Home Tags Posts tagged with "1984isNotanInstructionManual"
Tag:

1984isNotanInstructionManual

Blog

Google Is Now the Ministry of Truthiness

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

If you need a primer to crystallize what promoters of free markets, personal choice, individual liberties, self-ownership, and the dignity of human freedom are up against, I give you the manipulation of search results by Google as Exhibit A. (I did this experiment myself.)

The top image is the prompt Google fills in for you when you start typing the words, “How many people died under c…”. The bottom image shows that you have to type the full sentence with no prompts in order to research how many people died under communism. Clearly, you are being manipulated into thinking capitalism, which has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system, is bad.

Now, further consider, communism and its ugly baby sister, socialism, have killed magnitudes greater amounts by HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS than capitalism has, and then ask yourself… Who benefits if these facts are distorted and/or memory-holed?

Control Freaks, statists, socialists, and communists benefit. Big corporations, who collude with Big Gov, of course, also benefit. Everyone needs to use the internet in a lockdown, eh?

Who loses? We do. Ordinary, good, decent, hardworking folk. The ones who pay our bills. Who try to save a little. Who maintain our health. We are being squeezed between the mob of “useful idiots” and the oligarchy.

WE MUST UNITE.

The issue of self-ownership is not a left/right issue. It is “us” against “forceful global powers that want to control every aspect of your life” issue. They claim this control will benefit us all in the name of “safety” but they are lying to you. They are manipulating you. They are gaslighting you. They are abusing you.

Now, you may end up “feeling safe” for a little while, but you will not be safe. You will be a slave. A cog in the system. You will no longer be free, and what is the point of living if not the joyous, somewhat dangerous pursuit of happiness?

None of us get out alive, so we may as well enjoy the ride!

Liberty, freedom, consent, mutual cooperation and voluntary exchange are being presented to you as bad things, but we all know deep within our core this is untrue. Nothing is more rewarding than being the steward of your own life, and this right is being exterminated.

If we lose our inalienable right to body autonomy and the right to say NO to forced medical interventions based on our own consciences, we will not regain these rights without much suffering. I don’t want more suffering, I want less.

More freedom = less suffering.

THIS is the battle. Standing together NOW and saying, NO MORE! Please, please, please, join the fight! Say NO to any more government mandates, vaccine passports, or lockdowns. If you are told you must get the bio-injection, file for medical or religious exceptions. If you are rejected, force your employer to fire you. Then sue.

Together, we CAN reverse this terrible trend. Maybe not everywhere, but definitely, 100% we can, and WILL, stay free in the Free State of New Hampshire! Who is with me!?!

0 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

Want Real Health? Control Your Mind’s Content

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Look at that headline! Could they have made the words “DEATH” any bigger? This is your local paper exploiting your fears, created mostly by them and their cohorts in the mainstream media, in order to sell you another damn copy of a DYING paper. (See? Two can play that game, lamestream!)

Now that the Covid-19 death narrative is on the wane, now that Americans are reaching their fill and are getting fed up, it’s time for… a new old bogeyman…

This Sunday, we give you a steadfast, regular, go-to culprit… MEXICAN CARTELS! This time, for METH, because, I guess now that marijuana is medicine, it isn’t sufficiently scary anymore, and they have pretty much exhausted the opium/heroin/fentanyl angle (for now, anyway), so let’s give you, Dear Reader, something familiar, and also new, and also DEADLY, DEADLY, DEADLY… let’s give you… meth-death-porn…

Are YOU terrified yet? If not, what are you waiting for? You know what to do! You need to consume more news!!! Or, yanno… you could follow my advice…

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogVideo

If You Did This to Your Child, You Would Be Arrested… Why Condone This Violent Behavior from People in Uniforms Carrying Guns in Schools?

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Watch the video above to see happened last week at Keene High School, a government-run school. Now, I’d like you to pause and consider a few things:

  1. If you did this to your child at home, do you think this would rise to the level of assault? Do you think if a cop saw you doing this to your child, say, in a public parking lot, you might get arrested? If YOU couldn’t or shouldn’t get away with this sort of behavior, why would you condone this assault from an armed government agent in a school?
  2. Let’s assume for the sake of argument the kid was rude to the officer in the minutes before the video started. Do you tackle your child from behind and smash him to the floor every time he is rude to you? Is this the type of response you would like anyone to make when your child has his or her back turned and is walking away? Remember, in NH, the AG’s office has ruled law enforcement can shoot someone in the back when they are fleeing and kill them, and that this is “justified.” If you wouldn’t let anyone else get away with this, you should x1000 not let a government agent authorized to use lethal force get away with it.
  3. If the rationale for this sort of behavior is that we need to “save” children from vaping, do you think this level of violent response is OK to stop someone’s personal, peaceful, behavior, or do you think perhaps the LEO overreacted? If he overreacted, should he be held accountable, or should we just sweep this, like tens of other similar incidences, under the rug of “awful things we let happen in ‘our’ schools; *Shrug*”?
  4. The inevitable “spin” from Keene Police Chief Russo as quoted in today’s Union Leader boils down to their classic Nazi Nuremberg defense: “The officer was just following orders.” Chief Russo stated, “It looks like it was a legal use of force that followed our procedure,” and, “It doesn’t appear to violate our policies or state statute.”

    Please note these nifty catch phrases are specifically designed to make you question your very astute GUT FEELING THAT THIS ASSAULT WAS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING IN OUR SCHOOLS. We hear that “just following procedure” phrase with alarming frequency whenever questions about use of force come up. That’s on purpose. They want you to think, “Well, really, what do I know? I’m just a little ole person, and even though this behavior looks like a dangerous, immoral attack to me, and I know *I* would get in trouble if *I* behaved like that… but, they’re saying it’s legal and procedural for them to do, so I guess it has to be OK, because they say it’s OK?!?”

    NO! Repeat after me: This type of behavior is not OK in a free society.

    How do we fix this? First, we need to elect people who understand the actual challenges facing our state and schools. You can vote for me for the new School Charter Commission on Tuesday, November 5th. Second, we need to acknowledge we have a societal problem whereby we have sanctioned the government to use baseless bullying tactics against people in order to VIOLENTLY FORCE THEM INTO SUBMISSION.

    This is not a world I want to live in. This is not a New Hampshire I want to live in, and I think we still have time to stop this kind of behavior here. We have a chance to reject government sanctioned violence as a way to make people do what we want. If you can’t persuade me, then maybe you need a better pitch.

    If it were up to me, I’d fire this officer (listed as JOSHUA ENGLISH in the school staff directory), but we all know that will never happen [EDIT: This officer shot and killed someone in 2010 and that killing was ruled justified]. What will happen is the police will close ranks to protect this officer, and police apologists will make excuses and attack people who criticize them. They will have a secret, internal review and miraculously find themselves not guilty of anything, the officer will continue to work at the school, will likely hurt more children, maybe accidentally snapping someone’s neck in a “lawful procedural act” in the future, or maybe he’ll get moved to another school, but regardless, the system will make sure that ultimately, he gets a nice fat payout, and a lifetime pension. I doubt he’d even be placed on the secret list of bad NH cops (sign the petition to release the list and restore public trust HERE) and, well, I’m not holding my breath for that one, because #ICANTBREATHE.

    The likely only result of this video will be they use it as an opportunity to expand the areas and tactics of “permitted procedural violence” that they will say is “legal” for them to use against our children in our schools. Oh, and I’m willing to bet any takers, they will 100% go after the kid who made the video. Because you can’t fix what you can’t SEE. And they don’t want you to see for yourself what they claim to be doing in your name, and they certainly don’t want you to make up your own mind, and say, Enough is enough, NOT IN MY NAME!

    [UPDATE 08/08/20: If you had taken that bet, you would indeed have lost! Both children involved were sanctioned, one was suspended and one was reprimanded. Can you guess which was which?

    The kid who took the video… i.e. the child who provided the evidence showing a grown man tackling a 15 year old in pink shorts from behind got… SUSPENDED. What kind of message do you think that is designed to send to the other students? Chilling, indeed.]

    [UPDATE 12/5/20, Facebook post after trying to link to a 2019 police brutality video at Keene High: I find it deeply troubling that YT would censor as “age-restricted” a video shot IN a high school BY a high schooler of a police office tackling a 15 year-old student from behind. I suggest everyone click through and watch the video from Keene High last year (https://www.carlagericke.com/if-you-did-this-to-your…/) and then ask yourself if you think it is OK for this to be happening in local NH schools that YOU are FORCED to pay for? And before you say, “What did he do?” know this: It doesn’t matter what he did–would you program a “robot cop” to be able to tackle your child from behind like this during school hours? Didn’t think so. If you won’t authorize a robot to do it, why are you letting one human do it to another, a child, no less? (The kid was allegedly vaping in the Boys Room.) PS: I was linking my blog on a Maggie Hassan post when I noticed the new age warning. #NoBigBro#1984IsNotAnInstructionManual]
0 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
In the MediaVideo

Guest Appearance on Rainbow Stew

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

I joined Jack Kenny for a heated discussion about the 24/7 Orwellian police surveillance cameras being proposed for downtown Manchester. I stick to my guns that the cameras are symptomatic of government overreach that will ultimately lead to a dystopian future, and Jack takes the “security over liberty” position, and even trots out the Nazi quote from Minister of Propaganda Goebbels himself: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”

While we are on the subject, read Edward Snowden’s take on why privacy is such an important right. And consider this Computer Weekly article, “Debunking a myth: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”

0 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Podcasts

Big Brother is Watching: Told You So Ep. 3

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Big Brother is looming over Manchester, and our hosts are pushing back with a lawsuit against proposed surveillance cameras on Elm St. From ancient Roman secret police to Bentham’s Panopticon and Orwell’s telescreens, surveillance has been a topic of controversy and discussion for as long as humans have existed in community with one another. What cultural and political changes would constant surveillance bring to New Hampshire? Dive into the dirty details on this week’s episode of Told You So!  LISTEN NOW…

0 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogIn the Media

Manchester Surveillance Cameras in the News

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

I’m working on a summary of yesterday’s proceedings regarding the City of Manchester’s proposed plans to put up several surveillance cameras downtown. In the mean time, here’s today’s coverage from local media sources…

WMUR:

We want more privacy,” plaintiff Carla Gericke said. “We want the government’s role to be limited and restricted as it’s constitutionally supposed to be. Let’s not turn into a big brother Orwellian surveillance state.”

Union Leader:

Gericke, a liberty activist who has sought state and local office, said she would have no issue with a storeowner installing a camera and voluntarily sharing video with police. ‘Everyone’s working together. That’s a decentralized approach,’ she said. ‘What we’re talking about here is a very centralized approach where it’s centralized in one group of people’s hands. We don’t know really what’s going to happen to the data and I think it’s naive to just say we should trust them.’

Manchester Ink Link:

Carla Gericke, president emeritus of the Free State Project and a Manchester activist who led a protest against the cameras last April outside City Hall.  She is concerned about the cameras having a chilling effect on future protests. She questioned whether the cameras would record future protesters and if the police would use the information to make a database of trouble-makers and renegades.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

Hearing today on MPD surveillance cameras

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

The hearing for injunctive relief in the matter of NEAL KURK et al. v City of Manchester is taking place today. Having now read all the rather technical pleadings, it’s difficult to predict what may happen.

On the one hand, you have us four intrepid privacy advocates, the petitioners, holding strong that under RSA 236:130, it would be illegal for these surveillance cameras to even have the capability to identify motorists or motor vehicles, since such identification is expressly banned if it “can” occur under the section entitled, “Highway Surveillance Prohibited.”

On the other side, you have the City of Manchester and its police force, who argue they can do what they want (and they usually do–remember the recent tax cap override?). The City makes several technical arguments, including that some of us lack standing under Duncan, a bad court case that lead to the successful Constitutional Amendment which passed by a whopping 83% margin last fall to restore taxpayer standing. They also seem to make the argument that we should just “trust them” to use the cameras in lawful ways. Color me skeptical.

You can read more about the case here:
Union Leader
Manchester Ink Link
Granite Grok

Follow me on Facebook to stay up-to-date on today’s developments.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

“New Hampshire is a state that staunchly defends its right to privacy, and this plan is a direct violation of that by needlessly capturing the information of thousands of Granite Staters simply going about their business.”

Gilles Bissonnette, ACLU-NH
Blog

ACLU lawsuit to block surveillance cameras in downtown Manchester

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Today, the ACLU-NH filed a lawsuit on behalf of 4 petitioners (and I’m one of them! :)) to block the use of police surveillance cameras on Elm Street in Manchester. Here is the ACLU-NH’s press release:

Surveillance cameras would violate a NH privacy law because they will capture motorists’ identifying information

CONCORD, N.H. – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit challenging planned surveillance cameras in downtown Manchester. The cameras, which would capture live video of traffic on Elm Street, are illegal because they violate a state privacy law that specifically disallows cameras that capture a motorists’ identifying information, such as their face or license plate.

“The surveillance cameras proposed by the City of Manchester are troubling: driving down Elm Street shouldn’t include recording video of your face, license plate, and passengers,” said Gilles Bissonnette, Legal Director at the ACLU of New Hampshire. “New Hampshire is a state that staunchly defends its right to privacy, and this plan is a direct violation of that by needlessly capturing the information of thousands of Granite Staters simply going about their business.”

The current installation plan includes three permanent surveillance cameras in the area of City Hall that will look north and south on Elm Street, with a live feed transmitted to the Manchester Police Department’s dispatch office. The images captured would be recorded and stored for fourteen days. Although the intent may not be to monitor traffic, the high quality of the cameras allow users to zoom in and out, and would inevitably capture faces and license plates.

Former Representative Neil Kurk, who drafted the law in 2006 and is a petitioner in the case, said:

“The statute we are defending in this lawsuit is unique to New Hampshire and, unlike other states, provides our citizens with a right to be free from government intrusion that is tantamount to a surveillance state. The goal of this statute is to prevent New Hampshire from becoming like New York City or London where government surveillance through cameras—regardless of whether the surveillance cameras capture criminal activity—is pervasive. I am deeply disappointed that Manchester is going down the path of government intrusion by installing surveillance cameras on Elm Street. This is exactly the type of surveillance that the statute was and is designed to prevent.”

Carla Gericke, a former New Hampshire State Senate candidate and petitioner in this case, said:

“How can the police simply start surveilling downtown people and motorists without any input from the community? When I learned about the Manchester Police Department’s plan to put up surveillance cameras downtown, I organized a protest rally, and about 40 people attended. I am deeply concerned about this government intrusion. I am confident that Granite Staters do not want this type of surveillance because more than 80% voted to protect privacy when they amended the New Hampshire Constitution last year.”

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
  • 1
  • 2
Close