Saturday, July 27, 2019

Pride and Shame

Many people seem to take pride in the circumstances of their birth, which they had absolutely no control over. How can anyone have pride or shame in things they had no involvement in creating or accomplishing? It's a question I pose often to those with pride for their nation of origin, skin color, and sexual orientation. Usually this question is answered not with a reasonable response, but attacks and hostility.

Perhaps pride in such things must be valid in their minds because they have no accomplishments of their own to take pride in. I believe my question triggers cognitive dissonance and defense mechanisms that cause them to lash out at me. All I did was question the source of their pride, a valid way to understand why they have pride in arbitrary circumstances of birth.

Maybe someone with this pride I have no understanding of can explain it to me in the comments, I'm always ready to learn why people think the way they do. From my point of view, pride should be for accomplishments, and shame should be for failures. Utilizing pride and shame for anything else is just silly to me, and causes divisions in our society for the most ridiculous reasons.

My best guess is primal tribalism is still a big part of the human psyche, even if we've never had a need for it in our own lives. Back when we were living in caves, fear of people that didn't look the same as us was likely life saving. Those people were probably part of a rival tribe that competed for territory and resources, as many animals still do today. The imperative of self-preservation would require us to be suspicious of outsiders. So, much like the inherent instinct to consume too much food even when there is no danger of starvation, tribalism and racism is an instinct we all must overcome, and some of us will inevitably fail to do so.

Our Language Has Been Hijacked

Liberalism


Modern liberalism is at odds with many of the ideas of classical liberalism. Our Founding Fathers were liberal, but now we must label their ideology classical liberalism because the word liberal has been hijacked by socialists. It's one of the many descriptive words for political ideology that has evolved into something quite different than its original definition. This has caused quite a bit of confusion, and helps socialists hide their intentions to undermine individual liberty. This example however, is among the least of our problems.

The Legal Society (Legalese)

The biggest culprit in the effort to pervert and distort our language is the legal society. They have done an impressive job of creating legal definitions designed to deceive people that find themselves in court. Most people would not dare to show up to court without an attorney with the exception of minor vehicle code violations. This is because the legal society has made it incredibly confusing and nearly impossible to decipher the laws they've created without a law school education. Here are three examples of how the legal society has twisted our language by creating their own parallel language that sounds and looks the same. This new language spawned by the legal society is sometimes referred to as "legalese."

Person:

from https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/person/

A person, for legal purposes, is generally more broadly defined to refer other than just a natural person. A person may also include a corporation, company, partnership, firm, association or society. For example, when a company incorporates, it has standing as a legal person to sue and be sued in courts of law. The precise definition of a person may vary by state and applicable laws.
The following is an example of one state's statute governing the definition of a person:
"When the word "person" is used to designate the party whose property may be the subject of a criminal or public offense, the term includes the United States, this state, or any territory, state or country, or any political subdivision of this state that may lawfully own any property, or a public or private corporation, or partnership or association. When the word "person" is used to designate the violator or offender of any law, it includes corporation, partnership or any association of persons."
Bother:

Word games are what the legal society is all about. You and I know exactly what it means when a child says sometimes their parents bother them, but the legal society will use ancient definitions to twist that statement into saying the child has been molested by their parents. This is how CPS manages to take children from innocent parents, by playing word games and using the old French definition for molester.

from https://www.etymonline.com/word/molest

late 14c., "to cause trouble, grief, or vexation," from Old French molester "to torment, trouble, bother" (12c.) and directly from Latin molestare "to disturb, trouble, annoy," from molestus "troublesome, annoying, unmanageable," perhaps related to moles "mass" (see mole (n.3)) on notion of either "burden" or "barrier." Meaning "sexually assault" first attested 1950. Related: Molested; molesting.
Suffer:

Another example of an easily twisted word in the legal world is suffer. A simple way a judge could get rid of your complaint is if you tell them the party you are complaining against caused you to suffer. This is once again, because courts and the legal society can use ancient definitions of words that you might not be aware of. Notice the first definition from the mid 13th century. You'll see that telling a judge someone caused you to suffer is basically telling them you allowed and permitted them to do so.

from https://www.etymonline.com/word/suffer

mid-13c., "allow to occur or continue, permit, tolerate, fail to prevent or suppress," also "to be made to undergo, endure, be subjected to" (pain, death, punishment, judgment, grief), from Anglo-French suffrir, Old French sofrir "bear, endure, resist; permit, tolerate, allow" (Modern French souffrir), from Vulgar Latin *sufferire, variant of Latin sufferre "to bear, undergo, endure, carry or put under," from sub "up, under" (see sub-) + ferre "to carry, bear," from PIE root *bher- (1) "to carry," also "to bear children."



Immune From Legalese

There are many more examples of how the legal society has been deceiving the rest of us, in fact, too many to list. However, there are a few words they simply cannot twist and distort with their legalese. The most important one though, is property.

The reason the word property cannot be corrupted by the legal society is that it has always only had one meaning. Your property is anything that is properly exclusive to you, and no amount of linguistic gymnastics can change that. This is why there are many parents having their children taken away by the state. It is not because the parents did anything wrong, but because they don't understand that their children are their property. Go to court and demand your child back, you will be ignored. Go to court and claim CPS is trespassing upon your property and you require your property restored, and watch the CPS attorneys fold like a cheap suit and return your children. The link below is audio of a woman telling her story of how she got her children back in court.

https://youtu.be/efn5Y5cbbTw



I hope this has helped you understand a little about how our language can easily be used to deceive us, and how knowing about it can help you prevent government from trespassing upon or administering your property. If you know of any other legalese words you think were too important to be left out, please share them in the comments.

A List of Blatant Violations of the Tenth Amendment by the United States Federal Government

Unconstitutional Federal Departments

Department of Justice

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Interior

Department of Labor

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Education

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Energy

Department of Veteran’s Affairs

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Transportation



Unconstitutional Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

Agency for International Development (USAID)

American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC)

AmeriCorps

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)

U.S. Arctic Research Commission (USARC)

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR)

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA)

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

Export-Import Bank of the United States (ExIm)

Farm Credit Administration (FCA)

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

Federal Election Commission (FEC)

Federal Maritime Commission

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission (FMSHRC)

Federal Reserve System (The Fed)

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (FCSC)

General Services Administration (GSA)

Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)

Inter-American Foundation (IAF)

International Trade Commission (ITC)

Learn and Serve America (LSA)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)

National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)

National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)

National Ice Center (NIC)

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) (NRPC)

National Science Foundation (NSF)

National Transportation Research Center (NTRC)

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Office of Government Ethics (OGE)

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

Peace Corps

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)

United States Postal Service (USPS)

United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)

Office of the Inspector General (USPS-OIG)

Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC)

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Selective Service System (SSS)

Senior Corps

Small Business Administration (SBA)

Social Security Administration (SSA)

Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC)

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

United States Trade and Development Agency (TDA)



A Few Unconstitutional Acts of Congress

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Troubled Assets Relief Program (“TARP 1” of 2008)

War Powers Act of 1973

USA Patriot Act of 2001

USA Patriot Act of 2005

Real ID Act of 2005

Social Security Act of 1935 (As well as the current version)

Federal Reserve Act of 1913

Medicare (Social Security Act of 1965)

Medicaid (Social Security Act of 1965)

Welfare (Various acts/programs include the following:

Aid to Families with Dependent Children

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services Block Grant

Child and Adult Care Food Program

Community Development Block Grant

Conservation Reserve Program

Federal Pell Grant

Food Stamp Program

Head Start

Local Law Enforcement Block Grant

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families



Undeclared Wars Fought by the US

Korean War

Lebanon War of 1958

Vietnam War

Persian Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm)

Afghanistan War (Operation Enduring Freedom)

Iraq War (Operation Iraqi Freedom)

War in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)

War in Syria (Operation Inherent Resolve)



Federal Government Violations of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution

Drug or alcohol prohibition and enforcement

Marriage laws

Parenting laws

Education laws

Abortion laws

Laws on moral issues

Laws on organized crime

Food laws

Pharmaceutical Laws

Laws governing the practice of medicine (except as general “commerce” laws)

Environmental laws



Agencies that give unconstitutional Federal Government Grants

Agency for International Development

Corporation for National and Community Service [EXIT Disclaimer]

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense [EXIT Disclaimer]

Department of Education

Department of Energy

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of the Interior

Department of Justice

Department of Labor

Department of State

Department of Transportation

Department of the Treasury

Department of Veterans Affairs

Environmental Protection Agency

Institute of Museum and Library Services

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Archives and Records Administration

National Endowment for the Arts

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Science Foundation

Small Business Administration

Social Security Administration

My Eye-Opening Experience Visiting "The Hood"

It was a very different time in my life, I came from suburbia, and a loving home with two parents. I had no inkling of what people call "the hood" was like. Slang for "the neighborhood" the hood is basically a neighborhood with a high concentration of low to no income homes and crime. I had befriended a coworker, and let's just say at the time we both enjoyed the same herbal remedies. One day, he invited me to go with him to his brother's house in the hood to aquire that remedy.


When we arrived, I was immediately greeted as my friend and coworker vouched for me as "not a snitch." I immediately saw why this was necessary to ensure my safety, as there were more firearms than I could count scattered around the house, and huge bags of herbal remedies being prepared for distribution. Whether my friend's brother had acquired these firearms legally was very questionable, as some of his rifles and even handguns had barrel magazines like the one pictured above. This was an impressive collection, in every corner, everywhere you could have a gun sitting, there was a gun. Even the top of the refrigerator was littered with handguns and a rifle with a bipod.

Needless to say, it was an eye-opening experience for me. I realized there was an entire world out there that had no regard for the legal society's arbitrary rules about guns and substances. It gave me a huge understanding that most people lack, especially those with stable upbringings and a life above the poverty line.

I stayed at this house for over an hour while my friend talked with his brother, and got to know the general attitude about law and politics they held. It's no surprise people that live in areas with high crime rates would rather arm themselves than depend on police for protection, especially when police are so reluctant to even enter those areas. It made me realize the only people I knew that advocated gun control had probably lived very sheltered lives, blissfully unaware of the threat from gangsters and criminals in certain communities.

I have never really advocated for gun control myself, since I had wonderful history teachers that made it clear it was a tool of tyrants, and I had been using guns for hunting and target practice since I was a child. However, this experience helped me to understand why people would want gun control. I believe they hold those beliefs because they have never been around guns, and certainly have never lived in an environment where their survival may very well depend on one.

Being on Both Sides of the Abortion Debate

Abortion is arguably the most brutal and barbaric practice that people find socially acceptable today. This is especially true when you consider how easily most situations of unwanted pregnancy could be prevented.

I am completely against abortion, because I believe it's an immoral act against the most innocent of humans: The unborn. Once an ovum is fertilized by a spermatozoa, the building blocks for a human being are in place, so at a cellular level life begins at conception. Those that would argue against that idea seem to disagree on the basis that an embryo has no central nervous system, and certainly isn't sentient. My answer to that argument is to ask, do you remember being born? If you can't remember being born, we have no evidence that you were sentient at the time, so do you advocate infanticide? This is why my logic and moral position on abortion is based on the existence of human life, and not being sentient, or having a central nervous system, or being able to feel pain. I'm very pro-life, more so than some people that would allow exceptions in the case of rape or incest. This is because I don't think it's moral to ask the most innocent being in existence, the unborn, to pay for the mistakes of others with its life. Adoption is always an option, and can even be a temporary one, unlike the act of aborting a pregnancy.

At this point in my writing, if you're pro-life you probably agree with me, but brace yourself, because it's very likely the next principle I share will conflict with yours.

Now that I've thoroughly explained the logic behind my moral stance, I'd like to share my legal stance on abortion. I believe in my heart of hearts the only thing we can truly own without a doubt in this life is our bodies. We should be the sole deciders of what to do with our body, including what we put into it or what we remove from it. To lack ownership and control over your own body is tantamount to slavery. This is why I oppose legislation that restricts abortion. Morally, it's an abhorrent practice, but so is slavery. I know this may seem like what George Orwell called double-think to many people, but the only way to reconcile the two main principles I listed and hold dear is to separate them into morality and legality. I'm certainly not willing to let the government decide what's best for me, and I wouldn't wish that treatment on anyone of sound mind.

Anyone reading this and thinking of having an abortion, please don't. Every human life has infinite potential to change our world for the better, and I will appeal to your humanity in any way I can to convince you to carry your child to term. I can only hope your decision to keep your child will justify my legal position of trusting you to make that choice for yourself instead of legislators (many of which will never have to deal with the decision themselves).

So, some of you on the pro-life side may be asking if outlawing abortion isn't a solution, what is? My answer is education. With the advances in birth control science at our disposal, especially in a first world country, the need to get an abortion in the first place should be very preventable. Of course, the only 100% effective method is abstinence, but there are very effective options for couples to consider if they insist on being sexually active. I'll leave a chart of their effectiveness and cost in the comments.

All I ask of you ladies and gentlemen is to consider making sure you have your own life together before you engage in activities that have the potential to create another. I love freedom, but it comes with responsibility.

Freedom is Worth Fighting For

Freedom is a dangerous thing, which is one of the reasons I'm in love with it. It's unfortunate that I share this world with cowards who oppose freedom. Why do I think they're cowards? Only a coward would oppose being able to make their own decisions in life. Only cowards would seek to be controlled. Only cowards would seek to minimize the risk of making a mistake by letting others control them. This is why I have absolutely no respect for anyone that supports tyranny in any form.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are utterly terrified at the prospect of letting people make their own decisions. We have students protesting against their own natural right to defend themselves in the name of safety, cowardly communists in masks seeking to cause chaos through violence, and cowardly law enforcement that refuses to put themselves at risk for the people they are supposed to serve. Those of us that love freedom need to speak up.

A silent majority is impotent because of their silence. If you love freedom as much as I do, make sure everyone around you knows it. Be unapologetic in expressing why freedom is superior, because a very vocal minority can and will destroy freedom in the name of safety and security.

While I certainly don't oppose allowing people to be free to enslave themselves, I'm completely intolerant of anyone that wants to enslave me or others without their consent. That's what many people are trying to do, and they should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to impose the tyranny they crave on their fellow man. America didn't become the strongest nation in the world because of a bunch of whiney cowards, so why would we ever make the mistake of letting whiney cowards take charge of our lives?

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -Thomas Jefferson

The Argument for Open Borders (with conditions)

As a minarchist, I do in fact believe in open borders. The problem is, much like anarchy or communism, open borders will not work unless everyone involved is on board. This is a tough consensus to obtain, since everyone on board in this sense means every man and woman in the country, as well as anyone that desired to immigrate into it.

Since I avidly embrace free market principles, I also believe people should be able to choose where they live as long as they do not violate private property rights. This would encourage less tyrannical governments around the world, since the populations they oppress with their tyranny would have the freedom to escape to a less tyrannical country.

Many regard open borders as a dangerous idea, and I don't blame them for feeling this way. Native Americans know all too well the kind of devastation open borders can bring, so it's not necessarily evil to be xenophobic in the interest of self preservation. People fear big changes like this, and it's not uncommon for people to overlook potential benefits of change because of potential dangers.

Therefore, my support of open borders is not absolute. There are certain things a nation must do before implementing such a revolutionary policy.



1. No welfare state:

Socialist programs are inherently dangerous for many reasons. Not only were they used as a vehicle to consolidate power into the hands of tyrants much of the last century, but they also encourage dependence on the state. This erodes at any incentive the public would have to be productive, as socialism inherently punishes the productive to reward the unproductive. I'll use a disabled veteran as a real life example of this effect of social programs. As a disabled veteran of age to receive social security, he received government benefits. When he endeavored to start his own consulting firm, he received a letter from the government warning him that he would lose his social security and disability benefits if he established that business and earned income. The veteran, like many people in his position chose to abandon his consulting firm as a result, foregoing the risk of starting his own business for the security of government social programs.

Another danger that should be considered is that social programs would act as a magnet attracting unproductive people from other countries. Even without open borders, much of the opposition of immigration in The United States is rooted in the fact that immigrants are potential welfare recipients. It angers Americans that thought they were providing a safety net for themselves with their tax dollars to perceive that someone just entering the system paying next to nothing might receive those benefits. Whether that anger is justified is a debate for another time, but the point is this line of thinking does exist and would serve to cause division instead of unity in the country, again creating a breeding ground for tyranny.



2. No gun control

There's no question that a country with open borders would be much more susceptible to invasion by foreign enemies. Luckily here in the US, we have a Constitution and culture that shields us from such threats quite efficiently. The founders of The United States were wise to restrict the government from disarming its citizens, and while many people interpret the 2nd Amendment is referring only to militias, diving deeper into the Federalist Papers will make the founders intent and definition of militia as every armed man of fighting age.

“Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.” Patrick Henry, 1775

“Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” James Madison, Federalist 46

“…to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason, Virginia Ratification Convention, 1778

“…if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 28

“Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29

“the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, … or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press.” Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright June 5, 1824

The US isn't the only example of an armed populace discouraging foreign invaders and keeping the domestic peace. Switzerland also provides a good example of an armed populace providing it's own security and domestic tranquility.

"The nation is ready to mobilise on a moment's notice. Said one Swiss citizen-soldier, "If we start in the morning, we would be mobilised by late afternoon. That is why the gun is at home, the ammunition is at home. The younger people all have automatic rifles. They are ready to fight." Citizen-soldiers on their way to mobilisation points may flag down and commandeer passing automobiles."

-Excerpt from http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html



3. Established (government recognized and affirmed) Natural and Civil Rights

Another real danger to open borders is massive shifts in the balance of power in a democracy. Since democracy is simply tyranny by majority, it should be tempered with the republican form of government that recognizes and protects the rights of the minority. As flawed as the republican form of government is, it is the least worst system of governance we've developed in our history, and I believe it could do much to keep a nation with open borders from spiraling into tyranny.



4. Strict voting requirements

There has been much concern over election tampering in recent years, and open borders would certainly add to those concerns. Rival governments would send their populations temporarily across the border to change a nation's public or foreign policy in their favor. While established natural and civil rights help to safeguard against this, it seems prudent to make sure anyone voting on such policies has a vested interest in the nation they are voting in. How this is to be done presents other problems, as lines must be drawn on who can and cannot vote. Requiring land ownership (once used to keep freed slaves from voting, so already an unpopular idea) proved ineffective as those without property would simply purchase a square inch of land from a land owner to obtain voting rights. Another unpopular solution is a poll tax, which would only prevent poor people from voting. However, if we could come to an agreement of a reasonable set of requirements based on a minimum amount of time as resident of a country, or even go so far as to restrict voting to those born within the country, this problem might be solved. We have yet to come up with a perfect solution to this problem, so it seems quite the stumbling block on our way to open borders.



Without at the very minimum establishing what I have listed above, and hopefully more ideas we haven't thought of to make this idea work, I cannot advocate open borders. This shouldn't stop us from exploring this idea. I'm not advocating the dissolving of nations and borders for a one world government, as I think the diversity of countries gives us many options to choose how we want to live. I simply believe in freedom of movement, especially if that movement is designed to escape oppression and tyranny. If we do embrace the radical idea of open borders, we should do so only after safeguarding ourselves from the potential problems listed above. After all, the whole point of open borders is to encourage liberty, not invite tyranny.

Tools of Tyranny

An important way to fight tyranny is through education, because one man alone is powerless against a tyrant with an army at their command. Knowing the tools tyrants utilize to consolidate their power can be a great deterrent to their effectiveness.



Censorship


Controlling the information the public has access to has long been a tool for tyrants. Preventing information that would upset the masses from reaching them is a sure way to prevent uprisings.



Identity Politics


As we've seen throughout history, many tyrants utilize identity politics to divide the people. An us versus them mentality ingrained into a populace helps ensure the people will not rise up in unity to dethrone a dictator. In the 20th century we saw this tactic used both by fascists and communists with incredible success. The leader of the National Socialist Workers Party (Nazi) of Germany condemned anyone in his country, and those he invaded, based on their ethnicity or religious beliefs.

“People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of 'race' or 'gender' alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.”

― Christopher Hitchens



Gun Control


Ever since the gun was invented, tyrants have sought to keep it out of the hands of those they oppress. Firearms are a great equalizer in humanity, and tyrants are well aware they can more easily control people if only those loyal to them possess them. The great irony of imposing gun laws on the people, is that it must be done with guns.



Propaganda


One of the most valuable tools in a tyrants toolbox is propaganda, which is usually distributed through state controlled media. This was done in the past with newspapers like Praavda in the Soviet Union, and is a practice still utilized today. With the inventions of radio and television, state-run broadcasts have also proven an effective way to spread propaganda. Propaganda is so valuable to tyrants because it is an effective way to utilize their other tools on a massive scale.



Nationalism

One of the most valuable tools in a tyrants toolbox is propaganda, which is usually distributed through state controlled media. This was done in the past with newspapers like Praavda in the Soviet Union, and is a practice still utilized today. With the inventions of radio and television, state-run broadcasts have also proven an effective way to spread propaganda. Propaganda is so valuable to tyrants because it is an effective way to utilize their other tools on a massive scale.



Nationalism


When tyrants turn their eyes outward at foreign nations they can conquer to expand their empire, they utilize nationalism to take the same us versus them strategy of identity politics on a national scale. It has often been used to make a case for waging war and expansion. War often brings hardship to the people, as rationing causes a hardship for the general public. Convincing people this hardship is justified for the good of the country, or perhaps even the world keeps people docile even when their lives are unduly burdened by the ambitions of a tyrant. This is even a tool against those who do not buy into nationalism, because those that do might label them a traitor if they were to speak out against it.



Anti-theism

A handy tool for totalitarian tyrants with collectivist ideologies like communism and socialism, anti-theism is a tactic used to replace God with government in the minds and hearts of the people. The logic behind this is that people cannot be turned away from the state by the word of God. This is especially helpful when violence is needed to purge dissidents from a country, as a lack of consequential afterlife makes moral obligations less important in the grand scheme of things. This isn't to be confused with atheism, which is simply the denial of the legitimacy of theism by an individual. Many atheists still respect the rights of others to worship a higher power, but anti-theists endeavor to eliminate theism, and may go as far as persecuting those who would worship.



Theism

Monarchies have relied on theism throughout history to justify their elevation to absolute power above the people of their country, declaring themselves representatives of God, chosen to lead. This way they can cause the people to believe they deserve complete control of the wealth of the land, even though they could not have gained any wealth without the work of the people. A prime example of this is King Henry VIII, who for the sake of divorcing his wife Catherine of Aragon led England to reject catholicism and establish its own church.

Henry VIII had 6 wives throughout his reign, many of which he discarded either from lack of sexual attraction, or because they did not produce a male heir. Many of them met tragic fates.

Catherine of Aragon (marriage annulled, died while detained under guard at Kimbolton Castle, mother of Mary I)

Anne Boleyn (marriage annulled, then beheaded, mother of Elizabeth I)

Jane Seymour (died twelve days after giving birth to Edward VI, believed to be caused by birth complications)

Anne of Cleves (marriage annulled, outlived the rest of the wives)

Catherine Howard (beheaded)

Catherine Parr (widowed at death of Henry VIII, remarried to Thomas Seymour)

Henry VIII had so many wives, a common mnemonic device was created to remember the fates of Henry's consorts

Boleyn and Howard lost their heads,

Anne of Cleves he would not bed,

Jane Seymour gave him a son - but died before the week was done,

Aragon he did divorce,

Which just left Catherine Parr, of course!



War

Usually supported with nationalism, war is an effective way to unite people behind their tyrant. Everyone wants to back a winner, it is a simple human nature that is easily exploited with war. It is perceived as dangerous to have power change hands during wars, and even former United States Presidents have kept their power simply because the populace feared changing leadership would weaken the war effort or leave them vulnerable to attack.



Surveillance


Nothing safeguards against political opponents quite like having information that you can use against them. Collecting embarrassing facts about potential opponents can be used to silence them through blackmail. This tactic can also be utilized to catch and punish dissent before it can grow powerful enough to topple a dictator. This tool has been vastly expanded by the internet, as now online activities can be monitored and collected not only for gathering dirt on dissenters, but also in totalitarian countries to be used to prosecute those who would dissent on social media services like Facebook. A mass exodus from Facebook by Vietnamese users to Minds is because such a practice has been legalized in Vietnam.





There are many tools tyrants use to consolidate or keep their power. Too many in fact, to list them all. There are also many subtle ways tyrants can be effective, including planting audience members to start applauding after making political points during a public speech. If you feel I've left some tools tyrants use out of this article (which surely I have), you're welcome to point them out in the comment section. The more we speak to each other about these tools of tyrants, the better chance we have of recognizing them and resisting their influence over us.


Psychotropic Drugs - An Epidemic?

I've noticed that no one in the mainstream media seems to want to discuss something many mass shooters have in common: Psychotropic drug use. It's worth your time to read the whole article, but this particular excerpt caught my eye. For some reason all of the focus seems to be on the tools these troubled souls use to commit their heinous crimes, but interest in the motivations or causes of these violent outbursts seem to fall by the wayside to promote some sort of gun control agenda.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From https://www.goodtherapy.org/drugs/psychotropic-medication.html

"Medication can interfere with the emotions as well as the psychotherapy process. A common side effect of psychotropic medication is difficulty feeling certain emotions once the drug accumulates in a person’s system. For example, many people complain of losing the feelings they used to have, report a reduction in their ability to laugh or cry, or experience a decrease in libido."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To give you a clear idea of which drugs we're talking about, here's a list:

http://www.namihelps.org/assets/PDFs/fact-sheets/Medications/Commonly-Psyc-Medications.pdf

Could this be the real problem in this country? Our children are incredibly over-medicated when compared to statistics just 25 years ago. We've seen federal regulations that prevented pharmaceutical companies from advertising directly to patients repealed, no doubt as a result of aggressive lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry. It seems all the power we allow our government to regulate the medical industry has done little to stop some physicians from pushing pills for profit. It's a troubling situation that needs to be addressed.

To address the issue with guns, I ask the reader to look back into the past, when children weren't so heavily medicated and public schools actually had competitive rifle shooting teams. Most people aren't old enough to remember guns being allowed in their school, but it's a fact that competitive school rifle teams were commonplace about half a century ago, and no one seemed to go crazy and gun down their fellow classmates. This seems to me to support the idea that guns themselves aren't the problem.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/573012752569948796

So, do you agree that guns, drugs, or perhaps both are the problem? I've presented my arguments, you're more than welcome to make yours in the comments.

Peace Officer or Revenue Ranger?

One of the biggest problems with law enforcement today is caused by the irresponsible behavior of politicians. Far too often politicians fail to balance their budgets by either raising taxes or cutting spending, leaving huge budget shortfalls that need to be compensated for somewhere. Unfortunately, many states, cities, and municipalities have come to rely on fines and fees for services to make up the difference. This has caused many government bodies to repurpose peace officers as revenue rangers.

Now, law enforcement officers aren't judged by how well they keep the peace, but rather by how much money they bring in. It's a dangerous situation most obviously on display when they utilize civil asset forfeiture, but almost everything we see our law enforcement officers doing today is about making money. Parking citations, traffic violations in which there is no injured party, as well as fines for seemingly victimless crimes like prostitution, gambling, drug possession, etc. are also a problem. Some incensed police accountability activists now refer to the police as road pirates, or extortion soldiers. Many activists are motivated by perceived injustices in their own lives perpetrated by law enforcement. The civilian response to this legalized theft has been mostly peaceful, and many examples of those peaceful responses can be found on this channel. However, we have seen violent responses as well, such as the brutal attack carried out on July 7, 2016, by Micah Xavier Johnson in Dallas, Texas.

While incompetent politicians and the people that continue to vote for them are at the root of the problem, there is another factor that should not be overlooked, and that is the nature of the beast that is bureaucracy. It's common practice in government to spend every dime of allocated budget whether it's necessary or not. This is because bureaucrats fear if they have a surplus, their budget will be cut. This results in ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars, so a department can ensure it will not be deprived of more taxpayer dollars to waste in the next fiscal year. Bureaucracies have time and time again demonstrated a sense of self-preservation and desire to grow.

Some say the solution to stopping this out of control money grab is to starve the beast, but we must not forget that a hungry dog is an angry dog. We risk more violent policing than we already have if this is the only tactic we employ. We the people must find a multi-pronged solution to this complex problem, because it's obvious politicians, bureaucrats, and law enforcement officials are either unwilling or incapable of doing so.

For the skeptics that don't believe peace officers are being utilized as revenue rangers, I urge you to watch the video below.



The Government in Your Bedroom

Marriage is a religious institution. Religion invented it, religious figures perform the ceremony, and religions view it as a way to stabilize their "flock." Somehow, the federal government, which is supposed to be restrained by the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." created a federal tax code that discriminates against people based on whether they're married and even how many living offspring they produce in or out of wedlock. That, in my humble opinion, is a law that respects an establishment of religion by offering different tax statuses based on participation in a religious institution.

I personally don't give a warm fart what people do in the privacy of their own homes, and I don't think the government should either. The moral issue I see at stake here is equality under the law. Equality for people whether they're married or not, or whether they've procreated or not.

Choosing to create a contract between you and your significant other is not the government's business, and their attempts to alter the behavior of the people with tax policy is despicable.

The Desecration of Old Glory

I've found myself at odds with friends over this issue. I see many memes and other declarations on social media claiming that, "If you disrespect the flag in front of me, you'll get your ass beat." That is what prompted this long overdue post.

So, in the United States, you have the 1st Amendment that affirms the right to freedom of speech. This speech includes desecration and burning of the American Flag. For many, the flag is a representation of the ideals our nation was founded on. The Bill of Rights is sort of this country's sacred 10 commandments. That being said, the top of the list is freedom of speech.

So, it appears exercising your freedom of speech to desecrate the symbol of that freedom is self-defeating. The problem is, symbols are interpreted differently by different people. The Stars & Stripes are a symbol of imperialism and oppression to foreigners around the world. It's the symbol of corporate greed, and American hypocrisy of bombing foreign countries into democracy. It's even a symbol of the Great Satan to certain religious zealots. Perhaps this is the reason the Supreme Court decided that desecrating the flag should be considered free speech.

No matter the reasoning behind the SCOTUS ruling, they've held (quite consistently) that the offensive act of desecration of the flag is a protected right. Yet, there are many "patriots" who suspend logic and succumb to the emotional response of someone destroying "their" symbol. Silly slogans spill from their mouths, such as, "You don't like USA, get out!"

The truth is, flag burners, and the people that threaten violence to stop them are both misguided. They've both put this symbol above logic and reason. Flag burners are desecrating a symbol of the freedom that allows them to burn the flag, while "patriots" attempt to oppress the flag-burners' freedom of speech, because it offends them.

This obviously hypocritical action by "patriots" is also self-defeating. How can you defend freedom when you attack anyone exercising it? This emotional reaction is most likely a symptom of nationalism.

Nationalism is a horrible way of thinking. To paraphrase Doug Stanhope, it causes you to hate people you've never met (foreigners), and to take credit for accomplishments you had nothing to do with (we saved the French's ass in WWII).

The 1st Amendment is there to protect offensive speech, because inoffensive speech doesn't need protecting. Being able to hear offensive and new ideas will do nothing to hold a society back. Conversely, if we squelch new and scary ideas, and imprison people for thinking, we will have a very hard time advancing as a society/species.

We've made mistakes in history that reflect this. One of the most famous examples is the imprisonment of Galileo Galilei for his theory of heliocentrism. The man had a new idea about the universe that the political, religious, and scientific establishment disagreed with, and was locked away for it. The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution is a safeguard against such injustices, but as long as there are "patriots" out there willing to threaten violence against people they disagree with, we still have work to do as a society.

Civil Asset Forfeiture

I'm sure there are many factors you could point to that put our nation on the wrong path, but today I'd like to focus specifically on the judicial system.

Policing for profit is probably the biggest issue I have with law enforcement. This practice comes from a ridiculous law called civil asset forfeiture. This unconstitutional law allows police to seize assets without any due process, all they need to do is claim they feel the assets are being used for illegal activity. Your property can be indefinitely seized for nothing more than vague suspicions. Even worse, the department that seizes the assets keeps them for itself, providing even more motivation to seize people's property without cause.

Now, departments depend on this shady practice to fund their departments. Some counties in Texas have 40% of their law enforcement funding coming from asset forfeiture. This makes this bogus law hard to repeal, as many municipalities have become dependent on this ill gotten booty.

Asset forfeiture isn't the only way cops police for profit, although it's the most blatant. They also serve citations for victimless crimes:

Prostitution

Drug use

Traffic citations

Public drunkenness

Gambling

These are just some examples. The cities and municipalities that rely on cops to generate revenue are the real problem. Sure, a cop may be a complacent participant in this scheme, but our own elected officials allowed this to happen in the first place. I'd rather our communities would employ peace officers instead of revenue rangers. A cop with a radar gun on the side of the road might generate revenue, but he's not helping anyone with a real emergency. We've basically turned LEOs into an extortion arm of whatever city or municipality employs them, and it's a damn shame.

Let's not forget the other extortion racket we call courts. There are usually no constitutional judges presiding over these courts, but rather executive administrators, which can't possibly give you a fair trial, because guess where their money comes from. How can we have an honest and fair court when the "judge" and prosecutor and even your public defender (all members of the same club known as the BAR association) all eat their slop from the same trough?

Why Anarchy is Just as Much of a Pipe Dream as Communism

When researching history, it's easy to find the deadly effects of trying to implement communism. It's literally all over our history books. However, one power structure (or lack of one in this case) has never really been given much attention in the history books: Anarchy

Now, don't get me wrong, if I had a choice only between anarchy and communism, anarchy would be a no-brainer. As a matter of fact, anarchy and voluntaryism are quite appealing. Unfortunately, anarchy and communism share the same Achilles heel, which is human nature. Specifically, greed, and ego are the primary reasons both communism and anarchism are pipe dreams.

Imagine all forms of government disappeared tomorrow, what would happen? Under the theory of voluntaryism, you wouldn't have to subject yourself to anyone's jurisdiction, you would be truly free. This is the utopia anarchists dream of, but if they ever achieved it, it would be short-lived.

Most anarchists believe in the Non-aggression principle, which says violence can only be used for defense. However, if there was no government or authority to punish those that violate the NAP, we'd soon see people banding together voluntarily to protect themselves from violent outsiders. Everyone knows that there's safety in numbers. When those people band together, they might come up with a set of laws for their society to follow, and even establish boundaries (borders) so they could feel safe from outside attacks on their own land. Other people would do the same, and before you know it, multiple factions will be competing over resources. Some factions will undoubtedly choose violence as a way to impose their will on rival factions, and the peace and prosperity of voluntaryism will have been shown to be unworkable.

If you want to see the results of anarchy, you can find it all around you. The end results are drawn on a map for you to see. A map that shows 195 factions (196 if you count Taiwan) made up of millions of people, each with their own set of rules to follow, borders, strengths, and weaknesses.

Therefore, I feel it's safe to conclude that if all governments of this world magically disappeared, we would simply start building new ones. It would basically be like hitting a reset button, so we could struggle and kill each other like we did before to get to this point. After all, there's safety in numbers.