As a writer and a blogger, I do occasionally correspond with some of my
readers who my writings have touched. Sometimes I am exposed to
interesting stories about their lives and maybe some epiphany they might
have had. Such is the case with Howard who recently emailed me with a
personal story about an interaction he had with what he described as a
liberal/socialist on facebook. He now faces a dilemma many others who
have discovered the message of freedom face, the dilemma of extricating
themselves from a system they find repugnant without starving to death.
What happened was that the socialist pointed out to him that he was a
hypocrite because he works for a defense contractor that supplies food
to soldiers in Afghanistan. The money he was earning through his labor
was coming from tax payers. Therefore, he was just as much of a tax
feeder as anyone else who earns money through government. He was just as
responsible for legitimizing big government as most anyone else. He
argued that he worked for a private company and had no control over
where his employer got money from, but when he went to bed that night
and had a chance to think about it, he began to think that maybe the
socialist was right. This thought disturbed him greatly.
Let me say now that I commend Howard, and anyone else who may be have
had a similar epiphany. It's easy to criticize others, it's much harder
to look inside yourself or at your own way of life and see the same or
similar flaws. It's easy to maintain a state of denial and blame the
woes of the world on others. It's harder to see how you, yourself, might
be contributing to the misery.
Good German soldiers were just doing their jobs guarding the gates of
the concentration camps. Good German citizens were just doing their jobs
driving the trains to those same camps. They were just doing their jobs
making clothes for the soldiers. They were just doing their jobs
providing food to the guards. They were just doing their jobs shuffling
paperwork and making sure all the proper forms made it to their
superiors. They were just being good citizens doing their civic duty by
reporting their neighbors' suspicious activities to the proper
authorities. Like so many who testified at the Nuremburg trials, they
were all just following orders. They were all just doing their little
part to make sure the tyranny was well oiled and running smoothly.
And yet, how were they supposed to stop it? How were they, tiny cogs in a
huge bureaucratic machine, supposed to bring the system to a grinding
halt? Especially in a time of war? Especially when the people of Germany
were surrounded by enemies and battling for their very survival? How
were they supposed to worry about the freedoms of a few "undesirables"
and "misfits" when they were so worried about their own fates? Well, any
act to help those targeted by the Nazi regime, including merely
pointing out the tyranny, would have taken tremendous courage.
It starts by recognizing that there is a problem. This is more difficult
than it may sound when one considers that most people are brought up
inundated with statist propaganda. Think about it for a minute. Do you
think that German school children in the 1920s and 30s were being taught
that their country was bad? Do you think they were taught that their
system was no good? Do you think they were taught to question authority?
I doubt it. Likely they were taught that theirs was one of the most
advanced systems in the world. They were, after all, a modern industrial
democracy, just like us. They were likely taught to accept the will of
the majority, to respect and obey authority figures, especially those
elected to high office, to find their niche, do their jobs, pay their
taxes, and to just go along to get along. As adults they were likely
faced with a barrage of propaganda aimed at keeping them from thinking
too deeply. They were but a tiny entity in a greater collective. The
security of the fatherland was paramount, all else was inconsequential.
So, at least Howard recognizes that there is a problem. He has admitted
it to himself. He even recognizes that he is part of the problem. The
socialist he was chatting with on Facebook might not even recognize that
much. He might think the system is a good thing. He might think that
extortion is fine as long as they call it taxation and use it for the
betterment of all mankind. As long as the mob doing the extortion calls
itself government. The socialist might think that slavery is fine as
long as the slaves are doctors and they are forced to service sick
people with no money. He might not see it from this perspective, or he
might refuse to believe such terms are appropriate in these cases. Worse
still is the socialist who does see it in the terms described above and
still makes excuses for criminal behavior.
Once the problem is recognized and the individual's part in it is seen,
the question becomes what to do about it. While our modern society might
not have devolved to the point that German society in the 1930s did,
there's no sense in waiting that long. We certainly don't want to
revisit that dark time. So what can be done before it's too late? What
can be done before dissenters are being handcuffed and dragged off to
prison for speaking their minds? What can be done before those with
power start abusing it in ways no one wants to think about?
As I said at the beginning of this article, it can be difficult to
extricate one's self from the system without starving to death. It's not
your fault if you're stuck in the system, the system has been designed
to entrap. You were born into this system, you didn't design it. Part of
being free is having the ability to design a system that works for your
life, and part of tyranny is making sure that you are unable to do so.
It is your fault, however, if you recognize the inherent evil and
corruption in the system and you do nothing to try to overcome it. It is
your fault if you willfully just go along to get along, head down,
saying nothing, just accepting it, doing your job without protest and
making sure the wheels of tyranny remain properly greased. It's your
fault if you consent, either silently or with a clear voice, to being
ruled over in such a manner.
Certainly if one has the means one should step out of the system. If one
is able one should try to start a farm and work to provide organic food
to those who are demanding it, which is something I would like to try.
One should do their best to claim that they own their own property and
owe nothing to anyone unless they voluntarily use services that are
provided. One should do their best to advertise the claim that they own
the product of their labor, the money that they've earned, and that they
owe nothing to those who would try to enslave them by claiming a
portion of that income. One should, if one has the means, do their best
to convert debt notes into precious metals and find others who will be
willing to trade goods and services for said precious metals. In short,
if one has the means, one should do their best to participate in
alternative markets and economies rather than just bending to the will
of those who make laws proclaiming monopoly privileges on currency and
economic activity.
But not everyone has those means. Some people need to stay inside the
system to survive. These people should strive to do what they can to
change the system from within. They can complain, deviate and educate.
They can bring these subjects up, try to explain to others the
principles of freedom and why we are not, as a nation, adhering to those
principles. There is strength in numbers and the more people who
understand the more likely it is that positive change toward the lofty
goal of achieving liberty will be made. Just because you do a job
doesn't mean you have to like doing it, and it doesn't necessarily mean
you have to condone the activity and the corruption. But you should do
your best to find some way to disempower the established practices and
empower alternatives. Let it be known that you do not consent, even if
you begrudgingly participate.
People can do what I do. They can blog about these things. The more
people discussing such philosophies, the better. They can use social
networking to voice agreement with principles of non aggression and
freedom. These are powerful modern tools that weren't available a couple
of decades ago. The more people expressing these ideas, the better. In
this way we can become a force to be reckoned with. Remember, freedom is
a uniting idea. It might seem counter intuitive, but the ideals of
individualism actually unite while collectivist ideals have the tendency
to be divisive. That's because most everyone understands the concept of
having the ability to make their own decisions for their own lives.
They want others to respect their choices, so they should respect the
choices of others in return. Collectivism, on the other hand, moves
toward a one size fits all solution across the board and removes
choices, disrespecting your ability to make choices for your own life.
It divides people into two or more camps, each camp vying to have their
solution made into the one size fits all solution the collectivist
government will adopt.
I'm sure there are other ways to express one's preference for freedom
principles. There are as many ways to express them, as many ideas for
moving toward a more free society, as there are people on the planet. We
all have likely been hypocritical some way or another in our lives.
We've all likely been in a situation where our principles may have been
set aside for some reason or another. Life is imperfect and it is likely
that nothing is exactly how one would have it if one were in charge.
The important thing is that once one is awakened, one participates in
waking others. All one can do is try to peacefully inform those who
whose minds are open and try to open those minds that are trapped in the
jail cells created by indoctrination and propaganda. All one can do is
strive to live as best one can without interfering with others' rights
to do the same.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help
me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews
if you like them so that others might also enjoy them.
Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman
Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti
The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti
The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti
Monday, January 28, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
The Nature of Evil and Collectivism
One of mankind's deepest, longest asked questions is "Why is there
evil?" It is a valid question to be asked. I'm not sure if anyone has
the correct answer, or if there even is a correct answer, or if there is
an answer at all. Certainly many theories have been proffered, and many
reasons given even by those who create evil in the world, but do any of
these truly answer the question of why it exists? There are
explanations as to why it becomes physically manifest, but how far does
it stretch into the metaphysical? As a writer of both fantasy and
horror, a study into the nature of evil is essential in helping me to
create good fiction. It can also help explain why it exists and how it
can be conquered.
When studying any subject it helps to start with the basics. In this case, one might want to define evil. What, exactly, is evil? Does one know how to define it, or is it like pornography, tough to define but one knows it when one sees it? Well, I suppose one can define evil as something that is done against the wishes of another. Of course, that's a rather over simplistic way to look at it and it can be easily argued that sometimes one has to do something against the wishes of another for that other person's own good. So, for this essay, I will define evil as something done against the wishes of others which is detrimental or causes harm to some even though it might be to the benefit of others, and which somehow benefits those carrying out the harmful behavior.
Evil is as evil does. In other words, evil doesn't just sit there in the world looking, feeling, sounding or smelling ugly, evil is evil because of its behavior. Thoughts and feelings are not evil. Fear, hatred, anger, envy, greed, et al. aren't necessarily evil, but they are more likely to lead to evil behaviors. Conversely, courage, love, passivity, generosity, et al. are more likely to lead to good behaviors. All the thoughts and emotions described above, however, can lead to either good or evil behaviors, depending on how they're channeled. The key lies in expressing freewill, and most importantly in allowing others to do the same.
Evil, by its very nature, subverts the freewill. This can be done either overtly or covertly. When done overtly, fighting it is easy. Of course the easiest way to subvert freewill is to take the life of anyone who would exercise it. The evil of this behavior is obvious and self evident. The evil is just as self evident when one resorts to brute force, threats, bullying and other such methods to subvert freewill. Men of power who resort to such methods often come to a violent and untimely demise. Their evil is so manifest the people see it clearly and rally to depose it. It is for this reason that men of evil designed systems that would perpetuate their evil under the guise of doing good. The less resistance they encountered, the easier it would be for them to subvert individual freewill. And if they couldn't accomplish this in their lifetimes, then they wanted to be sure their progeny would be able to complete what they started.
Evil in its subtler forms can lead to evil in its more overt forms. This happens because a few might start to recognize the evil that is being perpetrated. They may try to point out that the good intentions of the many subvert the freewill of a few. This isn't readily accepted by the many, or by the powers that be, and so they move to silence those who speak the truth. They will ostracize these people, keep them from speaking in a public forum, shout them down, censor them, call them names, question their sanity, whatever it takes to discredit them or keep them quiet. If the powers that be think someone's message is dangerous enough or if they worry that too many people may be listening, they can use the power of authority to make someone's life a living hell, even to the point of causing the death of that person, again either overtly or covertly.
Then there is power, and the lust for it. People like to be in power. They like to have power over others. They like to be idolized and adored by the masses. They like it so much so that many will stop at nothing to obtain such power. Even if it means subverting the freewill of those who would oppose them. Even if it means engaging in evil behavior. They may not want to admit this is what they are doing, they may not want to look at themselves in the mirror and think of themselves as evil, and so they will put on the mask of claiming that what they are doing is for some elusive greater good.
I don't believe in the idea of a Utopia. Those who would try to sell that idea are usually doing so for their own benefit. A collectivist society claiming authority to do the greatest good is also capable of doing the greatest evil. By allowing individual freewill to flourish as much as possible, any evil that may occur is mitigated because it will only have the power to flow through the individual. It will not be able to flow through the powerful collective as a whole. In this way evil does the least amount of damage possible.
In modern society, political debates have come to the forefront involving prohibitions against certain goods and services. What are prohibitions if not an attempt to subvert freewill? People on both sides of the issues point to this statistic or that scientific study to make their points about building a better society through prohibition, but politics is not about science. Most politicians aren't scientists. Politics is about philosophy. Politics is about who is going to control your life, and the lives of others, who is going to pay for it, and how much are they going to pay. Politics is about forming a collective with enough power to subvert the freewill of anyone who questions the motives of that collective. Government has become about forcing everyone else to submit to the will of that authoritative collective.
Evil may have come into being because of the desire to do good. It may have come into being because of a desire to keep others from harm. Those who have been through the school of hard knocks may wish to keep others from experiencing the same pain and disappointment as they've experienced. While explanations and the way of gentle persuasion is fine, restrictions subverting the freewill of the individual are not the way to go about teaching. This is not how humans learn. The freewill of others needs to be respected, as you would want others to respect your freewill. We must allow for mistakes to be made. We must allow for failure if genuine learning and human growth is to take place.
From the drug war to the war on the second amendment, from free speech zones to TSA warrantless searches, from the monopoly on currency creation to the corporate cartels dominating world trade, the evil in the system has become obvious to anyone who cares to look. You can turn your eyes away from the ugliness and claim it doesn't exist, or you can make the claim that these are "necessary evils," but denial and excuses aren't going to solve the problems faced by modern society. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. A necessary evil is still an evil. Until we as a society recognize this and stop tolerating the subversion of freewill, evil will exist because we want it to exist, because we believe it can be tamed and domesticated.
Evil will likely always exist. There will always be those who wish to control others, who wish to subvert the freewill of individuals for their own benefit. The trick is to minimize the effect these people have on the rest of us. This is done by dissembling centralized institutions of power and decentralizing government. This is done by creating a voluntary society where there is no ruling class claiming authority to steal from a working class. This is done by creating a system that does not allow for force to be used against the individual, unless that individual is somehow harming or stealing from others. This is done by condemning the ideals of collectivism and exalting the ideals of individualism. This is accomplished when the governed refuse to give consent to those who would govern them.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also enjoy them.
Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman
Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti
The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti
The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti
When studying any subject it helps to start with the basics. In this case, one might want to define evil. What, exactly, is evil? Does one know how to define it, or is it like pornography, tough to define but one knows it when one sees it? Well, I suppose one can define evil as something that is done against the wishes of another. Of course, that's a rather over simplistic way to look at it and it can be easily argued that sometimes one has to do something against the wishes of another for that other person's own good. So, for this essay, I will define evil as something done against the wishes of others which is detrimental or causes harm to some even though it might be to the benefit of others, and which somehow benefits those carrying out the harmful behavior.
Evil is as evil does. In other words, evil doesn't just sit there in the world looking, feeling, sounding or smelling ugly, evil is evil because of its behavior. Thoughts and feelings are not evil. Fear, hatred, anger, envy, greed, et al. aren't necessarily evil, but they are more likely to lead to evil behaviors. Conversely, courage, love, passivity, generosity, et al. are more likely to lead to good behaviors. All the thoughts and emotions described above, however, can lead to either good or evil behaviors, depending on how they're channeled. The key lies in expressing freewill, and most importantly in allowing others to do the same.
Evil, by its very nature, subverts the freewill. This can be done either overtly or covertly. When done overtly, fighting it is easy. Of course the easiest way to subvert freewill is to take the life of anyone who would exercise it. The evil of this behavior is obvious and self evident. The evil is just as self evident when one resorts to brute force, threats, bullying and other such methods to subvert freewill. Men of power who resort to such methods often come to a violent and untimely demise. Their evil is so manifest the people see it clearly and rally to depose it. It is for this reason that men of evil designed systems that would perpetuate their evil under the guise of doing good. The less resistance they encountered, the easier it would be for them to subvert individual freewill. And if they couldn't accomplish this in their lifetimes, then they wanted to be sure their progeny would be able to complete what they started.
Evil in its subtler forms can lead to evil in its more overt forms. This happens because a few might start to recognize the evil that is being perpetrated. They may try to point out that the good intentions of the many subvert the freewill of a few. This isn't readily accepted by the many, or by the powers that be, and so they move to silence those who speak the truth. They will ostracize these people, keep them from speaking in a public forum, shout them down, censor them, call them names, question their sanity, whatever it takes to discredit them or keep them quiet. If the powers that be think someone's message is dangerous enough or if they worry that too many people may be listening, they can use the power of authority to make someone's life a living hell, even to the point of causing the death of that person, again either overtly or covertly.
Then there is power, and the lust for it. People like to be in power. They like to have power over others. They like to be idolized and adored by the masses. They like it so much so that many will stop at nothing to obtain such power. Even if it means subverting the freewill of those who would oppose them. Even if it means engaging in evil behavior. They may not want to admit this is what they are doing, they may not want to look at themselves in the mirror and think of themselves as evil, and so they will put on the mask of claiming that what they are doing is for some elusive greater good.
I don't believe in the idea of a Utopia. Those who would try to sell that idea are usually doing so for their own benefit. A collectivist society claiming authority to do the greatest good is also capable of doing the greatest evil. By allowing individual freewill to flourish as much as possible, any evil that may occur is mitigated because it will only have the power to flow through the individual. It will not be able to flow through the powerful collective as a whole. In this way evil does the least amount of damage possible.
In modern society, political debates have come to the forefront involving prohibitions against certain goods and services. What are prohibitions if not an attempt to subvert freewill? People on both sides of the issues point to this statistic or that scientific study to make their points about building a better society through prohibition, but politics is not about science. Most politicians aren't scientists. Politics is about philosophy. Politics is about who is going to control your life, and the lives of others, who is going to pay for it, and how much are they going to pay. Politics is about forming a collective with enough power to subvert the freewill of anyone who questions the motives of that collective. Government has become about forcing everyone else to submit to the will of that authoritative collective.
Evil may have come into being because of the desire to do good. It may have come into being because of a desire to keep others from harm. Those who have been through the school of hard knocks may wish to keep others from experiencing the same pain and disappointment as they've experienced. While explanations and the way of gentle persuasion is fine, restrictions subverting the freewill of the individual are not the way to go about teaching. This is not how humans learn. The freewill of others needs to be respected, as you would want others to respect your freewill. We must allow for mistakes to be made. We must allow for failure if genuine learning and human growth is to take place.
From the drug war to the war on the second amendment, from free speech zones to TSA warrantless searches, from the monopoly on currency creation to the corporate cartels dominating world trade, the evil in the system has become obvious to anyone who cares to look. You can turn your eyes away from the ugliness and claim it doesn't exist, or you can make the claim that these are "necessary evils," but denial and excuses aren't going to solve the problems faced by modern society. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. A necessary evil is still an evil. Until we as a society recognize this and stop tolerating the subversion of freewill, evil will exist because we want it to exist, because we believe it can be tamed and domesticated.
Evil will likely always exist. There will always be those who wish to control others, who wish to subvert the freewill of individuals for their own benefit. The trick is to minimize the effect these people have on the rest of us. This is done by dissembling centralized institutions of power and decentralizing government. This is done by creating a voluntary society where there is no ruling class claiming authority to steal from a working class. This is done by creating a system that does not allow for force to be used against the individual, unless that individual is somehow harming or stealing from others. This is done by condemning the ideals of collectivism and exalting the ideals of individualism. This is accomplished when the governed refuse to give consent to those who would govern them.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also enjoy them.
Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman
Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti
The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti
The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti
Monday, January 14, 2013
Iceland, the Mouse is Still Roaring
I had a dream the other night. I stood on the shore looking across a
calm ocean. From the east I heard a strange noise. It sounded like the
distant roar of a mighty beast. It was quiet on the wings of the wind,
but as it passed the ocean suddenly started to roil. Before too long the
still waters were undulating wildly and the silence of lapping ripples
had become a cacophony of crashing waves. I wondered at what could have
fomented such a drastic change. I awoke before I could find out.
What is this beast that can cause so much noise and yet no one seems to hear it? What creature could roam this world with such ferocity and yet no one seems to see it? What animal is announcing its presence to the world in such a powerful way and yet no one dares to report it? Why this entity is the little country of Iceland, and it's showing the rest of the civilized western world what it truly means to be economically free. It's showing us all that we don't need to be under the thumbs of central banksters, and we don't need to bail them out. They're showing us that we needn't worry about the too big to fail should they fail, we only need to worry about them if we keep allowing them to control our economic blood flow.
Back in March of 2010 I published an article entitled "Iceland, the Mouse that Roared." In it I explain what the people of Iceland were doing to keep control over their infrastructure and to maintain their sovereignty. I applauded the Icelanders at the time for challenging the status quo and refusing to give into the bankers. I stated that I wished the people of the United States would be so brave. Nearly three years later my wish has not come true. Neither the people of the United States nor their corrupt politicians have stood up to the international bankers. Neither have the people of the United States stood up to their corrupt politicians who enable these banksters. The people of Iceland, however, have continued their stance against the establishment.
The United States of America, along with most of the rest of the technologically advanced western countries, continues to remain in the economic doldrums, despite what the mainstream media would have you believe. It's tough to be unemployed or under employed and have faith in what the mainstream news is telling us lately. What happened to all the well paying high tech jobs we were supposed to be enjoying? What happened to all the well paying high tech manufacturing jobs? What happened to all the even mediocre private sector jobs? What happened to all the jobs we could get to make enough to support our families and create a halfway decent lifestyle? I'll tell you what happened. The moneyed elite decided they could no longer stand to share the wealth with an industrious, prosperous middle class and so they designed a way where they could end up with all the real wealth. Such is the power of a fiat, debt based, fractional reserve currency system.
What has Iceland done since its fiscal collapse in 2008? How has its economy fared since it decided not to bailout the bankers, but to jail them? Well, according to this clip from "The Young Turks" the economy of Iceland is doing better than most. The difference is Icelanders stood up to the banking elite. The difference is they stood up to their corrupt politicians. They indicted their prime minister, something I'm pretty sure would be akin to us indicting the president, or maybe the speaker of the house. They arrested the chief executives of their three biggest banks. They sentenced one to solitary confinement. They did not listen to the experts and the politicians, they listened to their hearts and did what they felt was right. They did not let the criminals go unpunished to continue their lives of privilege.
Sure, the Icelandic economy went down the first year after their actions. Something like that is to be expected. But just look at what their economy is doing now. It almost regained all its losses in two years and now it's poised to be one of the strongest economies in the world. If the American people had said "no" to the bailouts in 2008, imagine where we could be today. We, too, would have had a down 2009, but likely our 2010 and 2011 would have made up for it. We could be enjoying a robust economy right now if our politicians had only had the courage to stand up to the bullying banking elite, or we had had the courage to stand up to the political class in Washington, DC.
Iceland's economic story is one that should be being reported far and wide. Financial news networks ought to be wondering at the resilience of the Icelandic people. We won't hear anything about it in the mainstream media, however, because the same elite class that own the politicians also own the major media sources. They don't want you to hear about Iceland. They don't want you to know that you can be free of the international bankers' influence. They want you to believe their propaganda. They want you to believe that without them the economy would collapse. They are afraid of what might happen to them should you believe otherwise.
We can still follow Iceland's example. We can still do as the Icelanders did. Sure, we might have a down 2013 if we did, but the ensuing years would quickly make up for it. There are some who say it's too late, some who would make the claim that we're in too deep, but I say it's never too late to do what's right. Even if the economy were to suffer, we should not allow criminals to continue to get away with their criminal activities, especially when these criminals are the ultra wealthy elite living in ivory towers they consider impregnable.
We have heard a mouse that roared. It is still roaring, if only we listen. We can be the eagle that screeched louder than the blaring angels' trumpets. We can soar into the sky on wings of silver and gold. It will take some testicular fortitude, but it can happen. What worries me is that it is more likely we're going to simply be the chicken that quietly clucks. What worries me is that this could be the last egg laid before the farmer comes to take us to the chopping block, chuckling all the way. We could be something great, a free society prosperous beyond all imagination, if only we follow the mouse's example, but it looks more and more like we're being set up to be someone's supper every passing day.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also enjoy them.
Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman
Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti
The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti
The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti
What is this beast that can cause so much noise and yet no one seems to hear it? What creature could roam this world with such ferocity and yet no one seems to see it? What animal is announcing its presence to the world in such a powerful way and yet no one dares to report it? Why this entity is the little country of Iceland, and it's showing the rest of the civilized western world what it truly means to be economically free. It's showing us all that we don't need to be under the thumbs of central banksters, and we don't need to bail them out. They're showing us that we needn't worry about the too big to fail should they fail, we only need to worry about them if we keep allowing them to control our economic blood flow.
Back in March of 2010 I published an article entitled "Iceland, the Mouse that Roared." In it I explain what the people of Iceland were doing to keep control over their infrastructure and to maintain their sovereignty. I applauded the Icelanders at the time for challenging the status quo and refusing to give into the bankers. I stated that I wished the people of the United States would be so brave. Nearly three years later my wish has not come true. Neither the people of the United States nor their corrupt politicians have stood up to the international bankers. Neither have the people of the United States stood up to their corrupt politicians who enable these banksters. The people of Iceland, however, have continued their stance against the establishment.
The United States of America, along with most of the rest of the technologically advanced western countries, continues to remain in the economic doldrums, despite what the mainstream media would have you believe. It's tough to be unemployed or under employed and have faith in what the mainstream news is telling us lately. What happened to all the well paying high tech jobs we were supposed to be enjoying? What happened to all the well paying high tech manufacturing jobs? What happened to all the even mediocre private sector jobs? What happened to all the jobs we could get to make enough to support our families and create a halfway decent lifestyle? I'll tell you what happened. The moneyed elite decided they could no longer stand to share the wealth with an industrious, prosperous middle class and so they designed a way where they could end up with all the real wealth. Such is the power of a fiat, debt based, fractional reserve currency system.
What has Iceland done since its fiscal collapse in 2008? How has its economy fared since it decided not to bailout the bankers, but to jail them? Well, according to this clip from "The Young Turks" the economy of Iceland is doing better than most. The difference is Icelanders stood up to the banking elite. The difference is they stood up to their corrupt politicians. They indicted their prime minister, something I'm pretty sure would be akin to us indicting the president, or maybe the speaker of the house. They arrested the chief executives of their three biggest banks. They sentenced one to solitary confinement. They did not listen to the experts and the politicians, they listened to their hearts and did what they felt was right. They did not let the criminals go unpunished to continue their lives of privilege.
Sure, the Icelandic economy went down the first year after their actions. Something like that is to be expected. But just look at what their economy is doing now. It almost regained all its losses in two years and now it's poised to be one of the strongest economies in the world. If the American people had said "no" to the bailouts in 2008, imagine where we could be today. We, too, would have had a down 2009, but likely our 2010 and 2011 would have made up for it. We could be enjoying a robust economy right now if our politicians had only had the courage to stand up to the bullying banking elite, or we had had the courage to stand up to the political class in Washington, DC.
Iceland's economic story is one that should be being reported far and wide. Financial news networks ought to be wondering at the resilience of the Icelandic people. We won't hear anything about it in the mainstream media, however, because the same elite class that own the politicians also own the major media sources. They don't want you to hear about Iceland. They don't want you to know that you can be free of the international bankers' influence. They want you to believe their propaganda. They want you to believe that without them the economy would collapse. They are afraid of what might happen to them should you believe otherwise.
We can still follow Iceland's example. We can still do as the Icelanders did. Sure, we might have a down 2013 if we did, but the ensuing years would quickly make up for it. There are some who say it's too late, some who would make the claim that we're in too deep, but I say it's never too late to do what's right. Even if the economy were to suffer, we should not allow criminals to continue to get away with their criminal activities, especially when these criminals are the ultra wealthy elite living in ivory towers they consider impregnable.
We have heard a mouse that roared. It is still roaring, if only we listen. We can be the eagle that screeched louder than the blaring angels' trumpets. We can soar into the sky on wings of silver and gold. It will take some testicular fortitude, but it can happen. What worries me is that it is more likely we're going to simply be the chicken that quietly clucks. What worries me is that this could be the last egg laid before the farmer comes to take us to the chopping block, chuckling all the way. We could be something great, a free society prosperous beyond all imagination, if only we follow the mouse's example, but it looks more and more like we're being set up to be someone's supper every passing day.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
Below is a list of all my works available at smashwords.com. Please help me by purchasing one or more of my ebooks and writing favorable reviews if you like them so that others might also enjoy them.
Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials. By Szandor Blestman
Galaxium. A screenplay By Matthew Ballotti
The Colors of Elberia; book 1 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Legacy of the Tareks; book 2 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Power of the Tech; book 3 of The Black Blade Trilogy. By Matthew Ballotti
The Edge of Sanity. By Matthew Ballotti
The Ouijiers By Matthew Ballotti
Friday, January 11, 2013
Guns, Lies and Statistics
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Mark Twain
The gun debate rages on. What a waste of time. It was settled over two hundred years ago. One would wonder what else is going on in the world where we need to focus on such a divisive issue. What's going on that the powers that be need us paying attention to this issue, yelling and screaming at each other, rather than something of real importance? What issue are they trying to hide from us while our focus lies with the gun issue? I don't know. I know the economy is bad. Some say it's about to implode. I know the Federal Reserve continues its fraudulent practices. Is something about to happen on that front? Are they finally going to arrest the bankster criminals? Are we about to see rampant hyper inflation? Is World War III about to be launched? Are they getting ready to unleash hell upon this world? I hope not. Still, I think this debate might be some kind of distraction.
Why would I say that? Well, for one thing, the mainstream media allowed Alex Jones to go on live television with Piers Morgan. That's right, we all got to see AJ have a meltdown on national TV, scream and yell, and challenge Piers Morgan to a fight. It wasn't the prettiest sight to see and the gun grabbers that saw his performance can now make the argument that by his example gun owners are all violent, mentally unstable people.
Of course, you and I know that's not true. Anyone who listens to AJ knows his schtick. He gets passionate about his rights and he's willing to fight for them. I guess I can't really blame him for that. But those people are the choir. People listening to Alex Jones already likely understand the principles of freedom and why we need to exercise our rights. Alex had a chance to get on the TV and win over some hearts and minds. I respect Alex for the work he's done, but in my opinion he failed miserably with his performance the other night. I doubt very much that he changed one anti 2nd amendment person's mind with his performance, and he may have even shifted some people who were on the fence over to their side.
Now, I think Alex had the right idea, but his presentation was less than stellar. Piers, with his statistics and his calm demeanor, was trying to frame the debate in such a way that he couldn't loose. Alex wanted the debate framed differently. But when Piers asks the question about the number of gun murders in Great Britain and Wales, to come back with a question about monkeys dancing on the head of a pin just made Alex sound nonsensical and cartoonish. Then his ranting and raving solidified his appearance of being insane. He should have calmed down. I think he could have been better prepared.
Now, I can't say that I would do any better, it's easy to be critical sitting at home, but I'll tell you one thing, I would always try to answer any question about statistics with the above quote by Mark Twain. What would have made it even better in this case is that Mark Twain attributed it to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, so Piers Morgan should have respect for him to. I would go on to say that statistics are oft times manipulated, used bolster weak arguments and used to divert attention away from the real issue, in this case the issue of what the founders intentions were when they included the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights and whether or not people have the right to self defense regardless of what the government says or whether or not there even is a 2nd amendment. There is a larger, more philosophical argument here of whether or not we own ourselves and whether or not we can make our own decisions on how to protect ourselves and our families.
Then, after finding out how many gun murders there were in the UK last year, Piers says there was 35 but other sources say 59, I would have asked Piers how many lives were saved by guns last year? How many children's lives were saved by guns last year? I don't know the answer to those questions. I doubt that he would have known the answer to those questions. I would have told him I don't even know if they keep those statistics. I don't even think there is a way to keep those statistics because there's no way of knowing how many lives were saved when a killer is stopped. How many others would a killer have killed if the person with the gun didn't stop them when he or she did? But I would bet that there were more lives saved in the United States last year because of guns than there were killed by guns in the UK.
That's a statistic you don't hear much about. As it turns out, according to Ben Swann of Reality Check, there was 260 justifiable gun homicides by private citizens last year. That's at least 260 lives saved. But we don't really know how many lives were truly saved because we don't know how many others would have fallen victim to the now dead criminal. And that's not counting the criminals who were stopped by guns but not killed and were later jailed. How many lives were saved because they were taken off the streets? How many rapes were stopped? How many other violent crimes were stopped? And how many crimes weren't even committed because criminals were afraid their would be victims might have guns? The numbers keep growing. Where are the statistics for those situations?
Now here's where I put the final nail in Piers Morgan's arguments. Oft time those who wish to force social order upon everyone through force of law make the claim that the law is worth it if just one child's life is saved. It's worth having laws forcing people to wear seatbelts if just one child's life is saved. It's worth going through airport porno scanners or having a TSA agent sexually assault you if it prevents just one terrorist attack or saves the life of just one child. Well then, isn't it worth preventing the government from violating our 2nd amendment right if such a prevention will save the life of just one child? Think about it. It might not matter to Piers Morgan, but it will matter to that child.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
I have recently collected all my Ron Paul opinion editorials and put them in an ebook entitled, "Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective" available at amazon.com and other fine ebook outlets.
Mark Twain
The gun debate rages on. What a waste of time. It was settled over two hundred years ago. One would wonder what else is going on in the world where we need to focus on such a divisive issue. What's going on that the powers that be need us paying attention to this issue, yelling and screaming at each other, rather than something of real importance? What issue are they trying to hide from us while our focus lies with the gun issue? I don't know. I know the economy is bad. Some say it's about to implode. I know the Federal Reserve continues its fraudulent practices. Is something about to happen on that front? Are they finally going to arrest the bankster criminals? Are we about to see rampant hyper inflation? Is World War III about to be launched? Are they getting ready to unleash hell upon this world? I hope not. Still, I think this debate might be some kind of distraction.
Why would I say that? Well, for one thing, the mainstream media allowed Alex Jones to go on live television with Piers Morgan. That's right, we all got to see AJ have a meltdown on national TV, scream and yell, and challenge Piers Morgan to a fight. It wasn't the prettiest sight to see and the gun grabbers that saw his performance can now make the argument that by his example gun owners are all violent, mentally unstable people.
Of course, you and I know that's not true. Anyone who listens to AJ knows his schtick. He gets passionate about his rights and he's willing to fight for them. I guess I can't really blame him for that. But those people are the choir. People listening to Alex Jones already likely understand the principles of freedom and why we need to exercise our rights. Alex had a chance to get on the TV and win over some hearts and minds. I respect Alex for the work he's done, but in my opinion he failed miserably with his performance the other night. I doubt very much that he changed one anti 2nd amendment person's mind with his performance, and he may have even shifted some people who were on the fence over to their side.
Now, I think Alex had the right idea, but his presentation was less than stellar. Piers, with his statistics and his calm demeanor, was trying to frame the debate in such a way that he couldn't loose. Alex wanted the debate framed differently. But when Piers asks the question about the number of gun murders in Great Britain and Wales, to come back with a question about monkeys dancing on the head of a pin just made Alex sound nonsensical and cartoonish. Then his ranting and raving solidified his appearance of being insane. He should have calmed down. I think he could have been better prepared.
Now, I can't say that I would do any better, it's easy to be critical sitting at home, but I'll tell you one thing, I would always try to answer any question about statistics with the above quote by Mark Twain. What would have made it even better in this case is that Mark Twain attributed it to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, so Piers Morgan should have respect for him to. I would go on to say that statistics are oft times manipulated, used bolster weak arguments and used to divert attention away from the real issue, in this case the issue of what the founders intentions were when they included the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights and whether or not people have the right to self defense regardless of what the government says or whether or not there even is a 2nd amendment. There is a larger, more philosophical argument here of whether or not we own ourselves and whether or not we can make our own decisions on how to protect ourselves and our families.
Then, after finding out how many gun murders there were in the UK last year, Piers says there was 35 but other sources say 59, I would have asked Piers how many lives were saved by guns last year? How many children's lives were saved by guns last year? I don't know the answer to those questions. I doubt that he would have known the answer to those questions. I would have told him I don't even know if they keep those statistics. I don't even think there is a way to keep those statistics because there's no way of knowing how many lives were saved when a killer is stopped. How many others would a killer have killed if the person with the gun didn't stop them when he or she did? But I would bet that there were more lives saved in the United States last year because of guns than there were killed by guns in the UK.
That's a statistic you don't hear much about. As it turns out, according to Ben Swann of Reality Check, there was 260 justifiable gun homicides by private citizens last year. That's at least 260 lives saved. But we don't really know how many lives were truly saved because we don't know how many others would have fallen victim to the now dead criminal. And that's not counting the criminals who were stopped by guns but not killed and were later jailed. How many lives were saved because they were taken off the streets? How many rapes were stopped? How many other violent crimes were stopped? And how many crimes weren't even committed because criminals were afraid their would be victims might have guns? The numbers keep growing. Where are the statistics for those situations?
Now here's where I put the final nail in Piers Morgan's arguments. Oft time those who wish to force social order upon everyone through force of law make the claim that the law is worth it if just one child's life is saved. It's worth having laws forcing people to wear seatbelts if just one child's life is saved. It's worth going through airport porno scanners or having a TSA agent sexually assault you if it prevents just one terrorist attack or saves the life of just one child. Well then, isn't it worth preventing the government from violating our 2nd amendment right if such a prevention will save the life of just one child? Think about it. It might not matter to Piers Morgan, but it will matter to that child.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
I have recently collected all my Ron Paul opinion editorials and put them in an ebook entitled, "Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective" available at amazon.com and other fine ebook outlets.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
The Gazillion Dollar Joke
I've been reading about this idea to mint a $1 trillion dollar coin as a
way to avoid the debt ceiling. I thought it started as a joke. I mean,
years ago there was a episode of The Simpsons where Homer Simpson and
Montgomery Burns go to Cuba with a trillion dollar bill where Fidal
Castro steals it. This idea is so silly it's hardly worth talking about.
It's all a big joke. The only thing it's worth is a lot of laughs. The
problem is, some people might actually be starting to take this idea
seriously. After all, it is the congress, they are constitutionally
obligated to mint coins, and if they say a coin is worth a trillion
dollars, then by law it's worth a trillion dollars.
Now, to me, this is one of the worst illusions the political elite have ever thought of. It's so easy to see through. Why not just tell the Federal Reserve that we refuse to pay? At least tell them we won't pay the interest on the debt. At least have the interest forgiven. Do you have any idea how many billions that would save? To give you an idea, one percent of 16 trillion is 160 billion. But I digress. This idea is being suggested as an end around to keep from cutting any spending in case the debt ceiling is reached. This has nothing to do with actually trying to find ways to cut spending, with saving money, it has everything to do with cowardly congressmen refusing to face up to their responsibilities to make hard decisions on which government programs to cut back on and/or eliminate.
Yet there's another problem here. It's the joke factor. It's the fact that anyone would take such a prank seriously. But then, I guess we've been collectively taking a prank seriously for, well, about a century. You see, what makes this prank so obvious is everyone knows a coin is not worth a trillion dollars just because someone says it is. Even a platinum coin stamped with a famous person's face on one side and the words $1 trillion on the other side would not fetch $1 trillion dollars on the collector's market. Right now the price for an ounce of platinum is between $1500 and $1600 dollars. A one of a kind stamped coin might fetch quite a price from a wealthy coin collector, maybe as high as 10 or 20 million, but that's a far cry from a trillion. Even if someone was willing to pay a billion dollars for it, that is still worth a thousand times less than the one trillion dollar denomination the congress would declare.
The point is, everyone can see the inherent unfairness in this scheme. Something only has that kind of value if both the seller and purchaser perceive it has that kind of value. Declaring a coin to be worth $1 trillion is tantamount to printing money from nothing. It only has that kind of value because that's what the law says. The Federal Reserve has been printing money from nothing since its inception. It's only acceptable as money because that's what the law says. Certainly the notes used to be pegged to gold in a round about way, but that was long ago. The idea of a trillion dollar platinum coin is just a new twist on an old idea. It's the same old, same old of not facing up to the current economic problems of today. It's building upon old problems and creating new for future generations to have to deal with.
The grandfathers and great grandfathers of my generation did not treat the Federal Reserve System as a joke. They did not see it as a joke because of the propaganda that was presented to them at the time it was being considered. No one laughed at the idea of creating debt based money because there was still a sense that the money had value based on gold and silver. Little did they know that this was all part of the illusion. Little did they know that their grandchildren and great grandchildren would have to deal with the economic woes that come with a fractional reserve fiat currency system. If the wealthy banking elite had, back in the day, suggested a trillion dollar coin, they would have been laughed out of the country. They had to come up with something more sophisticated, and more devious. Have we so lost our sense of economic value and common sense that we would now fall for such an obviously fraudulent solution to a debt crisis?
If they can mint a trillion dollar coin and declare that its value, why not 2 trillion? Why not 16 trillion, and get rid of the whole debt? Why not a gazillion dollars and the Federal Reserve and the whole world will owe us forever and ever? Everything will be free and we'll all live happily ever after. If you believe such methods are good ideas, what kind of delusion are you living under? Don't you think our creditors might have something to say about that? Don't you think they'd see the inherent unfairness in such a ploy? Don't you think that might upset them a bit? Don't think that we as an empire are so high and mighty. Even the mightiest giant can be felled by a well aimed pebble.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
I have recently collected all my Ron Paul opinion editorials and put them in an ebook entitled, "Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective" available at amazon.com and other fine ebook outlets.
Now, to me, this is one of the worst illusions the political elite have ever thought of. It's so easy to see through. Why not just tell the Federal Reserve that we refuse to pay? At least tell them we won't pay the interest on the debt. At least have the interest forgiven. Do you have any idea how many billions that would save? To give you an idea, one percent of 16 trillion is 160 billion. But I digress. This idea is being suggested as an end around to keep from cutting any spending in case the debt ceiling is reached. This has nothing to do with actually trying to find ways to cut spending, with saving money, it has everything to do with cowardly congressmen refusing to face up to their responsibilities to make hard decisions on which government programs to cut back on and/or eliminate.
Yet there's another problem here. It's the joke factor. It's the fact that anyone would take such a prank seriously. But then, I guess we've been collectively taking a prank seriously for, well, about a century. You see, what makes this prank so obvious is everyone knows a coin is not worth a trillion dollars just because someone says it is. Even a platinum coin stamped with a famous person's face on one side and the words $1 trillion on the other side would not fetch $1 trillion dollars on the collector's market. Right now the price for an ounce of platinum is between $1500 and $1600 dollars. A one of a kind stamped coin might fetch quite a price from a wealthy coin collector, maybe as high as 10 or 20 million, but that's a far cry from a trillion. Even if someone was willing to pay a billion dollars for it, that is still worth a thousand times less than the one trillion dollar denomination the congress would declare.
The point is, everyone can see the inherent unfairness in this scheme. Something only has that kind of value if both the seller and purchaser perceive it has that kind of value. Declaring a coin to be worth $1 trillion is tantamount to printing money from nothing. It only has that kind of value because that's what the law says. The Federal Reserve has been printing money from nothing since its inception. It's only acceptable as money because that's what the law says. Certainly the notes used to be pegged to gold in a round about way, but that was long ago. The idea of a trillion dollar platinum coin is just a new twist on an old idea. It's the same old, same old of not facing up to the current economic problems of today. It's building upon old problems and creating new for future generations to have to deal with.
The grandfathers and great grandfathers of my generation did not treat the Federal Reserve System as a joke. They did not see it as a joke because of the propaganda that was presented to them at the time it was being considered. No one laughed at the idea of creating debt based money because there was still a sense that the money had value based on gold and silver. Little did they know that this was all part of the illusion. Little did they know that their grandchildren and great grandchildren would have to deal with the economic woes that come with a fractional reserve fiat currency system. If the wealthy banking elite had, back in the day, suggested a trillion dollar coin, they would have been laughed out of the country. They had to come up with something more sophisticated, and more devious. Have we so lost our sense of economic value and common sense that we would now fall for such an obviously fraudulent solution to a debt crisis?
If they can mint a trillion dollar coin and declare that its value, why not 2 trillion? Why not 16 trillion, and get rid of the whole debt? Why not a gazillion dollars and the Federal Reserve and the whole world will owe us forever and ever? Everything will be free and we'll all live happily ever after. If you believe such methods are good ideas, what kind of delusion are you living under? Don't you think our creditors might have something to say about that? Don't you think they'd see the inherent unfairness in such a ploy? Don't you think that might upset them a bit? Don't think that we as an empire are so high and mighty. Even the mightiest giant can be felled by a well aimed pebble.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
I have recently collected all my Ron Paul opinion editorials and put them in an ebook entitled, "Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective" available at amazon.com and other fine ebook outlets.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Battling the NWO, One Pizza at a Time
What could be more innocuous than the pizza delivery guy? What could be
more welcoming than the man or woman showing up at your door bringing
sustenance from one of your favorite restaurants you just called? You
didn't even have to go out into the cold night on your own and freeze
your little toes off to get your favorite food. They brought it to you.
All for a small convenience fee and whatever voluntary tip you might
like to give the person who provided this little service. Ah, but don't
be fooled. These people who provide this service are very dangerous.
They must be stopped. You see, these types of people are a perfect
example of how a free market system works. If you begin to learn from
their example, why you just might learn too much about how the elite who
would like to rule the world work, and we just can't have that now, can
we? Besides, you little common folk don't need such convenient
services. Such services should be exclusive to the wealthy elite.
How, exactly, is the little pizza delivery person so dangerous to the powerful elite? How can someone near the bottom of the economic ladder, working hard to provide for those who can afford to pay for delivered food, how can they possibly pose a threat to those elites at the top of the pyramid who dictate how world is to work? It's a matter of perception. It's a matter of the poor, underprivileged underdog working to make an honest living versus the wealthy, privileged control freak shadow elite who wish to control every aspect of everyone's life. How does one demonize the pizza delivery person? How does one collect tribute from them? How does one justify stealing from such polite, hard working people struggling to make ends meet? Doing so would certainly help to solidify the perception that the tyranny is growing out of control beyond all measure. That is the challenge facing the collectivists who wish to create an authoritarian one world government from their new world order agenda.
Pizza delivery people, and others who work for tips like waiters, waitresses, taxi drivers, bell hops, etc., work for cash money. Cash money is very difficult to track. Those at the top find it difficult to keep an accurate accounting as to how much these low earners make and they therefore can't accurately determine how much tribute they should pay. Not only that, but if they start cracking down on these people they suddenly look like the real assholes they are for picking on such little guys. That is just one reason the ruling elite would love to develop some kind of cashless society. They want to get rid of the last vestiges of the ages old barter system. They don't want to do this for the betterment of mankind, for more convenience, or more fairness, or some other ulterior motive, they want to do this for control. They want to do it so they can have access to every business transaction you have with others. They want to put their noses into every aspect of everyone's economic life. They'll be able to do this because it will be their system we'll all be using.
Pizza delivers, and others, are more like sub contractors than employees. The restaurant provides the food, the delivery person provides the vehicle and the service. They are responsible for keeping track of all their earnings. They are responsible for reporting their income and paying any taxes they might owe. They are responsible for putting away money for their retirement should they earn enough to do so. They are responsible for providing their own health insurance if they feel they need to do so. If they don't have health insurance, they are responsible for paying any health care advisor they might wish to employ for their benefit. They are responsible for purchasing any health care products they might feel is necessary for any condition they might have. They are responsible for deciding where their money would be best spent, whether it be on rent, food, clothes, gasoline, some other necessity, or some luxury. In other words, these people make their own decisions on what to do with all the money they earn from that job, and the ruling elite can't stand the thought that someone out there is independent of them.
The rest of the world can maybe learn a little something about economics from pizza delivery people. First, all economics boil down to two individuals wanting to exchange some form of product. Either there's a connection made, or there's not. For those of you familiar with digital electronics, it's binary in nature. When there's only two people involved it's pretty straight forward. It's on or off. It's ones or zeroes. Either the two people have something the other wants for the exchange, or they don't. It's when there's other conditions thrown into the equation, when there's other people that become involved that things get a little more complicated. When this happens economic circuitry comparable to "and" and "or" gates are created.
Second, all economics should be voluntary in nature. You probably wouldn't pay a pizza guy if he showed up at your house with a pizza you didn't order. You also probably wouldn't buy if the pizza guy charged an outrageous amount for his service. You probably wouldn't like it very much if the pizza guy turned up at your house and threatened you if you didn't buy their food. In the free market, there's competitors that can be called and any business trying to resort to such methods would be quickly put out of business. If such a business was to gain enough influence in government, however, things could quickly change. Laws and regulations could be passed designed to exclude all but the largest and wealthiest from engaging in such a delivery service. Such a restriction on competition could easily cause quality to fall and prices to rise. In a worse case scenario, laws could be passed requiring you to purchase such services whether you want to or not. Money could be collected from you by coercive methods or force that would go to these services whether you use them or not.
It's strange how the practices mentioned above are considered abhorrent and criminal in a freer market, but if the government passes laws allowing for their agents and contractors to participate in such practices they become acceptable. Perhaps that has a lot to do with the creeping gradualism the political elite has engaged in, slowly building upon more innocuous laws until the large tomes we've seen passed recently can be pushed onto the common folk without too much outrage. Notice they never repeal laws, unless they were working to stifle the efforts of the wealthy elite. Also, growing up in a world where such practices exist and being taught in school that such practices are acceptable normalizes them and makes it hard to imagine different methods and innovate.
Perhaps with the current state of unemployment being as it is, many other workers will soon start to become sub contractors, so to speak. Perhaps the unemployed will decide to take jobs on a cash basis that don't require their employer to take taxes directly from their paycheck. Perhaps more and more individuals will start to keep more of their earnings and not report it to the taxman. Perhaps they will begin to decide for themselves what products and services they wish to pay for rather than having the government do this for them. Perhaps more and more people will move off the radar just to make ends meet. This is something I'm certain the political and wealthy elite fear. It is also, however, one way to getting back to a more productive and prosperous society for everyone. As the system short circuits and burns itself up, those who wish to survive will have to figure out how to get along without help from the system.
So, when the pizza delivery person shows up at your doorstep, don't forget to tip him or her well. Whether they know it or not, they are out there fighting for you against the new world order. They are out there showing the world that business can still be done on an individual to individual basis. They are showing us all that big, centralized government does not have to intercede on every level in order for us all to get along. They are showing us that local economies are most important and we should all worry about supporting local business so that we can all thrive. I just hope that more people come to understand the importance of those concepts before we are forced to do all business the way the one size fits all, centralized federal government, owned by the wealthy elite, wants it done.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
I have recently collected all my Ron Paul opinion editorials and put them in an ebook entitled, "Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective" available at amazon.com and other fine ebook outlets.
How, exactly, is the little pizza delivery person so dangerous to the powerful elite? How can someone near the bottom of the economic ladder, working hard to provide for those who can afford to pay for delivered food, how can they possibly pose a threat to those elites at the top of the pyramid who dictate how world is to work? It's a matter of perception. It's a matter of the poor, underprivileged underdog working to make an honest living versus the wealthy, privileged control freak shadow elite who wish to control every aspect of everyone's life. How does one demonize the pizza delivery person? How does one collect tribute from them? How does one justify stealing from such polite, hard working people struggling to make ends meet? Doing so would certainly help to solidify the perception that the tyranny is growing out of control beyond all measure. That is the challenge facing the collectivists who wish to create an authoritarian one world government from their new world order agenda.
Pizza delivery people, and others who work for tips like waiters, waitresses, taxi drivers, bell hops, etc., work for cash money. Cash money is very difficult to track. Those at the top find it difficult to keep an accurate accounting as to how much these low earners make and they therefore can't accurately determine how much tribute they should pay. Not only that, but if they start cracking down on these people they suddenly look like the real assholes they are for picking on such little guys. That is just one reason the ruling elite would love to develop some kind of cashless society. They want to get rid of the last vestiges of the ages old barter system. They don't want to do this for the betterment of mankind, for more convenience, or more fairness, or some other ulterior motive, they want to do this for control. They want to do it so they can have access to every business transaction you have with others. They want to put their noses into every aspect of everyone's economic life. They'll be able to do this because it will be their system we'll all be using.
Pizza delivers, and others, are more like sub contractors than employees. The restaurant provides the food, the delivery person provides the vehicle and the service. They are responsible for keeping track of all their earnings. They are responsible for reporting their income and paying any taxes they might owe. They are responsible for putting away money for their retirement should they earn enough to do so. They are responsible for providing their own health insurance if they feel they need to do so. If they don't have health insurance, they are responsible for paying any health care advisor they might wish to employ for their benefit. They are responsible for purchasing any health care products they might feel is necessary for any condition they might have. They are responsible for deciding where their money would be best spent, whether it be on rent, food, clothes, gasoline, some other necessity, or some luxury. In other words, these people make their own decisions on what to do with all the money they earn from that job, and the ruling elite can't stand the thought that someone out there is independent of them.
The rest of the world can maybe learn a little something about economics from pizza delivery people. First, all economics boil down to two individuals wanting to exchange some form of product. Either there's a connection made, or there's not. For those of you familiar with digital electronics, it's binary in nature. When there's only two people involved it's pretty straight forward. It's on or off. It's ones or zeroes. Either the two people have something the other wants for the exchange, or they don't. It's when there's other conditions thrown into the equation, when there's other people that become involved that things get a little more complicated. When this happens economic circuitry comparable to "and" and "or" gates are created.
Second, all economics should be voluntary in nature. You probably wouldn't pay a pizza guy if he showed up at your house with a pizza you didn't order. You also probably wouldn't buy if the pizza guy charged an outrageous amount for his service. You probably wouldn't like it very much if the pizza guy turned up at your house and threatened you if you didn't buy their food. In the free market, there's competitors that can be called and any business trying to resort to such methods would be quickly put out of business. If such a business was to gain enough influence in government, however, things could quickly change. Laws and regulations could be passed designed to exclude all but the largest and wealthiest from engaging in such a delivery service. Such a restriction on competition could easily cause quality to fall and prices to rise. In a worse case scenario, laws could be passed requiring you to purchase such services whether you want to or not. Money could be collected from you by coercive methods or force that would go to these services whether you use them or not.
It's strange how the practices mentioned above are considered abhorrent and criminal in a freer market, but if the government passes laws allowing for their agents and contractors to participate in such practices they become acceptable. Perhaps that has a lot to do with the creeping gradualism the political elite has engaged in, slowly building upon more innocuous laws until the large tomes we've seen passed recently can be pushed onto the common folk without too much outrage. Notice they never repeal laws, unless they were working to stifle the efforts of the wealthy elite. Also, growing up in a world where such practices exist and being taught in school that such practices are acceptable normalizes them and makes it hard to imagine different methods and innovate.
Perhaps with the current state of unemployment being as it is, many other workers will soon start to become sub contractors, so to speak. Perhaps the unemployed will decide to take jobs on a cash basis that don't require their employer to take taxes directly from their paycheck. Perhaps more and more individuals will start to keep more of their earnings and not report it to the taxman. Perhaps they will begin to decide for themselves what products and services they wish to pay for rather than having the government do this for them. Perhaps more and more people will move off the radar just to make ends meet. This is something I'm certain the political and wealthy elite fear. It is also, however, one way to getting back to a more productive and prosperous society for everyone. As the system short circuits and burns itself up, those who wish to survive will have to figure out how to get along without help from the system.
So, when the pizza delivery person shows up at your doorstep, don't forget to tip him or her well. Whether they know it or not, they are out there fighting for you against the new world order. They are out there showing the world that business can still be done on an individual to individual basis. They are showing us all that big, centralized government does not have to intercede on every level in order for us all to get along. They are showing us that local economies are most important and we should all worry about supporting local business so that we can all thrive. I just hope that more people come to understand the importance of those concepts before we are forced to do all business the way the one size fits all, centralized federal government, owned by the wealthy elite, wants it done.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
I have recently collected all my Ron Paul opinion editorials and put them in an ebook entitled, "Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective" available at amazon.com and other fine ebook outlets.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Perception, Act Like a Slave, Be Treated Like a Slave
We, as a species, like to label things. We seem to like to be able to
slap a label on something so that when we talk about things we have an
idea about what's being talked about. This works well for physical
things like plants, animals or minerals, but it can be a bit lacking
when talking about not so physical things like political philosophies.
People like to label someone like me, someone who doesn't fit into any
of their prefabricated political party holes, so to speak, as a
libertarian, an minarchist, a constitutionalist, or some other label. I
like to think of myself as an individualist as opposed to a
collectivist. I also like to think of myself as an abolitionist, though
the vast majority of Americans would believe that such a label is
unnecessary as slavery was ended by Abraham Lincoln back in 1865 at the
end of the War of Northern Aggression. I would say that no one is as
enslaved as the person who believes he is free when he is not. Slavery
has just become more subtle and the masters have changed.
The perception of what slavery is needs to change. We, as a society, still have a tendency to think of slavery as the chattel slavery of the 1800s. We still think of it as people being sent out to the fields to tend to crops and to do other back breaking work without proper compensation, living in squalor while their masters lived in the lap of luxury, and being cruelly whipped and punished unjustly for crimes like trying to escape. While these vile things happened back then, this type of slavery is not the only kind of slavery that exists. Slavery is, basically, being forced to work for someone else. Some forms of this are far more subtle than what we saw on the cotton producing plantations of the old south.
The main concept to get across here is force. One is forced to do something when one does or doesn't do something out of fear of what will happen should he not do or do it. This is what makes for a subtler form of slavery. People don't want to admit their subservient status, and so they refuse to see their own enslavement. They don't want to admit that they're being forced to work for someone else, and so they make excuses about necessary evils that need to be tolerated in a civilized society. People don't want to stand up for themselves, to admit that they have to do something, to battle tyranny in their own culture, and so they refuse to see their own participation in the tyranny and go along to get along. Slowly things get worse until one day the truth is so plain to see that even those in the deepest denial have to come to the realization that they did nothing to stop the evil. They are nothing but frightened serfs too afraid of their unknown fate should they cast off the shackles that tie them down.
That is what those who wish to rule count on. They don't want you to know you're a slave. They want you to believe you're free, the freest people on the face of the earth, and that you're not shackled to a parasitic debt system that's sucking the economic lifeblood from the common folk. They want you to believe that taxation is not theft, that you are not forced to pay, that you do not work a portion of the year for them. Think about that for a moment. Think about just one tax you pay, the income tax.
Would you really pay your income taxes if they were truly voluntary? Would you really pay them if you weren't worried about going to jail should you not? Would you really pay them if you weren't worried that if you didn't pay them they'd take more? Would you really pay the federal government for the services they provide if you had a real choice, or would you maybe choose an alternative provider who could do a better job for less? Would you pay for the wars they engage in? Would you pay to have them kill innocents in foreign countries with drone strikes? Would you pay them to send you through the porno scanners or have them sexually assault you with an enhanced pat down at an airport? Would you pay for the Department of Education, the FDA, the EPA, the CIA, the DEA, and all the other alphabet agencies that are consistently failing in their duties? Well, if these agencies are so good at their jobs why do they need a monopoly and why do they need to force people to pay them? Certainly they could be funded on a voluntary basis if they do such a great job.
Try to convince people that the income tax is extortion, a type of theft, and see where that gets you. Define extortion as being threatened should you not pay for some service (usually protection) and explain that income taxes meet this definition and many people will look at you like you're crazy. "What about the roads?" they'll ask. It doesn't matter about taxation fitting the definition of extortion. Somehow the fact that government is taking the money makes theft okay. Somehow the fact that more people have voted for this guy than voted for that guy makes extortion legitimate. Somehow so many have let their minds become enslaved by propaganda and the normalization of criminal activity that it became okay that strangers in Washington DC steal your hard earned money before you even see it. In fact, most people will condone the theft and believe that those who try to keep all the money they earn are criminals not paying their fair share. The Stockholm syndrome is thriving in these United States of America.
Another tax that shows how much of a slave you are and is closer to home is the property tax. Do you really think you own your property? Especially if you've paid off the bank, do you think you own your property? You don't. The government owns it. Don't believe me? Try not paying your property taxes and see what happens. I bet you end up losing your land. I bet they come knocking on your door with men with guns and force you out or kill you if you try to resist. Then they'll sell it off for nothing more than the taxes they are owed and the promise that the new owners will pay their yearly tribute and you'll be broke and on the street and they won't care. No, you don't own anything, you're just renting it. They have enough guns and power that they can do whatever they want, if they can justify it. It seems to me that there is precious little keeping them from confiscating everything of value that we own.
The way you are treated has much to do with how the people you're interacting with perceive you as well as how they perceive the world. The individuals at the top of the economic and political structure, those who I like to refer to as the establishment elite, perceive you quite a bit differently than you perceive yourself. At best, they perceive you as children in need of their guidance. At worst, they perceive you as property. They perceive you as serfs or slaves. They might go as far as to perceive you as livestock. They certainly don't perceive you as free human beings. They certainly don't perceive you as beings deserving of respect. I don't know that I can really blame them for that. After all, when you act like a slave, you should expect to be treated like a slave. As long as you continue to put up with the political shenanigans in Washington DC, they will continue to take advantage of your willingness to go along to get along. As long as you continue to accept the dictates of the ruling elite, they will continue to make the rules up as they go and ignore the laws that govern their behavior. At least that's the perception I have.
Slaves don't need private property. Anything they possess belong to their masters. Slaves don't need guns. Only the masters should be allowed to have guns in case they need to keep the slaves in line. Slaves don't need to make their own decisions. Their masters will make decisions for them. They will decide whether or not they can travel, whether or not they can drive a vehicle, whether or not they can or can't do business with someone else. They will decide whether or not that slave needs medical attention. They will decide what kind food will be available, regardless of how nutritious it is. They will decide whether to tell you the truth or not. Slaves don't need knowledge. They don't need answers to their questions. They don't even need to ask questions. They just need to do the jobs they're told to do and to pay their taxes.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
I have recently collected all my Ron Paul opinion editorials and put them in an ebook entitled, "Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective" available at amazon.com and other fine ebook outlets.
The perception of what slavery is needs to change. We, as a society, still have a tendency to think of slavery as the chattel slavery of the 1800s. We still think of it as people being sent out to the fields to tend to crops and to do other back breaking work without proper compensation, living in squalor while their masters lived in the lap of luxury, and being cruelly whipped and punished unjustly for crimes like trying to escape. While these vile things happened back then, this type of slavery is not the only kind of slavery that exists. Slavery is, basically, being forced to work for someone else. Some forms of this are far more subtle than what we saw on the cotton producing plantations of the old south.
The main concept to get across here is force. One is forced to do something when one does or doesn't do something out of fear of what will happen should he not do or do it. This is what makes for a subtler form of slavery. People don't want to admit their subservient status, and so they refuse to see their own enslavement. They don't want to admit that they're being forced to work for someone else, and so they make excuses about necessary evils that need to be tolerated in a civilized society. People don't want to stand up for themselves, to admit that they have to do something, to battle tyranny in their own culture, and so they refuse to see their own participation in the tyranny and go along to get along. Slowly things get worse until one day the truth is so plain to see that even those in the deepest denial have to come to the realization that they did nothing to stop the evil. They are nothing but frightened serfs too afraid of their unknown fate should they cast off the shackles that tie them down.
That is what those who wish to rule count on. They don't want you to know you're a slave. They want you to believe you're free, the freest people on the face of the earth, and that you're not shackled to a parasitic debt system that's sucking the economic lifeblood from the common folk. They want you to believe that taxation is not theft, that you are not forced to pay, that you do not work a portion of the year for them. Think about that for a moment. Think about just one tax you pay, the income tax.
Would you really pay your income taxes if they were truly voluntary? Would you really pay them if you weren't worried about going to jail should you not? Would you really pay them if you weren't worried that if you didn't pay them they'd take more? Would you really pay the federal government for the services they provide if you had a real choice, or would you maybe choose an alternative provider who could do a better job for less? Would you pay for the wars they engage in? Would you pay to have them kill innocents in foreign countries with drone strikes? Would you pay them to send you through the porno scanners or have them sexually assault you with an enhanced pat down at an airport? Would you pay for the Department of Education, the FDA, the EPA, the CIA, the DEA, and all the other alphabet agencies that are consistently failing in their duties? Well, if these agencies are so good at their jobs why do they need a monopoly and why do they need to force people to pay them? Certainly they could be funded on a voluntary basis if they do such a great job.
Try to convince people that the income tax is extortion, a type of theft, and see where that gets you. Define extortion as being threatened should you not pay for some service (usually protection) and explain that income taxes meet this definition and many people will look at you like you're crazy. "What about the roads?" they'll ask. It doesn't matter about taxation fitting the definition of extortion. Somehow the fact that government is taking the money makes theft okay. Somehow the fact that more people have voted for this guy than voted for that guy makes extortion legitimate. Somehow so many have let their minds become enslaved by propaganda and the normalization of criminal activity that it became okay that strangers in Washington DC steal your hard earned money before you even see it. In fact, most people will condone the theft and believe that those who try to keep all the money they earn are criminals not paying their fair share. The Stockholm syndrome is thriving in these United States of America.
Another tax that shows how much of a slave you are and is closer to home is the property tax. Do you really think you own your property? Especially if you've paid off the bank, do you think you own your property? You don't. The government owns it. Don't believe me? Try not paying your property taxes and see what happens. I bet you end up losing your land. I bet they come knocking on your door with men with guns and force you out or kill you if you try to resist. Then they'll sell it off for nothing more than the taxes they are owed and the promise that the new owners will pay their yearly tribute and you'll be broke and on the street and they won't care. No, you don't own anything, you're just renting it. They have enough guns and power that they can do whatever they want, if they can justify it. It seems to me that there is precious little keeping them from confiscating everything of value that we own.
The way you are treated has much to do with how the people you're interacting with perceive you as well as how they perceive the world. The individuals at the top of the economic and political structure, those who I like to refer to as the establishment elite, perceive you quite a bit differently than you perceive yourself. At best, they perceive you as children in need of their guidance. At worst, they perceive you as property. They perceive you as serfs or slaves. They might go as far as to perceive you as livestock. They certainly don't perceive you as free human beings. They certainly don't perceive you as beings deserving of respect. I don't know that I can really blame them for that. After all, when you act like a slave, you should expect to be treated like a slave. As long as you continue to put up with the political shenanigans in Washington DC, they will continue to take advantage of your willingness to go along to get along. As long as you continue to accept the dictates of the ruling elite, they will continue to make the rules up as they go and ignore the laws that govern their behavior. At least that's the perception I have.
Slaves don't need private property. Anything they possess belong to their masters. Slaves don't need guns. Only the masters should be allowed to have guns in case they need to keep the slaves in line. Slaves don't need to make their own decisions. Their masters will make decisions for them. They will decide whether or not they can travel, whether or not they can drive a vehicle, whether or not they can or can't do business with someone else. They will decide whether or not that slave needs medical attention. They will decide what kind food will be available, regardless of how nutritious it is. They will decide whether to tell you the truth or not. Slaves don't need knowledge. They don't need answers to their questions. They don't even need to ask questions. They just need to do the jobs they're told to do and to pay their taxes.
If you enjoy my writings, please visit szandorblestman.com to make a donation.
I have recently collected all my Ron Paul opinion editorials and put them in an ebook entitled, "Ron Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective" available at amazon.com and other fine ebook outlets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)