[Onebornfree's Freedom Network commentary: this video presentation, by anarchist Stefan Molyneux, is excellent, except for one "small" problem. He never really gets to say that the horror of Obama's new law is NOT some sort of exception to the rule, or a statistical aberration. Instead, it is in fact no more or less than "par for the course" for ALL government programs, EVERYWHERE. Obamacare is no more than one more atypical example of the way that ALL government programs must work. To believe that the mistakes of Obamacare can be "fixed" by even more government, when government created the problem in the first place, is to believe in pure fantasy. Lesson: one of the most important facts of life that a freedom-seeker needs to fully comprehend is that all governments are a 100%scam, and that therefor, all government programs are a scam, and that therefor, Obamacare is itself a scam.
Regards, onebornfree and the Freedom Network ]
*************************************************
More about "Onebornfree" :
"Onebornfree", or "O.B.F". is the generic, 15+ year online business name for my internet persona and various entrepreneurial activities]:
I am an alternative psychologist and alternative health/fitness consultant ,
a Personal Freedom Consultant,
a Financial Safety Consultant,
and a musician [singer/guitarist, mostly blues/jazz stylings] and published songwriter.
See also: Onebornfree's Mythbusters and Freedom Network blog
[various articles]
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Monday, October 21, 2013
It's Insanity to Believe You Can Change The World
[Onebornfree/ Freedom Network commentary: this short video pretty much sums up the main message I have been trying to get across to people , either at Network meetings, or in private consultations. The most important fact you can learn, from me, or from this video, is, to quote the movies narrator: " You cannot change the world, to make yourself happy, or free."..."As long as humanity believes that they can change the world to make themselves happy and free, we will continue to fall into this trap generation after generation. It is insanity to think that you can change the world to make yourself happy or free". If you need any help, or have questions/comments about this video's and my own assertions, please contact me at: onebornfree at yahoo dot com. Regards, onebornfree.]
Video source.
Video source.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Withdrawing Your Consent From The State
[Commentary: Onebornfree and the Freedom Network wishes you good luck in withdrawing your consent from the state. I believe that for the freedom-seeking individual, this withdrawal is the most important action you can take, and that the more you withdraw, he better off you will be. If you find you need help in so doing, or you simply have no idea where to start, that is precisely where my Problem Solver Service might help. We can talk via email or Skype if needed, just email me at onebornfreeatyahoodotcom - regards, onebornfree.]
By Michael S. Rozeff
September 17, 2013
Withdrawing consent to the state means more than this innocuous phrase may suggest.
To withdraw consent is far-reaching. It means a divorce from the state insofar as this is possible. It means having no loyalty to the state, seeing the state as fundamentally unfair and a source of continual injustices, being unwilling to help the state in any way, assuming and feeling no responsibility for the state’s actions, and seeing the state as hostile to peace and society. It means not participating in its rituals and having no appreciation of its symbols or myths. It means a psychological divorce from feeling positive about or approving of its victories. It means working toward the state’s opposite, that is, living together in freedom, friendship, comity and peace, i.e., in society. It means no longer thinking of oneself as a citizen, and not believing that as a citizen one has obligations toward the state or other citizens.
Withdrawing consent from the state means not looking upon oneself as owning the state or influencing its activities or doing a sort of duty for the state. It means viewing the state as a nuisance. It means abandoning all forms of patriotism directed at the state and adherence to its symbols, parades, flags, pledges, songs, anthems and monuments. It means no veneration of any political figure, past, present or future. It means no veneration of the Constitution. It means as much as possible avoiding all interactions with government.
Withdrawing consent does not mean being anti-social. Just the opposite. Going toward a natural order and society of life, freedom and property is the natural law alternative to the state and its artificial legalistic order.
Withdrawing consent can go much deeper than these changes. It can mean seeking out the underground economy, homeschooling, leaving the country, and avoiding the mainstream media interpretations.
Withdrawing consent is actually a creative challenge, to be met by many and varied individual techniques. It might be that a person boycotts movies that glorify the military. It surely means not supporting the troops and not pasting decals to that effect on one’s car. It might mean educating others or counseling young men and women not to join the military and not to seek government jobs.
The scope for withdrawing consent is broad. I cannot possibly say what all it involves. What works for me is surely very different from what works for others, and what I am saying here is no blueprint for sure. Just because I don’t organize or attend protests or go on hunger strikes doesn’t mean that others shouldn’t do this or that I disapprove.
I don’t participate in any political parties or vote, but neither do I get bent out of shape if others do. To the contrary, God moves in mysterious ways and we never know what series of events may trigger important changes. I am only suggesting that withdrawing consent is actually a much more important thing than what it sounds on the surface.
For me personally, withdrawing consent does not mean being angry at the state, hating it or turning to violence. I have never liked feeling either anger or hatred, and I try to eliminate them. I do not go around confronting state people intentionally or showing hostility to them. I feel that the state is winning if it “gets” to me. I pay my taxes and register my car. I have no inclinations to use violence whatsoever to the state or state people.
I have the faith that the natural order of life, freedom and property is going to prevail eventually without using violence and that the state will some day be viewed as a perverse aberration based on false ideas. I believe that as time goes on, even if takes a few hundred years, the falsity of the basic ideas underlying the state will become so clear to most people that they will look upon this era as mad and uncivilized. The ways by which freedom will win are way beyond my powers to know. The important thing is to get the tide flowing toward justice and away from the state, and that people have a clear understanding of what this means and why they should move in that direction.
By Michael S. Rozeff
September 17, 2013
Withdrawing consent to the state means more than this innocuous phrase may suggest.
To withdraw consent is far-reaching. It means a divorce from the state insofar as this is possible. It means having no loyalty to the state, seeing the state as fundamentally unfair and a source of continual injustices, being unwilling to help the state in any way, assuming and feeling no responsibility for the state’s actions, and seeing the state as hostile to peace and society. It means not participating in its rituals and having no appreciation of its symbols or myths. It means a psychological divorce from feeling positive about or approving of its victories. It means working toward the state’s opposite, that is, living together in freedom, friendship, comity and peace, i.e., in society. It means no longer thinking of oneself as a citizen, and not believing that as a citizen one has obligations toward the state or other citizens.
Withdrawing consent from the state means not looking upon oneself as owning the state or influencing its activities or doing a sort of duty for the state. It means viewing the state as a nuisance. It means abandoning all forms of patriotism directed at the state and adherence to its symbols, parades, flags, pledges, songs, anthems and monuments. It means no veneration of any political figure, past, present or future. It means no veneration of the Constitution. It means as much as possible avoiding all interactions with government.
Withdrawing consent does not mean being anti-social. Just the opposite. Going toward a natural order and society of life, freedom and property is the natural law alternative to the state and its artificial legalistic order.
Withdrawing consent can go much deeper than these changes. It can mean seeking out the underground economy, homeschooling, leaving the country, and avoiding the mainstream media interpretations.
Withdrawing consent is actually a creative challenge, to be met by many and varied individual techniques. It might be that a person boycotts movies that glorify the military. It surely means not supporting the troops and not pasting decals to that effect on one’s car. It might mean educating others or counseling young men and women not to join the military and not to seek government jobs.
The scope for withdrawing consent is broad. I cannot possibly say what all it involves. What works for me is surely very different from what works for others, and what I am saying here is no blueprint for sure. Just because I don’t organize or attend protests or go on hunger strikes doesn’t mean that others shouldn’t do this or that I disapprove.
I don’t participate in any political parties or vote, but neither do I get bent out of shape if others do. To the contrary, God moves in mysterious ways and we never know what series of events may trigger important changes. I am only suggesting that withdrawing consent is actually a much more important thing than what it sounds on the surface.
For me personally, withdrawing consent does not mean being angry at the state, hating it or turning to violence. I have never liked feeling either anger or hatred, and I try to eliminate them. I do not go around confronting state people intentionally or showing hostility to them. I feel that the state is winning if it “gets” to me. I pay my taxes and register my car. I have no inclinations to use violence whatsoever to the state or state people.
I have the faith that the natural order of life, freedom and property is going to prevail eventually without using violence and that the state will some day be viewed as a perverse aberration based on false ideas. I believe that as time goes on, even if takes a few hundred years, the falsity of the basic ideas underlying the state will become so clear to most people that they will look upon this era as mad and uncivilized. The ways by which freedom will win are way beyond my powers to know. The important thing is to get the tide flowing toward justice and away from the state, and that people have a clear understanding of what this means and why they should move in that direction.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Onebornfree On The Faux Capitalist Radio Show
[Above: Screenshot of the Faux Capitalist home page]
After making a comment in the comments section of Jim Fetzer's podcast , where he [J. Fetzer] interviewed Canadian radio host Jason Erb concerning his views/explanations regarding the subject of Austrian Economic theory, a subject I have personally studied for 20 or more years [ I'm a slow learner! :-) ], and some of which insights I try to apply with regards to my own Financial Safety Service clientele , or with regards to my Personal Freedom clientele, Mr Erb asked me to come on his own "Faux Capitalist" radio show to make my own points.
We talked Austrian economic theory, misconceptions I often come across regarding what it is, what it is not [in my opinion], why it can never really be "controlled opposition to benefit the powers that be" etc. etc., [as many accuse], plus the usefulness of the central idea of Austrian theory [i.e. methodological individualism] and its broader [and very important, I believe] implications/applications with regard to other areas of an individuals life, for example with regard to financial safety, and also with regard to conspiracy theory, and to politics in general.
My interview can be heard here.
here
Jim Fetzer's "Real Deal":
1]:http://radio.abirato.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/onebornfree-oct-20-2012.mp3
2]:http://radio.abirato.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/obf-11-23-2012.mp3
Other Onebornfree Radio/podcast Interviews [All 9/11 conspiracy theory related]:
Jim Fetzer's "Real Deal":
Fakeologist [formerly the "AbIrato"] Show :
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
How and Why You Are Being Brainwashed by the State
[onebornfree /Freedom Network commentary:another great article from Jon Rappoport. The only point I would like to add to Mr Rapport's "how and why" is the point that it is impossible for any government to act in any other way than the way he illustrates here. If you have a government in the first place, sooner or later these types of machinations must occur, and the bigger the state becomes, the more frequently these deliberate machinations must be implemented. The question for you is: in light of that inevitability, what can you do to protect yourself? This is where my Personal Freedom Consulting Service may be able to help an individual. Regards, onebornfree.]
Right now, of course, it’s the war on Syria. Last month, it was something else. And next month, it’ll be something else.
We’re looking at one op after another, one crime after another, one cover-up after another, one threat, one psyop after another. It never ends.
To a significant degree, all these operations are just that, planned moves. And they do concern all of us, because the scope of the operations is vast.
However, on another level, these ops are designed for the purpose of engaging all of us so that we’ll keep thinking in terms of the group (“all of us”)…and never think about anything else.
If you can tune up the population to keep thinking about the group, the collective, you’ve got them.
Hence, the title of this piece: “What concerns all of us at this time.”
But what about: what concerns NONE of us at this time.
What about that?
What about what doesn’t even exist at this time?
What about what has yet to be imagined and created?
Who handles that?
What department do you contact to find out about THAT?
Well, you can consult DARPA or any number of think-tanks or the CIA, but again, these blueprints of the future involve all of us.
I’m talking about something else:
That discredited and stepped-on and discounted faculty of the individual called imagination which, by the way, is not a container holding shielded secrets, but is instead a capability of invention.
Everything mind control ever was, is, or will be, is ultimately aimed at producing amnesia about that capability. Therefore, when you bring up the subject of imagination, most people just shake their heads and move on. They are clueless about their own astonishing power.
Being ignorant, they are easy marks. They can be cajoled into spending their whole lives thinking about “what concerns us most at this time.”
When I put together my two mega-collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, I was cognizant of this. But I also knew there were people out there who were looking for something else, something beyond group concerns that could trap them forever— concerns that build a wall between them and their own creative power.
Creative power—this “little selfish preoccupation,” as it’s been called—is the difference between night and day, civilization and chaos, desire fulfilled and victimhood, life-force and walking death, deception and insight, fierce joy and a sinkhole in which the same emotions go around and around and around.
The reason behind the reason I write about fraud and crime and conspiracy in public life is: I want to expose how reality is being built for us. How perverse designers are constructing a collective mural of existence.
Understanding that, one can begin to see how he can create other realities—without end.
It’s as if we’re living in a huge room with no ceiling and yet we’re behaving as if there is a ceiling 10 feet high. The “10- feet high” is the result of amnesia about our own imaginations.
The purpose of the collective is destruction of imagination.
But imagination can never be destroyed. All individuals can do is force themselves to stay asleep about it.
Or decide to wake up.
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
Right now, of course, it’s the war on Syria. Last month, it was something else. And next month, it’ll be something else.
We’re looking at one op after another, one crime after another, one cover-up after another, one threat, one psyop after another. It never ends.
To a significant degree, all these operations are just that, planned moves. And they do concern all of us, because the scope of the operations is vast.
However, on another level, these ops are designed for the purpose of engaging all of us so that we’ll keep thinking in terms of the group (“all of us”)…and never think about anything else.
If you can tune up the population to keep thinking about the group, the collective, you’ve got them.
Hence, the title of this piece: “What concerns all of us at this time.”
But what about: what concerns NONE of us at this time.
What about that?
What about what doesn’t even exist at this time?
What about what has yet to be imagined and created?
Who handles that?
What department do you contact to find out about THAT?
Well, you can consult DARPA or any number of think-tanks or the CIA, but again, these blueprints of the future involve all of us.
I’m talking about something else:
That discredited and stepped-on and discounted faculty of the individual called imagination which, by the way, is not a container holding shielded secrets, but is instead a capability of invention.
Everything mind control ever was, is, or will be, is ultimately aimed at producing amnesia about that capability. Therefore, when you bring up the subject of imagination, most people just shake their heads and move on. They are clueless about their own astonishing power.
Being ignorant, they are easy marks. They can be cajoled into spending their whole lives thinking about “what concerns us most at this time.”
When I put together my two mega-collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, I was cognizant of this. But I also knew there were people out there who were looking for something else, something beyond group concerns that could trap them forever— concerns that build a wall between them and their own creative power.
Creative power—this “little selfish preoccupation,” as it’s been called—is the difference between night and day, civilization and chaos, desire fulfilled and victimhood, life-force and walking death, deception and insight, fierce joy and a sinkhole in which the same emotions go around and around and around.
The reason behind the reason I write about fraud and crime and conspiracy in public life is: I want to expose how reality is being built for us. How perverse designers are constructing a collective mural of existence.
Understanding that, one can begin to see how he can create other realities—without end.
It’s as if we’re living in a huge room with no ceiling and yet we’re behaving as if there is a ceiling 10 feet high. The “10- feet high” is the result of amnesia about our own imaginations.
The purpose of the collective is destruction of imagination.
But imagination can never be destroyed. All individuals can do is force themselves to stay asleep about it.
Or decide to wake up.
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
"If Voting Changed Anything,They'd Make It Illegal". ~ Emma Goldman
The Democracy Illusion [Emma Goldman Was Right]-Butler Shaffer
"If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal". ~ Emma Goldman
One of the more important inquiries into the nature of collective thinking and behavior was Charles Mackay’s 1841 book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Focusing on such phenomena as the South Sea Bubble, Alchemy, the Crusades, and the preoccupation with witches, Mackay provided great insight into the nature and energies associated with the herd mindset. Were he around today, Mackay could do an empirically-based treatise on the illusory character of democracy.
As much of the world watches the Egyptian military forcibly oust from office a democratically-elected President Morsi – who received 51.7% of the vote in last year’s election – even a few editorial writers are beginning to suspect that the concept of “democracy” can no more bestow legitimacy on political rule than does “divine will.” The idea of governments arising through individual desires spontaneously coalescing into a collective structure appeals more to magical thinking than to historic evidence. Were it ever to be shown that all human behavior is genetically-determined – not just influenced but directed – you can be assured that those who want to control others will concoct a “DNA-imperative” for political rule.
Political systems are invariably grounded in the ambitions of elitist men and women who regard their interests as superior to “ordinary” people – ones they arrogantly dismiss as the “masses” or “Joe Six-Pack.” It is not enough that these elitists endeavor to secure the cooperation of others – an undertaking that is the sine qua non of a market-based social system based on trade –; they insist upon using legalized force to overcome whatever resistance others might have to their schemes. Because the state is defined as a system enjoying a monopoly on the lawful use of violence, those who regard their purposes as superior to those of their neighbors, must concoct a rationale that their victims will accept as a justification for their subject condition.
It is not enough that those who would rule others have weapons of force to back up their demands: street muggers use guns or knives with which to threaten their intended victims, but enjoy no lingering support following the crime. To create a system that can continue to be used to coerce others into obedience to the elitist demands requires the sanction of the victims; their belief that being forced to obey the dictates of others is justified by some transcendent principle. In religiously-based societies, the legitimacy of the state was explained in terms of “divine will.” During the Scientific Age, so-called “natural law” principles were invoked; while the Industrial Revolution, with its emphasis on relations based on contracts, made it easier for people to accept a “social contract” theory of political systems.
Marx’s “dialectical materialism,” Bentham’s and Mill’s cases for “utilitarianism,” or other rationales for governments, illustrate the need for the politically-minded to justify their rule by principles that go beyond the simple-minded notion “I want what I want when I want it.” Those to be ruled must become convinced that the system to which they will be subject serves –or is justified by – some principle that transcends that of the common mugger.
That none of these theories of the state do, in fact, serve their expressed purpose is of no consequence, as long as the ruled believe that they do. What God could be so perverse as to sanction tyrannical, butcherous regimes that paraded under the banner “divine will?” To those who argue that governments violate “natural law” principles, my response has been: how can anything that exists – particularly as temporally and spatially ubiquitous as state systems – be considered unnatural? Nor will I ever forget my jurisprudence professor, Karl Llewellyn, answering a fellow-student’s argument “what about the greatest good for the greatest number?”, with the question “what about the greatest good for the greatest guy?”
It always comes down to this: ideas are abstractions and, as such, are always subject to interpretation. The interpretations are, themselves, expressed in additional abstractions (words) that also require interpretation. This is the underlying cause of the failure of written constitutions to limit the exercise of power, and why those who argue “we must get back to the Constitution” fail to recognize that we never left it; the same words are still there! What words could more beg being interpreted than “general welfare,” “common defense,” “justice,” “reasonable” and “unreasonable,” “due process of law,” “excessive,” etc.? When constitutional cases inform us that “slaves” and “Indians” are not “persons” entitled to protection, but “corporations” are, it is evident that the underlying problem, here, has to do with interpreting the meanings of such words. The state not only enjoys a monopoly on the use of violence, it is also allowed – through powers of judicial review that are nowhere provided for in the Constitution – to interpret both the range of its powers, and the limitations thereon. It should come as no surprise to anyone paying close attention, that the state has provided itself with an ever-expanding definition of its powers, and an ever-diminishing realm of individual liberties.
This political racket has been made possible through decades of conditioning by government schools, the media, and other institutional interests, a belief in the proposition that “we” are the government; that politicians and government officials are our agents, with ourselves as principals. I suggest to people a simple way to test this notion: call up the Post Office and tell them to start making Sunday deliveries. You will quickly discover just who “the people” are who comprise “we the people,” and also learn that you are not included in the group running the machinery of the state.
“Democracy is a system in which four wolves and a sheep decide what to have for dinner.” This provides as vivid a picture as any of what underlies this rationale for collective force. But it is not a collective mindset that creates the democratic urge. The relatively small group of elitists who desire to have coercive control over the rest of mankind have employed the concept of democracy as a way of mobilizing “dark side” forces; to get people to lose their sense of individual purpose, direction, and responsibility in a collective identity (e.g., nation-state) which the elitists – using primarily schools and the media – then manipulate to serve their interests, not those of humanity in general. The common mistake most of us make is assuming that a collective impulse from ordinary people generates a demand for the creation of a democratic political system. The distinction between the drafting of The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution is instructive: the former was, in the words of Frank Chodorov, “not at all the charter of a new nation. It is a rationalization of rebellion.” The latter – produced eleven years later – was the creation of a power structure that exploited the sentiments for liberty in order to serve the interests of those with ambitions of authority over others.
As long as people embrace the illusion of democracy, they will be inclined to obey the dictates of those who control the machinery of the state. They are inclined to regard their obedience to a given mandate as only a short-term problem that can be overcome by “working within the system” to effect change. But such an attitude ignores the mechanisms in place that prevent any popular change that is contrary to the interests of the elitists. The early case of Marbury v. Madison allowed for a usurpation of authority for the Supreme Court to pass on the constitutionality of the actions of other branches of government, a power that is nowhere spelled out – or even hinted at – in the Constitution. It would probably have been fatal to ratification efforts if the Constitution had expressly provided the judicial branch with such powers.
Such an arrogation of authority has provided a barrier to efforts by ordinary people to direct the political system to ends they might value, purposes that would be contrary to elitist interests. Thus, if a majority of voters in a given state vote in favor of a referendum measure (e.g., to allow for medical use of marijuana), the courts have no difficulty in striking down such legislation as “unconstitutional.” The interests of the elitist owners of the system must prevail over the preferences of the majority!
The Egyptian people are now experiencing the fallacy of a democratically controlled political system. A man who, just one year ago, was elected president of that country by a majority of the voters, has been removed from office and held prisoner by military force. And, to make clear that any “social contract” illusions about the legitimacy of the state do not prevail in Egypt, the military has also suspended the constitution, embracing the same sentiments as former president George W. Bush who declared the U.S. Constitution to be “just a goddamned piece of paper!”
The belief that what C. Wright Mills called “the power elite” would ever be so careless or witless as to allow tens of millions of subject people to have any real control over the machinery or purposes of the state, is refuted in what passes for daily news. The treatment accorded Ron Paul in his popularly-supported efforts to make fundamental reforms in the American political system, demonstrates how desperately the elitists – along with their well-trained political and media lapdogs and toadies – insist on keeping political power where it belongs: in their hands.
The 1999 film, Election, centered on a high-school campaign for student body president, illustrates the fallacy of voter-based elections determining outcomes. In the midst of the campaign for votes between the campus butterfly and the football hero, another student – a nonconformist who sees the meaningless of what is transpiring – enters herself as a candidate. Her campaign speech at a school assembly follows that of the other two. The honesty of her words so resonates with the entire student body, that school administrators hurriedly gather and remove her name from the ballots!
Emma Goldman got it right!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)