I heard an astonished fake-news reporter on the radio the other day—this was the day the stock market was losing a billion points or something (suckers!) and cops in Greece were whacking people with sticks (perhaps they had just returned from a training session in the US)—commenting that the dirty little secret in the whole mess was that "the world has no money, and the emperor has no clothes." Take heart and join the club, Court Stenographer, we already knew that.
So as I was laughing at this poor sap who had lived his whole life without realizing that Wall Street and it's companion wretched hive of scum and villainy, Washington, DC, were absolutely not real and also totally fake, I started to think about this whole naked emperor scenario. Of course everyone knows the story (if you don't, please immediately chastise your parents—if you know at least one—for not caring about you and depriving you of useful fables during your obviously intellectually and culturally impoverished childhood). The emperor is afraid of looking foolish and low class, and the high class people of the court are afraid of falling out of favor with the emperor. The regular folks are somehow intimidated into pretending to see what the high class types saw, probably due to the effects of some variation of the corporatist system of bribery, extortion, and general corruption which was no doubt ravaging the economy of this allegorical empire, and which is also now extant in every corner of the actual world we live in. But anyway, in a high school English class way, who is supposed to be what? Is it generally assumed that the emperor is a stand in for real world royal types, and the peasantry is supposed to be us, the everyday people who can recognize the nonsense of the royalty* but don't? Is the little boy who has the courage (or total lack of awareness of appropriate public behavior) supposed to be those who are willing to "speak truth to power?" (as the smart folks are saying these days.)
Maybe. When this yahoo started practically sobbing about the stock market drop—which I assume he was worried about because his stupid pension and/or 401(k) is wrapped up in it—I started thinking that the emperor was us. We're the ones using phony fiat dollars everyday, pretending they're so valuable. We're the ones who have been duped by the cunning weavers into this whole program of trading valuable capital (labor, time, ingenuity, etc) for Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs). The weavers, by the way, would be the Federal Reserve System and the nefarious banks behind it, whichever those might be, and good luck finding out. We are also the ones who insist that the peasantry recognize our fine fabric as something other than the auto-delusional farce that it is (see how that works out? Because FRNs are made of a fabric/paper material. See?). Remember that one time when Iran said they wanted to stop using FRNs as the default currency for trading oil? And remember when the US started threatening Iran right after that? "See my fine clothes, wretched villain! Glory in the majesty of my extravagant finery!" We're the emperor, because he was so easily duped in his pride, arrogance, and ignorance, and because we persist in forcing our non-existent non-money on the world. True, they wanted it while the illusion held, but now that the intrinsic value of the dollar is being noticed, the masters of the system are reluctant to let go. Don't you hate being the emperor? I hate being the emperor. I think the emperor should have executed the weavers and tossed their bodies into the ocean for the crabs to eat, or at least shooed them away with a stern look. That seems to be the only sensible thing to do.
By the way, Ron Paul is the young boy in the crowd who dared to proclaim the nakedness of the emperor. Who else?
*I'm including elected officials here because let's face it, they really are. Don't try to argue against this.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Trusting the Government
Name one thing the government* doesn't lie about.
*Government meaning elected and non-elected officials and the various bureaucratic appendages thereof, not "The People" so often spoken of but so seldom seen.
*Government meaning elected and non-elected officials and the various bureaucratic appendages thereof, not "The People" so often spoken of but so seldom seen.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Eastern Washington
So Washington has a budget deficit. This is not my fault. I don't imagine it's your fault either. The state legislature, because they don't have the, uh, ability to print currency like the feds do, have to resort to something other than printing monopoly money to pay for their re-election schemes. So they recently repealed (I mean temporarily suspended. It's just a temporary measure, of course) the requirement for a two-thirds vote in order to raise taxes or create new ones, and straightaway started the process of instituting an income tax. While I could go on about the ridiculousness of taxes, which are only theft under a different name, I won't. Secession is a much better topic.
Usually talk of secession conjures images of rabid antebellum slave owners and off-kilter Texans, but this is a bit different. What if, instead of Washington seceding from the United State [sic], the eastern half of Washington formed it's own state? Let Olympia build as many stupid light rails as they want, let them restore their own rivers to a pristine and dam-free natural state, let them legislate their way to clean air, and let us live how we want to live without interference from the west side. It's something I've been thinking of for a few years now, but it seems like this might be a good time to get serious about it.
People have a right to be governed in the way they want to be governed. This is not a right bestowed by the state (because that wouldn't make much sense, would it?). Jefferson wrote it in the declaration of independence—governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So it stands to reason that when the consent of the governed is withdrawn, the power is also gone.
What do the two halves have in common? Geography? No. Look at a map and you'll see a pretty distinct dividing line between green and brown. This geographic and climate difference necessarily leads to a cultural difference. I hardly need to spell this out. How many times has the utopia envisioned by west siders been scuttled by uncouth rednecks from the east side? How many times have the earth savers from the west side tried to save fish, dismantle dams, restrict water use, and otherwise save the ignorant farmers from themselves? Why do they bother trying to control a population they have a general disdain for, and nothing in common with? Why is Olympia our capitol? It has nothing to do with us.
The great part about this idea is that if enough people latch on to it, and if enough counties get together and decide to exert their sovereignty, there isn't anything anyone can do to stop it. If Olympia doesn't like it what will they do, punish us with more taxes? Guess what, we don't have to pay them, we're our own state! Will they refuse to maintain our roads? Big deal, we're our own state! Maybe they won't let us on their new billion dollar light rail. Watch us cry, we're our own state! They might have tech companies and billionaires, but we have agriculture, we have hydro and nuclear power, and we also have way more guns than they do. I'm just sayin'.
So seriously, this needs to happen. I'll post more info as I get it, but for now I have to work on some bumper stickers.
View Larger Map
Usually talk of secession conjures images of rabid antebellum slave owners and off-kilter Texans, but this is a bit different. What if, instead of Washington seceding from the United State [sic], the eastern half of Washington formed it's own state? Let Olympia build as many stupid light rails as they want, let them restore their own rivers to a pristine and dam-free natural state, let them legislate their way to clean air, and let us live how we want to live without interference from the west side. It's something I've been thinking of for a few years now, but it seems like this might be a good time to get serious about it.
People have a right to be governed in the way they want to be governed. This is not a right bestowed by the state (because that wouldn't make much sense, would it?). Jefferson wrote it in the declaration of independence—governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So it stands to reason that when the consent of the governed is withdrawn, the power is also gone.
What do the two halves have in common? Geography? No. Look at a map and you'll see a pretty distinct dividing line between green and brown. This geographic and climate difference necessarily leads to a cultural difference. I hardly need to spell this out. How many times has the utopia envisioned by west siders been scuttled by uncouth rednecks from the east side? How many times have the earth savers from the west side tried to save fish, dismantle dams, restrict water use, and otherwise save the ignorant farmers from themselves? Why do they bother trying to control a population they have a general disdain for, and nothing in common with? Why is Olympia our capitol? It has nothing to do with us.
The great part about this idea is that if enough people latch on to it, and if enough counties get together and decide to exert their sovereignty, there isn't anything anyone can do to stop it. If Olympia doesn't like it what will they do, punish us with more taxes? Guess what, we don't have to pay them, we're our own state! Will they refuse to maintain our roads? Big deal, we're our own state! Maybe they won't let us on their new billion dollar light rail. Watch us cry, we're our own state! They might have tech companies and billionaires, but we have agriculture, we have hydro and nuclear power, and we also have way more guns than they do. I'm just sayin'.
So seriously, this needs to happen. I'll post more info as I get it, but for now I have to work on some bumper stickers.
View Larger Map
Thursday, March 4, 2010
______ Control
The hubbub over Starbucks refusing to ban guns in their stores has got me thinking. Some people are upset by the fact that any old gun owner can wander in to Starbucks with their piece (that's macho lingo for a handgun), thereby disturbing the serene and tranquil paradise of nonviolence and slightly pretentious sophistication. But the gun issue is not my focus. There are other dangerous things out in the world. I recently learned about one. Let me tell you about it.
This particular dangerous item is a versatile explosive. In the standard liquid form it can cover a surface before it's ignited, or it can be poured under a door, which obviously causes problems when running away from bad guys. It can be added to other materials in a container and then ignited under pressure, which increases it's deadly capabilities. It can be easily transported in any type of container to avoid detection. Dangerous stuff, huh? But here's the crazy part: this stuff is readily available, no license or permit required. No background check or waiting period, no training certificate needed. All you need to have is the money to buy it. To buy a gun you have to have a background check (and that costs money, which increases the price of guns) and then wait five days, unless you have a concealed carry permit (which costs money and depends on the whims of the authorities), and then you only get to waive the waiting period—you still have to go through an up to date background check. We even have to be licensed to drive a car, but there isn't a restriction on buying this dangerous explosive? How did this slip through the legislative and regulatory cracks? How much danger are we in? Any random person can buy this explosive at any time. Readily available to the general public. Terrorists can buy this stuff. Seditious white supremacist groups can buy it. Tenth amendment sympathizers can buy it, and then they'll probably secede after they explode the entire country. Even Democrats can get it. This is totally insane.
So some of you may be wondering where you can get a hold of some of this stuff we should call "The Terrorist's Dream Come True." Well, even though it might expose me to some sort of liability or lawsuit or whatever, I'll tell you. You get it at the gas station. It's gas. Gasoline, petrol, aliphatic hydrocarbons. Every time you fill up you're putting the equivalent of three sticks of dynamite in your car, which, by the way, can also be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a raging terrorist. Terrorists!
So I'm calling for a crackdown on this threat to liberty. A strict permitting process must be established, and licensing instituted, with guidelines and requirements scrupulously adhered to. Maybe a dedicated agency set up to watch over things, and probably a hefty tax to prevent just any unserious or dangerous person from getting a hold of it. The survival of this nation could depend on it. If we don't control this threat, the terrorists win. We have to destroy our gasoline supply in order to save it. You're either with gasoline or against it. The government has got to do something, because only the government is big enough to handle this problem. If any country is harboring gasoline reserves, it is harboring the equivalent number of dynamite sticks as the number of gallons they are harboring, divided by five. This is terrorism, clearly. There should be a law.
This particular dangerous item is a versatile explosive. In the standard liquid form it can cover a surface before it's ignited, or it can be poured under a door, which obviously causes problems when running away from bad guys. It can be added to other materials in a container and then ignited under pressure, which increases it's deadly capabilities. It can be easily transported in any type of container to avoid detection. Dangerous stuff, huh? But here's the crazy part: this stuff is readily available, no license or permit required. No background check or waiting period, no training certificate needed. All you need to have is the money to buy it. To buy a gun you have to have a background check (and that costs money, which increases the price of guns) and then wait five days, unless you have a concealed carry permit (which costs money and depends on the whims of the authorities), and then you only get to waive the waiting period—you still have to go through an up to date background check. We even have to be licensed to drive a car, but there isn't a restriction on buying this dangerous explosive? How did this slip through the legislative and regulatory cracks? How much danger are we in? Any random person can buy this explosive at any time. Readily available to the general public. Terrorists can buy this stuff. Seditious white supremacist groups can buy it. Tenth amendment sympathizers can buy it, and then they'll probably secede after they explode the entire country. Even Democrats can get it. This is totally insane.
So some of you may be wondering where you can get a hold of some of this stuff we should call "The Terrorist's Dream Come True." Well, even though it might expose me to some sort of liability or lawsuit or whatever, I'll tell you. You get it at the gas station. It's gas. Gasoline, petrol, aliphatic hydrocarbons. Every time you fill up you're putting the equivalent of three sticks of dynamite in your car, which, by the way, can also be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a raging terrorist. Terrorists!
So I'm calling for a crackdown on this threat to liberty. A strict permitting process must be established, and licensing instituted, with guidelines and requirements scrupulously adhered to. Maybe a dedicated agency set up to watch over things, and probably a hefty tax to prevent just any unserious or dangerous person from getting a hold of it. The survival of this nation could depend on it. If we don't control this threat, the terrorists win. We have to destroy our gasoline supply in order to save it. You're either with gasoline or against it. The government has got to do something, because only the government is big enough to handle this problem. If any country is harboring gasoline reserves, it is harboring the equivalent number of dynamite sticks as the number of gallons they are harboring, divided by five. This is terrorism, clearly. There should be a law.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
On Food Storage
I recommend this blog post from Alan Rock Waterman. I really enjoyed it, and it never hurts to get a reminder about what your priorities are and what they should be. I am now officially convinced that I should focus less on guns and ammo and more on food and water, although I still think about getting a slew of Mosin-Nagants at least once a day. But doesn't everyone?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Where I'm Coming From
[A continuation of a discussion on government, war, &c]
I think the main problem here is that it's difficult to communicate through the barrier of such vastly different premises. Your premise, apparently, is trust in "leaders" or "the authorities" or some such thing, and my premise is that they're lying so the truth must be something other than whatever it is they've said. That difference is simple enough to understand. Truth is not subjective, and morals are not situational. So where do we get truth and morals? Some people get the truth from Fox News (they report, we decide, because they're fair and balanced), some from CNN, some from the Pope, some from a psychic, etc. Some people get their morals from national pride or from whatever they think their best interest is. Some people get their morals from religion. I decided to base my opinions on actual truth, from sources that have proven to be worthy, so when, just for example, D&C says—as I quoted above—that we shouldn't go to war unless directed by the Lord, and then we should follow specific steps to ensure the validity of our cause, I take that very literally. That's really what I believe, so why shouldn't I follow it? At that point I don't care what Ahmadinawhat says, or Limbaugh, or Beck, or Bush, Cheney, Obama, or whoever. I'm looking for the one trustable source to give the say-so.
On that note, the same source of truth tells me that the constitution was established for our benefit, and so no matter what the circumstance—the expediency of instantaneous bombings sans legitimate declaration of war, capturing terrible terrorists and giving them the whatfor, fast highways, "safe" food—I look for government to follow what I believe is the established and proper law. And even though the Rockwell anarcho-capitalists have extremely convincing arguments, I can't give in to that argument either, because the ultimate trump card is right there in the scriptures. The truth. When government doesn't follow that established law, I see it as a rejection not only of individual liberty but of the Lord's will as well. Because it is, isn't it? No argument from the previously stated list of pundits and charlatans can convince me otherwise, because their arguments can't compete with the truth. Why would I give up my agency—the use of which is the very purpose of mortal life—to follow a government that is clearly violating every tenet in what should be the established law? There is no logic in doing that.
Another big piece of the puzzle also comes from the scriptures (I remind you that this is an explanation of how and why I think what I think about things—the basis of my opinions). We are warned many times of secret combinations. In fact, the entire Book of Mormon was meant as a warning to those who read it. You can look that one up, it's in the front. Moroni tells us that secret combinations destroy societies when the people tolerate and eventually support and embrace them. Uphold is the word Moroni uses. And what are these secret combinations? "That I may murder and get gain," Cain said. It's a very simple formula. When you see the exchange of life for property, that's a big clue that something has gone wrong. One of the most important things a person can realize is that their government is conspiratorial. There is a conspiracy against freedom. If you don't believe that then you don't believe the correctness of the Book of Mormon (the reference is Ether 8:25 if you want to check). Do politicians not conspire to legislate themselves and their benefactors the property of the rest of us? When a priesthood holder attempts to exercise unrighteous dominion, his priesthood is lost until he repents. When a government violates every principle of it's founding does it not also lose legitimacy? Any more or less than the constitution comes from evil. Evil can't be good. We shouldn't follow evil.
For a lengthy exposition on the exchange of life and liberty for property and power, read this article, not from Lew Rockwell. Start at the subheading "Empire and Economics" if you want to skip ahead.
As far as Bush meaning well, so what? The guy in the Old Testament who tried to right the ark also meant well, but he still died. Don't touch the ark. He touched the ark. He died. Intentions don't matter, right and wrong matter. I don't think they had good intentions, but my opinion doesn't matter. They were horribly wrong at the expense of millions of lives. Intentions don't matter. If you read that article, you'll see what I mean. The Federal Reserve controls the interest rate and supply of the default world currency, and has extreme influence on world economies. The IMF/World Bank come to a country to help save it by loaning it billions of dollars (yours, by the way) for infrastructure improvements, but the contracts go to companies like Bechtel and CH2M-Hill. The money flows out of the country, but the country is left to repay the loan. When the loan comes due and it can't be paid, favors are demanded. Who controls the IMF and World Bank? They're both headquartered in DC. The president of the World Bank is appointed by the president of the United States. Lives are destroyed, resources exploited, money is made, and power is retained. It's a great system if you're in the loop.
So now you know where I'm coming from. Ayn Rand said in one of her books, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." You should try it sometime.
I think the main problem here is that it's difficult to communicate through the barrier of such vastly different premises. Your premise, apparently, is trust in "leaders" or "the authorities" or some such thing, and my premise is that they're lying so the truth must be something other than whatever it is they've said. That difference is simple enough to understand. Truth is not subjective, and morals are not situational. So where do we get truth and morals? Some people get the truth from Fox News (they report, we decide, because they're fair and balanced), some from CNN, some from the Pope, some from a psychic, etc. Some people get their morals from national pride or from whatever they think their best interest is. Some people get their morals from religion. I decided to base my opinions on actual truth, from sources that have proven to be worthy, so when, just for example, D&C says—as I quoted above—that we shouldn't go to war unless directed by the Lord, and then we should follow specific steps to ensure the validity of our cause, I take that very literally. That's really what I believe, so why shouldn't I follow it? At that point I don't care what Ahmadinawhat says, or Limbaugh, or Beck, or Bush, Cheney, Obama, or whoever. I'm looking for the one trustable source to give the say-so.
On that note, the same source of truth tells me that the constitution was established for our benefit, and so no matter what the circumstance—the expediency of instantaneous bombings sans legitimate declaration of war, capturing terrible terrorists and giving them the whatfor, fast highways, "safe" food—I look for government to follow what I believe is the established and proper law. And even though the Rockwell anarcho-capitalists have extremely convincing arguments, I can't give in to that argument either, because the ultimate trump card is right there in the scriptures. The truth. When government doesn't follow that established law, I see it as a rejection not only of individual liberty but of the Lord's will as well. Because it is, isn't it? No argument from the previously stated list of pundits and charlatans can convince me otherwise, because their arguments can't compete with the truth. Why would I give up my agency—the use of which is the very purpose of mortal life—to follow a government that is clearly violating every tenet in what should be the established law? There is no logic in doing that.
Another big piece of the puzzle also comes from the scriptures (I remind you that this is an explanation of how and why I think what I think about things—the basis of my opinions). We are warned many times of secret combinations. In fact, the entire Book of Mormon was meant as a warning to those who read it. You can look that one up, it's in the front. Moroni tells us that secret combinations destroy societies when the people tolerate and eventually support and embrace them. Uphold is the word Moroni uses. And what are these secret combinations? "That I may murder and get gain," Cain said. It's a very simple formula. When you see the exchange of life for property, that's a big clue that something has gone wrong. One of the most important things a person can realize is that their government is conspiratorial. There is a conspiracy against freedom. If you don't believe that then you don't believe the correctness of the Book of Mormon (the reference is Ether 8:25 if you want to check). Do politicians not conspire to legislate themselves and their benefactors the property of the rest of us? When a priesthood holder attempts to exercise unrighteous dominion, his priesthood is lost until he repents. When a government violates every principle of it's founding does it not also lose legitimacy? Any more or less than the constitution comes from evil. Evil can't be good. We shouldn't follow evil.
For a lengthy exposition on the exchange of life and liberty for property and power, read this article, not from Lew Rockwell. Start at the subheading "Empire and Economics" if you want to skip ahead.
As far as Bush meaning well, so what? The guy in the Old Testament who tried to right the ark also meant well, but he still died. Don't touch the ark. He touched the ark. He died. Intentions don't matter, right and wrong matter. I don't think they had good intentions, but my opinion doesn't matter. They were horribly wrong at the expense of millions of lives. Intentions don't matter. If you read that article, you'll see what I mean. The Federal Reserve controls the interest rate and supply of the default world currency, and has extreme influence on world economies. The IMF/World Bank come to a country to help save it by loaning it billions of dollars (yours, by the way) for infrastructure improvements, but the contracts go to companies like Bechtel and CH2M-Hill. The money flows out of the country, but the country is left to repay the loan. When the loan comes due and it can't be paid, favors are demanded. Who controls the IMF and World Bank? They're both headquartered in DC. The president of the World Bank is appointed by the president of the United States. Lives are destroyed, resources exploited, money is made, and power is retained. It's a great system if you're in the loop.
So now you know where I'm coming from. Ayn Rand said in one of her books, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." You should try it sometime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
