Podcast (behind-the-woodshed): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:59:45 — 19.3MB) | Embed
BTWRLM215
Behind The Woodshed 4th year Anniversary at Real Liberty Media
At the Situationally Aware Action Oriented Intelligence Center
Of Evolutionary Engagement
The Victory Against You in the Silent War is Your Silence
Surmounting Inevitability
Engaging in counter-propaganda tactics and related work
Speaking Truth To Plunder
- The first 45 minutes speaks to becoming effective with one’s knowledge against a governmental adversary
It’s He-e-e-re, Globally
- In Cashless Sweden, Even God Now Takes Collection Via an App
In the most cashless society on the planet, even God now accepts digital payments.
A growing number of Swedish parishes have started taking donations via mobile apps. Uppsala’s 13th-century cathedral also accepts credit cards.
The churches’ drive to keep up with the times is the latest sign of Sweden’s rapid shift to a world without notes and coins. Most of the country’s bank branches have stopped handling cash; some shops and museums now only accept plastic; and even Stockholm’s homeless have started accepting cards as payment for their magazine. Go to a flea market, and the seller is more likely to ask to be paid via Sweden’s popular Swish app than with cash.
“Fifteen years ago I would withdraw my entire salary and put it in my wallet, so I knew how much I had left, but these days I never really carry cash,” said Lasse Svard, the acting vicar at the parish of Jarna-Vardinge, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) south of Stockholm.
Vanishing Act
Swedes’ aversion to cash is increasingly showing up in money supply data. According to Statistics Sweden, notes and coins in public circulation dropped to an average of 56.8 billion kronor ($6.4 billion) in the first quarter of this year. That was the lowest level since 1990 and more than 40 percent below its 2007 peak with the pace of the decline accelerating to its fastest ever in 2016.
- ‘Mir-Mastercard’: Russian Payment Card is About to Go Globally
Russia’s Mir card will be accepted all over the world in case of successful talks.
— Russia’s National Payment Card System (NSPK) and Mastercard are holding negotiations on co-badged cards, to be called Mir-Mastercard, Russian Vedomosti newspaper reported Tuesday, citing bank officials.According to the media outlet, NSPK and Mastercard will produce 40 million co-badged cards, if the outcome of negotiations is positive. In Russia, the card will operate as Mir, while abroad it will function as a card of the international payment system.
- Greece bans cash: Tax-allowance possible only through payments via plastic money
Greece is banning the use of cash the soft way. As of 1.1. 2017, taxpayers will be granted tax-allowance and tax deduction only when they have made payments via credit or debit cards. The new guidelines refer to employees, pensioners, farmers but also unemployed.
Accepted expenditure will be:
purchases for food and supermarket products, electronic and electric devices, household equipment, footwear, clothing, fuel, furniture, cigarettes*, drinks
Restaurants, cafeterias,bars and hotels
Services like by hairdressers and beauty parlors, gyms and dance schools, car repair, plumbers, electricians, painters, carpenters, lawyers and accountants.
For doctors and pharmacy the same practice will be valid as in last year. The tax office will accept the expenditure only if payments are made per credit card or bank transfer.
- Jerry’s Challenge: After the Fed, What?
Jerry’s Challenge to everyone is to help bring stable, fair and honest currency to society. The collapse of the Federal Reserve Note and our debt-slavery system is a good thing, it is an opportunity to create and use a far better money or currency. That should not be difficult, but if we don’t seize this opportunity we are choosing slavery because that is what our large institutions prefer for us.
There is very little you can do that will change your future more than help decide what currency we will use next.
Tools For Take-over
- Globalization and the Rural-Urban Divide
The Neoliberal Corporate-State Order had all the power, and rigged the game to its own advantage.
Many pundits have commented on the remarkable asymmetry of counties won by the Democratic Party (blue counties) and in 2016 and those won by Republican Party (red counties): the Democrats won big in heavily urban counties and the Republicans won most rural counties.
This visible division prompted numerous article such as this: Cities vs. Trump: Red state, blue state? The urban-rural divide is more significant. “Like most red-state cities, Idaho’s capital is remarkably short on conservatives. Last November, while Hillary Clinton mustered only 27.5 percent of the statewide vote, she hit north of 75 percent in some of Boise’s urban precincts. Politically, the city might as well be on a different planet from towns that lie a couple of exits away.”
The article follows a simple and superficially appealing narrative: the reason for the divide is cultural: cities are liberal, the countryside is conservative.
But there must be more to the divide than values and political culture; difficult social issues like addiction that once were defined as urban problems are now rural problems:American Epidemic: The Nation’s Struggle With Opioid Addiction (34:26 min)
Correspondent Bart D. (Australia) recently submitted an insightful description of the decimation of rural economies. Though he is describing rural Australia, anecdotally I see evidence for the same trends in the U.S., Japan and Europe.
I worry that the collective memory required to nurture self-employment and self-reliance have already been lost to much of the populace.
The thing that disturbs me most about the fate of the rural region I grew up in is the huge loss of economic diversity. A list of businesses/function my childhood town used to have but now does not:
–Bank
–Post office
–Council office
–Roadworks/council depot/workshops
–Mechanics workshop
–2 small convenience stores
–A small ‘all goods’ shop (surviving as a tea/coffee and cake eatery)
–There is a tiny junior school that has been under threat of closure (lack of pupils) for the past few years.
These are the basic building blocks of an economic community. Sporting clubs have perished as have social clubs (and even the tavern is only just staying alive) as the people, and their families, who once worked these family businesses disappear into the state capital with it’s bubble priced housing and much reduced sense of community cohesion. It’s not just my home town either… there are 3 others near by that have gone the same way.
The only economic activity left is big Agri-Biz. The number of family farms has reduced by about half in the last 30 years; so the scale of operation is huge and the debt matches it. Little of the farmers’ money goes into the ‘local’ or even ‘regional’ economy. It goes to the multinationals: Bank Corp, Chemical Corp, Fertilizer Corp, Fuel Corp, Machine Corp … the economic centres for which are not even in our Nation let alone state or region.
Also worth noting that the cascade of losses was very rapid. Once we lost our council depot, the town basically withered up economically in just a few years.
We, the people, are being steadily herded into mega-cities. On the surface it seems like a voluntary migration to pursue economic opportunity… but reality is it’s forced.
Those of us that want to return to these communities to raise the next generation of kids… can’t. There are no viable economic activities to pursue… even with the alleged benefits of internet based opportunity which should make it possible to do most things from most places.
These towns all have beautiful, huge, old stone houses, with huge gardens at prices that are actually affordable to an ‘average’ wage earner… if they could find a way to make said wage living there. Instead we have to cram ourselves into bubble priced houses made of paper and fibro-cement sheeting, crammed onto tiny blocks, where you can hear your neighbours fart from opposite ends of the buildings.
We fool ourselves into believing this style of living is a choice … that we are ‘going where the opportunities are’ … but we lie to ourselves. It’s exciting for a while as a teenager, then when proper adult perspective kicks in you find yourself trapped in suburban bleakness and servitude.”
We can see the outlines of a large-scale dynamic that has hollowed out the incomes and local economies of rural regions around the world: globalization,i.e. the borderless flow of capital, credit, goods and services, a flow dominated by large corporations that work hand in glove with international institutions and governments. - State Department: Renamed Al-Qaeda Not A Terrorist Organization – Can Receive CIA Supplies
Max Abrams, a professor who works about terrorism, came up with this new definition of “terrorism”:
Nonstate actors who use violence against civilians for a political goal and haven’t been supported by the US.
The highlighted part is “new” to those who have not learned from history and the many occasions of U.S. support for (typically extremely right-wing) terrorist organizations like the “contras” in Nicaragua, OUN fascists in Ukraine or Jihadi Mujahedin in Afghanistan. It can indeed be argued that the U.S. created al-Qaeda as well as the Islamic State (ISIS).
But lets just be happy that people get again reminded of the issue.
Prof. Adams remark came after a report by the Canadian CBC which found that the U.S. has not designated al-Qaeda’s recently renamed organization in Syria as a “foreign terrorist entity”. HTS rules (vid) the Syrian city and governate of Idleb.
The U.S. offered a $10,000,000 reward (official pdf) for Abu Muhammad al-Joulani the founder al Al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al-Nusra aka Jabhat Fatah al-Sham). But newly again renamed organization which he leads as the official military commander, the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is not on any U.S. (and Canadian) terrorist entity list:
The Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, currently calling itself Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), has succeeded in getting itself off Canada’s list of designated terrorist entities following its latest identity shift.
…
[I]n January of this year, the group shifted again, nominally dissolving itself and joining with four other jihadi groups. It altered its name, changing the word “Jabhat” (Front) to “Hay’at” (Organization), and “Fateh” (Conquest) to “Tahrir” (Liberation).
…
The State Department did issue a statement in March, in Arabic only, branding HTS a terrorist group. But the State Department’s Nicole Thompson told CBC that was a mistake.”Though closely affiliated with al-Nusra, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham is not a designated terrorist organization,” she said in an email. “The statement you found should have said al-Nusrah Front and has been corrected.”Al-Nusra, however, no longer exists.
The non-designation will make it more difficult to prosecute members and supporters of the organization. Donations and other support to HTS are now legal. While Nusra and HTS had claimed to no longer be part of al-Qaeda (but never retracted their oath to it), scholars within those organization frequently argue for publicly admit the connection. No professional working on the issue denies that HTS is part of al-Qaeda and a terrorist group. But, apparently, the U.S. State Department does.
The CBC speculates why HTS is not (or no longer) designated:
The reasons for the reluctance to list the new al-Qaeda formation may have to do with one of its new members, the Nour ed-Dine Zenki Brigade, a jihadi group from the Aleppo governorate.The Zenki Brigade was an early and prominent recipient of U.S. aid, weapons and training.
Zenki was cut off by the State Department only after Amnesty International implicated them in killings of Orthodox Christian priests and members posted a video of themselves beheading a young boy.
A different reason seems more likely to me.
Providing material support or resources to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations is prohibited under 18 U.S. Code § 2339B. Non-designated groups can be supplied and otherwise supported.
- Jewish Nation-State Bill
The Israeli Knesset (parliament) has hurriedly passed a new bill that defines Israel as the “national home of the Jewish people.” Although the association between Jewishness and Israel goes back to the foundation of the state, the new law also carries clear discriminatory elements that target the country’s Arab communities, numbering nearly two million people.
The ‘Jewish Nation-State Bill’ is the latest concoction of Israel’s right wing Zionist Jewish parties, which have dominated Israeli politics for years. With the Israeli ‘Left’ rendered irrelevant, or has itself moved to the right, the right wing elements of Israel are now the supreme rulers of that country.
By strict definition, Israel is, at best, an inadequate ‘democracy’ or a democracy for Jews only, although it has promoted itself for decades as the ‘Middle East’s only democracy’. Like other Middle Eastern governments, Israel uses all the right sounding words and phrases, but its political system is neither fair nor representative of all citizens regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.
In some way, Israel behaves as if Palestinian Arabs – Christian or Muslim – do not exist. Whether citizens of Israel or the occupied Palestinians in East Jerusalem, the West Bank or besieged Gaza, they are all, to varied degrees, invisible to Israel’s political system.
While so-called Israeli Arabs enjoy a semblance of rights – a fact that is often underscored by Israel as a proof of its democratic credentials – millions of occupied Palestinians exist completely outside the system. The only rules that applies to them are the rules of war and guidelines set by military courts and carried out by occupation soldiers.
But nearly a fifth of Israel’s own population – native Palestinians – are subjected to an array of discriminatory laws that collectively render their fundamental human and political rights devoid of substance. ‘Adalah’, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, has established a database of new and proposed bills at the Knesset that discriminate against Palestinians and privilege the Jewish citizens of Israel. They are many.
Reporting in ‘Al Jazeera’, Jonathan Cook explained the nature of discrimination that will be introduced once the Jewish Nation-State Bill becomes law. “Among its provisions, the legislation revokes the status of Arabic as an official language,” he wrote.
Once the bill is enacted into law, which Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, vowed to achieve in the course of 60 days, the legislation will increase “the powers of so-called ‘admissions committees’ that block Palestinian citizens from living in hundreds of communities that control most of Israel’s land.”
In fact, none of this is entirely new. Israel was established as a state for the Jews, regardless of their birthplace and current residence, following the destruction of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of its population.
- Israel Minister: “The Time Has Come To Assassinate Bashar Assad”
Israel’s Housing and Construction Minister Yoav Galant called for the assassination of Syrian President Bashar Assad following yesterday’s US State Department report that the Syrian regime was using a prison crematorium to hide mass killings outside Damascus, the Jerusalem Post reported.
Speaking at a conference outside Jerusalem, Galant, a retired Israeli Defence Forces general, said that in light of recent allegations that Assad’s regime carried out mass executions and burned the bodies of the victims, he had to be killed.
“The reality in which people are executed in Syria, being hit deliberately by chemical weapons, their bodies being burned, something we haven’t seen in 70 years. In my view, we are crossing a red line. And in my view, the time has come to assassinate Assad. It’s as simple as that,” said Galant, who previously served as the head of the IDF’s Southern Command. The minister said Assad’s actions in Syria amount to nothing less than a “genocide,” with “hundreds of thousands killed.”
Galant also likened the assassination of Assad to cutting off the “tail of the snake.” After that, he said, “we can focus on the head, which is in Tehran.” NOTE: None of it proven more than a fabrication of the U.S. and Israel, et al.
Be Very Afraid, Laptop Psyop
- WATCH: FBI Arrests Passenger Who Tried to Enter Plane’s Cockpit With Laptop
A man reportedly from Turkey was removed from an American Airlines flight by federal agents after he allegedly tried to enter its cockpit with a laptop computer on Friday.
The flight departed from Los Angeles International Airport on 8:34 a.m. on May 19. Once the flight was in the air, the suspect, 25-year-old Anil Uskanil, reportedly was waiting to use the bathroom on the plane close to the cockpit when a flight attendant asked him to sit down, ABC news reported.
A source told the news outlet that the suspect was carrying a laptop with him as he tried to breach the cockpit door. He was subdued by the crew and an off-duty police officer on the plane, and the flight was escorted by two F-22 fighter jets until it landed safely at Honolulu International Airport.
Law enforcement officers from the F.B.I. and other agencies boarded the plane once it landed and put the man in handcuffs, walking him out of the plane for further questioning.
It’s currently unclear what the suspect’s motive is, or whether it’s terrorism-related.
Never A Real Proof
- No Proof: Clapper, Yates Offer No Evidence of Russian Election Meddling
Sally Yates, the former acting Attorney General of the Trump administration, and Deputy Attorney General under former President Barack Obama, testified on Wednesday at a hearing on alleged Russian meddling in the US presidential election — accusations for which no US official has come up with concrete proof.
Also appearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism was Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
Clapper once again confirmed that there has not been any proof presented that Moscow somehow colluded with the Trump campaign.
“Do you have any evidence anyone in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election?” Graham asked the witnesses.
Clapper asserted that he does not. Yates responded that she was unable to answer, but clarified that they should not assume that her answer is “yes.” NOTE: How Is It She Can not Answer A Yes or No Question Regarding What She Currently Possess?
- James Comey Is Losing His Game With Another Non-News Leak
This is a short follow up on yesterday’s false news stories topped with a Comey leak.
1. The New York Times tries to add to the story of the WannaCry ransom virus (which is based on NSA exploits), hyping the unfounded claim that North Korea is behind it: Focus Turns to North Korea Sleeper Cells as Possible Culprits in Cyberattack. The story curiously does not even mention the nonsensical claim of a Google staffer that points to common code snippets in reused software stacks. Instead we get a long elaboration on how North Korea sends students abroad to be trained in IT and programming. In paragraph 4 the story asserts:
As evidence mounts that North Korean hackers may have links to the ransom assaults …
But no evidence, none at all, is cited in the piece. The “mounting evidence” is a molehill without the hill. Eleven paragraphs later we learn that:
It also is possible that North Korea had no role in the attacks,
Duh. Six NYT reporters collaborated in writing that twenty paragraph story which contains no reasonable news or information. What a waste.
2. The State Department claim that Syria built a crematorium inside a prison to burn executed prisoners saw no follow up. But it had consequences. The presented “evidence” was too thin to make it believable. Even the staunchly anti-Syrian SPIEGEL doubted it: USA bleiben Beweise für Assads Leichenöfen schuldig. Translated: “U.S. fails to give evidence for Assad crematorium claims.”
The State Department claim was presented in a special news conference by Stuart Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. A day later Jones announced that he would retire:
Jones, 57, told colleagues the decision was his own and that he had not been pushed out or asked to leave the department.
Ahem. Sure. Maybe. Or Secretary of State Rex Tillerson disliked the lame propaganda shows Jones presented under the official State Department seal.
3. Yesterday’s “Trump revealed critical intelligence to Russia” nonsense is already dying down. Even regular NYT readers criticize their paper’s reporting of it:
It’s quite strange that the media is giving such prominence to and broadcasting so much detail about supposedly highly secret information and its source in order to show how irresponsible President Trump is.
…
It seem that of the two, the media and the President, the media is by far the most at fault for leaking state secrets. Strange indeed: it seems the goal of bringing down Trump overrides all other considerations.”To recap – in March the U.S. and the UK had issued a ban on laptops for fights from certain Middle Eastern airports:
The U.S. officials said intelligence “indicates terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation” by “smuggling explosive devices in various consumer items.”
It was known from other reports that the threat was from ISIS. Trump repeated this to the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and added that the origin of the treat is the ISIS capital Raqqa. Anyone would have guessed that. It was no secret. But “current and former officials” phoned up reporter after reporter to claim that Trump revealed critical intelligence because the Russians might now guess which country the information was coming from. A few hours later the Washington Post and the New York Times, not Trump, revealed that the original information came from Israel. It will be difficult to blame Trump for “leaking to the Russians” less information than “current and a former American official” leak to mainstream paper.
But as that smear against Trump and Russia has failed a new one is needed.
Principle Embarrassments
- BREAKING: Putin offers Congress transcript of Trump-Lavrov meeting
Russian President Putin has weighed in to the furore surrounding the allegation that President Trump disclosed ‘highly classified information’ to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov during their meeting in the Oval Office.
Describing the allegation as nonsense, Putin has offered to make available to Congress the complete transcript of the conversation so that they can see for themselves that no ‘highly classified information’ and no secrets were discussed.
These are comments Putin is reported to have made during a press conference today following a meeting with the Italian Prime Minister.
Here is what TASS reports Putin to have said (see here and here)
At the same time, we see that the United States has been developing political schizophrenia, this is the only thing I can think of when I hear allegations saying that the president has revealed some secrets to Lavrov….
I will have to reprimand him because he shared these secrets neither with me nor with the Russian secret services which is very bad of him….
If the US administration considers it possible, we are ready to submit a transcript of Lavrov’s talk with Trump to the US Senate and Congress, if, of course, the US administration would want this…..
(bold italics added)
The highlighted words underline a point I have made previously. It is far from obvious from the Washington Post’s account of the meeting that Lavrov was aware that Trump had supposedly revealed some ‘highly classified information’ to him. If that did happen then it is highly likely that it took the publication of the story in the Washington Post to reveal to the Russians this fact. If so then the blame for compromising US national security interests lies not with Trump but with the Washington Post.
Crimes Under Constitutional Cover?
- Trump’s Leakers Have Only Made Things Worse
Can an anonymous source who does this much damage be taken at face value?
Suppose that a few months before 9/11, another country’s spies discovered that Islamist radicals were preparing to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings, with the United States as an obvious target. Would Americans expect that country to give us a warning? Would we be understanding if it failed to do so, on the grounds that protecting its own intelligence-gathering capabilities was more important than saving innocent Americans’ lives?
That’s one question to keep in mind as the Washington Post, the New York Times and other outlets claim that President Trump did something wrong by telling Russian officials about a new threat from ISIS—apparently a threat involving bombs concealed in laptop computers. The accusation, which as usual depends on framing provided by anonymous sources, is that the president shared information that came from an ally in the Middle East, and that based on what the Russians now know, they might be able to figure out who that ally is and what its intelligence resources in the region are. This, we are told, may dissuade the ally from sharing more information with the United States in the future.
There are several problems with this story, but the overarching question must be kept in mind: who decides when saving lives outweighs preserving somebody else’s secrets? Is this something for elected officials to decide—and in particular the highest elected official, the chief of the executive branch—or is it something that unelected officials with a habit of handing secrets over to friends in the media should decide? Legally, the answer is clear: the responsibility belongs to the president. However much the press or bureaucracy may despise him, the president has been chosen by the public precisely to make such top-level decisions. That’s the nature of representative government.
The national security advisor, H. R. McMaster, denies that President Trump’s warning to the Russians did, in fact, compromise any third-party intelligence source. McMaster knows exactly what was said: he was in the room when the president spoke to Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak. On Tuesday, McMaster characterized the president’s remarks as “wholly appropriate” and “consistent with the routine sharing of information” about terrorist threats. He said he was “not concerned at all” that any ally would hesitate to provide more intelligence in the future as a result of what the president told the Russians.
McMaster dismissed the idea that by naming a city in ISIS-controlled territory where the information came from, President Trump had supplied a vital clue as to how the intelligence was obtained. He made it sound as if the city the president named was one of many obvious places that anyone who keeps up with the news might mention: “You would probably be able to name a few cities, I would think,” McMaster told the press. “It was nothing you would not know from open-source reporting.”
Whatever risks arose here, McMaster claimed, came not from the president’s disclosures but from “those releasing information to the press” that can be used “to make American citizens and others more vulnerable.” Based on what the New York Times and Washington Post themselves have reported, there are reasons to think McMaster is correct.
First, consider this: if what the anonymous sources have claimed is true, and President Trump did reveal to the Russians clues about a U.S. ally’s intelligence resources, how would that ally know that this had happened? Knowing that a treasured secret had been given away might well be grounds for limiting cooperation with the Americans in the future. But no ally had grounds to believe anything of the sort had happened during President Trump’s meeting with the Russians—until anonymous sources started telling the Washington Post that this happened, and the Washington Post proceeded to tell the world, including whatever ally or allies might be worried.
In other words, certain unnamed officials are sowing distrust among America’s allies for the purpose of embarrassing the president. That distrust did not exist based simply on the knowledge that the president had met with Lavrov and Kislyak: the damage is done only when the substance of the meeting is made public by deliberate leaks. And not just that: these unnamed officials who have taken policy into their own hands have apparently told journalists much more and more sensitive information than has already been made public. As the Post acknowledged, “The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.” So the source of the leaks not only seeded a narrative that would undermine allies’ trust in the United States—a narrative that would not readily exist absent the leaks—but the source also revealed to the media highly sensitive classified specifics. Who else might the source have revealed that information to? Who else might people at the paper have told?
The president has wide-ranging legal authority to declassify secrets, and if he did so in a discreet conversation with Russian leaders, with top U.S. national security official present, there is no scandal there—and would not be, even if an ally didn’t like what was said in the discussion. No ally or outside nation would even know, unless someone from the inside spread that information around. And that’s exactly what the Post’s anonymous sources have done.
Hot Diggity Doge
The DOGE OF WAR
D8rgRZjcBPLAhvmUazYXxCZasueoEmP7VGUnleash the Power of the DOGE OF WAR
Please Donate to RLM
In This Doge Eat Doge World
Secure Private Alternative To Skype
Tox: Client Side only as of 4/15/2016
Jitsi:
Dump Skype – Piss Off The NSA
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
- The people know that they have created this farce and financed it with their own taxes (consent), but they would rather knuckle under than be the hypocrite. Factor VI – Cattle Those who will not use their brains are no better off than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jelly-fish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same.
- Mr. Rothschild’s Energy Discovery
What Mr. Rothschild [2] had discovered was the basic principle of power, influence, and control over people as applied to economics. That principle is “when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you.”
Listen How
The Law of War
General Orders No. 100: The Lieber Code
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD
Where Not Throwing Oppression Off, You Live Either Under an Occupation or by Conquest.
The Choice and Responsibility are Yours. United We Strike
Behind The Woodshed for that practical education & hard but necessary dose of reality.
Spread The Word Behind The Woodshed.
(^_^)
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](https://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_4.gif)
