Wednesday, May 31, 2017

N.A.S.A. Fakes Everything [plus "Rodents On Mars "]

Two videos exposing the lies of N.A.S.A.:

1]"NASA Fake Everything": A short, humorous look at the prior, and  ongoing lies of the U.S.'s National Aeronautical and Space Agency [N.A.S.A. ], starring [of course :-) ], the wholly faked Apollo 11 moon landing of 1969, but also including the faked 1986 Challenger disaster,  which supposedly killed all 7 of the crew, and yet somehow, 6 of the 7 crew are apparently still alive today [2017], plus a short look at the wholly faked International Space Station [I.S.S.] zero-gravity footage constantly put out by N.A.S.A.

2 ]“The HOAX NASA Mars Rover is filmed on Earth" A rodent can be clearly seen in the official NASA footage from the Mars Rover, after landing.

    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GXenque5H0



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc6as0CYVUk&list=PLzHgCLZXlwPJzlYOVlfdoPp7lcl51Q5Y_

Enjoy!
Regards, onebornfree


Sunday, May 21, 2017

The Donald Trump "Make America Great Again" Scam

.....or, "Why Donald Trump Won't Work":


Greetings earthlings and statist automatons! Obf here.

Yes, It's "Tooting My Own Horn"Time !

I hate to "toot my own horn" as it were, but as I get so little right in life, its nice when I do, and I can enjoy my own  "I told you so" moments, which, I'm happy to say, I've had  repeatedly, ever since Trump was elected president :-)  . It's been a laugh a minute, both during and since, the election.

A False Dichotomy

Before Trump won I had privately told a client [ a rabid Clinton supporter], that there was effectively no difference between Trump and Clinton; that if Trump won we would be in for nothing different than if Clinton won [i.e.more wars, more welfare, more government, basically]. That the differences between the two were effectively an illusion, what is sometimes called "a false dichotomy". That was a private conversation, and so there is no record of it [and unfortunately for me my assertion did not go down too well- I lost my client over this issue- such is life :-(  ]

 My [Prescient] Song"Dreams [Matrix Blues]"

However, publicly, I've been singing a song called  "Dreams [Matrix Blues]" that I wrote years before, in which I named  US presidents [both current and  previous] as being total frauds.

During the election cycle I just added the names of the 3 front-runners [ Trump, Clinton, Sanders] to the list of frauds.

This song has been published on Youtube at various times over the years. Here is the latest version performed by me live at an "open mike":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HM3IBuH9e4


Question: Was Trump Originally Sincere?

I believe that Trump was initially sincere in his aims- it's hard to continually fake that sort of body language and fiery rhetoric. But as anyone can see, he has "done  a complete 180 degrees" regarding those pre-election promises since taking office.

So-What Did I Know About Trump That You Didn't ?

If the Trump rhetoric fooled you [or that of Clinton, Sanders, Obama or any of  Obama's 43 predecessors] then first of all, I'm sorry.

A Great Learning Opportunity?

But now I would suggest to you that this is in fact a perfect opportunity for learning and for personal growth, once you get over the initial shock of being taken in by this particular election charade.

And furthermore, maybe I knew something about the true nature of all governments everywhere, past present and future, that you didn't/don't know - after all I'm on record as calling him a fraud, and a scam, even before he took office. [I have my reasons :-)  ] .

For more evidence of my superb, predictive powers [:-)  ] , see my forum thread :"Trump's "Make America Great Again" Scam" [started by myself on Tue Dec 27, 2016]


Lose Your Illusions?:

And so, dear reader, if you are suffering under the illusion that Trump is not effectively a fraud, or that any one of his 44 "glorious" predecessors was not, then I would humbly suggest that you are suffering under a delusion, a delusion brought about by unrealistic assumptions you hold about the true nature of all governments everywhere.

If you are interested in rectifying that situation [to, for example, avoid/minimize  future mental anguish caused by politics and politicians],  please contact me at : onebornfreeatyahoodotcom       for terms/rates etc.

regards, onebornfree.


Related posts:  [New Fake -Eye D Song]"Six Steps Back"

 Blog post:  "You,Trump,Sanders Etc., Vs "Dictator Syndrome"  


Thursday, February 25, 2016

Dream On? -"Dreams [Anarchist Blues]"

Myself, solo, live, 020216, at an open mike event , singing my own composition, in the S.E. U.S:



Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMXtoUtXrTU

Dream On?:

"Dreams, that governments will make you free,
Dreams, that they ain't just war and slavery,
Dreams, of your god democracy,
You keep dreamin', of more enforced equality,
Yes you're dreamin', dreamin' you are free
In your dreams"

"In your dream, Donald Trump is not a fraud,
In your dream, Sanders is not a fraud,
In your dream,all the rest are not frauds,
In your dream, Obama is not a fraud,
In your dream, Reagan was not a fraud,
In your dream, all the rest were not frauds,

In your dream, the constitution was not a scam,
In your dream, the Supreme court is not a scam,
In your dream, the CIA is not a scam,
Inyour dream the FBI is not a scam,
Inyour dream the Pentagon is not a scam,
In your dream, 9/11 was not a scam......."

Lyrics excerpted from:

 "Dreams [Anarchist Blues]":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMXtoUtXrTU

Regards, onebornfree.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom

Friday, August 28, 2015

You,Trump,Sanders Etc., Vs "Dictator Syndrome"

     
                         


[Who is "?" above?. Insert  any image you choose- Bernie Sanders, Obama, Rubio, Cruz, Clinton, Reagan, your own, perhaps ?]

[Onebornfree commentary: as a personal freedom consultant  and problem solver , one of the biggest and most dangerous belief  hurdles/barriers that I frequently come across when talking with both clients, and others,  and one that I believe that any truly freedom-seeking individual has to eventually see through, {or somehow jump over}, is  the individuals almost unshakeable belief/assumptions for the necessity of, and the integrity of , the institution known as  government. 



In truth, their greatest enemy is, in fact, the government under which they live  , as is/are the  multitudes of paid for intellectual mouthpieces/sycophants who serve as its constant cheerleader within the almost entirely goverment-controlled and licensed media  outlets of every type, everywhere.  



Which brings me to the hilarious spectacle of the current 2016 US presidential election cycle.



 A major psychological reason as to why  individuals actually believe in any of the current crop of US presidential wannabe's, and indeed, the entire political process, year after year, after year, is something that the great Harry Browne has called "The Dictator Syndrome" , which basically boils down to a series of false assumptions about the way governments actually work in the real world. 

The sad fact is that each and every one of the candidates for the US presidency suffer from this syndrome, as do all of their millions and millions of   supporters/believers/sycophants.

I'll let Harry explain it, below.  

N.B. If you do not understand or believe his short, clear summary of how the real-world political process actually works as laid out below, perhaps we need to talk, for, make no mistake, this is a very important issue- you can never hope to be truly free until you remove this particularly delusional and self-damaging  belief from your personal belief system. I can be reached at : onebornfreeatyahoodotcom 

 Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom] 


If You Were King (The Dictator Syndrome)

"Government grows also because well-meaning people like you and me believe it should do certain things that seem beyond controversy -- find a cure for cancer, stop air pollution, keep violence off television, hold back an aggressor in the Middle East -- something that everyone seems to agree should be done. Whatever the goal, it's easy to imagine that a single-minded government could achieve it.

I call this The Dictator Syndrome. You see suffering or danger, and in your imagination you see a government program eliminating it. But in the real world the program would operate as you expect only if you were an absolute dictator -- having at your disposal all of government's power to compel everyone to do things your way."

Running the Gauntlet of Political Action

"Just for a moment, think about something you wish the government would do and that nearly everyone would like to see happen -- provide swifter and surer punishment for criminals, teach children right and wrong, furnish health care to those who don't have it, bring peace to Bosnia, or whatever. Imagine a goal so important that it seems to justify using government's power to coerce.

And now, consider what will actually happen to your program.

To get it enacted you'll need political allies, since alone you have only limited influence. But other people will support your plan and work for it only if you modify it in dozens of ways that further their goals and satisfy their opinions.

Suppose you make the necessary compromises and amass enough support to pressure the politicians to vote for your revised program. Who will write the actual law? You? Of course not. It will be written by the same legislators and aides who created all the laws, programs, and problems you object to now. Each of them will compromise your program still further to satisfy his political supporters.

And if the law passes, who will administer it? You? Of course not. It will be implemented by bureaucrats -- many of whom will use it to pursue goals quite different from what you had in mind. They won't care what your purpose was. It's their law now, and they'll use it to suit their objectives.

And, lastly, the new law probably will generate many disputes -- cases that must be settled in a courtroom. Who will decide those cases? You? Of course not. It will be the same judges who today rule according to their own beliefs, rather than by reference to the written law. A judge may even rule that your law means exactly the opposite of what you had intended.
By the time your program has run this gauntlet, it will be far bigger and far more expensive (in money and disrupted lives) than you had imagined. And it will have been twisted to satisfy many factions. In fact, your program may end up being the opposite of what you had intended.

In any case, you will have provided a new tool by which others can use government for their own ends."

Excerpted form: Browne, Harry, Why Government Doesn't Work, Chapter 5, "If You Were King (The Dictator Syndrome), St, Martin's Press, New York, NY, 1995, pp 20-21


Regards, onebornfree.

Related articles :

 "The Fiscal Fantasies of Stephen Zarlenga and Other Monetary Reformers"

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Government = The Most Dangerous Religion

[ Onebornfree's Freedom Network commentary: people who know me well - relatively few, I'll admit :-) - know that I have often stated that the state is nothing more than a religion; essentially no different, in the big picture, from any other religion. Now it seems that Mr Larken Rose, shares my opinion, which is a nice surprise indeed. I have to thank Mr Rose for taking the time to explain it all in this fairly short, and very to the point, video, something that I have no ability to do. Although this video is posted here for the possible benefit of all Freedom Network members near and far, as well as for non-members, it is  in particular aimed at the person who showed up at the Network's 11/09/14 meeting who rather indignantly proclaimed {paraphrased here} that they not only voted but "were proud to be allowed to vote" even though they understood that " their vote meant absolutely nothing"- or words to that effect :-) . I hope that that person in particular takes time to watch the video, and to think about the implications, and maybe others too.  Regards, onbornfree.]




Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0


More About "Onebornfree":

"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom  .

Onebornfree  Blogs: 
                                                                                         
 Onebornfree's Financial Safety blog[ Investment philosophy blog]

Onebornfree's 9/11Research Review blog[ A personal review of the state of 9/11 research]


The Freedom Network [ home page for the Freedom Network]

The Problem-Solver [Personal Freedom consulting]

Music Info: 

Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel [Studio mixes + live solo recordings]

Fake Eye D's soundCloud channel [ no videos, so faster download]

Saturday, September 6, 2014

The "Social Contract" Scam and "The Matrix" Of Belief

[Onebornfree & Freedom Network  commentary: I believe that the primary assumption justifying the existence of all governments,  an assumption therefor made by all of its/their supporters, and therefor a very necessary ingredient in the "matrix" of myths surrounding all governments, is the unexamined assumption that governments actually work, and that they can therefor solve many, if not all, of our social problems. 

Because most people believe this unexamined assumption, we are subjected to a never-ending stream of would be, pie-eyed world improvers and do-gooders, all of whom believe that whatever problem[s] it is they see in this world, that it can be solved simply by more government rules and regulations. 

For example, I recently looked at this unexamined assumption with regard to the writings and proposals of monetary reformer Stephen Zarlenga, who mistakenly believes that even more centralization of the current monetary system  will miraculously improve/replace the current corrupt system. 

Moving on.... the "Social Contract" assumption.  

Another essential core "matrix" belief/assumption, and one that, similarly left unexamined, does a wonderful job of supporting the assumption that government actually works/solves social problems, is the "Social Contract" assumption. 

Summary: both the "government works" assumption, and the "social contract" assumption are very powerful core "matrix" assumptions that will keep you quite firmly locked "inside the matrix" as long as you believe in them. 

In this great article below by Paul Rosenberg, the "Social Contract" assumption is closely examined and exposed as a yet another "matrix" fraud,  just like our old friend, the "government works" assumption, . Enjoy, onebornfree.]

                        


When you hear the word “social,” it’s even money that you’re being snookered.

“Social justice,” for example, is primarily a ruse for penalizing individuals without any finding of fact as to their individual guilt.

Whether you actually did anything deserving of penalty is irrelevant… it’s “social.” And if you question the deal, you’re a bad person.

The granddaddy of all the “social” scams, however, is the “social contract.” That’s what replaced the “divine right of kings” in the 17th and 18th centuries, when it was falling apart.

This is, in Wikipedia’s (slightly edited) words"

"a theory or model that addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual."

In other words, this was the new explanation of why it’s right for one group of men to rule over other men. Wikipedia continues:

"Arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler in exchange for protection of their remaining rights."

So, a group of rulers gets to ignore our rights, take away our money (continually), punish us when it wishes, and even send us off to war. And that’s all okay because we somehow agreed to the deal. It’s a “contract,” after all.

Except It’s Not

If an adult wants to sign away his rights and make himself a serf to politicians, that’s his choice, and I won’t take it from him. But for the deal to be legit, a clear agreement and authorizations on both sides are required.

A contract is (again per Wikipedia, with my emphasis):

"An agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. The elements of a contract are “offer” and “acceptance” by “competent persons” having legal capacity who exchange “consideration” to create “mutuality of obligation.”"


The social contract fails this standard in multiple ways. In fact, it is not a contract in any rational sense of the term. And if it’s not a contract, then the use of that word is fraudulent.

Fraud is a “false representation with the intent of persuading the victim to part with property,” and that is precisely what is being done with the social contract, and on a gigantic scale.

We have a supposed contract, and we have trillions of dollars changing hands, based upon its legitimacy. If, in fact, it is not a contract, then the entirety of the arrangement is a massive criminal fraud.

So, is this the “social contract” legitimate? Let’s examine some crucial aspects of contracts:

Competence

In order to agree to a contract, one must be competent. You cannot, for example, make a contract with a hungry five-year-old, trading a few candy bars for a third of the child’s lifetime earnings. The child is not competent and any such agreement is rightly considered invalid.

The social contract, however, is held to be binding upon us from birth. How is that possible? Can an infant do what a five-year-old or even a twelve-year-old cannot?

Verdict: The social contract fails.

Voluntary agreement

A contract must be agreed to. I was never given a choice to sign or reject such an agreement, and I doubt that you were either. There can be no contract at all without a voluntary agreement. (See the next point below for the standard objection.)

Verdict: The social contract fails.

Without duress

A contract must be agreed to “without duress.” That is, without a threat of harm.
The standard objection to my “agreement” point above is that people agree to the social contract by their actions: If you use anything provided by a government, you automatically agree to the entire social contract. That line of argument fails in several ways (entrapment for starters, followed by being informed), but the largest issue in my mind is that of duress.

To get out of the social contract, we are told, we must leave the ruler’s territory. That places the ruler’s rights above our own as a starting point, which voids any semblance of “equal justice.” But I’ll pass up that discussion for today.

Leaving the ruler’s territory means spending large amounts of money, a tremendous amount of time to make arrangements, leaving our jobs behind, leaving all our friends behind, and leaving our entire families behind.

In other words, we can only escape the social contract by undertaking difficult, expensive, and heartbreaking actions.

Imagine a Fuller Brush salesman coming to your door and offering you an assortment of brushes for thirty dollars. Then, when you politely decline, he pulls out a gun and says “No! If you don’t want the deal, you have to abandon your house. Either pay me or leave.”
Is this salesman’s demand criminal? If so, the social contract is criminal as well. Both seek to secure agreements by using duress.

Verdict: The social contract fails, both legally and on grounds of cruelty.

Undue influence

Undue influence involves “one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person.”

Clearly, this applies to the social contract. First, we are compelled to attend schools run by the “other party” to the contract. These institutions teach us that the social contract is the way of the world and that any competing ideas would be crazy. And we are held in their classrooms five or more hours per day, beginning at five-years-old and running until adulthood. (If nothing else, consider the daily “Pledge of Allegiance” and try to count the number of times you were made to recite it.)

On top of that, the “other party” employs legions of armed men and authorizes them to violently subdue those who oppose them and their rules.

If these things are not undue influence, then nothing is. You can’t indoctrinate the other party, hold a sword to his throat, force him to sign, and still call it a contract.

Verdict: The social contract fails.

Mutuality of obligation

With no “mutuality of obligation,” there can be no contract. If the other side of the contract is not meeting their obligations, there must be recourse.

After the US government failed to protect New Yorkers on 9/11, all eight million of them should have been entitled to a refund. Clearly the other side of the deal failed to meet their obligations. (That, of course, didn’t happen: the loss of their rights only got worse.)

And then we have the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which removes all the most serious consequences from the other side of the deal.

There is no mutuality of obligation in the social contract. Therefore, it’s not a contract.
Verdict: The social contract fails.

I could go on, but I think my point is made. I have cited five clear violations of contract law and alluded to several others. If even one of these is valid, the “social contract” is invalid.

If the terms of a contract are uncertain or incomplete, it’s no contract at all. And for one party to continue to seize the goods of the other, claiming a contractual right to do so, is criminal fraud.

The Real Purpose of the “Contract”

As with the divine right of kings that preceded it, the hidden and essential aspect of the social contract is to give subjects a reason to submit.

The obvious reason for the subject to submit is that rulers employ thousands of armed men, who are authorized and prepared to punish disobedience. This, however, isn’t really enough for effective rulership. Policemen and jails are expensive, and many, many more than our current number would be required, if fear was the sole reason for obedience.

For governance to work, the subjects must believe that obeying is the right thing to do, and that’s where the social contract comes in: It gives people a reason to obey, beyond a mere threat. It saves them from having to face fear or even to consciously submit.

Strange as it may sound, an effective ruler must equip his or her subjects to obey. It’s a fundamental factor in rulership. And that’s the true purpose of the “social contract.”

So…

By any legal standard, the “social contract” fails. That won’t cause any rulers to change, of course, but truth still matters to some of us.
Original article source
 Paul Rosenberg.
September 5, 2014


More About "Onebornfree":

"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom  .

Onebornfree  Blogs: 
                                                                                         
 Onebornfree's Financial Safety blog[ Investment philosophy blog]

Onebornfree's 9/11Research Review blog[ A personal review of the state of 9/11 research]


The Freedom Network [ home page for the Freedom Network]

The Problem-Solver [Personal Freedom consulting]

Music Info: 

Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel [Studio mixes + live solo recordings]

Fake Eye D's soundCloud channel [ no videos, so faster download]