Saturday, February 26, 2011

From Infowar to Propaganda War to Hot War

Someone once said that the first casualty of war is truth. I think that's an astute observation. There are many reasons why this is true, and many excuses. Of course the most prevalent excuse is going to be that of national security. We can't reveal anything to the enemy. We can't let them have an advantage over us. We can't endanger our troops. Of course, during a hot war there is a certain legitimacy to some of those claims, but that excuse quickly becomes suspect when it gets abused. That excuse becomes abused when, among other things, it is used to prevent the populous from questioning the decisions of their government and their reasons for going to war in the first place.

It is no secret that government has been waging an information war against the common folk for a long time now. The mainstream corporate media has been on their side and helping to cover up their dirty little secrets for quite a while now. The founding fathers made it a crime for the government to create laws violating the freedom of the press in an effort to prevent such a situation, but it obviously didn't work. The press was bought up and consolidated by the corporate establishment long ago and has since been used to help mold the masses to accept their way of thinking, a socialistic viewpoint. In this way they have convinced a majority of people to act in ways contrary to their own best interests but beneficial to the elite few.

For decades, the corporate establishment was winning this information war. Their point of view dominated the mass media. People took for granted that what they saw on corporate television news programs and what they read in corporate owned newspapers was true and objective reporting. I remember being taught in the indoctrination center known as school that foreign, communist nations filled their media with propaganda and lies while our "free" press guaranteed that our society was only exposed to objective truth. No one seemed to question that every news source gave more or less the same accounting of newsworthy events. We were all being groomed to be good little American worker bees who didn't question their government and knew we were being brought up in the best country in the whole world.

Then the Internet came along. I wonder if those who invented this marvel of the modern age truly understood its potential for disseminating information. Perhaps more appropriately, I wonder if they realized the human potential for taking to the Internet to discover alternative points of view to the news of the day. I wonder if they envisioned youtube and facebook when they were first bouncing around emails to each other. I wonder if the powers that be understood how quickly they could lose control of the spin because of cheap video cameras and people's willingness to go online and investigate for themselves all sides to a given story. I'm almost certain they didn't. The establishment seems to have become very frightened of the Internet.

With the hearts and minds of too many individuals in danger of slipping through the fingers of the corporate elite like grains of sand, they may very well have decided that it is well past time to rein in the feral Internet and attempt to tame it to do their bidding. But they have a problem. How do you put the genie back in the bottle? Now that people have gotten a taste of real investigative journalism, how do you suppress the appetite to discover the truth about the establishment elite and their crimes? More than that, how do you get the public to trust you again once they have discovered you've been lying for decades if not centuries?

One way would be to ignore those who are aware of your past transgressions and try to convince as many of the others as possible that the Internet, the instrument for delivering truth and alternative points of view, is dangerous. It tells people how to build bombs. It is a cesspool of child pornography. It is a terrorist recruitment tool. It is overflowing with extremists of all stripes whose ideas are warping the minds of our young people. You'll want to get as many of the uninitiated as possible to back you up and demand Internet regulation.

Another way would be to point out that the Internet is more than just a great source of information, it has become an integral part of modern communications and a great generator of commerce, then claim that the Internet itself is endangered from a malicious outside source. The idea is to claim that government should be able to quickly disable the Internet should it come under attack. It is beyond me how someone thinks that shutting down the Internet would protect it and prevent it from, well, from being shut down. This follows along the same line of going to war to keep the peace. It is a concept as Orwellian as war is peace, slavery is freedom, or ignorance is strength.

Taking control and regulating the Internet will not cause people to once again trust the government, but it will make the population dependent upon government monitored sources for their information. Exposure to a lie often enough will cause many to believe it, perhaps even some who understand how propaganda works. The Internet is not in danger as long as it remains decentralized. There is nothing that endangers it more than the government and a "kill switch" they control. The Internet presents a threat to no one other than the establishment who wish to kill the ideas that are taking root right now in the hearts and minds of many and spreading through the population. There is nothing the corporate elite fears more than the competition the Internet can provide.

So it is that governments under siege in the middle east strive to shut down the Internet in their nations. President Obama has asked for the same power, just in case the Internet comes under attack from supposed armies of hackers outside this nation. What they really want is to be able to control the information available to the populous. What they really want is to be able to cut off communications to the common folk should they decide to rise up against their policies and demand accountability. What they may ultimately want is to establish a new Internet, the web 2.0 if you will, where only government approved bloggers will be able to publish their commentary and commerce can only be conducted with the blessings of the established corporate elite and their government cronies.

Of course, should something like this happen, it will all go down in the name of national security. What could be a better excuse for invoking the national security excuse than a hot war? What could be a better excuse for going to war than to help a hapless population trying to achieve freedom from a brutal dictator in some foreign nation? Well, I suppose trying to find weapons of mass destruction to avert a chemical, biological or nuclear apocalypse might be a better excuse for some, but that one may have been worn a little thin with the Iraq quagmire. Perhaps war might be an easier sell if people are presented with the specter of innocents being gunned down by heavily armed soldiers in some far off land. Of course, a larger conflagration could help create the excuse that an open Internet is too easily attacked by the "enemy" and needs to be closed off and regulated for the sake of freedom.

There is no need for an Internet kill switch, nor for any government monitoring of it. Any attack that could be launched against it could be better handled by the capable and diverse community of private servers that we have now, in my humble opinion, than it could be by a centralized government hub. The benefits gained by its openness far outweigh any detriments posed by "threatening" or "dangerous" activity operating on it. Even in time of war we should have at least the opportunity to acquire information alternative to the establishment point of view. Free men should be able to look at as many different points of view as possible and decide for themselves which is closest to truth and reality and which is propaganda.

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

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Two Golden Rules, One Epic Struggle

There are two versions of the golden rule that I know of. The first, and perhaps the most well known, is you should treat others as you would have them treat you, or some such thing. This philosophy has been paraphrased often and adapted in some form by all the major religions that I know of. It basically means, to paraphrase, so to speak, be nice to each other. The other golden rule is not as well known, or so I believe, though it is widely disseminated. It says, he who has the gold makes the rules.

These two rules both ring true, though when you think about it they are nearly the opposite of each other. The first golden rule, the one about being nice, is really just a suggestion that has a tendency to work out. If you're nice to someone, they're more than likely going to be nice to you. Of course it doesn't always work that way, nothing's perfect, but I think it works that way a high percentage of the time and when one acts like an ass toward others, others have a tendency to avoid them. The second golden rule, the one about the gold, basically says that if you have money you can be as much of an ass to people as you want. While many people will avoid someone being an ass, if that someone is wealthy enough people will tolerate the abuse in the hopes that they will receive some of that wealth in exchange.

The freedom philosophy has a tendency to follow the first golden rule. One of the first things one must realize in order practice a philosophy of true freedom is that if you want freedom you must allow others to be free. To put it another way, you must honor your neighbor's choices. That sounds very similar to treat others as you would want to be treated. You would want to be left alone to pursue your happiness, you would want others to honor the choices you make in your life, so why would you want to horn in on your neighbor's life unless he has invited you to?

Some people get a little confused when first exposed to the freedom philosophy. The first thing they may ask is "what if?" or "what about this?" or "what about that?" They will then go on to explain a situation where they feel one has the "right" to intrude upon another's life. Let's make this clear. The freedom philosophy, at least to my understanding of it, does not allow people to simply do as they please as some seem to think. If one harms another, or damages another's property, or steals from another, or defrauds another, then they will be expected to make restitution for the wrong they've done. They will be held accountable. How that would happen is up for debate and there are many possibilities. A freedom oriented society, as I understand it, is not a utopian society. On the contrary, it admits that human society is imperfect and creating a Utopia is next to impossible. The big government schemes that follow the "he who has the gold makes the rules" philosophy, on the other hand, try to sell a utopian dream to the masses to propel themselves into power. They will be happy to answer the above "what if?" questions to the inquisitor's satisfaction in the hopes of capturing another mind.

Another aspect of the "do unto others" golden rule is individualism. This is where the concept of natural rights came from, the concept that rights are inherent to individuals due to their humanity. Rights are not given by governments. In fact, governments can only choose whether or not they will honor or violate those rights. This ties into the philosophy that one owns one's self. One is not owned by the state or by any other entity simply because of his place of birth. Because one owns one's self, one also owns the product of his labor. That product is the wealth he has created in the world. It is his wealth and belongs to no one else. You don't want your wealth taken from you, why should you want someone else's wealth taken from them. He is the sole arbiter of what will be done with the product of his labor. Any effort to obtain his wealth or any portion thereof is a form of wealth redistribution and a collectivist scheme.

Collectivist schemes follow the he who has the gold makes the rules philosophy. They have a tendency to create societies where money is funneled to a small ruling oligarchy. They will do what they can to acquire as much of the common folks money as they can. That's why communist revolutions have been financed by central banks. Socialist schemes are centralized and those who make the plans are going to give themselves and their friends the bulk of the real wealth. Those at the bottom doing the hard work will only get the crumbs, even though they are doing most of the production, and there's not much they can do about it. The central planners have the gold, they are making the rules, and they don't care about being nice to you since they believe you're going to be nice to them as long as they hold the purse strings.

At the risk of sounding a bit conspiratorial, I would say that the struggle to see which of these golden rules will dominate mankind's reality has been going on for millennia. Most people are happy to follow the first golden rule. They find joy in each other's company. They work hard, are honest, mind their own business, take care of their families and are satisfied doing the best they can. Some are wealthier than others, but as long as opportunity is there and they have control over the course their lives can take, they can live comfortably and be satisfied with their lot in life. Then there are the super wealthy, the elite who control the central banks and the multi national corporations. Many of these folks are descendants of power elite bloodlines that go back into antiquity. They are not satisfied with their lot in life even though they enjoy luxuries most of us can't even begin to imagine. It seems to me that they won't be satisfied with anything less than total domination and they couldn't care less how much human suffering is caused by their attempts to achieve their goal.

This is a spiritual struggle. The first golden rule has its roots in spirituality while the second has its roots in the material world. I don't think there's anything inherently evil about money, it's just a tool, a token to be used for trade and barter. Money can be used for good or for evil. When money is used to build a more voluntary society where interactions between people take place on a voluntary basis instead of through force and coercion, that's a good thing. When the money is used to apply government force on people to guide their lives in directions they don't want to take, that is not good. When the money is used to pay for politicians so that the agenda of the extremely wealthy can be carried out, that is not good. Yet the common folk must endeavor to follow the first golden rule with one another and seek peaceful resolution against those practicing the second golden rule.

Our founding fathers had an answer to the "he who has the gold" rule. Money in our nation was supposed to be only gold and silver. Neither the states nor the federal government was supposed to be able to issue paper money. They got around this little law by giving monopoly rights to a privately owned organization called the Federal Reserve to issue paper money printed from thin air and based on debt. Our federal government then borrows that money and contracts to pay it back with interest. Had this not happened, the common folk would have had the gold and they would now have much more say in making the rules. As it now stands, the Federal Reserve owns all the money, much of the real wealth and most of the gold and silver. They have acquired that wealth fraudulently, in my opinion, and by making promises they could not keep.

The world seems to be moving toward a dark place. There may come a time when we will have to help each other. Those who have the gold and make the rules are going to try to put the blame for what's happening on someone else. We would do well to remember the first golden rule and recognize when some group or another has no real power and is being scapegoated. We would do well to focus on those who own the central banks, remember that they are to blame for our financial woes, make certain they don't obtain even more power, and take our monetary system back by demanding use of constitutional money instead of fiat, fractional reserve notes.

It might also be prudent to remember that the first golden rule has its limits. It's good to treat people nicely, but if they don't treat you nicely in return it's okay to avoid them. If you can't avoid them, however, and they keep ignoring the first golden rule, then it becomes a test on how much one can take. Humans can only stand so much before something snaps inside them. Events taking place in the world today show the consequences that occur when people are fed up and snap. The common folk across the globe want to be free. They want more control in their personal lives. They want opportunity. They want to be treated with dignity. When their will continues to be ignored, anything is possible and nobody should be surprised no matter the methods used in uprisings.

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

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Lies, War, the Patriot Act, and Tea Party Infiltration

I don't quite understand why so many prominent "conservatives" keep promoting war and a larger security/police state. I mean, I think I have an idea as to at least some of the reasons, but with public opposition growing to such policies I wonder if maybe (hopefully) they're hurting their credibility and relevance by continually spouting such hateful rhetoric. I understand that these people have to serve their paymasters and that those paymasters are at the very least associated with the corporate establishment if not an actual part of the elite cadre running the world, but there comes a time when one can no longer ignore the rising waters and you either have to evacuate or drown.

Most people don't like war, period. It's a nasty business. Innocent people are killed. The human suffering is beyond tragic. But people don't like to have their nations occupied by foreigners either. This is especially true if they see the occupiers as brutal. Most people don't like to be kicked around and bullied by a bunch of armed zealots. While most people might not like it, not a lot do anything about it. They moan and groan, but they mostly just go along to get along. Most people are too frightened of the consequences to do anything, even when their country and their way of life has been taken.

Most people don't like a police state. We know through the study of history that draconian methods of controlling populations have always been frowned upon by freedom loving societies. The old German quote of "your papers please" has long been an example of the intrusiveness inherent in a police state. We know from the cold war of the evils of setting up citizen spy rings and how such methods can backfire and are ripe for abuse. We understand the inherent danger of setting up internment camps. We realize the dehumanizing effect of check points and intrusive body searches and hold such practices in disdain. Yet police states continue to form around us, despite the supposed protections against such methods ensconced in founding documents. People speak out, some more loudly than others, but most just grumble their complaints quietly, do as they're told, and meekly go along to get along despite any humiliation done to them.

Yet there are those who do like war. There are those who like the police state. Mostly, in my opinion, these are people who feel they are better than the rest of us. Most likely they are self centered, self righteous and feel no empathy for their fellow human beings. Yet I feel these people are a minority, albeit a loud and boisterous one. I feel these people puff themselves up and pontificate in order to attract others of their ilk. These bullies have managed to cow many of their detractors with their loud objections and fallacious accusations. This, however, seems to be changing.

Most of the war mongers have planted themselves firmly in the Republican Party. They managed to gain quite a bit of power there. I have heard that years ago many of these people were known in some political circles as "the crazies." Historic events helped them convince a good many people that war was necessary for the security of the nation. It has been shown that many of the reasons given for going to war were either made up or greatly exaggerated. These facts were more or less glossed over by the corporate media. It has been for the most part the alternative news media that has truly shined the light on these deceptions. As time has gone by, emotions have subsided and thoughtful reasoning has taken better hold in political discourse. Those who favor a policy of aggressive war are reluctantly fading into the background.

But the Republicans aren't the only political party haunted by the ghosts of the war profiteers. Democrats have them too, but they seem to be a little more stealthy about it. It was anti-war, anti police state sentiment that catapulted them to political victories in 2006 and 2008. In the last presidential election Barack Obama led the way by promising change and intimating such change would revolve around ending wars of aggression and reversing the damage done to the Bill of Rights by the Bush administration. Instead, the Democrats decided to squander the good will the populace had shown them by claiming their victories indicated a mandate to further socialize medicine in America and further indebt the nation despite massive protests against such measures.

While it didn't take long for the anti-war movement to become disenchanted with the Democrat Party, the dwindling ranks of the war/police state advocates continued to quietly hang out with the Republicans and maintain the conservative moniker. But there's nothing conservative about war. It is a wasteful, destructive activity. It changes lives profoundly and makes all involved less secure. There's nothing conservative about a security/police state. It costs money to hire personnel and pay for high tech equipment. It costs dignity to endure such a society. Those who advocate policies that are so blatantly anti freedom do not deserve to be labeled conservative and should be ostracized by any movement claiming to be of a conservative nature.

The Tea Party is such a movement. It was started as a non partisan, grass roots organization promoting smaller government and fewer taxes. As the movement grew, however, it was infiltrated by neo conservatives who, while wanting smaller government and less taxation for social programs, feel it's fine to grow government and increase taxes when it comes to funding war and a police state. Some would say the movement was hijacked as certain famous personalities that were known shills for the Republican Party and other neocon organizations sought to use the popularity of the movement to put the spotlight on their own agenda. It seemed to me that this was just marginally successful as the Tea Party movement has more or less managed to stay on message.

This last election cycle we saw many candidates win who stood upon a Tea Party platform. This is a good thing. Now is the time to start working toward making smaller, less intrusive government a reality. It was good that Obamacare was challenged in the House of Representatives. It is good that it is being challenged, nullified and taken to court by many state governments. These are small victories, but some kind of government run health care reform is still on the minds of politicians as they still seek to compromise the principles our nation was founded upon. Nothing but a complete repeal of all federal health care laws should be demanded as we seek to let the market bring back affordable health care as we had in this nation for so long before government regulations jacked up prices in that sector.

More recently, the Patriot Act has come to the forefront of the public consciousness once again. This very unpopular bill was passed unread days after the attacks on 9/11 as an emotional response to those attacks. The sheer size and enormity of the bill suggests that it was already written up long before the attacks took place. It seems perhaps savvy politicians with their own personal agenda were simply waiting for the right disaster to rush it through. This rights shredding law suffered a slight set back earlier this month as extensions to it weren't simply rushed through without debate. Yet many so called Tea Party candidates who profess to be pro freedom and advocates of smaller government switched their votes later as the extensions passed.

These politicians have proven time and again that we can't afford to just let them be. Like children who refuse to stay out of trouble, we have to keep a constant eye on them. We have to remain ever vigilant to make sure they keep true to their words. Fortunately, the pressure the waking masses have been putting on them seems to be working. The senate attempted to sneak through a three year extension to the sunsetting provisions of the bill, but were stopped by Rand Paul's objection to that move. Now, due to public pressure, the questionable provisions are due to be reviewed once again in a mere three months, in May. Let's hope we can apply enough pressure to not only allow those provisions to sunset, but to see the entire Patriot Act repealed once and for all. Then we can move forward toward repealing other freedom killing legislation, auditing the Federal Reserve, and ending many of the unnecessary federal agencies and departments.

Those who managed to infiltrate the Tea Party are losing influence. Those in the freedom movement who have managed to infiltrate the Republican Party and are backing Ron Paul are gaining influence. The debate has shifted. It is no longer big government Republican versus big government Democrat and which big government programs need more funding. It is now about freedom versus tyranny. It is about individualism versus collectivism. Even Democrats who wish to be elected or re-elected are starting to adopt the freedom message. I hope to see more of this type of debate in the coming months as the nation gears up for the next presidential election. As long as the people stay active and involved, perhaps we have a chance.

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

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Desperation and Despair, the Devil's Playground

The world is changing. This is nothing new. The world has always been changing. It has always been in constant flux. But the change that's been going on recently has been, well, different yet strangely familiar.

In the United States of America, we've seen a definite downturn. Things have changed for the worse, at least on the main streets. It started slowly creeping long ago, but it seems to me that it has really accelerated in the last few years. I think it started moving faster with the attack on 9/11. This attack was a great victory for terrorism as it ushered in fear, paranoia and a more powerful police state with the passing of the Patriot Act. If the purpose of terrorism is to terrify, then the politicians in Washington DC certainly proved to be vulnerable. If the terrorists hate our freedoms, then they certainly were able to find a way to remove that which they so hate.

It seems to me, however, that things got really bad and the downturn really accelerated after the bailouts of 2008. This move by the government, spurred on once again by fear and paranoia, in one fell swoop devastated what America was supposed to stand for. The gutless politicians in Washington DC sold out the nation to multi-national banking interests despite popular opposition. They allowed threats of the specters of martial law and economic collapse to cloud their judgment. Now the multi-national banking interests have a tighter grip on world power than ever before.

The banking interests have since clamped down on their lending practices. They are hoarding the money they were given. They are also calling in the past loans they have made and doing their best to convert the fraudulent fiat currencies they easily create from nothing into real wealth and property that others worked hard to create. They were supposed to use that money to help grow economies, to help the masses and the common folk living on Main Street. They failed miserably. They always fail when it comes to helping the masses of humanity, yet they succeed in helping themselves to even more wealth and power. This has led to desperation and despair as the common folk are expected to pay for the mistakes of the elite.

What happens when people become desperate? There are many possibilities. When it comes down to it, it depends on emotions. With individuals, it depends on the emotional stability of the subject. In crowds and with the general populace, it depends on the intensity of their emotions and the criminality they want to correct.

Desperation and despair are the devil's playground. They create the conditions that will push humans toward violence. They create the backdrop for upheaval and chaos. The devil will hide in the darkness of these human emotions, whispering of injustice and life's unfairness to his victims. Through these emotions he will creep into the humans' thoughts and manifest his vision of destruction.

In America, we have seen this scenario come to pass too often in individual acts of violence. I suppose that's appropriate in a strange way. After all, this nation is built on the individual, on respecting natural individual rights. We have seen the devil take hold of some quite likely unstable minds and cause much grief and havoc. These men have decided to listen to the demons in their heads and make their own personal statements about life's hardships that have fallen upon their shoulders, hardships that are likely due to the inherent flaws and corruption of the current financial system.

In other nations, we have seen greater group efforts to correct the injustices forged by the corrupt elite. Not long ago we saw rioting in Greece due to the attempt to bring in austerity measures that broke promises made to the people of that country. We saw Iceland stand up and refuse to give in to the demands of multi-national banking interests that attempted to acquire their real wealth in exchange for a forgiveness of debt put on the taxpayers of that nation without their consent. More recently we have seen uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

The specter of mob rule, in my opinion, is more frightening than the mad actions of single individuals. The possibility of a larger conflagration and mass bloodshed looms ever present in situations where rioting occurs. People everywhere have the right to peaceably assemble, protest the conditions they live under, and petition their government for a redress of grievances. It is largely the way the government enforcers react and whether or not politicians are willing or able to listen to the people that will determine if the situation becomes violent.

Violence is not the answer. Violence is a problem. Often times it is a symptom of a much larger societal problem. Sometimes it is a desperate act undertaken by those who see no alternative. The devil speaking once again. Of course, there is almost always another alternative, but these are often quite difficult to see. It is almost always easier to listen to the devil, but violence will likely never bring about the change one wishes accomplish.

Violence is also often aimed at the wrong people. Quite often those one perceives to be to blame for one's problems are just trying to go about their own lives as best they can. Those who end up in the cross hairs are often put there by circumstance, not because they are necessarily deserving of violent actions directed against them. Politicians or bureaucrats are often put into such a situation. While admittedly some cruel dictators and despots have gotten what was coming to them from those they brutalized, there are many others well hidden behind the scenes who are pulling the strings of public figures and are never targeted.

It seems to me that there is a worldwide freedom movement occurring right now. If the objective is to create a freer, more peaceful society, then the means as to how that is achieved is quite important, in my humble opinion. Violence will only beget more violence. Governments overthrown by violence will only be replaced with other governments which will use violence or the threat of violence to get the populace to obey their dictates. If people practice peaceful noncompliance, however, if they simply refuse to go along to get along then they are well on their way to living as free people. If the populace remains peaceful then government officials and their enforcers will be forced to decide between allowing the people their liberty or showing the world just how violent, heartless and brutal they truly are.

Government is force. It is a virtual monopoly of force. It has been legitimized in the eyes of the populace in many ways over the centuries. Kings and other familial authoritarians legitimized their rule by the claim of divine rights. Feudal lords legitimized their rule by claim of land ownership and offering protection within their castle walls. Democracies claimed legitimacy by forcing the needs and wants of a larger group onto a smaller group. They claim that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few or the individual. Even republics with their supposed respect for individual natural rights can be corrupted and devolve into a plutocracy or oligarchy as we can easily see in modern societies. Until and unless there is legitimate competition for government and financial services, taxation is 100% voluntary and there are alternatives to dealing with government bureaucracies, there will be corruption and it will be difficult to hold those in power accountable for their abuses.

There is a cycle here that needs to be broken. It is far easier to break a cycle if it is acknowledged and its cause recognized. First we have a boom and over exuberance, then we have a bust, then we become desperate as conditions deteriorate, then we have war. Once again the devil uses financial desperation and despair in order to usher in the death and destruction he so loves. War is without a doubt the devil's favorite playground. We need to do our best to see that desperation and despair doesn't lead him to it.

War should be easy to avoid, seeing as how the vast majority of the people do not want it. Yet somehow it always manages to rear its ugly head. One might wonder what organizations are powerful enough to overrule the will of the vast majority of people. Who benefits from war? It's not hard to see. Of course there are the war corporations that make up the military industrial complex, but what many people might not think of is that the central banks of the world also stand to gain much in a war economy. Wars cost money, rebuilding after a war costs money, and they are more than happy to loan that money to desperate states. They know they will get it back with interest and if they don't they will swoop in and steal real wealth and infrastructure. With such profits at stake, how can we trust the financial sector? They need to be watched more closely than ever. A full and complete audit is in order.

Do not give in to desperation and despair. Do not listen to the whispering devil urging violent solutions. Instead, look forward to a more positive tomorrow through peaceful noncompliance. Peaceful evolution is possible if enough of the populace participates. Despite the propaganda machine and corporate media's spin and attempt to hide it, the freedom message is advancing. People are coming to realize that there are many of us who still share the values of liberty and the principles this nation was founded upon. Honoring such values and stepping out of the system that has been erected around us will help pave the way to a peaceful, more prosperous society.

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

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Anti Ron Paul Propaganda and CPAC

Remember in 2008 when Ron Paul was running for president? Remember how scared the corporate mass media was of him? Remember how they misreported and misinformed the public as to his popularity and the nature of his candidacy? One of the points that was constantly driven home by the mainstream propagandists was that he was unelectable. All one heard despite the crowds, despite the polls and despite the signs and activism was that this man was radical and did not appeal to the average Joe. They would ignore him when possible, did not delve into legitimate issues with him and concentrated on how "crazy" he and his supporters were. They did their very best to minimize the impact he had on the presidential campaign.

After the election was over and Ron Paul was no longer a political threat to the establishment, the media suddenly tried to capitalize on his popularity. Suddenly he was sought after for his views on the economy. Suddenly he was right about so many things, even to those who derided him during the campaign. Suddenly his views didn't seem so "crazy" or radical.

Well, it's happening again. This time it was a pre-emptive strike. Donald Trump, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), decided the time and venue were right to voice his opinion that Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected president. The comment brought both cheers and jeers from the crowd, from what I could tell in about equal amounts. He also mentioned that he liked Ron Paul which I find just a bit hard to swallow after he said such a thing. Perhaps he likes the man personally but does not believe in his ideas. He makes these statements without even knowing if Ron Paul is going to be running for president or not. He didn't really elaborate any more than making those statements. I suppose that as things stand right now he might be technically correct, but there is much about his statement that I take exception to.

It's difficult to tell exactly what Donald Trump meant by the statement Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the presidency. Certainly Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance while the establishment powers remain in charge and are so afraid of him and his message. As long as they continue to use electronic voting machines that take counting the vote away from the public and put it in the hands of a few shady characters, we can't be sure that the voting is fair or equitable. As long as the corporate media remains in the hands of the establishment they can spin his candidacy however they want. He may have a tough time talking about real issues as they steer the discussion in more benign and controversial directions. Yes, Ron Paul might realistically have zero chance of winning an election as they are rigged today, but he would, in my opinion, have a terrific chance of winning a fair election.

What most people, Donald Trump likely included, fail to understand is that many supporters of Ron Paul aren't necessarily supporting the man, they are supporting the message. Not that Ron Paul is a bad guy, he isn't. In fact, he's very principled. One has only to check his voting record to confirm that statement. That's part of what makes him such a great candidate to get behind. He more than simply preaches the message of freedom, limited government and adhering to the Constitution, he practices it. That's the best reason I can think of why anyone who understands what it's supposed to mean to be a real American and independent thinker should back him. He's a rare breed, someone who remains incorruptible despite seeking a position of power.

It seems to me that most people these days think presidential campaigns are popularity contests. They're not interested in thinking too hard about real issues. They don't put too much thought into platforms. They're more interested in the candidate's looks, or their talents, or their presentations. They're more interested in how well they can deliver a speech. They're more interested in feel good slogans and quick sound bites that can stir their emotions. They're more interested in cults of personality. Sure, Ron Paul might not be as glitzy and fancy as some of the neocon candidates that still haunt the Republican Party, but given a fair chance to deliver his message to the American people and let it sink in, I think we'd discover that Americans know their roots far better than they're given credit for and would jump at the chance to rediscover the spirit that made our nation great.

So why do you suppose Donald Trump feels Ron Paul has no chance? Is it because Ron Paul is honest? Well, he certainly has shown that honest politicians can succeed by being elected to the House of Representatives eleven times. Is it because he is a strict Constitutionalist? Perhaps Mr. Trump feels the majority of the American people no longer respect that document and don't expect it to be followed by the representatives in Washington, DC. It is evident that most representatives feel that way. Is it because he knows the cards are stacked against Ron Paul and the elite who run the world would do everything in their power to keep him from being elected no matter how popular he became? Perhaps he believes something far more nefarious would be planned should Ron Paul become too popular and out of control. Perhaps it was a veiled threat? That's unlikely, but possible I suppose. Or maybe, just maybe, Donald Trump is a globalist and an elitist who is using his influence as best he can to get the gullible to believe that Ron Paul is, indeed, unelectable. Well maybe it's time we showed Mr. Trump and his ilk that this is still America and last I heard anyone can be elected president.

The good news is that many of the attendees at CPAC did not listen to Donald Trump. Ron Paul won the straw poll at CPAC for the second straight year, taking 30% of the votes that were cast. Of course the mainstream media is already considering this victory insignificant, but it seems that perhaps real conservatives still inhabit the Republican ranks. These are the common folk who understand what it means to adhere to the Constitution and strive to actually eliminate government excess and cut spending rather than just trying to slow down the speed at which government grows.

The bad news is that the blood thirsty, war mongering, neocon faction still has too much influence in the Republican Party. These people were booing Ron Paul. They have somehow conflated being conservative with supporting wars of aggression and a security police state. They're not for smaller government, they're for growing government in a different direction. I was happy to hear one man in the crowd accuse Dick Cheney of being a war criminal, at least he gets it, but too many others were cheering him on and worshipping him as if he was some kind of idol. If the man were in a position of power in another nation, his actions would have been demonized, but since he is a politician in the United States of America his advocating of torture and other abhorrent methods of waging war is okay? Especially since he's a Republican? Please. Such brutal behavior should not be tolerated by a civil society. Let him join the Democrats, they seem to be the new war party.

It is my sincere hope that Ron Paul once again throws his hat into the presidential ring. I understand that he is older and perhaps not as spry as he was a couple of years ago, but I think the debate needs to continue. I think he needs to keep driving his message home. People are really starting to get it. They are starting to realize that the establishment has been playing the common folk. They are starting to understand that the super wealthy power elite are grabbing for all the marbles and couldn't care less if you end up on the street with nothing and starving to death. They are starting to understand the folly of not remaining vigilant, of not demanding adherence to the Constitution, and how that document was drafted in an effort to prevent situations like the current one from occurring.

Ron Paul is still at the forefront when it comes to the liberty message at a national level. He is not the only one, but he is the best known. More and more people are accepting his point of view and rejecting others. The youth of today are on board with freedom. Perhaps now is the time to ride that wave of energy. Perhaps this is our chance to create change that really matters to the common folk and brings them back genuine independence and prosperity. The next few months should be interesting.

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

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Florida Court Says You're too Stupid to Tell Right From Wrong

Ok, the title above is not a quote, but that's essentially what an Orange County judge is saying in a decree he issued January 31st, 2011 declaring it illegal for individuals to distribute flyers or pamphlets, hold signs, talk about or in any way attempt to discuss jury nullification with prospective jurors (and all adults are prospective jurors) on the Orange County courthouse complex grounds. In an interview on the radio show Free Talk Live James Cox of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) explained that Chief Judge Elvin Perry, Jr. has issued an order threatening to charge any public taxpayer exercising their first amendment right to free speech on public land that his taxes supposedly helped pay for with contempt of court. The order is limited to people attempting to educate people on the right to jury nullification, all other speech is still acceptable on said grounds. This might cause one to question why the "authorities" would want to stifle such speech. What is it about jury nullification that would cause such worry to the justice system?

Of course the answers to the above question are numerous. Most of those answers are likely going to be nothing but excuses for usurping your power. One such answer is that they don't feel you're smart enough to determine right from wrong. The political masters write laws that criminalize normal human behavior, create victimless crimes and extort money in order for you to do business with your fellow humans. They don't feel you're able to determine for yourself whether such behavior equates to a crime and you need to be told which activities are criminal and which are not. You are too stupid to judge the laws that are written by our much smarter masters elected to the federal and various state congresses. Such is the disdain the political and elite classes hold for the common folk.

Yet, one could wonder if it was something different that caused Judge Elvin Perry, Jr. to issue such a dictatorial order. Could it be that he did it out of fear? Could it be that he knows that most people inherently know right from wrong and he's frightened of losing his power? Is it possible that he realizes that if enough people were educated and discovered their true power to judge the validity of a law that they would soon discover the scam and begin to expose bad laws meant to generate revenue for and funnel power to the state? Is this man and his ilk so afraid of challenges to their power that they will stoop to unsavory and, in my humble opinion, unethical methods to prevent such challenges from even materializing?

Consider for a moment the nature of a contempt of court charge. This is a charge that in many cases is simply leveled by a judge and then not reviewable. One can be kept in jail basically indefinitely without trial. This ability can easily create political prisoners in the purest form. One can be thrown in jail for rolling one's eyes in court, if the judge feels inclined to do so. There are cases of people held in contempt for months, cases as non violent as reporters refusing to give up their sources or someone expressing a difference of opinion. This is a power that is antithetical to the principles this nation was founded upon and should be done away with.

But that is beside the point. Let's take a quick look at the history of jury nullification. The modern practice stems from English common law, which was influenced in turn by Roman law. Even Roman law relied upon jurisprudence that went back into antiquity. The point is that jury nullification, or more generally the practice of common folk judging whether a law is just or unjust, goes back thousands of years. In our modern society our youth are no longer taught such things. I wasn't taught such concepts in school. It is obvious that the powers that be don't want the public knowing such history. This should be taught in every basic civics class and everyone graduating high school should understand this power that the individual has to influence jurisprudence.

Why is this such an important practice? It's just another check on tyranny. In medieval Europe the word of the lord of the land the serf lived upon was the law. It didn't matter if it was unfair or not. It didn't matter how cruel or brutal the punishments were. It was likely during this period of time the common folk began to yearn for freedom. They began to understand just how dismal their fate was, how awful it was to subjected to the whims of one man. It was during the time when feudalism began to fade that mankind took its first small steps toward a freer society for all peoples after an era of great tyranny and oppression.

As humanity rose up and cast off the shackles of serfdom slapped on by the privileged landowners, one of the demands made was a more fair application of justice and law. Natural law is the law that is obvious and intuitive. It is the law that almost everyone knows and understands naturally. It is the law that tells us it is wrong to cause harm to another. It is wrong to aggress or initiate violence against one's fellow man. It is wrong to willfully cause damage to another's property. It is wrong to steal. It is wrong to commit fraud. It is wrong to infringe upon the rights of others. These are laws based on the morality of how we treat one another. These are laws that the common folk wish to see adjudicated. These are laws where when someone has wronged another, guilt needs to be determined and restitution made.

Manmade laws, however, are not so obvious and intuitive. They are prohibitions on behaviors that one might engage in but another might find problematic. They are also restrictions on how one does business with others. It is basically a set of rules that may make sense to a lot of people and seem fair, but often times at their core they tread upon the rights of individuals and give unfair advantage to the already privileged. They are often times designed to protect the already established. These laws are made up by the elite, by the ruling class, and they are often designed in a way to prevent the common folk from understanding their true meaning and nature.

Jury nullification is a counter measure to the abuse of manmade laws. It is a way for the common folk to voice their opposition to bad laws that are written by men. In this nation's history, jury nullification has helped end the prohibition of liquor and laws that would send runaway slaves back to their owners in the south. It could, if given a chance, help end other laws that create victimless crimes such as marijuana prohibition, The Patriot Act, Obamacare, and other recently passed legislation that helps funnel power away from average individuals to the ruling corporate political class.

The elite in control don't want such laws ended. They don't care what the peons in the lower or middle classes think. They want to collect their money. They want to collect their fines. They want to collect their lawyers' fees and court costs. They want to continue to fleece the average Joe while the established elite get wealthier. They want to keep you in the dark as to the real power you wield. This is why a judge would issue an order to silence those who would try to speak out at a venue where it matters most. They not only believe the common rabble are too stupid to judge whether a law is good or bad or fair or unjust, they believe you are too stupid to even learn or care why such matters are so important to maintaining your freedoms.

Yet while in Florida dissent is being quashed and freedoms threatened, there is still hope. In New Hampshire a new law is being proposed to make it mandatory for all judges to explain to jurors that it is their right and their duty to judge the law. That's more like the laws legislators should enact, mandating how government servants should behave rather than dictating to the masses where and how they can exercise their god given rights. So how is it that two states could be so diametrically opposed when it comes to the same legal issue? One way is based on the principles of the founders while the other is an attempt to establish authoritarian rule.

Those of you who read through this thinking I was just some jerk spouting off, there's your evidence that there's other people who think like I do. There are people who actually care about maintaining respect for the freedoms that the common folk have struggled for centuries to realize. It was individual freedom respected by government that gave rise to such prosperity in this nation. Such prosperity lifts all, the wealthy and the poor, to greater heights. It spurs more opportunity for more productiveness and prosperity. We should not allow such historical precedence for the foundations of free society to be so utterly disregarded by one thoughtless individual trying to maintain his grip on what he likely considers his fiefdom.

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