Sunday, May 29, 2011

Thomas Jefferson and Dancing for Freedom

Of all the most famous founding fathers of the United States of America, Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the one who best understood the meaning of freedom. The man himself was not perfect and indeed there are many who love to point out his flaws. One of the main points they make is that he spoke of freedom as he owned slaves. This is, in my opinion, a classic example of trying to invalidate the message by assassinating the character of the messenger. How can a man talk about such principles when he doesn't live by them? Mr. Jefferson was just a man, complete with all the faults and foibles that come with being a man, trying to make his way through life as best he could in the times he lived in. That does not make his message any less powerful, or any less valid. He was very much an individualist, and very much believed in limiting the power of government, respecting the god given rights and protecting the sovereignty of the individual.

He was so much respected that there is a monument built to him in the nation's capitol. I must wonder if Thomas Jefferson would have approved of such a monument being built, but nonetheless it is there. Personally, I would consider it a tribute to the ideas of freedom he proffered rather than a tribute to the man himself. I think it should exonerate the ideas of individual liberty and personal freedom rather than the man who put those ideas on paper. He was a product of the times he lived in, someone who rose to the occasion when he was called to do so, as so often seems to happen in history.

And so it was that Brooke Oberwetter, evidently a great fan of the third president, decided in 2008 that she would like to celebrate the ideas of freedom by silently dancing at the Jefferson Memorial for ten minutes at midnight on his birthday. She, and about twenty of her friends, wore ipods, by all accounts other than the police's remained quiet and respectful, and expressed their joy that this man had lived and had eloquently opined his views on freedom by dancing around his statue. For this act, and for asking the arresting officer what law she had broken, she was arrested. Thus began her ordeal and a quest to find freedom and justice in a nation where such words hold no meaning in the eyes of those who enforce the will and collectivist ideals of the power elite.

Recently, a judge in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the park police were justified in arresting Oberwetter. I suppose they believe that the right to freely express one's self in public ends once you step inside the hallowed halls of a memorial to the champion of the right to freely express one's self. But this case went further than that. It upheld the privileges of the policing class. It upheld their perceived authority and their ability to arbitrarily determine what constitutes a protest, or dancing, or an expression of any type and what constitutes a breech of the peace. It exonerated their abusive actions. Keep in mind that in this case no one was harmed and no one complained. It was the police who decided the actions of this woman was a form of protest, even though she'd likely tell you it was a form of celebration.

This court obviously couldn't care less about individual free speech rights, or any of the natural individual rights Jefferson so strongly advocated. This judge does not feel it necessary to protect those rights from overbearing police who would abuse their power and violate those rights. This judge. like so many others of their ilk, is not protecting the Constitution and the rights of the common folk, but is protecting the privileged class from being held accountable for their criminal actions that do harm others. It seems to me that Ms. Oberwetter wasn't arrested for the act of dancing, she was arrested for the act of questioning a law enforcement officer. She was arrested for questioning authority. That seems to be a great crime in this nation lately, one that many a judge in many a court is upholding.

Fortunately, the attitude of the population seems to be changing of late. Certain people are deciding for themselves what it means to be free and have stopped letting the control freaks in black dresses sitting behind benches decide. They have decided to question authority and the legitimacy of so called laws that discern no victims. They have decided to act like free people by simply saying "no" to authorities and disobeying their dictates. They decided to show solidarity with Brooke Oberwetter and anyone else who wished to dance at the Jefferson Memorial by holding their own little silent dancing event. They decided to expose tyranny for what it is. You can see what happened here.

A couple of comments about the video. Some of you might recognize Adam Kokesh. He's the host of a show called "Adam Vs the Man" on RT. He's also an Iraq war veteran who ran for a seat in the House of Representatives in his district in Arizona. I doubt very much that the person who was elected to that seat cares as much about your personal freedom as Adam does. He went to Iraq and put his life on the line in an effort to advance the ideals that government should respect the natural rights of individuals, and now he dances (if you can call it that) in an effort to get his own government to recognize those same ideals and to stop violating the rights of peaceful individuals. As a reward for his valiant efforts he was body slammed to the hard concrete by a police officer. It might not seem that bad as Adam is a strong young man, but such a move could have possibly resulted in great bodily damage and even death.

These people were harming no one. They were disturbing no one. It was the police that initiated the disturbance. It was the police who threatened the safety of innocent individuals. It was the police that became violent. It was the police who brought harm to others. In their over zealous efforts to blindly enforce the law without question and to please their superiors, the Park Police showed their true colors and their violent nature. They showed their willingness to give up their own thought processes and their intolerance for anyone who questions their authority. They have been exposed as the supporters of tyranny that they are. Is it any wonder so many are now referring to police officers as thugs? Is it any wonder more and more people are losing respect for that profession?

You may notice how quickly these police closed down the monument and ushered out anyone with a video camera. Likely they knew what they were doing was wrong. Likely they realized how tyrannical they would look. It quickly became "illegal" to video record in the Jefferson Memorial. It seems to me that the "authorities" want to be able to video record the common folk whenever and wherever they feel they can use such technology to fleece them for fines and fees, but turn the cameras on them to record their criminal activities and the story quickly changes. All attempts to criminalize video or audio recording the police in public while doing their public duties need to be exposed, challenged and overturned just as all laws restricting the freedom speech should be. These laws are another example of government over stepping their bounds and trying to prevent their agents from being held accountable for their actions.

One might argue that dancing in the Jefferson Memorial is no big deal. That the people wanting to engage in such activity are foolish or silly and should merely bow to the will of the "authorities" and happily obey their wishes. They would argue that such people shouldn't make a federal case out of this behavior. I would agree with them that dancing at the Jefferson Memorial is no big deal. I would argue, however, that it was the "authorities" who have made it a big deal. It is they who have made this into a federal case. Had they just left these people alone to dance silently as they wished, no one would have noticed and they would have gone away after a few minutes. They could have exercised restraint, but instead, the "authorities" decided to crack down on this innocuous activity and put on a show for all to see.

Now the activists are fired up. The "authorities" have thrown down the gauntlet. Peaceful activists have decided to take up the challenge and have promised to once again show up at the Jefferson Memorial next Saturday to silently dance in celebration of Thomas Jefferson and his freedom ideals. I'm pretty certain that TJ himself would have applauded these efforts, after all he apparently loved dancing, calling it a healthy and elegant exercise and instructing his daughters to learn to dance. He also advocated a revolution every twenty years or so to keep the government in check. It seems that perhaps the people have finally decided to take his advice in a peaceful manner. They have decided that freedom looks like silently dancing to honor one of the founding fathers. If you agree, and you live in the Washington DC area, then perhaps you should join them. Wouldn't it be something to see hundreds of people silently dancing at the Jefferson Memorial to honor the concept of freedom? I think that would be a wonderful sight to behold.

The "authorities," on the other hand, just might feel it is too late to back down. They want to continue to make the common folk feel powerless so that their agents can continue to have their way with us and they can continue fleecing the masses. These are interesting times we live in. It will be interesting to see how far they will go to maintain their air of legitimacy. It will be interesting to see if in the future they continue to bust heads for quietly dancing, just how many peaceful heads they will be willing to bust, and how they will define exactly what dancing is. It will be interesting to see just how tyrannical and out of control they have become.

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.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Fiat Diplomas Reducing the Value of Education

By now, most people who have weaned themselves from their dependency on corporate mass media and news, and even some who haven't, understand the concept of fiat currency and how such systems reduce the value of money. Quite quickly, fiat money is money by decree, or legal tender laws where the government forces everyone to accept paper money in exchange for products and services. Value is lost as money is printed from thin air. This, combined with the practice of fractional reserve where debt is used to create more money, has created the current worldwide financial crisis we find ourselves in. As more money chases the same amount of goods, the value of that money is reduced.

This same phenomenon can work for other goods and services as well. The fact of the matter is that as things become more available in the marketplace, they become less valuable. It only makes sense when you consider that what most people are really trading in order to get things is labor. In fact, that really is, in the long run, what the economy is all about. It's about labor of some form or another. It's about working to provide fellow human beings with goods and services that are needed and desired. It's not about money, or gold, or silver, or oil or any other commodity. Those things are just tokens of exchange. It only makes sense that the easier it is to obtain something, the less work needs to be done to get it.

A long time ago, a formal education was a rare thing. Then again, a long time ago no one was ever truly sure from year to year whether they would have a good harvest or not. Only the very rich could afford to get a formal education. Only royalty and those claiming the divine right of sovereignty could afford to hire tutors to come educate their children in the basics of math, science and reading. The rest of the world was struggling just to survive. Of course, that doesn't mean that children weren't learning, it just means that poor children were learning how to survive while rich children were learning how to manipulate the poorer classes. People learned what they needed to survive. A formal education was a luxury.

As time went by, societies grew and civilizations progressed. Classes of people became more of a continuum than a straight division. Trade flourished, products and services improved and people with certain skill sets were in demand and well paid. As a result, formal education was more in demand. Merchants and other highly paid professionals became able to afford formal education for their children. Yet many people in well paid professions needed no schools or formal education to make a better life for themselves and become productive members of society. Many would carry on their parent's business or obtained an apprenticeship.

The roots of our "modern" educational system lie in the Prussian school system that was instituted in the mid eighteenth century. It is a system that is so antiquated that the country where it was developed no longer exists as an independent nation. Prussia was one of the many Germanic nations. It developed a certain infamy for its army which eventually helped to form a Germanic empire that unified Germany and eventually became the German nation we are familiar with today. Back in the eighteenth century, however, at the very earliest stages of the industrial revolution, Prussia needed young men who would be uncompromising in their love for the state and obedient to authority without question or hesitation. They needed good soldiers. They needed sheeple. They took a page from the ancient Spartans and developed a school system that would mold young minds in just such a way, only they were far more subtle about it than their Greek counterparts. This is the school system adopted by the Bostonians in the mid nineteenth century that spread throughout the United States and is still used to this very day.

Now we are more or less stuck with a state run compulsory system. As a consequence the value of that education has greatly declined. One has but to look at testing from earlier this century and compare it to testing in the same grades that goes on now to see just how little is actually taught these days. So why is it the value of education seems to decline so much the more centralized it becomes? Why is it that one needs a high school education in order to get a job where before little or no formal education was necessary? Why is it that, on average, it takes even more than a bachelor's degree these days to get a decent paying job? The reasons, in my humble opinion, are in large part due to the fiat nature of the school system. They are due to the laws that force all children to attend school and get a certain amount of formal education. They are due to the laws that force everyone to pay for the formal education of other people's children.

The modern school system seems a perfect example of government's standard "one size fits all" solution to a problem. It seems to me that they have a tendency to think of children as robots that need to be programmed to operate in society rather than as individuals each with a different and unique set of emotional, psychological and physical needs. They seem to want to teach children what to think rather than how to think for themselves. The "No Child Left Behind Act," a centralized federal program meant to improve the quality of education in this nation, has done just the opposite. It has lowered the educational level of all, slowing down the speed at which children are educated so that slower learners can keep up. It has taken the children who would have otherwise excelled in school and turned them into a bunch of bored watchers waiting for the others racing along at a snail's pace to catch up. It has churned out a population that might be able to regurgitate facts, but are unable to analyze many of the possibilities of what those facts might mean.

While this system hurts the common folk and tends to dumb down the nation, there are those who benefit from it. The cost of college is artificially high because the demand is artificially high. This benefits the colleges and universities and those employed by them. The cost has become so high that most people can't afford a higher education without obtaining a loan. This benefits the banks which are the real power behind government. This also illustrates another failure of government. The excuse used to prop up and support public schools is that everyone deserves a "free" basic education so that the poor have equal opportunity to get ahead, but a modern high school education hardly qualifies one for equal opportunities these days and most have to earn a bachelor's degree or beyond in order to open the doors of opportunity. The poor are still left behind due to the expense of higher education.

Despite all this, many still defend public education as a necessity in this nation. They seem to believe that if there was no public education we'd be a nation of idiots. They seem to believe that if it wasn't for public education we'd be a nation of criminals and thieves. Those people have obviously never met an average home schooled child. Home schooled children are notorious for outperforming publicly schooled children. So are the children whose families are able to afford the wealthiest private schools. Public schools are not only not necessary in this nation, I contend they are holding back the quality of formal education in this nation.

If one asks how the average family could afford a formal education without government help, I would suggest one consider how much they'd save if they didn't have to pay that portion of their property taxes that go to schools in their district. If one had that amount of money to use to decide where to send their child for a formal education, would one be able to afford it? Consider that there'd likely be several options and education businesses competing for that money. They would likely come up with different ways to save money to efficiently deliver that education. The best would rise to the top, the worst would fail in the marketplace and go out of business, and the costs would likely go lower and lower as technology improves and the marketplace determines the best options for the individuals seeking such services. It seems that government monopoly and fiat education, on the other hand, have been shown as the most inefficient ways of delivering education services.

Supply and demand of any commodity, product or service is what determines its value. That's about as basic as economics get. There is a huge supply of formal educational services in this nation. Because of this supply, there is also a huge demand that has been artificially created. Modern formal education has cranked out a population that has a tendency to not think so much as believe. It has cranked out a population that has a tendency to not question authority. It has cranked out a population that has a tendency to just go along to get along, to believe what they hear from authority figures, and to not strive for their full potential but reach for mediocrity. The fiat nature of our modern education system has resulted in creating twelve wasted years of youth. It has made education in this nation just about worthless. Decentralizing education and getting the federal government out of the schools would be a good first step in reversing this trend. Eliminating the Department of Education would also help balance the budget and save taxpayer money, money that could be spent on private educational institutions that would pop up in a free market.

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, May 24, 2011

Ron Paul Makes Sense Because Freedom Makes Sense

I was talking to my brother the other day about Democrats and Republicans. We were discussing the increasingly obvious perception that there is no difference between the two parties. The reason for this, in my humble opinion, is also obvious. Both Democrats and Republicans lust for power. They want the world to be twisted to their point of view and they want others to honor and adore them for it. They want to tell everyone how to live their lives and where to spend their money. Both parties love big government, the bigger the better. It increases their power and their personal worth in their own eyes. The average person, on the other hand, likely wants more freedom, though he may not even realize that's what he wants. The common folk have for millennia been seeking more say over their destinies.

Politicians have a way of saying what people want to hear, making promises as to how they will behave, and then not following through with their actions. They have a tendency to tell you how to think rather than listening to you to find out what you think. They ignore what they don't want to hear and justify the actions they take which violate the oaths they made. They have no problem with hypocrisy, so long as their power and influence is increased and yours is diminished.

Freedom has been broken down and divided into two basic categories by politicians and their client experts, economic freedoms and personal freedoms. Whether this was done purposefully or not is debatable, but it has resulted in a divide and conquer system that has led to bigger government and more tyranny despite promises to the opposite. Republicans promise greater economic freedom, but only deliver bigger government in terms of military spending and a growth of the police state. Democrats promise greater personal freedom but only deliver bigger government in terms of more spending on social programs and more regulations and restrictions in the business sector. Somehow, no matter who is elected into office, government always manages to grow in size and scope despite the demand for the opposite. The elite class gains more power and disregards the rights of the common folk. The elite class wins, the common folk lose.

In 2008, Ron Paul threw a wrench into this machinery in his bid to become the Republican presidential candidate. This was because he advocates a pro liberty stance no matter the issue. He has a record of voting for less government, no matter the issue. He has decided to honor his oath to the Constitution and protect individual rights, no matter the issue. It was because of his principles, his honesty, that the media painted him as unelectable and against certain mainstream Republican dogmas.

Ron Paul makes a lot of sense to a great many people, more than many might imagine. This has more to do with the message than it does with the man. As is often pointed out, Ron Paul is not the most proficient speaker in politics. He is not capable of hypnotic oratory that fires people up like the current president. In fact, sometimes he has a tendency to hesitate in his speech or stumble over his words. But this is an honest shortcoming, one that people are willing to put up with when they are interested in the subject matter.
Ron Paul has a message of more freedom, not more restrictions. He has a message of smaller, limited government, not more regulatory agencies adding more bureaucracies and more potential for corruption and tyranny. He has a message of free market competition rather than government monopoly. While it may not be apparent to some right away, the ideas he proposes make economic as well as moral sense. Some will argue differently because to them freedom is hard work. It might mean giving up some things a few may feel entitled to, but it also means greater opportunity to provide for yourself, not having to worry so much about losing what you've worked for, and regaining a sense of pride and accomplishment by taking personal responsibility for yourself and your loved ones.

Ron Paul has declared he will run for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2012, as many of us figured he would. This is a good thing in and of itself. He will now be included in the debates, one of which has already taken place, and will continue to disseminate a liberty message to many who might not have otherwise thought of issues in such a manner. He will be able to further clarify and explain the message to an even larger audience. It is my hope that more and more people will be able to hear the truth in his words and listen to the sense his ideas make rather than believing in the illusions woven by the lies of the other politicians and listening to their empty promises.

Freedom makes sense in this world. It makes sense for you to keep the wealth you earn for yourself and for you to decide what to do with it. Does it make sense for you to receive wealth you didn't earn from some uncaring stranger? Does it make sense for you to let someone else decide what to do with the wealth you've earned, someone who takes that wealth through coercive threats and force?

It makes sense to want to trade peacefully with other peoples in the world. It makes sense that by building such friendships we have more influence upon them and more impact in changing their cultures. Does it make sense to bomb and shoot them or their relatives and then expect them to be nice to us? Does it make sense to force change upon them through violence and then expect them to meekly accept that change? Is it possible that at such times people would be willing to sacrifice what little personal liberties they had to support strong men who promise to protect them from us?

It makes sense that you should decide what to do with your own body. Does it make sense to allow complete strangers to mandate what you can and can't do with your own person? Does it make sense to allow those same people to tell you how much risk you can take in your own life? Does it make sense for you to allow them to hire others to spy on you and enforce any such nanny state laws? Don't you think that such power would be abused? Don't you think that people might use such power to benefit themselves and their friends regardless of who it might hurt? Doesn't it make more sense for each individual to decide what is right in their own lives for their own bodies so long as they don't harm others? Doesn't it make more sense that each individual should decide the risk level he wishes to take on in his own life? Doesn't it make more sense for people to be able to learn from their mistakes and celebrate their successes rather than never even being able to test their potential because a faceless state won't allow them to take such risks?

Some say the American experiment in freedom has failed, but I say this is not so. The American experiment in freedom was working just fine, so fine in fact that I believe many fell asleep at the wheel and stopped paying attention. We became the mightiest economic engine the world has ever known because of its individualist roots and philosophy, not due to welfare or warfare. At the turn of the twentieth century, the collectivists gained a foothold in this nation and they have been slowly eroding the foundations of our prosperity. It is their socialist, fascist, corporatist experiments that have failed. It's their philosophies that are now prominent in our federal government institutions and it's their laws and actions that have led us down this path of self destruction and economic crisis. It is time to reverse this trend and reinforce the principles the American nation was founded upon. The first step in this process is to do what Ron Paul suggests and simply start following the Constitution. In this way perhaps we can once again become the shining beacon on the hill for the rest of the world and we can evolve into the free nation our forefathers envisioned and millions fought and died for.

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, May 15, 2011

Free Market Misconceptions in the Blogosphere

I was perusing some blogs the other day when I came upon a comment that struck a nerve in me. It was a comment that I think is indicative of the attitudes of some people who tend to believe in the left side of the political spectrum. I believe these are mostly goodhearted, well intentioned people, but I also believe they have been misinformed about what a free market is and what it is not. The comment, to paraphrase, basically blamed the free market for the financial mess we find ourselves in. I was compelled to reply to the comment and felt it might be appropriate to elaborate on my thoughts and share them with everyone. I think that, after all, words are important tools when it comes to communicating ideas with people and when definitions become skewed and screwy communications can become muddled. It then becomes important to redefine and better explain words so that everyone can better understand the concept that is trying to be conveyed.

The first and biggest misconception about free markets, in my humble opinion, is that we've ever had one. At least we haven't had one in recent history. I don't know whether this misconception has been spread deliberately or not, but I believe that at least in some cases it has been purposely proffered in order to obfuscate and shift blame so that a more collectivist agenda could be carried out. Yet people still blame the free market for the current situation. How can you blame something that hasn't existed in at least a couple of hundred years, if it ever existed, for modern problems? Well, some people have claimed it existed and some claim it still exists and others believe those people.

A free market is just that, free. That means it would be free of regulations. That means it would be free of licensing requirements. A free market would consist of free people freely doing business with others on a voluntary basis. The markets of the world today are far from that. They are watched over and strictly controlled by groups of people called government that claim a monopoly on force. These people are in turn watched over and controlled by a group of very wealthy corporations who have managed to create their own monopolies of sorts through bribes, payoffs, and influence peddling. Those corporations are, in turn, controlled by central banking interests who have managed to create, with the help of their political connections, legalized monopolies on the creation of currency. These are the establishment I so often write about. The free market has zero blame for the worldwide financial and currency crises that many have so recently become aware of, the problems are caused by the failures of the establishment monopolies and their machinations and manipulations.

We have in the world today, despite what you may have heard, a world market controlled mostly by multi-national corporations that answer to no one. They have grabbed not only virtual monopolies on many of the markets that force the world populous to use their products and services despite their records of poor quality, they have purchased with their ill gotten profits a monopoly on political power and in the process have corrupted and undermined some of the best conceived and most progressive governments the world had ever seen. We might have thought that the kings and queens of yesteryear had faded into memory and were no longer a threat to human kind, but their heirs, with the support of the families of the central banking cartels, have used their vast wealth obtained over centuries of creating wealth through privileged land ownership and serfdom to help re-create a modern version of the medieval feudal system that exalts lords and ladies while neglecting and abusing the common folk.

Corporations are government legal fictions created to protect the owners, board members, shareholders, etc., of the corporations. They are formed to prevent the common folk from holding them accountable should they cause damage or harm. Even the abbreviation LLC means limited liability corporation. The owners and shareholders of such a corporation can only be held legally responsible for any negligence or wrong doing of the corporation to a point, then the government protections kick in. In a free market system, those doing business would have to assume the risks that go along with doing that business if they wanted to reap the rewards. They would have to assume full liability for any negligence, fraud, or harm done and so would have to be extra careful to ensure that everything was on the up and up. The government would work for individuals who had suffered rather than for the corporation that caused the damage. Individual rights would be protected against aggression from the rich and powerful rather than being violated and aggressed against by the rich and powerful as happens in the present day.

People seem to forget who the free market is. The free market is you. Unless you are a bureaucrat making money off the coercive tax system, or a mobster running a protection racket, likely you are doing business on a voluntary basis and providing a product or service which needs to be better in some way than your competition. The free market is all who are small enough to fail and will do so if they are not competitive against others who offer the same or a similar product or service. The free market is the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. It is the local hairstylist who knows just how you like your hair cut. It is the corner store as opposed to big box stores. It is the local family farm as opposed to the large corporate farm. It is the local restaurant as opposed to the corporate franchise. It is the shoe factory down the road as opposed to the one that moves to another country. It is the doctor that makes house calls to the very poor as well as the very wealthy. It is a community of people who know and care for each other and do their best to provide the goods and services asked for in the open market.

The free market is a multitude of choice from a multitude of places, not the restrictive nature of a few cartels as exists today. An illusion of choice exists in the modern marketplace in order to fool people into believing there is a free market that can be blamed for problems that are almost certain to pop up when monopolistic organizations operate without accountability. This is especially true in the energy and financial sectors of the economy. In fact, it seems as though these sectors have far too much influence in the world's markets and have stifled innovations tremendously. It's strange to me that as a species we've developed such amazing technologies in so many different areas, yet we're still using technologies that are over a hundred years old to fuel our cars and provide us with electricity. It reminds me of something a friend of mine used to say, that if industries in the late nineteenth century had the power then that some have today, we'd still be using candles and oil lamps to light our nights and horses and buggies to travel. I have often wondered what kind of technologies have been lost or hidden due to the influence of modern mega corporations that have every incentive to keep the current technologies selling.

There was a time when markets were open to everyone. There was a time when all one had to do was hang out a shingle and he was in business. Those were some of the most prosperous times on record. Even today, societies that move from a more restrictive economy into a less restrictive one become more prosperous. Modern China is a good example of this phenomenon. When people are able to vote with their dollars, when they're able to decide for themselves who they want to do business with and who they don't want to deal with, when they can make their own decisions on how to spend their money and aren't dependent on government making such decisions for them, the best products and services for the least money tend to come to the fore, technology advances and everyone benefits. When government restricts and markets become less free, innovation is stifled, technology stagnates and the economy falters.

It seems to me that people have a tendency to resent being told what to do. They don't want anyone telling them how to live their private lives, who to have relationships with, how many children to have, what to eat, how to treat their bodies, etc., yet they don't seem to have a problem with telling others how to behave. This seems to be especially true when it comes to business dealings. People seem to have no problem with using the force of government to restrict economic activity. There's this false belief that government will somehow magically make people better behaved by simply creating licenses and regulations to engage in business. They seem to believe that government is good and will protect all the "little people" from big, bad corporations. They seem to forget that in order to be free you must allow others to be free. This works for economic activity as well as for personal activity. They seem to forget that government fails time and time again, no matter its mandate. It seems to me that government protects the corporations from ordinary folk, not the other way around.

The current economic crisis is not a failure of the free market, but a failure of government to provide a marketplace where opportunity abounds. It is not the failure of free market business practices, but a successful insertion of monopolistic practices and cartel takeovers. The economic problems we face are not the fault of free markets, they are the fault of an unaccountable, unresponsive elite establishment which has no incentive to change and fights to keep any competition that may challenge it out of the marketplace. They are the fault of a wealthy, elite establishment that has its fingers in too many pies and a winner take all agenda. They have every means at their disposal to keep the advantages they already have, and it is to their advantage to confuse and obfuscate the true meaning and nature of a free market. All it will take for them to keep winning and remain on top would be for all to blame free markets for a poor economy, for them to accept crappy products and services from monopolies and believe that it's simply the way things have to be, for them to believe that there's such a thing as "too big to fail," and for no one to speak up against the fascist, authoritarian, corporatist, one world government we are moving toward. In the long run, however, they will fail when enough of the common folk figure out their tricks and lies and the misconceptions are no longer believed.

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.

Elegy for my Dad

How does one determine the worth of a life? Certainly one way is by how many other lives he has affected in a positive way. Certainly one way is by how many others knew and loved him. On this basis alone I would say that my dad's life was worth more than all the kings and queens of Europe and all the presidents of the United States combined. My father lived a blessed and wonderful life. He was a loving and caring husband to my mother for sixty years. He was the father to eight wonderful human beings, myself and those I am proud to call my brothers and sisters. He was a son and a brother who cared deeply for his siblings and took great pride in his family. He was a well liked and respected teacher and coach. He touched many lives and left a mark on them that many will never forget.

My dad was more than just an English teacher and football coach, he was a life teacher. He showed people what it was to live life to its fullest. He worked hard to provide for his family, and he played hard to nurture his soul. He was not only always active and athletic, but he was also intelligent and cerebral. He was very competitive. He loved to do a good crossword puzzle as much as he loved to play a good game of tennis. He exercised both his body and his mind and kept them active as long as he could. My dad loved life, and he loved being alive.

My father cared deeply for people. He might not have always known how to properly show it, but there was an aura about him that let you know he cared. If there's anything I'll always remember about my dad it's his smile. His smile would light up a room. He had the most exquisite sense of humor. I think he could find humor in just about any situation. He would tell stories about things that had made him angry and laugh about them later. When he laughed, it was contagious, it made others feel good. When he smiled, he did so with more than his lips and his cheeks, he did so with his eyes.

My dad's eyes were intense. When he was angry, they would blaze and burn right through you. When he smiled or laughed, they would glimmer like two stars in heaven. If the eyes are windows to the soul, then I would say that my dad's soul is very bright and lively.

Dad loved to tell stories. He loved the attention. He could tell a story and hold an audience's interest with the best of them. He had something to say for just about every occasion and he'd usually say it. More often than not those listening would end up laughing and feeling better for the experience.

My dad taught me much. He gave me more than he'll know. My sense of humor. My love of writing and the English language. My love of telling stories. My smile. There is so much of him I can see in myself. I thank him for these gifts and treasure the good qualities I inherited from him. It is through all of us that his memory continues on in this world, and it is up to all of us to make sure that his good qualities flourish while any qualities that may not be so complementary diminish.

I know that my dad's soul will continue to watch over his family. I know that his smile will continue to shine upon us as we continue on with life's struggles and sorrows, its joys and triumphs. He will be missed by all who knew and loved him. I will miss him tremendously, I will miss his smile, his laughter and his sage advice. He will be missed by all who knew and loved him. I hope the angels appreciate his smile and laughter as much as I did.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

The Dangerous Naivety of the Lone Wolf Theorist

If one listens to the establishment media and talking heads lately, one will hear much about conspiracy theorists. Now of course this term is used to impugn anyone who would endorse such theories. Everyone knows that conspiracy theorists are crazy, right? Everyone knows that government wouldn't lie about important things like world events. Everyone knows that the establishment would never try to cover anything up and hide the truth from the populace. Well, at least not the important stuff. Well, at least no people in power would ever plot against their own people, right? Not even if the outcome would be beneficial to their personal interests, right? Hmm? Perhaps we should explore the world of the lone wolf theorist. After all, if an event was not carried out as part of some kind of conspiracy, it must have been carried out by a single entity, a lone wolf if you will.

The lone wolf theorist appears to me to be very trusting. He seems to trust in the establishment implicitly. He does not wish to question whether or not facts are true, even when they seem questionable. He prefers to take opinion and conjecture as fact so long as they come from an established source. Yet he seems to believe that he is, in fact, the knower of all things there are to know. He believes that he has the facts, and the facts tell him that government is good, conspiracies don't exist, and the establishment account of events is never wrong.

The lone wolf theorist believes that nutcases are able to plan complicated actions on their own and gain access to highly valued and protected targets without any problems. They believe that paranoid schizophrenics can quite easily plan things weeks and perhaps months ahead of time without anyone suspecting a thing. They must believe that these people are among the most intelligent among us, certainly the most devious. Indeed, in many cases it seems that these lone wolfs must have near super human qualities in order to pull off some of the schemes they have been accused of.

No man is an island. We all engage in some kind of contact with our fellow humans. Even Ted Kaczynski, who did his utmost to remove himself from the rest of humanity, had to interact with others from time to time. A true lone wolf and intellectual, Mr. Kaczynski had to stick to soft targets and mail bombs to avoid capture. It is highly unlikely he could have ever pulled off an assassination of a well protected person or the kind of terrorist attack people seem to fear most, for those kind of operations almost require a conspiracy, and certainly so if the perpetrator wishes to not get caught.

Of course, the other aspect of conspiracy theory is the theory aspect. I suppose one who thinks conspiracies theories are crazy could believe that conspiracies exist, but the version he believes in is fact. Could we call such a person a conspiracy factist? How about a conspiracy knower? Either way, I believe that the only way someone could be absolutely certain as to whether or not a given event was plotted the way it was reported to be plotted would be if he was personally involved. Unless that's the case, one has to take the word of someone else as to what is or was the truth of a given situation.

The vast majority of the population all across the planet are entertaining some kind of theory when it comes to news stories. Some people might realize this, but most probably don't. They simply watch establishment news programs on the television, listen to establishment news radio, or read establishment newspapers or magazines and take them at their word. There's never any questioning. There's never any investigation. People just take it for granted that establishment media is being honest, have done their due diligence in terms of investigating a story, and are accurate and realistic in their reporting. The problem is that the establishment media often uses government sources. In fact, they have come to depend on government sources for their stories in many cases. The establishment media may well take for granted that the government sources are being honest and accurate. They have, in essence, failed in any watchdog duties that may be expected of them.

In the United States of America, in the legal system, one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is supposed to weigh upon the prosecution. Yet in too many cases people who were "proven" to be guilty were later proven to be innocent. It seems to me that there is some kind of disconnect at work here to make this possible. Perhaps in law, as in the court of public opinion that is shaped by establishment media, it is not so much "facts" and "proof" that count, but who the jury will believe, who they trust, and who they tend to disagree with. It seems to me that these days, as many who have become involved with the legal system have come to find out, that one is guilty until he can prove himself innocent in a court of law. The legal system in this nation has devolved into the type of system that the founders fought to escape from. It is no longer a system we can be so proud of because our system is so much better than tyrannical legal systems. It has become as corrupt as many other legal systems around the world and so few seem to care. This is because so many are brainwashed and no longer question the authorities because they'd rather believe the lone wolf theorists they see on television and feel good that their nation's legal system is still the bestest, most greatest, most honest, in the whole, wide world and would never make a mistake.

The biggest difference between the conspiracy theorist and the lone wolf theorist, or the conspiracy theorist and the conspiracy knower, is who they trust for their information. Most conspiracy theorists, if they are at all reputable, will follow their instincts and ask questions of those who should know, who were involved, or who have done research that may have been missed by the mainstream. Most lone wolf theorists or conspiracy knowers will simply take the word of the establishment media, its talking heads and government sources. At least, it seems that way to me.

I got news in case you didn't know, government lies. Politicians lie and make promises they don't intend on keeping to get votes. Bureaucrats lie, misrepresent and exagerate to increase the budgets for their bureaucracies. Establishment corporations lie to get legislation passed that will help them maintain their markets. Establishment media lies, misrepresents and embellishes to maintain its relationships with all those listed above in order to make sure they don't loose access to their sources. Yet somehow these people who have been shown to deceive are still seen as reputable and even held in high esteem by some.

This is where the biggest danger lies. Threats to freedom come not from outside enemies trying to control us with military force, but from enemies within manipulating our emotions. We are indoctrinated from childhood. Those we trust abuse their status. They use fear and guilt to steal our wealth and as excuses to violate our liberties. Those who do not wish to see will defend their actions even as those in power become more controlling and tyrannical. They forget to question authority. They neglect to look into motive. They obey dictates from the top, centralized authority without thought of who benefits from such regulations. They go along to get along, lowering their chins and watching their feet as they make their way through life hoping to stay off the radar. They become a small cog in a system that slowly turns the masses into slaves for a power elite while grinding down opportunity and innovation. They loose the individualist concepts of liberty and independence and replace them with the fallacious collectivist promises of protection and being cared for. We should not be a nation of people dependent upon hope in a centralized government, but a nation of self governing individuals confident in our abilities to provide for our own needs independent of government interference.

Do not be so critical of conspiracy theorists questioning the government point of view. They are rightly questioning authority and showing a healthy skepticism. Instead, be more wary of those who would vehemently defend the establishment storyline and trust in such an historically untrustworthy organization. Be more wary of those who would offhandedly judge the messengers as crazy rather than disputing the facts and checking out the sources. Perhaps it is the lone wolf theorists and conspiracy knowers who should be questioned and investigated. Perhaps they have more to gain or loose than one might imagine. Oh wait, that sounds like a conspiracy theory. I must be crazy.

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.

Monday, May 2, 2011

The Boogie Man is Dead, Now Fear the Goblins

The Bureau of Protection Against Evil Fairytale Creatures (PAEFC) announced in a news release today that the Boogie Man has been killed.

"This goes to show that the trillions of dollars spent and the millions of innocent lives lost in the years of hunting down this dangerous fairytale creature was worth it," Johnny Truthteller, a spokesman for the PAEFC, said in the news release. "A dangerous creature responsible for many atrocities, including kidnapping young children from their homes and eating them, has been neutralized. For those who have been harmed by this vile creature, justice has been served."

King Barry Goodfellow, the commander and chief of Goodguyland, held a press conference to confirm the news.

"After many, many years of searching, we have finally found this menace to childhood dreaming and put an end to his evil," King Goodfellow said. "This gives all citizens of Goodguyland reason to celebrate. No longer will children have to shake and quake as they hide under their beds for fear that the Boogie Man will jump out of their closet while they sleep. No longer will young people need to be afraid of walking in dark forests at night. Let it be known to all that have suffered due to the actions of this creature that justice has been served."

The Boogie Man was killed in Farawayland where he was hiding in a goblin compound. PAEFC officials claim he was beheaded by the good king's knights in a dangerous military operation that took place in the middle of the night when no one was looking. They were quick to destroy the body so that no one could look at it and bring the magical being back to life.

This good news comes at a time when faith in the leadership of Goodguyland is fading and people are beginning to question the wisdom of keeping so many of our young knights in so many foreign lands around the globe. It is hoped by the political and military leaders of Goodguyland that this will lift the spirits of its citizens and convince them to shut up about all the bad things that are happening due to military operations. It is also hoped that this will take the spotlight off the economic troubles currently being experienced in Goodguyland.

On a related note, in a separate news conference, King Barry Goodfellow said, "This does not mean that we can relax. We must remain vigilant. Alki Goblinia (the organization headed by the Boogie Man before his death) is still operating. We are certain the goblins will try to strike back after the death of their leader. They have managed to get all sorts of dangerous magical weapons that have eluded our magical weapons detectors that have cost the taxpayers of Goodguyland billions of dollars to build. This does not mean that our scientists have failed, only that the goblins are smarter than we thought. Children should still remain cautious and hide under their blankets when they sleep."

When this reporter asked King Barry Goodfellow about the failing economy he said, "The economy is getting better. People are going back to work. The recession ended years ago. We are not in a depression. All indicators are it is growing. Now is not the time to think about the economy. It's time to celebrate. Come on, the Boogie Man is dead. Goodguyland is the greatest place in the universe again. What did you bring up the economy for? Have a drink. Go buy a flag and sing songs about how great Goodguyland is."

There are those who are not so sure about the validity of the reports that the Boogie Man is dead. Some believe he died years ago and the threat of attacks from Alki Goblinia is overblown. They believe that goblins are mostly used by parents to control their children and King Barry Goodfellow to justify a domestic police force that has become increasingly violent against the citizens of Goodguyland who try to exercise their individual rights.

Justin Freeman, president of the Fairytale Disbeliever Committee, said in an interview after he heard the news of the Boogie Man's death, "This is just another distraction. The Boogie Man died long ago and this is a political trick being used to restore nationalism and take the populace's mind off the domestic problems we face. You watch, nothing will change. Our knights will continue to occupy Farawayland. Our military will continue to conduct operations in other foreign lands. People who at one time criticized King Barry Goodfellow will now praise him. People want an excuse to feel good even though our way of life is deteriorating and this story that has been weaved by those who benefit from war gives them the chance to do that."

It is clear that Justin Freeman and others like him think the government made all this up for their own benefit. This reporter thinks we should laugh at them and not even bother to look into the validity of their allegations and accusations. Why think? This is a time to celebrate and forget about our problems.

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, May 1, 2011

Will Superman Help Restore Honest Money?

One of my first childhood memories involves watching the TV show Batman. This wasn't like the sophisticated, high budget, special effects filled modern movies of today, it was a low budget attempt to turn live actors into cartoons starring Adam West and Burt Ward. I used to love Batman and Robin. I'd come home after school and watch with my best friend and neighbor and then we'd pretend that we were Batman and Robin. Of course I didn't understand at the time the dangers of propaganda because I was so young. I mean, Batman and Robin seemed harmless enough. I didn't know that watching could lead to superhero abuse. I didn't realize that Batman was a gateway superhero.

Before I knew it I was watching The Green Hornet. Then I started pretending to be Kato. As I grew older, I became interested in comic books. I began to go off on my own and read them in my room, with the door closed (gasp). I spent hours by myself, reading words in little speech and thought bubbles, getting into the minds of superheroes, and enjoying the colorful and exciting illustrations. I read The Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and of course Superman. Then I started getting into some real heavy duty stuff. I read things like The Fantastic Four, The Xmen, Silver Surfer, The Hulk, and my favorite, Spiderman. Of course, those guys are a subject for another day. Thinking back on such matters gives me the shivers. I wonder how I ever survived those dark, treacherous waters of my stormy youth.

That was long ago. I got over my superhero addiction, but I still enjoy an occasional dip in those waters. Everything in moderation. Now a days, I am content to simply go to a movie theater and spend a couple of hours with fellow patrons of superhero lore losing myself in eye popping special effects that take me back to a time when it took a good imagination to actually see such a spectacle. I see nothing wrong with spending a couple of hours in an air conditioned movie theater to lose myself in another universe and then coming out to meet a sunshiny day and rejoin the real world.

I bring all this up because I recently heard that Superman plans on renouncing his US citizenship. An interesting concept and an intriguing turn of events, to say the least. Of course, in the real world, beings with super powers don't exist. They are the creation of a human mind. Those human minds, like mine and yours, have a set of beliefs and ideals that are reflected in their creations. They also have an agenda. Like it or not, we all try to influence the world as best we can. The creators of Superman are no exception. This leads me to a few questions. What is the agenda the writers of Superman are trying to endorse? Do they even realize they are pushing an agenda? How well thought out is this agenda?

Now, to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of citizenship in the first place. To me, citizenship implies a sort of hierarchy of a coercive state over the individual. It implies allegiance to a group of bureaucratic authority figures who exercise power and control of the masses. I am a fan of individual sovereignty and voluntary interactions. I believe in free markets and voluntary business dealings. I believe the state should intercede only in cases where one sovereign entity has harmed, robbed or defrauded another. I believe the state should respect individual rights, including the right to own private property, and should not be allowed to steal for its own benefit. I believe that individuals should have power over the state and instruments of the state equal to or above the power the state has over the individual. That is certainly not true in modern America as the federal government has nearly immeasurable powers over the individual. America is not the beacon of freedom shining to an authoritarian world across the waters it once was, it has become an authoritarian entity in and of itself, a socialistic empire of the world dedicated to imposing its will upon all peoples.

The principles I hold dear were the same principles America was supposedly founded upon. They may not be perfect, they may have gaping flaws, but they are there to be nurtured if we are only vigilant and wise enough to do so. So, the question becomes, has Superman given up on these principles, or is he simply positioning himself to become a tool of an even greater power than the United States federal government? Does Superman realize that the modern American way is no longer the way America was supposed to be? Does Superman still believe in truth and justice, or has he aligned himself with the lying super elite who wish to set up a one world, socialistic, authoritarian government? Will Superman attempt to uphold the Constitution, or does he believe it is an outdated document that holds no value in the modern collectivist regimes that pose as free Western nation states? It will be interesting to see how this plays out in upcoming issues.

One way we'll know what side of the propaganda line the writers and editors of Superman stand upon is who will be the villains and how they will be portrayed. Sure, it's easy to show Superman supporting non violent protestors and standing up to tin pot dictators, but how will he fare when it comes to the gray areas of international politics and social agendas? Will Superman align himself with unions, or with governors? Will he become a friend of the police, or a friend of the pot smoker they beat to within an inch of his life? Will he rush to the aid of the TSA agents feeling up some good looking suspected terrorist who refused a naked body scan, or will he rush to the aid of someone being beaten by those same agents because they stood up for their rights? Will he stand with tax protestors who have refused to pay for unjust wars or other unpalatable federal government programs, or will he help the tax collectors subjugate and destroy such uppity miscreants? These are some tough issues to address, even for Superman.

Will the bad guys be anarchists who wish the violent overthrow of supposedly legitimate governments, or will they be the CIA agents who infiltrate and even set up such groups and then provocateur violence to entrap otherwise peaceful individuals? Will the bad guys be portrayed as uncaring industrialists working to destroy the Earth through negligent pollution or will they be the plotting leaders of the green movement looking to destroy humanity through corrupt science, manipulation of public opinion and the regulation of life giving gases? Will the targets of Superman's ire be the soldier following orders, or will they be the corrupt politicians lying a nation into war? Will the enemy be the common dissident, or the super wealthy central bankers and globalists?

Just how indoctrinated is Superman anyway? How deep does his philosophy go? I wonder, has he ever given any thought to economics? Does he realize that most, if not all, of the evil mankind does has its roots in economics? Most of the fraud, wars, and other ills created by mankind is done for greed and love of power. If one can control and regulate how business and trade is run, then one can control the world. Perhaps the easiest way to achieve this would be to have a monopoly on the creation of the currency used to do business throughout the world.

The founders of the United States of America knew this and tried to anticipate such a threat by providing instructions in the constitution on the creation of money. Our forefathers were warned that paper money was trouble, that the power to issue it could be abused, and that only gold and silver should ever be legal tender. They were warned that issuance of such debt notes could lead to economic catastrophe and the lose of property for the common folk. The Federal Reserve note that has also become known as the United States dollar is such a debt note. It has also become the world's reserve currency, though it is no longer regulated by the gold market, or any other precious metal market, in any way, shape or form. This fact has led to the concentration of wealth worldwide into the hands of a very few people, giving them far too much power to implement their will upon the great mass of humanity. The question is, does Superman realize this and if so will he side with the common folk, or is he willing to look the other way and go after some lesser bad guys for a bit of payoff from the elite?

In my opinion, which I'm sure is shared by others, one of the best ways to take power from the super elite and put it back into the hands of the common folk is to take away the monopoly that allows them to issue the world's currencies in paper notes based on debt. So, in coming issues, will we see Superman storm into a congressional hearing and hear him demand that Ben Bernanke release the records of where the bailout money went? Will he demand the money be returned to the taxpayers who never wanted the bailouts in the first place? Will he help Ron Paul and other congresspersons push through a bill to fully and completely audit the fed? Will he help with the transition to competitive money? Will he help reestablish honest, constitutional money in the United States? In the rest of the world? Will he be a friend of the common folk, or a tool of the new world order? Only time will tell.

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.