Soviet–Afghan War, yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men were fighting against what they perceived to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks were labeled ‘terrorism’ by George W. Bush.

Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action. Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, defines ‘terrorist acts’ as unlawful attacks with political or other ideological goals, and says:

There is the famous statement: ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause, and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless.

Some groups, when involved in a ‘liberation’ struggle, have been called ‘terrorists’ by the Western governments or media. Later, these same people, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called ‘statesmen’ by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela. Sarah Palin and Joe Biden have called WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange a ‘terrorist.’

Media outlets who wish to convey impartiality may limit their usage of ‘terrorists’ and ‘terrorism’ because they are loosely defined, potentially controversial in nature, and subjective terms.

Have you been paying attention to the rhetoric of the American government and their actions and results?

The ‘war on poverty’ is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his state of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around 19 percent.

The result is more poverty than ever and the Great Society only expanded the welfare state, government dependence, and did the opposite of what it said.

The ‘war on drugs’ is a global campaign, led by the U.S. federal government, of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim of reducing the illegal drug trade in the United States. The initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal.

The result is more drug trafficking, more addicts, more violence , more cartel control, more overdoses, etc. Predictable

The ‘War on Terror’, also known as the Global War on Terrorism, is an international military campaign launched by the United States government after the September 11 attacks.

Do I really need to go into the disastrous results of this one? From the Patriot Act and many other draconian laws to the fiasco in Afghanistan, 2+ trillion dollars spent, armed Taliban, global humiliation, leaving people behind, etc.

Biden’s ‘War on COVID’ Becomes a War on the Unvaccinated. The new ‘terrorists’

‘Pandemic of the Unvaccinated’-Joe Biden

When it started, the words ‘war on COVID’ were used to justify all the draconian power grabs and wealth transfers since early 2020.