No Treason is a composition of three essays by individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner, all written in 1867: No. 1, No. 2: "The Constitution", and No. 6: "The Constitution of no Authority". No essays between No. 2 and No. 6 were ever published under the authorship of Spooner.

Good news, everybody! A new report from the eggheads at Oxford University assures us that switching to renewables will actually save us trillions of dollars! You heard that right. It won't cost us trillions of dollars to build out a completely new global energy grid infrastructure based on technology that is still under development and then to switch the entire global economy onto it. No, don't be silly! It's going to save us trillions of dollars. TRILLIONS, I tell you! Oh, OK, I'll drop the act. The latest Oxford study—along with the many similar pronouncements made in recent years that the transition onto the green energy grid will be painless (or even profitable)—is easily debunkable propaganda. But it is pernicious propaganda. It's designed to get the plebes to actively embrace their own enslavement in the name of saving Mother Earth, and—up to this point—it has been remarkably effective in that goal.

Why There Is So Much Pro-War Reporting? American media is always pro-war: Can you name a single paper, or a single TV network, that was unequivocally opposed to the American wars carried out against Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, and Vietnam while they were happening, or shortly thereafter? Or even opposed to any two of these seven wars? How about one?   In 1968, six years into the Vietnam War, the Boston Globe (Feb. 18, 1968) surveyed the editorial positions of 39 leading U.S. papers concerning the war and found that “none advocated a pull-out.” Has the phrase “invasion of Vietnam” ever appeared in the U.S. mainstream media? In 2003, leading cable station MSNBC took the much-admired Phil Donahue off the air because of his opposition to the calls for war in Iraq. ... More in the PDF

Credit to James Corbett BoilingFrogsPost.com January 28, 2014 From education to the environment, business to banking, housing to health care, it seems that there is no issue in the world that the industrialized western democracies cannot reduce to a simplistic paradigm of “liberal” vs “conservative.” In fact, this point has been so hardwired into the modern political system that it has been distilled into a childlike shorthand: political positions are “left” or “right,” “blue” or “red.” These convenient, color-coded political choices infantilize the political process, making the public little more than spectators at a sporting event, rooting for one team or another without even having to understand the issues being debated. Nowhere has this process of simplification become so refined as it has in the United States of America, sometimes laughingly referred to as the “leaders of the free world.” This inane lowest-common-denominator reduction of all political thought has taken its toll on the public. Many are now unable to conceive of what a political movement that is not attached to one or the other ends of this so-called “spectrum” would look like. Yet, interestingly, this is precisely what has emerged in the past several years, not once, but twice, and not on one side of this left/right divide or the other, but both. In the past five years we have watched the rise of two distinct movements expressing popular outrage at the political status quo in the US. Both movements decried the nexus of power that has developed in the fascistic relationship of big banks and big government. Both movements believed that the bought-and-paid for politicians have robbed the people of their rights and even their ability to participate in the political process. Both movements believed in mass protest as a way of effecting change in the system. And yet, we are asked to believe that these movements are not only incompatible, but diametrically opposed. According to the corporate press, the tea party is a fringe Republican movement that arose out of a desire to move the Republican party further toward the “hard right.” Never discussed in mainstream coverage of the group is its actual origins in disgust at the Bush Administration's 9/11 cover-up. The first “tea party” event was held in Boston in 2006 and involved throwing copies of the whitewash 9/11 Commission Report into Boston Harbor. The movement took off in 2008 in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse and the announcement of trillions of dollars of stimulus being directed into the pockets of the Wall Street banksters and their political cronies. Similarly, the Occupy Wall Street movement motivated scores of Americans to actively protest the financial oligarchy and their growing ensnarement of the political machinery of the US government for their own enrichment. People sick of being asked to “tighten their belts” while banks continued making record profits, backed up and bailed out by debt that the public is being asked to underwrite, drove people into the streets for mass protests and confrontations with the so-called authorities across the country. At their core, these movements sprang from remarkably similar origins: increasing public frustration with the money power dominating the American political process, and the dwindling space for public engagement in that system. It did not take long at all, however, before both movements were spun into the left/right political process, with the Republicans effectively capturing the tea party movement and steering much of their base into an officially sanctioned Tea Party Inc. The Democrats, meanwhile, managed to ignore the Occupy Wall Street protests while the political provocateurs and change agents steered it toward cultural irrelevance. Those who have studied history should perhaps not find it surprising that the political outrage that is felt so keenly by people on all sides of the political “spectrum” should be controlled by spinning them off into partisan politics. Nor should they be surprised to see how effective this technique is. After all, the strategy of keeping the people pitted against each other instead of against their oppressors is one of the oldest political strategems known to human civilization. The phrase “divide and conquer” is attributed to Julius Caesar and has been used by emperors and would-be tyrants ever since. In the age of empires, divide and conquer was used to keep the empires' subjects from rebelling against the emperor. The Romans used it to keep their conquered neighbors competing with each other rather than their foreign occupiers. The British used it to keep their colonies squabbling along religious, ethnic and sectarian grounds so that the Queen and the British East India Company could more effectively exploit them.