Showing posts with label political philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political philosophy. Show all posts

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 [Matrix 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

[Update 091717, a new improved recording of this song can now be heard here.]

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

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]

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Withdraw Consent-Video

[Onebornfree/Freedom Network commentary: The system is a scam- however the system cannot be changed/improved. Trying to change it "for the better"only strengthens it and makes it larger and worse than it already is. Instead, simply withdraw consent. If you need help with the "withdrawing consent" part, maybe I could help. Email : onebornfreeatyahoodotcom . Regards onebornfree ]:


                 

Youtube 

Regards, onebornfree

Thursday, July 4, 2013

The Top 5 Reasons I Stopped Caring About Politics + "The Story of Your Enslavement"

[Obf and Freedom Network commentary: Another great article by Mr Paul Rosenberg entitled "The Top 5 Reasons I Stopped Caring About Politics" plus a related video presentation by Stefan Molyneux titled "The Story of Your Enslavement". The Rosenberg piece pretty much sums up my own current beliefs, while the Molyneux video hammers Mr Rosenbergs 5 nails "home". If you find yourself agreeing with most, or possibly all of these two presentations and yet you do not know what to do next, lets talk! - maybe I can help. Regards onebornfree. P.S. It's July 4th, so: Happy Surveillance Day! ]


"When I was young, I felt a need to understand politics, and I spent time studying. But as time progressed, I received diminishing returns on that investment. And in the past few years, I have given it up altogether.

These days, my concern with politics is limited to things like these:
Who is making war, and where?
Where is the crime occurring in my area?
Are there laws that will force me to move my businesses offshore?

Beyond that, I’m really not interested. I see the headlines, but I seldom read the stories. And I’m very happy saying, “I haven’t looked into it,” when people ask my opinion on the day’s ‘news.’

Here’s why:

#5: It eats up a horrifying amount of time and energy:

Seriously, start counting the number of hours you spend on this stuff. How many hours listening to political radio, watching political TV, and reading political newspapers?

Then start thinking about the intense energy you spend on it. We all have limited reserves of energy; do you really believe that politics is the highest and best use for yours? What about using your energy to build your business? Or to nurture your children? Or to help a neighbor? There must be a dozen things that are more important than obsessing over the votes of congressmen or Supreme Court judges.





Direct Youtube link

#4: It’s an addiction:

If imagining yourself dumping politics makes you feel bad, you probably should dump it.

Try it: Imagine your life, devoid of all politics. How does it make you feel? Empty? Forsaken?

The truth is that millions of us are addicted to politics. People can’t pull themselves away from it – it’s the script that runs in the back of their minds 24/7.

The political addiction is so bad that even strongly religious people spend more time on politics than they do on God. Politics is the obsession of the age.

#3: It doesn’t change anything:

There was a popular bumper sticker in the 60s that read: If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.

Let’s be honest and admit that the bumper sticker was true. Even the best examples – such as Reagan on the right or Obama on the left – have failed to change much. Government is bigger than ever, the US government is involved in more wars than ever, and the Constitution is being trashed in more ways than ever before. This is progress?

And what of the vaunted elections that they always promote? Personally, I think Alvin Toffler was right when he called them “reassurance rituals.” But, that aside, it is certain that elections are  tightly controlled. In the US, two parties firmly control who gets on a ballot and who doesn’t. Everything is scripted; everything requires approval of the party. (The situation is slightly less bad in Europe.)

And please understand that ‘the government’ is far more than 600 faces in DC – it is millions of people in thousands of offices, all pulling together to get more of your money and to spend it upon themselves and their departments.

But even while politics doesn’t actually change much, it does keep everyone locked inside the system and servicing it. To illustrate, here’s a quote I never could forget, and that I hope you’ll never forget either:
Let them march all they want, so long as they continue to pay their taxes.
– Alexander Haig, 1982
So long as everyone obeys the government, why should it care about their complaints? Americans are nearly 100% obedient, so why should the government bother changing anything at all? There is no need.

Politics doesn’t change anything, because its actual goal is to keep  the populace reassured and compliant. And in this it has succeeded  brilliantly.

#2: In the end, it’s about violence:

Here’s a passage from my novel, A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, that expressed this idea:
Coercion is the sine qua non of politics; the thing, without which, politics would not be politics. Indeed, if you remove coercion, politics becomes something else – economics.
Politics cannot exist without force. In the end, it rests on violence. No matter how much they color everything red, white, and blue, violence or the threat of violence underpins it all. As Jim Rogers once wrote, “Somewhere in every process of taxation, a pistol is involved.

Politics – government – is based upon a single transaction: Taking  money from people against their will. Everything else they do falls  apart without that.

You may think me rude for pointing this out, or you may come up with justifications for it, but the statement stands: Governments take money that they didn’t earn, by one type of coercion or another. If not, taxation would be voluntary and government would be just another business.

I don’t like dealing with violent enterprises.

#1: Politics is a relic of a barbaric past:

Being that I study the ancient past, I can trace men ruling over men back to about 6400 BC. I can trace a government that resembles ours back to about 5000 BC.

So, what else from two thousand years before the Pyramids still rules the lives of men?

If there is any example on Earth of humans failing to evolve, this has to be it.

Men no longer pull plows. They no longer start fires with flint. Nor  do they pull sleds or wooden-wheeled carts or rely upon animals for power. We have learned to write, to invent, to navigate, to cover immense distances, to drive, to fly, to reach into the heavens…

And yet this one relic of a primitive past remains. And please don’t  tell me that it remains because it is good – people complain about government more than they complain about cancer.

To illustrate government’s barbaric nature, consider this: Thousands of people like me would like to experiment with different ways of living, but we are forbidden. No one is permitted to leave the game. If you try, large armed men will assault you and lock you in a cage, or perhaps they will merely steal your money from the bank you entrusted it to. But in either case, government sycophants will solemnly inform the world that you are an evil-doer.

No exit is permitted and all escape attempts are met with violence. How is this not primitive barbarity?

IT’S YOUR CHOICE:

So, there you have it. You’re big boys and girls and you can make your own decisions, but I have to tell you: I am ever so happy with  mine. I am less stressed, more productive, and a clearer thinker.

Every so often, a friend asks me to examine a political issue. And,  nearly always, I politely decline; it makes me feel the same as when my mother wanted me to eat liver."
Paul Rosenberg































Monday, December 10, 2012

The Inevitable, Unstoppable, Growth of the State- Stefan Molyneux

[Onebornfree commentary: In this video Mr. Molyneux  explains why once in place, it is impossible to contain the growth of the state, which means that the libertarian/minarchist call for a limited, "constitutional" government is a fantasy, and will ultimately lead to a massive state, regardless of supposed "constitutional limits". The only presidential candidate I am aware of who was actually aware of this fact, and who spoke openly about it, even while campaigning for the presidency, was the late, great Harry Browne, who campaigned as an undercover, anarchist masquerading as a limited government proponent. Regards, The Freedom Network and onebornfree.]





Saturday, October 27, 2012

Warmonger A vs. Warmonger B !


[Onebornfree's commentary:  Greetings from the Freedom Network! - and remember, "War is the health of the state!"- which means that if you have a government in the first place, war is always inevitable. It 's also worth bearing in mind that once formed governments can never be contained or limited {therefor the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was/is a  total scam}.  So if you believe that either of these two schmucks will "make a difference", with all due respect, you suffering from a serious case of self delusion! Regards, onebornfree.]

Presidential Debates Prove that Obama and Romney’s Foreign Policy Is Virtually Identical. 

 [Romney and Obama pretend to differ on imperial foreign policy.]


As made obvious by the third-party presidential debates, Romney and Obama’s foreign policy is virtually identical.

They both favor elective, preemptive wars of aggression.  They both want to force regime change in Syria, and they both characterize Iran as the “biggest threat” to the U.S.
Forbes’ Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writes:

The debate could not plausibly be a real debate because of the following parameters: Barack Obama has essentially pursued the same foreign policy as the Bush Administration, and Romney has eschewed any fundamental critique of the Obama-Bush consensus ….

Even Jon Stewart agrees:


                            Former British ambassador Craig Murray notesI have traveled this world much more extensively than either Obama or Romney, and I still do. I find everywhere, even in areas of conflict and economic difficulty, the vast majority of people are friendly, even kind, and have very similar aspirations, across cultures, to personal development and emotional fulfilment.

The striking thing about tonight’s US Presidential “foreign policy” debate, is when it did occasionally discuss foreign policy, the world out there was discussed not as a place of vast potential, but as a deeply disturbing place full of foreigners who are, apparently, all evil except the Israelis, who are perfect.
The vast benefits from cooperation and trade with “abroad” were not mentioned once that I noticed (though I confess the thing was so awful my attention wandered occasionally). Europe apparently doesn’t exist, other than Greece which is nothing more than a terrible warning of the dangers of not being right wing enough.
The correct attitude to all these foreigners that God so unfortunately and inexplicably placed on this planet, is apparently to maintain incredibly large armed forces, murder people with drones (they were both very enthusiastic on this one), place sanctions on them and declare them “currency manipulators”. The only surprising note was that both agreed that they could not kill everyone in Iran.
But “We can’t just kill our way out of this mess” was spoken with regret, rather than as an affirmation of the possibilities of cooperation instead. What a grim and joyless world view.



Original article source.


Sunday, August 12, 2012

False Political Choices of "The Dark Knight Rises"

[Commentary: one of the goals of politics is to get you to unquestioningly accept the idea that to "solve" your problems, there are only two choices available, both political ; either "tweedle-dum, or "tweedle-dee".  As one of the main propaganda organs of the state, Hollywood's main agenda is to reinforce that very idea in the viewer. The third Batman movie  from director Christopher Nolan is a perfect example of the attempted selling of what is politely termed "a false dichotomy", or a bold-faced lie, or brainwashing, by any other name, as pointed out by the reviewer Jeffrey Tucker.  Here's hoping that you are intelligent enough to see through the lie. Regards, onebornfree, & The Freedom Network

"Before the third of the Batman trilogy hit theaters, I had heard that The Dark Knight Rises was a film without hope, with a long and dreary narrative that never loosens its grip. It leaves the viewer without a sense of answers.

I saw it and left confused. It saw it again, and left confused again. All the while, I kept wondering if this interpretive effort would pay off. Maybe it’s just another movie and lacks the ideological signifcance of the other two.

 220px-Dark_knight_rises_poster



I too had read several reviews that had condemned the film from a left-wing point view, arguing that it took at cheap shot at the Occupy Wall Street movement, suggesting that it consists mainly of brainless menaces who are easily manipulated by a strongman leader. The filmmakers deny this.

Regardless, this was probably the best political feature of the film.

However, the merit of its warning about left-wing populism was seriously compromised by the portrayal of the Gotham cops as saintly guardians of the social order. Neoconservatives loved this part of the film, made all the better to them because the prisons are full and Gotham is ruled by a civilian-led authoritarian regime of tight law and surveillance — the neocon dream come true.

What’s going on here? Why is the movie so full of mixed messages and, in the end, so unsatisfying?

Finally, it hit me. And this will be perfectly obvious once you hear it.

The problem is that the film gives Gotham (and us) a choice between two forms of despotism, one “left wing” and one “right wing,” and asks us to choose the lesser of two evils. We can have one of two systems: bureaucratic/authoritarian or revolutionary/dictatorial. The idea of a self-managing society is just out of the question. The film biases that choice by showing one as offered by the evil villain and the other by a corrupt, yet stable status quo.

Do you see now? Dark Knight Rises replicates the choice that the present political system presents to us. We look at the choices and throw up our hands, knowing full well that neither really offers answers to the problem. Watching this film is like watching the Sunday talk shows that feature two flavors of the same poison. It’s the State of the Union address and the response to the State of the Union address, neither of which tells what’s true or gives us a way out.

It’s the two sides of the street fights between the Occupy protesters and the cops. It’s the left versus the right. It’s Republicans versus Democrats. It’s “law and order” versus revolutionary dictatorship. It’s Italian fascism versus Soviet communism. It’s the two sides of the Spanish Civil War. It is also the choice faced by old Rome in its late stage: rule by a corrupt oligarchy of the Senate or a cruel imperial dictatorship of Caesar.

It is the choice given to every nation in its late stages. No truly informed citizen believes that this is all that should be on the menu. But Dark Knight Rises doesn’t show us another way. It never shows us the option of a self-managing society where people are permitted to shape their own destinies apart from the will of two gangs of political elites. Whoever wins the great struggle over Gotham’s future, the results will be imposed from the top down.

The result is that viewers are left with a sense of hopelessness in the same way that the current political climate denies people authentic hope. Whatever happens will come from the center and top, leaving the rest of us unfree to manage our own lives, keep and use our own property, mind our own business and cobble together our own human associations. In The Dark Knight Rises, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not even distant memories.

The film opens with Bruce Wayne/Batman in a long period of retirement, living alone in his mansion during eight years of stability in Gotham. But what is this stability, really? It’s not prosperity, because the homes for orphans are full and they can’t get jobs once they are too old to live there. The prisons are jammed with supposedly violent thugs and the leaders of organized crime, swept off the streets thanks to a new draconian law that unleashed government power.

The new law is named after martyred district attorney Harvey Dent. In the first scenes of Gotham, the city is celebrating Harvey Dent Day. The police are in firm control of the city, as led by the police commissioner and the political powers of the city. From the perspective of the elites, nothing is wrong. Life is blessedly boring. Crime has fallen so low that police joke about soon having to chase down people with overdue library books.

Is there corruption? Of course. This is Gotham. In fact, the corruption is so deep and pervasive that the saintly district attorney after whom the present order is named is a lie. He is actually the villain named Two-Face — a perfect metaphor for every member of the political class. In his tenure, he said one thing and did another. People thought he was doing good, but he was secretly doing evil. Even the best men of the current regime in Gotham are willing to spread the lie of the greatness of Dent, solely for the purpose of maintaining government power and immunizing the power structure from criticism.

The strongman dictator Bane sees the vulnerability of this seemingly stable system. He perceives that people are seeking something, some form of liberation, and that he can use this political impulse to solidify his control over Gotham on his way to plotting its final destruction. He recruits the unemployed to work under the city in the sewers to plot his takeover.

Bane has plenty of people willing to risk death to work for him, both because they are desperate and because Bane offers a radical alternative to the present order. Meanwhile, the city elites go on about their daily tasks, completely oblivious to what is happening beneath the surface.

At the appointed hour, Bane initiates shock and awe in the form of massive explosions throughout the city. At the football game where a large portion of Gotham’s citizens are gathering, Bane blows up the field, and announces to everyone that he is the new leader of the city. Their elites have failed and now a people’s revolution is taking place.

“Gotham, take control,” Bane says, “take control of your city. Behold, the instrument of your liberation! Identify yourself to the world!”

The rich are looted. The prisoners are set free to become armed gangs in the Bane regime. Show trials are established on the model of the late stages of the French Revolution. Guilt is presumed and everyone is sent to die, to the cheers of the workers and peasants. Meanwhile, the bourgeoisie cower in their homes in fear.

This is when the Dark Knight rises to set the world right again. His most-loyal allies in this army are the massive number of police who had been recruited during the years of seemingly crimeless stability.
As audience members, we are being asked to cheer for Batman because he opposes the bloody and ruthless Bane, who is a Stalin-like figure. But the best possible result that Gotham can get out of this is a restoration and intensification of the previous fascist system of police, prisons, rule by corrupt elites and mandatory obedience to Gotham’s version of the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

As a result, it is hard to cheer. The choice is left or right dictatorship. It is Occupy versus the cops. It is Stalin versus Mussolini all over again. It is Hoover versus FDR. It is the Democrat despot or the Republican despot.

This is the dreadful choice that political systems all over the world have set up. You have to decide, based on your cultural identity and ideological preferences, what form of top-down rule you desire. There’s Plan A or Plan B, but no Plan C. There are two types of prison cells, but there is no way out of the prison itself. Our choices are not really authentic choices. All of us are inchoately aware that whatever the results are, we will not be freer than we were before.

One of the most-compelling images of the film is a prison that is considered the worst prison in the world. It is buried deep in a hole. You can look up 200 feet in the air and see the light, but there is no way that ordinary people can climb out. This is a chilling image of where most people in the developed world are today. We look up and we see a far-distant light, and that light is called liberty. But we don’t see a way to get there.

This much we can see. There is no Dark Knight who will save us. We must save ourselves. "

Jeffrey A. Tucker Article Original Source 

Other recent onebornfree "Batman- The Dark Knight Rises" articles: http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2012/08/was-batman-shooting-government-staged.html





Thursday, August 9, 2012

Is The US A Free Country?

[onebornfree commentary: to answer my own question: "No, it is most definitely not". The question for you, the individual is: "what can I do about this state of affairs- should I seek freedom via the political process, as most might suggest, or should I ignore all political "solutions" and seek other ways of restoring my own freedom"? Personally, myself and others in the Freedom Network would suggest that ignoring the political process entirely is the way to go, for reasons I will not get into here.] 

US Government Proposes Law Making it Illegal for Them to Kill You

 by Simon Black

Last Friday, US Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced HR 6357, a bill which aims to ‘prohibit the extrajudicial killing of United States citizens’ by the federal government. In other words, in the Land of the Free, they need to pass a law to prevent the government from indiscriminately murdering its own citizens.

Now if this doesn’t give one reason to pause and consider the distortions of liberty that have taken place in western civilization, I don’t know what will. Think about it:

Does a free society send government hit men to eliminate anyone they perceive to be an enemy of the state?

Does a free society have hundreds of police agencies, each with the authority to deprive a man of his life, liberty and property in their sole discretion?

Does a free society have hundreds of thousands of laws, codes, rules, regulations, and policies which effectively criminalize nearly every aspect of one’s existence?

Does a free society lead the world in prison population?

Does a free society hunt down criminals and terrorists by treating its citizens like criminals and terrorists?

Does a free society tell its citizens what foods they are / are not allowed to consume?

Does a free society steal your money at gunpoint to buy bombs that they drop by remote control on brown people in faraway lands?

Does a free society debase its currency and plunder the purchasing power of its citizens?

Does a free society saddle unborn generations with obligations they never signed up to bear?

Does a free society award near total control of the economy, the money supply, and everything tied to it, to a tiny elite few?

Does a free society brainwash its citizens into believing that they live in a free society? (at least the Chinese know they’re not free…)

Ask yourself, are you really living in a free society? Are you free? If not, why not? What else could possibly be more important?

It takes courage to answer honestly. But once you realize the truth and begin to see the system for what it is, it can be a liberating and life-changing experience.

You’ll find that there are places where you can live free in this world. There are ways to preserve your dignity, your privacy, your livelihood. You’ll find that you can build great camaraderie and mutual trust with like-minded souls because you share the same values, not the same color passport.

My guess is that you’re reading this because you’ve already started down the road to freedom. But you might feel alone… intellectually isolated in a sea of automatons.

You’re not alone. More and more people are waking up every day and beginning to realize the incredible fraud that has been perpetrated against them. When enough of them figure it out, this system will be finished.

That’s why I fundamentally believe that today is one of the most exciting times to be alive since the French Revolution. And we’re just getting warmed up.

If you have any friends or loved ones who still exemplify that self-deluded, bombastic serf mentality, I encourage you to pass this along to them… and challenge them to answer honestly.

Original Article Source

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror


[onebornfree commentary: here is a good article which instead of  claiming "government conspiracy!" about whatever, simply just lists instances where various governments have actually admitted to "false flag" terror events for political gain, to start wars etc. etc. One of the goals of The Freedom Network is to make people more aware of the nature of their own government and of all governments, so that they can then successfully lead happier, more fulfilling and more peaceful lives despite governments and their unrelenting attacks on our freedom.]: 


Forget the claims and allegations that false flag terror - governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed - has been used throughout history.

This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of false flag terror.

For example:
  • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that - under orders from the chief of the Gestapo - he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Official State Department documents show that - only nine months before - the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. (While the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed as a serious proposal for Operation Northwoods to be carried out, cooler heads fortunately prevailed; President Kennedy or his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently vetoed the plan)
  • The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing
  • An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
  • Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton says that a Clinton cabinet member proposed letting Saddam kill an American pilot as a pretext for war in Iraq (and see this)

  • According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
  • The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
  • As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".
  • Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
  • United Press International reported in June 2005:
    U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
  • Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers
  • At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
  • A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
  • U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then "drop" automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants
There are many other instances of false flag attacks used throughout history proven by the historical evidence. See this, this and this. The above are only some examples of governments admitting to using false flag terror.

You can't call it a conspiracy theory when the government itself admits it.
And this is not just ancient history:
  • Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser - Zbigniew Brzezinski - told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation

Friday, February 24, 2012

What If Democracy Is Bunk?

What If Democracy Is Bunk? by Andrew Napolitano [original article source here ]:

"What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn't make a difference? What if no matter how you vote, the elites get to have it their way? What if "one person, one vote" is just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance? What if democracy is dangerous to personal freedom? What if democracy erodes the people's understanding of natural rights and the foundations of government, and instead turns elections into beauty contests?

What if democracy allows the government to do anything it wants, as long as more people bother to show up at the voting booth to support it than to oppose it? What if the purpose of democracy is to convince people that they could prosper not through the creation of wealth but through theft from others? What if the only moral way to acquire wealth – aside from inheritance – is through voluntary economic activity? What if the government persuaded you that you could acquire wealth through political activity? What if economic activity included all the productive and peaceful things we do? What if political activity included all the parasitical and destructive things the government does?

What if governments were originally established to protect people's freedom, but always turn into political and imperialist enterprises that seek to expand their power, increase their territory and heighten their control of the population? What if the idea that we need a government to take care of us is actually a fiction? What if our strength as individuals and durability as a culture are contingent not on the strength of the government but on the amount of freedom we have from the government?

What if we're seeing civil unrest around the world precisely because government is out of control? What if the cocktail of big government and democracy brings dependence and destruction? What if big government destroys people's motivations and democracy convinces them that the only motivation they need is to vote and go along with whatever the government does?

What if the Republican primaries we're seeing unfold aren't actually as democratic as they may appear to be? What if the results you have seen from the states that have voted thus far don't match the composition of the delegates those states send to the Tampa convention this summer because the polls aren't what counts, but what counts are the secret meetings that come after the voting? What if Joe Stalin was right when he said the most powerful person in the world is the guy who counts the votes?

What if the greatest tyrant in history lives among us? What if that tyrant always gets its way, no matter what the laws are or what the Constitution says? What if that tyrant is the majority of voters? What if the tyranny of the majority in a democracy recognizes no limits on its power?

What if the government misinforms voters so as to justify anything the government wants to do? What if the government bribes people with the money it prints? What if it gives entitlements to the poor, tax breaks to the middle class and bailouts to the rich just to keep all of us dependent upon it? What if a vibrant republic requires not just the democratic process of voting, but also informed and engaged voters who understand first principles of limited government and free-market economics, and the divine origin of natural rights?

What if we could free ourselves from the yoke of big government through a campaign of education and information and personal courage that leads to a revolutionary return to first principles? What if the establishment doesn't want this? What if the government remains the same no matter who wins elections?

What if because of Ron Paul's presidential campaign, because he isn't campaigning just for votes as his competition is, because he is educating the population and winning the hearts and minds of a once free people and inspiring them to fight for their freedom once more, freedom wins? What if we can be free again? What will it take to make that happen?"

Saturday, January 28, 2012

New World Order Conspiracy Theorists Versus " Financial Illiteracy"

The Daily Bell: Financial Illiteracy of Those Who Mock Conspiracy Theorists

My only real problem with Mr Wile's otherwise excellent analysis :"Financial Illiteracy of Those Who Mock Conspiracy Theorists"
is his claim that the conspiracy towards installing one-world government is a conscious,deliberate policy by "the usual suspects".

Rather, for myself, it [i.e the move towards one-world government] is a completely natural, inevitable occurrence [given the realities of human action] once governments exist, and given the true nature of all governments, everywhere. Why would anyone really expect anything else?

Belief Implications

The belief that the move towards one-world government is part of an "elite's" conspiracy plan implies that without such an elite, there would be no move towards one-world government.

I find this to be a little naive, at best. Governments must grow in order to survive.

In as much as they will always constantly fail to achieve their stated social objectives, their growth [because if something fails, the only option is to pass more laws, and throw more money at any one problem] is an unchangeable given, even without those dreaded Illuminati and their new world order plans for all of us.

Personal Freedom Implications For the Concerned Individual

Given that either with, or without an elite, governments once created, will inevitably grow and consolidate as a "natural" survival instinct, what does this mean for the concerned, freedom-loving individual?

Personal Secession from the System?

As far as I can see, and without going into specific detail here [there would be no point], the only reasonable hope for that concerned individual is to completely eschew political solutions [i.e voting, protesting, agitating for new laws etc.] , and instead to use that newly freed up time, and start to seriously look for direct ways to circumvent, avoid, and otherwise go around "the system" in all its glorious forms, in whatever ways that appear suitable for that individuals own personal morality and belief system [whatever it might be].

Regards, onebornfree

[To discuss further, message me in the comment section here, or email : onebornfreeatyahoodotcom. Free phone conversations by "Skype" may also be possible. ]

Monday, September 6, 2010

Obama and His Family Tied to CIA for Years

Onebornfree comment: why does this NOT surprise me?

Regards, onebornfree

********************************

Obama and His Family Tied to CIA for Years

Original article here.

by Sherwood Ross

President Obama – as well as his mother, father, step-father and grandmother – all were connected to the Central Intelligence Agency – possibly explaining why the President praises the “Agency” and declines to prosecute its officials for their crimes.

According to a published report in the September Rock Creek Free Press of Washington, D.C., investigative reporter Wayne Madsen says Obama’s mother Ann Dunham worked “on behalf of a number of CIA front operations, including the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Ford Foundation.” The East-West Center had long been affiliated with CIA activities in the Asia-Pacific region, Madsen says.

What’s more, Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., arrived in Hawaii from Kenya as part of a CIA program to identify and train Africans who would be useful to the Agency in its Cold War operations against the Soviets, Madsen says. Obama Sr. divorced Ms. Dunham in 1964.

Ms. Dunham married Lolo Soetoro the following year, a man Madsen says assisted in the violent CIA coup against Indonesian President Sukarno that claimed a million lives. Obama’s mother taught English for USAID, “which was a major cover for CIA activities in Indonesia and throughout Southeast Asia,” Madsen reports. That USAID was a cover for CIA covert operations in Laos was admitted by its administrator Dr. John Hannah on Metromedia News. Madsen says the organization was also a cover for the CIA in Indonesia.

Ms. Dunham worked in Indonesia at a time when Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities(MUCIA) – a group that included the University of Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Minnesota and Indiana – was accused of being a front for CIA activities in Indonesia and elsewhere. Ms. Dunham traveled to Ghana, Nepal, Bangladesh, India and Thailand “working on micro-financing projects” for the CIA, Madsen reports.

And Ms. Dunham’s mother, Madelyn Dunham – who raised Obama while his mother was on assignment in Indonesia – acted as vice president of the Bank of Hawaii in Honolulu, which Madsen says was used by various CIA front entities. She handled escrow accounts used to make CIA payments “to U.S.-supported Asian dictators” including Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu, and President Suharto in Indonesia, Madsen says.

“In effect, the bank was engaged in money laundering for the CIA to prop up covertly its favored leaders in the Asia-Pacific region,” Madsen writes. “It is clear that Dunham Soetoro and her Indonesian husband, President Obama’s step-father, were closely involved in the CIA’s operations to steer Indonesia away from the Sino-Soviet orbit after the overthrow of Sukarno.”

“President Obama’s own work in 1983 for Business International Corporation, a CIA front that conducted seminars with the world’s most powerful leaders and used journalists as agents abroad, dovetails with CIA espionage activities conducted by his mother,” Madsen says. “There are volumes of written material on the CIA backgrounds of George H.W. Bush and CIA-related activities by his father and children, including former President George W. Bush. Barack Obama, on the other hand, cleverly masked his own CIA connections as well as those of his mother, father, step-father, and grandmother,” Madsen points out.

A review of the influence on the Oval Office by the CIA, particularly since the presidency of Bush Sr., a former director of the Agency, it becomes apparent the Agency has played a major role in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy – a role that has been largely kept secret from the American public and one which most Americans would not have approved. The CIA’s overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953 is an example. The overthrow occurred after the Iranian government nationalized the oil industry following alleged cheating on payments by contractor British Petroleum, then known as Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. For another, the CIA’s widespread use of illegal rendition and torture of suspects is repugnant to Americans who still believe in their Constitution.

September 6, 2010

Sherwood Ross has worked for major dailies and wire services and served in an executive capacity in the U.S. civil rights movement. He currently is active in the anti-war movement and operates a public relations firm for good causes.

Monday, May 17, 2010

The Bill of Rights Scam - [aka The 1789 Judiciary Act Scam]

Many freedom seekers suffer under the illusion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not, and never were, open to free interpretation by the Federal judiciary and its Supreme Court, and thus waste much valuable time and resources fighting the system "for their rights" etc. [See also my previous blog "You've Never Had Any Rights: Three Good Reasons Why The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are Not Worth the Paper They Were Written On" ]

The article linked to here["1789" by Jim Davies] shows how wrong they are and explains how the Bill of Rights, which , by itself would have effectively limited the scope of the federal courts entirely to the two crimes listed in the constitution itself, [piracy and treason],leaving all other criminal prosecutions to individual states, was effectively gotten around [i.e subverted] by the exact same persons who drafted the Bill of Rights.

Important Chronology
The Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law on Sept.24th. 1789, while the Bill of Rights did not leave congress until the next day,Sept 25th 1789.

Keep in mind that the same people who passed the Judiciary Act into immediate law of the land status, were, at the exact same time busy putting the final touches on a document [the Bill of Rights] which they knew had to be ratified by the individual states before it ever [if ever!]became law . That ratification of the Bill of Rights took almost 2 years.

That means that for almost two years before the Bill of Rights ever went into effect, a Federal law was in operation that already, pre-emptively, granted "supreme" power to the Supreme court to ultimately decide what both it and the constitution actually "meant". [ And who decides who sits on the Supreme court?].

Also,bear in mind that the Judiciary Act accomplished the exact opposite of the intent of the Bill of Rights,most of which was concerned with placing severe limitations on the jurisdiction of federal courts and the evidentiary procedures that could be used to prosecute the only two constitutionally specified federal crimes - treason and piracy.


Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted overriding power to the Supreme Court to ultimately"interpret" the Constitution and Bill of Rights, deciding what they meant on a case by case basis, effectively filling in the huge gaps in Article 3 of the Constitution itself, where , despite what most today imagine, no overriding,specific authority for the Federal judiciary to decide/interpret the "law of the land" was ever actually granted {except in cases of piracy or treason}

You have to hand it to them- one hell of an "end run" around the supposed "constitutional limits" and the far more restrictive language of the Bill of Rights!

- Regards, onebornfree.

Link to article by JimDavies: "1789"