A must watch speech

http://mises.org/library/natural-law-restraint-against-tyranny

In addition

I wanted to follow Jim's post with this from Lew Rockwell's blog:

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 -  
A Democracy
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?

 

"How will we deal with X without a state???"

The unique and defining feature of the state is social permission to AGGRESS against others.

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."

Terrorism, Trillions, and Fear-Mongering

William Binney is a "former Technical Director for Intelligence at the U.S. National Security Agency" with 36 years of experience there. He resigned in 2001 because he profoundly disagreed with the bureaucracy's omnivorous and unconstitutional spying. Here in one succinct paragraph, he tells us how and why the spooks do what they do:

"[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." 

From H.L. Mencken

"[Politicians] are seldom if ever moved by anything rationally describable as public spirit; there is actually no more public spirit among them than among so many burglars or street-walkers. Their purpose, first, last and all the time, is to promote their private advantage, and to that end, and that end alone, they exercise all the vast powers that are in their hands . . . . Putting a new [politician or bureaucrat] to work decreases the wages of every wage-earner in the land. Giving a [politician or bureaucrat] more power takes something away from the liberty of all of us."

(Thanks to Tom Dilorenzo)

Vote!

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
Emma Goldman

“The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes primitive again.”
Joseph Schumpeter

“Politics is the art of making your selfish desires seem like the national interest.”
Thomas Sowell

“Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.”
Ambrose Bierce

“In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.”
Charles de Gaulle

“No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.”
Thomas Sowell

Who should rule us? By Mike Anderson

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.