Newt Gingrich is a damned sociopathic idiot, proof below. Starting off, here's a portion of an interview he did last week:
Chris Moody, Interviewing Newt Gingrich for "The Ticket"
CM: Three Republican presidential candidates have shown an openness to handing over control of drugs and medical marijuana to the states. Would you continue the current federal policy making marijuana illegal in all cases or give the states more control?
Newt: I would continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs.
I think the California experience is that medical marijuana becomes a joke. It becomes marijuana for any use. You find local doctors who will prescribe it for anybody that walks in.
CM: Why shouldn't the states have control over this? Why should this be a federal issue?
Newt: Because I think you guarantee that people will cross state lines if it becomes a state-by-state exemption.
I don't have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans.
CM: Expand on what you mean by "aggressive."
Newt: In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.
CM: In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?
Newt: I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence they've done to society. You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there's nothing wrong with heroin and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, 'These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.' If you're serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we're going to have drugs in this country.
Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They've been very draconian. And they have communicated with great intention that they intend to stop drugs from coming into their country.
CM: In 1981, you introduced a bill that would allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. What has changed?
Newt: What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior and that they were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people, than it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.
It's a change of information. Within a year of my original support of that bill I withdrew it.
CM: Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced a similar bill almost every year since.
Newt: You have to admit, Ron Paul has a coherent position. It's not mine, but it's internally logical.
CM: Speaking of Ron Paul, at the last debate, he said that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. We've spent billions of dollars since President Nixon and we still have rising levels of drug use. Should we continue down the same path given the amount of money we've spent? How can we reform our approach?
Newt: I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.
It has always struck me that if you're serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting--I don't think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.
Sometime in the next year we'll have a comprehensive proposal on drugs and it will be designed to say that we want to minimize drug use in America and we're very serious about it.
=========================================
My comments on the above:
Gingrich believes in a constitutional republic? That's odd! Jefferson, Madison, and all of the Federalists AND Anti-Federalist republicans believed that ultimate power should be devolved to the states, and then to the individual! That part of their beliefs wasn't in controversy, just how best to achieve that. So, not only is Newt too damned stupid to see that the fourth amendment also applies to "scary negro property" (all of the drug laws have a racist origin, just google "Harry Anslinger" or "Why is marijuana illegal?"), he's also too stupid to favor state nullification, or jury nullification.
Where did this myth arise that Newt Gingrich is intelligent???? He's one of the stupidest, most bellicose, belligerent sociopaths the voters have ever put in office. Al Franken isn't right about much, but he's right about Newt Gingrich. The man is not only NOT an "idea man" --he isn't even fit to share the stage with Ron Paul.
And he even mentions Singapore's drug laws, when he encourages the idea that drug dealers should be put to death! (Newt also introduced a law that would put people to death for importing two ounces of marijuana! He also hypocritically admits to smoking it himself ...I guess he wants the person who sold it to him to be put to death --or, more likely, he wants a double standard that puts poor negroes to death, while allowing white offenders like himself a smack on the wrist! I've held two ounces in my hand before! So have a lot of college kids! ...Newt is a power-hungry psychopath who serves the prison industry!)
Does Newt know that in Singapore there is no freedom of speech, and no trial by jury?! Does he know that our own right to jury trial has been eroded, in order to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, and the drug laws, and other mala prohibita that most reasonable people disagree with? (At least 1/12 of people on a proper, randomly-selected jury will vote to acquit on mala prohibita, victimless crime, charges, and vote to convict on actual crimes. That's why juries haven't been random in this country since 1850.) PLEASE, YOU IGNORANT REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS WHO SUPPORT NEWT: BUY A COPY OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, AND THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS, AND LOOK UP "JURY" or "JURIES" IN THE INDEX!!!! The jury is the final bulwark of the people against government tyranny. Newt stands against the power of the jury, of we the people.
And how have Singapore's drug laws (that the once free USA exported to them!) turned out? Poor women smuggle the drugs in their vaginas, and they are sentenced to DEATH without TRIAL BY JURY, while the rich drug kingpins simply view it as a cost of doing business!!! Newt is not in favor of a Republican style of government, unless by "Republican" you mean authoritarian dictatorship. Seriously? He wants the death sentence for the people in all of our families who have smoked marijuana, if they've ever sold any of it to make ends meet? That is murder by government, people! Aren't we as Americans better than that? And what about the puritanical "christians" who gave us the drug war? Are you now willing to say that christians don't turn the other cheek, that we don't forgive? That we MURDER?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????
Just because Newt busses in 650 people to a damned bookstore doesn't and shouldn't mean he's a contender! He's just one more power-grasping sociopath.
If you vote for newt, then you totally and completely deserve to get the news tat while your daughter was a college, she started smoking pot, and ran afoul of Oklahoma's drug laws because her roommate is testifying against her for her possession of a quarter-pound, and now she's going to be put to death.
Anyone here who supports Newt Gingrich after reading this interview is sick in the head, and in no way favors a constitutional republic.
Every schedule 1 drug was legal in America before 1910. That's odd! From 1870-1910, the industrial revolution made America the wealthiest, freest, most innovative, most REPUBLICAN nation on earth! Newt stands directly in opposition to enlightenment values, trial by jury, and every other strong institutional limit on government power.
...And I didn't even scratch the surface of his corruption. I just focused on the worst aspects of his core philosophy.
He was a personal recipient of the bailouts ($2 million+). He divorced his wife when she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He repeatedly contradicts himself, and yet his arrogance gives conformists the impression he's intelligent (because they've met so many intelligent people who are arrogant). As I listen to his blather on Fox News behind me (interview with Greta Van Sustern), he claims to admire Donald Trump (the bellicose asshole who tried to steal Vera Coking's house using eminent domain).
No candidate in the running is as mindlessly fascist as Newt Gingrich, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney. They both take their marching orders from the central bankers, without question or independent thought.
When you vote for Newt, you're voting for expanding the US prison industry, until there's a cell for everyone.
Showing posts with label border security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label border security. Show all posts
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
A Rant About Border Security Theater
As far as this issue is concerned, only the voluntaryists are correct:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwXYhCU9pQ –Marc Stevens on immigration.
http://www.papersplease.org
and
http://www.thenewspaper.com
I want to travel. I want to destroy all borders. I want to get on a plane, and fly to China or Columbia tomorrow, for the cost of a plane ticket only, without paying for any bogus fake “security” (security theater). I want to bring back anything I like, with none of the bullshit prohibitions that have made me totally unfree and incapable of something as simple as self-medication or eating the food I like. I have a .45 pistol. That’s all the more personal security I need, especially when combined with everyone else’s CCW pistol. No additional security (beyond non-intrusive hi-tech directional explosives sniffers in the airports) is even physically possible.
The answer to security is decentralization: all other security is fake, police actions designed to allow the government absolute power. That makes us all infinitely insecure: it means we must follow every law, even laws that require us to be murdered or jailed for victimless crimes, without a trial, …just like happened in Soviet Russia. They always reply: “Well, if you weren’t _____ (trying to live your life, you fucking peasant!), then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about!” Well, I love life, and want to live it! I want to drink coca leaf tea, not because I am a drug addict (although it wouldn’t be any of the state’s business if I was) ..but because it’s safe, harmless, and you only live once! There are a thousand things I want to do that are made very costly, if not illegal by government. I want my freedom, because I am not of the slave mentality.
As far as traveling to China and Bangkok, I just did all of this. I was at an unpaid job that paid for me to travel in a pauper’s style, and I got to see a lot of the world. I just returned from Bangkok and China. China was freer than the USSA is now. Pathetic, how we’ve lost our freedom! (Chinese people can cure their cancer with apricot kernels, they are sold in supermarkets and stores there. There is a gold store in the Beijing Airport that sells gold bullion, and the USA limits how much you can buy there! No more than 55 grams, you fucking peasants!) …But the cost of my travel was raised dramatically by the existence of all the parasitic governments. I was literally enslaved in Bangkok, because I stayed more than 90 days until I could raise a ransom to pay the kidnapper state around $650. It matters not whether such governments pretend to be constitutional. Those who want to restrict travel, to the extent that they want this, are evil, stupid, and “part of the problem”.
That’s why we need a 100% consistent libertarian revolution. And if we all pursue the freedom we wish to have, with 100% of our intelligence, …we will get it! But we must THINK.
We will NEVER, EVER, EVER have a 100% consistent libertarian politician (although Harry Browne came pretty damn close, and Badnarik was “good enough for government work”). Humans are simply too stupid, and every vote diminishes the intelligence of the few, and amplifies the tendency toward conformity. …Sorry. A few humans are very, very, very consistently pro-freedom when it comes to political belief, but it is impossible to get elected with such consistency. The bad religious memes alone in the Ron Paul revolution disprove the idea of a savior.
Ron Paul is as good as it gets, although there can be many people who approach Ron Paul’s level of consistency.
Ron Paul is dead wrong on immigration, but he seems to sense this, and not vote for things that are consistent with “controlling the border” (such as universal government issued IDs for all, a border fence, random checkpoints, etc…). “Controlling the border” is bullshit police action, and a police state for everyone. It is one giant “police action” at its very worst, and totally anti-libertarian.
Ron Paul is a hero to the freedom movement, and –by far– the best elected politician in the USSA.
The problem? He’s operating within a bloated, festering, theocratic-plague-spreading corpse known as “The Republican Party”. As such he represents pure anti-biotics, but I dear he must be applied to a rebooted patient that has more hope of life than the evil and controlled Repuglican Party.
This doctor recommends amputation. …LOL
Even though I’m saying that, I laud Dr. No’s attempt to change the Republicans from within, because his force is a counterforce to the Demopublicans’ evil, and all good things counter bad, in complex systems.
The key is to increase non-electoral strategies in conjunction with Paul’s message. More effort must be directed at non-Ron-Paul electoral efforts (Libertarians, libertarian Democrats, libertarian Republicans not associated with Paul), and at Ron Paul’s “Campaign for Liberty”. All of these can be in communication with one another. Synergy is the strongest solution: talk to all, work with all, DO YOUR OWN THING.
Form connections when it helps. Trumpet “Libertarianism” as the answer. It’s a consistent vision of freedom that gracefully decays around the edges into peaceful debate. …It’s beautiful. It’s consensual, voluntary, reasonable, logical.
It’s the solution to the problem of tyranny and false authority.
It’s LOVE.
So what does a freedom fighter do? I think they help prevent their fellow man from unjustifiably going to the gulag for victimless “crimes”. I think libertarians –at their very best– try to stop the state from enforcing injustice, and try to rescue victims of injustice.
Here is an example of that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpEB5T2ekTU –Jury rights activism.
Courthouses should be mobbed with jury rights activists who are all CCW.
Force them to lock the USSA down like a police state if they want communism.
Why do you think the fucking DHS exists? They are simply the USSA’s KGB, or “shutz-staffeln”. They are federal stormtroopers.
If you know nothing of history, you should be able to see that. Did you see the immense response in the video above to one lone elderly man speaking political truth –without swearing or “obscenity”– in public? They carted him off, using physical force. They took him to a psyche ward, and threatened him with pumping him full of dangerous psychoactive drugs against his will.
They continue to threaten this for anyone who dares to stand up against them.
And maybe that’s why the USA is no more. It has changed from the land of the brave into the land of the abject coward.
I can just hear all the musclebound morons right now: “You take it back, or I’ll kick your ass!” Well, that would only prove my point: The USA is the land of the INTELLECTUAL COWARD.
Sure, there are a lot of “physically brave” people who would fight a much larger attacker who attacked their wife and kids. Because they’d have the support of their community full of intellectual cowards! Intellectual cowards are very brave at defending “the obviously good”, the safe, the tranquil. …But so are communists, and nazis. Nazis defended motherhood and apple pie.
They murdered “degenerate artists”, and “dissidents”(partisans) by the score. In fact, they murdered more dissdents than jews. (Not many people know this, but 12 million dissidents were murdered during peacetime in the death camps, and between 6-8 million Jews were murdered. It was –by body count– even more dangerous to speak out against the government than it was to be a Jew. And that’s always the way it is: those who identify themselves as intellectually brave are the state’s real enemies.)
So who should we be protecting and defending now?
I’d start with
…Julian Heiklen, and anyone who dares do the exact same thing he’s doing.
The people who know that the jury is the most powerful check on abusive government power.
Do you think any of those people are immigrants? Poor, downtrodden, redugees from a state even less just than the USSA?
I think so!
Talk to anyone who dared flaunt the stormtroopers by crossing the Rio Grande without permission, to come to a foreign land in an attempt to “work their way up”.
This is one area where SEK3′s logic totally defeats Ron Paul’s logic.
Ron Paul’s “white market” or “constitutional government” DOES NOT EXIST.
But how do we take one step back towards it?
Not by restricting immigration. The order of events is immensely important!
Should prisons be privatized? They practically have been! See:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrial-complex/4669/
This didn’t lead to them jailing fewer people, out of a sense of fiscal responsibility, it led to the USSA jailing the greatest percentage of its submitizens of any nation on earth! Why? Because the Federal Reserve is paying the bills, and the politicians have a philosophy of unfreedom. The common idiot who supports this system is totally unaware of the ideas advanced by:
Murray N. Rothbard
F. A. Hayek
Ludwig von Mises
Harry Browne (a “voluntaryist” who ran for president twice as the Libertarian candidate in 1996 and 2000)
Carl Watner (who was wrong about opposing electoral participation and right about everything else, as a “voluntaryist”)
Samuel Konkin III AKA SEK3 (who was wrong about opposing electoral participation and right about everything else, as a “voluntaryist”)
Ayn Rand (who was wrong to oppose the Libertarian Party on the stupid grounds that they didn’t defeat their candidates “out of the gate” by opposing religion, and other more minor things)
Nathaniel Branden (I link to Nathaniel Branden's "Objectivism and Libertarianism" here, because this is a common point of confusion amongst both libertarians and objectivists, as well as other less-educated contrarians. ...LOL)
Etc…
Many of the thinkers and philosophers were 90% right. …Ron Paul SEK3 and Ayn Rand among them. (I'd put Harry Browne over that 90%, but I'm horribly biased in his favor.)
Most of us won’t ever be Ron Paul, but most of us do have the ability to be the guy in front of their local courthouse handing out fliers, like Julian Heicklen and company did in the above video.
Should we do it smarter than they did? …Yes. Here are a few pointers on how to do that:
1) Wear a suit. A suit is good for 99% of conformists (a western button-up shirt is good for 80% of conformists, a radical t-shirt or sloppy appearance is good for the 10% of “non-superficial early adopters” …and you’re playing a “numbers game”). This means you’ll be more effective at targeting conformists. Conformists don’t evaluate the message alone, they evaluate the person’s appearance who’s delivering the message, and if they don’t think the person appears professional, the message is ignored. Moreover: mainstream conformists will be hand-picked to sit on the jury. If we don’t elevate logical conformists, it doesn’t matter how many early-adopters agree with us.
2) Hand out professionally printed materials, or at least adequate black and white text with the text found here: http://www.fija.org, without crazy-looking or cheap graphics.
3) Have your words prepared in advance to “draw in” spectators. Don’t stutter and stumble under pressure like Pete Eyre did (this is not a bad criticism –Eyre had the balls to do what was smart and film it, truing his course with feedback. I stumbled and stuttered my first few times standing up to the police too, and I was too damned stupidly financially broke to videotape it!!!). The only way the DHS goons will ever “stand down” is if a crowd of Americans actually stands up and shows that they exist (right now, they don’t exist, because being an American is being intellectually brave, and there must be information-containing-brains before there can be intellectual bravery).
4) Bring a friend and videotape it (these guys did this very well, but it bears repeating), and make sure there is one person who is present with a hidden camera and recorder who IS NOT HANDING OUT FLIERS OR TALKING TO PEOPLE. This is optimal, in case the police decide to arrest everyone and destroy all the footage –as they commonly do. Later, they deny everything in court, and it’s your word against a lying cop’s –the conformist tools hand-picked by the prosecution to sit on the jury always believe the cop.
5) Emphasize the fact that those who intend to nullify bad laws must not reveal this to the prosecutor during VOIR DIRE, and must have a set of planned responses ready for the prosecutors, should they ever be called for jury duty.
6) For those who support Ron Paul, or are already “halfway libertarian” emphasize: This is a top-level strategy in the heirarchy of all pro-freedom strategy, even if it doesn’t at first seem like it is. How do we know this? The state has overwhelmingly reacted against it, as they have recognized the threat to their dominion before the libertarin community has. Also: Why is it top level? Because if the Liberty Dollar had nullifiers on their jury, then freedom lovers and banks could “opt out of the dollar”, and act as “gold-only” transitional banks, and could print initial dollar-value denominations on their coins, encouraging large numbers of sheep to “opt out of the herd”.
This email has enough information for people to begin to learn how to effectively battle our enemy: the unlawful, unconstitutional, immoral, wrong, police state.
A part of that is saying “Not Guilty” when an immigrant is on trial for having crossed a state border illegally.
If you would say “Guilty”, then you are nothing more than the tool of a petty tyrant, encouraging the unchallenged dominion of lawlessness and injustice, under the color of law.
Only those who are wired for freedom can see the light on this issue, and it’s a testament to the fact that pro-freedom brushfires are even more enlightening than the spark that initially set them going (in 2007, Ron Paul).
Enlightenment values demand a free market in goods and services. A free market in services demands open immigration. Open immigration is the core value, it matters not what the constitution or law says about it. The laws against open immigration are “mala prohibita” in the same way the drug and gun laws are “mala prohibita”. Those bad laws should be ignored. Luckily, it’s constitutional to ignore bad laws, as Thomas Woods Jr.’s new book “Nullification” proves.
Tom Woods’ book references an earlier masterpiece with the same title, and a different subtitle that explains the role of the jury in nullification. That book is Clay Conrad’s masterpiece “Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine”.
If you stand for the constitution, and you take away nothing else from this writing, know this: The constitution allows citizens to veto the enforcement of laws that they personally believe are immoral or being unfairly applied. The founding fathers believed it was perfectly legitimate for a jury member to vote “Not Guilty” even if a person clearly broke the law.
There are mountains of proof for this viewpoint, (and plenty of quotes from the founding fathers) and you can obtain them at http://www.fija.org and http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
Don’t be a tool of the state. Don’t put your faith in any one man (politician). Get grounded in the ideas of freedom, and resist tyranny to your maximum ability. Encourage all others around you to do the same. Make sure every one of your family members agrees to vote “not guilty” when they are seated on a jury (if the law is wrong), and make sure every one of them knows how to get seated (how to not be removed during “voir dire”, and how to appear like a good little sheep until it’s time to strike the blow and say “NOT GUILTY”).
This is 100% of the game. This is 100% of the movement toward freedom. If you oppose me on this, you are nothing, you are a tyrant, and godspeed you to a quick destruction.
Peace (through superior intelligence),
-Jake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwXYhCU9pQ –Marc Stevens on immigration.
http://www.papersplease.org
and
http://www.thenewspaper.com
I want to travel. I want to destroy all borders. I want to get on a plane, and fly to China or Columbia tomorrow, for the cost of a plane ticket only, without paying for any bogus fake “security” (security theater). I want to bring back anything I like, with none of the bullshit prohibitions that have made me totally unfree and incapable of something as simple as self-medication or eating the food I like. I have a .45 pistol. That’s all the more personal security I need, especially when combined with everyone else’s CCW pistol. No additional security (beyond non-intrusive hi-tech directional explosives sniffers in the airports) is even physically possible.
The answer to security is decentralization: all other security is fake, police actions designed to allow the government absolute power. That makes us all infinitely insecure: it means we must follow every law, even laws that require us to be murdered or jailed for victimless crimes, without a trial, …just like happened in Soviet Russia. They always reply: “Well, if you weren’t _____ (trying to live your life, you fucking peasant!), then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about!” Well, I love life, and want to live it! I want to drink coca leaf tea, not because I am a drug addict (although it wouldn’t be any of the state’s business if I was) ..but because it’s safe, harmless, and you only live once! There are a thousand things I want to do that are made very costly, if not illegal by government. I want my freedom, because I am not of the slave mentality.
As far as traveling to China and Bangkok, I just did all of this. I was at an unpaid job that paid for me to travel in a pauper’s style, and I got to see a lot of the world. I just returned from Bangkok and China. China was freer than the USSA is now. Pathetic, how we’ve lost our freedom! (Chinese people can cure their cancer with apricot kernels, they are sold in supermarkets and stores there. There is a gold store in the Beijing Airport that sells gold bullion, and the USA limits how much you can buy there! No more than 55 grams, you fucking peasants!) …But the cost of my travel was raised dramatically by the existence of all the parasitic governments. I was literally enslaved in Bangkok, because I stayed more than 90 days until I could raise a ransom to pay the kidnapper state around $650. It matters not whether such governments pretend to be constitutional. Those who want to restrict travel, to the extent that they want this, are evil, stupid, and “part of the problem”.
That’s why we need a 100% consistent libertarian revolution. And if we all pursue the freedom we wish to have, with 100% of our intelligence, …we will get it! But we must THINK.
We will NEVER, EVER, EVER have a 100% consistent libertarian politician (although Harry Browne came pretty damn close, and Badnarik was “good enough for government work”). Humans are simply too stupid, and every vote diminishes the intelligence of the few, and amplifies the tendency toward conformity. …Sorry. A few humans are very, very, very consistently pro-freedom when it comes to political belief, but it is impossible to get elected with such consistency. The bad religious memes alone in the Ron Paul revolution disprove the idea of a savior.
Ron Paul is as good as it gets, although there can be many people who approach Ron Paul’s level of consistency.
Ron Paul is dead wrong on immigration, but he seems to sense this, and not vote for things that are consistent with “controlling the border” (such as universal government issued IDs for all, a border fence, random checkpoints, etc…). “Controlling the border” is bullshit police action, and a police state for everyone. It is one giant “police action” at its very worst, and totally anti-libertarian.
Ron Paul is a hero to the freedom movement, and –by far– the best elected politician in the USSA.
The problem? He’s operating within a bloated, festering, theocratic-plague-spreading corpse known as “The Republican Party”. As such he represents pure anti-biotics, but I dear he must be applied to a rebooted patient that has more hope of life than the evil and controlled Repuglican Party.
This doctor recommends amputation. …LOL
Even though I’m saying that, I laud Dr. No’s attempt to change the Republicans from within, because his force is a counterforce to the Demopublicans’ evil, and all good things counter bad, in complex systems.
The key is to increase non-electoral strategies in conjunction with Paul’s message. More effort must be directed at non-Ron-Paul electoral efforts (Libertarians, libertarian Democrats, libertarian Republicans not associated with Paul), and at Ron Paul’s “Campaign for Liberty”. All of these can be in communication with one another. Synergy is the strongest solution: talk to all, work with all, DO YOUR OWN THING.
Form connections when it helps. Trumpet “Libertarianism” as the answer. It’s a consistent vision of freedom that gracefully decays around the edges into peaceful debate. …It’s beautiful. It’s consensual, voluntary, reasonable, logical.
It’s the solution to the problem of tyranny and false authority.
It’s LOVE.
So what does a freedom fighter do? I think they help prevent their fellow man from unjustifiably going to the gulag for victimless “crimes”. I think libertarians –at their very best– try to stop the state from enforcing injustice, and try to rescue victims of injustice.
Here is an example of that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpEB5T2ekTU –Jury rights activism.
Courthouses should be mobbed with jury rights activists who are all CCW.
Force them to lock the USSA down like a police state if they want communism.
Why do you think the fucking DHS exists? They are simply the USSA’s KGB, or “shutz-staffeln”. They are federal stormtroopers.
If you know nothing of history, you should be able to see that. Did you see the immense response in the video above to one lone elderly man speaking political truth –without swearing or “obscenity”– in public? They carted him off, using physical force. They took him to a psyche ward, and threatened him with pumping him full of dangerous psychoactive drugs against his will.
They continue to threaten this for anyone who dares to stand up against them.
And maybe that’s why the USA is no more. It has changed from the land of the brave into the land of the abject coward.
I can just hear all the musclebound morons right now: “You take it back, or I’ll kick your ass!” Well, that would only prove my point: The USA is the land of the INTELLECTUAL COWARD.
Sure, there are a lot of “physically brave” people who would fight a much larger attacker who attacked their wife and kids. Because they’d have the support of their community full of intellectual cowards! Intellectual cowards are very brave at defending “the obviously good”, the safe, the tranquil. …But so are communists, and nazis. Nazis defended motherhood and apple pie.
They murdered “degenerate artists”, and “dissidents”(partisans) by the score. In fact, they murdered more dissdents than jews. (Not many people know this, but 12 million dissidents were murdered during peacetime in the death camps, and between 6-8 million Jews were murdered. It was –by body count– even more dangerous to speak out against the government than it was to be a Jew. And that’s always the way it is: those who identify themselves as intellectually brave are the state’s real enemies.)
So who should we be protecting and defending now?
I’d start with
…Julian Heiklen, and anyone who dares do the exact same thing he’s doing.
The people who know that the jury is the most powerful check on abusive government power.
Do you think any of those people are immigrants? Poor, downtrodden, redugees from a state even less just than the USSA?
I think so!
Talk to anyone who dared flaunt the stormtroopers by crossing the Rio Grande without permission, to come to a foreign land in an attempt to “work their way up”.
This is one area where SEK3′s logic totally defeats Ron Paul’s logic.
Ron Paul’s “white market” or “constitutional government” DOES NOT EXIST.
But how do we take one step back towards it?
Not by restricting immigration. The order of events is immensely important!
Should prisons be privatized? They practically have been! See:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrial-complex/4669/
This didn’t lead to them jailing fewer people, out of a sense of fiscal responsibility, it led to the USSA jailing the greatest percentage of its submitizens of any nation on earth! Why? Because the Federal Reserve is paying the bills, and the politicians have a philosophy of unfreedom. The common idiot who supports this system is totally unaware of the ideas advanced by:
Murray N. Rothbard
F. A. Hayek
Ludwig von Mises
Harry Browne (a “voluntaryist” who ran for president twice as the Libertarian candidate in 1996 and 2000)
Carl Watner (who was wrong about opposing electoral participation and right about everything else, as a “voluntaryist”)
Samuel Konkin III AKA SEK3 (who was wrong about opposing electoral participation and right about everything else, as a “voluntaryist”)
Ayn Rand (who was wrong to oppose the Libertarian Party on the stupid grounds that they didn’t defeat their candidates “out of the gate” by opposing religion, and other more minor things)
Nathaniel Branden (I link to Nathaniel Branden's "Objectivism and Libertarianism" here, because this is a common point of confusion amongst both libertarians and objectivists, as well as other less-educated contrarians. ...LOL)
Etc…
Many of the thinkers and philosophers were 90% right. …Ron Paul SEK3 and Ayn Rand among them. (I'd put Harry Browne over that 90%, but I'm horribly biased in his favor.)
Most of us won’t ever be Ron Paul, but most of us do have the ability to be the guy in front of their local courthouse handing out fliers, like Julian Heicklen and company did in the above video.
Should we do it smarter than they did? …Yes. Here are a few pointers on how to do that:
1) Wear a suit. A suit is good for 99% of conformists (a western button-up shirt is good for 80% of conformists, a radical t-shirt or sloppy appearance is good for the 10% of “non-superficial early adopters” …and you’re playing a “numbers game”). This means you’ll be more effective at targeting conformists. Conformists don’t evaluate the message alone, they evaluate the person’s appearance who’s delivering the message, and if they don’t think the person appears professional, the message is ignored. Moreover: mainstream conformists will be hand-picked to sit on the jury. If we don’t elevate logical conformists, it doesn’t matter how many early-adopters agree with us.
2) Hand out professionally printed materials, or at least adequate black and white text with the text found here: http://www.fija.org, without crazy-looking or cheap graphics.
3) Have your words prepared in advance to “draw in” spectators. Don’t stutter and stumble under pressure like Pete Eyre did (this is not a bad criticism –Eyre had the balls to do what was smart and film it, truing his course with feedback. I stumbled and stuttered my first few times standing up to the police too, and I was too damned stupidly financially broke to videotape it!!!). The only way the DHS goons will ever “stand down” is if a crowd of Americans actually stands up and shows that they exist (right now, they don’t exist, because being an American is being intellectually brave, and there must be information-containing-brains before there can be intellectual bravery).
4) Bring a friend and videotape it (these guys did this very well, but it bears repeating), and make sure there is one person who is present with a hidden camera and recorder who IS NOT HANDING OUT FLIERS OR TALKING TO PEOPLE. This is optimal, in case the police decide to arrest everyone and destroy all the footage –as they commonly do. Later, they deny everything in court, and it’s your word against a lying cop’s –the conformist tools hand-picked by the prosecution to sit on the jury always believe the cop.
5) Emphasize the fact that those who intend to nullify bad laws must not reveal this to the prosecutor during VOIR DIRE, and must have a set of planned responses ready for the prosecutors, should they ever be called for jury duty.
6) For those who support Ron Paul, or are already “halfway libertarian” emphasize: This is a top-level strategy in the heirarchy of all pro-freedom strategy, even if it doesn’t at first seem like it is. How do we know this? The state has overwhelmingly reacted against it, as they have recognized the threat to their dominion before the libertarin community has. Also: Why is it top level? Because if the Liberty Dollar had nullifiers on their jury, then freedom lovers and banks could “opt out of the dollar”, and act as “gold-only” transitional banks, and could print initial dollar-value denominations on their coins, encouraging large numbers of sheep to “opt out of the herd”.
This email has enough information for people to begin to learn how to effectively battle our enemy: the unlawful, unconstitutional, immoral, wrong, police state.
A part of that is saying “Not Guilty” when an immigrant is on trial for having crossed a state border illegally.
If you would say “Guilty”, then you are nothing more than the tool of a petty tyrant, encouraging the unchallenged dominion of lawlessness and injustice, under the color of law.
Only those who are wired for freedom can see the light on this issue, and it’s a testament to the fact that pro-freedom brushfires are even more enlightening than the spark that initially set them going (in 2007, Ron Paul).
Enlightenment values demand a free market in goods and services. A free market in services demands open immigration. Open immigration is the core value, it matters not what the constitution or law says about it. The laws against open immigration are “mala prohibita” in the same way the drug and gun laws are “mala prohibita”. Those bad laws should be ignored. Luckily, it’s constitutional to ignore bad laws, as Thomas Woods Jr.’s new book “Nullification” proves.
Tom Woods’ book references an earlier masterpiece with the same title, and a different subtitle that explains the role of the jury in nullification. That book is Clay Conrad’s masterpiece “Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine”.
If you stand for the constitution, and you take away nothing else from this writing, know this: The constitution allows citizens to veto the enforcement of laws that they personally believe are immoral or being unfairly applied. The founding fathers believed it was perfectly legitimate for a jury member to vote “Not Guilty” even if a person clearly broke the law.
There are mountains of proof for this viewpoint, (and plenty of quotes from the founding fathers) and you can obtain them at http://www.fija.org and http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
Don’t be a tool of the state. Don’t put your faith in any one man (politician). Get grounded in the ideas of freedom, and resist tyranny to your maximum ability. Encourage all others around you to do the same. Make sure every one of your family members agrees to vote “not guilty” when they are seated on a jury (if the law is wrong), and make sure every one of them knows how to get seated (how to not be removed during “voir dire”, and how to appear like a good little sheep until it’s time to strike the blow and say “NOT GUILTY”).
This is 100% of the game. This is 100% of the movement toward freedom. If you oppose me on this, you are nothing, you are a tyrant, and godspeed you to a quick destruction.
Peace (through superior intelligence),
-Jake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
