In an essay written in July of 2007 I posed the question "Can Ron Paul Cure America's Apathy?" A little more than three years later I have to say the answer is no, but I do believe he helped quite a bit. I think he helped open a lot of eyes and educate many. You see, before then I had nearly given up hope. I imagine that was true for many others who think like I do. I had thought that almost everyone in the world had fallen victim to the collectivist, statist disease that has infected our planet. I felt that too many people were counting on government to provide answers to all societal problems. It was as if everyone was worshipping government and praying to it to cure all of mankind's ills. Too few were looking inward and trying to exercise their own initiative to help become the answers.
Ron Paul's campaign excited me. Here was a presidential candidate discussing issues as they should be discussed. Here was a man getting on national television and distilling issues to their basics. Instead of arguing from a left versus right paradigm, he would argue from a freedom versus tyranny stance. Instead of pandering to an audience, telling lies and making promises that would be impossible to keep in order to garner as many votes as possible, he voiced his principles and explained how they worked in order to educate the electorate so they could make an informed decision. He was an honest man in a field where cheats and liars excel.
But there was a problem with this approach. The corporate media wasn't behind him. He was a threat to their masters' interests. They minimized his efforts by calling him things like "radical" and "unelectable" despite his popularity and the active nature of his supporters. Whenever possible they would ignore him. Most of all, they tried to make his ideas sound like unobtainable pipe dreams, like he didn't know what he was talking about and like they couldn't possibly work in the real world. But Dr. Ron Paul stuck to his guns and kept delivering the message of freedom, confining government to its constitutional limits and maintaining a non interventionist foreign policy. In the end, after they felt he was no longer a political threat to the establishment, the media actually sought him out and welcomed his appearances and his opinions, particularly about the economy.
Suddenly, after he was no longer running for president, Dr. Ron Paul seemed like a pretty smart guy. He is no longer a lovable kook spouting idealistic rhetoric, but someone whose opinions should be listened to and respected. He has written two best selling books, "The Revolution, a Manifesto" and "End the Fed" and has shown he has a better grasp on how an economy runs than most politicians. He has shown that he has a better grasp on morality than most other politicians. He has pointed us in a better direction than most other politicians in this country. He is now speaking out in more corporate media venues than ever before and helping to expose more people than ever to the message of liberty. These ideas are becoming more popular with each day.
It would be interesting to see how the corporate media would reconcile these facts. It would be interesting to see if the talking heads and political pundits would once again try to tell us Dr. Paul was unelectable and his libertarian ideas were unacceptable to the public if he once again ran for president. If that was the case, why have they been asking him to appear on their programs for so long now? With all the exposure he's been getting since his presidential run, if they decide to pull their old tricks and attempt to minimize his campaign, perhaps that would help more people understand the true nature of the corporate media and how they manipulate and falsely frame political discourse. Perhaps that would help show how corporate media is no longer acting as a public watchdog to keep politicians honest and principled, but works instead to politically weed out those individuals who exemplify such traits.
Ron Paul's honesty and principled stances puts him a cut above any other politician holding federal office, in my opinion. He did not get his millions by taking advantage of the power of his office. He does not get millions in campaign donations from corporate interests like most of his fellow congress critters, he got them from ordinary, grass roots folks. He doesn't play the polarizing two party game, but addresses issues head on. He gives honest answers to what problems the federal government should and shouldn't even address. He sticks up for the Constitution of the United States of America and sticks by it and his oath to uphold it. In short, he is the kind of person who should be leading this nation, not one of the bought and sold politicians who hold their corporate backers and globalist buddies above their own nation, their fellow citizens, the principles upon which our nation was built, and even above the laws they pledge to uphold.
Those are the reasons I believe Dr. Ron Paul should hold the highest office in the land, but I hold no illusions as to whether or not he ever will actually hold it. I don't believe for a second that the establishment will ever welcome him with open arms. In fact, if he ever did get elected, I think the establishment would fight it kicking and screaming all the way. Worse, I think that the establishment would do everything in its power not only to prevent that from happening, but to create what disasters it could and to be as uncooperative as possible should it happen. The corporate media would lie and deceive, as it does now. The electoral process would be as fixed and corrupt and hackable as they can get away with, as it is now. The established moneyed elite and their cronies would continue to buy what politicians they can and try to become as powerful and influential as possible, as they do now. The likelihood of a populist candidate like Ron Paul actually becoming president is slim at best.
But winning is not the real importance of a Ron Paul candidacy. Though it would be nice to see a principled individual acting as president of these United States, one man can not undo over a hundred years of creeping statism that has inflicted this nation. It is more important to educate the masses as to their place in a free society. It is more important to start discussions about freedom issues and get people thinking about the meaning of liberty. It is more important to shake the misconceptions from those who have been completely indoctrinated by the system. There are still far too many people who still believe in the left/right paradigm and that there is a difference between a Democrat and a Republican.
If nothing else, a Ron Paul presidential candidacy will keep people thinking. If nothing else it will enlighten more people and draw them into the freedom movement. If nothing else it will reinvigorate those who might become frustrated and want to give up. If nothing else it will help shed some light onto real issues and bring fresh ideas of how to solve problems to the forefront. Ron Paul needs to run for president so that he can continue to bring the message of liberty to the common folk who have not been exposed to it, a message that makes sense and resonates with the vast majority.
Dr. Ron Paul cannot solve America's apathy by himself. We all need to get involved. Other voices need to be raised not only in support of his candidacy, but in support of the principles he represents. The discussion needs to be changed from that of what big government can do for us to that of what we can do to help ourselves. The conversation needs to be changed from that of what should change about big government, to how we can start dismantling big government and return power to the common man. A Ron Paul candidacy would help stimulate such conversations and help spur the change we need to become. The sooner this discussion begins, in my opinion, the better.
My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Will You Hide a Muslim in Your Attic?
There's some scary stuff happening in this nation right now. It has to do with Muslims. No, I am not afraid of Muslims. No, I do not believe that they are out to destroy our way of life. No, I do not believe that they are inherently violent people who see Christians and Jews as demons that need to be wiped from the face of the Earth. No, I do not believe they are the new boogie man hiding around every corner with a belt of explosives waiting to duck into some nightclub to kill himself and as many other innocent people as he can in a blaze of glory. It is not the Muslims that scare me. It is the people who are trying to make me so paranoid of the Muslims that I will forsake my principles and turn against my fellow human beings because their ways are different than mine that scare me. It is those who believe that people should be treated differently simply because of their religion that scare me.
Didn't we already go through this? How often does this deja vu have to happen before we get it? It wasn't that long ago when a national socialist country decided it wanted to restrict and regulate people due to their religion. The German Nazis were quick to label Jews as evil. They were the reason for all of mankind's woes. They were the spawn of the devil. They were racially inferior and needed to be controlled. Oh, it started off in a seemingly harmless enough fashion, with registrations and the like so that the government could keep an eye on them and make sure they were on the up and up and doing all their business by the rules, but it quickly devolved into something much worse. It quickly became one of the darkest chapters in human history.
Now we Americans are labeling the Muslims as evil. Now I'm hearing talk of forcing Muslims to register with government officials in some sort of bureaucratic registry scheme meant to track them. I've even heard some control freak individuals suggest that the Muslims be put into camps separate from the rest of the population. That is what is scary to me, that these ideas could even be proffered in a supposedly enlightened society.
Ask yourself, how would you feel if a group you could be identified with was being demonized in such a fashion? If they began to register people and then to round them up to put them into camps, would you fight back or would you cower and go along to get along? If you were to fight back, do you think they'd use that as propaganda to justify them rounding up even more of your people? Even if you were simply exercising your right to self defense, people would likely see you as being the aggressor once the media got a hold of the story and distorted it as they often do. Would you like this kind of treatment?
There was a great religious figure from the past who once said something like "Treat people as you want to be treated," or some such thing. It seems to me that is a philosophy that has fallen from favor these days.
This has all come to a head recently because some Muslims want to build a mosque close to where the World Trade Center in New York city once stood. They have been accused of all sorts of evil things, from wanting to build it there as a symbol of victory, to getting their money from terrorist organizations, to wanting to use sharia law to subjugate us all. It seems that when rumors like this abound the general public gets their panties in a wad and jumps on the protest band wagon before they check out the story and get all the facts. Until I knew better, I had heard that the mosque was being built on the same property where the twin towers stood, not some two blocks away.
The fact is that this is someone's private property. If that someone doesn't mind a mosque being built there, then it should be allowed. If those who don't want it built there are so concerned, they should at least try to raise the money to buy the property so that they can build a church or whatever else they want there. Another mosque in a city as large and diverse as New York is not going to suddenly radicalize all the Muslims in New York and create a war zone. They are not going to suddenly become blood thirsty, rabid savages intent on killing all that moves no matter the cost. They will likely continue to live their lives as peacefully and productively as they can and leave you alone to go about yours. They will likely keep to themselves to practice their religion and leave you alone to practice yours, so long as you leave them alone. That is how human nature works for those of us who are not paranoid busy bodies.
So what if it is decided to use government force to prevent these people from building the mosque? What if the worse case scenario happens and Muslims are forced to register so that government "officials" can keep an eye on them? What if it is decided Muslims need to report to camps until the "war on terrorism" is concluded? What then? If you don't think such things can happen here, I suggest you reconsider. Worse things have happened in other so called "enlightened" societies. More barbaric and brutal episodes of human subjugation have gone on even in modern times. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that such an episode could happen here. After all, the government has not followed its own rules as outlined in the Constitution in well over a hundred years.
What if you found out these camps were cruel and brutal to the Muslim people? What if you found out many were dying at these camps? What if you had a Muslim family living next door to you that you knew was peaceful and had harmed no one? Would you hide them in your attic? Or your garage? Or wherever you could? Would you keep them safe from the government wolves? Would you risk your own life in order to help fellow human beings?
That was the story of Anne Frank who was hidden by neighbors from the Nazis in World War II. That was a story of the light of the human soul in dark times. It was an heroic tale that showed the depths of caring that humans are capable of. I would like to think that I would be such a brave soul, able to hide fellow human beings from those who would cause them harm in their time of need. I can't be sure I would, however, and I hope I never have to find out. I would certainly hate to find out what fate would await those who were caught helping the Muslims if such a scenario were to play out.
But such dark times need not descend upon our nation. We should never have to discover if we are so brave to be able to help our neighbors in such a way. We have established the concept of individual rights in this nation and have outlined behaviors government officials are legally obliged to adhere to. They are supposedly not allowed to violate those individual rights, including the rights to engage in peaceful religious activity and to freely associate with others of a like mind. There are also individual rights regarding private property and one's use of it. The government does not own you, nor does it own your property, even though they think and act like they do. Government officials can only get away with what the populous will let them get away with. It scares me that so many might be willing to let them get away with not only dictating what can be done with someone's private property, but perhaps going even further and violating the individual rights to life, liberty and property because of one's faith.
Don't be fooled into believing that all people of any religion or race are inherently violent, or stupid, or any other stereotype. People are people and for the most part wish to live their lives as best they can, and as peacefully as they can. They wish, for the most part, to be left alone, especially when it comes to government intrusion. The vast majority find violence and conflict abhorrent and will engage in it only when they feel threatened or cornered. Those who commit violence against their fellow humans should be caught and punished on an individual level. It is simply wrong to punish a group because a few in that group have committed atrocities. Group punishment is a practice that has historically been found to disgust our sensitivities because of its inherent unfairness. That is even more the case the more brutal the punishment becomes. It is my hope that humans as a race have evolved beyond such practices and that we will not let fear and paranoia bring us back to that dark place in our souls.
My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
Didn't we already go through this? How often does this deja vu have to happen before we get it? It wasn't that long ago when a national socialist country decided it wanted to restrict and regulate people due to their religion. The German Nazis were quick to label Jews as evil. They were the reason for all of mankind's woes. They were the spawn of the devil. They were racially inferior and needed to be controlled. Oh, it started off in a seemingly harmless enough fashion, with registrations and the like so that the government could keep an eye on them and make sure they were on the up and up and doing all their business by the rules, but it quickly devolved into something much worse. It quickly became one of the darkest chapters in human history.
Now we Americans are labeling the Muslims as evil. Now I'm hearing talk of forcing Muslims to register with government officials in some sort of bureaucratic registry scheme meant to track them. I've even heard some control freak individuals suggest that the Muslims be put into camps separate from the rest of the population. That is what is scary to me, that these ideas could even be proffered in a supposedly enlightened society.
Ask yourself, how would you feel if a group you could be identified with was being demonized in such a fashion? If they began to register people and then to round them up to put them into camps, would you fight back or would you cower and go along to get along? If you were to fight back, do you think they'd use that as propaganda to justify them rounding up even more of your people? Even if you were simply exercising your right to self defense, people would likely see you as being the aggressor once the media got a hold of the story and distorted it as they often do. Would you like this kind of treatment?
There was a great religious figure from the past who once said something like "Treat people as you want to be treated," or some such thing. It seems to me that is a philosophy that has fallen from favor these days.
This has all come to a head recently because some Muslims want to build a mosque close to where the World Trade Center in New York city once stood. They have been accused of all sorts of evil things, from wanting to build it there as a symbol of victory, to getting their money from terrorist organizations, to wanting to use sharia law to subjugate us all. It seems that when rumors like this abound the general public gets their panties in a wad and jumps on the protest band wagon before they check out the story and get all the facts. Until I knew better, I had heard that the mosque was being built on the same property where the twin towers stood, not some two blocks away.
The fact is that this is someone's private property. If that someone doesn't mind a mosque being built there, then it should be allowed. If those who don't want it built there are so concerned, they should at least try to raise the money to buy the property so that they can build a church or whatever else they want there. Another mosque in a city as large and diverse as New York is not going to suddenly radicalize all the Muslims in New York and create a war zone. They are not going to suddenly become blood thirsty, rabid savages intent on killing all that moves no matter the cost. They will likely continue to live their lives as peacefully and productively as they can and leave you alone to go about yours. They will likely keep to themselves to practice their religion and leave you alone to practice yours, so long as you leave them alone. That is how human nature works for those of us who are not paranoid busy bodies.
So what if it is decided to use government force to prevent these people from building the mosque? What if the worse case scenario happens and Muslims are forced to register so that government "officials" can keep an eye on them? What if it is decided Muslims need to report to camps until the "war on terrorism" is concluded? What then? If you don't think such things can happen here, I suggest you reconsider. Worse things have happened in other so called "enlightened" societies. More barbaric and brutal episodes of human subjugation have gone on even in modern times. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that such an episode could happen here. After all, the government has not followed its own rules as outlined in the Constitution in well over a hundred years.
What if you found out these camps were cruel and brutal to the Muslim people? What if you found out many were dying at these camps? What if you had a Muslim family living next door to you that you knew was peaceful and had harmed no one? Would you hide them in your attic? Or your garage? Or wherever you could? Would you keep them safe from the government wolves? Would you risk your own life in order to help fellow human beings?
That was the story of Anne Frank who was hidden by neighbors from the Nazis in World War II. That was a story of the light of the human soul in dark times. It was an heroic tale that showed the depths of caring that humans are capable of. I would like to think that I would be such a brave soul, able to hide fellow human beings from those who would cause them harm in their time of need. I can't be sure I would, however, and I hope I never have to find out. I would certainly hate to find out what fate would await those who were caught helping the Muslims if such a scenario were to play out.
But such dark times need not descend upon our nation. We should never have to discover if we are so brave to be able to help our neighbors in such a way. We have established the concept of individual rights in this nation and have outlined behaviors government officials are legally obliged to adhere to. They are supposedly not allowed to violate those individual rights, including the rights to engage in peaceful religious activity and to freely associate with others of a like mind. There are also individual rights regarding private property and one's use of it. The government does not own you, nor does it own your property, even though they think and act like they do. Government officials can only get away with what the populous will let them get away with. It scares me that so many might be willing to let them get away with not only dictating what can be done with someone's private property, but perhaps going even further and violating the individual rights to life, liberty and property because of one's faith.
Don't be fooled into believing that all people of any religion or race are inherently violent, or stupid, or any other stereotype. People are people and for the most part wish to live their lives as best they can, and as peacefully as they can. They wish, for the most part, to be left alone, especially when it comes to government intrusion. The vast majority find violence and conflict abhorrent and will engage in it only when they feel threatened or cornered. Those who commit violence against their fellow humans should be caught and punished on an individual level. It is simply wrong to punish a group because a few in that group have committed atrocities. Group punishment is a practice that has historically been found to disgust our sensitivities because of its inherent unfairness. That is even more the case the more brutal the punishment becomes. It is my hope that humans as a race have evolved beyond such practices and that we will not let fear and paranoia bring us back to that dark place in our souls.
My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Conspiracy Theories, the Lure of Collectivism and the Cycle of Abuse
I read an interesting piece the other day about mass delusion and the economy. It got me to thinking about, of all things, conspiracy theories. It suddenly occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, the reason the powerful can get away with conspiracy, the reason they can cause so much harm and consternation is because they know how to create and manipulate mass delusion. Maybe the main mass of the population disregards conspiracy theories so off handedly simply because they don't want to believe they're true, not because facts or evidence point to said theories being false.
Whether or not you believe certain conspiracy theories, or perhaps more appropriately in many cases, which conspiracy theory you chose to believe, depends on who you put your faith in. Back in the early 1960s, for instance, the vast majority of people had faith in government, so much so that it could get away with just about anything. People trusted the government to get to the bottom of John F. Kennedy's assassination with the Warren Commission. Even though much of their report made little sense and even conflicted with much of the evidence, the general public couldn't believe that such a conspiracy could possibly exist in the halls of government. They believed that our federal government was superior and above reproach and no one involved in our federal government could possibly consider a presidential assassination even if it would benefit them. I would like to think we as a society have gotten past that little delusion.
Do you still put faith in our government? Do you really believe politicians are looking out for your best interests or do you think they're either corruptible, already corrupted or just plain despicable and only looking out for themselves and their friends? How about the media, do you still trust them? They've been used by a powerful corporate elite in the past to misinform the populous and obfuscate issues, what makes you believe they're any different today? They certainly know what side their bread is buttered on. If the rich and powerful corporate establishment is threatened, don't you think they'd do everything in their power to alleviate that threat, including using a supposedly unbiased and objective "independent" media to convolute issues and events that could harm their reputations? It's amazing to me how often these institutions can be caught lying and still be trusted.
If a conspiracy is simply two or more people or entities plotting to obtain a certain outcome, then modern economics in nothing but conspiracy. The mere fact that congress even considers making laws to regulate the economy is conspiracy. There are those at the top of the heap, those who have made so much money they'll never be able to count it, who are trying to figure out how they can use the money to control everything about the markets, including and especially politicians. They make no qualms about admitting that they don't want competition and are willing to do everything it takes to eliminate it. So, one might ask, what is control? Is it not the same as, or at least akin to, governing? Controlling the market means governing the market and determining how people will spend their money, or at least a portion of said money.
So it is that we are told what to do and how to think by the talking heads on television. So it is that we hold up certain media personalities as idols. So it is that we are indoctrinated in government run schools. So it is that they use our money to entrap us in an economic system that benefits those at the top and makes it nearly impossible for the little guy to even begin to compete. Bureaucrats and people associated with government are happy to lead us around by the nose and tell us how much we need solutions offered by government. These people will happily proffer collectivist, big government solutions for problems that have been caused by the practices of collectivist big government. These are the solutions that have proven to be failures in countries around the world, including Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR and others.
The solutions to economic and societal problems that have been offered of late are nothing short of collectivist ideals. I would like to think that most Americans would agree that the individualist ideas of the founders that created so much prosperity for so long are much better than the collectivist ideas that have brought nothing but poverty and tyranny to so much humanity in so many nations in the past. Yet we still manage to fall for the age old arguments that these measures are meant to help the poor, or the downtrodden, or the children, or take care of some other perceived social injustice. This is the allure of collectivist ideas, that the ends justify the means and that the good intentions of the few should be forced upon the many.
It seems to me that many people are drawn to big government solutions not because they are simple, straight forward solutions to problems, although they can be presented that way, but because they haven't been exposed to other solutions. Quite often they don't even realize that other solutions even exist. They certainly haven't learned about any alternatives in school, nor are they likely to have seen them in the corporate owned media. Indeed, many folk might not even care that much. They are happy so long as they have their bread and circuses, so long as they can live what they consider a decent life.
As the economy continues its downward spiral, however, it becomes more likely that more and more of the common folk will begin to sit up and take notice. As they lose work, they will no longer be able to live that decent life they have become accustomed to. They will no longer be able to easily open a business and try new things as may have been done in the past. They will wonder why their opportunities have dried up and their options are so few. They will begin to explore the reasons behind the collapse and may well soon discover a frightening possibility. They may discover that these men and women we call government who were supposedly protecting them all these years were simply milking them for a portion of their productivity. They may discover that government and their corporate cronies care nothing about them and have, in fact, been abusing them for decades.
This cycle of abuse has been occurring for a long, long time. First group A gets in charge and abuses group B, then group B takes the reins of power and abuses group A. This happens over and over again, and all the time government grows bigger and the political power elite consolidate their power and grasp more control until finally there is no difference between group A and group B, there is only those with power and those they rule. They have divided and conquered. They are laughing as they watch the common folk bickering amongst themselves over issues of little consequence and they go about their business of completing their centralization agenda.
We need to stop being so delusional when it comes to these people. We need to quit laying back and expecting that they're going to solve the problems. We need to stop believing that they even care about us. These are not trustworthy people. We cannot and should not depend on them. Indeed, it seems to me that they are striving not to improve things, but to make matters even worse. One cannot solve problems created by borrowing and spending by borrowing and spending. One does not fill a hole by digging it deeper.
The political class doesn't seem to get it. Either that, or they truly are striving for complete control and they think you're too delusional to see it. Either way, it has become obvious the common folk need to take matters into our own hands. We need to stop listening to the politicians and pundits who berate free market solutions and start creating our own solutions. We need a little conspiracy of our own. We need to stop simply obeying and go back to just simply doing. We need to build our own economies, use our own currencies, and start doing business with each other while excluding government entities who insist on intruding into our business and taking their cut.
There are several ways this is accomplished. Allowing for competition in currency is one such way. Using precious metals such as copper, silver or gold for transactions is another. There are already several established companies that will happily provide the market place with such currencies. The Liberty Dollar is one such company that so threatened the status quo that the feds decided to raid it. There are now other similar companies stepping up to compete for market share. It is time we showed the feds that we don't need their protection when they attempt to protect us from legitimate enterprises. It is time to show them that if they do not re-establish a commodity based currency for our country instead of the current debt based fiat currency, then we will. That is how we will regain our economic freedom. That is how we will get back on the road to prosperity.
My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
Whether or not you believe certain conspiracy theories, or perhaps more appropriately in many cases, which conspiracy theory you chose to believe, depends on who you put your faith in. Back in the early 1960s, for instance, the vast majority of people had faith in government, so much so that it could get away with just about anything. People trusted the government to get to the bottom of John F. Kennedy's assassination with the Warren Commission. Even though much of their report made little sense and even conflicted with much of the evidence, the general public couldn't believe that such a conspiracy could possibly exist in the halls of government. They believed that our federal government was superior and above reproach and no one involved in our federal government could possibly consider a presidential assassination even if it would benefit them. I would like to think we as a society have gotten past that little delusion.
Do you still put faith in our government? Do you really believe politicians are looking out for your best interests or do you think they're either corruptible, already corrupted or just plain despicable and only looking out for themselves and their friends? How about the media, do you still trust them? They've been used by a powerful corporate elite in the past to misinform the populous and obfuscate issues, what makes you believe they're any different today? They certainly know what side their bread is buttered on. If the rich and powerful corporate establishment is threatened, don't you think they'd do everything in their power to alleviate that threat, including using a supposedly unbiased and objective "independent" media to convolute issues and events that could harm their reputations? It's amazing to me how often these institutions can be caught lying and still be trusted.
If a conspiracy is simply two or more people or entities plotting to obtain a certain outcome, then modern economics in nothing but conspiracy. The mere fact that congress even considers making laws to regulate the economy is conspiracy. There are those at the top of the heap, those who have made so much money they'll never be able to count it, who are trying to figure out how they can use the money to control everything about the markets, including and especially politicians. They make no qualms about admitting that they don't want competition and are willing to do everything it takes to eliminate it. So, one might ask, what is control? Is it not the same as, or at least akin to, governing? Controlling the market means governing the market and determining how people will spend their money, or at least a portion of said money.
So it is that we are told what to do and how to think by the talking heads on television. So it is that we hold up certain media personalities as idols. So it is that we are indoctrinated in government run schools. So it is that they use our money to entrap us in an economic system that benefits those at the top and makes it nearly impossible for the little guy to even begin to compete. Bureaucrats and people associated with government are happy to lead us around by the nose and tell us how much we need solutions offered by government. These people will happily proffer collectivist, big government solutions for problems that have been caused by the practices of collectivist big government. These are the solutions that have proven to be failures in countries around the world, including Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR and others.
The solutions to economic and societal problems that have been offered of late are nothing short of collectivist ideals. I would like to think that most Americans would agree that the individualist ideas of the founders that created so much prosperity for so long are much better than the collectivist ideas that have brought nothing but poverty and tyranny to so much humanity in so many nations in the past. Yet we still manage to fall for the age old arguments that these measures are meant to help the poor, or the downtrodden, or the children, or take care of some other perceived social injustice. This is the allure of collectivist ideas, that the ends justify the means and that the good intentions of the few should be forced upon the many.
It seems to me that many people are drawn to big government solutions not because they are simple, straight forward solutions to problems, although they can be presented that way, but because they haven't been exposed to other solutions. Quite often they don't even realize that other solutions even exist. They certainly haven't learned about any alternatives in school, nor are they likely to have seen them in the corporate owned media. Indeed, many folk might not even care that much. They are happy so long as they have their bread and circuses, so long as they can live what they consider a decent life.
As the economy continues its downward spiral, however, it becomes more likely that more and more of the common folk will begin to sit up and take notice. As they lose work, they will no longer be able to live that decent life they have become accustomed to. They will no longer be able to easily open a business and try new things as may have been done in the past. They will wonder why their opportunities have dried up and their options are so few. They will begin to explore the reasons behind the collapse and may well soon discover a frightening possibility. They may discover that these men and women we call government who were supposedly protecting them all these years were simply milking them for a portion of their productivity. They may discover that government and their corporate cronies care nothing about them and have, in fact, been abusing them for decades.
This cycle of abuse has been occurring for a long, long time. First group A gets in charge and abuses group B, then group B takes the reins of power and abuses group A. This happens over and over again, and all the time government grows bigger and the political power elite consolidate their power and grasp more control until finally there is no difference between group A and group B, there is only those with power and those they rule. They have divided and conquered. They are laughing as they watch the common folk bickering amongst themselves over issues of little consequence and they go about their business of completing their centralization agenda.
We need to stop being so delusional when it comes to these people. We need to quit laying back and expecting that they're going to solve the problems. We need to stop believing that they even care about us. These are not trustworthy people. We cannot and should not depend on them. Indeed, it seems to me that they are striving not to improve things, but to make matters even worse. One cannot solve problems created by borrowing and spending by borrowing and spending. One does not fill a hole by digging it deeper.
The political class doesn't seem to get it. Either that, or they truly are striving for complete control and they think you're too delusional to see it. Either way, it has become obvious the common folk need to take matters into our own hands. We need to stop listening to the politicians and pundits who berate free market solutions and start creating our own solutions. We need a little conspiracy of our own. We need to stop simply obeying and go back to just simply doing. We need to build our own economies, use our own currencies, and start doing business with each other while excluding government entities who insist on intruding into our business and taking their cut.
There are several ways this is accomplished. Allowing for competition in currency is one such way. Using precious metals such as copper, silver or gold for transactions is another. There are already several established companies that will happily provide the market place with such currencies. The Liberty Dollar is one such company that so threatened the status quo that the feds decided to raid it. There are now other similar companies stepping up to compete for market share. It is time we showed the feds that we don't need their protection when they attempt to protect us from legitimate enterprises. It is time to show them that if they do not re-establish a commodity based currency for our country instead of the current debt based fiat currency, then we will. That is how we will regain our economic freedom. That is how we will get back on the road to prosperity.
My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Fort Hood Disobeys, Politics and Illegal Occupations
A group of activists calling themselves Fort Hood Disobeys recently tried to block the deployment of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment to Iraq from Fort Hood. The activists were labeled anti war protestors by another media outlet, which is okay by me. It's about time we got some action on the anti war protesting front. It's about time real people started to once again voice their concern in a more pertinent way than simply begging politicians, who obviously couldn't care less, to end these expensive and deadly occupations. One can only hope that this example of civil disobedience is followed up by more incidents and greater disobedience from those who were so boisterous when George Bush was in office but have remained so silent since Barack Obama became president.
Of course this action was not covered for the most part by the corporate mainstream media, at least not that I saw. I read about it on an Internet news source, which seems to be the only place where one can find real and significant news these days. You won't see this story on FOX or CNN or any of the corporate networks because, with very few exceptions, they no longer seem interested in covering the news. They are more interested in making the news. They are more interested in diverting attention away from what is important and toward fluff items of little significance. God forbid the populous should learn that there are still people out there who care enough about ending wars of aggression to actually do something about it.
I commend these individuals for their bravery in standing up to the US military. This action, in my mind, harkens back to an incident in 1989 where a young Chinese man stood in front of tanks in an effort to avoid bloodshed in Tiananmen Square. There, one man showed us that at least the spirit of liberty lives on. He showed us that the actions of a few, or even an individual, can ignite a fire in the hearts of millions, especially if the cause is just. Of course, his actions were broadcast and propagandized worldwide because it seemed appropriate at the time to do so. Things are a bit different in this situation. Big government and big corporations are profiting from this war and they wouldn't want the populous to believe their wars were anything but just.
Did I mention that most of those protesting were ex military? These are the people who are most against these wars. Those who think that war protestors are only peaceniks who don't understand the reasoning behind wars are deluding themselves. War protestors and pro peace activists understand all too well what war is about. It's not about keeping America safe. It's not about protecting the innocent. It's not about bringing democracy to the poor, uneducated masses of some third world nation. It's not even about revenge for some convoluted terrorist attack that took place nine years ago. It's about money. It's about power. It's about building an empire. It's about controlling people and natural resources. It's about sacrificing the little people for the benefit of the elite.
There are those detractors who question the wisdom of so few protesting in such a seemingly futile fashion. There are those who will claim that nothing was accomplished, that the deployment they tried to stop went on anyway. Yet it is the few that can have the greatest affect. It is the few speaking out that help the many understand an alternative viewpoint. This is especially true when the few have experienced something that the many haven't. Something was accomplished, even if the effects don't show up immediately. Those in charge now know that some people care. Those in charge now know there are those who are not simply going to roll over and obey. Those in charge now know there are some ex military personnel who are not going to merely keep silent and get on with their lives while others are sent to kill and oppress in a far off land for a faceless, uncaring elite. This is but a small pebble landing in a lake that leads to big ripples. The only thing that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
There are other detractors who will question the tactics of these civilly disobedient activists. They may believe that protesting through proper channels is the better way to bring about meaningful change. They may advocate voting in anti war candidates or writing to congressmen. While I don't necessarily disagree with those methods, in fact I encourage them, it seems to me that they haven't been very effective so far. Still, even a little effort is better than none.
Barack Obama, for instance, was catapulted into office at least in part because he made promises to stop the unethical occupation going on in Iraq. We haven't seen that happen. We still have troops stationed there and I've heard talk about keeping them there forever, just like we've done with Germany, Japan and South Korea. He was elected because he intimated he would change the way government goes about its business, that he would bring more transparency and even reverse some of the mistaken policies of the Bush administration. So far, he has kept none of his promises that I can think of. He is nothing but a typical politician, eloquent with his words, quick to promise the electorate what they want, but unable or unwilling to follow through with those promises.
This type of flip flopping, of promising one thing and doing another is an age old political maneuver. It seems to me that it's not necessarily the politicians themselves that are the problem, it's the system. As long as they think they can get away with it, they will continue making promises they can't or won't keep. As long as they aren't held accountable for their deviate actions, they will continue to act like the political animals they are.
As for writing your congressman, need I remind you of the bailouts of 2008? Those bailouts were passed despite ten of thousands of letters and emails against them from congressional constituents. Both Barack Obama and John McCain rushed back to the senate from their campaign trails to vote for those bailouts despite popular opposition to the bills. Who were they representing? Certainly not the common folk. This type of behavior continues as evidenced with the continuing bailouts and the unpopular health care bill that coerces individuals with threatening punishments if they don't buy the state mandated health care insurance. The demand to repeal such unconstitutional laws and roll back the federal government is being ignored. So long as we continue to obey and pay our taxes they will continue to ignore popular sentiment, intrude upon your personal life and business, and empower themselves to the point where your voice is silenced and only the powerful elite oligarchs and their interests matter.
We have been left with few other alternatives. Only civil disobedience seems to work to bring about positive change. Certainly the other methods remain viable, but only as a measure of how unpopular certain policies have become. There must be those willing to get out there and protest. There must be those willing to partake in civil disobedience and who refuse to go along with the program. That is how Gandhi helped win independence for India. That is how the civil rights movement in America in the 60s succeeded. That is a big reason why the Vietnam occupation was ended. I applaud those who took part in this important action and I hope to see in the near future even more support for their efforts.
My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
Of course this action was not covered for the most part by the corporate mainstream media, at least not that I saw. I read about it on an Internet news source, which seems to be the only place where one can find real and significant news these days. You won't see this story on FOX or CNN or any of the corporate networks because, with very few exceptions, they no longer seem interested in covering the news. They are more interested in making the news. They are more interested in diverting attention away from what is important and toward fluff items of little significance. God forbid the populous should learn that there are still people out there who care enough about ending wars of aggression to actually do something about it.
I commend these individuals for their bravery in standing up to the US military. This action, in my mind, harkens back to an incident in 1989 where a young Chinese man stood in front of tanks in an effort to avoid bloodshed in Tiananmen Square. There, one man showed us that at least the spirit of liberty lives on. He showed us that the actions of a few, or even an individual, can ignite a fire in the hearts of millions, especially if the cause is just. Of course, his actions were broadcast and propagandized worldwide because it seemed appropriate at the time to do so. Things are a bit different in this situation. Big government and big corporations are profiting from this war and they wouldn't want the populous to believe their wars were anything but just.
Did I mention that most of those protesting were ex military? These are the people who are most against these wars. Those who think that war protestors are only peaceniks who don't understand the reasoning behind wars are deluding themselves. War protestors and pro peace activists understand all too well what war is about. It's not about keeping America safe. It's not about protecting the innocent. It's not about bringing democracy to the poor, uneducated masses of some third world nation. It's not even about revenge for some convoluted terrorist attack that took place nine years ago. It's about money. It's about power. It's about building an empire. It's about controlling people and natural resources. It's about sacrificing the little people for the benefit of the elite.
There are those detractors who question the wisdom of so few protesting in such a seemingly futile fashion. There are those who will claim that nothing was accomplished, that the deployment they tried to stop went on anyway. Yet it is the few that can have the greatest affect. It is the few speaking out that help the many understand an alternative viewpoint. This is especially true when the few have experienced something that the many haven't. Something was accomplished, even if the effects don't show up immediately. Those in charge now know that some people care. Those in charge now know there are those who are not simply going to roll over and obey. Those in charge now know there are some ex military personnel who are not going to merely keep silent and get on with their lives while others are sent to kill and oppress in a far off land for a faceless, uncaring elite. This is but a small pebble landing in a lake that leads to big ripples. The only thing that evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
There are other detractors who will question the tactics of these civilly disobedient activists. They may believe that protesting through proper channels is the better way to bring about meaningful change. They may advocate voting in anti war candidates or writing to congressmen. While I don't necessarily disagree with those methods, in fact I encourage them, it seems to me that they haven't been very effective so far. Still, even a little effort is better than none.
Barack Obama, for instance, was catapulted into office at least in part because he made promises to stop the unethical occupation going on in Iraq. We haven't seen that happen. We still have troops stationed there and I've heard talk about keeping them there forever, just like we've done with Germany, Japan and South Korea. He was elected because he intimated he would change the way government goes about its business, that he would bring more transparency and even reverse some of the mistaken policies of the Bush administration. So far, he has kept none of his promises that I can think of. He is nothing but a typical politician, eloquent with his words, quick to promise the electorate what they want, but unable or unwilling to follow through with those promises.
This type of flip flopping, of promising one thing and doing another is an age old political maneuver. It seems to me that it's not necessarily the politicians themselves that are the problem, it's the system. As long as they think they can get away with it, they will continue making promises they can't or won't keep. As long as they aren't held accountable for their deviate actions, they will continue to act like the political animals they are.
As for writing your congressman, need I remind you of the bailouts of 2008? Those bailouts were passed despite ten of thousands of letters and emails against them from congressional constituents. Both Barack Obama and John McCain rushed back to the senate from their campaign trails to vote for those bailouts despite popular opposition to the bills. Who were they representing? Certainly not the common folk. This type of behavior continues as evidenced with the continuing bailouts and the unpopular health care bill that coerces individuals with threatening punishments if they don't buy the state mandated health care insurance. The demand to repeal such unconstitutional laws and roll back the federal government is being ignored. So long as we continue to obey and pay our taxes they will continue to ignore popular sentiment, intrude upon your personal life and business, and empower themselves to the point where your voice is silenced and only the powerful elite oligarchs and their interests matter.
We have been left with few other alternatives. Only civil disobedience seems to work to bring about positive change. Certainly the other methods remain viable, but only as a measure of how unpopular certain policies have become. There must be those willing to get out there and protest. There must be those willing to partake in civil disobedience and who refuse to go along with the program. That is how Gandhi helped win independence for India. That is how the civil rights movement in America in the 60s succeeded. That is a big reason why the Vietnam occupation was ended. I applaud those who took part in this important action and I hope to see in the near future even more support for their efforts.
My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Proposition 8 and Democracy
The gay marriage debate is playing out in California. There, the majority of people have spoken. They don't believe that gay people should be allowed to be married. They think that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. They think that the state should not be allowed to sanction any other kind of union. I think this is a great example of why our founding fathers had such disdain for democracy. This is a great example of how the democratic process can lead to tyranny or mob rule. This is a great example of the difference between a republic and a democracy, why our founders decided to make this nation a republic, and why even republics fail miserably when it comes to representing the masses.
Let me say for the record that I couldn't care less whether two males, two females, or groups of people either mixed or not want to marry. It's none of my business, just like who I want to marry or whether or not anyone even ever wants to marry me is none of anyone else's business. Better than that, it is not the state's business. What does the state care who I am living with? I don't need permission from the state to fall in love with someone, or to make vows to them in front of our families, friends and/or the god of our choice. But the state has managed to force itself into the most intimate aspects of our lives and most of us simply allow it to take control. They whimper and cry one way or another, either that they are "unable" to marry and obtain all the goodies the state grants those unions, or that their sensibilities have been offended. This is nothing more than a collectivist scheme, in my opinion. It is yet another brilliant way to pit one group against another.
The answer, of course, is to get the state completely out of the marriage business. Let the churches decide who they will marry. Let the marketplace determine how marriages will be conducted. Let individuals decide for themselves how they want to go about making vows of love and entering into life partnerships with others. There is no reason for a coercive institution to steal money from all and then exercise prejudice against one group in favor of another. There is no reason to get people all riled up because government is always going to be unfair to one group or another.
But that's not what we have in this nation of ours. We don't have free and independent people simply running their lives as they see fit. We have a bunch of serfs running around asking their master's permission to do the simplest of tasks. We have a bunch of "citizens" who have become so dependent on government mandates that they can't make any decisions for themselves without first checking to see if they would be violating some code or statute. If I was a gay man in love with another man, I certainly wouldn't care what the state had to say about it. If I wanted to marry, I'd draw up a contract, find someone or some church who could do the ceremony, and then move on with my life. What should I care who else would recognize the marriage? As long as it was recognized between myself and my partner, that should be all that matters.
Yet people seem to want the majority to go along with them. They seem to want everyone to think and act as they do. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we are all in the minority at some time or another. We all have ideas and thoughts and little quirks that others would think are strange or abnormal. There is a reason we should realize that if we want to live free, we need to let others live free. When you give someone the power to criminalize the activities of others that cause no harm to anyone else, eventually they are going to criminalize a victimless activity that you want to engage in. That's why the rights of the smallest minority, the individual, need to be honored.
There is a morality issue here. Some may think I'm talking about the act of having sexual relations with a member of the same sex. Some have claimed that homosexuality is immoral because it's an affront to God. They claim that on the authority of some old tome written thousands of years ago by fallible men. That is not what I'm talking about. If sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex is an affront to God, then let God take care of it. He is, after all, the supreme, all powerful being. He has no need for your interdiction. He and those involved with the activity can sort things out at the appropriate time. If you want to intercede in the lives of those people and force them to stop having sex with each other and to act like a "normal" heterosexual, then likely it is because their activities are an affront to you personally and have nothing to do with God. I won't even go into the psychological implications of such desires.
In the end, whatever decision is made, Whether the courts or the people prevail, there are going to be people who feel they are losers. In a society where the state is left out of marriage, there would be no goodies, no privileges, for those who were married. There would simply be the respect for individual rights. No one would be looking into the personal lives of others where it didn't affect them personally. No one would care what others did in their personal lives as long as no harm was being done to others. In a world where the state is not involved in marriage, everyone wins. The contracts would be drawn up between two (or more) people and those people would be expected to honor their contract with each other. It would be the business of those people, and no one else. This is what a free society would teach us all. This is not the lesson we have learned from the failed experiment in democracy known as proposition 8.
My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
Let me say for the record that I couldn't care less whether two males, two females, or groups of people either mixed or not want to marry. It's none of my business, just like who I want to marry or whether or not anyone even ever wants to marry me is none of anyone else's business. Better than that, it is not the state's business. What does the state care who I am living with? I don't need permission from the state to fall in love with someone, or to make vows to them in front of our families, friends and/or the god of our choice. But the state has managed to force itself into the most intimate aspects of our lives and most of us simply allow it to take control. They whimper and cry one way or another, either that they are "unable" to marry and obtain all the goodies the state grants those unions, or that their sensibilities have been offended. This is nothing more than a collectivist scheme, in my opinion. It is yet another brilliant way to pit one group against another.
The answer, of course, is to get the state completely out of the marriage business. Let the churches decide who they will marry. Let the marketplace determine how marriages will be conducted. Let individuals decide for themselves how they want to go about making vows of love and entering into life partnerships with others. There is no reason for a coercive institution to steal money from all and then exercise prejudice against one group in favor of another. There is no reason to get people all riled up because government is always going to be unfair to one group or another.
But that's not what we have in this nation of ours. We don't have free and independent people simply running their lives as they see fit. We have a bunch of serfs running around asking their master's permission to do the simplest of tasks. We have a bunch of "citizens" who have become so dependent on government mandates that they can't make any decisions for themselves without first checking to see if they would be violating some code or statute. If I was a gay man in love with another man, I certainly wouldn't care what the state had to say about it. If I wanted to marry, I'd draw up a contract, find someone or some church who could do the ceremony, and then move on with my life. What should I care who else would recognize the marriage? As long as it was recognized between myself and my partner, that should be all that matters.
Yet people seem to want the majority to go along with them. They seem to want everyone to think and act as they do. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we are all in the minority at some time or another. We all have ideas and thoughts and little quirks that others would think are strange or abnormal. There is a reason we should realize that if we want to live free, we need to let others live free. When you give someone the power to criminalize the activities of others that cause no harm to anyone else, eventually they are going to criminalize a victimless activity that you want to engage in. That's why the rights of the smallest minority, the individual, need to be honored.
There is a morality issue here. Some may think I'm talking about the act of having sexual relations with a member of the same sex. Some have claimed that homosexuality is immoral because it's an affront to God. They claim that on the authority of some old tome written thousands of years ago by fallible men. That is not what I'm talking about. If sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex is an affront to God, then let God take care of it. He is, after all, the supreme, all powerful being. He has no need for your interdiction. He and those involved with the activity can sort things out at the appropriate time. If you want to intercede in the lives of those people and force them to stop having sex with each other and to act like a "normal" heterosexual, then likely it is because their activities are an affront to you personally and have nothing to do with God. I won't even go into the psychological implications of such desires.
In the end, whatever decision is made, Whether the courts or the people prevail, there are going to be people who feel they are losers. In a society where the state is left out of marriage, there would be no goodies, no privileges, for those who were married. There would simply be the respect for individual rights. No one would be looking into the personal lives of others where it didn't affect them personally. No one would care what others did in their personal lives as long as no harm was being done to others. In a world where the state is not involved in marriage, everyone wins. The contracts would be drawn up between two (or more) people and those people would be expected to honor their contract with each other. It would be the business of those people, and no one else. This is what a free society would teach us all. This is not the lesson we have learned from the failed experiment in democracy known as proposition 8.
My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Republicans Should Embrace an Anti War Philosophy
I heard a great idea the other day. It was proffered by Stefan Molyneux. We should hold a referendum and find out who favors wars of aggression and foreign occupation and who doesn't. Those in favor of such things should have to pay for them. Those against said wars should receive a tax refund for the portion of their taxes that would have gone to fund such foreign adventurism. I have the feeling that if this were the case those funding said projects would quickly discover just how expensive wars are and how much it costs to maintain an empire. I think they would quickly learn that such adventurism is simply not worth the price.
I had a similar idea not that long ago, one that might even be a little more practical. I think that companies profiting from war should foot the bill. Companies such a munitions manufacturers, makers of military hardware and equipment, military software companies, oil companies that received mineral rights in occupied lands, etc. should have to pay the costs of securing their interests where war and foreign occupation is concerned. It would be interesting to see how long it would take before they figured out that war was not worth the price if this was the case. It would be interesting to see how long it would take before war would become nothing but a bad memory under such conditions.
I think we can all remember back to 2006. It was only four years ago. That wasn't that long ago. Can you remember the election of that year? The Republicans were voted out of office. They lost the majority in the House of Representatives. Why? Because of the war they let George Bush bully them into. Because they defended the lies and corruption that took us to war. Because they chose to ignore popular sentiment and march forward with unpopular plans. Because of this, they relinquished their congressional power to the Democrats.
Remember 2008? That was only a couple of years ago. There was a presidential election. The big issues were the economy and foreign policy. This guy Barry Soetoro decided to run for the presidency of the United States of America under the pseudonym Barack Obama. He won. He won because he promised "change" and "hope." People believed he would change foreign policy. People hoped he would end wars of aggression. People were fooled.
Oh, some may point to the recently touted "last of the combat troops" leaving Iraq as evidence contrary to the above statement, but I would remind them that there are 50,000 troops still occupying that country. Even if they are "non combat" troops, they are still targets to any insurgency in that nation and they still may have to engage in combat that could possibly kill innocent civilians. Our men will not be out of harm's way until they abandon their policy of foreign occupation and bring home every soldier.
I would also point to the occupation of Afghanistan and the insurgency that rages on there. Our combat troops are still fighting in that country. Innocents are still dying as a result of our occupation. Public opinion is quickly turning against our military operations there as the horrors of such an occupation come to light. Mr. Obama has done nothing to bring home our boys from that theater of operations and has, in fact, increased the number of troops there. The immorality of that war is becoming more evident with each passing day.
Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party leadership have proven themselves to be cheats and lairs of the highest order. They have shown they care nothing for the popular sentiment that catapulted them into power. In essence, they have made the same mistakes that the Republicans made in the earlier elections mentioned above. The Republicans thought they could get away with breaking their promises to provide smaller, less intrusive government. They couldn't and were voted out of office. Now the Democrats have broken their promises to end foreign occupations and change foreign policy. It's looking like the public will vote them out of office in November.
But this cycle of broken promises needs to end. The Republicans still claim to be fiscal conservatives. They need to start proving that claim. It can start with foreign policy. The occupations are costing the government hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. The taxpayer can hardly afford to foot that bill. These occupations mostly benefit only a few politically well connected people. The propaganda spewed forth by the corporate media wants you to believe otherwise, but they haven't swayed my opinion. We cannot solve the abuses in the world by becoming abusive with our military. We shouldn't try. That's why some of the most respected of our nation's founders felt we should keep out of foreign entanglements. Trade with all, entangling alliances with none is, in my humble opinion, one of the most intelligent foreign policies our nation could adopt.
The Republicans could go a long way toward turning this nation around. They could start to set us back on the path to a freer, more prosperous nation. The problem is that they have a credibility problem. They are just as bad as the Democrats when it comes to big government. They are just as much in love with their power as their brethren. They want to grow government just as much as the Democrats do. They use the same excuses as their fellow politicians to maintain their stranglehold on power and keep the common folk from prospering.
It is not enough to make promises of smaller, less intrusive government. This time around they must keep those promises. They must start working toward easing the control the federal government has over the lives of ordinary, everyday folk. The easiest way to do this is to become the champions of peace. They should embrace an anti war philosophy and start implementing it. They can just stop occupying foreign lands and bring our troops home. They can shut down the hundreds of bases we have all over the world and save billions upon billions a year. We have to admit that we can no longer afford to maintain an empire, and we should start shutting it down and leave the people of foreign lands alone. We should stay out of the internal affairs of other nations.
The Republicans may take control of congress in November, but nothing will change. There will still be war. There will still be big government programs and laws in place that intrude upon the businesses and privacy of ordinary citizens. People are quickly figuring out that the two party system has failed them miserably. If Republicans are voted into office and they continue to ignore the will of the people, there may be hell to pay. It may not show during this election cycle, but it certainly will show sooner or later. The patience of the masses is growing thin. Their tolerance will not last much longer. If the Republicans don't embrace an anti war, pro peace, pro freedom philosophy to become the party of the future, then someone else will and they will trounce the failed politicians who remain stuck in the past.
My archives are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
I had a similar idea not that long ago, one that might even be a little more practical. I think that companies profiting from war should foot the bill. Companies such a munitions manufacturers, makers of military hardware and equipment, military software companies, oil companies that received mineral rights in occupied lands, etc. should have to pay the costs of securing their interests where war and foreign occupation is concerned. It would be interesting to see how long it would take before they figured out that war was not worth the price if this was the case. It would be interesting to see how long it would take before war would become nothing but a bad memory under such conditions.
I think we can all remember back to 2006. It was only four years ago. That wasn't that long ago. Can you remember the election of that year? The Republicans were voted out of office. They lost the majority in the House of Representatives. Why? Because of the war they let George Bush bully them into. Because they defended the lies and corruption that took us to war. Because they chose to ignore popular sentiment and march forward with unpopular plans. Because of this, they relinquished their congressional power to the Democrats.
Remember 2008? That was only a couple of years ago. There was a presidential election. The big issues were the economy and foreign policy. This guy Barry Soetoro decided to run for the presidency of the United States of America under the pseudonym Barack Obama. He won. He won because he promised "change" and "hope." People believed he would change foreign policy. People hoped he would end wars of aggression. People were fooled.
Oh, some may point to the recently touted "last of the combat troops" leaving Iraq as evidence contrary to the above statement, but I would remind them that there are 50,000 troops still occupying that country. Even if they are "non combat" troops, they are still targets to any insurgency in that nation and they still may have to engage in combat that could possibly kill innocent civilians. Our men will not be out of harm's way until they abandon their policy of foreign occupation and bring home every soldier.
I would also point to the occupation of Afghanistan and the insurgency that rages on there. Our combat troops are still fighting in that country. Innocents are still dying as a result of our occupation. Public opinion is quickly turning against our military operations there as the horrors of such an occupation come to light. Mr. Obama has done nothing to bring home our boys from that theater of operations and has, in fact, increased the number of troops there. The immorality of that war is becoming more evident with each passing day.
Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party leadership have proven themselves to be cheats and lairs of the highest order. They have shown they care nothing for the popular sentiment that catapulted them into power. In essence, they have made the same mistakes that the Republicans made in the earlier elections mentioned above. The Republicans thought they could get away with breaking their promises to provide smaller, less intrusive government. They couldn't and were voted out of office. Now the Democrats have broken their promises to end foreign occupations and change foreign policy. It's looking like the public will vote them out of office in November.
But this cycle of broken promises needs to end. The Republicans still claim to be fiscal conservatives. They need to start proving that claim. It can start with foreign policy. The occupations are costing the government hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. The taxpayer can hardly afford to foot that bill. These occupations mostly benefit only a few politically well connected people. The propaganda spewed forth by the corporate media wants you to believe otherwise, but they haven't swayed my opinion. We cannot solve the abuses in the world by becoming abusive with our military. We shouldn't try. That's why some of the most respected of our nation's founders felt we should keep out of foreign entanglements. Trade with all, entangling alliances with none is, in my humble opinion, one of the most intelligent foreign policies our nation could adopt.
The Republicans could go a long way toward turning this nation around. They could start to set us back on the path to a freer, more prosperous nation. The problem is that they have a credibility problem. They are just as bad as the Democrats when it comes to big government. They are just as much in love with their power as their brethren. They want to grow government just as much as the Democrats do. They use the same excuses as their fellow politicians to maintain their stranglehold on power and keep the common folk from prospering.
It is not enough to make promises of smaller, less intrusive government. This time around they must keep those promises. They must start working toward easing the control the federal government has over the lives of ordinary, everyday folk. The easiest way to do this is to become the champions of peace. They should embrace an anti war philosophy and start implementing it. They can just stop occupying foreign lands and bring our troops home. They can shut down the hundreds of bases we have all over the world and save billions upon billions a year. We have to admit that we can no longer afford to maintain an empire, and we should start shutting it down and leave the people of foreign lands alone. We should stay out of the internal affairs of other nations.
The Republicans may take control of congress in November, but nothing will change. There will still be war. There will still be big government programs and laws in place that intrude upon the businesses and privacy of ordinary citizens. People are quickly figuring out that the two party system has failed them miserably. If Republicans are voted into office and they continue to ignore the will of the people, there may be hell to pay. It may not show during this election cycle, but it certainly will show sooner or later. The patience of the masses is growing thin. Their tolerance will not last much longer. If the Republicans don't embrace an anti war, pro peace, pro freedom philosophy to become the party of the future, then someone else will and they will trounce the failed politicians who remain stuck in the past.
My archives are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Perverting the English Language and the Slide into Tyranny
I might not know much about anything, but I do know a little about the English language. I was born in the Midwest of the United States where it is the spoken language of the vast majority. I also actually studied it in college and, yes, we did actually delve into its history and closely examine how to use it in a grammatically correct way back when I went to the University of Illinois.
One thing I've learned about language is that the same word can mean different things to different people. A simple example of this is to think about something like the word dog. We all know what a dog is, right? Well, the truth is that the word dog places a different image in the mind of someone who owns a German shepherd than it would in someone who owns a Chihuahua. But something physical and solid is easy to work out. One simply goes into more detail or uses more descriptive or specific words. Things can get a little more difficult when discussing ideas and concepts that don't exist in the physical world but are purely in the realm of the mind.
Such concepts would include things like freedom and duty, tyranny and justice, liberty and slavery, etc. Just about everybody has a different understanding of what these things mean, even though many will have very similar ideas. Those who control the educational system can greatly influence how the masses view such concepts. Those who own the media can also shape and even change over time how these concepts are viewed. Words are quite mutable. As they change over time, the concepts they convey also change. The word gay is likely one of the best recent examples of this phenomenon. A few decades ago, it simply meant to be happy. I think we all know what the word implies in today's vernacular.
Many of our most cherished concepts have been slowly changed and perverted in this way. For instance, when the United States was created, a war was fought due to taxes that amounted to little over one percent of a man's income. To them, this was theft. To at least some of them any taxation was theft, but many of them felt they were being taxed without proper representation. They felt they weren't getting the services they deserved from government. To them, this was tyranny. They used this feeling of injustice to foment a revolution against the British royalty and their governing system and then used the victory to set up a more just and fair system. It wasn't a perfect system, but it was a step in the right direction. What percentage of income do you pay in theft, I mean taxes, today? Where is the outrage? Would the founders have allowed such abuse?
In a valiant effort to try to corral federal government and to try to prevent it from becoming the tyranny the founders had just cast out, they wrote the bill of rights which spelled out the natural rights individuals enjoyed through the auspices of their humanity. Government was not to violate said rights. Such was the law of the land. It was written in plain English. Unfortunately, we began the slide backward fairly early in the history of our republic. An unscrupulous political elite class has managed to take the reigns of power and an apathetic populous has let them get away with breaking their own laws for far too long.
It began slowly, by twisting the meaning of public welfare and regulating trade. The supreme court became a final arbiter of the meaning of the English language, a huge mistake and a terrible weak link. They refused to overturn obviously unconstitutional laws on numerous occasions and helped transfer far too much power to the congressional and executive branches of the United States federal government. Not enough people were paying attention, or cared, or demanded reversals, or took action. They simply accepted the rulings and allowed the government to usurp power. They allowed the language to be redefined.
The justice system is by far the worst violator of English degradation. They have become so detached from the rest of society that they have more or less developed their own language. I call it legalese. It is a language based on English, so it sounds familiar, but it is really quite different. Because of this, when a lawyer speaks, one might think he knows what the lawyer is saying, but one would be well advised to be careful. This is a language cunningly subtle in its deceptions. So much so that it even has its own dictionary. Black's Law Dictionary has been the legalese standard since 1891.
The law was meant to be understandable to all. The old maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has been made false. The law that is universally understood is natural, moral law. It is quite simple, do not initiate force against others, do no harm to another except if defensive, do not steal, do not destroy another's property, and do not commit fraud are the simplest forms of such law. There is no reason to be ignorant of these laws, for they are self evident and intuitive. Yet these are the kind of laws that government bureaucrats and the power elite are constantly breaking. They want to hold you accountable when you are not aware of manmade laws, which occupy tome upon tome making it nearly impossible to know or understand all of them, while they want to remain unaccountable when they violate the simplest forms of natural law.
So the "justice" system has hijacked the English language. It has made people afraid in many ways. People fear what they don't understand. Honest people should not be afraid of justice. Honest, hard working people should not have to worry about being thrown in a cold jail cell when they have not harmed anyone, stolen from anyone, or committed fraud against anyone. They should not have to worry about being thrown in jail for wanting to exercise their rights. They should not have to worry about being charged with a crime for wanting to spend the money they've earned in the way they want. They should not have to worry about being "busted" for engaging in commerce of any kind, or for deciding what chemicals they want to put in their own bodies, or what kind of foods they want to eat, or what ideas they want to express, etc.
Keeping the populous confused and afraid only proves that the power elite are control freaks. It only shows how much they fear competition. It only shows how much they worry that they will not be able to remain on top of the heap if they allow fair and equal opportunity for the common folk. It was John D. Rockefeller who said "Competition is a sin, therefore it must be destroyed." I take exception to that. I believe competition keeps men honest. A monopoly is a sin. Modern monopolies are only possible because of government. That is the opposite of how responsible, caring government should act. If anything, government should help encourage competition in the marketplace, they should not put up roadblocks to small businesses that can't afford their regulations and licensing fees. Unfortunately, government is corruptible and the power elite have taken control and are using it to increase their own worth.
These control freaks have attacked the ideas of liberty and freedom by changing and manipulating the language used to describe these ideas. They have blamed the free market for the current financial crises when there hasn't been a truly free market in the world since way back when, maybe never. They blame capitalism for many of society's ills when true capitalism hasn't existed for at least a century. What we've had in this nation that the power elite has called capitalism is more closely akin to fascism. What we've had is corporatism, where the corporations are in bed with the government in an effort to hold down the small businessman. A truly free market would be regulated by fierce competition where business owners would be held accountable for their mistakes by facing bankruptcy and ruin if they don't deliver. In a true capitalist system investors would be held accountable by risking their own money for business ventures and the government would not provide a taxpayer safety net for them.
It has been the corporate system that has failed us, not the free market. It has been the government/corporate model that has led us to where we are today, not capitalism. It has been the collectivist models that are holding us down, not the individualist philosophies of our forefathers. The very powerful are afraid of competition because they know how innovative humans can be, and so they want to squash the human spirit, deny opportunity, limit human potential and stagnate economies all so they can be certain to remain relevant, influential and on top of the heap. Obfuscating the language has helped them create an environment which makes it easier for them to accomplish their goals.
Please help support my efforts by visiting szandorblestman.com where you will find my archived articles and a link to my ebook "The Ouijiers" written under the pen name Matthew Wayne.
One thing I've learned about language is that the same word can mean different things to different people. A simple example of this is to think about something like the word dog. We all know what a dog is, right? Well, the truth is that the word dog places a different image in the mind of someone who owns a German shepherd than it would in someone who owns a Chihuahua. But something physical and solid is easy to work out. One simply goes into more detail or uses more descriptive or specific words. Things can get a little more difficult when discussing ideas and concepts that don't exist in the physical world but are purely in the realm of the mind.
Such concepts would include things like freedom and duty, tyranny and justice, liberty and slavery, etc. Just about everybody has a different understanding of what these things mean, even though many will have very similar ideas. Those who control the educational system can greatly influence how the masses view such concepts. Those who own the media can also shape and even change over time how these concepts are viewed. Words are quite mutable. As they change over time, the concepts they convey also change. The word gay is likely one of the best recent examples of this phenomenon. A few decades ago, it simply meant to be happy. I think we all know what the word implies in today's vernacular.
Many of our most cherished concepts have been slowly changed and perverted in this way. For instance, when the United States was created, a war was fought due to taxes that amounted to little over one percent of a man's income. To them, this was theft. To at least some of them any taxation was theft, but many of them felt they were being taxed without proper representation. They felt they weren't getting the services they deserved from government. To them, this was tyranny. They used this feeling of injustice to foment a revolution against the British royalty and their governing system and then used the victory to set up a more just and fair system. It wasn't a perfect system, but it was a step in the right direction. What percentage of income do you pay in theft, I mean taxes, today? Where is the outrage? Would the founders have allowed such abuse?
In a valiant effort to try to corral federal government and to try to prevent it from becoming the tyranny the founders had just cast out, they wrote the bill of rights which spelled out the natural rights individuals enjoyed through the auspices of their humanity. Government was not to violate said rights. Such was the law of the land. It was written in plain English. Unfortunately, we began the slide backward fairly early in the history of our republic. An unscrupulous political elite class has managed to take the reigns of power and an apathetic populous has let them get away with breaking their own laws for far too long.
It began slowly, by twisting the meaning of public welfare and regulating trade. The supreme court became a final arbiter of the meaning of the English language, a huge mistake and a terrible weak link. They refused to overturn obviously unconstitutional laws on numerous occasions and helped transfer far too much power to the congressional and executive branches of the United States federal government. Not enough people were paying attention, or cared, or demanded reversals, or took action. They simply accepted the rulings and allowed the government to usurp power. They allowed the language to be redefined.
The justice system is by far the worst violator of English degradation. They have become so detached from the rest of society that they have more or less developed their own language. I call it legalese. It is a language based on English, so it sounds familiar, but it is really quite different. Because of this, when a lawyer speaks, one might think he knows what the lawyer is saying, but one would be well advised to be careful. This is a language cunningly subtle in its deceptions. So much so that it even has its own dictionary. Black's Law Dictionary has been the legalese standard since 1891.
The law was meant to be understandable to all. The old maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has been made false. The law that is universally understood is natural, moral law. It is quite simple, do not initiate force against others, do no harm to another except if defensive, do not steal, do not destroy another's property, and do not commit fraud are the simplest forms of such law. There is no reason to be ignorant of these laws, for they are self evident and intuitive. Yet these are the kind of laws that government bureaucrats and the power elite are constantly breaking. They want to hold you accountable when you are not aware of manmade laws, which occupy tome upon tome making it nearly impossible to know or understand all of them, while they want to remain unaccountable when they violate the simplest forms of natural law.
So the "justice" system has hijacked the English language. It has made people afraid in many ways. People fear what they don't understand. Honest people should not be afraid of justice. Honest, hard working people should not have to worry about being thrown in a cold jail cell when they have not harmed anyone, stolen from anyone, or committed fraud against anyone. They should not have to worry about being thrown in jail for wanting to exercise their rights. They should not have to worry about being charged with a crime for wanting to spend the money they've earned in the way they want. They should not have to worry about being "busted" for engaging in commerce of any kind, or for deciding what chemicals they want to put in their own bodies, or what kind of foods they want to eat, or what ideas they want to express, etc.
Keeping the populous confused and afraid only proves that the power elite are control freaks. It only shows how much they fear competition. It only shows how much they worry that they will not be able to remain on top of the heap if they allow fair and equal opportunity for the common folk. It was John D. Rockefeller who said "Competition is a sin, therefore it must be destroyed." I take exception to that. I believe competition keeps men honest. A monopoly is a sin. Modern monopolies are only possible because of government. That is the opposite of how responsible, caring government should act. If anything, government should help encourage competition in the marketplace, they should not put up roadblocks to small businesses that can't afford their regulations and licensing fees. Unfortunately, government is corruptible and the power elite have taken control and are using it to increase their own worth.
These control freaks have attacked the ideas of liberty and freedom by changing and manipulating the language used to describe these ideas. They have blamed the free market for the current financial crises when there hasn't been a truly free market in the world since way back when, maybe never. They blame capitalism for many of society's ills when true capitalism hasn't existed for at least a century. What we've had in this nation that the power elite has called capitalism is more closely akin to fascism. What we've had is corporatism, where the corporations are in bed with the government in an effort to hold down the small businessman. A truly free market would be regulated by fierce competition where business owners would be held accountable for their mistakes by facing bankruptcy and ruin if they don't deliver. In a true capitalist system investors would be held accountable by risking their own money for business ventures and the government would not provide a taxpayer safety net for them.
It has been the corporate system that has failed us, not the free market. It has been the government/corporate model that has led us to where we are today, not capitalism. It has been the collectivist models that are holding us down, not the individualist philosophies of our forefathers. The very powerful are afraid of competition because they know how innovative humans can be, and so they want to squash the human spirit, deny opportunity, limit human potential and stagnate economies all so they can be certain to remain relevant, influential and on top of the heap. Obfuscating the language has helped them create an environment which makes it easier for them to accomplish their goals.
Please help support my efforts by visiting szandorblestman.com where you will find my archived articles and a link to my ebook "The Ouijiers" written under the pen name Matthew Wayne.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)