This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Institutionalized Tyranny and Serfdom
Institutionalized Tyranny and Serfdom
By
Joe Withrow
Author of “The Individual is Rising”
For more original articles like this please visit TwoIceFloes.com. On the left content sidebar of the home page you may subscribe to our periodic newsletter.
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
Modern society does not care much for the individual. National interest, public policy, and the common good are held up as the ideal. We still hear lip service paid to the individual rights of man on occasion, but only within the context of individual servitude towards one or another State-driven collective goal. Of course these goals are presented as moral and upright, but there is a little catch – no one can truly opt-out of supporting the chosen goals. The State, in all its benevolence, is going to take your money to support the collective goals of society whether you like it or not.
Sadly, most individuals buy right into their societal servitude because the default programming does such a great job of convincing individuals of their own ineptitude. The default programming steers individuals away from their own interests and passions and funnels them onto the same “lifestyle path” on which they are pushed to “be a productive member of society”.
The government educational system is the leadoff hitter in the programming lineup and children have been relinquished to the educational blob at progressively earlier ages over time. Kindergarten was developed to precede First Grade. Then Preschool was developed to precede Kindergarten. Now we have pre-Preschool in place to precede Preschool. We guess they ran out of creative names for this last one.
So the kids are herded into government schools where their creativity, critical thinking ability, and common sense are systematically destroyed. They learn to unquestioningly obey their superiors at all times and to ask for permission to go to the restroom. To top it off, the kids are spoon-fed faulty history and they are taught that government is a righteous institution forever and always seeking to make their life better. Their teachers are mostly decent folks, mind you; they just don’t understand what government really is either.
Perhaps worst of all, students are conditioned to never seek a deeper understanding of the world around them and to never focus on discovering and developing their passion. Instead, students quickly learn that grades and social status are the only worthy goals to be sought after.
The next leg of the default programming is college. The kids were constantly told for at least a decade that they absolutely must go to college in order to be successful in life, so they load up on federal student loan debt when they hit 18 and march off to whatever college will have them.
While there are certainly some exceptions, especially in the more specialized fields, most students quickly learn that college is just another system to be gamed and completed. Attaining the highest grades possible with the least amount of work is the name of the game for most students – just like it was in high school. Social status is still a viable goal as well, but the playing field has changed. Instead of football games and dances, social status is now earned in the basements of dirty fraternity houses with an abundance of crappy beer.
Students have been through 16-20 years of default programming within government-approved educational institutions by the time they graduate college. Amazingly, a vast majority of these students have learned nothing about money, capital, or finance, and most are completely oblivious to how the world that awaits them actually works. The poor saps that majored in finance or economics have actually learned less than nothing about money, capital, and finance and they come out with a completely warped view of the subjects.
Most graduates have seen each level of their education as an obstacle to struggle through so they take that mentality with them to the next level of the default programming – the corporate rat-race.
Once in the rat-race, our degree-wielding worker bees struggle through the work-week and then pursue all manner of entertainment every weekend, regardless of the cost. The dirty frat-house is traded for a metropolitan bar and the cheap beer might be upgraded to something a little better, bottom-shelf liquor perhaps.
Now that they are responsible adults, they watch the news and discuss current events around the water cooler at work. But there is a little problem: the news is propaganda mixed with celebrity worship which serves to warp priorities and paint a distorted view of how the world actually works.
Thanks to this wonderful system of default programming, most good citizens come to believe things like:
- The foreign wars raging in some desert thousands of miles away are being fought to protect my freedom here in the United States; after all, they hate us for our freedoms.
- The TSA must grope and harass all of us before we travel so they can keep us safe from the bad guys.
- Social Security is a noble program that just needs a little tweaking to make it more economical.
- The government absolutely had to bail-out the Banks with my money for my own good.
- The $17,500,000,000,000.00 national debt is no big deal – we borrowed it from ourselves.
- Quantitative Easing is a very complicated monetary procedure designed to stimulate the economy; it is in no way, shape, or form a method to steal from me and perpetuate a massive Ponzi scheme.
- The economy is recovering marvelously and my job prospects for the future are looking bright – my goal is early retirement!
- Everything will be wonderful if we can just get everyone to vote for better leaders.
Of course there is a major gap that cannot be explained between these beliefs and what is actually taking place in the world which creates a great deal of cognitive dissonance within much of the population.
The simple fact is: this is not what a free society looks like.
Okay, so American culture may be a little schizophrenic. So what? Why should we care? We believe in laissez-faire and non-intervention, so how is it our problem?
Well, despite our best efforts we still have a sense of justice. We just can't keep quiet while the default programming converts unwary human beings with infinite potential into willing victims of the collectivist Ponzi.
You see, the default programming is designed to trick individuals into giving away their power – first to school teachers, then to professors, then to bosses, and always to government thugs and globalist bureaucrats. All of that personal power is then used to further strengthen the systems of enslavement. Of course the school teachers, professors, corporate middle managers, and the petty government officials and bureaucrats do not have a clue that this is what they are really doing – they have bought the propaganda proclaiming them heroes working for the common good of mankind.
Truth be told, we also have selfish reasons for opposing the default programming and schizophrenic culture – we are poorer because of them. The default programming has created a lifeless economy where zombies consume a very large percentage of the ever-dwindling wealth.
Roughly fifty percent of the American population is now directly receiving some form of payment or benefit from the government – this is common knowledge. On top of that fifty percent, there are numerous zombie industries consuming massive amounts of wealth – very nearly all of which is redistributed to these zombies from the small productive sector of the economy.
The military-industrial complex destroys massive amounts of wealth in order to build tanks and planes and missiles to sell to the government – much of which are obsolete by the time they are sold and the rest are used to cause havoc in faraway deserts (for democracy, of course). Government subsidized Big-Agra works to create Frankenfood which serves to squeeze the small-time farmer out of business and also wreak havoc on the health of the American population.
Meanwhile Big-Pharma works diligently to create dishonest drugs and government-mandated vaccines designed not to cure anything, but rather to temporarily placate all of the serious and not-so-serious symptoms that frequently plague people addicted to genetically-engineered processed food loaded with high fructose corn syrup and MSG while perpetuating sickness and obesity – at a massive profit margin of course. Local governments get into the wealth destruction act by authorizing and funding (at least partially) SWAT teams, military grade weapons, and sometimes even tanks for small police departments. Something about Middle America seems to scare the daylights out of the "authorities".
All of this misallocation of capital and wealth destruction is made possible by the Federal Reserve System and its banking sector which perpetually transfers wealth from all of us to the insiders while also conjuring money ex nihilo to purchase government bonds on all levels to keep the Ponzi going.
Of course zombies beget more zombies so the amount of wealth consumed and destroyed continues to increase over time. We are all poorer as a result; poorer in monetary terms as well as in ways that cannot be quantifiably measured.
So we feel obligated to call it out.
We just can’t help but envision a world in which the old principle of laissez-faire is respected and individuals are free to claim their natural-born sovereignty. We envision such a world where the capitalist principles of sound money, free markets, and property rights drive vibrant economies geared towards production, innovation, and wealth-creation. It’s a world where governments do not hold a monopoly of force over particular geographic areas and individuals are free to voluntarily associate with or disassociate from any society, organization, or institution that catches or loses their fancy. The only rule is that these societies, organizations, and institutions must respect the natural rights of all individuals.
Now we are not suggesting that this laissez-faire capitalist vision of society should be forced on everybody… far from it. We would just like for it to be an option. There can be other options as well.
Want to live in a socialist utopia? By all means! But your utopia would have to be a voluntary association of individuals. You know that 50% we mentioned earlier? We bet many of them would be happy to join you! We will be real interested to see if you can make it work for even a month without a coercive government to steal the fruits of individual labor and force individual servitude, however.
Speaking of, that is precisely what’s wrong with coerced collectivism as a societal structure – it requires forced individual servitude in order for it to limp along for any extended period of time. If this isn’t tyranny, we don’t know what is.
Liberty and Tyranny have done battle since the dawn of civilization. 'Democracy' was idolized in the early 20th century specifically to trick people into confusing one for the other. "We must make the world safe for Democracy!" Wilson cried as U.S. troops crossed the Rubicon.
The other warring nations on both sides must have looked at each other in confusion. "Why in the hell would anyone want to make the world safe for democracy?" they must have asked each other. After all, there was not one single nation that referred to itself as a democracy when World War I began. The Allied powers featured republican governments teamed up with imperial governments and constitutional monarchies to fight the Axis powers which consisted of imperial governments teamed up with both absolute monarchies and constitutional monarchies. There wasn't a democracy for as far as the eye could see.
There were 123 “democracies” in existence by the year 2007. By good old Woodrow's logic, peace and prosperity must have been raining down from heaven!
But as it turns out, roughly 500 million people have been violently killed in one government war or another since the world became safe for democracy. The Universe, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.
Of course we know nothing will change until it all comes crashing down and hits rock bottom with a resounding thud. We know the masses will just point and laugh; if they even pay any attention at all. They could not care less about our laissez-faire vision, and our disdain for regulatory democracy might anger them. But we also know that there is a Remnant out there. These are the people who have conquered the default programming and are pretty peeved about being lied to for decades. It is the Remnant that gives us cause for long-term optimism.
Here's to a laissez-faire vision of Liberty... and to a world safe from democracy.
Joe Withrow
08-04-2014
Cognitive Dissonance: For more of Joe’s thoughts on the “Great Reset”, the global paradigm shift, and regaining individual sovereignty please read “The Individual is Rising” which is available through Amazon in both paperback and Kindle editions here.
Please note that while I did edit this book for Joe I do not participate in any revenue from the sale of this book.
- advertisements -
"The individual is rising" is as true today as saying the King is rising or the feudal order is rising. Thats the current reality and its not going away.
The western world is moving back to the feudal order. The feudal order gave more power to the anointed individual graced by kingly legitimacy that conforted his own power wielding. The feudal order was decentralised. It paid allegiance to a King and to a creed : one king, one faith and their common god given law (until they fell apart--but that is something down the road).
So now the race is to become a feudal and thus earn your "freedom". Collateral damage : lots of serfs for every free feudal. Thats the math of the new power structure.
The old power structure, nation state, built on welfare state redistribution was horizontal not vertical, it had to be centralised to achieve cohesion and serve the universal principle of general good defined by the elected anointed of democratic rule. It is not perfect, far from it, and its downfall from time to time is certain as greed and power mania-- "hubris"-- is as old as humanity. Thats how the pendulum of society swings.
Just as during the old feudal order we have our DOGMA today in the ZH forum. Then it was divine rights of ruler. Now its divine rights of unlimited self aggrandisement.
We forget the downside of this new dogma : condemning the 99% to serfdom as before. Being burger flippers in an oligarchy economy, the non motivated sheeple.
When you cut a libertarian to his bare bones you have a Crassus not a Spartacus.
You guys are singing the songs of the Crassus strain. And its a pain to hear so called free men junking democracy and shared values for the self aggrandisement mantra. You only serve the Oligarchs.
If you want the Republic to be what it was built for by its original frameworkers take it back for the people. Don't become harbingers of the new Charlemagnes of this world.
ZH has now become a forum that junks the welfare state and extolls neo feudalism now wearing the cloth of libertarian nobility. John Galtism.
And it leads straight to despotism of Caesar, but that is down the road straight ahead. Time and time again. Pretending that being a useful idiot for those delusioned principles--perceived as "self attainment"-- and the obsessive dynamics this entails in a new fundamentalist mindset-- represents a definite addiction to chimera.
Lady of Shalott is whom you are really looking at in that mirror.
Institutionalized tyranny can take you from the frying pan into the fire.
It had not been so bad with libertarian movements that served as checks to Tyranny. While not all of these libertarian movements are truly altruistic, the fact that they exist to struggle against prevaling injustices did help.
The problem that all the libertarians have been bought or muffled. You should not even use this phrase in the "here and now". Just be realistic in dismantling the injustices one at a time without violence but in non-coperation. Can the masses endure the sacrifices/sufferings in the struggle ? Look like they have to be pissed further.
You have a different definition of what a 'libertarian' is than many of us here.
To me a libertarian is one who wishes to live his life as he would like, and who does not interfere with the rights of others. To me, being libertarian includes not initiating violence against others. People do have the right to defend themselves, however.
That's it. Pretty simple.
The problems start when someone else thinks we should or should not do something, because they moralize it as 'the right thing to do' and initiate force against others to make those notions so.
But usually the moralizing is just an excuse for theft. Only the lower level naive 'true believers' buy into the propaganda. Morons. Most 'isms' are pure bull.
Most people who criticize the non-agression principle do so because it obstructs their covert desire to order other people around, by force if necessary. Clausewitz correctly said "the aggressor is always a 'man of peace'". We need only observe our own national history to realize that great truth.
The true problem with libertarianism is in property rights for they are inherently violent. Who is there to say that this land or item is yours and not mine. In order to attempt to allieviate this problem we create governments (early Republican America stole land from the natives [aka ignored their property rights]... so much for libertarian values) however governments are by nature violent and are designed to violate the rights of individuals.
I am more libertarian than anything else but this is significant structural flaw in the practices of libertarian society.
You are wrong, though I'm sure what some people consider "property rights" do indeed involve violence.
Any valid meaning of "property rights" must not involve violence [against honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human beings].
One reason "individualists" and "liberty advocates" have no freaking chance to prevail on this planet is... they don't understand their own philosophy well enough to refute nonsense like that.
The example of [most] native americans is interesting. They were CORRECT to not have "property rights" for land. To make sense, "property" can only be something humans create. Well, obviously earth was here before any humans, so no human can legitimately claim they own any land.
However, most native americans did have a notion similar to "land stewardship", which is a valid and legitimate concept if formulated correctly. Essentially, "land stewardship" just means the individual or family who creates and maintains improvements to a vacant or vacated parcel of land has a right to those created improvements.
They don't "own the land", but they do "own the improvements they created in and on the land" (like fences, water ditches, their home, their barn, their gardens and crops, the livestock they care for, etc). And since the land cannot be separated from the improvements they created, from an outside perspective it can appear like they "own the land". But they do not and cannot, due to the nature of "property".
The typical notion is... as long as the individual or family does not abandon their stuff, they retain their stuff. But if they "walk away", they lose it, and it becomes free for the taking/claiming. Generally 1 or 2 years is considered an appropriate term to consider a parcel of land (its improvements) as "abandoned".
excellent remark. yes, "property rights are inherently violent". and a state is a monopoly on violence, and so often the very best garantor of property rights
having said that, I have to weep about the way democracy is demonized in this article. imho the author Cognitive Dissonance does not understand that democracy is a way, a tool, a road to pluralism and rule of law. in theory, you can have those two without democracy. Singapore is an attempt
but for all practical matters, whenever you throw the baby called democracy with the dirt of corruption and the rest of the bath water out of the window...
then you have usually lost all. then historically, property rights, pluralism and the rule of law are the next victims
that baby is often dirty. it's in the nature of babies to create a lot of dirt, aka corruption. don't mistake the dirt for the baby. without the baby, the dirt is still there. you could say it's the baby's scope to highlight how much dirt is there around you. you could say that without the baby, the dirt reigns supreme
It you scroll all the way to the top under the title, and all the way to the bottom after the last paragraph, you find the author was not Cognitive Dissonance but Joe Withrow. Glad we cleared that up. ;-)
my fault, beg for your pardon
The older I get and more I learn, the more I despise democracy.
So did the Founders, based on how humans actually operate in groups.
"Institutionalized tyranny can take you from the frying pan into the fire."
Pretty sure thats why we're all pissed falak, its what democracy has wrought.
Do you really believe that half of the people who graduated from high school (thats just before college in America by the way) know of the characters you used in your rant? Of the time & space they occupied, of what could be achieved and what had to wait? Slavery was legal. The "caste system" was normalcy and racism was rampant.
And yet you would give that half the same..."power of the vote"...that does not have the intelligence to understand their own manipulation?
Democracy is right there with communism as a form of governace, now compound it with "law". It cannot last, all the leader or king or politician has to say is I'll give you more lollipops stolen from the one who has plenty, just because he decided he needed to say it.
What is always lost in this is, it the citizens duty to society to determine who is lying to them, who is trying to bribe them...that is the failure of democracy, gimme my free shit!!! I have rights!!!
Molon labe bitchez ;-)
nmewn;
Say your pop worked for Defense contractors. But he was a smart guy, he said I want smart people to lead this Republic, and those people are the rich, educated, and privileged.
You can see the problem.
Elites are better speakers like Liz Cheney, but the have no morals, ethics, or righteousness (I'm not religious BTW).
Preaching to the Choir.
- Anarchy or Democracy would be slow!
- But we got slow NOW, Congress is stuck on Stupid, and Totally bought off by Lobbyist
- Anarchy would be good move from US Congress
- National Referendums are Crucial
- National Debate is Crucial Requirement
Federal Audits & Inspections would Reveal the Coup that has taken place, Money in politics
Welcome to the Coup circa 2001- 2014
Of these three (rich, educated & privileged) all it takes is a modicum of intelligence or due diligence on the part of society as a whole to find (as Yes_Questions says) the rats.
Whether its Jeb bowing to the Chamber of Commerce or Hitlary makes no difference, just recognize that they are in fact bowing to the Chamber of Commerce to the detriment of the middle class and the rule of law.
You don't know how disheartening it was (even though we laughed at her) to see the young mother saying "Obama gonna pay my mortgage!" She had no idea what she was giving up.
A lot has come before us, from the popular election of senators to the growth of the unelected-regulatory state, "A republic madam, if you can keep it."
"from the popular election of senators"
Very few people recognize what a fatal mistake this has proved to be.
Correct me on this email that went around a while back:
Social Security Myths:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
---
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
---
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities????
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote, as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the USA .
---
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
This is MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course!
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
---
Then here is what they said that SS was designed for:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Corrections??
All I know is that the Vietnam War caused a lot of problems and probably took us off the Gold Standard & They took Social Security Funds that never got paid back.
Snopes seems to have this.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp
- There was no provision in the Social Security Act to be voluntary.
- Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was tax rate fixed at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years:
- The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions:
- The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 and is not in the General funds at all, except if shortfalls require funding SS.
- Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. (see Grrenspan Commission here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan8.html
- No one — whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien — is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Snopes is missing something. Reciprocity. Mexico has Reciprocity for Social Security where Mexican Savings are transferred to USA SS Trust and the Citizen then gets US Social Security.
The whole Democrat/Republican thing is a canard.
Did the Republicans fix anything on your list? No.
Why not? On purpose.
"Did the Republicans fix anything on your list? No."
No they did not. However people who once called themselves "republicans" are picking off the transgressors one by one. It would seem that those who once called themselves "democrats" at one time should show some reciprocity, instead of just allowing them to retire, with their pensions.
I know its a tall order but Cantor is now gone, so Pelosi would be nice, if you can beat back the clawing fingers of "democracy" ;-)
picking them off, by voting in Republicans?
I'm not seeing these primary challenges in team R as anything other than passing the baton to those who'll help perpetuate the capture of the Congre$$. as if Cantor is really going anywhere anyway. He's got "access" to sell and probably lots of favors to cash in on.
Team D is too spineless to even feign a fight in the ranks, though, so I'll give team R points for the show.
and would that we had the luxury to sit back and say, "time will tell" if the upsets of late in the congressional R races yield "better" lawmakers, but I'm getting the feeling those poor fucks were given the spot on the ballot precisely because a major shift is in the works and their predecessors do not have the appetite to hang from the posts.
But, time will tell..
Rats jumping ship or a Purge of the ranks?
Both.
Its like this, many in the R camp have always felt that fiscal responsibility comes first. Or there is no R & D, no us & them, no nuthin. Its why Bush Sr. lost to Clinton (he lied to us, read my lips) and its why the defections came in mass against Jr. for growing the oligarch class and why Jeb is dead meat.
We are against bloated, top-down government and fat cats who suck off the labor of others (left & right) that the D's only talk about being against.
And now, they (D's) should see this too, thats what shovel ready & green energy really was, more pass throughs from us to them.
Make no mistake, we will burn it all (both sides) and start anew.
let it be Both then..
+No New Rats to Purge
repost: but maybe speaks to the point of corruption...
Ya all should look at BRAC Legislation and Gerrymandering.
Power wins in the US Congress and that means lobbying and even foreign lobbying.
Base Realignment and Closure Legislation
Base Realignment and Closure Commission for U.S. military bases
1988 Base Realignment and Closure Commission
1991 Base Realignment and Closure Commission
1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission
1995 Base Realignment and Closure Commission
2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission
- Congress is spending like a Drunken Sailor
- Congress may actually be Drunken Sailors
- Congress is high on Libations and qualifies as Drunken Sailors
- We need Inspections, Audits, Investigations, and Independent Auditing in all of our Federal Government Agencies
- We have Federal Offices to Inspect, but they are not doing their Jobs, they need to be Fired and sometimes prosecuted. Word. Think government contract inflation while official stats say there is no inflation, but oh look Public & Private Executives Pay is Inflating along with Contracts. Wow.
Sorry, I should have searched it as Hoax first.
You're right. The whole left/right thing is a distraction at best. Could it be a indicator of who is driving the bus? The bus to hell that is.
Serfdom. Tyranny. The terms do circle high above ground.
The institutionalized serfdom of women. Join Free Now.
The institutionalized serfdom in front of a man you better don't mess up with.
You will get teached by what hurts. The assholes in front of the chalkboard had to be teached to restrain that talent. No lashes on naked pupilar poo.
Granny was aleady tyrannic. For Mother the spelling of democrazy a pain. But wait till papa comes home.
In our days, the idea to solve a problem by spending it to another equals in the minds frequently as solved.
If that can get fixed, the victime no more words, we can thematize a resolving sphere that knows of many names. Tranny is just one of them.
The very conviction is not a child of the stars. It has a history. Our history.
Loser, know your place.
Or is there to start a new debate about utopia.
Most Americans now embrace " Blaissez-faire".
If you are "safe" - you aren't living.
Your article reminds of religion, that instrument of many purposes; in this case, the purpose of persuading men to endure tyranny rather than overthrow it.
It’s the difference between the fictional character Jesus and the historical character Spartacus. The one preaches submission; the other an active attempt to overthrow it.
No, I do not recommend that we duplicate Spartacus his attempt – he acted from a large base of ignorance. Instead, I suggest that we learn lessons of those eras that advanced the cause of liberty: the revolution of Athens (year -508), England (1620-1650) and America.
Doesn’t this make sense? During no other time in man’s story has liberty made any forward strides at all. Shouldn’t we study what those men did who authored these eras? How about John Elliot? He authored a resolution (passed by the House of Commons) that made it a capital crime to impose taxes without the consent of those taxed. A few years later, parliament used his resolution to take down judges and tax collectors, a bishop and kings. All this and more served as a basis for English colonists 130 years later on a different continent; and are embedded in our right of redress. And no one knows it. (An introduction)
>>It’s the difference between the fictional character Jesus and the historical character Spartacus.
I'm sorry, but you know Jesus was fiction how? Have you ever bothered to study the subject on the historical accuracy that he did in fact exist as a person. There's plenty more evidence he existed than many other famous historical figures.
Rikky, thanks for your reply.
First, the burden of proof is on he who alleges. Still, I'll volunteer a remark on this issue; namely that no contemporary writer or historian mentions a character of Jesus. Furthermore, the word is not a name, but rather a title, a kind of "holy" man. So, in this respect there were probably thousands of Jesuses.
Also, all that is needed to reject the idea is to consider his/its associates; such as Inquisition, Dark Age, Holy Alliance, Treaty of Verona, the one to two hundred million slaughtered by Justinian as he Chrisianized his kingdom, among a few thousand more horrors.
".... this is not what a free society looks like. "
But, is there such a thing as a "free society", anyway ?
the problem with the term "free society"
is that negotiating the term requires an
unexplained or even observed phase shift
from the first person to the third person
perspective/consciousness, they never talk
much or tell you about that. do they? no.
they let you drown yourself in that swamp while
they steal everything from under your nose in the
name of freedom and society. that is my guess.
all language involves a trance
i tell you.
think about that and the implications,
what it means;
telling and conclusive.
speaking of fractal mosaics,
all and every atom is composed
of 99.9999999% "empty", the vacuum of,
space which is saturated with energy.
.
we live in a saturated vacuum.
what are ya' gonna do?
"free society" contains a fundamental contra-diction
(you could write a big book about that term(it)),
and turns the relative switch to the "on" position,
relegating freedom to the arts, intellect and
childhood; so twisting and torqued these word.
.
Television - Prove It
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OULLiXkwVck
Wasn't the 1920s in Paris sort of a "Free Society" and maybe looking back at the US Founding Fathers & the Age of Enlightenment in Europe.
Intellectual Freedom is tough since someone has to pay for your Art School, University time, or even apprenticeship.
I know a conservative that hates public school, he is older now, probably grew up Catholic in Chicago. I don't really get his point of view exactly. US Public Education came after the Civil War since it was obvious that many citizens that became soldiers could not integrate well with the armies. And I get that Public Education helps teach you timeliness and basic knowledge that corporate bosses would want.
Intellectuals made up a big part of Communist leaders, but also all political & philosophical thought. Artist seemed to develop a lot of philosophical thought as well.
Fascism & Nazis want to destroy the individual and make him Uniform in speech and appearance.
- Do we protect individuals & Intellectual Free Thought?
- Free Society also is about freedom to own property
- Native Peoples are Disenfranchised even after Treaties are sign and prevented from gaining much education & Property although they may largely favor communal holdings
- Free Society would mean free movement within border of a country to go to places of learning, to associate, to engage in commerce, to speak publicly
- Free Society might frown on Monopoly or Oligopoly control over the majority of capital investment, on banker speculation in times of recession & Joblessness, on Stagnant Capital, on Speculation on Commodities which everyman needs to live life... So I think Free Society would mean Capital Controls of some kinds, tariffs to protect Industries & Employment, and Standard Financial Practices to reduce risks of Fraud, hidden banking, hidden currency risks, hidden links in credit that risk our banks liquidity
- Free Society might mean having Public Utilities with low prices and national stock piles to help alleviate shocks to the economy
- Free Society might require small armed forces, few oversea bases, and small organizations with whistle-blower protections and free speech guarantees. Free Internet, small businesses = Democracy
public vs private, a hot button and topic;
freedom vs total adherence to "con-vention", another.
collectively, people must adhere to some
principles intelligently recognized, there
is the razor of it. to conform to the essential
and continue to exercise your "free" spirit, with
good will, smells like justice. maybe truth?
the con-vention must be true as the aim and
attuned, the harmonics must ring and sing.
.
John Cale - Paris 1919
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5YHqWqhFkU
This guy just came on a show. You might know him. Not sure where this is going.
Thanks for the poetic response. I need exercise of this sort. Can many people find this kind of support in the USA OR like me will they feel repressed or suppressed and not recognize their "Greatness & Potential & Freedom & Unity & Self-Actualization".
I have to make some commitment to move forward like all Patriots or Individualist.
http://www.hogueprophecy.com/
No. None. Why won't the predators-that-be let us try one? Just one? Just one tiny one, perhaps on a remote island in the middle of the south-pacific? Perhaps because the practical consequences of the two approaches would be glaringly obvious? Yes, definitely so.
h,
that island exists and thrives
before the eyes and between the
ears. the words, the words
and the paperwork just
don't ever subside.
relentless
time and changes
time and changes
the words and paperwork
take up all the time.
.
re:
Hope is an element of despair.
IT is also the thing with feathers.
It is far more likely that our world as we know it will end in a soup of deadly microbes rather than an errant asteroid colliding with some fraction of earth, though either is one of E.L.E.
While it seems heresy to say it, those who have hope are the victims of the syndrome known as: the Fifth Marriage, wherein hope attempts once again to overcome the proof of experience.
I appreciate the ending of the paper. I think the idealisation of 'democracy' was one of the 20th century's most pernicious errors. Hardly a surprise, though, considering the 20th century was also the Globalist Era. How better to spread global government, than by enforcing global 'democracy'? (Which even if it worked, would make it hell to live anywhere on the planet.) It's your basic religion of the Borg. By democracy the Borg spreads.
<<We just can’t help but envision a world in which the old principle of laissez-faire is respected and individuals are free to claim their natural-born sovereignty. We envision such a world where the capitalist principles of sound money, free markets, and property rights drive vibrant economies geared towards production, innovation, and wealth-creation. It’s a world where governments do not hold a monopoly of force over particular geographic areas and individuals are free to voluntarily associate with or disassociate from any society, organization, or institution that catches or loses their fancy. The only rule is that these societies, organizations, and institutions must respect the natural rights of all individuals.>>
Those 'old' principles sound very New World to me. I wish I could believe they are our future, but I believe we are headed back to feudalism. Not sure that is a bad thing.
Hope I don't sound one sided. But after Latin America gained Independence one nation at a time from Spain, there was no Land Reform. The hacienda systems set up by Chart by the King of Spain took the best agricultural lands and best Mining Claims. Those families are the ones who are wealthy today maybe a modern equivalent of Royalty. Some of them said to be very nice people.
- Land Reform requires this idea of Commons or Public Utility
- I like the Idea of Property Rights
- No one likes the Idea of Nationalization if they are the Executives or Owners of a Corporation or Land
- Commons is a sort of limited right to Land or Market Place
- Some native peoples ended up with commons in the form of Town Land, Boat Access to Beaches, Fishing Rights, sort of like a Commune
- Eminent Domain is where your land is taken for the common public good in development of a city center, highway, pipe line, power line, water way, or some corporation use
- 5000 years of laws written in stone, we still can't get this straight since Power & Money corrupts the laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
Basic Principals have to be laid out in the US Constitution or Primary Common Law. But I don't think the concept of Utilities or Commons were clear.
Very interesting theme and good points. Allow me however to express some different thoughts. You start with the phrase:
"Modern society does not care much for the individual. National interest, public policy, and the common good are held up as the ideal."
I think that in the Western world the exact opposite happens, exactly because the government has nothing ideal to offer but only a life through economic terms driven by the banks and corporations who are pulling the strings. In such a socio political frame dominated by the economy, the terms "national interest", "public policy" and "common good", in essence, mean nothing. Therefore, modern society itself is consisted by extreme individualists:
"Extreme individualism becomes increasingly one of the basic characteristics of the Western man and concepts such as altruism, collectivity and solidarity are dismissed from the central core of his thought. The Western man accepts rationally that these concepts are clearly utopian and that they will never be applied massively in societies."
"The new generation of psychoanalysts after Freud, with Wilhelm Reich at the top, will contribute to the amplification of individualism and "demonization" of the state. Reich was opposed to Freud's ideas - who believed that human instincts should be controlled because they could bring chaos in societies - and believed that people should be left totally free to express their feelings, as each one likes, and not to repress their instincts. The big corporations followed this kind of personal free expression and started to promote their products targeting the person and its personal needs."
"A whole generation of politicians with similar perception and culture will appear. Margaret Thatcher declares that there is no such thing as society, but only individuals, Clinton will deliver economy to the free market after the advice of the bankers and Francis Fukuyama will announce in triumph the end of history."
http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014/01/how-western-societies-lost-th...
Moreover, the educational system is training people to become antagonistic to eachother and not cooperate, and we are not talking about the way that knowledge is transferred to the students but by the way that the educational system (mostly the medium, higher level) is structured in most of the Western countries, which is purely antagonistic and feeds individualism.
Finally the dominant culture on neoliberalism destroys the nation-state as a carrier of the social state and the common good and turns more people to act more individualistic in order to survive. This is what many people call, the "return to barbarism":
http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2013/07/maggies-ghost-what-is-hauntin...
Thats one helluva segue:
"I think that in the Western world the exact opposite happens, exactly because the government has nothing ideal to offer but only a life through economic terms driven by the banks and corporations who are pulling the strings. Ïn such a socio political frame dominated by the economy, the terms "national interest", "public policy" and "common good", in essence, mean nothing. Therefore, modern society itself is consisted by extreme individualists:
"Extreme individualism..."
In the "western world" the governments are supposed to protect everyones individual rights & property. Period. How you go from this now complete lack of protections today to saying "modern society" are composed of extreme individuals is beyond me.
It is precisely because of this weird concept of, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" that the opposite of charity, common good, national interest and public policy is on the rocks. The quote implies an intermediary...government...a control mechanism...to extract from each to give to each. It empowers govenors, who become dictators...not individuals.
Let me ask you a question, do you consider it "extreme" to demand someone participate in commerce and if they can't, subsidize them through anothers labor so the merchant has a market and a profit?
"In the "western world" the governments are supposed to protect everyones individual rights & property."
Actually governments are supposed to protect the majority. Since the French revolution and the new form of the urban states-democracies, the ruling class made a so called "social contract" with the majority. Since the dominant urban class took the power from feudalism and monarchy should had to find a way to protect the means of production and the labor force. Therefore, the ethnic consciousness in each state served to bound the majority in order to shape national armies to protect the ruling class interests. In exchange, the ruling urban class had given the so called social state, labor rights etc, through the nation-state as a carrier and guarantor for all these benefits for the middle and lower classes.
At the start of the 20th century and technology progress which brought the mass production, this was all about to change. Western societies addicted to consumerism and there is a culture of extreme individualism that progressively dominated societies until today. This has happened because corporations had to find consumers for the products, so actually the "homo consumericus" came after Freud's theories, exploited by his nephew Bernays. However, the ruling class still needed labor hands and therefore the social contract remained alive, always through the nation-state as guarantor.
Now, this is about to change. Hyper-automation is the key for the ruling class to break the social contract exactly because it doesn't need human labor anymore. The culture of extreme individualism serves perfectly the plan because for decades generations learned to grow just to consume and protect their individual rights without caring for the others (this is the general picture of course, there are exceptions). That's why you hear in the mainstream media that the poor should start to pay taxes and that's why the rich want to get rid of taxes and the nation-state. Because they don't need labor anymore. There is no deal to make. And that's why people are unable to organize massively to defend their rights. Because they've learned to act individually on the basis of their economic interests. The system exploits this fact. The mainstream media are able to trigger conflicts between groups of interests inside the middle class exactly on that basis.
'society', 'nation', 'common interests', 'Proletariat' are just words used by con men.
Check your wallet very carefully after you hear them.
Too many can't participate in commerce, nme, and they don't want to. So, they become employees of some .gov agency or some .gov contractor or outright mercenaries engaged in foreign aggression.
If you're independent of that, you know damn good and well that success out here in the honest-to-God realm of actual capitalism is not only very, very difficult, but also under attack from the very same people who aren't capable of functioning at that level.
How do you reckon that's gonna play out, friend?
"Veee pretend to vork, de pretend to pay." ;-)
It has always been thus under these conditions.
"The new generation of psychoanalysts after Freud, with Wilhelm Reich at the top, will contribute to the amplification of individualism and "demonization" of the state. Reich was opposed to Freud's ideas - who believed that human instincts should be controlled because they could bring chaos in societies - and believed that people should be left totally free to express their feelings, as each one likes, and not to repress their instincts. The big corporations followed this kind of personal free expression and started to promote their products targeting the person and its personal needs."
This seems like only half the picture. Indeed, corporations target the person and their personal needs, but the personal needs are determined by the broader society. The person identifies himself/herself based on where he/she fits into that society. The corporation is merely targeting the fear of the person that he/she needs to fit in, i.e., you buy the same beer as your peer group, you eat at the same restaurants, or, conversely, you buy a BMW to one-up your friend who buys a (snicker) Cadillac. Corporations target weaknesses in the individual, not inherent individualism.
Also, using the acts of corporations as an example of how extreme individualism acts in society is a disingenuous. Corporations are a construct of the modern era replacing the robber barons of an earlier age and now considered the same as individuals. But, just as the robber barons owned the government, so too the corporations now own the government which tends to mold society. In fact, it would seem the best way for people to subject themselves more to the government (the status quo) is to convince enough of them that they are extreme individualistics and out of the norm so that they will voluntarily join the norm or face ostracism. It looks like the corporations win and, in the process, create a less individualistic society which is a boon for both the government and the corporations.