Declaration of Independence

Every once in a blue moon, history surprises you with something so absurdly wonderful that is surpasses even the most wild of expectations. Bucking all the normal historical trends and choosing a better alternative is never heard of, either because the means to do so are not available, or the willingness to be singled out is cowardly missing. Whenever something rarely occurs, it would behoove us to understand it, appreciate it, and try to gauge the likelihood of something like it happening again.

 

 

“Secession” is defined by Webster’s 1828 dictionary as, “To withdraw from fellowship, a communion or association; to separate one’s self.” Based fundamentally on the freedom of association, secession is implied by “for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another;” however, it would be an error to assume that there is any supposed “right” to secede. As Gary Hunt commented regarding Kosovo’s attempt to secede from Yugoslavia:

 

“These Republican [Party partisans] say that the Albanians have the ‘right’ to secede. Perhaps they do. But, who has the right to protect their right to secede? In our history, the right to secede came only from might. The obvious conclusion is that only the Albanians have the right to direct their might to secede — or fail.”

 

What I find additionally revealing is that according to the corporate whore mainstream media, secession is always sanctioned unless it is American, as can be discerned from their control of the moral narrative regarding Norway’s 1905 secession from Sweden, or Panama’s 1903 secession from Colombia, versus the War Between the States.

It would behoove us now to understand Liberty as actually defined. According to Ballantine’s legal dictionary (3rd edition), “Liberty” is defined as:

 

“Absence of servitude and restraint. A most broad and extensive concept, embracing every form and phase of individual right that is not necessarily taken away by some valid law for the common good.”

 

Most other definitions of Liberty revolve around the notion of civil liberties, that is, being subject to the Law of the land. Interestingly, the following definitions of natural liberty from Bouvier’s (6th edition) and Black’s (2nd edition) law dictionaries (respectively) are as such:

 

“Natural liberty is the right by which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men.”

 

“The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men.”

 

If I am interpreting this correctly, then it would mean that natural liberty is the same as the Non-Aggression Principle. Thus, with regards to secession, there can be no civil liberty that would grant the legal ability to politically disband from a nation-state, but you do possess the natural liberty to engage in self-defense against criminals of all kinds, including those who are agents of the State. Any serious effort to politically disband from a nation-state (that is, secede) necessarily also entails a revolutionary or constitutionally restorative type of war.

One of the several abuses against the Declaration is expanding far beyond its original meaning, just as that Tyrant-in-Chief, Abraham Lincoln, did. “Equality” is grossly overrated because of his molesting the language and inferring more than what the Second Continental Congress, or even Thomas Jefferson, had ever intended it to mean. Jefferson himself would hang his head in shame that “equality” itself is still being used as the primarily justification for the Nanny State.

It has been suggested that if the segment “deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” were instead phrased as “deriving their just Powers from the unanimous Consent of the Governed,” then we would never have been suffering from the effects of statism as we are today. While that is a truly intriguing idea because it would grind the gears of the State to a halt (since it is literally impossible to achieve unanimous consent from every single individual of who would constitute the body politic), it does assume that the Lockean “state of nature” is a viable condition for living one’s life indefinitely.

At issue here is whether absolute liberty (that is, anarchy) is possible or even desirable. Those who prefer a form of moderated liberty (such as the ordered liberty or reciprocal liberty that one would receive under a nightwatchman state, such as a Republic or a kritarchy) think that such anarchic liberty is either impossible or wholly undesirable, since they assume that universal plunder would consummate just as soon as we are “without rulers.” The essential impasse arises from the more libertarian perspective that an absence of plunder would occur upon the abolishment of the State.

The Declaration could also be thought of not so much as a justification for independence, but instead as a dissolution of government. While the right of revolution is certainly appealed to “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,” and “it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government,” it should be kept firmly in mind that a declaration of dissolution of government is not law! It is simply an announcement of principles as well as reasons why a withdrawal from political union must happen.

Coming full circle, secession is similar to (but not as absolute as) a dissolution of government, the latter of which is the same as abolishing the State; however, it is stated twice in the Declaration that following such dissolution, it is necessary “to institute a new Government…and to provide new Guards for their future Security.” Although anarchists could theoretically issue such a Declaration of Dissolution of Government, they would be violating both the spirit and letter of the Declaration of Independence, since they would have no intention of reestablishing any form of government whatsoever because they prefer to exist in a “state of nature” permanently.

Some have semantically nitpicked the Declaration to death. Probably the best example of this has to deal with “inalienable” versus “unalienable.” For all intents and purposes, those words are synonymous with each other. Even though I do take issue with the Jeffersonian phrase of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” I do concede that this was done to improve the flowery rhetoric that was stylistically central to the Declaration. I personally prefer the freedom formula of “Life + Liberty + Property = Happiness,” but hey, who I am to criticize the hypocritical mainline civil theology that literally puts Jefferson and Lincoln up on pedestals in their own shrines and altars as if they were Olympian gods?

Would it be too far off the mark to for me to claim that approval of the Declaration was akin to signing a death warrant as well as an official recognition by the Second Continental Congress of the events surrounding Patriot’s Day? As I said this past 4th of July:

 

“Upon reflection of Jefferson’s accusations against the British Crown, I must admit that as bad as they were at that time (and at the risk of sounding as if I’m making light of them, I’m not), they seem like child’s play when compared against the tribulations of our own period. A key problem is the belief held by the acquiescing mainline public that most, if not nearly all, of the actions of the State are somehow morally acceptable. The State continues to ‘impos[e] Taxes on us without our Consent.’ Drug prohibition empowers ‘swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.’ Terrorism statutes effectively ‘render[s] the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.’”

 

Is this enough to declare that we be “absolved from all Allegiance… and that all political Connection between them and the the State…is and ought to be totally dissolved?” Is it time now that “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor?”

To top it all off, Wendy McElroy has argued that the American Revolution violated the principles the Declaration of Independence, yet her examples to justify this seem to be wholly economic. As she puts it:

 

“Like every war, the War for Independence involved massive violations of individual rights and the rapid growth of the state. Thus, as the Revolution became a war, it violated the core principle of the Declaration that was its justification: namely, the equal and inalienable rights of all men. The War of Independence should be scrutinized with the same critical eye as any other war.”

 

I would beg to differ; the American Revolutionary War for Independence fulfilled the principles of the Declaration of Independence in every way humanly possible. McElroy likes to act as an apologist for the Tories, apparently oblivious to the fact that those colonial Loyalists were statists, plain and simple. What were the Patriots supposed to do, let those statists give aid and comfort to the Redcoats while also spying on defensive militia operations? Her other claim is that the principle of “no taxation without representation” was hypocritically inconsistent with regard to the “peculiar institution” of ancient Egyptian styled slavery. I have already said that:

 

“The fact of the matter is that the Founders inherited the human slave trade from the British Empire, much like how we have inherited the spoils of corporatist imperialism. The primary problem laid in liberating the enslaved without totally tanking the economy (if events had transpired that way, I doubt the recently freed slaves would be thankful for it; from the frying pan of slavery into the fire of a hyperinflationary depression is, I think, the last thing they’d want).”

 

In other words, gradual manumission was the only way to free the slaves while simultaneously keeping the Republic together so as not to risk a collapse that would have invited the British Empire to come in and reconquer, thereby making any gains with abolition totally moot. Imagine, if you will, our equivalent probably being the sudden abolition of the national debt, or that of the Federal Reserve Notes losing its coveted status as the world’s reserve currency.

Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence must be read in the context of when it was drafted and approved by the Second Continental Congress on July 4th of 1776. Construing it to mean something it does not is heinous against those who have put everything on the line in order to ensure that we have as much liberty as we do today. Those who prefer to denigrate this excellent document that strives to elucidate the pinnacles of human achievement, by inferring that it supports their convoluted social engineering experiments, need to get their heads out of their asses and truly begin to understand the message of Liberty.

Altoids Tin Waterproofing Experiment

I have heard claims that it was possible to waterproof an Altoids tin, a type of container that is commonly used within survivalist circles as a BOAT (Bug Out Altoid Tin) or alternatively referred to as a PSK (Personal Survival Kit). I decided to test this assertion by assembling the initial 3 items; an Altoids tin, a roll of electrical tape, and a half-cut yellow Post-It sticky note that says “I am the Stuff:”

 

 

Here is the Altoids tin, cleaned and dried from the mint leftover crud:

 

I placed the yellow sticky note inside the Altoids tin. I reasoned that if it were possible to waterproof the tin, the sticky note should not get wet:

 

Next, I wrapped the electrical tape right along the lid’s edge. This was especially important considering the back has two holes for where the lid has to rest on; if there were any particularly susceptible spots to water infiltration, it would be those hinges:

 

I also took the liberty of wrapping the tin widthwise:

 

This is what ended up being tested:

 

What I also needed for this experiment was a simple sink stopped up with water deep enough for the tin to be completely submerged. It only makes sense to me to make the conditions as hard as possible, since if the results are as others claim they are, then it would mean that the waterproofing ability would be that much better under less adverse circumstances:

 

The only problem at this point though was that the container was completely empty (not counting the “I am the Stuff” sticky note), which meant that there was no weight inside the tin to weigh it down past the waterline vis-a-vis the lip of the actual container:

 

At first, I simply pushed it down with my fingers and held it there for awhile, completely submerged:

 

To my surprise, it turned out that the tin was actually airtight, otherwise it wouldn’t have had the resistant buoyancy that you see here:

 

It would seem that it might be waterproof, but resistant buoyancy with the lip of the container above the water line ain’t gonna cut it. So, I had to improvise some weights from $3 worth of quarters that were carefully stacked on top of the tin:

 

Turns out those quarters were exactly what was needed to push the tin down far enough to test for possible water seepage inside:

 

Now that I had both dunked and gently floated the taped up tin below the water line, it was time to take it out and unwrap it:

 

Keep in mind that if the “I am the Stuff” sticky note was soaked, that would be positive evidence that it isn’t possible to waterproof an Altoids tin (not with electrical tape, anyway):

 

Now, it looks as if some water droplets were underneath this innermost layer of electrical tape. Remember, this was the first one on there that covered the lid. It’s not a certainty, but it’s not exactly good either:

 

Well, the inside of the tin is not flooded with water, so that’s an initial good sign:

 

“I am the Stuff” was actually bone dry when I touched it, which is fairly damn impressive, especially considering that the Altoids tin was completely submerged for ~ 2 minutes:

 

However, there were some small pockets of water as you can see in these last photographs:

 

So, what does it all mean? I think it demonstrates that those guys in the various survival discussion forum boards are not completely full of shit, at least when it comes to waterproofing Altoids tins. I was happy that “I am the Stuff” wasn’t even slightly damp, but on the other hand, it was somewhat disconcerting to have those water droplets on the inside of that one strip of electrical tape as well as those small pools of water in the corners in the inside of the tin and its lid.

I think that if an item was placed inside of a plastic bag (i.e. a Ziploc), then placed inside of the tin before it was wrapped with electrical tape, I think that the item would (most likely) not be damaged. So, if any of you guys are interested in How to Hide Things in Public Places, I think one way of doing so by waterproofing your item(s) with an Altoids tin is definitely a viable option.

American Scripture

History becomes malleable through cultural mythology. By distorting the original words of the dead, those living weave tall tales about the intentions that motivated such historical figures to action in the first place. The major flaw of historical revisionism (even those that are unintentional) is the risk of losing the essential meaning behind specific events down the proverbial Orwellian memory hole.

 

 

Thomas Jefferson was neither unique nor the only individual who conjured a declaration about independence from out of thin air, for there were approximately 90 other local and state-level declarations of independence preceding the one that was eventually approved by the Second Continental Congress on July 4th of 1776. The scope of these would range from Virginia to Maryland, from South Carolina to Massachusetts and others, and they were issued by towns, counties, and even grand juries. In much less prosaic and more business-like language, the colonists expressed in no uncertain terms, to their delegates in the Congress as well as to others, about why their desire for reconciliation with England had been extinguished, and that their only hope for survival was to seize independence.

Committees of Safety (CoS) were involved in both conducting the war effort as well as working with the Second Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence. The Massachusetts CoS was plenty busy dealing with the aftermath of the Battles of Lexington & Concord as well as sending Col. Benedict Arnold to participate in the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga. Congress requested the Pennsylvania CoS to reinforce Monmouth, NJ with various militia companies. Maryland’s congressional delegates wrote the Maryland CoS that they had delayed approving the Declaration so as to allow sufficient time for their constituency to be consulted on it.

It should be kept in mind that Jefferson made the Declaration a work of incendiary prose, not so much one that was calmly factual. This was done for a multitude of reasons, but some of them involved eliciting foreign assistance, especially from France. Although Jefferson’s prose is philosophically nice and flowery, it is not as if he were some well-intentioned libertarian type attempting to take down the State by slipping in the most freedom sounding rhetoric underneath the noses of the Second Continental Congress, as was suggested in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. You should keep in mind Jefferson’s own quasi-aristocratic background as a Virginia plantation owner as well as his future actions as the 3rd American President, particularly in regard to the Louisiana Purchase and the First Barbary War, both of which could easily be construed as expansions of government power.

Admittedly, the phrasing of Jefferson’s Declaration would make any lover of liberty feel emotionally free, but tyrants since the American Revolutionary War for Independence have capitalized on that in order to push for their own self-serving agendas. One of these despots was Abraham Lincoln, who abused the Declaration’s phrase in the second paragraph about “all men are created equal,” for the purpose of attributing some vague yet allegedly significant meaning to the notion of “equality.” As if the artificially imposed social engineering was not bad enough, this perverted interpretative expansion beyond the Declaration’s actual purpose (that of justifying independence) led to a gross misconception about the role of the central government that still plagues the American body politic to this day, that is, that the supposedly all beneficent District of Criminals can not only do no wrong, but are at the top of the pyramid of power; the truth is, an inverted pyramid with the mass of the folk at the top is much more accurate.

Pauline Maier’s American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence is a insightful examination into the good, the bad, and the just plain ugly regarding the drafting, editing, and approval of the Declaration of Independence for these United States. As the New Hampshire’s 1784 Constitution says in its Bill of Rights:

 

“All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights; among which are – the enjoying and defending life and liberty – acquiring, possessing, and protecting property – and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.”

 

I don’t think it is too far off the mark to say that New Hampshire both recognized the Lockean triad of Life, Liberty, and Property as well as Jefferson’s “pursuit of happiness;” most importantly, I would also infer from New Hampshire’s Bill of Rights that their formula for individual freedom would be:

 

Life + Liberty + Property = Pursuit of Happiness

 

If only Jefferson was as well-rounded as these commoners, perhaps he would have understood and articulated the message of liberty better than he actually did. The Declaration of Independence is a memorial, that is, a device that preserves the memory of something; in this case, it was to preserve the justification for independence from England and nothing else! Anyone who attempts to infuse additional meaning beyond even what Jefferson might have intended has no respect for the truth, only a desire to manipulate you into supporting whatever their agenda happens to be this week.

Quote of the Week – Gun Control

“Civilized folk go armed to say, ‘I’m self-sufficient; I’ll never burden others — If you need my help, I’m ready.’ You’re good at taking care of yourself — why can’t you allow others the same right? No State controls those who have the machinery — and the will — to resist. No mob can take their liberty or property. No 220-pound thug can threat the dignity of a 110-pound woman with two pounds of iron to even things up. Is that evil? Is that wrong? People who object to weapons are begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men are always ‘right.’ Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.

“Wear a gun to someone’s house, you’re saying ‘I’ll defend this home as if it were my own.’ When your guests see you carry a weapon, you’re saying, ‘I’ll defend you as if you were my own family.’ Anyone who objects levels the deadliest insult possible: ‘I won’t trust you until you render yourself harmless.’ Another thing: whenever personal arms fall out of fashion, society becomes something not worth defending. Individuals start to rot away, too, disdaining to lift a finger in their own defense because it’s ‘beneath them.’ They’re no longer fit to live and simply proving they know it!”

 

– Clarissa Olson

The Probability Broach: The Graphic Novel

Brave New World

Is it possible to never feel genuine emotion? Would it be terrible to always remain in a hazy, tranquil state? What if you were provided with the means to permanently avoid pain? If so, would the cost of losing your individuality, by popping pills for a temporary high, be really worth it?

 

 

In the New World Order, children are no longer born; they are instead grown and harvested by the State. The Director of the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre is giving a tour to a class of schoolchildren as to how this is done, such as with Bokanovsky’s Process. As is typical of eugenics, bokanovskification is only performed with the Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons, not the higher caste Alphas or even Betas (since the Process involves the splitting of already fertilized eggs in vitro so as to maximize the number of viable embryos per female egg).

The motto of the World State is “Community, Identity, Stability;” while not as initially menacing as Orwellian slogans (such as “Freedom is Slavery”), it still connotes a collectivist meaning, especially considering the phrases inculcated into young children during bouts of hypnopedia such as “everybody belongs to everybody else.” Following the biological tampering that takes place in vitro, there is also the social conditioning, where agents of the State work to habituate the children to the environment appropriate to their caste, such as Deltas receiving electric shocks whenever they are near books and flowers during their time in the Neo-Pavlovian Conditioning Rooms. When they grow up to become elementary school aged, the children are never left alone for any span of time, and one of the mandatory activities that they must participate in is group sex, which is referred to as “erotic play.” Any desire for freedom and liberty is literally bred out of them, for they can’t miss what they never had.

Instead of ceaseless war between the 1984 superstates of Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia, there is rampant consumerism that soaks up all the excess production. By indulging in every form of titillating pleasure (such as the stimulating feelies or soma tablets), all the Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons really desire is the comfort their vapid entertainments bring them. It is nothing less than enslavement through seduction.

But as collectivistic as the World State is, there will always be those eccentric individuals who slip through the cracks (even though they have been successfully dealt with, over and over again). Enter first Bernard Marx, an Alpha + male who works in the Psychology Bureau within the Centre and is desperately unhappy since he is shorter and more coarse looking than his contemporaries, which makes it very difficult for him to attract women or even retain the respect of his colleagues. In an attempt to actually date Lenina Crowe (instead of just sleeping with her), Bernard decides to take her to the New Mexico Savage Reservation, which is a place where some people managed to live independently of the World State. Upon witnessing a tribal ritual involving the flogging of a young man, another one complains to Bernard and Lenina that he wished it was himself instead who was flogged, since it would show that he was a man; he is introduced as John the Savage.

John takes Bernard and Lenina to meet his mother, Linda, who is a Beta Minus that got separated from her date during their trip to the Reservation over twenty years beforehand. After agreeing to return to London, Bernard manages to avoid being sent to Iceland by bringing John and Linda to meet John’s biological father, who is none other than the Centre Director himself! Following this, Bernard enjoys a feeling of popularity and attractiveness that he has never before felt in his life for the simple reason that he has become John’s handler. During this time, John and Lenina become attracted to each other, but there is no love triangle involving Bernard since reckless promiscuity is encouraged by the World State anyway.

Things begin to unravel for Bernard when one evening John refuses to attend a party to which a bunch of celebrity notables had been invited for the express purpose of meeting John. Disgraced, Bernard rues bringing John to London; very soon thereafter, Lenina, dejected at John for not sleeping with her sooner, arrives at his apartment and attempts to seduce him, which repulses John to such a degree that he rejects her advances pretty violently. Immediately, John gets word that his mother is dying. Rushing to her bedside, John experiences grief as his mother dies, the pain of which is amplified by a group of schoolchildren shamelessly berating him as part of their death conditioning (given that they aren’t supposed to feel sad about the end of anyone’s life).

While still grieving, John rationalizes that Linda’s dependence on soma was the reason her death was hastened, and sees it as an enslaving influence. He rushes to the nearest dispensary and encourages the Deltas to not take any soma at all. Much to his dismay, the Deltas do not want to be free, and the struggle ends with him, Bernard, and Bernard’s best friend Helmholtz being arrested by the police, who take the trio before the Resident Controller for Western Europe (that is, one of the ten World Controllers of the World State), Mustapha Mond. Mond decides that each of the three men needs to be separated from “civilization” because of their respective individualities potentially infecting “Society.”

After sentencing Bernard and Helmholtz, Mond spends extra time with John due to his unique background. As a former scientist who cowed under pressure to conform, Mond chooses to experiment on John by not allowing him to travel with Bernard and Helmholtz to the islands, but instead permits him to live in the rural areas outside London. After living at a deserted lighthouse attempting to purify himself from his sojourn in London, John is slowly hassled over time by ever growing crowds of tourists and reporters. Eventually, the crowd one day overcomes John, and the circling helicopters overhead spray everyone with soma (much like earlier at the dispensary with the Deltas); when John wakes up, he realized he had horribly defiled himself by fucking who knows how many people during the orgy, and then subsequently hangs himself.

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is a grave warning to those who confuse virtue with pleasure. Part of being a responsible adult is being able to defer gratification; of course, self-determination was forcibly interfered with by the World State even before the children are hatched. I think it is accurate to say that if there was ever a story that demonstrated the evils associated with eugenics and consumerism, this novel would be it.

How to Write an Audio Timeline

Citing sources is fundamentally critical to intellectual honesty. Over the years, I have seen many within the alternative media claim that so-and-so said something-or-another, without providing evidence of what actually happened. The trickiest sources to cite are those that, instead of being written, are audible, whether in a podcast or a video.

 

Sound Wave

 

A timeline is a written notation used to point out and describe particular segments within a specific audio recording. This is used for the purposes of verification and convenience, in that it is not based on someone else’s word which might suffer from the Chinese whispers effect and is made easy to use so you do not have to listen to the whole lousy audio for only those pertinent segments. By hearing it from the horse’s own mouth, and crunching down really long audio files into easily listenable bite sized pieces, an audio timeline is a useful tool to increase the listening efficiency of others.

How does one write such a timeline? To start off with, you need to listen to the entire audio twice; first all the way through so as to familiarize yourself with the content, and then a second time to take notes that will form the foundation for the timeline you are constructing. When you are taking notes, be sure to allow for an approximate 30 second snip of time before and after the relevant segment that you think is pertinent. You should do this because later listeners will then be able to hear both the lead in and transitioning out portions that provides invaluable context.

As you are taking notes, be sure to write down the hours (when applicable) and the minutes where the segment begins and ends, and be sure to include a brief description of what the segment entails (this can be as short as one sentence, but no longer than one paragraph). Do this over and over again until you have finished notating all the relevant portions from the original audio. Keep in mind that the actual editing out of the segments from the original audio into shorter audio files does need not be done, necessarily. Finally, consider hyperlinking the uniform resource locator of the original audio from where it is hosted so it is easier for others to access and download.

So, what does a timeline look like? Consider the following as the “blank” form:

 

___ min – ___ min

[From one sentence up to one paragraph on what happened.]

 

Of course, it would be best to use an actual example so as to present it in a concrete way, instead of abstractly. The following is a partial timeline from The Last Bastille Podcast #47 – You Have Tread on Me:

 

11 min – 13 min

Randy Mack says the vast majority of people that he has encountered online talk, but don’t act. After 5 years, he is pretty disgusted with them, since it is impossible for “keyboard warriors” to simple talk to each other without it devolving into a clusterfuck. People that Randy meets in person on the street don’t seem to have those personality defects, for some reason. He also says that “the Internet is not a lifestyle,” and “the more time you spent offline, the better off you’re gonna be.”

18 min – 21 min

Randy Mack says that the Patriot Rockstars need to grow up; they are no Washington or Jefferson. The new guys need to learn what they can and use the Internet as the tool that it is, but spend most of their time offline; they also need to pick and choose their friends wisely.

24 min – 28 min

Randy Mack says that most of the alternative media is just crap, especially with the notions of the whole “global consciousness” thing, in that the catchphrase of “We Are All One” is indicative of globalism, a kind of New Age religion created by the Establishment back in the 1800s. The Patriot Rockstars only focus on problems and not solutions.

30 min – 35 min

Randy Mack says that Alex Jones is an opportunistic sensationalist whose own claims that anyone can verify his own sources didn’t actually amount to anything since he was blatantly wrong on many occasions.

1 hr 8 min – 1 hr 9 min

Randy Mack claims that there is subconscious programming in cinema, using the examples of “Eat Popcorn, Drink Coke,” and mentions the hypersexualization of the youth.

1 hr 31 min – 1 hr 34 min

Randy Mack says that people don’t want to take responsibility for their freedom since they prefer to place their faith in messianic figureheads. He also says that the constitutionalists who want Charles Dyer (aka the July4Patriot) freed are ignoring state’s rights via the 10th Amendment.

Fahrenheit 451

The most important conversations I have with other political dissidents usually revolve around the theme that people don’t read anymore, which by extension also means that they don’t think either. Over and over again, we bear witness to the utter devastation that results from when it becomes a cultural norm to act impulsively without consideration for the consequences. When rationality falls out of fashion, civilization becomes something not worth improving upon.

 

 

What if book burning became a professional occupation? Set in an alternate America, that is exactly what firemen do – they cause fires instead of preventing them. Given that possession of books has been declared mala prohibita by the State, it is the primary duty of all firemen to burn any and all books they come across, especially those being held by individuals who have “illegally” stockpiled them.

What if one of those firemen decided to grow a pair and heed his conscience? Enter Guy Montag, who begins questioning the very societal structure he happens to inhabit. Shaken out of his stupor by a chance friendship with a free-spirited young woman, coupled with his wife’s suicidal yet shallow behavior, Montag decides to reexamine his entire life and try to determine where everything went wrong. His first major actions in the pursuit of the truth is when he starts saving books from the houses of those he burns.

After a particularly chilling call his fire company received where a little old lady chose to self-immolate when they were in the process of burning her book-filled house, Montag is so deeply affected that he decides to call in sick. When he doesn’t show up for work, his boss, Captain Beatty, shows up at his home to check up on him. Realizing that Montag is not in ill health but is rather experiencing physical retching as the manifestation of his guilt about the old woman, Beatty explains to Montag how with the advent of mass media, there was no more conflict amongst the populace because everyone was distracted:

 

“Digest-digests, digest-digest-digests. Politics? One column, two sentences, a headline! Then, in mid-air, all vanishes! Whirl man’s mind around so fast under the pumping hands of publishers, exploiters, broadcasters that the centrifuge flings off the unnecessary, time-wasting thought!”

 

What is revealed here is the insidious effect of fracturing information to the degree that there is no meaning to it anymore. This, combined with the information overload of such compartamentalized and disparate types of data, is really nothing more than the purposeful destruction of individual thought. Just as Newspeak directly abused the language through grammar, the over condensation of information seeks to impose what we would understand to be “political correctness,” that is, an inherently manipulative form of “reality control,” whereby every ideological talking point is pushed so broadly and rockets by you so quickly at such unbelievable speeds, that you cannot even comprehend what is actually happening.

 

What is the goal behind such rampant compartamentalization? Beatty explicates:

 

“We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against. So! A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man’s mind. Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man? Me? I won’t stomach them for a minute.”

 

So, according to him, the prime reason for the blatant suppression of literature is that it would empower those best able to comprehend it, which would eventually lead them to becoming “unequal” to everyone else, and we just can’t have that now, can we? All sarcasm aside, what Beatty reveals here is what drives him to burn books is the fact that he is a psychopathic authoritarian collectivist who seeks to coercively impose his own personal inadequacies upon everyone else through the machinery of government. Needless to say, Montag resolves to never burn professionally ever again.

By reestablishing contact with an English professor he had encountered years ago, Montag asks for guidance, from this man named Faber, to help him understand what he does manage to read. Faber begins by explaining that it’s not books per se that Montag is ultimately looking for:

 

“It’s not the books you need, it’s some of the things that once were in books….[t]he same infinite detail and awareness [that] could be projected through the radios and televisors, but are not….[t]he magic is only in what books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us.”

 

He goes onto to describe the three conditions that are necessary if such “magic” is to be utilized:

 

“This book has pores. It has features. This book can go under the microscope. You’d find life under the glass, streaming past in infinite profusion. The more pores, the more truthfully recorded details of life per square inch you can get on a sheet of paper, the more ‘literary’ you are. That’s my definition, anyway. Telling detail. Fresh detail. The good writers touch life often. The mediocre ones run a quick hand over her. The bad ones rape her and leave her for the flies.”

 

The second condition requires leisure, to which Montag admits that there is plentiful amounts of, to which Faber responds:

 

“Off hours, yes. But time to think? If you’re not driving a hundred miles an hour, at a clip where you can’t think of anything else but the danger, then you’re playing some game or sitting in some room where you can’t argue with the four-wall televisor….with all my knowledge and skepticism, I have never been able to argue with a one-hundred-piece symphony orchestra, full of color, three dimensions, and being and part of those incredible parlors. As you see, my parlor is nothing but four plaster walls.”

 

When asked about the third condition, Faber answers:

 

“Number one, as I said, quality of information. Number two: leisure to digest it. And number three: the right to carry out actions based on what we learn from the interaction of the first two.”

 

This is incredibly profound, for it suggests that it is incumbent on those who read books to act upon what it is they have read.

After Montag reads a little bit of poetry to some of his wife’s friends, Beatty orders Montag’s house burnt. Before he has a chance to do this, Montag burns Beatty alive, thus necessitating his escape from the city. Faber assists him by telling him to cross the river (thus obscuring his smell from the Mechanical Hounds) and join up with one of the roaming bands of vagabonds who make it their life’s work to memorize the content of books so that when the remnants of civilization are ready to relearn its own history, the ability to supply that suppressed knowledge can be manifested. Montag’s story ends when a sudden war is declared and the city is completely obliterated in a single air strike; amongst the wreckage, the roaming vagabonds (with Montag in tow) begin to travel to the next town, preserving humanity’s lost knowledge within their minds.

Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 is a spellbinding fictional account of what happens when genuine intellectual rigor is scrapped in favor of senseless titillation. As Gary Hunt put it so aptly, “It appears, then, that we can likely agree that Speech, that protection afforded in the First Amendment, must surely be intended to also protect the Freedom of Thought. Otherwise, it would be best described as ‘Freedom of Gibberish’.” I would add that if the so-called “Freedom of Gibberish” enjoyed government protection and was exercised by statist morons, then the result would be the corporate whore mainstream media and its corollary, the Carnival of Distractions. So, I guess you could say that the cold apathy, rampant consumerism, and sensationalistic garbage that is peddled for “news” that we experience on a daily basis is Bradbury’s nightmare come true (at least partially), since people would rather suffer the effects of “Because YouTube Said So…” than pick up a book and read.

1984

Any dictatorship seeks to control the thoughts of the populace. Ideological loyalty from the hapless citizenry is essential if the State is going to exist in the long-term without any serious challenges to the perception of its legitimacy. Government, at some point during its reign, must wage psychological warfare techniques against the population in order to preserve its own power.

 

 

Set in an alternate historical timeline during the 1980s, nation-states do not exist. They have been replaced by three gigantic superstates, one of which is Oceania, which encompasses most of the former British Empire, plus all of the Western Hemisphere. What used to be considered England is now dubbed Airstrip One, although London is still referred to as such.

A single entity known only as the Party is the only government in power over Oceania, even though there are not any codified laws anymore. Behavior is regulated by strict adhesion to the ideology of English Socialism; any deviation from it is punished severely. The Party has several organs within itself that rule over Oceania; the Ministry of Truth spreads propaganda, the Ministry of Plenty dispenses food stamps, the Ministry of Peace wages war, and the Ministry of Love tortures dissidents and assorted malcontents who were initially monitored and then captured by the Thought Police (who are the secret police of the Party). Big Brother is the single titular figurehead of the Party that is to be worshipped as the omnipresent God that the Inner Party thinks he is.

Probably the most pernicious way the Party attempts to control individual thought is by manipulating the language; in fact, they even created their own language, Newspeak. One of the key characteristics of Newspeak is to deliberately reduce the range of thought by eliminating words that were present in Oldspeak (that is, our current use of English). For instance, the word “bad” would be rendered obsolete by the word ungood, since the prefix un- already denotes an antonym. Newly contrived prefixes such as plus- and doubleplus- are used to connote degrees of emphasis, so something that we would describe as “very good” and “extremely good” would instead be described in Newspeak as plusgood and doubleplusgood. Hence, in this example alone, our English words of “bad,” “very,” and “extremely” have been simply deleted by the Newspeak concoctions of ungood, plusgood, and doubleplusgood.

The protagonist, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party who worked at the Ministry of Truth in the Records Department. In one scene, a memo is sent to him in Newspeak:

 

“times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefilling

“In Oldspeak (or standard English) this might be rendered:

“The reporting of Big Brother’s Order for the Day in the Times of December 3rd 1983 is extremely unsatisfactory and makes references to non-existent persons. Rewrite it in full and submit your draft to higher authority before filing.”

 

Such is the Party’s version of historical revisionism, which they do on a nearly daily basis, but it’s worst than that. They also destroy the original records that directly contradict their version of events. For example, Oceania was currently at war with Eurasia (since it had always been at war with Eurasia); by extension, this meant that Oceania’s ally was Eastasia. During Hate Week, Winston’s job entailed doctoring all the records of Oceania (including the original source material) so as to reflect that Oceania was instead at war with Eastasia and always had been, which would also mean that Eurasia was now Oceania’s ally.

It is fundamentally essential at this point to grasp the underlying principle behind Ingsoc (English Socialism), which is doublethink, that is:

 

“[T]he power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and [unconditionally] accepting both of them.”

 

This is why the four Ministries act contrary to their selfsame names, it is why Ingsoc violates classical socialism, and it is the source behind the three main slogans of the Party, which are:

 

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

Newspeak is not only the vehicle used for expressing doublethink, it is also the manner by which any thoughts outside the scope of Ingsoc are mentally obliterated, for how can you express the concept of freedom if the word “freedom” doesn’t exist in the first place? Doublethink also explains why, when dissidents are sent to the Ministry of Love, their torturers want them converted fully to Ingsoc before they are dealt with, or why it is never supposed to be consistently clear as to whom Oceania is at war with; it is literally the epitome of what we would understand today as “political correctness.” It is fundamentally a demonic mechanism by which cognitive dissonance can never be resolved, so the juxtaposition that an individual is left in is inherently designed to get him to distrust his own sense of reality and thus wholeheartedly rely upon the authority of the Party to tell him what “reality” happens to be this week.

Besides the Inner Party and the Outer Party, there are the proles, that is, the common people. Orwell describes the proles thusly:

 

“So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern. They were born, they grew up in the gutters, they went to work at twelve, they passed through a brief blossoming-period of beauty and sexual desire, they married at twenty, they were middle-aged at thirty, they died, for the most part, at sixty. Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbours, films, football, beer, and above all, gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds.”

 

If such was the case, then did the Thought Police surveillance and capture them the way they do with actual Party members? Apparently not, for the most part:

 

“To keep them in control was not difficult. A few agents of the Thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous; but no attempt was made to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the Party. It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working-hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.”

 

It was in this way that Winston’s hope for any sort of victory laying solely with the proles was thus proved ineffectual, for the Thought Police and the Party in general had managed to deal with the proles in such a manner so as to automatically contain any revolutionary fervor that would threaten their own power. As the Party slogan said, “Proles and animals are free.”

Oceania is the epitome of the surveillance society. Telescreens, which are televisions that also have microphone and camera capabilities, are used to monitor Party members for thoughtcrime, which is behavioral deviation from Ingsoc. Surveillance cameras are ubiquitous in public squares and roads. The Thought Police live amongst the proles, Outer Party, and Inner Party members to simultaneously enforce orthodoxy and prevent revolution. Oceania is a police state in every way that matters.

Within this dystopian hell, Winston experiences the very beginnings of seeing through the fog of the Party’s illusions when he begins keeping a diary where he expresses his most sincere thoughts in Oldspeak. Eventually, he acquires a lover, Julia, who joins him in resisting the Party by continuing to sleep with him, given that sexual activity by Party members which is not sanctioned by the Party is thoughtcrime (in Julia and Winston’s case, it would be more specifically considered as sexcrime). After they are caught by the Thought Police in their lover’s nest, both of them are sent to the Ministry of Love where they are socially re-engineered to love Big Brother by ultimately betraying each other.

George Orwell’s 1984 is a ominous warning about the dangers of totalitarianism set up against one of the better imagined mise-en-scène I have ever read in a fictional novel. If there was any lesson to be learned from Orwell’s work, it would be that you can never allow tyranny to take root within any given civilization, for it is what can permanently destroy humanity itself. Perhaps also being noticeably less fearful of the enemy rebel government can be helpful in beginning to instill some much needed courage that would be pivotal towards overthrowing these Orwellian bloodthirsty psychopathic authoritarians from the throne of power that they have usurped.

Self-Determination

One of the key attributes of responsible adults is a sense of direction over their own lives. Meaning is determined by individuals regarding the purpose of their own existence. Self-determination necessarily entails choosing what you think is best for your own life regardless of what other people feel you should be doing with it.

 

 

I remember since my earliest childhood that my penultimate goal was to escape from my family of origin. That was my sole aim for many years and was the precious focus for that portion of my life. How I eventually settled upon doing that (after discarding other escape options) was to buy a van and travel cross-country, at night sleeping in the back of it. I would have mobility and my living costs would approximate those of the homeless, except that I would have a roof over my head (albeit, a car roof). I had already apprenticed as a general contractor’s assistant, so I was confident (in hindsight, foolishly so) that I would be able to be financially self-reliant. As the years passed by, I would refine and tweak the details, but I ended up abandoning the project when I courted my wife during our college years.

What I really wanted was to be left alone so I could have the freedom and liberty to do whatever I desired. I wanted the ability to travel, trade, and try all sorts of things without having to take precautions (even if they were seemingly unnecessary at the time) on the off chance that I’ll get “caught,” whether figuratively in terms of phony moral approbation by the herds of tax cattle (who, ironically, all hate each other), or literally by agents of the State who’d be more than happy to throw me into a cage, if given half a chance. Although I know such expectations of mine are unrealistic given the current situation (part of which stems from the exaltation of statism), I still desire the ability to exercise my own self-determination without having to be arbitrarily punished for it.

I was always denounced by my family for being a black sheep. Having an independent mind is just about as dangerous as openly carrying a firearm in that you are perceived incorrectly as a threat to innocent people. One of the major reasons I incrementally defooed (that is, permanently cut off all contact with my family of origin) was because they were constantly denigrating anything I ever wanted to attempt; innovation and experimentation can never survive (much less thrive) under a seriously deprecating environment like that. I remember my older sister telling me anytime I wanted to even simply try anything, that I must go ask Mom for permission. “Don’t go off doing stuff on your own!” she’d constantly tell me, as if I needed to shoulder that additional burden on top of my unchosen positive obligation to “obey my parents in all that was not sinful.”

I’m so sick of artificially induced limits. I experienced it plenty when I was a defenseless kid, and I even experience it now (albeit to a dramatically less intense degree) as a responsible adult in the face of the State. While I may be tempted by the allure of absolute liberty that occurs in a state of nature, my ultimate goal is to be left the fuck alone. Then, and only then, can I be truly free to do anything.

If government wasn’t tyrannical, and everything for the most part was okay, what would you be doing instead with your life? Put another way, once the “revolution” has been won and our liberties secured, what will you be doing with your life then? I don’t think most political dissidents ponder that at all, since their lives become consumed by the admittedly addicting activities that are singularly geared toward trying to tackle the State head-on.

I think part of it stems from the false assumption that you must get a whole lot of people to agree with you that everyone should be free before you go out and do what you really desire. But why? Why not just go ahead and achieve whatever it was that you had wanted to do despite whatever the collectivist horde manically attempts to impose upon you? Isn’t the philosophy of liberty all about the individual anyway? Where did this collectivist notion of freedom and liberty come from, anyway? The Patriot Rockstars, perhaps?

Similarly, there is also the erroneous assumption that the cause for liberty and freedom is somehow an end in and of itself, instead of as a means towards something else. While I understand that getting the population on your side is indispensably essential to the success of any cause (according to guerrilla warfare theory), I think this too suffers from the sin of misplaced emphasis. I’ve seen entire lives destroyed because those dissidents had no sense of balance regarding pushing the cause for Liberty forward and what individually they desired independent of the infowar. So, ask yourselves, where do you want to be in 5 years? 10 years? 20? The rest of your life?

Naysayers abound in our lives. Just because they are uncommitted failures with respect to their various past endeavors, they think that imparts onto them some sort of alleged authority over you because of their supposed “experience,” hence (as the fallacious reasoning goes) you should honor them with unearned respect. Shortening the learning curve is one thing, but demoralizing the entrepreneurial from the start is unconscionable. Life is too short to sacrifice your desires upon the altar of other peoples’ failures.

As long as you study and train for what you want to do, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why you can’t amass the resources (financial and material) needed to make that thing happen. “Limits” are really only in your mind, and the richness of this physical reality actually allows for a quite a bit of flexibility if you just know where to look and how to bend it. I think that you should squeeze every bit of enjoyment out of every day. You are the captain of the ship that is your own life. Only you determine its ultimate course.