Now openly admitted, governments and militaries around the world employ armies of keyboard warriors to spread propaganda and disrupt their online opposition. Their goal? To shape public discourse around global events in a way favourable to their standing military and geopolitical objectives. Their method? The Weaponization of Social Media. This is The Corbett Report.
I agree with everything Larken Rose says in this video. The only problem i have is the insinuation by the video author, Liberty or Death Media, that Hitler planned to exterminate the Jews of Europe, which is obviously not the case.
“The history of totalitarian regimes is reflected in the evolution and perfection of the instruments of terror and more especially the police.” — Carl J. Friedrich
There you are, driving along, when suddenly you see that dreaded flashing light flickering in your rear-view. Perhaps you were speeding, or maybe you rolled through a stop sign. Whatever the case, one of the first questions you are likely to be asked is, “Do you know why i stopped you?”. It’s all too familiar question when you are pulled over for a traffic violation, but why exactly does the officer ask it?
This question is actually a tactic that is used by police to manipulate you into admitting your guilt. By admitting that, yes, maybe you were going a little too fast, you have incriminated yourself and your answer can be used as evidence against you should you decide to dispute the charge in court. Secondly, you are now virtually guaranteed of being cited or arrested for whatever wrongdoing you just admitted to.
Cops are sneaky. While you are legally obligated to not deceive the police, they are legally permitted to deceive you in order to obtain a confession or trip you up in some way. While it may seem more ethical to be honest and admit your wrongdoing, keep in mind that the police operate under a different standard. You don’t have to lie, nor should you, but not answering their questions is not lying and is perfectly within your rights.
RULE #1: NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE!
Never answer any questions. Never admit anything. Like the babbling baboon Bill O’ Reilly says, “Shut Up!”. Whether you are innocent or guilty, it does not matter; anything you say may be used against you and so the only thing you can possibly do, in most circumstances, is undermine your position by volunteering information, regardless of how certain you are that the information will work in your benefit.
If you are an honest, ethical person and you know you are guilty and you wish to accept the responsibility for your actions, fine, you can always choose to do so after the initial encounter. There is no reason to give law enforcement any information that can may erode your position.
RULE #2: Remain calm
Always remain calm and courteous and never raise your voice or make any quick moves or threatening gestures. You want to play a very non-threatening role, but you want to do so without sacrificing your rights. You want to make it appear that the officer is in control by not challenging their ego which, in turn, will give you greater control over the outcome. The instant you show anger or threaten or intimidate the officer, you not only relinquish control, but you will greatly increase the chance of an unfavorable outcome, especially when dealing with a cop who has an over sized ego, which is often the case.
RULE #3: Know your rights
You are never obligated to consent to a search of your person or your property. In many states you are not even required to produce identification unless you are suspected of committing a crime. You do not have to give your name. You are not legally obligated to give the police permission to do anything, nor are you compelled to answer any of their questions, but you may ask questions that they may be obligated to answer. For example, if there is any doubt as to why you were pulled over during a traffic stop, simply ask the officer why you were stopped. A polite “Hello officer. May i ask why you stopped me?” will do. If the officer does not provide a reason, then ask if you are being detained or are free to go. Unless you are being detained, you may end the encounter any time you choose, but you should always confirm with the officer whether you are free to go to prevent any possibility of a misunderstanding.
RULE #4: Never resist
Never refuse an officers direct order, regardless of whether that order is legal. The only questionable exception to this rule is when you are certain that the order is unlawful and will very likely result in the officer physically attacking you if you do not consent and you are reasonably certain your situation will be improved by resisting. In such a case you should carefully consider the consequences of your refusal before disobeying the order, but even for these very rare occasions it is highly questionable as to whether you — usually the one without the gun — should resist a trained and armed police officer. Having said that, you are obviously not obligated to follow an illegal order, but we can clearly see why we may choose to do so regardless.
RULE #5: Record the encounter
Your child didn’t steal that cookie while you were looking, did she? Similarly, law enforcement officers are more likely to observe the law if they know their actions are being monitored. Regardless of what the officer may tell you, you are legally permitted to record encounters with the police. For your own protection you should always record every encounter with the police and, though you should not make a big deal of it by positioning your camera right in the officers face, which may provoke an aggressive response, you should not make a secret of it either. Keep it unobtrusive, but obvious. A record of the encounter will prove to be invaluable as evidence if you are forced to defend yourself in court or choose to initiate a legal action against the police.
If the officer demands that you delete the recording or tries to take it from you, understand that your recording may not be confiscated without a warrant, but also understand that they may not know or care about the law, especially if tensions are high. If it seems likely the officer may use violence or confiscate your property if you refuse, let them have it. In the event the officer deletes your recording, or forces you to do so, don’t sweat it. The files on your storage media should remain intact as long as you only delete them and did not format the storage media. After deleting the recording, and as soon as you can after the encounter, power off the device and remove the memory card if your device has external memory. When you get home, use a utility such as PhotoRec to recover the “deleted” files.
Regardless of any threats the police may issue, you are legally allowed to share your recording publicly and certainly this option is well worth considering when you know your rights were violated and/or the police have broken the law. Public pressure resulting from videos of aggressive police encounters have had a significant impact in many instances.
Resources for further study
Lastly, if you disagree with my advice, then understand that it is not really my advice. Much of it comes from a comical, fast-talking lawyer and and his detective accomplice:
Below are some examples of how to handle an encounter with law enforcement officers:
- 7 Rules for Recording Police
- 10 Rules for Dealing with Cops, By a Cop
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
- Flex Your Rights YouTube channel
- How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters
- Pay no Fine: A User Guide to Successfully Fighting Traffic Tickets
- Five Best Free Data Recovery Tools
- The Constitution-Free Zone: Fact and Fiction
This is a really cool documentary about the New Hampshire Free State Project which is largely about restoring personal liberty and limited government in the New England “live free or die” state. The basic goal of the Free State Project is to convince 20,000 liberty lovers to move to New Hampshire in order to have a greater impact in its government.
From the film description:
“101 Reasons: Liberty Lives in New Hampshire” is a documentary adaptation of the Free State Project’s list of 101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire, which was written in 2002 by Michele Dumas.
The FSP is an effort to move 20,000 liberty-minded people to a low populated state that has an existing pro-freedom culture. In 2003, participants of the FSP voted for the “Live Free or Die” state, New Hampshire, as its destination.
For over 12 years the 101 Reasons list has helped inspire thousands of activists and entrepreneurs to sign up for the FSP and continue New Hampshire’s reputation as a beacon for liberty.
To view the Statement of Intent of the Free State Project, visit https://www.fsp.org/nh/.
There’s a lot of talk regarding national borders, especially here in the United States where it is quite common to hear people discussing how “illegal immigrants” are undermining the fabric of our society, stealing our jobs, reaping benefits they don’t deserve and raising all sorts of havoc.
I find myself wondering why it is that so many human beings feel that other human beings should be confined to geographic locations designated by borders that exist only in our imaginations. How is it that we are not allowed to travel freely and live where we choose upon the Earth of which we were born, yet a Canadian goose can do so without passports, papers and permission from the pornographic pedophiles of the Transportation Security Administration?
I think many people that support the division — or perhaps confinement would be a better word — of certain cultural elements of the human race do so not because they have thought about such things them selves, but because they have been infused with this mindset by governments and the media. It’s something many simply take for granted; you need a passport to travel here, papers to work there and pink form BS-9999-A to visit that country because it’s on some government invented blacklist and that’s just the way it is. Without borders the planet would erupt in chaos, right? I think there are some very important questions that are being overlooked regarding borders however, as well as much broader issues.
The more curious among us might wonder who it is that benefits from restricting free travel? Borders are founded and enforced by governments, not populations. Without them governments would not be able to control those that reside within their established territories and i think regional governments might ultimately disappear as a result, along with a lot of the money they extort through taxation and penalties from those under their control. Perhaps the entire monetary system that has enslaved the people of every “developed” nation on the planet would also collapse without borders. And if the monetary system collapsed, so would Wall Street, Ponzi schemes, the IRS, the CIA, the NSA, the U.N., the CFR, state militaries, and, yes, even the Bilderberg Club and many of the other secret societies.
Illegal immigrants are ultimately human beings which, like all of us, were born of this Earth; this one, tiny, incredibly beautiful planet we all share. I think it is quite ironic that some of us, especially in the U.S. apparently, attempt to somehow legitimize the term “illegal immigrant”, in the face of the fact that the only people that reside here that aren’t immigrants are native Americans, of which there would be a lot more of today hadn’t we “Americans” slaughtered around 80-90% of them. And what does one have to do to become an “illegal immigrant”? One has to cross an imaginary line and, presto, they can now be arrested, locked in a cage and sent back to where they didn’t want to be in the first place.
OK, so tomorrow it is announced to the world that all national borders will become defunct at 12 midnight, UTC time (FOX News reports that Iran is to blame and Israel calls the whole thing anti-Semitic and begins purchasing massive quantities of bricks and mortar). Now what? Chaos? Murder? War? Do people from one former country suddenly pull up stakes and move elsewhere?
In September of 2009, the town of Portishead, England (pop. 22,000) conducted an experiment in which they turned off the traffic lights on a congested roadway for nearly a month. Many people thought the idea was simply ludicrous and articles were written condemning the experiment even before it commenced. The results were quite different than what many prophesied however; people were generally courteous and began to pay attention to each other instead of the traffic lights and they quickly adapted to the situation. Congestion was greatly reduced as well as the time spent traveling through the area. Petty arguments over traffic congestion stopped and apparently there were no accidents at all during the test.
Following is a quote from the article, “Naked Streets” Without Traffic Lights Improve Flow and Safety:
“A new hierarchy emerges with vulnerable road users at the top. Pedestrians in the shared space scenario, when there are no lights to dictate behavior, are seen as fellow road users rather than obstacles in the way of the next light.”
So let’s take a stab at wrapping my non-original concept of an Earth without government borders around the no traffic lights experiment…
I think the above quote is very interesting and revealing because it tells us that, without the lights, pedestrians were now seen more as equals rather than “lower class” obstacles by their mechanized wielding counterparts. The traffic lights (the borders) were removed and thus the “class division” between the vehicle operators and the pedestrians was also removed, at least to some degree. People seemed to have gotten along better and found that a way of life, if you will, that they might have never thought feasible was in fact not only feasible, but substantially improved without the government dictating behavior through a binary system of traffic lights, telling everyone when it’s OK to do something and when it is not, as though it were utterly inconceivable that people could figure this out on their own.
UNGRIP is one of my favorite documentary films which explores in great detail what it means to be a free, responsible, sovereign human being with as little reliance on “the system” as possible:
Of course there is much more to consider when one contemplates what society might look like without borders and since i’m no expert on the subject by any stretch of the imagination, it would be somewhere between incredibly difficult and bloody impossible for me to paint any kind of an accurate picture. There are however a number of benefits that come to mind, perhaps the most important of which is that the size, power and intrusiveness of government would be greatly reduced. There would also be a cascade of what many of us agree would be hugely positive changes, including the dissolution of many local and international government entities and assets such as the U.N., NATO, intelligence communities, militaries, nuclear weapons and other arms, and a whopping pile of others. Language barriers might eventually dissolve and one would be free to travel and live where they choose instead of where a government allows. And of course there would be no wars fought over imaginary lines. Speaking of war, does one ever wonder what the true purpose of government sponsored war really is? Here are some interesting quotations from a document titled, REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN: ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE:
The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable internal political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, or reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of a society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer.[…]
The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. […] On a day- to-day basis, it is represented by the institution of police, armed organizations charged expressly with dealing with “internal enemies” in a military manner. Like the conventional “external” military, the police are also substantially exempt from many civilian legal restraints on their social behavior. In some countries, the artificial distinction between police and other military forces does not exist. On the long-term basis, a government’s emergency war powers — inherent in the structure of even the most libertarian of nations — define the most significant aspect of the relation between state and citizen.
By now some of you might be thinking that i’m aligned with “them”. You know, that fascist/communist/elitist self-serving scum that has infected the Earth like a plague, sucking the life-force out of us and promoting their New World Order ideology, complete with a one-world government and universal religion … and no traditional borders. Except i’m not. Their idea of a New World Order is based on a top-down control system through fear and enslavement while the concept i am promoting is based on a bottom-up co-op with freedom, harmony and education at its core. It is entirely free of bankers and traditional monetary systems. Personally i think Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco got it right…