Saturday, May 29, 2010

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.

Monday, May 24, 2010

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!

Friday, May 14, 2010

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.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

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.


Saturday, May 8, 2010

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.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

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.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

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.



Monday, May 3, 2010

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.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

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.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

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.