Respect My Authoritah

More and more every day I see reports of police abuse. I'm not talking about some "bad apples" who are a "rarity." I'm not talking about "isolated incidents" that only happen "here or there." Police abuse is becoming much more widespread and common thanks to all the State's wars as well as the militarization and federalization of the police. And it's only going to get worse.

Here is the movie I saw today that prompted me to write this post. That movie is a relatively mild form of police abuse, I've seen far worse, but my blood still boiled as I watched these police thugs harass random citizens and completely deny them any of their natural human rights. The police will never stop infringing upon our rights, and they are only going to continue to become worse until We The People put a stop to it.

So why exactly do we have these worthless government leeches "serving" and "protecting" us anyway? They claim to serve and protect, but their real purpose is to instill police state fear into the citizens so that we do not question their "authority." But what would we do without cops? We'd be so lost! There would be complete chaos! Certainly they are not there to enforce the arbitrary mandates of our masters in the empire. Certainly they are not given free reign, and are not completely above the law.

Law enforcers above the law, huh? I believe that is a good definition of fascism. But cops are just a necessary part of life, right? We need them, right?

Yes, I would completely agree that we need cops, but we certainly don't need these thugs who leech off the taxpayer. America was founded on the principles of liberty and the free market, so why not extend the free market to the most important institutions in society (i.e., protection of our God given rights)?

Here is the basic difference between government services and free market services. In the free market, the provider of a service only exists so long as they both A) successfully serve the customer, and B) are able to compete for higher quality and lower prices against other providers of the same service. If they fail to do both A and B, then they have no customers, no money, and thus they cease to continue as an entity. They are done, finished, no more. That is why the free market so brilliantly provides great services, that is the beauty of competition.

The government on the other hand is just the opposite. They exist by social contract, not by the profits that they make. They exist and expand through the forced theft of private property, not by successfully serving the customer. The State always creates more excuses to continue expanding and to continue sucking up all the resources created by the free market. It is literally a leech, and so is everyone on the government payroll (unless they a Ron Paul Republican trying to restore sanity).

So, if we extend these ideas to policing, it is easy to see why cops get away with abuse so easily. They have absolutely no incentive to protect people's rights and no incentive not to abuse people (since they know they are above the law). Cop is having a bad day?...why not take it out on the citizens? Cop doesn't like the way you are talking to him, maybe he should just tase you for no reason! They have absolutely no incentive to provide the services that they are supposed to.

Private police, on the other hand, would do wonders for us. They would be provided by the free market, and so they would be required to protect people's rights or face not making any profit and disappearing. Got a bad apple on the private force? He's gone immediately, fired. Cop decides to commit a crime against a citizen? He is immediately fired and prosecuted. Hell, cop says something you don't like and you are free to talk to the manager, and he will be reprimanded if necessary. You know all the friendly service you get when you go to a restaurant, hotel, shoe store, car shop, etc.? That is all thanks to the free market (where else would the incentive come from for those people to be polite?). Imagine the cops being that friendly all the time, and providing the great service of protecting your persons and property!

Of course, privatization of the police means that you would have to pay for the police services, but they would cost far less than what you pay in taxes. Again, the government cops have no incentive to be frugal. They buy all kinds of little goodies, such as over-the-top weaponry, or those mustang cars that are supposed to make you feel intimidated (actually they are there so the cop can live his life pretending that he is in an action movie). The government police stations grow and grow, as their excuses grow, and they suck up more and more resources from private citizens.

Private cops would have incentive to be frugal like any other business. They would be forced to compete with other private cop companies to provide the services at the lowest possible price, and thus could not waste money on mustangs so they can pretend they are a hard ass. They would not buy black uniforms in order to instill a sense of fear in you. They would not buy electrocution torture devices and walk around all taser-happy. They would not force the masses into a dog mentality which never seeks to question and even goes so far as to defend its own oppression ("Why'd the cop tase him? Because he didn't obey the cop! He deserved it!" - I hate comments like this on youtube or elsewhere from sheepish worshippers of the State). They would not do marijuana sting operations, or any other sting operations for that matter. They would not seek out random citizens to arrest for non-crimes, their only purpose would be to protect you, your family, and your property. In other words, they would actually serve and protect, rather than just roaming around looking for people to harass because they are bored and miserable.

But what about the impoverished? They would lose their protection! First of all, the impoverished are the ones who the police harass the most. They know the poor are so far down on the government food chain that they can be robbed and harassed without consequence. The war on drugs is a prime example. Like I've explained in previous posts, drug prohibition is a necessary prerequisite for the arising of gangs. I think impoverished people in the inner city would probably be better off without gangs and police constantly battling all around them. Without this government intervention, the stagnation and poverty in the inner cities would begin to reduce and fade out. Not that the war on drugs is their only problem, but it is a prime agent. Also, they would be doing much better if they didn't have to pay all the arbitrary state taxes, for those who do pay.

Certainly, the poor would need police protection like anyone else. But they could be helped through voluntary private charity, if it had not been destroyed by forced welfare. Charity used to be huge before the era of big government, now people loathe paying taxes to help the poor, and the poor expect hand outs freely. In the good old days of charity, donors, who didn't have all of their private property stolen through government theft, could feel good about themselves donating to help the poor. The poor, in return, because there was no set precedent that anyone had to give them anything, were very thankful. Hmm, yet another shining example of how government separates and destroys the goodwill which the free market naturally fosters across any conceivable social divide (i.e., classes, races, religions, etc.). Here is a good quote from an article about big government which talks about the good old days, "Along came the American people and established the most unusual society in history: No income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, economic regulations, immigration controls, or welfare. For the first time in history, people were free to open up businesses without government permission or interference. They were free to keep everything they earned and to decide what to do with it. Charity was entirely voluntary. The result? The most prosperous – and the most charitable – society in history."

We don't need government police. They are an abomination and a destroyer of liberties. They are consistent violators of property. They cost too much and rarely provide successful services while generally providing disservices. They will continue to get worse unless something is done to stop this madness. Let people actually be served and protected, let us be truly free, let us have the right to pay for our own protection rather than being made to pay for our own forced obedience to the Authoritah of people with blue uniforms on who are constantly bored, don't know the first thing about the Constitution they are supposed to defend, and who are constantly looking to express their dominance over people who are just trying to make a legitimate living. The government cops need to Respect the Authoritah of We The People and go get real jobs.

Crazed Conspiracy Theorists

I am sometimes accused of being a kooky "conspiracy theorist" who believes in half-baked internet rumors, probably starting from some angelfire page (something like "Johnny's Conspiracy Page", dig?). While I'm guessing that not all my beliefs are correct, I do try my best to practice a great deal of discernment. If the information is not from a credible source there is no way I will automatically believe what I am reading.

It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it is for some people to accept the idea of a "conspiracy theory." Take 9/11 for example. Every time it is mentioned on the media they always make some kind of dumb joke against those "crazy conspiracy theorists" who are insane enough to believe that the compassionate US government or executive branch would have anything to do with the attacks. Of course, whatever story you adhere to, 9/11 was a conspiracy either way. Even if you believe that 19 cave-dwelling "islamo-fascists" were capable of fooling a multi-trillion dollar defense system hitting 75% of their targets on a single day, you are still a conspiracy theorist. The question becomes which conspiracy is more likely. Can the extremists, 50 minutes after their buddies hit the second tower, crash into the most highly sensitive, highly surveillanced building in all of America? FAA regulations dictate that if a plane goes off course NORAD will intercept them in under ten minutes...And even after they knew flight 77 had been hijacked 42 minutes before, even after they saw a blip on the radar screen over West Virginia, the Pentagon was not at DEFCON 3 and not ready for anything that flew near?? Only three buildings have ever collapsed "due to a fire", WTC1, 2, and 7. WTC 7 was hit by nothing, and yet it experienced a perfect spontaneous implosion? The kind that takes weeks to set up and plan for in Vegas? The kind that the "9/11 Commission" never mentioned? And what about the 9/11 Commission? Bush and Cheney fought that thing tooth and nail, and when they finally had to let it happen they insisted that they not have to testify under oath or on record, that the hearings would be secret, and that they could appoint members to the commission (Bush appointed Henry Kissinger the first time around! At little blatant, don't you think?). The final 9/11 Commission report had to be approved by the White House before it was released to the public. Is anyone else having red flags go off in their head?

That is just the very tip of the iceberg in terms of holes in the government's story. But, so many still believe that the cave-dweller hypothesis is far, far more likely than there being elements on the inside. Anyone who mentions the possibility of an inside job is either "anti-American" or a "conspiracy nut." I think people who believe in the government's story are the conspiracy nuts.

Really though, it boils down to the fact that people simply cannot accept the reality of our current state of affairs. The whole police state, Homeland Security, wars in the Middle East, destruction of the Constitution, etc., all rests on the lie of 9/11, and if that lie collapses I cannot imagine what will happen. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, Hitler said it is much easier to sell a bigger lie than a smaller one because no one will ever believe it. The war profiteers in an around our government have gotten very, very wealthy off of sending our men and women to die, and off of demanding the murder and torture of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Should we really believe that these people are not capable of committing a tragedy like 9/11? These are the same people who don't even bother to finish construction jobs, or even start them, they just like the part where they get billions of taxpayer dollars.

But 9/11 is just one of the conspiracies. There is the admitted conspiracy that almost took place when the US government was planning on killing Americans in a false flag "terrorist" attack so they could blame it on Fidel as an excuse to go start a war in Cuba. There is the admitted lie of the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to tens of thousands of American deaths in Vietnam. Governments all around the world participate in false flag attacks, what better way to convince their subjects to willingly give up their rights or to go to war?

But false flag terror attacks are not the only brand of conspiracy with which we are faced. Sometimes I am derided for "buying into" the New World Order conspiracy. The premise of the conspiracy is not very outlandish. Rich and powerful people coming together to seek more money and power, is that really so strange of an idea? And just look at some of their creations. They've already made the European Union (which is now in the latter stages of development since they have finally managed to undermine each country's constitution). They sure didn't hold back when making the African Union. But they are having a little trouble convincing the free-spirited Americans to accept the North American Union (god I love gun owning Constitution toting Americans). I have to hand it to these guys though, they are very, very clever. They do everything in incremental steps just small enough to keep the populations pacified in order to avoid a worldwide revolution. Eventually they want to consolidate the Unions into ever more centralized bureaucracies. If you thought you lacked power and influence at the federal level, just wait to see how much influence you have at the global bureaucracy level.

Even Ron Paul has been talking about this for years. The media may try to accuse anyone who dare speak of these global elites as being crazy, but who believes the media anymore? Haven't they finally lost their credibility? They are owned by the global elites.

Certainly there are many conspiracies out there that I don't buy into. I don't believe in Roswell UFO's or any other UFO's for that matter. I don't think an alien race of reptilians is planning to take over the world. You've just got to learn how to separate the bad information from the good. All it takes is some research and some credible sources and you could be well on your way to getting a better picture of what is really going on in this world.

This post may shock some people. Some may ignore it, refusing to believe all of these scary ideas. But let me tell you, once you cross over to the other side, it's not so bad. In fact, while at first I was distraught, I feel much better now finally admitting all of these things to myself. All of the looming questions in my mind, all of the confusion as to why certain events were happening, it has all become quite clear. Sure, the idea that our government is capable of outright attacking us is scary, but somehow I am now much less fearful after coming to grips with our current state of affairs. After all, the first step towards fixing this world is winning the information war, which I have been helping to wage ever since Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell opened my eyes. As such, anyone who finally admits to the reality of the world should do everything in their power to propagate this type of information. If we are to bring these global elites down we need to get as many people on board as we can. Thank God for the Ron Paul Revolution, which is educating people, and which is creating a political revolution inside the GOP. This makes me incredibly hopeful that violence can be completely avoided. Once violence starts, then the deep hatred sets in, and who knows how much endless suffering will ensue.

Here is a great quote I saw recently by John Locke:

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence."

If we are directly attacked, then the best thing to do is to defend your family and property, which is well within your natural human rights and is spelled out by the Constitution. Given the new power of our government to declare a "state of emergency" and institute martial law, there is certainly the risk of people being horribly violated. I just hope and pray that the rEVOLution is able to diffuse the ever growing tensions in time to avoid anyone getting needlessly harmed or killed.

The War On Racism

Race is apparently a taboo subject in America. Don Imus says, "nappy headed hos," and everyone calls for him to be fired. Michael Richards spouted off the "N" word in an angry tirade because he was being harassed. Some kids hung a noose on a tree at school which caused someone to get beat up.

Every time something like this comes up, you can count on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be outraged. Of course, by outraged I mean overjoyed at another opportunity to exploit the very race they pretend to defend. People, both black and white, march in the streets as if this were the civil rights era, desperately wanting some battle to fight, envisioning themselves as heroes in an era where just anyone can say things to hurt people's feelings.

But why such outrage at Don Imus and Michael Richards? Where is the outrage about the apartheid in Lebanon? Where are the protests against foreign aid to Africa? Why isn't anyone upset about being robbed by the Federal Reserve?

The answer is simple...because the media never told them to be. No force in this country is more effective at spreading racism than the media. Odd, isn't it? The very PC-obsessed people we thought were on the front lines in the War on Racism are the very ones who perpetuate the "racial fault lines" they never stop talking about. Turn on the news right now. They are talking about race, I guarantee it.

And how exactly do they approach it? By endlessly questioning what race will vote for who, and why. They harp constantly that Hillary needs to do this to appeal to black voters, or Obama must do that if he is to appease the whites. They offer up statistic after statistic which attempts to dissect the preferences of each race, and why they are that way. With all their talk about race, how can we possibly stop thinking about it?

But the media is not the source of racism. Certainly, they are just preying upon pre-existing notions. Their race talk would have no bearing or legitimacy if there weren't another force perpetuating it. So what then really keeps all of this going? You already know what my answer is going to be, right?

Of course, it is the State. Without some artificial force to keep racism afloat, with every new generation we would witness far less concern about skin color. The free market, the antithesis of government, encourages the dissolution of skin color boundaries. Some black guy working at a restaurant serves some white customers (hey maybe these white folks aren't so bad!). A white man somewhere fixes a black mans car (well, maybe these people are okay after all!). I'm sure you can think of a million different ways in which the free market brings people together (that is the magic of voluntary association and private property). They don't care what color anyone is, they are just trying to make a living. People will give up racism long before they give up money. The State, however, loves racism. It is one of the key weapons in their arsenal. They love to find ways to divide us, whether it is brown vs. white, Muslim vs. Christian, left vs. right, etc. As long as we are looking at each other we aren't noticing the real source of the problems we face. But how exactly does the State create racism?

The biggest weapon in their race-arsenal is the War on Drugs. Now, you don't see people marching in the street about this giant scam, and yet one harmless comment from Imus and they are all over the place. Well, I guess I can't be too hard on them. They mean well, and I too was once blind (but now I see).

But let's get down to the brass tacks here. The biggest problem with the War on Drugs is that it allows gangs to exist. As I explained in a previous post, without drug prohibition, there cannot be gangs. Sound crazy? Go research it for yourself. How possibly could a gang afford to exist and continue fighting street wars without some kind of massive funding? Where is the incentive for people to even form a gang in the first place? Because drugs are illegal, they exist on the black market. This means that when you buy drugs, you are paying for the person's time, labor, drugs, and the risk that person takes in supplying you. Of those four things, the risk is by far the most costly. Without prohibition there would be no "risk factor", and so drug prices would experience a tremendous drop. Gang members, unable to charge artificially high prices, would be forced to disband and search for other means of feeding themselves. Sure, there would still be drugs and drug dealers, but the only successful ones would be those with respect for private property and voluntary association.

So, right away we can see how much racism is already being caused by the State. Every white person who has something against blacks always conjures up images in their mind of gang members rolling around and causing trouble. Black people associate their culture with this type of violence and sometimes conduct themselves in such a manner. Cities are often heavily segregated. The War on Drugs gives rise to the gangs which create so much stagnation and poverty in inner cities. How can these people prosper with the police and gangs endlessly battling amongst themselves? And let's not forget the ridiculous 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack (black man's drug, right?) and cocaine (white man's drug?). Maybe it's because so many politicians use coke that they wouldn't want to risk longer sentences. Oh wait, that's right, they are completely above the law.

It takes a lot of open-minded investigation and information for anyone to realize the true source of the problem, and this is exactly why the State is so successful at turning races against one another. The media doesn't help by feeding upon this State-created confusion and expounding it onto trivial issues, like the "outrage" of Don Imus or Michael Richards.

Beyond the War on Drugs, the State has other means of spreading racism. The genocide is one major example. What do you think when you hear, "terrorist?"...the state has trained us well. The arabs are our arch enemy because they hate the West and are working fervently to build up their "Islamo-fascist" governments so that they can engage us in world war. We must kill them before they have the opportunity!

Of course, if I viewed arabs as some kind of enemy I would love to see them try to build up their governments. That could do nothing but destroy their economy and weaken their defense. Speaking of defense, ever wonder why the might of the American war machine is being pushed back by a bunch of third world impoverished Iraqis? Guerrilla warfare has never lost, ever. Our clumsy centralized military structure (plus the fact that we are on the offensive in a foreign land) prevents us from "winning." Of course, there is no victory, and the neocons are already accomplishing their goal of mass extermination.

But back to the racism, we've all seen the GOP campaign commercials depicting arabs protesting in the streets with ominous music in the background and a serious voice saying, "Can you trust a democrat to handle the biggest problem of our day?" I think the democrats will kill arabs just fine, thank you. And hey, maybe they'll even be more efficient than the GOP!

Just the other day I was standing in line to schedule classes. A young arab couple walked in with a stroller carrying an adorable little arab baby. I couldn't help but wonder how many of these families we have torn apart and destroyed. What a tragedy.

But, thanks to the State, a recent poll I saw stated that 8 out of 10 arabs have a "negative" view of the US. I couldn't help but think, "What the hell is wrong with the other 2?" Maybe they know it is the war profiteers in and around our government, not our people, who are in favor of the tragedy in the Middle East.

So there you have it. The War on Drugs creates massive tensions between hispanics, whites, and blacks, and the War on Terror turns Americans against brown people, and vice versa. Then the media uses all of the confusion to further propagate racial ignorance. Are these the only causes of racism? Of course not, but they make up the backbone of it all. There are other State causes (such as the welfare of the War on Poverty which causes massive malinvestment and poverty), as well as non-state causes. There are historical considerations, among other things, but racism is carried through the generations by force, not by some distant memory.

So many people are always offering their "solutions" to the problem. Let's just stop using the "N" word altogether, both black and white people. Let's just pretend that it's not there. Let's encourage a politically correct dialogue at all times, so we can just ignore racism, and hope it goes away.

Personally, I find violation of property or outright murder much more offensive than simple words. Nothing will go away until we deal with the State-perpetuated confusion. The "N" word will always divide whites and blacks (among other races), and this cannot be solved by simply decreeing that everyone should "stop saying it." It may seem odd at first, but considering the negative force that government is, it should not surprise anyone that the War on Drugs promotes drugs, the War on Poverty creates poverty, and the War on Terror bolsters terrorist recruitment. If we get rid of all these State wars, and allow for competition in the media, then and only then will we be able to move forward. The "N" word would begin to lose power and eventually fade out, maybe coming under some new usage or meaning.

And maybe, just maybe, people like Don Imus can say whatever they want on the radio without worrying about hurting people's feelings, since, of course, people's feelings are the only cost in this insane fiasco called the War on Racism.

Blade Mugged By Bums

"Snipes is Sentenced"

Those were the words that confronted me as I opened internet explorer. I still have my homepage as Yahoo, but I'm not sure why. Every front page story is either propaganda or something about American idol. I really need to switch to google.

But on this occasion they brought something useful to my attention.

They are forcefully putting actor Wesley Snipes in a government cage for three years (the maximum sentence) simply to make an example out of him. Originally, Snipes was acquitted of the felony charges of "tax fraud" (theft avoidance) and "conspiracy" (to what, keep what he earns?). He was convicted of a few misdemeanors, but in police state Amerika, misdemeanors can land you in jail (especially if you are a rich celebrity and the IRS needs to save face). And they aren't even trying to hide that fact! From the article...

"'Snipes' long prison sentence should send a loud and crystal clear message to all tax defiers that if they engage in similar tax defier conduct, they face joining him,' said Assistant Attorney General Nathan J. Hochman of the Justice Department's Tax Division."

I really don't even know where to begin here. Nathan Hochman, who was an L.A. tax goon before, is now a certified Bush-appointed crook who has been leeching off of actual hard working people his whole "career." This man has the audacity to tell hard working Americans that they better fork over the fruits of their own labor so that government can continue its exploitation and policing of the American people. This is the same guy who claimed that freedom is "given" by government. Yes...the freedom for you to steal other people's property, but I think we are getting the short end of the deal here. I would laugh if I wasn't so angry at these government parasites.

But after all, I guess the IRS needs to maintain its already shaky legitimacy. These people actually get upset in court, if a case doesn't go their way....isn't there something a little demented about that? They get upset when people don't let them steal the fruits of useful labor, and then even angrier when they can't abuse the "justice" system to exploit (usually lower class) Americans. And when they get really mad, they just bust down your door and confiscate your property on allegations alone. Really though, how dare Wesley Snipes avoid giving up the fruits of his own labor! These IRS flunkies are living in a fantasy world. What a perfect example of the State's blatant absence of any respect for property rights.

But I thought taxes were legally levied? Yeah, just like bagpiping is about to be illegal. There are a lot of dumb laws in this world. And many question whether the 16th was truly ratified.

But regardless, even my friend's dog understands private property. The little fella growls at me every time I try to drink out of his water bowl (I wasn't actually going to drink it). In principle, there is absolutely no justification for a federal income tax. I always hear people complain, "But then we won't have roads!" Every single penny of the federal income tax revenues, according to Reagan's Grace Commission, goes to pay off the interest on the national debt, none of it goes to anything useful. That's right, apparently we all owe interest on reckless government spending from the past. And on top of that, you personally receive absolutely no benefit for the income tax that you pay. Much of that interest goes to the big bankers in the Federal Reserve who purchase government securities. The Federal Reserve is a whole other topic of discussion, and one that I will have to make a separate post about. Basically, they are the root of all the corruption and deceit in government, they are what makes unlimited government spending possible. They've been ripping us off big time since 1913, and especially since we went of the gold standard in the 1970s. If the average American understood the fractional reserve banking system, there would be an immediate revolution. But, back to the issue of taxes and private property...

Here is a quote about slavery from an article by Steven Yates and Ray E. Bornert II, "Here is a definition, one that will make sense of the instincts telling us that slavery is indeed an abomination: slavery is non-ownership of one’s Person and Labor."

Ownership of one's labor, as I understand it, means the right to set up a voluntary agreement whereby you are compensated for your labor. After such a transaction, no one should have the right to break that contract or randomly take money from you. Who possibly has a higher claim to your labor than you? Is it not a fundamental right of a human being to keep what they earn? What person, for whatever reason, could possibly claim the right to swoop down and demand that you pay homage to him? And anyway, even if 100% of the income tax didn't go to pay the interest on the national debt, could government really be expected to spend it wisely? They are always bound to malinvest those resources because all they have incentive to do is attach their name to a bill that sounds like, "Child Abuse Prevention Act", or something of the like. I mean....how can you possibly argue with that? These heroes are saving the children!

One fact often brought up by the only legitimate person running for the Presidency is that we could get rid of the federal income tax and still have as much government revenue as we had ten years ago. This means that in the past decade government spending has doubled. And just look at all the prosperity it has brought us! I think Americans would be much better off with financial privacy, the right not to incriminate themselves (oh wait, the Constitution effectively no longer exists), and the comfort of knowing that IRS thugs won't break onto their property and harass their children. But then again, how will these IRS guys get their kicks? They won't be able to live life like they are the action hero in their own movie!

But wait, there more! Out of goodwill, Snipes actually brought three checks for the amount that he "owed", which came to a cool $15 million. The federal scum immediately accepted the payment, and diverted the cash to the US Treasury, but apparently this was not enough to appease their voracious appetites. Here is another quote from the article...

"'It's essentially a down payment, but a fraction of what he owes,' said Assistant U.S. Attorney Scotland Morris."

...??? So, what, are you tacking on interest for all that time that Snipes tried to keep his own money? Usury on stolen property, huh? These people have no shame.

Snipes seemed to have the same reaction...

"The actor, who showed little reaction, gave a loud 'wow' to the crowd as he exited the courtroom. "

From the article...

"But prosecutors, in their sentencing recommendation, said the jurors' decision 'has been portrayed in the mainstream media as a 'victory' for Snipes. The troubling implication of such coverage for the millions of average citizens who are aware of this case is that the rich and famous Wesley Snipes has 'gotten away with it.' In the end the criminal conduct of Snipes must not be seen in such a light.'"

That really says it all. They must maintain their legitimacy or face total backlash. They can't let us know how bad they are ripping us off, or how criminal they are. No, no, here in Amerika, the hard working people who actually benefit society are already assumed to be criminals, and the goons who forcefully steal their money are the "enforcers of the law." They can't let us "get away" with keeping our own money. So all of us "criminals" better not get any bright ideas or we'll end up being exploited for slave labor in a government cage. They've got to make sure that the state-run media propagandizes this to the extent that we all cheer for the caging of a great actor who failed to give up his earnings to the empire-worshipping tax collectors.

Basically, these leeches would be out on the streets if it weren't for their loathsome ways. So, next time you see a bum, give him some change (even if you know he's buying booze). At least your donation to him is voluntary, but the government bums-with-suits demand booze payments through force. What a sad, backwards little world we live in...

The Nihilism of the State

"God is dead." - Nietzsche

"Man would rather will nothingness than not will at all." - Nietzsche

These are two quotes which could not be more applicable to our current state of affairs. Nietzsche saw Christianity, and the rise of the "good vs. evil" paradigm as a shift that would lead to nihilism, and, from my humble point of view, he could not have been more correct.

In my search to understand exactly why the State is allowed to get away with so many things that go against our every human intuition, I have often placed blame on religion, the media, the sheepish public, etc. But deep down inside I feel that there is something else, something more fundamental.

One conclusion I have come to is that the State, by its very nature, is about dehumanization. The federal government wants to pass blanket laws so that everything can be the same. They loathe variety and diversity. They want to punish anyone who challenges the precedent set that makes them the ultimate and final authority on all matters relating to society. They despise anyone who challenges the status quo. They plant Pentagon flunkies in the media to constantly espouse the virtues of murder. They constantly harp on the "racial fault lines" (whatever that means) which apparently divide us. They pick out the easiest members of society to target and plaster images all over the TV of them being kidnapped, arrested, and harassed. They show paramilitary raids on drug users, tax evaders, and other victimless "criminals" that the State deems "evil." They show us images of Arabs in the street shouting and protesting, and tell us that we must kill them before they kill us. They somehow convince us that locking people up in cages and exposing them to horrible violence won't create or perpetuate crime. They want to make us carry our papers, and identify us as nine digit numbers to be manipulated. They would love for us to wear dog bracelets. They want everything to be the same, controlled, regulated, dominated. They want us to see images of our kind being degraded and humiliated so that we can come to accept ridiculous notions such as genocide and torture. They want us to think that everyone is a terrorist, or potential terrorist, so that they can further propagate and reinforce their practice of constant dehumanization. They use every conceivable means of propaganda to make us view ourselves as dogs, underlings, slaves, mere constituents of a greater whole.

In short, the State believes that every person must sacrifice themselves and their human intuitions for the greater glory of the ends that the State is trying to achieve. Power is what they are after and power means dominance and dehumanization of subjects. The State is dehumanization, and their sick fantasies only become reality so far as the populace is willing to accept them. And just look what happens when the "visions" of the State come to fruition. The more we accept human beings as worthless bags of chemicals, the further down the rabbit hole we will continue.

But what about Christianity? Jesus taught, "Love thy neighbor as I have loved you." Surely, Christianity is working against the State, reinforcing compassion and humility. Why then are so many Christians in favor of meaningless war? Maybe they are the most gullible when it comes to the State's lies?

I think it has a lot to do with the rise of science. Just as Christians refused to believe that the world is round, today they will go to any lengths to deny evolution. Go to any forum dealing with these matters and you will see them hopelessly clinging to creationism, as if evolution will break the foundations of their entire worldview. It all boils down to one thing, and one thing only: the search for meaning. Man knows he will die, and so he desperately searches for "something more" so that when death comes he will not just "fade out." Why else, in the face of such great evidence, would someone be compelled to defend creationism? I've even seen people try to use science to defend creationism! How can they use science, the very type of thinking they want to defeat, to defend age old stories which have no bearing on reality?

It really comes down to doublethink. The creationist is in denial. He has attached himself emotionally to a set of arbitrary beliefs, and then he clings to them even in the face of direct contradiction. Certainly, there is much doubt deep in his heart, but it is ignored, suppressed, sacrificed so that he can continue on willfully ignoring his intuition and comforting his deep dissatisfaction with life. Eventually he is forced to be a nihilist in denial.

But is the scientist any better? He, too, wants to find meaning in the universe. He searches endlessly for the "god particle" or a theory of everything which will contain absolute truth. He has a mindset that reduces everything to a final end particle or permanent substance which composes the whole of the universe. He rejects spirituality as a leftover notion from earlier superstitious societies. He believes that humanity can be reduced to minute interactions which can be fully explained, and which contain some ultimate nature or truth. The final theory he so desperately wants to find is no different than the God that the Christians search for. It is an affirmation of meaning which, from their perspective, has yet to be affirmed. The scientist and the Christian are just different human expressions of the same thirst. Both are equally susceptible to nihilism.

But what does all this have to do with my original purpose for creating this post? How does this relate to the State getting away with anything? The State reinforces the dehumanization and nihilism that has been manifested by the clash of western religions and science. The nihilism, however, is really only a catalyst, a vehicle through which people can justify the State. But going deeper than that, the State's ultimate legitimacy rests on two things. Firstly, until our lives are directly interrupted, we will literally search for and find ways to justify the State's lies so that we do not have to admit to the insanity of the world that we live in. The nihilism helps us to suppress our intuitions which are desperately trying to signal us that something is wrong. Secondly, what monkey sees, monkey does. So much of our self-scrutiny relies upon looking at others and comparing ourselves to them. Hey, if so many believe that preemptive war makes sense, why shouldn't I? If everyone thinks all government is benevolent, they all can't be wrong...If a bunch of people aren't stupefied and outraged by taxes, why should I be? If people aren't protesting on account of the police state, why should I be alarmed? The media does a great job of presenting the absurdity of the world as being sensible, and even normal. They do a great job of cheapening our culture, our traditions, and our basic human experience so that we are forced to view the world through the lens of a nihilist.

But one thing people fail to realize is that the State is a stagnating and deteriorating force which attempts to make everyone the same. Given a world without governments, I can't imagine any possible status quo. A truly free market media would dissolve people's habit of sounding off the same token opinions over and over again. We would not be forced to justify the world we live in through doublethink and lies. Ideas and development in all fields would not be tainted by political or governmental influence. Unfettered technological development would flourish unlike anything we have ever seen. Bankrupt ideologies such as social moralism, socialism, jingoism, imperialism, national divinity, etc., would be abandoned. People's thinking would not be confined to the box that the State builds around them. No more political correctness, no more two-sided arguments, no more distraction with trivialities. No more ideal "aim" for society which could never replace that which we have the potential to become. No more rigid institutions to prevent us from finding better ways to deal with our problems. No more intentional perpetuation of mass confusion, ignorance, delusion, and dehumanization. Our psyches would be free of this artificial burden called government and all the lies and baggage that comes along with it. In the end, I cannot truly say exactly what we would become, or how the world would look (isn't that the beauty of freedom?). I don't know whether it is the nihilism of western culture that begets the nihilism of the State, or whether it is the State's nihilism that infects culture. But, I can certainly speculate that with the cessation of government, human affairs would be manifested in an environment of free association and respect for property rights. Without dehumanization and the cheapening of the human experience, people might actually learn to enjoy simply being. And hey, you never know, we might even witness the rebirth of God....

"Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you.Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto." - Buddha

The Drums of War

I'm not old enough to have been around for Vietnam. I don't really remember desert storm or anything about Kuwait, and I rarely paid attention to politics during the Clinton years. I can't be sure whether it is my "awakening" (as it is called in Ron Paul circles, or for those who have visited the last vestige of sanity) that has shown me the militaristic nature of America today, or whether the stench of war fever has always hung over our heads. I imagine that our coming to accept mass murder as a legitimate means to an end had something to do with our becoming a superpower, as well as the recent hysteria created by the lies of 9/11.

If you really examine the issues around all of this war fever, you can see how blatantly ridiculous it is. In effect, Bush and Cheney intentionally deceived Americans and didn't even allow us to have an input through Congress. Then they sacrifice our people, make us pay for it, put us in debt to foreign nations, destroy our currency by hitting us with a hidden inflation tax, obliterate our economy, and soil our once respected name. How is this madness possibly legitimized? How do they get away with this? People can be cruel, but that usually surfaces and takes hold of those in power. We know they are insane.

But how do the masses legitimize this war? The media certainly doesn't help. But even then, everyone knows Bush and Cheney lied. Everyone has a looming question in the back of their mind regarding 9/11. Why hasn't the war gotten more scrutiny? Why aren't people harping on this at the debates?

Of course the media usually neglects anti-war protests, and they definitely ignore Ron Paul and his devoted followers. They generally refrain from asking candidates about the war, and when they do they are always softballs. They mention "surges" and sometimes death tolls, but they never question the underlying reasoning behind the madness. And before Ron Paul, the economic and foreign policy issues were totally unrelated.

But, I still often hear people arguing the token "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints I hear on TV. From the token conservative's viewpoint, the world is a dark and evil place, that's just how it is. It takes a real man to accept that fact, and to have the balls to watch on TV while Iraq gets bombed. We've got to battle our arch enemies on unto the end of the ages, and crush them while they cower in "shock and awe" at the might of the American war machine. We must, at all costs, work against those idiot tree-hugging hippies who think the world is ready to hold hands and dance around. We must defeat their ideology of cowering in the face of the greatest enemy we have ever known. The token conservative is tough. They are manly. They are so hardcore that they are unfazed by the death of innocents in the face of such ominous evil. They also want to make sure they don't get accused of being gay, weak, or girly. Hey, I'm not claiming that I have a special compassionate connection with people halfway around the world, but I do ascribe to this thing called basic human decency.

Pretty sad, these people. But is the token liberal any better? The token liberal can't tell the difference between capitalism and fascism. We should save all that $3 trillion dollars from the war and put it toward something "useful", like the environment, welfare, or energy. We hate Bush and love Bill without seeing any conflict in that. We think that "peacekeeping forces" are good, and military by any other name is bad. We believe that the military-industrial complex owned professional liars named Obama and Hillary will "start a plan for withdrawal," which doesn't really mean, "start more wars elsewhere." We stand at their rallies and slap our flippers together every time we hear "change". YES WE CAN! Can what? What are we supposed to be doing again? Did I miss something? Obama's non-stop rhetoric about "Not pandering for votes, not taking money from lobbyists, not telling people just what they want to hear" struck me as very odd. Was he really just going to stand up their on stage and call himself out? But the token liberals kept cheering. Unbelievable.

These are the same people who are not outraged when Hillary says something like this. Let me see if I am getting this right. It is okay to nuke a country and murder hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of innocent people on account of the ignorance and hubris of a handful of people in their government? Two nukes don't make a right. The media constantly will say "Iran" does this, or "Iraq" does that, as if the whole population of the country were acting in unison. Of course, every single person in Iran is a West-hating crazy who would love nothing more than to see the downfall of freedom and goodness. According to the neocons, they are all "radical Islamic extremists". Really? At least be a little more subtle in your propagandizing. Anyone can sandwich a religion between buzzwords.

Let's face it though, John McCain got one thing right. There will be more wars. The think tanks will always come up with more excuses, and no matter who we elect (unless of course America somehow regains her sanity), they will be beating the drums of war. Whether it is for Darfur, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, or even China, more American blood will be needlessly shed. Americans will continue to watch on television as if the death and torture of endless innocent people is some kind of reality show, oblivious to the fact that this war is putting the final nail in the American coffin. Total economic collapse is just around the corner. Americans perhaps deserve some blame for being so uninformed, but there is no sense in being angry about inevitability. The masses have been largely uninformed since the beginning of civilization, and we cannot place our blame on the deceived. After all, they are the ones who create the peace and prosperity through the free market which holds fast against the intrusions of government. They are the last line of defense, the last chance to restore freedom and dignity to America. My only hope is that we have reached the critical number of "awakened" people so that, when the collapse does come, the rEVOLution spreads like wildfire and people know where to place the blame. I would take an anarcho-capitalistic society any day over a Republic, but the first step towards true freedom is to throttle the ship back to Constitutional levels before it sinks into the abyss.

The Philosophy of Punishment

In our supposedly free and civilized western countries, criminal offenses against the State are dealt with by means of incarceration. The idea behind this, apparently, is to create order by giving victims justice (so they don't have to resort to personal vengeance), and also to deter further offenses either by the original criminal or by society. But is this really the most just and cost effective way to create an orderly society?

When our "civil" society incarcerates people, the whole point is to separate them from society and rehabilitate them so that they can be fit to return to civilization. In theory, this doesn't sound too bad. In practice however, it results in the exact opposite of the original purpose (the State always seems to suffer this problem).

Firstly, most people don't accept arbitrary punishment as a means of determent. For example, we don't torture people for stealing to deter theft. This, of course, would lead to innocents and thieves alike being transformed into psychologically unstable people with a much greater chance of committing a (probably violent) crime. Certainly, we don't want to promote crimes as we try to defeat them.

But, this is effectively what happens with today's "justice" system. Not necessarily the torture (although one can find many cases of torture in prisons), but the government cages have become institutionalized criminal factories. Unless you join a gang in prison for the purpose of self-protection, you are liable to be targeted because you are weak. If you weren't a criminal before you went to prison, then you will certainly be one if you ever get out. On top of that, you are much more likely to become violent since you will have either been forced to commit violence yourself (as a decree from your gang), or will (as a result of not following gang rules) encounter violence acted upon you from someone else. And let's not forget the natural tendency of guards to abuse prisoners. Every so often I hear someone rejoice at the "raping" or mistreatment someone will receive in prison because that person is such a horrible criminal. But one doesn't have to be compassionate to understand that having institutionalized crime can only hurt society and lead to further crime and disorder. Of course, not everyone can be rehabilitated, but what point is there in promoting crime, or constant dehabilitation?

Just like Diego says in Blow, "You arrive here with a Bachelor of Marijuana, but you will leave with a Doctorate of Cocaine."

Of course, I would say that drug offenders shouldn't even be in jail in the first place. I won't get into the hoax called the War on Drugs a whole lot right now, but it does relate intimately to the problems of State incarceration. How? Some have argued that the internal jail environment is simply a reflection of gangs on the outside, and that this is unavoidable. This is where the War on Drugs becomes a topic of discussion. The "evil" inner city gangs that the police endlessly battle can only arise from the black market. Put another way, a necessary condition for the arising of gangs is the prohibition of drugs. Why? The gangs require funding if they are to continue existing and paying for their street wars, and this is only possible because black market prices are artificially high (you are essentially paying someone to take a big risk for you). By ending prohibition on drugs, gangs could not make enough money to survive. Drug users would either make their own stuff, or they wouldn't be forced to pay today's outrageous prices. As such, gangs would simply dissolve, more order would arise from inner cities, and we may actually see a recovery from their constant poverty and suffering. Furthermore, even though gangs arise unnaturally due to State intervention, they eventually create order through understood "territories", gang leadership, codes, etc. The police only have the effect of continually agitating this order by removing leadership (thus creating power struggles) and perpetuating violence through raids.

Fact: Today drugs are more widely available and cheaper than ever before.

So why do we continue fighting this War on Drugs if it achieves none of the stated objectives and only has adverse effects? Well, it does achieve objectives, but not the ones we are told about. This will have to wait for another post, however, because there is too much information. I'll give you a hint though: it has a lot to do with the drug and war lords who run this country, and also the medical-industrial complex.

Back to prisons though. So, if incarceration does nothing but produce more criminals, reinforce the inner city culture of violence, promote injustice, and cost taxpayers boatloads of money, then why do we have this system?

Firstly, understand that America has the highest prison population per capita in the world (and this does not include all of the CIA's secret prisons). That's right, the "land of the free" has a higher rate of incarceration than oppressive regimes like Iran, China, or North Korea. Since 1980, the US prison population has tripled, mostly thanks to the costly War on Drugs. But, as I claimed previously, if this just costs a lot of money and creates criminals, why do policy-makers continue these activities?

You guessed it, the correctional-industrial complex. Corporations like CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) lobby Washington for privatization of prisons. While I love private property, this cannot be good. The prisoner neither pays for his time in jail, nor chooses which jail to be housed in. Prisons are fundamentally involuntary, and so privatization (while it probably creates more cost effective prisons) only has the effect of giving corrections corporations incentive to see that the US prison population expands steadily (California alone has built around 20 prisons in the last 20 years, with 10 new ones under construction!). Also, there is the problem of using prisoners as labor (this is why they love non-violent drug offenders, they make for good slave labor). According to this article, 80,000 Americans in prison are being used by commercial enterprises for labor. All of these enterprises and private prisons, who are deeply connected with Washington policy-makers, love stricter laws, more sentencing, the War on Drugs, and the police state. What better way to exploit Americans than by criminalizing everything they do and forcing them into labor? And, the lucky citizens who don't get incarcerated are forced to foot the bill for this insanity.

So, next time you hear someone praise our prisons, remind them that these monstrosities perpetuate crime through dehabilitation, house innocent non-violent offenders, continually exploit citizens (both those incarcerated and those paying taxes), and ultimately represent our new militaristic attitude. Order in society can easily be had through natural law, and it would prevent all of the negative effects of prisons (since there is no reason for them to exist). At some point I will take the time to further elaborate on the benefits of a society with no prisons (and how this is possible), but for now exposing the corruption in our current system will suffice. And here is a little ending quote for you to munch on....

"The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence." - H. L. Mencken

One Giant Leap For Africa

When most people hear Africa, they think brutal regimes, rebel armies, AIDS, poverty, starvation, and basically every other form of human suffering. But, how often do you ever ask why Africa is in this state? The media likes to paint the picture that Africa is simply a hopeless and backwards continent, and that without our foreign aid or assistance from the UN, Africa would be in even worse shape than it is now.

But does this really make sense? You're telling me a whole continent is backwards? There must be something more to the story.

Well, the answer should not surprise you. Yes there is much more to the story, and yes it deals with the global elites and their "foreign aid". Thanks to the media's portrayal of Africa as a backwards continent, there has been a growing cry for foreign aid, and even peacekeeping missions (peacekeeping forces? isn't that an oxymoron?). Now, of course, in media-land, there are only two sides to this issue. The cold-hearted "conservatives" who couldn't care less about the poor Africans, and the "liberals" who are so compassionate that they want government officials to use stolen money (i.e. taxes) to give foreign aid to the archaic countries. As usual, people generally fall into these categories because the media puts them out there, not because the media is portraying what they have seen from people.

The real problem with Africa, in fact, is the foreign aid. Firstly, the global loan sharks, who are creditors to these nations, make participating governments agree to all sorts of regulations. One of those is usually a debasement of the country's currency, which raises food prices and causes much of the starvation (inflation and soaring food prices, sound familiar?). Also, whether it is the global loan sharks or some other form of "foreign aid", the resources always end up with the strong arm in the region. This means it ends up in the hands of an oppressive regime which uses that money to continually suppress its people. This has the double effect of not only stifling any potential capitalistic development, but also perpetuating the chaos and violence created by those oppressive regimes. Foreign aid, while the citizens who call for it mean well, is nothing but a means for government to have spheres of influence and control all around the world. Just look at how we have given $10 billion in foreign aid to Pakistan to support an oppressive dictatorship. Spreading "democracy", huh? Right.

But, the question is, why would these global loan sharks want to harm Africa? Well, it is no different than any other creditor-debtor relationship. They assume implicit ownership over the government to whom they supply foreign aid because those kleptocratic oppressive regimes could not exist without continued artificial funding. This implicit ownership allows them to control the country, reap the benefits of debt payments (which they make sure can never be fully paid off), and keep Africa in a third world continent status. What? They want to keep them in third world nation status? Well, I can't read their minds, but it certainly appears that way. Isn't it a rule of history that elites always wage war against the middle class? A middle class created by a free market economy places a giant obstacle in the way of elites having total control over a country, pure and simple. Without the free market and our economic powers (both of which are derived from private property), we have no political powers. The same thing applies to Africa. If the global elites can suppress them while appearing to "help" them, then they can make sure Africa is always without any sort of middle class, and therefore without any sort of autonomy.

Sad as it is, it's true. All the horrible suffering and nightmares you hear about arise from "foreign aid." But, there is hope for Africa. In 1991, Somalia's central government was overthrown by a rival warlord. The new power however failed to stake any solid political or military control, and they eventually fell apart leaving Somalia as a stateless anarchy. Ever since, despite attempts by the UN collaborated IGAD to install a "transitional federal government", most of Somalia has remained effectively stateless.

So, what would you expect? Without a government to receive foreign aid, Somalia must be in bad shape, huh? Wrong. According to African officials, Somalia now has the best telecommunications industry in Africa. They've developed a strong herding economy, their currency has stabilized (without the inflationary policies of the global loans sharks to destroy it), and their exports have increased by a factor of five. Without the heavy fetters of government intervention and kleptocrats, Somalia has managed to become a successful free market economy. Sure, they still experience residual violence from their chaotic past, but most of the perpetuated violence occurs on account of international attempts to install governments. A stateless society provides fertile ground for conquering and oppression by bureaucrats who would love nothing more than to tame those "wild" and free peoples so they can reap the benefits of a monopoly on force and theft.

But doesn't Somalia at least need some kind of government for law and stability? Michael Van Notten, a Dutch lawyer, married into a Somali tribe and has lived there for 12 years. He says that they have a system of natural law (not legislation like "civilized" western countries), which is very effective. According to Notten, here are some of the natural intuitive principles they employ,"

The five main characteristics of the Somali law are:
* No punishment for crimes, only restitution or compensation.
* No public prosecutors, no victimless crimes.
* Fines are limited and must be paid to the victim or to his family.
* Every person is insured for his liabilities under the law.
* Judges are appointed by the litigants, not by 'society'. "

Let's see here, no government cages, no forced state arbitration, no politically driven prosecutors, no arbitrary laws, an insurance network to ensure liability, and free market arbitrators appointed by the litigants instead of easily bribed public judges. And, best of all, the central tenets of their law system revolve around private property and voluntary association. Maybe we should take a hint from these uncivilized "barbarians", and privatize our law so that property can actually be protected instead of methodically abused and stolen.

Without government intervention, the "chaotic" Somalia is finally beginning to experience peace and prosperity. Not only do they provide a perfect example of how to solve Africa's problems, but they are even showing our "civilized" kleptocratic Republic a thing or two about what freedom is truly about. If you want to be compassionate towards the suffering in Africa, make sure to protest foreign aid at all costs, and make sure to advocate the downfall of the oppressive regimes, which should be replaced with nothing.

Like I quoted in the first post, "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order." Spontaneous order arises from the condition of liberty, liberty is a prerequisite of order. It is not our government that "creates" order through force and theft, but the American people operating in the free market who prevent the suffering and chaos manifested by government. Liberty gives rise to order, order to peace, peace to prosperity, and prosperity to happiness. If we can let go of the status quo and truly become a lawful nation then maybe one day, God willing, we can be as free and prosperous as Somalia.

The Global Crisis of the Federal Reserve, Mass Corruption, and Preparation

Thanks to the Federal Reserve, our entire monetary system is built on deceit. Now we are about to reap what the Federal Reserve has sown. With the economy worsening, Bernanke is attempting to "help the common man" by artificially lowering interest rates and bailing out big banks. The problem? They are inflating the money supply so drastically that we are seeing a devaluation in the dollar, and a resulting destruction of both the dollar and the middle class. This is an incredibly dangerous policy since the dollar is backed by nothing, and the faith which props the dollar up could collapse at any time. Eventually, a collapse in our financial system is inevitable, and the more the fed tries to stave off disaster, the worse the eventual disaster will be. Many are already feeling the effects of the recession and the inflation, but this is nothing compared to what our situation will become. Countries around the world are now experiencing major riots on account of food shortages. Do we seriously believe that America is immune from these shortages? We only have an economy because we borrow massive amounts from countries like China and Saudi Arabia, and also the black market drug trade helps to prop us up (thanks to the efforts of the CIA to continually smuggle massive amounts of drugs into America). Many, thanks to the complacent media owned by the very people who are screwing us over, are unaware that our government has degenerated into a front for an international crime syndicate. Yes there are still patriotic compartments in government, but they are wholly overpowered by criminal elements (especially those in the Executive Branch). Does this not make sense? Shouldn't this be expected as the natural tendency of any State structure? What is the difference between say the Mafia, who force people to pay them for protection, and the government, who, through taxes (what I call theft) force us to pay for their version of "security". I'll take Mafia protection any day against government protection, at least the Mafia is effective. Government simply creates all these Orwellian departments, like the "Department of Homeland Security", which of course does nothing but set the precedent of government ownership over its citizens. And hey, in case of environmental disaster, FEMA will "help" you by putting you into a concentration camp.

People just simply can't believe that government would be this evil. Well, I don't believe in evil either, just an incredible selfishness coupled with a lack of concern for others. Or, sometimes they are "intellectuals" who have delusions of grandeur which always involve control and domination. But, these people are not born this way. The system itself corrupts over time, and as people move through it they are corrupted ("Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton). Ever wonder why some cops are such assholes? There is a natural propriety in mankind for cruelty, and if this deep urge is allowed to surface, people become corrupted and miserable. Cops, wielding all of their arbitrary police powers, easily become corrupted and expect us lowly subjects of the empire to worship their authority. Any perceived questioning of that authority results in a very irrational and angry cop, who would love nothing more than to exact his or her revenge by treating you in a cruel manner. Whether this is arbitrary arrest, tasering for no reason, or whatever else, the cop simply wants to establish his or her dominance. And these are just some cops (not all, of course). But think about the high level bureaucrats in Washington, they are even more corrupted and miserable. Iran doesn't want to submit to their will? Well, I guess a preemptive nuclear strike will do. And how do they justify this insanity? Just like everything else, with "terrorism" (which of course they create by invading other countries). And what about the military-industrial complex? Corporations who get no-bid government contracts are ripping the American taxpayer off through government forced theft and lies, and are making billions off of the suffering and death of thousands of Americans as well as hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Those people, along with the Executive branch, are the same ones who think that torturing childrens' genitalia with pliers in front of their parents is okay. They are corrupted by power. It is the media who reinforces people's naive thinking that bureaucrats actually care about America or its people. I believe it was Hitler that said that it is easier to sell a bigger lie than a smaller one, because people simply won't believe the bigger lie (Reichstag, anyone?) What about the lie of 9/11, which I won't get into here, but is that not a lie so big that people simply can't accept the truth?

As for food shortages, my advice to you is to stock up on food and other items essential for survival. Call me crazy, but since when is it not common sense to be prepared, even if there were no imminent danger? You will be regretting it if a food panic occurs here in the States and you aren't sitting comfortably at home with the knowledge that you can live independently for months or even years....

First Post, the Straw That Broke the Camel's Back

"Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order." - Proudhon

Well, I've now decided to start a blog. After considering doing this for a long time, I finally caved upon reading this story (hence the camel's back). The point of this blog will be to present the insanity and chaos consistently justified by the State, and to try to dispel all of the false notions that create this monstrosity. WARNING: I am not an expert. Most of these posts will probably be giant rants, and take them with a grain of salt. However, I feel I should at least try to do something given the fact that we truly are living in a Bizarro World. It is my sincere opinion that abandoning this arbitrary monopoly on violence and theft called government will allow mankind for the first time in history to truly break free and become unlimited in our peace, properity, and happiness. The only way this can occur is for people to be educated about all the State's lies (which penetrate so deeply into our psyches that it is difficult to even see just how damaging and crazy they are), and for people to learn about the two basic princples of liberty: private property and voluntary association.

As for these poor Scotsman, can anyone really agree with this overarching bureaucracy creating maximum noise decibel levels?? Let's break down some of the assumptions that are probably already justified in some people's minds. Firstly, the idea that man can "legislate" rather than simply arbitrate what are already recognized as common human laws I find rather ridiculous. The difference between legislation and natural law is that the former can be arbitrary and/or political attempts to justify more power while the latter is based upon basic human intuition. The former can simply be "created" out of thin air while natural law is already defined by human intuition and can only evolve as a result of precedents set from earlier cases. The former creates ignorance and insanity while the latter creates wisdom and sanity. Here is a real expert on the differences.

Here is my basic argument on this topic: legislation, since it is arbitrary and has nothing to do with human intuition, must by definition be constantly reinforced in our psyches (especially the youth since they have not yet been totally brainwashed). This means that through violence or the threat of violence (how else can the State make people follow their decrees without force if people are already doing otherwise and thus the point of the law...?) the State must constantly reinforce these laws. This is why the youth will always revolt, they have not yet accepted the lies used to justify this unnatural and unintuitive thing called government. So, legislation is based upon violence and deterrence. The deterrence in part is also established by the creation of institutionalized criminal factories (i.e., the government cages called prisons), but that is a whole other story. Natural law, on the other hand, is based upon basic human intuition. Even as a two year old you already understand the two basic principles of liberty. The first two words you use are "no" (voluntary association) and "mine" (private property). This means that a society fully based upon these principles will operate totally in line with our every intuition, and so lie after lie will not have to be conjured up in order to justify those laws. Also, there is no need for deterrence or arbitrary force in making people abide by these laws, they will occur naturally to them.

So now that we can put the ridiculous idea of legislation into perspective, take a look at the law itself. There is a maximum of "85 decibels". 85 huh? That is the magic number I guess. They probably spent taxpayer dollars exploring various data relating to noise levels to find that perfect number, the one which will be just in all cases. What about 85.1 decibels, is that illegal now? How will they know how loud a bagpipe is? All measuring equipment has some degree of error, so how do we deal with that? Will they have to measure right next to the bagpiper since it won't be as loud the farther you get? How will they enforce this? Shouldn't they now target other loud equipment too since it is the noise, not specifically the bagpipe, that is the problem? Are they going to go around and arrest bagpipers at random? The idea that the State has the wisdom to create the perfect number is ridiculous for two reasons. One, these are bureaucrats we are talking here, they are more concerned about the political effects for themselves rather than truly trying to make things better. But, lets pretend they are the compassionate angels the media paints them to be. Even then they will not know the perfect decibel level, because there is no perfect decibel level. It is a dumb law to begin with, that is why all those problems arise about enforcement, etc. Again, it is totally unnatural and arbitrary, and it will doing nothing to deter bagpiping or deal with noise problems. Just another precedent set by the EU to pacify the populations into believing that these people have some kind of authority... and thank God someone is there to protect Scotsmen from the rampant chaos of the bagpipers.