Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, April 13, 2009
A Review of Marc Stevens' Speech "Delusions", "Opinions" Vs. "Facts"
I want to link you to the uncut truth. Go to http://marcstevens.net and watch "Delusions".
Now then, understand that I am not as critical of electoral politicians as some people are. I understand that there is good that can be done using counter-systemic psychology, among the voting masses.
To some of you who are receiving this, Marc Stevens' speech might be painful, to others, cathartic, to others, an annoyance.
I understand the idea of the Constitution, and of declaring war. I get it. Al qaeda is an external threat. But they can't get to me very well, unless it's because the internal threats to my freedom have won, making my country weak and servile.
In truth, like all anarchists, I have no country.
...The only war I can believe in is a personal war.
Nature is anarchist, human action is the best when it is libertarian and decentralized.
If you don't like Marc Stevens, it would help to read "No Treason: the constitution of no authority" at LysanderSpooner.org
and perhaps
"Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave" by Frederick Douglass.
Douglass was born into literal Southern Slavery. He taught himself to read and write, under the penalty of death. He had to pretend to be a happy slave for years, (happy to be allowed to keep some of his money, but not most of it) until he had saved enough money to escape.
Now that we are all slaves of the Federal Reserve, we are in a similar, though more
comfortable situation.
We have freedom of some choice, but not true freedom. Do we risk what we have, or press onward to find out what we've been missing?
We are allowed to keep a small piece of what we earn, and are expected to not
complain that we give the vast majority of it away. It helps to know that the
government is not stupid, and at the actual top, it is not bureaucratic and
slow-moving.
You get as much money as you can, but just as easily, your claim on that money
can be targeted, since there is no law. Or, if it appears that many slaves similar
to you have gotten the same idea, a "financial crisis" can be manufactured.
Most people only realize this when they start to try to fight the law, and see
that they are, instead, fighting a pledge of allegiance (an emotional part of the mind of a million slaves).
And that's the real battle. The battle against conformity. Libertarian anarchism
is what the nonconformist subscribes to, once the illusions and chains of irrational
belief are lifted.
Let's just imagine that the USA was free, and that there was no state.
Would it be pretty obvious that people should learn how to defend themselves?
Would "front sight" rifle and pistol training academy have more or fewer students?
More, I would guess. And they would be vastly better prepared for violence than
the average citizen is. Moreover, they would have gone through more rounds of
ammunition than even military marksmen go through. (Parasitism doesn't pay as well as the earnings of a strong host. It is always less. The tape worms in the lion's guts don't have life as good as the lion has it. And the lions --who exist by means of force-- don't have life as good as the man --who lives by his mind-- has it. The military, which is parasitic, cannot spend as much on ammunition as the individual productive humans on which it feeds ...at least not in a free market.)
Would Al-qaeda attack such a strong nation of individuals? --Not likely. And in the event that it did, it would be destroyed upon entry.
Would our politicians attack us with their courts, if we failed to use our productive efforts to prop up slave-states like China? Could they even attempt this, if we were not enslaved to a false belief in their paper?
No. We would be too wealthy for them to prevail against us in a court of law. Moreover, China and Iran would fail, and their leaders --Al qaeda among them-- would be swallowed whole, kicking and screaming by their rebelling countrymen, (who would demand to be as wealthy and happy as those they were trading with.)
By being closer in proximity to the Arabs, and mingling with them as their free superiors, we would wage psychological warfare against their irrational, emotional religious hatred of individualism. Psychological warfare is the most effective kind of warfare there is, as anyone who listens to Marc Stevens knows, or as those who have read the CIA manual on psychological warfare by Paul A. Linnebarger know.
Just as the wealthy libertarian anarchist wages a form of psychological warfare against the servile state thugs who see the superiority of his belief, and the material blessings it affords. The simplest view of this is the contrast between socially tolerant free-market Republicans and socialist Democrats. The Democrat at first feels superior for having suffered for his moral beliefs, but if the Republican is similarly moral, the Democrat can only feel stupid. (As Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov must have felt, throughout his time spent in Siberia.)
The same is true, but to a greater degree, between statists of all kinds (D or R or C or G or AI, or "weak-L") and anarchists.
The surest way we could have revenge against the middle-eastern terrorists is to eliminate our Federal Reserve bank, and reinstate the rights of US "citizens" to free speech, and due process. (Don't be so stupid as to believe there is such a thing as free speech, since effective free speech has been done away with. Frank Turney of Alaska was arrested for speaking the truth about jury rights to incoming jurors outside of a Fairbanks courthouse. He was sentenced to 160 days for "jury tampering" although his only crime was handing out general information about jury rights to incoming jurors.)
We tasted a small amount of the wealth that such a difference in policy creates during the Industrial revolution.
Plenty of nations experienced no industrial revolution, and remained in extreme poverty. Freedom is relative, and you have only as much of it as you desire.
That's why I desire a lot of it. I have enough desire for markets to give extra to thousands of my countrymen.
When I am successful, there will be such a thing as a true market.
What we have now is only a half-assed, stunted imitation of a market.
...It's not enough for me.
Now then, understand that I am not as critical of electoral politicians as some people are. I understand that there is good that can be done using counter-systemic psychology, among the voting masses.
To some of you who are receiving this, Marc Stevens' speech might be painful, to others, cathartic, to others, an annoyance.
I understand the idea of the Constitution, and of declaring war. I get it. Al qaeda is an external threat. But they can't get to me very well, unless it's because the internal threats to my freedom have won, making my country weak and servile.
In truth, like all anarchists, I have no country.
...The only war I can believe in is a personal war.
Nature is anarchist, human action is the best when it is libertarian and decentralized.
If you don't like Marc Stevens, it would help to read "No Treason: the constitution of no authority" at LysanderSpooner.org
and perhaps
"Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave" by Frederick Douglass.
Douglass was born into literal Southern Slavery. He taught himself to read and write, under the penalty of death. He had to pretend to be a happy slave for years, (happy to be allowed to keep some of his money, but not most of it) until he had saved enough money to escape.
Now that we are all slaves of the Federal Reserve, we are in a similar, though more
comfortable situation.
We have freedom of some choice, but not true freedom. Do we risk what we have, or press onward to find out what we've been missing?
We are allowed to keep a small piece of what we earn, and are expected to not
complain that we give the vast majority of it away. It helps to know that the
government is not stupid, and at the actual top, it is not bureaucratic and
slow-moving.
You get as much money as you can, but just as easily, your claim on that money
can be targeted, since there is no law. Or, if it appears that many slaves similar
to you have gotten the same idea, a "financial crisis" can be manufactured.
Most people only realize this when they start to try to fight the law, and see
that they are, instead, fighting a pledge of allegiance (an emotional part of the mind of a million slaves).
And that's the real battle. The battle against conformity. Libertarian anarchism
is what the nonconformist subscribes to, once the illusions and chains of irrational
belief are lifted.
Let's just imagine that the USA was free, and that there was no state.
Would it be pretty obvious that people should learn how to defend themselves?
Would "front sight" rifle and pistol training academy have more or fewer students?
More, I would guess. And they would be vastly better prepared for violence than
the average citizen is. Moreover, they would have gone through more rounds of
ammunition than even military marksmen go through. (Parasitism doesn't pay as well as the earnings of a strong host. It is always less. The tape worms in the lion's guts don't have life as good as the lion has it. And the lions --who exist by means of force-- don't have life as good as the man --who lives by his mind-- has it. The military, which is parasitic, cannot spend as much on ammunition as the individual productive humans on which it feeds ...at least not in a free market.)
Would Al-qaeda attack such a strong nation of individuals? --Not likely. And in the event that it did, it would be destroyed upon entry.
Would our politicians attack us with their courts, if we failed to use our productive efforts to prop up slave-states like China? Could they even attempt this, if we were not enslaved to a false belief in their paper?
No. We would be too wealthy for them to prevail against us in a court of law. Moreover, China and Iran would fail, and their leaders --Al qaeda among them-- would be swallowed whole, kicking and screaming by their rebelling countrymen, (who would demand to be as wealthy and happy as those they were trading with.)
By being closer in proximity to the Arabs, and mingling with them as their free superiors, we would wage psychological warfare against their irrational, emotional religious hatred of individualism. Psychological warfare is the most effective kind of warfare there is, as anyone who listens to Marc Stevens knows, or as those who have read the CIA manual on psychological warfare by Paul A. Linnebarger know.
Just as the wealthy libertarian anarchist wages a form of psychological warfare against the servile state thugs who see the superiority of his belief, and the material blessings it affords. The simplest view of this is the contrast between socially tolerant free-market Republicans and socialist Democrats. The Democrat at first feels superior for having suffered for his moral beliefs, but if the Republican is similarly moral, the Democrat can only feel stupid. (As Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov must have felt, throughout his time spent in Siberia.)
The same is true, but to a greater degree, between statists of all kinds (D or R or C or G or AI, or "weak-L") and anarchists.
The surest way we could have revenge against the middle-eastern terrorists is to eliminate our Federal Reserve bank, and reinstate the rights of US "citizens" to free speech, and due process. (Don't be so stupid as to believe there is such a thing as free speech, since effective free speech has been done away with. Frank Turney of Alaska was arrested for speaking the truth about jury rights to incoming jurors outside of a Fairbanks courthouse. He was sentenced to 160 days for "jury tampering" although his only crime was handing out general information about jury rights to incoming jurors.)
We tasted a small amount of the wealth that such a difference in policy creates during the Industrial revolution.
Plenty of nations experienced no industrial revolution, and remained in extreme poverty. Freedom is relative, and you have only as much of it as you desire.
That's why I desire a lot of it. I have enough desire for markets to give extra to thousands of my countrymen.
When I am successful, there will be such a thing as a true market.
What we have now is only a half-assed, stunted imitation of a market.
...It's not enough for me.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Alan Greenspan Fails to Take the Blame for Abandoning His Ideals Here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_go_co/financial_meltdown
...As G Edward Griffin Noted (under Alan Greenspan's photo) in "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At the Federal Reserve" (2007 ed.): "Alan Greenspan was an eloquent spokesman for the gold standard and a critic of the System's subservience to the banking cartel. That was in 1966. After he became a director of J. P. Morgan & Company and was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1987, he became silent on these issues and did nothing to anger the Creature he now served. Like Bryan, even the best of men can become corrupted by the rewards of politics. (Jake Witmer's NOTE: Bryan above refers to William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State under Wilson, who resigned after the US Government arranged the murder of the innocent US citizens on board the Lusitania, in conjunction with Winston Churchill, in order to draw the US into WWI. The evidence for this is also in Griffin's book.)"
Noone is more complicit than Greenspan in the financial meltdown of the US. He knew better. He betrayed us all. He betrayed America for years: for money and power. He is akin to the character Robert Stadler in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
...As G Edward Griffin Noted (under Alan Greenspan's photo) in "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At the Federal Reserve" (2007 ed.): "Alan Greenspan was an eloquent spokesman for the gold standard and a critic of the System's subservience to the banking cartel. That was in 1966. After he became a director of J. P. Morgan & Company and was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1987, he became silent on these issues and did nothing to anger the Creature he now served. Like Bryan, even the best of men can become corrupted by the rewards of politics. (Jake Witmer's NOTE: Bryan above refers to William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State under Wilson, who resigned after the US Government arranged the murder of the innocent US citizens on board the Lusitania, in conjunction with Winston Churchill, in order to draw the US into WWI. The evidence for this is also in Griffin's book.)"
Noone is more complicit than Greenspan in the financial meltdown of the US. He knew better. He betrayed us all. He betrayed America for years: for money and power. He is akin to the character Robert Stadler in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
