Alex Jones claims this film of his definitively proves the existence of FEMA camps. Does it really? Well, you now have the entire bibliography with which to double-check his thesis, as Alex himself as encouraged people to do.
Alex Jones claims this film of his definitively proves the existence of FEMA camps. Does it really? Well, you now have the entire bibliography with which to double-check his thesis, as Alex himself as encouraged people to do.
Privacy is an often-underrated value in this day and age that unabashedly worships Big Brother. Both private and public snoops seek to gain advantage over others by exploiting specific pieces of information. Only truly free and sovereign individuals recognize that if they can’t control what others know about them, then the Self-Ownership Axiom is nothing more than a flippant whim.
Pretty Good Privacy (aka PGP) is a type of digital mail encryption program. Email that is sent over the Internet is akin to a postcard, in that any third-party who intercepts it can read the message. Encrypted email could be analogous to a letter sealed inside of an envelope; while it is still possible for third-party interception to know whom the senders and receivers are (as well as the content of the subject line), they cannot read the message itself. PGP uniquely combines both private and public key cryptography to provide the best possible “envelope” for your email communications.
The developmental history of this truly innovative cryptographic tool is nothing less than a tenuous struggle for control between the inventor, corporate interests, and shadowy government agencies. Phil Zimmerman, Jim Bidzos, Charlie Merritt and the other assorted cast of characters reads somewhat like the founding of Facebook. First is the contest of licensing the RSA algorithm, Zimmerman’s emergency release of PGP in light of the US Senate’s so-called “anti-crime” bill, and then the patent dispute that eventually lead to PGP being “legally” considered munitions (thereby subject to international export controls)! FBI wiretapping and the NSA’s Clipper chip were only some of the government’s additional attempts to suppress this particular form of open-source public key cryptography.
While I enjoyed the history lesson, the rest of this book is completely useless. The subsequent chapters go through excruciating detail in how to use PGP using line commands! That is completely inapplicable with my hardware, and even if it wasn’t, I’d doubt that I could obtain an older version of PGP with which to create keys using the pgp –kg command. Even the appendix chapter on how to install PGP for Mac showed the types of monochrome windows that I remember using on my very first laptop!
Instead of painfully trudging through this paperweight, I would recommend reading the PGP Timeline (which is a condensed history), as well as the brief yet beneficial overview of How PGP Works. The content is virtually identical and somewhat more updated. Aside from that, I would urge everyone to give PGP a try; just keep in mind that you’ll need a friend to help you with it since testing it requires someone else to receive your messages and send others back.
Ann Barnhardt is an up and coming Patriot Rockstar who has gained notoriety by asserting that Muslims and communists are the core enemies of the American Republic. She doesn’t particularly care for el presidente Obummer, but completely overblows his importance in the tyranny that he is an accomplice in. Her rhetoric damns the Islamic socio-political zeitgeist as a scourge that must be resisted at every step.
I just don’t see what the big fucking deal is here with this claim that Muslims are allegedly attempting to establish an American Caliphate. It’s completely unsubstantiated. Until such time that the federal court system recognizes Sharia jurisprudence, this reeks of the yet another boogeyman, much like how Al-CIA-da has been used to justice the surveillance police state apparatus.
I studied Islam during my pathetic tenure in college. Yes, there are commandments to conquer foreigners, and yes, it is really quite easy to divorce your wife (say “I divorce you” three times in a row), but Muslims must give conquered foreigners the choice to either convert, die, or submit to their authority and become second-class citizens (this is required if you are to transform an area to the dar-al-Islam) and women do retain some level of choice in regards to choosing a husband (albeit quite Victorian). Cherry-picking the most egregious acts condoned in some random religious text that even most followers don’t subscribe to today is intellectually dishonest.
Muslims, like Christians, have this tendency of getting hard-ons whenever it comes to killing and conquering a rival sect. Catholics versus Mormons, Karijite versus Ismaili….the sects name call each others as “heretics.” Why should they dislike each other so much? They pretty much like all the same stuff. For all intents and purposes, they all play on the same team! Murder, slavery, rape, and ritualistic human sacrifice are all condoned in the so-called “Holy” Bible. Whomever the real human authors happen to be, it’s pretty telling how not “all-knowing” they actually are.
Sure, Barnhardt would waste no time indulging in the junk idea of Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations,” or pontificating about the evils of pedophilia, bestiality, and female genital mutilation, and then act as if only Muslims engage in those practices. Of course, this suffers from overgeneralization; as much as Barnhardt loves to talk about sin, she most obviously suffers from the sin of misplaced emphasis, for she does not account for the American, British, Canadian and other “moderate” Muslims who make it a point to not engage in pedophilia, bestiality, or female genital mutilation.
For all of her touting the glories of subsidarity, I wonder why she isn’t an absolute monarchist, which would be more in accordance with her faith. To her credit, her speech about the Vendee counterrevolutionary guerrillas was quite fascinating and well-presented. I couldn’t help but think that perhaps Barnhardt wants to become a modern day Joan of Arc; it wouldn’t surprise me if she’s looking for her own Siege of Orléans with which to really make her mark. She did mention the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve in passing; I really wished she spent much more time on that than she did with the commies, who themselves were funded by the Wall Street banksters.
So, if Barnhardt’s threat assessment sucks, what is a better one? I would venture that a bunch of imperial eugenicist bankers who have reduced the most prosperous countries in the world into Third World foreign receivership, as part of a long-term project to engage in global population reduction, by first implementing national police-state kill grids is a hell of a lot more important than some imbecile goat-fucking in West Virginia. Granted, moral depravity is nothing to be desired, but in terms of priorities, there are bigger devils to deal with first.
Given her Rockstar status, Barnhardt seems to be a very useful idiot whose purpose is to increase balkanization. As a self-professed conservative, I never heard her say anything bad about Bush II (although, to her credit, she does not take a shine to Romney, unlike that snake Rand Paul), the PATRIOT act, the TSA gropings, or any of the other grievances against the police state. If she does not speak out against Bush II or any of the other crap that happened during the ‘90s or after 9/11 that was perpetrated by the Establishment as a whole, then she is probably a stooge to sucker particularly religious people back into The Left-Right Paradigm.
If Miss Barnhardt were to truly understand the nature of the situation that we are all suffering under, then I seriously doubt she would waste two more seconds demonizing Muslims and yelling at pictures of Obummer. Despite her allusions to guerrilla warfare, I don’t see her teaching anyone about the rudimentary elements of military science. Most importantly, I doubt she truly comprehends that Liberty is equal parts Responsibility and Tolerance, the latter of which is not to be confused with passive acceptance. Until such time that abortion is compulsory (as it is in China) or that marriages are forcibly arranged by the State, she has no business appealing to the failed notion of the so-called “culture wars” that are so popular in mainline conservative mythology.
“The path to hell is paved with good intentions.”
– St. Bernard of Clairvaux (paraphrased)
It may just be that the “Ron Paul lovefest” is coming to an end. Considering Rand Paul’s betrayal of his father, as well as Ron’s deafening silence on the Romney endorsement all the while trying to recruit delegates for the Republican National Convention in Tampa, I can’t help but think I’ve been validated in triplicate, much to my own sadness. It was admittedly a wonderful dream, albeit one that would never have worked in accomplishing its goals. Infiltrating the State and then turning it into a guardian of Liberty is essentially impossible (if it were, it would’ve been possible to infiltrate the Mafia and turn it into the United Way). Seeing that the good doctor is not seeking reelection to his congressional seat, I sincerely wish him well and bid him adieu.
Charles Dyer, the July4Patriot, was found guilty of child molestation on April 19th. Besides the coincidence of that happening on Patriot’s Day, I find it quite revealing that Dyer’s liberty of due process was thoroughly and repeatedly violated (regardless of anyone’s unsubstantiated opinion about the character of the former Marine sergeant). If the accusations against him were so air tight, then it wouldn’t be a problem for the prosecution to abide by due process and nail his ass to the wall, which didn’t happen.
What occurred instead was a total carnival of botched evidence, a libelous mainstream media, and a grossly overblown manhunt. Unfortunately, his life is permanently wrecked; if he isn’t killed in prison, he will surely have a devil of a time getting work and paying his parents back, who sacrificed their life savings in order to secure legal counsel for their son. The man couldn’t even save himself, much less anyone else, and since it is impossible for him to either be exonerated by appeal or be sprung from prison and extradited to the safety of a foreign country, there is literally no way for anyone to save this Messianic Figurehead from crucifixion.
1) Sign the Declaration
2) Establish a call tree system
3) Set up a local Common Law Court
4) Form local militia units
5) “Discover your leaders”
If you compared Cox’s “solution” with The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government, there is no contest which is the superior, but for pure curiosity’s sake, let’s test Cox’s suggestions on their own merit.
The “Letter of Declaration” as a title is purely redundant; it also suffers from being single-issue instead of being more comprehensive (such as the Under One Banner petition or the Declaration of Dissolution of Government). Call tree systems like the Alaskan Liberty Bell Network, the New Hampshire Porcupine 411, or the Texan Lone Star SMART all suffer from similar problems, one of which is that they are wide open to disinformation operations since there is no internal security procedures or even a simple verification method that can discern the nature of individual voice mails before they are distributed to all the subscribers.
A brick-and-mortar Common Law Court (CLC) is a bit premature, since even most political dissidents still assume that the term “courts” only refers to the government carnival sideshows that pass for some sort of arbitration proceedings. Militia units are the in the same boat as a CLC, especially considering that both require a Committee of Safety (CoS) to be established first, which brings me to “discover your leaders.” Even though Cox danced around it, when he referred to an “executive body,” he was essentially describing a CoS in all but name, just to add to the confusion.
Cox was convicted of conspiracy to murder federal law enforcement officers and a slew of other weapons related charges nearly two months to the day after Dyer’s conviction. Despite his best attentions and various public appearances (such as being a supposed “delegate” to the abomination that was the so-called “Continental Congress ’09”), where have all his supporters gone? Where is his couple thousand some odd “militia” members? Probably most importantly, have any local CLCs been established thanks to Cox? In the absence of proof suggesting otherwise, I’m gonna venture a “no.”
I think it should be made absolutely crystal clear that a Messiah IS NOT the same as a Patriot Rockstar. Unlike a Messiah, Rockstars just want to whine, bitch, and complain about a problem while looking cool doing it; a Messiah by contrast genuinely wants to solve problems, but his proposed solutions necessarily require his constant personal intervention, thereby engendering a cult of personality. Messiahs should also not be confused with certain specialists in various endeavors; the key difference here is that the specialist trains others who then implement the respective plan and/or solutions, whereas the Messiah’s plan or solution necessitates his incessant involvement. It could also be said that an undying publicly displayed affection for some specialists could make them look like Messiahs, so be wary of both the easily swayed and those (wannabe) Rockstars who spend all their time propping up one individual, acting as if that person is going to save of us all.
So, what now? Reviewing the individual tales of such Messianic Figureheads like Ron Paul, Charles Dyer, and Schaeffer Cox, I think it is clear to see that no one Daddy figure is going to arrive on his white horse and do all the work of securing our Liberties. Methods need to be measured by their effectiveness, and plans need to be formulated and put into action. It is absolutely pitiful that this isn’t done more, either in close-knit local groups or through alternative media outlets.
Those who desire some strategy that either involves methods that don’t work or a Christ archetype are simply avoiding the responsibility necessary for self-liberation. Such cowardliness deserves to be ridiculed and ostracized from the ranks of the realistic and the brave. Participating in the Carnival of Distractions for its own sake, all the while claiming to be “fighting for freedom,” is in some ways crueler than being controlled opposition, for it demonstrates a type of mental insanity that is very difficult to overcome. If we are to move the cause for Liberty forward, let us all refuse to be suckered by the promises of all of these “Messiahs.”
Patriot’s Day is held in remembrance of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The various militia units were able to fend off the British redcoats and drive them back to city, thus beginning the Siege of Boston. A fictional novelization of these fast paced events from the point of view of a teenager provides the context for April Morning.
What really struck me was not the actual opening to the Revolutionary War (since there are non-fiction works that do a much better job of doing so), but the contentious relationship between Adam Cooper and his father, Moses. Lexington and Concord seem to serve little more than a convenient backdrop for what is essentially a quasi-Victorian soap opera. While Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice are actually enjoyable for their appropriate genre, I felt that the “drama” of April Morning was more pathetic that even Emma. Let me get this straight…. I am supposed to seriously believe that Moses Cooper claims that Adam is not a man since he is “superstitious,” but mere hours later when Adam enlists with the Lexington militia, Moses tells his wife that he is no longer a boy?
This is not to mention anything of his family’s hypocrisy, especially concerning religion. Adam’s “superstitious spells” over water is bad, but praying before meals since the family is “Christian” is perfectly okay? The conversation between Adam and his paternal grandmother deeply reveals the inherent conflict not only between Adam and Moses, but between Adam and the entire Cooper family. His mother scolds him for not memorizing the Book of Lamentations, his little brother snitches on him, his father constantly berates and humiliates him, and his grandmother acts as an apologist for the entire gang. No wonder Adam is considered the black sheep; he is the inquisitive libertarian individualist!
I don’t blame Adam for trying to rectify the situation between himself and his father; what child doesn’t want to have a good relationship with his parents? It’s only natural to want do so, but I do blame Moses for grossly misleading his son (what kind of a man who claims to be oh so rational and literate switches his mind so flippantly about his own child’s maturity the second the kid signs up to go get killed?). Even after Moses kicks the bucket, Adam is still bereaved throughout the entire engagement.
The historical accuracy leaves something to be greatly desired. John Parker was the captain of the Lexington militia, not “Jonas” Parker; Parker died from tuberculosis during the Siege of Boston, not from being bayoneted in the back during the Battle of Lexington. There also seems to be great confusion given the conflicting use of the term “Commiteemen.” Sometimes the author makes them sound like militia, other times they sound like members of a local Committee of Safety (CoS). To Howard Fast’s credit though, in the scene where Adam Cooper in waiting in line to enlist in the Lexington milita, it is emphasized that there are two sets of records being kept, one by “Jonas” and one by Moses, with the former representing the military side and the latter being the civil authority. I was glad to see that some form of republicanism (as evidenced by the separation of the civil from the military) was correctly demonstrated, albeit it never delved into how an actual CoS operated.
One real phenomenon that I think Howard Fast accurately captured was the trauma endured by these citizen-soldiers. Adam vomited pretty much every other skirmish, as well as being chronically exhausted. The reactions of his mother and grandmother were also pretty realistic, especially in demonstrating how noncombatant civilians dealt with some of their relatives coming back dead.
Another realistic reaction I thought the author captured was the reluctance of the colonists to move along the line towards the proverbial state of nature. Right after the inhabitants of Lexington got word of the redcoat’s mission, they then bickered with each other about what to do. Most of them did not want to do what was necessary; this is evidenced by the four chief positions; Sam Hodley didn’t think the report was honest and thought it would be best to forget the whole endeavor, the Reverend want to “go look for more information” before actually deciding on a course of action, Moses Cooper wanted to hold an immediate Committee meeting, and Parker was the only one who wanted to muster the militia. Notice that the three other positions were different versions of every possible excuse to not do something actually effective.
Overall, I don’t recommend this novel to anyone. If you want a drama of manners, then I recommend most of Jane Austen’s books. If you want an accurate historical depiction of Lexington and Concord, read David Fischer’s Paul Revere’s Ride. If you want to experience the cognitive pressures of warfare, read Christopher Ronnau’s autobiographical Blood Trails: The Combat Diary of a Foot Soldier in Vietnam. Howard Fast’s April Morning pathetically comes up short as either a drama of manners, an accurate historical depiction, or as a psychological examination of the effects of warfare upon the human psyche.
Asymmetrical warfare does not rely on organized lines of platoons, companies, and battalions marching openly upon the field of battle. Spies, guerrillas, and special-forces units conduct themselves deceptively since they are vastly outnumbered and outgunned. These shadow warriors necessarily rely upon secrecy for their covert missions in order to quickly surprise enemy forces. One kind of assignment these undercover agents undertake is known as false flag operations.
Terrorism, as defined by 22 USC § 2656F (paragraph d), is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” False flags are defined as “covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations which are designed to appear as though they were carried out by other entities.” Of course, false flag operations, as well as other forms of government-sponsored terrorism, conveniently overlook the collateral damage they cause (such as the 2005 Basra prison break involving two undercover British SAS soldiers and the July 12th, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes against Reuters reporters and other Iraqi civilians).
Using the abovementioned criteria, it is possible to determine what events qualify as actual false flag operations. The June 8th, 1967 USS Liberty attack was initially thought to be conducted by the Egyptians, but was later revealed to be done by Israel, a supposedly American ally who continues to receive foreign aid from the Congress. As an advanced surveillance ship, the Liberty crew observed both unmarked and Israeli aircraft flying so low they could see the pilots in them. During the attack, the five emergency channels were all blocked (even though the Liberty had always been able to communicate with the Pentagon nearly instantly); the crew was suffering from napalm burns, a sinking ship whose hull had been breached by torpedoes, and gunfire that was aimed at the sailors in the water who were attempting to survive the onslaught. Armed with only four .50 caliber machine guns, the Liberty could not have fended off such a well-executed operation even if the napalm hadn’t “cooked” the ammunition.
Bruce Ivins worked at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, MD as a microbiological defense scientist who allegedly committed suicide in 2008 because of his involvement with the 2001 Amerithrax congressional mailings. The lab grown weaponized anthrax was originally blamed on Muslim terrorists (keep in mind this began one week after 9/11; both the NBC/Brokaw and Daschle/Leahy letters had the slogans, “Death to Israel, Allah is Great”). Following the anthrax mailings, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft strong-armed the House Judiciary Committee into a bipartisan compromise that enabled the notorious USA PATRIOT Act to eventually be signed into “law” the following month.
Annie Machon, a former MI5 agent, admits that the British Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) “is at best an oversight fig leaf” since it is not a parliamentary committee; when it was revealed that the ISC had received a fax that was an advanced warning about the July 7th, 2005 London bombings, the spineless members of parliament who had previously defended MI5 now had to redo their original report by admitting to the intelligence failures. Jamil Rahman was tortured by MI5 agents and threatened with rape upon himself and his wife if he didn’t falsely confess to the 7/7 bombings. Witnesses don’t remember any of the alleged bombers either leaving a bag behind or even being on the bus; interestingly, the metal shards of the bus were pointed upward instead of downward, not to mention that the recovered remains were not indicative of IEDs but instead were high-grade military explosives. Peter Power, the managing director for Visor Consultants, stated that day on ITN that his company was running emergency drills at the exact same times, at the exact same locations, with the exact same scenarios; the probability of that being an actual coincidence is 1 in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (which is more than the grains of sand in the entire world).
Umar Abdulmutallab was escorted onto Flight #253 by an unidentified sharp-dressed Indian man on Christmas Day, at which time Kurt Haskell overheard Abdulmutallab’s cover story that he was a Sudanese refugee, when he was in fact a Nigerian citizen. Another unidentified Indian man in orange clothing happened to be arrested by the FBI, but the G-men remained tightlipped about him, at least until they told ABC News they were still trying to identify another man they believed was Abdulmutallab’s accomplice. State Department undersecretary Patrick Kennedy admitted to the House Committee on Homeland Security that Abdulmutallab’s visa wasn’t denied because intelligence operatives claimed that such action would’ve tipped him off and foiled an attempt to snag a larger “terrorist” cell network. At least former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff profited nicely from the roll out of the infamous TSA naked body scanners, right on schedule following the underwear bomber incident, despite his obvious conflict of interest.
While the USS Liberty, the anthrax scare, 7/7, and the underwear bomber may be good examples of likely false flag operations, there are others that don’t even come close to fulfilling the USC criteria. Some people claim that Pearl Harbor, the Fukushima Prefecture nuclear meltdown, and the string of recent mass shootings (Fort Hood, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises) were all staged flag flag ops. While FDR did have advance knowledge of the Japanese attack (and had antagonized them beforehand), the Japanese attacked very overtly. Fukushima lacked a premeditated political motive where someone could gain from Japan getting radiated. Even though Major Nidal Hasan did have contact with Anwar al-Awlaki (as did Abdulmutallab), a planned attack with a political motive is not currently provable. Nearly the same goes for both Jared Loughner and James Holmes (I seriously doubt that American intelligence would use Hasan, Loughner, or Holmes as patsies with which to use as a pretext in order to push for more gun control).
But, ah, others may claim I neglect to mention probably the two most infamous “false flag” ops; the 1933 burning of the Reichstag and 9/11. These events are both pretty iffy, since there is nearly equally convincing evidence supporting each side (false flag versus official story), albeit so differently that there is no way to break the tie. This is the result of many years of passionately bitter debate, and the impasse rests on inconclusive conjecture from both camps. As it might be possible that a random communist did burn the German parliament building (with Adolf Hitler then taking advantage of it by assuming dictatorial power), it’s also equally likely that a communist was framed for it by the Third Reich in order to seize power. Since it is most likely the case that 9/11 was an Inside Job, there is still the realistic possibility that the culpability lays not with either Muslim terrorists (and even then it would be because of blowback) or the criminal federal government, but exclusively upon the shoulders of a foreign nation-state (as the case was with the USS Liberty). Sadly, the 9/11 Truthers would rather ceaselessly argue about how and why it was pulled off, instead of on whom, or more importantly, what to do about it.
When it comes to gauging false flag operations and other types of state-sponsored terrorism, it’s important to apply the Hegelian Dialectic. What I think has escaped the minds of various political dissidents is that Step 1 (the Problem) takes both exacerbated real incidents as well as staged events into account. In the overall aggregate, it truly does not matter whether these situations were either genuinely occurring or artificially contrived, since the conditioned reactions by the mainline public and the Establishment’s sanctioned solutions turn out to be exactly the same either way (put another way, it doesn’t matter whether 9/11 was an Inside Job or not, because we still have the DHS and TSA to deal with).
So why all the intense focus on whether Step 1 of the PRS formula is real or fake, instead of on how to deal with the “solutions” that the government forces on everyone? One reliable sign of controlled opposition is that they will attempt to have their respective audiences experience the tunnel vision of “looking for more information” to further reinforce the belief that an event was a false flag operation. Of course, such never-ending searches do not turn up proof of either who the handlers were or the consideration (or payment) given to the operatives (both of which are necessary to prove that the event in question was indeed artificially contrived and thus truly a false flag operation).
Be wary of those who are the first to cry “false flag” about an event without sufficient proof. These tend to be the exact same people who are the first to denounce those individuals and groups who physically resist tyranny, as they prove by their rhetoric that they are totally susceptible to the McVeigh Syndrome. They are cowards who deserve to be ostracized from those who truly love liberty. As Sam Adams famously said, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
False flag operations do happen, and those responsible need to be brought to justice; however, not every suspiciously violent event is a false flag. These unjustified assertions suffer from both overgeneralization and the sin of misplaced emphasis. Dissidents need to stop being frozen in Step 1 of the PRS formula and instead brainstorm about how to deal with Step 3, and then act on it.
Many activists today resent what is incorrectly referred to as “the law.” They view the United States Code with profound disgust and abject horror. Their entire lives have been infringed upon by these codified threats of violence against their property, their liberty, and even their very lives. What they fail to understand is that when “the law” ceases to provide justice, it is no longer the actual Law, but now a malleable instrument of oppression.
Classical liberal political philosophy has always held that collective rights have their basis in individual rights; put another way, a defined group has no more inalienable rights than what individuals don’t already possess. Provided this assertion is true and accurate, then the author’s definition of the Law is correct when he defines it as the “collective organization of the individual right to self-defense….[as a] common force organized to prevent injustice.” Of course, anytime the Law is used to initiate aggression against people, then it contradicts its original purpose of collective self-defense.
The Law was never meant to be used as a tool for social engineering, as Bastiat clearly states, “It may further be affirmed, that, thanks to the non-intervention of the State in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in their natural order.” He defines plunder as “When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without compensation, to him who has not created it, whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is violated, that plunder is perpetrated. I say that this is exactly what the law ought to repress always and everywhere.” Bastiat goes on to delinate the three types of “legal” plunder; partial plunder (“when the few plunder the many”), universal plunder (“when everybody plunders everybody else”), and the absence of plunder (“when nobody plunders anybody”). The principle of justice is based on the absence of plunder.
Bastiat attributes the perversion of the law to “naked greed and misconceived philanthropy.” He claims that socialism is advanced through philanthropic rhetoric and that artificial notions of fraternity will destroy Liberty when he said, “I cannot possibly conceive fraternity legally enforced, without liberty being legally destroyed, and justice legally trampled under foot….we can assure them that what we repudiate is not natural organization, but forced organization. It is not free association, but the forms of association that they would impose upon us. It is not spontaneous fraternity, but legal fraternity. It is not providential solidarity, but artificial solidarity, which is only an unjust displacement of responsibility. Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society.”
The law has become the “most invincible instrument” of injustice because it is made “by one man, or by one class of men.” Resistance to its inherent tyrannical behavior is to be expected, since “it is the nature of men to rise against injustice of which they are the victims.” When what is illegal contradicts with what is immoral, the law is not respected by the population, and thus “the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or losing his respect for the law – two evils of equal magnitude, between which it would be difficult to choose.” Since, “Law is force, and that consequently the domain of the law cannot properly extend beyond the domain of force…when law and force keep a man within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing upon him but a mere negation. They only oblige him to abstain from doing harm…..but when the law, through the medium of its necessary agent – force – imposes a form of labor, a method or a subject of instruction, a creed, or a worship, it is no longer negative; it acts positively upon men.”
With regard to so-called “social democracy,” Bastiat repudiates those statists with his challenge for them to “Try to imagine a form of labor imposed by force, that is not a violation of liberty; a transmission of wealth imposed by force, that is not a violation of property. If you cannot succeed in reconciling this, you are bound to conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.” This is followed with the amazing observation that “You must see, then that the socialist democrats cannot in conscience allow men any liberty, because, by their own nature, they tend in every instance to all kinds of degradation and demoralization. We are therefore left to conjecture, in this case, upon what foundation universal suffrage is claimed for them with so much importunity.” He ameliorates somewhat by stating, “You must observe that I am not contending against their right to invent social combinations, to propagate them, to recommend them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk; but I do dispute their right to impose them upon us through the medium of the law, that is, by force and by public taxes.”
So, if the Law is, in reality, collective self-defense providing justice by safeguarding the Lockean triad of life, liberty, and property, then all these statutes, ordinances, and rulemaking policies as they are constructed and applied ARE NOT THE LAW, since they encourage both partial and universal plunder, which is antithetical to the purpose of the Law. If such is the case, what can be done to restore the rule of law? Bastiat explains, “Thus, there is not a grievance in the nation for which the Government does not voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it any wonder that every failure threatens to cause a revolution? And what is the remedy proposed? To extend indefinitely the dominion of the law, i.e., the responsibility of Government….it is not true that the mission of the law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our will, our education, our sentiments, our works, our exchanges, our gifts, our enjoyments. Its mission is to prevent the rights of one from interfering with those of another, in any one of these things….and now, after having vainly inflicted upon the social body so many systems, let them end where they ought to have begun – reject all systems, and try liberty – liberty, which is an act of faith in God and in His work.”
“The Law” by Frederic Bastiat is a work that I must insist be read by every dissident, regardless of your own particular political orientation. It crystallizes how the purpose of the Law was subverted into an instrument of tyranny. As part of the attempt to reinstate the rule of Law, I suggest that the practice of holding allodial title be reinvigorated; if we cannot even hold land, the rest of our personal property are then mere tokens of what we think of as wealth. A good place to start is to realize that the Law is not your enemy, but instead those who use legal fictions they claim have “the force of law” (or even have legitimacy under “color of law”) to force punishments on you when you have not aggressed against anyone.
Update 13 September 2012: This post will no longer be updated. Complete and up-to-date instructions can be found at: http://go.to.freenet
Freenet is one of the most powerful yet least known tools for anyone who is interested in secure Internet communications. The purpose of the Freenet Project is described on their official website as follows:
Freenet is free software which lets you anonymously share files, browse and publish “freesites” (web sites accessible only through Freenet) and chat on forums, without fear of censorship. Freenet is decentralised to make it less vulnerable to attack, and if used in “darknet” mode, where users only connect to their friends, is very difficult to detect.Communications by Freenet nodes are encrypted and are routed through other nodes to make it extremely difficult to determine who is requesting the information and what its content is.
For those who truly value privacy, anonymity, and free speech, Freenet is a viable replacement for typical social networking websites such as Facebook or Google+. Anyone who genuinely cares about their ability to publish easily, securely, and anonymously (if desired) should add Freenet to their cyber repertoire.
The following tutorial is the first segment of a six part guide that details how to set up secure communications over Freenet, including email, discussion forums, microblogging, and (nearly) instant messaging. At the end of this first segment, you will be able to access Freenet yourself and then follow the other five sections.
These instructions are for the Mac OSX operating system. If you use the Windows operating system, please refer to this other set of instructions.
Congratulations, you’ve successfully installed Freenet. Now you can set up secure, anonymous social networking accounts by continuing with Part 2 of this guide. (the link to Part 2 will not open until you have successfully installed Freenet)
It should go without saying that “preparedness” should be more properly defined for whatever your goals happen to be within the context of a given set of scenarios. The vague claim that a book will increase the “preparations” for a family is unsubstantiated unless measurable results or even sign-posts are available. Worst of all, not taking into account the weaknesses of your particular approach is not only intellectually dishonest, but also just plain irresponsible.
Making the Best of Basics: Family Preparedness Handbook (6th edition, 1980) is nothing more than a goddamn cookbook. Chapter after chapter is filled with recipes of everything from bulgur porridge to triticale meat loaf. There are no less that 100 unique things you can do with wheat, sourdough, and yogurt. I’ve read entire Food Network published cookbooks with better tasting recipes than what’s listed in this makeshift imitation.
To be fair, there was some space given to food storage, water storage, and medical supplies; however, better advice for doing the exact same things could be found in James Wesley, Rawles’ “How to Survive the End of the World As We Know It.” What information was in Making the Best of Basics seemed quite dated, and not in a good or even neutral way.
What I thought is book really lacked (even more so than what I’ve just mentioned) is mentioning how to put together BOBs and how to make an evac plan. Supposedly, later editions do cover this (or so I’m told), but what I can say is that this particular edition sure as hell didn’t, and that’s what I’m reviewing. The basic problem with this book (besides everything else I’ve criticized) is that it totally neglects bugging out as an option, and even though it is bunkering in centric, it doesn’t even do that well. Those who decide to bunker in need their BOBs in case their home and/or BOL gets overrun with looters or government thugs, they run out of supplies, or they simply want a change a pace during SHTF before going back and hiding in the proverbial bunker (cabin fever counts for a lot).
Also lacking is how while bunkering in, how to take a shit, clean clothes, or defend your location. There is no mention at all what options there are for alternative off-grid power (except a chapter on how to store fuels). Again, this is a cookbook (and not even a very good one at that) that masquerades as a book on prepping; skip this piece of shit and take a gander at an actual good one, such as JWR’s TEOTWAWKI book, which is much more comprehensive and doesn’t lecture you about how to measure ingredients (as if that’s going to matter post-grid down). The nicest thing I can say about this disingenuous, half-assed cookbook is that some of the recipes (like yogurt bread) might be good and enjoyable to make, just as long as the power grid stays up.
I came across the following 27 part video series (which, ironically, isn’t that long at all) that features a debate between voluntaryists and “democratic” socialists that was held at the Café Libertalia in San Diego over 2 years ago.
There were some fundamental impasses that were crossed pretty quickly, especially considering that the debate was not about superficial details for how government “should” work, but about whether the State should even exist at all. First, the anarchists had firm principles (whether you like them or not is irrelevant) whereas the socialists were relativistic mealy-mouthed ivory tower academics (as a college graduate, I know the type, believe me; they were fucking everywhere on campus). Second, the methodologies used to prove their respective perspectives was completely dissimilar between the debate teams; the anarchists preferred to rely on deductive reasoning, statistics, and praxeology as opposed to the pleasant yet empty sounding platitudes of the gray-haired socialists.
I think the debate should have ended a lot sooner once it became quite clear where each team stood in terms of principles, instead of continuing on with bullshit hypothetical scenarios that were answered with the same types of responses ad nauseam. The anarchists stood firmly on the Self-Ownership Axiom, the Non-Aggression Principle, and the Homesteading Principle. The socialists (surprise, surprise) not only equated the coercion of the State with market phenomenon (“the market is force!”), but then at one point criticized what they called the presupposition that ownership of property came before society was false since it came as an effect of society, and therefore subject to it!
To make matters worse, the socialists didn’t address homesteading, instead emphasizing the overriding virtue of the mob rule majority’s decisions on anything as the high holy sacrament that overrides absolutely everything else. I think once it was clear that socialists confused coercion with choice, held society as more valuable than the individual, and extolled their ultimate virtue of voting (instead of by the mechanisms of contract and price), the anarchists should have ended the debate right there and then by walking out of the room, essentially putting into practice their liberty to opt-out of an event that ceased to be productive. Alas, such was not the case.
While in some ways this debate was intriguing, it quickly lost its appeal once it was made clear that was no way to resolve the wide discrepancy between individualists and collectivists. Then began the half-hearted hypothetical scenarios asked of both teams (the worst of which came from the audience), and poor Joey Hill (of the voluntaryist team) lost his temper more than once when he yelped, “I’ve already objectively proven property rights in my opening statement, and here you are attempting to lay your subjective preferences upon it!” Such makes for mediocre theatre, not constructive work.
I found it humourous when Gregg Robinson (of the socialist team) admitted that the government must provide services in the areas of health care (that’s the Orwellian doublespeak term for medicine), education, and the environment, and that those three areas must be taken care of first before anything else is to be considered. His fruitless framing of the agenda aside, if you were to tackle precisely those three areas, you would find that not only are those too important for the government to handle, but they are also the very same areas that the State has gloriously fucked up time and again. So-called “health care” is really nothing more than taxpayer subsidized Western medicine cocktail of drugs and surgery to the exclusion of every other type of treatment or cure available. Private schools and especially homeschoolers have beaten their public school equivalents senseless across the broad spectrum of academic subjects. Finally, the EPA and the FDA are Administrative Agencies bought and paid for by the Big Food and Big Pharma cartels. What the socialists left me wondering is how their flavor of statism will be able to prevent (or at least mitigate) lobbying, which is about as undemocratic as you can get.
Speaking of oligopolies, I’m dismayed that the anarchists, while regurgitating for the umteenth time about how coercion is immoral, neglected to address the difference between capitalism and corporatism. Joseph Corbett (of the voluntaryist team) even used Wal-Mart as an non-coercive example to contrast your run of the mill government agency! While I understand his point, his specific example obfuscated the issue, since it is well known that Wal-Mart enjoys government privilege, and that protection raises the barrier to entry so high that potential competitors can’t enter the market in any effective way so as to drive down prices and increase the quality of the types of products being sold. It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth, much like how former Mises Institute fellow and current head of Laizze-Faire Books Jeffery Tucker once extolled the virtues of McDonalds.
While I think that this was a unique event, I fail to see what exactly is was supposed to accomplish. Other than enjoying the quips from Murray Rothbard look-alike Joey Hill and snickering at the comments of the “pragmatic” socialists, there really isn’t that much value to this debate. I think for potential recruits it left more questions than answers as well as a general state of overwhelmed confusion (even for me, and I know what these bastards are talking about!). There was so much left out from both sides that it isn’t hard to understand why the mainline public is as apathetic about their Liberties as they are; seeing the performance given here, I can’t blame them.