Shifting Gears

I hoped to avoid this. I thought I could just state some facts and appeal to the reason of the reader, but I’m finding too much that is completely misguided in the pool of “common knowledge”. Consider the next several posts to be of a purely informative nature. I will have to be somewhat comprehensive so that when I say things later I can reference back to contextual and verifiable information. Otherwise every post is going to end with a list of books to study, sites to read, etc. None of the posts immediately hereafter are primarily here to be read outside of later topics that are actually relevant to modern-day sociological, political and/or economic subject matter. Oh well, it’s MY blog I will consign it to the flames of boredom if I wish. So tomorrow it begins.

Back to Basics

Like it or not, this is how it really is….

First, there are “structural” problems with our government. These are clear-cut errors in process that exist in defiance of the mandates of its founding document. These are the easy fixes. They are clearly wrong and there is a clearly right way and we need to just do it.

In my previous post (http://rdavidmray.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/the-federal-government/) I explained some of the basics of federalism. If you understood that, you understand why the central government should have a very limited influence in our personal lives, because the federal government is not a government “of the people, by the people and for the people”; it is there to represent and manage interaction between the states. Of the three branches of government, only one branch is supposed to be elected by popular vote (the House of Representatives). The election of US Senators has been corrupted by the 17th Amendment, which is worded in direct contradiction to the US Constitution. See for yourself:

US Constitution, Article I, Section 3: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof.

US Constitution, Article 5: “……no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

So our founders chose to reference the rights of the states (which should be understood to be the “state governments”) once near the beginning of the Constitution and then again near the end of it. They talked as much about the dangers of a pure democracy (the tyranny of the 51%) as they did the tyranny of the King. And now here we are. So there’s fix number one:

Fix Number One: return the election of US Senators back to the state legislatures where it rightfully belongs.

The Federal government can make laws of enforcement (through Congress) only in very specific areas, which are outlined clearly in Article I, Section 8 (“Powers of Congress”).

The power to “lay and collect taxes” implies the valid authority of the IRS (we’re just going to let that one go for now –more on it when I’m talking about the monetary system).

The power to punish piracy, felonies committed on the high seas, and those that would counterfeit our money implies the need for an arm of enforcement and for a federal prison for those purposes.

The power of enforcement over lands owned by the federal government implies a need for an arm of enforcement for this purpose.

Luckily, since the federal government already has an army and navy, the arm of enforcement is already there.

Under the section entitled “Powers of Congress”, these are the only powers of enforcement and punishment there are.

Under Article III (The Judicial Branch) there are outlined those cases where the federal government, through federal courts, can hear cases concerning individuals.

These are the powers of the federal government. There are general additions. The “regulation of commerce between the several states” implies power of enforcement under some circumstances of interstate commerce.

As stated previously, the Constitution was written as a document to limit power to the federal government, and so most of it is procedural minutia and specified powers the federal government has over the states. The above examples are the only direct instances of power the federal government has over actual people.

People nowadays like to take the Constitution and the first ten Amendments (the “Bill of Rights”) and lump them together and call it “the Constitution”, but that is not a correct perception. The Constitution is the only document that empowers the federal government, and no power can be granted to the federal government over people based on the Bill of Rights. At most, they can empower the federal government to enforce certain rights of individuals in some cases, For further clarification:

Amendment I: Freedom of Religion, Press –There is nothing in this Amendment that empowers the federal government to do anything with regard to freedom of religion or press. There is only an expressly stated lack of power for the federal government to impose regulation on these things. To make it particularly clear, the federal government does not have the power or authority to enforce freedom of religion or the press based on this amendment. The First Amendment only prohibits the federal government from imposing regulation or compliance. If I became the governor of Texas and got everyone to decide to be Presbyterians or Baptists or whatever and decided to make that the official religion of this state and the people agreed to an amendment to our state Constitution to that effect there is not a single thing the federal government can do about it. If the people amend our state Constitution banning American Idol, the federal government has no power via this Amendment to do anything about it if the state police start burning their advertisements, banning its reference in media, and exterminating it completely from the Texas mental landscape. It has no power period to do anything about it. You may not like it but that’s how we were created; it’s fundamental to the entirety of what the founders were trying to do. You don’t believe me I can tell. Ok. Did you know that Connecticut had a state religion until 1818? New Hampshire had one unti 1819. Massachusetts had one until 1833, There are others but I think my point has been made. There are even state legislators in North Carolina right now that are trying to establish a state religion. Don’t hate me for telling you how it is, just deal with it and be happy ok?

Amendment II: The Right to Bear Arms –There is nothing in this Amendment that empowers the federal government to do anything with regard to personally-owned firearms, period. Like it or not that’s how it is, and it is not in any way “my opinion”. A state can impose whatever it likes, but it can also allow me to buy a tank and build a highway system such that I can drive it to work every day if I want if that’s the state law. Again, not my opinion, this is the only possible reality because that’s how the Constitution was written. Deal with it.

Amendment III: Quartering of Soldiers –Self explanatory. Luckily, the government isn’t trying to get us to provide room and board for the army.

Amendment IV-VIII: Rights of Suspected Criminals –These Amendments clearly are aimed to limit all governments (both federal and state) from imposing tyrannical process when attempting to prosecute a suspected criminal. No unwarranted search and seizures, no capital punishment without a Grand Jury, no “double jeopardy”, right to speedy trial, trial by jury in civil cases, and no “cruel and unusual punishment”. These Amendments empower the Judicial Branch to determine when federal or state governments infringe on any of these at the expense of a citizen. They also imply a potential need for an agency to enforce compliance to these Amendments by the states. They do not imply any need for an agency that has anything to do with getting people to comply to anything.

Amendment IX: Construction of Constitution-This Amendment states that the rights cited in the Constitution are not to be used to imply the government’s right to deny other rights retained by the people. So that means no, you can’t make a federal law that says Texas can’t ban American Idol or MSNBC. You can’t make a federal law that says I can’t drive my fully-loaded tank to work every day. This Amendment makes my entire case!

Amendment X: Powers of the States and People Any power not expressly cited in the Constitution as a power of the federal government is a power of the states or the people. Enough said.

Like it or not there it is. This is not “my opinion” or even “my analysis”. This is the clear-cut reality of the creation of this country and the purposes of government as seen by those that created it. In my last post I said I’d be providing examples of idiotic government bureaus and presenting some possible alternatives (there would actually be opinion there of course), but I didn’t get that far. I felt the need to outline the actual valid powers the federal government has before I start dismantling the ones it has usurped over the years. These subjects are so large and the picture has been so garbled by time and calculated manipulation it may be impossible to plan out in advance what the next post may be. Hopefully tomorrow I will be able to provide some examples and then move on to the next monster in the closet (corporations). Until then…….

The “Federal” Government

I have struggled with the order in which to present these three blog posts. The degree to which the corporate, governmental and monetary worlds are interlinked makes it difficult to discuss any one without inserting much about the other two. After some consideration, I have concluded that it will be best to start with the one that came first.

Any truly comprehensive presentation of this subject matter is far beyond the scope of a blog post. Simple concepts and examples will have to suffice, at least for now.

The most important concept to understand when talking about the evolution of government, the evolution towards liberty, is federalism. The United States government is supposed to be a “federal” government. The definition of “federal” has changed wildly over the years, and (not surprisingly) the modern definition fits the view that favors those that would wish to preserve consolidated power into perpetuity.

But if we are to actually understand the intention of the people that originally called this government a “federal” government, we have to understand the term the way they understood it. Much of the inspiration for the “American model” of federalism actually comes from Native Americans, particularly the Iroquois Confederation (Hau de no sau nee). The Iroquois Confederation consisted of six Native American nations, all sovereign and voluntarily joined with the rest. Some people say they were founded in the 1100’s, others say the 1400’s. Either way they lasted far longer than we have so far and did so in a completely stable manner.

Of course, this is not the undisputed theory. There are historians that disagree. But the very fact that there is intellectual debate on this at the highest levels of academia provides all the evidence I need to determine how the word “federal” was interpreted by those that first used it in the United States. The colonies joined together to fight England, then they created the “federal” government as a kind of league of sovereign states (“states” here being used in its definitive, not its popular definition). The point is that the central government was not seen as a central authority to which the people and the states must submit so much as a collaboration of sovereign equals working together to assure security and facilitate prosperity between them.

The Iroquois Confederacy is the oldest democracy in existence. How could they have survived all those centuries when we seem to be getting closer and closer to ripping ourselves apart after just a few hundred years? I think I can probably ascertain why.

A look at the Iroquois Constitution shows some examples of governance that we would be wise to adopt, and to which similarities existed in a great many American minds for the first century of our existence. The governing bodies (councils) were required to arrive independently at unanimous consent, to then be presented to the other “branches”. No decisions were made unless all representatives were present to agree. The “legislators” (described therein as “Confederate Lords”) were considered to be “spiritual guides and mentors” to the people. Theirs was truly a life of service, so much so that if one wanted to resign he had to have permission to do so. Without such permission he would be obligated to continue to serve. Qualifications? “They must be honest in all things”. When granted the title of “Lord”, it is he that labors and provides. It is required that a new Lord provides for the labor and banquet required for his inaugural festival.

How could such a government manage five nations of Native Americans (later six)? It’s simple really. Such regulation ensures that the central authority can only ever have an extremely limited voice in the affairs of the individual nations. No telling the Mohawks how much water they can have in their toilets. No telling the Senecas they can’t smoke their peace pipe. They agreed to limited powers to be granted to the central authority and they stuck to it. Six hundred years later there they still are; still democratic, still a confederation of sovereign nation states. Had they managed such a union of a dozen more tribes the history of this country would likely have been very different.

So what do we do now? This vision, the vision of the Iroquois Confederacy, may or may not have been a major influence at the founding of this country, but either way it is crystal clear by all historical account that those founding this country felt ideologically akin to it -a collaboration of sovereign nation-states acting in peace and cooperation to ensure prosperity and mutual security. Not a top-down centralized bureau sending mandated decrees from on high, regulating our businesses, our daily interactions, and assuming management power over some of the most intimate aspects of our personal lives. No, this started later, as impositions from the still oppressive-natured European “Old World” and the growing popularity of Karl Marx (Lincoln himself was a fan you know).

Old World governments, business and the Central Bank of England all worked constantly to impose centralization onto our “American model” of governance. I would argue that the degree to which they were successful is the degree to which we fail today. The old aristocracies became in the New World familial dynasties of political power. They aligned themselves with those in command of the nation’s economy (the “robber barons” of old) and collectively worked to impose a centralized monetary system in order to engineer an unassailable power structure that every perceived liberty in existence would simply bounce off of like a rock when thrown at the walls of Troy.

These posts are getting long. Eventually they won’t be –when I can stop with the philosophy and address specifics. Tomorrow’s post will continue this one and show some examples of intrusive government, their consequences, and some possible alternatives. Nobody has all the answers but don’t you think it’s about time we started at least trying to find some? Bureaucrats only know how to perpetuate bureaus. The primary problem solving nucleus of our government now consists of the President, the two legislative houses, and the Supreme Court Justices.

That’s 546 people. Even if they’re all geniuses and we’re all imbeciles, we outnumber them over 640,000 to 1. Are you going to try and tell me that they’re going to have all these answers that are so much better than any of us can come up with? They should regulate all of these wide and varied aspects of our lives because they are the wisest 546 people in this country? No. Common defense, mutual freedom to pursue prosperity, and to their great dismay, regulation of the currency are the jobs to which they should be assigned. Putting all of our problems on the shoulders of 546 people, people who often do not even deserve their places and are not intellectually qualified even for these limited duties has got to be one of the most ridiculous ideas in the history of ridiculous ideas. As I said, examples to come tomorrow.

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24099

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/04/22/origins-foedus-federal-system

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm

Unholy Trinity

Freedom and liberty is about power –power over one’s self. The degree to which a person has power over himself is the degree to which he is free, and the degree to which he does not is the degree to which he is not free. It’s as simple as that. It’s difficult to explain the extent to which we, even as Americans, are deprived of freedom and liberty far beyond what is necessary for any valid reason, and the tangible real world consequences to us, “the free”. I appreciate the patience of you, the readers, while I make these first posts in a generalized fashion. I feel like I need to advance some general concepts before I can be specific in a way that is sensible to thinking, rational people (my target audience) that may or may not have my views.

Agreement with my views, in passing, is not particularly necessary in order to arrive at clarity. I would hope that differences of viewpoint between rational thinking people can be merely differences of opinion but based on actual facts instead of the emotionally overdriven mania that has taken over all discussion of things that affect us macrocosmically. If I accomplish my aim, the general will graduate to the specific in a coherent manner that a thinking person can accept as rational thought process even if I do insert my personal biases from time to time. Anyone that tells you they have no bias either doesn’t care enough about what they’re talking about to have any or they’re lying to you. To that end, this post (and the three following) will hopefully provide a little more substance to the previous posts.

The power concentrations in this country (and the world for that matter) reside firmly in three places: Governments, corporations and banks. Corporations and governments control the management of people, and the banking system controls corporations’ and governments’ ability to do this. Of course, it’s not exactly as simple as that. The purpose of the next three posts will be to explain the primary gist of the dynamics between these institutions.

For now, look around. Just look. Most of us have signed over a third of our lives or more to work for corporations (go back and read some of the stuff you had to sign to get that job). Many of us spend more time with coworkers and people we barely know than we do our own families, not to mention our friends. The vast majority are granted compensation for this time spent in the form of income that lasts just long enough to get us to the next payday. The success of the corporation, instead of focusing on our immediate environment, is largely spread across the vast network of national or international holdings in the corporate stable. It can be spun very convincingly that the combined output of many people through an efficient corporation creates far more wealth than if done individually, but this is a smoke screen based on people’s misconceptions about what constitutes wealth and prosperity, which is itself based on people’s misconceptions about what money is.

Look at government. Endless libraries of laws, massive waste and incomprehensible debt -everyone on every side very convincingly presents “the answer” to all of it but somehow it never comes to pass. The gap between rich and poor increases daily, the regulations to which we all must comply increases daily, the relative standard of living decreases daily, prices rise even while the value of our dollars drop, education has become a joke and is only getting worse, and the price tag we must pay for these services increases all the time. The bureaucrats in charge of all of it are rewarded for this “success” with enhanced job security, higher salaries, and benefits packages that are the envy of practically every person on the planet. The price we pay, as those being represented, is far higher than I think a lot of people realize. I will hope to explain this clearly in the future post on such things.

Above all of it –the corporations and the governments –is the money. Centralized control of all monetary systems on earth, all linked together and working in concert to oversee the goings on of the corporations and the governments, managing the whole of it. The monetary system is not at all in the business of managing people; governments and corporations do that. It is the monetary system that keeps it all going. Many libertarian thinkers attempt to explain why the Federal Reserve is so bad, but I don’t really see any of them really addressing the heart of it. To just up and dissolve the FED is to ensure the collapse of the network of corporations, destabilize the entirety of the world’s monetary system, and threaten the very solvency of the US government itself. The Federal Reserve is unassailable as long as it has such power.

We have lived in this age of relative prosperity (to previous ages) long enough that we’ve fallen into the same trap everyone in history falls into. We see our future as assured, our perpetuation guaranteed. We were not created a perfect union, just “more perfect” than the one previous, and we have allowed ourselves the dangerous luxury of complacence. And the more complacent we become, the more we leave ourselves open to those that would acquire the products of our labors for the accumulation of their own wealth and power and leave us with nothing but the certainty that they will continue to do so. When the foundations of it all start to get shaky there’s a firm psychological “turn key” system to fall back on that never fails to induce compliance (see the previous post).

These are the centers of power in our world: Corporations, governments, and banking. These will also be the subjects of the next three posts.

The Psychology of Spin

Everyone knows what “spin” is, but not a lot of people understand its origins –at least the origins of its modern incarnation. “Spin” in politics is the same thing as “public relations” or advertising in the business world. It’s psychology. No -more than that -it’s manipulative psychology, and you know it. You may not know the mechanics of it but you know just like everyone else knows that all politicians do this. I hate to get off the track of the general theme of this blog but this is important. So here we go…

Ever heard of Sigmund Freud? Sure, everyone has. Let me tell you about Sigmund Freud. He spent all that time becoming the icon of psychology we now all know by figuring out the mechanisms and psychological associations people make with their environment, and then, after determining what “makes us tick”, developed a methodology to get people to conform to societal norms by getting them to suppress what he perceived as the immoral nature of man so that we would all accept and conform to whatever the currently existing society considers to be normal.

To Freud, society is never the problem, the person is the problem. Well, I got news, this is not utopia and society DOES have problems, and people are right to not simply happily conform to all of it all the time. When a person thinks something is wrong they SHOULD be against that wrong. According to Freud, a person should comply, and in order to happily do that the urge to be against any societal norm should be suppressed (i.e. controlled). His success in creating a method to do this is the very foundation of the entirety of his work. The ultimate failure of the whole idea is proven by the eventual psychological need to create focus points to direct aggression as a control in order to maintain the perpetuity of the society to which we all comply. “Let them be angry, but let us decide the objects of that anger” is the mantra of modern spin. Choices are created not by us, but by “experts” that “know better” than us what our choices should be. “Don’t worry about the important stuff, the experts will handle that. They know what the choices are and will tell you about the ones you need to worry about.” And we all fall right in line don’t we?

Think about it. What is your criteria for a “tolerable” candidate? You want to curb inflation? Inflation is a way of life. Whether it is increasing by 2 percent or 20 is only a matter of degree -the inevitability of it remains exactly the same. It is a constant erosion of the value of our money and it doesn’t stop. The ultimate end of such a pattern is clear, so why is that something you worry about? Or maybe it’s the ever-increasing rich/poor gap. It increases regardless of who’s in power. The effectiveness of this or that group to slow the increase is but a matter of degree. The ultimate end of the pattern is clear, so why is that something you worry about? Maybe the debt? That’s good one. The debt increases every year, regardless of who is in office. Even in times of economic surplus the debt increases due to interest. The ability of this or that group to slow that increase is but a matter of degree and the eventual outcome of this pattern too is completely predictable. So what are you worrying about?

Nonsense, that’s what. It’s all nonsense. The problem is the inherent inevitability in all of it, and the problem is how to abolish catastrophic inevitabilities. As long as you buy into this idea that blaming the other guy’s team is the way to fix things you’re totally sucked into a mass-delusion; a control mechanism designed to keep you from asking the kinds of questions that will put us back on a path of real progress; a path away from infinitely inaccessible bloated bureaucracies and unassailable corporate power. As long as you buy into it you are fighting the fights others pick for you instead of the ones you would pick for yourself.

Back to the topic now. Freud’s work is the very foundation of the work of Edward Bernays, his nephew. Bernays is the one who invented public relations, who shaped our economy and government according to these methods of control. He is the one that created the very science of getting people to buy things before they needed them, or even whether or not they needed them, made the idea of “controlled democracy” the accepted norm of society by means of psychology, and invented the whole idea of consumerism as a fundamental aspect of the shaping of society, and the methodology to optimize and expand consumerism by psychologically controlling the behavior of the population. He is the one that did this. Not George Washington; not John Adams or Thomas Jefferson. Not Abraham Lincoln, FDR or even Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. It was Edward Bernays, the inventor of “public relations”.

Our nation was founded by a philosophy based in individual liberty and then contorted and subverted by one based on centralized psychological control, founded by the most effective Freudian manipulator that has ever been; Edward Bernays. All of the polling, all of the arguments, the debates, the commercials, the colors you see on the shelves where you shop, the phrases you read in the paper, see on television and hear on the radio –all of it –the result of a scientifically-determined means of creating in us emotional associations to otherwise unrelated objects and ideas in order to make us predictably compliant so that we will accept the programming required to keep us all in line with the current societal norms, which is the self-described desired outcome of Freudian psychological theory. Those current social norms largely consist of designs by holders of power who believe that the perpetuation of society depends first and foremost on their ability to retain that power.

Is it really such a grand leap to think people that have this world’s power to control seek to preserve it? Does it require an evil conspiracy in back rooms and secrecy? Hardly. Many of you see it in microcosm every day and call it “the corporate ladder”. It’s an inherent part of the current social paradigm. The whole purpose of it is to preserve social norms that have been obsolete for at least a century. The age of industry was the pinnacle of consolidated power, and the age of information will be its inevitable end. It’s only a matter of time.

By this aforementioned means of psychological manipulation we will accept any taxation, any imposition of regulatory compliance, any required pattern of consumerism and any mandate required to maintain the whole of it. By this means we are convinced that the choices provided are the only choices there are and then pitted against each other in an ignorant battle of externally posited ideas so that we never take the time to formulate our own. Why? Because the maintenance of the current power structure benefits those currently controlling that structure, and the alternative does not.

The reason it all works is not because that’s the way people are. The reason it all works is because people are not properly informed of the situation. It is not a difficult concept. We have to stop listening to people that claim authority and start listening to each other as peers, and accept OUR inherent authority over our own minds and actions. We have to catch up to the “experts”. We need to collectively understand the degree to which psychological manipulation plays a part in our everyday actions, how so much of what we do and think is the result not of our own will but of the imposed will of those that understand what we collectively do not. And we have an obligation, we that understand, to defend the rights of those that do not. We have an obligation to fight against unwarranted control by one upon another. I don’t even know that the majority of people will ever really get the psychology of mass-persuasion; but that’s all the more reason why those that do have a moral obligation to fight against its imposition. I reject the concepts of political spin, planned obsolescence, psychological manipulation to promote rampant consumerism, and the idea that those that are most in command of those skills are “experts” at anything other than mass-manipulation. Moreover, I reject such people’s views on ANYTHING and I refuse to support them or those that will adhere to them.

That’s the thing. That’s why this whole thing is called “Anti-Republicrat” instead of “Pro-Liberty” or some other happy title. We have to reject. We have to get upset. We have to be AGAINST and we have to VOICE our opposition as one that is against. We should be mad; we should be upset. It doesn’t make us negative people to be against things. And being against what one should be against does not equate to pessimism. I’m a perfectly happy person. I go out with friends, have hobbies, laugh and play like well-adjusted people should. I even believe that eventually it’s all going to work out. But I know what my battles are and this is one of them and so I fight.

We are obligated to fight. Ignoring what you are against in favor of “pro” this or that can only ever be defensive posture when the things we are collectively allowed to be “for” are determined for us by those that would shape us into compliance to obsolete social norms. Any advancement in any realm whatsoever, including the realm of thought or policy, requires an offensive perspective. Simply defending ensures an inch by inch loss of ground. So I am an anti-Republicrat. Screw them. The whole concept of removing “against” from the discussion is literally designed to impose a defensive posture so that the end result can only ever be defacto compliance, even if it is compliance under protest.

I appeal to the understanding of those that have it, the patience of those that do not, and the tolerance of those that understand more than I do. We have to start speaking with our own voices; formulating visions of our own personal imaginations. If we can imagine a better world we can create one, but first we have to discard the ideas that have been collectively imposed upon us, and in order to do that, we have to collectively understand how it happened and the basic mechanisms involved. Above all, we have to reject it. The only valid collective is one that respects the value of truly independent thought.

Immigration “Reform”?

Those pesky Republicrats are at it again! In 1983 we were all told that if we’d just go ahead and tolerate amnesty for the (then) 3 million undocumented Democrats all would be fixed and we’d never have to deal with an illegal immigration problem again. So what happened? Now there’s twelve million! Over half a million anchor babies born per year! Now the problem is again “unworkable”, and we must all again “accept reality”. So off the Republicrats go, plotting and scheming their so-called “grand bargain”. Some of them want amnesty, others want walls lining the border that tower up to the sky. Or mass-deportation, or etc., etc., etc.

Ok fine. But before you go off into your hidey hole and plan the next great thing that’s going to fix it, can you just stop for a freaking SECOND and tell us all one thing? Before you tell us all about your ingenious new way to create utopia, answer the BASICS.

What is now going to be the penalty for illegal migration? A fine? Jail time? Deportation? What about the second time? How are you dolts going to fix it so that we don’t have to have this same mindless ranting again in 30 years? Remember 1983? Anyone?? Make the border as secure as it needs to be by whatever standards you think are right, but tell us the freaking penalty for migrating illegally and convince us that that penalty will be both acceptable to Americans and ENFORCED across the board, period. No more of this garbage about “accepting reality”. This is the United States of America WE create reality here. If we have 5 people that cross the border illegally next year I want to know exactly what they get for that, and what they get if they’ve done it before already. And I want them to GET IT. If we have 500,000 I want to know what YOU –our bumbling Republicrats –are going to DO about it to make sure they ALL get EXACTLY the same, and no more of this talk of inevitabilities. We want SOLUTIONS!

WE decide who comes, how often and in what number. If we need more engineers we should let in more engineers. If we need more strawberry pickers we should let in more strawberry pickers. If we don’t need anybody they just don’t get to come. It’s not their right to come here -it’s up to US. I’m sick and tired of everyone saying that we have to accept this or that or the other thing. This is OUR country and WE are the ones that have the ONLY right to determine who can enter and what status those people have upon entrance.

These dopes are telling us to accept this reality? Really?? So they can tell us all how many gallons of water our toilet can hold and ensure that 360 million people comply but they can’t defend our border? Allowing people to enter this country illegally is unacceptable. Our nation was founded in a manner unique to the world. Every day that uniqueness disintegrates just a little bit more. One of the big reasons that’s happening is because we’ve chosen to not control immigration. Hordes of people from foreign nations can only ever impart the ideologies of those foreign nations onto us in some lesser or greater degree if their entry is not controlled. What makes America great is not its similarities with the rest of the world –it’s the differences. Those differences blur more and more all the time.

Just some random Republicrat bashing

Corporations are the new governments. And they are a truly tyrannical bunch. Before the Industrial Revolution, goods and services were created when need arose. Now need is created so that goods and services can arise, by any means necessary. They use psychological manipulation, legislative decree, threat of outright force if required. Planned obsolescence in order to keep you coming back, hordes of advertising specialists to trick you into “needing” more, and monopolization of entire industries to keep you there helping them with all of it. We sign papers to get jobs at corporations handing over our liberties while we’re there, then we go home where our elected “representatives” have handed it over to corporations through an endless array of legalese via the mandates of corporate lobbyists. This is the legacy of the modern conservative.

Liberals are not blameless either. Manipulation through non-profits to force compliance through media-driven legislation and the effective creation of law by way of judicial decree in order to force compliance has caused just as much damage as conservative corporation worship has. Misapplication of statistics, the perennial favorite “for the children” argument, the drive to do something in order to not have to admit there are some things government is not equipped to do are all equal contributors to this nonsensical world we live in today where people are crammed all together in ever-more compact spaces and yet know each other less and less; where they fulfill their obligatory roles to help the corporations continue their quest for power, submit to the will of the government bureau, and comply with the collective will of those empowered above them instead of exerting their own.

And why? Why is it so? It’s just like everything else I’ve ever discovered. Understanding of anything that has to do with people has a simple instruction (though not always so simple to follow): Follow the money. History, science, sociology, politics, economics, philosophy –all of it following the trail set forth by the money. More on that later.

Introductions: True Independence In the World of Groupthink

It seems that everyone in politics wants to somehow incorporate “libertarian” as a descriptive. Why is that? It’s very simple really. Bureaucrats understand that people know almost instinctively that an over-extension of bureaucracy is a big part of the problems we face at all levels of governance and society, and bureaucrats want to be perceived as being part of some kind of solution. But at the same time, they do not wish to rock the boat so much as to incur the kinds of threats to bureaucracy that would infringe upon the existing status quo, and the predictable nature that power consolidation imparts. Predictability is the kingpin of power consolidation. If the people are not predictable they must be made to be so.

True freedom requires a distribution of power. Consolidation of power is the single greatest threat to personal liberty that has ever been; in the truest sense, it can rightly be called the only threat. Conservatives seek to consolidate power by way of corporations (or “the market”) and call it “capitalism”, while liberals do it by way of government consolidation, through increased regulation, more government bureaus, and the inevitable accompaniment of higher taxes. Whether consolidation comes from the dollar or the bureau is of no consequence; both equally threaten liberty.

Information is power, and the age of information is now decades old. It’s time we started taking it all back. Governments and corporations are created to serve people, not the other way around.