Sunday, July 12, 2015

Reality vs. Lincoln, Slavery, and Civil War

The mainstream narrative about Abraham Lincoln is almost entirely myth. Lincoln is portrayed as all good and as one of the greatest men who ever lived. However, the reality is very different from the mainstream narrative.

Let’s first look at the handful of positive things we can say about Lincoln:

  • Lincoln did not execute the Confederate generals or punish its soldiers as was customary in most warfare until that point. He even let them keep their guns!
  • I think that Lincoln believed the following, “Slavery is wrong because no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor, which is one of America’s founding principles.”
  • He was a damned good, writer, debater, and speaker.

In spite of the few positive things we can say about Lincoln, the facts prove that Lincoln was a reckless racist fascist democidal psychopath. For example, Lincoln:

  • Committed genocide against Native Americans.
  • Imprisoned the elected legislature of Maryland.
  • Enthusiastically proclaimed in the Lincoln v. Douglass debates that he believed that blacks were inferior, should have lower social status, and should not marry whites.
  • Did not mobilize for war as the South was mobilizing even though he intended to go to war, thus exposing his government to easy capture if the Confederacy had been so inclined.
  • Started the Civil War, which killed 750,000 Americans – more than all other wars combined.
  • Started the Civil war only to prevent secession (not to end slavery), and yet secession is a right (that’s how America had been formed); whereas, slavery was an atrocity.
  • Started the war against the advice of his entire cabinet.
  • Told his generals to sacrifice two Union soldiers to achieve each Confederate casualty if necessary to win the war.
  • Was happy with the incompetent drunkard Ulysses S. Grant because Grant was willing to sacrifice three union soldiers to achieve each Confederate casualty.
  • Attacked civilian populations.
  • Declared, several years into the war, in his Emancipation Proclamation, that slaves in the Confederacy were free but that slaves in the 4 slave states in the Union were still not free. In other words, it was an utterly powerless, meaningless, hypocritical, racist, and ineffective proclamation.

Although governments, and especially US administrations, have a long history of perpetrating false flags, I have not verified the claims that the Union itself fired on Fort Sumter to get the war started. However, even if the South fired first, it is self-evident that the Union, under Lincoln’s orders, started the Civil War because placing one’s troops in a foreign country is an act of war.

For months after the Confederacy had seceded, it kept asking Lincoln to get his army out of Confederate territory and told Lincoln that if he sent more troops into Confederate territory, then they would be fired upon. Now, Lincoln knew the Confederacy was mobilized for war and was not bluffing, and he knew that Washington DC was undefended because he had been negligent, but he still sent troops to Fort Sumter, and thus it is self-evident that Lincoln started the Civil War.

When evaluating American history in relation to slavery and the Civil War, it is important to note several additional facts:

  • Democrats were the pro-slavery party. Lincoln was a Republican and was more comfortable with slavery than were other Republicans, and thus Republicans have always said that no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor, and Democrats have always been willing to promise the fruits of other men’s labor to whoever would vote for them.
  • All of the most popular politically correct politicians would have been willing and eager to own slaves: Clinton, Kennedy, FDR, Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, Gore, etc.
  • Free blacks owned slaves.
  • Slavery was rampant in Africa (by Africans) before America, and it still exists in Africa today.
  • It is looking as if black families were more intact under slavery than they are now because government dependency is an atrocity; it is the new plantation; and it is unconstitutional.
  • Slaves in America revolted far less than in any other country because they were treated better (because the owners were on site).
  • European countries ended slavery only because it became impractical because of slave revolts (because the owners were off-continent).
  • Slavery was ending anyway because of the advent of farm machinery, such as the cotton gin.
  • Southern states were being oppressed and exploited by northern states before the Civil War, continued to be exploited after the war, and continue to be oppressed and exploited to this day.
  • Slavery was not one of America’s founding principles. Slavery contradicted America’s founding principles, and everyone knew it.
  • Frederick Douglass bashed the Constitution … until he read it. Then, he praised the Constitution as the best hope for blacks.
  • Black people in America today are much better off than black people in Africa, and thus have benefitted more than anyone from the enslavement of their ancestors.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Zeitgeist Trilogy vs. Reality

In order to understand what kind of society works and what kind does not, let’s analyze the Zeitgeist trilogy because they cover a lot of the subjects and fallacies I have encountered in the last few years. Perhaps they are the source of such fallacies.

The Zeitgeist trilogy is very good as explaining conspiracies, such as religion, 9/11, some examples of cronyism, and how banking currently works; but it has a very strong progressive socialist technocracy bias. It even has some very good material on history and psychology. However, whereas the film is 95% right about conspiracy and the supporting history and psychology; it is 95% wrong about economics and the supporting history and psychology. In fact, it is so wrong that such error cannot be an accident.

Its major correct themes, both direct and implied, are:

Its major wrong themes, both direct and implied, are:

  • America is the worst country in the world.
  • The Republican Party is the worst
  • Fox is the worst.
  • The above are the source of all conspiracy.
  • There is no long term or global conspiracy such as the NWO.
  • Capitalism is the worst.
  • Free-markets are the worst.
  • All money is necessarily based on debt.
  • The use of money is unsustainable.
  • Money should not exist.
  • Competition is evil.
  • Profit is evil.
  • Oil should not be used.
  • Governments as they are today are creations of the free-market.
  • Everything above is the cause of cronyism.
  • The more GDP rises, the worse things are becoming.
  • Automation causes unemployment.
  • There should be far fewer people in the world.
  • Pretty much all problems are caused by everything above.
  • The remaining people in the world should be ruled by the experts.
  • People can be molded into anything required to achieve utopia.
  • Genetics are pretty much irrelevant in human behavior.
  • Central planning works.
  • The experts will give all remaining people better health, happiness, abundance, efficiency, innovation, and most won’t have to work.
  • The experts will create a sustainable society.

Let's first look at just a few examples of the errors and fallacies that permeate every few seconds of any discussion of economics in these films. The continuous barrage of errors and fallacies in economics and any supporting history or psychology is so great that it would literally take a thousand hours to document and explain all of them, so I will only look at a few. Then we will discuss some of the more general fallacies in the film, and contrast them with what we know actually works and is consistent with human nature.

All of the film links below are from points in the third film in the trilogy, which is named "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward."

Zeitgeist says: Adam smith referred to "the invisible hand". Therefore, “God is eminent” (present) in the system. Therefore, the system is God because it says "in god we trust" on money.

Reality says: "The invisible hand" sounds ominous, but it just means that in a free-market: supply, demand, and prices reach a natural point of equilibrium, and innovation naturally occurs, all  because of the countless individual voluntary transactions where all parties are competing and thus trying to maximize their reputation while providing the best product for the price because otherwise the customer would go to a competitor. This spontaneous order all happens without government or regulation, almost as if there were an invisible hand guiding it – much like how evolution occurs without central planning, but on a much faster timeline. For example, as a resource becomes more scarce, its price goes up, and thus demand goes down. Spontaneous order and the invisible hand are beautifully explained in the essay, I Pencil, by Leonard Read. It is one of the best essays I have ever read.

The film not only takes "the invisible hand" out of context, but really overstated its case because no one thinks of the system (or the free-market) as God. It is ironic that the film makes the straw-man argument that advocates of a free-market see it as God; when it would in fact be far more accurate to say that socialists, progressives, and technocrats think of government as God. It is even more ironic given how the first film in the trilogy does such a good job at debunking religion in general (focusing mostly on Christianity BTW.)

Perhaps the greatest irony is how it continuously blames large systemic problems today on the free-market when in fact our system is nothing close to a free-market. We live in a collectivist technocracy with millions of pages of regulations where government and its experts have almost unlimited power, and these films want even more regulation and more redistribution of wealth. They want to double down on the failed, flawed, fatal policies of the past like central planning and regulation. I would say, "You know, that's what insanity is when you keep doing the same thing over and over again even though it clearly doesn't work." However, these films said it for me!

This is yet another example of how the films claim that money is evil, and yet when they do, they are always talking about fiat money based on debt and printed out of thin air by a monopoly like the Federal Reserve. It never occurs to the film makers that money is a product and just needs competition to solve all of the problems created by such a monopoly, which is largely at the root of What is Wrong With the People. Unfortunately, competition is also evil according to these films.

Zeitgeist says: If you step back far enough, you will realize that the GDP ... is mostly a measure of industrial inefficiency and social degradation, and the more you see it rise, the worse things are becoming with respect to personal, social, and environmental integrity.

Reality says: Rising GDP is primarily the result of more people and advancing technology. It is self evident that a person who can afford more advanced technology has a higher quality of life. GDP does measure economic activity even if it is the result of cronyism, and thus GDP can be misleading to that extent, but cronyism can only thrive under a collectivist government like what we have in every country in the world; whereas, an individualist free-market government would have little or no power to support cronyism, and thus a free-market can only exist under an individualist government (or under no government at all). Ironically, this film is attacking the free market instead of the collectivism that causes cronyism, and thus the film gets it backwards.

Zeitgeist says: You have to create problems to create profit. There is no profit under the current paradigm in saving lives, putting balance on this planet, having justice, and peace, or anything else.

Reality says: It is self-evident that you do NOT have to create problems to create profit. It is self-evident that a person would trade the fruits of his labor to save his life, to improve his environment, to have justice, peace, and everything else.

Zeitgeist says: There's an old saying, "Pass a law; create a business."

Reality says: “Pass a law; create a business.” would only be true under cronyism, which can only thrive under a collectivist government like what we have in every country in the world; whereas, an individualist government would have little power to create laws that would interfere with the free-market by causing the creation of unnecessary businesses, and thus a free-market can only exist under an individualist government (or under no government at all). Ironically, the speaker, Michael C. Ruppert, is attacking the free-market – not collectivism, and thus he gets it backwards – again.

Zeitgeist says: Planned obsolescence is the backbone strategy of every goods producing corporation in existence ... while often ignoring or even suppressing new advents in technology.

Reality says: It is self-evident that competition causes some companies to compete against planned obsolescence by making a long lasting innovative product. For example, my Honda is going strong after more than 16 years while requiring only one modest repair in that time. Competition from Japanese car manufacturers forced American car companies to start innovating and to improve quality in order to compete with Japanese cars. The only reason American car companies weren't already increasing quality and innovation was because of cronyism under a collectivist government. They had been a cartel because the collectivist government protected them from competition, which is the opposite of the free-market.

The preceding links should be sufficient to prove I am not making this up.

The second hour of the second film, Zeitgeist Addendum, is all about a "resource based economy" which is where no one would have to work and everyone would get everything for free in an economy that maximized innovation, efficiency, and sustainability in a society managed by experts. Most of the third film expands on that and occasionally contradicts it.

The film criticizes the market because it creates inequality, which is another straw-man argument because it is talking about inequality from unfairly acquired wealth. Whereas, any wealth differences in a free-market would be the result of voluntary transactions, and thus would be fair. It is the economy recommended by the film that is unfair because it is unfair to use coercion against the minority who are more productive and more innovative. Such an unfair collectivist society, ruled by experts, would be much like those societies under Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, or Hitler, which all produced rampant inequality and inefficiency, and which were all unfair ... and … well ... just mean. Centrally planned societies just creep me out.

This film, which advocates collectivist government and regulation, again blames the free market for the effects of collectivist government and regulation when it states the common fallacy that in a free-market no pharmaceutical company has an incentive to cure a disease because it is more profitable to treat it. The self-evident reality is that the absence of a cure would create an irresistible opportunity to create new companies to produce a cure as a way to outcompete those companies that already have a treatment. The only reason this doesn’t happen is because collectivist governments create regulations, and the real purpose of regulations is to protect cronies from competition. Zeitgeist gets it backwards again.

In spite of such embarrassing errors, this film goes beyond the usual claims that its authoritarian collectivist government will guarantee that everyone has the same amount of stuff, and that everyone will have abundance and the most advanced technology. The Soviets and others clamed that much (and we see how that worked out). This film goes even further by claiming that no one will have to work!

How would the central planning experts know what people want? They would take a survey!!!

So how can a centrally planned society work this time? Well, we are supposed to believe that none of them thought of using computers before and that no one cared about sustainability or the environment before, and that this time will be different.

The film keeps saying that it wants to apply science, and use only falsifiable ideas, and to abandon falsified ideas. Well … central planning has been falsified.

In the second film, everyone will be given two cars, a flying car, a high tech home, and ride around the world in 4000mph trains whenever they want, and it's all free, and no one has to work, but we discover late in the third film that people will only be given what they need.

These films don’t mention how the officials and experts will have  programmed their computers to place the needs of officials and experts above everyone else – much like how Soviet officials could drive in special lanes to avoid traffic, but that wouldn't be corruption or elitism – because we wouldn't call it that.

People would be so nice that they wouldn’t even label racists as bad. Racists would just need to be given treatment, which sounds like the rationale for reeducation camps, which are the most fascist thing ever created. Of course, they don't mention how other kinds of people would also need treatment, such as anyone who doesn't want to live under their system.

People would shop by checking out any product on the shelf in a store just like they would check out a library book, which assumes sufficient production, efficiency, resources, and volunteer labor that it would actually be on the shelf for you to check out, which assumes the last guy didn’t break it and didn't possess it any longer than the time he was using it, but why would he care? It’s not his. Needless to say there would be a need for informants in such a society. Creeepy.

The film doesn’t mention how, in order to make things fair and trackable, everyone would have to each be given the same amount of resource credits that they could spend. Resource credits wouldn't be "money" though ... because we wouldn't call it that.

Cars would be driverless. People can’t be trusted to drive.

The films never mention that they obviously would not allow people to have guns. If people can’t be trusted to drive then they certainly can’t be trusted with guns! Of course, their government would have guns, but they don’t mention that either. They never even directly mention that there would be a government.

Their thinking is captured succinctly in the American Progressive Manifesto.

Much later the film admits that some jobs would have to be done by a human. Would humans volunteer if they would get no more resource credits than before? America already tried communism under ideal conditions multiple times 400 years ago and it failed tragically every time because it was so incompatible with human nature because most people were shirkers. Then Denmark leaned the same lesson more recently.

What about innovators who would use extra resources if they had them to do research and create prototypes? Surely the computer would identify and allocate more resources to such individuals, so that would be yet another opportunity for corruption.

When they say their system would produce enough for everyone, they mean everyone in their ideal world, which would have far fewer people, but they don't admit that directly. We have to deduce what they believe from two of their statements: 1) We should not use any oil, and 2) "It is only because of oil that there are 7 billion people on this planet now." Therefore, we know they believe a much smaller population is a necessary and desirable requirement of their system, but it gets creepier than that.

Near the end of the third film, their actress smiles when she sees a news headline that says "Global protests shut down world economy." Therefore, we know the film makers would like to see that happen. Now consider how that would kill off a lot of people and create a pretext for a global government.

In the next moment, everyone is protesting in the streets and they take all their money (trillions), which happens to already somehow be in paper form, and dump it in front of the World Bank. There is supposedly no violence or death around this time, and then magically we find ourselves in their utopia. I guess they forgot to mention the billions of lives lost and the global police state that occurred before the global government decided to implement their utopia a.k.a. “The Venus Project” …

This reminds me of the book "The Marching Morons" in which a small minority of smart noble people chose to breed only with each other while everyone else became more stupid and petty over the centuries (like in Idiocracy), so the smart noble minority had to work overtime to do all the real work to keep society functioning, but they were too noble to think of a way to get rid of everyone else, so they went with an inferior person's plan to use mass marketing to trick everyone into boarding spaceships that would take them to utopia. Of course, the noble chosen people knew they were just sending the non-chosen into space to die, thus turning the Earth into a utopia for the noble chosenites. The fake utopia in space that lured everyone to their deaths was said to have been on Venus. Maybe that is why the centrally planned utopia ruled by experts to which Zeitgeist is trying to lure us is called ... The Venus Project ...

The reality is that Zeitgeist is promoting the New World Order agenda, and thus we see yet again …

Freedom is the Promise of Reality.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Why Globalists Want Texas to Secede

Suppose the President were a globalist and thus wanted global government, a global monopoly on the power to print money out of thin air, control over who gets what healthcare, control over what is taught in schools, recording of all phone calls and emails, no small farms, no self sufficiency, maximum dependence on government, mandatory treatments, and no guns in the hands of the people. There would be global peace because everyone would be obedient and know their place. Such a future is what globalists refer to as The New World Order.

If the President were such a globalist, then he would naturally be apoplectic at the thought of secession by a big and powerful anti-globalist state like Texas … right? … but nothing could be further from the truth.

Just as the globalists in Seattle outvote the individualists in the rest of Washington state; in the absence of Texas, the globalist pockets throughout the US would outvote the individualists in the rest of the US.

Whereas armed Americans now stand alone against the New World Order; without Texas, the rest of America would soon be disarmed; and then it would just be armed Texans who stood alone against the New World Order.

Then once the rest of the world were firmly under the New World Order, the entire world could simply invade Texas under the pretense of an invitation from some putatively “oppressed” minority, which would both motivate the world while demoralizing Texans – just as prescribed by Machiavelli.

Friday, May 22, 2015

The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is usually articulated as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The world would certainly be a happy, healthy, productive place if everyone followed the Golden Rule, and yet some misrepresent it.

For example, a masochist would have people beat him, so does the Golden Rule mean he should beat others? – OR – Does it mean the masochist would like for others to give him only what he wants, and thus he should give others only what they want?

A so-called liberal says that no one should take anything from a person like him by force, but that if he were like you, he would want others to use government to use the threat of force if necessary to take the fruits of his labor, so does that mean he should use the government to take the fruits of your labor? – OR – Does it mean that he would like for others to take nothing from him, and thus he should take nothing from you?

A progressive says that he should pay taxes and that government should have more money, and yet he never gives one penny more than necessary to government, and he will break the law whenever he can get away with it in order to give less to government, so does that mean he should want you to be punished for not paying taxes? – OR – Does it mean that he does not actually want to pay taxes, so he should not want you to pay taxes?

Fortunately, The Golden Rule is in our genes. It gives Nobility to those of us who carry the Soul of Humanity.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

George Washington Certain About Illuminati Conspiracy

In  the following letter from George Washington at the Library of Congress, he expresses his certainty about the Illuminati conspiracy that was infiltrating America and the Free Masons.

The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.

Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.

Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.

It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.

My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc.

Use the following links to find the transcript and images of the letter at the Library of Congress: Transcript, Page 1, Page 2.

The letter starts at the bottom of the first image:

George Washington Illuminati Letter Oct 24th, 1798 - page 1 of 2

George Washington Illuminati Letter Oct 24th, 1798 - page 2 of 2

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Did George Soros Give the Orders?

Let’s demolish the ubiquitous logical fallacy where people desperately try to maintain their normalcy bias by blurting, “They were not part of a conspiracy because the New World Order does not give them their orders.”

Players don’t need to give orders … and all sides are being played.

Suppose that you left your house and walked past a nearby hornets’ nest without incident every day for years. Now suppose that shortly before you next walked past the hornets’ nest, George Soros had thrown a rock at it and run off, and thus, inevitably, when you walked past the nest they attacked you.

Do the hornets work for George Soros? Does George Soros give them orders? Do they know about the conspiracy? Do they even know George Soros exists? Would it be fair to say that the hornets are useful idiots?

If you understand this analogy, then you can understand how Obama got elected, why both parties are the same side, how most wars happen, how most terrorism happens, how tyranny grows, why rich people support socialism, what happened in Ferguson (on all sides), what happened to Trayvon, what happened afterwards, etc.

Like I said, all sides are being played.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Mutual Aid Society Pledge

I propose the following guide/pledge for the members of a mutual aid society.

I make a non-legally binding pledge to uphold the following principles regarding my interaction with every sentient being:

Integrity – I will act with integrity, which means my principles will be consistent with each other. My positions (and beliefs) will be consistent with my principles. My decisions, actions, and inactions will be consistent with my principles. My life will be consistent with my principles. I will make personal sacrifices to live consistently with my principles. If I discover that my position is out of sync with my principles, then I will change my position. The end does not justify the means, which means that I will not violate my principles to promote my principles.

Open Minded – I will always be open to the possibility that I am wrong and that someone else is right.

Tolerance – I will be tolerant of that which does not violate my principles.

Responsibility – I will accept the personal debt I incur when I violate my principles. I will not appeal to government for aid.

Curiosity – When something is out of the ordinary or violates my principles, I will investigate.

Courage – I will overcome my fear to be true to my principles – my fear of pain, embarrassment, peer pressure, and the unknown.

Independent thought – I will trust my ability to think independently.

Honesty – I will not misrepresent myself or others. I will not obfuscate. I will not be evasive. I will not cheat.

Peace – I will not initiate force, violence, or physical aggression. I will not be passive aggressive. I will not be unnecessarily divisive. I will not respond to words with force.

Nobility – I will honor my agreements. If I created an expectation, I will try to honor it. If I would have agreed to someone’s unstated terms, then I will try to honor those terms now. I will treat others as I would like them to treat me – even when responding to an initiation of force or fraud. I will not invoke government against others. I will be a good neighbor. I will not be a dick.

Progress – I will leave the world a better place than if I had never existed. Not to be confused with American Progressivism, which violates many, and perhaps all, of my principles. I will actively  promote my principles and positions. I will not shut down debate. I will be a maker – not a taker.

I make the following non-legally binding pledge regarding my interaction with all other individuals who make this pledge.

I will offer mutual aid first to anyone I choose, then to those in my pod, then to those in my decapod, then my hectopod, then kilopod, etc.

I pledge to uphold first any amendments to this pledge made by myself, then by my pod.

I will support any unanimous decision made by everyone (including me) in my pod.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

The True Nature of Government

We have been played.


The opposite of government intervention is the free-market, where everything is voluntary, and thus the importance of earning a reputation relative to many competitors will drive all to maximize innovation and efficiency in order to give customers a better product for a lower cost. The absence of government barriers when starting new companies or inventing new products will maximize employment, innovation, and independence.

The potential for profit means that if people want something enough to pay for it, then a free-market is the system most likely to give it to them, and the fact that they can pay for it, means they did some honest labor that other people wanted enough to pay for it.

The free-market is the system that rewards those who are the most genuinely helpful. In the eternal war of makers vs. takers, the free-market rewards the makers; whereas, government rewards the takers.

If everything were voluntary, then that raises an obvious question:

In a free market, who would save a dying child?

The answer is:

In a free market, the child wouldn't be dying.

A free-market creates greater wealth and innovation, and thus the child is more likely to be healthier, and if the child still needed help, then more people would be able to help him, and better technologies would be available to help him. Poverty and primitive technology are the biggest killers, and government is the cause of both.

Regulation is one of the ways government creates poverty and retards innovation. For a product or industry where there are many competitors, the real purpose of regulation is to reduce the number of competitors so that only those competitors who are most favored by politicians remain. Once there are only about 1 - 3 competitors remaining, the real purpose of regulation is to create barriers to entry, which protects existing businesses by making it harder for new businesses to start up or grow.

Another purpose of regulation is that it makes people feel good, as if their votes and political activism fixed a problem. Perhaps more importantly, it makes people think the systems works. Like I said, we have been played.

It may be the case that government does not deserve any of the credit we give it. You may even conclude that government does more harm than good.


The problem with money is where it comes from, which is answered more fully if we look at how banks make money:

  1. The Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air and loans it to the banks who own the Fed, and thus receives interest on money it created out of thin air.
  2. The banks who own the fed can loan it out to us at a higher rate because we can't borrow from the Fed.
  3. For each dollar you deposit into a bank (even a bank that doesn't own the Fed), the bank is allowed to create about ten dollars out of thin air and loan it out to us.
  4. If the borrower of those dollars does not pay them back, then the bank can claim that as a loss, and thus pays less taxes. However the bank lost nothing because the money was printed out of thin air, and thus the tax deduction is profit for nothing.
  5. The Federal reserve is never audited, so it can create unlimited amounts of money for itself and we would never know.
  6. The Federal reserve is never audited, so the banks who own the Fed might never pay back what they received from the Fed, and we would never know.
  7. No one is allowed to compete with the Federal Reserve.

That last part “No one is allowed to compete with the Federal Reserve.” is the key. It makes all the others possible. Otherwise, we would use whatever money we wanted and Federal Reserve money would be worthless. This is an example of cronyism, and cronyism is at the heart of what is wrong with the government – and the country.

Why don’t we just use whatever money we want and ignore the Fed? As long as both parties in any trade agree, it’s no one else’s business. Right? After all, in a free country, money is a product, and it is a free country … isn’t it? ….

Like I said, we have been played.

As another example related to money, FDR forced all Americans to turn in their gold to the US government, who only paid them $20 per once when gold was worth $35 per once. Of course, FDR is also the one who put all Japanese Americans into a concentration camp …


Government is a monopoly on the right to initiate force or fraud within a border.

The primary purpose of government is to redistribute the fruits of our labor, which cannot be done without force. The reason government redistributes the fruits of our labor is because it can. Government claims the right to all of the fruits of our labor and does not have to give us anything in return.

Everything government does is backed with lethal force. Try not paying taxes and see what happens. The reason government bonds are considered a safe investment is because taxes are backed with lethal force. Even disobeying the smallest, stupidest, or most illegal of orders from a cop can get you killed with little or no repercussions for the cop. People killed 59 cops in 2014; whereas, cops killed 1100 people. Any ordinary person is far more likely to be killed or harmed by their own government than by a foreign threat. In the 20th century, over 100 million ordinary people were killed by their own governments.

In addition to government claiming the right to all of the fruits of our labor, it claims the right to spy on everyone, and President Obama claims the right to assassinate, torture, and indefinitely detain anyone, and he has already exercised all of these powers.

You can't opt out, and just claiming that you have opted out … simultaneously terrifies cops and empowers them to shoot you on site with impunity because you were a “sovereign citizen”. You can't opt out as a group either because that's secession, and although America was founded by secession, the US government (under Lincoln) stopped secession by acting on its willingness to kill every person in a seceding state and its willingness to sacrifice three times as many of its own people to do so.  600,000 died.

The US government even targets anyone who aspires to be more independent (e.g. self sufficient), such as family farms, preppers, and gun owners. Of course, it is whistleblowers who government targets most aggressively.

The US military now trains to fight civilian populations, and even trains to fight its own people. It even trains foreign troops to help it fight the American people. Also, the President has signed a treaty that would require him to disarm the American people, but the Senate has not ratified it yet.


The US government claims it is legitimate because it was created by the Constitution, but I didn't sign the Constitution. Did you? Nor would I sign the Constitution because either the Constitution authorizes the government we have or has been unable to prevent it.

The US government does not obey the Constitution anyway. The Constitution says the US government has no power at all except for a few specific powers granted by the Constitution, but for a long time, the US government has interpreted the Constitution as granting it unlimited power except where the Constitution explicitly states a limit. Of course, since 9/11, even explicit limits are ignored.

It may seem progressive to see government as limited to only implementing good ideas, but a government limited to implementing any good idea is not limited at all.

Is it legitimate for a government to implement a good idea that was supported by a majority – assuming the majority was not under duress? No.

Democracy is not legitimate. Only freedom is legitimate. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Freedom is a well-armed sheep.

Democracy is not only illegitimate, but it is not as good as it seems. Democracy's supposed success is mostly being in the right place at the right time in history, but even the people in the Soviet Union had a Constitution and could vote for anyone they wanted. Now, of course, democracy and rule of law are failing around the world. The legitimate alternative is Rule of Market.

We do not even have a democracy. If we did, Congress would not have only an 11% approval rating, and the federal debt wouldn’t be $57,000 per American. Do you have that in your account? What about the debt owed by your state, county, city, and school district? Is that what you voted for? I didn’t think so, but you got it anyway. That’s not democracy.

Fortunately, for you, the Federal Debt is also illegitimate because:

  • It is taxation without representation for young people.
  • We don’t really have democracy.
  • It was spent on unconstitutional programs.
  • Most purchasers were governments and hence illegitimate.

If your teacher in a government school disagrees with you about the nature of government, just point out that she is a government employee and thus has a conflict of interest. Furthermore, in the absence of school choice, the school itself is not legitimate.


Freedom of speech is a concept that is an absolute, so if you don’t believe in free speech for everyone, then you don’t believe in free speech at all. Laws and regulations are all backed with lethal force, and good guys don’t fight words with violence – ever.

If people have a right to health care, then how would that work? Would you force the doctor to perform services, or would you force taxpayers to pay the doctor enough so that he would voluntarily perform services? A right to health care is thus tantamount to a a right to the fruits of other men’s labor, but isn’t that the reason slavery is wrong … because no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor?

One cannot survive, let alone thrive, without performing labor and using his full intellect, and thus confiscation of the fruits of ones labor or limiting the use of his intellect constitutes a lethal threat.

You own yourself, and thus you own the fruits of your labor. It is thus your right to trade the fruits of your labor in any manor you choose.


Any well informed person knows that things are really messed up and that so many things just don’t add up. Somehow government solutions either don’t help, or actually make things worse, and the solution is always to double down on the failed, flawed, fatal policies of the past. The solution to government is always more government. Even when the people get exactly what they thought they wanted, it turns out to have been a trick. Either it is all coincidence and accident, or some of it is conspiracy.

It is fairly well accepted that for centuries, and possibly millennia, those who create money out of thin air (e.g. the owners of the Federal Reserve) and loan it to governments are also the ones who create problems – usually wars – that cause governments to borrow money from them.

In addition to the wars caused by bankers, we know that all of human history is full of conspiracies. We know that some recent conspiracies and their continuing cover ups include the creation of the Federal Reserve, the attack on the USS Liberty, the JFK assassination, COINTELPRO, the Franklin Scandal, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the LIBOR scandal. We know the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag. We know the NSA spies on everyone. We know the CIA puts up its own cell towers to capture everything our phones send and receive. We know the IRS targets pro-freedom individuals and organizations. The military knows that the government is often telling the people one story and then giving them orders that directly contradict that story.

Even with known conspiracies, have you noticed how Hollywood and the mainstream media are on the same page with government cover ups? Is there any topic on which the government and the media are not on the same page? Isn’t the only exception when the media attack some element of government who is not pro-government enough?  How can journalists be even more pro-government than government? Journalists are supposed to be government watchdogs – not government lapdogs.

Are pro-freedom words ever matched with deeds? How is it that the party that says it wants to empower the little guy is the party that wants to disarm the little guy? How is it that the party of choice is so rabidly opposed to school choice? How is it that so many billionaires, CEOs, and conservative leaders promote socialism? How is it that they also want to disarm the people?

There is one conspiracy and ongoing cover up that is so big we now know that any conspiracy is possible. The 9/11 conspiracy is chock full of smoking guns, but the best smoking gun is that four planes were hijacked, three hit their building, and the fourth plane never reached its building, World Trade Center 7, but the fourth building collapsed anyway – in a controlled demolition. Watch it here.

If you care about freedom or the future, then you should try to find out why conspiracies always try to discourage freedom and encourage more government, a police state, and global government. Also, why do these conspiracies span generations? Even George Washington was certain about what appears to be the same ongoing conspiracy. How many generations do they span? How far back does this go? Who is at the top? Certainly the owners of the Fed must be near the top.

Some people call the overall conspiracy The New World Order because that is what its proponents often say it publicly. It was explained very well in a short book by Gary Allen entitled: None Dare Call it Conspiracy. That was 45 years ago …

Regardless of the hidden elements, the evidence is in plain sight that any conflict being covered in the media is always used as a justification for more of a police state, and now that we know the level of conspiracy at play, we know that any conflict which leads to more government is no accident. For example, Ferguson was inevitable.

The Federal government trains police around the country to fear the people and shoot without hesitation. Then they give them armored vehicles, assault rifles, bullet proof vests and military training. An event like Ferguson was inevitable – sooner or later – somewhere. Then George Soros and the media spent a lot of money to agitate the residents of Ferguson. There were even agent provocateurs among the protesters. We thus see it is not necessary for the conspirators to directly control anyone or give explicit orders to further their agenda.

Like I said, we have been played.

In the eternal war of makers vs. takers, the conspirators are the takers, but the free-market rewards the makers, and it is government that rewards the takers. Government is thus the necessary medium in which the conspirators thrive. If we stop asking government to do stuff for us, then the conspiracy withers.


There is more at stake than just freedom or prosperity.

If we look at the bigger picture, at a level of consciousness that even the conspirators may not understand, the eternal war of makers vs. takers is part of the larger and more eternal war where the Soul of Animals is trying desperately to exterminate the Soul of Humanity.

The Soul of Animals was slowly losing ground for millennia. Then we really had it back on its heels in 1776. However, it began to rapidly regain lost ground around 1913, which is when the Federal Reserve was created.

Since then, hundreds of millions who carry the Soul of Humanity have been killed or neutralized by their own governments. Once the American people have been disarmed, there will be little to stop it from wiping the Soul of Humanity from the gene pool.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Sony Hack Looks Like False Flag

Obama and his FBI insist that North Korea hacked Sony to prevent Americans from seeing a movie, but just as with so many other stories from the Obama administration, this one looks more and more like a false flag with each passing day.

Obama even used this false flag as a pretense to threaten retaliation.

This article sums it up pretty well.

This reminds me in particular of the false flag pretense used by Obama when he so desperately wanted to attack Syria in 2013 because, like that one, this is a pretense to attack another country. This also reminds me of the false flag that was Benghazi in 2012 where Obama, like this time, claimed it was a video that provoked another country to attack.

The Myth of Obama is wearing pretty thin.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Maybe You Should Stand Down

The Police State is growing, but …

The Rapture is coming?
Maybe you should just stand down then ...

Unavoidable collapse will send us back to the Dark Ages?
Maybe you should just stand down then …

The-powers-that-be cannot be defeated or even exposed?

The cops are ready if you try anything?
The cops are your enemy? Not the people above them?

Global Warming is alarming and man-made?
Only global government can fix it?

Peak Oil is alarming?
Only global government can fix it?

Terrorism is alarming?
Only the police state can make you safe?
If you oppose the police state, you are a domestic terrorist?

Conspiracies don’t exist?
If you believe conspiracies, you are a domestic terrorist?

The free-market doesn’t work?
Your ideas don’t work?

What would creators of the Police State like you to believe …

Saturday, October 4, 2014

How To Win

You win when you uphold your principles in the face of fear and temptation.

A coward dies a thousand deaths.
A hero dies but once.

How can a man die better
than facing fearful odds,
for the future of our children,
and their freedom from our gods.

Does it profit a man to gain the world
and lose his very soul?

The world … is not enough.

Principles are universal. They are the Soul of Humanity.

Anyone can become the person he wants to be.

Monday, September 1, 2014

9/11 Conspiracy

Each paragraph is a synopsis of a link that provides compelling evidence of conspiracy in the cause and/or cover up of 9/11. Although this list should be more than sufficient to convince any independent minded person of conspiracy, consider that this is just a fraction of the compelling evidence. Also consider that the entire mainstream media has conspired to ignore all of this compelling evidence.

9/11 Summary by James Corbett – In this five minute video, James Corbett makes a pretty comprehensive, compelling, and entertaining argument packed with facts and supporting evidence making it pretty obvious that the official story on 9/11 is ludicrous and that powerful motives existed for an inside job.

WTC7 – The best single issue to start with is the little known fact that a third tower fell on 9/11 and the self-evident fact that it was a controlled demolition; whereas, the official story that came out several years later was that, what looked exactly like a controlled demolition, and which had been previously admitted [1] [2] [3] to have been a controlled demolition, was putatively the result of an ordinary office fire. Watch the videos here, and see for yourself that the official story cannot be true and can only be an intentional fabrication.

Flight 93 Debris Pattern – Multiple facts confirm that Flight 93 in Pennsylvania broke up in the air as if it had been shot down, which contradicts the official story, and the single most compelling of these facts is the debris pattern. The official story is that terrorists flew Flight 93 straight down into the soft ground of a land fill where it was instantly and entirely submerged with not one scrap of debris visible anywhere around the site and leaving only a modest gouge in the dirt. As ludicrous as the submersion of the flight sounds, we don’t need to debunk it directly to disprove the official story because the official story disproves itself by admitting that an engine was found one-half mile to the right of the crash and two more debris fields were discovered along the original horizontal flight path about three miles and nine miles away! The official story is that the debris had bounced to their final locations!

Molten Steel Proven but Denied - This video proves that molten steel at the site for 6 weeks following 9/11 existed and was well documented, and that NIST Lead Engineer, John Gross, denied the existence of molten steel at the site when asked about it by a citizen. Consider also that molten steel would have been compelling evidence of the use of thermite, which would have contradicted the official story.

Bill Cooper Predicted 9/11 – This video proves that anti-government extremist, Bill Cooper, predicted on 6/28/2001 that a major attack would be perpetrated a few weeks later by the “New World Order” and be blamed on Osama Bin Laden. It also explains how he was ambushed and killed by police on 11/5/2001. Shortly before that, Bill Cooper said that the same NWO forces that perpetrated 9/11 were hoping to perpetrate a false flag some day in the form of an alien attack, which sounds pretty far fetched until you consider that he was right about the 9/11 false flag …

Monday, August 4, 2014

American Progressive Manifesto

We American Progressives believe it is self-evident that government has the power (or should have the power) to implement any good idea, and that when we are all on the same page, everyone benefits, but now, let’s think for ourselves, and explain why.

Effective government is necessary for the health and prosperity of everyone today and for future generations. A threat to government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.

Government has some powers delegated from the power of individuals, such as the power to borrow and spend, and government also has unique powers that may not be legitimately exercised by individuals independently of government, such as the power to kill or to tax other individuals. Government thus has these unique powers, not because they were delegated by individuals who do not possess such powers, but because those individuals agreed to be bound by government.

We know that 97% of individuals, if given the  choice, would agree to be bound by government rather than live without the benefits of government. Every individual instinctively knows that his life without government would be short, nasty, and brutish.

Although we would like to grant the 3% the right to live without government, many of those reactionaries would not get vaccinated, and many more would possess weapons. Therefore, it is self-evident that the health and prosperity of the other 97% dictate that all 100% of individuals must agree to be bound by government.

Everyone must be bound by government at all times, even when they disagree – especially when they disagree. Otherwise, Rule of Law would devolve into chaos and threaten the health and prosperity of everyone. No one can be above the law.

While we Progressives do not always agree with each other, we always accept the authority of government because effective government requires that 100% accept the authority of government. Anyone who does not accept the authority of government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.

We are glad government forces us to pay taxes because even the most noble progressive are only human, and we would not always voluntarily pay taxes if we could avoid it. We know that about ourselves because we are also the most in touch with reality, and yet, we are so noble that we want to be forced to pay taxes anyway because we must for the health and prosperity of everyone.

Some governments have committed atrocities in the past, but we will not let our governance commit atrocities. However, individuals and businesses will always allow themselves to be ruled, and thus, if Progressives do not rule, then a worse faction would rule. Any other faction would be less effective and may even commit atrocities, and thus a threat to our rule is a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone. In other words, we are the good guys, in the vernacular, as it were.

Given that we are the good guys, and that we know we are right, then if we think for ourselves, we can deduce many other self-evident corollaries, such as the fact that it is OK to lie to maintain our rule. Such action is not only OK, but it is indeed noble. It is the Noble Lie advocated by Plato.

For all these reasons, it is thus legitimate for progressives to take any action up to and including killing any number smaller than a majority in order to maintain our rule. Obviously, if we had to kill a majority to maintain our rule, then our rule would not have been legitimate. We are people of principle after all.

More important than maintaining our rule is defending government itself. Government would be justified in killing a majority rather than letting anarchy prevail. Then, at least, the surviving minority would have the blessings of government.

More important than maintaining government and defending our rule is defending the future. For example, defending the planet is the most critical element of defending the future, and thus we would be justified in killing all but a tiny remnant of individuals if that were necessary to stop a threat to the planet, such as Global Warming, but of course, if it were possible to save the planet by merely sterilizing (instead of killing) all but a small remnant of humanity, then we would do that instead.

Another threat to the future is bad genes. In order to improve the human gene pool, it could be necessary to kill and/or sterilize all but small remnant of humanity. It should be self-evident that any such eugenics program should begin with those reactionaries who are least progressive.

By now it should be clear that only by our rule can everyone experience the full blessings of government; and though we mean to rule with benevolence, make no mistake, we mean to rule.


I have spent years arguing with self-proclaimed American Progressives both face-to-face and online, and I have watched the words and deeds of many others. Therefore, I was able to write their manifesto, including all of their cognitive dissonance, logical fallacies, and self-delusion. They could have written it themselves if they were able to be that articulate and that honest with us and with themselves about their real goals and motives.

In other words … I can out them …

Progressivism in America can be summarized as the Soul of Animals trying desperately to exterminate the Soul of Humanity.

Never forget that most (maybe all) humans carry the Soul of Humanity and not just the Soul of Animals, so perhaps all Progressives can be saved from the wrong side of history if we appeal to the soul of their humanity and if we change the perverse incentives of our society that keep pressuring them to double down on the failed, flawed, and fatal polices of the past. Ironically, it is American Progressives who are doing the most to hold back progress and thereby delaying the next great leap forward for humanity.

To be clear, not every progressive is as ready as their elites, such as Obama’s progressive science czar, to perpetrate democide, genocide, and eugenics, but they would of course go along with their elites – some eagerly and some reluctantly. Those who would go along reluctantly simply don’t that about themselves yet.

Although Progressive elites see those dependent on government as useful idiots, they do not realize that they are the useful idiots for a higher elite. nor do they realize that American Progressivism is actually … fascism.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Rule of Market – The Next Leap Forward

History began with the Rule of Man, which is where those who make the law are not accountable to those under the law, and those who make the law are above the law. The law is thus likely to be inefficient, subjective, arbitrary, and applied unequally. Government under the Rule of Man is illegitimate because people only support it under duress, and no competing law is allowed. Government under the Rule of Man is also a monopoly on the right to initiate force or fraud within a geographical boundary.

A great leap forward from the Rule of Man was the Rule of Law, which is where those who make the law are accountable to those under the law, and no man is above the law. Unfortunately, government under the Rule of Law is still not legitimate because most people support it only under duress, and no competing law is allowed. Like under the Rule of Man, government under the Rule of Law has always been a monopoly on the right to initiate force or fraud within a given geographical boundary. These remaining drawbacks with the Rule of Law are harmful in their own right, but they are also the seeds of its inevitable regression back to the Rule of Man – unless we evolve further.

The next great leap forward will be the Rule of Market, which is where the law is a product like any other. An individual could produce his own law, or choose one of the products produced by others, or choose no such product at all. The market would be the judge. Government under the Rule of Market would allow competition, and few, if any, would purchase law that claimed the right to initiate force or fraud against them.

In the Rule of Market, the law is voluntary – just like any other product. In fact, everything is voluntary. Even money is just a product like any other.

How Rule of Market Works

It will be necessary to look at some everyday examples to understand the Rule of Market because, although it is quite simple, it is quite difficult to understand given a lifetime of conditioning by television and government schools and universities. Such conditioning promotes a single groupthink while squashing the imagination, independent thought, and critical thinking skills that would allow one to escape the groupthink.

We will look at two everyday examples. In the first example, you will have discovered that you entered into an unfair contract. In the second example, you will observe how the Rule of Market deals with gang violence and how tragedy is eventually overcome with hope and unlimited potential.

In both examples it should be clear that Rule of Market is simply individual freedom, which has always been more compatible with human nature, and which unlocks the healthy potential of self-interest, competition, and reputation, whose benefits are further magnified by today’s tools, such as the Internet, cameras, and guns.

Breaking an Unfair Contract

Eventually, under the Rule of Market one could be confident about entering into any kind of agreement without being cheated or tricked, but to see how such harmony would have evolved, it will be necessary to go back to an earlier point.

Suppose you voluntarily entered into a contract with another party because, although they had a mediocre reputation, they offered terms that were just too good to pass up, which they had to do to compete with those who had better reputations. Then you discovered you were tricked, and so you decided it was in your best interests to only fulfill the part of your contractual obligation you felt was fair. You would then be wise to make your case on the Internet for two reasons. The first reason is because in the future, other parties (the market) would look at your reputation and decide on what terms (if any) they would be willing to enter into any given type of contract with you. The other reason is because the other party will be making its case on the Internet as well, and the claims by the other party could hurt your reputation if you allow them to go unchallenged.

You would be wise to hire an advocate to help you produce your side of the story. The role of such an advocate would be similar to the purpose of a lawyer today.

You would want to maintain an online presentation that explains how your principles would guide you to react in certain scenarios and how you are defining your terms. You could think of your statement of principles as your law. One purpose of such a presentation would be to let potential partners know what kind of agreements you might find acceptable as well as what to expect once you entered an agreement. Another purpose would be to make it harder for anyone else to misrepresent you, and yet another purpose would be a guide for your children. Your statement of principles is another place where you could hire an advocate to help you produce it.

You would want to hire one or more reputation rating companies to publish an evaluation of your side of the story. Let’s refer to such companies as Reputation Bureaus. Such a role would be similar to the purpose of a credit rating agency. Each reputation bureau would decide whether your actions were consistent with the expectations you created with your statement of principles. They would decide the extent to which your actions were justified given the objective facts of the case, and they would decide the extent to which your actions were justified given the ambient culture. They would also be evaluating your side according to their well publicized rules, which could be thought of as their “law”. Then they would adjust your reputation score accordingly, and of course, the weight of their decision would depend on their own reputation. Every reputation bureau would have an independent rating for you.

You would want to pay more to choose a reputation bureau with the best reputation, which is one that understands it cannot afford to ever appear biased or to have cheated in any way. Otherwise, its rating would carry far less weight with others. Its reputation would also depend on its law being fair and unambiguous.

Note that if your statement of principles and your contract used common components found in other statements and other contracts, then evaluation would be easier and thus cheaper. On the other hand, if you are like me and insist on a custom statement of principles, then you should expect to pay more.

Suppose the reputation bureaus you hired decided that your actions were consistent with your stated values and were thus expected, and that overall your actions were mostly justified both objectively and given the ambient culture. Also, your actions were mostly acceptable under their law. Therefore, given a potential future contract, the other party would probably just look at your reputation score and decide that they would be willing to contract with you (in spite of your having broken a previous contract), but that party might for a slightly higher interest rate (or slightly more collateral) to reduce its risk.

We chose your case because it was a tipping point. Your reputation bureaus each decided that to some extent the other party had intentionally tried to trick you, and that their behavior was part of a pattern, and thus they dinged the other party’s reputation considerably. The other party knew this was the likely decision and thus hired their usual reputation bureau who they could depend on to give them a good rating. However, a few years of propping up the bad behavior of such companies had also cost their reputation bureau some of its reputation.

Just as the other party’s reputation had been propped up, their reputation bureau’s reputation had been propped up by other dishonest reputation bureaus. Over time the dishonest companies and reputation bureaus had learned they could only depend on each other to maintain their reputations, and thus they were vulnerable to sudden crash – like a stock market bubble that had gotten too out of sync with reality.

Your case precipitated a cascade over the next few months where the other party and all of its cronies lost most of their reputation with the honest reputation bureaus and thus lost most of their business so suddenly that they had to liquidate their assets, which were bought up and put to better use by their honest competitors.

The people called it creative destruction.

The Future

Given just the one example about breaking an unfair contract, it should be clear how one would finally be free to pursue one’s dreams while simultaneously choosing to act more responsibly – all because one would value one’s reputation even more than one values one’s credit rating today, but the full benefit of the Rule of Market goes so much deeper than that. It could apply in any conceivable day-to-day scenario, and thus one’s reputation would be more important in every conceivable scenario.

When every person in every scenario is finally free to pursue their dreams while having a powerful incentive to act more responsibly, then the result can only be more peace, safety, productivity, innovation, wealth, and happiness. The advent of the Rule of Market would be the dawn of a new renaissance like nothing we have ever seen before – a never ending Golden Age beyond anything in history.

Unfortunately, we are no longer moving forward. We are now moving backwards towards the Rule of Man. For example, Obama claims the power to spy on anyone, to indefinitely detain anyone, and even to assassinate anyone without due process, without accountability, and without transparency, and he has already exercised all of these powers.

We are moving back to the Rule of Man because governments are absolutely terrified of the Rule of Market because it is becoming clear to the people that the primary purpose of government is to force a majority to give their time, to give the fruits of their labor, and to even give their lives and their children for a goal they would not find worthy of such sacrifice … such as wars, pyramids, cronyism, propaganda, censorship, reeducation camps, false flags, genocide, slavery, redistribution of honest wealth, and disarming the people.

The End of Violence

Next, let’s explore how violence would be virtually nonexistent in a society built on the Rule of Market. First, we would have to go back to a point before the initiation of force and fraud had become almost non-existent to find out why such behavior had become so rare.

Suppose a society had adopted the Rule of Market not quite three years ago, and some people still did not value their reputation. In this case Leroy’s daughter Jada had dated a young thug, Jamal, who thought his gang membership protected him from the Rule of Market.

After Jada decided to end the relationship, Jamal decided to break into the family’s home at night and make her leave with him. He brought his four badest gangstas with him and they all had Glocks.

Before the advent of the Rule of Market, the gang’s strategy would have worked, but under the Rule of Market, families had changed. Most people understood that every family was responsible for its own safety and completely free to provide that safety. Most people also understood that everyone’s future had become unlimited, and perhaps most importantly, most people understood that everyone had become free to do the right thing.

Leroy and his neighborhood guardians always did the right thing, and their individual reputations reflected that; whereas, Jamal and his gang, the last gang in their neighborhood, often initiated force or fraud, and their reputations reflected that.

Jamal did not understand that under the Rule of Market, most people, including Jada, had developed hope and a sense of self-esteem. She would not come back to him like other girls had done before. She had thought she could change him, but she now understood that she could not.

Jamal shot the door several times and it would not budge. The gang then had to expended about 90 rounds before they were finally able to kick it in. This only took 50 seconds, but they were pretty mad at this point because they had first encountered a door like this just two weeks before, although in that case no one had been home and they had been in no particular hurry. The only thing Jamal and his gang had learned from that experience was to wear hearing protection when shooting a door. Jamal did not learn how lucky he was that no one had been home.

Leroy and his neighborhood guardians had known that Jamal and his gang were likely to try this. It was their MO. That is why Leroy, at great personal risk to himself, had tried one last time earlier that day to explain to Jamal and his gang why they should disband like the other gangs.

Leroy tried to convey the hope that had spread through the community, and through the whole damn country. He tried to explain how they were living the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream. They were free at last! But the gang followed the Reverend Dr. Al Harpton Varakan Jackson, who preached how the country owed them and had abandoned them.

Leroy explained how Jada wasn’t like girls around there used to be and how Jada was proud and full of hope, but that just made Jamal more determined to take her.

Those 50 seconds bought by the reinforced door were sufficient for Leroy and his man inside and the two guardians nearby to take up their positions. One of them was so nervous that he suddenly laughed out loud when he remembered how they used to say, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

As they kicked the door in, Leroy had a chance to yell “stop or we’ll shoot”. Jamal and his gang took that as a challenge because they were wearing class II body armor that had stopped 9mm rounds before. They did not understand that their body armor would not stop a 5.56mm 62 grain round. Hence, they didn’t give Leroy time to say anything else.

Leroy had been very careful not to disrespect anyone in the gang earlier that day – even when they tested him, which they interpreted as a sign of weakness, but they let him go without harm. He didn’t dare tell them about the two snipers watching over him, or they would have reacted in a way that would have cost them their lives. When Leroy got home, he cried for a long time.

When Jamal heard Leroy release the charging handle on his AR-15 somewhere deep in the house, he did not understand that someone was truly willing, let alone able, to stand up to him. No one had done that before, and besides, he had his gang with him, and they had body armor.

The gang each had only two or three rounds left because they had never needed spare magazines before. They randomly fired all of their remaining rounds in about  three seconds – hitting nothing. No one was within 30 feet of them.

Three seconds later they were all on the ground dying, and the guardians came to them at great personal risk, and tried to help. The adrenaline would not yet let them feel the emotional weight of the tragedy before them – the lost potential of these young men – what they could have been – until a dying gang member whispered, “I could have been a doctor.”

In just a few seconds, all of the guardians had begun sobbing uncontrollably, and the whole neighborhood came out and sobbed with them.

The guardians hired the best reputation bureau they could afford. They even sold some possessions and borrowed some money to do it. It was that important.

The company’s name was The Soul of Humanity because its law was based on The Soul of Humanity. It was physically based in Austin, Texas.

The guardians had not been able to afford the video surveillance that would have exonerated them more quickly and more thoroughly, but given the relative reputations of the survivors and the deceased, and given the testimony of witnesses and the reputations of those witnesses, the reputation of the guardians had actually increased. Nevertheless, they had killed, and there was no video, so they would be on a kind of probation for a about three years.

The story became a national story, and the The Soul Of Humanity gave them each a one year advertising contract worth fifty times  the fee they had paid. That was more than the going rate, but that fact only added to the good will and new business received by the company.

One month later a sniper killed the Reverend Dr. Al Harpton Varakan Jackson, and no one cared enough to investigate. In his arrogance, the Reverend had refused to pay money to “the man” to buy insurance to investigate any initiations of force or fraud against him. Even his personal body guards lacked the will to do anything about it, nor did they have the skills to do anything about it.

Gang activity in that first year had skyrocketed before being fought down to its original level. Then it fell to 20% of its original level during the second and third year. but with the story of Leroy and his guardians, gang activity in the forth year dropped to 1% of its original level.

It would not be accurate to say that the gangs simply dissolved, instead, most transformed from thugs into guardians. Those who were once takers had become makers.

Who will build the ROADS!?

The advent of The Rule of Market was widely understood and anticipated, and yet, some people had still been apoplectic with shrieks of "Who will build the ROADS!?" In a nutshell, the answer was, "The same people who build them now." After all, how did we get the cars that drove on those roads, or computers or smart phones, and our houses, and the roads in front of our houses ... ? Of course, what such alarmists had really meant was, "For each new road, who would force dozens or even thousands of people to give up a piece of their land?" The alarmist minority needn't have been so apoplectic because it worked out exactly as most people expected.

The third such incident under the Rule of Market was the Springfield Bypass. It would raise the value of all property directly along its route, so everyone along the route wanted it and were thus willing to pay for it; whereas, some of those owning businesses along competing roads might lose some business and thus were not willing to pay for any of the bypass, so they didn't. However, there was one individual land owner along the ideal route, Mr. Schittstein, who would also benefit from the new road but who was holding out as a way of extorting the others to give him money.

In the first such incident, the holdout, Mr. Freeman, had good reason to believe that he would lose a small amount of business, so his neighbors compensated him. However, in the second such incident, the holdout, Ms. Princess, would have actually benefitted, but the people had decided to pay her anyway because she had not been excessively greedy. Furthermore, the reputation bureaus did not yet have sufficient precedent to ding the reputation of Ms. Princess. The example of Ms. Princess emboldened Mr. Schittstein to insist on too much money. He asked for 95% of the cost to route around his property safely, so his neighbors called his bluff and built the road around his property. They felt the 5% extra cost was, as one neighbor put it, "Totally worth it." The result was known locally as, "Schittstein's Curve," which, his neighbor’s learned, gave Schittstein an odd satisfaction.

Occasionally, the folks along the Springfield Bypass would offer to pay to replace the bypass with a route through Mr. Schittstein's property, but no matter what they offered, he always held out for more. He had understood that even with the best of safety precautions, this was to be the first such bypass, and thus someday, some oversight might cause someone to get hurt if the road were forced to go around his property, but he had been unmoved, and his reputation did not suffer for it given the early stages of the Rule of Market. Subsequent extortion was dampened, fortunately!, as the reputation bureaus rapidly adapted.

Although it would have been immoral to go back and judge Mr. Schittstein by rules that did not exist at the time, needless to say, Mr. Schittstein was the kind of person whose reputation would plummet in the future if he did not learn to treat others as he would like them to treat him, but whereas, most people learned such lessons very quickly under the Rule of Market, Mr. Schittstein did not. Eventually his wife left him as his reputation continued to plummet until, one day, tragedy struck ...

There had never been an injury on the Springfield bypass, but Schittstein's neighbors, the Goodmans, had relatives coming in from out of town to show off their new baby. They were tired and had let their teenage daughter drive the last little bit. Her inexperience combined with Schittstein's Curve had banged them up pretty good, and in an improbable confluence of events, it had cost them the life of their newborn infant ...

It was virtually impossible to get away with violence under the Rule of Market, but the Goodmans were not thinking clearly when they forced entry into Mr. Schittstein's house, where they proceeded to beat Mr. Schittstein to death as he continued to display a total lack of remorse to the end.

The reputation bureaus, had plenty of precedent by this time, and the relative reputations of the Goodmans vs. Schittstein combined with the video footage from multiple sources was such that the verdict from every bureau was, in the vernacular, "Schittstein had it coming."

Just three years later, the amazing golden age brought by the Rule of Market had produced the kind of wealth and innovation that would have saved the Goodman’s baby, but such wealth and technology was never needed in another such case because in the 75 years since, there has not been another Schittstein under the Rule of Market.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Democracy is Illegitimate

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Democracy is not freedom, morality, or rule of law.

Democracy seems better than it actually is because it is new and because it is known to have followed bad monarchies or theocracies, and thus those new democracies consisted of people who had learned the evils of government (i.e. taxation, inflation, regulation, conformism, censorship, double standards, cronyism, false flags, gun confiscation, democide, genocide, slavery). What most people don't know is that those same things can also happen under the newer concept of democracy too once the culture who formed the democracy no longer understands why it revolted.

Democracy seems better than it actually is in comparison to other forms of government because it has primarily existed in the age of radio, then television, and now the Internet and digital cameras. Therefore the evil forces at work in all governments have naturally been forced to evolve more slowly, be more secretive, hide behind more layers of front men, and adopt far better PR mechanisms – all to stand up to greater scrutiny.

Democracy seems better than it actually is because it was created and evolved at a time when the people owned guns, and thus governments had to be more respectful of the people.

Democracy seems better than it actually is because it was usually created at the same time as a constitution or a bill of rights that captured the lessons learned by the generation who revolted.

Although democracy is not inherently good, it is not as inherently evil as less democratic forms of government because it must please a larger segment of the population.

Therefore, government has improved a only a little because of democracy; whereas, government has mostly improved because of armed citizenry, revolutions, radio, TV, Internet, digital cameras, constitutions that incorporate lessons learned by those who revolted, and because those lessons learned limited government to those actions that pleased a larger percentage of the people, which has slowed the propagation of evil.

Unfortunately, that is still not good enough or else we would not have the problems we have today. In fact many of the problems we have today are the unintended consequences of past government action. One cannot overemphasize that democracy can still be very evil. Consider Obama's DHS and consider What is Wrong with the People.

The path forward is clear. Why not limit government to those actions that please an even larger percentage of the people?

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Investing: Professionals vs. Individuals

I have heard many myths that claim the small investor shouldn’t waste his time and money, but some of the most annoying are the following:

Why should individual investors even try? After all, how can they outperform professional investors?

- or -

In any trade, one of the two parties is the fool, so if you are uncertain which is the fool, then the fool is probably you.

Common sense alone is sufficient to see through these myths, but a little general knowledge of the economic reality can help to further debunk them.

First, note that many small investors are ineffective for many reasons, but being a small investor is not one of those reasons. It is actually an advantage.

Some advantages of large investors are vanishing; whereas, many disadvantages have always existed. Also, small investors don’t have to outperform large investors to make a profit.

Some examples of why small investors don’t have to outperform large investors to make a profit are:

  • Small investors are also competing against other small investors.
  • The best small investors are clearly better than the worst professional investors.
  • It is not a zero sum game. Suppose CDs, bonds, and savings accounts will give you anywhere from 1% to 5%, so you buy an asset because you will make 10%, and the seller is another small investor who actually is making a better decision than you because he will use that money to buy another asset that will make 20% profit, and suppose that small investor bought that asset from a professional who will use the money to buy an asset that will make him 30%, etc.

Examples of how some advantages of large investors have been vanishing are:

  • Small investors now have far more information thanks to the Internet.
  • Commissions on small trades are now about 80% cheaper than 20 years ago.
  • Small small investors can perform trades as quickly as professionals now.

The disadvantages of large investors that have existed much longer than 20 years can be summarized as how small investors don’t have the constraints of large investors. For example:

  • Large investors have to find a place to put more money, so they can’t just put it all in their first choice.
  • Small investors are free to take their money off the table when there are no good options for them (or even to invest in their education or health) until financial investments become worth their effort again; whereas, professional investors must always choose some financial investment.
  • Small investors are free to admit that they lack insider information, publicly available information, natural intelligence, competence, etc.; whereas, professional investors would lose their job if they admitted any of these things.
  • Professional investors have to spend a lot of time dealing with corporate politics, such as other professionals trying to torpedo them.
  • Professional investors must be more conservative. A single embarrassing investment mistake could be the end of their career.
  • Professional investors cannot afford to look as if they are going against the experts or the crowd, so they cannot risk exposing themselves to alternative news, conspiracy theories, etc. or else they might believe some of it, and if they believe some of it, then they might repeat some of it, and if they repeat some of it, then they will lose the confidence of their clients and/or employer, which is a disadvantage because:
    • The mainstream is often wrong:
      • Economics professors are usually wrong.
      • Economists are usually wrong.
      • Economics is mostly about politics rather than science.
      • The newspaper of record (the NYT) is usually wrong about economics.
    • The alternative media is often right:
  • Large investors therefore act within a narrow range; whereas, individuals are free to think outside the box.
  • Small investors can thus act based on the conformism and (thus predictability) among large investors; whereas, large investors cannot depend on conformism among millions of individuals each having a different world view, different risk threshold, and who are free to think outside the box.
  • Individual investors live in the real world; whereas, large investors live in an artificial world.