Editor’s note: Chris has a sense of serendipity, and has supplied another insightful essay while Bill and I are occupied at Libertopia. If you’d like to contribute an essay, please email them to kaiserleib@gmail.com. We may edit your essay for mechanics, but never for content. -KL

“No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.”
~Frederick Douglass

This essay is a follow-up to my last essay that was posted here at ZeroGov. I don’t think I properly got my point across, and I do not want to appear as a man who does not take freedom seriously enough to take the time to explain how it would work. Please allow me this opportunity to explain myself a little further.

I have read many books, essays, and such explaining how the people will have to be shown concrete alternatives to the state apparatus before they have the courage to abandon it. They will have to be shown how they would travel, and not just traveling by automobile, an explanation has to be given for air travel and air traffic control also. They need to be explained how they would receive justice in a free society, or shown examples of how justice has been handled in the past and present absent the state. Certainly the problem of pollution cannot be left up in the air when trying to explain why a free society would be better. These are only a few problems that exist now, and will undoubtedly exist in a voluntary society. Somehow we will have to show working alternatives to every one of these problems before the people throw off the shackles they have placed upon themselves. And this is the reason why we will fail at this monumental task of trying to explain freedom, although our minds are free, our bodies are not. We can build in our heads, but we lack the right to build with our hands.

The abolitionists of the past did not know of companies like, John Deere, Kubota, or International Harvester. They would never witness the invention of the tractor and all of the wonderful implements that can be attached to them that make life on a farm so much easier. They would never witness the fabulous invention known as the internal combustion engine, or the introduction of hydraulic systems that make all of this technology possible. They were not concerned with any of this, they did not care about what would replace the slave; they only fought to end the horrible institution of chattel slavery. This is the root I was trying to strike with my last essay. I only wish to abolish slavery. I see something as wrong, I should not have to devise a working model as an alternative to this wretched practice. Is it not enough to expose the slavery in the system to get my fellow humans to throw off their shackles? Do I have to tempt them with new systems? Chattel slavery, although practiced for many, many centuries, is now seen as a horribly immoral institution. Slave owners of the past were not presented with cost benefit analysis, or return on investment sheets. The moral argument was presented, and it was supported with the fact that man is a self-owner, no matter the color of his skin.

When comparing slavery and the state, some may think it’s a bit over the top, or is meant to invoke emotion. I assure you that the comparison is accurate and correct. To be a self-owner, one needs to believe in self-ownership. If one believes in ownership, then one also believes in possession. Let me give you an example: let’s say you find someone’s keys in a parking lot, and you pick them up. At this time, you are in possession of the keys, but they are not yours. The owner comes along and makes a claim on his property; he can stake an ownership claim. You being the good and helpful person you are gladly hand this man his keys, because he is the true and rightful owner. Let’s turn the tables, you have lost your keys, and you find a man in possession of them in a parking lot. As you approach this man you give him your gratitude for finding the lost set of keys, but instead the man runs away. He runs because he understands that you are the rightful owner, and he is merely in possession of the keys. It is not his property and he knows it. He is the wrongful owner.

Humans understand this concept with just about all property, except for their own bodies, and more specifically their labor. This principle also, and most importantly, applies to your body. Either you own it, or you are only in possession of it, and someone else can make an ownership claim on it. The law of the excluded middle works for ownership. Your labor would not exist without you, so it is only logical that it is yours. Either you own yourself and therefore your labor, or you don’t. There is no middle ground here. The difference between chattel slaves and 21st century slaves can be measured in degrees. Just as slave owners staked ownership claims on their slaves, the government stakes an ownership claim on you. The two masters are exactly the same in the fact that both wish to only extract your labor, the state just found a more efficient way of doing it. By claiming ownership of your labor the state has staked an ownership claim on to your own body.

Let’s go back to the guy running off with your keys. He now has to be on the look out because he is afraid that you will come looking to collect your property and violence may ensue. He still knows that he is only in possession of them and he is not the rightful owner. If you catch him, you will not accept only one key, or two keys, no you want the whole ring of keys, they are yours. The only way this man can keep your keys is through force, or the threat of force. He can pull out a gun to try and defend his possession, but the reason he has to pull the gun in the first place is because he is not the owner. This is the exact reason why the state has to employ the use of force to extract your property, they are not the rightful owners of it. The only rightful way property can be exchanged is through voluntary interaction; this is the only true way ownership can be transferred. Just as the chattel slave owners used shackles and chains, the state uses the same thing, but they have tricked us into putting them on ourselves and our neighbors. A happy slave is a more productive slave. The reason Marxism will never work is because it uses the negation of ownership as it’s principle; possession. The reason why capitalism does and forever will work is because it uses ownership as it’s principle. It’s time for us to abandon the middle, just like Marxism all of the lite flavors of it will also not work. It is false.

I’ll tell you the reason I do not feel the need to have to explain how freedom might work. Look back at the last couple of hundred years. Look at the explosion in technology. Look at the advances in the medical field. Look at the marvels taking place in the computing world. My goodness, look at the Internet itself. Everywhere we look we see human genius at work. This boom started to happen right around the same time chattel slavery was abolished in many countries. Do you think this is a coincidence? When men could no longer own other humans, and force those humans to labor, they had to come up with alternatives. Necessity is the mother of invention, and when you own slaves, there is no need for invention or innovation. This is the reason why I consider myself a 21st century abolitionist, I only have to look to the recent past to know that the abolition of slavery leads to amazing things. This is why I do not spend time explaining freedom, I spend my time explaining slavery. Along with being an abolitionist, I am also a capitalist. I have been fond of saying, “I have my ideas, but they are mine.” If you need some advise on how to live your life without the use of slaves, I’ll start a business called the “Freedom Consulting Firm”, and then you can pay me for my ideas.

When my son was very young, he would grab his toys from his cousins and say “MINE!”, we can grasp these concepts at a very young age. It’s time for us to look at the state and simply say, “MINE!”

“The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there. The State rests on the – slavery of labour. If labour becomes free. the State is lost.”
~Max Stirner

Yet, clever people fall for far more dangerous ideas of the exact same form. In Philadelphia, a group of remarkably intelligent men came together to form a government. These men had seen full-grown governments before, had in fact just freed themselves from one. Yet here they were, feeding and nourishing a small baby government, playing with it, considering it so cute and adorable that they just had to have one.

-Joshua Katz, “Don’t Buy a Tiger

My previous piece was an attempt at a polite hatchet job on the OWS movement. That was hypocritical and wrong. I apologize, more to my friends who read it and agreed than to the OWS types who (like the rest of the world) remain largely unaware of the existence of ZeroGov.

I stand by my criticism of the unfocused nature of the protests. I agree with the sentiment of frequent ZeroGov commenter mot, who wrote:

“They ask evil to protect them from evil….” That’s the old Biblical example of trying to cast out Beelzebub in the name of Beelzebub. It simply doesn’t happen.”

And I still oppose the sentiment of this young man and those like him who, rather than being upset that the fruits of their labor has been wrongly appropriated by those in power, instead demand a share of the spoils.

But these protests are, so far, spontaneous order without coercion or force (although there are some disturbing omens that the will of the many might soon be imposed on the few). Until force is used, until laws are imposed and enforced, these protesters are absolutely doing the right thing. The protesters are respectfully using and maintaining the “occupied” property. This is anarchism in action by any reasonable definition: that no person or group imposes its will on another.

I am still worried that OWS, like the Tea Party before it, will be co-opted by new or existing powers. I do not like the rumblings of a coherent demand for increased regulation instead of the removal of existing Protectionist, Corporatist and Crony Capitalist government policies. I do not like the near-complete absence of anti-war sentiment among the protesters on the Youtube videos and articles I’ve seen.

But popular anger at a system of power that has done harm, I like. Spontaneous order and cooperation without coercion, I like. And so I hope and pray that this movement does not coalesce into Soviet communism, Nazi fascism, or American imperialism. I hope that anger at the powers that be, anger at the tax collectors and Apparatchiks and banksters does not devolve into a cult of personality around the elites who make false promises.

I hope, that is, that my last essay was wrong.

 

Publisher’s Note:  It is now less than a week to Libertopia in San Diego, Kalifornia.  I will be speaking on FRI and SAT and I will be on a panel on SUN.  It would be wonderful if some of my readers showed up.  You can register here: https://libertopia.org/ -BB

“The clock of communism has stopped striking. But its concrete building has not yet come crashing down. For that reason, instead of freeing ourselves, we must try to save ourselves from being crushed by its rubble.”
– Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Occupy Wall Street is about conformity and compliance.  The males (not men) and women that people the protests are consistently collectivists and apologists for state violence with heads expensively filled by overpriced universities with the most economically illiterate and toxic nonsense a state-dominated college education system could produce.  Just as fashion is not about individual tastes but mass appeal, the protests are about the Free Stuff Army much as the antiwar protests dwindled to near zero with the end of the draft, the same applies here.  As soon as these scholars-in-hock get loan forgiveness for their easily earned degrees, the cries for social justice will diminish except for the professional protestors and the true believers of collectivism whose life mission is to enslave humanity in an even more effective slave state than we have built so far in America. Where did these protestors come from?

The New left was at an intellectual crossroads in the 1960s.  The fork in the road would either embrace totalitarian collectivism or anarchistic individualism and they chose the former in droves.  In a world dominated by bipolar military industrial complexes in both the US and the other USSR at the time, communism was still seen by the chattering intellectual classes in the West as the only just and righteous organizing principle for societies except for the lone voices like Koestler and Conquest.  Up until 1989, the leading introductory textbook on economics penned and edited by Paul Samuelson was still trumpeting the superior efficacy of Communist delivery of goods and services over the free market.

“By the thirteenth edition (1989), Samuelson and Nordhaus declared, “the Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed; a socialist command economy can function and even thrive” (13:837). Samuelson and Nordhaus were not alone in their optimistic views about Soviet central planning; other popular textbooks were also generous in their descriptions of economic life under communism prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

Today, the third generation of this totalitarian temptation has taken the form of fashionable collectivists shambling about their camp-hives on Wall Street and the satellite protests scattered across the nation.  Adam Kokesh has provided a brilliant snapshot video record of the sheer inanity and clouded thinking of the moron-a-thon known as Occupy Wall Street but strip it of all the florid protestations and mewling about “fair share” and “distribution” and it comes down to one single operative principle:  a monopoly on the threat and use of force must be employed to bring order and justice to human conclaves.

I find it very creepy and disturbing to watch several of the videos where the protesters are gathered in training sessions repeating behavior constraints on how to protest and deal with the police.  Not adults briefing up other folks on rules of conduct, but the noxious Jesse Jackson-style nursery rhyme cadence of repeat after me.  You can even look at this video of a Young Communist League contingent in Chicago to discover where the Occupy protestors got their cute little “United “riff they employ.  I suspect that one reason communism/socialism is seeing a new resurgence may be the junction of willful ignorance through electronic addiction (tethering to information devices) and the wonderful attraction of collectivism by relieving the advocate of all personal responsibility to provide for neighbors through voluntary effort.  Under the umbrella of collectivism, these are nothing more than more codified versions of violent tax and resource farming.

The protestors show a very conflicted relationship with the police.  They seem frightened and cowed by them yet the police and the protestors share the same common goal: increased concentration and use of violence to guide human behavior to fit the mold of the new homo Sovieticus the protesters desire.

Igor Kon told us the psychological consequences of this mentality:

“One of his most important insights is that the “negative selection”, including various types of visibly oppressive treatment of those whose thinking doesn’t fit the “party line” leads to development of “acquired helplessness syndrome”[17]

This phenomenon explains the traits characteristic of many ex-Soviet citizens: shyness, passivity, excessive trust – and need – of government, belief that one cannot really control his fate without a “guiding hand”.

According to Kon, “The lack of individual responsibility is a product of decades of living under limited freedom. People get used to oppression. This has always happened with totalitarian regimes. I remember, I was greatly surprised to meet people with a similar mentality in East Germany, a country that has always been very different from Russia. This happened during the unification of the East and West Germany. I saw fright in the eyes of the East Germans, the same reaction as I see here in Russia – people do not know what to do. There is a psychological term for this – the acquired helplessness syndrome. The syndrome is usually manifested in social pessimism and lack of self-confidence. The acquired helplessness syndrome is the main feature of Soviet mentality and unfortunately it is prevalent among senior citizens.”

Wilhelm Reich went on to posit the psychology of fascism in a similar vein.

The police have been surprisingly restrained in their use of violence toward the protestors even though protest in the US today is closer to a permission slip to speak loudly than the raucous imbroglios of the past.  Even the Tea Party went so far as to seek permission to put tea in the Mirror Pool proximate to the memorial to one of the most savage presidents in US history, Lincoln.  A man who kidnapped and jailed tens of thousands of antiwar protestors.  Some have even posited that these protests are carefully orchestrated media events to distract the dwindling consumers of the dinosaur media from the real problems in America.  The useful idiot ranks are swelled by the critical thinking-handicapped wards of the university system who graduate and find themselves in a world more real than the Ivory Tower gulags that fill their heads with fever-dreams of gun-run utopias (as long as the guns are not in private hands, oh my).

One would be hard pressed to find a collectivist protestor who is not carrying rhetorical water for the advocacy of maximum government.  In this version of America, Wall Street is indeed a wholly owned regulatory subsidiary of the Federal government that can’t make a trade for a dollar without Federal oversight and permission.  The one percent isn’t the rich; they are the government nomenklatura that runs the feed lot called America.  These protestors for the most part are merely more vocal cows seeking greater subsidy at the feeding trough.  They consider private property the real enemy which means they are gunning for anyone who desires freedom and liberty.  Get ready.

The police and the protestors have one thing in common: they both have a pathological hatred of individual volition, free markets and free moral agency.  The former represent the very concrete realization of the utopian ideal the latter wish for.

I hope they get it good and hard.

Resist.

“The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”
-Karl Marx

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

-H. L. Mencken

In the etymological sense, all societies are democracies. No government could remain in power, even with the support of the police and the military, if every citizen were simply to pick up a rock and throw it. Therefore, any government which remains in power has the tacit consent of the people, or at least a plurality of motivated people.

It seems that the American government is losing this tacit consent. The Occupy Wall Street protests and the copycat movements across the country are evidence of that. These protesters are not a majority of the people. They are not a plurality of the people. They do, however, represent one majority opinion: that the nature of the present relationship between government and high finance is intolerable, and must be changed.

The rest of the protesters’ message is unclear, because it is unfocused. Polling would indicate that the protesters want more government regulation, but determining the nature of that regulation would be left to existing powers – leaving us exactly where we are now, albeit with shiny new lipstick on our pig of a financial system. And what of the wars, against “terrorism” and “drugs?” Have those been forgotten, or are the prison-industrial and military-industrial complexes simply a smaller threat to our well being than the undefined greed of the “1%”?

The Occupy Wall Street movement is composed of people who have every reason to be angry. Their property has been appropriated, their opportunities are repeatedly limited by government interference. They’ve been sold a package of unjust wars, useless education, and dubious protection from threats less real than the Bogeyman. To be sure, crony corporatists and congressman have colluded to commandeer the future of this country, and of the entire world. But OWS doesn’t seem to be about that. OWS asks for more regulation, more government meddling in our affairs. They ask evil to protect them from evil, and don’t understand the similarity between the 1% of high finance and the 1% of government.

Mencken’s snide dismissal of democracy is too kind. These common people, these “99%,” don’t really know exactly what they want. Unfortunately, the getting will be just as “good and hard” regardless.

“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

Whenever speaking of free and voluntary societies I’m often asked, “What would we do about this”, or, “who would take care of that.”  I used to rattle off answers to these questions that were supplied by minds sharper than mine without even examining the questions. Then I realized I was focusing on the wrong part of the question. I was simply explaining how a different system would work, and hoping the ones asking the question would be won over with the clever and well thought out answers I had either memorized, or thought of myself. I have been trying to persuade people away from their system using the promise of a new and improved system. I realized I was no different than any other philosophical political peddler, and I would no longer tempt people with “our system.”

The truth is no one knows what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing. Any answer that is given to questions pertaining to the problems that individuals would face in such a society are purely speculation. I cannot tell you what we would do, I can only tell you what I would do. I would honor my contracts; I would defend myself; I would choose to help others in need; I would expect no one to support me; and I would plan accordingly. I want to be very clear here, I do not disagree with the theory that is being presented on how the logistics of society would be handled. There is no doubt that these organizations and such would arise and be needed in a voluntary society. I disagree with the fact that these theories are being pushed as answers before addressing the only real and true problem; collectivist thought. When those who are curious about voluntarism ask the “we” questions, the underlying collectivist philosophy is still there, and this is what needs to be addressed first before any practical questions can or should be answered. Otherwise, you are just trying to get them to abandon their system for your system.

I’ll admit that getting people to see the gun in the room is a very important and crucial step when trying to win them over, but that is not enough. In my experience, after I have been successful at pointing out the systematized coercion, and institutionalized violence in the current system, the conversation always turns to how we would deal with the practical issues. This is where I would start to explain how we would handle these things, but lately I have been pointing out the “we” in the room. In a revolution of the individual, “we” questions should not be answered. Put the ball back in their court. Ask them what they would do. When human interaction is purely voluntary, there can be no system.  It is important to let the ones asking the questions find their own solutions, or what they think might be solutions. I have at 32 years old, accepted that I am probably as free now as I will ever be. I know there is one crucial step that has to be taken before humans are physically free, and that step is to be mentally free. If it will be their decision in a voluntary society, it must be their decision now. I must say, watching my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free people is a little disheartening. There is a long road ahead, my only hope is that my children will  be the pioneers of this new society.

I have been able to uncover a couple of fears that hold the human mind back from being able to grasp and accept the idea of a free society. One big issue is justice. Again, it comes back to, “what will we do about the criminals?” This is where I say, “I don’t know.” I have my ideas, but they are mine. I don’t know what neighbors will do when an intruder breaks into their houses, I don’t know what the family will do to the rapist who is caught. I don’t know what will happen to the murderer. This is usually where I start to lose those who I have been able to entertain this far into the conversation, you know, the ones who have not walked off and called me insane yet. Humans will know when a crime has been committed regardless of what society they live in. The American Justice system has set objective standards such as; murder is wrong; rape is wrong; and theft is wrong. These standards were not set by the government, they were set by the human mind. We are able to recognize wrong doings; entering into a free society will not change this. Just as punishments are subjective now, they will also be subjective in a free society. The map does not match the territory, and that is fine. This is part of the human experience, and it’s the reason why we have judges and juries now.

The fear of criminals is still rooted in collectivist thought. The fear of the other guy, makes us turn to the other guy. How many criminals are really out there? I’d say about 1% of the human population are actually psychopaths, and capable of real horror. Does this mean we should create an incubator for more psychopaths known as the state? We make more criminals out of our fear of criminals. Fear makes humans do very unreasonable things like give psychopaths a place to be pardoned of all responsibility for their actions. The fact is, bad people will continue to do bad things regardless of the society we choose to live in. They will still have to be dealt with, and I have no doubt they will be. Good humans will not sit idly by and watch as crimes are committed against their neighbors. This will especially be true when there is no state agency claiming to protect us. We will have to take our safety a little more seriously, and personally. Of course that should be the focus now, but the state has either outlawed your personal protection, or removed it from your decision all together. Either way both are false. To my way of thinking, we pull some ticks off of this dog and keep hunting. We will deal with the blood suckers as they come, it’s really all we can do.

In closing, freedom has no system, and it never will. Billions of humans making trillions of decisions could never be harnessed or thoroughly theorized by even the most brilliant voluntaryist thinkers or free market economists. I try not to use the term, “free market system” anymore, because humans trading goods and services is not a system, it’s what humans do. I have abandoned the use of the word “system” completely. Of course, some of the more logical folks out there might say that having no system is a system. Well, for those of you who would say that and discard this whole essay, I would ask you this….

Is there a difference between those who seek to build a system, and those who only seek to build?

“Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it.”~ Mikhail Bakunin

 

“Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing.”

– Thomas Paine

To perversely paraphrase Bastiat:  “The state is the great fiction within whose tax jurisdiction it deems itself free to fine, kidnap, cage, maim and kill its taxpayers and tax clients.”  It tends to be more gentle with the latter than the former.

High Tax Commissioner Obama recently ordered the robot murder of two acknowledged American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, in yet another undeclared hostility zone in the Middle East in Yemen.  No trial and no appeal, simply the remote control killing of two Americans in a foreign country.  No empire in history has ever isolated its more obnoxious and deadly behavior in foreign lands simply to the latest imperial conquest, all the countries have eventually brought it all back to their homelands like disease vectors.  Wait for it because all the bloodshed and dismemberment we have visited on the rest of humanity will be brought home and used with vigor and no restraint whatsoever as the powers that be emanating from Mordor on the Potomac become more and more desperate as their economic ignorance and chicanery force their hand at increased savagery to preserve their way of life. The United Kingdom shows what will happen to a nation that seeks to rule the world, is reduced to colonial rock formations dotted around the globe and starts to practice empire on its own citizens.

We are all used to news coming over the transom everyday of yet more innocent women and children maimed and killed by our troops or their proxies in the multitude of statist squabbles around the globe.  We are bludgeoned day after day with the news of cops misbehaving violently across the fruited plain.  The prisons are bloated with the largest per capita population on Earth in the land of the free. Millions of tax dollars are spent in a death penalty system that morbidly worships a premeditated killing of a human being accused of a capital crime.

When stripped of the gaudy music and patriotic bunting, nation states are simply tax jurisdictions whose primary purpose is the forced redistribution of wealth and privilege. We are vampire nation quite literally as tens of millions of hapless subjects are drained of the proceeds of their labor and investment for no better reason than a lack of recourse to say no to the mugger.  The wealth is expropriated through taxes, regulations and work rules that choke efficiency and effectiveness at every turn. The rough analog is the Helot relationship to the Spartan ruling class. You work and follow the rules you did not sign up for in a system rigged to ensure that your compliance is ultimately on pain of death if not followed to the letter.  In other words, government promises security in exchange for a disproportionate share of your time and efforts.  Slavery is alive and well in America, it is simply of a more ephemeral variety.  One is convinced that even though you are not owned directly by a master, your taxing and tithing is necessary to sustain your freedom in exchange for all the good things provided by government. Your non-compliance with any of these diktats from the nomenklatura will result in the aforementioned fining, kidnapping, caging, maiming and killing (one can call this the ladder of slave resistance penalties) depending on the severity of the claim and the resistance of the citizen-slave being taken to task.

In the past, I have often been accused of oversimplification when I point out that the institution and existence of police forces is the one essential element to yoke large herds of humanity to statist plunder.  Absent their activities, the politicians would have no means whatsoever to enforce their rapine and murderous ways.  None.  So let’s peel the onion and examine one of the sustaining beliefs that inform the very essence of police power:  the ability of the state to initiate violence.  There are reams of busy jurisprudence that speak to the very right of the state to injure and kill its citizens.  In order to have the peaceful society that the government insists is its plot and raison d’être, it must have the power to kill.  Not only the power for its enforcers to protect themselves but the power to initiate violence; if there were a contract, it would not be one you would sign except under duress (there is a pattern here).  The contract would read: you have the right to do what we tell you and if you resist or fail to comply, you are ultimately subject to death at the hands of our enforcers. Period. If said enforcers murder you, they will be subject to investigation by themselves and will most likely go on to enforce more “contracts”. No matter how petty the crime nor how malum prohibitum the offense, the state has invested itself with the power to kill.  It has no choice, for who would willingly surrender without threat of violence nearly sixty percent of their income, allow their family members to be sexually assaulted, or not eat foods the government does not approve of?

The only way a state can sustain itself is to employ the necessary apparatchiks who will do the most heinous acts of violence against their fellow citizens and to codify the willingness to initiate aggression and in the end, maim or kill anyone who resists or refuse to comply.  Even if that person is an unarmed homeless man who is 130 pounds dripping wet.

The government is barbarism and not civilization.  Much like the moral amnesia that allowed slavery to thrive for five millennia, mankind has been hoodwinked, cajoled and coerced into thinking the state is the only way to organize society and any other notion makes you an outlaw.  How many times have you ever questioned the veracity of a law in polite conversation only to hear that must be the way of the world and there is no other method?

There is no greater moral government than a man’s self-ownership and there is no greater injustice than denying that very thing to a man .

Resist.

“It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.”

– Etienne de la Boétie

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

 

 

“While this America settles in the mould of its vulgarity, heavily thickening to empire,

And protest, only a bubble in the molten mass, pops and signs out, and the mass hardens,

I sadly smiling remember that the flower fades to make fruit, the fruit rots to make earth.

Out of the mother; and through the spring exultances, ripeness and decadence; and home to the mother.

 

You making haste, haste on decay; not blameworthy; life is good, be it stubbornly long or suddenly

A mortal splendor; meteors are not needed less than mountains: shine, perishing republic.

But for my children, I would have them keep their distance from the thickening center; corruption

Never has been compulsory, when the cities lie at the monster’s feet there are left the mountains.

 

And boys, be in nothing so moderate as in love of man, a clever servant, insufferable master.

There is the trap that catches noblest spirits, that caught–they say–God, when he walked on earth.”

– Robinson Jeffers  Shine, Perishing Republic

Jeffers, the lyrical and unsung poet of the American West had his finger on the pulse of the war machine in Mordor on the Potomac.  He was an opponent of the American entry into WWII (The War to Save Josef Stalin) and this put him on the path to poverty and obscurity.  His poetry is among the best America produced in the 20th century but he remains in obscurity because he dared to question the war machine.

There is talk now of entering into a more active conflict with Pakistan.  The millions of maimed and murdered bodies that have already been the American offertory for world peace are simply not enough and the US death machine marches onward.  This war will come home and not only in the broken minds and bodies of the veterans but in the machinations of our rulers who will find all kinds of new stratagems and toys to better control their cattle here at home.  Combine this with the many opportunities afforded by the economic calamities the government has authored and you have a recipe for even worse times ahead.

On reflection, I cannot support a single conflict America has engaged in since 1898 but I do know the only legitimate conflict is fought on one’s own soil to defend your kith and kin from barbarism and enslavement.  I am opposed to all initiated aggression on principle but I am no pacifist.  I believe in a robust and compelling response to initiated aggression.

We are a people born in conflict and steeped in a culture of self-defense despite the disregard with which our most holy and vaunted Founding Rulers viewed such a culture.

It was on this day, September 30 in 1776 that George Washington wrote a despairing letter to his nephew complaining of the poor performance of his militia.

“I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”

Mighty strong elixir from one of history’s least deserving Battle Captains whose talents for warfare were among the poorest of any field commander.  The man who won three of the nine major battles he fought against a foe that was engaged in a global conflict with great powers on the European continent. If it weren’t for the “sideshow” aspect of the North American conflict to the British, military defeat would not have been visited upon them except at the hands of guerrillas.  As we see from the letter referenced above, Washington did not think very highly of his most pure volunteers, the militia.  No, Washington needed dragooned and conscripted fodder that would better enable his military ambitions.

His incompetence and sheer martial stupidity ranks up there with General William Hull from 1812who was the only General in US history to be handed a death sentence at a courts martial.

Washington went on after the conflict to be granted and expect tremendous honors and respect for not having lost the war.  He and his evil crony, Alexander Hamilton, went on to harness the thirteen colonies under a devilishly clever contraption called the Constitution that went on to create the post-1898 national security state after the vicious consolidation of the Anti-Constitutionalists in the South in 1865.  Since that time we have been a nation at war every year without missing a beat.  Here is a partial list of military mischief around the globe by America just between 1901-1929. Or fast forward to marine landings in Lebanon in 1958 or the US threatening Iraq with nuclear annihilation in 1958 for threatening to invade Kuwait.  I need not bore you with the military mischief visited on the Earth since 1991 by the “city on the hill”.

My point is that despite the patriotic noise and media flash-bangs tossed in our laps everyday to assure the sheeple that we are a nation of peace is a crock.  We are a jingoistic nation bent on world domination because we know what is best for the rest of the world much like the domination and intimidation practiced by the Federal government domestically on their tax cattle. Every empire brings their practice of martial terror abroad home (witness the decline of the UK) and you ain’t seen anything yet.

In the end, militias will be the only answer to defend ourselves from our own government.  I am not referring to the bloated and ill-kitted media darlings who populate the fever-dreams of the Southern Poverty Law Center and their Fusion Center clients in the Fatherland Security apparatus. I am referring to the growing band of malcontents in America who see the writing on the wall and are preparing for the collapse and coming endarkenment with Gold, Guns and Groceries (G3).  Not the conspiricists or the local redneck hunting club; these would be the former military veterans or shooting hobbyists or men who simply know their measure and consider metrosexuality to be a weakness.  These are men of the gun.  The disparaged men of Washington’s time who knew a stand-up fight in line sixty meters from their Redcoat opponents would not allow them to fight another day.

These are the men who in small packs or leaderless loners will finally take back what they consider theirs.  That would be their autonomy to live an unmolested life free of the institutionalized aggression of a tax jurisdiction prettily dressed up as a nation state.

War is ugly and should be avoided but free men have an obligation to demonstrate that slave retention can be a costly enterprise for the plantation owner.  There are dark times ahead and a large facet of good luck is meticulous preparation.  Training will be a vital aspect of those who find themselves among the living in a few years.

Resist, Helot.

“General Hugh Percy [after the Regular defeat at Lexington-Concord on 19 April 1775] shared the opinion that the colonists would never fight, or if they did, they would be ineffective. After his fighting retreat, he wrote to General Harvey, in England: “… during the whole affair the Rebels attacked in a very scattered, irregular manner, but with perseverance and resolution, nor did they ever dare to form into any regular body. Indeed, they knew too well what was proper, to do so.

Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob, will find himself much mistaken. They have men amongst them who know very well what they are about, having been employed as Rangers against the Indians and Canadians and this country being much covered with wood, and hilly, is very advantageous for their method of fighting. . . . “.

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

“The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within.”

~ Mahatma Gandhi

I have been working on a contract that will come to bind you, dear reader. This contract will give myself, and those I employ, the power to seize your property whenever we deem it to be necessary and proper. This contract can be amended at anytime and can only be interpreted by myself, and those I employ.

You say you would never sign such a contract?

No worries, your signature is not needed. I have, in good faith, taken the time to have many of my Friends and Neighbors sign it. Those who have signed it, have, with their signatures, legally bound you to this contract. I know, I know, it seems unfair and perhaps somewhat unjust. That is why I will provide you with arbitration, and I promise I will see to it that this method of arbitration will be as objective as possible. This Arbitrator will be paid by me through funds I have stolen…errr…extracted from you through the barrel of m….errr…through taxation. You see, I only sign the paychecks, the money comes from you; it’s more than fair this way. You couldn’t possibly be competent enough to use your own money to buy your own arbitration, so I must force it upon you. This Arbitrator, this Judge, will be addressed as “The Honorable”, or, “Your Honor” and he will have almost unlimited powers within his court. If you choose to disrespect or disrupt “the Court” you will be caged for an indeterminate amount of time. However, before you are thrown into a cage, you will have a chance to grovel at the feet of the Court. Maybe this most Honorable Man will show mercy on you, or perhaps not. Even though your money and property is extracted to pay for this Public Servant, it is not your place to question him in his court. All dissenters must be punished, this is the only way to maintain the absolute authority of “the Court”.

You say this contract would never be upheld in a court of law?

I feel completely confident that this contract that I have so carefully crafted will meet all of the legal requirements the Court itself is founded on. Surely that must be sufficient, surely this contract would be upheld by any Judge in this Country. I am here to inform you, Dear Reader, that I will be venturing down to my local Courthouse to have the Court review this contract. Please start to prepare your property for confiscation, and keep it ready for me to seize at a moments notice. Of course you can keep “your” property if you pay an annual sum of money set by myself, or the bureaucrats I employ. We will work out the details after I have made everything legal, which I’m sure should be no problem at all. Especially with the legal use of the persuasion of power literally at my fingertips.

What do you think would happen to me if I presented this contract to any Judge in this Country to try and have it enforced?

I’ll bet I would find myself in a cage charged with contempt of court rather quickly. Now, brace yourselves for this, every Little Tyrant in this country enforces this sort of bogus contract every day. Let’s look at  local municipalities for an example. Year after year, Faceless Bureaucrats stay busy scribbling down laws ad infinitum, in a never ending attempt to part you with your property. Without your Local Little Tyrant, these people who you have probably never met before would be no different than some roving gang of Thugs trying to steal your property. Magically, and through the weird ritual known a legislation, these Bureaucratic Thugs can jot some legalese down on paper and you now are forced to abide by it, and if you don’t, men with guns will issue you some piece of paper demanding your presence at the courthouse. In this contract that you allegedly agreed to simply by being born here, there is an amendment specifically barring involuntary servitude, but this amendment is null and void when your presence is required at the courthouse. You can be summoned to appear, and if you don’t comply you could be fined or caged.  At the courthouse, you will stand in front of one of these LittleTtyrants and even though you never agreed to any of this malum prohibitum madness you will no doubt be parted with some of your hard earned property if this Little Tyrant finds you to be “guilty”. Any of you reading this take should take one day out to go sit in the back of your local courthouse.  After reading this, I’ll guarantee you the visit will be surreal, and I’ll even wager that 90% of the guilty charges will be non-violent offenses. There is no honor here, don’t bother looking, you will find none. The only thing you will witness on this visit is an efficient system set up to rob the serfs blind. That’s the scam folks, line ’em up, and rob ’em, it’s that simple.

Let’s look at the the scam on the national level. The “Supremes” as they are called, are nothing more than the Biggest Little Tyrants. It seems these folks have the final say in the business of systematized tyranny. Again, it’s the one-sided contract where these Tyrants source their power. Men I never met, and ones who have been dead for over two hundred years have somehow given these “Supremes” the power to regulate just about everything I do in my day to day life. We need to find the source of the Tyrants magical ink and burn it in the fires of Mordor. These Robed Lawyers are the ones who get to interpret this contract that I have never signed or agreed to. They are the ones who get to tell me what rights I have and what rights I don’t have. What firearms I can use and which ones I can’t. Where I can protest and where I can’t. What healthcare I must purchase, and when. We need to understand something, and we need to understand it quickly. This system was set up by lawyers, and it it kept by lawyers. When a lawyer ascends to the rank of Judge, he is not honorable, he is a lawyer with a robe on. He is a lawyer who has just become a Little Tyrant. A Tyrant that now has the power to enforce a contract upon you that you never agreed to. This same Little Tyrant would throw me in jail for trying to enforce my contract. Philosophically and factually there is no difference between the contracts, except his gang is bigger than mine.

These Little Tyrants would have us believe they are fair and just. That they are the true Arbiters of Justice. How can this be? Every time I have been to court, or even when I drive by I see the Federal, State, and County flags waving out front. This is a political statement all on it’s own. If the Little Tyrant inside of that building is issued a State paycheck, sits on a bench the State paid for, and flies the State Colors inside and out, do you really think you are going to get a fair trial if the State charges you with a crime? If I chose to fly a flag of my choice outside of my courthouses and forced you to show up you would be disgusted and revolution would most certainly brew in this country, but no one thinks twice about it now. Years of patriotic propaganda, and government schooling have brain-washed whole generations into abandoning their critical thinking skills when it comes to the American injustice system. Flying an American flag in front of a courthouse or even in one should be just as absurd as flying a Russian or Chinese flag in and around these Corporate Establishments. Something that should have been revolting from the beginning is now commonplace and accepted. Your children pledge their allegiance to the same flag that will be waving on the day the  local Little Tyrant will rob them of their property. Indeed, some of these children will even die in battle defending the flag that has flown over some of the worst injustices the world has ever known, and it flies in every courtroom in this country. This is the depth of the indoctrination. Think about it.

About five years ago I made a deal with myself to never again stand for these Little Tyrants. The robe, the rising for the Judge, the way he sits above you, it all has a purpose. Every bit of this ritual is meant to trigger your fear. Be victims of it no more. If a man would use his power to cage you for not standing up for him he is a Coward and a Sociopath, and he does not deserve your respect. I vowed to myself I would stand for no one less than my Wife, the Women of my Family, my Father, and my Grandfathers. Everyone else has to earn it. If I am held in contempt for it, so be it. In the movie Rob Roy, the protagonist says that “honor is a gift a man gives to himself”, if the State can make one-sided deals, so can I.

Maybe the reason we are treated like serfs is because we act like serfs. This is not 12th Century England.

Resist.

“So now, who will help me bake this bread?
Who will be the first to speak, and leave complacency for dead?
I’ve done all I can on my own, yet stagnant minds persist to squeeze blood from this stone, but… I won’t bleed for you. I’ve no need for you. Death will be the day I concede to you.”
-Propagandhi

 

Publisher’s Note:  September 17 is the day the serfs in the tax jurisdiction known as America celebrate Constitution Day.  We hear all the usual ill-informed and ahistorical notions celebrating what was in essence one of the most savvy and lucrative political coups in Western history. The Antifederalists were right, the Constitution was an elegant trap to shackle an entire nation to a system to empower the few over the many and the banksters over the entire system of commerce.  The respective states which had signed separate peace agreements with the United Kingdom in 1783 were merely political and inferior subsidiaries to the greater national power emerging in Mordor on the Potomac.  The Constitution created a Soviet style system well before the Bolsheviks were even contemplating such a scheme.  Whenever you hear some of your friends and neighbors extolling the virtues of the Constitution, read them Spooner’s quote and see how they address that particular conundrum. -BB

By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt.

~ James Madison

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

~ Lysander Spooner

Today, 17 September 2009, is Constitution Day. There will be paeans, abundant commentary and church-like observances of the glories of this document in making us the most blessed nation on planet earth. This essay suggests a contrarian thesis. The Constitution is an enabling document for big government. Much like the Wizard of Oz, the man behind the curtain is a fraud. In this case, for all the sanctimonious handwringing and the obsequious idolatry of the parchment, it sealed the fate of our liberties and freedoms and has operated for more than 200 years as a cover for massive expansion of the tools and infrastructure of statist expansion and oppression. Among the many intellectual travels I have undertaken, this is one of the most heart-breaking I have ventured on. I want to acknowledge the compass-bearers who sent me on this journey: Kenneth W. Royce (aka Boston T. Party) and his seminal book, The Hologram of Liberty and Kevin Gutzman’s Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. For most of the political spectrum in America, the document represents their interpretation of how to make this mortal coil paradise. Even in libertarian circles, it is taken as an article of faith the Constitution is a brilliant mechanism to enlarge liberty and keep government at bay. That is a lie.

The document was drafted in the summer of 1787 behind closed doors in tremendous secrecy because if word leaked out of the actual contents and intent, the revolution that had just concluded would have been set ablaze again. They were in a race against time and did everything in their power to ensure that the adoption took place as quickly as possible to avoid reflection and contemplation in the public square that would kill the proposal once the consequences of its agenda became apparent. They were insisting that the states ratify first and then propose amendments later. It was a political coup d’état. It was nothing less than an oligarchical coup to ensure that the moneyed interests, banksters and aristocrats could cement their positions and mimic the United Kingdom from which they had been recently divorced.

The original charter of the drafters was to pen improvements to the existing Articles of Confederation. Instead, they chose to hijack the process and create a document which enslaved the nation. Federalist in the old parlance meant states rights and subsidiarity but the three authors of the fabled Federalist Papers supported everything but that. Their intent and commitment was to create a National government with the ability to make war on its constituent parts if these states failed to submit themselves to the central government.

As Austrian economists have discovered, bigger is not necessarily better. The brilliant and oft-dismissed Articles of Confederation (AoC) and Perpetual Union are a testament to voluntarism and cooperation through persuasion that the Constitution disposed of with its adoption. Penned in 1776 and ratified in 1781, the spirit and context of the Articles live on in the Swiss canton system and are everywhere evident in the marketplace where confederationist sentiments are practiced daily. The confederation’s design divines its mechanism from what an unfettered market does every day: voluntary cooperation, spontaneous information signals and the parts always being smarter than the sum A. confederation according to the Webster’s 1828 dictionary is:

  1. The act of confederating; a league; a compact for mutual support; alliance; particularly of princes, nations or states.

I would advise the readership to use the 1828 Webster’s dictionary to accompany any primary source research you may undertake to understand American (& British) letters in the eighteenth century. It is the source for the contemporary lexicon. It is even available online now.

Here is a simple comparison of the two organizing documents:

`

Articles of Confederation

Constitution

Levying taxes Congress could request states to pay taxes Congress has right to levy taxes on individuals
Federal courts No system of federal courts Court system created to deal with issues between citizens, states
Regulation of trade No provision to regulate interstate trade Congress has right to regulate trade between states
Executive No executive with power. President of U.S. merely presided over Congress Executive branch headed by President who chooses Cabinet and has checks on power of judiciary and legislature
Amending document 13/13 needed to amend Articles 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of state legislatures or national convention
Representation of states Each state received 1 vote regardless of size Upper house (Senate) with 2 votes; lower house (House of Representatives) based on population
Raising an army Congress could not draft troops, dependent on states to contribute forces Congress can raise an army to deal with military situations
Interstate commerce No control of trade between states Interstate commerce controlled by Congress
Disputes between states Complicated system of arbitration Federal court system to handle disputes
Sovereignty Sovereignty resides in states Constitution the supreme law of the land
Passing laws 9/13 needed to approve legislation 50%+1 of both houses plus signature of President

Note that the precept of individual taxation was an end-run against state sovereignty from the very beginning. If the Congress does not wish to violate state sovereignty, then they will simply prey on the individuals in the states. It should be obvious that the AoC was not a recipe for government employees from top to bottom to use the office to enrich themselves so a scheme was afoot to precipitate and manufacture dissent over the present configuration of the central government apparatus which for all intents and purposes barely existed. The AoC was intolerable to a narrow panoply of interests and the Federalist Papers appeared between October 1787 and August 1788 to plead the case for a newer form of “Republic” authored by three individuals: James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. The British had sued for peace in 1783 and the AoC were still in effect until 1790. Time was ticking to erect the new government apparatus that would strengthen the central government to eventually mimic the very tyranny which caused British North America to put the English Crown in the hazard. The Anti-Federalists rose up in response and provided what I consider one of the most splendid and eloquent defenses of small government penned in our history.

When the Constitutional Convention convened on 1787, 55 delegates came but 14 later quit as the Convention eventually abused its mandate and scrapped the AoC instead of revising it. The notes and proceedings of the cloistered meeting were to be secret as long as 53 years later when Madison’s edited notes were published in 1840.

The Anti-Federalist Brutus avers in Essay I in October 1787:

“But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way.”

The conflict was brewing between the Jeffersonians among the individualists and the Hamiltonian collectivists. The rhetorical lines were drawn and the fate of the nation eventually slid into the camp of the Nationalists.

George Washington wrote to John Jay on 1 August 1786:

“Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assume their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility, where thirteen sovereign, independent[,] disunited States are in the habit of discussing & refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word through out the Land. If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the treaty of peace and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy they will laugh in your face. What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people being disgusted with the circumstances will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate & prevent disasterous contingencies would be the part of wisdom & patriotism.”

It appears even the much admired Washington was having none of the talk of independence and wanted a firm hand on the yoke of the states to make them obey their masters on high. Washington’s behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion cast away any doubts of the imperious behavior of the central government a mere four year after the adoption of the Constitution.

Patrick Henry gave the firmest defense of the skeptical posture when he questioned the precarious position the Constitution put to the state’s sovereignty on 5 June 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention (the savvy Founding Lawyers ensured that the process of ratification was sped along by bypassing the bicameral house requirements and simply asking the states to conduct ratifying conventions):

“How were the Congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great-Britain? The States were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the States respectively, which was not given up to the Government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You therefore by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the General Government. Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — A Government that has abandoned all its powers — The powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights — without check, limitation, or controul. And still you have checks and guards — still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated State Government! You have a Bill of Rights to defend you against the State Government, which is bereaved of all power; and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm youselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong energetic Government? To that Government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real actual defect. . . “

The Bill of Rights as we know them today were first introduced by James Madison in 1789 in response to the fears the emerging Constitution caused among the free men in these united States. They eventually came into effect on December 15, 1791. The Federalists were desperately opposed to the adoption of the Bill of Rights being insisted upon by Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and other skeptics of central governance. As Brutus again so cleverly pointed out in the Anti-Federalist papers #84:

” This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but all treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought.

So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage (emphasis mine).”

The Bill of Rights nominations from the respective sovereign states originally numbered near 200 and the Founding Lawyers saw fit to include twelve (the two concerning apportionment and Congressional pay failed to pass) after much bickering especially by the most monstrous worthy of the time, Alexander Hamilton. A brilliant mind coupled with all the political knife-fighting skills needed to dominate the proceedings, Hamilton made sure that the tools of oppression and a financial yoke would be decorating our necks in perpetuity. Small solace can be taken in the aftermath of the duel between Hamilton and Burr on 11 July 1804 in that it took him close to a day to die.

Alexander Hamilton tipped his intellectual hand in a speech to the Constitutional Convention concerning the United States Senate, 06/18/1787 (quoted in the notes of Judge Yates):

“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people … turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the Government … Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.”

I am no fan of democracy as I see it as nothing more than a transformational accommodation to tyranny over time but one can infer from this quote that Hamilton fancied a class of people more equal than others who would have a disproportionate access to the levers of power over the great unwashed. Again, I am suggesting that the Constitution was a document designed from the beginning as a means to rob constituent and subsidiary parts of sovereignty and subject these subordinate elements to a national framework which made their position subservient to the Federal government. The desire of the Federalists was to install a national framework and cement the structure through the machinations of national banking, franking of a currency and debt creation. Keep in mind that all of the nattering on about the Federal Reserve today is a complaint against a Constitutional Frankenstein monster in its fourth iteration since the other attempts at national banks failed. You can guess who picked up the tab.

The Bill of Rights was finally passed on 15 December 1791 but it was much diluted and purposefully weaker and more ambiguous about the central government’s implied and explicit powers.

The Constitution took effect on 4 March 1789 with 11 states under it and two states not submitting ratification. North Carolina did ratify it when a promise of a future Bill of Rights was assured. Rhode Island refused and was the only state to put the Constitution to a popular vote where it failed on 24 March 1788 by an 11—1 margin. They eventually ratified it.

Hamilton now had the ways and means to make real his storied dream: “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.” The moneyed interests saw the advantage of monetizing the debt. By assuming the state’s debts at the national government level, a means of controlling commerce and taxation became an implied task of the central government. This may have been the first incident of the debtors from the Revolutionary War convincing their Hamiltonian allies that if they had the national government bear the debt and relieve them of responsibility, this could be used as the means to establish the coveted national bank to start the issuance of government currency not to mention the driver for increased taxation.

All the puzzle pieces had finally locked into place. Royce eloquently explains what has transpired in Hologram of Liberty: “To put a ‘gun’ in the hands of the new national government was the primary object, the great sine qua non, of the Constitution. A comprehensive de jure authority of Congress backed with de facto guns.” The Confederation is defeated and the long train of usurpation, centralization and tyranny leaves the station for what has become American history.

Hamilton’s machinations and influence probably single-handedly turned the product of this secret confab into one of the most successful instruments of political oppression before even the creation of the USSR. What makes it even more sublime as a tool of big government is the sophisticated propaganda and hagiographic enterprise which has both spontaneously and through careful planning suborned the public’s skepticism of the nature of the machine erected to control their behavior, which has resulted in an almost religious observance of all things Constitutional. Carefully cultivated over two hundred years, this religious idolatry had certainly fogged the thinking of this writer for most of his adult life. This sleeper has awakened.

Ask yourself this question: have the robed government employees who read the Constitutional tea leaves for the most part defended individual liberty or have they rubber-stamped the exponential growth of power and control of the colossus that sits astride the Potomac?

“Our constitutions purport to be established by ‘the people,’ and, in theory, ‘all the people’ consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of ‘the people’ exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given.”

~ Lysander Spooner

See:  https://www.lewrockwell.com/buppert/buppert29.1.html

 

“All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.”
– George Orwell

We all experience the world through the shared stories and anecdotes that illuminate who we are and where we come from.  Our educations, both formal and informal, drive the worldviews we develop over time.  These are influenced universally by the transmission mediums we listen to or read about.  Whether we are reading books (an increasingly uncommon practice), watching television, interacting on the internet or engaging in conversation with friends and family, all of these activities consistently and irrevocably develop and refine the way we view the world around us.  First and foremost, our language and employment thereof has the most significant impact on us.  I do not want to bother with the noxious collectivist apologias familiar to the deconstructionists like Chomsky and Foucault who profess that literary texts and contemporary conversation are freighted with the various Politically Correct bugbears like race, class and gender which to me is a neat but erroneous substitute for thinking things through.  But they do make an important point:  our language, in this case, English, informs and prejudices cogitation in an unconscious fashion that can short-circuit clear and conscious thinking.

For example, prior to 1860, the use of the phrase “the United States are” was far more common than the post-1865 notion of the “the United States is”.  Mark Twain “observed that the Civil War was fought over whether ‘United States’ was singular or plural”.  Some attribute this to Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Professor of Greek at Johns Hopkins University, who wrote in 1909 that “if I chose (sic), I might enlarge on the historical importance of grammar in general and Greek grammar in particular. It was a point of grammatical concord that was at the bottom of the Civil War – “United States are,” said one, “United States is,” said another.”

The genesis of a bloody and, in the end, inglorious conflict may have been a dispute over grammatical construction which informed the consciousness of millions.

The larger point is that a lack of specificity, introspection and careful use of language after a consistent regimen of critical thinking can turn entire peoples into Helot populations subject to the vicissitudes and grasping of their rulers.

We are surrounded day after day by friends, family and neighbors who have become wholly-owned subsidiaries of the State through the brilliant manipulation of the government media-education complex and its tentacles grasping at the articulation and meanings of words in our culture.

Here are a few examples:

  • “If we get the right man in office…”
  • “But if the cops go on strike, who will protect us?”
  • “If the government does not build roads, who will?” (My answer is always simple: people will)
  • “Guns are dangerous…”
  • “The government ought to do something…”

These are all crimes against the moral imagination because, in the end, what folks are actually saying is what level of violence must I employ against others against their will to force the surrender of their time and resources for my benefit?  There are no other explanations. Yet that is the foundational concept behind the lion’s share of the narrative framework in America.  Narratives and meta-narratives are the stories and legends that inform why people (and nation-states) do what they do.  These are the historical motifs like anyone can be president in the United States or one can become a millionaire if you simply work hard enough in America.  During the last three terms of George Bush II (2001- Present), the former is unassailably true.  The latter not so much after taxes are accounted for.  Most of these narratives are works of fiction founded in a nugget of truth.  For a variety of reasons to include human laziness and insecurity, the idea of living at your neighbor’s expense against their will has become the foundational characteristic for the American culture at large.  One finds small enclaves of libertarians, Free Staters and Rothbardian anarchists who think the exact opposite but they do not have tremendous influence on the culture at large nor is the majority of the population subject to believing that a non-slavery system will be superior to the tax/regulatory slave system currently popular around the globe.

Let’s be clear on the meaning of slavery, it is the means by which another person other than the individual has discretion on the use of that person’s time and resources absent a contract.  I am a skeptic of the notion of wage slavery but not of tax and regulatory slavery.  Our rulers can usually excuse the most barbaric excesses with a simple phrase:  “through lawful authority”.  I can certainly be homeless and avoid work and the concomitant burden of taxes and regulations but as soon as I am employed in an above-ground economy job or enterprise, the sky will darken while regulators and tax collectors parachute in.  One can play the legal definitional standards all you want and they are written by the government after all.  The bottom line is that I am supposed to have given implied consent to participation in the job market and having more than sixty percent of my earnings taxed,  a hundred percent compliance with the ocean of regulations that drown and harass productivity in this particular tax jurisdiction known as America and be responsible for having intimate knowledge of quite literally yards of Federal Regulations on a bookshelf.  Implied consent is nice legal fiction to get around the troublesome annoyance of a formal signed contract.

The American narrative is bended knee to constituted authority on pain of fining, kidnapping, caging, maiming or death if one deigns to disobey.  Notice I use more realistic terms than arresting or jailing so I don’t put a happy face on the horrors visited on tens of thousands of non-violent Americans every day by the police who are the enforcers for the Helot system in America.  This is not the land of the free and home of the brave, it is the land of the Helot and the home of the Vichy collaborator.  This is a country that prides itself on the Big Lie.  We thank veterans for keeping us free yet we have NEVER been threatened with invasion by a formidable power since the end of the War of Northern Aggression in 1865. American government-sponsored imperial wars abroad and support of noxious regimes has made not only Americans more threatened by our own government but given tremendous impetus to the number of entities which wish to wreak vengeance for the death and destruction we have visited on their countries abroad.  Whatever one thinks of the anniversary on 9/11 coming around the corner, the case for reaping what we have sown is much more robust after we have visited so much violence on the brown people of the planet.

We are told that taxes are the price ones pays for civilization yet the government employs the practice of initiated violence against its subject population to enforce its will, a hallmark of barbarism if there is any.  Don’t believe me?  Stop paying your taxes to any level of government and continue working.  Don’t pull over when the armed revenue agents’ vehicle lights are flashing in your rear-view in your car on your government roads with your privilege license.  Refuse to submit to arrest.  Own any firearm you wish even it violates one of the 271 major Federal firearms laws.  We could go on.  Yet most of your fellow subjects will grumble but will vociferously defend the most outrageous and stupid laws on the books as the price of freedom.  What?

Fix your language and your worldview.  I recently penned an essay where I equated ALL police activities in America as terrorism and used the government’s own definitional standards to buttress the case.  Terms like officer safety are ludicrous because on closer examination it means the citizens’ lives are always subservient to that of the very Thin (Black and) Blue Line charged with protecting the cattle milling about the country.

Stop falling into the linguistic trap of Orwellian doublespeak the government is so fond of.  Here is a short list of linguistic reality:

  • Taxation is theft.
  • Robed government employees are paid state representatives who will rule in the state’s interest.
  • Government spending is not an investment; it is a taking from the private sector.
  • Presidents are nothing more than Tax Commissioners.
  • Nation states when stripped of the patriotic bunting and jingoistic propaganda are nothing more than claimed (and conquered) tax jurisdictions where the subjects are drained of resources at gunpoint to subsidize the rulers and their parasites and looters who maintain their constituent power.
  • Terrorism is politically motivated violence against non-combatants which means that government’s very charter is a terrorist act.

The list is practically endless.  Your job is to cleanse your intellectual palette of all the flotsam and jetsam the government media-education complex has delivered since the Founding of the tax jurisdiction known as America and see it for what it is.  Once you have liberated your mind of the propaganda backwash and the silly euphemisms, you start to see what you have missed.

You live in a nation whose very functional basis is theft from the producers to subsidize those who have not earned what they receive. A country so choked by regulation and economic distortion that it has literally committed economic seppuku.  A country whose per capita prison population is the highest in the world and dwarfs the political and criminal inmates in the Gulag under the worst of the other Soviet Union in Eurasia.  It is too big not to fail.

The end is nigh.  We are wholly responsible for what rises from the ashes of a dead America.

Words have meaning.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
– George Orwell

“I find it difficult to believe that words have no meaning in themselves, hard as I try. Habits of a lifetime are not lightly thrown aside.”

– Stuart Chase