Government, Banks, Monopoly Privilege and Lack of Accountability

When you talk to people, even the statists in this world, there are many that will agree that there is a huge problem in government when it comes to accountability. The problem stems from the monopoly privilege granted to government agencies. That privilege is the monopoly on legalized force and the claim of legitimacy to use it. Using this claim, agents of the government can more or less do as they want, when they want. Should they be caught doing something considered illegal, they will often claim immunity. While this does not always work, it certainly seems to me that it works a very high percentage of the time. Government agents more often than not get away with their abuses of trust and power.

The monopoly privileges don´t stop at the doorstep of government. There are many other organizations that have secured such privileges. The most egregious of these is the central bank of a nation. In the United States of America, this would be equivalent to the Federal Reserve System. This is quite possibly the most abusive central bank ever. It curried favor with the political elite of this nation way back in the early part of the last century and has since worked to draw all the real wealth of the nation to its owners and undermine the stability of the economy and the nation as it slowly sacrifices the very currency it was entrusted to protect.

So, the question becomes, what can be done to hold these institutions accountable? Obviously, "voting the bums out" has not worked. They count the votes and control the electoral process. No wonder they don't seem to listen to their constituents. Obviously, giving the banks more power and influence over the economy has not worked. They regulate their competition out of business and bail their selves out with money created from nothing. It is up to us to hold these entities accountable. It is up to us to stop relying on the politicians. They aren't going to do what's right, they are going to do what benefits their selves, their families and their friends. It is time we started relying on ourselves.

How can we regain self reliance? I believe there are more ways to do that than one can shake the proverbial stick at. I'm not certain which ways will work and which ways won't, or which ways will work for you and which ways won't, but there are certain things that can be tried. First off, the monopoly needs to be broken. As long as there is a monopoly, those working for the monopoly know they don't have to work that hard to provide good costumer service. They know you have no choice. So, it becomes a matter of having more options to choose from.

Allowing for alternative currencies is one way to hold banks accountable. Of course that takes state cooperation. Legal tender laws would have to be repealed. Personally, I think that legal tender laws should be repealed. As a business, I shouldn't be forced to take some piece of paper in exchange for a product or service if I didn't want to take that particular piece of paper, but if I don't take FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) in this nation I can be arrested.

The point is, I doubt very much that legal tender laws are going to be repealed anytime soon unless there's a quantum shift in the way people view such laws. Even then, it will be very difficult to get the politicians to do the right thing, especially if they are getting money and power from the very institutions that need to be reigned in. In order to create the quantum shift, regular, everyday people are going to have to get involved. Those who can need to start setting up alternative currency systems and others are going to have to start using such systems.

Once the political and banking classes are left out of the loop, they suddenly sit up and start to take notice. The strange thing is, it really doesn't take much for them to notice. Take the example of the Liberty Dollar. Even though the total amount of liberty dollars confiscated by the government was mere millions, it's growing popularity was enough of a threat to the Federal Reserve monopoly that they felt they needed to put an end to it and send a message to anyone who would try to use precious metals as an alternative to their money. They certainly don't want a growing, thriving underground economy going on when they're not getting a piece of it.

I'm not an advocate of the gold standard, or even a silver or copper standard. I'm not an advocate of government issued paper money either, but any of those things would be better than what we have. At least if the government issued interest free money we wouldn't have a national debt to pay off. At least if we had some sort of standard based on an actual commodity rather than debt we'd have some kind of check on uncontrolled borrowing and run away inflation. The problem with all those systems is that they all maintain a monopoly on currency creation. When there is such a monopoly someone will always learn to play the system, so to speak, they will always find a way to manipulate the system to their benefit and the detriment of most everyone else. There will always be people who will be able to use such monopolies to their own benefit and will remain unaccountable because of their monopoly power.

Another obstacle to holding the banksters accountable is the practice of fractional reserve banking. This practice allows those with the money to create debt that is ten times more, and higher, than the amount of money actually available. It ensures that debt will never be paid off. Think about indebtedness for a second. Is it not akin to slavery? Does it not give people a certain leverage over you? As we have seen recently, the banksters have used it to threaten us with economic ruin if they did not get bailed out and paid off. They are completely unaccountable for their mistakes.

Fractional reserve banking is fraudulent, in my opinion, and obviously so. Threats of economic ruin are little different than threats from the mafia to a small businessman that refuses to pay his protection money. These folks should be held accountable for their fraudulent and extortionist practices. The problem is, the courts are another government monopoly and the government is owned by the banksters and their corporate companions. They are not going to hold themselves accountable. They are not going to prosecute themselves. The best we'll get is a "oops, my bad. Too bad, so sad" and they walk away with all the wealth, power and influence.

Holding government officials and agents accountable might be even more difficult than holding the central bankers accountable. They are granted the privilege of something called immunity. Even though for many it's supposed to be limited immunity in many cases the sky is the limit. For instance, a law enforcement officer who does something wrong might have his department sued successfully, but he won't have to pay one dime to his victim(s) from his pocket. Instead, the tax payers he's supposed to serve are left holding the bag. It's that kind of unaccountability that angers people.

While it might be a little more difficult to break up the monopoly of "legitimate" force the government enjoys than it would be to allow competition in currency, we can at least demand the repeal of immunity laws. No government official or agent of the state should be allowed immunity to wrong doing. I would personally like to see citizen courts set up which adhere to common law and present legal cases vigorously by both defense and prosecution even if the government official or agent refuses to take part. Sometimes, just exposure and shining the light on corruption is enough to shame these people into changing their behavior for the better.

Holding these people and institutions accountable is not going to be an easy endeavor. They have spent decades erecting the systems that protect them. They are not going to give up their power and privilege easily. They have no problem using force and will even resort to murder and assassination if they feel their privileges are threatened, let alone if they think they might end up in prison. It is important to first remove the aura of legitimacy that they emit. Fortunately, this seems to be happening. The obvious injustice and abuse of the bailouts may have been a step too far. People are learning and accepting the corruption. People are standing up and saying no more. Moving forward, the collapse of the facade of legitimacy the privileged elite has built might come sooner and faster than one would imagine so long as we continue to work toward this goal.

My archives can be found at my website szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to read more and support me by making a donation.

The wait is finally over. I am overjoyed to announce that, after 16 years, "The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy," has finally been released as an ebook. Get yours today! It is also available at Sony, Kobo, and Diesel. For those of you who have not yet read "The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade trilogy" it is still available at smashwords, Sony and Diesel. Here is a list of my works by Matthew Wayne at different web retailers for your convenience. "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, Sony, and Diesel. "The Ouijiers" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo and Diesel. Here are links to my book "The Blessings of Freedom, Creating Prosperity in the 21st Century" serialized version: Chapter 1. Chapter 2 and chapters 3 and 4. I thank you for your support.

The Price for Ignoring Ron Paul

So, I've been writing about Ron Paul a lot lately. Well, there's not a lot being said about him on the establishment media who decided long ago to ignore him, so I figure why not write about him? He's drawing large crowds at rallies. He's getting lots of delegates to bring with him to the Republican convention. He has, in fact, won more delegates than any other candidate from some of the caucus states where the vote was just a poll, nothing more, and it's the delegates that matter. That's news worthy. Since the establishment media is determined to keep things hidden from the general public, it's up to little under read and mostly ignored bloggers like me to report on him.

Think about this for a minute. What happens if Ron Paul gets the most delegates even after all the primaries and caucuses have been held and the votes have been flipped, er, I mean counted, and the fraud has been finalized, er, I mean Mitt Romney has been declared the winner? How is that going to reflect upon the establishment media? Will people actually begin to realize that they've been toyed with? Will they wonder how the media could have missed such an important story? Will they finally get the hint and stop paying attention to the media altogether and find some more trustworthy, accurate sources to get their information from? Well, I don't know. I'll say this, I think whatever the RNC decides to do, it will be really tough to keep it out of the news.

There is the possibility that they will change the rules at the last minute. That's my guess at how they will try to keep Ron Paul out of the spotlight. If he brings more delegates, or even enough to cause a brokered convention, they'll call foul and say the democratic process was compromised and the popular vote should be what matters. Then he'll make the claim that his campaign was merely following the rules set down before hand by the Republican Party. If the rules change at that point so that delegates have no choice but to vote for Romney, I hope Ron Paul's campaign brings out the accusations and evidence of election fraud. Wouldn't the media look stupid if they didn't cover that?

They could try to keep him out of the convention like they did in 2008. They could try to smear him. They could try to spin his popularity. They could try to appeal to the masses of Ron Paul delegates and supporters to band together and back the Mittster so Obama can be at last be defeated along with his socialist agenda. I got news for the Republicans, it's not the socialist agenda that people should worry about, it's the globalist agenda, and Mitt Romney is just as much a socialist and a globalist as Obama, maybe more so. It's the devil you know versus the devil you don't, and Mitt is the devil we don't know this time around. It's either Ron Paul as the Republcan candidate, or four more years of Mr. Soetoro.

It's interesting to wonder what would happen if Ron Paul ran third party. The Republicans would claim he "took" votes away from Romney and helped Obama win the election. But then, he's just as likely to take votes away from the Obama crowd, after all, he is the only true peace candidate out there. Besides, Democrats aren't stupid. They know when they're being played. I bet Ron Paul could win running as an independent, if the vote was counted honestly. Oh, there's that election fraud thing again. Just another little story the establishment media decides to ignore. I guess that's another reason I have to do the job they're supposed to be doing. Maybe if these over paid pundits would actually do some digging and some real thinking and stop chirping the song those at the top tell them to sing, the general public would actually get some decent information. But, they'd probably get fired for that so they sit in their gilded cages chirping away.

What price is the media going to pay for ignoring Ron Paul? Will they lose viewers and readership? They are already doing so due to not only the convenience of the Internet, but the quality of the information that can be found there. Will the establishment media continue to bleed away customers as they are shown to be even more manipulated than imagined? Will they pay a price at all, or will the ruling elite be successful in their attempts to put the Internet genie back in the bottle, so to speak? Will the chilling effect the feds are trying to put on free speech with their Internet censorship bills (disguised as Internet security bills) work? Will there be an establishment media bailout? Or will that be a step too far for too many people for them to get away with such measures?

Perhaps more importantly, what price will the people of the United States pay for ignoring Ron Paul? It's good that so many have woken up to his message, or are at least curious about it, but there are still so many who are misinformed or don't understand and don't care to try to find out. This is understandable as so many people lead busy lives and don't even want to pay attention to politics. They seem to think that politics has nothing to do with them or their lives. What they may not understand is that politics is intruding upon their lives, more so every day that goes by where these control freaks in Washington, DC remain in power and assert more and more influence on the smallest details of everyday living.

It is Ron Paul who advocates removing the burden of intrusiveness of government from the backs of the American people. The other candidates may talk a good game, they may promise changes to accomplish more freedom, but their records suggest they will do the opposite. Their records suggest they will heap more government burden atop the already over burdened private sector. When was the last time you heard of a federal law being repealed? I remember learning something about December 5, 1933, when alcohol prohibition was finally repealed after much loss of life and treasure. Meanwhile other prohibitions have taken the place of alcohol, but perhaps too many of us are too drunk to care about those. As long as you are allowed your drug of choice, why should you care about anyone else's?

Let's consider some more of the possible costs for ignoring Ron Paul. It could cost us our national sovereignty. We could be relegated to being subject to an armed world government with centralized powers. A little far fetched maybe? Well, Obama has already started one war without consulting congress because the United Nations asked him to. Many people supported him. With that kind of precedent, how long until our government is following United Nations' mandates without question? It is a slow process, this global agenda, and both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney are globalists, in my opinion.

The price we pay could be trillions of dollars more than the taxpayers of this nation have already been fleeced for. We complain about bailing out the huge corporations, but we do little to nothing about it. Oh, we latch onto someone who promises change, and delivers it to us. Only it was change in the opposite direction that it was supposed to go. We get more wars, not peace, more bailouts, not none nor payback, more government intrusion on our lives, not less. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney are working for the banks, especially the elite central banks, not against them. Only Ron Paul has proven his tenacity when it comes to bringing accountability to the most influential of all institutions, the Federal Reserve. Either of those other two guys are going to just keep the fraud going and the money flowing to the top for another four years. They are trying to suck the economic body completely dry of its fluid currency. Only Dr. Paul addresses this fact and ignoring him could cost us our current currency.

The greatest price we might pay could be our freedoms. This is equivalent to our very nation. I remember in 2008, all the press about how George W. Bush was shredding our constitution. I remember certain Barrack Obama pundits celebrating in part because Mr. Obama was going to honor the Constitution. Well, three years later, I think we know better. Mr. Obama has not asked to repeal one overbearing, constitution shredding law. In fact, he has signed several more. As the feds decide to legalize violations of each of our precious individual rights, the nation looks more and more like an authoritarian, police state dictatorship. Either of the other two will keep this trend going. Only Ron Paul honors the Constitution. Can we afford another four years of having our rights tread upon? If so, what kind of a nation will we have in 2016? What kind of a nation will our grand children live in? Will they live in fear with limited choice, or will they have the opportunities that freedom provides to better themselves?

Ron Paul cannot be ignored. His message can't be ignored. His supporters can't be ignored. There are simply too many of them. His message is simply too important. Try as they might, the power elite are not going to be able to hide his importance much longer. You can't cap a volcano and expect it to not erupt somewhere else. Freedom is ready to erupt into our cultural awareness. It is ready to flow into our society. It is ready to be reborn as a worldwide phenomenon. I only hope it is allowed to do so in a peaceful rather than a violent manner.

My archives can be found at my website szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to read more and support me by making a donation.

The wait is finally over. I am overjoyed to announce that, after 16 years, "The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy," has finally been released as an ebook. Get yours today! For those of you who have not yet read "The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade trilogy" it is still available at smashwords. Here is a list of my works by Matthew Wayne at different web retailers for your convenience. "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and Diesel. "The Ouijiers" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo and Diesel. Here are links to my book "The Blessings of Freedom, Creating Prosperity in the 21st Century" serialized version: Chapter 1. Chapter 2 and chapters 3 and 4. I thank you for your support.

Who are the (Anti-Ron Paul) Trolls?

A troll was, at one time, a nasty menace that sat under bridges waiting to eat little goats that may come along, or little children, depending on who's telling the story. They would goad the creatures they sought to munch upon with jibes and insults. In the modern vernacular, the troll has become the hidden menace lurking around blogs waiting for someone to write something they feel they can discredit, usually by insults and barbs rather than by reason and persuasion. They are an ugly creature which unfortunately infest many a blog and can turn a pleasant forum full of reasonable discussion into the cyber equivalent of a shouting match.

I have been writing about Ron Paul since 2008. Back then I didn't have my own website, but several different sites picked up my work. They didn't have much in the way of comment sections at the time, or not too many people used them, so any comments I saw were mostly emailed to me. Most people just wanted to express gratitude for reporting on Ron Paul in a way that didn't spin him as some crazy loon. Any people that did want to make derisive remarks would usually repost the story in a forum where they could do so along with their neo-con buddies. I can understand that. People of like minds, birds of a feather, and all that you know. Those posts would get ugly and the trolls in those forums were actually Ron Paul supporters who were often rhetorically attacked in a very vicious and vitriolic manner. As for me, I didn't really have to worry about trolls.

I did do an article on Best Buy, however, where I complained about their gift card policy. I became suddenly inundated with emails. About half of them were gracious and told of their problems with customer service at Best Buy, but the other half were very juvenile in nature in which my personal integrity and intelligence were brought into question. This prompted me to write a second article where I revealed the nature of the emails. I don't know if it's fair to call these people trolls because they used email rather than posting on blogs or forums, but the effect is basically the same. So I guess I do have a little experience with trolls.

I wondered who would be emailing me such insulting emails. I also wondered what they thought they'd accomplish. I was told by a couple of people that the emailers probably worked for Best Buy. I was told that there were people whose job it was to do such things. I really can't say if that's true. If it is, I imagine they were trying to intimidate me into silence with their rhetorical abuse, but it had the opposite effect. As I stated above, I wrote a second article because of the emails. I never looked any further into the matter, as I was not driven to do so, but the theory made sense to me. Perhaps they were loyal costumers, but I don't think it's likely. I don't know that a customer would really care whether I ever shopped at the store again or not, nor would I think one would take the time to email me in such an abusive manner.

Well, times have changed. I have my own website now and I welcome comments. I don't get many, but I let anyone that wants to have their say. I only delete comments that are obvious spam or advertisements and nothing more. Recently, I wrote an article on Ron Paul and actually got a few comments, to my delight. I even got a comment telling me why everyone hates Ron Paul and then one from the same person insulting me, also to my delight. It becomes apparent to me that I must be doing something right to get such a response from someone. I must be hitting a nerve somewhere. So I thought, "Who is this person that he would take the precious time from his busy day to make such a comment?"

Who are the trolls? Are they just kids with nothing better to do? Are they simply going along and reading things just so they can be contrary? Are they genuine? Do they really get so emotional about issues that they feel the necessity to write such nastiness? In the case of Ron Paul, are they supporters of another candidate? That I can understand. If they want to argue their case for another candidate, that's fine. It's when they get abusive and resort to name calling because someone disagrees I think their true colors show. Logical arguments for statism oft times crash like waves against the rock of the freedom position, and so those arguing from the collectivist point of view will have to resort to emotional tantrums to make their points.

To be fair, I've seen Ron Paul supporters also resort to name calling. I wish they wouldn't do that, there are better ways to persuade, but to each his own. But Ron Paul supporters wear their hearts on their sleeve. You know who they are. Most of them are just regular folk. Recently many of them are the young folk who don't want a crushing debt burden on their shoulders. Usually you know who the supporters of other specific candidates are. Newt, Rick and Mitt all have their own following and many of them are proud to support their candidates. There's nothing wrong with that. But who are these trolls who hide behind anonymous, guest, or names that are difficult to decipher? Who are they that just come out of nowhere, insult and abuse, and then disappear? What are they trying to accomplish?

Are they establishment agents? Are they spies for the corporate elite? Are they spooks of the alphabet agencies? Maybe they just want us to know that they're out there, watching. I know, that sounds like paranoid conspiracy theory crap, but I'm just asking the questions. I'm not afraid to open my mind to any possibility. I don't discredit any theory unless I know something for certain. I suppose some of trolls can be as described. Others might be like those talked about earlier, kids just making trouble or emotional people looking for an outlet. Why shouldn't it be a mix? Seems to me that's the most likely. I really don't know. I don't know how to find out. Even if I did, I don't know if I'd want to take the time to do so.

Whoever these trolls are, as long as they keep their activity to talking trash, it's no big deal. Whatever they're trying to accomplish, I don't think it's working, unless they're just blowing off steam. If they're trying to shut us up, that's not working. As you can see, it just succeeded in getting me to write another article. Thank you, troll, for making this op/ed piece possible.

As long as there is freedom of speech in this country, I will continue to offer my opinion as I see fit. As long as I have protections against government intrusion upon my freedom to express myself, I will continue to point out the flaws I see in establishment institutions. If those natural, individual rights are ever threatened by government agents, I will do my best to do the same from the proverbial underground. If the proponents of freedom and peace are ever rounded up and thrown in prison for their point of view, I will endeavor to remain free and keep speaking out against tyranny. After all, isn't that what a good American is supposed to do? Isn't liberty and individual freedom what this nation is supposed to be about?

My archives can be found at my website szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to read more and support me by making a donation.

The wait is finally over. I am overjoyed to announce that, after 16 years, "The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy," has finally been released as an ebook. Get yours today! For those of you who have not yet read "The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade trilogy" it is still available at smashwords. Here is a list of my works by Matthew Wayne at different web retailers for your convenience. "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and Diesel. "The Ouijiers" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo and Diesel. Here are links to my book "The Blessings of Freedom, Creating Prosperity in the 21st Century" serialized version: Chapter 1. Chapter 2 and chapters 3 and 4. I thank you for your support.

How Much Does Darkness Weigh?

I heard someone talk about this question the other day in connection with the Titanic and thought it was a very interesting question. I thought I'd take a shot at answering it and perhaps take it in a direction the original querist never imagined. At first glance this looks like it might be an easy question to answer.

Darkness doesn't "weigh" anything. Weight is a unit of heaviness or mass as measured against gravity. Weight, like most everything else in this universe, is relative. There's all kinds of variables to consider. For instance, I would say that the darkness at the bottom of the ocean is much heavier than the darkness in your closet. It's pretty much an accepted fact that one weighs more on earth than he does on the moon. The darkness on the moon is probably lighter too. Now, I don't think things actually weigh more or less, I don't believe things lose mass, it's just that more or less gravity is acting upon them so they are pushing down more or less upon the scale.

So, how much does darkness weigh? Well, that depends upon the mass of that darkness. It depends upon the composition of that darkness which changes the mass. It depends upon the scale one uses to measure darkness and how that scale works. I mean, after all, even air has some measure of mass and weight, but your bathroom scale is not going to pick up on that, unless you want it to so you can use it as an excuse for that extra 5 pounds you put on over the holidays. In short, scientifically speaking, the weight of darkness varies.

Of course, when you talk about something like darkness, often the words can take on more than one meaning. Darkness usually means the absence of light, which is a different measure than weight. Light is measured in lumens and is relevant to the human eye, which is the instrument used to detect the light. Darkness would then be the absence of lumens relevant to the human eye's ability to detect light. So the unit used to detect the darkness comes into play in such a discussion. When figuring the weight of darkness, much of the above involves using the brain as an instrument for determination of the variables involved. What happens if instead of using the brain, we use the heart?

I have heard that darkness can weigh very heavy on the heart. I suppose that can be very true. In dark times, people have a tendency to lose hope. They can become depressed and despondent. Darkness can also weigh heavy on the soul. It can drag down the spirit into the depths of despair and cause untold damage. If one uses those organs as the instrument of determination, darkness can be very heavy. This means it can be hard to move, it can be difficult to push away, it will take quite a bit of effort to get rid of it.

Yet to shed darkness one just needs light. Funny how the language works. Light can make the darkness lighter. More lumens means less weight, at least on the heart and soul. Light instantly pushes darkness away and so it weighs less than nothing because it is not even there. With light hope comes flooding into the soul. Depression is less likely. Despondency gives way to action. The heart raises above despair and wonders at the creative power that can spring forth when necessity demands it. And yet even in the brightest light of day thoughts of darkness can creep into the brain. The brightness detected by the eye doesn't always reach the heart and soul. Even in the best of times some hearts can be quite burdened by darkness.

This leads to another question, how much do thoughts weigh? What instruments can we use to measure such weight? Are dark thoughts heavier than light ones? Do they reside in the brain, or in the heart, or in a more ethereal mind, or in the soul? Perhaps dark thoughts originate in such places, but flee the entity once one begins to produce thoughts of the lighter variety. Perhaps then they find a dark shadow to nest in until some other gloomy Gus presents himself and it has the opportunity to infect him. What toll does darkness demand when its weight settles upon one's being?

There is a lot of darkness in this world. I think it's safe to say we've all experienced it. I comes in all kinds of shapes and sizes, a multitude of varieties. It doesn't always have to be a lack of lumens. It can form in the minds and escape in the thoughts of many. It manifests as fear, hatred, and other negative emotions that prevent us from knowing each other. Some people have learned to tap the darkness and use it to their advantage. In doing so, they create an army that unwittingly perpetuate the darkness. To relieve the weight of the darkness, one merely needs to let the light in.

How much does darkness weigh? As much as you let it. How much do thoughts weigh? As much as you want them to. The individual has more power than one knows. He can make the darkness lighter. He can make his thoughts brighter. He can stand in the pitch and let his inner light shine into the universe until the heaviest darkness turns away in search of easier prey. It is up to each of us whether to become crushed by the weight of the darkness, or whether to create the light thoughts that lighten the load and lift the spirit.

My archives can be found at my website szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to read more and support me by making a donation.

The wait is finally over. I am overjoyed to announce that, after 16 years, "The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy," has finally been released as an ebook. Get yours today! For those of you who have not yet read "The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade trilogy" it is still available at smashwords. Here is a list of my works by Matthew Wayne at different web retailers for your convenience. "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and Diesel. "The Ouijiers" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo and Diesel. Here are links to my book "The Blessings of Freedom, Creating Prosperity in the 21st Century" serialized version: Chapter 1. Chapter 2 and chapters 3 and 4. I thank you for your support.

Radical Forgiveness and the Power Elite

There is something out there known as radical forgiveness. This would be the capability to forgive the perpetrator of an act or acts so heinous as to be indescribable. It would require an almost inhuman empathy to achieve such a high level of goodness, an unconditional love, as it were. This is the kind of forgiveness one would use on an Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, or a Pol Pot if one had been a victim of those monsters. This would be an extremely difficult practice to integrate into your life. It is, however, something we might have to look at incorporating into society if we are to ever break the cycle of violence that has imprisoned our souls since before the first man drew on cave walls.

Man is an interesting creature, to say the least. As individuals we all have the capacity for great good, or for great evil. We all have the capacity for great empathy and tolerance, or we can be very selfish, greedy, impatient, brutal, and perhaps even completely unaware of the feelings of those around us. These are all functions of several factors.

We are creatures that have been influenced and molded by our environment, our upbringing and our genetics. These are factors to consider when studying the behavior of almost all higher level beings such as many of the animals we share this planet with. The degree to which each of these factors separately affect the organism depends upon how highly developed that organism is. Mankind is supposedly the most developed organism on this planet, so we can, perhaps uniquely, choose for ourselves which behaviors we engage in. We don´t have to allow nature to dictate to us how we behave, or even how we feel.

At the same time, we have a tendency to try to influence others. We have this tendency to try to control how others feel, how they think, and how they react. Many of us do this for our own selfish gain, yet we are hardly able to admit this to ourselves. We tell ourselves we are doing it for the good of the other, to keep that person from harm or to help that person along in life. This might be true at times, as with the case of raising a child, but some people carry this tendency to the extreme and engage in these activities when they have no business doing so. We call these people control freaks.

Those who are in power, and those who seek power, are usually the types that have a proclivity for taking the tendency to control others to the extreme. Whether they are born that way as a result of their genetics, whether they are raised that way by their relatives, or whether they are taught to behave that way by the largely exclusive schools the very wealthy attend, is a subject for debate. Personally, I think it´s a combination of all those factors, and probably others. Whatever the cause, their capacity for being empathetic with humanity as a whole seems to have been removed from their psyches. While their intentions may well be good, their actions seem contrary to the welfare of the human race and their solutions always seem to involve more money and power for them, less for everyone else.

Ask yourself, what would you do if you were one of the super wealthy to make sure that you stayed one of the super wealthy? Would you commit crimes? Would you lie? Would you commit fraud? Would you counterfeit? Would you steal? Would you extort? Would you commit murder? Would you help or hire others to commit murder? Would you knowingly allow millions, perhaps billions to die when you could have prevented such tragedy? I'd hope most of you would say "no" to all or most of these questions. I'd hope you'd say that you're better than that, that you have a conscience and empathy for humanity. I'd hope you would do the honorable thing for your own kind, but I don't believe you'd be the same person if you were one of the wealthy elite, even if your genetic makeup was the same as it is now.

You have likely been taught that if you want to be respected you have to show respect for others. The super wealthy have been taught that people respect them for their power. You have likely been taught that honesty is the best policy and the way to show the world that you are a trustworthy person. The elite have been taught that the truth is dangerous to them, that they need to keep their activities secret, that they must lie and obfuscate at times to keep the wolves at bay, so to speak. They may have even been taught that "we" ( the "little people" or the "unwashed masses") would not understand that what "they" (the ruling elite) are doing is for the "greater good." You have likely been taught that human life has value. They have likely been taught that there are too many of us and most people are "worthless eaters" or some such nonsense. These are the people that use their wealth to rule the world, no matter who is voted into office. That is how you would be brought up and raised if you were born into their ranks. That is how you would be educated.

As time progresses it seems to me that more and more people are beginning to open their eyes. They're beginning to see just how badly they've been lied to and manipulated. Some people when they find out go into denial and choose to believe that the "elected leaders" must know something they don't and that's why it's allowed to go on. Others simply choose to ignore the problem by claiming they can't do anything about it or that's the way it's always been. Still others get active and try to do something about it. They try to tell others, or write to congressmen, or write letters to the editor of papers, or go to protests, or do just about anything to dis-empower the powerful and re-empower the common folk. Many folks want to see these wealthy elite prosecuted for their crimes against humanity, then thrown in jail and perhaps even executed. I understand how they feel, but I wonder at the wisdom of threatening severe punishment. It certainly didn't seem to help after Nuremberg as so many enforcers still use the excuse they just do as they're told.

Perhaps we would all be better off if we just practiced some radical forgiveness for these people. I know that they are responsible for many of the world's ills. Certainly they profit from wars, financing the war machines usually on both sides. They have been known to launder the billions that are being made from the illegal drug trade, which is likely why there is an illegal drug trade. Their fiat currency schemes are nothing short of fraud. I think it would shock most people if they were to hear from one of their trusted establishment news sources the amount of damage the ruling elite has caused humanity. Yet it remains well hidden. It remains a mystery to so many why our society has devolved to this point.

That is another reason why I think radical forgiveness would be wise. They are so frightened of their punishment that they will never admit their crimes, they will never surrender. They will use any means at their disposal to avoid accountability, including massive violence and the unleashing of government troops upon the general public if they believe such actions can help their cause. If, however, the goal is just to get these control freaks to leave us alone, then helping them to believe they won't be punished too badly might be one way to get them to repent, to speak out, and to openly report from undeniable sources. If they thought that they'd be forgiven for their crimes rather than having to face the wrath of some very angry peasants, they might actually feel relieved to get some of their guilt off their chests. Confession is, after all, good for the soul, or so I've been told.

I know it may seem hard to forgive those with such a mafia mindset, and yet think of those well intentioned people we all know who act with such a mindset and don't even know it. Think of all the statists in your life who think it's okay to take money without consent, as long as the government does it and calls it taxes. Think of all those who want to keep the Federal Reserve system because they're so afraid of the economic hardships that may happen if we get rid of it and start using honest, commodity based money or a competitive system where we all have a choice of what currencies to accept or not accept. Oh, the chaos of having to make a choice! Think of all those who believe it's okay to torture innocent sheep herders because they believe that one of them might know something about some plot having to do with weapons of mass destruction. Do they also deserve severe punishment, or should they be forgiven for their indiscretions because they fell for the government propaganda?

As individuals, most of us still seem to operate from a fear based perspective. If we are to achieve the changes in the world that most of us supposedly want to see, we need to do more than just learn to think from a love based perspective, we need to translate those thoughts into actions. By forgiving those who have trespassed against us we take the first steps toward breaking a cycle of violence that has pervaded our societies since we began forming modern civilizations. As long as we act in a violent manner and devolve into mob mentality when tough times hit, we will live in a violent society. I know it's going to be tough to get the proverbial 1% to listen to the supposed 99%, but good diplomacy requires a clear understanding of why all parties act as they do. If we can all adopt an "if you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone" attitude, we will have taken a huge step toward making us all 100% whole, all connected, all humanity, all one kind.

My archives can be found at my website szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to read more and support me by making a donation.

The wait is finally over. I am overjoyed to announce that, after 16 years, "The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy," has finally been released as an ebook. Get yours today! For those of you who have not yet read "The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade trilogy" it is still available at smashwords. Here is a list of my works by Matthew Wayne at different web retailers for your convenience. "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and Diesel. "The Ouijiers" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo and Diesel. Here are links to my book "The Blessings of Freedom, Creating Prosperity in the 21st Century" serialized version: Chapter 1. Chapter 2 and chapters 3 and 4. I thank you for your support.

Ron Paul Proves Election Myths False

Ron Paul has managed to prove certain popularly held beliefs about elections false. He has likely done this unwittingly. He has taken it on himself to deliver the message of freedom to the masses and has discovered some unusual phenomena that we as voters may not have otherwise believed. It is a truly wondrous world we live in when our firmly held beliefs can be so challenged.

The first and foremost myth that has been shattered is that elections work. Perhaps I need to restate that. I suppose elections do work if you're someone who benefits from the special interests that are served by establishment politicians working for globalists. The belief that elections bring about positive change for the common people has been proven false, in my opinion. The belief that democracy works and somehow the majority of people know what's best for everyone has been shown to be false, in my opinion. There is no wisdom in crowds, for the most part, only mindless, blind consensus. There is no positive change for the unprivileged classes, only a different overlord violating individual rights and heavier regulations strangling innovation and competition.

I say this because of observing elections in my half century of living. When one realizes what Ron Paul advocates is not new, but something that has been tried in the past and proven to work, it makes one wonder even more whether elections are even a good idea. It seems to me that, looking through history, when a nation adopts individualist freedom principles it thrives and blossoms. When it adopts collectivist principles, it withers and can die. Yet even withering nations and societies can prosper once again if they lessen their government's grip and trash the regulations which stifle competition and innovation.
Examples are the USSR and Eastern European nations. These collapsed under the weight of their own entitlement systems. China is another example. It's economy continues to grow as government removes itself from their system.

Yet this is something voters seem to ignore. Ron Paul isn't the first to deliver this message of freedom. He wasn't the first to warn us. Ross Perot spoke of a giant sucking sound as our jobs fled these shores. Harry Browne spoke out against the drug war. Both ran for the office of president of the United States. Both backed issues that, according to polls, the majority of Americans agreed with. Both lost to establishment politicians that worked for corporate and special interests and kept in place the policies that most want repealed, or at least scaled back. Ron Paul offers all that and then some. His message is very popular. So how is it he isn't getting the popular vote? Who are these elections working for this primary season?

The second popularly held belief that has been shattered is that the most popular candidate wins. I'm fairly certain Ron Paul is the best known of all the Republican candidates. I'm also certain he's the best liked. He's been interviewed dozens if not hundreds of times since his run in 2008. His economic ideas have been explored and expounded upon by many a commentator. He has made Austrian Economics a household phrase. He definitely draws the biggest crowds to his rallies. There's dozens of examples of this. His supporters are, without a doubt, the most enthusiastic. Their numbers are growing, particularly amongst young voters. Even those who may not agree with his political philosophies admire him for his honesty, consistency, principles, and incorruptibility. It's beyond me how so many can like such a politician so much and yet he seems to get so few votes. Could the primaries be fixed?

The third election myth that has been proven wrong by the Ron Paul campaign is that people care about honest government and getting rid of corruption. Obviously they don't. They keep on electing the same old, well dressed, nicely groomed, lying, corporate owned, legally trained, slippery, flip-flopping, fake, corrupt beyond hope politicians. We've witnessed for decades their bumbling ways. But they're not inept, they're corrupt. They're doing what they're told to do. They're saying what they're told to say. They don't care if their promises are going to be broken, they spew them forth as instructed by their handlers. Too few would vote for them if they said they were globalist flunkies wanting to make the United States the enforcement arm of some corporate world government, so they say what they are told is the right thing and don't care that they won't implement the policies they promise. If the voters cared about honest, transparent government, they'd vote for someone who has a track record of delivering honest, transparent government.

The fourth election myth to be called into question is that party politics work. They create more fair and honest elections. That one party will do whatever it takes to make sure the other party is knocked from power. This is an easy one. Look at the polls. The only candidate that has a chance of beating Obama is Ron Paul. If he doesn't get the nomination, Ron Paul supporters aren't going to simply give in and vote for the Republican candidate. Ron Paul supporters aren't voting for Ron Paul, they're voting for smaller, more honest, more transparent government. Neither Romney, nor Santorum, nor Gingrich, nor Obama will give them that.

This lesser of two evils stuff won't cut it anymore. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Ron Paul supporters, if they're like me, will just write his name in like I did in 2008. Some won't vote. Some will vote for a third party candidate. Some might even vote for Obama, after all Romney was the one who gave Obama the blueprint for Obamacare. Republican voters, Ron Paul gives your party the best chance for beating Obama. The Republican leadership, by shutting out and minimizing Ron Paul, is taking away the chance for your party to take back power. But they don't care. They don't work for your best interests. The corporate establishment has bought both parties and only their best interests are considered, not the interests of the everyday Joe on the street.

The fifth myth Ron Paul's campaign has debunked is that issues matter in elections. Look at the major issues of the day. Most people are quite worried about the economy. Unemployment continues to be very high though government statistics use tricks to make it seem not so. Even those who have found employment likely have jobs that pay them a good deal less than what they had been paid and use none of the skills they had been trained to use. We have lost our manufacturing base and with it our ability to produce. This sector was where many good American jobs were provided. People were able to go to work and had pride that they were producing some of the best products in the world. We can bring back this kind of pride and work ethic. We can compete with the Chinese who only seem able to manufacture poisonous garbage that has to be replaced every three months. The world cries for quality and Americans just sit on the sidelines, unemployed and twiddling their thumbs. We have the manpower and the know how, we just need the willpower to overthrow the corporate interests who have taken over our government and then allow the entrepreneurs the opportunity to compete.

Only Ron Paul wants to go back to basics and implement an economic plan that has proven successful in the past. The other Republican candidates want to continue or even grow the policies that have not only utterly failed, but have gotten us into the current economic mess we find ourselves in. Only he has pointed the finger at the correct culprits, the Federal Reserve System. Only he has demanded a full audit of the Fed. Only he has suggested a return to honest money. The other candidates work for and with the Fed, seeking to keep them in power, even though a partial audit of our central bank exposed some very questionable practices. Despite a huge majority of representatives in the House of Representatives demanding accountability, those in the Senate and especially the executive branch continue to protect the interests of the privately owned central bank.

Wars continue to plague our nation and our collective psyche. This is another case where those in power try to mollify the masses by manipulation of perception. While talk of withdrawal from Afghanistan becomes more prevalent, war with Iran looms large, along with it the specter of global thermal nuclear war. I don't think humanity can afford such a conflagration, let alone our nation. Only an overhaul of our foreign policies will correct this problem. Only a return to trade with all and alliance with none will return to us the actual security we deserve. This is Ron Paul's stance.

Even the war on drugs, the longest running American war, has proven a disaster. As our rights erode away due to it, as more and more of our children are jailed and more and more of our property lost, the other candidates insist that victory is just around the corner and the solution is to crack down harder, to become even more draconian. Some have even gone as far as to portray Ron Paul as pro drug for his stance against this waste. If that doesn't show how out of step with the general public these guys are, then I don't know what will. Being anti drug war does not equate to being pro drug, but being pro AMA does. It is time to start letting individuals make their own decisions.

These issues and others are important to Americans, very important. They want wars stopped. They want a better economy. They want bad laws repealed. So, if issues matter so much to the American public, why isn't Ron Paul winning these primaries by landslides? Why isn't he breaking records as Americans find a champion of the Constitution, a man who exemplifies real American values and what America is supposed to be all about in the first place? Could it be that not enough people know or understand? Or could it be that maybe he is and we just don't know about it? Or could it be that Americans really do want to build a socialist empire?

The final election myth I will talk about here is that the best man for the job gets it. Some people seem to think that simply because someone was elected into office they must be the best man for that office. They seem to think that somehow only the most honest and trustworthy human beings ever get elected into positions of power. There is no candidate more principled and honest than Ron Paul. There is no candidate who throughout the years has shown his mettle as much as Ron Paul has. He's stuck to his guns and earned his reputation of being Dr. "No" for his lone stances against bad legislation. He's earned his title of champion of the Constitution for consistently voting against unconstitutional legislation. If you've ever said to yourself that you couldn't be a successful politician because you're too honest, Ron Paul is the exception to that rule. He is the best man for the job of president of the United States, honest, genuine, principled, trustworthy, a true citizen statesman. It is for that reason the establishment fights against him.

I wrote about Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and was enthralled by it back then. This 2012 campaign is by far more interesting. Four years ago he took his message to the streets and was very well received. This year he is gathering more support and trying to make history. The r3VOLution is now. The time has come. The story is not being told correctly as we find that your primary vote really doesn't matter, only delegates matter, and it takes far more enthusiasm for a supporter of a candidate to become a delegate than it does to simply go out and cast a vote. The other candidates simply don't have the enthusiastic supporters that Ron Paul has. See you at the convention.

My archives can be found at my website szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to read more and support me by making a donation.

I am proud to announce the release of my book "The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade trilogy" as an ebook. Here is a list of my works by Matthew Wayne at different web retailers for your convenience. "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and Diesel. "The Ouijiers" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo and Diesel. Here are links to my book "The Blessings of Freedom, Creating Prosperity in the 21st Century" serialized version: Chapter 1. Chapter 2. I thank you for your support.

Talking Politics to Worshippers of the State (Part 2)

There are a couple of things one might want to accomplish when talking to worshippers of the state. I think that first and foremost one wants is to turn the brain of the worshipper back on. One wants to get the state practitioner to think. That isn't to say that worshippers of the state don't think. It is simply that they have decided not to think about certain issues. They have been taught certain paradigms and have accepted them as truth. They simply don't want to think more deeply about those issues as they go about their lives. The difficulty is getting through their programming to get them to reconsider the paradigms which they learned at a young age and continue to be propagated in the life they observe around them.

If you read the first part of this article, then you will understand that the toughest part of cutting through the propaganda and turning on the subject's brain can be to simply get them to listen. If the person you're interested in influencing has started huffing and puffing or has resorted to immature shouting, I hope you have dropped the subject, walked away, or otherwise avoided further agitation and refused to lower yourself to that level. We are not a nation of Bill O'Reilly's all pounding our chests and trying to be the biggest bully on the playground. In fact, in a nation where the scourge of bullying has been highlighted as of late, I'm surprised his program still gets enough viewers to exist.

The freedom philosophy has the moral high ground. That is likely one of its most attractive aspects. It is, in fact, the stance I like to take most often when discussing politics. Those whose minds are entrapped in state worship will often shift gears into the real tough questions when they want to be validated and ask what about the roads, or the courts, or the military. How would these things be handled without government? These are services that quite honestly I don't know how they'd be handled without government. I do know this, however, I shouldn't be forced to pay for such services through a monopoly that gives me no choice in the matter.

One of my favorite things to try to do is to point out the proverbial gun in the room. I like to point out that government is force, pure and simple, and that force and the threat of force are the only tools government has to get people to behave the way government wants them to behave. That's a fear based method. For instance, if you didn't have to pay income taxes, if you weren't afraid of going to jail, would you pay? There are others besides government who use the same methods to get people to behave as they want. Slave owners and extortionists come to mind.

Many people are not going to accept this argument at the outset. They're going to make the claim that government is different because they were elected by a majority or because they're working for the greater good. They will seriously balk at the concept that taxes are theft. After all, how else would one get money to fund the roads? This is the point in many conversations where I stop, unless I can see whoever I'm talking to is able to accept the concept of free market opportunity and the idea that someone would figure it out. The important thing isn't to convince someone right then and there and win them over to your point of view, the important thing is that they've heard you and the gears inside their head have started to turn.

The morality approach has worked for me on people who were both left leaning and right leaning. It seems morality is something that people from all points of the political spectrum hold as important. Only the power brokers or power broker wannabes or authoritarian control freaks seem to disregard morality. Only the elite seem to throw it to the side and not care about it. It is not always going to be an effective approach, however, and has also failed for me with people that I considered both liberal and conservative. It seems people have a great capacity to make excuses and equivocate when their deeply held beliefs are challenged.

Another aspect of politics is economics. Politics is about money. It is about where wealth should and should not be spent. It's about the super wealthy figuring out how to protect their wealth, gain more power, and steal more money from the lower classes. It's about determining who can conduct business without fear of government agents and who can't. People think it's about helping other people, providing services at a fair price to all, or providing security. Those things are only true to the extent that economics is involved. Political systems are constantly growing because they strive to create monopolies in such services and use the power granted them to knock competitors out of the market. The political system wants all the money and power for itself.

When engaging in political discourse about the economy, it helps to know whether the person you're talking to leans to the left or the right of the political spectrum. People on the left have a tendency to worry about the poor and underprivileged and so want to spend money in the social services sector while people on the right have a tendency to worry about security and so want to spend money on the military and law enforcement. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it is a point of reference to start from.

I remember one gentleman who seemed to be leaning to the Democrat side of the spectrum as he harbored an intense hatred for Republicans, yet he expressed an appreciation for the wars we are currently engaged in and felt they were necessary for our protection. He told me with great fervor that he thought I was dangerous because of my political pro peace views. I was stumped on several fronts when trying to convince him of the superiority of freedom over tyranny, and I do still hold hope that he may someday see the value of my point of view, but I have given up on talking to him about politics.

I try to touch on something I think the person I'm conversing with would agree with. I will, for instance, discuss my pro peace stance with a liberal. If he shares my views, as most do with the exception of the man I mentioned above, then I will talk about how we could shrink government by ending the current occupations we are involved in. I will express sympathy for the downtrodden and empathize with the need to provide charity to those who have run into bad times for some reason or another and point out that billions can be saved by reining in the military. Only after this is digested and accepted by the person I'm talking to will I tackle trying to convince him that the private sector can handle charity better than the government.

When talking to someone who is right leaning, I approach this in the opposite way. I can start with discussing how cutting social programs can help society, and from there move on to discussing how cutting military costs is also an important step in scaling down the federal government. I think it is important to find something you can agree on to form a sympathetic bond with the other person before expressing disagreement. To disagree first immediately puts the two of you at odds.

One of the most difficult things to get by is other people's idea of what freedom is. If we are to try to frame the debate as a freedom versus tyranny discussion rather than a discussion as to which big government tyranny is better, it is important to define freedom. Some people believe that freedom means equality, that we are not free until everyone has the same stuff and is economically on the same level as everyone else. In other words, freedom is freedom from want. They would use government to accomplish this, to redistribute wealth especially from those they feel did not honestly earn the wealth they have to those who have nothing or next to nothing. This is not freedom, it is mommy government.

Others feel freedom means security, that we are not free until we can all walk down the streets anywhere and not have to worry about getting mugged, or board an airplane without having to worry about it getting blown up, or walk into a famous building without having to worry about planes flying into it, etc. In other words, freedom to these people is freedom from fear. This is not freedom, it is daddy government.

In both the above examples, it can usually be agreed upon that government has failed in providing the freedoms wanted. Again, if you run into someone who believes the government has done a good job providing for such things, chances are you have run into a government zealot whose mind will likely never change no matter what. Once you get the feel for what the other person believes freedom to be, you can present your idea of what freedom is. The idea here is not to tell them they're wrong, for that could turn their minds off instantly as they go into defense mode, but to get them to listen to a different point of view. Many times in order to achieve this goal it is important for you to listen to them first.

Most people that I know will agree that freedom means the condition of being left alone so long as you are not harming another. I've also had quite a bit of success getting people to agree that freedom is the condition of being allowed to do as you please so long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. A third approach is to state that freedom amounts to being able to determine for oneself where to spend the money one earns. That is sometimes a little more complicated to explain. Then there is the definition of being free to determine one's own destiny, or the search for happiness, or even property, but those can be a little ethereal for some people. In any case, the important thing about those freedoms is that it empowers the individual and takes the ability to be free away from government. Indeed, these conditions become achievable only when government intrusion is removed.

The question of what it means to be free is going to differ for nearly every person. That's at least partially because it's such a nebulous concept. It should be more thoroughly discussed and explained to young children. Instead, in many public schools, the young of this country are taught that freedom means the ability to elect representatives and that government is created to take care of all problems. This kind of thinking helps only to prevent true freedom from reining and keeps big government growing bigger. The younger the child is when a belief system is instilled, the harder it will be to dislodge that belief system when one becomes an adult.

In many cases, it will take a while for the ideas of freedom to sink in. If one tries to give another too much information too fast, it might overwhelm that person and lead him to never look into these matters. If, however, you work with the other slowly, before you know it people may be coming up to you and asking your opinion during political discourse. When this happens, you know the ideas of freedom are starting to make sense to others. You know you have gained their respect. It's a good feeling to have when you're sitting at a bar watching a sporting event and two people diametrically opposed in their political views ask you for your opinion on some issue they're arguing about. Give someone some food for thought and some time to chew on it, and eventually even the most zealous of state worshippers can come around to the freedom perspective.

This is just a small bit of advice from one who is not the most persuasive when it comes to verbally explaining or expressing these ideas. I have been helped greatly by those who have explored these philosophies before me. For more and better ideas on how to present the freedom perspective to worshippers of the state, check out Mary Ruwart's work. For this purpose, I think her book "Short Answers to the Tough Questions" is particularly relavent.

My archives can be found at my website szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to read more and support me by making a donation.

I am proud to announce the release of my book "The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade trilogy" as an ebook. Here is a list of my works by Matthew Wayne at different web retailers for your convenience. "The Edge of Sanity" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and Diesel. "The Ouijiers" at smashwords, Barnes and Noble, Kobo and Diesel. Here are links to my book "The Blessings of Freedom, Creating Prosperity in the 21st Century" serialized version: Chapter 1. Chapter 2. I thank you for your support.