NSA

Edward Snowden's Libertarian Moment: We "will remove from governments the ability to interfere with [our] rights"

|

Via Mark Sletten comes this thread from yesterday's Ask Me Anything session at Reddit that featured Edward Snowden, Oscar-winning documentarian Laura Poitras, and journalist Glenn Greenwald.

The question posed to Snowden:

What's the best way to make NSA spying an issue in the 2016 Presidential Election? It seems like while it was a big deal in 2013, ISIS and other events have put it on the back burner for now in the media and general public. What are your ideas for how to bring it back to the forefront?

His answer is well worth reading in full (I've posted it after the jump), but its essence is a full-throated defense of classical liberal and libertarian theorizing not just about the consent of the governed but the right to work around the government when it focuses on social order over legitimacy. And, as important, a recognition that this is what we at Reason and others call "the Libertarian Moment," or a technologically empowered drive toward greater and greater control over more and more aspects of our lives. While the Libertarian Moment is enabled by technological innovations and generally increasing levels of wealth and education, it ultimately proceeds from a mind-set as much as anything else: We have the right to live peacefully any way we choose as long as we are not infringing on other people's rights to do the same. Our politics and our laws should reflect this emphasis on pluralism, tolerance, and persuasion (as opposed to coercion) across social, economic, and intellectual spheres of activity.

As Snowden emphasizes, it's not simply that governments (thankfully) fail at attempts for perfect surveillance and law enforcement. It's that technologically empowered people are actively working to route around government attempts to fence us in. "We the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights," he writes (emphasis in original). "we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new—and permanent—basis."

Reading throught the Reddit exchange, it's easy to see why Snowden recently brought the 1,000-plus attendees of the International Students for Liberty Conference to their feet multiple times. He isn's some kind of pie-eyed nihilist, hell-bent on destroying the red, white, and blue for personal fame or out of ideological fervor. At 31 years old, he is an exceptionally well-spoken, thoughtful critic of the abuse of power that has become endemic to modern American governance. At the ISFLC, he said his one regret is that he didn't expose systemic infringement on citizens' constitutional rights sooner than he did.

If people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determing thour futures.

How does this relate to politics? Well, I suspect that governments today are more concerned with the loss of their ability to control and regulate the behavior of their citizens than they are with their citizens' discontent. 

How do we make that work for us? We can devise means, through the application and sophistication of science, to remind governments that if they will not be responsible stewards of our rights, we the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights.

You can see the beginnings of this dynamic today in the statements of government officials complaining about the adoption of encryption by major technology providers. The idea here isn't to fling ourselves into anarchy and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where—if government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the citizen—we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new—and permanent—basis.

Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy.

Emphasis in original.

Snowden ends by noting that "when [the law] becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends."

Here's his full answer:

This is a good question, and there are some good traditional answers here. Organizing is important. Activism is important.

At the same time, we should remember that governments don't often reform themselves. One of the arguments in a book I read recently (Bruce Schneier, "Data and Goliath"), is that perfect enforcement of the law sounds like a good thing, but that may not always be the case. The end of crime sounds pretty compelling, right, so how can that be?

Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law. America was of course born out of a violent revolution that was an outrageous treason against the crown and established order of the day. History shows that the righting of historical wrongs is often born from acts of unrepentant criminality. Slavery. The protection of persecuted Jews.

But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana?

Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had—entirely within the law—rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers?

Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determing thour futures.

How does this relate to politics? Well, I suspect that governments today are more concerned with the loss of their ability to control and regulate the behavior of their citizens than they are with their citizens' discontent.

How do we make that work for us? We can devise means, through the application and sophistication of science, to remind governments that if they will not be responsible stewards of our rights, we the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights.

You can see the beginnings of this dynamic today in the statements of government officials complaining about the adoption of encryption by major technology providers. The idea here isn't to fling ourselves into anarchy and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where—if government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the citizen—we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new—and permanent—basis.

Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy.

We haven't had to think about that much in the last few decades because quality of life has been increasing across almost all measures in a significant way, and that has led to a comfortable complacency. But here and there throughout history, we'll occasionally come across these periods where governments think more about what they "can" do rather than what they "should" do, and what is lawful will become increasingly distinct from what is moral.

In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends.

NEXT: The constructive trust solution to Henderson v. United States

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If he lives, he has a future as a politician. A lot of words that didn’t answer the question.

    But he is absolutely correct. America needs more people like him.

    1. Perhaps he didn’t answer the practical question of how to get people interested again in this and make it an (the?) issue in 2016, but he did lay out a thoughtful defense of his actions, and a quiet call to arms to reaffirm our commitment to individual liberty-responsibility and to limited government.

      1. My thoughts exactly. The answer was so good, I didn’t care what the question was.

        The left is going to have to disown this guy soon.

  2. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
    Bastiat

    1. Bastiat should be required reading.

      1. It is for my kid.

        1. What do you suggest for a 10 year old girl?

          1. A guy I know here in Utah who runs the local Libertas Institute has turned Bastiat’s “The Law” into a children’s book:

            The Tuttle Twins Learn About The Law

    2. and that’s really what it comes down to – when you have a law for everything, laws eventually become meaningless. When you deem everything to be important, you have in essence made many things unimportant.

      1. Correct. It is interesting that the argument by some of the Patriots against adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution was that their fear that their addition would later be misinterpreted. They argued that the enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8 were sufficient. They feared that the Bill of Rights would later become the only individual rights that the government defended, thus allowing the expansive power of the state at the expense of individual rights.

        History has proven those arguing against the Bill of Rights were right about rights.

        1. Still, it’s a good thing they were put in there, or when the government expanded we would have no rights whatsoever.

          1. Is this a chicken meet egg issue? Maybe those advocating for expansion–Justice O. W. Holmes primarily–may not have had an intellectual leg to stand on. It’s hard to say. You may be right, though.

        2. …was that their fear that there addition would later be misinterpreted…

          sure would be nice to be able to edit.

    3. He didn’t say “respectable to a small group of libertarian malcontents,” of course.

  3. SPOILER ALERT: Citizen Four was on HBO last night. I recorded it but didn’t watch it yet. And by record I mean videotaped.

    1. Jokes on you. It’s publically available since it was submitted as evidence in court.

    2. Is it available as a torrent? *snicker*

    3. SPOILER: he dyes his hair.

      1. You son of a bitch /s

  4. can we officially retire “libertarian moment” as a phrase presented as meaning something? That people of varying political stripes are reaching similar conclusions is a good thing but it is not to the point of over-riding the fixation on Team that many have.

    1. Is that a statist thing, asking if “we” can do something?

      You sound like a goddammed politician running for office on a platform of helping everybody come to their senses?

  5. The term ‘Libertarian Moment’ strikes me as kitschy- which isn’t necessarily awful as terms go but not necessarily sapient either.

  6. We will remove from governments the ability to interfere with [our] rights

    You know, Adam Kokesh did try exactly that…

  7. The last opinion poll I saw broke about 25% positive on Snowden, 50% negative, and 25% neutral.

    How can it be the “libertarian moment” if half of Americans are just fine with fascism and a quarter can’t be bothered to care?

    1. How can it be the “libertarian moment” if half of Americans are just fine with fascism and a quarter can’t be bothered to care?

      I’m pretty much of the same opinion. I really don’t see much evidence for a “libertarian moment”. At least not in any way that matters. Sure people are more supportive of gay marriage and marijuana legalization, but on issues that really matter like civil liberties, “drone process”, mass surveillance, police abuse of asset forfeiture, etc. etc. I really don’t see it.

    2. Cato, it can’t be fascism, no goose stepping, and no invasion of Poland. /sarc

    3. It was also true that majorities opposed gay marriage very recently. Ideological breakdowns can shift very quickly. That may or may not happen here. But only 50% against is not that terrible.

      On another note, Snowden identifies a way in which this is not at all equivalent to e.g. gay marriage. It is not necessary to obtain majoritarian support to deal with this issue. It has a technological element which can be exploited. What is necessary is having a large enough population with the technical skill and motivation to do something about it. To that end, 25% isn’t too shabby.

  8. Thanks, Mr. Gillespie for this article. I had not kept up with Snowden’s pronouncements, much. His actions have given him an international stage. Based upon what is reported here, it appears he may have the intellectual depth to morally defend his actions. His moral defense could end up being very important to him and the liberty movement in general. Making the moral case for liberty is the key to political success in my opinion.

    His voice combined with Walker’s rightward activation of Democrat-rejected blue collar workers in the old industrial states may make for some hopeful politics for liberty lovers in the next couple of years.

    1. BTW: I think Walker’s strategy of activating the disaffected blue collar workers will have much more traction than Paul’s attempt of activating urban African-Americans disaffected by discriminatory drug laws or younger voters’ disaffected by privacy encroachments.

  9. Government’s decline will result from apathy rather than revolution. When people simply ignore you you become irrelevant. Witness the growth of the gray market.

  10. Seriously folks, proofread before submitting… end of the first paragraph of his quote “determing thour” as well as the 6th paragraph of his second quote…

    1. Indeed. My eyes also had to trip over these:

      it’s ultimately proceeds
      people are actively worked
      He isn’s some kind of pie-eyed nihilist

  11. my classmate’s ex-wife makes $72 every hour on the internet . She has been unemployed for six months but last month her check was $13076 just working on the internet for a few hours?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  12. my friend’s aunt makes $62 an hour on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her pay was $14934 just working on the computer for a few hours. Visit this site………
    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  13. Snowden has been accused of treason but should instead be charged with stupidity. He has made the error of believing that the enemies of the world have an appreciation for the niceties of educated civilizations whereas they couldn’t care less. The Taliban, ISIS and Boku Haram, to name a few, are living with the morals and concerns of the 12th century. They count on the fact that other civilization will be horrified by beheadings, mass murders and any other atrocities they can perform. Any information they glean from government reports on battles, etc. can be used against the world. We all have secrets we wish to stay unknown including Snowden. When those “secrets” become known, it can cause tremendous harm including some lives.

    1. How did he help ISIS or the Taliban? By pointing out that the NSA spies on all of us? That’s an argument that no governmental overstep ought to be talked about as it may mean that evil isn’t stopped one time.

      To bring your point to its logical conclusion, all governmental overreach ought to be accepted in order to protect us from (other) evil people.

      Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      Ben Franklin

      1. I believe the statistic is exactly zero American lives saved by the domestic spying programs. I’d be interested to hear how that means this has helped ISIS.

    2. Isis is under your bed! Isis will chop off your head!
      Isis will fill you with dread! Cowards just want to be led!

      With all of this, up I am fed!

  14. There was a balance of power between government and the governed until a bunch of free-market fundamentalists decided it would be a great idea to turn government into a cash machine for their friends and get the supreme court to call it “speech.”

    1. This is ridiculous. Citizens United happened a long time after the NSA started these programs. Moreover, you’ll note that it’s only those free-market technology companies which are doing anything to oppose this. Try harder.

    2. There was a balance of power between government and the governed

      There can be no “balance” when one side claims the right to initiate violence.

      until a bunch of free-market fundamentalists

      Funny, you seem to think “fundamentalist” is a bad word. That just means they believe in (and attempt to practice) the fundamentals of the free market. For instance, you are a government fundamentalist.

      decided it would be a great idea to turn government into a cash machine for their friends and get the supreme court to call it “speech.”

      And how did they do that, again? I was unaware that liberty meant asking permission to say something. Perhaps I misread the 1st amendment…

      1. Tony, can only “think” in stereotypes. Don’t pick on the feeble-minded.

    3. There was a balance of power on Reason between posts from those imparting wisdom (e.g., Brian, Sevo, et. al) and those from idiots (e.g., craiginmass, american socialist, etc.) until the free-market aspect allowed additional idiots such as Palin’s Buttplug and yourself to inundate the comments section.

  15. my friend’s aunt makes $62 an hour on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her pay was $14934 just working on the computer for a few hours. Visit this site………
    ????? http://www.work-mill.com

  16. I have thought about his statements in the last several days. You know it’s very cold in Russia. One would think he would much prefer being here in the US as an exonerated man in full range of his Liberty. However, he’s accepting the burden of the cross he took up. He’s an intelligent man who is thinking very hard about his personal sacrifice. He’s become an eloquent man, who crafts his speech because he wants his sacrifice to be useful and not go to waste. I’m sure he’s not vexing about the status of his government pension right now.

    Waste is what the government is good at. They want to put both cost and accountability on someone else’s tab. Their corruption is a transaction that someone else pays for both in punishment & remunerations. That’s why they’re so good at scapegoating. So you’ll see more of the NSA trying to palm off “blame” of what ISIS does on Snowden.

    It’s the NSA’s fault for not exercising economy & discretion with surveillance resources. If the NSA hadn’t been so gluttonous and overbearing in their reach, Snowden never would have had any reason to jeopardize himself and his life with a leak. Then the NSA would be able to troll and patrol groups like ISIS with due recourse. However, the NSA went after the American citizen with erroneous amounts of zeal.

    For God’s sake don’t give them any more resources!!

  17. Start working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
    ……………. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  18. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……

    http://www.wixjob.com

  19. ^ jjunkMail
    ^ ffinds
    u – – – – – c o n t i n u 0 u u u u u s l.ie
    \/icdumized

    ?hich’s … jusL00KinBB0XX -a2z- bbut4
    Xample:.. a?uneAroundaRus(e)

    http://www.theoccidentalobserv…..er-18.html

    ?here
    0
    Where
    – – – – – no?here … nor
    xx_DubbleNegatati\/_xx
    – – – – – AnyWhere
    u see
    W0T’s n o t jusLieingAround
    2beAlreadyFFound
    ? H E N -chickenshitz- PULLET
    ?ight
    0utta?HEi? … ?hinAir … as*s e e n

    0 B S C E N E

    0\/ER
    &
    0\/ER a gain&a gain … n o t h i n g …
    0f?eal
    \/alue- ?\/?R –jusFFinds
    u

    \/
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2…..ks-cables/

    1. ^
      ^ a gain&a gain … n o t h i n g …
      0f?eal
      \/alue- ?\/?R –jusFFinds
      u

      Unless

      uDig … andDig . . . andDig4it . . .
      – – – – AnyThing
      ?orth
      ?hile
      2u

      http://deanhenderson.wordpress…..ian-mafia/

      4
      u

      WMR ^above^ on
      ?iki^leaks^

      0ther-
      ? i s e … dum da dum dum dduumm

      – – – – – – theSuspense
      5Ws
      &
      ho?dum
      – – – – – – it’skillingme

      = = = = s n o w d u m

      < – – – – – – as*s a i d:.. dd.&d
      u’d HaftaBe2?all4jusSuchaPLAN(?)
      0b\/iousl.ie
      1/2-S-bback?ards..: Searching4?ords
      ?hich’s
      – – – – – – d i e ? e n b a c h i a
      xpressed, AftAllaDea?Dum&dd;
      u do D0– as*s i m p l y –dum?nu?
      4’dumbcane’&as;*s a l t e d bbuy [[alla’?’inChina

      http://israelect.com/reference…..Family.htm

      = = = =
      1Lie
      Rotschild
      ?INC
      < = = = =

      -hhearty-HHar-HHarr-HHARR-]]
      \/ested … Interests … and ^ Abo\/eAll ^ IN-
      \/estmeant4jus
      WH0’REbbehind
      W0T
      IS
      IS
      … al?ays … either D i \/ e ? s i 0 n
      0r … D i \/ i d e et ? e g e r e …
      0rchastrat’ded: :

      = That’s?ntertainmeant =

      1. ^^
        IS
        W0T
        IS
        … al?ays … either D i \/ e ? s i 0 n
        0r -p2p- as*per\/ersion perPerson
        0rchastrat’ded: :

        = That’s?ntertainmeant =

        ?hich’s, if?ru, nottaQ
        @ all … ifI?cums2mmuddying duh
        Waters . . . ?looding-dduhh-ZZ0NE
        ?hether in rus[?]nglish “german” “spanish” “ffrench”
        0r, semiotics2sema4zzzzBack2idiotics, howeverMor’n’Mor’
        0NtheLINE
        ? i g h t . . . theGreatestLibraryInHistory
        ?
        U’??
        ?0T:.. !?! ..:jus’n o t rrReally?ntertained bbut, inFFact
        XXXhaust’ded bbuy jusS0muchM0R’n’M0R’onScreen . . .
        \/ariety . . .
        \/
        WHICH’S
        Yet
        0nceAgain jusSimply’n’SENSORY
        0\/??lode
        \/
        http://www.veteranstoday.com/2…..ks-cables/
        ^
        ^ bbetterDEADthan?EAD

        \/
        [[?SP. if4instance, jjournalism’s
        ———————— jusALLAjj ]]
        \/

        Si hic: snowden subterfuge

        ?rgo hoc: putin _ _ _ _ _ _

        ?

        If?his: snowdenPsy0pUs’d4subter?uge

        ?hen?hat:. ? ..:putin is holding who4whom

        ^ ^

        which’s
        W0T ‘ s n o t 2 s a y
        ^
        0n0mastics
        0 N0! names
        ^
        WHO?EbbehindWH0’RE PutInP0?E?
        UNDERjusSuchaRus(e)
        … as*
        ?ell!!hell
        ?0T’sAlla
        u k r a i n e
        0b?uscation …

        http://www.theoccidentalobserv…..er-18.html

        1. ^ ^
          ?hich++inAddition2++?hich’s
          – – ?UM0?ED
          ?
          – – causa, belli, andBlie
          ?hose
          underlyingAmassedMedia4aMassedMurde?
          – – even, mor’n’mor’now, hic et
          ubique …

          uh huh … rep.rep etc.etc inter aliya & et al

          0nline … alla?imeFFullaSameSame
          0l’selfSame?ease,?aunt’n’all?alk
          0\/ERdis,dat,dese’n’dose1sortaSordidKinda
          Xtant a s*a n g e L s < or another, play’d

          Yet, sooner’rLater, bbuying?ime,?alsi?ied

          bbut:.. as*s a i d, a gain&a gain, and as*per
          usual ..: s n e a k y ..:nYet, it’s n o t subtle

  20. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  21. UN-
    Usual as*
    ?ell!!hell
    un?EASONable2?inish < ?history

    bbut:.. as*s a i d, a gain&a gain, and as*per
    usual ..: s n e a k y ..:nYet, it’s n o t subtle

  22. ^
    UN-?ffin
    usual ..: s n e a k y ..:nYet, it’s n o t subtle
    < bbut:.. s n a k e y ..:4allAscuttlebbut< ?\/?RY?HERE
    [[no. never2mention..: ?\/?? :..jusSuch
    ubermenschen
    ]]as*est hic.’n’hoc. and, ?ic?oc, bbehind-the-scenes,
    0bscene
    – – – – – – AS*
    ?ell!!hell!!HHERE
    0mit’ded < – – – – – LINX

    which’s n o t jusBcause of ?ilthyLucre..:
    0 N0:.. bbutBcause in?0?0 and inSUM
    ? now ..:andHA\/binAllaL0NG:..
    W0T IS
    0?icialdom

    < = = = = = h o w d u m

    “theCIA
    used Sweden to launder the transfer to
    Wikileaks to make the release of the cables by
    Wikileaks appear to be
    unconnected to a covert CIA and Pentagon psychological operations program”

    < = = = = =alottasnowdum
    ^
    0\/??head
    < = = = = = bb u t:..
    ^
    uDown?itDATaSortaSordid ^ P p o p ^ < goes-the- _ _ _ _ _
    \/
    ? E A S E L L
    ^
    ?hose?rickleDo?n?heory
    x?rap0lated
    y/0\y4now
    0\/ERa1000yrs

    http://whyphysicalsilver.com/?page_id=160

    0therwiseMEANSh0??\/?R
    0\/??head
    0verYrHHead ‘r
    0verHHerd … ?eigningDown
    0\/??theBBacks
    0FjusS0manyPPeons^pistons&pissants;^
    underneathe suchAsurprisingl.ieGift’ded
    ?ind?all

    < – – ^ – – ?unner?ull
    < – – ^ – – ?unner?ull

    ?ater?all

    – – \/ – – < ?orAlla?inners !!
    – – \/ – – < 0FjusSucha ^ LEAK ^ bbut

    1. u do
      ?onder
      ?onder
      Who
      ? ? ?
      W H0
      ?? ???
      ?rote . . . [[ theLEAK^AB0\/E^
      W0T’S N 0 T
      ?ritten . . . ?rixAthe??ADE . . .
      WHICH:.. muchLESSa1000yrs
      0ld

      ?ives?ails

      xChanged
      http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/…..blunt.html
      < likeDresses.
      Costumes.
      ?igs
      < BBeards.
      MakeBelieve.like^PlayPretend^and < pp PssPss < Make
      Up Stories. like^IMPpersoNations^names^pplaces
      w/or\w/oPlayMates.bbut?unn
      witDi?erentGames.Names.?aeces^?aeries^?unn.ie
      \/oices
      giving’n’getting theLatest
      < ne?s.gossip.theGoodStu? ^ bbut ^ the?eal^insideP00p
      < in?ormation
      0P?ator . . .
      giiiii\/eME . . . L000000nnnggDystance . . .
      < Cause
      bbelie\/it or not
      uG0T_ _ jj _ _ jesus.jeho\/ah.JumpinJehoso?at

      0nTheLine:..

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDbd4jQpkA ]]

      ..:HereHear
      —————-

      1. … – – – … jusS0’s
        uKnow..:
        0!YEH!
        u2mayB
        0verHerd
        ^
        2inDeedD0
        ?0T’s n o t jusMuchAdieu
        … – – – … About
        0
        … – – – … gods?erk
        YHWH
        … – – – … S0’s2alsoHearyeHearye!!

        ————–
        ?H0?\/??
        u
        ?ant . . . [[?ailed2mention]]
        W0T . . . [[mind.body.and]] . . . N0TtheCIA!!!norPPentAgon!!!!!
        0penl.ie
        xPosed
        XXX . . .[[s o l z h e n i t s y n
        http://www.theoccidentalobserv…..er-18.html
        XXX . . . NNNN0000000000]]

        PROOF: The\/ery^Blueprint

        W
        Wiped0utta
        XXXistense

        1. enough. take your meds.

          1. ^^ jj
            ?
            ?nu?:..

            f
            u
            c-Something
            _SaySumthin

            k..: ? :..? c k o la la l a l i a k yak yak yak

            u, as*s e e n as*s a i d, Here

            0verHerd
            4jusSuch
            0riginality!!

            0 . . . {{ bbetterMEDthan … }} DeadLetter

            ———————————— ?EAD
            u
            u.s’d and
            useless mutha?ucka

            xxx
            http://www.theoccidentalobserv…..er-18.html
            xxx

            0R
            ———————————— ?em.?em rep.rep etc.etc inter aliya & et al
            jjus?epeat after me … me …meme

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDbd4jQpkA ?ake-aL00K

            —————————- ?ake^err,or,inYrCase,?ake’n’?alk^About^aL E A K !?!

            “He’s PeeKing”

  23. The Libertarian Moment?

    We must remember that at the time of the American Revolution only about 1/3 supported it. Others supported England and the King, many others not engaged, just busy making a living. We need to gain enough support to sway policy not take over the entire government.

    1. We must remember
      … ? H I S … t o r y

      http://www.iamthewitness.com/b…..angers.htm

      … A**Kiss is still A**KISS

      ? ? ? ?? ??? ?? ???

      ?hich’s
      xact|ie.
      W0T Jefferson KNEW

      0f?HA? \/. PARTicular ?**k’d?ongue

      – – – – – – – theHouse0fL0ND0N
      ?hether <
      – – – – – – – theHouse0f PARIS + + +

      {{{never0fCourse2mention … then. as*s t i l l … dHStxts

      Ubermenschen

      0uttaTheir
      0ther * * * ?rank?ort, naples and\/iennaHHHouses}}}

      @ the? I M E?5silent ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 zzzzz
      \/
      13al?eady ?ull.ieAccount’ded4colonie e e e zzzzzzzzzzzzz
      u n i t ‘ ded bbut, ?**k’d

      ? ? ? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?????????

      … a l l y is jusAlie …

      ?? ????????????

      – – – – – – – “british”
      ?hether <
      – – – – – – – “?rench”

      http://redressone.wordpress.com/exodus-pt1/

      ??????????? ????????????

      0nly . . . n0?AS*S e l fSame
      0ld s o n gAg a i n & A gain
      1/2-s-bback?ards … as if4words < < ?\/?Ndys?ay?ayBBACK
      2the?uture . . .
      WHO?E
      Xactly theKno?nKno?nzz JEFFERSON, inParticular
      Was
      \/much
      Writing … ?o?ards … and– “?ederalist” aLex:?alionis –A g a i nst

      \/ i c t o r y

      < < as*s e e n
      0 B S C E N E < < as? I M E?goes bbuy

      1. Go home e.e. cummings, you’re drunk.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.