"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it." -John Adams


Welcome to Patriot's Lament. We will strive here to educate ourselves on Liberty. We will not worry ourselves so much with the daily antics of American politics, and drown ourselves in the murky waters of the political right or left.
Instead, we will look to the Founding Fathers of our great Nation, and draw on their wisdom of what it is to have a truly free Republic. We will learn from where our Providential Liberties are derived, and put the proper perspective of a Freeman and the state.
Please join us!

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

The Chain of Obedience

Power exists only when there is obedience.



Humans exist in perfect freedom. Obedience is a choice. Government is therefore an illusion.
...
It is daft to moan about crime. Government cannot stop a thief, a lunatic, or a kid playing with matches. It took the Nazis twenty years to flatter and frighten the German nation into collective obedience -- and still someone shoved a bomb under the Fuhrer's conference table. The state does not and cannot triumph by coercion. Ayn Rand was correct: Evil requires the sanction of the victim.
...
The practical enterprise of coercive government is to take life, liberty, and property for the enrichment and satisfaction of government officials. Motives are another story. Tyrants always think well of themselves and explain their activities as some kind of public service. Hitler certainly did.

-Wolf DeVoon

Read DeVoon's complete essay: Government is a Quack Faith Healer

Read also - Etienne de la Boeite's revolutionary work The Politics of Obedience

We're after power and we mean it.

From Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged
"We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them...you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden."

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The Senate passes S.1867

You had better figure out what these stand for:









Or learn from History and get out while you can:










No excuses!











Tyrant senators pass S.1867, 93 to 7. Welcome American, to the battlefield






The mere fact you are reading this makes you a terror suspect, and don't kid yourself that you are not.

Sen. Rand Paul gives the warning of S.1867.


Occupy Yourself!

Here's last Saturday's show. We talked about the ongoing battle between the Occupy Fairbanks group and the Borough concerning the right of the protesters to continue to peacefully protest the fascism that exists in our current system. Respect to the Occupy group for not backing down!

We then discuss the responsibility each of us has as an individual to prepare for the future. No excuses.

The Failure of Democracy

I've been working on piecing together some posts on institutional failures. These are not failures of particular individuals, but instead inherent structural failures of the institutions that are supposed to deliver us from the realities of life. Last week I posted on the failure of any war in the 20th century to "secure freedom" and the empirical fact that the nations that participated in the 20th century wars were less free after each war (this is true of "both" sides in each of these wars).

Today, we will explore democracy. Instead of looking at it from a moral standpoint by discussing the legitimacy of mob rule, I'd like to discuss it in a value free way. In other words, regardless of what you think about individual rights vs group rights (if they can even exist), let's simply ask the question: has it worked? Does the institution of democracy allow people to be more free or more prosperous relative to the alternatives?

In the video below, Hans Hoppe outlines the logical line of thought that answers this question with a resounding "no." He also notes that historians simply look at empirical data points and assume correlation is causation. 20th century rich, 19th century poor. 20th century democracy, 19th century monarchy. Monarchy bad. Democracy good. But of course, if we are intellectually honest we have to admit that correlation is not causation, we have to admit that by every economic metric taxation was lower in the 19th century than the 20th century, we have to admit that freedom of mobility was significantly greater in the 19th century (tho the means of travel were not as convenient), we have to admit that war was waged on a profoundly lesser scale in the 19th century ... continental Europe's first "peaceful century" since its emergence after the decline of Rome. And on and on and on.

Hoppe provides more insights here:


But, you might say, the American colonies were better off without the King! We waged a war for freedom (???) and this is why America was so prosperous! Could it be that America was prosperous only to the extent that colonists could head west into the "anarchy" of the wilderness and escape the new American State? Could it be that this is why this prosperity has been in decline since the last frontiers became absorbed by the Kingless tyranny of American Democracy (which retained all of the power of the king, but simply placed it in the hands of temporary caretakers)?

If you are interested in challenging the mythology of the American Revolution "freeing the colonies" read on here: Tricked on the Fourth of July, by Gary North

What about when Jesus, er, Ronald Reagan was President? Republicans praise him for his tax cuts (and ignore the fact that he raised the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years). Democrats deride him for his tax cuts (and ignore the fact that he saved all their favorite social programs by raising the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years). Harry Browne on the other hand was literate. Using this dangerous skill of reading and combining it with some simple analytics and critical thinking, he found that under Reagan, the national tax burden increased by 65%.
Reagan is known as a tax-cutter, and the term "Reaganomics" implies dramatic cuts in tax rates. But after pushing through a tax cut to be implemented over three years, he cooperated during the second year in the largest tax increase in American history up to that time. The nation's annual tax load increased by 65% during his time in office.

See also: Gary North's analysis of Reagan

So this would mean that Republican praise and Democrat derision are both misplaced. But I think paying attention to the man is a waste of time and energy. How about the institution itself? What if there are fundamental structural problems with the state itself and specifically the democratic state? If these problems are structural and/or institutional, what does this say about the ability to change outcomes simply by putting the "right people" in office?

Think about it. I will offer some of my thoughts on that tomorrow.

Monday, November 28, 2011

DOJ seizes 150 websites for selling "conterfeit goods"

Wonder when they'll seize the Federal Reserve site for counterfeiting money? These little exercises are no doubt a test for public tolerance of government meddling in the internet to see how much control they can take and how quickly they can accomplish it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69212.html

This seems to be aimed squarely at the agora. What defines a counterfeit good? One not registered, trademarked, or otherwise traded under the purview of the state.

I love their cute little logo, "Protection is our trademark."

By the way, so-called intellectual property is bull because it requires the initiation of force against peaceful parties in order to be upheld. Read Stephan Kinsella's excellent book: Against Intellectual Property for an in depth analysis. Or, watch his lecture on IP.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Canada in for a housing collapse?

Yet another very interesting interview on Jeff Berwick's Anarchast. Chris Horlacher discusses the state of the mortgage market in Canada. Definitely worth watching.

Well, John McCain and Lyndsay Graham are good conservatives, here to PROTECT YOU!!

HAHA, here we go again, the dead elephant party (credit to AP for that nametag) is out to protect us from, well, from everything you or they can possibly imagine. Senator Graham states that this law finally puts it on the books that the American homeland is the battlefield. Where has he been? A lot of us have known that for a long, long time.
Or does he think this is just a nifty flag?

S.1867

This bill was drafted in part by Sen.John McCain, along with his good friend, Sen.Carl Levin. Good to see bipartisanship, that's what the American people want right?
I've looked through the actual bill last night, and while one part of the bill exempts "American Citizens," the secretary of defense can waive that if he deems it is a "national security interest";, we already know the President can kill you if he decides.
 Gingrich told us the other night that this war wasn't going to end in our lifetimes. I wonder if he included himself in that? The greatest part was the thunderous applause he got when he called for a more powerful, more reaching Patriot Act.
Goodbye Posse Comitatus, goodbye Habeas Corpus.

Goodbye America, whatever is left of you.

molṑn labé

Well, if we don't vote in good conservatives, the commies will take over...


Here is a good story from Tom Woods, you have got to click the link on his page that has the whole quote from Charles kraut-ur hammer.

Never trust the Neo-Cons!


Friday, November 25, 2011

The Myth of War (and "Fighting for Freedom")

In this video Stefan Molyneaux asks a very interesting question of the interventionists who would seek to use war as a means of "freeing people more quickly."

If you're not going to be willing to go up against your own government (and get killed as you inevitably will, which is why I don't suggest it, cause it won't work). If you're not willing to go and do it, how the ... how the hell can you make that decision for somebody else and say, "Yes, it was worth killing all those people beacause it ended the tyranny more quickly."?


In addition, he asks the following question of every major war of the 20th century ... "More free or less free afterwards?" Of course we know the answer, but for some reason keep believing that the military "fights for our freedom" against all evidence otherwise.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Happy Thanksgiving

So I was going to write a post about the Pilgrims and Bradford and Miles Standish and all the misinformation we get about them.
Meh.
Happy Thanksgiving. We spend enough time talking about what's wrong, but we all have something to be thankful for.
So think on that, and enjoy the day.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Hi, I am here to protect you, bow to me!

To all those who think Obama is the antichrist and anything is better than him, ( I had a conversation with a friend yesterday who went off on me that "I don't care who it is,  I'm voting for him as long as they beat Obama, no one could be worse") I would beg to differ. Obama, who I despise, is a milk toast girl scout compared to the fascist that wants to be your next POTUS. And "O" is bad? Does anyone out there remember "W"? The father of the "Patriot act"? The man who decimated our Liberty? (Yes I know, we are our own protectors of Liberty).
The conservative fascist party of America has plans for you, and Liberty has no place in it. You weak fools, don't you know that we are going to protect you whether you like it or not? The Grinch said, (Newt) This isn't going to end in our lifetime. Fear the terrorist you fools! They are going to kill you! Turn a blind eye while I molest your women, and fondle your children! It is all for the good of the state!
These guys don't even like the Patriot Act; they think it is weak. They want racial profiling, and a stronger police state, all in the name of "security." Sorry, guys, I will take my chances with the Islamic radicals. I know you not only want to kill me, you actually have the ability.
I am a sad man. Sad that my fellow man not only allows this to happen, he applauds it. Sad that my fellow man is willing to give up all for some jack booted fascist protection.
You are going to fall, America. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The terror in your borders will be the nightmare stories of great-grandfathers to come. You are a slave, America. And your master will demand blood.
I hope the remnant will stay true to Liberty, and will be the Light guiding the way from the ashes.

Gingrich wants to protect you, idiot.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Ron Paul

 
While I don't have any hope in a "political" solution to what we face today, I sure do love this guy.


Sound Money: David Giessel on The Michael Dukes Show

Back in August Michael Dukes graciously invited me to join him in the studio to discuss sound money and the history of money in America. Here is the audio recording for your enjoyment.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Michael Maloney explains how our money works

Tonight I had a discussion with a friend about how debt based money is borrowed into existence in a way that is mathematically impossible to re-pay ... and then how the fractional reserve money multiplier exacerbates this impossibility which speeds the demise of this mathematically unsustainable system.

At the Casey Summit "When Money Dies" Michael Maloney gave the keynote presentation and explained this system better than I've ever seen it done using some cool PowerPoint graphics. He has used this before in other presentations and I've included a YouTube video of it below.

The most important takeaway from this is that there is no way to "save" the current system. It is impossible. It was impossible from day one. At best the day of reckoning can be pushed back (and consequently made that much worse).

I do not necessarily agree with his use of technical chart analysis or his characterization of wealth cycles, but his understanding and explanation of the current money system is second to none. Enjoy!



A follow up to the previous "what if" post by Larken Rose

That question, (is it ever ok to shoot a cop) even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.
In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder have been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.
People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.
Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”–the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that ”the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist–that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” injustice is automatically labelled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally”–i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.
If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.
Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop ”just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.
Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.
There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of ”government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”
Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? "You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a ’plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a ”right”–what does the term “right” even mean–if you have an obligation to allow jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.
To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL ”government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.
Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called ”law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow ”government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.
Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called ”government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

What if?

Most people I know would say that if a person breaks into your home in the middle of the night, you would have the right to defend your home. I know I sure think you have the right to defend your home.

Now, what if the person breaking into your home is wearing a blue (or black) costume and has a badge?

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Soooooupercommitteeee

For some reason I have been watching the news on the supercommittee and all the bull coming from both sides. (I say "for some reason" because a friend of mine told me that every minute you spend on worthless things is a minute you don't spend on things that matter). And I can't think of anything more worthless than congress.
These idiots are not even willing to cut one fiat dollar from their spending. NOT ONE! The only solution they have is to steal more wealth from us. Where does this stop? Do we just sit by until they pillage every cent we produce? What choice do we have? If they decide to take every dime you make, what will stop them? I can hear the local preacher, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"! "and unto god what is god's!" Yes! Bow to your god. If he claims a thousand cattle on the hill, he obviously owns them. Uh huh.
I love the biblical story where the pharisees ask the disciples,"Doesn't your master pay the temple tax?" They are quick to say, "YES!" Jesus, I am sure, rolled His eyes and told them, basically so they would not be liars, "Go and catch a fish and take a coin from its mouth and pay the tax!" But do we owe it?
If a bunch of crooks claim everything you own, do you owe it?
How patient we are, and foolish. We vote for a gang of fools, and expect great things to come from them, even though their track record tells us otherwise. So what will the supercommittee give us?
Nothing.
What will they take from us?
Well, that depends on you and me, doesn't it?
One of my sons asked me about the stamp tax today. He asked,"How much was it, and was this the tax that started the Revolution"?
I answered with the truth, and we talked about the tea tax, but I was not looking forward to the followup question,"That's all it was? How much do we pay now?"

Indeed, how much do we pay now.








Monday, November 14, 2011

Who profits the most?

The top 5 thieves that work for the state of Kalifornia are all involved in the prisoner extortion industry of the state. See that story here.
I'm quite sure these fine folks are concerned about reeehabilitaaaation. Aren't you?

Kidnapping and Ransom Rampant in the US

Full article at The Dollar Vigilante
By Jeff Berwick

The US, by a wide margin, is the world leader in kidnapping and the kidnappers are becoming more predatory and beginning to demand higher ransoms as the economic environment in the US continues to decline.

In 2008 alone, 182,422 individuals, were either accosted by armed criminals and often-times attacked in their own houses, taken and then put in cages throughout the US. While 16,965 of them may have deserved to be kidnapped, 165,457 of them, or 90.7%, had not done anything violent to anybody.

The following chart shows the total amount kidnapped per country, showing the US is by far the largest of any country on Earth. The US has 5% of the population of the world but does 22% of the kidnapping.



The rise in kidnappings in the US has been dramatic and has become epidemic as can be seen here:



Read the rest of the article HERE

Friday, November 11, 2011

Latest two episodes

We now have an "approved" channel ... so the whole show can be uploaded in one segment! Enjoy the latest two episodes, the most recent on the Fascist States of America (and other ISMs like socialism, communism, etc), and the older one on why voting sucks.



Sunday, November 6, 2011

The Spirit of Youth

Excerpted from the end of Murray Rothbard's Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty.

But the problem of power is, certainly in the United States, far in the future. For the libertarian, the main task of the present epoch is to cast off his needless and debilitating pessimism, to set his sights on long-run victory and to set about the road to its attainment. To do this, he must, perhaps first of all, drastically realign his mistaken view of the ideological spectrum; he must discover who his friends and natural allies are, and above all perhaps, who his enemies are. Armed with this knowledge, let him proceed in the spirit of radical long-run optimism that one of the great figures in the history of libertarian thought, Randolph Bourne, correctly identified as the spirit of youth. Let Bourne's stirring words serve also as the guidepost for the spirit of liberty:

Youth is the incarnation of reason pitted against the rigidity of tradition. Youth puts the remorseless questions to everything that is old and established-Why? What is this thing good for? And when it gets the mumbled, evasive answers of the defenders it applies its own fresh, clean spirit of reason to institutions, customs, and ideas, and finding them stupid, inane, or poisonous, turns instinctively to overthrow them and build in their place the things with which its visions teem. . .

Youth is the leaven that keeps all these questioning, testing attitudes fermenting in the world. If it were not for this troublesome activity of youth, with its hatred of sophisms and glosses, its insistence on things as they are, society would die from sheer decay. It is the policy of the older generation as it gets adjusted to the world to hide away the unpleasant things where it can, or preserve a conspiracy of silence and an elaborate pretense that they do not exist. But meanwhile the sores go on festering, just the same. Youth is the drastic antiseptic... It drags skeletons from closets and insists that they be explained. No wonder the older generation fears and distrusts the younger. Youth is the avenging Nemesis on its trail...

Our elders are always optimistic in their views of the present, pessimistic in their views of the future; youth is pessimistic toward the present and gloriously hopeful for the future. And it is this hope which is the lever of progress--one might say, the only lever of progress...

The secret of life is then that this fine youthful spirit shall never be lost. Out of the turbulence of youth should come this fine precipitate--a sane, strong, aggressive spirit of daring and doing. It must be a flexible, growing spirit, with a hospitality to new ideas, and a keen insight into experience. To keep one's reactions warm and true is to have found the secret of perpetual youth, and perpetual youth is salvation.

Two books for your own education

As discussed on the show yesterday, the "Right" as we know it today is a carefully constructed, controlled movement that has nothing to do with the classical liberal live-and-let-live view that characterized the "Right" at the beginning of the 20th century.

Murray Rothbard outlines the takeover of this political movement in his groundbreaking work The Betrayal of the American Right.

A summary of the book can be found here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/betrayal-american-right.html

The PDF of the book can be downloaded for free from mises.org:
http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf

Or buy the hard copy from mises.org for $20:
http://mises.org/store/Betrayal-of-the-American-Right-The-P434.aspx

Another terrific and much shorter essay by Rothbard, Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, addresses the illusory battle between Left and Right in post FDR New Deal America. Here he observes that those who believe in individual liberty mistakenly believe themselves to be members of the "far right" when in fact the right-wing conservative movement has nothing to do with individual liberty. Conservatism in America is Fascism, plain and simple. The movement towards individual liberty has never in history been conservative, and that is still true today. It is instead a radical movement that is neither conservative in the right wing sense, nor progressive in the left wing sense. To be so ideologically lazy about a particular issue as to simply ask "is it conservative?" is in fact to ask "is it fascist?"

Read it online here: http://mises.org/daily/910
Or download the PDF here: http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/lrpfl.pdf