We are all prisoners. All of us, every last one, lives in a world where our prison walls are not made of concrete and stone, not of cold steel and glass, but of barriers built in the human society itself.
These barriers are barriers of fear, of anger, of hatred, of derision and deception, wrought and worked in the fires of political expedience and the pursuit of power. Divisions, as always, are used to force separation, and thus remove cooperation.
We humans are a divisive lot, faction-filled and apparently programmed at the genetic level to compete, to find advantages for ourselves, and disadvantages for those we dislike. What is the truth? Among all the races, among all the factions of humanity, at the core of what makes us human, we are all the same. We are born, we live, we bleed, and ultimately we die. It is the nature of things, and of humanity.
When we are young, we are filled with wonder, and the world is full of flowers, and even the clouds and heat-haze of the roads reaches into our mind and pulls forth the imagination. When young, we do not hate, we do not fear, unless we are taught to do so, and be so. When brought up together, unless someone tells us it is 'wrong' to be different, we treat each other the same. We, however, seek an advantage, and in our equality, the greatest advantage is found when we separate others from us, and from their own. Because they are different they may be singled out, forced out, isolated, and targeted. They, for whatever reason, become something alien, something depersonalized and dehumanized, upon which our anger for our own perceived shortcomings boils forth.
When we hate, we focus on that which we see is not like ourselves, but the true measure of our anger is for that which we see in ourselves, and reject. We step out, reach out, and see a world that is so very full of temptation, of shame, of wants and desires, jealousy and lust, and because we sublimate them, hide them, and deny them, we attack, so often, the people that hold the very hidden desires that we cannot admit, not even to ourselves.
The greatest advantages one can place is via the power of the law, attempting to create advantages by force and coercion. Sometimes, however, it is more expedient to simply see to it that there is a disadvantage laid upon the back of a group. This process was supposed to be eliminated by the nature of general government, and the common law. The Jim Crow laws of the south, the gerrymandering, the outlawing of firearms for unpopular classes, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so many other things were designed, not to simply prevent certain classes from voting, but to prevent them from being seen as human. But.. were they not human? I believe that they can be argued to be nothing else.
As we tried to move from the hatred of people due to skin color (without regard to any 'color' of race) there were those who recognized a great deal of power in that hatred. By creating fear, they could sway crowds, incite people into the mass mind, the mob mind, where their individuality and critical thought ceased. However, the old methods of separation were slipping. What, then, was the answer?
The power was recreated fairly simply, creating classes that had labels that could not be seen in the skin, could not be understood, and that seemed so utterly alien that the political process could declare them to be monsters. They created labels, held them up to society as monsters, then let the old inner demons run forth. But how much more dangerous is a label to be feared that can be applied to anyone, at any time, that requires no proof of veracity, no evidence, just a simple allegation? A nebulous label which you can apply to anyone, quashing their rights.
I may be a total idiot... but even I can see the terrain that path leads through. We may be prisoners, but we don't need to make every mile... the Green Mile.
Read more!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Why is there so much crime? Why are so many poor?
Have you ever wondered what is happening in our nation? Why are our people so desperate? Why is there so much hunger, so much need, so much crime, so much want? We reach out and find ourselves failing, taking new jobs, working harder, faster, longer, and sacrificing more and more in a world that seems to care nothing at all if we exist, so long as we are paying our taxes.
The answer to this question is manifold, the taxes taking a quarter of our income don't help, but the greater answer, the answer that explains why many households try to hold down two jobs for each parent, is a bit more subtle, more insidious, and far more planned.
Each time we borrow money, and promise to repay there are several things going on. That promise to repay becomes a debt, an income owed to the bank which they can work with. However, the interest on that loan has to come from somewhere, so it comes from your work.
Easy credit, no money down, no payments for six months, and we sell our souls, our bodies, and the future of our children. It's not the taxes that make us poor, it's the debt. The taxes are just another manifestation of that debt owed by our government.
Benjamin Franklin said it the best, really.
I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
Letter To Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816
What we often don't see about debt is its real cost. We pay more and more until we must depend on that debt to survive, depend on the sufferance of banks, and credit, and no longer are we the masters of our own destinies. They manipulate us so we cannot even get jobs without credit checks, we cannot buy vehicles via cash anymore, but only via credit; and more, and more we find ourselves pinching pennies every month, dealing with the luxuries that cost us our peace of mind and our security in our property.
Each of us are laid down in slavery from the moment of our birth, to the moment of our death. The only way out of this slavery is to rebel, but we dare not? After all, who would DARE to go against those who offer us seeming riches, free money, convenience; but who would see what we are becoming?
We no longer work to put back money for the future. Futurity, after all, knows nothing of our assets, but only our debts. And the harder we work to try to pay off those debts, at a certain point, it becomes more and more obvious what has happened, and simply to maintain the debt at a minimum level, we let it stretch out into eternity, forever growing, forever becoming more and more massive until it crushes us and we lose everything: except the debt.
Oh yes, it's a cunning and insidious thing. Our creditors, our jailors, and our slavemasters know very well what they are doing. A people without the power of credit has disarmed themselves of a weapon against those who have such. And more and more, we're inundated with the messages of its convenience.
But what happens when the debt is called due? We lose everything we used as collateral, and now they propose, once again, debtor's prisons to 'work off' the debt. We've learned nothing... and the old masters are once again the new masters...
And slavery and tyranny are here, and to maintain it, they must disarm us. And what, I might ask, is the best way to disarm us? The plan is simple. First, arrange it so the courts only hear lawyers, not the people themselves. Next, arrange it so those very lawyers are the only people raised up to the seats of government. Then, establish precedents allowing single persons, or groups of persons to be disarmed, for the public good. Expand infinitely.
If you can get away with it, also expand other classes with living limitations, remove voting rights, and in general, make it a living hell for anyone ever convicted of a crime. Remove the protections of the constitution wherever you can extort, coerce, or flat out defraud a way around it.
And make damn sure that debt is easy to get into... but almost impossible to escape. To maintain high crime levels, you need high debt levels. The more money comes out of each person in interest payments, the less money can actually be used for their own support, and so it too often is supplemented in ways that are outside the law. This continues your excuse for higher taxes for protection, as well as your ability to clamor for new laws against the class of 'criminals.'
Never mind what actual recidivism rates are, or what kind of crime it is, or even the judgment of the court and jury. That doesn't matter, what matters is the illusion of safety.
As of this moment, and for the past many decades, you have no right to police protection. I could quote many cases, but the simplest explanation is a link.
http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
Given the nature of the actions taken by the police force, of late, the rising police brutality and the increasing militarization and use of SWAT teams, can we really affford to ignore that lack of protection? And who protects us from them?
Perhaps the best question, in this total idiot's mind, is: Why is their right to self-protect greater than our right to self-protect, and if we have no longer any right to self-protect, why is there no protected property interest in being protected?
The argument that must be made in the favor of police is simply that police cannot be everywhere at once, and more than that, have no power of prescience to prevent crime. They are a reactive force, and their charter maintains reactivity due to the nature of proactive police work. Proactive work has been, and nearly always becomes the work of tyrants.
Who do the police serve? They claim 'to serve and protect', but to protect who? The easy answer is the society, but historic reference will show that such police forces grew out of the Irish poll guards, the firemen, and the political bosses. We might pay the taxes to preserve that police force, and they are necessary to the rule of law, but they are certainly not there to protect any individual, or even any group of individuals. They are paid mostly through the auspices of the government, who has many lobbying groups by those very people that assist in the creation of debt, and further, assist in the creation, maintenance, and day to day running of the ever-growing prison system, and are paid a great deal in both political favors and monetary bonuses for ensuring that those prisons remain full.
So who would believe that the government, in order to make police work easier, might remove more of your rights, offering you 'increased safety' but no protection at all?
Only a total idiot...
Read more!
The answer to this question is manifold, the taxes taking a quarter of our income don't help, but the greater answer, the answer that explains why many households try to hold down two jobs for each parent, is a bit more subtle, more insidious, and far more planned.
Each time we borrow money, and promise to repay there are several things going on. That promise to repay becomes a debt, an income owed to the bank which they can work with. However, the interest on that loan has to come from somewhere, so it comes from your work.
Easy credit, no money down, no payments for six months, and we sell our souls, our bodies, and the future of our children. It's not the taxes that make us poor, it's the debt. The taxes are just another manifestation of that debt owed by our government.
Benjamin Franklin said it the best, really.
I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
Letter To Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816
What we often don't see about debt is its real cost. We pay more and more until we must depend on that debt to survive, depend on the sufferance of banks, and credit, and no longer are we the masters of our own destinies. They manipulate us so we cannot even get jobs without credit checks, we cannot buy vehicles via cash anymore, but only via credit; and more, and more we find ourselves pinching pennies every month, dealing with the luxuries that cost us our peace of mind and our security in our property.
Each of us are laid down in slavery from the moment of our birth, to the moment of our death. The only way out of this slavery is to rebel, but we dare not? After all, who would DARE to go against those who offer us seeming riches, free money, convenience; but who would see what we are becoming?
We no longer work to put back money for the future. Futurity, after all, knows nothing of our assets, but only our debts. And the harder we work to try to pay off those debts, at a certain point, it becomes more and more obvious what has happened, and simply to maintain the debt at a minimum level, we let it stretch out into eternity, forever growing, forever becoming more and more massive until it crushes us and we lose everything: except the debt.
Oh yes, it's a cunning and insidious thing. Our creditors, our jailors, and our slavemasters know very well what they are doing. A people without the power of credit has disarmed themselves of a weapon against those who have such. And more and more, we're inundated with the messages of its convenience.
But what happens when the debt is called due? We lose everything we used as collateral, and now they propose, once again, debtor's prisons to 'work off' the debt. We've learned nothing... and the old masters are once again the new masters...
And slavery and tyranny are here, and to maintain it, they must disarm us. And what, I might ask, is the best way to disarm us? The plan is simple. First, arrange it so the courts only hear lawyers, not the people themselves. Next, arrange it so those very lawyers are the only people raised up to the seats of government. Then, establish precedents allowing single persons, or groups of persons to be disarmed, for the public good. Expand infinitely.
If you can get away with it, also expand other classes with living limitations, remove voting rights, and in general, make it a living hell for anyone ever convicted of a crime. Remove the protections of the constitution wherever you can extort, coerce, or flat out defraud a way around it.
And make damn sure that debt is easy to get into... but almost impossible to escape. To maintain high crime levels, you need high debt levels. The more money comes out of each person in interest payments, the less money can actually be used for their own support, and so it too often is supplemented in ways that are outside the law. This continues your excuse for higher taxes for protection, as well as your ability to clamor for new laws against the class of 'criminals.'
Never mind what actual recidivism rates are, or what kind of crime it is, or even the judgment of the court and jury. That doesn't matter, what matters is the illusion of safety.
As of this moment, and for the past many decades, you have no right to police protection. I could quote many cases, but the simplest explanation is a link.
http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
Given the nature of the actions taken by the police force, of late, the rising police brutality and the increasing militarization and use of SWAT teams, can we really affford to ignore that lack of protection? And who protects us from them?
Perhaps the best question, in this total idiot's mind, is: Why is their right to self-protect greater than our right to self-protect, and if we have no longer any right to self-protect, why is there no protected property interest in being protected?
The argument that must be made in the favor of police is simply that police cannot be everywhere at once, and more than that, have no power of prescience to prevent crime. They are a reactive force, and their charter maintains reactivity due to the nature of proactive police work. Proactive work has been, and nearly always becomes the work of tyrants.
Who do the police serve? They claim 'to serve and protect', but to protect who? The easy answer is the society, but historic reference will show that such police forces grew out of the Irish poll guards, the firemen, and the political bosses. We might pay the taxes to preserve that police force, and they are necessary to the rule of law, but they are certainly not there to protect any individual, or even any group of individuals. They are paid mostly through the auspices of the government, who has many lobbying groups by those very people that assist in the creation of debt, and further, assist in the creation, maintenance, and day to day running of the ever-growing prison system, and are paid a great deal in both political favors and monetary bonuses for ensuring that those prisons remain full.
So who would believe that the government, in order to make police work easier, might remove more of your rights, offering you 'increased safety' but no protection at all?
Only a total idiot...
Read more!
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The real reason for racism.
We stand in a crossroads, a crux point, where every move has consequences that trip us further down paths out of our control, yet we must move. We see hatred and intolerance everywhere we look, and there seems no end to it. We talk about how we must control x, y, or z, then complain about how our lives grow emptier of value, bereft of purpose, and how we've lost our way in an uncaring world.
We talk about how this group or that group ought to be restrained in the interests of the greater good, but too often we mean 'because they aren't like me'. We talk about limiting people's rights to speak about religion, about politics, because it offends us, but it really boils down to 'because they aren't like me'. But each time we limit a class of persons, we're actually accomplishing nothing toward the works of preserving our own ideals, our own liberties, and the perceived threat of others voting away our rights, our powers, our liberties, becomes far more possible.
For liberty is a living being. When we weaken her, abuse her, she becomes more vulnerable to abuse. When we cut her, she grows weaker, when we sever one part from another, eventually unrecognizeable.
The tools to weaken liberty were set out in many works... from the 'more equal than others' part in Animal Farm, to the discussions of the ubermensch of Hitler. Any time any portion is judged wiser, more capable, more knowing, better, the other will be viewed as less capable, less knowing, more foolish, and worse.
I am a 'conservative', but in the old form. I hope for days that no laws are built on race or separation. But I must ask, however, if it is not equally racist to base ideals that any race is better or more capable in one sphere than another?
Does this not add to separation rather than combination? When we say 'a black man is more capable of empathy than a white', is it not simply another subtle form of racism? It is based entirely upon race, and therefore highly suspect. Those subtle divisions are what leads us down the road we find ourselves upon; the idea that some people are less worthy than others, less capable, lesser and worse due to an arbitrary status that has no meaning.
There will always be racists, but we equally must look at ourselves. I continually hear people talking about how 'x' is more qualified... due to nothing less than the race, or the gender, or both. How they would make a better decision than 'y' of 'z' gender. My question is why it matters? Is it not another excuse to continue racism and gender issues in the guise of equality? Is it not racism to judge, for or against, on the issue of race?
If it is not... then we are no further along than when we started. It is equally racism to look for offense due to race as to give offense due to race. We've become, via the help of others who believe us incapable of decisions about racism, overly sensitive to the subject. We find more and more that we are set up, to try and fail without the 'help' of those who have appointed themselves to help us, and benefit from the positions.
Has racism become an issue that the nation cannot allow to die? Have we implemented policies that continue the segregation, even as we claim to seek to end it? Do our policies encourage weakness and dependency upon outside sources, upon laws, rather than upon self-control, self-actualization, and self-realization? Does anyone tell us that we are too weak to continue the fight? If so, then certainly they are using racism to control you. The truth is, we are all human beings, regardless of race, regardless of gender, without regard for sexuality, for religious preference. We all have our frailties, our failings, and we all have a great deal of power over ourselves and our world.
And we all have the ability to fight those who would keep us down, those who would say to you; “Don't be like the other side. Don't get an education, that's their way. Don't better yourselves. We'll take care of you.” What hubris! What gall! Why should any people be subjugated by their own, held helpless in their circumstances then told it's the 'other side' that keeps them there? We keep getting told that it's a democracy, and that we fight to preserve democracy or institute it overseas. It was, however, never intended to be a true democracy, but a republic of limited powers, with checks and balances, including checks and balances to prevent one part of the people from enslaving the others with 'good intentions'.
And yet today, racism still lives, and slavery still thrives. Not the slavery of the plantation, or the whips and chains, but slavery of the heart, subjugation of the will, and education, and reality. And it is accomplished, not by masters of the plantation, but those who seek to 'protect', without ever allowing us to realize that there is more to protection than allowing someone else to be your champion. The true champion teaches you to protect yourselves, teaches you to channel that moral outrage into building bridges, not tearing them down. The true champion teaches you to become more than you are, and be a power in the world not because of your race, but because of who you are inside.
Judged by the content of your character, not the color of your skin. Judged by your actions, your mind, your spirit, not by the melatonin or lack thereof. We are not blind to race... but only blind to the powers within ourselves, and those who seek to maintain us as a willing electorate by trying to ensure that the 'other side' has no foothold.
How often does crime become a racial issue? How often do we see juries selected not for their knowledge or discernment, but because of their race, and cases challenged not because of the facts or procedure, but the race of the prosecutor, jury, and judge? Does it not make more sense, if a judge or prosecutor are influenced by issues of race to ensure that they do not retain the office? Are there not recourses to misdirection and malfeasance?
But yet politicians would have us believe that the only route is new laws to protect one class of citizen from another. We already have laws dealing with 'racial issues'. Perhaps a better route would be allowing us, and our 'other side' to come to grips with our differences, and to recognize our similarities. But something in us cries out after all the hatred, “We have nothing in common with them!” “Why should we embrace them when they have done this to us?” Us versus them. To use an old term 'black vs white', and absolutism. So long as either side clings to the paradigm that the other side is bad, evil, and attacking them, there can be no peace. So long as there are sides, there will be war. And so long as we embrace stereotypes, they will continue to exist, as badges of honor, or badges of shame, and those with power will continue using it for the ends of power.
Even a total idiot can see that.
Read more!
We talk about how this group or that group ought to be restrained in the interests of the greater good, but too often we mean 'because they aren't like me'. We talk about limiting people's rights to speak about religion, about politics, because it offends us, but it really boils down to 'because they aren't like me'. But each time we limit a class of persons, we're actually accomplishing nothing toward the works of preserving our own ideals, our own liberties, and the perceived threat of others voting away our rights, our powers, our liberties, becomes far more possible.
For liberty is a living being. When we weaken her, abuse her, she becomes more vulnerable to abuse. When we cut her, she grows weaker, when we sever one part from another, eventually unrecognizeable.
The tools to weaken liberty were set out in many works... from the 'more equal than others' part in Animal Farm, to the discussions of the ubermensch of Hitler. Any time any portion is judged wiser, more capable, more knowing, better, the other will be viewed as less capable, less knowing, more foolish, and worse.
I am a 'conservative', but in the old form. I hope for days that no laws are built on race or separation. But I must ask, however, if it is not equally racist to base ideals that any race is better or more capable in one sphere than another?
Does this not add to separation rather than combination? When we say 'a black man is more capable of empathy than a white', is it not simply another subtle form of racism? It is based entirely upon race, and therefore highly suspect. Those subtle divisions are what leads us down the road we find ourselves upon; the idea that some people are less worthy than others, less capable, lesser and worse due to an arbitrary status that has no meaning.
There will always be racists, but we equally must look at ourselves. I continually hear people talking about how 'x' is more qualified... due to nothing less than the race, or the gender, or both. How they would make a better decision than 'y' of 'z' gender. My question is why it matters? Is it not another excuse to continue racism and gender issues in the guise of equality? Is it not racism to judge, for or against, on the issue of race?
If it is not... then we are no further along than when we started. It is equally racism to look for offense due to race as to give offense due to race. We've become, via the help of others who believe us incapable of decisions about racism, overly sensitive to the subject. We find more and more that we are set up, to try and fail without the 'help' of those who have appointed themselves to help us, and benefit from the positions.
Has racism become an issue that the nation cannot allow to die? Have we implemented policies that continue the segregation, even as we claim to seek to end it? Do our policies encourage weakness and dependency upon outside sources, upon laws, rather than upon self-control, self-actualization, and self-realization? Does anyone tell us that we are too weak to continue the fight? If so, then certainly they are using racism to control you. The truth is, we are all human beings, regardless of race, regardless of gender, without regard for sexuality, for religious preference. We all have our frailties, our failings, and we all have a great deal of power over ourselves and our world.
And we all have the ability to fight those who would keep us down, those who would say to you; “Don't be like the other side. Don't get an education, that's their way. Don't better yourselves. We'll take care of you.” What hubris! What gall! Why should any people be subjugated by their own, held helpless in their circumstances then told it's the 'other side' that keeps them there? We keep getting told that it's a democracy, and that we fight to preserve democracy or institute it overseas. It was, however, never intended to be a true democracy, but a republic of limited powers, with checks and balances, including checks and balances to prevent one part of the people from enslaving the others with 'good intentions'.
And yet today, racism still lives, and slavery still thrives. Not the slavery of the plantation, or the whips and chains, but slavery of the heart, subjugation of the will, and education, and reality. And it is accomplished, not by masters of the plantation, but those who seek to 'protect', without ever allowing us to realize that there is more to protection than allowing someone else to be your champion. The true champion teaches you to protect yourselves, teaches you to channel that moral outrage into building bridges, not tearing them down. The true champion teaches you to become more than you are, and be a power in the world not because of your race, but because of who you are inside.
Judged by the content of your character, not the color of your skin. Judged by your actions, your mind, your spirit, not by the melatonin or lack thereof. We are not blind to race... but only blind to the powers within ourselves, and those who seek to maintain us as a willing electorate by trying to ensure that the 'other side' has no foothold.
How often does crime become a racial issue? How often do we see juries selected not for their knowledge or discernment, but because of their race, and cases challenged not because of the facts or procedure, but the race of the prosecutor, jury, and judge? Does it not make more sense, if a judge or prosecutor are influenced by issues of race to ensure that they do not retain the office? Are there not recourses to misdirection and malfeasance?
But yet politicians would have us believe that the only route is new laws to protect one class of citizen from another. We already have laws dealing with 'racial issues'. Perhaps a better route would be allowing us, and our 'other side' to come to grips with our differences, and to recognize our similarities. But something in us cries out after all the hatred, “We have nothing in common with them!” “Why should we embrace them when they have done this to us?” Us versus them. To use an old term 'black vs white', and absolutism. So long as either side clings to the paradigm that the other side is bad, evil, and attacking them, there can be no peace. So long as there are sides, there will be war. And so long as we embrace stereotypes, they will continue to exist, as badges of honor, or badges of shame, and those with power will continue using it for the ends of power.
Even a total idiot can see that.
Read more!
Friday, June 5, 2009
How did we get here? An idiot's take.
Our people, our nation have walked with open eyes, but quite blindly into the pit trap that is ahead of them. Shuffling forth like a crowd of grasping, hungry zombies after the nearby person atop the ice cream truck (with the music playing in the background for true horror), we've managed to destroy our freedoms, our liberties, and even our representation in our own government. So how did we get here? This article, and the next few articles will address this.
Suffice to say that we as a people got here with the best of intentions. "Good intentions", as said by Daniel Webster, "Will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
This is not, however, to accuse the putative 'masters' of being the only ones at fault. We tend to forget that we too have a place in the process, and our good intentions often feed into the grasping and manipulative hands of those who would harm us.
The keys are manifold, and often in our own hands. We see perceived injustice, and say 'there ought to be a law' while ignoring that there may well already be.
Here are the key events that got us here.
A good part of the start of this was at the very beginning of the nation, when the Articles of Confederation were dying a death of a thousand cuts from internal stresses and loose monetary policies. The Bank of England provided loans, and the people of the Several States used those loans to back currency, often at large inflationary rates, allowing foreclosures on the properties that ended up owned by the banks by their backers. Rebellion was occurring, no standing army existed, and liberty was as much a myth as any dragon or unicorn. The nation was protected solely by the might of individual arms, and the mustering of those arms took time.
The issue of slavery as well was on the minds of the population. While the founders wrestled with its thorny grasp, they recognized that men must be free. At the same time, they recognized the economic hardship that such a takings would cause in many parts of the nation, as well as recognizing that said nation was also going to be recalcitrant in giving up its property. They set a date for correcting the situation, a date of 1808. It was not addressed until sixty years later.
There were other forces at work as well. On July 14, 1803, the treaty authorizing the Louisiana Purchase reached Washington DC. Napoleon had ceded the lands involved for a cash sum of 15 million dollars, a bauble according to the value of the total land area, resources, and materials involved. This however had another effect, the effect of introducing new law through the Louisiana territory, the civil law under the Roman tradition. Regulations, definitions, and many other things began replacing the Common Law as early as 1838.
On November 6, 1860, a lawyer was elected president. His name was Abraham Lincoln. He selected members for his cabinet from among his political opponents, to get a number of opposing views. Their advice was often barbed with traps, particularly the advice of Stanton. The president often walked the tightrope between political destruction, and solvency. When the southern states pronounced their secession from the union, Stanton (the secretary of war) was counseling Lincoln that the union was inseparable without a dissolution, threatening the continuity of the United States as it was seen at the time. Without the Confederate states, the Federal Government lacked a simple majority, preventing any legislation from being passed, any work from being done, any declarations or resolutions from being accomplished. The Union was at a standstill.
Abraham Lincoln at this point declared an emergency, and declared Martial Law, under the assumption of emergency powers. The Supreme Court struck this down in Ex Parte Merryman, but it was ignored by Lincoln. Lincoln then by executive order passed legislation allowing the Congress to operate without a quorum, by suspension of the normal rules of operation, they could pass legislation 'without contention'.
In other words, if nobody was there to say no, then the writ was law. This situation still exists today, with the suspension of the rules, and passage without contention. It would appear that Lincoln was drafting legislation to return the U.S. to the constitutional situation while he was murdered, but this is beyond the scope of this document.
Numerous powers were attempted at this time, from the case of Texas v White, to the case of Cummings V. Missouri and Ex Parte Garland. The issue of firearms came up, and the north fought to maintain the individual right to keep and bear arms even for the 'insurrectionist' south.
The passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments with interim (appointed) state governments complicated the mix. (Again beyond the scope of this document).
During this time an experiment with a national reserve bank ended, with another run on the bank. The experiment was repeated after the passage of an income tax amendment, and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, in 1913. At this point, so long as the reserve bank did not have a run on too many banks at once, the system was seemingly secure. A financial boom time followed, the 'Roaring twenties' fed as well by the industrial complex of the First World War. Borrowing to invest had become common, and a fatal flaw. On Black Friday, the nation's fortunes plummeted. Loose monetary policy and lack of oversight of the Federal Reserve and lenders had caused an inflationary bubble, which popped and caused massive unemployment.
Due to this unemployment, the 'Bonus Army' came to Washington D.C. in order to attempt to gain an advance from their promised bonus bonds, due to the financial hardship. This left President Wilson in a bind, knowing the treasury did not have enough funds to pay the full amount of the bonds, and that the Federal Reserve refused to allow the bonds to be paid, he felt he had to refuse. Against orders, and ignoring repeated orders, the Army marched across the Potomac and chased the Bonus Army from the grounds of Washington D.C. (to this day rumors of atrocity abound, it's impossible to say what really happened, the official account was a child dead by tear gas, and several saber wounds in various people). Around the same time, numerous news and media agencies were bought up, forming a new 'associated press' that only had its independence in name.
This paved the way for Franklin Delano Roosevelt to gain the White House. In 1933, there was a national emergency declared by Congress, and the powers latent since Lincoln were activated once again, and have never to this date been deactivated, as the Congress in their panic allowed that only the president could declare an end to the emergency.
The president then declared a paper currency, dictated the seizure of all gold coins, bullion, and silver to back the currency and to be delivered to the Federal Reserve. The Internal Revenue Service was given extraordinary powers to seize property.
Desegregation in 1957, and use of the army in Little Rock did little to quell the powers of government.
We fast-forward a few years, to the Vietnam war, and a media more capable of using photography and film to influence the public. The power of the media and television, illustrations carefully chosen created a swell of anger in the people at home, against our soldiers and our government. The cold war begins, various presidents pass executive orders allowing the seizure of any property, including labor, and redistribution as the nation requires. The Watergate tapes, the scandals of multiple presidencies, a soaring national debt funded by the same bankers as back in the beginning, distracting the people through the media further, busily giving them people to focus on and hate, overemphasizing the problems of racial inequality, and legislation introduced to maintain it, claiming to be operating to remove it...
Are we really so much better off today?
Or are we all slaves already... this idiot wonders.
It would seem to me that government ownership and debt have made us entirely under their power, and as we must request permission to travel, permission to farm, permission for industry, permission for manufacture, permission to use our own lands and our own vehicles, permission to own our vehicles, our weapons, and even to have children and be married.. that we are fully owned by the government.
And this idiot wishes he were too stupid to be terrified of what that means.
Read more!
Suffice to say that we as a people got here with the best of intentions. "Good intentions", as said by Daniel Webster, "Will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
This is not, however, to accuse the putative 'masters' of being the only ones at fault. We tend to forget that we too have a place in the process, and our good intentions often feed into the grasping and manipulative hands of those who would harm us.
The keys are manifold, and often in our own hands. We see perceived injustice, and say 'there ought to be a law' while ignoring that there may well already be.
Here are the key events that got us here.
A good part of the start of this was at the very beginning of the nation, when the Articles of Confederation were dying a death of a thousand cuts from internal stresses and loose monetary policies. The Bank of England provided loans, and the people of the Several States used those loans to back currency, often at large inflationary rates, allowing foreclosures on the properties that ended up owned by the banks by their backers. Rebellion was occurring, no standing army existed, and liberty was as much a myth as any dragon or unicorn. The nation was protected solely by the might of individual arms, and the mustering of those arms took time.
The issue of slavery as well was on the minds of the population. While the founders wrestled with its thorny grasp, they recognized that men must be free. At the same time, they recognized the economic hardship that such a takings would cause in many parts of the nation, as well as recognizing that said nation was also going to be recalcitrant in giving up its property. They set a date for correcting the situation, a date of 1808. It was not addressed until sixty years later.
There were other forces at work as well. On July 14, 1803, the treaty authorizing the Louisiana Purchase reached Washington DC. Napoleon had ceded the lands involved for a cash sum of 15 million dollars, a bauble according to the value of the total land area, resources, and materials involved. This however had another effect, the effect of introducing new law through the Louisiana territory, the civil law under the Roman tradition. Regulations, definitions, and many other things began replacing the Common Law as early as 1838.
On November 6, 1860, a lawyer was elected president. His name was Abraham Lincoln. He selected members for his cabinet from among his political opponents, to get a number of opposing views. Their advice was often barbed with traps, particularly the advice of Stanton. The president often walked the tightrope between political destruction, and solvency. When the southern states pronounced their secession from the union, Stanton (the secretary of war) was counseling Lincoln that the union was inseparable without a dissolution, threatening the continuity of the United States as it was seen at the time. Without the Confederate states, the Federal Government lacked a simple majority, preventing any legislation from being passed, any work from being done, any declarations or resolutions from being accomplished. The Union was at a standstill.
Abraham Lincoln at this point declared an emergency, and declared Martial Law, under the assumption of emergency powers. The Supreme Court struck this down in Ex Parte Merryman, but it was ignored by Lincoln. Lincoln then by executive order passed legislation allowing the Congress to operate without a quorum, by suspension of the normal rules of operation, they could pass legislation 'without contention'.
In other words, if nobody was there to say no, then the writ was law. This situation still exists today, with the suspension of the rules, and passage without contention. It would appear that Lincoln was drafting legislation to return the U.S. to the constitutional situation while he was murdered, but this is beyond the scope of this document.
Numerous powers were attempted at this time, from the case of Texas v White, to the case of Cummings V. Missouri and Ex Parte Garland. The issue of firearms came up, and the north fought to maintain the individual right to keep and bear arms even for the 'insurrectionist' south.
The passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments with interim (appointed) state governments complicated the mix. (Again beyond the scope of this document).
During this time an experiment with a national reserve bank ended, with another run on the bank. The experiment was repeated after the passage of an income tax amendment, and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, in 1913. At this point, so long as the reserve bank did not have a run on too many banks at once, the system was seemingly secure. A financial boom time followed, the 'Roaring twenties' fed as well by the industrial complex of the First World War. Borrowing to invest had become common, and a fatal flaw. On Black Friday, the nation's fortunes plummeted. Loose monetary policy and lack of oversight of the Federal Reserve and lenders had caused an inflationary bubble, which popped and caused massive unemployment.
Due to this unemployment, the 'Bonus Army' came to Washington D.C. in order to attempt to gain an advance from their promised bonus bonds, due to the financial hardship. This left President Wilson in a bind, knowing the treasury did not have enough funds to pay the full amount of the bonds, and that the Federal Reserve refused to allow the bonds to be paid, he felt he had to refuse. Against orders, and ignoring repeated orders, the Army marched across the Potomac and chased the Bonus Army from the grounds of Washington D.C. (to this day rumors of atrocity abound, it's impossible to say what really happened, the official account was a child dead by tear gas, and several saber wounds in various people). Around the same time, numerous news and media agencies were bought up, forming a new 'associated press' that only had its independence in name.
This paved the way for Franklin Delano Roosevelt to gain the White House. In 1933, there was a national emergency declared by Congress, and the powers latent since Lincoln were activated once again, and have never to this date been deactivated, as the Congress in their panic allowed that only the president could declare an end to the emergency.
The president then declared a paper currency, dictated the seizure of all gold coins, bullion, and silver to back the currency and to be delivered to the Federal Reserve. The Internal Revenue Service was given extraordinary powers to seize property.
Desegregation in 1957, and use of the army in Little Rock did little to quell the powers of government.
We fast-forward a few years, to the Vietnam war, and a media more capable of using photography and film to influence the public. The power of the media and television, illustrations carefully chosen created a swell of anger in the people at home, against our soldiers and our government. The cold war begins, various presidents pass executive orders allowing the seizure of any property, including labor, and redistribution as the nation requires. The Watergate tapes, the scandals of multiple presidencies, a soaring national debt funded by the same bankers as back in the beginning, distracting the people through the media further, busily giving them people to focus on and hate, overemphasizing the problems of racial inequality, and legislation introduced to maintain it, claiming to be operating to remove it...
Are we really so much better off today?
Or are we all slaves already... this idiot wonders.
It would seem to me that government ownership and debt have made us entirely under their power, and as we must request permission to travel, permission to farm, permission for industry, permission for manufacture, permission to use our own lands and our own vehicles, permission to own our vehicles, our weapons, and even to have children and be married.. that we are fully owned by the government.
And this idiot wishes he were too stupid to be terrified of what that means.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)