Stumbling towards real sovereignty

My response to this which was a response to this . It is about "Swarm Power" and Instapundit got the ball rolling.

For more on this (beyond the comments below) see "Your Personal Digital Dictator" and "The Emergence of Revolution"

I have to disagree, I think it (swarm power) IS an advancement. I don’t entirely agree with the notion of “swarm”, but I do strongly advocate any system that results from most individuals being self-sufficient and many of them producing enough to create an exchangeable surplus. That kind of emergence market is ultra-redundant and nearly fool-proof. As opposed to national or international monoliths which serve as centralized generation and distribution systems. Doesn’t matter much what the essential thing is that is being produced; desired results as the consequence of self-organization and individual self-sufficiency always trump centralized production and distribution.

Bringing this back to the grid: we know that in response to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, States have mandated electrical consumption reduction percentages and deadlines. And so was born the Smart Meter and along with it an increase of the cost of power used during peak times, and the remote shutoff capacity. Increased cost of electricity used during peak time to “incentivize” voluntary consumption reduction, and remote-shutoff to simply shut you (or an appliance selected by the utility) off, if the price increase doesn’t give you sufficient incentive.

Centralization is not ultimate goodness, and a completely centralized civilization is no utopia. Instead, centralization of most, if not all, major essential systems (power, food, economy, government etc), is really the midwife to an emergent advanced network civilization where the hubs of production and distribution are very many and much much more local.

Why Rand Paul is right (Balls-o-Steel of the month winner for May 2010)

Asked whether he believed private businesses should have the right to refuse service to African-Americans, Rand Paul said,

"yes....I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. … But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?.......when they say I'm for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it's absolutely false. It's never been my position and something that I basically just think is politics."

(editor: Mr. Paul, we should only limit racists free speech when the racists in question do not belong to a minority group. )


Legislation, no matter how good or well intended it is, always needs to be analyzed at a later date and even eventually repealed. We are in the analysis phase of the Civil Rights Act, realizing that not only are arts of it faulty altogether, but also that the Law is not equally enforced. For example, it is perfectly fine to discriminate in favor of one ethnic group to the exclusion of other ethnic groups so long as the favored group is a minority group and mostly so long as that minority group is African American.

Additionally, the Civil Rights Act, taken at its word is nearly impossible to fairly enforce. Consider the latest case:

""The Chicago case began in 1995 when 26,000 applicants took a written test to become a city firefighter. Faced with the large number applicants for only several hundred jobs, the city decided it would only consider those who scored 89 or above.

This cut-off score excluded a high percentage of the minority applicants. And after a trial in 2005, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruled the test had an illegal "disparate impact" because the city had not justified the use of the cut-off score. Experts had testified that applicants who scored in the 70s or 80s were shown to be capable of succeeding as firefighters."""


Now it only makes sense to hire the MOST QUALIFIED applicants, does it not? According to Civil Rights laws, it is not only immoral to hire those best qualified to do the job, but is actually ILLEGAL.

""John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who argued the case on behalf of the black applicants, said 'Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality,' "

So hiring those who are most qualified to do a job is a technicality that denies justice to job seekers?

Justice Scalia:
"""In Monday's opinion, Scalia acknowledged this law created "practical problems for employers" and could "produce puzzling results." He concluded, however, "it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal courts can fix."""""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052401606.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-firefighters-discrimination-20100525,0,5851246.story?track=rss

So we have the Civil Rights Act not only being abused to justify discrimination in favor of certain ethnic groups, but we also have its application producing "puzzling" and "impractical" results.

All of us are Americans regardless of ethnic background or the color of our skin. The Law should apply EQUALLY to us all. When "anti-discrimination" laws result in actual discrimination it is definitely time for them to be at first analyzed and then eventually repealed, to be replaced by legislation that actually enforces true anti-discrimination measures.

When we start identifying ourselves as AMERICANS instead of these contrived groups that the media and our supposed "leaders" identify us as being, then we will finally begin healing the National divide maintained by those who profit and gain power from said divide.

Thank you Mr. Paul for having the GUTS to question something that is considered absolutely taboo in the world of politics. Rule #23 of Intellectual Honesty: Question EVERYTHING, and most especially question everything that people say you should never ever question.

Here's to Rand Paul for not only exercising intellectual honesty, but having the Balls-o-Steel to actually STAND BEHIND his statements explain them in a way in which their point is further advocated rather than simply explaining away the comments with some sort of pansy equivocation. What I think about Libertarianism in general can be read here, but to you Mr Paul, I raise my glass tonight!

Heroic SWAT Drug-Warriors cause innocent elderly woman to have a heart attack during a botched raid

http://wsbradio.com/localnews/2010/05/woman-hospitalized-following-b.html

The War on Drugs is unquestionably a tyranny.

Not only do we have the absolute abuse of civil asset forfeiture


....we also have an increasing frequency of bogus drug-raids which terrorize families, kill pets, damage property and ruin lives. It may just have killed the poor old lady in the story above.

There are three ways this will stop.

1. The War on Drugs needs to begin the process of winding down to an end, beginning with the legalization of marijuana.

2. Drug Raids and warrants served at the WRONG ADDRESSES or resulting in the obtaining of evidence of only misdemeanor crimal activity need to be defined legally as FELONIES. In other words, if the police hit the wrong address or only find evidence of the commission of a misdemeanor, than the police serving the warrant or conducting the raid should be guilty of felonies themselves. Simply put, the act of breaking down doors, traumatizing and injuring innocent people or people only guilty of misdemeanor crimes, is an incredibly serious offense against the liberty of the people. It really is a slap in the face of the concept of legitimate citizenship.

3. More home-invading Drug-Warrior breach teams need to be subject to the Castle Doctrine .


If the big bad Drug Warriors know they will be guilty of a felony if they harm innocent people, and that they will be subject to justified lethal counter-attack, you will see less and less badge wearing thugs willing and eager to hurt helpless citizens.

Your personal digital dictator

No, really.....

Lets start at the start, with smart meters, part of an overall strategy of a "smart grid". On the surface, the 'smart meter' will function as a way for you (and the utility provider and the government) to monitor how much electricity you use and when. Below the surface, one of the functions of the smart meter is automated remote shutoff. That means the meter allows someone other than you to shut off any appliance you are using at any time, from a remote location.



Now why would anyone from any remote location turn off your air-conditioner in the middle of a hot summer day, or shut off your tv in the middle of your favorite show, or your microwave in the middle of heating up dinner?

The answer, at least in Pennsylvania is Act 129. Act 129 requires electric service providers (the power company) to reduce consumption by 1% by May 31, 2011, 3% by May 31 2013, and 4.5% by May 31 2013. The power companies are to implement these reductions through the use of smart meters which will tell the consumer, the power company and the government exactly how much power you use and when you use it.

The initial idea is to "facilitate" voluntary reduction in consumption by making electricity used during peak hours more expensive than electricity used during off-peak hours. If this doesn't work, and there is no reason found so far that it will work, at all, then the Power Companies are to move from "facilitating" power consumption reduction to coercing power consumption reduction. What that means is that for every hour you have a different specific limit on how much electricity you can use (buy), and if you go over that amount, the Power Company will simply shut off your power.

Make no mistake, if you use more electricity than they want you to use, they will shut you off. They will either shut you off or they will receive massive fines for missing their consumption reduction goals.

If you think I am kidding check out this information from Utility Service Partners the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the National Council on Electricity Policies guide to State by State implementation of the Federal Energy Policy Act.

This will affect the entire country. By the way, it was signed into law by George W Bush, so don't think that the little (R) or (D) next to a name means a damn thing. It really doesn't.

SWAT heros murder family dog, rough up father, and traumatize 7 year old boy

Nice job guys!

I am sure you all feel like Real American Heroes, killing the family dog, roughing up the dad and scaring the shit out of the seven year old son! You sure did a good job stopping that guy from smoking that little bit of marijuana you found in the residence.

Really, what a fucking joke. Anyone that wears a badge, enforces absurd drug-laws, and thinks they are actually helping the community needs to be ashamed of themselves. So what, the guy had some pot he was probably going to smoke. How many times have you tossed back a beer in front of your own kids? Yet beer was at one time outlawed and thugs like you felt more manly by putting your boot on the throat of beer-drinkers, just like you feel more manly by putting your boot on the neck of some stupid pot head.

Every once in awhile, while in the process of brutalizing a peaceful family, the thugs get their asses handed to them by someone trying to protect their family and then the whole lot of you shed big crocodile tears about your comrades fallen in the line of duty. Line of duty? Its your duty to terrorize the community instead of protect it?



THIS is why people hate cops, and why so many well armed and trained folks feel pretty passionately that a shiny badge is really just a target marking a piece of shit that gets off brutalizing peaceful families and small children.

More from Ann Arbor- Need help and need it quick? Call the militia.

Militias rallied to help find missing man...and guess what, even the maligned "Hutaree" showed up to help. Here is the news story. MUCH more on this later. Essentially: In terms of a rapid response, trained, organized and enthusiastic organization with a high level of expertise in the lay of the local land, NO GROUP can beat out a solid local militia.

A mainstream conservative view of militias

From: "The Myth of the Menacing Militias" :

"Some writers have suggested that the Hutaree arrests should rehabilitate the reputation of the Department of Homeland Security's infamous report on right-wing extremism. But if anything, these splits on the right highlight the central problem with the paper. In the words of Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works for the American Civil Liberties Union, the DHS document focuses 'on ideas rather than crime'; it was concerned with extremism itself, not with violence, and it gave no sign that you must be violent to meet its definition of 'extremist'....."

"....You can see such a mindset at work in the SPLC's watch list. You can see it in press accounts that blur still more boundaries, so that there seems to be little difference between a terror cell and a Tea Party. You can see it in documents like the Department of Homeland Security's report. You're even beginning to see it in legislation. Late last month the Oklahoma House voted 98-1 to amend a bill that, among other provisions, increased the penalties for recruiting new gang members. Under the revised legislation, the same penalties would befall recruiters for unauthorized militias...."

read the whole thing here.

Equality

The other day my young son was watching one of the many politically correct, liberal indoctrination shows that passes for childhood entertainment/educational programming. The theme of that particular episode was "diversity". He asked, "Daddy, is diversity a good thing or a bad thing? The people on the show say its a great thing but I'm not so sure". I said, "Well, what does diversity mean?". He responded plainly, "Diversity means no white people". When I asked how he came to that conclusion he said it was because the show kept talking about how great diversity is, but that all of the people on the show were every color but white. Thank god my son has the will and I have the ability to shape natural blind curiosity into logical critical analysis and skepticism.

Equality really only means every form of bias against white people, especially men, and in favor of everyone who is not white.

There are many many examples and I will begin listing them as they come up in news stories from unbiased sources. Here is one to start:

Black Ann-Arbor School Principle includes only black students in field trips and clubs.

We have been fooled. We bought into this idea of no discrimination for or against anyone based on skin-color. That it should not be a determining factor. But it is, and it works against us. Unfortunately our tolerance of, generosity towards, and acceptance of "diverse" peoples and cultures has been, and continues to be, used as a weapon against us.

Not us white people. Us AMERICANS.

Bloomberg: Demonization of tea-parties= good, Demonization of Muslims=bad

Before ANY information was known about any actual "failed bomb" suspect, NYC Mayor Bloomberg said:
"If I had to guess twenty-five cents this would be exactly that, somebody who’s homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda, that doesn’t like the health care bill or something."

This was obviously a demonization of the tea-parties "or something". The recent hard-line taken by the Obama Administration and other Democratic Party operatives against any dissent concerning the Federal Government leads one to the only possible conclusion: domestic dissenters are terrorists and any Islamic person that tries to kill Americans is simply a mentally deranged person.

So- there and elsewhere we have inflammatory anti-right wing rhetoric, a demonization of the average dissenting American, talk from Obama that "if they (the right wing) bring a knife, we'll bring a gun" and "...argue with your friends and neighbors, get in their faces..." not to mention the very many other things said by other members of the democrat machine.

Now, when the actual person responsible for the the failed attempt at detonating a bomb on a crowded NYC street is found to be a MUSLIM, Bloomberg has this to say: "We will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers,'' especially not muslim New Yorkers who try to kill dozens of people or who effectively use terroristic threats to censor a world famous television show!

I don't get it. Do they want a revolution or some form of civil war in this country? The rhetoric, actions and sheer asinine bias against anything AMERICAN by those currently in power are driving the mainstream right into the welcoming arms of "the extreme right wing". These asshats are literally shoving the center of America to the far right.

Things will either change for the better within five years, or near the end of that five year period, The United States of America will come entirely apart.

We are no longer simply looking at a difference in views of how to reach the same goal as a Nation. We are looking at different goals altogether. Americans not only disagree on the most fundamental principles of Government, the principles of Government advocated by the differing parties are in extreme and vehement opposition. This opposition can only reach a certain level of intensity before force is brought to bear and the Country comes apart. As Obama drags us slowly into a form of corporate democratic socialism (the corporations representing public ownership), the center of the Nation moves to the right, and surprise, The Department of Homeland Security states that right wing extremism is the greatest threat to the Nation.

Open Letter to the Militia(s)

One thing for people to consider is that there are two forms of real law and everything else is bs. The first form is the Constitution and it emerged after thousands and thousands of years of evolution of the second form of real law, as the concrete materialization of that law. The second form of real law is CONSENSUS which develops to CUSTOM and becomes TRADITION.

The militia generally have the first form of real law behind them, fueling the legitimacy of their cause. But often enough the first form of real law is perceived as being at odds with the second form of real law. This perception was the masterstroke of despots, both government and corporate. It is half a result of collective sleepy mental laziness and cowardice, and half a result being divided against ourselves as a Nation.

As The Nation beings to awaken (slowly) the false perception of the division and opposition of the first and second forms of real law, begins to dissipate. If militia action is taken too early before consensus is reunited with constitution, the entire thing will backfire building a consensus against the constitution and any military formation that orients its self around the constitution. There must be a consensus that any action taken by the militia is legitimate or we risk losing everything forever. That is the difference, for most people, between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Regardless of what the relativists tell you, ONE MANS FREEDOM FIGHTER IS NOT ANOTHER MANS TERRORIST.

Terrorists aim to defeat the will of the people, freedom fighters aim to manifest that will as constitutional representative government and free society.

So, who is the militia? The face hidden behind the black mask striking fear into his neighbors or the face of the neighbor himself, the unity of the community in defiance of tyranny?

Only we can answer that.

Speaks for its self......

Obama Says:

"What troubles me is when I hear people say that government is inherently bad,"

Thomas Paine says:
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

Henry David Thoreau says:
"That government is best which governs least."

Patrick Henry says:
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Thomas Jefferson says:
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Mr. Obama, are you so troubled then by the words of our Founding Fathers?

Obama says:
"When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

what?

".....it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

Our Government most certainly is NOT US. I do not ever remember receiving fortunes from huge corporations, or being offered any kind of position on a Board of Directors, or even as a high paid "consultant" after my current job had run its term.

What world does Obama live in anyways? What would cause even him to think for a second that
anyone would buy into his verbal feces stating that "the government is us" or that "anti-government sentiment" is somehow concerning.

There can be no clearer proof that the highest level of Government is totally and entirely out of touch with the People than Obama and pretty much everything he says and does. Obama is not merely an excuse for a Leader that we are given as some kind of pacification tool, he is a loud and obnoxious roar of laughter in our faces.

S.510 The Criminalization of Family Farms and of Self Sufficiency

H. R. 2749 The "Food Safety Modernization Act" has passed the House and is being considered by the Senate as S.510. Under the guise of "Food Safety" this act effectively would remove any right that any person has to grow and distribute food without going through a series of regulatory pay-offs which only the largest companies in the food industry could afford. A more appropriate name for this act would be, "The Criminalization of Family Farms and Self-Sufficiency Act".

Additionally, the Bill outlaws the keeping or distribution of any seed from which could grow any kind of food produce. It brings US food production and distribution into compliance with the World Health Organizations, "Codex Alimentarius", a codified system of control over global food production and distribution.

The key to whether this Bill will result in the ultimate centralized control of food production and distribution (the death of real self-sufficiency), or whether it is just a serious set-back in our ongoing struggle for freedom in America is this amendment: "To limit the traceback and recordkeeping requirements for facilities with adjusted gross incomes of less
than $500,000."

Here is what small farmers have to say about it, and this also.

Here is what is going on:

Somehow the sustainability people have caught onto something huge. Urban farming, sustainable, environmentally friendly agriculture, the organic foods movement- these movements are catalyzing a general self-sufficiency movement in the US. They have figured out that this huge, centralized, food distribution system is really inefficient, harmful to the environment, and not empowering to the average citizen, especially the lower classes. The movement is on the precipice of making self-sufficiency a centerpiece of 'social justice'. Read that again. Its really amazing.

Imagine that! Small family farmers (even in urban areas) being self-sufficient in terms of both finance and food, growing a product and selling it locally. From ghetto parasite to green entrepreneur in a single generation. I love it.

Those who benefit directly from the gigantic dysfunctional corpro-bureaucracy that is the centralized food production and distribution system are doing everything they can to kill the self-sufficiency movement before it really gains any ground.

That is what this Bill really is all about.

As Bob Marley sings: "Every time I plant a seed, He said kill it before it grow He said kill them before they grow..."



Listen to the lyrics, Bob Marley was a prophet....

Rulers and Leaders I: How Rulers Rule

To Rule is to exercise control over other people through two methods:
1. Coercive force
2. Facilitation of dependency on the Ruler

Facilitation of dependency simply means guiding into being a situation where the Ruler is one of the few, if not the only, source of a nescessary resource. Necessary resources are things like food, shelter, energy, defense against crime, and a relatively stable social environment. Not to mention the one thing that ties all of these elements together: money.

Historically the Rule has been Coercion as the primary means, and Dependency as the secondary means. As a civilization, the West has evolved to the point where the Rule is by facilitation of dependency as the primary means, and coercive force as the secondary means. This IS a step forward, and is perhaps at the root of what we celebrate as the greatness of the modern world. It is the progress won in the 20th century and due credit is owed those who made this advancement. However, this is no longer the 20th century and western civilization, especially America is demanding further progress.

In our current situation in America, there are three levels of dependency.

• The first level is financial dependency; relying on Rulers to pay the way of the Dependents. This is all types of tax-funded welfare, from food to housing, to health care.
• The second level is subsistence dependency- the Rulers that those who pay their own way rely on to sell them food, energy, health care and social stability. This second level of Dependent has a job and buys their own food, energy, and health-care from a very limited number of suppliers who themselves are simply appendages of a larger centrally organized system of manufacture and distribution. The social-stability that results is one that is based in corporate marketing and results in a social hierarchy scaled by material consumption: the more a Dependent consumes of marketing-determined high-cost items, the higher the Dependent is considered to be on the social ladder.
  
• The third level is lethal-force dependency- The Dependents rely on the Rulers to provide for the defense-by-force of their lives and property and rights.

The current struggle today is to not allow these Dependencies to become coerced Dependencies. An example of a forced dependency is limiting food production and distribution to massive centralized systems, so that the consumer can buy their food from ONLY these systems. This type of forced-dependency is enacted through the facade of "Modernization of food safety practices" regulations which essentially cause the only sources of food to be those same massive production and distribution systems. Making it illegal to grow, produce, process or distribute any food without first purchasing a series of permits, licenses and control-mechanisms that total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and which only the largest food production and distribution systems can afford to pay.

This is a work in progress and will be continued soon.

Ground Zero: Oklahoma

Bill outlawing militias passes OK House. If this Bill becomes Law, it would be illegal in the State of Oklahoma to organize any "military group" without the authorization of the Government of the State of Oklahoma.

Some definitions:

Militia:
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

Military (group):
1 a : of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b : of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces
2 a : performed or made by armed forces b : supported by armed force
3 : of or relating to the army

So how exactly will this law be interpreted by law-enforcement? The definition of "military" is incredibly vague. A reasonable, if extreme, definition of "military group" would be any organized gathering that involves in any way, lethal weapons, especially firearms. So it would be reasonable to assume that potentially every hunting club, firearms club (including the NRA), shooting club, or even shooting range, could be defined as a "militia" and its founders arrested and prosecuted for "organizing a military group without the authorization of the State of Oklahoma.

This Bill is a direct contradiction of Oklahoma's own Constitution which states in no uncertain terms:

Section II-3: Right of assembly and petition.

  The people have the right peaceably to assemble for their own
good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of
government for redress of grievances by petition, address, or
remonstrance.

Note that the word "militia" or "firearms" or "military" do not occur a
single time in the above statement.

This bill coming quick on the heals of this:

Lawmakers and tea-party wants militia formed. These individuals simply want to re-institute the OK State defense force.

Even more baffling is this-

Oklahoma Fire arms freedom act Oklahoma, along with Arizona, is soon to have some of the most liberal fire-arms regulations in the Nation.

Oklahoma, like the rest of America is obviously going through a period of transition and is being pulled between two opposite forces. None of it really seems to make sense until we look closely and realize this: that in OK, just as in the rest of America, there are people who want to be free and exercise their rights peacefully, and there are others in OK, just as in the rest of America, who think they have the right to use force to tell other people what they are allowed to do.

You have a boot and you have a neck, and in OK, just as the people beneath the boot are making a mighty push to get it off their necks, the boot is trying to push down even harder.

THAT will lead only to more resistance from below, and I can almost guarantee that because of the Bill to outlaw Militias, whether or not it becomes Law, militias will grow in both strength and number in OK.

The boot will be removed from their necks one way or the other.

TH6A7DNTYNEW

TH6A7DNTYNEW

Arizona Militia seeks permission to patrol border

Good stuff:

""An Arizona militia says it wants to form a paramilitary squad with permission to go after smugglers and other suspected criminals along the border with Mexico....Davis told the newspaper via e-mail the armed civilians would patrol at the behest of landowners, "providing security & trespasser interdiction."""

Arizona shows us how it is done

By now everyone has heard that Arizona has made into Law three landmark Bills:

Concealed Carry Without a Permit

Presidential Candidates Must Show They Meet The Constitutional Requirements to Run for President in Order to Be On Arizona Presidential Ballot

Individuals Suspected by Police of Being Illegal Immigrants Must Show Documentation Proving their Status as Legal Migrants

Each of these, especially the last two, seem extremely common sense. The first is very straightforward Second Amendment. The second simply says, "If you meet the Constitutional Requirements for running for President of the United States, you must make public the documentation that proves you meet those requirements". And the third, "If you are a legal immigrant, prove it, if not, you are breaking the law and are under arrest."

Despite the fact the last two laws simply say, "If you are doing X legally, just show us your doing it legally and there is no problem", there has been massive outrage and Arizona is being smeared by many as being a right wing, racist, lunatic fringe State. You know that when simply expecting people to actually obey the law, and expecting law enforcement to enforcement the law is considered "right wing extremism" that there is a huge problem.

To be labeled "extreme right wing" for simply passing a law saying Laws will be obeyed and enforced, really only means that the people doing the labeling are extreme left wing.

The best thing about all of this is that Arizona is showing us that what should be done, CAN actually be done if only enough of us have the will and the initiative to do it. Other States are starting to pick up on Arizona's lead and we will be following them closely.

Much to catch up on

Will be updating often and frequently, allot has happened since the break I took between "postmodern saxon" and this blog. All new posts will be made here from this point forward as I've finally settled on a focus for the blog. For those few of you that actually read the blog (lol), keep checking for updates, you won't be disappointed.

No, really

of course it will never come to that, after all, it never has, and just couldn't happen here.

Lets get unhinged

Slick Willy strikes again..........
....."""Former President Clinton said he sees parallels in the mood of the country now and in April 1995, when 'an unhinged right wing populace' voted overwhelmingly Republican, giving the GOP a net gain of 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate while he was in the White House.""""

Well he said something a little different, but if anything has changed since 1995 it is the sophistication of the average citizens political perception; Willy's barely concealed Freudian Slip is as obvious as his vitriolic DNA on the blue dress of a star-struck intern. Even Ben Roethlisberger can figure that one out.

The Russian TEA Party

http://moscowteaparty.com/

The grass-roots arms race

Town hall meetings, protests, rallies; American Citizens are gathering in person to demonstrate their commitment to individual freedom and express their dissent against those who would take that liberty from them. In response, people who hate individual freedom are meeting the American Citizens on the ground

Nod to Glenn Reynolds

4MQA5YGQ2Z9V

Glenn Reynolds idea of "An Army of Davids" is basically about media technology empowering willing every day regular people to become whistle blowers who can have a substantial impact. He even wrote a book about it:
An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths

Fear this, you bastards!

Anyone with a working brain or some semblance of a mind which they dare call their own heed this:



The Individual vs the Collective- this little treasured principle that Libertarians keep locked away in some abyssal, far-away ideological fortress nestled in the most distant and marginal political mountains shrouded by the nimbus of aged and rusty epistemology:

The Individual vs the Collective- the relic that Libertarians occasionally allow Conservatives and Republicans to glimpse, and in a glimpse be inspired to great heights of magisterial hypocrisy, articulated as The Individual American Citizen vs the Collectivist Federal Government.

Here I have slipped past the guards, slit the watchman's throats, and from slit throats have put my hands on the priceless treasure, which I deliver now, to you. It is YOURS after all.

You have been told truths, but only half of the truth. The Individual is indeed the Individual, but the Collective is far more than the simple, stumbling, stupid, Federal Government. The Collective is also the Uber-Corporations. International Companies that somehow, by some trick, have been afforded all of the legal rights that our American Constitution recognizes as belonging to the Individual alone.

The Collective fears, more than anything else, that you, the individual, will discover this fact. That you will lay your eyes upon the treasure and be bold enough to claim it as your own. That you will realize that the boot on your neck contains not only the foot of the Federal Government, but also that of the massive, Government-Like Corporations.

They fear worse than anything that Libertarians and the Conservative movement overall will see beyond the half-truth that it has been consuming for many decades now, that it will realize that Big Brother comes at least as much from Wall Street as he comes from Washington DC.

What a terrible sight, this priceless treasure, when finally you lay your own eyes on it. When something is described to you, be it through words, or images or sounds, your experience of the thing is determined almost entirely by the will of the narrator, so that the difference between the narrative and your knowledge of the thing is almost entirely nil.

They are coming, many of them, and they come quick and in force. Old habits of thought, miserable comfortable convention, the half-truths, and the guards we have slipped by for now. What will you do? Will you be an obedient statistic, give the treasure back over to them, go back to your world of little boxes (house, cubical, car, classroom, computer, television, radio) and enjoy the simple narrative that you have been lulled with for so long?

Or will you take this precious gift, the tempered, razor sharp steel of our fore-fathers Will, and stand by my side and cut the liars down as they come?

sshhhh, the hour is late and They are upon us. Shrink back to your numb world of pop-political porn and faux individuality, lay comfortably in your little box of unrealized integrity, your unrealized dream, until you lay forever in a dreamless sleep, the world never even knowing or caring that you were here.

Do not underestimate the Will of an inflamed populace

Really big things happen when those in power underestimate the rage and resolve of an inflamed populace.


A Government overthrown.

Lessons from Dad: trust no one and don't smile so much

In short: The world is full of gutless cocksuckers who will smile and shake your hand in one moment and put a knife in your back the next.

Early 70's Barbershop with my Dad, a mixture of scents in the heavy air- hanging with the smoke, Brylcreem, cigar, pipe tobacco and cigarette, hairy muscular forearms with archaic faded tattoos, black, immaculately polished shoes, gruff voices, gruffer laughter, jazz and wistful crooners crackling in the background from the am dial of an old single-speaker radio, lined faces, deep intense eyes, stacks of yellowing magazines with a mysterious 'special' pile on the distant table that young eyes such as mine weren't meant to see, an L-shaped red bench with massive curved, seamless padding and curved chrome armrests.

It seemed like a gritty place for a soft kid like me, yet even then I could feel that this place and its inhabitants were fading from the world just as the war-time tattoos were fading from the tanned arms of the men around me.

The wait seemed to last forever, and as each person left the barber chair, everyone moved a spot down on the bench. I didn't mind waiting, this place was a palace of detail, full of rich smells, sounds, colors and stories. My Father always went first and always seemed a little aggravated by the end of his cut despite the cheerful nature of the barber.

I was next, and other than the horrible smell of the barber's breath, I could never see what was so annoying about the experience. It was cool to be in The Chair and be the focus, for even a second, of the men in the shop, "Fine boy you have there Carl," they would say to my dad and which he would acknowledge with only a nod of his head and a polite if stern, "Thank you".

One day we went to the barbershop and as my dad stepped in the door he looked at the barber, paused for a second, and violently kicked over one of the end-tables, magazines and an old hat went flying across the floor with the table which ended up on its side against the barber chair, and my father said, "The prick wanted a haircut, you bastard!".

The place fell silent and all eyes were on my father who I was sure had gone insane. I had seen my father do violence before when doing so stood to reason, and there he was with the same rage on his blood-red face, but this time to no apparent reason at all. "Well!?" said my father in expectation of some rebuttal, some form of counter-attack, but getting only the confused fearful gaze of the barber. His murderous gaze swept slowly over the silent L-shaped row of men, and when he still was met with silence, he said "Lets go" and we left.

I knew better than to even speak at that moment so I held my tongue and put my mind to wonder where we would go next. Some years later, I asked him what happened and this is what he said:

"For years I go Rusty the barber and sit in that chair and get the same haircut, and for years, each time the door opened, Rusty would lean down and whisper in my ear, 'What does this prick want?'. Then Rusty would act like the person was his best friend, 'How ya doin, good to see ya! Have a seat and I'll be right with ya', flashing that big stupid grin.

"Well I had enough of it, because every time I walked in the door I could see him lean over and whisper something in the ear of the guy in the chair, and I knew what he was whispering. So I finally told him what I thought. I shoulda done it long before that. Let me tell you son, if they do it with you, they probably do it to you also. And don't smile so much kid, you can't trust people who always are smiling because they are either simple-minded or are ready to put a knife in your back."

So goes the timeless wisdom of a bye-gone era. Over the years it makes more and more sense why my dad was always such a pissed off prick, and sometimes I wonder if I am not becoming more and more like that. To this day I wonder if there is any humanity left in him, old as stone and just as hard. I wonder until I see him with his grand-kids, my kids, and I see a man so gentle and kind (yet strict!) with a softness in his eyes and soul that the many hard years could not extinguish.

It's very simple- be soft with the soft ones and hard with the hard ones, your wifes arms, your children's trust, home is the only place for even a little vulnerability and softness. The other moral is that the ones who, in your company, do wrong by others, will certainly do wrong by you while in the company of others.

The real Right-Wing begins to step forward

The left-wing establishment would like to paint all right-wingers, the entire tea-party movement, and any militia group as dangerous racists spewing hatred for minority groups and religions, and planning campaigns of terrorism across the country.

Yet, as it turns out, the real right wing is stepping forward and it happens to be both quiet housewives from Idaho and militias. Yet somehow the quiet housewives are not robotic stepford wives, and the militias are not neo-nazis. In fact, in the case of the famous Michigan Militia, one of the brigade commanders initiated a call to the authorities to aid in the arrest of an actually dangerous group.

Who is this man?

Is he:

1. A neonazi skinhead?


2. A wacked out far-right militia nut?


3. A Muslim commited to American Values?

Suprise, he is #3. Neither the tea-party nor the militia movement is nearly as "angry white wasp" as leftist establishment media would have you believe. However, they ARE angry, ACTUAL everyday Americans. They, WE, represent the greatest actual threat to the leftist Establishment, and that is exactly what they fear. Fear for them, hope for us. We will prevail.

more later...

The "new workplace"

"How We'll work in 2025" looks like a combination of the bright plastic cheesiness of a Mcdonalds Playland with the 'awkward and forced socialization' design of a Borders Bookstore. Little boxes are little boxes regardless of much we try to make them look like the toddler reading rooms of a local library.

"This is not reality" is now Reality.

CEO schools talk show host in the reality of the world today:


George Carlin fills us in on what we know but don't want to hear

This is reality

This is Congressman Hank Johnson stating, with absolute sincerity, that he fears the ISLAND OF GUAM will tip over if it receives 8,000 Marines and their families. He appears totally stoned out of his mind, "..uh the environment and stuff, concerns you know" but this is obviously what the guy really thinks and believes his concerns are entirely valid.



This is congressman Phil Hare saying he doesn't know or care if the Constitution provides Congress with the power to force people to buy Healthcare. Citing the Declaration of Independence he says "...well I believe it says something about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", when he is told that is the Declaration of Independence and NOT the Constitution he says, "...whatever, its the same thing". Apparently Mr. Hare thinks that any old document gives Congress its legislative powers, and doesn't realize that those powers are derived solely from the Constitution. Hare obviously knows less about the Constitution, his duties as Congressmen, and the nature of the office its self, than do most of his constituency.

Conspiracy Theories

The gripping thing about conspiracy theories is how apt they actually are. Many Conspiracy Theories fairly accurately describe the development of an ongoing situation in the world. The problem is, the theorists make the mistake of thinking these situations develop intentionally. Mostly, they do not.

This is like Intelligent Design vs Evolution, Intelligent Design maintaining that the universe has unfolded along a logical, preplanned intent, Evolution saying "it all just happened". I tend to be somewhere in the middle. Some of "this" was planned and has unfolded as intended, some of "this" just happened with no design or intent at all.

I think the same thing is true with the state of the world today. Some of it is intentional, some of it is not. I do look at everything that happens in such a way as to see who is benefiting from what event, but I do not think that every event is planned to happen exactly as it does. I think many events are planned, but I also think that many beneficiaries of events are simply extremely opportunistic.

To say that everything important that happens has been planned by someone and that we are all under the control of that "someone" is to accord that "someone" with god-like powers, it is to make them god. But in the case of conspiracy theories, it is to make them evil gods.

Rulers rule by facilitating the dependence of others upon themselves. Leaders facilitate the independence of others by mastering self-sufficiency and providing truly great examples which others who wish to be independent follow willingly.

So ultimately, each of us are our own masters, and when we choose to be dependent on "someone" we are choosing to be ruled by them. The problems we face are not so much from the devious plans of Illuminati as they are from generation after generation of millions of people choosing to be dependent on "someone". Certainly those who want power have facilitated that dependency, sometimes have coerced it. But they would have gotten nowhere if those millions of us would have chosen independence or demise in the face of tyranny; liberty or death.

God bless Alex Jones, if only our problems were so simple.

Why we need the old Dons back

There was once a day when 'organized crime' simply meant a tight knit group of neighborhood strong men. They would run numbers and involve themselves in relatively minor rackets- no one really got screwed by these schemes and the strong men would simply 'take a cut off the top'. They were brutal men who wore suits and ties, took pride in their appearance, their traditions of family and brotherhood.


These strong men would host lavish community festivals and destroy any man who crossed them. But no one really had a reason to cross them and their brutality was reserved almost entirely to their own, other men within the same organization who had broken with tradition. If you had a problem in the community, you went to these guys and they would ether mediate a solution or implement a hard-nosed practical resolution.



(Video Caption: an old-school German Strong-Man of apparently high rank is being interviewed by a film crew about his efforts to revitalize the area, the money he put into it, the changes he made, the various clubs and shops he owns-he seems to own them all. He is rudely interrupted by some riff-raff talking non-sense. The Gentleman gives the riff-raff the opportunity to leave and when this is numbly declined, he does what any strong-man wanting to keep riff-raff of his block would do. )

These strong men had all the local cops and government officials paid off. Crime and Government are always inexorably linked. The more powerful the Government, the more widespread and organized the crime. Authority when it is localized facilitates localized crime (the strong men), authority when it is monolithic, facilitates monolithic crime. Those truths are part of the reason why minimal, self-limiting government is always best. There is something of an organized crime-government complex that is absolutely true in every case, anywhere you look where there is government. The differences between organized crime and government are surprisingly few and many people would argue that any State which derives its legitimacy from anything other than the sovereignty of the individual citizen, is a criminal entity in its self.

There was a point in time (or maybe this 'point; is actually even timeless), a point in American History that government authority became less local and more federal. Accordingly as Government authority become more federalized, so to did organized crime. The strong men in suits on the corner, for the most part, have been rounded up and put away. They are replaced by weak men in suits on Wall Street, a gang not so tough but simply shrewd and politically well connected. Want to see the actual historical process unfold before your eyes in news clips and video? Look no further than Rudy Giuliani s crusade against the mafia. He did no less than root out the Little Corruption of Strong Men to clear the way for Big Corruption by Weak Men.


These new Dons, the wall-street bankers and their gang, unlike their predecessors, can care less about their communities, about any kind of pride or tradition. Their "cut off the top", is the to the tune of nine trillion dollars. They are blindly committed to filling their own pockets with cash. Their buttonmen, their enforces, the thugs that carry out their orders and enforce their decrees are no longer the suit-wearing strongmen who open doors for old ladies and toss trouble-makers off the block, instead they now wear badges and black uniforms and put the old ladies in jail while doing everything they can to avoid offending the troublemakers on the block.

The depth and magnitude of the corruption and dishonor of the new organized crime cartel of bankers and big business executives is so great that I believe the American popular fascination with the "old school mobster" derives not from the old-school mobster as a celebration of vice and violence, but rather from the old-school mobster as a symbol of relative innocence.

One thing they, the new cartel, do not know that the old-schoolers do know- the thing that will be their ultimate undoing: The People instinctively recognize that some small degree of corruption is inevitable and is part of the price paid for clean, safe communities and good jobs, and order in the neighborhood. But once this degree of corruption passes a certain mark, once the communities are no longer clean, no longer safe, once the jobs are no longer good and once order is lost in the neighborhood, the people's tolerance of corruption ceases and they rise up to cast down their oppressors.



"No more Butchy, no more of this..."

American Nationalism I

Nationalism is not a difficult thing to understand or experience, once the idea its self is separated from the emasculated and ultimately crippled context of 21st century cultural European-American worldview. "This soil, saturated with the tears, blood, and bones of my Fathers, is the Land on which I forge my own destiny and that of my family."

This means the idea of Nationalism is based on the idea of family, and not just the origins of family but on the continuation and evolution of family. From this basis the idea of Nation is associated with the idea of race.

America is perhaps the first Nation to manifest a non-racial ethnicity. Individuality orients the Nation at least as much as does family. That is one of the truly original and incredibly substantial facts that almost everyone overlooks when thinking about America.

The Founding Documents (Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights etc) address no social unit other than the individual American. These documents constitute a State which derives its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the individual, and from no other entity, group, class, or race; "America, the land which each man is free to become his own King". Individual Sovereignty is what truly sets America apart from every other Nation on earth. It is the result of thousands of years cultural evolution, and the best part is that it is still evolving and we may take part in that evolution.

What does American Nationalism mean right now? It simply means that each individual identify themselves as their own sovereign entity, and commits to those principles which constitute the State that facilitates Individual Sovereignty.

In plain English, it means Americans for America and none other. The Founding Fathers of America understood that the State was essentially all-powerful, that it held control over lethal force, commerce, information, everything. The aim of The Founding Fathers (in their infinite wisdom), was to Constitute a State around the principle of self-limitation.

That is, to create an entity whose primary purpose is the limitation of its self and of other entities (foreign or domestic) that could possibly wield power equivalent to the State its self. After all, what good would a self-limiting entity called "State" be, if a different, non self-limiting entity assumed the 'all-mighty' controlling powers of the State?

This is the crux of nearly every issue currently on the table. Some call themselves 'progressives' and seek to remove the self-limiting function and purpose of the State and give it the sovereignty that belongs only to the individual, the American Citizen. Some call themselves 'capitalists' and seek to nourish and continue to grow non-self limiting, monolithic entities which themselves have powers of control over the people equal at least to any State. The American Citizens are caught between these two seemingly opposed political movements and by them, are divided against themselves.

What, again, does this all mean right here and right now? What does it mean to you? The 'progressive' calls for greater State regulation of the aforementioned monolithic entities by removing the self-limiting function of the State, but in doing so they also seek control over you, telling you what you must buy, where you must buy it, and how much you will pay for it. The 'capitalist' calls for full implementation of the self-limiting function of the State in order to allow the non-state monolithic entities to grow in power and control that dwarfs any State, but in doing so they also seek control over you, by destroying commercial competition and the ability of any individual to attain actual financial freedom, or sovereignty of ones self.

The capitalist seeks merely to create a different kind of State that has no limitations, and which they will refuse to call a State, but none the less this "non-state" monolith exercises greater and greater control over all of our lives.

The worst of all possible worlds, and what we seem to be moving towards, is an unlimited State working in tandem with a non-state entity of likewise unlimited power. I believe that is called fascism.

Learning from Badu and Hayek

"""""""""At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty, those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism......Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance.""""""""""""""""

-FA Hayek


"""""They who play it safe are quick to assassinate what they do not understand-
They move in packs, ingesting more and more fear with every act of hate on one another they feel more comfortable in groups, less guilt to swallow.
They are us, this is what we have become: afraid to respect the individual. A single personal event or circumstance can move one to change, to evolve and love themselves."""""

-Erykah Badu




yes the word that bleeds out of her head at the end of the video is "group think".

How often do the principles of an old-school "Conservative" such as Hayek exist in such harmony with those of a contemporary "Liberal" such as Badu? More often than what you'd think because both "conservative" and "liberal" are fabricated terms used to divide us against ourselves through the popular vices of lazy intellectual and moral habit. Why these seemingly divergent principles are in such actual harmony is because both are fundamentally American- they both demand that the individual person take account of their humanity as individuals and be bold enough to not be ruled or lead by simple 'group think'.

Dead On

"You can’t build a free-market economy atop a centrally planned credit-allocation system." -Nicole Gelinas

I really really want this

from Datamancer

A Ruler is No Leader

To rule...



...is to maintain power by facilitating and/or coercing the dependency of others upon ones self. "Do as I say, not as I do". To a Ruler, Superiority means depriving others of power; it means limiting other people so the Ruler is superior by contrast.

To lead...



...is to maintain power by facilitating the independence of ones self with such success that the method of facilitation is emulated by others- they follow the Leader voluntarily. "Do as I do, for I do it the best". To a Leader, Superiority means only that the Leader is superior now to what he once was. It means following the creed, "If each time I try I do my best, then my best gets better with each time I try".

Acting on that creed means that who one is now, is superior to who one was in the past, and that is the standard, the contrast. Measuring ones self now against who one was before, and what one had accomplished in the past, instead of measuring ones self against other people.

In those words are the very kernel of our society, our republic, our Nation. As we fail to either Lead or Follow, and instead allow ourselves to be Subjects of the endless flow of would-be Rulers, the eternal rebirth of America in each generation withers and begins to cease altogether.

The Revolution starts in your own mind.

Why I Am Not A Conservative

The short version- the conservative movement is packed with people who are guilty of being stereotypically conservative. In other words, they are conservative because it is easier for them to think of themselves that way than to actually challenge their own worldview with any kind of new point of view. Below, I try to explain how even after challenging ones own world-view with pretty much every new idea that comes down the pike, the basic ideas advocated by Conservatives are still right.

But because one had the stones to actually put ones own dearly held (convenient!) convictions to the test, the Challenge only strengthens those convictions, tempers them. So why am I not a conservative? Essentially because "conservative ideals" lack the razor sharp hard edge that comes from thrusting them into the white-hot forge of intellectual honesty and real spiritual will.

Conservatism is, ideally, the method of progress by which what has worked is embraced, and what hasn't worked is replaced by new ways of doing things which do work. These "new ways" having long and slow periods of development based on time-tested standards of success, to eventually emerge as a "new good idea".

Unfortunately, most conservatives reject outright anything that is new and seek instead to further dependence on what is old by any means nescessary. This action is not taken intentionally, but rather is the result of habit.

This is the Ruling principle of Conservationism; not to Lead by exemplary action and values, but to rule by facilitating a dependency on former actions and values. Whether a Conservative seeks to Rule or to Lead depends entirely on whether he seeks to facilitate dependency or independence. To Rule is to facilitate dependency on the Ruler. To Lead is to facilitate the independence of others by being so powerful an example of Independence ones self that others choose willingly and enthusiastically to follow.

New ways of thinking, new perspectives, new schools of analysis arise naturally from the organism that is civilization. The Next Age exists in a fetal state within the Current Age until it is ready to be born on its own. In this way, The World constantly renews its self. It is in this late fetal state than any new substantial principle is in its most formative stage, its very existence only now becoming known to exterior influences.

It is in this stage that new principles are aborted outright by Conservatives. At this point the Anti-Conservatives seize upon the new principle (dead on arrival), name it, give its name meaning, and essentially adopt it to their fold and adapt it to their cause. Then Conservatives wave their fingers at the walking corpse and say, "Oh my god, a zombie, re-kill it now!".

Anti-Conservatism is simply the opposite of Conservatism: as Conservatism accepts outright and without critical analysis, the established norms and fundamental principles of established society; Anti-Conservatism rejects outright and without critical analysis, the same established norms and fundamental principles of established society. The only true progressives in this world are Individuals who are independent either Conservatism or Anti-Conservatism.

So I am neither Conservative or Anti-Conservative but am instead an Individual, and as a self-aware individual am a critical analyst of the deepest skepticism and most extreme intellectual conscience.

Conservatism and "Liberalism" in America have initiated so little original thought or analysis in the past many decades that each deserves the "pop" prefix. Pop as in "popular", without real substance, a demonstration of appearances rather than an initiation of ideals into action. Pop is linear, one-sided, top-down, shallow and dystopian, and ultimately nihilist because it really is only a form of entertainment that serves to distract us from the actual problems of the day.

So I am no more a "Conservative" than I am a fan of pop-rock. Though I may find myself humming a catchy toon or bit of lyric from either pop-conservatism or pop-rock, I could never see either as anything to really take too seriously. Pop-Conservatism being the "bubble-gum rock" of middle aged psyches, it serves only as a distracting form of wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Most of you aren't worth your Fathers or your Grandfathers and you fucking know it. They had balls bigger than your perception of the entire universe. Do something about that. Grow a pair.

Best concise explanation of economics to date

This is probably the best concise explanation of economics that exists today. Listen to the rap and be schooled by old-schoolers who not only knew the way, they invented it.



psst.....Hayek is right, in fact he totally explains exactly what is happening to our current economy. In other words, why it sucks.