Much has been written about the art of tantric sex. I think that many people are drawn to explore it because of the physical aspect. They are titillated by the promise of longer orgasms, more control over orgasms, multiple orgasms and just a more satisfying sexual experience in general. There's no problem with this. Who wouldn't want to have a more pleasurable experience? Who wouldn't want to try something that may help them enjoy an experience as never before? Who wouldn't want to try to make something that has perhaps become old and boring new and exciting again? From what I have read, tantric sex can, indeed, do these things for you.
What intrigued me and drew me to explore tantric sex, however, is the spiritual aspect. Trantric sex is a practice which is supposed to take a physical act and turn it into a spiritual experience. I have been meditating and trying to contact my higher self on and off since I was a kid. Though at times I find myself having difficulties achieving my spiritual goals, I do not give up and I'm always willing to try something new. What could be better than trying something out that combines such an enjoyable activity with spiritual discovery? If I can find my higher self while having sex, and at the same time help someone else achieve the same goal, I think that's an honorable endeavor.
An interesting aspect of tantric sex is the need to find a likeminded partner. I suppose it is possible to do this on one's own, but I think the pleasure would be far greater with two united souls working toward the same goal. Part of the process, according to some, is to take the time each week to talk with your partner and discuss not only matters of sex and what you're both trying to accomplish, but philosophies and just life in general. What a great way to get to know a person better. What a great way to discover the nature of love and the divine in yourself and another.
I think, if the two of you are going to make a commitment to learn to meditate together in such an intimate way, that taking the time to get to know one another more deeply is an important step. After all, if you can't spend a couple hours a week listening to the thoughts and desires of another and explaining your own to that person, perhaps the relationship you have with that person should be reevaluated. If you can't find the time in the course of a week to do this, perhaps you should slow down for a moment and take the time to examine your priorities.
I found one source that made the claim that tantric sex was for some a protest to religious authorities of old who would try to make sex an immoral, dirty act. This is, of course, untrue and a way authoritative figures often try to control the lives of others. Early practitioners of tantric sex were as much as thumbing their noses at the religious elite as they were using it to seek spiritual enlightenment. It seems that the vast majority of ordinary people, no matter where they're from, tend to agree that the authorities have no business getting involved in the private sex lives of consenting adults.
Of course, this is something that happened long ago and was forced upon mankind by puritanical zealots who didn't know better. Such an intrusion on private lives couldn't take place in these more enlightened times. Not in America. Not in the land of the free. We wouldn't stand for such tyranny. I don't know. Those politicians in Washington, DC keep passing more and more draconian laws. They keep removing legal barriers that were meant to prevent them from violating your privacy rights and creeping more and more into your personal affairs. The not so funny thing is that so few seem to care. There is some outcry, but will there be enough? In another generation or so, it wouldn't surprise me to see all of George Orwell's predictions have come true, and then some, if things keep up the way they have been going. It wouldn't surprise me to see government spy cams in people's bedrooms with the excuse that they're keeping everyone safe from the plotting of couples who practice the terrifying ritual of tantric sex.
Politics, in my view, is the art of getting enough people to agree with your point of view that you become validated and are given a certain amount of legitimized power to govern. Of course once power is obtained the trick becomes holding onto it. I believe that most of those who seek this kind of power certainly don't want to share it, least of all with those lowly type common folk who haven't earned prestige as they have. The last thing they want is an independent, free thinking electorate. The last thing they want is to try to rule over bright, innovative people with their own ideas on how things should work. They want docile, compliant folks who will go along with how they feel society should be. They want obedient folks who will go along without questioning the laws they pass no matter how silly or draconian. The last thing they want are enlightened folk and they will likely do what they can to keep their constituents from becoming enlightened.
When practicing trantric sex, the sexual energy is supposed to be channeled through the chakras of the body causing them to open up and giving the practitioner an opportunity to experience and/or meet his/her higher self. This is supposed to be a very euphoric, blissful experience. I haven't been able to achieve on my own a face to face with my higher self in a very long time now. Admittedly, I gave up my meditative practices long ago, which is a story in itself, and I haven't been able to recreate my earlier successes with those practices since I started up again a few years back. It sure would be nice to attempt such a feat with some likeminded, lovely individual with the same goal in mind. Still, I think I know what my higher self would think of the politics of this world and I have the feeling it would be the same for the vast majority of us common folk on this plane of existence.
Perhaps if we were all to discover our higher selves, we'd become more empowered than we can dream of in our wildest imaginings. Perhaps we'd discover just how powerful we are as individual entities. Perhaps we would discover just how beautiful we all truly are. Maybe we would suddenly be aware of just how badly we've been taken in by those who wish to rule over us. Maybe we'd all understand just how immoral it is to force people to accept and pay for monopoly controlled services they don't want to use, they can't afford to use, or they'd go elsewhere to use if given a choice. Maybe we'd all finally understand just how devious and destructive fiat currency schemes are. Maybe we'd all open our eyes and wake up to the men behind the curtain who truly run the world.
One thing I can say, the powers of old were frightened of freedom and enlightenment. They did their best to vilify many practices that would have helped empower the common folk. Perhaps the modern powers that be are worried about disobedience. Perhaps they're worried we'd suddenly stop going along to get along and we'd laugh at their proclamations and demands. Perhaps they're worried we'd seek justice against their fraud. Perhaps they're worried they'd lose their privileged positions and that they would actually have to work and produce something positive for the human race in order to make a living. I think there's nothing scarier to the mind of someone who belongs to the establishment elite than the thought of having to do hard work to earn their own way in this world. Perhaps if enough of us were enlightened we'd be able to expose to the masses just how delusional and psychopathic some of these most powerful individuals are. If it takes tantric sex to achieve enlightenment, become the best human being I can possibly be, and benefit mankind than I, for one, am willing to give it a try.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity." It is also available for the Kobo Vox. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off at Smashwords by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales. I have also released "The Ouijiers" at smashwords.com. For a limited time "The Ouijiers" is available as a free download. I ask that if you read it and find it entertaining you pay an amount you consider a fair price for it. You may have to register (for free) with smashwords and turn off the adult filter to see the books.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ron Paul is the Only Electable Candidate for President
The corporate controlled, establishment mass media would still have you believe that Ron Paul is some crazy fringe candidate. They still insist that he is unelectable despite his 3rd place finish in Iowa (one wonders how Santorum got so many votes there) and his second place finish in New Hampshire, and polls that have him doing very well against Obama. This despite the fact that the Republican Party leadership seem embarrassed by his presence and want to keep voters away from him more than the Dursleys wanted to keep Harry Potter away from their muggle relatives. When even those who count the votes have to admit to so many flocking to the eccentric family uncle one starts to wonder if maybe he has a real chance of gaining the Republican nod. It is, after all, a matter of numbers and if there is overwhelming support then even the most corrupt organization starts to worry about being too obvious with their cheating and fixing of elections.
Yes, there are those mindless individuals who still listen to the establishment pundits who tell them who they should vote for. There are still those who refuse to think for themselves and believe the talking heads on television, parroting their talking points. There are still those who let themselves be led by the nose and will stamp their feet and cry isolationists, racists, loss of security, terrorists racing to our shores, crippling the poor, uneducated children, and other such misrepresentations of ideas, but these people are becoming fewer. The corporate controlled establishment media is losing its grip when it comes to forming public opinion. More and more people have stopped listening to these sources and have started looking for alternative points of view. Why? People want the truth. They realize when they are being lied to. People are not as stupid as the establishment seems to think, and they are losing viewers and readership as a result.
Indeed, if one thinks deeply about what the people of this nation want, what they have voted for in the past elections, one suddenly realizes that Ron Paul is the only candidate that will deliver. In 2008 the people voted for "hope" and "change" as a clever marketing device sold the populace on a lesser known, shadowy politician who came out of nowhere. What the people wanted, I assume, was change for the better and hope for a prosperous future. Instead the change made the nation more collectivist than ever and we can only hope that the economy won't collapse entirely.
The principles that Ron Paul advocates will change things for the better. They will, if implemented, create more opportunity and drive individuals to better innovate in the market. They will bring us positive hope for a more prosperous future. Not only that, but Ron Paul has the record to back up his words. He's not some random unknown who's come out of nowhere supported by the money of the corporate establishment. The money he receives mostly comes from ordinary folk like you and me. If politicians are beholden to their contributors, than Ron Paul will be beholden to the common folk of this nation.
The major issue of our day is the economy. The world is sinking into a second great depression and no one seems to know how to stop it. Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to focus on the main driver of modern economies, our central bank, the Federal Reserve. He wants to audit it. He wants to expose the corruption and then likely end it He wants to get in there and find out where our money went. He wants to return to Constitutional money, or at least allow competition in the currency market to create innovation and a buffer against the boom/bust cycle that is caused by the Fed's policies.
No other candidate will even touch the Fed. Why? It might have something to do with the fact that all other candidates are heavily backed by the very banking interests that have failed and are leading us down an even more dangerous path. Ron Paul is the only candidate I know of that voted against the bailouts that left a bad taste in the mouths of so many Americans. Even the current president voted for those bailouts, cutting short a campaign stop to fly to Washington, DC to vote for it. Remember?
How can anyone who wants a better tomorrow justify voting for anyone except Ron Paul when it comes to the economy? If they vote for anyone else they are voting for the status quo. They are voting to keep the same old policies that have brought us to this point. They are voting for the elite to get richer while the poor become wretched. They are voting for an end to the middle class. They are voting for the destruction of our currency and currencies all across the globe so that the central banking cartel can introduce their one world currency and continue to consolidate their power. Even if a candidate promises differently, you know he won't deliver because they're all bought and paid for by the established elite. They only other reason anyone would vote for one of the other candidates is fear.
To those who fear Ron Paul's ideas on economics, I have this to say. Why are you so afraid. The major reason we had a revolution is economics. The British would not acknowledge American interest free state money because it wasn't tied to their central bank. Their established elite made no profit, so they refused to let the Americans' trade with it. The dollar was originally defined as a certain amount if silver to keep the economy stable, not to grow it. It helped keep the United States of America independent of the politics and economics of the rest of the world for over a hundred years. That's why we were so prosperous. Why wouldn't you want to return to the basics that made us such a prosperous nation in the first place? Why are you so frightened of trying something new and innovative? What ever happened to the home of the brave?
Another major issue haunting the electorate over the past decade or so is the issue of war. The very word war has come to mean many things as the politicians and pundits twist it to elicit fearful emotions and capture votes. War is no longer two nations pitting their military against each other. War is occupation. War is nation building. War can be waged against a tactic. War can be waged against a product that some people demand. War has even been waged against poverty in the past, if you listen to politicians. The problem is, these wars aren't really wars, they are simply marketing campaigns. The bigger problem is, these wars affect real people, individuals who have harmed no one, and destroy their lives. These wars are waged against common folk all over the world. They kill innocent people, even women, children and the elderly. These wars are waged against freedom, not for it.
People want peace. Peace is a good thing. When peace is prevalent trade is increased, friendships are solidified and understanding is reached. Wars help to only impair trade, breed hatred and increase and magnify misunderstandings. Ron Paul is not against just one war. He doesn't plan on simply ending one occupation and starting another. He's not out to fool the people into believing he's a peace candidate and then caving into the military industrial complex that is so closely tied to the establishment elite. He's against all war. He's a champion of making friends through positive change. Security is strongest when others have no desire or excuse to attack. Every other Republican candidate in the running want to keep on warring. Barrack Obama has proven with his actions that while he proclaims himself a peace candidate, he practices war mongering.
A third major issue is that of individual rights. Once again, we see where all the other candidates have fallen well short of guarding individual rights. Only Ron Paul has a long and consistent record of voting in such a way as to respect individual rights, and he cites the Constitution of the United States of America as a reason for voting in such ways. In other words, Ron Paul is the only current candidate running for either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party that has honored his oath of office. All others have at some point broken their oath. All others have their exceptions that they use to justify voting to violate individual rights. All others have been willing to sell out your rights for a perception of more security, and an increase in their powers.
In the last election, promises that certain unconstitutional laws would be repealed, at least in part, were made. Many people believed that such promises would be kept and voted for the candidate they thought would keep said promises. They were sorely disappointed. While the president might not be able to repeal such legislation by himself, he can use his position as a bully pulpit to point out those representatives who refuse to follow the demands of their constituents. Only Ron Paul would do so if he obtains the office of president. All others would hem and haw and make excuses for keeping such legislation in force. Why? Because they love power and would not want to give any of it up at all, not the least little bit.
Ron Paul has a history of honesty. He has a history of openness. He has a proven history of understanding economic principles. He has a good grasp on concepts that create economic prosperity and wants to implement those concepts. He has a plan to cut government size and spending. He has a history of striving for peace. He is a veteran who has seen war and knows its true cost and the damage it can cause. He has a history of defending the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. There is no other candidate currently running who has such qualifications.
If you want a smaller, less intrusive, less costly government which obeys the Constitution, Ron Paul is your only choice. If you want someone who will at least strive for a peaceful resolution to wars at home and abroad, Ron Paul is your only choice. If you want honesty and transparency in government, Ron Paul is your only choice. If you want bigger government, more war, more intrusiveness from the State, and the continuation of this downward economic spiral, vote for any other candidate. It really doesn't matter which one, they're all the same, except Ron Paul.
Do not expect the corporate controlled establishment media to present Ron Paul in the manner I just did. They are paid by the same elite interests that have bought most of the politicians at the federal level. They don't want to talk about Ron Paul's honesty, they want to talk about a newsletter someone else edited 20 years ago. They don't want to talk about his sane economic policies, they want to talk about his "crazy" supporters who believe in "paranoid" conspiracy theories. They don't want to talk about his non-interventionalist foreign policy, they want to accuse him of being an isolationist and hating Israel, neither of which is true. They don't want to give him the time to explain his principles and why they work, they want to limit him to under 90 seconds in debates. The establishment media wants to do anything but show Ron Paul in the good light he deserves to be shown in. If they did, he would be elected in a landslide, but even as his popularity with the people surges, they continue to try to find anything to discredit him and keep him from succeeding.
Perhaps this is why Ron Paul supporters appear to be so zealous. They know the establishment media has not given him a fair shake. They realize the media is owned by the same people that own most politicians at the federal level. They know it is up to them to get the word out. I have been writing about Ron Paul since 2007 and I've seen how biased the media is against him. His ideas of freedom are not fringe, or extremist, nor do they make him unelectable. His ideas and principles stem from the very reasons our nation was founded. They are a blueprint for freedom and peace throughout the world. All other candidates are simply a continuation of the power grabbing corruption, indebtedness and empire building that has driven us to ruin. No one but the wealthy elite who profit from such misery wants that. All things considered, Ron Paul is the only electable presidential candidate.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. It is also available for the Kobo Vox. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off at Smashwords by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
Yes, there are those mindless individuals who still listen to the establishment pundits who tell them who they should vote for. There are still those who refuse to think for themselves and believe the talking heads on television, parroting their talking points. There are still those who let themselves be led by the nose and will stamp their feet and cry isolationists, racists, loss of security, terrorists racing to our shores, crippling the poor, uneducated children, and other such misrepresentations of ideas, but these people are becoming fewer. The corporate controlled establishment media is losing its grip when it comes to forming public opinion. More and more people have stopped listening to these sources and have started looking for alternative points of view. Why? People want the truth. They realize when they are being lied to. People are not as stupid as the establishment seems to think, and they are losing viewers and readership as a result.
Indeed, if one thinks deeply about what the people of this nation want, what they have voted for in the past elections, one suddenly realizes that Ron Paul is the only candidate that will deliver. In 2008 the people voted for "hope" and "change" as a clever marketing device sold the populace on a lesser known, shadowy politician who came out of nowhere. What the people wanted, I assume, was change for the better and hope for a prosperous future. Instead the change made the nation more collectivist than ever and we can only hope that the economy won't collapse entirely.
The principles that Ron Paul advocates will change things for the better. They will, if implemented, create more opportunity and drive individuals to better innovate in the market. They will bring us positive hope for a more prosperous future. Not only that, but Ron Paul has the record to back up his words. He's not some random unknown who's come out of nowhere supported by the money of the corporate establishment. The money he receives mostly comes from ordinary folk like you and me. If politicians are beholden to their contributors, than Ron Paul will be beholden to the common folk of this nation.
The major issue of our day is the economy. The world is sinking into a second great depression and no one seems to know how to stop it. Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to focus on the main driver of modern economies, our central bank, the Federal Reserve. He wants to audit it. He wants to expose the corruption and then likely end it He wants to get in there and find out where our money went. He wants to return to Constitutional money, or at least allow competition in the currency market to create innovation and a buffer against the boom/bust cycle that is caused by the Fed's policies.
No other candidate will even touch the Fed. Why? It might have something to do with the fact that all other candidates are heavily backed by the very banking interests that have failed and are leading us down an even more dangerous path. Ron Paul is the only candidate I know of that voted against the bailouts that left a bad taste in the mouths of so many Americans. Even the current president voted for those bailouts, cutting short a campaign stop to fly to Washington, DC to vote for it. Remember?
How can anyone who wants a better tomorrow justify voting for anyone except Ron Paul when it comes to the economy? If they vote for anyone else they are voting for the status quo. They are voting to keep the same old policies that have brought us to this point. They are voting for the elite to get richer while the poor become wretched. They are voting for an end to the middle class. They are voting for the destruction of our currency and currencies all across the globe so that the central banking cartel can introduce their one world currency and continue to consolidate their power. Even if a candidate promises differently, you know he won't deliver because they're all bought and paid for by the established elite. They only other reason anyone would vote for one of the other candidates is fear.
To those who fear Ron Paul's ideas on economics, I have this to say. Why are you so afraid. The major reason we had a revolution is economics. The British would not acknowledge American interest free state money because it wasn't tied to their central bank. Their established elite made no profit, so they refused to let the Americans' trade with it. The dollar was originally defined as a certain amount if silver to keep the economy stable, not to grow it. It helped keep the United States of America independent of the politics and economics of the rest of the world for over a hundred years. That's why we were so prosperous. Why wouldn't you want to return to the basics that made us such a prosperous nation in the first place? Why are you so frightened of trying something new and innovative? What ever happened to the home of the brave?
Another major issue haunting the electorate over the past decade or so is the issue of war. The very word war has come to mean many things as the politicians and pundits twist it to elicit fearful emotions and capture votes. War is no longer two nations pitting their military against each other. War is occupation. War is nation building. War can be waged against a tactic. War can be waged against a product that some people demand. War has even been waged against poverty in the past, if you listen to politicians. The problem is, these wars aren't really wars, they are simply marketing campaigns. The bigger problem is, these wars affect real people, individuals who have harmed no one, and destroy their lives. These wars are waged against common folk all over the world. They kill innocent people, even women, children and the elderly. These wars are waged against freedom, not for it.
People want peace. Peace is a good thing. When peace is prevalent trade is increased, friendships are solidified and understanding is reached. Wars help to only impair trade, breed hatred and increase and magnify misunderstandings. Ron Paul is not against just one war. He doesn't plan on simply ending one occupation and starting another. He's not out to fool the people into believing he's a peace candidate and then caving into the military industrial complex that is so closely tied to the establishment elite. He's against all war. He's a champion of making friends through positive change. Security is strongest when others have no desire or excuse to attack. Every other Republican candidate in the running want to keep on warring. Barrack Obama has proven with his actions that while he proclaims himself a peace candidate, he practices war mongering.
A third major issue is that of individual rights. Once again, we see where all the other candidates have fallen well short of guarding individual rights. Only Ron Paul has a long and consistent record of voting in such a way as to respect individual rights, and he cites the Constitution of the United States of America as a reason for voting in such ways. In other words, Ron Paul is the only current candidate running for either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party that has honored his oath of office. All others have at some point broken their oath. All others have their exceptions that they use to justify voting to violate individual rights. All others have been willing to sell out your rights for a perception of more security, and an increase in their powers.
In the last election, promises that certain unconstitutional laws would be repealed, at least in part, were made. Many people believed that such promises would be kept and voted for the candidate they thought would keep said promises. They were sorely disappointed. While the president might not be able to repeal such legislation by himself, he can use his position as a bully pulpit to point out those representatives who refuse to follow the demands of their constituents. Only Ron Paul would do so if he obtains the office of president. All others would hem and haw and make excuses for keeping such legislation in force. Why? Because they love power and would not want to give any of it up at all, not the least little bit.
Ron Paul has a history of honesty. He has a history of openness. He has a proven history of understanding economic principles. He has a good grasp on concepts that create economic prosperity and wants to implement those concepts. He has a plan to cut government size and spending. He has a history of striving for peace. He is a veteran who has seen war and knows its true cost and the damage it can cause. He has a history of defending the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. There is no other candidate currently running who has such qualifications.
If you want a smaller, less intrusive, less costly government which obeys the Constitution, Ron Paul is your only choice. If you want someone who will at least strive for a peaceful resolution to wars at home and abroad, Ron Paul is your only choice. If you want honesty and transparency in government, Ron Paul is your only choice. If you want bigger government, more war, more intrusiveness from the State, and the continuation of this downward economic spiral, vote for any other candidate. It really doesn't matter which one, they're all the same, except Ron Paul.
Do not expect the corporate controlled establishment media to present Ron Paul in the manner I just did. They are paid by the same elite interests that have bought most of the politicians at the federal level. They don't want to talk about Ron Paul's honesty, they want to talk about a newsletter someone else edited 20 years ago. They don't want to talk about his sane economic policies, they want to talk about his "crazy" supporters who believe in "paranoid" conspiracy theories. They don't want to talk about his non-interventionalist foreign policy, they want to accuse him of being an isolationist and hating Israel, neither of which is true. They don't want to give him the time to explain his principles and why they work, they want to limit him to under 90 seconds in debates. The establishment media wants to do anything but show Ron Paul in the good light he deserves to be shown in. If they did, he would be elected in a landslide, but even as his popularity with the people surges, they continue to try to find anything to discredit him and keep him from succeeding.
Perhaps this is why Ron Paul supporters appear to be so zealous. They know the establishment media has not given him a fair shake. They realize the media is owned by the same people that own most politicians at the federal level. They know it is up to them to get the word out. I have been writing about Ron Paul since 2007 and I've seen how biased the media is against him. His ideas of freedom are not fringe, or extremist, nor do they make him unelectable. His ideas and principles stem from the very reasons our nation was founded. They are a blueprint for freedom and peace throughout the world. All other candidates are simply a continuation of the power grabbing corruption, indebtedness and empire building that has driven us to ruin. No one but the wealthy elite who profit from such misery wants that. All things considered, Ron Paul is the only electable presidential candidate.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. It is also available for the Kobo Vox. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off at Smashwords by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
Monday, January 16, 2012
America, Hate It or Leave It
The title of this piece will likely seem extremist and very counterintuitive. Perhaps a better title would be "The American Federal Government, Question it and Keep it's Authority in Check or it Will Become More Tyrannical and You Might as Well be Living in Some Authoritarian Collectivist European Regime of the Past." Hmm, that's a little wordy. It's almost as long as one of my longer sentences.
As you may have figured out, I derived the above title from the old saying "America, love it or leave it." That saying has always struck a raw cord with me. It is perhaps one of the most un-American thing one could say, in my opinion. You might as well say "If you don't agree with what the federal government of this country is doing you should just bite your tongue and go along to get along no matter how tyrannical the government acts." This attitude is the same type of attitude that helped create the darkest aspects of the communist regime in the USSR, the fascist regime in pre-WWII Germany and the socialist regime of East Germany. I would bet that it's an attitude prevalent in modern China.
It is very difficult for government authorities, A.K.A. federal law enforcement, to do their jobs without the help of the citizenry when their jobs become corrupt and they seek to squelch political dissension. Even with all of today's modern equipment it is very difficult to spy on all the populace without the help of jackboot kissing individuals. It takes an army of nosy busybodies to report on their neighbors. It takes a lot of fear and propaganda to create such an army. This is not the way of freedom loving people.
Furthermore, individuals who are truly worried about their personal freedoms ought to worry about the personal freedoms of others. Allow others to make their own decisions as you would want to make yours. So long as you are not treading upon the rights of others you should be allowed to do as you please, and so should they. This is as American a concept as you can get. Yes, it is okay to offer advice and discuss methods which have worked for you, yes you should be able to offer your opinion even if not asked for it, but forcing someone to do something against his will simply because you feel it's the right way to do things is wrong. You would not like to be treated in such a way, so why would you treat someone in such a way?
When government has the power to force your neighbor to do something he doesn't want to do, for instance with his property or his business, then they have the power to force you to do something you don't want to do. Once freedom is diminished and power is given over to government, it becomes very difficult to reclaim that power, as we have discovered. Everyone, including kings and over reaching presidents, believe they know what's best for everyone else. Amazingly, what's better for everyone else usually corresponds with what's best for the individual making that decision.
Given the power to take someone else's money under the guise of the legitimacy of governance, one would be loathe to give that power back. When the people of a nation simply decide to let the power elite do as they please with the money they collect in taxes (by force I might add) without questioning who benefits, then no one should be surprised when only the power elite and their friends and supporters are the ones who benefit at the expense of everyone else. By intimating one should not complain about such circumstances one shows his favor and fealty to the power elite. This would be tantamount to a colonist supporting the king of England in the late eighteenth century. The king did, after all, supply an army to the colonies to help keep them "secure" against the French, the Spanish and indigenous peoples. Isn't that akin to the excuses they use today, to allow your freedoms to be violated for a sense of security?
Yes, it is okay to dislike what government is doing, particularly the federal government which is the government most disconnected from the people. It is fine to protest government policy. It is, in my opinion, necessary to always question authority, to forever point out government flaws and the wrongs done in the name of government. It is even a good thing, in my opinion, to hate certain aspects of government and those that do have likely somehow suffered or have seen loved ones suffer due to some policy, regulation, or power abuse of government. Nothing is more American than to try to do something about such unfairness and to promote liberty for all.
I don't hate America. I love the land. I think there is beauty everywhere. I love the people. I think Americans are some of the most real, most generous, most caring people I've ever known. I think that given the chance and opportunity, they become some of the most industrious and innovative people also. Government takes those things away when it becomes as huge as the one we have today. Those who receive from the government worry about what will become of them if they have to start providing for themselves again. Those on top of the heap worry about losing the power they have achieved or perhaps even inherited. These people feel entitled and squeeze those in the middle who are now struggling to simply maintain a way of life that has been generations in the making.
If you don't ask me to leave the land I love because I happen to disagree with immoral government practices and policies, I won't ask you to leave because you agree with those policies and somehow twist them to make them moral in your mind. If you don't hate what the federal government has become, or even any aspect of it, then so be it. You can continue to fawn over it all you want. You can set up a shrine to it in your living room and pray to it, for all I care. I don't truly ask you to leave this nation, though I question how much you're going to like it when freedom once again reigns supreme over this land. You will still be welcome to stay. I will honor your right to your opinion and your right to express that opinion as you see fit. I simply ask that you honor my right to express my opinions as I see fit. I ask that you allow me to live free as I see fit. I ask that you treat me as you would want to be treated. I ask that you open your mind. If you can't do these things, than I simply ask that you leave me alone. I would also claim the right to be left alone and insist that big government honor that right for everyone who has not harmed or trampled upon the rights of others.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
As you may have figured out, I derived the above title from the old saying "America, love it or leave it." That saying has always struck a raw cord with me. It is perhaps one of the most un-American thing one could say, in my opinion. You might as well say "If you don't agree with what the federal government of this country is doing you should just bite your tongue and go along to get along no matter how tyrannical the government acts." This attitude is the same type of attitude that helped create the darkest aspects of the communist regime in the USSR, the fascist regime in pre-WWII Germany and the socialist regime of East Germany. I would bet that it's an attitude prevalent in modern China.
It is very difficult for government authorities, A.K.A. federal law enforcement, to do their jobs without the help of the citizenry when their jobs become corrupt and they seek to squelch political dissension. Even with all of today's modern equipment it is very difficult to spy on all the populace without the help of jackboot kissing individuals. It takes an army of nosy busybodies to report on their neighbors. It takes a lot of fear and propaganda to create such an army. This is not the way of freedom loving people.
Furthermore, individuals who are truly worried about their personal freedoms ought to worry about the personal freedoms of others. Allow others to make their own decisions as you would want to make yours. So long as you are not treading upon the rights of others you should be allowed to do as you please, and so should they. This is as American a concept as you can get. Yes, it is okay to offer advice and discuss methods which have worked for you, yes you should be able to offer your opinion even if not asked for it, but forcing someone to do something against his will simply because you feel it's the right way to do things is wrong. You would not like to be treated in such a way, so why would you treat someone in such a way?
When government has the power to force your neighbor to do something he doesn't want to do, for instance with his property or his business, then they have the power to force you to do something you don't want to do. Once freedom is diminished and power is given over to government, it becomes very difficult to reclaim that power, as we have discovered. Everyone, including kings and over reaching presidents, believe they know what's best for everyone else. Amazingly, what's better for everyone else usually corresponds with what's best for the individual making that decision.
Given the power to take someone else's money under the guise of the legitimacy of governance, one would be loathe to give that power back. When the people of a nation simply decide to let the power elite do as they please with the money they collect in taxes (by force I might add) without questioning who benefits, then no one should be surprised when only the power elite and their friends and supporters are the ones who benefit at the expense of everyone else. By intimating one should not complain about such circumstances one shows his favor and fealty to the power elite. This would be tantamount to a colonist supporting the king of England in the late eighteenth century. The king did, after all, supply an army to the colonies to help keep them "secure" against the French, the Spanish and indigenous peoples. Isn't that akin to the excuses they use today, to allow your freedoms to be violated for a sense of security?
Yes, it is okay to dislike what government is doing, particularly the federal government which is the government most disconnected from the people. It is fine to protest government policy. It is, in my opinion, necessary to always question authority, to forever point out government flaws and the wrongs done in the name of government. It is even a good thing, in my opinion, to hate certain aspects of government and those that do have likely somehow suffered or have seen loved ones suffer due to some policy, regulation, or power abuse of government. Nothing is more American than to try to do something about such unfairness and to promote liberty for all.
I don't hate America. I love the land. I think there is beauty everywhere. I love the people. I think Americans are some of the most real, most generous, most caring people I've ever known. I think that given the chance and opportunity, they become some of the most industrious and innovative people also. Government takes those things away when it becomes as huge as the one we have today. Those who receive from the government worry about what will become of them if they have to start providing for themselves again. Those on top of the heap worry about losing the power they have achieved or perhaps even inherited. These people feel entitled and squeeze those in the middle who are now struggling to simply maintain a way of life that has been generations in the making.
If you don't ask me to leave the land I love because I happen to disagree with immoral government practices and policies, I won't ask you to leave because you agree with those policies and somehow twist them to make them moral in your mind. If you don't hate what the federal government has become, or even any aspect of it, then so be it. You can continue to fawn over it all you want. You can set up a shrine to it in your living room and pray to it, for all I care. I don't truly ask you to leave this nation, though I question how much you're going to like it when freedom once again reigns supreme over this land. You will still be welcome to stay. I will honor your right to your opinion and your right to express that opinion as you see fit. I simply ask that you honor my right to express my opinions as I see fit. I ask that you allow me to live free as I see fit. I ask that you treat me as you would want to be treated. I ask that you open your mind. If you can't do these things, than I simply ask that you leave me alone. I would also claim the right to be left alone and insist that big government honor that right for everyone who has not harmed or trampled upon the rights of others.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Long History of Government Distrust and Abuse
For the Western world, the philosophy of government goes back thousands of years. In the very ancient past, at the dawn of civilization, authoritarian style autocracies dominated. This was likely due to the tribal hierarchy we as a species evolved, and perhaps the need for rulers to organize tasks for the people in a newly evolving agrarian society. Cities and population centers grew around the fertile soils that fed the populace and civilization was able to flourish. Science and technology advanced and mankind soon found itself able to philosophize in ways that perhaps were not possible before the advent of domesticated agriculture.
I'm not sure if the Greeks were the first to experiment with differing styles of government, but I will say they are the best known of the classic Western civilizations to do so. No matter what style of government they experimented with, it always devolved into something it wasn't meant to be. It always turned into some form of unjust class system where a powerful class was stealing from or bullying or otherwise taking advantage of an under class. The same was true in the Roman republic as it devolved into an empire with an elite class on top, merchant classes and working classes in the middle, and a slave class on the bottom. There is no Utopia, and there never will be as long as humans seek the power to control others.
When one takes a closer look at this phenomenon, it is easy to believe that many political leaders and important historical figures were trying to do the best for the people of their nation/kingdom/empire. It is more likely that those who would rule over others were and are doing what is best for themselves and only do what is best for others when what is best for others is also best for the ruler. This likely happened more often than not in tribal societies where the chieftain had to live among his people. With the advent of plant and animal domestication and a more stable food source, populations were able to grow and communities became larger. Cities developed. Rulers were better able to separate themselves from the general population. A privileged class developed and they became more able to do what was best for their own class without accounting for the rest of the population.
As civilization prospered, the ruling class was able to separate itself further and further from the common folk. They began to see their privileges as birthrights and the lands and people they ruled over as their personal property. As the separation widened, the ruling class found it easier to do things for their own, personal interests. They were able to hire body guards and police forces that would keep the common folk away by force. They could do things directly contrary to the interests of the people and not be held accountable. Anyone who spoke out against them were dealt with swiftly and brutally. This type of treatment in many cases helped hasten the downfall of kingdoms and empires, and when that happened everyone suffered.
kings and emperors quickly learned to divert attention from their own deeds, which they knew in their hearts were wrong. They did so through subversion. They did so through deception. They did so through war. They did so to keep the populace unaware of the real reasons for their impoverishment and hard times. They did so to prevent the populace from taking their anger out on them. They quickly learned that if they could keep their serfs happy and ignorant they would be more productive and more willing to give their lives and allegiance to their king.
While serfs and common folks may have whispered amongst themselves about liberty and determining their own destiny away from tyrants and kings, it wasn't until 1215 when a positive legal step toward this goal took place. Basically, it put legal limits on what a king could do to certain subjects under his rule. It limited government power. Unfortunately this document was not all inclusive and left many of the common folk, if not most of them, still subject to the whims of the king. It was but a step in the right direction.
Since that time, the common folk have slowly moved toward more freedom using several machinations. The power elite have always been reluctant to give up power, but through the ages they have done so begrudgingly in the Western world. The royal class, the kings and queens, give up some power to the aristocrats. The aristocrats allowed for a certain amount of government input by the merchant class. As time went on a scale to access power was established. Yet somehow this was not enough. There were still classes so low on the scale that they had no chance of bettering their station in life and the upper classes seemed to forever trod upon them.
Then the "New World" was discovered. The Americas were a place where people could live out their dream and determine their own destiny through their own hard work. The poor, neglected and downtrodden did whatever was in their power to make it to the shores of this new land and grab what they could of the opportunities presented to them. The United States of America was especially appealing to many Europeans due to their more tolerant governments. This was especially true after the revolution with the creation of a government that was not only perhaps the most limited government mankind had seen for millennia, but was also forged to protect individual rights above arbitrary laws that usually benefited only the ruling class.
At first America prospered greatly. Certainly America had its problems, but its adherence to its founding principles made it possible to quickly overcome such problems, for the most part. Yet even as freedom flourished and prosperity reigned, there were those who strove to replace opportunity and abundance with the shackles of big government. Whether they were envious of seeing so many prosper when they once simply endured, or their greed was so great that they couldn't stand seeing so much wealth spread amongst so many, or they just couldn't stand to let so many determine their own destiny when they were once tied down by the bonds of the state, I do not know, but they slowly began to erode the principles of individual rights this nation was built upon. They slowly subverted the Constitution and redefined the limits of our federal government.
Even as this was happening there were those who mistrusted the federal government of the United States of America. There were those who challenged such powers and lost. Thousands of journalists and civilians were thrown in prison by Abraham Lincoln for writing editorials against his politics and war policies. Woodrow Wilson later followed suit by helping to get the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 passed. These presidents and others, along with other willing politicians seeking power, wealth and influence for themselves and their friends, all created these laws supposedly for security purposes during wartimes, and then proceeded to abuse them by arresting and jailing those who simply disagreed with them and how they handled power. Is it any wonder the common folk have come to distrust government?
Over the past decades the federal government has continued to produce propaganda and misinformation to promote itself. It has continued to maintain an aura of fear over the population in order to create a demand for security. That is the only way it could have grown to become the leviathan which today gives out trillions in bailouts to international corporations and foreign central banks rather than worry about production here. It declares war on products, concepts, tactics and other intangibles to subvert the original purpose given it by our Constitution rather than protect the rights of individuals as was its mandate. This government continues to abuse its people, individuals who have harmed no one, as much as any tyrannical government in the past. Certainly, the jails and prisons may be nicer and the treatment not quite as harsh as other past regimes, but a cage is a cage and a serf is a serf.
Government continues to abuse the power they're entrusted with. Our federal government continues to erode the freedoms it was supposed to protect. War and national security are nothing but excuses used to justify the violation of human rights by authoritarians. Propaganda and fear mongering work only to keep the elite ruling establishment in power. That's why when I hear the establishment media call Ron Paul and his ideas of freedom dangerous I have to laugh. Freedom isn't dangerous. Peace isn't dangerous. Non intervention isn't dangerous. Those are the ideas that benefit many and lead to prosperity, as has been proven in our very own history. The establishment ideas of pre-emptive non declared war, imperialism and nation building are the ideas that are dangerous. Those ideas harm many and benefit only a very few who are already extremely wealthy. Don't let the establishment fool you into thinking otherwise.
We are, each and every one of us, born with certain inalienable rights. These rights come as a result of our humanity, because we are able to think and reason for ourselves. No one, not even government, has the right to violate your rights simply because they're scared, or they think you might do something, or you question them, or you challenge their perceived power. No one has the right to violate an individual's rights on a whim. That is tyranny. That is abuse of power. That is why there is distrust. That is what the founders of the United States of America fought against. We are seeing what happens when freedoms are curtailed in favor of perceived security. It is not pretty. We can reclaim our liberties once again, but we must become engaged with the system. We must let those who rule know that we will settle for nothing less than honesty, openness and principle. We then must teach society what it means to be free so that our progeny will be able to identify the propaganda and keep our nation free and prosperous.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
I'm not sure if the Greeks were the first to experiment with differing styles of government, but I will say they are the best known of the classic Western civilizations to do so. No matter what style of government they experimented with, it always devolved into something it wasn't meant to be. It always turned into some form of unjust class system where a powerful class was stealing from or bullying or otherwise taking advantage of an under class. The same was true in the Roman republic as it devolved into an empire with an elite class on top, merchant classes and working classes in the middle, and a slave class on the bottom. There is no Utopia, and there never will be as long as humans seek the power to control others.
When one takes a closer look at this phenomenon, it is easy to believe that many political leaders and important historical figures were trying to do the best for the people of their nation/kingdom/empire. It is more likely that those who would rule over others were and are doing what is best for themselves and only do what is best for others when what is best for others is also best for the ruler. This likely happened more often than not in tribal societies where the chieftain had to live among his people. With the advent of plant and animal domestication and a more stable food source, populations were able to grow and communities became larger. Cities developed. Rulers were better able to separate themselves from the general population. A privileged class developed and they became more able to do what was best for their own class without accounting for the rest of the population.
As civilization prospered, the ruling class was able to separate itself further and further from the common folk. They began to see their privileges as birthrights and the lands and people they ruled over as their personal property. As the separation widened, the ruling class found it easier to do things for their own, personal interests. They were able to hire body guards and police forces that would keep the common folk away by force. They could do things directly contrary to the interests of the people and not be held accountable. Anyone who spoke out against them were dealt with swiftly and brutally. This type of treatment in many cases helped hasten the downfall of kingdoms and empires, and when that happened everyone suffered.
kings and emperors quickly learned to divert attention from their own deeds, which they knew in their hearts were wrong. They did so through subversion. They did so through deception. They did so through war. They did so to keep the populace unaware of the real reasons for their impoverishment and hard times. They did so to prevent the populace from taking their anger out on them. They quickly learned that if they could keep their serfs happy and ignorant they would be more productive and more willing to give their lives and allegiance to their king.
While serfs and common folks may have whispered amongst themselves about liberty and determining their own destiny away from tyrants and kings, it wasn't until 1215 when a positive legal step toward this goal took place. Basically, it put legal limits on what a king could do to certain subjects under his rule. It limited government power. Unfortunately this document was not all inclusive and left many of the common folk, if not most of them, still subject to the whims of the king. It was but a step in the right direction.
Since that time, the common folk have slowly moved toward more freedom using several machinations. The power elite have always been reluctant to give up power, but through the ages they have done so begrudgingly in the Western world. The royal class, the kings and queens, give up some power to the aristocrats. The aristocrats allowed for a certain amount of government input by the merchant class. As time went on a scale to access power was established. Yet somehow this was not enough. There were still classes so low on the scale that they had no chance of bettering their station in life and the upper classes seemed to forever trod upon them.
Then the "New World" was discovered. The Americas were a place where people could live out their dream and determine their own destiny through their own hard work. The poor, neglected and downtrodden did whatever was in their power to make it to the shores of this new land and grab what they could of the opportunities presented to them. The United States of America was especially appealing to many Europeans due to their more tolerant governments. This was especially true after the revolution with the creation of a government that was not only perhaps the most limited government mankind had seen for millennia, but was also forged to protect individual rights above arbitrary laws that usually benefited only the ruling class.
At first America prospered greatly. Certainly America had its problems, but its adherence to its founding principles made it possible to quickly overcome such problems, for the most part. Yet even as freedom flourished and prosperity reigned, there were those who strove to replace opportunity and abundance with the shackles of big government. Whether they were envious of seeing so many prosper when they once simply endured, or their greed was so great that they couldn't stand seeing so much wealth spread amongst so many, or they just couldn't stand to let so many determine their own destiny when they were once tied down by the bonds of the state, I do not know, but they slowly began to erode the principles of individual rights this nation was built upon. They slowly subverted the Constitution and redefined the limits of our federal government.
Even as this was happening there were those who mistrusted the federal government of the United States of America. There were those who challenged such powers and lost. Thousands of journalists and civilians were thrown in prison by Abraham Lincoln for writing editorials against his politics and war policies. Woodrow Wilson later followed suit by helping to get the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 passed. These presidents and others, along with other willing politicians seeking power, wealth and influence for themselves and their friends, all created these laws supposedly for security purposes during wartimes, and then proceeded to abuse them by arresting and jailing those who simply disagreed with them and how they handled power. Is it any wonder the common folk have come to distrust government?
Over the past decades the federal government has continued to produce propaganda and misinformation to promote itself. It has continued to maintain an aura of fear over the population in order to create a demand for security. That is the only way it could have grown to become the leviathan which today gives out trillions in bailouts to international corporations and foreign central banks rather than worry about production here. It declares war on products, concepts, tactics and other intangibles to subvert the original purpose given it by our Constitution rather than protect the rights of individuals as was its mandate. This government continues to abuse its people, individuals who have harmed no one, as much as any tyrannical government in the past. Certainly, the jails and prisons may be nicer and the treatment not quite as harsh as other past regimes, but a cage is a cage and a serf is a serf.
Government continues to abuse the power they're entrusted with. Our federal government continues to erode the freedoms it was supposed to protect. War and national security are nothing but excuses used to justify the violation of human rights by authoritarians. Propaganda and fear mongering work only to keep the elite ruling establishment in power. That's why when I hear the establishment media call Ron Paul and his ideas of freedom dangerous I have to laugh. Freedom isn't dangerous. Peace isn't dangerous. Non intervention isn't dangerous. Those are the ideas that benefit many and lead to prosperity, as has been proven in our very own history. The establishment ideas of pre-emptive non declared war, imperialism and nation building are the ideas that are dangerous. Those ideas harm many and benefit only a very few who are already extremely wealthy. Don't let the establishment fool you into thinking otherwise.
We are, each and every one of us, born with certain inalienable rights. These rights come as a result of our humanity, because we are able to think and reason for ourselves. No one, not even government, has the right to violate your rights simply because they're scared, or they think you might do something, or you question them, or you challenge their perceived power. No one has the right to violate an individual's rights on a whim. That is tyranny. That is abuse of power. That is why there is distrust. That is what the founders of the United States of America fought against. We are seeing what happens when freedoms are curtailed in favor of perceived security. It is not pretty. We can reclaim our liberties once again, but we must become engaged with the system. We must let those who rule know that we will settle for nothing less than honesty, openness and principle. We then must teach society what it means to be free so that our progeny will be able to identify the propaganda and keep our nation free and prosperous.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Ron Paul Supporters, Are You Ready to Get Down and Dirty?
Politics is a dirty business. Everyone knows that. It is full of power hungry control freaks who care nothing about transparency, accountability, honesty or principle. They don't want to see government shrink because that would mean their power shrinks. If that's the case, why do we hear so often so many politicians speak about such things as if they have these admirable traits when the opposite is true? Politicians are notorious for lying, flip flopping, hypocrisy and breaking promises. There are an extreme number of powerful people who are anything but admirable. In fact, many of them would be considered despicable if not for the fact that for some reason or another we as a society seem to excuse people in politics for acting in such a fashion. We have let the system become a cesspool where such men can find a respectable home.
The nature of politics puts principled people at a definite disadvantage. I'm not talking about just the overtly immoral things like lying, misrepresenting and stealing the vote, I'm also talking about more subtle things, tricks and sleaze that are not illegal or immoral, but are quite likely unethical, in my opinion. An honest, ethical, principled individual isn't going to want to partake in any of that kind of chicanery in order to win an election, he's going to want to win because he takes a moral stand on the issues. Expecting an honest, principled man to get elected is sort of like expecting an honest man to win at poker when he's sitting at a table full of cheats. It's not likely to happen.
So I sit here, contemplating such things, and I feel the need to ask, how is it that things have come this far? How is it that the system itself has become so corrupted that honest and principled men cannot win elections? Why do we accept such nonsense? Well, I can tell you this, I don't believe it happened overnight. There was a time in this nation when we had citizen politicians and statesmen who did not make a career out of politics and were not in it simply to win and gain power. Yet even back then the seeds of destruction had been sewn. Even back then a certain amount of unethical behavior was quite tolerated. The corruption seeped into the bloodstream of the American politic, small changes were made in the Constitution and how it was applied, and from there it twisted and bent the system until it became the unrecognizable mixture of socialism, corporatism, crony capitalism, oligarchic, and plutocratic systems that we have today, I doubt very much we can straighten it out overnight.
Still, we have to start somewhere. Personally, I think we need more honest, principled individuals to get involved with local government, such as setting up oversight for the county court systems and independent citizen committees to combat over reaching city government that creates undo burdens to opening private businesses. But people seem to want to concentrate on politics at the national level, which is really where they have the least amount of power. Still, there is hope.
The first thing to consider when looking at this is that even national politics starts at the local level. If we consider that Ron Paul is the best candidate for president and if the goal is to restore a principled national government that obeys the limits put upon it by the Constitution, then it behooves us to remember that there are powerful forces working to prevent him from even achieving the Republican nomination. Of course we all know just how much chance a third party has thanks to successful propaganda about political party duopoly that has inculcated the American public. The best chance Ron Paul has of becoming president, as he himself well knows, is for him to become the Republican nominee. The old maxim that it doesn't matter how many votes he gets, it matters who counts the votes applies here. It is important that Ron Paul supporters be able to count the vote.
I am not for a moment suggesting that Ron Paul supporters do this to steal the election. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite, that supporters of other candidates already hold positions where they are able to count the vote and they will use these positions to steal the election, if they can. I believe Ron Paul has the support and the votes he needs to win an election, after all, who doesn't want honest and transparent government? Only those who benefit from such corruption, and even some of them realize the danger of allowing so much corruption as we now have in government. I think that Ron Paul supporters need to gain positions where they can take the ability to steal the election away from those in power so that we can all have confidence in the electoral process.
Yet even with elections that are not stolen there can be a certain amount of skullduggery to subvert a populist candidate. We likely saw some of that take place in Iowa. Candidates will buy votes from people who supported other candidates. Lies, propaganda and disinformation will be spread to invoke fear in certain voters so they come out and vote against a certain candidate. That's why it's important to get as many Ron Paul supporters out there to vote for him as possible. Numbers are of utmost importance. As more primaries pass and it gets closer to the Republican convention, that's when the field will be whittled down and we will really see where the truly concerned Republican base stands in terms of the most important issues.
So far, I haven't said anything that would leave a bad taste in the mouths of Ron Paul supporters. Well, the next suggestion just might. It revolves around delegates to the Republican convention. Keep in mind, it will be the delegates at the convention, not the voters at the polls, who will ultimately choose the Republican nominee for President. It has been mentioned that Ron Paul supporters in Iowa have come forth to volunteer to be delegates already. I have heard that he might already have more delegates than any other candidate. This is a good thing. Now I suggest that other Ron Paul supporters go to their county Republican party headquarters and volunteer to become delegates for other Republican candidates who have earned delegates to the convention.
I know this might sound strange and if you are a Ron Paul supporter voting for another candidate would sound distasteful, but that is how politics work in this nation. The reason to become a delegate tied to another candidate, however, is in case the convention does not come up with a clear winner, but needs to be brokered. It is my understanding that new rules adopted this year allow for candidates to keep a certain amount of their delegates from states they competed in, it is not a winner takes all delegates rule. If after the first vote there is no clear winner at the Republican national convention, delegates are no longer beholden to the candidate they pledged their vote to and can, by rule, switch their loyalties to another. At that stage, we know that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters will never change loyalties, but the delegates of other less principled candidates will be happy to follow their candidate's example and be less than principled. Wouldn't it be better to have those delegates be Ron Paul supporters rather than those who think that being loyal to the party is more important than being loyal to principle and will vote for whoever they're told to?
Even this small deviousness would seem a big deal to many Ron Paul supporters who put honesty, ethics, morality and principle above all else. Yet it really isn't all that bad and is within the rules of the Republican convention as long as you vote for the delegate you pledged to vote for on the first ballot. Of course, if you didn't do that, well, that would ultimately be your call. Others have done worse. There are many other dirty tricks and devious practices that occur during campaigns. Right now, it looks like Ron Paul supporters don't have to do much other than support him with their vote and their money. It is yet to be seen if anything of a devious nature need be done. If something less savory needed to happen, would a Ron Paul supporter be in a position to make it happen?
With Ron Paul as president, even the corrupt mechanisms of politics in this nation might begin to change for the better. I've come to believe that a man who is too honest would not make a good politician, Ron Paul is one of the exceptions to that rule. Wouldn't it be nice if we live to see a day when those who are honest and principled are elevated to the highest levels of government while those who are less than ethical are exposed and unable to hold any position of public trust? I don't believe for a second that one man can undo overnight what has taken the system decades to achieve, but I do believe that one man in the highest position of government is a huge step along the road to accomplishing such a goal. If it takes a few twists and devious tricks along the way, then so be it. The other side certainly wouldn't hesitate to use such methods.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
The nature of politics puts principled people at a definite disadvantage. I'm not talking about just the overtly immoral things like lying, misrepresenting and stealing the vote, I'm also talking about more subtle things, tricks and sleaze that are not illegal or immoral, but are quite likely unethical, in my opinion. An honest, ethical, principled individual isn't going to want to partake in any of that kind of chicanery in order to win an election, he's going to want to win because he takes a moral stand on the issues. Expecting an honest, principled man to get elected is sort of like expecting an honest man to win at poker when he's sitting at a table full of cheats. It's not likely to happen.
So I sit here, contemplating such things, and I feel the need to ask, how is it that things have come this far? How is it that the system itself has become so corrupted that honest and principled men cannot win elections? Why do we accept such nonsense? Well, I can tell you this, I don't believe it happened overnight. There was a time in this nation when we had citizen politicians and statesmen who did not make a career out of politics and were not in it simply to win and gain power. Yet even back then the seeds of destruction had been sewn. Even back then a certain amount of unethical behavior was quite tolerated. The corruption seeped into the bloodstream of the American politic, small changes were made in the Constitution and how it was applied, and from there it twisted and bent the system until it became the unrecognizable mixture of socialism, corporatism, crony capitalism, oligarchic, and plutocratic systems that we have today, I doubt very much we can straighten it out overnight.
Still, we have to start somewhere. Personally, I think we need more honest, principled individuals to get involved with local government, such as setting up oversight for the county court systems and independent citizen committees to combat over reaching city government that creates undo burdens to opening private businesses. But people seem to want to concentrate on politics at the national level, which is really where they have the least amount of power. Still, there is hope.
The first thing to consider when looking at this is that even national politics starts at the local level. If we consider that Ron Paul is the best candidate for president and if the goal is to restore a principled national government that obeys the limits put upon it by the Constitution, then it behooves us to remember that there are powerful forces working to prevent him from even achieving the Republican nomination. Of course we all know just how much chance a third party has thanks to successful propaganda about political party duopoly that has inculcated the American public. The best chance Ron Paul has of becoming president, as he himself well knows, is for him to become the Republican nominee. The old maxim that it doesn't matter how many votes he gets, it matters who counts the votes applies here. It is important that Ron Paul supporters be able to count the vote.
I am not for a moment suggesting that Ron Paul supporters do this to steal the election. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite, that supporters of other candidates already hold positions where they are able to count the vote and they will use these positions to steal the election, if they can. I believe Ron Paul has the support and the votes he needs to win an election, after all, who doesn't want honest and transparent government? Only those who benefit from such corruption, and even some of them realize the danger of allowing so much corruption as we now have in government. I think that Ron Paul supporters need to gain positions where they can take the ability to steal the election away from those in power so that we can all have confidence in the electoral process.
Yet even with elections that are not stolen there can be a certain amount of skullduggery to subvert a populist candidate. We likely saw some of that take place in Iowa. Candidates will buy votes from people who supported other candidates. Lies, propaganda and disinformation will be spread to invoke fear in certain voters so they come out and vote against a certain candidate. That's why it's important to get as many Ron Paul supporters out there to vote for him as possible. Numbers are of utmost importance. As more primaries pass and it gets closer to the Republican convention, that's when the field will be whittled down and we will really see where the truly concerned Republican base stands in terms of the most important issues.
So far, I haven't said anything that would leave a bad taste in the mouths of Ron Paul supporters. Well, the next suggestion just might. It revolves around delegates to the Republican convention. Keep in mind, it will be the delegates at the convention, not the voters at the polls, who will ultimately choose the Republican nominee for President. It has been mentioned that Ron Paul supporters in Iowa have come forth to volunteer to be delegates already. I have heard that he might already have more delegates than any other candidate. This is a good thing. Now I suggest that other Ron Paul supporters go to their county Republican party headquarters and volunteer to become delegates for other Republican candidates who have earned delegates to the convention.
I know this might sound strange and if you are a Ron Paul supporter voting for another candidate would sound distasteful, but that is how politics work in this nation. The reason to become a delegate tied to another candidate, however, is in case the convention does not come up with a clear winner, but needs to be brokered. It is my understanding that new rules adopted this year allow for candidates to keep a certain amount of their delegates from states they competed in, it is not a winner takes all delegates rule. If after the first vote there is no clear winner at the Republican national convention, delegates are no longer beholden to the candidate they pledged their vote to and can, by rule, switch their loyalties to another. At that stage, we know that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters will never change loyalties, but the delegates of other less principled candidates will be happy to follow their candidate's example and be less than principled. Wouldn't it be better to have those delegates be Ron Paul supporters rather than those who think that being loyal to the party is more important than being loyal to principle and will vote for whoever they're told to?
Even this small deviousness would seem a big deal to many Ron Paul supporters who put honesty, ethics, morality and principle above all else. Yet it really isn't all that bad and is within the rules of the Republican convention as long as you vote for the delegate you pledged to vote for on the first ballot. Of course, if you didn't do that, well, that would ultimately be your call. Others have done worse. There are many other dirty tricks and devious practices that occur during campaigns. Right now, it looks like Ron Paul supporters don't have to do much other than support him with their vote and their money. It is yet to be seen if anything of a devious nature need be done. If something less savory needed to happen, would a Ron Paul supporter be in a position to make it happen?
With Ron Paul as president, even the corrupt mechanisms of politics in this nation might begin to change for the better. I've come to believe that a man who is too honest would not make a good politician, Ron Paul is one of the exceptions to that rule. Wouldn't it be nice if we live to see a day when those who are honest and principled are elevated to the highest levels of government while those who are less than ethical are exposed and unable to hold any position of public trust? I don't believe for a second that one man can undo overnight what has taken the system decades to achieve, but I do believe that one man in the highest position of government is a huge step along the road to accomplishing such a goal. If it takes a few twists and devious tricks along the way, then so be it. The other side certainly wouldn't hesitate to use such methods.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
The True Cost of Using Privately Provided Currency
If you've been following the economic news lately, and most people have been, you may have become interested in searching for alternative views on why the economy is the way it is. This may be at least partly because the corporate mainstream media has done such a poor job of predicting and reporting past and current economic conditions. The corporate media had in the past, in fact, laughed at some analysts who proved to be more correct than the establishment owned analysts. I read an interview with Catherine Austin Fitts and was quite intrigued. One of the most intriguing things about it is that she either cannot or will not disclose who are (is) really in charge.
This makes me think. I wonder who these mystery people (mystery person) are (is). More than that, I wonder what their (I believe there is more than one) plan for us is. One thing is certain if you ask me, they are not interested in what is best for the vast majority of individuals on this planet. In fact, they seem determined to rid the planet of most souls. I think that perhaps they are having some amount of trouble managing the vast numbers of humans on this planet.
It sounds much like a conspiracy theory. How can so few control so many? It's really not that hard when we consider how economics are manipulated in this world. I say manipulated instead of controlled because in reality that is what's happening. Control is just a matter of perception. The economy is simply how trade is accomplished. We have allowed a few elite to control the currencies of the world and hence they have the wealth to manipulate markets and many other things in terms of how trade is accomplished. The central banking systems of the world, many of which are owned by a small cadre of banking families and run for profit, have the power to create the money of nations, and they do so by creating debt. Let's explore what this has cost the common folk in terms of real assets.
Most recently it has cost property. People have lost their homes. More than that, its cost us the concept of private property. This concept is one that suggests that you own what you buy. Yet, if what you buy is land, whether you buy that land to live on, to farm on, to build on, to do business on, or to simply maintain as wild lands, you will never own it. You will be forced to pay taxes on it. The question needs to be asked, if you have to pay someone to "own" something, do you really own it, or do they?
It has cost our dreams. The American dream is one of freedom. It is one where you can own your own property and do with it as you please. It is one where you can own your own business and run it as you see fit. It is one where you have the opportunity to create your own destiny. It is one where you live as a free person and interact with other free individuals on a voluntary basis. That dream has died. Most people have mortgaged their dream. The banks own it and rent it to you for a monthly fee. You will never own that dream, for even when that mortgage is paid off at many times the original price you thought you were paying, there are those who would lay claim to that which you thought you owned.
People don't even realize they don't own themselves anymore. The income tax is evidence of this. If you extend the question asked above about paying property taxes the same question can apply to your personal self. If you have to pay someone a portion of the money you earn from your labor, do you own that labor, or do they? If you don't own your labor, than do you really own your self? It's important, in my opinion, to be honest with your answer, or at least intellectually honest.
Many people will claim that they are not forced to pay income taxes, or property taxes for that matter, but they do so voluntarily. Really? Would you really continue to pay such taxes if government wouldn't send men with guns to arrest you, put you in front of a judge and throw you in jail if you didn't? Would you pay as much as they demand? Even if you would, do you support the use of such force and the threat of using such coercive methods against someone who wouldn't? These are questions that should be pondered deeply by common folk, but are usually just brushed off as just the way things are.
I bring up taxes because the income tax needed to be enacted in our nation to fund the Federal Reserve when it was first created. They needed the promise of a continuous stream of public money to set up their private enterprise. Until that point, with the exception of the Civil War, there was never any need for an income tax in this nation and, in fact, it's implementation had been illegal under the auspices of the Constitution of the United States of America. They took real money, silver and gold was money at the time, from people and replaced those real commodities with paper promises. Yep, you can blame the Federal Reserve for your enslavement to the income tax.
I bring up property taxes to show that government believes it owns your property. Now government is supposed to be subservient to the people, or the individuals who require the services the government provides. Ask yourself, if they are using coercive methods to collect your money on a non voluntary basis, are they subservient to you or are you subservient to them? Again, only you know whether you are being honest with yourself if you ask the question while considering whether or not you'd pay if you weren't being forced to do so. I do see the necessity for many government services, but government, even at a local level, is not being held accountable for the poor service it provides. I think there's better ways to deliver services, but the currency system running this nation makes these alternatives hard to implement.
It seems that, since the federal government is able to create money using the Federal Reserve and the state and local governments of this nation are not, they must in many ways bow down before the federal government and do as they wish or their funding may suffer. That is how power is centralized. And those in charge of creating money, having created trillions and taking their cut right off the top in interest, have been able to slowly over the decades greatly influence businesses and corporations of great importance and purchase the power of government while producing nothing but debt. In this way, secretive, unaccountable power is centralized.
Here again, we see the cost of using privately controlled currency. These men of wealth use that wealth to obtain greater influence for themselves and their friends and have in the process empowered the devious and greedy. They have proven to be ruthless in their pursuit of power, using their privilege to draw more power to themselves and to crush any kind of competition regardless of the legality or morality of the methods they employ to do so. In allowing a private cartel to control central banking, free men have relinquished their ability to determine their individual destiny and granted that power to those who would operate in shadows.
I believe that central bankers in one form or another have been behind most of the wars of mankind, as historical evidence shows. They have been behind the scenes and pulling the strings on many of the institutions we would otherwise blame. Central banking has cost us the lives of millions of our fellow human beings. It has cost us a number of our presidents, the most recent was quite popular. It has cost us a past that could have been golden, but instead has been crimson and cruel with bloodshed. It will cost us our future, and our children and grandchildren's future, if it is allowed to go on unchecked.
I'm not certain if there's some power above the central banks and their corporate establishment. I'm not certain if there's some power pulling the strings of the private owners of these banks. The central banks, those who create the power, are as high up the economic ladder and the power structure as I can see. They are rewarded with profits from the common folk of the nations they serve, yet they share none of the risks. They continuously acquire real wealth and assets and decide when the people can enjoy boom times, and when they suffer through busts. They remain fabulously wealthy either way. After all, they do control the money supply.
The only way we'll ever find out the truth about who is really in charge, who really pulls the strings, who is really so inhuman and greedy as to make so many suffer is to investigate the central banking cartel. They need to be audited. They need to be held accountable. It needs to be discovered how much of their wealth was achieved through fraudulent means. They need to be stripped of their power and conditions need to be put in place to make sure they never have so much power and influence over the affairs of mankind ever again.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
This makes me think. I wonder who these mystery people (mystery person) are (is). More than that, I wonder what their (I believe there is more than one) plan for us is. One thing is certain if you ask me, they are not interested in what is best for the vast majority of individuals on this planet. In fact, they seem determined to rid the planet of most souls. I think that perhaps they are having some amount of trouble managing the vast numbers of humans on this planet.
It sounds much like a conspiracy theory. How can so few control so many? It's really not that hard when we consider how economics are manipulated in this world. I say manipulated instead of controlled because in reality that is what's happening. Control is just a matter of perception. The economy is simply how trade is accomplished. We have allowed a few elite to control the currencies of the world and hence they have the wealth to manipulate markets and many other things in terms of how trade is accomplished. The central banking systems of the world, many of which are owned by a small cadre of banking families and run for profit, have the power to create the money of nations, and they do so by creating debt. Let's explore what this has cost the common folk in terms of real assets.
Most recently it has cost property. People have lost their homes. More than that, its cost us the concept of private property. This concept is one that suggests that you own what you buy. Yet, if what you buy is land, whether you buy that land to live on, to farm on, to build on, to do business on, or to simply maintain as wild lands, you will never own it. You will be forced to pay taxes on it. The question needs to be asked, if you have to pay someone to "own" something, do you really own it, or do they?
It has cost our dreams. The American dream is one of freedom. It is one where you can own your own property and do with it as you please. It is one where you can own your own business and run it as you see fit. It is one where you have the opportunity to create your own destiny. It is one where you live as a free person and interact with other free individuals on a voluntary basis. That dream has died. Most people have mortgaged their dream. The banks own it and rent it to you for a monthly fee. You will never own that dream, for even when that mortgage is paid off at many times the original price you thought you were paying, there are those who would lay claim to that which you thought you owned.
People don't even realize they don't own themselves anymore. The income tax is evidence of this. If you extend the question asked above about paying property taxes the same question can apply to your personal self. If you have to pay someone a portion of the money you earn from your labor, do you own that labor, or do they? If you don't own your labor, than do you really own your self? It's important, in my opinion, to be honest with your answer, or at least intellectually honest.
Many people will claim that they are not forced to pay income taxes, or property taxes for that matter, but they do so voluntarily. Really? Would you really continue to pay such taxes if government wouldn't send men with guns to arrest you, put you in front of a judge and throw you in jail if you didn't? Would you pay as much as they demand? Even if you would, do you support the use of such force and the threat of using such coercive methods against someone who wouldn't? These are questions that should be pondered deeply by common folk, but are usually just brushed off as just the way things are.
I bring up taxes because the income tax needed to be enacted in our nation to fund the Federal Reserve when it was first created. They needed the promise of a continuous stream of public money to set up their private enterprise. Until that point, with the exception of the Civil War, there was never any need for an income tax in this nation and, in fact, it's implementation had been illegal under the auspices of the Constitution of the United States of America. They took real money, silver and gold was money at the time, from people and replaced those real commodities with paper promises. Yep, you can blame the Federal Reserve for your enslavement to the income tax.
I bring up property taxes to show that government believes it owns your property. Now government is supposed to be subservient to the people, or the individuals who require the services the government provides. Ask yourself, if they are using coercive methods to collect your money on a non voluntary basis, are they subservient to you or are you subservient to them? Again, only you know whether you are being honest with yourself if you ask the question while considering whether or not you'd pay if you weren't being forced to do so. I do see the necessity for many government services, but government, even at a local level, is not being held accountable for the poor service it provides. I think there's better ways to deliver services, but the currency system running this nation makes these alternatives hard to implement.
It seems that, since the federal government is able to create money using the Federal Reserve and the state and local governments of this nation are not, they must in many ways bow down before the federal government and do as they wish or their funding may suffer. That is how power is centralized. And those in charge of creating money, having created trillions and taking their cut right off the top in interest, have been able to slowly over the decades greatly influence businesses and corporations of great importance and purchase the power of government while producing nothing but debt. In this way, secretive, unaccountable power is centralized.
Here again, we see the cost of using privately controlled currency. These men of wealth use that wealth to obtain greater influence for themselves and their friends and have in the process empowered the devious and greedy. They have proven to be ruthless in their pursuit of power, using their privilege to draw more power to themselves and to crush any kind of competition regardless of the legality or morality of the methods they employ to do so. In allowing a private cartel to control central banking, free men have relinquished their ability to determine their individual destiny and granted that power to those who would operate in shadows.
I believe that central bankers in one form or another have been behind most of the wars of mankind, as historical evidence shows. They have been behind the scenes and pulling the strings on many of the institutions we would otherwise blame. Central banking has cost us the lives of millions of our fellow human beings. It has cost us a number of our presidents, the most recent was quite popular. It has cost us a past that could have been golden, but instead has been crimson and cruel with bloodshed. It will cost us our future, and our children and grandchildren's future, if it is allowed to go on unchecked.
I'm not certain if there's some power above the central banks and their corporate establishment. I'm not certain if there's some power pulling the strings of the private owners of these banks. The central banks, those who create the power, are as high up the economic ladder and the power structure as I can see. They are rewarded with profits from the common folk of the nations they serve, yet they share none of the risks. They continuously acquire real wealth and assets and decide when the people can enjoy boom times, and when they suffer through busts. They remain fabulously wealthy either way. After all, they do control the money supply.
The only way we'll ever find out the truth about who is really in charge, who really pulls the strings, who is really so inhuman and greedy as to make so many suffer is to investigate the central banking cartel. They need to be audited. They need to be held accountable. It needs to be discovered how much of their wealth was achieved through fraudulent means. They need to be stripped of their power and conditions need to be put in place to make sure they never have so much power and influence over the affairs of mankind ever again.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Ron Paul, Racism and Conspiracy Theorists
The Ron Paul campaign must really be doing something right. The corporate owned mainstream media is really attacking him with all guns blazing. They dredge up the fear card and accuse him of being a racist. They spin his words and try to frame the argument in a way that, in my opinion, is very dishonest to say the least. Some would call these corporate shills outright liars, but in their minds they're just trying to push the propaganda that will get their guy elected so their corporate masters can maintain their power. The problem for them is that the masses of humanity aren't as dumb as they seem to believe. The people on catching on to their little game. There's a world of difference between the way they treat Ron Paul who WILL follow through on his campaign promises to restore personal freedoms as best he can (judging from his political consistency and voting record), and the way they treated Barrack Obama who made promises that sounded good and somewhat Ron Paulish but were never meant to be kept.
It's alright when your guy goes out there and talks about hope and change and freedom because they know he'll purposely be ineffective when it comes to loosening the grip the establishment holds on power, but when Ron Paul talks about such things they are suddenly scary and bad because he is suggesting real ways to change the establishment and they know he plans on implementing them. Take, for example, this video clip taken from MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews. At about the three minute mark, they start talking about the anti Washington, DC sentiment on the street and how Democrats thought Barrack Obama was the answer and are now seeing that in Ron Paul. Chris Matthews asks what is it about, is it that "whole freedom, personal freedom thing?"
Ding, ding, ding. He hit the nail on the head. But he made it sound like freedom is a bad thing. The whole nature of what this nation was supposed to be about is somehow greatly flawed. There's a whole undertow, an ocean of information that he glosses over in a few sentences to try to make Ron Paul and his supporters sound bad. We are all crazy for wanting freedom and for being anti Washington, DC and anti-establishment. What do we want freedom for? Then he turns around and makes freedom something only young people want. When we get older and need health care, around 65 or 70, then suddenly government is pretty healthy. You old people don't want freedom, you want to be told where, what, and how when it comes to health care. Is it any wonder corporate owned mainstream media gets more and more insignificant as time goes on? They make themselves sound foolish without even trying.
So, what does Chris Matthews do next to try to impugn Ron Paul? He turns to another corporate owned media source for back up. A New York Times blogger wrote about Ron Paul's 20 year old newsletter and claims it's impossible to know how Ron Paul feels about blacks or gay people who were "viciously disparaged" in it. I can tell you how he feels about them. It's really not hard and he never had to write about it. He feels they are all individual human beings with unalienable rights that should not be violated by government, and especially not the federal government whose mandate is to protect those very rights they now so often violate. Even if Ron Paul was the most racist individual on earth, which he is not, he supports policies that are definitively non racist. He would not use government to empower racist beliefs. He has proven this time and again by being against some of the most racist policies implemented by the federal government, policies that prey upon the economic underclasses, war in general and the war on drugs in particular.
The wars and occupations we engage in depend upon a volunteer army. Much of that army consists of minorities who volunteer because they don't see better economic opportunities offered in this nation. The war on drugs has jailed a much higher percentage of non violent minorities than white folk. If you don't think these policies are racist in nature, than I think you're looking at them with emotional blinders on. Ron Paul wants to put an end to both these policies. That's about as anti racist as you can get. What difference does it make what he thinks privately, as long as he publicly supports policies that encourage personal freedom for all peoples? Unless, of course, Chris Matthews believes that Ron Paul has supported such policies all these decades just so he could procure the office of President of the United States so he could flip flop as he's never done before and implement a policy of racism unequaled in our times! What a devious plan!
Oh, and that would make Chris Matthews a paranoid conspiracy theorist! That is, of course, unless he believes Ron Paul is a lone wolf who has thought up this plan all by himself and has not told anyone else about it. That doesn't seem very likely. Yet the New York Times piece seamlessly melds the racist accusation into the accusation that Ron Paul is a "paranoid conspiracy theorist." Chris Matthews takes it to the next level by tying it all into the "truther" movement and suggesting that Ron Paul might think that George Bush was pushing some sort of detonator that blew up the world trade center. Talk about trying to dredge up emotional muck to get people to forget about the issues they should be focused upon.
But to address these issues, what is it that Chris Matthews hates about the truth? Why does he try to make the word truther sound so bad? What is wrong with wanting to know the truth? There is so much that went unanswered by the 9/11 commission, what is wrong with wanting another investigation? They just got done explaining how so many people are anti government these days, why should those people accept the conspiracy theories of the government over the conspiracy theories proffered by others who are not involved in government? What is wrong with opening your mind to other possibilities? As for the snide remark about George Bush, I don't think anyone ever accused him of pushing the detonator, but he had to have his buddy Dick Cheney with him when he was questioned about the incident and that little question and answer session took place behind closed doors and was never made public.
So then Chris Matthews takes it another step farther and talks about other conspiracy theories, the most recent being a plot to make it look like the Iranians were planning to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to get us into another war. Once again, Mr. Matthews makes it seem as if such a plot is impossible and anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy. Has he forgotten about the Gulf of Tonkin? Does he think that everyone involved in the United States federal government is angelic? Does he believe that somehow once you join our government you earn a halo? Maybe he believes that people who seek positions of power in politics couldn't possibly engage in illegal acts in order to maintain their power. Maybe he believes that once you are actually governing people only the best human qualities come out and the worst human qualities are forever squelched in you. That's a pretty Polly Anna thing to believe. I somehow doubt that Mr. Matthews is that naive. More likely he's just doing as he's told by his corporate masters and spreading the scary propaganda to make people afraid of Ron Paul and freedom. Does saying that make me a paranoid conspiracy theorist?
I'd like to see someone play "hardball" with Chris Matthews. On his program he gets to frame the debate and ask the questions in a way that twists peoples' words and make them mean things they weren't meant to mean. It's a game the establishment plays to try to make the way of life they force upon us look good and benevolent while anyone else's philosophies or ideas on how we should live our lives become "crazy" or "stupid" or perhaps even "dangerous." I'm certain there's a clever propagandist out there who could make Chris Matthews' ideas seem just as crazy, stupid or dangerous if given the chance. The problem is, the powers that be won't ever give anyone the chance. I wonder just how he'd do if he was the one being questioned.
The interview finished up on a fine note with the explanation that there's a certain amount of prairie pacifism and war fatigue at work here. Duh. Ten years in Iraq. Eight years in Afghanistan. They're still trying to make us believe that the war in Iraq is over when it's not. They over look Libya. Yeah, people want to get out. No more war. No more devious intelligence gathering that puts our reputation at risk. Peace is not a bad thing, nor is it dangerous. No matter how the corporate owned media spins them, freedom and peace are ideals we should strive for. People are tired of the lies and corruption that leads to war that profits the elite few who have grabbed control of our system of government.
Ron Paul is leading because his ideas make sense. He is different from the established candidates. He has opened people's minds. As people's minds open they become more willing to take a look at alternative views of history. Perhaps this will cause a certain amount of them to realize just how badly they've been manipulated throughout their lives. Perhaps that's why these propagandists seen on the establishment corporate mainstream media are losing audience share and becoming less significant all the time. Most people will sooner or later be able to recognize truth when they see it. As has been said, the truth will set you free, and Ron Paul certainly seems more truthful and honest than any other politician at the federal level.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
It's alright when your guy goes out there and talks about hope and change and freedom because they know he'll purposely be ineffective when it comes to loosening the grip the establishment holds on power, but when Ron Paul talks about such things they are suddenly scary and bad because he is suggesting real ways to change the establishment and they know he plans on implementing them. Take, for example, this video clip taken from MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews. At about the three minute mark, they start talking about the anti Washington, DC sentiment on the street and how Democrats thought Barrack Obama was the answer and are now seeing that in Ron Paul. Chris Matthews asks what is it about, is it that "whole freedom, personal freedom thing?"
Ding, ding, ding. He hit the nail on the head. But he made it sound like freedom is a bad thing. The whole nature of what this nation was supposed to be about is somehow greatly flawed. There's a whole undertow, an ocean of information that he glosses over in a few sentences to try to make Ron Paul and his supporters sound bad. We are all crazy for wanting freedom and for being anti Washington, DC and anti-establishment. What do we want freedom for? Then he turns around and makes freedom something only young people want. When we get older and need health care, around 65 or 70, then suddenly government is pretty healthy. You old people don't want freedom, you want to be told where, what, and how when it comes to health care. Is it any wonder corporate owned mainstream media gets more and more insignificant as time goes on? They make themselves sound foolish without even trying.
So, what does Chris Matthews do next to try to impugn Ron Paul? He turns to another corporate owned media source for back up. A New York Times blogger wrote about Ron Paul's 20 year old newsletter and claims it's impossible to know how Ron Paul feels about blacks or gay people who were "viciously disparaged" in it. I can tell you how he feels about them. It's really not hard and he never had to write about it. He feels they are all individual human beings with unalienable rights that should not be violated by government, and especially not the federal government whose mandate is to protect those very rights they now so often violate. Even if Ron Paul was the most racist individual on earth, which he is not, he supports policies that are definitively non racist. He would not use government to empower racist beliefs. He has proven this time and again by being against some of the most racist policies implemented by the federal government, policies that prey upon the economic underclasses, war in general and the war on drugs in particular.
The wars and occupations we engage in depend upon a volunteer army. Much of that army consists of minorities who volunteer because they don't see better economic opportunities offered in this nation. The war on drugs has jailed a much higher percentage of non violent minorities than white folk. If you don't think these policies are racist in nature, than I think you're looking at them with emotional blinders on. Ron Paul wants to put an end to both these policies. That's about as anti racist as you can get. What difference does it make what he thinks privately, as long as he publicly supports policies that encourage personal freedom for all peoples? Unless, of course, Chris Matthews believes that Ron Paul has supported such policies all these decades just so he could procure the office of President of the United States so he could flip flop as he's never done before and implement a policy of racism unequaled in our times! What a devious plan!
Oh, and that would make Chris Matthews a paranoid conspiracy theorist! That is, of course, unless he believes Ron Paul is a lone wolf who has thought up this plan all by himself and has not told anyone else about it. That doesn't seem very likely. Yet the New York Times piece seamlessly melds the racist accusation into the accusation that Ron Paul is a "paranoid conspiracy theorist." Chris Matthews takes it to the next level by tying it all into the "truther" movement and suggesting that Ron Paul might think that George Bush was pushing some sort of detonator that blew up the world trade center. Talk about trying to dredge up emotional muck to get people to forget about the issues they should be focused upon.
But to address these issues, what is it that Chris Matthews hates about the truth? Why does he try to make the word truther sound so bad? What is wrong with wanting to know the truth? There is so much that went unanswered by the 9/11 commission, what is wrong with wanting another investigation? They just got done explaining how so many people are anti government these days, why should those people accept the conspiracy theories of the government over the conspiracy theories proffered by others who are not involved in government? What is wrong with opening your mind to other possibilities? As for the snide remark about George Bush, I don't think anyone ever accused him of pushing the detonator, but he had to have his buddy Dick Cheney with him when he was questioned about the incident and that little question and answer session took place behind closed doors and was never made public.
So then Chris Matthews takes it another step farther and talks about other conspiracy theories, the most recent being a plot to make it look like the Iranians were planning to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to get us into another war. Once again, Mr. Matthews makes it seem as if such a plot is impossible and anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy. Has he forgotten about the Gulf of Tonkin? Does he think that everyone involved in the United States federal government is angelic? Does he believe that somehow once you join our government you earn a halo? Maybe he believes that people who seek positions of power in politics couldn't possibly engage in illegal acts in order to maintain their power. Maybe he believes that once you are actually governing people only the best human qualities come out and the worst human qualities are forever squelched in you. That's a pretty Polly Anna thing to believe. I somehow doubt that Mr. Matthews is that naive. More likely he's just doing as he's told by his corporate masters and spreading the scary propaganda to make people afraid of Ron Paul and freedom. Does saying that make me a paranoid conspiracy theorist?
I'd like to see someone play "hardball" with Chris Matthews. On his program he gets to frame the debate and ask the questions in a way that twists peoples' words and make them mean things they weren't meant to mean. It's a game the establishment plays to try to make the way of life they force upon us look good and benevolent while anyone else's philosophies or ideas on how we should live our lives become "crazy" or "stupid" or perhaps even "dangerous." I'm certain there's a clever propagandist out there who could make Chris Matthews' ideas seem just as crazy, stupid or dangerous if given the chance. The problem is, the powers that be won't ever give anyone the chance. I wonder just how he'd do if he was the one being questioned.
The interview finished up on a fine note with the explanation that there's a certain amount of prairie pacifism and war fatigue at work here. Duh. Ten years in Iraq. Eight years in Afghanistan. They're still trying to make us believe that the war in Iraq is over when it's not. They over look Libya. Yeah, people want to get out. No more war. No more devious intelligence gathering that puts our reputation at risk. Peace is not a bad thing, nor is it dangerous. No matter how the corporate owned media spins them, freedom and peace are ideals we should strive for. People are tired of the lies and corruption that leads to war that profits the elite few who have grabbed control of our system of government.
Ron Paul is leading because his ideas make sense. He is different from the established candidates. He has opened people's minds. As people's minds open they become more willing to take a look at alternative views of history. Perhaps this will cause a certain amount of them to realize just how badly they've been manipulated throughout their lives. Perhaps that's why these propagandists seen on the establishment corporate mainstream media are losing audience share and becoming less significant all the time. Most people will sooner or later be able to recognize truth when they see it. As has been said, the truth will set you free, and Ron Paul certainly seems more truthful and honest than any other politician at the federal level.
If you like my writings, I am asking for your help. Please visit my website szandorblestman.com to see my archived articles and help support me by making a donation. I am also pleased to announce the release of the latest book by Matthew Wayne entitled "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords.com. If you do not wish to make a donation this is a product you can purchase. The download for this book is only $2.99, but interested readers can receive an additional 25% off by entering the coupon code CX99R until Jan. 29th, 2012. Even if you simply take a moment of your time to download the 20% of the book offered for free that will be of tremendous help to me in gaining exposure for my work which will help create sales.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)