Is Ron Paul Emmanuel Goldstein?

Many times we are presented with Messianic figures who promise us salvation from the hands of the Establishment. Their job is to sucker political dissidents into believing that reformism still holds the answer to their several multifaceted grievances. Only the Carnival is bold (or reckless) enough to portray their own wolves in sheep’s clothing.

 

 

In the aftermath of the devastation that was the scandalous Ron Paul 2012 presidential electoral campaign, I’m left to wonder just how much of it was due to the “guess what I know types” and assorted scam artists, and what elements of it were actually controlled opposition, if at all. Was the Patriot Community subjected to a massive psy op, or did they just simply shoot themselves in the foot because of their own incompetence? It is questions like these that keep me up at night, despite the fact that I have unregistered from the voter rolls.

One of the recurring thoughts I have concerns the relevance of the fictional character Emmanuel Goldstein to this problem. Cast as the proverbial enemy of the state in George Orwell’s 1984, Goldstein is simultaneously perceived as both hero and villain, depending on one’s attitudes towards the Party. He is the penultimate rebel, a creature of the very system that he now ostensible opposes. He is vilified by members of the Outer Party during their Two Minutes Hate, and is used by the Inner Party as the justification for the rampant police state measures imposed upon the populace, but it goes much deeper than that.

Goldstein wrote The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, a manifesto of sorts that details not only the tyrannical philosophy that permeates the government of Oceania, but that of the world. He explains the reasoning behind the Party’s use of doublethink, historical revisionism, and police state terrorism. His knowledge of the Party is so unbelievably intimate that it is only possible that a one-time member of it could explain its interior workings as well as he does.

This now brings me to the most disheartening thing of all. O’Brien claims that a committee, of which he was a member, crafted not only the manifesto but also the persona of Goldstein himself as a type of honeypot trap for those Party members who might be inclined to stray from the true faith, as it were. While O’Brien denies the undescribed plan for overthrowing the Party could ever work, he does confirm that its description of the Party’s inner ideology is absolutely correct.

What does this have anything to do with Ron Paul? If you remember, The Revolution: A Manifesto (and his subsequent books) reveal such an inner knowledge of the Establishment itself that it couldn’t have been written by someone on the outside looking in. At the time I wrote my review of the book, I didn’t truly understand its deeper significance; I think it was entirely designed to hook those of my generation into supporting his presidential candidacy (Lew Rockwell has since referred to them as “the Ron Paul kids”), as can be evidenced by the many private conversations I’ve had with those entering the Patriot Community on the far left side of the other (not so) line. This “r-love-ution” as it soon became known, highlighted three areas of policy reform: civil liberties, foreign policy, and central banking; in other words, revoking the USA PATRIOT Act, bringing the troops home, and abolishing the Federal Reserve. Such a program of reformism was designed to fail before anybody even tried to work on implementing it, and as such it worked perfectly.

If I am correct in my analogy, then whom was Ron Paul intended to attract? That’s easy; those political dissidents who knew about the misdeeds of government. Once identified as “those crazy Paulbots,” they could be targeted for subsequent ridicule and thus disregarded into the ash heap of history by their contemporaries, all the while statism continues to reign supreme. I also think it was a way of wasting time and effort by people who otherwise would have been valuable assets, and as such, the Establishment’s way of discouraging any form of resistance, even those faintly symbolic. Full spectrum dominance is never satisfied by compromise, and like Rod Taylor said back in 1996:

 

“We have hundreds of politicians and thousands of lobbyist groups crawling all over Washington thinking of ways to control you, to extend their will over you, to subvert your freedom, and to replace it with their will; to capture, that is, to steal your life force, and so we should be very angry, because anger is the engine that drives our will to resist, and without resistance, without awareness, they will take it all. It’s not just politically perverse, it’s a sin against mankind, because freedom is actually sacred.”

 

Why should one congresscritter who pretends to be a friend of Liberty be any different from the rest of the Congress who are hell-bent at lining us up at the edge of the proverbial ditch and lodging a bullet in the backs of our heads?

Peace Kills

The warfare state is emblematic of the corporatism that America finds herself embroiled in. What happens when politicians, instead of statesmen, make coercively binding political decisions on matters of war and diplomacy ? It’s called “foreign policy,” complete with all of its corporate trimmings.

 

 

Very similar to Eat the Rich, the author’s thesis is that so-called foreign policy, like economics, is inherently unknowable and thus confusing as hell. As the unintentional sequel to Give War a Chance (which itself was a pseudo-sequel to Holidays in Hell), O’Rourke manages to ridicule the Kuwaitis, eastern Europeans, peacenik welfare statists, and the US military while still somehow remaining a straight-ticket voter for the Republicrat Party. Methinks he should just come out of the closet as a totally unabashed libertarian (similar to how he declared government itself as immoral in Parliament of Whores), instead of dickering around with electoral war-mongering political whores.

I will admit though, that his portrayal of foreigners was pretty humourous. Israelis, Egyptians, and Kosovars are simultaneously funny yet tragic. Probably the most insightful comment O’Rourke makes about the whole mess is about how the very act of killing itself has been drastically changed:

 

“Killing is not as physical as it once was. It’s time for young people to be relieved of fighting duties. War should be fought by the middle-aged men who, anyway, decide that war should be fought. We don’t have our whole lives ahead of us. We’re already staring down the barrel of heart disease and SEC investigations. Being wrenched from home, family, and job wouldn’t be that wrenching for many of us.”

 

Perhaps there is a bucketful of wisdom in that statement, yet I wonder how the hell they would be in good enough shape to hump a pack, unless they’re assuming it’s a suicide mission in the first place, in which case my concern is moot.

P. J. O’Rourke’s Peace Kills: America’s Fun New Imperialism is a knee slapping meandering tome into the absurdity regarding the notion that governments can adequately negotiate with each other in order to solve problems without having to send innocent people to murder other innocent people, neither of whom truly have a dog in the fight. Maybe it’s high time for government to get out of the very serious business of foreign relations and leave it up to its citizens to handle that (for instance, when was the last time a non-corporate mutually beneficial contract between consenting parties gave any incentive to the State to engage in war with another State?). At the same time, the last thing that needs to happen is to abolish the warfare state in favor of a more powerful welfare state; replacing one bully with another still perpetuates statism, thereby reducing liberty for everyone.

Adam Kokesh Gets Arrested…Yet Again

We truly live in a society of the spectacle. Too much emphasis is placed on how noticeable you are, instead of what you do. Unfortunately, it has become the norm for liberty activists to seek as much publicity as possible, regardless of what was actually accomplished.

 

 

As you have all have no doubt heard, Adam Kokesh has been arrested recently, this time during the Smoke Down Prohibition V rally in Philadelphia. Despite being a renowned DMT smoker and pot head extraordinaire, he is not being charged with use (or even possession) of illicit narcotics, but with what seems to be assault against a federal officer. In the case of United States of America v. Adam Kokesh, he is being accused by Donald Reed of the National Park Service of violating Title 18, United States Code § 111.

First, we should consult what actually constitutes this thing called, “assault.” All the major law dictionaries’ various definitions for what qualifies as assault commonly demand an intention to cause harm; as is referenced in Black’s Law Dictionary (citing State v. Davis, 23 N.C. 127):
 

“An assault is an intentional attempt, by violence, to do an injury to the person of another. It must be intentional; for, if it can be collected, notwithstanding appearances to the contrary, that there is not a present purpose to do an injury, there is no assault.”

 
So, there ya go… someone who is being charged with assault must be demonstrated to have mens rea; lacking that, it doesn’t satisfy the legal standard of beyond all reasonable doubt. Now, let us turn to the legal statute he is being charged under:

 

“In general, whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties… shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.”

 

By also taking a look at 18 USC 3571, we find that being “fined under this title” means:

 

“A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine…an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of…for a felony, not more than $250,000…for a Class A misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $100,000; for a Class B or C misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $5,000; or for an infraction, not more than $5,000.”

 

Now, let’s examine some of Officer Reed’s affidavit:

 

“National Park Service Rangers approached members of the crowd who were seen in possession of what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes. KOKESH was next to and had locked arms with a person who had a marijuana cigarette. As the Ranger approached the person with the cigarette, KOKESH physically blocked and obstructed the Ranger. As the Ranger pushed forward, KOKESH grabbed the Ranger by the arm to hold him back. KOKESH was then taken into custody.”

 

By combining 18 USC 111 with 18 USC 3571 and Reed’s affidavit, it would seem to be the case that (lacking any more detail as to whether is he facing an infraction, a misdemeanor of some kind, or a felony) Kokesh is facing a maximum penalty of $250,000 and 8 years of incarceration (left up to the court’s discretion, of course).

Obviously, this is all assuming he is found guilty. Once the footage was made public of the actual arrest, I bet the federal government is going to have a hard time making the assault charge stick; although, did you notice that 18 USC 111 said “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes” with certain types of government agents? To be perfectly fair, the feds do have a decent chance of arguing that Kokesh “resisted,” “opposed,” and/or “impeded” those NPS Rangers.

Now at this point, you might be wondering why I am covering this story at all. Well, you have to keep in mind that Adam Kokesh is the same guy who already announced he plans on leading an armed march into the District of Criminals on Independence Day. You’d think he’d keep his head down and stay out of legal trouble (at least, until the 4th), so as to avoid any potential mishaps that could inadvertently sabotage his own march. Apparently, such is not the case here.

Maybe Kokesh will beat the rap. Perhaps the feds will drop the charges. It is also equally likely that he will either be found guilty but his deposition will read “adjudication withheld,” or he will accept some of other form of a plea bargain. Am I suggesting he could be turned into a federal informant if his legal defense falters or he simply lacks money to fund his attorney? As a good friend of mine has incessantly reminded me to ask, “What are all the possibilities?”

Needless to say, I think the sheer timing of this arrest is highly suspect. Assuming it goes down badly, it would provide Kokesh the perfect cover story to call off the much publicized July 4th armed march into DC while still maintaining his stellar reputation as a liberty activist (or should I say Patriot Rockstar within the Carnival?). Of course, it could very likely just be a coincidence. Another possibility is that this was deliberately planned by Kokesh to serve as a preparatory run for the Independence Day event (in the context of perfecting his craft, anyway).

Let it be said, on and for the record, that I have nothing against Adam Kokesh, either personally or “professionally.” I do not question his goals or even his political philosophy. What I do question are his methods; most importantly, I question his judgement. The worst thing that Kokesh has been doing over the past several years (including that dancing stunt at the Jefferson Memorial) is drilling into people’s heads that civil disobedience necessarily requires openly teasing the bears of the State. Such an implied claim is completely wrong, for I think even Thoreau would never have considered such activity true civil disobedience. I really wish he would stop being a bad example in this regard, such when he publicly brags about buying DMT off the Silk Road using Bitcoins.

In any case, I sincerely hope that Kokesh’s situation does not worsen; despite my methodological disagreements with this man, even he doesn’t deserve what is happening to him. Hopefully, he’ll legally beat it, and be completely available to lead that armed march, where I’ll finally get to see if he can surpass Linda Thompson’s bloated claims (from back in 1994) about marching into DC with guns. I hope he does, if for no other reason than to finally demonstrate (pun intended) that “protest” marches don’t work to secure anyone’s Liberty.

Assault “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “assault” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):

 

 

(Ballantine’s)

A demonstration of an unlawful intent by one person to inflict immediate injury on the person of another then present; An intentional attempt by a person, by force or violence, to an injury to the person of another; an attempt to commit a battery, or any threatening gesture showing in itself or by words accompanying it an immediate intention, coupled with the present ability, to commit a battery [6 Am J2d Asslt & B § 3]. An act, other than the mere speaking of words, which directly or indirectly is the legal cause of putting another in apprehension of an immediate and harmful or offensive contact, rendering the actor civilly liable, if he intends thereby to inflict a harmful or offensive contact upon the other or a third person or to put the other or a third person in apprehension thereof, and the act is not consented to by the other, or otherwise privileged [Restatement, Torts § 21(1)].

The prolonged, excessive, and emotionally distressing interrogation of a civilian by a sergeant assigned to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, which interrogation results in the temporary insanity of the civilian, constitutes an “assault” which is expressly excepted from the coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act [United States v. Hambleton (CA9 Wash) 185 F2d 564, 23 ALR2d 568]. As the term “assault” appears in an exception, in a life or accident insurance policy, which relieves the insurer from liability for injuries or death sustained in such an altercation, it imports fault on the part of the insured [29 A AM J Rev ed Ins § 1201].

 

(Bouvier’s)

  1. An assault is any unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness; for example, by striking at him or even holding up the fist at him in a threatening or insulting manner, or with other circumstances as denote at the time. An intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against his person, as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it (6 Rogers Rec: 9). When the injury is actually inflicted, it amounts to battery (qv).

  2. Assaults are either simple or aggravated

    – A simple assault is one where there is no intention to do any other injury. This is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment

    – Aggravated assault is one that has in addition to the bare intention to commit it, another object which is also criminal; for example, if a man should fire a pistol at another and miss him, the former would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder; so an assault with intent to rob a man, or with intent to spoil his clothes, and the like are aggravated assaults, and they are more severely punished than simple assaults [general references, 1 East, P.C. 406; Bull N.P. 15; Haw. P. B. b. 1, c. 62, s. 12; 1 Russ. Cr. 604; 2 Camp. Rep. 650 1 Wheeler’s Cr. C. 364; 6 Rogers’ Rec. 9; 1 Serg. & Rawle, 347 Bac. Ab. h. t.; Roscoe. Cr. Ev. 210].

 

(Black’s)

An unlawful attempt or offer, on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another.

An attempt or offer to beat another, without touching him; as if one lifts up his cane or his fist in a threatening manner at another; or strikes at him, but misses him [1 Bl. Comm. 120; 3 Steph. Comm. 469].

Aggravated assault is one committed with the intention of committing some additional crime; or one attended with circumstances of peculiar outrage or atrocity. Simple assault is one committed with no intention to do any other injury.

An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another [Pen. Code Cal. § 240].

An assault is an attempt to commit a violent injury on the person of another [Code Ga. 1882, § 4357].

An assault is any willful and unlawful attempt or offer, with force or violence, to do a corporal hurt to another [Pen. Code Dak. § 305].

An assault is an offer or an attempt to do a corporal injury to another; as by striking at him with the hand, or with a stick, or by shaking the fist at him, or presenting a gun or other weapon within such distance as that a hurt might be given, or drawing a sword and brandishing it in a menacing manner; providing the act is done with intent to do some corporal hurt [United States v. Hand, 2 Wash. C. C. 435, Fed. Cas. No. 15, 297].

An assault is an attempt, with force or violence, to do a corporal injury to another, and may consist of any act tending to such corporal injury, accompanied with such circumstances as denote at the time an intention, coupled with the present ability, of using actual violence against the person [Hays v. People, 1 Hill (NY) 351].

An assault is an attempt or offer, with force or violence, to do a corporal hurt to another, whether from malice or wantonness, with such circumstances as denote at the time, an intention to do it, coupled with a present ability to carry such intention into effect [Tarver v. State, 43 Ala. 354].

An assault is an intentional attempt, by violence, to do an injury to the person of another. It must be intentional; for, if it can be collected, notwithstanding appearances to the contrary, that there is not a present purpose to do an injury, there is no assault [State v. Davis, 23 N.C. 127, 35 Am. Dec. 735].

In order to constitute an assault there must be something more than a mere menace. There must be violence begun to be executed. But, where there is a clear intent to commit violence, accompanied by acts which if not interrupted, will be followed by personal injury, the violence is commenced and the assault is complete [People v. Yslas, 27 Cal. 633].

  • Simple assault: An offer or attempt to do bodily harm which falls short of an actual battery; an offer or attempt to beat another, but without touching him; for example, a blow delivered within striking distance, but which does not reach its mark [See State v. Lightsey, 43 S. C. 114, 20 S. E. 975; Norton v. State, 14 Tex. 393].

 

(Webster’s)

ASSAULT’, n. [L. assulto, of ad and salto, to leap, formed on salio, or its root. See Assail. We have the same root in insult and result.]

1. An attack or violent onset, whether by an individual, a company, or an army. An assault by private persons may be made with or without weapons. As assault by an army is a violent hostile attack; and when made upon a fort or fortified place is called a storm, as opposed to sap or siege.
2. An attack by hostile words or measures; as, an assault upon the prerogatives of a prince, or upon a constitution of government.
3. In Law, an unlawful setting upon one’s person; an attempt or offer to beat another, without touching his person; as by lifting the fist or a cane, in a threatening manner. If the blow aimed takes effect, it is a battery.
 

ASSAULT’, v.t.

1. To attack or fall upon by violence, or with a hostile intention; as, to assault a man, a house or town.
2. To invade or fall on with force; as, the cry of war assaults our ears.
3. To attack by words, arguments or unfriendly measures, with a view to shake, impair or overthrow; as, to assault a character, the laws or the administration.

Some Thoughts on the Suffragettes & the “Civil Rights” Movement

If you haven’t yet readVoting Does Not WorkandUnregistering from the Voter Rolls,” please do so before continuing. This article is, more or less, the concluding installment to my series about voting.

 

 

It has never been my intention to rain in on someone else’s parade. Despite the tone I may take at times, I do not enjoy informing people that their efforts, usually in the pursuance of some single-issue goal, has completely failed. I do not take delight in making folks miserable.

Having said that, I do think it is important to learn from the mistakes of the past so as to avoid repeating them. Unlike those who seem to have more faith in a provably failed method, I do not think that doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result, is mentally healthy. This is, above all, why I chose to cancel my voter registration.

But ah, some of my detractors have alleged, aren’t I not spitting in the face of those courageous suffragettes and “civil rights leaders” who have come before me? Am I not disgracing their legacy? Actually, no, I’m not.

First of all, I am not a woman; and second, I am not of African ancestral lineage, so I automatically don’t qualify in terms of satisfying those demographic requirements, but that’s not what this is really about, is it? God forbid anyone comes out publicly against voting, because then they are somehow a “racist,” right? As if that makes any goddamn sense.

I just love how, by not supporting the high holy sacrament of the State, the inevitable non sequitur emerges from such a baseless accusation. As if I’m the bad guy for simply pointing out the many serious problems with expecting that scratching shit in a booth is somehow going to secure your Liberty. I didn’t know that those constituting the disenfranchised were required by the Establishment to be as dumb as dirt, lest they be accused of not being Uncle Toms, or the like.

Since the cops now cherry-pick individual targets (regardless of their heritage, for the most part) so as to further balkanize the population, we might as well all be American Negroes, circa the 1960s. It has been proved many times over since the end of the War Between the States that we are all 14th Amendment bitches. The Establishment doesn’t really give a crap where you came from or who your parents were, because equal opportunity oppression is now the norm. Oscar Grant, David Koresh, and Jose Guerena were all “equally” murdered by government agents for committing no crime against anyone else whatsoever, and they are all still“equally” dead.

There might as well be a glass-ceiling of sorts as well, since many Americans are not able to get raises for good honest work, all the while corporatist fat cat CEOs run away with government-sanctioned bonuses every quarter. Children are arbitrarily seized by the, ironically titled, Child Protective Services agencies of many state-level governments. And most insulting of all, the judicial branch of the government feels it is necessary to grant special privileges to the women folk due to the prejudicial notion that they are somehow “weaker,” and thus require unique legal protections. Needless to say, such a Nanny State approach to that gender is as huge slap in the faces of those like Sarah Tarrant, Mother Batherick, and Captain Prudence Wright.

The takeaway here is that we’ve all been massively screwed over by the Establishment, and they are relying on the ignorance and natural prejudice of some individuals to carry out the balkanization they so desperate need in order to prevent a united resistance to their authoritarian power structure. I’m not saying that everyone needs to sing Kumbaya and hug a tree, but it is necessary to put aside such incessant bickering if we are going to even have a modicum of chance at securing any of our Liberties, away from the grasp of these tyrants. And while I do honor the incredible adversities both those lovely suffragettes and their political successors overcame, I do think that in light of our current situation that, as St. Paul said, it is time to put away childish things.

Should You Write a Letter to the Editor?

[Download a PDF of this article]

Many activists over the years have suggested to their respective audiences that one of the things they can do to be “engaged” and “active” in the political arena is to write a letter to the editor of a newspaper. Interestingly, they do so flippantly, never evaluating the effectiveness of such a method. Unfortunately, the truth in many situations, such as this one, is quite nuanced.

 

 

A wide-spread assumption within various dissident circles is that it is still desirable to use the mainstream media to our advantage, in much the same way a guerrilla feeds off the captured supplies of his imperial enemy. The real question though is, just how effective is this guerrilla infowar tactic? Realize first that there is a very low probability that any letter you write to the editor will end up getting published; and second, even if the paper in question has a pretty wide circulation, how do you measure how many people actually read it? Continue reading

The Discovery of Freedom

Mankind has always struggled to become more than what it has been in the past. Socially evolving from gross barbarism towards principled virtue requires a recognition that individual freedom actually works. Discovering the magnitude of our species’ collective potential reinforces when Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said that, “Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order.”

 

 

The author begins this work by arguing that everything revolves around human energy, and that tyrants always try to harness such energy coercively so as to benefit from it unfairly. Once that energy has been transformed into other forms, then it can be utilized in concrete ways. It because of this that it was possible for human civilization to flourish.

For this human energy (really, labor) to manifest itself fully, it is necessary for people to truly understand that all men are free. Many times Lane rails against what she calls “Authority” (not to be confused with the Lunar Authority from Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress novel), yet she claims that free men somehow need government, otherwise they would not be free from having to carry guns on themselves around all day. Interestingly enough, this is what is precisely depicted in Smith’s The Probability Broach novel as an incredibly desirable aspect of absolute liberty. Related to this are her contradictory statements about anarchy and government. On one hand she says:

 

“In nearly every American community there are men who lived in this country, somewhere between the Mississippi and the Pacific coast, with no Government whatever. They lived in anarchy, and every man carried a gun.”

 

She attempts to explain this away by claiming that this was more of a nuisance than a danger, and thus government was convened out of the natural evolution regarding the provisioning of collective security services; but if that is true, how do you explain these other claims of hers:

 

“Everyone knows that anarchy is the natural relationship of human beings, and that it works perfectly well. Father and mother and their grown children got along all right with uncles and aunts and cousins, and no policemen. If they quarreled, they settled the quarrel themselves. Even executions were not formal; a majority acted directly and killed the criminal with stones. Having no Government, the Israelites used their energy in production, cultivating and harvesting crops, caring for flocks and making clothes and shelters.”

“The Saracens evidently got along very well for nearly a thousand years with no law. They modified, in many ways, the pure anarchy of freedom.”

“Naturally; for republicanism was anarchy, there was no social order, no Authority.”

 

As you can no doubt tell, it is inconclusive whether Lane was advocating minarchy or anarchy, since she seemed to be repeatedly inconsistent on this matter, especially when you consider that she also bitched and moaned about the onerous regulations imposed upon her car by the French bureaucracy when she was in Europe. Always decrying Authority throughout the book, she remained indecisive about whether government was a necessary evil, or simply an optional one.

Rose Lane’s The Discovery of Freedom: Man’s Struggle Against Authority is an historical insight as to how the contemporary libertarian culture began. Written in 1943 during the Second World War, Lane attempted to explain statism as well as the value of liberty. Is it a history book filled with a philosophical narrative, or a philosophical treatise laced with historical factoids? Either way, chances are that this work won’t be assigned reading in government school anytime soon. Unfortunately, I would have to agree with them, since it seems much more like a polemic rather than an actual history of “progress” towards liberty.

How to Make Your Car Inconspicuous

[Download a PDF of this article]

5/23/15 UPDATE: A paragraph has been added on the necessity for keeping your automobile clean in order to aid in its inconspicuousness, as well as inserted phrases and grammatical corrections throughout the original content, which has otherwise not been changed.

It is literally impossible today to avoid the government roads. The entire physical infrastructure has been built around the use of the automobile, thus increasing travel distances considerably than what they were a century ago. Once you factor in the surveillance police state apparatus, then the traffic cameras and roving patrol cars suddenly take on a new importance.

Don't Be This Guy!

Don’t Be This Guy!

As you travel from home to work and then back again during your daily commute, you are on public display for everyone to leer at. It matters not whether you have the latest in German automotive engineering under the hood, or a total lemon; what is important is what is aesthetically observable. Since quite a bit of the American population still values conspicuous consumption, the more beautiful your car is, the more likely other drivers will look at you.

If you’ve ever noticed, those cars that have bright, shiny colors attract a whole lot more attention than the ones that possess bland, dull color schemes. Sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks that sport ostentatious accessories such as winch bumpers, fender flares, and spoilers are just begging to be profiled. Needless to say, blaring loud music with the windows rolled down, or leaving designer label shopping bags in the back seat, might just attract the kind of attention you’d prefer to not have. Just as bad though, are those hippie looking cars laced with bumper stickers advertising whatever political dogma happens to be in vogue this week (to be fair though, bumper stickers are still valuable as culture jamming devices if used as adhesives with homemade posters, or even as identifying markers on the backs of laptop screens).

The main idea here in transforming your car into an inconspicuous one is fundamentally rooted in the principle of the gray man. Just as you would dress and behave in such a way that doesn’t shout “sheepdog,” similarly you don’t want your car to shout “wealthy target” or “anti-Establishment troublemaker” either. Your ultimate goal is to blend into the surrounding human environment; in most locales, a Ferrari will get you noticed, yet in some suburban areas, a ratty looking pickup truck with the back cab window covered in duct tape, might be even more of an eye sore. Sedans, vans, and trucks are only a few of the types of cars that usually tend to be able to blend in just about everywhere.

To further elaborate on applying the gray man principle to your car, I’d also suggest making the effort to keep your car as clean as humanly possible. Regardless of the social environment you find yourself in, being dirty is a great way to get easily noticed, much like those off-roading hobbyists who just finished their weekend mud bogging. By keeping both the interior and the exterior of your car fairly clean, you reduce the possibility of not only garnering unwanted attention, but also from serving as a collection of potential evidence that could be used against you later in a court prosecution, such as with fingerprints or DNA samples. Make sure you stow away whatever is easily observable, lest you be unjustly profiled as an undesirable.

Since approximately half of all police-citizen encounters are traffic stops, it would behoove you to prepare for such possibilities ahead of time, preferably with the goal of avoiding them altogether. Besides role-playing police interrogations with trusted friends, you can drastically lower the probability of being pulled over if you don’t call attention to yourself in the first place when you are traveling, especially if you are in the middle of violating mala prohibita, such as by practicing civil disobedience. Even when you have parked, a temptation could likely exist for the local police to seize your car using civil asset forfeiture.

At the end of the day though, if you choose to adopt the gray man persona at least in the context of “driving” on the government roads, you will be taking away the excuses that both the private and government criminals have to mess with you in the first place. The defensive measures I’ve outlined here will increase your privacy, thus giving you control over what malevolent, or even nosy, strangers happen to know about you. What better way to lower their guard than by keeping them guessing?

Keeping Up With the Joneses

Corporate subsidies are used for little less other than perpetuating corporatism. One such application is the promotion of slick advertising campaigns whose purpose is to trick the public into flippantly spending away the fruits of their hard-won labor in order to further entrench the oligiopolies who benefit by virtue of undue government favor. The real injustice behind this is that people need their wealth not only to live, but also to resist tyrants, since it is the material source of their freedom. To paraphrase Tyler Durden, we are tricked into doing work we hate to buy shit we don’t need.

 

 

Conspicuous consumption is the sociological phenomenon whereby individuals buy goods in the market, not because they genuinely need or even want it, but because they simply want to flaunt it to other people. As can be expected, this distorts market forces and creates unintended perverse consequences, since it gives misleading signals to producers who interpret it as genuine customer demand. Unfortunately, too many liberal statists abuse this concept by declaring that it somehow justifies the validity of the welfare state.

Culture jammers have tended to revolve around the overarching theme of anti-consumerism. Since consumerism is nothing other than the inevitable result of corporatism, the more principled counter-propagandists have also been anti-corporatists, thus also logically necessitating that they become anti-statists as well, if they are to avoid being unwittingly hypocritical. Sadly, the otherwise anti-Establishment attitude common to all culture jammers usually does not carry on to this result since too many of them fail to realize that it is the enemy rebel government that is the cause of the effects that they are jamming about in the first place.

Predictive programming is a force not to be underestimated, especially through the medium of television, since you are not aware that you are being downloaded through emotive sequences that deliberately manipulate your psyche. This is significant with regards to consumerism since it is true that the Madison Avenue social engineers can literally create an artificial market demand for a good or service that otherwise would never have been profitable. The same options for mitigating the effects of predictive programming should also be used in order to handle the problem of conspicuous consumption (such as by emotionally detaching from fictional storylines through studying television).

The Patriot Community is not even close to being immune from the effects of predictive programming (as well as Establishment propaganda in general), as can be evidenced by both the Carnival of Distractions and the McVeigh Syndrome. In private conversations I’ve had with some gun owners and “preppers,” I was denigrated on multiple occasions for not currently being a gun owner, despite the fact that I was one in the past. Their perception of my alleged insincerity for wanting to acquire a firearm eventually is not only just plain insulting, it is also incredibly snobby. Bernays would be so proud that his techniques for controlling the hearts and minds of the masses have been so successful that credit card survivalists are filled with noticeably more hubris than even fashion-conscious “reality” TV celebrities.

Consider also the financial ramifications of spending beyond your means. Through careful consideration of how you allocate the fruits of your labor, you reduce waste and increase your personal happiness by not keeping yourself on the hamster wheel rat race of constant debt bondage and interest payments. Also, the more expensive toys that you flaunt, the more likely you will be targeted for civil asset forfeiture by the police.

What can be done to refrain from keeping up with the Joneses? First, and most importantly, it is imperative that you emotionally detach yourself from all so-called status symbols. As part of this, you will also need to change your mind regarding the entire notion of ownership by deemphasizing the physical possession of goods, while simultaneously affirming property rights. Next, I would encourage you to learn more about civil asset forfeiture and explore what can be done to protect the property you already have from being arbitrarily seized by the government. Finally, I would suggest that you discriminate amongst your wants by preference ordering what vices that do require expensive toys are the most important to you; even then, plan on hiding them instead of putting them on for public display.

Ultimately though, it would be best to at least pay off the expensive toys you already have and then follow through with never acquiring any more. Better yet, contemplate selling them off; by acting as a good steward of your own personal property, you will value not so much the luxurious technology itself, but instead the people who built them. Perhaps then you will discover that what is truly important to you is not greed or the shallow admiration of strangers, but the honor and respect that you share with your loved ones.