Hang Together for Freedom? Or Hang Separately?

One message I've wanted to get out there for some time is that all of us who want particular freedoms must understand that we must scratch each others' freedom-craving backs if we want to succeed in protecting that, or those, freedoms.

Yes, I'll put it another way: I support protection and restoration of freedoms that I don't personally care about. It's  because I understand that if I don't help you maintain your freedoms, why should you help me with mine?; if I want freedom but want to lay some authoritarian horse manure on you, how could I expect you to do any different with me?

Most people just want to be left alone by "society." That doesn't mean they're hermits; no, they just don't want someone in their business unless invited. This was the Jeffersonian message to the world, that a society that systematically refuses to intrude into private matters is a sustainable society, a working community, and a force to be reckoned with should anyone attack: specifically because they are not at odds with one another and will therefore stick together! That may seem counterintuitive, but that's the way it works.

Put another way: empathy breeds in a non-coercive environment. If empathy has been eroded in a community by capricious, controlling and insulting rules and laws, the community won't hang together unless something horrific occurs. They won't help one another unless it's life and death, and maybe not even then.

Let that digest for a minute. A key to societal success... to a community's or even country's ability to hang together... is to leave each other alone, not meddle in private affairs, NOT to try to standardize or legislate or regulate beyond a few key matters, to let people handle their own affairs as they see fit and still be held accountable for harm. This is societal sustainability.
---

"I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Thus spake Zara.... errrr.... Jefferson. I'd ... call that... pretty... anti-authoritarian.

Monetary High Jinks

JS Kim wrote a useful article for today's Goldseek.com page. Therein, he explains what happened (and happens) when fiat currency (money that's money because "the government said so," i.e., counterfeit money backed by nothing) takes over in a country. That is how it is in the U.S. today and since 1933, having gotten its first vestiges in 1913 with the illegal Federal Reserve Act.

If you are unaware of how real money got swapped for fiat currency in the U.S., or if you aren't sure you are aware of the terrible economic results of such changes, please read the article. It's really quite good, comprehensive enough that one who is as yet uninformed on the matter will come away with a respectable overview.

The link takes you to part 1 of the article; there is a part 2 due presumably soon. Watch goldseek for the second part, or I may post it here.

Excerpts:

How the Market Isn't Free

D'Amato on Economic Fascism and the Power Elite:

"In the present day, following the maturation of the connections identified by Mills, Rothbard, Higgs and others, the economy has been “centralized . . . into a highly structured bureaucracy under the effective direction and control of leading business interests.”[11] We can in no way be said to have a free market, as the ties between powerful interests and the federal government are as strong as ever. Politics is an expensive, high-stakes game of favors and bribery, a fact that libertarians like Comte and Dunoyer saw clearly hundreds of years ago."


This is the summation of what he wrote in the rest of the linked article. Informative, useful reading for those who need to demonstrate that we do not have a free market economy.

What we have may be called "capitalism," but this is a word that has too many meanings. I prefer "free market" to describe a free market, because using the C word doesn't really clarify.

I hope you enjoy the article, and find the references useful!

Obama's Track Record

This needs to go viral, folks:

Washington's Blog, Obama's Track Record

As far as I'm concerned, most of this belongs in an indictment. It's time for Congress to grow a backbone and impeach this monster, this guy that's poking at tigers everywhere, hoping for worldwide and national upheaval (?) for... hmm... I can only suppose it's the end game for world depopulation and world government.

Why else would he repeatedly and viciously poke tigers domestically (attacking every protected and unprotected right of the American people) and worldwide (sabre rattling at China and Russia, drone attacks absolutely anywhere and everywhere, illegal wars overthrowing governments that are not doing us harm, etc., etc., etc.)? He could only want a ferocious response. And there could only be one explanation for wanting that response: he's doing the bidding of the would-be worldwide absolute masters. I wonder what his 30 pieces of silver is supposed to be, and whether he'll get it should he succeed. Is this .. effort ... what all that "Yes we can!" crap was all about? Is it really, "Yes, we can indeed throw the world into total chaos so that the masters can finally realize their world government ambitions"? Is that it?

That Awful Sequestration

Enough of this apocalyptic talk of sequestration!

For starters, Cato provides a look at what's real...

Now the The Gaslighter in Chief wants to pretend that sequestration wasn't his idea in the first place, as he tried (and continues to try) to set budget hawks in Congress at a disadvantage.

Well, the budget hawks in Congress are better described as chickenhawks. In fact they're more like pigeons, "rats with wings," as they talk big cuts and push none of it. This reduction of increase isn't a cut at all, so what's all the hullaballoo?

Worse, the budget hawk poseurs are usually also war hawk neoconnish folk, which means they have no intention of getting the country out of feckless imperial warmongering--where we're wasting $kazillions for... for what, actually? I wouldn't condone it if we were plundering countries conquered, but I'd understand it better.

The country has lots of cause to keep our aerospace and other weapons manufacturers in business, even if we don't have wars. Of course, executive bonuses might fall a bit short, but that's not a reason to keep the spending up at this dumping rate by blowing things and people up all over the world. No, national defense is the key function of a proper government...

...not this acquisition and spending and use of...

Comments Too Rich and Firestorms

No, my comments won't be too rich, but apparently Ron Paul's tweet about Chris Kyle was. Paul got all the info into that tweet that made it valid to a knowledgeable reader, but he didn't succeed in making it understandable to more than a few who are willing to take the time to grind out a proper apprehension of it.

It is the responsibility of all communicators to make themselves understandable and to understand. Choosing the right forum, understanding the probable way that a reader will grasp a comment, and collecting and assembling the right words are all part of good communication by someone trying to get a point across. Ron Paul's words were well chosen and assembled, but I will argue that such conciseness is not well suited to even the very thoughtful in a forum like Twitter.

Sadly, Paul's attempt to clarify really hasn't helped much. Laying out an illegal war as a crime, he appears to lay the illegality of the war firmly at the feet of the soldiers--one of the awful, wrongminded things that was done by many Americans to our returning Viet Nam vets.

But he doesn't do only that, although that's what I see the firestorm focusing on; what he also does is incriminate the whole of the body politic of those countries who are initiating and perpetuating wars on no legitimate provocation. This is a valid point, but doesn't really clarify what he said in the tweet. He's right, but still not communicating all that well or all that responsively.

Let's dissect the context of  the original tweet a little. Here's Chris Kyle, admirably working with a guy with a blazing PTSD. His subject is in a very fragile state. It would seem logical to avoid situations where the subject could switch back into war mode, fading into delusion, wouldn't it?

I Stand Corrected... and YES!! YES!!!! YES!!!!!!

Edwin Vieira Rips the Heads Off of Weak Pro-Gun and All Anti-Gun Arguments in the U.S.A!

...including my own, now recognized as not fully empowerd pro-gun argument, although I take some pride in having had my little brain hint the direction of his argument. WOWOWOWOWOW, I LOVE to be wrong like that!

A Shameless Self-Promotion: my previous words on the Second Amendment

PLEASE read the entirety of the article at The Daily Bell. It covers a LOT of ground in a fairly short space. If you want to understand the Constitution and the workings of those who really control the world, read the whole article; it's one of the best primers I've ever seen on all of that. And of course, the book is available on Amazon.

From The Daily Bell's interview, Vieira:

Important Rundown

YouTube vid discussing the Sandy Hook business

What amounts to a consolidated report on what's going on with the Sandy Hook busienss.

I don't have much more to add. Bad, bad business going on.

What About It Isn't Tyranny?

Every time a tyrant feels insecure, s/he wants to take away your weapons, whatever may constitute them. "Never mind me and my tyranny and the fact that I'm bringing your rebellion and hostility on myself; it's your guns, your knives, bludgeons and... lord forbid... your argumentative points... that are causing problems. What I'm forcing on you is right."

This is Psycho 101, folks. Read about narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder: "We'll beat you into submission! It's for your own good." But it's not; it's for their own good, whether it be to feel good about themselves or for monetary or other gain.

--

PrezDent O'blamblam, Chief Gaslighter and Drone Attack Bringer, Destroyer of Whole Villages and Many Hundreds of Children, Terrorist to the World, said in his remarks announcing his "recommendations" for newish 2nd-Amendment-infringing law-like-things to save children... he said that some of us out here would be shouting about how he's after our guns and establishing tyranny, as if to imply that this is a wacky notion.

Second Amendment Deniers Guilty of Treason?

Infowars Documents International Attack on America

The Japanese chose not to launch a ground invasion of the US during WWII, on Yamamoto's concern that "Behind every blade of grass there is a rifle and someone who knows how to use it." This is the best documented of these stories, but I've also heard it about the Soviet Union, and it makes sense that indeed it has been a major strength in deterring potential attacks from just about anywhere. It also deters a huge amount of crime, either passively or actively (that is, by the mere possibility of a gun's presence or by the presentation or use of a firearm).

...with the Chinese, English, Russians (and so on) now, supposedly as a result of the Newtown business, saying that the U.S. government should disarm citizens...

"What," one wonders, ... "does someone have a plan?" Perhaps one that would bring back that concern about US civilians and our guns? It doesn't take a lot of security training to think this suspiciously.

Gun Grabber Lies

There's no way to actually list all the ways the gun grabbers lie to us continually. They lie about their intentions (yes, they want ALL guns; they won't admit it, because they have found out that to say so defeats their purpose... but if they say they only want "this" gun or "that" one because of its kill power, then at least some of us are rube enough to go along). They lie about their "reasoning"; it isn't reason; it's just a vain attempt at justification to cloak their intentions).

Anyway, some useful stuff: 18 Ways the Gun Grabbers Lie

Spin to Sell Books: "Abandon the Constitution"

This article sent me to this BS in the New York Times by Louis Michael Seidman (more on Seidman), which I take to be mainly a ploy to market a book. Yet, here's another constitutional law professor who doesn't seem to be able to properly assess the realities even of history, much less social dynamics.

See How Gun Registration Is Used...

Mac Slavo had this to say about the recent listing of gun owners by a local newspaper.

He points up that the list is effectively a list of unarmed households, suitable for a hot burglary (one where the burglar enters while the people are there).

What he doesn't point up is that such a list also provides a list of targets where a burglar might find a gun, and also indicates tactics a burglar might want to use.

This makes everyone a little less safe. Security of any kind is largely based in keeping would-be attackers in the dark about capabilities of intended victims, or it could be listed as opportunities and threats in the target environment.

There is a saying that society is safer when the criminals don't know who has guns. It's true. It's usually used to support concealed carry, but it applies just the same to households containing guns. The long and short of it is that in his risk calculation, informal as it may be, the criminal will, if uninformed about who does and does not have guns, have to guess, which increases risk.

HOWEVER, even more than that: look at what happens when guns are registered! This is just the tip of the iceberg. History bears out that such lists also constitute hit lists for the bigger criminals: those who have co-opted government to instill tyranny.

For anyone who might think NRA or any other gun-ownership-supporting organization is "nuts" for opposing registration and licensing, behold: they were on target, weren't they!

It's time to pressure state legislatures, Congress and whomever else you can think of to dispense with even the first vestiges of licensing for guns and gun owners, and to make concealed carry legal without any licensing whatsoever.

Mercantilism Is Fascism Is Feudalism Is Illegal in U.S.

I'm adding this several days after writing the rest: Tibor Machan explains how socialism (and I would argue any centralist approach) ends up with an elite, and why it is counterproductive. It's just that good.

Once upon a time, only certain people, feudal lords, could own property, and it was a grant of some king or other. Everyone else rented. If a renter grew wheat on his little plot, that was fine, and he could use the milled wheat to pay his rent to the land lord who owned the property.

But the land lord, with the power of law (his law, his enforcers) forbade one's milling of his own wheat, and owned the only mill that the farmer was allowed to use to mill his wheat. And of course, the lord charged for the use of the mill, and this also allowed the lord to know how much grain the farmer had grown and thus how much "tax" to apply to the farmer in addition to rent and milling charges.

If you had a good lord, who understood how to keep a balance... understood how to use this system sustainably and hadn't overdrawn his own accounts with his overlord(s), then perhaps you had a good life and could prosper.

But, as history has born out, few lords with this kind of power are thus good; as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

And this was why several colonies of upstarts insisted that the government could not justifiably and, as they arranged, legally establish people to be lords of this ilk; they said that all men are created equal, that the law was above any individual and had to be the same for all in the society. In the government installed by these upstarts, no government official could become a lord and controller of others, a law unto himself. And the people outlawed titles like "king," "lord," "baron," and so forth.

I am, of course, talking about the colonies that became the united states of America.

Enter the food police: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig13/salatin1.1.1.html

My World, Described

http://www.thedailybell.com/28267/Republicans-Rage-as-the-Great-Burning-Arrives

So well said.

Weighing In on Sandy Hook

Paul Craig Roberts on his Interview with the now MSM apparatchik RT

I tried to point out to RT Moscow that these news reports indicate that the accused dead gunman, whom no one can interrogate, if he is indeed the culprit, killed the children with handguns, not with an “assault rifle” left in the car, but that the medical examiner said the children were killed with rifle shots.

The discrepancy is obvious. Either the news reports are incorrect, the medical examiner is wrong, or someone other than Adam Lanza shot the children.

This was too much for RT Moscow’s news anchor. She cut me off with her statement that the children were dead by whatever gun. Yet, the focus of the program was on “assault rifles.”

Indeed. We're hearing from the kook squad of anti-gun about how "awful" are those "assault rifles." But Lanza didn't have the rifle in hand; it was in his car trunk, and he had handguns. And the kids were shot with rifle rounds. So, if it is thus impossible that Lanza was the shooter, where did the rifle rounds come from?

Zeitgeist... Ugh

Another post in Open Letter mode, and is directed to Peter Joseph of Zeitgeist fame.

 

I just watched Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (yes, I finally got around to it. I also watched Alex Jones Anti-TZM Propaganda Debunked by Peter Joseph - Aug15th 2012. 

 

The issue you have with Jones… Sometimes I’m not thrilled with Jones’ handling of things. But I have to ask you, what indeed would you do with a group, however large or small, of refuseniks?

 

On to the film: 

 

There were big parts of it that I liked. Your open acknowledgement of existing ills of our social and political systems being the best of it. Of course everyone does that. But you were a bit more thorough.

 

However:

 

The RNC 2012: Exercise in Domination

Will Grigg wrote most eloquently about the RNC here: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w277.html

We had a chance to beat the Democrat incumbent this year, but now it's gone. The Republican Party has clearly demonstrated that it would rather have a globalist-controlled apparatchik lose the election than an independent, grass roots-acceptable candidate who can win—and it will do absolutely anything to assure same.

The Complicit Media have done their part to assure that it will be apparatchik vs apparatchik instead of a real choice. Dirtbags ALL!!

Constitutionalism

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

That is the oath of office for Congresscritters.

Once upon a time, it was nice and simple, like this: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." That was the original. You can see that an attempt has been made to enhance its enforceability—a couple of times, actually. The one we have today was put into play in 1884.

The Oath of Office of every other sworn public official in the United States is similar, particularly in holding the official to the U.S. Constitution. This includes state and local officials as well as federal ones. It varies considerably in wording, but it always first swears them to the Constitution, then to the laws and then sometimes to other officials (as in the case with the military Oath of Office). But it’s always the Constitution first—because, folks, it’s the law of the land, above all other laws under civil authority (i.e., not getting into natural and eternal law).

The Federal Government was created using the Constitution. The Federal Government is therefore not above those who thus created it and delegated authority to it. Notice that: the Federal Government has its authority ON LOAN from you and me and our states. It even exists at our pleasure; the states and the people could abolish it if we decided that was a good goal and undertook it effectively. If your boss creates a position and delegates authority to you, you do not become his boss and he does not lose the authority to run things in the area in which he’s delegated the authority to you; and he can remove the authority—and fire you, too. The states and the people built the Constitution, and the Federal Government is not above them. Not legally or morally, anyway. By firepower, it definitely is. The Framers even tried to protect against this latter: that is known as the Second Amendment.

BTW, in case anyone wonders, the google-ads thing I'm seeing in support of Hillary and her support of a global gun ban, if continued, will cause me to get rid of google ads! I am not in support of that draconian, totalitarian, tyrannical type of legislation.

Demagoguery indeed!