• 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}

     

  • Ben Swann Speech & Interview @ The Liberty Summit

    Ben Swann discusses Fascism, Bitcoin, Jury Nullification and working together. Followed by an interview with him.

    Ben Swann

    Campgain for Liberty

     

     

  • Conspiracy Theory: Government and Central Banking lies about Bitcoin - CEO of JPMorgan and Director of the Federal Reserve Jamie Dimon commits fraud



    Recently, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Jamie Dimon went on CNBC calling Bitcoin a "fraud" where he would "fire in a second" any JPMorgan trader trading in Bitcoin because it is against their "rules." Even though his daughter bought into Bitcoin and JPMorgan Chase & Co. has been caught trading in Bitcoin. Dimon's sentiment has been echoed by many central banks, mainstream media, and those connected to them in the government. Evidence is showing that Dimon is only projecting and is, in turn, frauding everyone who looks to him for guidance (appeal to authority). Below I provide evidence in support of the conspiracy theory that the banking elites run the government and control your lives.

     


    What is a conspiracy theory?It is the point of view that a group is plotting something sinister using direct movements and actions to control what is being seen, like in the sense of theater.

    • conspiracy (n.) mid-14c., from Anglo-French conspiracie, Old French conspiracie "conspiracy, plot," from Latin conspirationem (nominative conspiratio) "agreement, union, unanimity," noun of action from conspirare (see conspire).
    • conspire (v.) late 14c., from Old French conspirer (14c.), from Latin conspirare "to agree, unite, plot," literally "to breathe together," from com "with, together" (see com-) + spirare "to breathe" (see spirit (n.)).
    • theory(n.) 1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from Late Latin theoria (Jerome), from Greek theoria "contemplation, speculation; a looking at, viewing; a sight, show, spectacle, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" (see theater) + horan "to see," which is possibly from PIE root *wer- (3) "to perceive."

     

    The idea that a conspiracy theory is some negative crack pot title is grossly fraudulent. Since the times of the Magna Carta and the creation of the Declaration of Independence conspiracy theories were viewedin a positive manner. In 1967, the CIA coined"conspiracy theory" in a negative light as a way to discredit any theories outside of the "official" story. The CIA wrotea dispatch that provided high level instructions for the stopping and discrediting of such conspiracy theories.

    • "Countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists"
    • "Employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose."
    • "Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories." (this happened during 9/11 which discredited any factual evidence that came out)
    • "In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:"
      • "No significant new evidence has emerged"
      • "[Critics] tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses" (to discredit eye witnesses)
      • "Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States"



    Root definition - Objective truth

    • fraud (n.) from Latin fraudem (nominative fraus) "a cheating, deceit," of persons "a cheater, deceiver." Not in Watkins; perhaps ultimately from PIE *dhreugh- "to deceive" (source also of Sanskrit dhruti- "deception; error"). Meaning "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive" is from 1650s. The meaning "impostor, deceiver, pretender; humbug" is attested from 1850.
    • government(n.) late 14c., "act of governing or ruling;" 1550s, "system by which a thing is governed" (especially a state), from Old French governement "control, direction, administration" (Modern French gouvernement), from governer "to govern" (see govern).

     

    Google Definition - Subjective

    • fraud (n.) wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.(notice they added criminal to the definition, which the government controls what is considered "criminal")
    • government(n.) the governing body of a nation, state, or community. The action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people.


    Who is Jamie Dimon? He is the current CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and a Board of Director for the Federal Reserve of New York, and is worth close to a billion dollars. Some might consider his position with the Federal Reserve as a conflict of interest since the Federal Reserve "regulates" all central banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. The hypocrisies being pushed by Dimon and those like him are endless.


    What is the Federal Reserve? It is not a government agency, yet they control our entire monetary supply and system.

    • "The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Their purpose is to serve the public. So is the Fed private or public? The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank's board of directors."
    • In John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/appellant, V. United States of America, Defendant/appelle, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982):
      • "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors."
      • "It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks: It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine."
      • "Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress."
      • "The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation."(taxation is theft [my first and secondarticle on taxation] though so we should all enjoy this exception)

     

    The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act after the Panic of 1907 when faith in trust companies failed, manly the Knickerbocker Trust Company. J. P. Morgan "saved" the day when he bailed out the industry using his own money, while convincing other bankers to do the same. The Panic of 1907 was influencedby the New York Times who pushed Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) as speculation started to rise over a potential scandal when the then-president of the Knickerbocker Trust Company, Charles T. Barney, tried to corner the copper stock market, leading to a bank run when the scheme failed and the stock plummeted. Within a couple of weeks after the Panic of 1907 Charles T. Barney committed suicide by a gunshot wound to the stomach. It was reported that Charles T. Barney was despondent over the fact that JP Morgan refused to meet with him. Sounds more like a Clinton suicide moment.

     

    Frederick G. Eldridge, who chartered the Knickerbocker Trust Company in 1884, was a friend and classmate of J. P. Morgan. In 1896, J. P. Morgan provided Adolph Simon Ochs, who owned the Chattanooga Times, the financing to secure the purchase of the struggling New York Times which provided J. P. Morgan influence over the stories published in their papers. This push and influence caused the bank run leading to the industry (really only New York) needing to be "saved." Sounds like a broken window fallacy, no?

     

    The next year following the Panic of 1907, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., established and led the commission looking into the panic and proposed the solution of creating the Federal Reserve System. Rockefeller, Sr., was 7th cousins to J. P. Morgan and in 1901 J. P. Morgan offeredRockefeller, Sr. close to $90 million in a deal for ore among other business dealings.

     

    On top of this, shortly after J. P. Morgan "saved" the day a broker firm, Moore & Schley, who had secured huge loans against $6 million worth of Tennessee Coal, Iron, and Railroad Company (TCI) shares had the loans called by the banks to cover the banking runs that hit the market. This caused another issue since Moore & Schley were one of several broker firms in massive debt, Moore & Schley sitting at $25 million in debt. J. P. Morgan jumpedat this chance and browbeat the other bankers (rumored he locked them in a room) until they agreed to help put up the money to cover the firm's debt with the additional resource of government funds (taxes). The plan worked and J. P. Morgan was able to help bail out the broker firm and secure the acquisition of TCI. TCI was the direct southern competitor of U.S. Steel, which J. P. Morgan owned. Furthermore, TCI had the largest use of prison laborers (most were black) who were convicted of victimless or petty crimes and forced to pay off their fines though hard labor (this is still happening today). The number of convicts "employed" by U.S. Steel grew rapidly after it acquired TCI. J. P. Morgan is a humanitarian and philanthropist, right?

     

    John Godfrey Moore, co-owner of Moore & Schley and had controlling interest in Chase National Bank, gained fame in 1893 for successfully suing the U.S. government to stop the Income Tax Act from becoming reality, at least until 1913. Moore had close business dealings with Rockefeller Sr. and J. P. Morgan. Moore died suddenly in 1899 and was a member of the Jekyll Island Club, as was J. P. Morgan and Rockefeller, Sr.

     

    Now, to me this lays out a scheme by several individuals to corner a market while one who knew about the plan plotted against the rest securing considerable power and resources for the future. J. P. Morgan used his position to take out a financial market that directly stood against his bank, trust companies were increasing by 3.5 times the rate compared to other central banks. On top of this J. P. Morgan was able to secure and corner the steel market leading to a monopoly.  J. P. Morgan wasn't done though, using this panic and resulting crisis he continued to push for greater banking and financial regulations. These regulations came to a point by the end of 1913. J. P. Morgan would not live to see his goal realized.

     

    What a year 1913 was... sad year for freedom. This was the year that we were graced with income tax and the Federal Reserve. Banks began to provide trust departments to help manage funds and community foundations grew out of the regulations and restrictions placed upon trust companies by the government. Community foundations are a public versions of trust companies. Senator Nelson Aldrich was a main push behind the Federal Reserve Act and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment which allowed for the start of income tax. Senator Aldrich's daughter, Abigail, married into the Rockefeller family in 1901. Senator Aldrich metwith Henry Davison, a senior partner at J. P. Morgan & Co., and others at Jekyll Island in November 1910 to discuss the creation of the Federal Reserve System, a centralized institution that would control the entire country's monetary supply.

     

     

    Did I mention that taxation is theft? It is. Promise. Even if these banks waste money and run their business into the ground they are viewed as "too big to fail" and those in the government will come to their aid using your hard earned money which is why the central banks needed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. $700 billion in stolen money went to these central bankers to help fix the mess they put the economy into and they threw parties to celebrate. Do you really feel that you are in control of your life? Do you really believe that the banking elite have your best interests at heart? Do you really think their mentality has changed any since time of J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, Sr.? If so, what evidence do you see that things have changed? The government controls you, and the central banks and the private business that is the Federal Reserve controls the government.

     


    Like Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild, founder of the International Banking House of Rothschild, said:

    Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.


     

     

    Now, as with trust companies, a group of individuals, one being CEO Jamie Dimon, are starting to target cryptocurrencies in a sinister manner using direct movements and actions to control what is being seen. CEO Jamie Dimon has committed fraud in his push to attack cryptocurrencies. This is how it starts, using FUD before a "crisis" happens which will "require" the government to step in and regulate what you do with your property, your product of labor, your capital. You must keep yourself aware of these tactics that are geared to manipulate and control you. You have no control over the Federal Government. Everything is handed to you with the illusion of choice and freedom. So much of what happened over a 100 years ago still directly affects you daily. You are being stolen from constantly to fund foreign wars which didn't exist until the Federal Reserve and income tax. You are being manipulated by mainstream media who are controlled by the government and banking elite.

     

     

    Do you still think conspiracy theorists are crazy nut jobs? At what point is the evidence good enough for you to wake up to the slavery that exists today?

     

  • 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}

  • Jordan Page Interview @ The Liberty Summit

    This is a short walk through the Campaign for Liberty's Florida Liberty Summit and a one on one with Jordan Page.

    Campgain for Liberty

    Jordan Page Music

     

    {extravote 1}

  • Lego Movie Review: Not just for statists

    Lego Movie

    Not too long ago, my co-host and friend, Matthew Dalton, suggested I take my kids to go see Lego movie. He told me that it was "anarchist propaganda" and my God, was it ever. I must warn you, I am about dissect and analyze all of the fun out of this movie (my editor says I'm supposed to type *Spoiler Alert* here) and I will not feel sorry about it. The movie begins when a wizard, Vitruvius, attempts to protect the "Kragle," a super weapon, from the evil President Business (an obvious poke at both government and cronyism,) who wants to use it to freeze the universe as it has been built by him. Vitruvius fails to stop him, but warns Lord Business of a prophecy where a person called the "Special" will find the Piece (Peace?) of Resistance capable of stopping the Kragle. I identified the typical tropes in a children's movie. You know, like, slapstick, references and parodies of known characters, The Chosen one, ect. ect. I was then introduced to the main character, Emmet Brickowski, an ordinary construction worker, and was given a not-so-subtle message about how it is necessary to conform and have blind acceptance of instruction to be happy.



    The part that made me say to myself, "The most staunch indictment of the culture of control that is pushed in Mainstream Media/Politics today is when the main character literally forgets his clothes without instruction to remind him." You might be familiar with that argument. "Without the law, how will people know how to be civil?" When in reality they are saying, "People are too stupid to regulate themselves and, apparently, will forget to dress in the morning."

     

    "Are not laws dangerous which inhibit the passions? Compare the centuries of anarchy with those of the strongest legalism in any country you like and you will see that it is only when the laws are silent that the greatest actions appear." -Marquis de Sade

     

    Following that scene, I was magically taken back to a time in my life when "fitting in" was important.

     

     

     

    Do you remember that time in your life? When you were easily influenced by the trends of society either through pop culture, politics, or your parents? The amount of time spent in that state of unaware malleability differs per individual because of environment, genetics and willpower. Emmet feels a very real need to be both a part of something bigger than himself and to stand out and be noticed. It is a paradox that all humans share. In his desire to be noticed, he did everything he was told to do, simply so that he might be considered be a part of something bigger. As most of us know, now that we are older, when you judge your own importance by the standards of others you will always eventually fail.

     

    "The roots of the word 'anarchy' are 'an archos,' 'no leaders,' which is not really about the kind of chaos that most people imagine when the word 'anarchy' is mentioned. I think that anarchy is, to the contrary, about taking personal responsibility for yourself." -Alan Moore

     

    After being shown that Emmet is so absolutely and entirely normal that he isn't even noticed by his peers, He comes across a woman, Wyldstyle, who is searching for something after hours at Emmet's construction site. When he investigates, Emmet falls into a hole and finds the Piece of Resistance. Compelled to touch it, Emmet experiences vivid visions and passes out. He awakens elsewhere with the Piece of Resistance attached to his back in the custody of Bad Cop, Lord Business' lieutenant, whose alter-ego is, of course, Good Cop. Let's stop here to introduce you to Good Cop/Bad Cop:

     

    “Power changes everything till it is difficult to say who are the heroes and who the villains.” ― Libba Bray, The Sweet Far Thing

     

    Bad Cop has a good side which still holds some influence over Bad Cop. Eventually, Good Cop is erased by President Business, which is a clear indictment of the police force today. If you work for an evil regime and never question orders, no matter how good a person you are on the inside, you will eventually have all that is good about you erased... but I digress. There, Emmet learns of Business' plans to freeze the world with the Kragle. Wyldstyle rescues Emmet and takes him to Vitruvius, who explains that he and Wyldstyle are "Master Builders" capable of building anything they need, both with great speed and without instruction manuals; when Lord Business rose to power, his disapproval of such anarchic creativity resulted in him capturing many of them.

     

    "Following the Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, the papal Master of the Sacred Palace ordered that Foscarini's Letter be banned, and Copernicus' De revolutionibus suspended until corrected. The papal Congregation of the Index preferred a stricter prohibition, and so with the Pope's approval, on March 5 the Congregation banned all books advocating the Copernican system, which it called "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture.""

     

    As the "Special," Emmet is destined to defeat him, yet Wyldstyle and Vitruvius are disappointed to find Emmet displays no creativity. Now some of you are already aware of the "reluctant hero" trope. As a matter of fact, Ron Paul would be an excellent real-world parallel of this phenomenon. How many times have you heard, "I like Ron Paul except for...." Wyldstyle and Vitruvius take Emmet to an underground resistance where there is no instructions or rules. He obviously doesn't understand how a society can exists without rules.



    It is here where Emmet tries to take on the role of the Special and gives a very honest speech, causing the Master Builders to doubt him and his ability to change the world.

     

    "I have no experience fighting, leading or making plans. It's going to be really hard, but I..." -Emmet

     

    Soon, the Cops find the underground resistance and Emmet and his friends must run and hide. We are then treated to this wonderfully anarchic scene.



    First, we see many different people working together, yet separately, to achieve a common goal, and when Emmet asks to be told what to do, he is told not to worry about what the others are doing and do what is special to him. Jumping ahead in the story, Emmet is eventually told by Vitruvius that the Prophecy of the Special is made up and there is no such thing as the Special. It is when Emmet accepts this truth, that he is just one person whose ideas are not better or worse than anyone else, that he steps up to being a hero. That is the heart of Anarchism/Voluntaryism. No one is greater or worse than you. There are no bad ideas, just bad actions. No one should rule you or make you follow instruction just because they feel you should. I could go on and on about the parallels that were drawn in this movie to Anarchism and Voluntaryism, but I will let Emmet close this article for me.

     

    "You don't have to be the bad guy. You are the most talented, most interesting, and most extraordinary person in the universe. And you are capable of amazing things. Because you are the Special. And so am I. And so is everyone. The prophecy is made up, but it's also true. It's about all of us. Right now, it's about you. And you... still... can change everything." -Emmet

     

    {extravote 1}

     

  • Statist Anonymous Step 1 through 12

    Statism is a serious problem afflicting our country. We here at JRev work hard on informing others about statism and how dangerous it is to your freedom, and now is the time for you to help those in need. If you know of anyone who is suffering from statism please show them this simple 12 step process that will help them overcome a very debilitating disease.

     

    Step 1: Acceptance

     

     

     

    Step 2: Self Empowerment

     

     

     

    Step 3: Giving Yourself to the N.A.P.

     

     

     

    Step 4: Inventory of your Morals

     

     

     

    Step 5: The Nature of Your Statism

     

     

     

    Step 6: Are You Ready to Remove Statism?

     

     

     

    Step 7: The NAP Removes Our Statist Defects

     

     

     

    Step 8: A list of Everyone

     

     

     

    Step 9: Making Amends

     

     

     

    Step 10: Admitting When You're Wrong

     

     

     

    Step 11: Take a step back and move the message forward

     

     

     

    Step 12: Statist Apocalypse

     

     

     

    Note: No statists were harmed during the making of these videos...

     

  • 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:

  • Taxation is theft, by definition

     

     


    Rhetoric (TLDR): Taxation is theft. A tax was originally an additional charge of handling property (like a service fee) but taxation quickly became obligatory contributions paid to governments and churches, obligatory through force. The difference between the two meanings is voluntary vs obligatory. Free people can voluntarily choose what to do with their product of labor, their property, their capital, while slaves are forced to hand it over to their masters.


     

    Did you know that Taxation Is Theft? It is, by definition. The very first article I ever wrote was a seven-pager on Why Taxation Is Theft. That article focuses more on examples on why Taxation Is Theft, lightly going over the definitions of the words, and options for moving away from taxation. It has been some time since I have addressed Taxation Is Theft and recently it has become a hot topic discussion, so I figured I should once again write about how Taxation Is Theft using the Trivium Method of Critical Thinking: Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric in order. If you are unsure what the Trivium is or the concept please go research it, it is a life changer that is no longer taught to society.

     

    Using only modern definitions of words is a subjective process due to everyone wanting to add their own twist. There is a problem with this process though, without objective truths, and the understanding of definitions, communication begins degrade quickly. When someone adds something to a definition of a word that you don’t agree with, how can you reach the same conclusion and rhetoric that they have without agreeing to the definition being used? This is why definitions need to be agreed upon before Logic can be debated.

     


    Example: How often do you hear liberal being used as a negative term? How often is liberal used negatively without the sense of irony with it?

    Root definition Liberal- directly from Latin liberalis "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," literally "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free person," from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious."

    Modern Google definitions –

    • “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”
    • “favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.”
    • “(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.”
    • “regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.”
    • “(of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.”
    • “(especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact.”
    • “given, used, or occurring in generous amounts.”
    • “(of a person) giving generously.”

    Do you agree with all of the modern definitions of liberal? Do you think the left are liberals? You cannot be liberal with others’ property.


     

    I tend to stay away from modern subjective definitions. These definitions usually have twists that alter the meaning of the word, so I focus on the root etymology of the words. This should always be your starting point when determining a definition to a word. Root definitions are objective truths, that is how the word started out and it sets the theme of the word for future use. Now, words can evolve to mean something completely different but words should never alter slightly meaning the opposite or something close to it. That is sophistry and is unacceptable, unless being used in an ironic way (see patriot).

     

     

    Sophists have convoluted communication between us all by taking away the meaning and understanding of many commonly used words and terminology, which allows them to twist language into a rhetoric that suits their needs and goals. They are not here to tell you the truth. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were vehemently against sophists since they deliberately used “fallacious reasoning, intellectual charlatanism and moral unscrupulousness,” subjectivism, to influence those they taught for a high price. These are not good people. They lie for gain to cloud the truth so their rhetoric is “correct.”

     

    Google uses its own database to store definitions. Google is a publicly traded business heavily influenced by the governments around the world. It is a logical fallacy to go with Google definitions if it has not kept the same theme as the root definition. Take terrorismand patriotismfor example, most use the words incorrectly which clouds the meaning of the word making a truthful rhetoric harder to obtain. This confusion causes disagreements and strife between everyone while reducing the judgement and critical thinking ability of each individual and society as a whole. Confusion and a breakdown in the ability to think critically makes people and society easier to control, I mean govern.

     


    Example: Using modern definitions of the words Taxation Is Theft:

     


     

    Now as I have stated previously, subjective definitions can be the truth, but you should always start with a word’s root etymological definition to understand the theme of a word, its use in the context of the situation, and how it changed to be used today. Terms must be agreed upon to have any meaningful debate. The root definitions of words matter because they are not subjective but objective truths based in reality. Luckily, you can see from the example that the theme of taxation has not really changed even though most don’t understand that Taxation Is Theft. For everyone to understand that Taxation Is Theft we must agree that “against their will” means the same thing as “without permission” when looking at the modern definitions of the words.

     

    Now let’s go through the root definitions of Taxation Is Theft:

    • Taxation(n.) early 14c., "imposition of taxes," from Anglo-French taxacioun, Old French taxacion, from Latin taxationem (nominative taxatio) "a rating, valuing, appraisal," noun of action from past participle stem of taxare (see tax (v.)).
    • Tax(n.) early 14c., "obligatory contribution levied by a sovereign or government," from Anglo-French tax, Old French taxe, and directly from Medieval Latin taxa, from Latin taxare (see tax (v.)).
    • Tax(v.) c. 1300, "impose a tax on," from Old French taxer "impose a tax" (13c.) and directly from Latin taxare "evaluate, estimate, assess, handle," also "censure, charge," probably a frequentative form of tangere "to touch," from PIE root *tag- "to touch, handle."
    • Impose(v.) late 14c., "to lay (a crime, duty, obligation, etc.) to the account of," from Old French imposer "put, place; impute, charge, accuse" (c. 1300), from assimilated form of in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + poser "put, place".
    • Obligatory(adj.) c. 1400, from Old French obligatoire "creating an obligation, obligatory," and directly from Late Latin obligatorius "binding," from obligat-, past participle stem of obligare (see oblige).
    • Oblige(v.) c. 1300, "to bind by oath," from Old French obligier "engage one's faith, commit (oneself), pledge" (13c.), from Latin obligare "to bind, bind up, bandage," figuratively "put under obligation," from ob "to" (see ob-) + ligare "to bind," from PIE root *leig- "to bind.”
    • Contribution(n.) late 14c., from Old French contribution and directly from Latin contributionem (nominative contributio), noun of action from past participle stem of contribuere "to bring together, add, contribute," from com "with, together" (see com-) + tribuere "to allot, pay" (see tribute)
    • Compulsion(n.) early 15c., from Middle French compulsion, from Latin compulsionem (nominative compulsio) "a driving, urging," noun of action from past participle stem of compellere "compel" (see compel).
    • Enforcement(n.) late 15c., "constraint, compulsion," from Old French enforcement "strengthening, fortification; rape; compulsion, coercion;" from enforcier; see enforce + -ment.
    • Compel(v.) mid-14c., from Old French compellir, from Latin compellere "to drive together, drive to one place" (of cattle), "to force or compel" (of persons), from com "with, together" (see com-) + pellere "to drive" (from PIE root *pel- (5) "to thrust, strike, drive").
    • Tribute(n.) mid-14c., "stated sum of money or other valuable consideration paid by one ruler or country to another in acknowledgment of submission or as the price of peace or protection," from Anglo-French tribute, Old French tribut and directly from Latin tributum "tribute, a stated payment, a thing contributed or paid," noun use of neuter of tributus, past participle of tribuere "to pay, assign, grant," also "allot among the tribes or to a tribe," from tribus (see tribe).

     


    Rhetoric: A tax is considered a binding, forced, contribution that is compelled to be handed over to a government.


     

    • Theft(n.) mid-13c., from Old English þeofð (West Saxon þiefð) "theft," from Proto-Germanic *theubitho (source also of Old Frisian thiufthe, Old Norse þyfð), from *theubaz "thief" (see thief) + abstract formative suffix *-itha (cognate with Latin -itatem; see -th (2)).
    • Thief(n.) Old English þeof "thief, robber."
    • Robber(n.) late 12c., from Anglo-French robbere, Old French robeor, agent noun from rober (see rob).
    • Rob(v.) late 12c., from Old French rober "rob, steal, pillage, ransack, rape," from West Germanic *rauba "booty" (source also of Old High German roubon "to rob," roub "spoil, plunder."
    • Steal(v.) Old English stelan "to commit a theft, to take and carry off clandestinely and without right or leave" (class IV strong verb; past tense stæl, past participle stolen), from Proto-Germanic *stelan (source also of Old Saxon stelan, Old Norse, Old Frisian stela "to steal, to rob one of," Dutch stelen, Old High German stelan, German stehlen, Gothic stilan "to steal"), from PIE *stel-, possibly a variant of *ster- (3) "to rob, steal."
    • Pillage(n.) late 14c., "act of plundering" (especially in war), from Old French pilage (14c.) "plunder," from pillier "to plunder, loot, ill-treat."
    • Plunder(n.) "goods taken by force; act of plundering," 1640s, from plunder (v.).
    • Force(n.) c. 1300, "physical strength," from Old French force "force, strength; courage, fortitude; violence, power, compulsion" (12c.).

     


    Rhetoric: Theft is the act of plundering, taking goods and property by force. If we used tax in its very root sense a tax should be voluntary since it was a service fee for handling something. You would have the option to choose someone or something else to handle your business. However, since taxation has become compulsorily and everyone is forced to contribute regardless if they use a service or not it is theft. Taxation is theft, by definition.


     

    We as a society have forgotten how to think critically but the cards have been stacked against us since birth. This is only an excuse though because eventually we all need to wake up to the lies and falsehoods that are being forced upon us daily. We need to understand the disadvantage we have been given by those ruling over us. The Trivium Method of Critical Thinking is a way to gain back a level playing field. The Trivium allows us to process information so we can come to the best and most accurate solution with the information available. Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric (in that order) are the foundationof this process.

     

    Grammar must be factual and truthful, subjective opinions are not facts. Subjective words are not facts unless both parties agree to the definitions. Without proper Grammar basic communication breaks down and sets you up for failure. This failure manifests in our ability to use Logic leading to us providing rhetoric that is wrong.

     

    P.S. Taxation Is Theft

     

  • This December, Agenda 21 is Getting an "Update"

    Source: Stateless Homesteading

    From November 30th to December 11th of 2015, a consortium of world "leaders" from 190 countries will gather in Paris, France as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The occasion? The much maligned Neomalthusian "environmental" program, known as "Agenda 21" by its original visionaries as well as its opponents, will be of drinking age, its "sustainable" protocols having been officially adopted in 1994.

     

    So, too, is this UN Convention in Paris a celebration of the Kyoto Protocol's numerological accomplishments, as COP21/CPM11 marks the 11th year of the emission regulation's force as "International Law" (as of 2004).

     

    The purpose of these festivities, however, is hardly mere ceremony; as Agenda 21 comes of age, the burdens it places upon those living beneath its yoke are also maturing. Unlike every UN Climate Convention since Rio 1992, which were mere "global visioning" seminars, COP21, according to the Anglo-American Cambridge University, has far more grandiose and binding aspirations:

     

    "The United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 or CMP11 will be held in Paris, France in 2015. The international climate conference will be held from 30 November to 11 December 2015. The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world."

     

    -Cambridge Interdisciplinary Research on the Environment

     

    In other words, Agenda 21 v2.0 will soon be upon us. Information on what exactly this "upgrade" entails for Free Humanity is sparse, as the UN remains resolutely vague (perhaps deliberately, given recent notoriety surrounding "sustainable development") on the specifics of the Convention's "binding and universal agreement." Yet in spite of Globalism's sincere attempt to obfuscate Neofeudal Technocracy's latest iteration, open-source intelligence can give us a glimpse behind the proverbial curtain at the magic tricks in store at COP21 this December.

     

    All the World's a (Sustainable) Stage

     

    As the curtain begins to rise on Act 2 of Agenda 21, it's worth reminding ourselves of the nodes of forensic history which lead to COP21. Perhaps the most integral of these nodes is the research produced by whistleblower and activist, George Washington Hunt, in his party-crashing exploits at the pre-Rio planning committees of the early-90s, attended by such Globalist "luminaries" as Maurice Strong and Edmond de Rothschild; all of whom were caught on tape by Hunt's daring infiltration:

     

    Even more undercirculated than Hunt's video presentation are the documents this Conference produced. It is within these Anglophilic pages that the World Order created by Agenda 21 is spelled out with stunning clarity - particularly as it pertains to the "developing" world, China and India chief among them: UNCED1China and India's "conditions" for signing on to the Rio '92 agenda as documented by the UN Environment and Development Conference

     

    China and India's "conditions" for signing on to the Rio '92 agenda, as documented by the UN Conference on Environment and Development

     

    China and India, recognizing the influence their signatures (or lack thereof) would have on adopting Agenda 21 globally, told the UN succinctly: "We haven't come here for 'aid' (IMF loans). Instead, we want in on the Western game of 'Global Trade' (Neomercantilism). Give us a slice of the wealth pie (compensatory financial flows) or we're not signing up." History informs us, however, that China and India did sign up for Rio's binding protocols. The past twenty-odd years also spell out quite clearly that the Anglo-American Establishment has fulfilled its side of the wager to her former colonies. This "Faustian Bargain" has made India and China rich, but at what cost?

     

    UNCED3

     

    Was the price paid by India and China their economic autonomy? While it's certain that the Indian caste system and the "State Capitalist" collectivism of modern China are hardly beacons of "liberal free market" activity, their development includes elements of this therein; in fact, Eastern banking systems grow more "Anglo-Saxon" in ideal and structure by the day, despite the facade of independence being maintained.

     

    This blend of Western structure with Eastern identity in banking strikes one as the potential compromise reached between the "First" and "Second" worlds at UNCED - a final bid to maintain the "Anglo-Saxon system of banking":

     

    UNCED5

     

    The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (or AIIB) is an excellent example of this burgeoning "East-Anglo" banking model. While widely reported by some as signifying the end of the decaying Western banking model, the AIIB's steadfast devotion to Agenda 21 makes one wonder whether or not the AIIB is a truly autonomous entity, or merely China's fulfillment of an Asian Development Bank or Development Bank of Latin America-style puppet as called for by Rio '92:

     

    AIIB1Jin Liqun, secretary general of the bank's multilateral interim secretariat, tells Xinhua on the topic of the AIIB. From China Daily and Reuters.

     

    Jin Liqun, secretary general of the bank's multilateral interim secretariat, tells Xinhua on the topic of the AIIB. From China Daily and Reuters.

     

    It seems the AIIB plans not only on investing in "green" infrastructure projects, but will do so in partnership with the Globalist World Bank and ADB, both of which were set up by the West following the devastation of World War II. Christine Lagarde and the IMF, too, state that they would be "Delighted" to work with the AIIB.  Is this new system of banking and financing what Edmond de Rothschild meant when he referenced a "Second World Marshall Plan" in relation to Agenda 21, as described in Hunt's recording? Is this why "developing  nations should look to Germany and Japan," countries rebuilt by World Bank funding, for their banking models, as described in the UNCED document?

     

    One must bear in mind that the United Nations Council on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) quoted in the document above is the same group which authored the paper, "A BRICS Development Bank - A Dream Coming True?" in March of 2014, which heralds the rise of the BRICS New Development Bank as a global force for "sustainable development" and an ardent partner in Agenda 21:

     

    BRICSDBThe BRICS to put "development on center stage," as called for in the UNCED documentation

     

    The BRICS to put "development on center stage," as called for in the UNCED documentation

     

    And thus, a pattern emerges - the "New Kids on the Trading Bloc" and their corresponding banks are, universally, in lock-step with Agenda 21 and the multipolar Technocratic Order it represents. From sustainable banking to metals exchanges, the infrastructure required by a reinvention of the Global Order seems to be in place in advance of COP21, with the exception of at least one key element: A global carbon credit scheme.

     

    Carbon Credits Cometh

    Much ado has been made recently within the alternative media about the IMF's decision to delay inclusion of the Yuan into the SDR basket until September of 2016, with various theories floated as to why this has occurred. Viewing this announcement within the context of COP21's heavy emphasis on the future of carbon trading markets, a piece of the Yuan-SDR puzzle falls into place; if what anti-Technocracy researchers like Patrick Wood have unveiled is true, Global Technocracy's Neomalthusian environmental implements must also develop in tandem with a new currency system underpinned by energy credits. The pre-release documents from COP21's "Scientific and Technological Advice" PDF, as well as COP21's sponsors, hint at this being an integral part of the discussions taking place in December:

     

    COP21Tech2CTXPartner21CarbonTrackerPartner21

     

    One key country expected to be signatory to COP21's treaty has revealed that they are not yet ready for the "new market-based mechanism" the UN will require: China. The Chinese National Development and Reform Commission announced that their national carbon trading markets will not be ready until late 2016 at the earliest:

     

    CDCarbon1From China Daily

     

    From China Daily

     

    So it seems the IMF has delayed the Yuan's SDR inclusion for almost exactly as long as it will take for China to launch its national carbon trading scheme - is this mere coincidence? The timing of these moves strikes this author as potentially significant.

     

    The launch of this national program will be built on the foundationof the regional carbon markets China has been fostering over the past few years, one of which should be familiar to us:

     

    CDCarbon3

     

    The site of the Trilateral-assisted "Eco-City," Tianjin, is also the site of China's pilot carbon trading market; the same Tianjin whose "not-so-smart" counterpart was recently set ablaze by a mysterious explosion, ostensibly caused by "chemicals."

     

    If the "problem" of unsustainable manufacture and development wasn't clear to China's human resources before last week, it is now.

     

    Hegel 21

     

    "...back then, we were talking about projections of a problem (Climate Change) with literally no solutions that we could talk about. And that is, for people, just not going to work. People need to know that there's hopefulness before they're gonna even admit there's a problem. If you give them a problem and there's no solution, they pretend it doesn't happen.

     

    We've been doing that for 25 or 30 years.

     

    What we see now is that we actually have solutions, and we're actually being hit with the problem now."

     

    -Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator

     

    This is how the head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, chose to frame the Obama Administration's implementation of the Malthusian "Clean Power Plan" during her tell-a-vision appearance with Bilderberger and CFR member Charlie Rose. Sound familiar? The Hegelian Dialectic strikes again, only this time, on a global stage. The mass of the public, properly conditioned to accept "Climate Change" as the Harbinger of Doom, is now prepared for the solutions phase of Eco-Fascism: The final round of de-industrialization and centralization of the American power grid.

     

    This latest Hegelian trick's synthesis, birthed from the antithesis represented by the EPA's slashing of American carbon emissions, must inevitably include the rapid development of American "renewable" power:

     

    From The Guardian

     

    From The Guardian

     

    Regardless of the "winner" of the 2016 Presidential (s)election, the mechanics for such a program are already well underway at the Corporatist level, as China, the largest solar panel producing country on Earth, is well underway in supplying American solar infrastructure: Screenshot from 2015-08-14 14:02:47

     

    In the case of Suniva's purchase by Shunfeng Clean Energy, China's solar juggernaut worth over $20 billion, the merger will be underwritten by two powerful forces of Anglo-American wealth as well:

     

    goldmanwarburgchinasolar

     

    The Warburg banking family and the ever-present Goldman Sachs are steadfast in their support of this "sustainable" trend. A safe bet, surely, as the Obama Administration's "Clean Power Act" virtually requires a tremendous uptick in solar panel manufacture for the West. COP21 is set to require even more. Will the "cheap money for cheap goods" and "cheap precious metal for cheap bonds" relationship between China and the West soon be joined by a "carbon credits for cheap solar panels" arrangement? As "experts" on the East-West Dialectic and originators of the term BRICs as early as 2003, Goldman seems to be betting that this is the case: Screenshot from 2015-07-28 23:24:10Screenshot from 2015-07-28 23:24:27

     

    One may recall a recent post, "China 21: Anglo-American Sustainability in Asia," in which this author noted the Hegelian Dialectic's use to usher survivors of Fukushima into Agenda 21 "Smart Cities." We see these same "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" tactics at work in the rubble of Tianjin. Whoever or whatever caused the Tianjin blast, whether or not this is a case of a synthetic event or simply a matter of "never letting a good crisis go to waste," the reality of the situation is unchanged: The old Tianjin is in ruin, whereas Tianjin Eco-City, located outside of the blast radius, remains in tact with its scheduled completion in 2020 unhindered: TianjinBlast1 From ChannelNewsAsia

     

    From ChannelNewsAsia

    In tandem with "old" Tianjin's destruction, degradation of air quality is also being reported surrounding the blast site; air quality issues that, presumably, would not exist had Tianjin Eco-City been at full capacity and the environmental standards of COP21 been fully developed:

     

    COP21Tech1

     

    Tianjin Eco-City, unlike its counterpart, already includes a "greenhouse gas data interface," a trait shared by every Smart City on planet Earth. Nor would Tianjin Eco-City's "Eco-Industrial Park" have allowed such volatile and "unsustainable" manufacturing to take place in the first place. This is the thesis as constructed in the Hegelian programming surrounding the Tianjin catastrophe.

     

    All that's left now is for transnational Technocrats to wait in anticipation for the ultimate synthesis to be unveiled this December at COP21, and given the grand overtures being prepared by all nations in advance of the Paris conference, the "legally binding and universal agreement" it will produce is set to be no less bombastic.

     

    The specifics of the threat posed by COP21 to Free Humanity can only be divined upon the gathering's close, but its overall aspirations are known to us. They are the same in 2015 at COP21 as they were at Rio in 1992; the same today as in 1972 with the Club of Rome's publication ofThe Limits to GrowthNothing short of global colonization by the Anglo-American Establishment, as admitted at UNCED '92:

     

    UNCED4

     

    To the "billions of Lilliputians of lesser race" out there, myself included, we have been warned. The Hour is Late. Whether the Fabian degradation of freedom and prosperity continue their steady grind or the world is "compelled" by economic catastrophe into implementing "Global Sustainability" as foretold by Maurice Strong, the remainder of 2015 and 2016 are set to be a turbulent period in this ongoing Age of Transitions.

    Amidst the potential tumult that Act 2 of Agenda 21 and other geopolitical events may yield, just remember, Reader:

     

    "You either learn your way towards writing your own script in life, or you unwittingly become an actor in someone else's script." -John Taylor Gatto

     

    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}

     

  • 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}

     

  • We are all Hypocrites




    We are all hypocrites. I hear a lot of people say this, but I don’t think that they really know what it means. I first realized that I was a hypocrite when I was 21. I worked with a Drug Awareness group in Florida. The point of the group was to educate people on how to safely do drugs, as to cut down on “overdoses”, but I almost never followed the caution that I was promoting. It all went downhill from there.

     

    Let me walk you through my line of thinking. According to the oldest definitions of the word hypocrisy,

     

    Hypocrisy (n.)

    c. 1200, ipocrisie, "the sin of pretending to virtue or goodness," from Old French ypocrisie, from Late Latin hypocrisis "hypocrisy," also "an imitation of a person's speech and gestures," from Attic Greek hypokrisis "acting on the stage; pretense," metaphorically.

     

    When I was a part of the Drug Awareness Group, I preached caution and moderation, but that was just an act, an imitation, a pretending of virtue. I never followed it myself. I didn’t even believe the message I was purporting. I pushed the limits and did so in excess.

     

    Politicians are a perfect example of this. President Obama was highly critical of George Bush’s use of Executive Orders, but is about to reach the same number of orders given.

     

    George W. Bush 291

     

    Barack Obama 234

     

    He pretended, imitated, and acted as if this was a travesty, but in the end, did not hold himself to the same accountability.

     

    Actors do it. They rally against guns then star in movies that promote the use of guns as heroic. Protesters want free speech, until someone disagrees with them. Religious leaders talk of poverty and humbleness until it’s time to buy a house or car.

     

    Every single person is a hypocrite. I’m not saying that you have to be perfect. Purism is a lie, as much as the lies that hypocrites tell themselves. The goal is to remove as much hypocrisy as possible in one’s life. The secret to doing so, is to stop lying to yourself. Are you selfish? Then be selfish. Embrace yourself.

     

    If you embrace yourself and find something you don’t like then, and only then, can you change it. If you continue to justify or rationalize your behavior then you will make change much harder on yourself. Eventually, this cognitive dissonance will lead to conflict.

     

     

    This conflict can manifest internally or in the real world. A perfect example of it causing conflict in the real world is these 2 groups of people right now, who want to force their ideas onto Society. They both want to take money from you. They both want to make criminals out of innocent people. They both want to expand the empire. They both want to put a man in power to achieve their goals. Yet, they get violent around each other because they don’t see that they are the same. Of course, I’m talking about Bernie and Trump supporters.

     

    I’m not just picking on them. All candidates would continue the Status Quo with only slight changes in the style in which they achieve a larger state. If you say that you stand for freedom and don’t see the hypocrisy of “supporting” government, there isn’t a whole lot more to say.

     

    I will leave you with this food for thought. If you support the State and believe in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence then ruminate on this.

     

    “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

     

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

     

    Over a long enough timeline it become necessary to dissolve political connections to a government because all men are equal, therefore, no one is fit to rule. The power of government comes from the consent of the governed. 47% of eligible voters no longer consent. We are slowly pulling our consent and according to the Constitution and Democracy, We’ll have the right to be left alone and free of government because soon, we’ll out number you.

     

    But, that’s not what you meant when you said you support the Constitution and Democracy is it?

     

    Hypocrite.

     

    {extravote 1}

     

  • Who is #MyFriendAdam Kokesh?

    Who is Adam Kokesh? How do you define a person? By their actions and the results of their actions. Video and writing done by Robert Wasmund, voice over by Tripp Pugh. #MyfriendAdam

     

     

     

  • Why I am a Libertarian and Anarchist, by definition

     

     

    Recently on Facebook I saw a question being asked by Being Libertarian to their audience in which they posted “A question for former liberals: what made you a libertarian?”. This gave me a chuckle (see below) and got me thinking as to what made me a libertarian and anarchist, and the path I took to get here…

     

    I grew up throughout the 80’s and 90’s going through public school in Central Florida, scary, right?  When I was in grade school I was diagnosed with a learning disorder, Dyslexia, which caused me to have extensive trouble with grammar as a whole, so needless to say I hated all English and language courses I had during middle and high school. Over one summer during middle or high school (I forget) I spent time at a Sylvan Learning Center which helped me get caught up to passable, not saying much. Throughout the years, I avoided writing and any language as best I could. Many of the days and classes were skipped.

     

    It wasn’t until I reached college Freshmen Comp I (B) and II (A) that I started to learn the technical and logical aspect of English and grammar that I never understood before. Since this time, I have focused a good deal of my time on improving my skills at writing and the technical structure of grammar. This was one a big step towards becoming a libertarian and anarchist.

     

    My political views when growing up reflected mostly the product of my environment, center leaning “Republican” (air quotes). Even then nothing ever seemed correct or right with either choices I was told about, Democrats (the Left) or “Republicans” (the Right). Little did I know my education and grammar, on top of my issues, were tainted with misinformation by hundreds of years of work at the hands of sophists. I do feel like I was set up for failure, thanks government… This is still a reality for many.

     


     

    A democrat is someone who follows democracy which is to rule or govern the common people by power and authority through division.

     

    Democracy is where the majority make slaves out of the minority

    – Jeffrey Hann

     

    • Democrat(n.) – 1790, "adherent of democracy," with reference to France, from French démocrate (18c., opposed to aristocrate), back-formation from démocratie (see democracy).
    • Democracy(n.) – 1570s, from Middle French démocratie (14c.), from Medieval Latin democratia (13c.), from Greek demokratia "popular government," from demos "common people," originally "district" (see demotic), + kratos "rule, strength" (see -cracy).
    • Demotic(adj.) – 1822, from Greek demotikos "of or for the common people, in common use," from demos "common people," originally "district," from PIE *da-mo- "division," from root *da- "to divide."
    • -cracy – word-forming element forming nouns meaning "rule or government by," from French -cratie or directly from Medieval Latin -cratia, from Greek -kratia "power, might; rule, sway; power over; a power, authority."

     


     

    I was never a "liberal" (air quotes) or Democrat, the left are not liberals by definition, and the far right religious fanatics, those who were violent or spewed hate horrified me. Even if I couldn’t understand it I knew, and had a sense, that rights were being violated. Both sides wanted to control more than the other, us vs. them. The untold number of logical fallacies both sides displayed baffled me as a child even before I knew what the words logicalfallacymeant.

     

    • Liberal(adj.) – directly from Latin liberalis "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," literally "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free person," from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious."

     

    You cannot be a liberal while being liberal with someone’s money. When goods (product of your labor) is taken by force, that is theftand why taxation is theft. Taxes are taken by force and is a robbery of your liberty.

     

    • Theft(n.) – mid-13c., from Old English þeofð (West Saxon þiefð) "theft," from Proto-Germanic *theubitho (source also of Old Frisian thiufthe, Old Norse þyfð), from *theubaz "thief" (see thief) + abstract formative suffix *-itha(cognate with Latin -itatem; see -th (2)).
    • Thief(n.) – Old English þeof "thief, robber," from Proto-Germanic *theubaz
    • -th (2) – suffix forming nouns of action, state, or quality from verbs or adjectives (such as depth, strength, truth), Latin -tati-, as in libertatem "liberty" from liber "free").
    • Robber(n.) – late 12c., from Anglo-French robbere, Old French robeor, agent noun from rober (see rob).
    • Rob(v.) – late 12c., from Old French rober "rob, steal, pillage, ransack, rape," from West Germanic *rauba "booty" (source also of Old High German roubon "to rob," roub "spoil, plunder."
    • Plunder(n.) – "goods taken by force; act of plundering" 1640s.

     


     

    Most who claim to be republicans are really not “republicans” (air quotes). A republican is someone who focuses on the state and happiness of the public which is shared by all, not someone who wants a government to control that state and happiness while excluding specific people who shares the public with them.

     

    • Republican(adj.) – 1712, "belonging to a republic, of the nature of a republic, consonant to the principles of a republic," from republic+ -an.
    • Republic(n.) – from Latin respublica (ablative republica) "the common weal, a commonwealth, state, republic," literally res publica "public interest, the state."
    • -an – word-forming element meaning "pertaining to," from Latin -anus
    • Common(adj.) – from Latin communis "in common, public, shared by all or many; general, not specific; familiar, not pretentious."
    • Wealth(n.) – mid-13c., "happiness," also "prosperity in abundance of possessions or riches."
    • State (n.2) – from Latin phrases such as status rei publicæ "condition (or existence) of the republic." Note: does not mean government
    • Government(n.) – from Old French governement "control, direction, administration."

     


     

    Before I can go over what made me a libertarian and anarchist we need to determine what those words actually mean.

     

    Out of those who call themselves libertarians most are “libertarians” (air quotes). If they push for government in any way, then they are not libertarians, by definition. A libertarian is someone who holds the doctrine that each individual should be free from law and judgment and has the power to determine their purpose without a master and absolute ruler controlling them. Someone advocating for the control of others’ rights are not libertarians.

     

    • Libertarian(n.) – 1789, "one who holds the doctrine of free will" (especially in extreme forms; opposed to necessitarian), from liberty(q.v.) on model of unitarian, etc. Political sense of "person advocating the greatest possible liberty in thought and conduct" is from 1878.
    • Liberty(n.) – from Latin libertatem (nominative libertas) "civil or political freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint; permission," from liber "free" (see liberal(adj.)).
    • Freedom(n.) – Old English freodom "power of self-determination, state of free will; emancipation from slavery, deliverance;" see free(adj.) + -dom. Meaning "exemption from arbitrary or despotic control, civil liberty" is from late 14c.
    • Free(adj.) – Old English freo "free, exempt from, not in bondage, acting of one's own will," also "noble; joyful." Meaning "clear of obstruction" is from mid-13c.; sense of "unrestrained in movement" is from c. 1300.
    • -dom – abstract suffix of state, from Old English dom "statute, judgment" (see doom(n.)).
    • Doom(n.) – Old English dom "law, judgment, condemnation."
    • Will(n.) – Old English will, willa "mind, determination, purpose; desire, wish, request; joy, delight."

     


     

    Nature’s default is anarchy and any deviation from anarchism is the product of the environment. In Nature, there is not one ruler as each species forms differently, e.g. wolvesand dolphins.

     

    Anarchismis a philosophy that advocates a state of people without rulers based around voluntary exchange and the idea that everyone is born with inalienable rights.

     

    • Anarchy(n.) – 1530s, from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), abstract noun from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon).
    • An- (1) – privative prefix, from Greek an-, "not, without."
    • Archon(n.) – from Greek arkhon "ruler."
    • -ism – word-forming element making nouns implying a practice, system, doctrine, etc., from French -isme or directly from Latin -isma, -ismus (source also of Italian, Spanish -ismo, Dutch, German -ismus), from Greek -ismos, noun ending signifying the practice or teaching of a thing.

     


     

    Rights should be protected regardless of where an individual comes from. If no crime has been committed, we should speak out against rights violations.

     

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    - Martin Niemöller

     

    Side note: Recently, several prominent “libertarians” (air quotes) and “anarchists” (air quotes) have advocatedfor closed borders (cough, Liberty Hangout, cough) when you are in a welfare state (government forced welfare). Their claim is that you do not have a right to the freedom of movement, ever, so to maintain the government forced welfare borders must be closed.  If you notice above, the root definition of free has “unrestrained in movement” as part of the root definition. Freedom of movement is a right that all life gets after the right to life is established. You control your movements. Open borders do not violate this basic right (in a future article I will focus on rights in detail).

     

    If someone advocates for violating the freedom of movement of the innocent, they are not a libertarian or anarchist, by definition. No victim no crime, right? If a crime has not been committed and someone is violating a right, then that person is a criminal. If someone advocates the violation of rights of the innocent they are no better than a government or statists.

     

    Remember, there is no law too small that the government will not kill you over.

     

    Being killed for traveling across an imaginary line, not laid out through maintained private property, is a massive violation of rights.

     


     

    Now you might be asking where am I going with this. Well it has been my quest for a long part of my life to fix my learning disability and to be in the right. Who doesn’t want to be right all the time? So, what made me a libertarian and anarchist, by definition? It was the desire to fix myself and learning the Trivium Method of Critical Thinking, which is a way of thinking by focusing on grammar, logic, rhetoric, in that order. This process showed me how my grammar was and had been incorrect creating numerous logical fallacies (we all have them), throughout my logic.

     

    Words can have multiple meanings, subjective, but if that is the case how can we interact without issues? We cannot since semantics gets in the way of understanding each other during communication. This leads to the conflicts we see today. Objective words, root definitions, provide factual evidence and a base of understanding when communicating with others. Objective words bring clarity to reality while subjective words cloud it.

     

    Once I discovered this massive gap in knowledge I had, and the understanding that this was purposely taken away from the common folk, I quickly became a libertarian and anarchist using root definitions to words that you find above. By following this process, I can fix my logic, by removing the inherent contradictions whenever they are found, helping provide you the reader better logical and factual rhetoric.

     

    Don’t be fooled by the fauxlabels people wear, it is not their nature but demeanor. Hold people accountable for the words they use, do not let them continue this pattern created by sophists.

     

    This is why I am a libertarian and anarchist, by definition.

     

  • 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