#Down the responsibility of leadership when the game is rather obvious about the conflict over individual needs and duty is like HMMM

[digisurvive]

I feel part of people's frustration with Shuuji might be to cultural differences. A lot of complaints I have seen is people saying that they Did Not Force Shuuji into the leader role and tried to make him Step Down, but they are lacking the cultural nuance that it is expected of him to take care of them and make sure they all come back home bc he is their senior/the oldest. It's actually something you can see in part 2 where it's only Takuma, Aoi, Ryo and Minoru at the school, they talk about who should be in charge and the only candidates proposed are Aoi and Ryo because they're Takuma and Minoru's senpai. At that point, neither of them want to step up the responsibility, so it's only Shuuji who is willing to take the role and actively keep them safe even if he fails so badly at doing it lol No one else is there to be willing to be responsible for all of them and guide them, and it'd be extremely rude and irresponsible of Shuuji to push the responsibility on Takuma. He actually feels a lot of guilt for how much heavy lifting Takuma has to do to keep the group together and says as much multiple times. His character is very much tied to responsibility and it'd eat him inside not to fulfill his duties. Like ywah, he does an extremely piss-poor job trying to fulfill them but the game is rather in your face about all the reasons he can't just wash his hands and push it all on Takuma.

[cursedserpenthq]

(summer bishil, 33, woman, merperson) Blimey! Is that (BRIAR BRANDO)? (SHE) is the (CARPENTER) on the Cursed Serpent and has been onboard the ship for (TWO YEARS). Legend has it they are (QUICK-WITTED & PROVOCATIVE), but don’t get on their bad side, because I hear they’re (INFLAMMATORY & HEDONISTIC). Aye! Stop staring! (BRIAR) has their (FLINTLOCK BELT PISTOLS) out! (ooc: dea, pst, 24, she/her, rape/sexual assault)

THE CURSED SERPENT

After devoting several decades to living amongst her merfolk colony, conflicts of interest led to her choosing a more landbound existence. She found it easy to blend in with the lively energy Westburgh, having observed and the behaviours and dynamics of humans as well as the amount of traffic which crosses through the city. However, eventually, she found herself getting restless and in desire of a profession which would sufficiently satisfy her mind and body. She developed a fascination for metalsmithing and carpentry, shadowing masters of each field in exchange for fetching them supplies. Her good looks allowed her to barter fares for goods to a significantly lower amount, which paid off the space she took up. Otherwise, she kept a low profile and wore deliberately unflattering clothes, keeping her hair tied back and her words few; altogether generating an attitude aligned with a masculine demeanour that blended in better.

Time passed and eventually she grew restless in her apprentice positions, having understood what needed to be done multiple times over. Unfortunately, when Briar’s impatience flared an unfortunate event was soon to follow. Since her departure from the sea, she was careful to neglect using her sonic abilities — it was merely coincidence that the local lead carpenter happened to one night wander past the city limits and slip into a watery grave. With an open position, Briar seamlessly filled it and kept customers pleased and impressed with the speed and precision at which she worked.

Briar heard rumours of the Cursed Serpent throughout her years in Westburgh. Their reputation and the obstacles they’d surmounted preceded them — each one singing louder to Briar’s disobedient scallywag heart. To be a part of such a group always sounded enticing, although she was less interested in the prospect of being at the sea’s mercy for a prolonged period of time. Since leaving her colony, she harbours a hatred for the sea. The idea of swimming or being underwater to hear the voices of her kind leaves a sour taste in her mouth and a white hot anger under her skin. But, once again, she began to grow restless in her city-bound existence that followed the same rhythm everyday.

Considering life aboard a ship meant commanding the waves rather than falling beneath them, she reasoned with herself that it seemed a safe enough distance to submit to her heart’s longing for piracy. Soon, the siren call of adventure, prosperity, and infamy beckoned her over the edge. After following the trails of gossip, Briar found the Cursed Serpent and boldly pledged herself as the carpenter they needed to truly succeed in the rough times ahead. It remains her highest goal to maintain truth in the statement.

Briar enjoys being of aid and service to whatever the ship demands. She has a hungry work ethic and ability to juggle projects, likely to fly under the radar for stints at a time as she works in her preferred space — below deck. In the aftermath of storms she has remained acutely aware of any issues on board, and tends to stay an active member on deck taking initiative on repairs or reinforcements when others venture to shore, restock at ports, or find a rare moment of sleep. Briar mostly likes doing her own thing, but will readily take on tasks when asked. She works at an incredibly rapid pace without sacrificing perfectionism.

Briar fits right in with the lifestyle of a pirate with her rowdy attitude and hedonistic desires, likely to stir the pot whether she intended to or not. She finds it keeps things dynamic, and enjoys witnessing others as work almost as much as she likes bothering them. Although she likes the crew for their attachment to the Cursed Serpent, she has remained emotionally distanced and wary of everyone. Only shallow bonds have been formed with fellow members, in her reluctance to divulge much about herself nor interest in being close friends with anyone. At the end of the day, she wishes to find the Jewels more than anything else. Lives lost or injured along the way is inevitable collateral damage, hence her disinterest in growing too fond of anyone lest they be lost to the larger goal. Accordingly, in the face of any tragedy, she does not dwell in gloom or disappointment. Three modes govern Briar, at any given moment — rage, sardonic humour, and impulsivity.

The Captain’s death unnerved her, making the mistake of deeming him better than other humans for the kind of ship he ran and the notoriety he was responsible for. Briar deeply respected his leadership and intelligence, never in disagreement with the calls he made. His death had Briar, for the first time, considering him weak and tactless for not avoiding the final hit that killed him. It made her feel bitter. Human mortality was a heavy burden to live with and, with more dangerous waters likely ahead, above all else it frustrated her to think the Jewels may be harder to access without his level-headed order and discretion as the crew’s compass.

SECRET

In her spare time, on the down low, Briar likes to work on developing unique weapons. With a specific interest in fire and ignition; grenades, hand cannons, and other explosive projectile matter are her predominant under-development works. Most prototypes are too dangerous and volatile to work on in an enclosed space whilst active, and although it sacrifices swift progress, she ensures her materials are kept dampened until satisfied with her design. She remains confident that her awareness of the elements on board could curve any potential malfunction issues, but also knows better than to waste materials. In the meantime, she stocks up on ideas and their necessary frameworks as she awaits the day she can assemble something and put it to real use.

Briar was exiled from her merfolk colony for repeatedly breaking the law, branded for repeated fraternisation with a sorcerer that supposedly put her colony in jeopardy. Even though she claimed she was careful, travelling a great distance each visit, the relationship was deemed reckless for both the act itself and the (literal) dangerous waters she tread in the process. As a result of the mark bestowed upon her, Briar exclusively wears long sleeved shirts —  high collared or tightly laced at all times, at the bear minimum. Even on sweltering days. She would say it’s for protection from any shrapnel or splintering that she may encounter during her work. Due to the painful treatment her colony put her through despite her efforts to explain herself, she is very wary of other merpeople until she learns where their allegiance lies. Merfolk wandering in disguise amongst humans make her paranoid that her cover of normalcy may be blown. She is only sympathetic for outsiders, whether by force or choice —  she wouldn’t hesitate to help another in true and dire need, as it’s what she would have wished happened to her in her initial castaway phase.

KEY RELATIONSHIPS

ALLUDED APPRENTICE: Someone that wishes to learn more about carpentry. Briar didn’t like the idea of company at first, and was by no means interested nor in possession of the patience required to be a teacher. Initially it was purely through absorbing continuous examples of her at work from a distance that they were able to pick up a few things. Only when it became obvious how observant they were did Briar willingly begin to divulge a few techniques or skills that would enable better execution. Occasionally, she’ll make a game out of it and challenge them to making something in a limited amount of time. She’s far more critical than likely to praise anything they come up with, but she’s grown to appreciate having someone to share with and bond over her enjoyment of crafting.

CHARRED CAMARADERIE: Briar’s abrasive manner sometimes gets the better of her for its lack of discrimination. Anyone in her line of sight is fair game to rub the wrong way, even if that entails disrespecting someone ranked above her or twice her size. She doesn’t care much for rules and order, at the end of the day far more willing to be selfish if it means survival. It’s her unyielding audacity that this person can’t help but somewhat respect, yet they don’t want her to give her the wrong idea that she has any power in her beliefs. For the sake of order, no matter the weight of their personal opinion, they always make sure to shut down any instigative remarks she makes. Inwardly, she finds it both challenging and commendable that someone dares to keep her accountable and under some measure of control. At the heart of this dynamic, there is deep respect that goes both ways. However, on the surface, one wouldn’t be able to tell. It’s a lot of bickering and empty threats — a game of baiting and entrapping until one side concedes… until next time.

ALL THE FIXINGS: chock it up to plain clumsiness or one too many drunken stupors, this person is always causing bumps, scrapes, and breaks upon the ship’s materials as well as their own possessions. Briar fixes the result following each incident, no questions asked. It’s an explicitly need-to-know basis. The only thing she asks for her services is for there to be an exchange of some sort, which varies on her mood. Sometimes payment is as simple as a coin, other times a bottle of booze, or — for an undisclosed yet ongoing project — some pilfered gunpowder. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule goes both ways.

ANYTHING ELSE

Intended to play the assisting role in Lachlan Rhodes’ Guardian Angel WC.

[diarrheaworldstarhiphop]

Earlier this month, Syrian regime forces hoisted their flag above the southern town of Daraa and celebrated. Although there is more bloodletting to come, the symbolism was hard to miss. The uprising that began in that town on March 6, 2011, has finally been crushed, and the civil war that has engulfed the country and destabilized parts of the Middle East as well as Europe will be over sooner rather than later. Bashar al-Assad, the man who was supposed to fall in “a matter of time,” has prevailed with the help of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah over his own people.

Washington is too busy over the furor of the day to reflect on the fact that there are approximately 500,000 fewer Syrians today than there were when a group of boys spray-painted “The people demand the fall of the regime” on buildings in Daraa more than seven years ago. But now that the Syria conflict has been decided, it’s worth thinking about the purpose and place of the United States in the new Middle East. The first order of business is to dispose of the shibboleths that have long been at the core of U.S. foreign policy in the region and have contributed to its confusion and paralysis in Syria and beyond.

There probably isn’t anyone inside the Beltway who hasn’t been told at some point in their career about the dangers of reasoning by analogy. But that doesn’t mean such lessons have been regularly heeded. The Syrian uprising came at a fantastical time in the Middle East when freedom, it seemed, was breaking out everywhere. The demonstration of people power that began in Daraa—coming so soon after the fall of longtime leaders in Tunisia and Egypt—was moving. It also clouded the judgment of diplomats, policymakers, analysts, and journalists, rendering them unable to discern the differences between the region’s Assads and Ben Alis or between the structure of the Syrian regime and that of the Egyptian one.

And because the policy community did not expect the Syrian leader to last very long, it was caught flat-footed when Assad pursued his most obvious and crudely effective strategy: a militarization of the uprising. In time, Syria’s competing militias, jihadis, and regional powers, compounded by Russia’s intervention, made it hard to identify U.S. interests in the conflict. So, Washington condemned the bloodshed, sent aid to refugees, halfheartedly trained “vetted” rebels, and bombed the Islamic State, but it otherwise stayed out of Syria’s civil conflict. Lest anyone believe that this was a policy particular to U.S. President Barack Obama and his aim to get out of, not into Middle Eastern conflicts, his successor’s policy is not substantially different, with the exception that President Donald Trump is explicit about leaving Syria to Moscow after destroying the Islamic State. While the bodies continued to pile up, all Washington could muster was expressions of concern over another problem from hell. Syria is, of course, different from Rwanda, Darfur, and Srebrenica—to suggest otherwise would be reasoning by analogy—but it is another case of killing on an industrial scale that paralyzed Washington. It seems that even those well versed in history cannot avoid repeating it.

Many of the analysts and policymakers who preferred that the United States stay out or minimize its role in Syria came to that position honestly. They looked at the 2003 invasion of Iraq and decried how it destabilized the region, empowered Iran, damaged relations with Washington’s allies, and fueled extremist violence, undermining the U.S. position in the region. It seems lost on the same group that U.S. inaction in Syria did the same: contributed to regional instability, empowered Iran, spoiled relations with regional friends, and boosted transnational terrorist groups. The decision to stay away may have nonetheless been good politics, but it came at a noticeable cost to Washington’s position in the Middle East.

(Prat note: lmao at FP thinking the US policy in syria was that of inaction)

The waning of U.S. power and influence that Syria has both laid bare and hastened is a development that the policy community has given little thought to, because it was not supposed to happen. By every traditional measure of power, the United States, after all, has no peer. But power is only useful in its application, and Washington has proved either unable or unwilling to shape events in the Middle East as it had in the past—which is to say, it has abdicated its own influence. That may be a positive development. No one wants a repeat of Iraq. In Washington’s place, Moscow has stepped in to offer itself as a better, more competent partner to Middle Eastern countries. There haven’t been many takers yet beyond the Syrians, but there nevertheless seems to be a lot of interest, and the conflict in Syria is the principal reason why.

Contrast the way in which Russian President Vladimir Putin came to the rescue of an ally in crisis—Assad—with the way U.S. allies in the region perceive Obama to have helped push Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from office after 30 years, much of it spent carrying Washington’s water around in the region. The Egyptians, Saudis, Emiratis, Israelis, and others may not like Assad very much, but Russia’s initial forceful response to prevent the Syrian dictator from falling and then Moscow’s efforts to will Assad to apparent victory have made an impression on them. Syria is now the centerpiece and pivot of Russia’s strategy to reassert itself as a global power, and its renewed influence in the Middle East stretches from Damascus eastward through the Kurdistan Regional Government to Iran and from the Syrian capital south to Egypt before arcing west to Libya.

Israel, Turkey, and the Gulf States still look to Washington for leadership but have also begun seeking help securing their interests at the Kremlin. The Israeli prime minister has become a fixture at Putin’s side; the Turkish president and his Russian counterpart are, along with Iran’s leaders, partners in Syria; King Salman made the first ever visit by a Saudi monarch to Moscow in October 2017; and the Emiratis believe the Russians should be “at the table” for discussions of regional importance. The era when the United States determined the rules of the game in the Middle East and maintained a regional order that made it relatively easier and less expensive to exercise U.S. power lasted 25 years. It is now over.

Finally, the situation in Syria reveals the profound ambivalence of Americans toward the Middle East and the declining importance of what U.S. officials have long considered Washington’s interests there: oil, Israel, and U.S. dominance of the area to ensure the other two. Americans wonder why U.S. military bases dot the Persian Gulf if the United States is poised to become the world’s largest producer of oil. After two inconclusive wars in 17 years, no one can offer Americans a compelling reason why the Assad regime is their problem. Israel remains popular, but over 70 years it has proved that it can handle itself. Obama and Trump ran on platforms of retrenchment, and they won. The immobility over Syria is a function of the policy community’s impulse to just do something and the politics that make that impossible.

Perhaps now that the Assad-Putin-Khamenei side of the Syrian conflict has won, there will be an opportunity for Americans to debate what is important in the Middle East and why. It will not be easy, however. Congress is polarized and paralyzed. The Trump administration approach to the region is determined by the president’s gut. He has continued Obama-era policies of fighting extremist groups, but then he broke with his predecessors and moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Trump breached the Iran nuclear deal, though he has done very little since about Iran other than talk tough. He wants to leave Syria “very soon,” even as his national security advisor vows to stay as long as Iran remains.

Despite and because of this incoherence, now is the time to have a debate about the Middle East. There is a compelling argument to be made that American interests demand an active U.S. role in the region; there is an equally compelling argument that U.S. goals can be secured without the wars, social engineering projects, peace processes, and sit-downs in Geneva. In between is what U.S. policy in the Middle East looks like now: ambivalence and inertia. Under these circumstances, Syria, Russia, and Iran will continue to win.

[kkglinka]

I see many writers characterizing Blake Belladonna as fundamentally timid, receding, someone “who has always run” etc, and I think that's wrong, for a number of reasons. I strongly suspect that pre-Adam Blake was anything but those things — that they aren't character traits at all, but outward coping mechanisms. Before I explain, I want to establish that we're on the same page:

Abuse is a pattern of manipulative or controlling behavior. The majority of abuse is emotional and psychological, followed by sexual, then physical violence, with financial aspects mixed throughout. The vast majority of abuse is non-violent and hinges on things like gas-lighting, causing financial dependence, isolating their victim from potential support networks, entrapment and coercion. The only uniting factors among abusers are relatively high intelligence and narcissism. They typically appear like nice, likable, often charming and admirable folks to anyone who is not their victim — enabling their abuse through social disbelief. Above all else, they want their victim's attention and energy, no matter what form it takes. Even constant, focused hostility is a desirable response because the abuser feeds off the emotional attention.

The majority of their victims are not weak-willed or stupid. That is a social myth, one often fostered by abusers themselves, because it leave their real targets unguarded. Beginners will start this way, but for most experienced abusers, a weak person is boring. They don't provide much fight, much effort, much resulting attention. Instead, they often target “strong” people that they can manipulate, whittle down, force into emotional attendance, take all that energy for themselves, then bask in the achievement of gaining and maintaining control over such a challenge.

Adam Taurus fits the Sensitive/Passionate Man model of abuser. He's suave, handsome, a charismatic leader, persuasive enough to both gain numerous followers and manipulate them into achieving his goals. Oh, but he's so sensitive, able to cry in very artful restraint in front of certain followers, gaining sympathy, evoking empathy because surely he must be in pain; he must be the true victim. And suddenly everyone is coddling, reassuring — even the victim themselves — showering the abuser with attention and support.

Blake's aggressive avoidance (preemptively fleeing) of emotional confrontations in which she believes she will be blamed by someone she cares about, even for actions over which she had little or no agency, is consistent with severe emotional abuse and gas-lighting. In this scenario, the abuser holds their victim responsible for any displeasure they experience. Even in cases where their victim is clearly not at fault, they are guilty of insufficient compassion and sympathy, especially if the victim themselves is in any way demanding emotional comfort. For instance, an abuser might attack their victim until they cry, then condemn them for “trying to get attention.”

Contrast this avoidance with what we know of her formative years:

Given that no one suggested Chief Ghira Belladonna be removed or replaced in office during the attempted coup, I believe that his office is hereditary, which is in line with other aspects of the Remnant universe. I'm guessing that he stepped down from the previous White Fang political party, and became Chief, when an older relative died. I'm inclined to believe any formal royalty the faunus might have had were executed by the victorious human forces prior to the establishment of Menagerie, but that's the cynical historian in me. Regardless, the Belladonna's clearly have a high social status, which also explains a puzzle: Blake's obvious lady-like behavior, which didn't fit with the peasant orphan narrative.

If she comes from a political line of succession — if her family is the equivalent of old money — then she would have been groomed for her role as a political leader her entire childhood. Even if she's not a formal heir, her family name carries enormous prestige, a valuable asset. She would have been well-educated, any leadership abilities she naturally possessed would have been bolstered. Her political and social engagement with a wider community would have been encouraged, and she would have studied strategy, public speaking, crowd control, along with the more subtle “good manners” that are used to guide small groups.

Yet we also know she participated in front line, violent protests. In many noble families, civil or military service is a tacit expectation. It might be considered a civic duty to experience the full range of human/faunus conflicts, to witness front and center what problems exists and the effects they have on their people Given their own pasts, it makes sense that Blake's parents would train their only child — and possible heir — to be equally engaged.

We know she was passionate enough about her beliefs to fight tooth and nail over it with what seems to be a very loving, supportive, and respectful family. A runner doesn't draw that sort of line in the sand to the point of rejecting their own family. What she did, as a naive but highly principled teen, wasn't run away; it was run toward and to hell with anyone who wasn't brave enough to stand with her on the front lines. Altogether, this suggests a pattern of confrontational behavior — an angry idealist.

She would have been the perfect target for a charismatic man with political ambitions — and I'm sure her parents knew it. If she was trained to have all the skills I described, she would have been a very useful lieutenant. Given her age when she joined RWBY, she was at best sixteen when this, at least somewhat, older man charmed her away — young enough to groom. Fortunately, she had a strong enough formative period that she was able to overcome the gas-lighting and escape on her own. This is a very difficult achievement for any abuse victim, but next to impossible for someone already inclined toward passivity and avoidance.

Next we have Blake's initial conflict with Weiss during Season 1. Background narrative tells us that the two were engaged in repeated verbal debates before Blake finally loses her temper, accidentally revealing her race to someone she knows is a key (future) political rival. Only after she reaches that level of confrontation does Blake's abuse-related coping mechanism come into play, triggering immediate and irrational avoidance. That level of pnaic is an excessive and abnormal learned behavior — not a mere personality trait.

Back up, rewind, abusers isolate their victims. They lie and manipulate friends and family into abandoning the victim. They disrupt outings, invent excuses to cancel events, fabricate evidence and lie about their victim to that individual's friends and family. They make the victim look bad, irrational, hysterical, unreliable, cowardly...You name it, until the friends leave in frustration. A particularly vicious abuser might even arrange harmful events that the victim learns about but is unable to stop. I can easily imagine Adam sending Blake's budding friends on suicide missions or otherwise putting them at risk, to sever their emotional support. Consequently, Blake expects to be rejected by potential friends; expected to be rejected by her own family.

In real life, an abusive ex will often violently target a new lover or partner, sometimes attempt murder, because it's only when their victim's emotional attention shifts away that the abuser feels threatened. So running in response to her former abuser enacting demonstrable harm to a new loved one was completely rational.

Adam is strong, intelligent and calculating. You'll notice that he didn't “lose his temper” (abusers always remain in emotional control of themselves), but made a strategic choice to demonstrate his continued power and control. Given that he successfully disabled RWBY's strongest member, given that abusers will use almost any tactic to separate their victim from supportive networks, leaving was the most logical choice. Abusers don't stop until they're appeased or their entire system of control is destroyed.

Blake's actions really did protect the rest of her team by "giving Adam what he wanted", but you'll notice that she headed straight toward another support network. Good on her; that was a sound, strategic choice and in contrast to another maladaptive coping strategy: the urge toward self-isolation.

Another thing in abuse survivors is overcompensation. Yes, she felt irrationally guilty over Adam's malevolent actions and Yang Xiao Long's conscious choice — neither of which are within Blake's agency — but her entire relationship with Adam probably centered on his feelings, needs and desires. Survivors need time to attend themselves, and Blake never really did that. She went straight from putting all her energy into Adam and the White Fang into serving RWBY. She was bound to be overwhelmed by a need for self-care sooner or later...but abuse victims learn early on that no one will do emotional labor on their behalf. So again, we've got a learned coping mechanism rather than inherent trait, and one that was repeatedly challenged by Sun Wukong and both her parents.

What we really have is two people, Blake and Yang, who have spent most of their lives doing emotional labor for other people — for different reasons — and won't ask for any in return. One has been taught harsh lessons about how risky it is to expect any. The other convinced herself she was too strong to need any. But in this latest seasons we see both of them begin trying. In Blake's case, she needed to regain confidence in her own judgment enough that she was able to command her community (which achieved what she wanted). Her confrontation with Adam demonstrated how much having support makes a difference.

In Yang's case, she better start bloody well asking for what she wants instead of cavalierly dismissing her own emotional needs. Yeah, that's on her; it's not Blake's job to play guessing and appeasement games. That's unhealthy. You don't hold a partner responsible for your own feelings, especially if you've made no direct, honest attempt to communicate them — which is called emotional avoidance. So I was relieved to see her break down in front of Weiss, confessing that need, but even moreso when she finally allowed herself to get past that machismo and cry. Baby steps, y'know?

In conclusion, Blake is a passionate, confrontational firebrand who acquired maladaptive coping strategies consistent with gas-lighting and emotional abuse, and those should not be conflated with core personality traits. Also, she doesn't have psychic powers and I look forward to seeing Yang use her words instead of brooding.

[midorimochi]

These days I think I'll have the time to watch at least the first two chapters of a NDRV3 gameplay. I want to watch juicedup14's gameplay in particular, because it's not the localized version but rather a direct translation from the original.

I think it's interesting to compare the differences elapsing between the localization and the translation but I also can't shake off the impression that most of the negativity I saw being directed towards Kaito here (accusations of "toxic masculinity" aside - which is: for "masculinity", undeniable, because Kaito does hold sexist views, for "toxic", in my humble opinion at least, over the top and exaggerated) is incredibly biased and out of place. 

Anyone who played/watched the gameplays of this game, should know or should have realized that at heart Kaito is not a mean and/or a bad guy, he’s well-intentioned, but the way he conveys and/or exhibits his own behavior at times, perhaps, can raise some questions about his methods.

What I mean is that in real life nobody is and nobody can be perfect and if fictional characters are supposed to reproduce different kinds of real, existing people in the first place, then fictional characters - to be credible - can’t be perfect either. That being said, (it should be obvious...) I personally think it’s fair for any character to have flaws of their own.

Some of these possible flaws can certainly be more questionable or complex to grasp than others can be but the fact is, that there should often be some reasons due to which, the character’s personality, upbringing and backstory can or could explain why a certain character does, thinks or says what they do, think or say respectively.

In Kaito’s case, for example, we have this guy who exhibits a macho behavior and a “macho man” is typically defined as “a man who is aggressively proud of his masculinity” which is definitely Kaito’s case.

While it’s NOT a justification, but rather an explanation, is that people also seem to forget pretty often that this guy was raised by his grandparents, people two generations ahead of him which, very likely, could have passed these old views onto him pretty easily, since he was a child.

Hence why he seems to hold very traditional views on gender roles especially, hence why he’s considered “sexist”: people think about the infamous “I don’t feel weapons suit women” line especially, and what upsets people the most - although reasonably - is the fact that he’s never called out on it (even if, in his defense, - for the way they phrased it in the localization, at least - his it’s a pretty relative sentence to be fair, because saying “I don’t feel weapon suit women” is not like saying “Weapons don’t suit women”. It sounds expressed more like a personal opinion rather than as an absolute fact and/or statement (his sexism isn’t severe for how I see it because it’s not like he attacks people over it or he’s malicious towards the girls) and even if it’s a questionable opinion, you can’t expect everybody to embrace the same mindset in real life either. Not to mention that the situation itself kinda mocks him and makes his own statement especially ironic since during their training sessions, it’s clear that Maki is stronger than both him and Shuuichi).

The fact is (unpopular opinion I guess) that I personally don’t believe his masculinity is really “toxic” because he himself isn’t completely able to abide by it, neither.

If he was sexist to the point of being “toxic”, would he have approved Kaede’s leadership? Would he have accepted to support a girl’s guidance? Would he have looked for Tenko’s and the other girls’ help against Monokuma in the first chapter? Would he have acknowledged that just by looking at Maki he somehow could tell that she was capable to fight? Would he have accepted to use Miu’s inventions? 

Because if he really was (and I even seen people claiming that he’s a mysogynist, what the fuck) I believe he would have belittled all of them and their talents, but did he?

The way he interacts with Kaede in particular is telling, because while he chooses to take Shuuichi and Maki under his wing as his sidekicks, he proposes to be Kaede’s sidekick after having said that they’re at the same weave-length, that they think alike almost as if with Kaede, his relationship could have been a relationship with an equal, if not as he himself suggested, with one to support as a sidekick instead of a boss.

He punches Shuuichi because of him not being “manly enough” to carry on Kaede’s wish, whilist crying himself when both previously and later he reprimands Gonta for the same reason because “men shouldn’t cry”, “men shouldn’t apologize” yet, he does cry, twice: at that same moment after Kaede’s execution and after the third trial along with everybody else, but at that moment we don’t see him reprimanding the other boys because “crying isn’t manly”, he does understand the situation at hand and that type of reaction, especially in that context, is inevitable.

He also apologizes to Shuuichi for his own behavior at the end of the fifth trial in which he acknowledges to be at fault and he also admits to have harbored a certain envy for Shuuichi.

I think that moment was really important to establish his character because Kaito found the courage to do what he didn’t believe it was the case to do. He apologizes despite previously having said that as a man he shouldn’t have, he stops lying, he confesses the truth about his health and he drops his “perfect big bro” mask, because he’s far from being perfect, he genuinely did want to help and to assist Shuuichi but he didn’t do so with no conflicting feelings whatsoever because deep down, he also grew envious of him in the meantime. He wanted to be the one who saved everyone while also “saving” his sidekicks, he aimed high, but he aimed too high even for himself.

He tells Shuuichi he can’t do everything by himself, yet he wished he could.

Until the end of the fifth trial, Kaito hasn’t been completely straightforward with his sidekicks and he also kept on feeding his own pride whilist he was “nurturing” Shuuichi and Maki because while he genuinely wanted to help them (he always thought about them and how to improve their training, he always sided with them in the trials and such, I mean, his good intentions and the positive influence he had on both of them are undeniable), having two people to take care of was also a responsability he liked to take because it also fed his own self-esteem as the “Luminary of the Stars” who can make the impossible, possible.

He saw these two outcasts and he dragged them with him (granted, they did choose to follow him by their own volition, as well) so they could realize their mistakes and become stronger, these two perhaps wouldn’t even have befriended each other in the first place if it wasn’t for him, yet they become pretty close at the end. 

He wanted them to see him as a point person, yet he didn’t do the same for them, he was strictly careful not to show any weakness whatsoever in front of them because for someone like him it wasn’t allowed (I really liked how one of his Space Mode Events tackled this).

I’ve also seen people calling Kaito a “hypocrite” because he scolded people over things he himself did. Not only he does cry unlike he’d think he shouldn’t be supposed to as a “man”, but he also hides secrets (his disease) from his sidekicks, unlike he wanted them to do with him.

Which yes, it does come across as hypocrite attitude but I also think it stems from Kaito being pretty self-centered and stubborn as well. This guy has his own set of beliefs for which he feels very strongly, so strongly he’s sure to be always right no matter what.

That’s what pisses him off the most after the fourth trial, he’s proven wrong and what does he do? He takes it on Shuuichi who only did what he had to do in order for him and for everyone else to survive.

It’s not that Kaito has it on him for it, thinking about it I also believe that he did understand but he didn’t want to admit and/or to accept it, because it would have meant that he was wrong but for how he has probably been accostumed for a very long time - I presume - him being wrong was impossible, that type of impossible he would have never wanted to be possible.

But by instinct he took it on Shuuichi because that was probably the first thing he thought he could do to unleash his annoyance which is pretty childish, all things considered.

Like Kokichi put it, it was thanks to Kaito that Shuuichi found the confidence to seek the truth as a detective, it was because of him, but this truth, this time, was so harsh for him to process that he didn’t want to face it until the end, he preached bravery and guts yet he’s been coward himself.

Kaito can be stubborn, he can have a childish attitude at times, he’d also seem to be biased on his relationships as well, because like he chose Shuuichi and Maki he could have lended a hand to other people who would have needed it too, perhaps (but I blame it more on the way his character was handled in the story from the outside - I mean the way the stuff decided to use him - that on him as a character) he is full of flaws objectively speaking and that’s fair because at the end that’s what makes him more human, more credible, even more likeable.

All of this was to say that despite his own flaws, when it’s the case, this guy is perfectly capable (even if begrudgingly so and not without taking some time on his part) to recognize and acknowledge his mistakes and to apologize for them, as well. 

That’s why, as I’ve seen other people say, he’d likely drop his most questionable attitudes if people around him took the time, the effort and the patience to make him understand that the ways he preaches masculinity and gender roles can be harmful.

I had no intention to write all of this to begin with, because I only wanted to say that I’m looking forward to see if Kaito really sounds that different in the translation of the original version in comparison to how he’s depicted in the localization, but I picked this opportunity to get all of my thoughts off my chest... 

[fantisci]

Divide and Conquer: Voltron Series 4 and 5

I knew that there was going to be this type of narrative in Voltron, but I underestimated how long a game the writers were going to play. The writers are running with the idea that Voltron is being torn apart from within, but rather than getting rid of Keith and going “CLONE SURPRISE!” they’re continuing to steadily dismantle the Voltron team...to the point that the three original Paladins remaining on the team (if we assume Shiro is actually a clone, henceforth referred to as “Shiro) are little more than side-characters in their world-saving narrative. Pidge’s concerns are narrowed and familial, Hunk...has always been terribly treated by the plot anyway, so moving on...and Lance, far from having his moment in the spotlight this season, is increasingly isolated and reined in so tightly that he can’t be effective. Meanwhile, Season 5 turns into the Lotor, “Shiro” and Allura show (with a special guest appearance from the Keith-clan).

Card on the table: My pet theory is that Lotor, not Sendak, is Haggar’s puppet, and they are cutting out the team members of Voltron who will cause the most problems so that they can take over the team. “Shiro” isolates and undermines problem Paladins (Keith and Lance) until they leave, while Lotor flatters Allura into assisting him. Of course, there’s a good chance that Lotor is a double- or triple-agent that may betray Haggar - or even become the mask he’s wearing - but at this moment he’s definitely driven by self-interest, not the greater good.

If you want the long version, it’s under the Read More. Remember: my analysis is from the point of view of the mole/saboteur: it’s not that I think Hunk or Pidge can’t lead, but that, from an outsider’s perspective, they’ve shown little inclination or ability in that area.

First, Shiro goes missing at the end of S2. Showrunners talk as if they meant to kill him off (a recent interview talked of the poor guy as though he was just a plot device for Keith’s Rise To Leadership, and that he was supposed to “exit stage left) , but marketing objected. Of course, the showrunners can be trusted about as far as the Eiffel Tower can be thrown, but poor (real) Shiro surely deserves better than being bumped off so that his protege can prove how special he is. Anyway, back on topic...Shiro is a casualty of war in one form or another, and it’s unlikely that his departure was the result of manipulation...but his absence is a golden opportunity to replace him with a mole/brainwash him. After all, Shiro co-ordinates the team, and has the most offensively powerful Lion

Next is Keith. Apparently there were some real life reasons (voice actor scheduling conflicts) behind his departure to the Blade, but let’s put that aside for now. Keith has some fairly obvious issues once he takes over for Black. He doesn’t really bond with his Lion, certainly not the way he did with Red. He lashes out at everyone. He resents leading, and, true to form, acts out and rebels, going into self-destruct mode in order to prove that he’s right about how terrible a leader he is. However: (a) he’d never treat his teammates’ lives with the disregard he shows his own, and (b) Lance manages to lasso him into some semblance of responsible leadership, and props him up as far as he can. By the time they retrieve “Shiro”, Keith’s taken some shaky first steps into at least being a functional leader, if not a good one. He’s learned the hard way that he has to listen to his team. 

Then “Shiro” is back.

It would take a spy all of five minutes to work out that Keith’s unhappy. When “Shiro” can’t pilot Black, that’s a problem for a saboteur...but not an insurmountable one. For the rest of the series, we see “Shiro” undermine Keith while still demanding that he continues to lead. He doesn’t teach him how to lead (admittedly, the real Shiro was extremely negligent in that respect too), he doesn’t offer support, and he doesn’t step aside. Instead, he uses the team’s by-now-instinctual obedience to Shiro to reinforce Keith’s idea that yes, he’s a terrible leader, and he’s going to get everyone killed. The team don’t make a very good job of reinforcing the new pecking order, with only Lance acknowledging that Keith remains team leader...and even then, Lance will not (yet) outright defy Shiro in favour of Keith. 

Handily for the saboteur, Keith continues his self-isolating behaviour and “Shiro” does manage to get Black up and running. With the distance created between himself and his team, Keith is only too eager to remove himself from the picture entirely. Why he doesn’t take Red back is a bit of a puzzle, but the distance is a factor...as, possibly, are Lance and Allura’s places on the team.

Next on the hit list is Lance. Why Lance? Well, possibly because it’s convenient: he has the most obvious insecurities and, let’s be honest, receives the least back up from the rest of the crew. As the “goofball” (Pidge’s words), they don’t take him seriously except in battle - socially, with his history of flirting and opening his mouth at the wrong time, he remains the team joke. Furthermore, he’s becoming steadily more isolated, as Hunk and Pidge withdraw from him in favour of Matt. It might just be because he’s a soft target, and his emotional reaction to the messages they send home confirms that there really is somewhere else he’d rather be.

However, Lance is the Blue Paladin, and currently the pilot of the Red Lion - Voltron’s DPS Lion. He’s also shown to be capable in battle, a tactician who can spot a trap a mile away and is capable of giving out orders that will actually work. The right side of Voltron seems more forward facing and offensive than the left, who are more thoughtful, so “Shiro” or his puppetmaster may have targeted him as the last remaining member of the original team who was active rather than reactive, and one of the last two who could theoretically take on a leadership role in an emergency. Also? Allura may be the heart of Voltron itself, but Lance is the heart of this particular team. 

Every office or department has a Lance: the social one, the one who organises the parties and the group chat, the one who may not have a specialised role but can always be found helping out others or working behind the scenes. Often they’re not really appreciated - sometimes others find them outright annoying. Yet they can mitigate the effects of an ineffectual or slavedriving boss, and everyone realises just how much they did for their coworkers once they leave and life at work becomes much more difficult.

Lance is the mediator (when he’s not needling Keith). He’s observant, and, unlike specialist obsessives Hunk and Pidge, not so wrapped up in his own projects that he forgets the big picture. He’s also outspoken. If “Shiro” starts bullying any of the other Paladins, Lance is likely to step in.  “Shiro” needs him gone. So “Shiro” publicly humiliates him, berating him in front of his team, who stand by and do nothing (except for Allura, after the fact, but we’ll get to her). Lance still feels superfluous. He doubts his own abilities. Now he’s getting constantly shouted down, his (in his eyes) minor contributions being dismissed. Throw this on top of Blue’s rejection (an emotional hit to Lance’s heart and self-esteem), Keith’s departure (which saw Lance demoted from his vice-captain role), and Lance’s longing for his family, and “Shiro” might have found the straw to break the camel’s back...that is, if the real Shiro hasn’t managed to relay his message to Lance in time.

The final Paladin to be cut from the flock is Allura - and it’s Lotor, not “Shiro,” who’s responsible for this. Lotor adopts very different tactics than “Shiro”: instead of undermining his target, he flatters her. Tells her how oh-so-very-special she is (like the showrunners haven’t established this already...). He plays to her dreams, her insecurities...and her ego. She isn’t shy about her desire to be like her father, to be the saviour of her people - or at least, to ensure that the last Altean standing is an exemplary one. She feels that she has to be perfect, in order to be worthy of the title of “last survivor”.

In the final few episodes, Allura seems to get an awful lot of what she wants: she awakens the compass, proving that she is truly her father’s daughter in the process, she makes it through the white hole, the ancient Alteans acknowledge her and the white lion finds her worthy...at which point the Voice From Beyond confirms how super-special she is, and has been all along. Moreover, suddenly she has a kindred spirit in Lotor, someone who knows of the pressure of being royalty and who claims to want the same things she does.

You know what they say about something that seems to good to be true.

However, look at what happens in order to get her to this point. Lotor singles her out when he becomes emperor, leaving the three original Paladins to wander around aimlessly and entertain themselves. The implicit message is that she (and “Shiro”) are the only team members worth talking to - the other Earthlings are just making up the numbers. Remember: Hunk, Pidge and Lance have been fighting alongside her for at least two years by this point, yet she dismisses their concern for her out of hand on the say-so of a prince who’s been with them for a few months under dubious circumstances. She doesn’t even question Lotor’s proclamation that the other three be left behind while she does Important Royalty Things - does she really think Pidge couldn’t learn anything from the Galra tech? 

We see it even more dramatically in the White Lion incident, where only she and fellow “Chosen” Lotor are worthy of getting past the White Lion. The team is worried...but Allura forces through the plan anyway. She’s riding high on Lotor’s praise and her own recent successes - why should she doubt that she can pull this off?

In short? I think this is Allura’s “Nyma moment”. Blue’s pilots tend to be romantic and trusting. Allura’s romantic ideal of perfect peace across the empire, and her trust of Lotor, could have further reaching consequences than Lance’s joyride.

But Allura thinks she’s covered her bases. She did distrust Lotor. She acknowledged that working with the Galra was difficult. In her eyes, Lotor has proved himself...and the viewer, really, is meant to agree.

It’s obvious why a saboteur would want Allura on side. First of all, she’s a Princess, and the last Altean; she’s a hell of a trophy (we do actually see Lotor referring to Voltron itself as a kind of trophy, claiming that he has “reclaimed” Black rather than admitting to an alliance). Secondly, she’s a threat to “Shiro’s” leadership, and the only person with any clout that could sway the remaining Paladins, or back them up should they refuse his orders. Really, that role should go to Lance, but “Shiro” has undermined Lance’s role of second-in-command so thoroughly that Lotor probably doesn’t consider him a threat any longer. Thirdly, like Lance, she’s sensed that something is wrong, and has shown an inclination to stand up for her teammates (I love Pidge and Hunk, but they’ve been fairly ineffectual in this area). She realised Shiro was out of order and moved to comfort Lance...who, remember, is a Paladin that “Shiro” wants out of the way. Notice the pattern: the Paladin who tries to comfort or protect the current target of “Shiro’s” sabotage becomes the next target. Unlike Lance though, the saboteur knows that she can be charmed by Lotor, and that she’s far more valuable as an ally than out of the picture altogether.

Finally, she’s the last viable Voltron leader - the final right-hand-side Paladin. Lotor knows that Hunk and Pidge won’t follow him, the same way he knew that the Galra wouldn’t follow a non-Galra...but Hunk and Pidge WILL follow Allura. If he can’t take over directly, he may be aiming to make Allura his puppet.

Let’s just hope she’s quick enough off the mark that she doesn’t go from powerful princess to damsel in distress.

[solaciummeae]

Disclaimers:

This is merely my interpretation of things post series. I own nothing but my protrayals and original content added, but please please please be respectful. Know that this is a plot I worked on for quite some time and this is the plot I’m going with in the Post Series for my muses. I write John, Cara, Stephen, Jedikiah, Astrid, Marla, && Luca, as well as a host of OCs. I will be turning this into a drabble series so please don’t come at me telling me I’m wrong or should change anything about it. I’m finding what works best for the story I’m attempting to tell. I welcome anyone who wants to take part in it.

                                               PART THREE

With more and more homosuperiors flooding into New York all the time, there’s been a great influx in the population of the state overall. Not all of those seeking the source of the beacon choose to reside in the city, but they remain in contact with the leaders of the underground. The increase is so felt even amongst the human world that reports of this migration briefly reach the televised news.

With greater numbers the responsibilities of those in leadership is greater. The original council becomes the high council to smaller groups delegated authority for each certain region of people. At the advisement of Stephen, Cara decides to take on certain new partners as the head of their people. She gives authority to both Emma and Zoey, creating a unit of four ranked as leader. The intent behind this being, that should one of them fall there is still someone else to lead their people.

As the community grows, the alliance with the west coast underground only grows. In fact, the connection is secured and trips are taken to and from in order to fortify that alliance. With new players in the game, they’ve got to be ready for whatever comes next. There are even efforts to push further out along the east coast to other states in search of their people. The hope is that they as a species in this country are acting more offensively at this point rather than just defensively.

With more of Zoey’s people arriving, they take it upon themselves to provide support to the former lair dwellers and anyone else who like them is new to this home. They spend time helping people find their feet, getting accustomed to living less in the shadows and having real lives.

New systems are put into place as they as a people become more organized. They settle into a semi-regular life of work and balancing their duties to the underground, all the while ready to move at a given notice. There’s a sort of emergency alarm in place, a psychic currant given off by Stephen who remains one of the most powerful of them all. It’s designed to reach a certain distance among their people, therefore by proxy setting off the alarm in the minds of those which then reach a greater distance and continues spreading.

During this time, Stephen struggles to find some semblance of normalcy with his family. His mother is often around but determined to keep her youngest son safe, she’s never far from him. Luca continues growing up, now faced with a completely different lifestyle than the one from before that now seems so much simpler. They remain in their family home, as Marla is hell bent on fighting Jedikiah should he try anything.

Cara has her own demons to battle when Jordan finally convinces her to confront her father after all this time. It’s an awkward and uncomfortable situation but necessary. On this trip she gets to spend a fair amount of alone time with Jordan who– quite frankly, has become one of the closest to her. After her sister died, the rift between herself and Stephen crippled the once seemingly romantic fate ahead of them. She now finds herself feeling a familiar kind of attachment to Jordan– seeing much in him that she used to see in John. Likewise, he’s become that similar kind of family to her. She trusts him with her life, but with the knowledge that John is out there and the complexity of her relationship with Stephen– it causes her to feel conflicted.

On Jedikiah’s end, he continues to manipulate John against his people while John lies to him about seeing Emma and certain others. In this time, he’s come to meet and briefly get to know both of his half brothers, Caelan and Cameron who have been in the city for some time now.

However, it would seem that he has yet another brother. A man by the name of Marshall Quade, who like so very few– is someone that John remembers from before his “accident.” Marshall too, grew up in Ultra being to Roger what John was to Jedikiah. After John left Ultra and with Roger seemingly dead, Marsh was left to take his place with Jedikiah. He too had been Anaxed but with a longer kill list than John under his belt.

When John returned to Jedikiah after the fall of Ultra, he found Marshall still working for the older man, having only gotten worse than his memory served. They found that they had a great many things in common, not the least of which being that they were both hiding things from Jedikiah. John– his obvious connection to Emma and the underground, and Marshall– his strange connection to a somewhat mysterious woman named Genevieve who seems to know an awful lot and is well connected.

The two younger men bond over years of brutal experience growing up in Ultra, the ability to kill, and wanting desperately to be out of Jedikiah’s influence. Really no one knows John like Marsh does. It’s because of this long history and their aligned interests that Marshall is the only other person that John trusts aside from Emma. He knows that they both have much to lose and is quite protective of the younger man, seeing him as a little brother.

In this time, another potential major player emerges from the shadows. The woman mentioned earlier, Genevieve Knight. Having spent months keeping to herself and observing what she could from both sides of the supposed war, she’d made her decisions carefully. She comes from a wealthy and influential family in a similar realm as Bathory but with far different pursuits. Whereas Bathory focused on this country and manipulation of their kind, Genevieve’s family are members of a couple international organizations for homosuperiors and are in the opinion that he only sought to exploit their people.

She was raised to be not only a warrior, but a diplomat. For this reason, she has many assets at her disposal and took her time to decide where it was best to dedicate those resources. She of course, supports her people but having grown up out of state she’s seen a different side of their world. Ultra never held a threat to her and even now, she’s all but untouchable to Jedikiah. With her abilities and resources, given hard evidence that she is who she says– she’s made a member of the high council. But she isn’t without her own secrets.

Early on in her arrival in the city she’d been followed by the very same soldier of Jedikiah’s mentioned earlier, Marshall. When he’d caught up to her, upon their eyes connecting, there seemed to be a psychic bomb that had gone off. Suddenly, neither of them– while both normally more than adept at mental blocking– could keep the other out. She’d, of course, tried to sever the connection and keep her distance from him, but even when they were apart she could feel him and hear his thoughts.

Still, he persisted in seeking her out at times when he knew she was alone, claiming curiosity over their bond. It wasn’t until some such occasion where he told her they needed to stay together because it was safer that it occurred to them both that it was more than they’d thought. That they were in fact, in love after the months of spending every waking moment with the other in the back of their minds.

Genevieve keeps this relationship concealed to everyone she knows for fear of what would happen to him. Even with her high rank among their people, she can’t risk the others finding out that she’s involved with someone who is the left hand to John’s right when it comes to Jedikiah.

As time goes on she becomes more and more desperate to free Marshall from Jedikiah’s hold and so strikes a deal with him. The price being that she comes to work for Jed, full with Anax so as to properly replace one of his best and most efficient killers. Thinking it was the only way to save him, she’s ready to take his place. She tells only Trey and Emma that she’s doing it– making the latter swear to keep him safe in her absence.

It seems as though it will go as planned until John comes to the newly freed Marshall to explain that Gen is in danger and that they need to move quickly. As it turns out, Jedikiah had no intention of using Genevieve as a soldier but more for experimentation and the harvesting of her powers before rendering her human. The scientist being up to old tricks, thinks that if he cuts off her abilities, without their unique connection, she will be nothing to Marshall. This he hopes, will bring him back.

The two fight their way through any and all guards set between themselves and Genevieve in one of the many large warehouses Jedikiah now operated out of. It becomes more and more evident that they’re running out of time by the way Marshall depletes as they move through the building. You see, Marshall is so connected to Genevieve that he feels whatever pain she experiences– mental, emotional, and physical.

By the time they get to her, she’s already heavily drugged up, but conscious enough to feel the cuts that have been made and the shots that have been given. She’s sure she’s hallucinating when they come in, doing her best not to pass out on the table where she’s strapped down.

John simply wants to freeze time to get her out of there, but Marshall has other ideas. While the blonde is charged with freeing and helping Genevieve, Marshall takes his aggression out on the man he’s sure now that he hates more than anyone else he’s ever known. The only reason that Jed’s story doesn’t end here is because Gen begs him to stop so they can leave.

And so the three of them leave together, the two men now completely resolved to leaving their former superior behind. John and Marshall are placed in a safe house with Genevieve, Trey, Emma, and Marshall’s long lost brother Bellamy. Essentially all of those fiercely in favor of protecting the two men who might have once been considered enemies.

While Gen and Marsh recover from the incident, Emma tries to help John begin to adapt to being back among their people. It’s difficult for him to be back amidst so many people, some that he’d supposedly been close to and others still who he wouldn’t know anyway. He’s more than a little overwhelmed by his surroundings and still keeps to himself, trying to work through what he’s been through and where he’s going.

Emma and the others try to advocate for John and Marshall, both those on the high council and those in lower positions. However, it would seem that the majority of their people aren’t willing to so easily trust the two men who once conspired against them.

The frustration goes on for weeks, the two of them remaining mistrusted and not utilized for their skills. Until finally they speak up at a high council meeting specifically called to decide what to do with them. John all but lays it out in an ultimatum which Marshall then agrees with and reiterates. Use them or get rid of them.

Upon this ultimatum, Bell is the first to stand up for both of them, likewise Gen and Trey follow suit, and finally Emma with a clear message to all of them. That if they’d so quickly turn on their own for only doing that which they themselves would do to survive if put in their position, they’re doomed to fail. Three more rise after she speaks, both leaders from California, Will and Zoey, and Emma’s partner from Omega, Anthony.

With the majority of the high council willing to walk away for the sake of these two men, it’s decided that they stay and are treated as equals. They too are inducted into the high council for their knowledge of Jedikiah and his plans.

From this moment, changes are made. The community begins evolving again. A core group of their most skilled soldiers take over training larger groups of their people. Each are tasked with training those under them in a certain base set of skills, while each is also assigned a specialty that they train on. For example, Marshall specializes in hand to hand combat and the use of weapons. How to take hits that are less than fatal and won’t render them unconscious.

With there already being talk of taking out Jedikiah, with the knowledge of Omega’s existence, as well as people like Gen’s family– they need to be ready now more than ever for what comes next.

With clear alliances forming across the country, Cara and Stephen look to not only just unite their people, but to strengthen them. There are even hopes that if handled properly, they could be entering a golden age for homosuperiors in the states. This is only amplified when it is learned that in his last will and testament– Hugh Bathory left Omega and all of it’s resources to one Emma Harper.

{ mentioned: Jordan Reynolds @bloodbulletsandbytes Marshall Quade && Bellamy Reed @deadbeatcentral. All other muses mentioned are mine. }

[theinvinciblenoob]

Connie Loizos Contributor

More posts by this contributor

True Ventures has two new funds totaling $635 million to plug into a wide range of startups

Another Kleiner investor has just raised her own fund

Today, in San Francisco, at an inspriring gathering of roughly 400 women investors and founders organized by the months-old nonprofit AllRaise — a large and growing group of female funders and founders who aim to accelerate the success of their peers —  we had the opportunity to interview Angela Duckworth. If her name sounds familiar, that’s because Duckworth, a psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has gained game in recent years though a TED talk about grit that has now been viewed more than 15 million times, and a follow-up best-selling book titled Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance.

Her biggest finding is that success has many features, including raw intelligence and adaptability, but the most crucial ingredient may be hard work over sustained periods of time, or grit. She also maintains that grit is not as fixed as are some other inherited traits, even while how gritty we are has a lot to do with our biology. In fact, Duckworth said at today’s event that she didn’t always think of herself as gritty. “When I was growing up in a bedroom community in South Jersey, not practicing piano when I should have been, I had a father who would literally out of the blue say things like, “You know, you’re no genius.” (After Duckworth was  awarded a MacArthur Genius Fellowship in 2013, she laughingly told attendees, she “got to show up at his apartment 40 years later and say, ‘Actually, I am, officially. Officially, I am a genius.'”)

Given the nature of the audience, Duckworth spent much of her on-stage time talking about how VCs and founders might evaluate potential prospects — not by IQ scores or gender of other widely accepted predictors of success —  but instead by trying to gauge the passion and perseverance of the people who come into their orbits. She also shared some ideas on how to “cultivate” grit. Because founders and investors alike might find some of her insights useful, we’re publishing them here, edited lightly for length.

TC: You believe that grit is far from immutable. Did you think of  yourself as a gritty kid or did you become gritty once you figured out what you wanted to do with your life?

AD: I will say that if I look objectively at the data of my life, at what I was actually doing, that I absolutely evolved. My confidence increased, my leadership skills improved. I mean, I ran for some very low-level office in student government, like secretary publicity manager, and I couldn’t even land that as a high school student.

So I’ve evolved and increased in confidence. In particular, I have figured out what I want to do.   It was until I was 32 and pregnant with my second child, actually, that I figured out that I wanted to be a psychologist. I started my PhD at that age. So I’d say. There is absolutely compelling evidence in neuroscience that people change dramatically, they tend to evolve, our interests sharpen, our confidence generally improves. The story of human nature is the story of plasticity.

TC: You say that you gained confidence over the years. Is that because you found something that you are so good at or because you were getting validation elsewhere that made the pursuit of this thing — psychology in your case — more meaningful to you?

AD: It’s complicated. There are many things that make you who you are. But there are two striking factors. One is relationships. So when you look at people who are very successful or resilient, positive human outcomes come from extremely stable, strong, loving relationships. It is it is probably the most striking predictor of positive outcomes. It helps with everything: cardiovascular disease, how long you’re going to live, your income, your wealth. Everything comes downs to having somebody who loves you. And though I did have an imperfect father, as many of us in this room did, I did feel loved. And at different points in my life, I felt cared for by other people who were not my parents, and it is really very important, including by the way, when you’re looking at building a company. I think that has to be part of the culture.

TC: Meaning a culture of professional development.

AD: Yes. If you don’t want to call if love, because that’s too cheesy, call it something else. But it needs to feature extremely positive social support. And long-term relationships need to be easy to create in that company, not difficult.

I think another secret to confidence is being able to point to small wins. Human confidence does not just come from pep talks with role models. There have to be small wins, even if they aren’t obvious wins. And if you want to cultivate successful entrepreneurs, there has to be a structure where they have smaller goals and enjoy victories over those goals.

TC: Presumably, most of the women in this audience, like you, have no shortage of grit or they probably would not be here. What I wonder about is when grit veers into workaholism. When is one working too hard?

AD: Yeah. The message of “Grit” is not that 90-hour workweeks [are ideal] or all-nighters because the emphasis on endurance suggests that you have to take care of yourself. I mean, if it were a 60-second sprint [that you were facing], I guess you could do all these unhealthy things. But it is a long-term goal that you’re working on, and therefore it’s incredibly important, the way you pick the way you want to do it. You have to care for yourself physically and emotionally to stay in the game.

Even Olympic athletes at the peak of their careers are doing probably four hours at most, pre-Olympics, of actual deliberate practice. So again, it should not be about sheer quantity but rather high-quality work and a sustainable routine.

TC:  In addition to maybe working long versus working smart, I associate workaholism with needing or doing something for outside, versus internal, validation. Is that inaccurate?

AD: Data on this is also incredibly intuitive. Really successful entrepreneurs have enormous internal motivation. They aren’t waking up to do work because they ought to; they’re waking up because they want to [wake up and do their work].

TC: There’s a lot in your teachings about grit about stick-to-it·ive·ness. But in Silicon Valley, founders are known for pivoting when things aren’t working. When should people get credit for cutting their losses and moving on?

AD: I’ll give you my parenting advice for those of you with a kid in your life, because I think it’s also reasonably good VC advice.

In my family, everybody has a “hard thing” rule.  Everyone has to pick a hard thing. It’s not “tiger” parenting. But you have to do something that requires deliberate practice, something that requires a cycle [wherein you’re] breaking things down into skills and then sub skills and really concentrating and getting feedback and doing it again.

Our second thing is that you can’t quit in the middle of something.

As a parent, I thought this was a way to teach work ethic, and teach our kids how to practice because that’s not something you are born knowing how to do. We wanted them to have some kind of bias to follow through on their commitments. It’s not a bad rule, I would imagine, for investing, too, or running a company. You want to help the people in your portfolio or the people in your company do things that are hard, to follow through on their commitments to their natural end while also making sure that that if you going to [stop this thing that you doing], that you decide it on a good day.

We all have a fight-or-flight system that gets activated on bad days, and it is generally not a good idea to use the front part of your brain if that has happened because these things are in conflict. But if on a really good day, after you’ve had your cup of coffee and you look and you’re like, I really don’t want to do this anymore, then that’s probably a rational decision.

TC: At Penn, you continue to study evidence-based ways to build character in kids. What can you tell this audience about tech’s impact on grit, for both children and adults?

AD: I’ve done a little bit of research on tech, but I can also summarize some of the research on social media in particular, and tech in general, and kids are for spending an unbelievable amount of time [with tech]. It’s about as much time as they are in school, actually, and equal number of hours.

When you look at longitudinal data to see what happens when people spend more time on social media, what happens in general is that people get more depressed and unhappy. It’s through his mechanism of comparison to others and envy. You know, there’s always a sunset and everyone looks beautiful and you think then that . you look like shit and you’re boring.

That’s the bad news. Here’s the good news. The sword cuts the other way as well. In many studies, when you use social media in an active way as opposed to passive way, so not scrolling through everybody’s pictures but actually communicating with other people and messaging your friends or even posting pictures of your own, it increases your feelings of social connection and well-being. So the sword is right now positioned the wrong way, against well-being and happiness and security, but it can cut the other way. And because tech isn’t going away, I think it’s the responsibility of this community to figure out how to make that happen.

  via TechCrunch

[clubofinfo]

Expert: The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world [….] No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity, much less dissent. — Gore Vidal, A View from the Diner’s Club, 1991 One of the most amusing elements of the current anti-Russian hysteria produced by U.S. state/corporate propagandists is the notion that Russia is this bold, aggressive challenger to “U.S. and Western interests” when the reality has always been the opposite. In the tumultuous period after the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Russian Federation emerged as the dominate power under the leadership of the clownish Boris Yeltsin. The Russian capitalist oligarchy that developed during that period and expanded under the leadership of Vladimir Putin has always just wanted to be part of the global capitalist game. They had demonstrated on more than one occasion their willingness to cooperate with the agenda of Western powers.  However, they wanted to be respected with their regional interests recognized. But as result of greed, hubris and just plain incompetence, U.S. policy-makers, especially the amateurs running foreign policy during the Obama years, pushed the Russians out of their preferred zone of caution in international affairs, with Syria being exhibit A. Forcing the Russians hand in Syria was followed by the Ukraine when the U.S. sparked a coup in that nation as the second front against Russian “intervention” in Syria. So it was quite comical to see how the announcement that Russia will deliver the S-300 air defense system to the Syrian government was met with feigned horror by U.S. and NATO forces. This decision was taken after the U.S. allowed or didn’t stop the Israeli Air Force from playing games that resulted in a Russia cargo plane being shot out of the air by Syrian ground defenses who mistook the Russia plane for an Israeli aircraft. Without an adequate air defense system capable of covering the entire nation and strategic territories within Syria, the Israeli Air Force has had almost unimpeded access to Syria air space during the Syrian war to attack military forces associated with the Syrian government, Hezbollah and the Iranian state. Yet in their zeal to push out anti-Russian propaganda, the state/corporate propagandists in the U.S.  exposed once again Russia’s conservatism and acquiensce to the global colonial U.S./EU/NATO agenda. While the headlines screamed traitor at Turkish President Erdogan for concluding a deal for the Russian S-400, the most advanced system the Russians are selling on the open market, very few seemed to have noticed that those wily, evil Russians that were propping up their partner in Syria hadn’t even delivered on the S-300 sale to the Syrian state that had been concluded five years ago! The Russians said that they failed to deliver the system that the Syrians purchased due to a request from the Israeli government in 2013. This decision took place a year after the debacle of Geneva I, the United Nations sponsored conference to resolve the Syrian War, where the Russians appeared ready to abandon Assad as long as the Syrian state was maintained, and their interests protected.  Getting rid of Assad but maintaining the Syrian state was also U.S. policy at the time. However, instead of a negotiated settlement in which the Russians would play a role, the Obama administration rejected Geneva I believing that it could topple the government in Syria through its jihadist proxies. The U.S. knew that those elements were never going to be allowed to govern the entire nation but that was the point. The Syrian state was slated to be balkanized with its territory divided and a permanent presence by the U.S. directly on the ground. Those forces in Syria would be bolstered by the thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq that had been reintroduced as a result of the U.S. reinvasion supposedly to fight ISIS – that it helped to create. Although the Russian position on Assad came out just a year after the Chinese and Russians gave the green light to the U.S. and NATO to launch a vicious war on Libya is old news, it points out how in the global game of power relations the peoples of the former colonial world continue to lose. The Russians, like the Chinese, have demonstrated repeatedly their willingness to collaborate with the U.S. and the “Western colonialist alliance,” even as successive U.S. administrations have singled them out, along with Iran and Venezuela, as geostrategic threats to U.S. global hegemony. This observation is not meant to be another Russia and China bashing that plays into the hands of the reactionaries driving U.S. policies who see military conflict with those two nations as inevitable. Instead what is being argued here is the absolute necessity for African/Black people and oppressed peoples and nations to be clear about the international correlation and balance of forces and competing interests at play so that “we” the people are not confused regarding our objective interests. Russian intervention in Syria was not as cynical as the U.S. and Western European powers, which knew from the beginning that “progressive” forces in Syria could not win a military conflict. Nevertheless, they encouraged those forces to engage in military opposition while the U.S. and its allies decided to back various Islamist forces – not for democratic change – but to destroy the Syrian state. Maintaining an independent, critical perspective on the national and global dispensation of social forces means not having any illusions about the world and the national, class and racial politics in play. We need to be clear that supporting Syria’s attempt to assert full sovereignty over its territory was only a secondary concern for the Russians. The back seat given to the Syrian government in the negotiations between Russia, Iran, and Turkey regarding Idlib confirms that. Protecting Russian interests in Syria and the Mid-East was and is the driving force for Russian military and diplomatic activity, nothing else! The delivery of the S-300 anti-aircraft system to Syria resembles the Russia cooperation with the U.S., Israel and Turkey on the Turkish Afrin operation, which was basically an invasion of Syria by Turkey in order to establish a “buffer zone”.  These are all decisions based on the objective interests of Russia and secondarily the interests of the Syrian government. It remains to be seen how the deployment of the S-300’s will alter the situation on the ground in Syria. It would not be surprising if the deployment was limited and only covered the territory around Latakia, the site of the Russian air base and close to its warm-water port. It may not be in Russia’s interests to allow the Syria government the means to block Israeli intrusions into Syrian air space. If the Syrian government had the ability to really ensure the security of its national territory from Israeli intrusions, it could mean that Russia would have less leverage over the Syrian government to force a withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria. Additionally, the land corridor and security of the “Islamic pipeline” between Iran, Iraq and Syria could be secured that may not be necessarily conducive for maintaining Russia’s share of the energy market in Europe. The U.S. and Israel overplayed their cards and made a strategic blunder by precipitating the shooting down of the Russian cargo plane. Although National Security Adviser John Bolton claims that the decision to supply Syrian forces with the S-300 is a “significant escalation,” the escalation really took place in 2012 when the Obama administration decided to allow U.S. vassal states to significantly increase military support for radical Islamic forces. Michael Flynn revealed this as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency – something the Obama forces never forgot. Syria has been a difficult object lesson for the left that has had a devastating consequence for the people of that embattled nation. Hundreds of thousands have died, and millions have been displaced primarily because left and progressive forces lacked the organizational, but more importantly, the ideological, political, and moral clarity to mount an opposition to the machinations of their national bourgeoisie in Europe and the U.S.  The very idea that the bourgeois leadership of their respective states might have some benevolent justifications for military intervention in Syria revealed a dangerous nationalist sentimentality that is driving the left version of white supremacist national chauvinism. Before the dramatic rightist turn of the left in the U.S. and Europe over the last two decades, the left – at least much of the Marxist-Leninist left – opposed Western imperialist intervention out of a theoretical and principled commitment to the national-colonial question in the global South. As citizens in “oppressor nations,” opposing their own bourgeoisie’s interventions into oppressed nations was seen as a responsibility for the left and indeed was a measurement of what was actually an authentic left position. That stance has virtually disappeared. The first response by the Western left to plans or actual interventions by their nation’s ruling class is a strange conversation regarding rather or not the intervention is justified or not based on the nature of the government being toppled by the intervention. For those of us who are members of oppressed peoples and nations, it is quite obvious that without independent organizations and global solidarity structures buttressed by the few progressive states that exist on the planet, we cannot depend on any bourgeois state to really care about our humanity or on the radical or left forces in Northern nations to put a brake on repression and intervention against non-Europe states and peoples. The bloodletting will continue in Syria. Candidate Trump raised some serious questions about the wisdom of U.S. policies in Syria and indicated that he might be willing to reverse U.S. involvement. But President Trump surrendered to the pressure from the foreign policy establishment and the warmongering corporate press. Instead of extricating the U.S., the administration announced a few weeks ago that the U.S. will essentially engage in an illegal and indefinite occupation in Syria. There is reasonable doubt that Israel and the U.S. will allow the deployment of the S-300s even if the Russians followed through with the delivery. Which means the possibility of another dangerous escalation in the conflict at any moment. It also means why despite one’s opinion about the nature of any government’s internal situation, it is important to reaffirm and defend the principles of national sovereignty and international law in opposition to the arbitrary and illegal interventions to effect a change in government by any outside forces. The people’s movements for social justice and human rights around the world must not allow the people to be drawn into the machinations and contradictory struggles and conflicts between essentially capitalist blocs, which include the Russians and the state-capitalism of China. This is not to suggest a moral or political equalization between the emergence of capitalist Russia and China and the systematic degradation unleashed on the world by the Pan-European colonial/capitalist project that emerged in 1492 with the invasion of the “Americas.” That would be a perversion of history and divert us from the primary global contradiction and target: The Western capitalist alliance and the corporate and finance oligarchy at its center. In the competition between blocs and the real possibility of global conflict, we must be vigilant not to repeat the tragic mistake made before the first world war when workers enthusiastically signed up as cannon fodder in the clash of capitalist empires. Imperialist war really is a class issue! Totalitarian capitalist domination is not a figment of our imaginations, it is real. Penetrating the ideological mystifications that divert us away from the matrix of power that distorts consciousness and renders the people as collaborators in their own subjection is the task of the moment. The global order is changing, the only question is what will emerge. Will the new order be a multipolar one dominated by emerging capitalist states or will a new transitional order develop that is oriented toward an association of states and people’s movements moving toward authentic de-colonization, ecological rationality, and socialist construction? There is still time for the people to choose. http://clubof.info/

[kayostesting]

test

"With every death comes honor. With honor, redemption." Voiced by: Paul Nakauchi (English), Dan Osorio (Latin American Spanish), Miguel Ángel Montero (European Spanish), Shuhei Sakaguchi (Japanese), Lionel Tua (French), Reginaldo Primo (Brazilian Portuguese), Lorenzo Scattorin (Italian), Bernd Vollbrecht (German), Hanshin (Korean), Kang Dian-Hong (Taiwanese Chinese), Liú Běichén (Mandarin Chinese), Krzysztof Cybiński (Polish), Ilya Isayev (Russian) The Shimada family was established centuries ago, a clan of assassins whose power grew over the years, enabling them to build a vast criminal empire that profited from lucrative trade in arms and illegal substances. As the eldest son of the family's head, Hanzo was bound by duty to succeed his father and rule the Shimada empire. From a young age, he was trained for that responsibility, displaying a natural aptitude for leadership and possessing an innate understanding of strategy and tactics. He also excelled in more practical areas: he was a prodigy in martial arts, swordplay, and bowmanship. Upon the death of his father, the clan elders instructed Hanzo to straighten out his wayward younger brother so that he, too, might help rule the Shimada empire. When his brother refused, Hanzo was forced to kill him. This act broke Hanzo's heart and drove him to reject his father's legacy, ultimately leading him to abandon the clan and all that he had worked so hard to attain. Now, Hanzo travels the world, perfecting his skills as a warrior, attempting to restore his honor and put the ghosts of his past to rest. Once a year, he snuck into his old home, which now sends assassins to kill him for his desertion. His goal was mostly to honor the spirit of his brother. Until one day, he was assaulted in the same place by a mysterious Cyber Ninja that lectured him about his actions, or rather, his inaction towards the changing world. The lecture turned into a fierce battle and, to Hanzo's shock, the ninja revealed himself as Genji, saved from death by Overwatch. Genji forgives him, but Hanzo becomes furious after realizing that Genji's survival rendered the Redemption Quest to honor him meaningless, and calls Genji foolish to still believe in childish ideals from fairy tales. Even so, Genji's words left him conflicted about the future and his feelings for his brother. Hanzo is a Defensive character who can sneak into an enemy's holdout and silently kill them before moving on to his next target. Eschewing the favored weapons of his time, his weapon is the Storm Bow, a mechanical bow that can fire all sorts of mechanical, or mundane, arrows at enemies. He has the ability to Wall Climb, which lets him climb up a vertical surface. His first ability is Sonic Arrow. Hanzo fires at arrow at the location that releases a pulse of sound, signaling to him whether or not nearby enemies are beyond the wall or nearby. His second ability, Scatter Arrow, fires an arrow that ricochets off walls and objects, enabling him to strike at angles and hit multiple targets. His ultimate, Dragonstrike, takes off the guise of stealth and summons a pair of Spirit Dragons that travel forward from his location, killing any enemies in its path. Animal Motifs: Besides the obvious dragon, Hanzo has several Legendary skins that give him a wolf-based look instead; he wears wolf pelts on his head and shoulders, and his ultimate ability replaces the Spirit Dragons with howling wolves. On a symbolic level, dragons in some Asian cultures represent prosperity, strength, and good fortune and are typically benevolent creatures, but because the dragon is the family icon of the Shimada clan's criminal empire, the Western depiction of dragons being creatures of evil applies as well. Wolves, on the other hand, represent freedom as well as family and community, but they also symbolize a lack of trust in others and/or yourself - despite having had broken away from his family after nearly killing Genji, Hanzo still feels a lingering sense of loyalty and duty, and much of his inner conflict stems from his choice of either following his clan's footsteps or forgive himself and pursue the heroic path like Genji did. The Atoner: He seeks to regain his honor for both killing his brother and for being a part of a criminal clan that would force him to do such a thing. Arrogant Kung-Fu Guy: He's quite cocky and contemptuous towards his enemies, and openly gloats about his skills in combat. Awesome Anachronistic Apparel: His outfit is based on feudal Japanese ninja clothing with modern touches such as futuristic boots and a waist pack. Doesn't stop it from looking awesome. Badass Beard: He has a small one along with a Badass Mustache. Badass Boast: Gives one to Genji in Dragons, mistaking him for an assassin: Hanzo: You are not the first assassin sent to kill me. And you will not be the last. Beard of Sorrow: The mustache and small beard he has now? He didn't start growing it until after he was forced to kill his younger brother Genji. Becoming the Costume: Hanzo's Okami and Lone Wolf skins change a large number of lines, replacing his dragon motif with a wolf one. For example, when launching his Sonic Arrow, instead of saying "Marked by the dragon," he'll say "The wolf marks its prey." His Ultimate line changes from "Let the dragon consume you!"/"Ryū ga waga teki o kurau!" to "The wolf hunts for his prey!"/"Ōkami yo, waga teki o kurae!" Additionally, the projectile itself becomes two wolves instead of dragons, changing the roar sound to howling, and if it gets any kills, Hanzo says "The wolf is sated" instead of "The dragon is sated." Berserk Button: Genji. As if being forced to kill him wasn't enough to leave Hanzo a remorseful wreck, he now finds out that his brother is alive and well and is willing to forgive him for an act that caused him to abandon his family and spend his entire life on an ultimately-pointless redemption quest for something he began to view as irredeemable. Mentioning Genji or bringing up the fact that the two are similar will result in Hanzo furiously and spitefully denying him. Bottomless Magazines: While played straight in the game itself, in the animated short "Dragons" he runs out of arrows during his fight with Genji and has to pick them up from where he fired them. Bring It: One of his taunts is a classic "Come and get me" gesture. Cain and Abel: After their father's death, tensions rose between him and his brother Genji until he was forced by the clan elders to kill him. Even after his brother shows up alive again, Hanzo has very conflicted feelings about him, despite Genji forgiving him. Genji: "It is not too late to change your course, brother." Hanzo: "You may call yourself my brother, but you are not the Genji I knew." Charged Attack: His Storm Bow is Hold-type; simply tapping the fire button fires a very weak arrow, but holding it down for full power allows it to One-Hit Kill non-tanks with a headshot. Dark is Not Evil: Despite wearing mostly black, having an evil looking scowl most of the time, and is not the White Sheep of his criminal empire family, he's far from evil himself; having performed a Heel–Face Turn after (almost) murdering Genji. Death Seeker: Implied: he tells Genji to kill him in Dragons and Genji replies that he will not grant him the death he wishes for. There's also his Halloween "R.I.P." victory pose, where unlike everybody else who is bursting from out of their graves, Hanzo seems perfectly content staying put.◊ Decomposite Character: He and his brother were originally one cyber ninja in concept. The character however was too unfocused in design due to being crammed with too many ninja weapons and gimmicks. Rather than scrap the idea though, the character was made into two brothers. Hanzo inherited the clothes, bow usage, and name the original character had. Defector from Decadence: He left his family and the criminal empire he could have ruled since it cost him his brother. Downplayed as a few of his quotes imply he regret having left the Yakuza lifestyle. Difficult but Awesome: He's rated 3 stars for a reason. He's difficult in that his arrows require draw time and are projectiles instead of hitscan-based which also avert No "Arc" in "Archery", meaning actually hitting a target requires consistent aim and prediction, not helped by the lack of a scope making it more difficult to aim precisely. His kit is entirely based around dealing burst damage and getting picks, and if he fails to do so, he might be considered The Millstone by his team. His Dragonstrike ultimate is also difficult to use effectively, as while it has huge damage and AoE, it's a Painfully Slow Projectile that can be easily avoided through experience, meaning you'll have to get crafty to use it properly. He's awesome in that his arrows' lack of a scope prevents him from suffering tunnel vision, he requires virtually no reloading, he has one of the only abilities in the game that can provide team-wide vision, and his potential mid-to-long-range damage output is absolutely absurd. A well-trained Hanzo can easily shut down enemy teams before they can touch the objective. Don't You Dare Pity Me!: In every interaction where Genji shows Hanzo sympathy or tries to give him a speech, Hanzo lashes out and insults Genji. Drowning My Sorrows: The Halloween update reveals his canteen is always full of sake. And it's one of the biggest canteens among the cast members who have them. Presumably it's to dull the constant guilt and regret he feels. Due to the Dead: It's revealed in "Dragons" that every year he returns to Hanamura, his former home, to pay tribute to his dead younger brother Genji. Until he learns Genji is not dead as previously thought. The Dutiful Son: While he has renounced his family ties after being forced to kill Genji, pre-match dialogue implies that he on some level regrets his decision and wants to make his family great again, yet it is implied that he has some clear standards on how to do it, such as when he turns down Widowmaker's offer to join Talon in exchange for his family's restoration. And part of the reason why Hanzo resents Genji is because of the latter's refusal to toe the line, resulting in their fated battle and causing everything to fall apart. And now that brother is revealed to be still alive, all of that grief and the journey to atone for his sins had been completely for nothing. Fingerless Gloves: Of a sort. He wears a special archery glove note on his right hand that covers everything except his ring finger and pinky. Foolish Sibling, Responsible Sibling: The dutiful, responsible older brother of the foolish, hedonistic Genji, back when both of them were living in Hanamura and their scuffle that led to Genji's cybernetic transformation didn't happen yet. Glass Cannon: Can deal high damage with his arrows and ultimate ability, however, he has mediocre health and no mobility-boosting abilities other than wall-climbing. Gameplay and Story Segregation: In-game, Hanzo can only shoot his arrows straight, even if they will eventually fall to gravity. In the Dragons animated short, his arrows can make a sideway arc, shoot to the side, and the arrow takes a turn to straight in front of Hanzo. Hazy Feel Turn: Hanzo did not leave the life of a criminal behind, seeing as he still carries out assassinations. He did, however, leave the Shimada clan behind, and, even if he express regret at doing it, refuses to associate with outright villainous groups like Talon. Heroic B.S.O.D.: Upon learning in the end of "Dragons" that Genji is still alive (albeit as a cyborg) and has forgiven him for nearly killing him on the orders of their clan elders, Hanzo's response is to continue burning incense as tribute to his brother like nothing happened as if he's in complete denial. It's suggested that his hostile banter with Genji during gameplay may have stemmed from this. Heroes Prefer Swords: Averted. He was trained in the use of one, but after he was forced to kill Genji, he swore never to pick up another blade, instead using a bow and arrow. Hitbox Dissonance: The Hero. Hanzo's arrow hitbox is roughly twice as wide as the actual character model, and just hitting in the upper portion of that giant hitbox counts as a headshot. I Did What I Had to Do: He considers his act of killing Genji as something he had to do in order to placate his clan's elders and restore order to his already broken family, but it's clear that he deeply regrets it. Important Haircut: He used to have much longer hair in his twenties, and in "Reflections" (which takes place after "Dragons") he sports an undercut. Improbable Aiming Skills: A good chunk of what he does with his arrows in "Dragons", most notably the part where he shoots an arrow which curves to hit and destroy a cellphone when a) he's grappling someone at the same time, b) the cellphone is moving and c) from where he shoots, Hanzo couldn't possibly see the point where his arrow lands. Improbable Use of a Weapon: He's shown to be quite versatile with his bow in "Dragons," using it as a melee weapon in several instances. In fact, in his fight against Genji, he actually finds more success this way than through firing arrows. Instant Awesome, Just Add Dragons: His ultimate summons two Spirit Dragons that go through walls and kills everything in their path. Jerkass Façade: Usually his default persona is The Atoner. But, he's usually very nasty to Genji even after what he did, for ill-defined reasons. Mage Marksman: Uses Trick Arrows to fight, and then there's the whole "shooting out two spirit dragons" thing. Master Swordsman: Word of God says he's actually a master swordsman who's probably even better than his brother. However because of what happened with Genji, Hanzo put down the sword for good and picked up the bow instead. His old sword can still be found displayed in the Hanamura dojo with a chipped blade. Meaningful Name: His name alludes to Hattori Hanzo, one of the most famous Real Life samurai.* Mr. Fanservice: Half-shirtless, with a very extensive dragon tattoo. My God, What Have I Done?: Seemingly killing his brother Genji broke his heart and caused him to leave the clan to atone for what he had done. My Greatest Failure: The day he was forced to kill his little brother by his clan's elders was this for Hanzo. It's one of the main reasons he became The Atoner. Nice Job Fixing It, Villain!: When he (apparently) murdered his own brother to appease the clan elders and prevent the families dissolution, he instead accidentally turned Genji into the hero who would single-handedly dismantle the clan and leave it a pale husk of its former self. Ninja: Since the Shimada Clan was a family of ninjas before becoming Yakuza, Hanzo was trained as a ninja himself. Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot: His Halloween skin basically makes him into a Zombie Ninja. No "Arc" in "Archery": Averted! Unlike every other primary weapon in the game other than Torbjörn's, all of Hanzo's arrows are affected by gravity, including those spawning from his Scatter Arrow. Judging how to aim at a distance based on this arc is one of the reasons aiming with him can be quite tough. Not So Different: From Genji, at least in the eyes of Zenyatta. Zenyatta: I sense within you the same rage that once consumed your brother. Hanzo: We are nothing alike! Not So Stoic: His in-game lines are pretty chill and monotonous, but mentioning his younger brother (as seen in the "Dragons" short) makes him rash and angry. Perpetual Frowner: With good reason, admittedly. Pinball Projectile: Scatter Arrow causes Hanzo's arrow to explode into several more upon hitting a surface, each of which retain a normal arrow's general damage. An easy strategy for taking out squishy targets is to aim one right at their feet, so multiple arrows explode from under them. Or just have some really, really lucky geometry working for you. Power Tattoo: In the animated short "Dragons", his dragon tattoo glows as he unleashes his Dragonstrike. In fact the spirit dragons seem to appear from the tattoo before being unleashed through the arrow he fires. Redemption Rejection: Self-invoked example. He simply won't forgive himself for what he did to Genji and refused to redeem himself with Overwatch even after Genji explicitly forgave him with a You Are Better Than You Think You Are speech at the end of "Dragons". Sibling Rivalry: Despite wishing to atone for nearly killing Genji, Hanzo still prides himself on honor and looks down upon his brother for his hedonistic lifestyle even after he had become a cyborg and mellowed out. This conversation before a match begins says it all. Hanzo: You will never amount to anything! Genji: We shall see...brother. Silly Rabbit, Idealism Is for Kids!: To Genji in Dragons: Hanzo: Real life is not like the stories our father told us! You are a fool for believing it so! Summon Magic: He summons two giant spirit dragons to kill anything in their path. No explanation for this magic is offered, except that only a Shimada can control these dragons. Tattooed Crook: Has a dragon tattoo on his left arm and was formerly the heir of a powerful Yakuza clan. The Straight and Arrow Path: In a world with guns and rockets and robot suits and teleporters, Hanzo uses a humble bow. A technologically enhanced bow, but a bow nonetheless. Thicker Than Water: Hanzo is a firm believer of traditional family loyalty and that honor lies in family loyalty, which was why he's The Dutiful Son who didn't seem to mind much about how the criminal activities of the clan are not good deeds, they're still his family, and while he left the clan in shame, he still held some regrets that he somehow wanted to return to his family. This is also why he's rather cross at Genji for his actions to shut down the Shimada clan, he cannot see honor in betraying one's own family even if it was for the greater good or common morality. Trademark Favorite Food: Ramen, just like his brother. Thankfully for Hanzo, he's still able to enjoy it as he's still full human. Trick Arrow: His Scatter Shot explodes when it hits a wall, releasing ricocheting arrows that bounce off walls and hit foes. He also has Sonic Arrow, which alerts him to nearby enemies. Additionally, in Dragons his normal arrows are apparently electric and homing. Walking Shirtless Scene: He wears a kimono, but the left side is not on his body, showing off his left pec, left side of his torso, and an impressive arm-length dragon tattoo. Wall Crawl: Thanks to his Wall Climb ability. White Sheep: Became this to his clan after he defected out of guilt for killing his little brother on the clan elders' orders. Yakuza: Former heir to the Shimada Clan's criminal empire and still has the tattoo to prove it.

[uniteordie-usa]

‘Fake news’? Time to choose: Corporate media fakes us into wars that aren’t even close to lawful, are Orwellian illegal Wars of Aggression (1 of 15) - http://img.youtube.com/vi/RkpBRAR8ftM/0.jpg - The corporate-controlled media jumped the shark in the 2016 election. Now it’s time to choose between their fake news and real information. - <div id="at_zurlpreview"> <div class="entry-meta"><span class="meta-prep meta-prep-author"><a href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/fake-news-time-choose-corporate-media-fakes-us-wars-arent-even-close-lawful-orwellian-illegal-wars-aggression-1-14.html">Original article</a> Posted on</span> <a title="8:11 am" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/fake-news-time-choose-corporate-media-fakes-us-wars-arent-even-close-lawful-orwellian-illegal-wars-aggression-1-14.html" rel="bookmark"><span class="entry-date">November 26, 2016</span></a> <span class="meta-sep">by</span> <span class="author vcard"><a class="url fn n" title="View all posts by Carl Herman" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/carl-herman">Carl Herman</a></span></div> <div class="entry-content"> <blockquote><p>“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. And then you win.”  ~ <em>unsourced, and attributed to <a title="Gandhi’s analysis" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/gandhi-on-ending-injustice-speak-the-truth-because-truth-is-god.html">Gandhi’s analysis</a> of British empire response to having their hypocrisy exposed: claiming to bring <a title="Christian love" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/58699.html">Christian love</a> and progress while looting resources with forced local labor.</em></p> <p>“When we now know that <a title="all claims for war with Iraq were known lies as they were told" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20140905220434/http://www.examiner.com/article/iraq-war-8th-year-all-intelligence-for-war-proven-as-orwellian-and-treasonous-lies-now-what" target="_blank">all claims for war with Iraq were known lies as they were told</a> (and <a title="verbally explained here" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20140903073856/http://www.examiner.com/article/carl-herman-podcast-explaining-the-evidence-for-iraq-war-as-all-lies-war-is-orwellian-unlawful" target="_blank">verbally explained here</a>), and <a title="CNN" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20120229032159/http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/cnn-shamelessly-propagandizes-iranian-war-rumors-same-lies-that-preceded-unlawful-war-with-iraq" target="_blank">CNN</a> provides similar innuendo for war by <strong>an unsourced alleged report with concerns of what might occur in the future allegedly stated by an unnamed US source reporting on an unnamed foreign source</strong>, this is propaganda and not news.”  ~ <em>My <a title="2010 analysis of “fake news”" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20140903081116/http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-news-continues-cbs-abc-cnn-propaganda-to-attack-iran-today-s-cia-operation-mockingbird" target="_blank">2010 analysis of “fake news”</a> reporting from CBS, ABC, CNN to lie Americans into illegal war on Iran.</em></p></blockquote> <p><a title="The Washington Post" href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/washington-post-names-drudge-zero-hedge-anti-clinton-sophisticated-russian-propagand" target="_blank"><i>The Washington Post</i></a> added to <a title="President Obama’s rhetoric" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/world/europe/obama-angela-merkel-donald-trump.html" target="_blank">President Obama’s rhetoric</a> for Americans to be aware of “fake news”: easily refuted lies of omission and commission in media. This article series reveals the inversion of those claims: .01% “official” news by <a title="corporate media" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-lying-corporate-media-required-propaganda-trying-to-hide-naked-empire-6-of-7.html">corporate media</a> (<a title="six conglomerates" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6" target="_blank">six conglomerates</a>) is easily documented as fake in our most important reporting.</p> <p><b>‘Fake news’? Time to choose </b>article series (links added as series progresses):</p> <ul> <li>Corporate media fakes us into wars that aren’t even close to lawful, are Orwellian illegal Wars of Aggression <a title="(1 of 15)" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/fake-news-time-choose-corporate-media-fakes-us-wars-arent-even-close-lawful-orwellian-illegal-wars-aggression-1-14.html">(1 of 15)</a></li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into Orwellian illegal Wars of Aggression with lies known to be lies as they were told (<a title="2 of 15" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/63717.html">2 of 15</a>)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into ongoing bankster looting of increasing total debt impossible to repay, while ignoring solutions worth trillions (<a title="3 of 15" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/fake-news-time-choose-corporate-media-fakes-us-ongoing-bankster-looting-increasing-total-debt-impossible-repay-ignoring-solutions-worth-trillions-3-15.html">3 of 15</a>)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into their fake world never admitting to a history of their easily documented lies (<a title="4 of 15" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/fake-news-time-to-choose-corporate-media-fakes-us-into-their-fake-world-never-admitting-to-a-history-of-their-easily-documented-lies-4-of-15.html">4 of 15</a>)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into NOT ending poverty for less than 1% of ‘developed’ nations’ income, poverty-murdering ~1 million children every month, since 1997 killing more human beings than all wars & violence in all human history (<a title="5 of 15" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/fake-news-time-choose-corporate-media-fakes-us-not-ending-poverty-less-1-developed-nations-income-poverty-murdering-1-million-child.html">5 of 15</a>)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into Kennedy assassination fairy tales ‘covering’ US .01% coup. Real leadership impossible today under similar threat; why Trump must act for full Truth or submit to be ‘Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief’ for rogue state empire (<a title="6 of 15" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/fake-news-time-choose-corporate-media-fakes-us-kennedy-assassination-fairy-tales-covering-us-01-coup-real-leadership-impossible-today-similar-thre.html">6 of 15</a>)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us by ignoring King Family civil trial verdict that US government assassinated Martin with OVERWHELMING evidence, pretends to ‘honor’ Martin every January. Real leadership impossible today until .01% arrests ends ‘official’ fake news (<a title="7 of 15" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/64805.html#more-64805">7 of 15</a>)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into 2 central lies for more illegal war on Iran: ‘threat to Israel’ and ‘nuclear program’ EVEN AFTER 12 YEARS of anyone checking the facts soooo easily refuting these claims as known lies (<a title="8 of 15" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/fake-news-time-choose-corporate-media-fakes-us-2-central-lies-illegal-war-iran-threat-israel-nuclear-program-even-af.html">8 of 15</a>)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into supporting Israel’s Orwellian illegal War of Aggression on Gaza. Trump initiates War Criminal career funding/cheering Palestinian genocide, war-mongering on Iran (<a title="9 of 15" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/65092.html">9 of 15</a>)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into ignoring a simple definition: US is now a rogue state empire (10 of 15)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into ignoring irrefutable US history: colonialism lying and looting goes from Native Americans, to Mexico, and to today’s O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation) (11 of 15)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into obfuscation about Clinton Foundation $2 billion illegal looting (12 of 15)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into obfuscation about Hillary/DNC election fraud that stole primary win by Bernie Sanders (13 of 15)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into ignoring $6.5 trillion looted by Pentagon = ~$60,000 per average US household (14 of 15)</li> <li>Corporate media fakes us into ignoring OBVIOUS American response: arrest .01% ‘leaders’ for Wars of Aggression, treason, Crimes Against Humanity, fraud and looting worth tens of trillions (15 of 15)</li> </ul> <p>The totality of these article sections (among <a title="~100 such game-changers" href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/" target="_blank">~100 such game-changers</a>) is a fundamental choice for Americans:</p> <ol> <li>Ongoing “fake news” to support <a title="US rogue state empire" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-introduction-define-rogue-state-perfect-match-us-illegal-wars-aggression-crimes-humanity.html">US rogue state empire</a> that after a <a title="jump the shark 2016 “election”" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/4-minute-video-surrender-vote-trumpclinton-president-continues-lie-started-illegal-wars-aggression-bankster-looting-trillions-corporate-media-lying.html"><em>jump the shark</em> 2016 “election”</a> (and <a title="here" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/19-minute-video-2-minute-satire-leading-expert-reports-election-fraud-designed-certain-unaccountable-zero-evidence-voting-machines-criminal-collusion-left.html">here</a>) approaches the <a title="tragic-comedy of imploding Roman empire" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/us-fall-from-virtuous-republic-to-tragic-comic-empire-described-perfectly-by-roman-historians.html">tragic-comedy of imploding Roman empire</a>, OR</li> <li>Truth documented with objective, comprehensive, and independently verifiable facts.</li> </ol> <p><em>The</em> <em>Washington Post</em>‘s <a title="unsourced “list”" href="http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html" target="_blank">unsourced “list”</a> places us, Washington’s Blog, as their 7th example of “fake news.” Please take a few moments to read their sensationalistic description of our “Russian propaganda.” Please contrast that “reporting” and <a title="this also" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-new-yellow-journalists-opportunity-comes-in-clicks-and-bucks/2016/11/20/d58d036c-adbf-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html" target="_blank">this also</a> from <em>The Washington Post</em>, with the actual content of this article series.</p> <p>FisherOfMen’s revealing <a title="14-minute video" href="https://youtu.be/RkpBRAR8ftM" target="_blank">14-minute video</a>, beginning with <a title="CIA Director Colby’s testimony" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/2014-worldwide-wave-action-learn-prove-corporate-media-lying-sacks-spin-7.html">CIA Director Colby’s testimony</a> to the US Senate for the 1975 Church Committee admitting the CIA directs corporate media how to lie to the American public with “fake news” (six similar videos <a title="here" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/11/20-examples-fake-news.html">here</a>):</p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RkpBRAR8ftM?feature=oembed" width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p><a title="3-minute video" href="https://youtu.be/kiSoxFHyjGY" target="_blank">3-minute video</a> of Dan Rather’s fake news from November 25, 1963 to <strong>sell the lie</strong> that <a title="President Kennedy’s fatal head shot" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/2016-interview-president-john-kennedy-assassinated-american-publics-opportunity-today-cause-peace.html">President Kennedy’s fatal head shot</a> caused “violent forward motion” opposite to the fact his head was violently hit to cause backward motion (hat tip <em><a title="What Really Happened" href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/" target="_blank">What Really Happened</a></em>):</p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kiSoxFHyjGY?feature=oembed" width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <h5>Corporate media fakes us into wars that aren’t even close to lawful, are Orwellian illegal Wars of Aggression (1 of 14)</h5> <p>People around the world view the <a title="US as the greatest threat to peace" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/2014-gallup-international-poll-us-1-threat-world-peace.html">US as the greatest threat to peace</a>; voted three times more dangerous than any other country. The data confirm this conclusion:</p> <ul> <li>Since WW2, <a title="Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them." href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/90-deaths-war-civilians.html">Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them.</a></li> <li>These US-started armed attacks have <a title="killed ~30 million" href="http://www.examiner.com/article/us-war-murdered-20-30-million-since-ww2-arrest-today-s-war-criminals" target="_blank">killed ~30 million</a> and counting; <a title="90% of these deaths are innocent" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/90-deaths-war-civilians.html">90% of these deaths are innocent</a> children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men.</li> <li>The <a title="US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/obama-celebrates-30-million-us-war-kills-since-ww2-past-hitler-to-3-on-all-time-list.html">US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis</a>.</li> </ul> <p>Corporate media’s “fake news” representation of these US armed attacks omits the central fact:</p> <blockquote><p>US wars are Orwellian unlawful, not even close to legal, and in OBVIOUS violation of arguably the single most important law on planet Earth: armed attacks are illegal.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>This is easy to document and prove</strong>, and obvious fact to anyone with an education in this area. Those of us working for peace are aware of zero attempts of refutation with anything like,</p> <blockquote><p>“War law states (a, b, c), so the wars are legal because (d, e, f).”</p></blockquote> <p>All we receive is easy-to-reveal <a title="bullshit" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/us-public-education-bullshit-train-stupefied-work-animals-introduction-defining-bullshit-demanding-comprehensive-objective-independently-verifiable-factual-accuracy-ever.html"><i>bullshit</i></a>.</p> <p>This is powerfully revealing of the “fake news” Americans constantly receive. Following is a <a title="reprint" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/08/war-law-somehow-isnt-crystal-clear-letter-intent-oath-sworn-tax-paid-shouldnt-enforce-01-arrests-obvious-lie-started-illegal-wars-aggression-w.html">reprint</a> of what I think is my most effective walkthrough for average Americans to fully understand this topic, and also from <a title="a professional academic paper I wrote and delivered" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-obviously-unlawful-usuk-wars-of-the-present-2-of-7.html">a professional academic paper I wrote and delivered</a> for ~2,000 people at a 2015 Claremont Colleges’ international conference. And again, no colleague or I am aware of any attempt to refute these facts. Our experience is the same as the quote attributed to Gandhi at the start of this essay.</p> <p>This essay contains further elements of this article series, but as the series are all connected issues, I’ll include the complete essay for readers who may find one single source as helpful:</p> <h5>Orwellian illegal US Wars of Aggression</h5> <blockquote><p>“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.” ~ <a title="President Kennedy" href="http://www1.american.edu/media/speeches/Kennedy.htm" target="_blank">President Kennedy</a>, June 10, 1963</p></blockquote> <p>I was inspired to write this essay by the following comment from an otherwise intelligent person:</p> <blockquote><p>“Therefore, while I can say it strongly appears U.S. wars are in violation of the treaties and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for myself to make that a legally binding finding and attach legal demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.”</p></blockquote> <p>From similar comments over time, I’ve made perhaps ten requests for this person to summarize war law in a sentence or two. So far, I’ve received only dodges avoiding this easy and essential citizen responsibility. This said, this isn’t the only individual who can’t summarize war law, and see that it’s meant to be as clear as:</p> <ul> <li>“stop sign” law for driving,</li> <li>a baseball rule, like the strike zone,</li> <li>a chore for one’s child at home, like taking out the trash.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Let’s look at these three examples compared to this comment, then review war law</strong> to see that its violation by US .01% “leaders” is as outrageous as one can imagine, not even close to legal, started on lies known to be false as they were told, and requiring immediate arrests to stop an obvious crime war-murdering millions, harming billions, and looting trillions.</p> <p>To give you the punch line now for clarity of <strong>what war law states</strong>, and without disagreement our colleagues and I are aware of from anyone who points to the law with explanation:</p> <blockquote><p>Unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In <a title="general legal definition" href="http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm" target="_blank">general legal definition</a>, <b>no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy. </b></p></blockquote> <p>This is the same as if you’re walking down the street: <strong>nobody can attack you unless, and only unless, you attack first or are an imminent threat</strong> (pulling a knife and raving, etc.). And if you are attacked, once law enforcement takes the case any attack on your part is the crime of retribution fully prosecuted against you.</p> <h5>Example 1: Stop sign law:</h5> <p>In general, law is meant to be crystal-clear so as to help produce a desired result. Traffic law is meant to make driving as safe and efficient as possible, with California <a title="stop sign law" href="https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/hdbk/ped_sig_traf_sgns" target="_blank">stop sign law</a> as a perfect example:</p> <blockquote><p>“An 8-sided red <b>STOP</b> sign indicates that you must make a full “STOP” whenever you see this sign. Stop at the white limit line (a wide white line painted on the street) or before entering the crosswalk. If a limit line or crosswalk is not painted on the street, stop before entering the intersection. Check traffic in all directions before proceeding.”</p></blockquote> <p>There’s <a title="more that could be said" href="http://www.bestattorney.com/california-motor-vehicle-code/stop-signs-21802.html" target="_blank">more that could be said</a> about this law, but this is enough as we all have personal experience of what this law means.</p> <p>Now imagine this scenario:</p> <p>In your residential neighborhood with a 25 mph speed limit, you have a stop sign one house away. Your child attends the elementary school down the street, and you know that children have been hit by cars on this street. One day you observe at 7 AM a red Toyota truck speed through that stop sign ~40 mph, and at 5 PM he speeds through the other way. As you watch, horrified this has happened twice, you see your next-door neighbor has also observed this. You walk over:</p> <p><b>You:</b> Did you see that?! I saw that same truck do that this morning; just blow by that stop sign, and speeding!</p> <p><b>Neighbor:</b> Yeah. I’ve seen it the last three weekdays, morning and evening. Same truck, same driver, same speed, never even slows down.</p> <p><b>You:</b> Have you called the police? Let’s stop this!</p> <p><b>Neighbor:</b> <i>While I can say it strongly appears this driver is in violation of the law and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for myself to make that a legally binding finding and attach legal demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.</i></p> <p><b>You: </b>Are you joking?</p> <p><b>Neighbor:</b> No. I take neighborhood safely seriously. Because he’s seen me, he threw this note at me yesterday. Well, it was attached to a brick that missed me and went through my windshield. But anyway, this is what the note says:</p> <p>“My driving is legal because:</p> <ul> <li>I have <a title="white decals on my vehicle" href="https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/decal" target="_blank">white decals on my vehicle</a>, and have extra driving privileges.</li> <li>My wife is pregnant. Emergencies change everything. I must use emergency “enhanced driving techniques.”</li> <li>It’s pretty well confirmed you’re in communication with Al-Qaeda terrorists, so I’m acting in legal self-defense before you attack again.”</li> </ul> <p><b>You:</b> Dude.</p> <p><b>Neighbor:</b> What? <i>While I can say it strongly appears this driver is in violation of the law and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for myself to make that a legally binding finding and attach legal demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.</i></p> <p><b>You:</b> Ok, let’s look. First: his truck doesn’t have those white stickers, plus it’s irrelevant for speeding through a stop sign. Second: if he drives like this every day AND both ways that has nothing to do with a pregnant wife. And the last one, seriously, are you going to take that shit that you’re the cause of his speeding because you’re some evil terrorist?!</p> <p>**</p> <p>I could go on, but you get the points about this neighbor within the limits of an analogy:</p> <ul> <li>No demonstrated understanding of this law.</li> <li>Need of greater voice for responsible citizenship.</li> </ul> <h5>Example 2: baseball’s strike zone</h5> <p>Scenario: You attend your son’s high school baseball game with about 100 other adults and students in your team’s stands. Your same neighbor is at the game with you, with his son at bat. The pitcher delivers a pitch ten feet over everyone’s head to the backstop. The umpire calls, “Strike one!” You, in shock, attempt to ask your neighbor if you heard correctly. As you begin talking, the pitcher’s second pitch is tossed to their team’s manager in the dugout:</p> <p><b>Umpire:</b> Strike two!</p> <p><b>You:</b> This game is rigged!</p> <p><b>Neighbor:</b> <i>While I can say it strongly appears those pitches are outside the strike zone and therefore likely balls, there is no way for myself to make that a binding finding and attach demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.</i></p> <p><b>You:</b> Dude! The first one was over everyone’s heads by 10 feet! The second is a joke!</p> <p>(as we talk, the pitcher delivers the third pitch: rolling it to the third baseman and smirking at the “umpire” calling, “Strike three!”)</p> <p><b>Neighbor:</b> (loudly encouraging to son) Next time, next time, son! You’ll have to swing at one of those to have a chance!</p> <p>**</p> <p>Let’s do some analysis:</p> <ul> <li>Again, your neighbor shows no understanding of the law.</li> <li>Your neighbor is at risk of being a sucker to whatever consequences might come from such ignorance.</li> </ul> <p>Of course, because <a title="Americans take sports law sooooo seriously" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/youd-never-allow-favorite-sport-destroyed-psychopathic-officials-allow-us-destroyed.html">Americans take sports law sooooo seriously</a> (and <a title="here" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/care-enough-sports-review-official-calls-review-official-calls-lawful-wars.html">here</a>), many of the 100 fans would be on the field to stop the game after the second pitch, and would never ever ever ever allow a game they cared about to be destroyed by Orwellian “umpires.”</p> <h5>Example 3: taking out the trash</h5> <p>Scenario: Your son has a chore to take out the trash before he goes to bed each night. One morning before school, you notice the trash wasn’t taken out last night. Your son comes downstairs.</p> <p><b>You:</b> Son, you didn’t take out the trash last night.</p> <p><b>Son:</b> C’mon Dad: <i>while you can say it strongly appears the trash is in violation of the agreement and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for you to make that a binding finding and attach demands based upon it. You can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.</i></p> <p><b>You:</b> (blinking twice, indicating with body language that your son now has your full attention)</p> <p><b>Son:</b> (recognizing this <a title="bullshit" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/us-public-education-bullshit-train-stupefied-work-animals-introduction-defining-bullshit-demanding-comprehensive-objective-independently-verifiable-factual-accuracy-ever.html"><i>bullshit</i></a> isn’t working, clears his throat) Besides, taking the trash <i>out</i> is a relative term. If it’s <i>out</i>, then relative to that location, inside the house is outside of that domain. If the trash is <i>in</i>, it’s already outside the domain of <i>out</i>!</p> <p>(placing his hand in mock sincerity upon my shoulder) Dad, America needs clear laws and enforceable laws, not the arbitrary stop you’re making of my morning in lawless arbitrary demand. It’s up to our household legislation to plug loopholes; it’s the duty of the family to understand what needs to be done and demand it.</p> <p>Fair laws, clear laws, enforceable laws.</p> <p>Don’t be a preening weenie, Dad.</p> <p><b>You: </b>You’re joking, right?</p> <p><b>Son:</b> Not at all. I take household responsibilities very seriously. Very seriously.</p> <p><b>You:</b> (pursing lips and nodding) Anything else you’d like to add to your explanation?</p> <p><b>Son:</b> Yes. The rule states that the trash go out before I “go to bed.” I never went to bed last night. I had a “temporary emergency bailout of consciousness” distinct from “going to bed.” So, technically, I won’t be in violation until I actually “go to bed.” And this state of emergency might need to be continued indefinitely. Oh, and I still stand on my point that given the ambiguity of the rule with <i>in</i> and <i>out</i>, neither one of us can determine any violation of law.</p> <p><b>You:</b> Son, laws are meant to be clear; this one is. Your first excuse has to destroy known and agreed terms of <i>in</i> and <i>out</i> to pretend the law is unclear. Your second excuse again destroys a definition of an essential part of the law, then, as the first excuse, attempts to <a title="bullshit" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/us-public-education-bullshit-train-stupefied-work-animals-introduction-defining-bullshit-demanding-comprehensive-objective-independently-verifiable-factual-accuracy-ever.html">bullshit</a> your way to willfully destroy clear law. This bullshit includes rhetoric of caring about responsibility, a need for clear laws, and justice.</p> <p>The law is simple: (pointing to trash) <b>That</b> is inside the house. It needs to go outside to the trash container (pointing) every night. Nobody is confused by this.</p> <p>How did you get this wild idea?</p> <p><b>Son:</b> (snapping out of his experiment with psychopathy): My baseball teammate and neighbor uses it on his dad all the time. He says it works. Thanks for not being played, Dad. That’s the type of man I want to be!</p> <h5>War law is as clear as our three examples:</h5> <p>War law is just as easy to understand as “stop sign law,” and far easier than most sports laws, such as when a football punt is or is not legal, or baseball’s “infield fly” rule. Because everyday people care enough to know traffic law and <a title="sports rules" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/youd-never-allow-favorite-sport-destroyed-psychopathic-officials-allow-us-destroyed.html">sports rules</a>, the idea of knowing war law can be accomplished by refreshing what you’ve already learned by reading this article (and confirming its accuracy as needed).</p> <p>War law, as we’re about to document and prove, is clear and helpful for the outcome of denying military armed attack as a foreign policy. This is an outcome 95%+ of humanity agree is desirable, especially after all our families’ awful sacrifices through two world wars.</p> <p>Conversely, war-mongers for empire will do their best to be silent about war law, lie that it’s so unclear that any dictatorial claim of “self-defense” is valid, and take every evasive maneuver imaginable for the public (especially military and law enforcement) to never understand war law and/or never recognize how US wars are Orwellian unlawful.</p> <p>Again: <strong>what war law states</strong>, and without disagreement our colleagues and I are aware of from anyone who points to the law with explanation:</p> <blockquote><p>Unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In <a title="general legal definition" href="http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm" target="_blank">general legal definition</a>, <b>no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy. </b></p></blockquote> <p>That’s the letter of the law. The intent is soooo strongly worded in both relevant treaties, as you’ll see, and is simply to end the scourge of wars chosen by governments as foreign policy (in historical context of empires looting the world for resources: natural and human).</p> <p>Our condition today is of OBVIOUSLY unlawful Wars of Aggression (and started with <a title="lies known to false as they were told" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-war-lies-to-hide-obviously-unlawful-wars-propaganda-as-usual-4-of-7.html"><em>lies known to false as they were told</em></a>), as the facts to follow clearly demonstrate for anyone caring to look and apply basic high school-level of education already learned.</p> <p>Importantly, Left and Right “leaders” and <a title="corporate media" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-lying-corporate-media-required-propaganda-trying-to-hide-naked-empire-6-of-7.html">corporate media</a>, including <strong>Clinton and Trump, will never ever ever ever ever remind us that war is illegal, with current wars in Orwellian opposition. </strong></p> <p>The appropriate “vote” of <em>We the People</em> for this presidential election is “No” for more illegal war, and “Yes” to stop the wars and arrest those who orchestrated them. Without public demand, these illegal wars will only continue.</p> <p>The following is from <a title="my paper" href="http://seizing-an-alternative-obviously-unlawful-usuk-wars-of-the-present-2-of-7/" target="_blank">my paper</a> for the 2015 Claremont Colleges’ conference, <i><a title="Seizing an Alternative Toward an Ecological Civilization" href="http://www.ctr4process.org/whitehead2015/" target="_blank">Seizing an Alternative Toward an Ecological Civilization</a> </i>reframed for our three specific points in this essay. Importantly, colleagues and I working on this topic are unaware of any refutation that the US wars are illegal. That is, we’ve never encountered anyone in person or in writing who points to the law and argues: “War law means (a, b, c), so the US wars are legal because (d, e, f).” If any reader has found any such argument, please share it with me.</p> <h5><strong>Accurately and confidently know the law</strong></h5> <p><b>Unlawful Wars of Aggression: </b>The <a title="US/UK/Israel “official story” is" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/us-military-legal-argument-current-wars-self-defense-whatever-say.html">US/UK/Israel “official story” is</a> that current wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.” The <i><a title="Emperor’s New Clothes" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-recognizing-the-emperors-new-clothes-as-the-story-of-today-1-of-7.html">Emperor’s New Clothes</a> </i>fact here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific in war law, and US/UK/Israel armed attacks on so many nations in current and past wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.”</p> <p>Addressing three nations and several wars again seems ambitious for one academic paper, and again, these are all simple variations of one method:</p> <ol> <li>Ignore war law.</li> <li>Lie to blame the victim and claim “self-defense.”</li> <li>“Officials” and corporate media never state the <i>Emperor’s New Clothes</i> simple and obvious facts of war law and war lies.</li> </ol> <p>Proving unlawful wars with massive deception is easier when the scope is broadened to see the same elements in three cases.</p> <p>Importantly, a nation can use military, police, and civilians in self-defense from any attack upon the nation. This is similar to the legal definition of “self-defense” for you or I walking down the street: we cannot attack anyone unless either under attack or imminent threat. And, if under attack, we can use any reasonable force in self-defense, including lethal.</p> <p><b>Two world wars begat two treaties to end nations’ armed attacks forever.</b> They are crystal-clear in content and context:</p> <ul> <li><b>Kellogg-Briand Pact</b> (<i>General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy</i> as official title)</li> <li><b>United Nations Charter</b>.</li> </ul> <p>Both are listed in the US State Department’s annual publication, <a title="Treaties in Force" href="http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tif/index.htm" target="_blank"><i>Treaties in Force</i></a> (2013 edition pages 466 and 493).</p> <p><a title="Article Six of the US Constitution" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_blank">Article Six of the US Constitution</a> defines a treaty as US “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that US policy may only complement an active treaty, and <b>never violate it.</b></p> <p>This is important because <a title="all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/us-military-no-lawful-orders-exist-for-unlawful-wars-arrest-those-who-issue-them.html">all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution</a> are sworn to honorably refuse all unlawful war orders; military officers are sworn to arrest those who issue them. Indeed, we suffer criminal dishonor if we obey orders for armed attack when they are not “self-defense,” and family dishonor to so easily reject the legal victory won from all our families’ sacrifices through two world wars.</p> <p><b>Treaty 1. Kellogg-Briand: General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy</b>:</p> <p>The <a title="legal term&nbsp;renounce" href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/renounce" target="_blank">legal term <i>renounce</i></a> means to surrender access; that is, to remove that which is renounced as lawful option. This <a title="active treaty" href="http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/218912.pdf" target="_blank">active treaty</a> (page 466 “Renunciation of War”), usually referenced as the <a title="Kellogg-Briand Pact" href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kbpact.asp" target="_blank"><i>Kellogg-Briand Pact</i></a>, states:</p> <p><i>“</i><b><i>ARTICLE I</i></b></p> <p><i>The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.</i></p> <p><b><i>ARTICLE II</i></b></p> <p><i>The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”</i></p> <p>So, in the most clear framing of a rule as possible, the first two parts of the treaty state “never war” and “always peace” to resolve conflicts.</p> <p><b>Treaty 2. United Nations Charter:</b></p> <p>It’s helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation’s legislature’s consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation’s armed attack.</p> <p>The <a title="preamble of the United Nations" href="http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml" target="_blank">preamble of the United Nations</a> includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”</p> <p>The <a title="UN purpose" href="http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html" target="_blank">UN purpose</a> includes: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace…”</p> <p>Article 2:</p> <p>3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.</p> <p>4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.</p> <p>5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…</p> <p><a title="Article 24" href="http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-v/index.html" target="_blank">Article 24</a>: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.</p> <p>Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.</p> <p><a title="Article 33" href="http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vi/index.html" target="_blank">Article 33</a>:</p> <ol> <li>The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.</li> <li>The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.</li> </ol> <p>Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.</p> <p>Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.</p> <p>Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.</p> <p>Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.</p> <p>The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their <a title="definition of “armed attack”" href="http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=367&code=nus&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&k=66&p3=5" target="_blank">definition of “armed attack”</a> is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the <a title="CIA and FBI both reported" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150331074952/http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/09/17/the-illegalities-of-bush-s-war-on-afghanistan" target="_blank">CIA and FBI both reported</a> that they had no evidence the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan (or <a title="Iraq" href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-chilcot-inquiry-the-iraq-war-was-an-unlawful-unanimous-legal-opinion-of-foreign-office-lawyers/5317696" target="_blank">Iraq</a>, <a title="Syria" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/cheat-sheet-on-syria.html">Syria</a>, <a title="Ukraine" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/iraq-war-propagandists-push-lies-urkaine-drum-confrontation-russia.html">Ukraine</a>, Iran [<a title="here" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/iran-wipe-israel-map-read-600-words-confirm-usisrael-criminal-war-lies.html">here</a>, <a title="here" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/usukisrael-unlawful-wars-aggression-iraq-iran-gangster-business-analogy.html">here</a>, <a title="here" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/usisrael-01-lie-unlawful-war-aggression-iran-99-99-must-choose-arrests-global-nuclear-war.html">here</a>], <a title="Russia" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/u-s-targeted-nuclear-armed-russia-regime-change.html">Russia</a>, or claims about <a title="ISIS" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/isis-common-maos-red-guards-khmer-rouge-muslim-empires-antiquity.html">ISIS</a> or <a title="Khorasans" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/khorasans-fake-kardashians.html">Khorasans</a>). The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation’s government.</p> <p>The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.</p> <p>American Daniel Webster helped create the <a title="legal definition of national self-defense" href="http://www.uni-miskolc.hu/~wwwdrint/20042rouillard1.htm" target="_blank">legal definition of national self-defense</a> in the Caroline Affair as “necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (<a title="1368" href="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm" target="_blank">1368</a> and <a title="1373" href="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7158.doc.htm" target="_blank">1373</a>) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.</p> <p>In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In <a title="general legal definition" href="http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm" target="_blank">general legal definition</a>, <b>no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy. </b></p> <p>Another area to clarify is the <a title="US 1973 War Powers Act" href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp" target="_blank">US 1973 War Powers Act</a> (WPA).<b> </b>The authorization by Congress for US presidential discretion for military action in <a title="Afghanistan" href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm" target="_blank">Afghanistan</a>  and <a title="Iraq" href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm" target="_blank">Iraq</a> references WPA. This act, in response to the Vietnam War, reframes the Founders’ intent of keeping the power of war in the hands of Congress. It also expressly limits the president to act within US treaty obligations; the principle treaty of use of war being the UN Charter.</p> <p><b>This means that presidential authority as commander-in-chief must always remain within the limitations of the UN Charter to be lawful orders. </b>It’s not enough for Congress to authorize use of force; that force must always and only be within the narrow legal definition of self-defense clearly explained in the UN Charter. Of course, we can anticipate that if a government wanted to engage in unlawful war today, they would construct their propaganda to sell the war as “defensive.” The future of humanity to be safe from the scourge of war is therefore dependent upon our collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in <a title="BS" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140725045930/http://www.examiner.com/article/bullsh-t-the-perfect-academic-word-for-us-debt-economic-war-policies" target="_blank">BS</a>–<i>Emperor’s New Clothes</i><i> </i>claims of self-defense.</p> <p><a title="Governments have been vicious killers over the last 100 years" href="http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM" target="_blank">Governments have been vicious killers over the last 100 years</a>, using “self-defense” to justify their wars. The US has <a title="started&nbsp;201 foreign armed attacks" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/90-deaths-war-civilians.html"><i>started</i> 201 foreign armed attacks</a> since WW2, causing the world’s peoples to conclude in polling that the US is indeed #1 as the <a title="most threatening nation to world peace" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/2014-gallup-international-poll-us-1-threat-world-peace.html">most threatening nation to world peace</a>. These US-started armed attacks have <a title="killed ~30 million" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/us-war-murdered-20-30-million-since-ww2-arrest-todays-war-criminals.html">killed ~30 million</a> and counting; <a title="90% of these deaths are innocent" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/90-deaths-war-civilians.html">90% of these deaths are innocent</a> children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. These US armed attacks have <a title="war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/obama-celebrates-30-million-us-war-kills-since-ww2-past-hitler-to-3-on-all-time-list.html">war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis</a>, and continue a <a title="long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/teaching-critical-thinking-high-school-students-us-government-researchpresentation-5-2-6.html">long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression</a>.</p> <p>The <a title="most decorated US Marine general in his day warned all Americans" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140725004703/http://www.examiner.com/article/most-decorated-us-marine-general-purpose-of-all-us-wars-is-billions-for-insiders-profits" target="_blank">most decorated US Marine general in his day warned all Americans</a> of this fact of lie-started wars, and W. Bush’s Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, <a title="Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind, that government will continue with such actions" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/06/endgame-response-karl-rove1-empire-creating-reality-study-studys-youre-arrest.html">Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind, that government will continue with such actions</a> to “create our own reality” no matter what anyone else might say.</p> <p>The first round of US current wars, the attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, continues this history as a deliberate act of unlawful war, not defense that was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The burden of proof the US would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his <a title="letter to the UN Security Council" href="http://www.bits.de/public/documents/US_Terrorist_Attacks/negroponte.htm" target="_blank">letter to the UN Security Council</a> invoking Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.</p> <p>Article 51 requires self-defensive war coming from an attack by a nation’s government, which the CIA and FBI refute in the case of the Afghan government with the terrorism on 9/11. Self-defense ends when the attack ends. The US war began four weeks after 9/11 ended; making the US war one of choice and not defense. Article 51 ends self-defense claims when the UN Security Council acts. Resolution 1373 provides clear language of international cooperation and justice under the law, with no authorization of force.</p> <p>This evidence doesn’t require the light of the UN Charter’s spirit of its laws, but I’ll add it: humanity rejected war as a policy option and requires nations to cooperate for justice under that law. The US has instead embraced and still embraces war with its outcomes of death, misery, poverty, and fear expressly against the wishes of humanity and the majority of Americans. These acts are clearly unlawful and should be refused and stopped by all men and women in military, government and law enforcement.</p> <p>Some war liars argue that <a title="UN Security Council Resolution 687" href="http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement" target="_blank">UN Security Council Resolution 687</a> from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire. The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it.</p> <p>The categories of crime for armed attacks outside US treaty limits of law are:</p> <ol> <li><a title="Wars of Aggression" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression" target="_blank">Wars of Aggression</a> (the worst crime a nation can commit),</li> <li><a title="Treason" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/nothing-will-fixed-us-criminals-arrested-top-us-official.html">Treason</a> for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.</li> </ol> <p><b>All 27 UK Foreign Affairs Department attorneys concluded Iraq war is unlawful:</b> <a title="I wrote in 2010" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20140815032732/http://www.examiner.com/article/all-27-uk-foreign-affairs-lawyers-iraq-war-unlawful-obama-politicians-us-media-no-response" target="_blank">I wrote in 2010</a>:</p> <p>“All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; <a title="all 27 of them were in agreement" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20140815032754/http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/154345/Tony-Blair-warned-by-27-lawyers-Iraq-war-was-illegal" target="_blank">all 27 of them were in agreement</a>. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the <a title="Dutch government’s recent unanimous report" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140815032745/http://www.examiner.com/article/judgment-begins-dutch-govt-declares-iraq-war-unlawful-first-emperor-has-no-clothes-report" target="_blank">Dutch government’s recent unanimous report</a> and <a title="UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq" target="_blank">UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements</a>.</p> <p>“This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the <a title="testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246312/Chilcot-inquiry-Iraq-war-The-damning-verdict-Whitehall-lawyers-invading-Iraq-ministers-refused-accept.html" target="_blank">testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood</a>, who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their unanimous legal opinion in writing.</p> <p>“<a title="Sir Michael testified" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7078079/Chilcot-inquiry-Iraq-invasion-had-no-legal-basis-in-international-law.html" target="_blank">Sir Michael testified</a> that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”</p> <p>“UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he “changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution <a title="1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/17/iraq2" target="_blank">1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice</a>. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars.</p> <p>“Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this <i>did not authorize</i> any use of force:</p> <p>“<a title="John Negroponte" href="http://www.un.org/webcast/usa110802.htm" target="_blank">John Negroponte</a>, US Ambassador to the UN:</p> <p><i>[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.</i></p> <p>“<a title="Sir Jeremy Greenstock" href="http://www.un.org/webcast/unitedkingdom110802.htm" target="_blank">Sir Jeremy Greenstock</a>, UK Ambassador to the UN:</p> <p><i>We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.</i></p> <p>“The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to <a title="force hearings to become public" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8102203.stm" target="_blank">force hearings to become public</a> rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.”</p> <p>The UN Charter is the principle law to end wars; designed by the US to produce that result. That said, West Point Grads Against the War have <a title="further legal arguments" href="http://www.wpgaw.org/" target="_blank">further legal arguments</a> of all the violations of war from US attack and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, including further analysis of the UN Charter and expert supporting testimony. Another resource for documentation and analysis is David Swanson’s <a title="War is a Crime" href="http://warisacrime.org/" target="_blank"><i>War is a Crime</i></a>. Ironically, <a title="Americans would never allow a favorite sport" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/youd-never-allow-favorite-sport-destroyed-psychopathic-officials-allow-us-destroyed.html">Americans would never allow a favorite sport</a> such as baseball or football to be similarly destroyed by such <i>Emperor’s New Clothes</i> lies to those rules/laws.</p> <p><b>Lawful war analysis: </b>Negroponte’s letter invokes a legal Charter Article of self-defense in contrast with the loss of over 3,000 lives on 9/11. The letter portends legal evidence of al-Qaeda’s “central role” in the attacks and claims military response is appropriate because of al-Qaeda’s ongoing threat and continued training of terrorists. This reasoning argues for a reinterpretation of self-defense to include pre-emptive attack while lying in omission that such an argument is tacit agreement of current action being outside the law.</p> <p>The US Army’s <a title="official law handbook" href="http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2012.pdf" target="_blank">official law handbook</a> provides an excellent historical and legal summary of when wars are lawful self-defense and unlawful <a title="War of Aggression" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression" target="_blank">War of Aggression</a> in a seven-page Chapter One.</p> <p>Importantly, after accurately defining “self-defense” in war, the <a title="JAG" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Advocate_General's_Corps,_United_States_Army" target="_blank">JAG</a> authors/attorneys explicitly state on page 6 that <b>war is illegal unless a nation is under attack from another nation’s government, or can provide evidence of imminent threat of such attack</b>:</p> <blockquote><p>“Anticipatory self-defense, whether labeled anticipatory or preemptive, must be distinguished from preventive self-defense. <b>Preventive self-defense—employed to counter non-imminent threats—is illegal under international law</b>.”</p></blockquote> <p>However, despite the US Army’s law handbook’s accurate disclosure of the legal meaning of “self-defense” in war, they then ignore this meaning to claim “self-defense” as a lawful reason for US wars without further explanation (<a title="details here" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/us-military-legal-argument-current-wars-self-defense-whatever-say.html">details here</a>).</p> <p>President George Washington’s Farewell Address, the culmination of his 45 years of political experience, <a title="warned of the primary threat to America" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140207075658/http://www.examiner.com/article/george-washington-on-defending-the-us-constitution-guard-against-impostures-of-pretended-patriotism" target="_blank">warned of the primary threat to America</a> as “the impostures of pretended patriotism” from people within our own government who would destroy Constitutional limits in order to obtain tyrannical power:</p> <blockquote><p>“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.”</p></blockquote> <p>Young Abraham Lincoln wrote eloquently to <a title="defend the US Constitution from unlawful tyrants within our own government" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130914182238/http://www.examiner.com/article/abraham-lincoln-defend-the-us-constitution-from-unlawful-tyrants-within-our-government" target="_blank">defend the US Constitution from unlawful tyrants within our own government</a>. In Congress, he spoke powerfully and truthfully that the <a title="President’s claims for armed attack and invasion of a foreign country were lies" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140207074917/http://www.examiner.com/article/young-abraham-lincoln-exposed-obvious-war-lies-to-congress-where-s-today-s-leadership" target="_blank">President’s claims for armed attack and invasion of a foreign country were lies</a>. Although war-mongers slurred Lincoln’s name at the time, history proved him correct in asserting the President of the US was a war-mongering liar:</p> <blockquote><p>“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”</p></blockquote> <p>Lincoln also wrote that “pre-emptive” wars were lies, and “<a title="war at pleasure" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140630230225/http://www.examiner.com/article/abraham-lincoln-pre-emptive-wars-iraq-iran-are-lies-war-at-pleasure-impoverish-the-us" target="_blank">war at pleasure</a>.”</p> <p>Those of us working to end these illegal Wars of Aggression have found zero refutations of our documentation that address war law. All we’ve ever found are denial and unsubstantiated claims of “self-defense” while having to lie about the legal limits in that term.</p> <p><em>Note: <a title="other sections of that paper may be useful" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-recognizing-the-emperors-new-clothes-as-the-story-of-today-1-of-7.html">other sections of that paper may be useful</a> that just as clearly demonstrate Israel’s illegal war on Gaza, criminally complicit corporate media to “cover” these crimes, all “reasons” for these wars were known to be false as they were told, and the fundamental fraud of creating what is used for money as debt.</em></p> <h5><strong>Demand arrests of Left and Right .01% US “leaders” because the wars are not even close to lawful</strong></h5> <p>Therefore, <em>We the People </em>have an obvious solution: <strong>lawful arrests of .01% “leaders” for the most egregious crimes centering in war and lies to start them.</strong></p> <p>This is a 1st Amendment responsibility to maintain our constitutional republic under law rather than what we’ve become with war: “leaders” dictating/saying what we can do completely removed from limitations of the law. Left and Right .01% “leaders” completely violate the rules, and only from public ignorance with corporate media propaganda.</p> <p>The categories of crime include:</p> <ol> <li><a title="Wars of Aggression" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-obviously-unlawful-usuk-wars-of-the-present-2-of-7.html">Wars of Aggression</a> (the worst crime a nation can commit).</li> <li>Likely <a title="treason" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/nothing-will-fixed-us-criminals-arrested-top-us-official.html">treason</a> for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.</li> <li><a title="Crimes Against Humanity" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/crimes-against-humanity-01-poverty-murder-over-400-million-people-since-1995-more-than-all-wars-in-recorded-history.html">Crimes Against Humanity</a> for ongoing <i>intentional policy</i> of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).</li> <li><a title="Looting trillions" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/08/official-audit-lie-started-illegal-wars-aggression-dept-called-defense-claims-lost-6-5-trillion-65000-per-us-household.html">Looting trillions</a>, such as the Department of “Defense” claiming to have “lost” $6.5 trillion.</li> </ol> <p>US military, law enforcement, responsible citizens, and all <a title="with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/just-following-orders-you-have-the-power-to-end-unlawful-wars-of-aggression-us-constitution-destruction-debt-slavery.html">with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution</a> against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice:</p> <ul> <li><a title="Demand arrests" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/07/july-4-us-military-police-impose-martial-law-on-all-americans-or-arrest-01-criminal-psychopath-leaders-your-call.html">Demand arrests</a>, with those with lawful authority to enact it. An <a title="arrest is the lawful action to stop apparent crimes" href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest" target="_blank">arrest is the lawful action to stop apparent crimes</a>, with the most serious crimes documented here meaning the most serious need for arrests.</li> <li>Watch the US escalate its rogue state crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions.</li> </ul> <p><em>How</em> military and law enforcement choose to honor their Oaths in creative adaptation to the rogue state is up to them. <em>We the People</em> can help with our educated voices in this <em>Emperor’s New Clothes</em> environment whereby these crimes only persist from public ignorance.</p> <p>In <a title="just 90 seconds" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxaZTc_3B5s&feature=youtu.be&t=20m51s" target="_blank">just 90 seconds</a>, former <a title="US Marine Ken O’Keefe" href="http://www.deliberation.info/author/ken-okeefe/" target="_blank">US Marine Ken O’Keefe</a> powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of <a title="Cross Talk" href="http://crosstalk%20rt%202015/" target="_blank">Cross Talk</a>):</p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IxaZTc_3B5s?start=1251&feature=oembed" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p>Our condition requiring YOUR voice is what Benjamin Franklin predicted would be the eventual outcome of the United States. On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Ben met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin warned: <i>“A republic, if you can keep it.” </i>In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished:<i> </i></p> <blockquote><p>“This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”  – <a title="The Quotable Founding Fathers" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=TizXI1yOTBQC&dq" target="_blank">The Quotable Founding Fathers</a>, pg. 39.</p></blockquote> <p>These warnings extend to all social science teachers of the present:</p> <blockquote><p>“As educators in the field of history–social science, we want our students to… understand the value, the importance, and the fragility of democratic institutions. We want them to realize that only a small fraction of the world’s population (now or in the past) has been fortunate enough to live under a democratic form of government.” – <a title="History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools" href="http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/histsocsciframe.pdf" target="_blank">History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools</a>, pgs. 2, 7-8</p></blockquote> <p>Do you have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to at least act with the honesty of a child to speak the <a title="Emperor’s New Clothes" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-recognizing-the-emperors-new-clothes-as-the-story-of-today-1-of-7.html"><i>Emperor’s New Clothes</i></a> truth? Remember, I’m just asking you to use your voice in a democratic republic to ask US military and various law enforcement to honor their Oaths and do the job we pay them for: protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no greater enemy than those committing treason to war-murder US military by lying them into invasive illegal Wars of Aggression.</p> <p>The converse argument is that US military and law enforcement should not enforce our most important laws, especially not those that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions. Of course, this argument is Orwellian.</p> <h5><strong>Cause a lawful end to the dictatorial US rogue state</strong></h5> <p>In conclusion, this essay has reminded you of what you already know: laws are meant to be simple and helpful, what you’ve suspected about the wars is demonstrated as true with a few clear facts, and that your voice is essential if we are to maintain our republic from devolving into dictatorship (literally being dictated/told what the rules are rather than knowing them ourselves).</p> <p>To remind you of other history that demonstrates this has been an ongoing problem of what is most accurately described as a <strong><em>rogue state</em></strong>: a “top ten” list of state crimes supporting today’s arrests in a constitutional republic:</p> <ol> <li><a title="Introduction to define ‘rogue state’" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-introduction-define-rogue-state-perfect-match-us-illegal-wars-aggression-crimes-humanity.html">Introduction to define ‘rogue state’</a> as perfect match with US illegal Wars of Aggression, Crimes Against Humanity, dictatorial government</li> <li>The <a title="US violated ~600 treaties with Native Americans" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-destroying-600-treaties-steal-massive-lands-native-americans-2-11.html">US violated ~600 treaties with Native Americans</a> to steal Native American land. A treaty is signed by a US President, approved by 2/3 vote of the US Senate, and under <a title="Article VI of the US Constitution" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi" target="_blank">Article VI of the US Constitution</a> becomes US “supreme Law.” These ongoing “in your face” violations of “supreme Law” became the precedent to typical hypocritical and unlawful US policies of the present.</li> <li><a title="US President Polk lied to Congress (with their approval) to initiate War of Aggression on Mexico" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-stealing-half-mexico-1848-despite-congressman-abraham-lincolns-proof-president-polks-obvious-lying-trea.html">US President Polk lied to Congress (with their approval) to initiate War of Aggression on Mexico</a>. The result was the US illegally stealing 40% of Mexico in 1848. Congress opposed Abraham Lincoln’s crystal-clear explanation as a member of Congress that the Adams-Onís Treaty placed the so-called “border dispute” 400 miles within land forever promised to Mexico and forever promised as outside any US claim.</li> <li><a title="The US violated our treaty with Hawaii and stole their country" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-stealing-hawaii-backing-doles-sugar-pineapples-us-marines-despite-crystal-clear-treaty-honor-hawaii.html">The US violated our treaty with Hawaii and stole their country</a> in 1898.</li> <li><a title="The US reneged on promises of freedom after the Spanish American War" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-stealing-philippines-cuba-1898-promising-independence-democracy-5-11.html">The US reneged on promises of freedom after the Spanish American War</a> to impose colonialism on the Philippines, and install US-friendly dictators in Cuba. US military slaughtered resisters, calling them yesterday’s version of “terrorists.”</li> <li><a title="The US entered WW1 upon no national security threat to the US, and imprisoned the 3rd party presidential candidate for challenging “official reasons” for war." href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/57751.html">The US entered WW1 upon no national security threat to the US, and imprisoned the 3rd party presidential candidate for challenging “official reasons” for war.</a></li> <li>The CIA had several covert wars; perhaps most important in today’s context of war on Iran: <a title="“Operation Ajax”" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-us-overthrew-irans-democracy-1953-1979-armed-iraq-invade-1980-1988-killing-million-iranians-now-lies-war.html#more-57863">“Operation Ajax”</a> that overthrew Iran’s democracy and installed a US-friendly and brutal dictator.  When that dictator was overthrown and Iran refused another, <a title="the US aided Iraq to unlawfully invade and attack Iran from 1980-1988" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/usisrael-01-lie-unlawful-war-aggression-iran-99-99-must-choose-arrests-global-nuclear-war.html">the US aided Iraq to unlawfully invade and attack Iran from 1980-1988</a>; killing up to a million Iranians. If the US lied and acted twice to unlawfully overthrew Iran’s democracy <i>within many of our own lifetimes</i>, shouldn’t we assume first another lie-started unlawful war today?</li> <li><a title="The Vietnam War followed US permission to cancel the election to unify the country" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-vietnam-canceling-democracy-back-dictator-cause-civil-war-false-flag-illegal-us-military-invasion-war-murdering-mi.html">The Vietnam War followed US permission to cancel the election to unify the country</a>. The US stopped democracy to keep a friendly government, and perhaps to have ongoing live weapons testing and development. War escalated with the Gulf of Tonkin incident,  deliberate provocation to manipulate a false-flag event for “defensive” war.</li> <li>Perhaps most disturbing is the <a title="King Family civil suit that found the US government guilty in the assassination of Dr. King" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-martin-king-assassinated-us-government-stop-occupy-dc-end-war-vietnam-end-poverty-9-11.html">King Family civil suit that found the US government guilty in the assassination of Dr. King</a> (and <a title="here" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/03/2016-interview-martin-king-justice-demands-peace-ending-poverty-arrests-assassination-us-government.html">here</a>). Corporate media, including our text publishers, omit this history. The King family’s conclusion is that Martin was assassinated to prevent his “Occupy DC” plan beginning for the summer of 1968 to end his version of today’s wars.</li> <li>We now know from Congressional reports that <a title="all “reasons” for war with Iraq were known to be false&nbsp;as they were told" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-usuk-reasons-war-iraq-afghanistan-known-lies-told-10-11.html">all “reasons” for war with Iraq were known to be false <i>as they were told</i></a>.</li> <li>The two <a title="“reasons” for war with Iran are as false" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-lying-corporate-media-required-propaganda-trying-to-hide-naked-empire-6-of-7.html">“reasons” for war with Iran are as false</a> as the “reasons” for war with Iraq: Iran never threatened Israel, and Iran’s nuclear energy and medicine programs are IAEA-verified as completely safe and lawful.</li> </ol> <p>If <em>We the People</em> don’t speak, we will have more of the same.</p> <p>And if <em>We the People</em> speak simply and confidently, we’ll win this contest.</p> <p>Victory for <a title="a future brighter than we can imagine" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/08/us-public-education-bullshit-train-stupefied-work-animals-solutions-education-truth-technology-love-embrace-reality-unleash-human-freedom-12-12.html">a future brighter than we can imagine</a> can and will happen in an <em>Emperor’s New Clothes</em> moment when <em>We the People</em> apply basic education to what matters most.</p> <h5>More war is planned and propagandized if you do not speak</h5> <p><a title="Two minutes" href="https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw" target="_blank">Two minutes</a> of retired General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO:</p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9RC1Mepk_Sw?feature=oembed" width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p>Video evidence of psychopathic lying to incite war-murders of Iranians:</p> <p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKi_JFCGsCE</p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QX7rH4egQBU?feature=oembed" width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OM7Xhg0WIbU?feature=oembed" width="640" height="480" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8exU2klXr3k?feature=oembed" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/I7voFK6vpj8?start=32&feature=oembed" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Snwl4zxDNGY?feature=oembed" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <h5>A Call for Truth & Reconciliation, and minions of evil to reclaim their hearts and humanity</h5> <p>For those involved in support of <a title="US government-sponsored disinformation and massive crimes" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/seizing-an-alternative-recognizing-the-emperors-new-clothes-as-the-story-of-today-1-of-7.html">US government-sponsored disinformation and massive crimes</a> that annually <a title="kill millions" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/crimes-against-humanity-01-poverty-murder-over-400-million-people-since-1995-more-than-all-wars-in-recorded-history.html">kill millions</a>, harm billions, and <a title="loot trillions" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/09/1-minute-video-3-us-treasury-secretaries-laugh-about-increasing-income-inequality-with-resultant-poverty-death-demand-01-arrests-for-trillions-in-financial-fraud-or-receive-more-pain.html">loot trillions</a> of the 99%’s dollars, I invite you to consider the quality of human relationships you wish to work for in creating your/our future.</p> <p>National security and a brighter future is not a function of fear, manipulation, and psychopathic control. Our best security follows cooperation, justice under the law, dignity, and freedom. Surely you recognize that all promised natural rights in America are now gone, and the 99.99% are herded by the .01% as their work animals.</p> <p>Working for your best imagined self-expression of virtue may include a <b><i>unique contribution</i></b> from the inside of your agency. You, as Darth Vader and Professor Snape in fictions that are popular for strong resonance to a real story we all want told, can reclaim your hearts and honor to be our heroes.</p> <p>Truly, aren’t you ready now to re-embrace love and honor as your path?</p> <p>Please consider the wisdom of a “Scrooge conversion” to act for the benefit of all humanity rather than your self-proclaimed loveless “masters.” From <a title="Dickens’ 1843 text" href="http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm" target="_blank">Dickens’ 1843 text</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.”</p></blockquote> <p><a title="4-minute video" href="https://youtu.be/ATJaT8P6mSE" target="_blank">4-minute video</a> of Darth Vader’s choice to serve love, family, and community rather than vicious psychopathic hatred:</p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ATJaT8P6mSE?feature=oembed" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p>Public attraction to the stories of Star Wars and the Harry Potter books/movies recognize that our society’s jump to civilized relations for all of us might require support from people within the “dark side” acting as covert agents for building a brighter future.</p> <p>Both Darth Vader (<a title="see video" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATJaT8P6mSE" target="_blank">see video</a>) and Professor Snape realized they were only tools of powers above them, things to be manipulated rather than sentient beings of free will. The severest irony is they both recognized their service to the “dark side” included deaths of their loved-ones and even themselves whenever convenient to their “masters.” That was Snape’s ending, although his path was taken with honor to infiltrate the darkness (4-minute video):</p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8cL527bg0II?feature=oembed" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p>But that should be an obvious conclusion to those working in the real-world version of these analogies. We see it in the macro picture of millions killed every year through war and poverty, and in micro with individuals who we know.</p> <p>For years, I have recommended <a title="Truth and Reconciliation" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/5-minute-video-usuk-war-leaders-violent-criminal-psychopaths-make-fools-us-stop-acting-reasonable.html">Truth and Reconciliation</a> to exchange full truth and return of public assets for no prosecution and a guaranteed provided comfortable retirement. Indeed, I am prepared to speak on the .01%’s corporate media to present this option with full confidence it is the most efficient in ending the crimes and avoiding a violent end-game as the .01% are recognized for who they really are by the 99.99%.</p> <blockquote><p>“Every day, I saw more evidence about the evils humankind will inflict on their fellow humans to gain or maintain power…What is more, those who choose not to empathize may enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it through our own apathy…If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped transform for the better. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.”  – <a title="J. K. Rowling, Harvard Commencement, June 5, 2008" href="http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/06/the-fringe-benefits-failure-the-importance-imagination" target="_blank">J. K. Rowling, Harvard Commencement, June 5, 2008</a>.</p></blockquote> <p>Minions to the evil .01%: does <a title="this 1-minute video" href="https://youtu.be/kY0j9SUdOKU" target="_blank">this 1-minute video</a> artistically represent your memories, too?</p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kY0j9SUdOKU?feature=oembed" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p>Will you continue to defend your loveless and psychopathic “masters,” or reclaim your hearts and humanity for the Everyday People these .01% annually kill in the millions, harm in the billions, and loot by the trillions of dollars? <i>Playing For Change’s</i> <a title="artistic 3-minutes" href="https://youtu.be/-g4UWvcZn5U" target="_blank">artistic 3-minutes</a>:</p> <p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-g4UWvcZn5U?feature=oembed" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></p> <p><b>**</b></p> <p><b><i>Note: </i></b><i>I make all factual assertions as a </i><a title="National Board Certified Teacher" href="http://boardcertifiedteachers.org/sites/default/files/EAYA-SSH.pdf" target="_blank"><i>National Board Certified Teacher</i></a><i> of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among </i><a title="Advanced Placement Macroeconomics" href="http://boardcertifiedteachers.org/sites/default/files/EAYA-SSH.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Advanced Placement Macroeconomics</i></a><i> teachers on </i><a title="our discussion board" href="https://apcommunity.collegeboard.org/web/apmacro" target="_blank"><i>our discussion board</i></a><i>, public audiences of </i><a title="these articles" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/carl-herman"><i>these articles</i></a><i>, and </i><a title="international conferences" href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/monetary-and-credit-reform-full-employment-end-of-debt-slavery.html"><i>international conferences</i></a><i>. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.</i></p> <p>Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, <a title="RESULTS" href="http://www.results.org/" target="_blank">RESULTS</a>, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at <a title="Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu" href="mailto:Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu">Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu</a></p> <p><b><i>Note:</i></b><i> </i><i>Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for t</i><i>hose articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to</i><i> </i><a title="http://archive.org/web/" href="http://archive.org/web/" target="_blank"><i>http://archive.org/web/</i></a><i>, p</i><i>aste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update</i><i> as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011</i><i> (blocked author pages: </i><a title="here" href="http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/carl-herman" target="_blank"><i>here</i></a><i>, </i><a title="here" href="http://www.examiner.com/nonpartisan-in-national/carl-herman?page=2" target="_blank"><i>here</i></a><i>).</i></p> <p><i>**</i></p> </div> <p> </p> <p> </p> </div>

New Post has been published on http://uniteordiemedia.com/fake-news-time-to-choose-corporate-media-fakes-us-into-wars-that-arent-even-close-to-lawful-are-orwellian-illegal-wars-of-aggression-1-of-15/

‘Fake news’? Time to choose: Corporate media fakes us into wars that aren’t even close to lawful, are Orwellian illegal Wars of Aggression (1 of 15)

Original article Posted on November 26, 2016 by Carl Herman

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. And then you win.”  ~ unsourced, and attributed to Gandhi’s analysis of British empire response to having their hypocrisy exposed: claiming to bring Christian love and progress while looting resources with forced local labor.

“When we now know that all claims for war with Iraq were known lies as they were told (and verbally explained here), and CNN provides similar innuendo for war by an unsourced alleged report with concerns of what might occur in the future allegedly stated by an unnamed US source reporting on an unnamed foreign source, this is propaganda and not news.”  ~ My 2010 analysis of “fake news” reporting from CBS, ABC, CNN to lie Americans into illegal war on Iran.

The Washington Post added to President Obama’s rhetoric for Americans to be aware of “fake news”: easily refuted lies of omission and commission in media. This article series reveals the inversion of those claims: .01% “official” news by corporate media (six conglomerates) is easily documented as fake in our most important reporting.

‘Fake news’? Time to choose article series (links added as series progresses):

Corporate media fakes us into wars that aren’t even close to lawful, are Orwellian illegal Wars of Aggression (1 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into Orwellian illegal Wars of Aggression with lies known to be lies as they were told (2 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into ongoing bankster looting of increasing total debt impossible to repay, while ignoring solutions worth trillions (3 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into their fake world never admitting to a history of their easily documented lies (4 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into NOT ending poverty for less than 1% of ‘developed’ nations’ income, poverty-murdering ~1 million children every month, since 1997 killing more human beings than all wars & violence in all human history (5 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into Kennedy assassination fairy tales ‘covering’ US .01% coup. Real leadership impossible today under similar threat; why Trump must act for full Truth or submit to be ‘Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief’ for rogue state empire (6 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us by ignoring King Family civil trial verdict that US government assassinated Martin with OVERWHELMING evidence, pretends to ‘honor’ Martin every January. Real leadership impossible today until .01% arrests ends ‘official’ fake news (7 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into 2 central lies for more illegal war on Iran: ‘threat to Israel’ and ‘nuclear program’ EVEN AFTER 12 YEARS of anyone checking the facts soooo easily refuting these claims as known lies (8 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into supporting Israel’s Orwellian illegal War of Aggression on Gaza. Trump initiates War Criminal career funding/cheering Palestinian genocide, war-mongering on Iran (9 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into ignoring a simple definition: US is now a rogue state empire (10 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into ignoring irrefutable US history: colonialism lying and looting goes from Native Americans, to Mexico, and to today’s O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation) (11 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into obfuscation about Clinton Foundation $2 billion illegal looting (12 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into obfuscation about Hillary/DNC election fraud that stole primary win by Bernie Sanders (13 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into ignoring $6.5 trillion looted by Pentagon = ~$60,000 per average US household (14 of 15)

Corporate media fakes us into ignoring OBVIOUS American response: arrest .01% ‘leaders’ for Wars of Aggression, treason, Crimes Against Humanity, fraud and looting worth tens of trillions (15 of 15)

The totality of these article sections (among ~100 such game-changers) is a fundamental choice for Americans:

Ongoing “fake news” to support US rogue state empire that after a jump the shark 2016 “election” (and here) approaches the tragic-comedy of imploding Roman empire, OR

Truth documented with objective, comprehensive, and independently verifiable facts.

The Washington Post‘s unsourced “list” places us, Washington’s Blog, as their 7th example of “fake news.” Please take a few moments to read their sensationalistic description of our “Russian propaganda.” Please contrast that “reporting” and this also from The Washington Post, with the actual content of this article series.

FisherOfMen’s revealing 14-minute video, beginning with CIA Director Colby’s testimony to the US Senate for the 1975 Church Committee admitting the CIA directs corporate media how to lie to the American public with “fake news” (six similar videos here):

3-minute video of Dan Rather’s fake news from November 25, 1963 to sell the lie that President Kennedy’s fatal head shot caused “violent forward motion” opposite to the fact his head was violently hit to cause backward motion (hat tip What Really Happened):

Corporate media fakes us into wars that aren’t even close to lawful, are Orwellian illegal Wars of Aggression (1 of 14)

People around the world view the US as the greatest threat to peace; voted three times more dangerous than any other country. The data confirm this conclusion:

Since WW2, Earth has had 248 armed conflicts. The US started 201 of them.

These US-started armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men.

The US has war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis.

Corporate media’s “fake news” representation of these US armed attacks omits the central fact:

US wars are Orwellian unlawful, not even close to legal, and in OBVIOUS violation of arguably the single most important law on planet Earth: armed attacks are illegal.

This is easy to document and prove, and obvious fact to anyone with an education in this area. Those of us working for peace are aware of zero attempts of refutation with anything like,

“War law states (a, b, c), so the wars are legal because (d, e, f).”

All we receive is easy-to-reveal bullshit.

This is powerfully revealing of the “fake news” Americans constantly receive. Following is a reprint of what I think is my most effective walkthrough for average Americans to fully understand this topic, and also from a professional academic paper I wrote and delivered for ~2,000 people at a 2015 Claremont Colleges’ international conference. And again, no colleague or I am aware of any attempt to refute these facts. Our experience is the same as the quote attributed to Gandhi at the start of this essay.

This essay contains further elements of this article series, but as the series are all connected issues, I’ll include the complete essay for readers who may find one single source as helpful:

Orwellian illegal US Wars of Aggression

“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.” ~ President Kennedy, June 10, 1963

I was inspired to write this essay by the following comment from an otherwise intelligent person:

“Therefore, while I can say it strongly appears U.S. wars are in violation of the treaties and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for myself to make that a legally binding finding and attach legal demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.”

From similar comments over time, I’ve made perhaps ten requests for this person to summarize war law in a sentence or two. So far, I’ve received only dodges avoiding this easy and essential citizen responsibility. This said, this isn’t the only individual who can’t summarize war law, and see that it’s meant to be as clear as:

“stop sign” law for driving,

a baseball rule, like the strike zone,

a chore for one’s child at home, like taking out the trash.

Let’s look at these three examples compared to this comment, then review war law to see that its violation by US .01% “leaders” is as outrageous as one can imagine, not even close to legal, started on lies known to be false as they were told, and requiring immediate arrests to stop an obvious crime war-murdering millions, harming billions, and looting trillions.

To give you the punch line now for clarity of what war law states, and without disagreement our colleagues and I are aware of from anyone who points to the law with explanation:

Unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy. 

This is the same as if you’re walking down the street: nobody can attack you unless, and only unless, you attack first or are an imminent threat (pulling a knife and raving, etc.). And if you are attacked, once law enforcement takes the case any attack on your part is the crime of retribution fully prosecuted against you.

Example 1: Stop sign law:

In general, law is meant to be crystal-clear so as to help produce a desired result. Traffic law is meant to make driving as safe and efficient as possible, with California stop sign law as a perfect example:

“An 8-sided red STOP sign indicates that you must make a full “STOP” whenever you see this sign. Stop at the white limit line (a wide white line painted on the street) or before entering the crosswalk. If a limit line or crosswalk is not painted on the street, stop before entering the intersection. Check traffic in all directions before proceeding.”

There’s more that could be said about this law, but this is enough as we all have personal experience of what this law means.

Now imagine this scenario:

In your residential neighborhood with a 25 mph speed limit, you have a stop sign one house away. Your child attends the elementary school down the street, and you know that children have been hit by cars on this street. One day you observe at 7 AM a red Toyota truck speed through that stop sign ~40 mph, and at 5 PM he speeds through the other way. As you watch, horrified this has happened twice, you see your next-door neighbor has also observed this. You walk over:

You: Did you see that?! I saw that same truck do that this morning; just blow by that stop sign, and speeding!

Neighbor: Yeah. I’ve seen it the last three weekdays, morning and evening. Same truck, same driver, same speed, never even slows down.

You: Have you called the police? Let’s stop this!

Neighbor: While I can say it strongly appears this driver is in violation of the law and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for myself to make that a legally binding finding and attach legal demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.

You: Are you joking?

Neighbor: No. I take neighborhood safely seriously. Because he’s seen me, he threw this note at me yesterday. Well, it was attached to a brick that missed me and went through my windshield. But anyway, this is what the note says:

“My driving is legal because:

I have white decals on my vehicle, and have extra driving privileges.

My wife is pregnant. Emergencies change everything. I must use emergency “enhanced driving techniques.”

It’s pretty well confirmed you’re in communication with Al-Qaeda terrorists, so I’m acting in legal self-defense before you attack again.”

You: Dude.

Neighbor: What? While I can say it strongly appears this driver is in violation of the law and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for myself to make that a legally binding finding and attach legal demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.

You: Ok, let’s look. First: his truck doesn’t have those white stickers, plus it’s irrelevant for speeding through a stop sign. Second: if he drives like this every day AND both ways that has nothing to do with a pregnant wife. And the last one, seriously, are you going to take that shit that you’re the cause of his speeding because you’re some evil terrorist?!

**

I could go on, but you get the points about this neighbor within the limits of an analogy:

No demonstrated understanding of this law.

Need of greater voice for responsible citizenship.

Example 2: baseball’s strike zone

Scenario: You attend your son’s high school baseball game with about 100 other adults and students in your team’s stands. Your same neighbor is at the game with you, with his son at bat. The pitcher delivers a pitch ten feet over everyone’s head to the backstop. The umpire calls, “Strike one!” You, in shock, attempt to ask your neighbor if you heard correctly. As you begin talking, the pitcher’s second pitch is tossed to their team’s manager in the dugout:

Umpire: Strike two!

You: This game is rigged!

Neighbor: While I can say it strongly appears those pitches are outside the strike zone and therefore likely balls, there is no way for myself to make that a binding finding and attach demands based upon it. I can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.

You: Dude! The first one was over everyone’s heads by 10 feet! The second is a joke!

(as we talk, the pitcher delivers the third pitch: rolling it to the third baseman and smirking at the “umpire” calling, “Strike three!”)

Neighbor: (loudly encouraging to son) Next time, next time, son! You’ll have to swing at one of those to have a chance!

**

Let’s do some analysis:

Again, your neighbor shows no understanding of the law.

Your neighbor is at risk of being a sucker to whatever consequences might come from such ignorance.

Of course, because Americans take sports law sooooo seriously (and here), many of the 100 fans would be on the field to stop the game after the second pitch, and would never ever ever ever allow a game they cared about to be destroyed by Orwellian “umpires.”

Example 3: taking out the trash

Scenario: Your son has a chore to take out the trash before he goes to bed each night. One morning before school, you notice the trash wasn’t taken out last night. Your son comes downstairs.

You: Son, you didn’t take out the trash last night.

Son: C’mon Dad: while you can say it strongly appears the trash is in violation of the agreement and therefore likely illegal, there is no way for you to make that a binding finding and attach demands based upon it. You can make stuff up, but that won’t go over very well.

You: (blinking twice, indicating with body language that your son now has your full attention)

Son: (recognizing this bullshit isn’t working, clears his throat) Besides, taking the trash out is a relative term. If it’s out, then relative to that location, inside the house is outside of that domain. If the trash is in, it’s already outside the domain of out!

(placing his hand in mock sincerity upon my shoulder) Dad, America needs clear laws and enforceable laws, not the arbitrary stop you’re making of my morning in lawless arbitrary demand. It’s up to our household legislation to plug loopholes; it’s the duty of the family to understand what needs to be done and demand it.

Fair laws, clear laws, enforceable laws.

Don’t be a preening weenie, Dad.

You: You’re joking, right?

Son: Not at all. I take household responsibilities very seriously. Very seriously.

You: (pursing lips and nodding) Anything else you’d like to add to your explanation?

Son: Yes. The rule states that the trash go out before I “go to bed.” I never went to bed last night. I had a “temporary emergency bailout of consciousness” distinct from “going to bed.” So, technically, I won’t be in violation until I actually “go to bed.” And this state of emergency might need to be continued indefinitely. Oh, and I still stand on my point that given the ambiguity of the rule with in and out, neither one of us can determine any violation of law.

You: Son, laws are meant to be clear; this one is. Your first excuse has to destroy known and agreed terms of in and out to pretend the law is unclear. Your second excuse again destroys a definition of an essential part of the law, then, as the first excuse, attempts to bullshit your way to willfully destroy clear law. This bullshit includes rhetoric of caring about responsibility, a need for clear laws, and justice.

The law is simple: (pointing to trash) That is inside the house. It needs to go outside to the trash container (pointing) every night. Nobody is confused by this.

How did you get this wild idea?

Son: (snapping out of his experiment with psychopathy): My baseball teammate and neighbor uses it on his dad all the time. He says it works. Thanks for not being played, Dad. That’s the type of man I want to be!

War law is as clear as our three examples:

War law is just as easy to understand as “stop sign law,” and far easier than most sports laws, such as when a football punt is or is not legal, or baseball’s “infield fly” rule. Because everyday people care enough to know traffic law and sports rules, the idea of knowing war law can be accomplished by refreshing what you’ve already learned by reading this article (and confirming its accuracy as needed).

War law, as we’re about to document and prove, is clear and helpful for the outcome of denying military armed attack as a foreign policy. This is an outcome 95%+ of humanity agree is desirable, especially after all our families’ awful sacrifices through two world wars.

Conversely, war-mongers for empire will do their best to be silent about war law, lie that it’s so unclear that any dictatorial claim of “self-defense” is valid, and take every evasive maneuver imaginable for the public (especially military and law enforcement) to never understand war law and/or never recognize how US wars are Orwellian unlawful.

Again: what war law states, and without disagreement our colleagues and I are aware of from anyone who points to the law with explanation:

Unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy. 

That’s the letter of the law. The intent is soooo strongly worded in both relevant treaties, as you’ll see, and is simply to end the scourge of wars chosen by governments as foreign policy (in historical context of empires looting the world for resources: natural and human).

Our condition today is of OBVIOUSLY unlawful Wars of Aggression (and started with lies known to false as they were told), as the facts to follow clearly demonstrate for anyone caring to look and apply basic high school-level of education already learned.

Importantly, Left and Right “leaders” and corporate media, including Clinton and Trump, will never ever ever ever ever remind us that war is illegal, with current wars in Orwellian opposition. 

The appropriate “vote” of We the People for this presidential election is “No” for more illegal war, and “Yes” to stop the wars and arrest those who orchestrated them. Without public demand, these illegal wars will only continue.

The following is from my paper for the 2015 Claremont Colleges’ conference, Seizing an Alternative Toward an Ecological Civilization reframed for our three specific points in this essay. Importantly, colleagues and I working on this topic are unaware of any refutation that the US wars are illegal. That is, we’ve never encountered anyone in person or in writing who points to the law and argues: “War law means (a, b, c), so the US wars are legal because (d, e, f).” If any reader has found any such argument, please share it with me.

Accurately and confidently know the law

Unlawful Wars of Aggression: The US/UK/Israel “official story” is that current wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.” The Emperor’s New Clothes fact here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific in war law, and US/UK/Israel armed attacks on so many nations in current and past wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.”

Addressing three nations and several wars again seems ambitious for one academic paper, and again, these are all simple variations of one method:

Ignore war law.

Lie to blame the victim and claim “self-defense.”

“Officials” and corporate media never state the Emperor’s New Clothes simple and obvious facts of war law and war lies.

Proving unlawful wars with massive deception is easier when the scope is broadened to see the same elements in three cases.

Importantly, a nation can use military, police, and civilians in self-defense from any attack upon the nation. This is similar to the legal definition of “self-defense” for you or I walking down the street: we cannot attack anyone unless either under attack or imminent threat. And, if under attack, we can use any reasonable force in self-defense, including lethal.

Two world wars begat two treaties to end nations’ armed attacks forever. They are crystal-clear in content and context:

Kellogg-Briand Pact (General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy as official title)

United Nations Charter.

Both are listed in the US State Department’s annual publication, Treaties in Force (2013 edition pages 466 and 493).

Article Six of the US Constitution defines a treaty as US “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that US policy may only complement an active treaty, and never violate it.

This is important because all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution are sworn to honorably refuse all unlawful war orders; military officers are sworn to arrest those who issue them. Indeed, we suffer criminal dishonor if we obey orders for armed attack when they are not “self-defense,” and family dishonor to so easily reject the legal victory won from all our families’ sacrifices through two world wars.

Treaty 1. Kellogg-Briand: General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy:

The legal term renounce means to surrender access; that is, to remove that which is renounced as lawful option. This active treaty (page 466 “Renunciation of War”), usually referenced as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, states:

“ARTICLE I

The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II

The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

So, in the most clear framing of a rule as possible, the first two parts of the treaty state “never war” and “always peace” to resolve conflicts.

Treaty 2. United Nations Charter:

It’s helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation’s legislature’s consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation’s armed attack.

The preamble of the United Nations includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”

The UN purpose includes: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace…”

Article 2:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…

Article 24: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Article 33:

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan (or Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Iran [here, here, here], Russia, or claims about ISIS or Khorasans). The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation’s government.

The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.

American Daniel Webster helped create the legal definition of national self-defense in the Caroline Affair as “necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.

In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definition, no party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy. 

Another area to clarify is the US 1973 War Powers Act (WPA). The authorization by Congress for US presidential discretion for military action in Afghanistan  and Iraq references WPA. This act, in response to the Vietnam War, reframes the Founders’ intent of keeping the power of war in the hands of Congress. It also expressly limits the president to act within US treaty obligations; the principle treaty of use of war being the UN Charter.

This means that presidential authority as commander-in-chief must always remain within the limitations of the UN Charter to be lawful orders. It’s not enough for Congress to authorize use of force; that force must always and only be within the narrow legal definition of self-defense clearly explained in the UN Charter. Of course, we can anticipate that if a government wanted to engage in unlawful war today, they would construct their propaganda to sell the war as “defensive.” The future of humanity to be safe from the scourge of war is therefore dependent upon our collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in BS–Emperor’s New Clothes claims of self-defense.

Governments have been vicious killers over the last 100 years, using “self-defense” to justify their wars. The US has started 201 foreign armed attacks since WW2, causing the world’s peoples to conclude in polling that the US is indeed #1 as the most threatening nation to world peace. These US-started armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. These US armed attacks have war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis, and continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression.

The most decorated US Marine general in his day warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars, and W. Bush’s Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind, that government will continue with such actions to “create our own reality” no matter what anyone else might say.

The first round of US current wars, the attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, continues this history as a deliberate act of unlawful war, not defense that was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The burden of proof the US would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his letter to the UN Security Council invoking Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.

Article 51 requires self-defensive war coming from an attack by a nation’s government, which the CIA and FBI refute in the case of the Afghan government with the terrorism on 9/11. Self-defense ends when the attack ends. The US war began four weeks after 9/11 ended; making the US war one of choice and not defense. Article 51 ends self-defense claims when the UN Security Council acts. Resolution 1373 provides clear language of international cooperation and justice under the law, with no authorization of force.

This evidence doesn’t require the light of the UN Charter’s spirit of its laws, but I’ll add it: humanity rejected war as a policy option and requires nations to cooperate for justice under that law. The US has instead embraced and still embraces war with its outcomes of death, misery, poverty, and fear expressly against the wishes of humanity and the majority of Americans. These acts are clearly unlawful and should be refused and stopped by all men and women in military, government and law enforcement.

Some war liars argue that UN Security Council Resolution 687 from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire. The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it.

The categories of crime for armed attacks outside US treaty limits of law are:

Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit),

Treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.

All 27 UK Foreign Affairs Department attorneys concluded Iraq war is unlawful: I wrote in 2010:

“All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.

“This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood, who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their unanimous legal opinion in writing.

“Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”

“UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he “changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars.

“Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force:

“John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

“Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the UN:

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

“The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.”

The UN Charter is the principle law to end wars; designed by the US to produce that result. That said, West Point Grads Against the War have further legal arguments of all the violations of war from US attack and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, including further analysis of the UN Charter and expert supporting testimony. Another resource for documentation and analysis is David Swanson’s War is a Crime. Ironically, Americans would never allow a favorite sport such as baseball or football to be similarly destroyed by such Emperor’s New Clothes lies to those rules/laws.

Lawful war analysis: Negroponte’s letter invokes a legal Charter Article of self-defense in contrast with the loss of over 3,000 lives on 9/11. The letter portends legal evidence of al-Qaeda’s “central role” in the attacks and claims military response is appropriate because of al-Qaeda’s ongoing threat and continued training of terrorists. This reasoning argues for a reinterpretation of self-defense to include pre-emptive attack while lying in omission that such an argument is tacit agreement of current action being outside the law.

The US Army’s official law handbook provides an excellent historical and legal summary of when wars are lawful self-defense and unlawful War of Aggression in a seven-page Chapter One.

Importantly, after accurately defining “self-defense” in war, the JAG authors/attorneys explicitly state on page 6 that war is illegal unless a nation is under attack from another nation’s government, or can provide evidence of imminent threat of such attack:

“Anticipatory self-defense, whether labeled anticipatory or preemptive, must be distinguished from preventive self-defense. Preventive self-defense—employed to counter non-imminent threats—is illegal under international law.”

However, despite the US Army’s law handbook’s accurate disclosure of the legal meaning of “self-defense” in war, they then ignore this meaning to claim “self-defense” as a lawful reason for US wars without further explanation (details here).

President George Washington’s Farewell Address, the culmination of his 45 years of political experience, warned of the primary threat to America as “the impostures of pretended patriotism” from people within our own government who would destroy Constitutional limits in order to obtain tyrannical power:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.”

Young Abraham Lincoln wrote eloquently to defend the US Constitution from unlawful tyrants within our own government. In Congress, he spoke powerfully and truthfully that the President’s claims for armed attack and invasion of a foreign country were lies. Although war-mongers slurred Lincoln’s name at the time, history proved him correct in asserting the President of the US was a war-mongering liar:

“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”

Lincoln also wrote that “pre-emptive” wars were lies, and “war at pleasure.”

Those of us working to end these illegal Wars of Aggression have found zero refutations of our documentation that address war law. All we’ve ever found are denial and unsubstantiated claims of “self-defense” while having to lie about the legal limits in that term.

Note: other sections of that paper may be useful that just as clearly demonstrate Israel’s illegal war on Gaza, criminally complicit corporate media to “cover” these crimes, all “reasons” for these wars were known to be false as they were told, and the fundamental fraud of creating what is used for money as debt.

Demand arrests of Left and Right .01% US “leaders” because the wars are not even close to lawful

Therefore, We the People have an obvious solution: lawful arrests of .01% “leaders” for the most egregious crimes centering in war and lies to start them.

This is a 1st Amendment responsibility to maintain our constitutional republic under law rather than what we’ve become with war: “leaders” dictating/saying what we can do completely removed from limitations of the law. Left and Right .01% “leaders” completely violate the rules, and only from public ignorance with corporate media propaganda.

The categories of crime include:

Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit).

Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.

Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that’s killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth’s recorded history).

Looting trillions, such as the Department of “Defense” claiming to have “lost” $6.5 trillion.

US military, law enforcement, responsible citizens, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice:

Demand arrests, with those with lawful authority to enact it. An arrest is the lawful action to stop apparent crimes, with the most serious crimes documented here meaning the most serious need for arrests.

Watch the US escalate its rogue state crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions.

How military and law enforcement choose to honor their Oaths in creative adaptation to the rogue state is up to them. We the People can help with our educated voices in this Emperor’s New Clothes environment whereby these crimes only persist from public ignorance.

In just 90 seconds, former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice “very obvious solutions”: arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk):

Our condition requiring YOUR voice is what Benjamin Franklin predicted would be the eventual outcome of the United States. On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Ben met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin warned: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished: 

“This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism… when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”  – The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39.

These warnings extend to all social science teachers of the present:

“As educators in the field of history–social science, we want our students to… understand the value, the importance, and the fragility of democratic institutions. We want them to realize that only a small fraction of the world’s population (now or in the past) has been fortunate enough to live under a democratic form of government.” – History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools, pgs. 2, 7-8

Do you have the intellectual integrity and moral courage to at least act with the honesty of a child to speak the Emperor’s New Clothes truth? Remember, I’m just asking you to use your voice in a democratic republic to ask US military and various law enforcement to honor their Oaths and do the job we pay them for: protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no greater enemy than those committing treason to war-murder US military by lying them into invasive illegal Wars of Aggression.

The converse argument is that US military and law enforcement should not enforce our most important laws, especially not those that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions. Of course, this argument is Orwellian.

Cause a lawful end to the dictatorial US rogue state

In conclusion, this essay has reminded you of what you already know: laws are meant to be simple and helpful, what you’ve suspected about the wars is demonstrated as true with a few clear facts, and that your voice is essential if we are to maintain our republic from devolving into dictatorship (literally being dictated/told what the rules are rather than knowing them ourselves).

To remind you of other history that demonstrates this has been an ongoing problem of what is most accurately described as a rogue state: a “top ten” list of state crimes supporting today’s arrests in a constitutional republic:

Introduction to define ‘rogue state’ as perfect match with US illegal Wars of Aggression, Crimes Against Humanity, dictatorial government

The US violated ~600 treaties with Native Americans to steal Native American land. A treaty is signed by a US President, approved by 2/3 vote of the US Senate, and under Article VI of the US Constitution becomes US “supreme Law.” These ongoing “in your face” violations of “supreme Law” became the precedent to typical hypocritical and unlawful US policies of the present.

US President Polk lied to Congress (with their approval) to initiate War of Aggression on Mexico. The result was the US illegally stealing 40% of Mexico in 1848. Congress opposed Abraham Lincoln’s crystal-clear explanation as a member of Congress that the Adams-Onís Treaty placed the so-called “border dispute” 400 miles within land forever promised to Mexico and forever promised as outside any US claim.

The US violated our treaty with Hawaii and stole their country in 1898.

The US reneged on promises of freedom after the Spanish American War to impose colonialism on the Philippines, and install US-friendly dictators in Cuba. US military slaughtered resisters, calling them yesterday’s version of “terrorists.”

The US entered WW1 upon no national security threat to the US, and imprisoned the 3rd party presidential candidate for challenging “official reasons” for war.

The CIA had several covert wars; perhaps most important in today’s context of war on Iran: “Operation Ajax” that overthrew Iran’s democracy and installed a US-friendly and brutal dictator.  When that dictator was overthrown and Iran refused another, the US aided Iraq to unlawfully invade and attack Iran from 1980-1988; killing up to a million Iranians. If the US lied and acted twice to unlawfully overthrew Iran’s democracy within many of our own lifetimes, shouldn’t we assume first another lie-started unlawful war today?

The Vietnam War followed US permission to cancel the election to unify the country. The US stopped democracy to keep a friendly government, and perhaps to have ongoing live weapons testing and development. War escalated with the Gulf of Tonkin incident,  deliberate provocation to manipulate a false-flag event for “defensive” war.

Perhaps most disturbing is the King Family civil suit that found the US government guilty in the assassination of Dr. King (and here). Corporate media, including our text publishers, omit this history. The King family’s conclusion is that Martin was assassinated to prevent his “Occupy DC” plan beginning for the summer of 1968 to end his version of today’s wars.

We now know from Congressional reports that all “reasons” for war with Iraq were known to be false as they were told.

The two “reasons” for war with Iran are as false as the “reasons” for war with Iraq: Iran never threatened Israel, and Iran’s nuclear energy and medicine programs are IAEA-verified as completely safe and lawful.

If We the People don’t speak, we will have more of the same.

And if We the People speak simply and confidently, we’ll win this contest.

Victory for a future brighter than we can imagine can and will happen in an Emperor’s New Clothes moment when We the People apply basic education to what matters most.

More war is planned and propagandized if you do not speak

Two minutes of retired General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO:

Video evidence of psychopathic lying to incite war-murders of Iranians:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKi_JFCGsCE

A Call for Truth & Reconciliation, and minions of evil to reclaim their hearts and humanity

For those involved in support of US government-sponsored disinformation and massive crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions of the 99%’s dollars, I invite you to consider the quality of human relationships you wish to work for in creating your/our future.

National security and a brighter future is not a function of fear, manipulation, and psychopathic control. Our best security follows cooperation, justice under the law, dignity, and freedom. Surely you recognize that all promised natural rights in America are now gone, and the 99.99% are herded by the .01% as their work animals.

Working for your best imagined self-expression of virtue may include a unique contribution from the inside of your agency. You, as Darth Vader and Professor Snape in fictions that are popular for strong resonance to a real story we all want told, can reclaim your hearts and honor to be our heroes.

Truly, aren’t you ready now to re-embrace love and honor as your path?

Please consider the wisdom of a “Scrooge conversion” to act for the benefit of all humanity rather than your self-proclaimed loveless “masters.” From Dickens’ 1843 text:

“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.”

4-minute video of Darth Vader’s choice to serve love, family, and community rather than vicious psychopathic hatred:

Public attraction to the stories of Star Wars and the Harry Potter books/movies recognize that our society’s jump to civilized relations for all of us might require support from people within the “dark side” acting as covert agents for building a brighter future.

Both Darth Vader (see video) and Professor Snape realized they were only tools of powers above them, things to be manipulated rather than sentient beings of free will. The severest irony is they both recognized their service to the “dark side” included deaths of their loved-ones and even themselves whenever convenient to their “masters.” That was Snape’s ending, although his path was taken with honor to infiltrate the darkness (4-minute video):

But that should be an obvious conclusion to those working in the real-world version of these analogies. We see it in the macro picture of millions killed every year through war and poverty, and in micro with individuals who we know.

For years, I have recommended Truth and Reconciliation to exchange full truth and return of public assets for no prosecution and a guaranteed provided comfortable retirement. Indeed, I am prepared to speak on the .01%’s corporate media to present this option with full confidence it is the most efficient in ending the crimes and avoiding a violent end-game as the .01% are recognized for who they really are by the 99.99%.

“Every day, I saw more evidence about the evils humankind will inflict on their fellow humans to gain or maintain power…What is more, those who choose not to empathize may enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it through our own apathy…If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped transform for the better. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.”  – J. K. Rowling, Harvard Commencement, June 5, 2008.

Minions to the evil .01%: does this 1-minute video artistically represent your memories, too?

Will you continue to defend your loveless and psychopathic “masters,” or reclaim your hearts and humanity for the Everyday People these .01% annually kill in the millions, harm in the billions, and loot by the trillions of dollars? Playing For Change’s artistic 3-minutes:

**

Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here, here).

**