• Agenda 21 in China and the Technocratic Vision for Global Dictatorship

    The Echo of Antony Sutton

    Source: Stateless Homesteading

    This is Antony Sutton:

    220px-Antonysutton

    Antony Sutton, circa 1984

    In the not-too-distant past, Sutton was counted among the more respected historians in higher education, holding the title of research fellow at the esteemed Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Before being jettisoned from this coveted position by the Trilateral-affiliated dean, Sutton was (and remains) one of the most thorough academic researchers on the machinations of the Anglo-American Establishment to date. His work was so well-documented that, despite being antagonistic towards Sutton's worldview, even Rhodesian globalist Zbignew Brzezinski cited the accuracy of his research in his book, Between Two Ages.

     

     

    Of the erudite body of work produced by Antony Sutton, he remains best known for his books on banking, industrial, corporate, and military aid to Nazi Germany and the USSR by American companies. The most widely read of these volumes, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitlerand Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, hold that a secret cabal of Anglo-American forces have been integral in the creation and support of every "East vs. West" dialectic of the past century. Quite a thesis, with a slew of primary documentation and the pedigree to back it up.

     

    Needless to say, Sutton had to go.

     

    His removal from the hallowed and controlled halls of Academia didn't stop him, though, as he continued to publish research on Deep Politics related to the Trilateral Commission and Skull and Bones, among other things. Unfortunately, as seems to be a tendency among great researchers speaking truth to power, Sutton passed too early back in 2002, and since, his investigation into the international Anglophile cabal has remained largely unadvanced.

     

    Until recently, there was no "Great Eastern Superpower" to warrant such research, as the bulk of occulted geopolitical study was focused instead on the "War on Terror" paradigm; in a post-2008 world in which the media, both alternative and otherwise, have readily forecast rise of the BRICS "anti-hegemon," (as they're called by some) this has all changed.

     

    James Corbett of The Corbett Report has recently taken up the mantle of Antony Sutton, challenging the open source research community to investigate potential ties between the Anglo-American Establishment and the growth of China as a world power in the 21st Century. In an attempt to rise to the occasion, this article seeks to help with the heavy lifting, and as the title indicates, will investigate this narrative through the lens of Agenda 21 in China.

     

    What I've managed to find thus far is fascinating, if not somewhat expected.

     

    "It is not generally recognized by outsiders that almost all the information gathered by any espionage net is nonsecret material fully available to anyone as public information." -Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, pg. 920

     

    Trilaterals Over Tianjin

     

    Tianjin is no normal Chinese city. Billed as a joint partnership between China and Singapore, Tianjin is one of the United Nations' flagship "Eco-Cities." In fact, it's no normal "Eco-City," either; the UN has a particular affinity for Tianjin, going so far as to hold its annual Climate Change Convention there in 2010. It's a textbook "green engineered" Smart City as called for in the 1992 Rio Conference on Sustainable Development, colloquially known as Agenda 21, and despite China erecting these "Smart Cities" en-masse in recent years, Tianjin remains one the country's only successful "sustainable" ventures.Tianjin: The future slums of Eco-Fascism

    Tianjin: The future slums of Eco-Fascism

    To what does Tianjin owe this seemingly unnatural success? Look no further than one of Agenda 21's hallmarks, the public private partnership, for the answer; as one would expect, Tianjin has quite the sordid (and fiscally endowed) cast of private financiers behind its advancement. Investment in Tianjin's "green infrastructure" alone is slated at over $6.5 billion USD as of 2015. Taking a glance at their "Partners" page, three entities stand out as particularly noteworthy (circled in red):

     

    General Motors, Mitsui Fudosan, and Samsung

    General Motors, Mitsui Fudosan Residential, and Samsung

     

    What do these three corporations have in common and how are the tentacles of Globalism operating through them to erect Tianjin as China's leading Smart City? One helped build the Nazi Empire. Two are members of the globalist Trilateral Commission. Another is among the infamous zaibatsu,established in the wake of the Meiji Restoration as the West's mercantile dog in Asia. All have historical ties to the "apex of [Western] industry," otherwise known as the "power elite."

     

    We first turn our glance, as Antony Sutton once did, towards General Motors.

     

    From Sustainable Wars to Sustainable Development

     

    NaziGM

     

    Yes, this actually happened.

     

    GM, as outlined in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, is no stranger to promoting internationalism at the expense not only of American interests, but human life in general. Particularly egregious was the support for the Nazi war machine by General Motors, spanning from as early as 1928 into the waning days of World War II in 1945. "Support," perhaps, does not belie the true extent of GM's value to the Third Reich, as they were an integral component within the American cabal secretly supporting Germany. Opel, Germany's largest tank supplier, was a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Motors and a seminal example of the early Military Industrial Complex. 1936 marked a profitable turning point for the enterprising Nazis at GM, as the Reich granted them tax-exempt status in order to expand factories for the upcoming war effort. Not exactly the "Arsenal of Democracy" you heard about on the History Channel, is it?

     

    Opel Tanks - 'Like A Rock'

     

    Opel Tanks - 'Like A Rock'

     

    Not to be caught undiversified and solely in the business of making tanks, GM maintained close ties with Standard Oil of New Jersey in a joint effort to fuel the Nazi military. From providing the components for synthetic oils and rubbers to supplying ethyl lead for engine maintenance, Rockefeller's Standard Oil and GM, via the I.G. Farben cartel, delivered the means and methods of keeping the resource-strapped, war-torn Germany on steady footing much longer than could have otherwise been sustained. America makes bombs, Germany makes bombs, GM makes a killing. Sutton says of this incestuous "apex" of American industry:

     

    "In brief, American companies associated with the Morgan-Rockefeller international investment bankers -- not, it should be noted, the vast bulk of independent American industrialists -- were intimately related to the growth of Nazi industry. It is important to note as we develop our story that General Motors, Ford, General Electric, DuPont and the handful of U.S. companies intimately involved with the development of Nazi Germany were -- except for the Ford Motor Company -- controlled by the Wall Street elite -- the J.P. Morgan firm, the Rockefeller Chase [National Bank] and to a lesser extent the Warburg Manhattan bank. This book is not an indictment of all American industry and finance. It is an indictment of the "apex" -- those firms controlled through the handful of financial houses, the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Bank for International Settlements, and their continuing international cooperative arrangements and cartels which attempt to control the course of world politics and economics."

     

    -Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler

     

    It should come as no shock to the attentive student of history that GM's documented affiliation with the Third Reich is more than indicative of their participation in the establishment of the digital, technocratic, global Fourth Reich represented by "Smart Cities" like Tianjin. Equally as indicative are the forces behindGeneral Motors, which, perhaps not coincidentally, are much the same today as they were 80 years ago. During the time period investigated in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, GM's largest shareholder was none other than JP Morgan, itself a front for Rothschild interests in America. In the wake of the 2008 "Great Recession," GM was effectively nationalized. One of its subsidiaries explicitly mentioned by Sutton as maintaining ownership of Opel, the General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), is now controlled by Cerberus Capital Management, owning a 51% stake.

    Cerberus: The three-headed beast, “powerful and without pity,” that guards the gates of Hell in Greek mythology. Fitting.

     

    Cerberus: The three-headed beast, “powerful and without pity,” that guards the gates of Hell in Greek mythology. Fitting.

     

    The international chairman of Cerberus is none other than Dan Quayle, former Vice President under George H.W. Bush, son of Nazi financier Prescott Bush. The same Prescott Bush, it's worth noting, who not only counted himself as a member of Skull and Bones, but also escaped prosecution at Nuremberg despite being identified as the owner of Fritz Thyssen's American shell company, Union Banking Corporation. Perhaps just for old time's sake, Cerberus appointed JP Morgan as its investment fund administrator back in 2011.

     

    ...but they promise they don't fund fascist empires anymore. Just sustainable cities and networked smart cars:

    ChevyTianjin

     

    Doubtlessly, the tank manufacturing assistance provided by the GM of 80 years ago seems far less innocuous than their "Smart Growth" projects of today, like the all-electric, self-driving Chevy EN-V 2.0. Superficially, the shift from military assistance to "green growth" could even be seen in a positive light. But is it? Does a driverless car, whose inherent aim is to limit human control of the machine, make anyone more free or autonomous themselves? Are cars constantly connected to the Internet, laden with microphones, sensors, and geolocation data a liberating technological development in a world where digital snitches in our pockets (smartphones) already run rampant?

     

    After all, the "public-private partnership" between organizations like Google, Microsoft, Apple, and the NSA have already proven these incestuous relationships to be a civil libertarian's worst nightmare. Will a similar relationship between the Chinese government and automotive manufacturers bring about the same results?

     

    From China Daily:

     

    Screenshot from 2015-06-20 13:59:47

     

    The title of China Daily's article requires a slight addendum, as upon further reading of the passage, "Government" deserves pluralization. Evidently, the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection requires the sage advice of the American EPA before proceeding in public-private ecstacy:

    DailyChinaEPA1

    Michael Walsh, EPA adviser, speaks before the China Vehicle Emission Control Policy Symposium in Beijing

     

    Michael Walsh, EPA adviser, speaks before the China Vehicle Emission Control Policy Symposium in Beijing

     

    Keeping one's head straight is a constant challenge in the 21st Century. Should I be terrified of China, as many mainstream and alternative news sources beggar of me, as the world is swept by a "New Cold War"? Should I scratch my head in confusion as American corporations, the Chinese government, the United Nations, and the EPA seem so tightly coordinated on pushing forth "sustainable development" despite being supposed "enemies"? Should I outsource my critical thinking and succumb to cognitive dissonance?

     

    Or was Antony Sutton onto something after all?

     

    The Sustainable Trilaterals

     

    Founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbignew Brzezinski to serve as a coalition of elites within finance and politics from Japan, Europe, and North America, the Trilateral Commission's ostensible purpose is to "foster closer cooperation among these core industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system."

     

    The Trilateral Commission's logo - definitely NOT reminiscent of a Swastika

     

    The Trilateral Commission's logo - definitely NOT reminiscent of a Swastika

     

    In reality, the Trilateral Commission is yet another Neomercantile consolidation of political and economic power. Born with the destruction of the Bretton Woods System, Trilateralism attempted to fill the void left in the international monetary system by the lack of a gold trade standard with privately agreed upon trading blocks; in the age before NAFTA, the EU, and TPP, such coalitions between corporations and government were made largely via "Deep Political" actors like the Trilateral Commission (Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Chatham House are three other such Deep Political actors). Over the course of the late-70s and early-80s, Antony Sutton co-authored a series of papers entitled, Trilaterals Over Washington,but in lieu of recounting them here in their entirety, allow this establishment propaganda on the Trilateral Commission from the 1980s sitcom, Barney Miller, to enumerate the Commission's true intentions (masked as comedy, of course):

     

     

    Among the seeming prerequisites for admission to the Church of Globalism, in addition to alignment with the agenda satirically described above, is support of Agenda 21's sustainable development principles, and in this respect, the Trilateral Commission does not disappoint: Maxime Verhagen, Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation of the Netherlands, speaks before the Trilateral Commission

     

    Maxime Verhagen, Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation of the Netherlands, speaks before the Trilateral Commission in 2011

     

    Nor is such a declaration of "Green Revolution" an isolated incident. The Trilateral Commission maintains a well-sourced adherence to the global vision prescribed in Agenda 21. Trilateralism, since its inception, has had a specific affinity with Asia; originally tasked with merely assimilating Japan, the Commission has since added a number of Asian countries to its repertoire, most notably South Korea. Chinese Trilaterals are still vastly underrepresented, but the organization has taken great care in hand-selecting former diplomats, academics, and businessmen with Chinese experience, as their 2014 roster clearly demonstrates.

     

    Despite Chinese participation in Trilateralism being lax, the presence of Trilateral activity in China erecting Technocratic "Eco-Cities" is to be expected, especially given Trilateral member and Rockefeller "partner" Henry Kissinger's infamous experience in China:

     

    Kissinger's bio as it appears on the Trilateral Commission roster of April 2014

     

    Kissinger's bio as it appears on the Trilateral Commission roster of April 2014

     

    With or without Kissinger's numerous Chinese ventures, the Trilateral Commission has wasted no time installing its agents in "sustainably developing" Tianjin Eco-City. In fact, one of the Trilateral Commission's premier Asian members, Mitsui Fudosan Group of Japan, is a leading development partner in Tianjin's "green" efforts: Screenshot from 2015-06-17 14:14:23

    Mitsui's Trilateral history, as told by the Commission itself

     

    Mitsui's Trilateral history, as told by the Commission itself

     

    And as late as 2014, over 40 years since the Commission's founding, Mitsui still held prominent representation within Trilateralism by way of Takeshi Kunibe from Mitsui Banking and Shoei Utsuda, the Chairman of Mitsui's Board of Directors:

     

    TakeshiTrilateralKunibe-kun and Utsuda-kun as they appear in the Trilateral Commission roster for April 2014

     

    Kunibe-kun and Utsuda-kun as they appear in the Trilateral Commission roster for April 2014

     

    In typical Japanese corporatist fashion, the Eco-Technocracy of Tianjin was a domestic product before being exported to foreign markets. Japan, like much of the Western world, is awash with "sustainable development" projects, but one of its more notable Japanese efforts is Kashiwa-no-ha Smart City. As of June 2015, Kashiwa-no-ha is featured on the homepage of Mitsui Fudosan Group's English page. Upon examination of Kashiwa-no-ha's homepage, Mitsui seems to be, in large part, spearheading this project.

     

    Mitsui Fudosan's home page promoting its Smart City development

    Mitsui Fudosan's home page promotion for its Smart City development

     

    Mitsui is developing Kashiwa-no-ha in line with a true Technocratic vision: A model city in which pervasive, wirelessly-integrated sensors document, trace, track, and surveil every aspect of human life. This data, managed via an Orwellian Smart Center (read: Central Control) will "oversee energy operations, management, and control for the entire town." Constantly conglomerated and organized by central servers and algorithms, Smart Center's data on every aspect of the city is then served up on a silver platter for Academia, another element of Agenda 21's public-private partnerships. Kashiwa-no-ha's residents will be, quite literally, lab rats for the University research labs of Japan. Screenshot from 2015-06-17 14:22:44

     

    Will Mitsui bring to Tianjin the same tightly-controlled, technofeudal model it is developing in Kashiwa-no-ha? Given that Smart Cities the world over, from Masdar to Songdo, have adopted nearly identical models regardless of the "public" or "private" consortium of partners involved, future Chinese Eco-City residents shouldn't hold their breath. Speaking of Songdo (a Korean smart city), across the Sea of Japan lies another Trilateral-affiliated corporation listed as a partner in Tianjin Eco-City, Samsung. The South Korean company's experience in mobile phones and wireless technologies will doubtlessly come in handy when networking the slaves of Smart Cities the world over to Mother Brain, assets for which Samsung's President & COO, Lee Jae-yong, was likely selected for Trilateral membership:

    Lee Jea-yong's bio as it appears on the Trilateral Commission's 2014 roster

     

    Lee Jea-yong's bio as it appears on the Trilateral Commission's 2014 roster

     

    The Songdo International Business District's connect, scan, and surveil model, despite being located in Samsung's home country, was actually developed in partnership with Cisco, who also implemented Masdar City's wireless networking infrastructure. As noted earlier, however, the model from city to city remains nearly identical. Of Songdo, Smart Data Collective says:

     

    "Songdo will become a completely connected city, where almost any device, building or road will be equipped with wireless sensors or microchips. This will result in smart innovations such as streetlights that automatically adjust to the number of people out on the street. All houses in Songdo will be equipped with sensors, also known as domotica, which can be managed via a large TV in the living room of each residency. Next to the homes, these TelePresence screens will be available in all offices, hospitals, schools and shopping centres. The City of Songdo is a futuristic city, completely ready in 2015." via Smart Data Collective

     

    With Songdo's "Internet of Things" niche already filled by Cisco, one might assume that participation by Samsung in Songdo would be redundant. Fortunately for Samsung, it turns out to be a far more versatile company than the average smartphone-toting, LCD-watching American is privy to, as in 2011, Samsung's pharmaceutical division, Samsung Biologics, broke ground on its newest manufacturing facility in Songdo:

     

    Samsung Biologics moves to Songdo, via pharmaceutical-technology.com

     

    Samsung Biologics moves to Songdo, via pharmaceutical-technology.com

     

    A savvy investment for Samsung, surely, as the free medical data mined from Songdo's unwitting populous will be quite handy in manufacturing new alopathic drugs, likely to be sold directly back to the captive and heavily surveiled market that is Songdo.

     

    Sustainability or Bust

     

    Tianjin in China, Songdo in Korea, Kashiwa-no-ha in Japan; Asia is certainly "all in" on sustainability, and given that the development of modern Asian urban centers (pervasive wireless connectivity, electric-powered transit, high density construction, pedestrian-centric urban planning, etc.) are already in line with many "sustainable development" principles, the East is an ideal target for marketing Agenda 21's Smart Cities. Japan in particular is facing a widely publicized demographic crisis, a symptom of which has been the creeping diminishment of rural (mainly farming) villages and towns, another stated aim of the guidelines put forth by the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The Hegelian crisis of "climate change," the Globalist's deus ex machinaintended to unify mankind against an eternal Straussian enemy, has also been stressed to Eastern populations. Collectivize under the auspices of Eco-Technocracy or face another Fukushimais the implication put forth not only to Japan, but all countries affected by the numerous fault lines in the vicinity of the Sea of Japan. SmartEcoCity, a sustainable development project based out of China, intimates as much in an article published in March of 2014:

    .

     

    Screenshot from 2015-06-17 15:12:23

     

    This orchestrated propaganda campaign aimed at herding rural Korean and Japanese people into Smart Cities goes beyond isolated blog posts by sustainable development firms in China. Korean media is also in full swing propagating the meme that Smart Cities are the perfect escape for victims ravaged by "climate change." In the wake of Fukushima, Yonhap News of Korea published a human interest piece about Japanese citizens displaced in the crisis relocating to none other than Songdo, South Korea.

     

    Problem? "Climate change" is destroying human life and infrastructure throughout the world. Reaction? Devastation, as for the survivors of Fukushima who now find themselves homeless and unemployed. Solution? Be willingly stacked-and-packed in your local Smart City, of course, before such a fate befalls you as well! Truly a Hegelian masterpiece.

     

    No less masterful is mainland China's orchestrated campaign to advertise "Smart Growth," though by a somewhat different tactic: Heavy-handed bureaucracy and overt threats of fines, closure of business, or imprisonment if emission guidelines are not adhered to.

    Screenshot from 2015-06-20 15:13:05

    Screenshot from 2015-06-20 15:18:09

    A recent article from China Daily reporting that "administrative detention" (read: imprisonment) will be exercised for not abiding by sustainable development

     

    A recent article from China Daily reporting that "administrative detention" (read: imprisonment) will be exercised for not abiding by sustainable development

     

    China's "public" expression of the "public-private partnership" paradigm enshrined by Agenda 21 is perfectly in line with its development as a mixed totalitarian/capitalistic state, expressed most recently by new mandates ranking "civic compliance" through social media usage. Civic compliance ratings that will, as planned by Smart Cities, eventually include individual's "eco-friendliness." Between the strict control of China's dictatorial ruling class, American automotive engineering know-how, and the globalized neofeudal model of the Trilateral Commission working in perfect harmony, Chinese Smart Cities like Tianjin have a bright future. Just make sure that light's an LED powered solely by wind, or you may have to be recycled, Comrade.

     

    Conclusions

     

    Sutton's research in the Wall Street series revolved centrally around technological and financial transfers from West to East during World War II and throughout the Cold War to America's supposed enemies. In examining three examples of Anglo-American Establishment corporations implementing Agenda 21 in China, we find these same two elements that Sutton identified in Wall Streetat work in the "public-private partnership" that comprises Tianjin Eco-City: Significant Anglo-American corporations providing technological and financial assistance towards Chinese "Smart Growth" projects. While the wholesale export of American military ingenuity Eastward described by Sutton is beyond the purview of this article, the links that have been enumerated upon here are no less insidious. As informed individuals are privy to, Agenda 21 and the "Eco Tech" movement surrounding it are, Agenda 21 researcher Rosa Korie states, merely a green mask. Behind the mask lies the vision of Brzeiznski, of Huxley, Orwell, and of comptrollers throughout the ages: Nothing short of a society under complete and constant surveillance by governments, academics, and corporations to be managed by a class of "technotronic elites":

     

    "The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."

     

    -Zbignew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages

     

    The Gestapo attempted to construct the very panopticon described by Brzezinski above; a society greeted by the constant creedo of, "Papers, please," as German citizens shuffled through the streets unaware whether the man next to him should be treated with camaraderie or suspicion. The failure of this goal throughout the 30s and 40s was not for lack of trying, but a simple matter of timing. The technological, automated surveillance of the 21st Century that could make such a society feasible simply did not exist yet. It cannot be said, however, that the Third Reich's efforts were not forward-thinking in this respect, as none other than IBM was contracted to manage the records of citizens slated for "extermination" by the German government. While IBM Analytics didn't exist 80 years ago, their algorithms now in existence, designed to mirror the Pre-Crime of dystopian science fiction of films like likeMinority Report,certainly would have come in handy for Nazi futurists of the era:

     

     

    For Berlin to develop into a "Smart City" capable of such goals would have required nearly a century of thumb-twiddling to bide the time necessary for the technology capable of enabling it to manifest, but for opportunistic leaders of today, no such time need be wasted. One could simply follow the lead of Smart Cities around the globe and install IBM Analytics' citizen management software:

     

    Zhenjiang, China - another Smart City - welcomes IBM Analytics

     

    Zhenjiang, China - another Smart City - welcomes IBM Analytics

     

    Smart Growth in line with Agenda 21's Anglo-American vision is not limited to China or any other geographic region, for that matter; its global spread knows no ethnic or political bounds. Regardless of seeming Western antagonism towards, for example, the BRICS nations, sustainable development principles have been adopted by BRICS at an unprecedented pace. The United Nation's Conference on Trade and Development held late last year published a document entitled, "A BRICS Development Bank: A Dream Coming True?" describing succinctly the UN's desire for the BRICS "New Development Bank" to fund sustainable development projects like Smart Cities. As cited in the publication itself (as well as the examples in the article herein), the BRICS NDB has wasted no time getting in lock-step with their UN, IMF, World Bank, and BIS partners' vision for a "sustainable" world.

     

    These same BRICS countries, many alt-media prognosticators proclaim, are tirelessly working towards supplanting the Anglo-American Establishment in geopolitics and finance. If this is truly the case, the BRICS "anti-hegemon" are either so tactically incompetent as to allow the Trilateral Commission and the computers, algorithms, and sensors of their Globalist affiliates to build their infrastructure, or the BRICS are not nearly as opposed to Global Serfdom as most would have you believe. The evidence suggests the latter to be infinitely more likely than the former.

     

    The development of China's Smart Cities is not overtly warfaric, but their veneer should not dissuade one from realizing the chilling nature of their Anglo-American funded presence. Agenda 21's sustainable development goals are nothing short of an Act of War; not of tanks, bombs, or maimed limbs. Not between clashing superstates, as in wars of the past, but between populations and their own governments.

     

    This challenge is not new or unique to our generation, but its current form and implementation are. Secret police replaced by sensors. Judge and jury supplanted by algorithm. Phone taps replaced with Orwellian "Smart TVs" (Telescreens) and Internet surveillance. Smart Meters to regulate every aspect of human dwellings. Smartphones to track your every movement. Self-driving cars to limit or restrict human mobility. Biotech and pharmaceuticals to regulate the spontaneity inherent in human thoughts and emotions.

     

    The challenge lies in recognizing this glittering Technocratic vision for what it is: Global dictatorship.

     

    Blogging under the pseudonym of Rusticus, the author and freedom activist operates a website tracing the machinations of the Anglo-American Establishment throughout history while simultaneously documenting the process of creating a truly off-grid homestead. (www.statelesshomesteading.com)

     

    {extravote 1}

     

  • Interview with Patriot Gardens, Food Freedom, Property Rights

    Jason and Jennifer Helvenston of Patriot Gardens talk with Robert about their struggle and triumph over intrusive government. They have plans to help you do the same and teach you to be self sufficient.

     

    Patriot Gardens

    Patriot Gardens Facebook

    Also check out the Food Freedom Initiative

     

    {extravote 1}

  • Ruminations of a Christian Anarchist



    Lately I have been growing weary and tired. When I first learned about Ron Paul in 2008, I jumped on board immediately. I was pumped and full of energy. Previously I had been a Republican that believed in economic freedom. I never understood the desire from a Republican standpoint to want to control what other people do. I was completely oblivious to what being a libertarian meant. Fast forward nearly 7 years later and I have grown from being a Republican to becoming a philosophical anarchist stuck in a world of being under duress for nearly 2 years now. When I first learned what being an anarchist meant it made sense to me. It was centered on one rule, the Non-Aggression Principle. It made sense to me because I have never had any desire for others to be forced to live the way that I have chosen to live, and I had no desire to be told how to live my life as well. It only mattered to me that others wanted to force their beliefs on me, and that’s what I signed up to fight against. This idea seems pretty simple doesn't it? One would think so.

     

    I often find myself in discussions with people who don’t understand these principles, and that’s okay. I can handle them, and the circular logic that comes along with it. I can handle the debates about “who will build the roads,” “but we have to have rules,” etc… I prefer them to be one on one and in person, because it is far easier to articulate those thoughts in person then through the keyboard. It is also far easier to critique those words through a keyboard. Much like the way people will critique these keystrokes after I post them.

     

    roads

     

    On the flip side though I also find myself in discussions with other anarchists about what an anarchist can and cannot be. How ridiculous does that sound? The most common of which I come across is whether or not someone can be a Christian anarchist or not. The irony of which is an anarchist telling someone else what they can and cannot be. I’m not going to argue the specifics about that argument here because it has been discussed and covered ad nauseam. However, if you want to explore this particular issue a little farther there is some great literature available to you from James Redford’s paper called “Jesus is an Anarchist” and a video put out by Larken Rose called “Can a Christian Be an Anarchist?”.

     

     

     

    My issue stems from beyond this one particular debate. It’s all the debates that coincide with this one. Anarchy should be simple. I used to think that it was simple, but now I’m not so sure. There is no unity in this belief anymore. (If there ever was) One thing that I have noticed about anarchists is that they have too many effing rules. It’s just a bunch of bickering over semantics and minutia of something so beautiful like freedom. Anarchists will straight up beat the enjoyment of being free right out of you. As a Christian anarchist I have one rule, and that's don't aggress on me and I won't aggress on you. It shouldn't even matter that I’m a Christian, or that someone is an atheist, Muslim, Jew, or whatever. They can't just keep focus on the actual enemy which is the state which also has Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc... Nope, you'd rather go after people who are philosophically aligned with you over their faith about a God you don't even believe in or have an absence of a faith. Morality is sound in anarchy. The rest is just bullshit semantics.

     

    I'm starting to think that apathy is the only true freedom. Just going through your life day to day, enjoying the ones around you, your family, enjoying your hobbies, or whatever it is that fills your life with happiness. As they say, “ignorance is bliss.” Unfortunately I’m no longer ignorant. I’m awake to this understanding. There is no going back for me. If I could go back and change things would I? I honestly don’t think that it would matter to tell you the truth. I think that no matter what, something would have woken me up to the truth.

     

    The reality is that anarchists are egotistical, arrogant, and stubborn people. Arguing with each other over semantics is just stupid. It accomplishes nothing in the grand scheme of things when trying to fight against the bigger problem. What ever happened to the argument that “I don’t care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me?” Doesn't that same logic exist for people that may or may not have a faith? Who’s using circular logic now? If you are somehow able to accomplish the goals of a completely stateless society, are you really going to care if someone has a faith or not? Are you going to put up borders to keep those people out of your stateless society? The idea that excluding someone from a philosophy that includes everyone based on voluntary association with the absence of force or coercion is a ridiculous notion. Are you free to not associate with those that you choose not to within that society? Yes, because that is the beauty of freedom, but for me, that seems like it would be a very sad existence. I have friends and family that are of all faiths or none. I love them all, and I wouldn't trade any of them away for anything, because treating someone like an individual based on their non-aggressive or non-coercive actions is far more freeing then excluding them.

     

    {extravote 1}

     

  • Support

    SUPPORT JREV

    "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." -Edward Bernays, Propaganda

    Do you find that quote gut-wrenching? So do we. Here at the Journalistic Revolution, we’ve got some pretty monolithic competition: Corporate propaganda, State propaganda, foundation-funded propaganda, and at times, the struggle over the “organized habits and opinions of the masses” seems to be an unwinnable cause. Nevertheless, we do what we do out of sheer passion, and will do so for free so long as we live.


    But we’re only human. Web, audio, and radio stream hosting is expensive. Travel to shoot interviews and documentaries with fascinating people costs just as much, and a venerable fleet of cameras and microphones to accompany such a shoot are also pricey. While we’re more than happy and willing to provide these services at our own expense, we would greatly appreciate the help of you, our audience, in making the Journalistic Revolution a valued member of the budding alternative media.


    Any monetary donation within your means to help accomplish that goal would be greatly appreciated!

    Donate via PayPal:


    Donate via BitCoin:




    Donate via LiteCoin:

  • Violent Revolution Or Peaceful Evolution?



    Violent Revolution or Peaceful Evolution

    Are we spearheading a peaceful evolution or delaying a violent revolution? I have recently had my worldview shaken by an article written by Christopher Cantwell called, "Violently Overthrow The Government." The reason for said shaking is because it scared me to my very core; not because I am scared of a violent revolution. If that must take place, then so be it. It scared me because I have put all my faith and work into the belief of a peaceful evolution. Chris destroyed it in a single  article, albeit a long one, with logic and within the boundaries of the Non-Aggression Principle.

     

    First let me say that I, in no way, support the killing of anyone, even if they wear a funny costume and shiny badges. I judge individuals on their own actions and won't blame one costumed man for the actions of another. I want with the deepest of my being for every one of my fellow human beings to wake up tomorrow and be free along with me. I base my life around education and truth with the intention of helping others to think for themselves.

     

    That being said, I also fully support, believe in, promote, and have a basic human right to self defense. If someone tries to kidnap, steal from, or attack me, I have the right to defend myself and my property. If necessary, I can kill my aggressor. I would feel sad for the loved ones survived by said attacker, but have no remorse for the attacker himself.

     

    Now that I have set a standard of my thinking, let's get into the article.

     

    Chris first shows the logical and factual failings of democracy, civil disobedience, education and peaceful parenting. These are not new ideas, not new practices and history shows that the State, in the end, will prevail. So, where does that leave us?

     

    My proposal, and in all honesty, I’m still working out the details, has been to resort to force. For free men and women to forcefully defend themselves against agents of the State. To kill government agents who would otherwise use force against them, until their jobs simply become so dangerous that they seek other lines of work. -Cantwell

     

    He isn't calling for a violent "revolution" per se, but for already free men and women to defend themselves against already established aggressors.  He isn't purposing that we organize together and insert new leaders and elected officials. Just defend yourself and, if you are a moral man/woman, your neighbors and fellow humans.

     

    No, the goal of overthrow must be to put an end to the State, not shuffle the deck. -Cantwell

     

    Honestly, I can understand and even agree with that reasoning. It is both logical and moral. If he was asking for us to just start killing agents of the state at random, then I could not support his stance. He isn't asking that; only that you defend yourself when they aggress against you. My nagging question, even though I may agree to a point, is, "Are the state of affairs bad enough to warrant such actions and if they are, how do you achieve this without just being some uprising that was quickly quelled?"

     

    The most attractive part of force, is that it requires the fewest participants...... Let us assume that the average cop writes 10 traffic tickets per day. If 5% of the population of a given geographic area simply understood that force was necessary and proper, a police officer would be coming into contact with one of those people roughly every other day. Up that number to 10%, or be in a place where police write more than 10 tickets a day, and the likelihood of such an encounter becomes much greater. -Cantwell

     

    In the last paragraph of the article I see, what I believe, to be Cantwell's true intentions of writing this gut wrenching and paradigm shaking article.

     

    Those who have attempted to avoid this discussion, such as Stefan Molyneux, and the Free State Project, do so at the peril of their own credibility, and do a disservice to those who they would claim to be trying to help. This discussion is happening with or without you, and if you really think I’m that far off base, then the proper way to handle that is to make a coherent response. Shutting down the lines of communication only proves that you don’t have one. -Cantwell

     

    Aha! Seriously though. Why isn't this a discussion? Is it so unbelievable that sometime in the future retaliation against the State will be necessary?

     

    Luckily, someone I respect answered the call of violent revolution or peaceful evolution. Derrick J Freeman! I was excited. He even titled it Chris Cantwell is All Wrong. I was going to have my faith in peaceful resistance restored because I was, unfortunately, unable to destroy Cantwell's logic. I was hopeful.

     

    What it comes down to is a war of ideas. If all the world’s a stage, and we all the players, then let us demonstrate for the world what a free society can look like. Let us provide the example and be the light on the hill. Let us provide alternatives to the things the state provides, like food and care for the old and needy. -Derrick J

     

    Yes!!

     

    The people have to be won, they have to be sold on the idea. -Derrick J

     

    YES!!!

     

    And listen, you’re picking the wrong battle. You’re outmatched. There will never be a successful violent revolt in America; it will be squashed. No, like the Cyclops in the Odyssey, free humanity must outwit the sociopaths to defeat them. -Derrick J

     

    BOOM! Come at me Bro!

     

    There’s nothing special about you or this time. You aren’t owed freedom in your lifetime, but you can have it....If your self-interest is personal freedom, then live free and take the consequences.... -Derrick J

     

    Halleluj.... wait...

     

    I am a free and unique human being, that makes me special. That's why killing is wrong. Everyone is special. And in the truest sense of time, "now" is the most important time. You're right about not being "owed" freedom because it is already mine, but that won't stop a Cop/FBI/Military from killing me if they so wish.

     

    Live free and take the consequences? I could agree with that IF one were talking about the consequences of not saving enough money or seeding my fields too late in the season, but I should "take" being beaten by costumed criminals for smoking a flower?

     

    Derrick's article left me wanting. He made some substantive points, but didn't address the issue that people are dying now, activists are being caged now, victimless crimes are destroying lives now, a little brown baby was most likely bombed while I was writing this article. Where does that leave me?

     

    I heard someone once say, "Freedom, by any means necessary."

     

    If that statement is true, then all practices that will help facilitate, develop, maintain and secure that freedom should be used. Derrick makes a salient point when he says that there are still other options.

     

    ...we can side-step them until they are irrelevant. Livestreaming video communications, Uber transportation worldwide, cryptographic currencies, smart-contracts built on blockchains, decentralized autonomous corporations... -Derrick J

     

    I agree. There are amazing advancements in not complying with the State and even those who are fighting with in it. I believe they will work and are working and that is the very reason we need to have the discussion that Cantwell is trying to have.

     

    Let's say we continue down the road we are going and more and more people "defect" and use alt-currencies, group together, (like the Free State Project, Blue Ridge Project, Free Island Project, etc.) grow their own food, and stop paying taxes until a paradigm shift takes place. The state will do what it always does when it's power is threatened: It will attack.

     

    We ignore that historical fact at our own peril. We stand atop new ground. Never has the world been so globalized. Never have the people of the world desired freedom as much as they do now. Never have we seen a time in history in which that shift is possible. I feel it. I hope you feel it. We're desperate for freedom, but the state is desperate to keep it from us.

     

    I have a simple suggestion. We do both. I'm not suggesting we start shooting cops. I'm not suggesting we sit idly by while the state grows in power. Let's build those communities. Let's grow crypto-currencies. Let sever any and all ties to the state that we can. Let's not forget that the state is violent, illogical and powerful and will do anything to remain powerful. We should always be, not only physically ready to defend, but mentally ready as well.

     

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. -John F. Kennedy

     

    In the end, we are not the ones who will make it impossible.

     

    {extravote 1}

     

  • Why taxation is theft

     Taxation is theft

    Taxation is theft. It is. All the taxes!

    Many people will vote to increase taxation so they are voluntarily giving money to the state, however they are violating the rights of those who do not want to voluntarily give money to the state for whatever issue is deemed important that year. This is why. Taxation is theft.

     

    There are many different types of taxation: Income tax, state and local taxes, payroll tax, unemployment tax, foreign tax, value-added tax, property tax (and eminent domain), real estate tax, sales tax, gas tax, excise taxes, user fees, sin taxes, capital gains tax, corporate tax, luxury taxes…… The government gets you coming, going, on the toilet, sleeping, and even when you die – inheritance and estate taxes. Remember each tax has laws and regulations with lots of exceptions and loopholes, well if you were smart enough to pay off politicians with lobbyists. If a law has a loophole then it is not efficient nor effective, so the law must be removed or fixed.

     


     Property tax and eminent domain:

     

    If you don’t pay your property taxes the government will show up and takeyour house and land away from you, which is stealing. No matter how many generations that your family has lived and maintained the property, if you do not pay those property taxes you will lose that property. How is that fair or even morally right? How is eminent domain morally acceptable by anyone? Theft of property which then the government uses money that is stolen from others, taxation, to fund corporations (cronyism capitalism vs capitalism) to renovate an area. The government causes problems not fixes them. Trump thinks eminent domain is “wonderful”. Do you agree with Trump?


     

    When saying these magical words “taxation is theft” to those on the left or right it is like you are speaking in tongues claiming to be the voice of a god. The cognitive dissonance is strong in many who are not ready to let go of their statism. Many points that have been brought up supporting taxation are logical fallacies, like red herrings, conditional fallacies, questionable fallacies, or generalizations.

     

    Tax, is a compulsory contribution to state and federal revenues. Compulsoryis force. Contributionis a payment. So a tax is a forced payment for services you may or may not use. Rarely is something that is forced given willingly (Stockholm syndrome). Theft, is the taking of another person’s property without that person’s permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Taxation is theft.

     

     

    Taxation is theft 

     

    What is the difference if a criminal mob forces you to pay for a service or a government? One is voted on by the majority… Slaverywas legal at one point because the majority agreed it was socially acceptable and determined that the minorities’ quality of life was sufficient as a slave…

     

    Someone’s quality of life is determined by them and only them unless their mental capacity (age, illness, disability, etc.) does not allow them to do so, with exceptions.  In these situations, another individual is granted a right to make those decisions for them.  Examples include guardianship, conservatorship, power of attorney, and even parenthood.

     

    Is it your right to tell a cancer patient that they cannot take cannabis because you think it could diminish their quality of life? No, that is not your choice, as it in no way affects you.  You no more have the right to tell them they are required to take cannabis because it could save their life.  You do not have a right to determine how somebody chooses to live or die.

     

    Many people do vote those rights away or something such as cannabis would be legal for medicinal purposes in all states. “How is this possible?” you may be asking yourself. The government’s monopoly on force is how. Police and enforcement are paid through tax revenue.  Tax revenue that you were voluntoldhad to be given from each paycheck, aka theft not voluntary. Being forcedinto a service or using a service is slavery.

     


     Example:(how services and taxation are being misrepresented)

    You use the services that are paid for by taxes so being required to pay for something isn’t the same as being stolen from.


     

    That is a logical fallacy. Being required to pay for something, a service, which was provided isn’t the same as being taxed.

     

    Now, how is taxing someone providing a service to that person? Do you use all of the services that are paid for by taxes? How is fundingNATO, other countries, or unconstitutional wars providing a service to everyone? You can’t pick and choose what is acceptable to be taxed based on your standards of living or moral opinions. You are either for taxation or against it, or you are hypocriticalin your line of thinking.

     

    Who deems what services you must pay for or use as a necessity, Republican or Democrat supporters? People are so blindedby the word Democrat or Republican that they stop thinking. Just imagine Trump or Sanders supporters controlling your life… that is exactly who I want to make decisions over my life (sarcasm)…… They all want more democracy and greater federal government power which means less freedom.

     

    Democracy is where the majority makes slaves out of the minority. Do you think we need more of that?

     

    Let’s look at the differences between a service and a tax.

     


     Situation: (I was given this as an example as to why we need taxes)

    "You are driving down the road and you have a motor vehicle accident. You wake up in the hospital days later, injured but alive. The hospital then bills you for the services rendered."


     

    This service, a potential lifesaving service, was provided to you therefore you would then be required to pay for that service. That is not a tax but a debt incurred which if not paid goes to collection agencies and negatively affects your credit scores. Still with me? Good.

     

     


     Healthcare services

     

    Hospital bills tend to be covered by health insurance, which is why there are insurance packages available. Because of government regulations insurance prices, with healthcare costs, have skyrocketed. Now there is a compulsory healthcare insurance provided by the federal government in which you are finedif you don’t pay for it. How is that providing a good service when some peopledon’t want it? That isn’t handing someone a hospital bill but stealing their money and providing a horrible service that may or may not get used. I know several people that either took the fine, because it was cheaper, or signed up for the service only to have to pay double to what was promised. Again taxes, which are stolen because they are compulsory, are used to pay for services many people don’t want or won’t be using. Taxation is theft.

     

     


     Fire department and EMT services

     

    Fire departments and EMTs only show up when you call them to provide a service. Property and other taxes go to pay for these services. What about all the other taxes that are collected throughout your day? Fire departments could be paid by home or renters insurance, which most have, after a service has been provided. How did they operate before the modern age? They are called enough that they could run like any other non-profit and make money from the services they provide and through community donations. Voluntary exchange is not stealing. Voluntaryis an action from one’s own free will – not force.

     

    Firefighters and EMTs costs continue to risecausing issues for all states. Some areas, to combat the funding issue, have started to create annual subscriptions for the services. This has led to firefighters watching a home burn to the grounddue to the homeowner not paying the subscription fee. The homeowner knew the risks and chose not to pay for a service, the fault is on him. This is the same idea as having home, renters, or vehicle insurance. You pay a fee and you are provided a service, this should be voluntary not forced – nor be tied to property taxes. Taxation is theft.

     

     


     Police services

     

    Out of the several dozen times I have interacted with police throughout my life maybe three or four times I had called to be provided a service, the rest of the time I was provided fines and tickets for services I never received – if you know which services those fines and tickets went to please let me know – yes I know this is anecdotal but there are countless examples of police corruption and harassment of innocent civilians.

    If police are never called to provide a service, and they stop and make an individual a criminal out of a victimless crime, then the police are harassinginnocent people, those they are sworn to protect and serve. How is this providing an acceptable service? Imagine the police’s Yelp rating if it was running in a free market? Do you really trust policewhen they show up at a school or during an emergency?

     

    Speeding tickets are another form of “revenue” generation, aka taxation. How is stealing money from you when there is no victim providing a good service to tax payers? Have you ever had to fight a ticket you knew was wrong only to have the judge side with you yet you still walk out of that courtroom paying those “processing fees” or “courtroom costs”? Add that to the amount of time you likely took away from your job and it may not even make monetary sense for you to fight for what you know is right. You may just pay the fine, cut your losses, and move on. You were essentially bullied out of your money by somebody with a badge and a gun on their hip. Who gave them that power? It’s no different than some thug on the street forcing you to pay because you walked on their side of the street a little fast.

     

    Fining people for “crimes” when there is no victim is morally wrong. That would be called theft. If you disagree than any time you go even few miles over the speed limit you should turn yourself in and voluntarily pay your fine. Otherwise your line of thinking is hypocritical. Police should not harass, injure or murderinnocent people, no matter their color or creed – all are targeted equally.

     

    Police should provide a service only when necessary or when called upon. Turning mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters into criminals when you simply do not agree with their way of life is wrong. Your “taxes” (aka stolen money) helps to fund these “services”. Is it really worth it?  When the government has a monopoly on force, how can you protect your rights? How is that freedom?

     

    Look up Eric Garner. “I can’t breathe” would be the slogan that was chanted during protests. He was essentially killed for not paying taxes. His “crime” was selling cigarettes without tax stamps. Tax evasion. He was killed because he didn’t pay taxes. Who did the killing? Police. Was that the service he was paying taxes for?

     

    How about having your house raidedby U.S. Marshals because of an unpaid student loan decades old? Well that happened to Paul Aker. U.S. Marshals showed up to his house fully armed to arrest him for an unpaid loan… If they had done a no knock raid, which happens a lot and has gotten innocent people injured and killed – by police, great service – Aker could have ended up dead because a debt to the federal government. Now what would you call if it if a loan shark had injured or killed someone to collect a debt? Assault or murder, right? What is the difference? Because they belong to the government it is a “non” violation of a right? The word “government” should not be enough to make immoral actions moral especially when those actions violate the rights of others.

     

    The cost to taxpayers for police misconduct is staggeringas is the costs for police in general. Taxation is theft.

     

    Note: The militarization of the police force started with the War on Drugs.

     

    Taxes in the basket

     

     


     Prison services (thanks War on Drugs!)

     

    The War on Drugs has made our prison systems horrible. Since the War on Drugs started in the early 1970’s the incarceration rate has exploded. This influx of individuals in to an already corrupt systemhas led to the creation of privatized prisons. The idea that privatized prisonswould be cost effective have not come true. Now there is a system that pays for incarceration of individuals, to for-profit corporations, in which innocent people are having their rights violated. Thanks government!

     

    Currently, the U.S. spends $51 billion annually on the failedWar on Drugs and $39 billion on the prison system, let’s say $20 billion is directly caused by the War on Drugs – I’d wager it is higher though – that means $71 billion of tax payer money is wasted each year. Imagine if that money wasn’t stolen from everyone and there was more money being spent in the economy. When you are forced into a shitty cable service is it acceptable to you? Taxation is theft.

     

    Note: Our current Vice President, Joe Biden, was one of the main forces behind the implementation of the War on Drugs.

     

     


     Muh road services

     

    This gem of a topic is always brought up as a gotcha question to anyone who disagrees with any form of taxation. “But what about the roads?”… Yes, what about those pesky roads. The majority of the time this questions is brought up by those who have not researched the situation, nor do they have any clue how to build a road. How were roads built before the heavy handed theft of our money? Voluntarily?

     

    A videoby the Corbett Report explains in detail how privatization of roads work and why we don’t need to tax everyone to pay for the roads that they do not use. Why is it your responsibility to pay for a road in a different state? Machineshelp build roads and sidewalks now making building roads easier. Free-market roads is a concept that works and reduces the government’s use of eminent domain. The real question is who would build the roads if not the government? Well, it would be you and the community around you. Everyone has the ability to build a road. The government is not a person, it is a social construct created by statism, and they do not build roads. The roads “built” by the government are actually contracted out to construction companies using stolen money. Where is the voluntary exchange for this service?

     

    “But what about the interstate highways?” Yes, there is a solution for that as well. Low cost tolls. If you use the highway, it is a service provided to you since you did not create it yourself, and it is acceptable to pay a tolling fee for the services rendered and the maintenance of said services. How well have those services benefited the citizens of this country? How many complain about the highways being poorly planned and the inefficiency of their development? Road management cannot function centrally as seen by the failed federal highway program.

     

    The federal highway program spends billionseach year yet every year you hear at the federal level and state level that tax revenue has been rerouted to non-road projects. Do you agree with being forced to pay for roads even though that isn’t always the case? Taxation is theft.

     

     


     Education services (K-12)

     

    We are failing our children. We have let state run education dictate the future of our children’s lives. We have lost the understanding of the Triviumand Quadriviumand how they help us logically work through problems. Teachers are resigning over the poor state of our education system. Students are not being prepared properly for college or life after their state run education has been completed.

     

    The problem is not that people are uneducated, the problem is that they are educated enough to believe what they have been taught and not enough to question what they have been taught.

     

    Historically the education system was left up to the states and only when needed did the states seek help from the federal government. The federal mandated program of No Child Left Behind failedwhich has ruined the education system even faster than it had been going. Now 14 years later the product of that education system has hit voting age.

     

    This is the exact time we need to take a step back, realize that we are on the precipice of the downfall of our economy, and logically and reasonably look at everything. One wrong move and we are screwed.

     

    The Education Department supports roughly 56 million students and forced all states to conform to their policies for the past 14 years. Recently states have been given their rights backto the standards set in 1965 by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The involvement of the federal government, ESEA, and the No Child Left Behind has significantly increased the cost of education, with little show for it. Funding for education is provided by the local, state, and federal government. Is it fair that you are taxed multiple waysto pay for education services you or your children may or may not use? Do you agree when funding is reroutedto other programs?

     

    With outrageous costs for education there are several options to lessen the cost. Focus more on localized education and stop with centralized. With the advancement of the Internet open-source peer-reviewed and FREE textbooks are available. With this change alone teachers could get a pay increase and school systems could still hire additional teachers. Taxation is theft.

     

     


     High education services

     

    Due to government involvementand federal loans college students are leaving college with huge amounts of debt thanks to the subsidies. Taxpayers are footing the bill for this system, hundreds of billions wasted a year, with no real solution to the problem. The government is the problem and lessening their control is the solution. Remember Federal Marshals will come after you if you do not pay your debt.

     

    Let’s pretend for a minute that taxation is theft and we are slaves to the government. Now, how does it feel when you realize they are also the ones in control of our education? Remember during slavery the masters controlled the slaves’ education to keep them ignorant of freedom and rights. Giving you a pretty window to look out of doesn’t make you free.

    Hopefully by now you have seen a pattern that government run programs are not run efficiently nor effectively. Taxation is theft.

     

     


     Bernie Sanders (Trump would be as horrible but in a different way) – remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions (good intentions is loosely defined here).

     

    Sanders will use this corrupt and unjust system and try to force socialist ideologies through it. To do this he will need to increase taxes, which will bring more theft of the product of your labor. The poor and middle class will be affected more than the “1%”. Never EVER has forced socialism worked out. It always fails. Forced socialism, because voluntary is acceptable, does not work and leads to communism, fascism, or totalitarianism.

     

    Sanders does not understand economics, or the free market, but neither do his supporters (Trump supports are the same). Venezuela is in ruinsbecause of socialist policies. Sanders threw his support behind Cuba’s Fidel Castro, who was a communist, same thing as forced socialism. People don’t flee on make shift boats to leave something that is great. They do that to get to something great, which was a somewhat free market and capitalism, but those days are waning because people are drinking that bandwagon kool-aid.

     

     


     Conclusion

     

    When you are forced into choosing a service and then forced into paying taxes for that service with no choice in the matter; that is slavery.

     

    Taxation is theft

    Everything comes down to basic rights. You have the right to the product of your labor. No one else does unless it was voluntarily agreed upon within a contract before services were rendered. Do you have the right to steal from someone? No. Do you have the right to grant someone else the right to steal? No. How is voting to have the government steal from others who do not want to be stolen from not theft?

     

    There is a serious problem facing our society. Words and their definitions have been lost on the majority of the populace thanks to government controlled education and media. Imagine how good this economy would be if you got the corrupt government out of it and focused on the free market, and voluntary exchange, and voluntaryism. Voluntary socialism is the utopia socialists wish for and strive for, they miss the voluntary part though, which is why it always fails. Force is wrong.

     

    Anarchism would provide the ability for voluntary socialism. Anarchism is the belief in the abolition of all government and to organize society based on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion as long as the rights of others are not violated. That is what it is means to be free. Freedom from force. Sanders wants slavery not freedom, and to achieve this slavery taxes will be raised across the board leading to more “criminals” being thrown in jail or murdered for victimless crimes.

     

     

     

    P.S. Taxation is theft