Welcome to Patriot's Lament. We 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 Intellectuals and Champions of Liberty, and draw on their wisdom of what it is to be a truly free people. We will learn from where our Providential Liberties are derived, and put the proper perspective of a Free Individual and the State.
Please join us!
Saturday, December 27, 2014
The purpose is to reassure the remnant, and to persuade those who are potential remnant. The masses are content to mutually loot.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Such warm fuzzies for “the enemy”, of course, undermined the cause of their rulers, and eventually all along the front officers retook charge of the situation, in some cases ordering their soldiers to take up arms or be shot themselves; in one case, a British officer shot a German soldier walking unarmed in no-man’s land, bringing the truce to a bloody end.
And thus the secret to maintaining war: we must never come to know our declared enemies, must never think of them as humans just as we are, loving their families, hoping for home and a better life. Faceless caricatures are so much better for keeping passions pitched.
And thus the secret every good ruler knows: divide and conquer. Portray “them” as different, sub-human, unworthy of the consideration we hold as our due, and certainly ones to whom Christ never intended the Golden Rule to apply.
“Them-ism” is equally effectively applied to our co-nationalists of a different color, socio-economic status, or religion. Keeping us suspicious of one another well serves our political masters, accruing ever-greater power.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
WHY was the Bush administration so eager to torture. Was it really afraid of 24 style ticking time bombs?
Um. No. They wanted to start a war with Iraq. And they needed justification for it.
The administration had already decided, early on, to attack Iraq: all that was needed was "proof" of Saddam Hussein’s connection to the 9/11 attacks – and they didn’t care how they got it. In a 2009 interview with the McClatchy news agency, a former highly-placed former US intelligence officer said:
"[F]or most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld were also demanding proof of the links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. … There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people to push harder."
As Patrick Cockburn points out in the Independent, detainees were subjected to the worst torture "in the run-up to the war in 2003, suggesting that rather than preventing further action by al-Qaeda, the US administration was intent on justifying the invasion of Iraq. One prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, who was wrongly thought to be an al-Qaeda leader by his interrogators, was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. The first questions asked of the latter after he was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, were all about Iraq and not about forthcoming al-Qaeda attacks, according to The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan." The book also relates how Cheney’s office wanted to waterboard a top Iraqi official to get him to "verify" the alleged Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.
So the even larger crime than the torture and imprisoning for over a decade of many people who'd just been turned in by locals to collect a bounty or to settle a private score is that the false "intelligence" gained from the torture was used to (re)start a war and kill in the neighborhood of a million people.
So while they resort to Jack Bauer torture porn situations to justify it, the torture that occurred was to extract a specific, pre-determined, response.
The joy of being the hyper-power is never having to say you're sorry, I guess. Destroying infrastructure so that people die from lack of sanitation, imposing sanctions which killed a half-million people (mostly children and the aged), all to "encourage" the people to rise up and throw off someone who previously was a US stooge... What guilt do the folks in D.C. bear from enabling and encouraging the 8 year war of aggression by Iraq on Iran? About 300,000 civilians killed. Many more soldiers. About $1 trillion in destruction.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God. Whose sons are the warmongers?
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Saturday, December 13, 2014
The last article is probably the most depressing one. There will be no accountability in this life for those who authorized, carried out and justify and defended it. The state, as the monopolist of violence, will only limit itself so much as is necessary to prevent outright rebellion/loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the subject population.
Christians' citizenship is not in this world. We have no reason to justify the evil these folks do. We shouldn't be identifying with them.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
In his City of God, St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. Alexander demands of him, “How dare you molest the seas?” The pirate replied, “How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a thief. You, with a great fleet, molest the whole world and are called an emperor.” St. Augustine called this answer “elegant and excellent.”
I have been stressing on our radio show that Americans do NOT have a government, not one that can be defined as one, but most are under the allusion of such.
I was sent this today by one of my brother's:
What the America is supposed to be -
A Constitutional Republic
where the rights of the individual are protected
What we pretend it is -
where the individual is forced to comply with the will of the majority
What it actually is -
A CORPORATION OWNED BY AN INTERNATIONAL BANKING CABAL, WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL HAS NO RIGHTS AND WHOSE LABOR IS USED AS COLLATERAL IN AN UNLAWFUL PYRAMID SCHEME.
So the question of how would we take care of "X" without the State, is really missing the point, as Jim pointed out. Who cares? The real question is, how do rid ourselves of it?
The little people like the idea of the state because it permits them an avenue to AGGRESS against others ANONYMOUSLY.
All of the overreaches of the state happen because the people carrying out the deeds do so anonymously (just following orders, just enforcing the law) and the rest of society accepts this rather than holding them accountable for their individual actions which they choose to do.
The orders are issued and the laws made because the lawmakers are "just carrying out the wishes of the people", they're not personally responsible for the evil that they are calling for/enabling.
The people make the political demands because they personally won't be held accountable nor will they have to get their hands dirty with the actual violence or threats of violence which they're requesting.
And people think that a social arrangement like this can be limited. Even in the "glory days of the republic" the state was an engine of violence and aggression against those who weren't "inside" it -- Indians, Mexicans, etc to benefit the people who were inside it.
What will we do about the X?
X may be "child pornographers" or "poor" or "socially awkward" or "toe fungus".
What will we do about the X without a state? We'll do what we decide is right and we'll take responsibility for doing it, personally. We won't hide in a mob. We won't hide behind a bureaucrat "just carrying out policy" or a cop "just enforcing the law."
Friday, November 7, 2014
"[The national security bureaucrats] try to get everybody afraid so they will do whatever they want, that’s the kind of leverage that they are trying to use not just against the public, but also against Congress. It’s just all based on fear-mongering. The whole point is to get more money and build a bigger empire which they have done. Over here, we’ve spend for all the 16 agencies close to a trillion dollars since 9/11. That’s really been a money-making proposition for them, this fear-mongering. Now they are doing it with cyber security. It’s how you control your population, how you manipulate them and how you let them pay for things you want done."
Indeed. Recall, too, that though the NSA frequently claims its espionage against us protects the country from bad guys -- at least those not in elected or appointed office--, more rational sources insist it "has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism."
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
(Thanks to Tom Dilorenzo)
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Charles de Gaulle
Saturday, November 1, 2014
A question that has long plagued the masses throughout history is "what form of State system will allow me to be free while also protecting me". To date none have emerged which can provide a reasonable answer. From the emergence of the first State systems to the present day, all States have had to survive off of the labor of their victims and the consent of their followers.
All subjects of State rule are taught from birth that theirs is the best form of government and that all other types should be feared. Whether it was the "Fascism" of Mussolini and Hitler or the Communism of Stalin and Mao or the Republicanism of America, all are taught that theirs is the best and their form should not be questioned. If one questions the form, one is a heretic and a threat to society. Differences in the form lie largely in the centerpiece of the religion (oops, I mean political system). In monarchist rule, it was heresy to question the king. In any form of open dictatorship,such as Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany, questioning the leader is blasphemous, as is questioning his system of support, as he is the centerpiece of the political form. Questioning Hitler prior to his false flag, the Riechstag fire, was not so dangerous as it was to question after it, and after his and the public's consolidation of power to Hitler himself. In religious rule, a theocracy, the greatest sin is criticizing the associated god. If one wishes to know the centerpiece of a political system, look at what will really get you chastised or killed among the indoctrinated masses.
Today we don't hear the term republicanism anymore; we hear the word "Democracy" and questioning the validity of democracy can get you labeled as a terrorist. Whether a system is Republicanism or a Democracy, the centerpiece is voting. Questioning voting as a viable and civil way to operate a society is unheard of outside of the anarchist circles. One must be a caveman or an islamic terrorist to think that being ruled and robbed by a certain majority of one's neighboring state milk cows is wrong. Those people know what's best for you, after all; And voting is a sacred right, right? There are those, such as Britain's Home Secretary, Theresa May, who believe that people who criticize democracy should be silenced, even with prison terms, because they could incite "violence" .At the same time we are told that democracies are free.
As a side note, all forms of the state which are currently friendly with the US and Britain are "Democracies", including the one's that didn't get elected, but were put there by covert CIA and MI6 coups, as in Ukraine. As long as we're told they were elected, whether it's true or not, we must support them at any cost, even if it means throwing our children at some oddly defined "enemy" of the State, in it's effort to expand it's empire.
All States, no matter who they rule, who their leader is or what their centerpiece is, are religions, all harking back to one central method. That is 'get them to believe a lie'. What's up is down and what's down is up; Use deception to get what you want. This method was presented, in the Bible, for example, as originating from Satan.
Through centuries of conquest, revolutions, counter revolutions, etc, States have risen and fallen, replacing each other and repeating the same old habits of corralling masses of people like ranch cattle, to be milked and consumed by the State in existence at the time. But at no time and with no exception has any one of these efforts freed people from State rule. This includes America's Revolution, which simply consolidated power into the hands of a closer tyrant who was harder to resist had an easier time taxing and formed an empire that spans the globe today, murdering anyone whom it sees as an impediment to further expansion.
The Civil War is largely regarded by the livestock class to be the freeing of the slaves. The great leader of the time, Honest Abe, is often regarded as the greatest president. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lincoln was a former Whig, turned republican, in the party's infancy and was by no means an honest man. The new party had a platform of high tariffs and a strong central government. Lincoln's stated goal in his inaugural address was to take control of the ports of entry of the South and force the North's high tariffs on the South to prevent them from having a trade advantage with Europe. It was all about stealing money. The only reason slavery came into the equation was that the North also wanted to have a majority vote against the South, who used the "federal ratio" on blacks to have an equal vote against the North. If the South had a majority vote, they could nullify the high tariffs. Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa so the North would have the majority vote. The North had little use for slaves, after all, since they were Industrial, while the South was agricultural. Lincoln tried his best to get the war started by trying to maneuver the South into firing the first shot. In the end, Lincolnbegan issuing executive orders to send supplies to Northern soldiers stationed at fort Sumter, South Carolina, after the South warned him not to. Unbeknown to the South, Lincoln had boatloads of troops sitting behind the supply ships and when the South fired, Lincoln had his excuse.
In this example, we see that the war itself was started through deception. But it's reasons were taxation (milking the cows) and the centerpiece of the religion-voting. But the excuse was a show of aggression by the South, displayed out of frustration. It was common knowledge that Lincoln lied and deceived his way into war. Even Northern newspapers expressed disgust with Lincoln for what he did. In large, because they believed that such a war would decimate and divide the Union. But that is not what happened! The war grew the power of the state and in the end, the slaves were not freed after the war; The war just multiplied the power of the federal government and made all people slaves under it with little recourse. It is evident that this war, like all others, only boosted State power and provided a new fairy tale and chapters of new hocus pocus war-hero stories to indoctrinate the masses with and to inspire children to become bullet catchers for the State.
Every war is one more of the same example, so there's no reason to drag on with each one of them. The important lesson is that the State survives off of theft, death, deception and destruction. No war has ever freed any person from State rule (unless they get killed) because war encapsulates all the qualities of the State, often giving birth to new States. No armed revolution can free us from State rule. It will only strengthen the existing State or result in a new one. To free ourselves from State rule we must look in another direction. We must reject the qualities of the State (property rights violations) while also rejecting its religious centerpieces. In our case that centerpiece is voting.
Democracy led to the ruination of ancient Greece and should have been tossed into the trash heap of history. All rights are fundamentally individual and the idea that my rights are preserved and I am free when someone I don't even know can vote on the qualities of my life, is ludicrous. How did Democracy become such a highly regarded system of tyranny? The answer is simple. The state will steal as much as it can short of causing push back. Democracy has been sold to the masses by allowing them to play a game of stakes called voting, in which they vote on who their rulers will be, how much they can steal and what rights they can take from their neighbors. In return, the voting slave is handed a piece of silver from the stolen treasure chest, to keep him in the condition of a perpetual suckling servant. By including the masses in the growth of the empire and its tyranny through "home team" propaganda, democracies have become far more oppressive than the monarchies of the past. Kings could barely get away with more than ten percent tax rates, a mere pittance of todays 39 percent top income tax, on top of countless other taxes in the supposedly free America of today.
By their very nature, democracies are not free. Nor is any other form of the State. But democracies are far more insidious, By fooling people into taking part in their own enslavement while thinking they are freeing themselves. Voting does not display the freedom of a nation nor is it a right, as is falsely preached by the State priests. Voting is a game of stakes. It is an act of war against one's neighbor. The voting process involves numerous ads, mostly misleading if notoutright lies and all are deception. It involves the destruction of capital through those ads and campaigning. It pits neighbor against neighbor on issues that otherwise they would not have to worry about. The process creates enemies out of those who would otherwise not have a quarrel. In the end the only winner is the State apparatus and at center stage is the religious sacrament of the State- the vote. Noone can be free if their neighbor can vote them a ruler or a freebie from their property.
What of those who refuse to participate in the vote? Since they have not played the game, shouldn't they be excluded from its consequences? In any game, that would be a logical supposition. But since those who vote are also those who point the State's guns, that is not the case. What happens to a church where the members stop attending and stop taking their sacraments? Sooner or latter, the priests realize they are not wanted or needed and they, too, stay home. The Church dies. The state is the true church of Satan. Whether the creature exists or not is irrelevant. The term is descriptive of the nature of this beast. Like any other church, it will also die if and when people stop attending, stop taking the sacrament of the vote, stop participating in the sacrament of war and stop identifying with that religious organization which deceives, steals and kills.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Friday, October 17, 2014
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Makes me sick. Funny it places Lincoln so close to Christ, a mass murderer who trampled the constitution under his feet. Lincoln that is.
Share this one with your friends, and explain to them that this is wrong! You may even go to a church who would put this up on a wall of the church if they had a copy.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Meanwhile, if you'd like to know what equipment your local infantry-sorry, cops have acquired from the Department of Defense for use against you and your neighbors, here's the catalog. Yeah, the endless list exhausted and confused me, too. David Fisher has very kindly "visualized" the data for us. His graphic dramatically proves that the only difference between cops and the US Army is a name.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
"Shaming, isolating, and shunning government’s leeches worked for the American colonists; they dealt so severely with friends and family assisting the British Empire’s tyranny that few Americans dared do so. The Crown had to import from England those “swarms of officers” that the Declaration denounced. The same tactics still work. Are you friends with a bureaucrat or cop? Why? Are your children or siblings contemplating positions with Leviathan? Let them know you take such attacks on freedom personally and that as enemies of all mankind, they can no longer expect a welcome in your home. Don’t be shy about telling the rest of the family your reasons for excluding the miscreant, either."
I think this is such an important tactic that we don't use to it's fullness. It is in the same vein as I wrote in Friends? a while back.
Why do you want to even associate with a person who is willing to see you thrown in a cage? Who is willing to support the State and all it's works?
Are you friends with a bureaucrat or cop? Why?
Exactly. Why? Do you think just because you are their friend somehow they will all of a sudden not do as their god Leviathan commands? Even if it is against you.
There is even a biblical lesson to this(1st Corinthians 5:5). It is not to reject them just to hate them, but to show your disdain for their choice to serve the State. With the hope of bringing them out of their willful, ignorant Statism.
If we take our Liberty and the Liberty of our fellow man seriously, we will not be complicit with the enemies of freedom. We will not fellowship with thieves and murderers, no matter what they call it; protection, government, taxation, national interest, public good.
Have nothing to do with them. Let righteous social pressure push them out of our communities, as it should be.
Who will build the roads? I have been asked this question enough times to make my head hurt, as most free market Libertarians have. Libertarian scholars much wiser than I have answered this question, but the inevitable follow up is, "Is there an example you can point to where this would work?"
Friday, June 20, 2014
For over a year different war mongers and NEO-CONS in Washington (McCain, Graham for instance) have been wanting to arm the rebel factions fighting the Assad regime in Syria with better more sophisticated weapons to help topple the Assad government. This has turned out to be very difficult as it has been found out that several of these groups happen to be known terrorist groups and supposed enemies of America, such as ISIS. It’s not so politically correct these days to want to arm Al-Qaeda, especially if you are an American politician.
I suspect that ISIS turned their attention to Iraq under the direction of the U.S. State, with the complicity of the Iraqi government. Why would the General of the Iraqi army leave Mosul just as it was about to be attacked? Why has the Iraqi army, trained by Americans and armed with much more sophisticated arms than ISIS, dropped their weapons and run, in a battle where they had 10-1 superiority in manpower alone, not to mention AH-64′s and Blackhawk helicopters?
ISIS has now seized these arms and have in their possession the firepower that they need and which politicians in Washington wanted them to have to assist them in the overthrow of Syria. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars they stole from the Iraq banks where they invaded.
I have no proof that the U.S. State is behind this, but it seems odd to me that the U.S. has not even launched one airstrike, whoever heard of the U.S. not bombing every chance they get?
The goal of ISIS seems to be in line with the goal of the U.S. State, to rid the world of the Syrian and Iraqi State, to split them into three separate provinces consisting of Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish, each with their own province.
The NEO-CONS get their wish, to arm the ISIS militants with sophisticated American made arms, to defeat the Assad regime, all the while acting like they are so surprised with the situation. The American people, dolts that they are for the most part, have already fallen for this scheme, watching all the talking heads of the MSM who propagate the Empires lies.
I am not saying there is no human suffering involved in this wicked scandal, obviously many hundreds if not thousands more innocent Iraqi people are being killed. Again.
But I find it almost impossible to believe the U.S. is not behind the whole thing.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
I am mind boggled myself over this whole situation. The US government gets caught talking about spending $5 billion to support a coup and put in their own puppet government, the US government spin was that the Ukrainians have the right to their own self determination,(on this point I agree 100%, all people, every individual should be the owner of their own self and decide what they will or will not subject themselves to).
So there is a coup, and obviously the US sets up the government they want in place of the one that was in power. Then eastern Ukraine, Crimea in particular, votes to secede from Ukraine, and the US government all of a sudden does a 180 and says the Ukrainian people don't have a right to self determination. Of course Russia is blamed, but from what little I know, the eastern Ukrainians are basically ethnic Russians, and because of earlier State edicts, they were given to Ukraine. Like trading around cattle.
I'm not a cheerleader for the Russian State, I am against EVERY State, but I have to ask, why can't ALL the Ukrainian folks have self determination? If the eastern Ukrainians want to secede, and be apart of Russia, why not let them? Whether they want an autonomous state, or to live in an Anarchist state, what business is it of ANYONE'S except theirs?
Hans Hoppe argues for individual secession, and I like that idea. Why can't folks just live the lives they want, and be loyal, or disloyal, to whomever they want?
And more important, what business is it of anyone else?
I can see by looking at the "stats" on my blog, that we have folks from Russia and Ukraine that visit the blog. No, it doesn't tell me who anyone is, just that we had visits from these places.
So, if you are from Russia, or Ukraine, please, I don't know what is really going on, so tell us in your own words. Leave a comment.
For the rest of us, we should ask, why should any entity be able to tell any individual who or what they must obey or follow?
America was founded on secession, shouldn't Americans support secession movements anywhere in the world? I certainly do. If humans have the right to self ownership, we have the right to secede. If we don't have the right to secede, then we are merely slaves to the State that claims to own us.
Independence from the State should be our goal.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Don't miss it.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Dr. Gary North was Ron Paul's original staff economist and has written extensively on history, economics and theology. You can read his writings at Lew Rockwell, Tea Party Economist and Specific Answers.
The topic of discussion will likely center around the 26 reasons to adopt the Ron Paul Curriculum today, and 4 reasons not to.
We also talk about the future of the internet, the information age and the wonderful world of technology.