Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Conspiracy Theories, the Lure of Collectivism and the Cycle of Abuse

I read an interesting piece the other day about mass delusion and the economy. It got me to thinking about, of all things, conspiracy theories. It suddenly occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, the reason the powerful can get away with conspiracy, the reason they can cause so much harm and consternation is because they know how to create and manipulate mass delusion. Maybe the main mass of the population disregards conspiracy theories so off handedly simply because they don't want to believe they're true, not because facts or evidence point to said theories being false.

Whether or not you believe certain conspiracy theories, or perhaps more appropriately in many cases, which conspiracy theory you chose to believe, depends on who you put your faith in. Back in the early 1960s, for instance, the vast majority of people had faith in government, so much so that it could get away with just about anything. People trusted the government to get to the bottom of John F. Kennedy's assassination with the Warren Commission. Even though much of their report made little sense and even conflicted with much of the evidence, the general public couldn't believe that such a conspiracy could possibly exist in the halls of government. They believed that our federal government was superior and above reproach and no one involved in our federal government could possibly consider a presidential assassination even if it would benefit them. I would like to think we as a society have gotten past that little delusion.

Do you still put faith in our government? Do you really believe politicians are looking out for your best interests or do you think they're either corruptible, already corrupted or just plain despicable and only looking out for themselves and their friends? How about the media, do you still trust them? They've been used by a powerful corporate elite in the past to misinform the populous and obfuscate issues, what makes you believe they're any different today? They certainly know what side their bread is buttered on. If the rich and powerful corporate establishment is threatened, don't you think they'd do everything in their power to alleviate that threat, including using a supposedly unbiased and objective "independent" media to convolute issues and events that could harm their reputations? It's amazing to me how often these institutions can be caught lying and still be trusted.

If a conspiracy is simply two or more people or entities plotting to obtain a certain outcome, then modern economics in nothing but conspiracy. The mere fact that congress even considers making laws to regulate the economy is conspiracy. There are those at the top of the heap, those who have made so much money they'll never be able to count it, who are trying to figure out how they can use the money to control everything about the markets, including and especially politicians. They make no qualms about admitting that they don't want competition and are willing to do everything it takes to eliminate it. So, one might ask, what is control? Is it not the same as, or at least akin to, governing? Controlling the market means governing the market and determining how people will spend their money, or at least a portion of said money.

So it is that we are told what to do and how to think by the talking heads on television. So it is that we hold up certain media personalities as idols. So it is that we are indoctrinated in government run schools. So it is that they use our money to entrap us in an economic system that benefits those at the top and makes it nearly impossible for the little guy to even begin to compete. Bureaucrats and people associated with government are happy to lead us around by the nose and tell us how much we need solutions offered by government. These people will happily proffer collectivist, big government solutions for problems that have been caused by the practices of collectivist big government. These are the solutions that have proven to be failures in countries around the world, including Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR and others.

The solutions to economic and societal problems that have been offered of late are nothing short of collectivist ideals. I would like to think that most Americans would agree that the individualist ideas of the founders that created so much prosperity for so long are much better than the collectivist ideas that have brought nothing but poverty and tyranny to so much humanity in so many nations in the past. Yet we still manage to fall for the age old arguments that these measures are meant to help the poor, or the downtrodden, or the children, or take care of some other perceived social injustice. This is the allure of collectivist ideas, that the ends justify the means and that the good intentions of the few should be forced upon the many.

It seems to me that many people are drawn to big government solutions not because they are simple, straight forward solutions to problems, although they can be presented that way, but because they haven't been exposed to other solutions. Quite often they don't even realize that other solutions even exist. They certainly haven't learned about any alternatives in school, nor are they likely to have seen them in the corporate owned media. Indeed, many folk might not even care that much. They are happy so long as they have their bread and circuses, so long as they can live what they consider a decent life.

As the economy continues its downward spiral, however, it becomes more likely that more and more of the common folk will begin to sit up and take notice. As they lose work, they will no longer be able to live that decent life they have become accustomed to. They will no longer be able to easily open a business and try new things as may have been done in the past. They will wonder why their opportunities have dried up and their options are so few. They will begin to explore the reasons behind the collapse and may well soon discover a frightening possibility. They may discover that these men and women we call government who were supposedly protecting them all these years were simply milking them for a portion of their productivity. They may discover that government and their corporate cronies care nothing about them and have, in fact, been abusing them for decades.

This cycle of abuse has been occurring for a long, long time. First group A gets in charge and abuses group B, then group B takes the reins of power and abuses group A. This happens over and over again, and all the time government grows bigger and the political power elite consolidate their power and grasp more control until finally there is no difference between group A and group B, there is only those with power and those they rule. They have divided and conquered. They are laughing as they watch the common folk bickering amongst themselves over issues of little consequence and they go about their business of completing their centralization agenda.

We need to stop being so delusional when it comes to these people. We need to quit laying back and expecting that they're going to solve the problems. We need to stop believing that they even care about us. These are not trustworthy people. We cannot and should not depend on them. Indeed, it seems to me that they are striving not to improve things, but to make matters even worse. One cannot solve problems created by borrowing and spending by borrowing and spending. One does not fill a hole by digging it deeper.

The political class doesn't seem to get it. Either that, or they truly are striving for complete control and they think you're too delusional to see it. Either way, it has become obvious the common folk need to take matters into our own hands. We need to stop listening to the politicians and pundits who berate free market solutions and start creating our own solutions. We need a little conspiracy of our own. We need to stop simply obeying and go back to just simply doing. We need to build our own economies, use our own currencies, and start doing business with each other while excluding government entities who insist on intruding into our business and taking their cut.

There are several ways this is accomplished. Allowing for competition in currency is one such way. Using precious metals such as copper, silver or gold for transactions is another. There are already several established companies that will happily provide the market place with such currencies. The Liberty Dollar is one such company that so threatened the status quo that the feds decided to raid it. There are now other similar companies stepping up to compete for market share. It is time we showed the feds that we don't need their protection when they attempt to protect us from legitimate enterprises. It is time to show them that if they do not re-establish a commodity based currency for our country instead of the current debt based fiat currency, then we will. That is how we will regain our economic freedom. That is how we will get back on the road to prosperity.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Fort Hood Disobeys, Politics and Illegal Occupations

A group of activists calling themselves Fort Hood Disobeys recently tried to block the deployment of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment to Iraq from Fort Hood. The activists were labeled anti war protestors by another media outlet, which is okay by me. It's about time we got some action on the anti war protesting front. It's about time real people started to once again voice their concern in a more pertinent way than simply begging politicians, who obviously couldn't care less, to end these expensive and deadly occupations. One can only hope that this example of civil disobedience is followed up by more incidents and greater disobedience from those who were so boisterous when George Bush was in office but have remained so silent since Barack Obama became president.

Of course this action was not covered for the most part by the corporate mainstream media, at least not that I saw. I read about it on an Internet news source, which seems to be the only place where one can find real and significant news these days. You won't see this story on FOX or CNN or any of the corporate networks because, with very few exceptions, they no longer seem interested in covering the news. They are more interested in making the news. They are more interested in diverting attention away from what is important and toward fluff items of little significance. God forbid the populous should learn that there are still people out there who care enough about ending wars of aggression to actually do something about it.

I commend these individuals for their bravery in standing up to the US military. This action, in my mind, harkens back to an incident in 1989 where a young Chinese man stood in front of tanks in an effort to avoid bloodshed in Tiananmen Square. There, one man showed us that at least the spirit of liberty lives on. He showed us that the actions of a few, or even an individual, can ignite a fire in the hearts of millions, especially if the cause is just. Of course, his actions were broadcast and propagandized worldwide because it seemed appropriate at the time to do so. Things are a bit different in this situation. Big government and big corporations are profiting from this war and they wouldn't want the populous to believe their wars were anything but just.

Did I mention that most of those protesting were ex military? These are the people who are most against these wars. Those who think that war protestors are only peaceniks who don't understand the reasoning behind wars are deluding themselves. War protestors and pro peace activists understand all too well what war is about. It's not about keeping America safe. It's not about protecting the innocent. It's not about bringing democracy to the poor, uneducated masses of some third world nation. It's not even about revenge for some convoluted terrorist attack that took place nine years ago. It's about money. It's about power. It's about building an empire. It's about controlling people and natural resources. It's about sacrificing the little people for the benefit of the elite.

There are those detractors who question the wisdom of so few protesting in such a seemingly futile fashion. There are those who will claim that nothing was accomplished, that the deployment they tried to stop went on anyway. Yet it is the few that can have the greatest affect. It is the few speaking out that help the many understand an alternative viewpoint. This is especially true when the few have experienced something that the many haven't. Something was accomplished, even if the effects don't show up immediately. Those in charge now know that some people care. Those in charge now know there are those who are not simply going to roll over and obey. Those in charge now know there are some ex military personnel who are not going to merely keep silent and get on with their lives while others are sent to kill and oppress in a far off land for a faceless, uncaring elite. This is but a small pebble landing in a lake that leads to big ripples. The only thing that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

There are other detractors who will question the tactics of these civilly disobedient activists. They may believe that protesting through proper channels is the better way to bring about meaningful change. They may advocate voting in anti war candidates or writing to congressmen. While I don't necessarily disagree with those methods, in fact I encourage them, it seems to me that they haven't been very effective so far. Still, even a little effort is better than none.

Barack Obama, for instance, was catapulted into office at least in part because he made promises to stop the unethical occupation going on in Iraq. We haven't seen that happen. We still have troops stationed there and I've heard talk about keeping them there forever, just like we've done with Germany, Japan and South Korea. He was elected because he intimated he would change the way government goes about its business, that he would bring more transparency and even reverse some of the mistaken policies of the Bush administration. So far, he has kept none of his promises that I can think of. He is nothing but a typical politician, eloquent with his words, quick to promise the electorate what they want, but unable or unwilling to follow through with those promises.

This type of flip flopping, of promising one thing and doing another is an age old political maneuver. It seems to me that it's not necessarily the politicians themselves that are the problem, it's the system. As long as they think they can get away with it, they will continue making promises they can't or won't keep. As long as they aren't held accountable for their deviate actions, they will continue to act like the political animals they are.

As for writing your congressman, need I remind you of the bailouts of 2008? Those bailouts were passed despite ten of thousands of letters and emails against them from congressional constituents. Both Barack Obama and John McCain rushed back to the senate from their campaign trails to vote for those bailouts despite popular opposition to the bills. Who were they representing? Certainly not the common folk. This type of behavior continues as evidenced with the continuing bailouts and the unpopular health care bill that coerces individuals with threatening punishments if they don't buy the state mandated health care insurance. The demand to repeal such unconstitutional laws and roll back the federal government is being ignored. So long as we continue to obey and pay our taxes they will continue to ignore popular sentiment, intrude upon your personal life and business, and empower themselves to the point where your voice is silenced and only the powerful elite oligarchs and their interests matter.

We have been left with few other alternatives. Only civil disobedience seems to work to bring about positive change. Certainly the other methods remain viable, but only as a measure of how unpopular certain policies have become. There must be those willing to get out there and protest. There must be those willing to partake in civil disobedience and who refuse to go along with the program. That is how Gandhi helped win independence for India. That is how the civil rights movement in America in the 60s succeeded. That is a big reason why the Vietnam occupation was ended. I applaud those who took part in this important action and I hope to see in the near future even more support for their efforts.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Proposition 8 and Democracy

The gay marriage debate is playing out in California. There, the majority of people have spoken. They don't believe that gay people should be allowed to be married. They think that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. They think that the state should not be allowed to sanction any other kind of union. I think this is a great example of why our founding fathers had such disdain for democracy. This is a great example of how the democratic process can lead to tyranny or mob rule. This is a great example of the difference between a republic and a democracy, why our founders decided to make this nation a republic, and why even republics fail miserably when it comes to representing the masses.

Let me say for the record that I couldn't care less whether two males, two females, or groups of people either mixed or not want to marry. It's none of my business, just like who I want to marry or whether or not anyone even ever wants to marry me is none of anyone else's business. Better than that, it is not the state's business. What does the state care who I am living with? I don't need permission from the state to fall in love with someone, or to make vows to them in front of our families, friends and/or the god of our choice. But the state has managed to force itself into the most intimate aspects of our lives and most of us simply allow it to take control. They whimper and cry one way or another, either that they are "unable" to marry and obtain all the goodies the state grants those unions, or that their sensibilities have been offended. This is nothing more than a collectivist scheme, in my opinion. It is yet another brilliant way to pit one group against another.

The answer, of course, is to get the state completely out of the marriage business. Let the churches decide who they will marry. Let the marketplace determine how marriages will be conducted. Let individuals decide for themselves how they want to go about making vows of love and entering into life partnerships with others. There is no reason for a coercive institution to steal money from all and then exercise prejudice against one group in favor of another. There is no reason to get people all riled up because government is always going to be unfair to one group or another.

But that's not what we have in this nation of ours. We don't have free and independent people simply running their lives as they see fit. We have a bunch of serfs running around asking their master's permission to do the simplest of tasks. We have a bunch of "citizens" who have become so dependent on government mandates that they can't make any decisions for themselves without first checking to see if they would be violating some code or statute. If I was a gay man in love with another man, I certainly wouldn't care what the state had to say about it. If I wanted to marry, I'd draw up a contract, find someone or some church who could do the ceremony, and then move on with my life. What should I care who else would recognize the marriage? As long as it was recognized between myself and my partner, that should be all that matters.

Yet people seem to want the majority to go along with them. They seem to want everyone to think and act as they do. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we are all in the minority at some time or another. We all have ideas and thoughts and little quirks that others would think are strange or abnormal. There is a reason we should realize that if we want to live free, we need to let others live free. When you give someone the power to criminalize the activities of others that cause no harm to anyone else, eventually they are going to criminalize a victimless activity that you want to engage in. That's why the rights of the smallest minority, the individual, need to be honored.

There is a morality issue here. Some may think I'm talking about the act of having sexual relations with a member of the same sex. Some have claimed that homosexuality is immoral because it's an affront to God. They claim that on the authority of some old tome written thousands of years ago by fallible men. That is not what I'm talking about. If sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex is an affront to God, then let God take care of it. He is, after all, the supreme, all powerful being. He has no need for your interdiction. He and those involved with the activity can sort things out at the appropriate time. If you want to intercede in the lives of those people and force them to stop having sex with each other and to act like a "normal" heterosexual, then likely it is because their activities are an affront to you personally and have nothing to do with God. I won't even go into the psychological implications of such desires.

In the end, whatever decision is made, Whether the courts or the people prevail, there are going to be people who feel they are losers. In a society where the state is left out of marriage, there would be no goodies, no privileges, for those who were married. There would simply be the respect for individual rights. No one would be looking into the personal lives of others where it didn't affect them personally. No one would care what others did in their personal lives as long as no harm was being done to others. In a world where the state is not involved in marriage, everyone wins. The contracts would be drawn up between two (or more) people and those people would be expected to honor their contract with each other. It would be the business of those people, and no one else. This is what a free society would teach us all. This is not the lesson we have learned from the failed experiment in democracy known as proposition 8.

My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Republicans Should Embrace an Anti War Philosophy

I heard a great idea the other day. It was proffered by Stefan Molyneux. We should hold a referendum and find out who favors wars of aggression and foreign occupation and who doesn't. Those in favor of such things should have to pay for them. Those against said wars should receive a tax refund for the portion of their taxes that would have gone to fund such foreign adventurism. I have the feeling that if this were the case those funding said projects would quickly discover just how expensive wars are and how much it costs to maintain an empire. I think they would quickly learn that such adventurism is simply not worth the price.

I had a similar idea not that long ago, one that might even be a little more practical. I think that companies profiting from war should foot the bill. Companies such a munitions manufacturers, makers of military hardware and equipment, military software companies, oil companies that received mineral rights in occupied lands, etc. should have to pay the costs of securing their interests where war and foreign occupation is concerned. It would be interesting to see how long it would take before they figured out that war was not worth the price if this was the case. It would be interesting to see how long it would take before war would become nothing but a bad memory under such conditions.

I think we can all remember back to 2006. It was only four years ago. That wasn't that long ago. Can you remember the election of that year? The Republicans were voted out of office. They lost the majority in the House of Representatives. Why? Because of the war they let George Bush bully them into. Because they defended the lies and corruption that took us to war. Because they chose to ignore popular sentiment and march forward with unpopular plans. Because of this, they relinquished their congressional power to the Democrats.

Remember 2008? That was only a couple of years ago. There was a presidential election. The big issues were the economy and foreign policy. This guy Barry Soetoro decided to run for the presidency of the United States of America under the pseudonym Barack Obama. He won. He won because he promised "change" and "hope." People believed he would change foreign policy. People hoped he would end wars of aggression. People were fooled.

Oh, some may point to the recently touted "last of the combat troops" leaving Iraq as evidence contrary to the above statement, but I would remind them that there are 50,000 troops still occupying that country. Even if they are "non combat" troops, they are still targets to any insurgency in that nation and they still may have to engage in combat that could possibly kill innocent civilians. Our men will not be out of harm's way until they abandon their policy of foreign occupation and bring home every soldier.

I would also point to the occupation of Afghanistan and the insurgency that rages on there. Our combat troops are still fighting in that country. Innocents are still dying as a result of our occupation. Public opinion is quickly turning against our military operations there as the horrors of such an occupation come to light. Mr. Obama has done nothing to bring home our boys from that theater of operations and has, in fact, increased the number of troops there. The immorality of that war is becoming more evident with each passing day.

Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party leadership have proven themselves to be cheats and lairs of the highest order. They have shown they care nothing for the popular sentiment that catapulted them into power. In essence, they have made the same mistakes that the Republicans made in the earlier elections mentioned above. The Republicans thought they could get away with breaking their promises to provide smaller, less intrusive government. They couldn't and were voted out of office. Now the Democrats have broken their promises to end foreign occupations and change foreign policy. It's looking like the public will vote them out of office in November.

But this cycle of broken promises needs to end. The Republicans still claim to be fiscal conservatives. They need to start proving that claim. It can start with foreign policy. The occupations are costing the government hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. The taxpayer can hardly afford to foot that bill. These occupations mostly benefit only a few politically well connected people. The propaganda spewed forth by the corporate media wants you to believe otherwise, but they haven't swayed my opinion. We cannot solve the abuses in the world by becoming abusive with our military. We shouldn't try. That's why some of the most respected of our nation's founders felt we should keep out of foreign entanglements. Trade with all, entangling alliances with none is, in my humble opinion, one of the most intelligent foreign policies our nation could adopt.

The Republicans could go a long way toward turning this nation around. They could start to set us back on the path to a freer, more prosperous nation. The problem is that they have a credibility problem. They are just as bad as the Democrats when it comes to big government. They are just as much in love with their power as their brethren. They want to grow government just as much as the Democrats do. They use the same excuses as their fellow politicians to maintain their stranglehold on power and keep the common folk from prospering.

It is not enough to make promises of smaller, less intrusive government. This time around they must keep those promises. They must start working toward easing the control the federal government has over the lives of ordinary, everyday folk. The easiest way to do this is to become the champions of peace. They should embrace an anti war philosophy and start implementing it. They can just stop occupying foreign lands and bring our troops home. They can shut down the hundreds of bases we have all over the world and save billions upon billions a year. We have to admit that we can no longer afford to maintain an empire, and we should start shutting it down and leave the people of foreign lands alone. We should stay out of the internal affairs of other nations.

The Republicans may take control of congress in November, but nothing will change. There will still be war. There will still be big government programs and laws in place that intrude upon the businesses and privacy of ordinary citizens. People are quickly figuring out that the two party system has failed them miserably. If Republicans are voted into office and they continue to ignore the will of the people, there may be hell to pay. It may not show during this election cycle, but it certainly will show sooner or later. The patience of the masses is growing thin. Their tolerance will not last much longer. If the Republicans don't embrace an anti war, pro peace, pro freedom philosophy to become the party of the future, then someone else will and they will trounce the failed politicians who remain stuck in the past.

My archives are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Perverting the English Language and the Slide into Tyranny

I might not know much about anything, but I do know a little about the English language. I was born in the Midwest of the United States where it is the spoken language of the vast majority. I also actually studied it in college and, yes, we did actually delve into its history and closely examine how to use it in a grammatically correct way back when I went to the University of Illinois.

One thing I've learned about language is that the same word can mean different things to different people. A simple example of this is to think about something like the word dog. We all know what a dog is, right? Well, the truth is that the word dog places a different image in the mind of someone who owns a German shepherd than it would in someone who owns a Chihuahua. But something physical and solid is easy to work out. One simply goes into more detail or uses more descriptive or specific words. Things can get a little more difficult when discussing ideas and concepts that don't exist in the physical world but are purely in the realm of the mind.

Such concepts would include things like freedom and duty, tyranny and justice, liberty and slavery, etc. Just about everybody has a different understanding of what these things mean, even though many will have very similar ideas. Those who control the educational system can greatly influence how the masses view such concepts. Those who own the media can also shape and even change over time how these concepts are viewed. Words are quite mutable. As they change over time, the concepts they convey also change. The word gay is likely one of the best recent examples of this phenomenon. A few decades ago, it simply meant to be happy. I think we all know what the word implies in today's vernacular.

Many of our most cherished concepts have been slowly changed and perverted in this way. For instance, when the United States was created, a war was fought due to taxes that amounted to little over one percent of a man's income. To them, this was theft. To at least some of them any taxation was theft, but many of them felt they were being taxed without proper representation. They felt they weren't getting the services they deserved from government. To them, this was tyranny. They used this feeling of injustice to foment a revolution against the British royalty and their governing system and then used the victory to set up a more just and fair system. It wasn't a perfect system, but it was a step in the right direction. What percentage of income do you pay in theft, I mean taxes, today? Where is the outrage? Would the founders have allowed such abuse?

In a valiant effort to try to corral federal government and to try to prevent it from becoming the tyranny the founders had just cast out, they wrote the bill of rights which spelled out the natural rights individuals enjoyed through the auspices of their humanity. Government was not to violate said rights. Such was the law of the land. It was written in plain English. Unfortunately, we began the slide backward fairly early in the history of our republic. An unscrupulous political elite class has managed to take the reigns of power and an apathetic populous has let them get away with breaking their own laws for far too long.

It began slowly, by twisting the meaning of public welfare and regulating trade. The supreme court became a final arbiter of the meaning of the English language, a huge mistake and a terrible weak link. They refused to overturn obviously unconstitutional laws on numerous occasions and helped transfer far too much power to the congressional and executive branches of the United States federal government. Not enough people were paying attention, or cared, or demanded reversals, or took action. They simply accepted the rulings and allowed the government to usurp power. They allowed the language to be redefined.

The justice system is by far the worst violator of English degradation. They have become so detached from the rest of society that they have more or less developed their own language. I call it legalese. It is a language based on English, so it sounds familiar, but it is really quite different. Because of this, when a lawyer speaks, one might think he knows what the lawyer is saying, but one would be well advised to be careful. This is a language cunningly subtle in its deceptions. So much so that it even has its own dictionary. Black's Law Dictionary has been the legalese standard since 1891.

The law was meant to be understandable to all. The old maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has been made false. The law that is universally understood is natural, moral law. It is quite simple, do not initiate force against others, do no harm to another except if defensive, do not steal, do not destroy another's property, and do not commit fraud are the simplest forms of such law. There is no reason to be ignorant of these laws, for they are self evident and intuitive. Yet these are the kind of laws that government bureaucrats and the power elite are constantly breaking. They want to hold you accountable when you are not aware of manmade laws, which occupy tome upon tome making it nearly impossible to know or understand all of them, while they want to remain unaccountable when they violate the simplest forms of natural law.

So the "justice" system has hijacked the English language. It has made people afraid in many ways. People fear what they don't understand. Honest people should not be afraid of justice. Honest, hard working people should not have to worry about being thrown in a cold jail cell when they have not harmed anyone, stolen from anyone, or committed fraud against anyone. They should not have to worry about being thrown in jail for wanting to exercise their rights. They should not have to worry about being charged with a crime for wanting to spend the money they've earned in the way they want. They should not have to worry about being "busted" for engaging in commerce of any kind, or for deciding what chemicals they want to put in their own bodies, or what kind of foods they want to eat, or what ideas they want to express, etc.

Keeping the populous confused and afraid only proves that the power elite are control freaks. It only shows how much they fear competition. It only shows how much they worry that they will not be able to remain on top of the heap if they allow fair and equal opportunity for the common folk. It was John D. Rockefeller who said "Competition is a sin, therefore it must be destroyed." I take exception to that. I believe competition keeps men honest. A monopoly is a sin. Modern monopolies are only possible because of government. That is the opposite of how responsible, caring government should act. If anything, government should help encourage competition in the marketplace, they should not put up roadblocks to small businesses that can't afford their regulations and licensing fees. Unfortunately, government is corruptible and the power elite have taken control and are using it to increase their own worth.

These control freaks have attacked the ideas of liberty and freedom by changing and manipulating the language used to describe these ideas. They have blamed the free market for the current financial crises when there hasn't been a truly free market in the world since way back when, maybe never. They blame capitalism for many of society's ills when true capitalism hasn't existed for at least a century. What we've had in this nation that the power elite has called capitalism is more closely akin to fascism. What we've had is corporatism, where the corporations are in bed with the government in an effort to hold down the small businessman. A truly free market would be regulated by fierce competition where business owners would be held accountable for their mistakes by facing bankruptcy and ruin if they don't deliver. In a true capitalist system investors would be held accountable by risking their own money for business ventures and the government would not provide a taxpayer safety net for them.

It has been the corporate system that has failed us, not the free market. It has been the government/corporate model that has led us to where we are today, not capitalism. It has been the collectivist models that are holding us down, not the individualist philosophies of our forefathers. The very powerful are afraid of competition because they know how innovative humans can be, and so they want to squash the human spirit, deny opportunity, limit human potential and stagnate economies all so they can be certain to remain relevant, influential and on top of the heap. Obfuscating the language has helped them create an environment which makes it easier for them to accomplish their goals.

Please help support my efforts by visiting szandorblestman.com where you will find my archived articles and a link to my ebook "The Ouijiers" written under the pen name Matthew Wayne.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Wikileaks, Exposing the Ugly Reality of Modern Warfare

I watched a show called "Freedom Watch" with Judge Andrew Napolitano not long ago. He was discussing the recent release of documents by an organization known as Wikileaks. I'm sure most of you know the story, but for those who may not, Wikileaks was given over 90,000 documents detailing questionable activities undertaken by American forces while conducting the occupation of Afghanistan. It has exposed war crimes and shows the world just how callous the military is when it come to human life and how cruel the occupation has become. Our military, filled with well intentioned men and women, has been turned into a mechanism that systematically destroys innocent lives in attempts to alleviate perceived threats that aren't even necessarily real.

Judge Napolitano had a man on his show by the name Wayne Simmons. Mr. Simmons is an ex CIA agent. The judge had others on his show that spoke in favor of Wikileaks, but I'd like to address some of the things Mr. Simmons said.

Mr. Simmons was very much against what Wikileaks did. He went so far as to call them a terrorist organization. Now, I don't know what definition he uses for terrorism, but I obviously use a different definition. So did Judge Napolitano, he used a legal definiation, and he as much as said so on the show. To me, a terrorist organization would be a group that tries to terrify a civilian population in order to affect political change in a designated area. Such a group would be prone to partake in violent acts in order to intensify the terror. It seems to me that the militaries of all nations would be perfect examples of such organizations.

Mr. Simmons suggested that the director of Wikileaks be labeled a traitor, even though Mr. Julian Assange, the director of Wikileaks who also appeared on the show, is not a citizen of the United States of America. He is an Australian. That didn't seem to matter to Mr. Simmons. I guess he believes that anyone in the world should be subject to the laws of the United States. As if it wasn't bad enough that the citizens of these United States have to endure unconstitutional laws. Judging from the tone of Mr. Simmons' voice as he spoke, I would guess that he wants Mr. Assange dead. I wouldn't put it past him to shoot the assassin's bullet himself.

Mr. Simmons may have good intentions. He may be truly trying to protect the well being of the people of the United States. He may actually believe that what he is advocating is vital to national security. He may believe that he is fighting for the principles which are held dear in the hearts of many Americans. I somehow doubt it. Mr. Simmons seems far too clever not to understand that what he is advocating does not protect the people of the United States of America, it protects the federal government of the United States of America and the bureaucrats conducting operations in foreign lands. He seems intelligent enough to realize that the federal government at the top levels is populated by collectivists. He should know that there is a globalist agenda at work here. He should realize, as Major General Smedley Butler did back in the early part of last century, that when he was in the CIA he was working for a group of multi-national corporations and that they are the ones benefiting from these undeclared wars and occupations. Of course, if he does know such things, it would make sense that he doesn't want the truth well known as he hides behind nationalism to help realize the agenda of global collectivism.

Of course, I could be wrong. It could be that he truly is well intentioned. He truly could be so naive to believe he's protecting the people of the United States. If that's the case, I believe he is extremely misguided and maybe also a bit misinformed.

He started by stating something about the founding fathers being worried about treason and putting protections against such treason in the federal constitution that they wrote. He seems to conveniently forget that Thomas Jefferson once advocated a revolution every twenty years or so to make sure that the people stay involved in the maintenance of their freedom. He also has taken such words out of context with the times in which they were written. Our founding fathers were concerned with the British taking back their rule. They were concerned with foreign powers retaking the mantle of government in the new world. As far as domestic affairs went, they were supposed to leave it up to state governments to regulate their people. In the early years, when they passed laws such as the "Alien and Sedition Acts," the laws backfired as the people recognized that these laws protected only those with power and violated the natural rights of individuals, rights that the federal government was supposed to protect. In those days, such things mattered and those who helped pass such laws were quickly voted out of office and lost the power they'd had.

He went on to say that people die in wars. Yes they do. All kinds of people. Innocent and guilty people. Men, women and children. Old and young. Combatants and non combatants. This is the best reason I can think of to avoid them unless absolutely necessary because some foreign power is actually invading your lands. Then, you know the people dying are only those who have come over to usurp your power and wealth.

Another basic error Mr. Simmons made, in my humble opinion, was to call these actions war. They are not war. War is, in my opinion, the deployment of the militaries of two opposing factions in order to gain control and power over the peoples of a given land mass. The United States military is not being opposed by any national military organizations. Our forces have crushed any such organizations in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have, in effect, won any war that might have been fought there. We are now occupiers. The indigenous peoples are fighting to protect their homes, farms and their way of life. We are trying to force our way of life upon them, even if it kills them.

When asked what he thought about a Supreme Court decision to uphold the right of the press to print documents in the Pentagon Papers case of the early 1970s he called it a misguided decision. He obviously thinks freedom of the press and freedom of speech are misguided concepts. He obviously wishes to keep the American citizenry in the dark about how our military conducts the "wars" we pay for. He obviously believes in censorship and not a free press. Such thought processes, if adopted unilaterally, would quickly result in frightening authoritarian tyranny beyond anything yet imagined. If he believes such power would not be abused then he truly is more naive than any ex CIA operative should be.

Mr. Simmons doesn't believe the American public should be aware of how these actions are being conducted except through our "representatives." I don't know about you, but I don't feel I've been represented in ages. In fact, I don't believe I've ever been represented in Washington, DC. How can I be when only one of two major parties ever hold any power and both parties are fundamentally flawed? How can I be when both parties want to restrict my freedoms in one way or anther? I don't believe anyone should have to pay for wars and occupations which they find immoral. I don't believe we should be forced to pay taxes by a coercive centralized government which doesn't hesitate to throw tax protestors in jail and will kill them if they resist. I certainly don't think we should be forced to pay taxes without proper representation in the halls of government and that representation is not forthcoming.

Wayne Simmons seems to believe that he and people like him who are in power can protect the nation better than anyone else through secretive means. He accuses others of trying to be all knowing and deciding what to release. But he and his ilk are actually the ones who do that. He believes only the elite few should know the facts, and they should decide how to deliver those facts to the public. That is how censorship starts. That is how propaganda is able to gain a foothold in the public consciousness. When the facts are available to everyone, that is when each and every one of us can decide for himself what the truth is. That is when we'll be able to determine what is truth and what is propaganda.

Wikileaks did us all a service, in my opinion, when they published the papers they just published. They did what the mainstream press should have been doing all along. They should not be hiding these facts from the American people. They should not be censoring pictures of the death and destruction that is going on in our name. They should not be hiding the death counts and hiding the cruel realities of war from the American populous. They should not be hiding the real damage caused by the weapons used and pictures of innocents who suffer as a result. They do so because they think such exposure would create an outcry from the American people, and they are likely right. They do so because they want to maintain support for unpopular military actions.

Censorship is anathema to the principles upon which our nation was built, particularly government censorship. It prevents the populous from being informed. It keeps the ugly truth from the common folk so they can't denounce it. The people who believe as Wayne Simmons does, that it is okay to keep such information hidden, are the real dangers to our way of life. They are the ones who stand against the principles our nation was founded upon. They are the ones who are misguided, even if they have good intentions. Our founding fathers realized the importance of freedom, but that lesson has not weathered well over the ages. The political storms of the past have eroded these ideas at their base. It is up to us to rebuild these ideas of liberty and demand they be honored by those in power. It is up to us to praise those who deliver the truth and condemn those who would hide it from us.

The world is changing. People seem to be finding their own worth again. They are longing for knowledge and truth. Certainly, those in power will try to hide that truth if they believe it will hurt their causes or their agendas. It seems that throughout history whenever there was a force so powerful that it threatened mankind, a new way of disseminating the truth emerged. Let us all resist any attempt to censor the Internet as the power elite step up their efforts to hide the truth. Let us applaud and support Wikileaks and any organization dedicated to exposing the truth for all to see.

Please remember to visit my website, szandorblestman.com. There, you can find a link to help support my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" which you can purchase. It is a horror fiction novel written under the pen name Matthew Wayne.