Looking Glass: The next 'bright idea' from Mozilla (updated)

Back in the day, Firefox was sort of a hackers power browser that fit a niche market. It was probably the most tweakable mainstream web browser on the planet for both geeks and average users alike. Although it is still highly customizable, it has become less so since Mozilla decided to terminate support for so-called "legacy" add-ons and replace them with WebExtensions of the same type as used by Google Chrome. Matter of fact, Firefox has become a Google Chrome clone as far as i'm concerned and some of us — a core Firefox audience that liked running something different and something that wasn't 'Googlized' — didn't want anything to do with Google, much less their Chrome web browser.

In its [not so] slow, steady decline and separation from its core values, Mozilla has dumbed-down Firefox to the point where it is hardly recognizable and changed its add-on API several times, thus forcing developers to rewrite their code in order to comply with yet another new standard. The developer of the much loved Search WP extension had this to say:

I'd love to support Firefox 57 (with all my extensions) but

1) Webextensions are just *too* limited. You simply can't do anything useful with them until somebody adds an API just for you. It already starts with the most basic functionality of SearchWP: there does not seem to be a way to modify the search bar.

2) Mozilla ruthlessly breaking all existing extensions on purpose and removing customization possibilities with every new version of Firefox made me loose trust in the foundation and the browser itself – I'm not willing to spend my spare time on a project that has set a course that goes against everything Firefox once stood for.

And the stupidity continues…

For some time Mozilla has been packaging extensions with Firefox in the form of system add-ons, or "features" as Mozilla calls them. Not only is the option to uninstall these add-ons absent from the user interface, but most people aren't even aware they exist since they're hidden from the Add-Ons panel (if you want to know more about system add-ons and how to remove them, read the article, Firefox Configuration Guide for Privacy Freaks and Performance Buffs).

In its latest burst of stupidity, Mozilla is now installing yet another add-on without consulting users, but this time, to their undeserved credit, they have made it removable apparently. 'Looking Glass' appears to be some kind of metrics collection add-on disguised as an augmented reality game created by the PUG Experience Group, whoever the hell they are, and it is part of a series of "Shield Studies" conducted by Mozilla. To see what studies Mozilla has foisted upon you that you didn't agree to, enter about:studies in the address bar and then about:preferences#privacy to opt out. Better yet, stop using the Mozilla version of Firefox altogether.

Of course adding this unwanted crap to Firefox isn't the worst of it. A while back, Mozilla decided that it needed to jump on the "fake news" bandwagon with its newly created Mozilla Information Trust Initiative in order to steer you away from sources of information that the multi-million dollar Mozilla Foundation decides are not suitable for your consumption.

I no longer suggest using Firefox, at least not the version distributed by Mozilla. If you want Firefox with the privacy disrespecting garbage removed, consider using Waterfox, which is a more privacy-centric, 64 bit fork of Firefox that will apparently continue to support XUL (legacy) extensions in addition to the newer WebExtensions. Some of the features of Waterfox are:

  • Disabled Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
  • Removed Pocket
  • Removed Telemetry
  • Removed data collection
  • Removed startup profiling
  • Allow running of all 64-Bit NPAPI plugins
  • Allow running of unsigned extensions
  • Removal of Sponsored Tiles on New Tab Page

UPDATE: Mozilla apologizes.

On 18-Dec., after many users complained about the inclusion of the Looking Glass add-on, for which almost nothing was known at the time it was distributed, Mozilla published an apology, moved the add-on to the Mozilla add-on repository and published the source code. The post opened with the following nonsensical statement which raises more questions than it answers:

Over the course of the year Firefox has enjoyed a growing relationship with the Mr. Robot television show and, as part of this relationship, we developed an unpaid collaboration to engage our users and viewers of the show in a new way: Fans could use Firefox to solve a puzzle as part of the alternate reality game (ARG) associated with the show.

Does this sound remotely like anything that should be included in an internet web browser? What is the nature of Mozilla's relationship with Mr. Robot? We already know that Mozilla has a habit of adding unnecessary functionality through its inclusion of 3rd party services for monetary gain and using its relationships with many privacy destroying corporations, such as Google, to monetize necessary functionality, yet they packaged the Looking Glass add-on with Firefox for no other reason other than, what? They like Mr. Robot? They wanted to make sure you weren't bored by giving you a game to play? Utter bullshit. And why wasn't the source code published before the add-on was shipped? And how do we know that the published code is identical to the unpublished code?

The rollout did not meet the standards to which we hold ourselves causing concern that was surfaced through our Firefox community.

Yes it did because Mozilla sacrificed its standards long ago. The only reason they published this apology is because enough users complained.

We received feedback regarding the transparency of the rollout and the processes that govern our auto-install mechanism for add-ons. In response we immediately started our internal review, […]

Good thing most users have no clue about the several system add-ons and "features" that ship with Firefox which are forcefully installed, activated, not easily uninstalled, and are used to collect data. Of course we know that no internal review will be performed to address this glaring privacy issue.

We're sorry for the confusion and for letting down members of our community. While there was no intention or mechanism to collect or share your data or private information […]

When one considers exactly what Mozilla defines as "user data" and "private information", one realizes how hollow this misleading claim rings. If they're so concerned about their users, why aren't they concerned about the data that is still being collected by the forcefully installed system add-ons of which users are largely unaware? Why aren't these add-ons removed and placed in the add-on repository?

Resources:

YAMR (Yet Another Mozilla Rant) – Battling "fake news"

This is it folks. This is a 'rotten cherry on the top of the stinking cake' moment with a big fat pit right in the middle of it.

I recently learned that the multi-million dollar Mozilla corporation has decided that i (and you) are idiots; that we are incapable of analyzing news stories in order to determine whether they are creditable; that we should be reading the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and the like to get our "news". And so Mozilla has decided that it is they, the developers of a freaking web browser, that should step in to help steer us back on the right track by saving us from … FAKE NEWS!

Yes, on 8 August, 2017, the Mozilla foundation launched their incarnation of the Great Firewall of China by deciding to combat "fake news" via The Mozilla Information Trust Initiative, aka MITI. And what news does the Mozilla Information Trust Initiative consider "fake news"? Well, apparently any news that doesn't originate from a mainstream source:

Imagine this: Two news articles are shared simultaneously online.

The first is a deeply reported and thoroughly fact checked story from a credible news-gathering organization. Perhaps Le Monde, the Wall Street Journal, or Süddeutsche Zeitung.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL!?!? "… a deeply reported and thoroughly fact checked story …". Are You Kidding Me Right Now!

Let's just have a quick look at the track record of the Wall Street Journal which, by the way, is essentially as biased and corrupt as any other mainstream government/corporate mouthpiece:

20 Reasons Not to Trust the Journal Editorial Page | FAIR (1-Sep-1995)

When Anita Hill took a polygraph test to try to substantiate her charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas, the Wall Street Journal attacked her in an editorial (10/15/91) titled "Credibility Gulch: "Lie detector tests are so unreliable they are rarely allowed as evidence in court.

But just eight months later (6/9/92), when the Journal argued against an Iran/Contra perjury indictment of former secretary of Defense (and editorial page contributor) Caspar Weinberger, this was its main evidence for Weinberger's innocence: "Mr. Weinberger has taken and passed a lie-detector test on the matter.

[…]

The Continuing Decline of McDonald's : The Corbett Report (10-Jan-2017)

The global giant's [McDonald's] influential PR machine has used sleight-of-hand and other tricks to make this restructuring look like a smash success. They used their cheerleaders at the Wall Street Journal to hype "stronger-than-expected profit and sales figures and their boosters at US News & World Report to hype some highly-selective earnings comparisons suggesting that this "turnaround is, to use the WSJ's phrase, "sustainable.

But one doesn't have to scratch too hard to reveal the rusty reality beneath this PR paint job.

Wall Street Journal circulation scam claims senior Murdoch executive | Media | The Guardian (12-Oct-2011)

One of Rupert Murdoch's most senior European executives has resigned following Guardian inquiries about a circulation scam at News Corporation's flagship newspaper, the Wall Street Journal.

The Guardian found evidence that the Journal had been channelling money through European companies in order to secretly buy thousands of copies of its own paper at a knock-down rate, misleading readers and advertisers about the Journal's true circulation.

WSJ sourced Obama skinny quotes from Yahoo Message Boards (4-Aug-2008)

A journalist at the Wall Street Journal has been caught sourcing quotes for an article on Barak Obama being too thin to be President from a Yahoo Message Board.

In the article Too Fit to be President?, Wall Street Journal political correspondent Amy Chozick endeavored in the best News Corp tabloid style to create a story around the rather bizarre notion that voters wouldn't vote for Obama because he was too thin, saying that "some Americans wondering whether he is truly like them.

In the piece, she includes the quote "I won't vote for any beanpole guy, and originally didn't attribute the source. Sadly No reports that the source was a Yahoo Message Board where Chozick actually asked for negative comments using her own name:

Plagiarizing? If the President Can Do it, Why Can't We? – Lawyers.com (28-Dec-2009)

An online columnist for the Wall Street Journal was caught plagiarizing. Freelance writer Mona Sarika, who wrote the "New Global Indian online column, used content from the Washington Post, Little India, India Today and San Francisco magazine.

Sarika copied direct quotes from other articles, without providing sources. She also changed the original speakers' names apparently making up new ones.

WSJ Fakes a Green Shift Toward Nuclear Power | FAIR (24-Jun-2016)

The Wall Street Journal has a long history of editorial page support for nuclear power (4/17/01; 8/5/09; 11/9/09; 4/6/11; 5/24/13, to cite but a few) and against wind power (5/22/06, 3/1/10, 8/24/10, 11/8/12, 5/18/14 and others). In publishing this piece as edited, perhaps it is telling a story it wishes were true. As Harder's article itself acknowledges, nuclear power is in decline due to a combination of economics, displacement by renewables and opposition. The green groups' supposed change of heart "comes at a critical time, as several financially struggling reactors are set to shut down even as other reactors already have, due to the low price of natural gas and state policies "that favor renewables over nuclear power. As if to prove that point, the story provided a list of a dozen reactors that have been or will soon be shut down.

At Wall Street Journal, Government-Enforced Monopolies = 'Free Market' | FAIR (22-Jul-2015)

Ingram bizarrely touts the "flowing pipeline of new wonder drugs spurred by a free market, which he warns will be stopped by "government price controls. This juxtaposition is bizarre, because patent monopolies are 180 degrees at odds with the free market. These monopolies are a government policy to provide incentives for innovation. Ingram obviously likes this policy, but that doesn't make it the "free market.

Yes, Wall Street Journal, It's Possible to Be Not Generous Enough | FAIR (10-Mar-2015)

The Wall Street Journal is soon to run a piece on improper denials of disability claims.

That's inevitable, since any fair-minded newspaper that ran a column on improper approvals would surely want to balance it out.

At Wall Street Journal, Reporting Assault Through Israel's Eyes | FAIR (13-Jul-2013)

In a news report on the Israeli military's investigation of its own deadly raid on the Gaza aid flotilla, the Wall Street Journal (7/13/10) passes off as fact, with no qualifier, the Israeli government's claim that members of IHH, a Turkish humanitarian organization, "attacked the Israeli soldiers as they boarded the ship.

On Islamist Terrorism, WSJ Entitled to Its Own Opinions—But Not Its Own Facts | FAIR (16-Mar-2011)

This is a complete misrepresentation of the Rand report. The report is exclusively about Muslim radicalization and jihadism, not about domestic terrorism in general, as the WSJ would lead you to believe—if anything, it's surprising that there are any non-Muslim jihadist plotters. (The exceptions were two men who agreed for their own secular purposes to collaborate with undercover FBI informants purporting to work for Al-Qaeda.)

The vast majority of "homegrown terrorist attackers—those of all ideologies who successfully carry out an attack—are not Muslim, the report finds: Of the "83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three…were clearly connected with the jihadist cause.

I could go on and on for months and months digging out the literal fake news pumped out by the Wall Street Journal or any other mainstream publication, but you can do that yourself if you're so inclined. The point is, it is the mainstream media that is garbage; that is FAKE NEWS. Why? Simple: greed. Whenever there is greed involved — greed for money or greed for power or greed for control — there will always be corruption. Now granted, there is certainly boatloads of disinformation and misinformation all over the world wide web, but mixed in there are also some highly ethical people and small organizations that actually report the facts and back them with references. And who the hell is a multi-million dollar corporation (Mozilla) to dictate to you or i who is creditable and who is not? I have been watching probably an average of 50-100 news sites almost daily for many years and as a result of studying these sites and fact checking their content, i can confidently suggest some real news sites to follow if you're interested:

How about NPR, Mozilla? Are they a creditable resource? I'll bet they are in your eyes.

It is sites like those listed above that are actively being targeted by war-mongering, self-serving, psychopathic globalists who profit from endless war and stunting the development of the human species. The truth is irrelevant; all that matters is that you and i swallow whatever story it is that supports whatever agenda is being promoted at the moment by whatever government or corporation promoting it and now, to my surprise, even Mozilla has joined the ranks of those that want to control what information is available on the web, an architecture that was built with the free flow of information at its heart.

There must be some sort of funding that is being dished out to those willing to get on the "fake news" bandwagon. There is quite obviously a huge push to combat so-called "fake news" and return the masses to digesting the puke that spews out of the rancid bellies of corporate giants like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and all the rest of the mainstream presstitutes. Facebook, Google, Youtube – they are all doing the same thing. Are they getting paid to censor? Is Mozilla getting paid to take part in this? I don't know, but i just may dig in and find out one of these days.

From The Mozilla Information Trust Initiative article:

This is why we're launching MITI. We're investing in people, programs, and projects that disrupt misinformation online.

Why Mozilla? The spread of misinformation violates nearly every tenet of the Mozilla Manifesto, our guiding doctrine.

Disrupt? So you want to use your corporate leverage to "disrupt" the flow of information? Sounds a lot like censorship, doesn't it? Is that the principle on which the internet was built? From the Mozilla Manifesto:

The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.

Well tell us Mozilla, how is it that the internet can remain open and equally accessible when corporate gate-keepers intend to steer the rest of us in a direction that benefits the powerful few and leads to total information control for the rest of us?

I think i'll take their survey once again. In the mean time, go screw yourself Mozilla – i'll do my own homework and decide what's fake news and what isn't.

Dealing With The Fuzz

Getting stopped by the police is an uncomfortable event for many people. Not knowing and exercising your rights can quickly turn an uncomfortable event into a catastrophic one.

"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, innocently driving along, when suddenly you notice 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 an 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 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 thus 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 set of rules. 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

While you may be legally obligated to disclose your identity in some cases, you are never obligated to answer any other questions. Whether you are innocent or guilty 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 such information may benefit you.

If you are an honest, ethical person and you know you are guilty and you wish to accept 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 may add to your troubles.

RULE #2: Remain calm

Always remain calm and courteous. Never raise your voice or make any quick moves or threatening gestures. You want to play a non-threatening, submissive role, but you want to do so without sacrificing your rights. You want to allow the officer to think they are in control 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 greatly increase the chance of an unfavorable outcome, especially when dealing with an aggressive cop.

RULE #3: Know your rights

You are never obligated to consent to a search of your person or your property. In many states, but not all, you are not even required to produce identification unless you are suspected of committing a crime. 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 there is doubt as to whether you're being detained, simply ask the officer 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 whether you are free to go to prevent any possibility of a misunderstanding. Contrary to what may be popular belief, police officers are often ignorant of the law.

RULE #4: Never resist

Never refuse to comply with an officers orders, regardless of whether those orders are 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 comply 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 an 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, especially they are being aggressive. While you are obviously not obligated to follow an illegal order, we can clearly see why we may choose to do so.

RULE #5: Record the encounter

Like the thief who doesn't steal when you're watching, law enforcement officers are also 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. 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. There are several apps for mobile devices that are designed specifically to record police encounters. If you are not able to record the encounter, ask a bystander if any are near. You also have a right to request any video recorded by the police.

If an aggressive officer demands that you delete the recording or tries to take it from you, understand that your device may not be confiscated without a warrant, but also be aware that they may not know or care about the law, especially if tensions are high. If it seems likely the officer may use violence in order to 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 they are only deleted and the storage media was not formatted. In such a case, and as soon as possible after the encounter, power off the device and 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 this option is well worth considering when you know your rights were violated. Public pressure resulting from videos of aggressive police encounters have had a significant impact in many instances.

Study resources

Read and understand the Rules of Engagement for Interacting with Police by the Rutherford Institute.

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 his detective accomplice:

Don't Talk to the Police

CLDC Know Your Rights Activist Training

"Failure to Obey" Documentary on Checkpoint Refusal

Below are some examples of how to handle an encounter with law enforcement officers.

Know Your Rights: Police Checkpoints

How To Survive Police Interrogation, Cops At Your Door "I Don't Answer Questions"

Homeland Security Checkpoint: Video Blog

How to Refuse a DUI Checkpoint

10 Rules for Dealing with Police

Law Student Schools Policeman On His Gun Rights

Further resources:

Life Without Borders?

Why is it that we cannot travel freely and live where we choose upon this earth while a Canadian goose can do so without passports, papers and permission from the government?

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…