A Bright Shiny Lesson in Government Theft:
How the Feds Seized My Silver Dollars - story here :
Comments: From where I stand this whole affair merely underscores the fact that it is somewhat dangerous to keep any assets in the US, at least if one keeps them all in one place. The whole thing is nothing more than a good old fashioned "shakedown" in my opinion.
Just one of those things that all governments do- simply because they can. Its a safe bet that this will never change- regardless of who runs the show, and even if you don't believe that, if money/investments that you cannot afford to lose are at stake,it is best to be prepared for the worst in case you are wrong.
No different than with any other investment, if this guy had held all of his silver investments within the US , it was naive to keep them all within place [i.e one holding company like Liberty silver] if he in fact did that.
There are other companies producing silver coins that were not raided - meaning that if he'd "spread it around " a little he would be losing only a small part of his silver investment as opposed to all of it.[again, assuming for the sake of argument that that's what he did] .
Also he could have kept some silver close at hand at a secret location known only to him [maybe he did, who knows?], to prevent a total loss.
And pursuing a case against the feds after the fact is probably a complete waste of time unless you have a lot of money to spend and powerful political connections, and could take years to resolve.
In the meanwhile he would still be out of his entire "investment", with absolutely no guarantee that he'd ever get his silver back or be compensated for the loss of investment profits or opportunity to sell and reinvest elsewhere, or even for his legal expenditures.
Better , for peace of mind, to attempt to avoid the situation from happening to you, ahead of time, through proper diversification and through [ideally] keeping important assets [i.e. investments you cannot afford to lose] outside of the US as far as possible.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Lying, Criminal, State
The Lying, Criminal, State
{Because all government programs, from war to welfare, must fail in their stated objectives, [because they are all paid for with stolen/counterfeit "money"] all Governments must lie to stay in power to further the myth of their own neccessity- therefor it is impossible for an organization funded solely by theft [i.e. taxation] and counterfeiting [i.e. exclusive "private" monopoly fractional reserve banking- AKA the Federal Reserve], to do anything but lie most of the time, except when it is to its own advantage to tell truth- once in a blue moon. Below, an essay by someone else who figured this out, quite a a while ago, the great
Mr A.J.Nock. P.S. I have blogged parts of this essay before, but I think it stands up to a repeat "run."
The lesson?- Personal Secession is the Only Way Out for Individuals
The lesson here is that should you come to believe myself and people like Mr Nock , given the natural, inbuilt criminality of all states everywhere, that it is useless to engage in political action [i.e voting, donating money to political causes etc.] to either change or fight "the system" [i.e _any_ political system].
Do Violent Revolutions and Terrorism Work?
Violent revolutions or terrorism to overthrow a system and to then replace it with a new "more just" system is likewise just as useless and a waste of time as is voting to elect "more honest, less corrupt" individuals or political parties- it [revolution/terrorism] , just like voting, must, given the fundamental criminal nature of all states, always result in producing the very same thing fought against [i.e. just another variation of the criminal state ].
Quiet, Peaceful, Personal Secession
The only way out that I can see is to accept everything as it is [i.e forget changing the world] and then to focus all of one's available energies entirely on looking for ways to to personally secede and withdraw support from "the system" to whatever degree individually possible, peacefully, quietly and without any fanfare or public announcement to that effect[which only brings you unwanted "attention". ]
And by the way, a fairly good understanding of the philosophical principles of internal martial arts such as Aikido, Tai Chi etc. does not hurt.
That is where I might help- or not. Have a nice life. Onebornfree }
The Criminal State
by Albert Jay Nock
As well as I can judge, the general attitude of Americans who are at all interested in foreign affairs is one of astonishment, coupled with distaste, displeasure, or horror, according to the individual observer's capacity for emotional excitement. Perhaps I ought to shade this statement a little in order to keep on the safe side, and say that this is the most generally-expressed attitude.
All our institutional voices – the press, pulpit, forum – are pitched to the note of amazed indignation at one or another phase of the current goings-on in Europe and Asia. This leads me to believe that our people generally are viewing with wonder as well as repugnance certain conspicuous actions of various foreign States; for instance, the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State; the "betrayal of Czecho-Slovakia" by the British and French States; the savagery of the Japanese State; the brutishness of the Chinese State's mercenaries; and so on, here or there, all over the globe – this sort of thing is showing itself to be against our people's grain, and they are speaking out about it in wrathful surprise.
I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.
Polite or impolite, that is just the question which ought to be put everytime a story of State villainy appears in the news. It ought to be thrown at our public day after day, from every newspaper, periodical, lecture-platform, and radio station in the land; and it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history, a simple invitation to look at the record. The British State has sold the Czech State down the river by a despicable trick; very well, be as disgusted and angry as you like, but don't be astonished; what would you expect? – just take a look at the British State's record! The German State is persecuting great masses of its people, the Russian State is holding a purge, the Italian State is grabbing territory, the Japanese State is buccaneering along the Asiatic Coast; horrible, yes, but for Heaven's sake don't lose your head over it, for what would expect? – look at the record!
No State Excepted
That is how every public presentation of these facts ought to run if Americans are ever going to grow up into an adult attitude towards them. Also, in order to keep down the great American sin of self-righteousness, every public presentation ought to draw the deadly parallel with the record of the American State. The German State is persecuting a minority, just as the American State did after 1776; the Italian State breaks into Ethiopia, just as the American State broke into Mexico; the Japanese State kills off the Manchurian tribes in wholesale lots, just as the American State did the Indian tribes; the British State practices largescale carpet-baggery, like the American State after 1864; the imperialist French State massacres native civilians on their own soil, as the American State did in pursuit of its imperialistic policies in the Pacific, and so on.
In this way, perhaps, our people might get into their heads some glimmering of the fact that the State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation – that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class – that is, for a criminal purpose.
No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient. In the last analysis, what is the German, Italian, French, or British State now actually doing? It is ruining its own people in order to preserve itself, to enhance its own power and prestige, and extend its own authority; and the American State is doing the same thing to the utmost of its opportunities.
A Scrap of Paper
What, then, is a little matter like a treaty to the French or British State? Merely a scrap of paper – Bethmann-Hollweg described it exactly. Why be astonished when the German or Russian State murders its citizens? The American State would do the same thing under the same circumstances. In fact, eighty years ago it did murder a great many of them for no other crime in the world but that they did not wish to live under its rule any longer; and if that is a crime, then the colonists led by G. Washington were hardened criminals and the Fourth of July is nothing but a cutthroat's holiday.
The weaker the State is, the less power it has to commit crime. Where in Europe today does the State have the best criminal record? Where it is weakest: in Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Monaco, Andorra. Yet when the Dutch State, for instance, was strong, its criminality was appalling; in Java it massacred 9000 persons in one morning which is considerably ahead of Hitler's record or Stalin's. It would not do the like today, for it could not; the Dutch people do not give it that much power, and would not stand for such conduct. When the Swedish State was a great empire, its record, say from 1660 to 1670, was fearful. What does all this mean but that if you do not want the State to act like a criminal, you must disarm it as you would a criminal; you must keep it weak. The State will always be criminal in proportion to its strength; a weak State will always be as criminal as it can be, or dare be, but if it is kept down to the proper limit of weakness – which, by the way, is a vast deal lower limit than people are led to believe – its criminality may be safely got on with.
So it strikes me that instead of sweating blood over the iniquity of foreign States, my fellow-citizens would do a great deal better by themselves to make sure that the American State is not strong enough to carry out the like iniquities here. The stronger the American State is allowed to grow, the higher its record of criminality will grow, according to its opportunities and temptations. If, then, instead of devoting energy, time, and money to warding off wholly imaginary and fanciful dangers from criminals thousands of miles away, our people turn their patriotic fervor loose on the only source from which danger can proceed, they will be doing their full duty by their country.
Two able and sensible American publicists – Isabel Paterson, of the New York Herald Tribune, and W.J. Cameron, of the Ford Motor Company – have lately called our public's attention to the great truth that if you give the State power to do something FOR you, you give it an exact equivalent of power to do something TO you. I wish every editor, publicist, teacher, preacher, and lecturer would keep hammering that truth into American heads until they get it nailed fast there, never to come loose. The State was organized in this country with power to do all kinds of things FOR the people, and the people in their short-sighted stupidity, have been adding to that power ever since. After 1789, John Adams said that, so far from being a democracy of a democratic republic, the political organization of the country was that of "a monarchical republic, or, if you will, a limited monarchy"; the powers of its President were far greater than those of "an avoyer, a consul, a podesta, a doge, a stadtholder; nay, than a king of Poland; nay, than a king of Sparta." If all that was true in 1789 – and it was true – what is to be said of the American State at the present time, after a century and a half of steady centralization and continuous increments of power?
Power Corrupts
Power, for instance, to "help business" by auctioning off concessions, subsidies, tariffs, land-grants, franchises; power to help business by ever encroaching regulations, supervisions, various forms of control. All this power was freely given; it carried with it the equivalent power to do things TO business; and see what a banditti of sharking political careerists are doing to business now! Power to afford "relief" to proletarians; and see what the State has done to those proletarians now in the way of systematic debauchery of whatever self-respect and self-reliance they may have had! Power this way, power that way; and all ultimately used AGAINST the interests of the people who surrendered that power on the pretext that it was to be used FOR those interests.
Many now believe that with the rise of the "totalitarian" State the world has entered upon a new era of barbarism. It has not. The totalitarian State is only the State; the kind of thing it does is only what the State has always done with unfailing regularity, if it had the power to do it, wherever and whenever its own aggrandizement made that kind of thing expedient. Give any State like power hereafter, and put it in like circumstances, and it will do precisely the same kind of thing. The State will unfailingly aggrandize itself, if only it has the power, first at the expense of its own citizens, and then at the expense of anyone else in sight. It has always done so, and always will.
The idea that the State is a social institution, and that with a fine upright man like Mr. Chamberlain at the head of it, or a charming person like Mr. Roosevelt, there can be no question about its being honorably and nobly managed – all this is just so much sticky fly-paper. Men in that position usually make a good deal of their honor, and some of them indeed may have some (though if they had any I cannot understand their letting themselves be put in that position) but the machine they are running will run on rails which are laid only one way, which is from crime to crime. In the old days, the partition of Czecho-Slovakia or the taking-over of Austria would have been arranged by rigmarole among a few highly polished gentlemen in stiff shirts ornamented with fine ribbons. Hitler simply arranged it the way old Frederick arranged his share in the first partition of Poland; he arranged the annexation of Austria the way Louis XIV arranged that of Alsace. There is more or less of a fashion, perhaps, in the way these things are done, but the point is that they always come out exactly the same in the end.
Furthermore, the idea that the procedure of the "democratic" State is any less criminal than that of the State under any other fancy name, is rubbish. The country is now being surfeited with journalistic garbage about our great sister-democracy, England, its fine democratic government, its vast beneficent gift for ruling subject peoples, and so on; but does anyone ever look up the criminal record of the British State? The bombardment of Copenhagen; the Boer War; the Sepoy Rebellion; the starvation of Germans by the post-Armistice blockade; the massacre of natives in India, Afghanistan, Jamaica; the employment of Hessians to kill off American colonists. What is the difference, moral or actual, between Kichener's democratic concentration camps and the totalitarian concentration camps maintained by Herr Hitler? The totalitarian general Badoglio is a pretty hard-boiled brother, if you like, but how about the democratic general O'Dwyer and Governor Eyre? Any of the three stands up pretty well beside our own democratic virtuoso, Hell-roaring Jake Smith, in his treatment of the Filipinos; and you can't say fairer than that.
The British State
As for the British State's talent for a kindly and generous colonial administration, I shall not rake up old scores by citing the bill of particulars set forth in the Declaration of Independence; I shall consider India only, not even going into matters like the Kaffir war or the Wairau incident in New Zealand. Our democratic British cousins in India in the Eighteenth Century must have learned their trade from Pizarro and Cortez. Edmund Burke called them "birds of prey and passage." Even the directors of the East India Company admitted that "the vast fortunes acquired in the inland trade have been obtained by a scene of the most tyrannical and oppressive conduct that was ever known in any age or country." Describing a journey, Warren Hastings wrote that "most of the petty towns and serais were deserted at our approach"; the people ran off into the woods at the mere sight of a white man. There was the iniquitous salt-monopoly; there was extortion everywhere, practiced by enterprising rascals in league with a corrupt police; there was taxation which confiscated almost half the products of the soil.
If it be said that Britain was not a sister-democracy in those days, and has since reformed, one might well ask how much of the reformation is due to circumstances, and how much to a change of heart. Besides, the Black-and-Tans were in our day; so was the post-Armistice blockade; General O'Dwyer's massacre was not more than a dozen years ago; and there are plenty alive who remember Kitchener's concentration camps.
No, "democratic" State practice is nothing more or less than State practice. It does not differ from Marxist State practice, Fascist State practice, or any other.
Here is the Golden Rule of sound citizenship, the first and greatest lesson in the study of politics:
You get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things FOR you carries with it the equivalent power to do things TO you.
A citizenry which has learned that one short lesson has but little more left to learn. Stripping the American State of the enormous power it has acquired is a full-time job for our citizens and a stirring one; and if they attend to it properly they will have no energy to spare for fighting communism, or for hating Hitler, or for worrying about South America or Spain, or for anything whatever, except what goes on right here in the United States."
The article was originally published in H.L. Mencken's American Mercury, March, 1939. Albert J. Nock was a regular contributor to the publication under Mencken.
{Because all government programs, from war to welfare, must fail in their stated objectives, [because they are all paid for with stolen/counterfeit "money"] all Governments must lie to stay in power to further the myth of their own neccessity- therefor it is impossible for an organization funded solely by theft [i.e. taxation] and counterfeiting [i.e. exclusive "private" monopoly fractional reserve banking- AKA the Federal Reserve], to do anything but lie most of the time, except when it is to its own advantage to tell truth- once in a blue moon. Below, an essay by someone else who figured this out, quite a a while ago, the great
Mr A.J.Nock. P.S. I have blogged parts of this essay before, but I think it stands up to a repeat "run."
The lesson?- Personal Secession is the Only Way Out for Individuals
The lesson here is that should you come to believe myself and people like Mr Nock , given the natural, inbuilt criminality of all states everywhere, that it is useless to engage in political action [i.e voting, donating money to political causes etc.] to either change or fight "the system" [i.e _any_ political system].
Do Violent Revolutions and Terrorism Work?
Violent revolutions or terrorism to overthrow a system and to then replace it with a new "more just" system is likewise just as useless and a waste of time as is voting to elect "more honest, less corrupt" individuals or political parties- it [revolution/terrorism] , just like voting, must, given the fundamental criminal nature of all states, always result in producing the very same thing fought against [i.e. just another variation of the criminal state ].
Quiet, Peaceful, Personal Secession
The only way out that I can see is to accept everything as it is [i.e forget changing the world] and then to focus all of one's available energies entirely on looking for ways to to personally secede and withdraw support from "the system" to whatever degree individually possible, peacefully, quietly and without any fanfare or public announcement to that effect[which only brings you unwanted "attention". ]
And by the way, a fairly good understanding of the philosophical principles of internal martial arts such as Aikido, Tai Chi etc. does not hurt.
That is where I might help- or not. Have a nice life. Onebornfree }
The Criminal State
by Albert Jay Nock
As well as I can judge, the general attitude of Americans who are at all interested in foreign affairs is one of astonishment, coupled with distaste, displeasure, or horror, according to the individual observer's capacity for emotional excitement. Perhaps I ought to shade this statement a little in order to keep on the safe side, and say that this is the most generally-expressed attitude.
All our institutional voices – the press, pulpit, forum – are pitched to the note of amazed indignation at one or another phase of the current goings-on in Europe and Asia. This leads me to believe that our people generally are viewing with wonder as well as repugnance certain conspicuous actions of various foreign States; for instance, the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State; the "betrayal of Czecho-Slovakia" by the British and French States; the savagery of the Japanese State; the brutishness of the Chinese State's mercenaries; and so on, here or there, all over the globe – this sort of thing is showing itself to be against our people's grain, and they are speaking out about it in wrathful surprise.
I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.
Polite or impolite, that is just the question which ought to be put everytime a story of State villainy appears in the news. It ought to be thrown at our public day after day, from every newspaper, periodical, lecture-platform, and radio station in the land; and it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history, a simple invitation to look at the record. The British State has sold the Czech State down the river by a despicable trick; very well, be as disgusted and angry as you like, but don't be astonished; what would you expect? – just take a look at the British State's record! The German State is persecuting great masses of its people, the Russian State is holding a purge, the Italian State is grabbing territory, the Japanese State is buccaneering along the Asiatic Coast; horrible, yes, but for Heaven's sake don't lose your head over it, for what would expect? – look at the record!
No State Excepted
That is how every public presentation of these facts ought to run if Americans are ever going to grow up into an adult attitude towards them. Also, in order to keep down the great American sin of self-righteousness, every public presentation ought to draw the deadly parallel with the record of the American State. The German State is persecuting a minority, just as the American State did after 1776; the Italian State breaks into Ethiopia, just as the American State broke into Mexico; the Japanese State kills off the Manchurian tribes in wholesale lots, just as the American State did the Indian tribes; the British State practices largescale carpet-baggery, like the American State after 1864; the imperialist French State massacres native civilians on their own soil, as the American State did in pursuit of its imperialistic policies in the Pacific, and so on.
In this way, perhaps, our people might get into their heads some glimmering of the fact that the State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation – that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class – that is, for a criminal purpose.
No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient. In the last analysis, what is the German, Italian, French, or British State now actually doing? It is ruining its own people in order to preserve itself, to enhance its own power and prestige, and extend its own authority; and the American State is doing the same thing to the utmost of its opportunities.
A Scrap of Paper
What, then, is a little matter like a treaty to the French or British State? Merely a scrap of paper – Bethmann-Hollweg described it exactly. Why be astonished when the German or Russian State murders its citizens? The American State would do the same thing under the same circumstances. In fact, eighty years ago it did murder a great many of them for no other crime in the world but that they did not wish to live under its rule any longer; and if that is a crime, then the colonists led by G. Washington were hardened criminals and the Fourth of July is nothing but a cutthroat's holiday.
The weaker the State is, the less power it has to commit crime. Where in Europe today does the State have the best criminal record? Where it is weakest: in Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Monaco, Andorra. Yet when the Dutch State, for instance, was strong, its criminality was appalling; in Java it massacred 9000 persons in one morning which is considerably ahead of Hitler's record or Stalin's. It would not do the like today, for it could not; the Dutch people do not give it that much power, and would not stand for such conduct. When the Swedish State was a great empire, its record, say from 1660 to 1670, was fearful. What does all this mean but that if you do not want the State to act like a criminal, you must disarm it as you would a criminal; you must keep it weak. The State will always be criminal in proportion to its strength; a weak State will always be as criminal as it can be, or dare be, but if it is kept down to the proper limit of weakness – which, by the way, is a vast deal lower limit than people are led to believe – its criminality may be safely got on with.
So it strikes me that instead of sweating blood over the iniquity of foreign States, my fellow-citizens would do a great deal better by themselves to make sure that the American State is not strong enough to carry out the like iniquities here. The stronger the American State is allowed to grow, the higher its record of criminality will grow, according to its opportunities and temptations. If, then, instead of devoting energy, time, and money to warding off wholly imaginary and fanciful dangers from criminals thousands of miles away, our people turn their patriotic fervor loose on the only source from which danger can proceed, they will be doing their full duty by their country.
Two able and sensible American publicists – Isabel Paterson, of the New York Herald Tribune, and W.J. Cameron, of the Ford Motor Company – have lately called our public's attention to the great truth that if you give the State power to do something FOR you, you give it an exact equivalent of power to do something TO you. I wish every editor, publicist, teacher, preacher, and lecturer would keep hammering that truth into American heads until they get it nailed fast there, never to come loose. The State was organized in this country with power to do all kinds of things FOR the people, and the people in their short-sighted stupidity, have been adding to that power ever since. After 1789, John Adams said that, so far from being a democracy of a democratic republic, the political organization of the country was that of "a monarchical republic, or, if you will, a limited monarchy"; the powers of its President were far greater than those of "an avoyer, a consul, a podesta, a doge, a stadtholder; nay, than a king of Poland; nay, than a king of Sparta." If all that was true in 1789 – and it was true – what is to be said of the American State at the present time, after a century and a half of steady centralization and continuous increments of power?
Power Corrupts
Power, for instance, to "help business" by auctioning off concessions, subsidies, tariffs, land-grants, franchises; power to help business by ever encroaching regulations, supervisions, various forms of control. All this power was freely given; it carried with it the equivalent power to do things TO business; and see what a banditti of sharking political careerists are doing to business now! Power to afford "relief" to proletarians; and see what the State has done to those proletarians now in the way of systematic debauchery of whatever self-respect and self-reliance they may have had! Power this way, power that way; and all ultimately used AGAINST the interests of the people who surrendered that power on the pretext that it was to be used FOR those interests.
Many now believe that with the rise of the "totalitarian" State the world has entered upon a new era of barbarism. It has not. The totalitarian State is only the State; the kind of thing it does is only what the State has always done with unfailing regularity, if it had the power to do it, wherever and whenever its own aggrandizement made that kind of thing expedient. Give any State like power hereafter, and put it in like circumstances, and it will do precisely the same kind of thing. The State will unfailingly aggrandize itself, if only it has the power, first at the expense of its own citizens, and then at the expense of anyone else in sight. It has always done so, and always will.
The idea that the State is a social institution, and that with a fine upright man like Mr. Chamberlain at the head of it, or a charming person like Mr. Roosevelt, there can be no question about its being honorably and nobly managed – all this is just so much sticky fly-paper. Men in that position usually make a good deal of their honor, and some of them indeed may have some (though if they had any I cannot understand their letting themselves be put in that position) but the machine they are running will run on rails which are laid only one way, which is from crime to crime. In the old days, the partition of Czecho-Slovakia or the taking-over of Austria would have been arranged by rigmarole among a few highly polished gentlemen in stiff shirts ornamented with fine ribbons. Hitler simply arranged it the way old Frederick arranged his share in the first partition of Poland; he arranged the annexation of Austria the way Louis XIV arranged that of Alsace. There is more or less of a fashion, perhaps, in the way these things are done, but the point is that they always come out exactly the same in the end.
Furthermore, the idea that the procedure of the "democratic" State is any less criminal than that of the State under any other fancy name, is rubbish. The country is now being surfeited with journalistic garbage about our great sister-democracy, England, its fine democratic government, its vast beneficent gift for ruling subject peoples, and so on; but does anyone ever look up the criminal record of the British State? The bombardment of Copenhagen; the Boer War; the Sepoy Rebellion; the starvation of Germans by the post-Armistice blockade; the massacre of natives in India, Afghanistan, Jamaica; the employment of Hessians to kill off American colonists. What is the difference, moral or actual, between Kichener's democratic concentration camps and the totalitarian concentration camps maintained by Herr Hitler? The totalitarian general Badoglio is a pretty hard-boiled brother, if you like, but how about the democratic general O'Dwyer and Governor Eyre? Any of the three stands up pretty well beside our own democratic virtuoso, Hell-roaring Jake Smith, in his treatment of the Filipinos; and you can't say fairer than that.
The British State
As for the British State's talent for a kindly and generous colonial administration, I shall not rake up old scores by citing the bill of particulars set forth in the Declaration of Independence; I shall consider India only, not even going into matters like the Kaffir war or the Wairau incident in New Zealand. Our democratic British cousins in India in the Eighteenth Century must have learned their trade from Pizarro and Cortez. Edmund Burke called them "birds of prey and passage." Even the directors of the East India Company admitted that "the vast fortunes acquired in the inland trade have been obtained by a scene of the most tyrannical and oppressive conduct that was ever known in any age or country." Describing a journey, Warren Hastings wrote that "most of the petty towns and serais were deserted at our approach"; the people ran off into the woods at the mere sight of a white man. There was the iniquitous salt-monopoly; there was extortion everywhere, practiced by enterprising rascals in league with a corrupt police; there was taxation which confiscated almost half the products of the soil.
If it be said that Britain was not a sister-democracy in those days, and has since reformed, one might well ask how much of the reformation is due to circumstances, and how much to a change of heart. Besides, the Black-and-Tans were in our day; so was the post-Armistice blockade; General O'Dwyer's massacre was not more than a dozen years ago; and there are plenty alive who remember Kitchener's concentration camps.
No, "democratic" State practice is nothing more or less than State practice. It does not differ from Marxist State practice, Fascist State practice, or any other.
Here is the Golden Rule of sound citizenship, the first and greatest lesson in the study of politics:
You get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things FOR you carries with it the equivalent power to do things TO you.
A citizenry which has learned that one short lesson has but little more left to learn. Stripping the American State of the enormous power it has acquired is a full-time job for our citizens and a stirring one; and if they attend to it properly they will have no energy to spare for fighting communism, or for hating Hitler, or for worrying about South America or Spain, or for anything whatever, except what goes on right here in the United States."
The article was originally published in H.L. Mencken's American Mercury, March, 1939. Albert J. Nock was a regular contributor to the publication under Mencken.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Words That Can Help Increase Your Freedom
WORDS THAT MAKE YOU FREE
[from the Hawaii Observer}]: "What if I told you that every danger you might worry about - poverty, drugs, crime, war, terror, the Devil himself - is possibly fake?
To clarify this, I need to explain a new concept to you, called protection fraud. Protection fraud happens when a criminal collects a fee for pretending to "protect" the victims from an evil which he in fact secretly creates. It’s the second oldest profession in the world. Running uninterrupted for the last 3400 years, protection fraud is a $16 trillion global industry today.
4 significant conclusions.
1.) Every major cause the "authorities" tried, over the ages, to justify their rule with - God’s mandate to fight Evil, providing defense, upholding law and order, subsidizing the poor, etc. - is a fraud.
2.) Every fraud cycle is the same old fraud, with a new "evil" tacked on when the old evil doesn’t produce enough revenue anymore. Could such a fraud be just a "honest mistake"? Not 12 times in a row.
3.) The public uncovers each successive fraud cycle faster. From the initial 3300 years the "war on devil" was believed by a majority, to 5 years the majority saw through the "war on terror", a healthy percentage knows already that the authorities’ next claim will be a fraud too. Good going.
4.) An "authority" with a track record of continuous criminal racketeering of 6 billion and the premeditated murder of 200 million victims over a period of 3400 years has no legal, moral, or other standing whatsoever to rule, control or manage society; to determine right and wrong; or to enforce it........"
rest of article here:
http://www.hawaiistories.com/george/2007/08/17/the-words-that-make-you-free/
[from the Hawaii Observer}]: "What if I told you that every danger you might worry about - poverty, drugs, crime, war, terror, the Devil himself - is possibly fake?
To clarify this, I need to explain a new concept to you, called protection fraud. Protection fraud happens when a criminal collects a fee for pretending to "protect" the victims from an evil which he in fact secretly creates. It’s the second oldest profession in the world. Running uninterrupted for the last 3400 years, protection fraud is a $16 trillion global industry today.
4 significant conclusions.
1.) Every major cause the "authorities" tried, over the ages, to justify their rule with - God’s mandate to fight Evil, providing defense, upholding law and order, subsidizing the poor, etc. - is a fraud.
2.) Every fraud cycle is the same old fraud, with a new "evil" tacked on when the old evil doesn’t produce enough revenue anymore. Could such a fraud be just a "honest mistake"? Not 12 times in a row.
3.) The public uncovers each successive fraud cycle faster. From the initial 3300 years the "war on devil" was believed by a majority, to 5 years the majority saw through the "war on terror", a healthy percentage knows already that the authorities’ next claim will be a fraud too. Good going.
4.) An "authority" with a track record of continuous criminal racketeering of 6 billion and the premeditated murder of 200 million victims over a period of 3400 years has no legal, moral, or other standing whatsoever to rule, control or manage society; to determine right and wrong; or to enforce it........"
rest of article here:
http://www.hawaiistories.com/george/2007/08/17/the-words-that-make-you-free/
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Why You Should Never Believe any Aspiring,Unelected, or Elected Politician
Why You Should Never Believe any Aspiring,Unelected, or Elected Politician
To continue with the theme of the previous post, below is a link to an overlong but illuminating article [if you have the time/patience], exposing the naivete of those who seek so-called " limited government".
To cut a long story short, all he really needed to point out is the fact that all governments are criminal enterprises, funded as they are by direct theft [taxation] , and counterfeiting [so called monetizing of the governments debt via a government -run centralized banking system.
He does eventually make that point [governments are criminal], but then only really applies it to "The Myth of Checks and Balances", when it it has far broader implications which demolish not only the arguments of all "limited government" proponents [whether they call them selves libertarian, conservative or liberal], but also the world-changing aspirations of advocates of _every_ political party everywhere, and of _anyone_ who runs for office, regardless of whether we are talking about a Hillary Clinton, an Obama, a McCain, John Edwards or Ron Paul.
Here are my 3 easy to understand reasons:
Point [1] [The most important point]
As I previously stated, [and as he does] all governments are criminal enterprises, funded as they are, and it is impossible to change that core nature as long as they are funded in the manner they are. Once a criminal organization, always a criminal organization.
Point [2] [Regarding outsiders seeking to join government to produce change via their election etc.]
Fact: Anyone outside of government who joins it/gets elected, is becoming a part of a criminal organization whose only collective motive is to continue doing what it already does [ i.e. direct theft, counterfeiting]. They [the outsiders] or their party are not going to ever change that collective motive or even limit it to areas they and their supporters are in favor of it being limited to. [It should be fairly obvious that theft cannot be "legally" limited by the organization "legally" carrying out the theft in the first place!].
They [outsiders who join] will become absorbed/ assimilated by the criminal organization they have joined, and that organization will [must] continue its operations as before regardless. This is imperative for its survival ; theft is its highest priority, to be achieved BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. And what it cannot steal, it MUST counterfeit.
Incentives For Those Newly Joining
And don't forget ,the incentive to lie by those who wish to join/get elected is possibly even greater than for those already inside, simply because, up to a point, the bigger the lie, the more chance there is of getting elected, and then being on the free lunch gravy train of stolen/"legally" counterfeited "money".
Lesson: Believing the promises of those seeking to join governments "to change them/ make them work better", "change society" etc. is a mugs game, exceeded in naivete only by those who believe the promises of those already on the inside and "working" for that organization:
Point [3] [Regarding Insiders - i .e those already elected and benefitting from stolen money/counterfeiting].
My question : If a politician/bureaucrat/ employee [i.e. a member of a well established criminal organization] tells you/ promises you something, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU BELIEVE HIM/HER? Are you in the habit of believing the word of other, non-governmental criminals?
Lesson: Anyone who believes the word of an established criminal or group of criminals is an even bigger mug that those who believe the word of those seeking to join said criminal organization to supposedly " make it work more efficiently", or for any other reason ["change society" etc. etc.], as described in point [2] above.
This [point[3]] is a point the author does not even get into. Instead he refuses to follow through on his observation that we are dealing with a criminal organization, run by necessarily habitual liars, which leads him to make the fatal error in logic at the end of his article of demanding that "aspiring nation builders" draft "constitutions predicated on a system that truly separates the powers – free market anarchism.", when in reality, his "free market anarchism" already exists in all of its glory, everywhere, [you just have to look for it- but really , its staring us all right in the face], and already existing without any so-called help from "aspiring nation builders" whatsoever, outside, indeed , _despite_ , and _because_ of, all of them.
Oh my. He just don't git it, do he? And I suspect, he's far from alone
.
Main article: "The Myth of Checks and Balances"
To continue with the theme of the previous post, below is a link to an overlong but illuminating article [if you have the time/patience], exposing the naivete of those who seek so-called " limited government".
To cut a long story short, all he really needed to point out is the fact that all governments are criminal enterprises, funded as they are by direct theft [taxation] , and counterfeiting [so called monetizing of the governments debt via a government -run centralized banking system.
He does eventually make that point [governments are criminal], but then only really applies it to "The Myth of Checks and Balances", when it it has far broader implications which demolish not only the arguments of all "limited government" proponents [whether they call them selves libertarian, conservative or liberal], but also the world-changing aspirations of advocates of _every_ political party everywhere, and of _anyone_ who runs for office, regardless of whether we are talking about a Hillary Clinton, an Obama, a McCain, John Edwards or Ron Paul.
Here are my 3 easy to understand reasons:
Point [1] [The most important point]
As I previously stated, [and as he does] all governments are criminal enterprises, funded as they are, and it is impossible to change that core nature as long as they are funded in the manner they are. Once a criminal organization, always a criminal organization.
Point [2] [Regarding outsiders seeking to join government to produce change via their election etc.]
Fact: Anyone outside of government who joins it/gets elected, is becoming a part of a criminal organization whose only collective motive is to continue doing what it already does [ i.e. direct theft, counterfeiting]. They [the outsiders] or their party are not going to ever change that collective motive or even limit it to areas they and their supporters are in favor of it being limited to. [It should be fairly obvious that theft cannot be "legally" limited by the organization "legally" carrying out the theft in the first place!].
They [outsiders who join] will become absorbed/ assimilated by the criminal organization they have joined, and that organization will [must] continue its operations as before regardless. This is imperative for its survival ; theft is its highest priority, to be achieved BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. And what it cannot steal, it MUST counterfeit.
Incentives For Those Newly Joining
And don't forget ,the incentive to lie by those who wish to join/get elected is possibly even greater than for those already inside, simply because, up to a point, the bigger the lie, the more chance there is of getting elected, and then being on the free lunch gravy train of stolen/"legally" counterfeited "money".
Lesson: Believing the promises of those seeking to join governments "to change them/ make them work better", "change society" etc. is a mugs game, exceeded in naivete only by those who believe the promises of those already on the inside and "working" for that organization:
Point [3] [Regarding Insiders - i .e those already elected and benefitting from stolen money/counterfeiting].
My question : If a politician/bureaucrat/ employee [i.e. a member of a well established criminal organization] tells you/ promises you something, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU BELIEVE HIM/HER? Are you in the habit of believing the word of other, non-governmental criminals?
Lesson: Anyone who believes the word of an established criminal or group of criminals is an even bigger mug that those who believe the word of those seeking to join said criminal organization to supposedly " make it work more efficiently", or for any other reason ["change society" etc. etc.], as described in point [2] above.
This [point[3]] is a point the author does not even get into. Instead he refuses to follow through on his observation that we are dealing with a criminal organization, run by necessarily habitual liars, which leads him to make the fatal error in logic at the end of his article of demanding that "aspiring nation builders" draft "constitutions predicated on a system that truly separates the powers – free market anarchism.", when in reality, his "free market anarchism" already exists in all of its glory, everywhere, [you just have to look for it- but really , its staring us all right in the face], and already existing without any so-called help from "aspiring nation builders" whatsoever, outside, indeed , _despite_ , and _because_ of, all of them.
Oh my. He just don't git it, do he? And I suspect, he's far from alone
.
Main article: "The Myth of Checks and Balances"
Monday, January 1, 2007
The Inherent Criminality of All Governments
The Inherent Criminality of All Governments, Everywhere
[This 1939 essay by AJ nock is as relevant today, if not more so, than when it was written. I can identify particularly well with his statement:"I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment."
Like Nock, I'm more amazed by the naivete and ignorance of those who ignore the historical record of governments worldwide, and continue to expect governments to do "good things" in areas such as "justice", the environment, the monetary system, "equality", taxation, invasion of other countries, or whatever else tickles the naive proletariat[s] fancy, regardless of whether they call themselves democrats, republicans, libertarians, or of any other nit-picking, meaningless, imaginary subclassification of the pro-state persuasion.
As Nock says:"what would you expect? – look at the record! "
THE BIG QUESTION [?] :
If you agree with Nock and myself, your question would be: "Given the inherent criminality of all governments, what can I as an individual do about it?" As a problem solver, that is where I might help, so contact me via this blog's comment facility if interested. ]
[Excerpt] : " As well as I can judge, the general attitude of Americans who are at all interested in foreign affairs is one of astonishment, coupled with distaste, displeasure, or horror, according to the individual observer's capacity for emotional excitement. Perhaps I ought to shade this statement a little in order to keep on the safe side, and say that this is the most generally expressed attitude.
All our institutional voices – the press, pulpit, forum – are pitched to the note of amazed indignation at one or another phase of the current goings-on in Europe and Asia. This leads me to believe that our people generally are viewing with wonder as well as repugnance certain conspicuous actions of various foreign States; for instance, the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State; the "betrayal of CzechoSlovakia" by the British and French States; the savagery of the Japanese State; the brutishness of the Chinese State's mercenaries; and so on, here or there, all over the globe – this sort of thing is showing itself to be against our people's grain, and they are speaking out about it in wrathful surprise.
I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.
Polite or impolite, that is just the question which ought to be put every time a story of State villainy appears in the news. It ought to be thrown at our public day after day, from every newspaper, periodical, lecture platform, and radio station in the land; and it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history, a simple invitation to look at the record. The British State has sold the Czech State down the river by a despicable trick; very well, be as disgusted and angry as you like, but don't be astonished; what would you expect? – just take a look at the British State's record! The German State is persecuting great masses of its people, the Russian State is holding a purge, the Italian State is grabbing territory, the Japanese State is buccaneering along the Asiatic Coast; horrible, yes, but for Heaven's sake don't lose your head over it, for what would you expect? – look at the record! ...."
Click here for complete essay
[This 1939 essay by AJ nock is as relevant today, if not more so, than when it was written. I can identify particularly well with his statement:"I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment."
Like Nock, I'm more amazed by the naivete and ignorance of those who ignore the historical record of governments worldwide, and continue to expect governments to do "good things" in areas such as "justice", the environment, the monetary system, "equality", taxation, invasion of other countries, or whatever else tickles the naive proletariat[s] fancy, regardless of whether they call themselves democrats, republicans, libertarians, or of any other nit-picking, meaningless, imaginary subclassification of the pro-state persuasion.
As Nock says:"what would you expect? – look at the record! "
THE BIG QUESTION [?] :
If you agree with Nock and myself, your question would be: "Given the inherent criminality of all governments, what can I as an individual do about it?" As a problem solver, that is where I might help, so contact me via this blog's comment facility if interested. ]
[Excerpt] : " As well as I can judge, the general attitude of Americans who are at all interested in foreign affairs is one of astonishment, coupled with distaste, displeasure, or horror, according to the individual observer's capacity for emotional excitement. Perhaps I ought to shade this statement a little in order to keep on the safe side, and say that this is the most generally expressed attitude.
All our institutional voices – the press, pulpit, forum – are pitched to the note of amazed indignation at one or another phase of the current goings-on in Europe and Asia. This leads me to believe that our people generally are viewing with wonder as well as repugnance certain conspicuous actions of various foreign States; for instance, the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State; the "betrayal of CzechoSlovakia" by the British and French States; the savagery of the Japanese State; the brutishness of the Chinese State's mercenaries; and so on, here or there, all over the globe – this sort of thing is showing itself to be against our people's grain, and they are speaking out about it in wrathful surprise.
I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, "Well, what do you expect?" – what rational answer could they give? I know of none.
Polite or impolite, that is just the question which ought to be put every time a story of State villainy appears in the news. It ought to be thrown at our public day after day, from every newspaper, periodical, lecture platform, and radio station in the land; and it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history, a simple invitation to look at the record. The British State has sold the Czech State down the river by a despicable trick; very well, be as disgusted and angry as you like, but don't be astonished; what would you expect? – just take a look at the British State's record! The German State is persecuting great masses of its people, the Russian State is holding a purge, the Italian State is grabbing territory, the Japanese State is buccaneering along the Asiatic Coast; horrible, yes, but for Heaven's sake don't lose your head over it, for what would you expect? – look at the record! ...."
Click here for complete essay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)