Snowden's Revelations Have Strengthened the NSA

[Occam's Banana]

h/t LRC: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/gary-north/the-mob-is-sickening%E2%80%A8/

How Snowden's Revelations Have Strengthened the NSA
http://www.garynorth.com/public/12446.cfm
Gary North (14 May 2014)

It has been a year since Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA.

I appreciate what Snowden did. His decision to leak the stolen documents has done the conservative movement an enormous favor. It has blown to smithereens the greatest single myth of conservatism: "If the American people knew about this, there would be an uprising." No, there wouldn't.

Here is a variation: "If the voters knew what is being done to them by the Conspiracy, they would throw out the conspirators at the next election." No, they wouldn't.

I have heard variants of these arguments for 50 years. Conservatives don't learn. They think that by exposing the Bad Guys, they will defeat the Bad Guys. They're wrong.

Snowden has proven, as no one in my era has better proved, that exposure of the Bad Guys in government has no negative effect on them.

If exposure does come, and the public does nothing to thwart the hidden Bad Guys, then the Bad Guys no longer have to worry about further exposure. It will be old news. At this point, they can do even more to secure their position of power. The pressure blows over. There may be a time of bad publicity, but this does not change anything fundamental.

Before Snowden, the best examples were the big bankers, who were bailed out a taxpayers' expense in 2009. They got richer. The public knows. The public groused a little. Did this hurt the bankers? No. They got bonuses for their failures. Congress bailed out the big banks, and there were no negative public sanctions on either Congress or the big banks. It's business as usual.

The voters know. The voters have done nothing. It's old news.

But Snowden's revelations have gone far beyond the big bank bailouts of 2009. They have thrown light on a power grab by the government that is perpetual. It was generally hidden. James Bamford's book, The Puzzle Palace (1983), did good work. It had no negative effect on the NSA. But he did not have incontrovertible evidence. Snowden did, and he released it. He got worldwide publicity.

The NSA is more powerful than ever. From now on, any further exposure is old news. No harm, no foul.

THE NSA NOW HAS CARTE BLANCHE

[... more at link: http://www.garynorth.com/public/12446.cfm ...]

[T]he NSA is not going to be in any way hampered by Edward Snowdon, except in terms of bad publicity. But bad publicity does not lead to a change of congressional policy, especially with respect to the budget of the NSA. So, the NSA is going to get away with it, just as it has always gotten away with it.

If anything, Snowden has helped the NSA. Why is that? Because now it is clear that the public really doesn't care. The NSA has been able to weather the storm with no problem in terms of its budget, which means that the NSA now has carte blanche, and Congress knows it. The public knows it to the extent that the public cares, but really the public doesn't care.

The NSA now has full rein over every aspect of our privacy. A year has gone by, and nothing has changed. This is a grant of legitimacy to the NSA that it did not have before Snowden's revelations. Before, the NSA worked in secrecy from the public. Now the NSA knows that the worst possible light can be thrown on the NSA's activities, and nothing is done to roll back the NSA. It has survived Snowdon's revelations, and now it can continue without any major threat to its operations.

I'm glad that Snowden did what he did, because I wanted to hear evidence that backed up what James Bamford wrote about the NSA over two decades ago. It was nice to see that Bamford's warning was validated by Snowden's relations. But nobody cared about Bamford's book, and nobody really cares about Snowden's revelations -- not enough to cut the NSA's budget.

Snowden's revelations serve as a mirror. We looked into the mirror, and we saw what manner of people we are. We just don't care. We didn't care in 1913, so why should we care today?

[... more at link: http://www.garynorth.com/public/12446.cfm ...]

[AuH20]

Gary North also wrote another piece condemning the militia's actions at Bunkerville. There are many people who do care, much to his chagrin.

[Occam's Banana]

Gary North also wrote another piece condemning the militia's actions at Bunkerville.

And this would have what to do with the OP? :confused:


There are many people who do care, much to his chagrin.

:rolleyes: North's use of "nobody cares" is hyperbole. It is an intensifying rhetorical device and is not intended to be taken literally.

And you do know what "chagrin" means, don't you? I ask because North has no apparent reason to be chagrinned unless & until the NSA's domestic surveillance programs are ended by some means other than that which he describes. (Or have you just been waiting for an excuse to trot out that clichéd "much to his chagrin" line?)

[AuH20]

And this would have what to do with the OP? :confused:



:rolleyes: North's use of "nobody cares" is hyperbole. It is an intensifying rhetorical device and is not intended to be taken literally.

And you do know what "chagrin" means, don't you? I ask because North has no apparent reason to be chagrinned unless & until the NSA's domestic surveillance programs are ended by some means other than that which he describes. (Or have you just been waiting for an excuse to trot out that clichéd "much to his chagrin" line?)

I may be biased, but I have developed a distaste for defeatists like Gary North and Lew Rockwell. I think the Bunkerville op ed(http://americanvision.org/10806/gary-north-straightens-misguided-bundy-ranch-hotheads/#sthash.cZJrr667.dpbs) may have sent me over the proverbial edge with it's sheer arrogance. And it's very revealing that we have Postmillenial Christians and others of a subservient nature that have been circulating North's treatise on the proper expressions of civil unrest.

[MRK]

If anything, Snowden has helped the NSA. Why is that? Because now it is clear that the public really doesn't care. The NSA has been able to weather the storm with no problem in terms of its budget, which means that the NSA now has carte blanche, and Congress knows it. The public knows it to the extent that the public cares, but really the public doesn't care.

This is similar to the outcome of the effects that a limited hangout has in mitigating scandal fallouts[0]. The scandal's been aired, but the problems nevertheless persist.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

[Cutlerzzz]

I developed a much greater distaste for North when I found out he advocated stoning gays, cheaters, disobedient children, and athiests to death, but that ultimately doesn't have much to do with his view on the NSA.

[AuH20]

I developed a much greater distaste for North when I found out he advocated stoning gays, cheaters, disobedient children, and athiests to death, but that ultimately doesn't have much to do with his view on the NSA.

But his rhetoric is always tinged with so much condescension and associated dread, as if future events cannot be avoided. It should be noted that this article never brought up the incredible personal scrutiny that NSA employees have experienced since Snowden's revelations. Or the intense spotlight that the Bluffdale facility has attracted. Gary North strike me too much as a commentator on the sidelines with no real desire to get his hands dirty.

[liberty2897]

They've adapted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDa6qc93nNs

[Occam's Banana]

I may be biased, but I have developed a distaste for defeatists like Gary North and Lew Rockwell.

Oh, so now we're pissing on Lew Rockwell, too? You know - that "defeatist" who founded the LvMI when Austro-libertarianism was at near ebb-tide? That Lew Rockwell? Who's next? Tom Woods? Ron Paul? Yosemite Sam?

Please, let us know - because this thread is all about who's on your personal shit list (and not at all about whether or how the NSA has been made more or less vulnerable to significant reform as an ironic consequence of Edward Snowden's revelations).


I think the Bunkerville op ed(http://americanvision.org/10806/gary-north-straightens-misguided-bundy-ranch-hotheads/#sthash.cZJrr667.dpbs) may have sent me over the proverbial edge with it's sheer arrogance. And it's very revealing that we have Postmillenial Christians and others of a subservient nature that have been circulating North's treatise on the proper expressions of civil unrest.

That's nice. But perhaps you could reserve the expression of such sentiments regarding the Bunkerville op-ed for, oh, I don't know ... say, a thread that actually has something remotely to do with the Bunkerville op-ed? Maybe? Just a thought ...


[blarg blarg blarg] It should be noted that this article never brought up [...] the intense spotlight that the Bluffdale facility has attracted. [blarg blarg blarg]

Did you even bother to read the article - or try to understand the point being made?

North explicitly addressed the Bluffdale facility. FTA:

Has the spying center in Utah been shut down? No. It is going to come online as promised. It has all kinds of snafus associated with it, as any government bureaucracy does. But Congress has in no way reined it in. The public has not demanded that Congress rein it in.

Whether you agree with his thesis or not, not only is it NOT the case that he "never brought it up," but he explicitly cited it to the effect that Bluffdale is going forward unchecked & unimpeded - despite the "intense spotlight" it has attracted (this context was, in fact, the whole point of his having mentioned it).


Gary North strike me too much as a commentator on the sidelines with no real desire to get his hands dirty.

As opposed, of course, to your own non-sideline-commentating and dirty-handed self ... :rolleyes:

[Lucille]

You actually beat me to posting that, OB. Arthur Silber called it a year ago.

A year! But just wait (some more) for the big fireworks finale! And did you hear about the movie?! Then he predicts Clinton will win in '16, which tells us how much The Greenwald Show will accomplish.

It's really too bad Snowden didn't give it all to wikileaks.


But the very purpose of Wikileaks is to challenge any and every authority of this kind. For Wikileaks, the only authority that matters -- the only person who is ultimately entitled to all available information and who properly should judge it -- is you (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-wikileaks-iv-world-without-obedience.html). In this sense, which I submit is the highest and best sense of the term, Wikileaks is a genuine "leveller." It seeks to make each and every individual the ultimate judge of the truth, just as it seeks to empower all people to make the determination as to what course of action is indicated, if any. This, dear reader, is what a real revolution looks like.



If you wish to challenge authority in any serious manner, you must be prepared to provoke an unholy, chaotic, extremely messy scene, one punctuated with howls of outrage by those in power, where everyone is mortified, humiliated and riven with panic -- including you. Anything short of that is merely a very small speed bump on power's journey to ever-increasing destruction and death.

The manner of disclosure adopted by Lord Greenwald & Friends, a model of a polite, rules-abiding challenge to authority, has stopped exactly nothing. To the contrary, the primary effect of the disclosures has been to normalize increasingly pervasive, all-encompassing surveillance, and even to make it "legal." (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2014/04/call-me-irresponsible-please.html)

[muh_roads]

Gary North is wrong. A lot more people have taken an interest in encryption from what I've seen. And the community is now thinking more about this as they develop their new protocols.

[AuH20]

Gary North is wrong. A lot more people have taken an interest in encryption from what I've seen. And the community is now thinking more about this as they develop their new protocols.

Not to mention the push to deny cooling water to the Bluffdale facility. People are keenly aware of the Achilles heel of this facility.

[DFF]

As far as no one caring, that's bull. A LOT of people care, but their representatives in Congress don't.

Once again, these revelations about the NSA spying demonstrates the attitude and position of our politicians.

They are acting collectively as a (bad) King. Who only listens to themselves and a few rich people in their court.

[DamianTV]

Art of War: When you are weak, appear strong.

[osan]

If anything, Snowden has helped the NSA. Why is that? Because now it is clear that the public really doesn't care.

We have become the UK. After 9/11, BBC produced "The Power Of Nightmares", which I believe did NOT air in the USA. It is a most enlightening documentary on 9/11, and the new role to which terrorism has been assigned. When I saw it, I was in a sense shocked that such revelations would be disclosed publicly in such manner. I asked my friend Michael, who at the time lived in London. Michael was involved in the capture of a once notorious hacker... I believe Kevin Mitnick. He's a bright guy, and so I asked him about it - why would they make such disclosures? His answer was that nobody in the UK gave a damn. Everyone is so depressed and so pilled up that they just don't care what you might admit, regardless of how outrageously criminal.

That is where we are now. We just don't care and that is why reason and protest will avail us nothing. I cannot say whether armed insurrection against Themme would succeed, but I can guarantee you that anything less is basically guaranteed to fail. The patterns are the same no matter where you look, regardless of agency. They're not listening anymore because they do not have to. "Government" has take on an existence of its own, separately from the rest of us in effective terms because of the way people now think. Between the psychology of the rulers and that of the ruled, the effect is no different than if government actually existed in sé.

Rallye all you want. Elect every liberty candidate. I hope it succeeds, but I don't see it happening. These people, Themme, have worked tirelessly on an intergenerational time scale to position themselves for despotic rule. Theye own "everything" in practical terms and want to have utter control over the rest of us. Do not fool yourself into believing that if we elected liberty-oriented majorities in both houses that Theye are going to lie down and give up. We are a tiny fraction of a hair's breadth away from martial law and it could be declared in response to a national emergency, which itself could be anything, including a flare-up of Obama's hemorrhoids. Nobody holding that much mojo is going to meekly walk away, especially when it's well in their power to covertly initiate events to provide the pretexts for despotic rule.


A year has gone by, and nothing has changed. This is a grant of legitimacy to the NSA that it did not have before Snowden's revelations.

And that, my friends, is as true as anything anyone has ever uttered. The lines are drawn. "Government" has basically thrown down the gauntlet and we have meekly demurred. Theye are now de-facto kings and we, serfs. There is no other realistic way to slice it. We, the people, should have risen up 100 + years ago and slaughtered the raft of them and any that presumed to impress their poisons upon us. But we didn't. And now we are lost, barring armed revolt. While I still hold out some hope for it, I doubt it will amount to much of anything - the revelations of some of the goings-on at the Bundy Ranch should be enough to convince people that this is the case. We are outclassed in nearly every respect and Theye know it. The problem is, most of us do not and that is greatly helping to seal our fates.

[RickyJ]

The NSA is not stronger because of Snowden's revelations. The NSA has been offcially exposed as liars and that is never a good thing. Now more people than ever know that they should start encrypting everything they want to remain private, that doesn't make the NSA stronger at all.

[green73]

Oh, so now we're pissing on Lew Rockwell, too? You know - that "defeatist" who founded the LvMI when Austro-libertarianism was at near ebb-tide? That Lew Rockwell? Who's next? Tom Woods? Ron Paul? Yosemite Sam?

Please, let us know - because this thread is all about who's on your personal shit list (and not at all about whether or how the NSA has been made more or less vulnerable to significant reform as an ironic consequence of Edward Snowden's revelations).



That's nice. But perhaps you could reserve the expression of such sentiments regarding the Bunkerville op-ed for, oh, I don't know ... say, a thread that actually has something remotely to do with the Bunkerville op-ed? Maybe? Just a thought ...



Did you even bother to read the article - or try to understand the point being made?

North explicitly addressed the Bluffdale facility. FTA:


Whether you agree with his thesis or not, not only is it NOT the case that he "never brought it up," but he explicitly cited it to the effect that Bluffdale is going forward unchecked & unimpeded - despite the "intense spotlight" it has attracted (this context was, in fact, the whole point of his having mentioned it).



As opposed, of course, to your own non-sideline-commentating and dirty-handed self ... :rolleyes:

Epic response, and of course the coward doesn't respond. I wish I wasn't out of rep for you. Someone hit me up.

[Theocrat]

Not only that, Snowden's revelations have strengthened our Congress because they provide Congress the justification it seeks to kill American citizens overseas for acts which they deem as "endangering American lives." As Gary North cites at the end of his article, just look at Lindsey Graham (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/graham-snowden-people-killed/2013/08/02/id/518434/).

[AuH20]

Epic response, and of course the coward doesn't respond. I wish I wasn't out of rep for you. Someone hit me up.

Coward? Am I going to play insult table tennis with Occam all night when he and I clearly don't see eye to eye on the subject? I already laid out my case why North is wrong. North's word choice is highly transparent from one piece to the next. It is obvious where he stands and I'm not a fan of his 'logic.'

[green73]

Coward? Am I going to play insult table tennis with Occam all night when he and I clearly don't see eye to eye on the subject? I already laid out my case why North is wrong. North's word choice is highly transparent from one piece to the next. It is obvious where he stands and I'm not a fan of his 'logic.'

Weaksauce dude. And LOL on your comment on logic.

[osan]

I may be biased, but I have developed a distaste for defeatists like Gary North and Lew Rockwell.

I am not very familiar with Gary North, so I will confine myself to the comments on this subject. How is he being defeatist? He is presenting a very ugly truth about people. Would you assert that people are going to rise up and make good the nation once again? If so, you have your work cut out for you. If not, then his words here are by no means "defeatist", but rather realist. Why didn't "we" rise up and smite the Congress that voted up the Federal Reserve Act? Why didn't we rise up and stop any of the vast myriad of crimes committed against our own? Why, upon discovering the truth about Gulf of Tonkin did we not nullify this "government"? Operation Northwoods? US complicity in pressing the nation into both world wars? Why did we not back Joe McCarthy, rather than feed him to the wolves? After all, every single last name on his infamous list turned out to have indeed been a KGB asset. For pity's sake, we had (still have) a God damned fifth column rotting this nation from the inside. What more do you want? People say "oh, McCarthy was too extreme", and yet we murder people by the millions for "domino theory" and "weapons of mass destruction" that apparently never existed. And we say McCarthy was extreme? By today's standards, he was absolutely reserved.

Label him as you please and regardless whether he is a horse's ass, on this point he is dead on the money. If you disagree, please show us how he is wrong?



I developed a much greater distaste for North when I found out he advocated stoning gays, cheaters, disobedient children, and athiests to death, but that ultimately doesn't have much to do with his view on the NSA.


But his rhetoric is always tinged with so much condescension and associated dread, as if future events cannot be avoided. It should be noted that this article never brought up the incredible personal scrutiny that NSA employees have experienced since Snowden's revelations. Or the intense spotlight that the Bluffdale facility has attracted. Gary North strike me too much as a commentator on the sidelines with no real desire to get his hands dirty.


Perhaps his tone sucks (I don't know), but one is well behooved to separate tone from substance. Who cares what his tone might be if he is telling a good truth, which in this case strongly appears to be so.

I would add that perhaps you are confusing what cannot be avoided with that which will not be if we continue on our present and suicidal course. We are WELL beyond fixing things via voting. Threaten Themme and they will respond with unequivocal violence, disguised as someone else's. Perhaps fly a few fully laden 380s into some choice office buildings? Nuke Detroit? Imagine the latter. What do you think America is likely to do, even if they knew it was false flag? With few exceptions they would do as they have done to this point, which is precisely what North wrote. I could give a damn about his tone. The substance of what is said is what interests me. He called it well on this: NSA is hopping around, pants at their ankles and they are not in the least concerned because Boobus has once again chosen to demur. Nothing to see here... move long...

[AuH20]

I am not very familiar with Gary North, so I will confine myself to the comments on this subject. How is he being defeatist? He is presenting a very ugly truth about people. Would you assert that people are going to rise up and make good the nation once again? If so, you have your work cut out for you. If not, then his words here are by no means "defeatist", but rather realist. Why didn't "we" rise up and smite the Congress that voted up the Federal Reserve Act? Why didn't we rise up and stop any of the vast myriad of crimes committed against our own? Why, upon discovering the truth about Gulf of Tonkin did we not nullify this "government"? Operation Northwoods? US complicity in pressing the nation into both world wars? Why did we not back Joe McCarthy, rather than feed him to the wolves? After all, every single last name on his infamous list turned out to have indeed been a KGB asset. For pity's sake, we had (still have) a God damned fifth column rotting this nation from the inside. What more do you want? People say "oh, McCarthy was too extreme", and yet we murder people by the millions for "domino theory" and "weapons of mass destruction" that apparently never existed. And we sat McCarthy was extreme? By today's standards, he was absolutely reserved.

Label him as you please and regardless whether he is a horse's ass, on this point he is dead on the money. If you disagree, please show us how he is wrong?

Largely because too much of the general population had other options at that time & these gradual changes via legislation appeared harmless to them. Nothing will be done until the options finally evaporate and we are quickly moving towards that endgame. You could make an legitimate argument that this country would have fractured yet again if the Pearl Harbor attack was not welcomed in 1941 after 12 years of serious economic hardship. North and his ilk are looking through a historical prism that is not entirely accurate. A true fight or flight scenario has not been introduced on this soil, though we did get close in the 1930s.




Perhaps his tone sucks (I don't know), but one is well behooved to separate tone from substance. Who cares what his tone might be if he is telling a good truth, which in this case strongly appears to be the case.

I would add that perhaps you are confusing what cannot be avoided with that which will not be, if we continue on our present and suicidal course. We are WELL beyond fixing things via voting. Threaten Themme and they will respond with unequivocal violent, disguised as someone else's. Perhaps fly a few 380s into some choice office buildings? Nuke Detroit? Imagine the latter. What do you think America is likely to do, even if they knew it was false flag? With few exceptions they would do as they have done to this point, which is precisely what North wrote. I could give a damn about his tone. The substance of what is said and not so much the how is what interests me. He called it well on this: NSA is hopping around, pants at their ankles and they are not in the least concerned because Boobus has once again chosen to acquiesce. Nothing to see here... move long...


We live in the information age. A sizable segment of the population (anywhere from 10 to 20% in this country) can identify the true power structure and who comprises it. Knowledge is power and they can't kill everyone.

[UWDude]

Realism is all that matters now, if you care to survive.

[kcchiefs6465]

You actually beat me to posting that, OB. Arthur Silber called it a year ago.

A year! But just wait (some more) for the big fireworks finale! And did you hear about the movie?! Then he predicts Clinton will win in '16, which tells us how much The Greenwald Show will accomplish.

It's really too bad Snowden didn't give it all to wikileaks.
A couple of points I'd add. Clinton will unfortunately win regardless (or a like minded politician) and he didn't endorse her. He has said positive things about Paul though I don't think as a journalist he would ever openly endorse any candidate. Kind of how Ben Swann did not endorse Ron Paul and when asked about his political affiliation he shied away from it. At least while he was with Fox 19.

Greenwald is leaps and bounds the best spokesman Snowden could have asked for. I imagine that that is partially why Snowden picked him. Julian Assange's movement is limited and people already have misconceptions or preformed notions about him and his actions (as well as his alleged actions). Leaking to Wikileaks would have been good in some ways, that is, that everyone could comb through anything and break stories as it was uncovered. It would have negatively affected Snowden, could well have led to greater public support of his assassination, though certainly of his imprisonment, and as well if you look at what the person who sacrificed his liberty, career, and lifestyle said, it's that he did not want everything published. That's probably part of the reason why he did not choose Wikileaks to disclose the documents to. Though Wikileaks has been helpful to Snowden and the work they do is patriotic.

Things take a while to develop. Tens of thousands of documents, many linking to other documents, the research needed to ensure it is factually correct (after all, they'd sooner declassify certain memos if it proved Greenwald wrong)..... these things don't simply just happen. Greenwald has mentioned that he finds the concerns of you or I valid and that's what keeps him up at night (that he isn't releasing enough). At the end of the day, the whistleblower's wishes should be respected and Greenwald is doing an amazing job. Him taking a job at First Look could be legitimate cause for concern but I have no doubts of his integrity. He's been speaking out on these issues for quite a while. I do believe he legitimately cares about the direction of this country and I would be absolutely shocked to discover that he hid something, or rephrased something, or did not do his job to the fullest simply because of who his employer currently is. His work speaks for itself. He could find a job anywhere and if not to his suiting, he could freelance, write books, or give speeches.

I understand your concerns but I just don't see it. He has been unwavering on the issues for over a decade and he destroys the puppets effortlessly. He's clearly read on the subject and I think his motivations are clear.

[osan]

Largely because too much of the general population had other options at that time & these gradual changes via legislation appeared harmless to them. Nothing will be done until the options finally evaporate and we are quickly moving towards that endgame. You could make an legitimate argument that this country would have fractured yet again if the Pearl Harbor attack was not welcomed in 1941 after 12 years of serious economic hardship. North and his ilk are looking through a historical prism that is not entirely accurate. A true fight or flight scenario has not been introduced on this soil, though we did get close in the 1930s.

OK, so let me make sure I have this straight: are you justifying the failure of Americans because they had "other options", or simply stating the fact?

In any case, the failure was "ours" and, options notwithstanding, they were inexcusable. This speaks to ignorance and the choice to lassitude. Gradual changes was, in those days, already a well known method. What excuse had they? None, just as the Jews of Germany had none when they allowed their normalcy bias to rule over rational thought because to act on what was clearly trumpeted at them would have been too much work - too risky - too costly. Well Fred, what is your life worth now, your ashes long scattered on the heaps at Auschwitz?

We are doing the EXACT same thing now. Theye are trumpeting into our eardrums their clear and unequivocal intentions to destroy us and all we do is sit about, waiting for things to get "better". Just you fucking wait until they do. By then it will likely be too late and not a one of us will have justification to wring a hand or gnash a tooth because this was served up to us with welcoming arms, which is all the arms can be when they do not reflexively form fists in response to assaults.



We live in the information age.

and we should all know that information <> knowledge and knowledge <> wisdom, perforce.


A sizable segment of the population (anywhere from 10 to 20% in this country) can identify the true power structure and who comprises it.

And still do nothing effective? Yeah, that's encouraging.


Knowledge is power and they can't kill everyone.

Perhaps, but they can come very close. Besides, Theye only have to kill enough and do so in the correct manner such that the rest stop dead in their tracks, drop their pitchforks, and bow their heads. Consider that Theye are internationalists. Consider that Theye are powerful and materially well heeled. Theye do not have to reside in America. They can bugger off to far flung reaches.

Given that, there is in principle NOTHING to stop them from literally nuking, say, the 20 largest cities in the continental USA. Imagine simultaneous attacks on NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, LA, SF, Houston, Phoenix, Chicago, Seattle, St. Louis, Memphis, Atlanta, Miami, Las Vegas, Denver, Detroit, New Orleans, Raleigh, Pittsburgh, and Oklahoma City. I am serious now... sit in a chair in a quiet place... relax, and imagine what 20 x 150kt detonations so distributed across the land would do to the people of this nation. They would most likely fold like cheap suits. All pretensions to liberty would effectively vanish from the face of America in a matter of seconds. There would be no insurrection - no rebellion - no revolution, save what Theye specify. There would be utter, universal compliance to "authority". We are no longer cut of the fabric to fight, and even if we are, a nuclear detonation brings things into a new dimension of reality that no human being is prepared to handle. We will become like small and obedient children, on the average, terrified and thankful for the "helping hand" that puts food into our mouths for another day, keeps us sheltered, clothed, and "safe".

Whatever you do, never overestimate the character, ability, and resolve of the meaner because that will be your undoing. Underestimation, OTOH, is nearly impossible.

And for God's sake, never underestimate the power of unequivocal technology turned against the human animal.

[NoOneButPaul]

More and more i'm just coming to the realization homesteading is the only way out. I bought 40acres up in Wisconsin and i'm going to start getting it ready over the next 6 months and then move there from Chicago at the end of the fall. It's time for us to put up or shut up. If you believe in liberty you need to start building your own nation on your own plot.

Central banking caused us to huddle into cities and now I think it's important people start leaving the cities and reverting back to sensible living in the country. I fully expect this to be the hardest thing i've ever done but it seems increasingly more likely that some kind of unrest is coming and even if it never does spending a lifetime building a BOL for my extended family does not seem like a bad thing to do.

Sadly I think everyone in this thread is right. North's attitude is shit but that doesn't mean he's wrong...

[RickyJ]

Gary North is wrong. A lot more people have taken an interest in encryption from what I've seen. And the community is now thinking more about this as they develop their new protocols.

Gary North is usually wrong about anything he writes about. His track record is so dismal that it is amazing anyone reads his tripe anymore.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Gary North is usually wrong about anything he writes about. His track record is so dismal that it is amazing anyone reads his tripe anymore.

I dunno about that, but I think he can let his biases get the better of him from time to time.

[Occam's Banana]

North's thesis - as clearly summarized in the "CONCLUSION" section of his article - is that "exposure of major infringements on our liberties [(such as Snowden's NSA revelations) will have] no effect in rolling back the state" unless and until "the voters' minds change regarding big government." North says that so long as "voters accept the interventionist state" (in the form of the IRS, NSA, etc.) the only thing that can "roll this back" is some sort of budgetary or fiscal crisis that forces the issue. Substantively, what is there to disagree with here?

Several statements have been made in this thread to the effect that "Gary North is wrong." However, North cannot be shown to be wrong unless and until "this is rolled back" without (1) a budgetary or fiscal crisis of some sort, OR (2) the voters changing their minds regarding big government and rejecting the interventionist state. Neither of those conditions have (yet) been met, and the "major infringements on our liberties" to which North refers have not been "rolled back." So unless someone can identify a viable alternative to (1) or (2), North cannot be said to be be wrong about this. It is clear that North thinks that (1) is far more likely than (2) under present circumstances - but he did NOT say that (2) is impossible (only that it doesn't currently pertain despite things like Snowden's exposure of the NSA).


[T]oo much of the general population had other options at that time & these gradual changes via legislation appeared harmless to them. Nothing will be done until the options finally evaporate and we are quickly moving towards that endgame. [...]

OK, so let me make sure I have this straight: are you justifying the failure of Americans because they had "other options", or simply stating the fact? [...]

Either way, it doesn't work to mitigate against anything North said. Just the opposite, in fact. If there were formerly more "other options" and presently fewer, then North's thesis is only reinforced, not weakened. To say that "nothing will be done until the options finally evaporate and we are quickly moving towards that endgame" is essentially coterminal with North's central claim - to wit: that nothing will be done unless and until (all other options have "evaporated" and) fiscal/budgetary realities force the issue. The only difference is that North specifically identifies what he thinks is the only straw that can or will break the camel's back under the conditions that currently exist.


I am not very familiar with Gary North, so I will confine myself to the comments on this subject. How is he being defeatist? He is presenting a very ugly truth about people. [...] Label him as you please and regardless whether he is a horse's ass, on this point he is dead on the money. If you disagree, please show us how he is wrong? [...] Perhaps his tone sucks (I don't know), but one is well behooved to separate tone from substance. Who cares what his tone might be if he is telling a good truth, which in this case strongly appears to be the case.

Precisely and exactly so.

I have read North only to the extent to which I have followed what looked (in context) like interesting links to his material from elsewhere (LRC, in this particular case). I otherwise do not "follow" North's work, as I do not much care for the style he seems to favor - particularly his tendency to string together brief, declarative sentences (which makes his stuff too choppy and emphatically "staccato" for my tastes - too "Dick and Jane"-ish, if you will). He also overdoes the hypberole - such as his assertions in the OP article that "nobody cares" (which is clearly "exaggeration for effect" and is obviously NOT meant to be taken literally).

But unlike some others, I try not to let those sorts of things get in the way of understanding and assimilating the substance of what an author is saying. Stylistic and rhetorical warts aside, North's assessment of the NSA issue is sober and realistic. I sorely wish it were otherwise (as I would very much like it to be shown that North is wrong about this), but the only "refutations" of North's presentation I'm seeing here amount to semantic quibbles over whether "nobody cares," rejections of North's thesis because (irrelevantly) he has said something else on some other subject that someone found unpleasant or objectionable, or the like.