Politics QAnon and Sovereign Citizens

[Chief]

If you or someone you care about is under the influence of Qanon, please visit:

https://freedomofmind.com/what-to-do-about-the-qanon-and-those-ensnared-in-it-interview-with-travis-view/

 

[Episode IV]

I believe Russia is engaging in a special colonisation exercise in Ukraine presently.

Again, the war in Ukraine is an invasion. There are no settlers involved in Ukraine, at present.

If you want to know about Russian colonisation efforts in Ukraine, go and read about the Holodomor, and how Eastern Ukraine was resettled by Stalin using mostly ethnic Russian farmers to replace those lost. That would be a colonisation. It also goes quite a long way to help explain the current situation in Eastern Ukraine today, why Russia possibly has as much support there as it claims. Or at least not the gulf the West imagines.

Very complex subject, really.

 

[Episode IV]

Killing citizens of a country is generally regarded as a threat to the nation.
Do you think murder isn't a big deal?

What country or nation are you speaking of?

And what sort of stupid question is that last bit? trying to explain the difference between an invasion and a colonisation makes me someone who thinks murder isn't a big deal? Quite a leap you have, there. You should try out for the Hyperbolic Olympics.

 

[Mofra]

What country or nation are you speaking of?

And what sort of stupid question is that last bit? trying to explain the difference between an invasion and a colonisation makes me someone who thinks murder isn't a big deal? Quite a leap you have, there. You should try out for the Hyperbolic Olympics.

Australia. We're talking about Australia. I'm surprised you needed that clarified.
I understand you're struggling, so I'll try dumb it down so you can understand.

We're talking about sovereign citizens, and we've recently had a couple murder policemen in Queensland. My argument is these lunatic cookers are a threat.
You're counter-argument that sovereign citizens aren't a threat is one I disagree with.
You can try and play semantics by defining that threat as one to the nation, but if people are murdering a nation's citizens, that represents a threat. Your argument, effectively, diminishes murder as a threat - I disagree with that.

Do you have a strong affinity with 'sovereign citizens'? If so, why?

 

[FredLeDeux]

That's a silly comment. I haven't seen China transporting boatloads of settlers anywhere recently, have you? If China were to lay claim to areas of Australia without permission, it would require an invasion.

Having said that, I suppose you could claim that China is currently occupying Australian territory without permission.
Several Chinese bases, ostensibly for scientific research purposes but which have not been inspected by anyone to verify their actual purpose or to determine a military presence, have been established in Australian Antarctic Territory for some years now.

Please enlighten us, Gough. Are we being invaded, or colonised?

I haven't seen it personally, but then I'm not personally in Tibet.

 

[owen87]

Again, the war in Ukraine is an invasion. There are no settlers involved in Ukraine, at present.

If you want to know about Russian colonisation efforts in Ukraine, go and read about the Holodomor, and how Eastern Ukraine was resettled by Stalin using mostly ethnic Russian farmers to replace those lost. That would be a colonisation. It also goes quite a long way to help explain the current situation in Eastern Ukraine today, why Russia possibly has as much support there as it claims. Or at least not the gulf the West imagines.

Very complex subject, really.

I see you don’t understand sarcasm.

 

[Episode IV]

Australia. We're talking about Australia. I'm surprised you needed that clarified.
I understand you're struggling, so I'll try dumb it down so you can understand.

We're talking about sovereign citizens, and we've recently had a couple murder policemen in Queensland. My argument is these lunatic cookers are a threat.
You're counter-argument that sovereign citizens aren't a threat is one I disagree with.
You can try and play semantics by defining that threat as one to the nation, but if people are murdering a nation's citizens, that represents a threat. Your argument, effectively, diminishes murder as a threat - I disagree with that.

Do you have a strong affinity with 'sovereign citizens'? If so, why?

As I have already said, I have said more than once now that I did not say they aren't a threat. I said they were less of one than you like to make out. I don't believe the murders you're referring to have any direct effect on the nation as a whole in themselves. I see them, rather and as I've already stated (again, more than once), as murders in a similar vein to those committed by Monis - as small group of unstable individuals laying claim to a belief system to justify their own purposes - or self-image. Those three people, in the instance you're referring to, were unbalanced, by all accounts, for a rather long time before any thoughts of being or representing Sovereign Citizens came to the fore.
I've already asked you if you see Monis as a representative of Islam, and therefore according to your line of thought as a threat to the political stability of Australia, or as an unbalanced individual who used distorted beliefs to justify his own violent tendencies which were apparently, according to those who have written detailed reports into this individual, developed over a considerable period of time. Is Islam, then, a threat to the nation? Play it up, or play it down?
The reason I've asked you that is to determine whether or not you have a an integrated pattern of thought, or whether or not you are just approaching this from a purely hyperbolic point of view.
You have yet to answer. If you did so, we could probably dispense with going around in circles, having nailed you down once and for all.

The train of thought you've used above to try and whittle down my comments to "diminishing murder as a threat" is ridiculous. Intellectually puerile, would be another term to use.

No. I don't have any particular affinity with Sovereign Citizens. You could argue that perhaps I do, from the standpoint of becoming quite exasperated with the direction Australian society is taking, with regard to the subjective debate becoming more acceptable, if not even preferable, than the objective one (among other things), but that does not lead me to supporting either their cause or their actions. I do have a certain ingrained sympathy with peoples (yes, all of them) who have come under the yoke of others and little recourse to ethnic, cultural or idealistic expression except within the confines of a larger society, and I could add further that that does not, in itself, lead me to believe in the simplicity of just letting everyone (or rather, certain peoples according to how much sympathy they can engender) have their own way, but that... yeah, let's just not go there. Again, I have little doubt as to how that discussion would go, and to be quite frank there are other communities where more complex questions and discussions are tolerated in a more equitable light than here. The arguments no less heated on occasion, of course, but in somewhat less... dictatorial communities.

I'll say that my tolerance for their bullshit is little different to my tolerance for yours, but your ilk have a far greater influence on Australian society than they do. And it's not even your ideals, themselves, which I find to be an issue - so much as the means by which you seek to gain and exercise authority, and the results of what I would deem to be misguided action. Sympathy, empathy, and understanding do not necessarily lead to agreement with the objectives of those one feels those things for, nor the actions or outcomes resulting from them.

*edit - cut the first bit. I'm too tired to be concentrating on more than one subject at a time.

 

[Episode IV]

I haven't seen it personally, but then I'm not personally in Tibet.

Good point.
China and Tibet have a far more complex history than Australia and China do, though, and the overall historical situation considerably different.
How did China become China?
I've asked before, is there a Statute of Limitations on this sort of thing, and would it be a question of culpability, capability, both, or option C?

Your comment hardly lends any credence to a rather silly question about how I'd feel if China colonised Australia. I consider that question symptomatic of the degenerative methods of discussion around here.

Again, there is some question as to whether or not they already have, incidentally, with regard to Australia - in the present. How do you feel about it?

 

[Episode IV]

I see you don’t understand sarcasm.

I do, actually.
That reply was how I'm in the mood to address it.

Would you prefer it was answered in kind? Because, you know, that would result in reasoned debate resulting in positive reformation?
Should we all just pick up metaphorical spears and pretend that because we're not physically hurting anyone, less damage will be done in the long term?

I will, however, take your sarcasm as you conceding the point regarding the difference between invasion and colonisation.

Caveat: I don't think think I'd be adept at that type of "debate" as you are.

 

[Malifice]

That's a silly comment. I haven't seen China transporting boatloads of settlers anywhere recently, have you?

But if China did send a few boatloads of settlers, and landed and started building a city, and we asked them to leave (and they refused), and we had to use military action to repel them....

Still not an invasion to you?

 

[Geary Is GOAT]

Totally normal way to spend your day.

 

[Gough]

I still move John Howard's autobiography into the True Crimes section of bookshops so that's a pass from me.

 

[Episode IV]

But if China did send a few boatloads of settlers, and landed and started building a city, and we asked them to leave (and they refused), and we had to use military action to repel them....

Still not an invasion to you?

Nope. Colonisation.
As far as one can post a simple reply to a question like that, given the state of the world 200 years ago as opposed to today.

Terms like "Terra Nullius" get short shrift in the modern world. All of it has been staked out, as far as I'm aware. So much so as to make colonisation impossible to all practical purposes. As I mentioned earlier, an invasion is pretty much a requirement now.

 

[Mofra]

As I have already said, I have said more than once now that I did not say they aren't a threat. I said they were less of one than you like to make out. I don't believe the murders you're referring to have any direct effect on the nation as a whole in themselves. I see them, rather and as I've already stated (again, more than once), as murders in a similar vein to those committed by Monis - as small group of unstable individuals laying claim to a belief system to justify their own purposes - or self-image. Those three people, in the instance you're referring to, were unbalanced, by all accounts, for a rather long time before any thoughts of being or representing Sovereign Citizens came to the fore.
I've already asked you if you see Monis as a representative of Islam, and therefore according to your line of thought as a threat to the political stability of Australia, or as an unbalanced individual who used distorted beliefs to justify his own violent tendencies which were apparently, according to those who have written detailed reports into this individual, developed over a considerable period of time. Is Islam, then, a threat to the nation? Play it up, or play it down?
The reason I've asked you that is to determine whether or not you have a an integrated pattern of thought, or whether or not you are just approaching this from a purely hyperbolic point of view.
You have yet to answer. If you did so, we could probably dispense with going around in circles, having nailed you down once and for all.

The train of thought you've used above to try and whittle down my comments to "diminishing murder as a threat" is ridiculous. Intellectually puerile, would be another term to use.

No. I don't have any particular affinity with Sovereign Citizens. You could argue that perhaps I do, from the standpoint of becoming quite exasperated with the direction Australian society is taking, with regard to the subjective debate becoming more acceptable, if not even preferable, than the objective one (among other things), but that does not lead me to supporting either their cause or their actions. I do have a certain ingrained sympathy with peoples (yes, all of them) who have come under the yoke of others and little recourse to ethnic, cultural or idealistic expression except within the confines of a larger society, and I could add further that that does not, in itself, lead me to believe in the simplicity of just letting everyone (or rather, certain peoples according to how much sympathy they can engender) have their own way, but that... yeah, let's just not go there. Again, I have little doubt as to how that discussion would go, and to be quite frank there are other communities where more complex questions and discussions are tolerated in a more equitable light than here. The arguments no less heated on occasion, of course, but in somewhat less... dictatorial communities.

I'll say that my tolerance for their bullshit is little different to my tolerance for yours, but your ilk have a far greater influence on Australian society than they do. And it's not even your ideals, themselves, which I find to be an issue - so much as the means by which you seek to gain and exercise authority, and the results of what I would deem to be misguided action. Sympathy, empathy, and understanding do not necessarily lead to agreement with the objectives of those one feels those things for, nor the actions or outcomes resulting from them.

*edit - cut the first bit. I'm too tired to be concentrating on more than one subject at a time.

So you take issue with me discussing what you actually said, and not a revision on what you now say you meant?

Ok. We're not going to see eye to eye here. That happens.

And to answer your question about Monis - yes, there is a small section within Islam that agitates for non-compliance with Australian law and proposes violence, and yes I have a problem with anyone who agrees or sympathizes with that idea.

ASIO still considers radical Islam the second highest threat within Australian society, behind right wing / cooker / conspiracy types. The types that are the subject of this thread that you 'sympathise' with and whose ideology you attempt to mitigate with some weird 'both sides' type argument despite my 'side' being one that rejects violence and states that people here should abide by law.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Episode IV]

So you take issue with me discussing what you actually said, and not a revision on what you now say you meant?

"The increased legal and political division of Australia, and as an extension social, on racial lines is becoming a real possibility. These sovereign citizens you've all got your panties in a bunch over are no real threat to the nation or its political stability. They're a joke, really. All twelve of them.
"Blak" Sovereignty, however, if its allowed to continue along this vein, has a chance of gaining real support and eventually political power. And that might come about because there are too many people, like you, who have absolutely no idea of the potential ramifications of these sorts of people attaining authority... and no inclination to educate yourself."

This is my original comment that you saw fit to strip down. I had to go back three pages to find it. This is what you've spent quite a few comments now indicating I merely said "Sov Cits are no threat", and I've retaliated to.

I'll leave it there with no further comment other than to say that I sincerely hope there are others out there who can see what you're attempting to do.

Ok. We're not going to see eye to eye here. That happens.

It does, doesn't it.
Most often when other people have a preference to look anywhere but where you're pointing. The questions remains as to whether that is deliberate obfuscation or a lack of capability in comprehension.
Or maybe I just don't have the capability to word it right, eh? A propensity to leave it wide open for people to make simplistic assumptions.

And to answer your question about Monis - yes, there is a small section within Islam that agitates for non-compliance with Australian law and proposes violence, and yes I have a problem with anyone who agrees or sympathizes with that idea.

ASIO still considers radical Islam the second highest threat within Australian society, behind right wing / cooker / conspiracy types. The types that are the subject of this thread that you 'sympathise' with and whose ideology you attempt to mitigate with some weird 'both sides' type argument despite my 'side' being one that rejects violence and states that people here should abide by law.

Organisations such as ASIO become the voice of authority when their opinions agree with yours, but not when they're theorising or acting in a manner you disagree with. Then, they're "The Establishment", and the enemy. Or the Keystone Cops. Pretty much a matter of how you present your Appeal to Authority, isn't it?
In addition to which, as always, the question remains as to why these groups are becoming more prevalent in Australian society, which is a little outside ASIO's purview.

Anyway.
Let's attempt to break that down a bit. If this is true, When they say "threat", what type of threat are they referring to? The threat of (political) violence? Or the threat to society? Do you see them as being mutually inclusive?

Violence can occur as a result of all sorts of motivations. Revolution, being one of those, when the establishment becomes too powerful to reason with, and the rhetoric too entrenched to argue with, vocal dissent ineffective.

I think we can agree that violence, politically motivated violence at the very least and in this context, can be a threat to the fabric of that society. That statement, when taken at face value, would appear to be self evidently true - particularly when it gathers momentum and support, which is often the difference between a failed revolution and a successful one. There are many historical examples of both.

I suppose the real question is one of the point at which you'd consider that type of violence to become acceptable or necessary.
Is your answer simply "never"?

I'll leave that there for now.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

At this point, I'm not surprised at all you'd want to opt out.

 

[Mofra]

"The increased legal and political division of Australia, and as an extension social, on racial lines is becoming a real possibility. These sovereign citizens you've all got your panties in a bunch over are no real threat to the nation or its political stability. They're a joke, really. All twelve of them.
"Blak" Sovereignty, however, if its allowed to continue along this vein, has a chance of gaining real support and eventually political power. And that might come about because there are too many people, like you, who have absolutely no idea of the potential ramifications of these sorts of people attaining authority... and no inclination to educate yourself."

This is my original comment that you saw fit to strip down. I had to go back three pages to find it. This is what you've spent quite a few comments now indicating I merely said "Sov Cits are no threat", and I've retaliated to.

I'll leave it there with no further comment other than to say that I sincerely hope there are others out there who can see what you're attempting to do.


It does, doesn't it.
Most often when other people have a preference to look anywhere but where you're pointing. The questions remains as to whether that is deliberate obfuscation or a lack of capability in comprehension.
Or maybe I just don't have the capability to word it right, eh? A propensity to leave it wide open for people to make simplistic assumptions.


Organisations such as ASIO become the voice of authority when their opinions agree with yours, but not when they're theorising or acting in a manner you disagree with. Then, they're "The Establishment", and the enemy. Or the Keystone Cops. Pretty much a matter of how you present your Appeal to Authority, isn't it?
In addition to which, as always, the question remains as to why these groups are becoming more prevalent in Australian society, which is a little outside ASIO's purview.

Anyway.
Let's attempt to break that down a bit. If this is true, When they say "threat", what type of threat are they referring to? The threat of (political) violence? Or the threat to society? Do you see them as being mutually inclusive?

Violence can occur as a result of all sorts of motivations. Revolution, being one of those, when the establishment becomes too powerful to reason with, and the rhetoric too entrenched to argue with, vocal dissent ineffective.

I think we can agree that violence, politically motivated violence at the very least and in this context, can be a threat to the fabric of that society. That statement, when taken at face value, would appear to be self evidently true - particularly when it gathers momentum and support, which is often the difference between a failed revolution and a successful one. There are many historical examples of both.

I suppose the real question is one of the point at which you'd consider that type of violence to become acceptable or necessary.
Is your answer simply "never"?

I'll leave that there for now.


At this point, I'm not surprised at all you'd want to opt out.

All those words to double down on a point I have stated I fundamentally disagree with, more than once. I even left your assertion about there only being 12 cookers out there in society alone.

If there are people out a group of people who murder members of society, that represents a threat to that society. A nation is made up of citizens, and citizens are being murdered than I do think that represents a 'real' threat.

I'm sure the members of those murdered families would also "have their panties on a knot" over those murderers too.

And yes, I never want to see ideologically motivated violence acted upon anyone in society. Why you are so emotional about this, and are so dismissive of it (by trying to whattabout issues that aren't subject to this thread, like Blak Sovereignty or Monis) is an issue I consider weird but yeah, you do you.

 

[Episode IV]

All those words to double down on a point I have stated I fundamentally disagree with, more than once. I even left your assertion about there only being 12 cookers out there in society alone.

Probably because it was deliberately facile comment regarding the numbers of these Sov Cits.
You really need to understand how much of an influence the media has over these things. There are 27 million people in Australia, and a couple of hundred turning up to a march (or whatever) is a pretty small number compared to some of the protests I've read about. You'd get ten times that many protesting abortion rights. How many do you think there are? Do you check under your bed at night?

If there are people out a group of people who murder members of society, that represents a threat to that society. A nation is made up of citizens, and citizens are being murdered than I do think that represents a 'real' threat.

To the fabric of that society.
A threat to its makeup, social constitution, etc. etc. Meaning, that Australia is not suddenly going to go into a revolutionary state because a few people get murdered for various reasons. People have been getting murdered throughout recorded history, and probably before it. It does not add up to a threat to society in general until it gains political traction and popular support, hence my comments on the nature of revolutions.

I'm sure the members of those murdered families would also "have their panties on a knot" over those murderers too.

Probably. This point is at the heart of this part of the discussion though, isn't it.
How much the emotional reactions of individuals and what they come to believe, the tenuous connections they make, as a result of adverse circumstances and experiences should influence discussion or subsequent action.
Perhaps you should consider the reasons vigilante mobs were outlawed in the first place. Why the State took law enforcement into its own hands to begin with.

It's rather common for some enterprising individuals or groups to take the anger of those wronged and tell them where to direct it. Often as not, the target will be a political or social objective.

And yes, I never want to see ideologically motivated violence acted upon anyone in society. Why you are so emotional about this, and are so dismissive of it (by trying to whattabout issues that aren't subject to this thread, like Blak Sovereignty or Monis) is an issue I consider weird but yeah, you do you.

Your entire argument, such as it is, is based on nothing but emotionalism. How people feel, and how much your opinions and demands for change or action depend upon it.
I think it should be fairly obvious mine is not, as much as is humanly possible.
I tend to believe that when we start to form policy based upon purely emotional responses, a lot of other people are in for a rather hard time. History would tend to bear that out too.

Whataboutism is just an excuse you use to avoid considering that rather than these types of movements developing in isolation, there are common themes at the core which lead to the sort of consequences we're seeing today. So rather than address those, you seize upon a buzzword to call it a logical fallacy and dismiss it when someone attempts to make comparisons in an attempt to get to those root causes.

When I'm mentioning Monis, for example, I'm not doing so to deflect discussion from the topic at hand.
I'm doing so in order to illustrate that there is an awful lot of study and research pointing to a common theme amongst these types of people - marginalised, disenfranchised, searching for meaning and seizing upon something which appears at face value to explain or justify their own anger and misguided actions. When they do finally "act out", its a cue for you to point to "The Cause" as the problem, rather than some of the individuals who very commonly reside within it.
Which is why Islam was deemed a "threat to society" by some after Monis. Same thing is happening here. I can't remember a time in the last few decades where there hasn't been a significant threat to society, if you believe the media.
This is hardly the place to discuss the vagaries of mental instability and the potential consequences of it, but to read you simply dismiss it all as "whataboutism" and then tell me I'm being too emotional does in fact lead to that emotional response I mentioned previously - exasperation.
In light of that, you've been very disappointing.

I wonder how you'll react when that threat to society is deemed to be you, at some point. It appears those like you still haven't quite grasped the idea that these types of movements are largely reactionary in nature, let alone asked yourself what they might be a reaction to.
And so the wheel turns.

 

[Mofra]

Probably because it was deliberately facile comment regarding the numbers of these Sov Cits.
You really need to understand how much of an influence the media has over these things. There are 27 million people in Australia, and a couple of hundred turning up to a march (or whatever) is a pretty small number compared to some of the protests I've read about. You'd get ten times that many protesting abortion rights. How many do you think there are? Do you check under your bed at night?


To the fabric of that society.
A threat to its makeup, social constitution, etc. etc. Meaning, that Australia is not suddenly going to go into a revolutionary state because a few people get murdered for various reasons. People have been getting murdered throughout recorded history, and probably before it. It does not add up to a threat to society in general until it gains political traction and popular support, hence my comments on the nature of revolutions.


Probably. This point is at the heart of this part of the discussion though, isn't it.
How much the emotional reactions of individuals and what they come to believe, the tenuous connections they make, as a result of adverse circumstances and experiences should influence discussion or subsequent action.
Perhaps you should consider the reasons vigilante mobs were outlawed in the first place. Why the State took law enforcement into its own hands to begin with.

It's rather common for some enterprising individuals or groups to take the anger of those wronged and tell them where to direct it. Often as not, the target will be a political or social objective.


Your entire argument, such as it is, is based on nothing but emotionalism. How people feel, and how much your opinions and demands for change or action depend upon it.
I think it should be fairly obvious mine is not, as much as is humanly possible.
I tend to believe that when we start to form policy based upon purely emotional responses, a lot of other people are in for a rather hard time. History would tend to bear that out too.

Whataboutism is just an excuse you use to avoid considering that rather than these types of movements developing in isolation, there are common themes at the core which lead to the sort of consequences we're seeing today. So rather than address those, you seize upon a buzzword to call it a logical fallacy and dismiss it when someone attempts to make comparisons in an attempt to get to those root causes.

When I'm mentioning Monis, for example, I'm not doing so to deflect discussion from the topic at hand.
I'm doing so in order to illustrate that there is an awful lot of study and research pointing to a common theme amongst these types of people - marginalised, disenfranchised, searching for meaning and seizing upon something which appears at face value to explain or justify their own anger and misguided actions. When they do finally "act out", its a cue for you to point to "The Cause" as the problem, rather than some of the individuals who very commonly reside within it.
Which is why Islam was deemed a "threat to society" by some after Monis. Same thing is happening here. I can't remember a time in the last few decades where there hasn't been a significant threat to society, if you believe the media.
This is hardly the place to discuss the vagaries of mental instability and the potential consequences of it, but to read you simply dismiss it all as "whataboutism" and then tell me I'm being too emotional does in fact lead to that emotional response I mentioned previously - exasperation.
In light of that, you've been very disappointing.

I wonder how you'll react when that threat to society is deemed to be you, at some point. It appears those like you still haven't quite grasped the idea that these types of movements are largely reactionary in nature, let alone asked yourself what they might be a reaction to.
And so the wheel turns.

So you're shifting goalposts again... now it's solely "to the fabric of society" as opposed to 'to the nation'. I'll spare you the obvious ad hominems you tend to disperse through your own posts and leave that shifting of targets alone.

The core of the issue is a disagreement we have: I think if there are a number of people prepared to commit criminal acts, up to and including murder, I see it as a problem. You're performing mental gymastics to make excuses for what our own intelligence agencies consider to be a significant problem within Australian society. For their flaws, I'll take ASIO's word over an anonymous internet alias with obvious sympathies towards conspiracy theorists.

The fact that the mere mention that' Sov Cit/conspiracy theorist types can present a danger to others' can send you into such long winded rants about "The Cause" and fanciful discussion that people who respect the rule of law and are ideologically against murder (a position you struggle to understand) will somehow, someday "be deemed" to be "the problem" by organisations designed to uphold the rule of law and to minimise dangers to society... well, I'm not sure you've fully though this position through.

 

[kane249]

https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/salt-lake-city-motorist-shot-dead-by-police/news-story/6a7cac25306c53a6705440e7272e5b3c

Salt Lake City motorist shot dead by police​

A man who appeared to be a sovereign citizen and refused to co-operate with police was shot by officers who thought he had a gun.

 

[Chief]

"Thought he had a gun" - sure.

 

[kane249]

"Thought he had a gun" - sure.

Alleged he made hand movements towards his holster, so he was carrying.

Either way don't give the police an excuse to distrust you by being a non co-operative dick

 

[E Shed]

Who would have thought Russell Brand would end up regurgitating propaganda mill pulp.
He was always a loose unit but seemed highly intelligent & I loved what he did to bring addiction issues into a more reasonable place in public debate.

He’s pretty much full cooker now

I once admired Russell Brand. But his grim trajectory shows us where politics is heading | George Monbiot

In an age of distortion, public figures have powerful tools and a responsibility. This is an object lesson in how that can go wrong, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Passenger]

What a wild read this is.

Ammon Bundy Has Disappeared

An anti-government extremist seemed on the verge of another standoff with the law. Then he vanished.

www.theatlantic.com

“I’m pretty much into conspiracy theories,” Malone told me. A sprawling web of nefarious forces is undermining our freedom, he explained, at the center of which are the Freemasons. In Gem County, where he and Bundy live, the sheriff and his deputies are all Masons. Malone knows this because he rents office space directly below the Masonic lodge, and he says he sometimes catches evil spirits wandering around the office on his security cameras. To cast them out, he performs exorcisms. “We think the basement has some kind of an underworld connection,” he said. “Crazy things, but we take it in stride.”