How Much Does Darkness Weigh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radical Forgiveness and the Power Elite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul Proves Election Myths False

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talking Politics to Worshippers of the State (Part 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talking Politics to Worshippers of the State (Part 1)

There have been several occasions in my lifetime when I have found myself in the presence of some red faced, very angry person yelling at me about some political issue or another. Indeed, there was a time in my life where I might have become just as red faced and yelled back. In fact, such an occurrence could possibly happen today if I was to be caught off guard or in some emotional moment when such a conversation comes up. Let's face it, people just get real emotional when it comes to politics. They get these ideas in their heads and they're so enamored by them that it becomes inconceivable that someone else could have a different view on things. Some people even become zealots about their politics, just like some do about religions.

When discussing politics, I feel it is important to have an idea about what you are trying to accomplish. Many people who engage in such a conversation will be mulling things over in their heads trying to find some kind of logic in the actions of politicians. This can be an exercise in futility, but people do like to think that those entrusted with public office are somehow looking out for the best interests of everyone they are supposed to represent. So, if you are like me, you are trying to win a heart and mind if you strike up a conversation or engage yourself in such an activity. When someone asks a question or offers his opinion, it becomes an opportunity to get that person to think about freedom.

So, with this in mind, that you are trying to convince someone of the validity of your point of view, there are a few rules I think everyone should follow. First and foremost, be respectful! Remember that it's not mere politics your talking about, it's someone's deep belief, it's as strong as a religion and when you point out flaws in the system it seems to people with these deeply held beliefs that you are attacking their very essence. Since they were young they've been taught in government schools that they should look to government for the answers to society's woes. To say otherwise to them is blasphemy. It's sacrilege. The way to open the door to their mind is to be respectful of their beliefs. If you in any way, shape or form express disrespect for that point of view, they will slam the door shut and enter defensive mode.

So often I hear a conversation such as this:
"I think so and so should do such and such to solve this issue."
To which there is this response:
"That's stupid! So and so is a blah blah and whomever should do this and that."

That really is no way to start a conversation. One person just called the other's idea stupid. It may well be stupid, but to put it so bluntly may be injurious to the other and create a situation where he closes his mind to the other's ideas. Besides, the second speaker in the above example doesn't know how stupid his idea is going to sound to the first. In fact the whole conversation can quickly evolve into a "You're stupid," "No, you're stupid" situation. Nothing has been accomplished except that two people have fomented anger against each other, perhaps put a wedge in a friendship, and created an environment for hatred to flourish. There are those who would claim this is what the political elite want, that it is an important part of their divide and conquer strategy, and perhaps those people are right.

This brings me to the second rule I would like to discuss, avoid name calling at all costs. Nothing turns off a mind faster than name calling. Nothing is more counter productive. If you want to call my ideas crazy, I don't want to talk to you anymore. I you want to call me crazy, I don't even want to see you anymore. I certainly don't want to hear your ideas. I certainly don't want to consider anything you have to say as legitimate. My mindset is going to be turned to an "I'll show you who's crazy" attitude. Even if you have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that your point of view is correct, or the truth, or whatever, I'm going to be loathe to ever admit that, at least publicly, because your name calling has created in me a certain dislike toward you.

Name calling will only serve to cut you off from potential allies. If you think about it, just because someone's ideas on one issue might seem crazy or stupid to you, doesn't mean you disagree on all issues. It is said that politics make strange bedfellows and that's because sometimes even the most opposite of people find some issue that they can agree upon. I realize that it is often hard to show respect for an idea you have utter contempt for. I know that sometimes it is difficult to hold one's tongue when someone strikes one as an idiot. God knows I don't expect everyone to go out there and keep every political conversation civil. Politics, by its very nature, is emotional, not reasonable. It is important, however, in my humble opinion, to try to remain civil.

Perhaps some kind of approach like this could work:
"I think so and so should do such and such to solve this issue."
To which one responds:
"Well, that's an interesting idea, but have you ever thought about it this way..,"
Or, "I see where you're coming from, but here's another angle to consider..,"

A third rule to consider is don't be condescending. This is perhaps the most difficult behavior to overcome. It is something that I've been accused of and a character flaw I need to address. No one likes a know it all. No one likes to be made a fool of. Sarcasm can be funny, but it can also be hurtful. I know many of you might be thinking "But you use sarcasm and a condescending tone often in your writings," and you'd be right. When I do so in my writings, however, the target is usually someone who has put themselves out there to public scrutiny or even someone who is not named. This is quite different from a public display where one might be verbally defending himself. It is very likely that someone who is so enamored with the statist point of view that he would write or blog about it will never change his point of view. In a verbal discussion, particularly in a public venue, the last thing one wants to do is create an enemy who is dug in to defend his point of view.

I realize it can be difficult to change one's approach to political discourse. God knows I was so poor at doing so that I turned to writing in an effort to avoid a verbal exchange. Still, with practice and a little bit of information at your fingertips, it is not that difficult to keep political conversations just that, conversations, instead of having them devolve into shouting matches. I suppose it can be summed up in two words, be courteous. At least do your best to remain courteous. Try not to insult others, and try to be empathetic.
Try to be the bigger man (or woman). If a person is so emotionally attached to his political beliefs that he resorts to name calling and screaming, just bite your tongue and walk away. You are the adult, he is the childish bully. Give up on that person and any others who may have witnessed that exchange will likely respect you more for it.

I know that for some of you this may sound like common sense. In fact, this may be good advice not only when talking about politics, but when conversing with anyone about anything. The point is, often times these practices are already taken into consideration when discussing other facets of life, but they are somehow forgotten when talking politics. That is why one should remember these basic manners when the subject comes up. It also helps if you already know who has a proclivity to become loud and boisterous so that person can be avoided. If you're lucky, everyone else will also avoid them when politics are discussed and they will get the hint. You, on the other hand, should want to nurture a reputation of being one who listens and offers sensible alternative views when it comes to political discourse.

As I said earlier, people who worship the state will always look to the political class to solve problems, even their own personal problems. This is due to how they've been programmed by many influences we've all grown up with. These influences are subtle and quite pervasive in every day life. This makes it even more difficult to change the hearts and minds that are needed to get the numbers to help create a voluntary society. The few of us who have been able to shake the programming and see the tyranny need to be respectable and likeable in order to become an influence in another's life to juxtapose against the more harmful statist influences.

In a movie I recently saw called "The Hunger Games" one of the characters tells another that in order to survive she needs to get people to like her. There is wisdom in that advice. The more people who like you, the more likely they are to adopt at least some of your ideas. These ideas do, however, need to make sense to them. Now that I've outlined a few behaviors that will get them to actually listen to your point of view, I'd like to point out a few general stances that can be made to support the freedom point of view. I will write about those in part 2.

This was by no means meant to be an all inclusive list, but what I felt were some of the most important things to keep in mind. My hope is that it may help us all achieve a more peaceful society through civil discourse.

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

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

What if Everyone Voted for Ron Paul?

What if everyone voted for Ron Paul? I think that would be a good thing. I think that would show the establishment that, indeed, freedom is important to each and every one of us. I think it would show that we all do care about shrinking the government. I think that would show that we all wish for the Constitution to be obeyed, as many of those who take an oath to it have not done for ages. I think it would show that honesty and principle are important to the voters and they look for such attributes in their politicians. But I wonder, if everyone voted for Ron Paul, would we even know it? Well, of course if everybody voted for him, I don't think there'd be a problem because that would mean that the current power elite had admitted the error of their ways and were willing to let go of their control of things in favor of letting everyone run their own lives. I doubt very much that will happen.

It is the establishment controllers who are afraid of Ron Paul. It is they who are afraid of losing their power. It is they who are afraid of freedom and the principles that built this nation. They aren't about to admit failure, no matter how glaring that failure is. So what if everyone except the establishment elite voted for Ron Paul? What would happen then? Would they even let us know?

I think that if that many people voted for Ron Paul, they'd have to acknowledge it. If everywhere we went we were seeing Ron Paul bumper stickers and hearing "Yeah! Ron Paul!" and having conversations about freedom versus tyranny and how the recent unconstitutional laws passed need to be repealed and how the Federal Reserve System needs to be ended, I think if that were the case the powers that be would have to relent and we'd hear that Ron Paul barely beat out his statist competitors.

They'd downplay it as much as they possibly could and try not to show on their establishment owned television stations the millions celebrating. Instead, the talking heads and establishment paid pundits would come on and discuss how much damage Ron Paul's ideas will do to the economy. They'd show rooms filled with disappointed Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum supporters trying to maximize their influence as they did so in an effort to make it look like many more people actually agreed with those guys than do in reality. They don't like it when their guys are defeated. Plans B and C would be rolled out as they would do their best to discredit honesty, principle and the free market.

So, what if a majority of Republican voters were to vote for Ron Paul in some Republican primary, or even in a caucus? What if a couple entire states cast more votes for Ron Paul than any other candidate? Do you think we would know? Not if the power establishment could help it. Do you think the Republican establishment would want any of the zombies to know that these ideas are getting more popular and actually make sense and have great merit? No way. I imagine that they're pissed that Ron Paul even gets to take a place in the debates. I imagine that they're angry that anyone who didn't meet their approval and play their games is getting any type of attention at all.

The election fraud is becoming more evident. Here's a nice short video to watch. Something exactly like that actually happened to me when I went to vote. I had to fill out the ballot twice and it still didn't take, so I had to drop it in the box. They said my vote would count. Yeah, right. The Republican establishment is running scared. It looks to them that if Ron Paul wins, they will no longer be able to ride on the gravy train. They won't be able to. They'll actually have to do real work and produce something of real worth in the real world if freedom should break out. Of course the establishment doesn't want that.

What if Ron Paul really is winning? What if he really is getting more delegates than the other candidates? What if Ron Paul supporters really are using the rules and regulations as set up by the Republican Party to wrest the nomination away from their globalist chosen ones? What if Ron Paul supporters want so much to inject real issues and a real discussion as to what's really going on in the world into the political discourse that they're willing to go great lengths against great odds to see this through? This video might be a little hard to watch, but it shows just how the establishment plans on handling such an event. It seems as if Ron Paul has become enemy #1 of the GOP. The Republican Party is using all the tricks in their books and breaking their own rules to keep Ron Paul from winning.

The neocons are losing their grip. The people have seen through their lies and now understand they are just as much about big government as the Democrats. More and more people are learning about freedom and what it truly means. More and more people are beginning to say, "Hey, I just want to be left alone too." The poor, pathetic Republican leadership can't see that Ron Paul as a candidate would save their party and restore the principles that made America great. They'd rather bow down to the will of their authoritarian, globalist masters and do whatever is necessary to keep the truth about Ron Paul's popularity buried and make sure their anointed candidate is nominated. Though I feel sorry for such brainwashed sycophants, I would still like to see them investigated and their fraud exposed.

What if Ron Paul supporters don't give up and his popularity continues to swell? Well, they haven't given up so far, I don't see why they should now. It is up to you in the local provinces to take over those levers and to restore honesty and principle to the election mechanisms there. It is up to you to make sure that the process is wrested away from the big government types so that the voice of those who want smaller, constitutionally limited government is heard loud and clear.

Remember, this r3VOLution was really never about Ron Paul. He is not a cult of personality, unlike the other Republican candidates. He is not a narcissistic control freak like most politicians. This election is not about feeding his ego. That's what makes him so refreshing. In addition to everything else he stands for, he is probably one of the humblest men to have held office in a long time. No, the r3VOLution is about restoring individual freedom. Whether Ron Paul is elected or not, it is quite important that the establishment come to the understanding that the common folk just want to be left alone to run their own lives. It is important to let them know that we see through their tricks and we know what their game is. It is important that the establishment politicians come to realize that freedom is popular, and it is time we held their feet to the fire and made them deliver on the promise of America to safeguard individual freedoms. It is time we made them keep their oaths of office to honor the Constitution. What if we were able to do just that?

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

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

Consciousness as Plasma and Software

I'd like to take a moment to step into the realm of pure speculation. Since time immemorial mankind has pondered his own consciousness. I wonder if even tens of millions of years ago, in a time when bizarre animals walked the earth, if some of these were able to ponder the deep questions of spirituality and wonder where they came from and why they existed. Indeed, one can see a certain intelligence in higher level mammals we keep around as pets as they try to communicate to us their needs and their emotions. What, exactly, is consciousness? What is mind? Is there such a thing as the soul? These are questions whose answers have eluded mankind in his physical form (the only form we can be certain of) since forever. Unfortunately, I don't think that modern science is open minded enough to always ask the right questions or look for the answers in the right places.

The universe, as it is, appears to be made up of energy and matter. As living beings, we are made of matter. As living beings, we need energy to keep going, to survive. As human beings, we use matter and energy to accomplish goals and create things, hence changing the universe around us. We have left our mark on this world more than any other creature we are aware of. We can understand much about the physical world we live in, yet there is much that still eludes us. There is much about energy and matter we do not understand. It is a large universe and the vibrations we can sense with any of our five physical senses are quite limited.

For the purpose of this essay, I define consciousness as the state of being aware, both of self and of the universe one interacts with. There are many scientists who claim that consciousness is the function of physical matter, especially the brain. If they are arguing against the existence of a soul, they will argue that when the body ceases to function and support the brain, then the consciousness of that person (or being) also ceases to exist. The universe has therefore lost something magnificent and unique forever. I don't believe this is so. I think that the consciousness of a person continues on even after his physical form ceases to function on this plane of existence.

Let's take a quick look at what we call plasma. While there is much that has been discovered about it and its varying forms, there is much we don't know about plasma. Plasma is a fourth form of matter. It is highly unstable. The other three forms are solids, liquids, and gases. We see plasma manifest as fire, lightning, solar activity, et. al. It seems to me to be a transitional phase between matter and energy, a conduit, as it were, between the two. Plasma usually gives off some form of radiation as it flashes in and out of existence, usually heat and light. Yet there is plasma that exists at levels we cannot see or feel, just as there is an infinity of frequencies of energy we cannot sense with these physical bodies. Indeed, even the machines we build to detect these wavelengths are limited in their ability to do so.

So, one might ask, how is it that consciousness can be plasma? Well, if plasma can be considered a transitional phenomenon, we can take a look at its function when interfacing with the brain, an instrument we all carry around with us in our heads. Electrical impulses are stimulating the neurons which cause us to understand what's going on in the world around us. Electric impulses flash through the material that is the brain and cause it to function. We use these same electrical impulses to control the actions of our body that interact with the physical world. In this way there is a constant flow of plasma inside our body which is converting matter to energy acting upon the inner workings of our bodies and through our bodies acting upon the universe outside of it.

It seems to me that the workings of the mind go beyond the physical nature of the brain. There's just something more to it than the physical inputs known as senses. My dreams prove this to me. I can, for instance, experience flying while I've never done that before. I can experience places I've never seen before and later see pictures which confirm what I've seen. I have used my dreams to help craft the fantastic stories that I write. While you may not have had the same type of experiences or you may not hold the same views as I and so you make other excuses, this is enough to serve as proof in my mind.

I think the soul is a form of plasma. It is the spark of life that inhabits the physical body so that it can better experience the physical world. It carries the memories of past lives and collects the memories of this life so that it can learn the lessons needed to help it progress in another dimension, perhaps to help one better understand one's own divinity. I'm not certain as to how this is done, but one possibility is that these memories are stored inside the vibrations of the soul, encoded in the frequencies it resonates.

To help better visualize how this is possible, think of a neon light. The gas inside it is a form of plasma. The glass on the outside forms the shape of the plasma as it flows between the nodes. The slight variations in brightness occur because of variations in frequency. The body is like the glass of the neon light. The soul is like the gas inside. The variations in frequency manifest in a number of ways inside the body. The soul could be contained in a small spherical form when the vehicle it occupies wears out. This is the most efficient form in nature.

I consider the mind to be more like software. This is the program that is used by the human being to help define how it will interact with the universe it finds itself in. This program can change as the universe changes. As the universe becomes more hostile the software will become more defensive. As the universe becomes less hostile the software will become more cooperative. As the universe becomes more complex, the reasoning ability might improve. As it becomes less manufactured and more natural, the emotional ability to feel for the natural world might improve.

Put mind and soul together and we get consciousness. We become aware that we exist. We realize a way to interact with other things that also exist on the same plane we do. We try to manipulate the other things to bring pleasure and joy to ourselves. We try to avoid contact with things that cause us pain, sadness, or some other kind of stress. We seek to bring happiness to ourselves while at the same time others are trying to manipulate the universe to their liking which may bring displeasure to others, either inadvertently or purposely.

Add this consciousness to a physical body and something amazing happens. The brain becomes a hardwired computer for the consciousness. The body becomes a tool for manipulating the physical world using brain, spirit and mind. Of course it takes time to learn to use the brain and body effectively. This, by the way, is true of modern robots that are being created. They have to change their software as they learn to interact with the world. AI is becoming extremely sophisticated. Amazingly so. It's still no match for the power of the human brain, however. I don't think artificial intelligence will ever be a match for the human brain until or unless biological material is used and someone figures out how to add a soul and an ethereal mind to the mix.

There is, of course, no proof to any of what I've outlined here. It is all conjecture on my part. It is a belief system. Besides, I have no idea how I would go about trying to prove these hypotheses nor do I have the equipment or the funding should any be necessary. I will leave it up to others who might be interested to do this. Besides, I think there is evidence for what I believe out there, but I leave it up to the reader to discover it. I think a lot of evidence for the metaphysical is accepted or rejected due to the preconceptions of most people anyway. I give the most credence to my own personal experiences that I've had over the course of my lifetime. I imagine most people do. My mind remains open to other possibilities and experiences.

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

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

The Groping, Power Grabbing TSA Scam

The TSA has become a poster child for government intrusion and ineptitude. It really is one of the worst excuses for a government program ever created. I've seen people refer to the TSA as anything from Thousands Standing Around to Total Sexual Assault. I have one of my own, Truly Scamming America. The only agency I can think of that is more hated by Americans would be the IRS. Yet there are still those who apologize for this horrendous boondoggle. There are still those who believe the hype and propaganda that helped bring about the agency in the first place. Perhaps for them there is no help. Perhaps they will always pray at the foot of the gigantic holy owl known as the federal government. Perhaps there are some people who will always wish to be enslaved, who need to be told what to do or they would be lost. I can only hope that one day they will come to understand their true power and the pride liberation brings.

I think that many people have problems with the TSA. I know of at least a couple of people that would have flown somewhere a few times in the past couple of years, but they've decided to drive or to not travel at all because of the TSA. If I know a couple, I could only imagine the thousands of others I don't know who feel the same way. I know that tourism to the United States is way down because of how travelers are treated by the TSA. Not too many people from Europe want to come here to vacation anymore. Most people probably couldn't care less about this, but there are many in tourist areas whose livelihoods are directly affected because of this.

There are plenty of people who have to travel by airplane, however, and these people have continued to clamp their mouths shut and go along to get along. They grumble and complain quietly, but they do little to stop the abuse because they feel they have no other choice. The establishment media continues to showcase the few who shrug their shoulders and claim we need to submit to authority to maintain our security. They ignore the mostly silent grumblers and portray the active dissenters as a few crybabies who may perhaps have mental issues. As time goes on, however, it is the dissenters who have been shown to be correct and the establishment that is proving itself to be inept bullies that couldn't care less about security, human rights, or any principles that made this nation great and help us all to prosper.

The TSA could only exist as a government creation. It would not survive in the free market. If the airlines were responsible for providing for passengers' security, the ones providing TSA style security would likely soon find themselves losing costumers to airlines that provided less intrusive and more effective security practices. But it's not just about providing security, it is about control and teaching people to be obedient. It's a big scam designed to make a population that has a history of freedom and independence accept the dictates of a ruling class. As has been reported in the news, TSA style security, as inept and poorly received as it has been, is expanding to other venues and even to sporting events. The mission creep is undeniable.

Providing security, even crappy, low level security is big business. Much of that business has gone to people and businesses with political connections. Billions are spent, all of it wasteful. Take a look at this simple chart created by onlinecriminaljusticedegree.com. It is straightforward and easy to understand. This shows just how wasteful they've been and how completely worthless they are. If you look into the facts and study sources other than those with conflicts of interest and you still somehow believe the TSA is necessary and doing a good job, I'd have to wonder about you.

Someone's in denial here. It's either the people who still trust that the government is working for them and keeping us safe, or it's the government itself. Either the people are in denial and believe that the TSA is doing a good job and keeping us safe, or the TSA is in denial and believes that most people appreciate the job they are doing. Either way, the denial needs to end. Either the people need to admit that the TSA is a total failure and security needs to be provided and paid for by the airlines, or the TSA needs to admit that the silence of those who go along to get along does not equate to consent and that the majority of people think they're too heavy handed and intrusive.

So what if the body scanners manage to take naked pictures of people like we dreamed those x-ray glasses in the back of magazines would do when we were kids? We're all adults here, right? We've all seen penises, breasts and vaginas before, right? I mean, it's no big deal if they see yours, as long as we're all kept safe, right? Besides, they promised to just look at the bluish, shadowy, negative type pictures, right? They promised not to save any of the pictures, right? And if someday these images manage to find their way onto the Internet and we all get to see what you look like naked, it's no big deal. We're all adults and professionals, so there'd be no reason to be embarrassed.

As for the radiation, there's nothing to be concerned about. They just raised the amount of radiation units your body can handle, so everything's fine. You're exposed to less radiation than when you fly, at least according to government sources. You believe them, don't you? And don't worry about the TSA agents who sit by those radiation cookers all day long, they have great insurance. I'm sure they'll be covered, that is if they can prove that the naked body scanners caused the maladies they come down with later in life.

Government doesn't care. The facts come out and they don't care, they simply ignore the facts or make up their own. People protest and they don't care. They're voted out of office and they don't care. Nothing changes. They're making their money. They're in power, even behind the scenes. They've got their monopoly privilege and they're not giving it up. They've created the TSA, and I believe other alphabet agencies, not because they care about protecting you as they want you to believe, but as a scam to justify breaking the law that is the Constitution of the United States of America. They've created it as a justification to violate your rights. They've created it to control and manipulate your emotions so that you will submit to their demands. You stay scared and they stay powerful.

I don't mean to make it sound hopeless. In fact, I think that every act of defiance brings new hope. I think that every new jab at the TSA weakens them. I think every time some person or group points out their flaws it takes away a little more of their legitimacy. I hope that the political pressure to end the TSA remains high. I hope the protests continue. The TSA shows the seedy underbelly of what a police state looks like and what an out of control, centralized, representative republic can become if allowed to escape the bonds of the laws that are supposed to chain it down and limit it. I hope to see plenty of people out protesting this year, both for the Occupy groups and for the Tea Partiers. I hope to see both groups promoting their freedom aspects and shunning their collectivist views.

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

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