A Primer on Homeschooling: How to Resist Centrally Planned Indoctrination

[Download a PDF of this article]

“I liked Prof [Professor Bernardo de la Paz]. He would teach anything. Wouldn’t matter that he knew nothing about it; if pupil wanted it, he would smile and set a price, locate materials, stay a few lessons ahead. Or barely even if he found it tough – never pretended to know more than he did. Took algebra from him and by time we reached cubics I corrected his probs as often as he did mine – but he charged into each lesson gaily. I started electronics under him, soon was teaching him. So he stopped charging and we went along together until he dug up an engineer willing to daylight for extra money – whereupon we both paid new teacher and Prof tried to stick with me, thumb-fingered and slow, but happy to be stretching his mind.”

Manuel Garcia O’Kelly

 

 

Homeschooling, simply defined, is schooling at home; in other words, it is any form of education taught outside of an institution. Parents and children who engage in homeschooling are both referred to as “homeschoolers,” although this term could easily be applied to any individual who is an autodidactic polymath. Various styles of home education range from replicating a classroom setting at the kitchen table, to allowing one’s personal interests to guide the curriculum’s subject matter.

Continue reading

Reformism Does Not Work: A Critique of Political Activism

[Download a PDF of this article]

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak – unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the illusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”

Patrick Henry

 

reformist mist

 

As I’ve written before, sound strategy rests of the rational synergy between ends and means. Diminishing the possibility of resistance by way of movement and surprise is fundamentally good strategy. Perfect strategy would produce a victory that would be virtually bloodless. Conversely, bad strategy would entail using the direct approach.

Continue reading

Suing the Government Does Not Work: Lawsuits Are Not Useful For Securing Your Liberty

[Download a PDF of this article]

Lawsuits are the judicial equivalent of ballots. If ballots are a substitute for bullets, then wouldn’t that mean lawsuits are also a substitute for bullets? Reformists insist that if “we” Americans sue the government more often for their corrupt abuses of our common freedoms, then our liberty would become secured. I contend instead that reformists have not satisfied their burden of proof for demonstrating the efficacy of lawsuits in shrinking the power of the State.

 

 

Reformists incompletely praise any goal of lawsuits, because for them to do so would be to reveal some ugly truths about the nature of modern American democracy. Certainly, while it is true that lawsuits could (hypothetically) be used by patriots, libertarians, and other types of dissidents to hold the government (somewhat) accountable by constraining its power (somehow), revenge against “public sector” employees is also an equally probable reason for suing the government. Enrichment for the plaintiff’s own wallet is an less frequently admitted motive, especially considering the damage such a “money-grubbing” image would cast upon the reputations of various litigants.

Continue reading

Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook

Reformists have always implied, over the years, that their attempts at shrinking the raw exercise of power by the State is, in effect, a bloodlessly legal coup d’état. Naomi Wolf once warned that George W. Bush had staged a coup d’état on October 1st of 2008 in order to prevent the elections that year from occurring; not only that, but she also told the Free Staters during last year’s New Hampshire Liberty Forum, an idea to the effect of, “We need the State, we need to become the State.” The time has come to address the substance of what a coup d’état requires, and more importantly, whether it meshes with the twin libertarian maxims of the non-aggression principle and the self-ownership axiom, for the sake of ends-means consistency.

 

 

Strategic goals must be elucidated in order to understand conceptually what a coup d’état means. Luttwak first distinguishes between revolutions, civil wars, pronunciamentos, and putschs, and then he provides an actual definition:

 

“A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.”

 

Ah, what a unique choice of words, isn’t it? So, a facet of the government seizes control over other elements of the State by centralizing power unto itself; isn’t this what the United States Congress did back in 1946 with their creation of the Administrative Agencies as the fourth branch of government? Luttwak elaborates:

 

“If a coup does not make use of the masses, or of warfare, what instrument of power will enable it to seize control of the state? The short answer is that the power will come from the state itself. The long answer makes up the bulk of this book.”

 

Okay, I fail to see how reformists of any stripe could expect anyone to take them seriously with their claim that, somehow, by working inside the system in order to change it from within, is in any way a bloodless coup d’état! Not only that, but if Luttwak is correct, then the fact that the State is the only actor that can pull off a coup d’état, I think, settles the question in my mind as to whether reformism is an expression of a coup d’état, particularly considering whom the “liberty activists” are, in this context.

Continue reading

Running for Public Office Does Not Work: Why “Infiltrating the State” is Foolish

[Download a PDF of this article]

People feel indescribably trapped by this horrendous system that grinds us down, and it does so primarily by its very irrationality. Despite all the rhetoric you may hear about the practicality of elections, this is little else than badly constructed sophistry whose purpose is to suck American dissidents right back into the coercive government structure by increasing their opportunity costs. Failure to objectively judge the dangers inherent within the political means of making money reinforces the hapless citizenry’s Stockholm Syndrome with the State.

 

 

All anyone has to do, in order to determine the efficacy of trying to “infiltrate the State” with the explicit goal of either shrinking or abolishing it, is to discover how many elections have been won and how many laws have been repealed by those who claim to value individual liberty. Remember, all Hitchens’ razor demands is that the claim maker substantiate their claims with evidence; it is not incumbent on any critics, logically, to provide evidence debunking the claims in question (which would be attempting to prove a negative). Unfortunately for those who advocate running for public office as a viable technique for securing liberty, I have seen no evidence supporting their baseless assertions.

Continue reading

Marriage “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “marriage” 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)

An institution; the foundation of the family and of society [35 Am J1st Mar § 8]. The status or relation of a man and a woman legally united as husband and wife [Baker v. State, 86 Neb 775, 126 NW 300]. A personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential. The voluntary union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, to the exclusion of all others, for the discharge to each other and to the community, of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. The act of being married [35 Am J1st Mar § 4].

Continue reading

Give Me Liberty?

Ideologues receive preferential treatment from the alternative media. No matter how many times they take their audiences for a ride in endless circles, these misinformation pundits reap the benefits of satisfying their catharsis through endlessly whining about the latest government atrocity during this week’s news cycle. Anyone who dares to recommend a strategy or two is, more often than not, vilified as if they were a demagogue, especially if their proposal turned out to not work the one time it was tried; whereas, the reformists, as creatures of this system, are bestowed with an unearned credibility by the ignorantly gullible.

 

 

Picking up right were she left off at The End of America, Naomi Wolf attempts to philosophize about what the Founders intended American liberty to be, in order to provide a vision for what she (and others she interviewed) recommend be done to restore constitutional government. As she says in the introduction:

 

“I wrote this handbook with the faith that if Americans take personal ownership of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they can push back any darkness. The first two sections of this refresher guide to our liberties recall what America is supposed to be; the last third is a practical how-to for citizen leadership for a new American Revolution.”

 

So, what insight does Wolf have to offer us in terms of what classically liberal republicanism actually entails? She answers by saying:

 

“The stories I read and reread of the ‘spirit of 1776’ led me with new faith to these conclusions: We are not to wait for others to lead. You and I are meant to take back the founders’ mandate, and you and I are meant to lead. You and I must protest, you and I must confront our representatives, you and I must run for office, you and I must write the op-eds, you and I must take over the battle.”

 

Ah-ha! So, Wolf would like me and everyone else to believe that the Founders were a bunch of reformists. I don’t know about her, but last time I checked, the philosophy of liberty seldom requires “must,” yet frequently allows “may,” when it comes to practical human action; not only that, but I get a very strong feeling that does not want the rest of us to emulate the bravery of Mother Batherick. Now consider the next two quotes, also from her introduction:

 

“We have to rise up in self-defense and legitimate rebellion. We need more drastic action than e-mails to Congress. We need the next revolution.”

“Rather, it [the Declaration of Independence] is saying something darker and more personally demanding: you have a sacred obligation to take the most serious possible steps and undergo the most serious kinds of personal risks in defense of this freedom that is your natural right; and you must rise up against those who seek to subdue you – wherever and whenever they appear.”

 

By the term “revolution,” does she mean shooting cops? Because if she did, then, oh boy, according to statist propaganda, you can’t do that, because that’s illegal! All chuckling aside though, her rhetoric does beg the question regarding use of force issues and the ethical permissibility of the non-aggression principle, doesn’t it?

What I did appreciate about Wolf’s sequel was all of the bureaucratic red tape she endured when attempting to make her “constitutional” reformism happen. As she described all of the government literature about running for office as being indicative of both phony democracy and fake patriotism:

 

“Indeed, the materials seemed designed to make you conclude that democracy was just too complicated for ordinary people to take charge of. I felt as if I were in a scene in a thriller in which a character has to search under great pressure for a missing clue: I rifled page after page of printouts looking for what was not there. Finally, staring at my stack of yellow file folders – containing source after U.S. government source that left out the key action step that would let citizens actually enter the process and throw their weight around and make a difference – I faced a bitter conclusion. They don’t want us weighing in, let alone driving the process.”

 

If the rulers had genuinely wanted the citizenry to have a seat at the table of power, they wouldn’t act the way they do with flagrantly breaking the law in broad daylight, or condescendingly treating a petition for a redress of grievances as a mere advocacy letter. Wolf sums up political disenfranchisement rather eloquently by stating:

 

“Weren’t we supposed to tug our forelocks to no one? But it was hell on earth trying to find material that addressed us as the rightful leaders of the nation ourselves. Even Congress’s own websites don’t explain upcoming bills in clear English, don’t offer you enough advance notice of the agenda to affect the outcome, and don’t show how many citizens (who would be willing to have the information reported) contacted Congresspeople for or against various legislation. So you are left to be alerted, if you’re luckily, by some random organization, and you send your e-mail blindly, alone, as if dropping into the ocean. It is an engineered experience of powerlessness.”

 

I will applaud Wolf for being forthright about her experience in trying to wade through the bureaucratic Kafkaesque nightmare that is the administrative agencies. Unfortunately, instead of learning that perhaps contemporary representative democracy just ain’t worth “saving,” she chooses to persist in her error; might this be due to her fear of direct action?

Curtis Ellis, a “realistic” radical in the tradition of Saul Alinksy, offered the following authoritarian gem when interviewed by Wolf about what he would say to the Millennials if he could:

 

“I would say – I would want to say – the truth is that he’s being used. I would want to say, ‘The people in control don’t want you to vote. You’re a sucker – congratulations.”

 

Remember, this is from the same jerk who wants compulsory voting! As to why he would insist that Millenials are being manipulated, he said:

 

“It serves the moneyed interests and the political elite that have been bought and paid for by the moneyed interests. Their mantra is ‘Government shouldn’t spend your money, you should, so I’ll give you a tax cut.’ The message is brilliant because on a meta-level it encourages people not to participate.”

 

Wow, what willful ignorance; he should publicly apologize to everyone for his quoted remark here once he’s read a copy of A Law Unto Itself, yet, I won’t be holding my breath anytime soon, either. Unfortunately, his statism gets much, much worse:

 

“But who is the government? It’s supposed to be us. It’s us. We are the government. It didn’t come from Mars. It’s not the British crown. We’re a democracy.”

 

What tripe is this? Didn’t Larken Rose and Chris Cantwell debunk this lie just a few years ago? At the risk of sounding like a Christian, the Devil is the father of lies precisely because he can exploit half-truths to his advantage; for instance, although Ellis is certainly accurate that a Millennial is definitely being manipulated, it’s a bald-faced lie to say that “the people in control don’t want [him] to vote,” because they absolutely do! Popular electoral voting legitimizes the State, and if there ever was a devil, the State is it! Ellis also suggests:

 

“Start an affinity group: Democracy Commandos. Call it something. Meet every month or couple of months. Register everyone – even twenty people – and show the list to the Congressperson’s district office. That makes you a power broker.”

 

Oh, really? Last time I checked, grassroots lobbying doesn’t work, so why should I waste a moment of my time doing so? Worst of all, Ellis wants to increase the number of registered voters, as if that does anything; does he assume someone like me has acted contrary to the intentions of the Framers by cancelling my voter registration? Besides, when was the last time you could get five of your friends to agree on watching the same film at the local cinema? Isn’t reformism supposed to be practical?

It would appear to be the case that the first 200 some odd pages of this book is really just Wolf advocating for a vision of what I can only tell might be socially democratic populism. Nothing about the market, even less about economics, just a whirligig about the need to rescue democracy from “the corporations,” or something to that effect, I couldn’t quite tell. No wonder Lew Rockwell referred to her as an “ex-progressive,” who has allegedly become “libertarian-leaning,” back in 2010.

Regarding this sequel being an actual handbook, Wolf’s methodology is crowd-sourced, but she seems to imply that the listed techniques are somehow all equally valid. This presumption is rooted in the “throw spaghetti at a wall and see what sticks” method, which she appears to do, considering she also fails to distinguish between the political and economic means of making money! The sheer lack of follow up as to the efficacy of each technique is what I expected though, because there is not supposed to be; you are not allowed to evaluate or judge anything practically, since to do so would be to become a “scab” by failing to tow the party line. And so, statism, and its ugly buck-toothed cousin, reformism, carry on with their tyrannical designs.

Let me distinguish between what I think are the political (reformist) means and the economic (direct action) means that Wolf lists in her book. First up, reformism:

Obviously, recall elections are just as bad as initiatives and referenda, democracy commandos are grassroots lobbyists, and aren’t non-profits part of “the corporations” themselves, which I thought Wolf was vehemently against, unless I’m mistaken? Now, by contrast, here are some activities that just might count as direct action:

  • Writing press releases
  • Whistleblowing (includes FOIA & the 1974 Privacy Act)
  • Blogging
  • Videography
  • Boycotting
  • Meetings & lectures
  • Hearings (includes conventions & festivals, such as the Jackalope Freedom Festival)
  • Shareholder activism

As you can now doubt tell, the very best that Wolf has to offer is essentially the alternative media, but considering my concerns over the years, I think Wolf’s recommendations about Internet media have played themselves out, for the most part, whether for good or bad. With whatever it might be worth to you all, I think that shareholder activism is a rarely used method, which is likely to be quite powerful, if given half a chance.

Naomi Wolf’s Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries is quite lackadaisical in giving any serious contemplation to how best get “from here to there.” There is no mention of forming Committees of Safety, or even militia units, much less any coherent sense of real strategy. Needless to say, until people start questioning aspiring politicians, then reformists will stubbornly refuse to abandon the ballot box, plain and simple. I think what this book really illustrates is that counter-productive “solutions,” like state nullification, ought to trashed into the dustbin of history, alongside worn out polemics about “democracy.” To further upstage Naomi Wolf in just a few words, I’d like to recommend y’all begin role-playing police interrogations, as well as implementing your own security culture, if you genuinely care about exercising your natural liberty.

What Has Been Achieved Since 2014?

[Download a PDF of this article]

If you have not yet read What Has Been Achieved?,” andWhat Has Been Achieved Since 2013?,” then please do so now before continuing, otherwise this article will probably make not any sense to you, because it is a developing stream of thought that picks up immediately from my previous Independence Day article.

 

 

Newest electoral data between 2012 – 2014 is now available, in addition to the 2000 – 2012 voter data sets. Electoral patterns in both Travis and Williamson counties are steadily growing, as are the eligible voter pools. My observation that voter turnout is always less than half the total county population seems to be still true.

Electoral lurkers are defined as non-voting registered voters; eligible nonregistered voters (which includes the narrowed descriptor, “qualified voter”) are considered to be “noncompliant.” These electoral lurkers and the noncompliant have grown between 2012 – 2014, yet, the noncompliant have grown faster in Travis since 2000, whereas the electoral lurkers have grown faster in Williamson during the same period (2000 – 2014). These observations could be skewed by mid-term elections; however, the results thus far appear to mimic population growth, and not necessarily a revoking of one’s consent to be governed by cancelling their voter registration, or otherwise refusing to register to vote in the first place. I won’t know for certain whether there is any correlation, much less causation, between these variables until noticeably well after the Tyrant-in-Chief has been replaced by his successor in 2016.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has conducted yet another survey about the wonderfulness of what they are now calling, “economic inclusion,” which is defined by the FDIC thusly:

 

“Economic inclusion is a term used to describe a variety of public and private efforts aimed at bringing underserved consumers into the financial mainstream. In the U.S., there are a number of partnerships and initiatives focused not only on expanding the availability of safe, affordable financial products and services, but also on education [educating?] consumers about ways to become fully integrated into the banking system.”

 

Apparently, the 2008 banker bailouts didn’t phase the FDIC one bit as to the viability of central banking itself, but let’s continue on, shall we? This past survey in 2013 reveals that the fully banked have dropped by 1.8%, the underbanked have dropped by 0.1%, and the unbanked have dropped by 0.5%, since the previous survey in 2011. More importantly, between the first survey in 2009 to 2013, the fully banked have dropped by 3.3%, the underbanked rose by 2.1%, and the unbanked have remain unchanged.

So, what does this mean, about the viability of the Big Banks? Right off the cuff, I think what the relationship between the percentages mean is that confidence in the legacy banking system might be eroding, but rather than abandoning their bank accounts wholesale, those surveyed are using alternative financial services (AFS). As a side note, the unbanked rely more upon prepaid debit cards than the fully banked or even underbanked; between 2009 – 2013, the unbanked’s use of prepaid debit cards has increased by 14.9%.

Interestingly enough, this past FDIC survey gives us some insight as to the potential causation regarding the drop in the fully banked alongside the concomitant rise in the underbanked. In a brand new table, as the top main reasons for why survey respondents were unbanked, 26.4% said it was due to privacy concerns, 30.8% said that the account fees were too high or otherwise unpredictable, 34.2% said they don’t like dealing with banks or otherwise just didn’t trust bankers, and 57.5% said they didn’t have enough money to have a bank account in the first place. Might this be a sign that administrative agency “regulations” against what would be free banking is the cause for why some people are unbanked, namely, because of government failure?

Speaking of government failure, the national debt has been increased by $12,371,009,000,000 over the past 15 years, between 2000 – 2015. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) stubbornly refuses to raise interest rates, because apparently they’d prefer to cause malinvestment by supposedly maintaining the annual rate of inflation at 2% through keeping the federal funds rate artificially suppressed at 0 – 0.25%. Despite the allegedly good intentions of the FOMC, unemployment has increased by 1.7% over the past 15 years, between 20002015. Last time I checked, today’s national debt, unemployment figures, and malinvestment signals were not due to the often scape-goated, “market failure.”

In terms of real world commodities, the spot price of crude oil has doubled over the past 15 years, between 2000 – 2015. Gold bullion’s spot price has risen by $901.30 during the same time period (20002015); likewise, silver bullion’s spot price has risen by $10.44 as well (20002015). Today’s spot price for a barrel of crude oil is $56.93, for a ounce of gold is $1,169.67, and for an ounce of silver is $15.69 (according to Veldt Gold, formerly known as Agora Commodities).

I have previously mentioned that between 1995 – 2010, food loss was increased by 37,000,000,000 pounds (5%) during a simultaneous food production increase by 74,000,000,000 pounds (20.7%); remember that’s only edible food wastage. Compare this with the increase of 13,683,000 more people on food stamps between FY 1995 – 2010, not to mention anything of the additional 1,827,000 people on food stamps between FY 2011 – 2014. Don’t you think it might just be time to teach people about the benefits of dumpster diving, food storage, and guerrilla gardening before the EBT cards stop working, as they did back in October of 2013 during the last government shutdown, especially because of the flaws inherent in the cashless society?

Urbanization has permanently changed the landscape of America. As the U.S. Census Bureau admitted over three years ago:

 

“The nation’s urban population increased by 12.1 percent from 2000 to 2010, outpacing the nation’s overall growth rate of 9.7 percent for the same period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau released the new list of urban areas today based on 2010 Census results.

“Urban areas — defined as densely developed residential, commercial and other nonresidential areas — now account for 80.7 percent of the U.S. population, up from 79.0 percent in 2000. Although the rural population — the population in any areas outside of those classified as ‘urban’ — grew by a modest amount from 2000 to 2010, it continued to decline as a percentage of the national population.”

 

Let me add some more figures onto that: between 2000 – 2010, there were 27,323,632 more Americans; of those, only 430,900 of them live in rural areas (this means that there are 26,892,732 more urban Americans). It’s more than far to say that as the population expands, urbanization is far outstripping rural folks by quite a bit. According to the CIA World Fact Book, 81.4% of the total American population in 2014 is now urbanized. If the annual rate of urbanization, 1.02% (2010 – 2015 estimate), remains at a constant increase, then the domestic American population will become 87.5% urbanized by 2020.

This is particularly disconcerting to me because governments have noticeably more enforcement power whenever humans are in closer proximity to each other. Might this be part of the overall “wake up call” that it’s time to live off-grid? Call me a Loonie, but isn’t dependency on the government’s “public infrastructure” detrimental to our common liberty?

To my knowledge, the six Committees of Safety I listed last year are still active, but to what degree they are, or what they are currently working on, I am ignorant of, quite frankly. I also have no reason to suspect that the patriot faction has established any more Committees of Safety since my previous Independence Day article. Obviously, this also begs the question as their commitment to making The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government actually happen. Time will tell, I suppose.

Meanwhile, I shouldn’t be too hard on the American patriots, because the dispute resolution organizations that the voluntaryists claim they are supportive of, have failed to materialize, as of yet (unless you count Shield Mutual, which, truth be told, was more of a freelance public relations firm than a DRO). Similarly, the worker’s councils of the syndicalists have likewise failed to come about, for some unknown reason. For all of their rhetoric about wanting to manifest a stateless society, syndicalists and voluntaryists both are falling behind the minarchists, at least in terms of organizing.

Speaking of organizing, we can all learn from Gary Hunt on how to ostracize an undesirable malcontent. His series of articles on the infamous Mark Kessler provides a lesson for us all to emulate, particularly with regards to targeting. The four part series is as follows:

  1. A Checkered Past
  2. Recent Past
  3. The “Screw” Turns
  4. Coming Out of the Closet

Additionally, I’d recommend y’all read the full report on that miserable thief of valor, Christopher Bylstone, and then contrast that with the vindication of Ryan Payne. If nothing else, I’d hope you’ll all learn how to do some real investigative journalism in order to discover the truth behind the actions of certain individuals who are harming others; it’s also good preparation for vetting potential recruits.

What has been achieved since 2014? Electoral lurkers have grown faster in Williamson County, whereas the noncompliant have done so quicker in Travis County; but then again, this might be due to the mid-term election slump rather than being indicative of men and women pulling away from the State. Instead of closing their bank accounts right away, bank customers are using more AFSs, and the unbanked’s use of prepaid debit cards is steadily increasing; we now know that at least some of the reasons behind this include significant lacks of both customer privacy and trust in bankers. Bank Secrecy Act, much?

The national debt has increased exponentially, unemployment has increased slightly, and the FOMC still encourages malinvestment. Spot prices for gold and silver bullion have substantially increased, the spot price for a barrel of crude oil has doubled over the past 15 years, and millions of more people are now on food stamps, despite increased availability of edible dumpstered foods. Millions of people have moved to the cities and suburbia, the American patriots have neglected to establish more Committees of Safety, and the various anarchists haven’t even gotten serious about organizing much of anything locally, from what I can tell (unless you also count Liberate RVA, Free Keene, Free Concord, and Free Manchester, but again, those aren’t DROs, since they’re sort of a cross between a media outlet and a social club).

Besides vindicating the innocent and publicly humiliating the guilty, what else can be done in the meantime for the cause of liberty? I’d suggest you peruse this updated version of my recommendations from last year:

So, this freedom holiday, understand that you all have less than no excuses if you claim to value human liberty enough to actually manifest it. I’ve done what I can thus far in order to reduce your opportunity costs. The rest is up to you.

The End of America?

Cartoon politics is far too common, often because people intuitively feel that something is notoriously wrong, but they just can’t quite articulate their grievances. Since this is in fact the case for most American political dissidents, what necessarily follows are numerous petitions to the State listing their grievances, which are never redressed by the political rulership. Rarely is it the case where someone is able to distinguish the petty grievances from the serious tyranny infringing upon our common bedrock of individual liberty.

 

 

This author’s thesis contains two parts. First, she says there are ten steps, a blueprint if you will, that every tyrant and despot follows whenever they are in the process of closing down a (formerly) open society. Second, all ten of those steps have been fulfilled here in the United Police States of America. Her ten easy steps to tyranny are as follows:

  1. Invoke an external & internal threat
  2. Establish secret prisons
  3. Develop a paramilitary force
  4. Surveil ordinary citizens
  5. Infiltrate citizens’ groups
  6. Arbitrarily detain & release citizens
  7. Target key individuals
  8. Restrict the press
  9. Cast criticism as espionage & dissent as reason
  10. Subvert the rule of law

For the remainder of this literary review, I’d like to examine each one briefly by comparing the examples Naomi Wolf uses to other ones I have blogged about in years since.

Hyping the non-existent threat by Al-CIA-da to Americans, the Bush, Jr. White House scared the living bejesus out of everybody following the events of 9/11. Wolf is correct in saying that “terrorism” was the excuse used for a massive power grab by the federal government, and that Muslims, as well as Arabs more generally, were scapegoated as being somehowcollectively responsible” for the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City. Neo-con theory by Carl Schmitt says that you must have an enemy image by which to hold the entire society together; every facet, from industry, to media, to the arts, to academia, to social life in general, is essentially held together by what Webster Tarpley called “a monstrous myth.”

Although I certainly agree with Wolf that the U.S. military’s entire death cult atmosphere at Guantanamo Bay is nothing short of repulsive (and is still ongoing, even today), I would suggest that why should the rest of us worry about being extraordinarily renditioned and tortured at some CIA black site, when such activities are performed here domestically as normal, pseudo-transparent daily procedure? How is KC Massey’s arbitrary incarceration, in solitary confinement for two weeks no less, nothing to write home about, especially considering he has not been convicted of anything? Was Jim Hogshire exaggerating when he described the politics of prison rape? While everyone and their uncle in the corporate and even alternative media were waxing eloquent about the truly horrific abuses foreigners are experiencing at the hands of the U.S. military, what about the equally nasty treatment received by American citizens at the hands of the criminal injustice system? Isn’t the latter more of a tyranny that strikes just a little too close to home?

For all of the abuses Blackwater and the other modern-day Hessians have committed, I find it rather telling that Wolf completely neglected to mention the violently coercive monopoly known as government policing. Not only is it thoroughly unconstitutional, but they are militarized jackboots who have committed democide against 5,000 Americans since 9/11. Despite the fact that a Belgian economist debunked the whole notion of government policing over 150 years ago, and more importantly, offered a vision for truly free market security services as his solution, statists have nevertheless insisted that the “price” of freedom necessarily requires the sacrifice of citizens upon the altar of the State.

While it is true that authoritarian governments engage in disrupting the activities of the citizenry, this is nothing new here in America. Dragnet wiretapping and chilling dissent is routine and normal, and the social justice warriors might as well be the blackshirts and brownshirts of last century. The arbitrary detention and release of citizens, as Wolf puts it, could easily be applicable to those who suffer from police interrogations, whether it be in the context of a traffic stop, a house raid, or an airport screening.

Depending on whom one may consider to be “key individuals,” I think the American political prisoners could fill the bill. Let’s examine a selection:

  • The Hutarees were made an example of, despite getting acquitted, because the federal government can’t afford the citizenry arming up and training collaboratively in how to use those arms against their democidally statist enemies.
  • Darren Huff, for the victimless crime of traveling on the roads while carrying his own private property across state lines, was sentenced to 4 years in prison, and he was subsequently released last April 15th.
  • Larry Myershabeas corpus ad subjiciendum was denied by the United States Supreme Court, twice. For the “crime” of mailing some strongly worded letters to some judges for being tyrannical, Myers is rotting away in a government dungeon until his release sometime in 2019.
  • Robert Beecher took a plea deal in order to spare his daughter Jessica from prosecution, and as a result, he is currently serving a 10-year sentence, and if he survives, he is expected to be released sometime in 2025.
  • Ross Ulbricht, for the victimless crime of providing a market service for customers to safely trade in illicit narcotics, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole; this means he is expected to rot away for the rest of his life in a government dungeon.

Similar to these folks, except for the fact that neither of them were ever charged by the government for anything, are Chris Broughton and Debra Medina. The demonization of both, by both the corporate and alternative media, just goes to show that Americans are not allowed to have authentic heroes and heroines, because to do so would be for the State to tacitly acknowledge the bravery of colonial-era women like Sarah Tarrant and Captain Prudence Wright. Needless to say, I think Wolf using the cancellation of Bill Maher’s lame Politically Incorrect statist propaganda as some bastion of freedom is, quite frankly, laughable.

Certainly the harassment Josh Wolf (no relation to Naomi) was unconstitutional, as well as Amy Goodman getting arrested while covering the street demonstrations protesting the 2008 GOP national convention, I’d worry more about hate speech censorship laws being used against libertarian opponents of the Free State Project. With the sheer regularity that Texans are snitching to the gendarmiere whenever the Open Carry Texas membership go on their open carry walks, I wouldn’t be surprised if the police started confiscating the tapes of said encounters whenever they get a democidal urge, like they had wanted to do when a few of them murdered Eric Garner last year. Remember, the penalty for resistance, or even disobedience, is always death.

If stolen elections and the Bush White House declaring that the entire planet is a battlefield in the hoax that is the “Global War on Terror” are what Naomi Wolf claims is what subverts the rule of law, then apparently she is ignorant about how the 14th Amendment’s incorporation doctrine is used as an end run around the 10th Amendment, and by extension, state citizenship. Worse, how about when the American Bar Association drafted the Administrative Procedures Act in 1944 that Senator Patrick McCarran admitted when it was passed two years later, after the Second World War, was the unilateral creation of a brand new fourth branch of government, namely, the bureaucratic Administrative Agencies? As Fred Rodell put it, the law is a racket!

Before I address what Wolf suggested that this “young patriot” she addressed in her book should be doing, I’d like to offer a few observations regarding expressing grievances. Although some of Wolf’s grievances are rather serious, I hate to say that relative to the ones I’ve written about in more recent years, they seem rather tame. While her use of historical comparisons is good, yet, I wished she bothered to mention the democide those same regimes used, because that is the inevitable end of statism. If anything, what’s most valuable about Wolf’s book is that it demonstrates just how deteriorated personal liberty has become in this sad excuse for a country.

What Wolf essentially recommends to “Chris,” the young patriot in question, is for him to not have any secrets, simply because his dissent might become chilled if he were ever blackmailed; in other words, he should expose his darkest, most intimately personal secrets with his spouse, family, and possibly colleagues in order to not be cunningly coerced into silence. I think a better remedy for those who chose, as a matter of conscience, to express their grievances publicly, is to also exercise their right to privacy, to the extent that they realistically can, through good security culture. If it’s good enough to keep the monkey-wrenchers out of prison, then it’s good enough for me and you who aren’t violating mala prohibita, if we care enough about personal privacy as a matter of principle. As with the rest of our natural liberties, use it or lose it!

Naomi Wolf’s The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot is a snapshot in time before the rise of the Tea Partiers and the later Occupy Wall Street reformists. Considering how the patriot faction has now ostracized David Stone, Ryan Payne, and KC Massey, I’d say America has already ended, in any real way that matters. Let’s get real for a moment about something, shall we? Any idea of “America” died a long time ago with the banishment of classically liberal American republicanism, and seeing through the fog of illusion entails a phase upon where one understands what never was, and never will be. No amount of documentaries is going to make up for the fact that Naomi Wolf is no Wendy McElroy. While it was good that Wolf mentioned that Obama continued the Bush Doctrine, again, her continued expression of her grievances, as she did during the New Hampshire Liberty Forum last year in 2014, is little else than the reformist echo chamber.