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.

Mike Oldfield Quits Brits over Smoking Ban...

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/oldfield%20quits%20britain%20over%20smoking%20ban_1047367 I wonder if he considers himself a libertarian or an anarchist. His music is great. If you're unfamiliar with it, you should really look it up on youtube, or elsewhere.

A detailed look at Che Guevara's personal role as Castro's willing executioner

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2054

The Butcher of la Cabaña

Free Range Empires - Stefbot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02rvMwSlAu0&feature=channel

More stefbot, on the "bailouts"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFD4xtFV9cQ&feature=channel

Unplug Yourself From the Illusion of Freedom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY -Stefbot's take on reality. (I agree with it fairly closely. I agree more closely with G. Edward Griffin and myself about the solution though.)

Art Imitates Life, I Guess (Except for the Happy Ending)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/theinternational/hd/
At least the subject matter is thrilling! Kind of like that nonfiction book I just read: "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin. Maybe hollywood will keep us distracted just long enough for the coup de grâce!

Looking for an inspirational movie showing the little people triumphing over the tyrannical police state? Try these:

The Camden 28 - a movie about the people who broke and entered into a selective service office in Camden, NJ. Among them was an FBI informant who believed in the "rule of society's laws" --so he turned in all of his friends. Then, he was surprised when the state sought to utterly ruin their lives, so he became a sympathetic witness to the defense, showing how the FBI had set them up (via their mole) with the ability to break and enter (they were bumbling liberal jag-offs who otherwise never would have pulled it off). In the end, all of them were acquitted of wrongdoing, via jury nullification of law (the jury knowing that they had broken the law, but acquitting them anyway. For more information see: http://www.fija.org ) "The Camden 28" is available for sale here: http://firstrunfeatures.com/camden28dvd.html.

In Search of the Second Amendment - David T. Hardy's groundbreaking documentary about the racist origins of gun control in America.

Uprising - Jon Avnet's masterful retelling of the story of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Available for order at any Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstore. After a unphilosophical and dying German culture had given up its individual rights to the police state --as well as its weapons of self defense--, these brave individuals decided that life was too precious to die without a fight. Starting with less than 50 handguns, starving, with malnutrition and disease running rampant, the imprisoned Jews retaliated against the nazis from inside the occupied city of Warsaw, which had been converted into a giant prison camp. They held off one of the strongest divisions of the German army for over a month (longer than the entire nations of France and Poland resisted.) This video will shame the tyrant sympathizers who oppose gun rights (if they have any intelligence at all), as it will embolden those who believe in the righteousness of individual freedom. It's not perfect, but for those looking for a good action movie based materially on historical fact, it rocks. As an aside, dealing with the nature of the uprising, there is an excellent piece on the ghetto uprising at the beginning of John Ross's novel "Unintended Consequences" that is probably a little more true to the dire one-sidedness of the fighting conditions in the Ghetto. A real life account of the Ghetto uprising (spoken by survivor Marek Edelman) can be found here: http://www.peoplesarchive.com/browse/movies/6265/

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com - JPFO (Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) video about the link between making innocent people defenseless ("gun control") and mass murder by government ("democide").

Coercion Watch: The Cure of "Quackery" (Coercion) is Worse than the Disease (Ignorance)

Stephen Barrett runs a site called "quackwatch" at ( http://www.quackwatch.org/ ) where he purports to alert people to "scams and quackery". This would be OK, except that he places 100% of his faith in collective rule, and armed authoritarianism. He makes no mention of the fact that the juries in the cases where well-meaning scientists and doctors were convicted were instructed to enforce existing unjust laws by thei judges in the trials (contrary to the Constitution's mention of "common law" and "due process").

Of particular interest is his listing of an article by Dr. Benjamin Wilson listing B-17 cancer therapies as "quackery". Online here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

If you scroll down to the bottom of the preceding link, you will note that he features a section titled: "Recent Enforcement Actions", which he presumably presents in order to get you to agree that B-17 treatment is harmful. But wait: If a person chooses B-17 against their doctor's wishes and dies, then why does anyone need to be punished? They followed a treatment that was not successful, but one that is evidenced to have greater success than established treatments for late-term cancer. Moreover, early laetrile supplementation appears to actually do better than mainstream cancer therapies. So again, why does anyone need to be punished with the force of government, and why would their being punished indicate that Barrett is correct about B-17?

And note his sources, under the "Recent Enforcement Actions" section. No mention of any pro B-17 scholarship! Only the criticisms of it (mostly by government thugs and vested interests of the status quo)!


Moreover, from the first paragraph, he leaves out several critical facts. Let's analyze just the first paragraph to see if it sets off our bullshit detectors, after we watch this video about B-17. FIRST, watch the video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507

THEN, read what Benjamin Wilson has to say while paying attention to both what he says and what he fails to say:

Laetrile is the trade name for laevo-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronoside, a
substance allegedly synthesized by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., and registered with the
U.S. Patent Office for the treatment of "disorders of intestinal fermentation."
This compound is chemically related to amygdalin, a substance found naturally in
the pits of apricots and various other fruits. Most proponents of Laetrile for
the treatment of cancer use the terms "Laetrile" and amygdalin
interchangeably.

Amygdalin was originally isolated in 1830 by two
French chemists. In the presence of certain enzymes, amygdalin breaks down into
glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide (which is poisonous). It was tried
as an anticancer agent in Germany in 1892, but was discarded as ineffective and
too toxic for that purpose. During the early 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., M.D.,
and his son Ernst, Jr., began using a "purified" form of amygdalin to treat
cancer patients. Since that time scientists have tested substances called
"Laetrile" in more than 20 animal tumor models as well as in humans and found no
benefit either alone or together with other substances. Along the way its
proponents have varied their claims about Laetrile's origin, chemical structure,
mechanism of action, and therapeutic effects [1,2]. Its place in history is
assured, however, as a focus of political activities intended to abolish the
laws protecting Americans from quackery.

So, Wilson tips his hand, in the last sentence above, as believing that Americans need to be "protected" from quackery. How protected? Look under "Recent Enforcement Actions": Silencing proponents of laetrile, shutting them up with physical violence and threats, and imprisoning them.

If B-17 treatment is "quackery", then why would one need violence to stop the sale of B-17? After all, many people believe that resveratrol supplementation prevents DNA oxidation. Others disagree. But if we follow the logic that all things that are ineffective are banned, then how will new therapies ever be developed? They won't! The research will be too expensive, and will be limited to pharmaceuticals that can be patented by large corporations. Natural substances like Stevia (a natural, safe, sugarless-but-sweet alternative to Nutrasweet) and B-17 containing aricot pits cannot be patented, and provide very little profit margin for large manufacturers of patentable synthetic molecules.

Even more amazing is Benjamin Wilson's dishonesty in criticizing B-17 therapy (at Stephen Barrett's website). He writes, "In the presence of certain enzymes, amygdalin (another name for B-17) breaks down into glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide (which is poisonous)." To which I respond: NO SHIT, ASSHOLE! 100% of B-17's benefits are caused by the fact that an enzyme found only in cancer cells releases cyanide into the cancer cells, mimicing the body's natural defenses against cancer (the killing of cancer cells by the bancreatic enzyme trypsin which also avoids healthy non-cancerous cells) killing them. So I guess that Wilson's primary intent is simply to scare people into not researching laetrile further, since his comments dishonestly ignore WHAT THE PROPONENTS OF LAETRILE SAY ARE ITS MERITS.

This is similar to a property rights advocate defending gun rights by stating that "guns save lives by allowing people to defend themselves", and being "countered" by an argument by hysterical anti-gunner that says "gangbangers shooting innocent children doesn't save any lives!". This argument is dishonest, because it doesn't address the point that the property rights advocate was making. It makes a new point, and attempts to divert the discussion down a path of lesser information. We all know guns can kill. We all know cyanide can kill. But the real discussion is about how well those things can be targeted against the negative things they are designed to fight.

In th case of guns, we want the guns to either kill or threaten criminals. In the case of Vitamin B-17, we want the cyanide molecule within B-17 to be released on contact with cancer specific enzymes into the cancer cells!

But you will NEVER find honesty in arguments in favor of big government. If they were smart enough to be reference the facts, they'd never advocate for the intercession of more force and coercion into people's lives.

The government has a holy war against freedom, lest you dare choose to experiment with harmless, and possibly life-saving alternative therapies. They dare not allow you to make your own medical decisions in a free market. After all, that would threaten the very idea that the bounds of your freedom need to be defined by an army of government-employed bureacrats.

I'm not certain that B-17 is a reliable cure for cancer. But I sure as hell intend to read G. Edward Griffin's book, and every other book I can on the subject until I find out to my own self-determined level of satisfaction!

My advice? ...Cure your ignorance by taking responsibility for it, and doing research --read a book. Don't ask the force peddlers in congress or the courts to ban certain forms of knowledge, advice, or products: when they make a mistake, it hurts innocent people.