Surviving the CIA Torture State

Some time ago I posted a video of an Amnesty International cinema 'advert' which described water-boarding onto my YouTube channel. Within a week it had 430,000 hits and my other selection of self-made videos, about war in Iraq, the death of Dr David Kelly, the EU, Blair's body language, the BA038 Boeing 777 crash and so on, all had viewings rocket accordingly too. I dedicated my time to vigorously responding to 'meathead' comments defending the NeoCon agenda and military heroism. I was brutal in my honesty.

Guess the result? My channel was close by YouTube with my old ISP numbers all today still remaining blocked by YouTube. I could never be certain the waterboarding video was the cause of the account's closure but it is my best guess. It was a successful 'truth' enterprise till then but I have not really got back, in the same way, into video blogging, one way and another, as a result.

Of America's use of torture, imprisonment without trial, spying, murderous wars of aggression, murder of innocents (at least hundreds of thousands in Iraq), financial malevolence and the clear fiction surrounding 9/11 causing fulfilment of the NeoCon Zionist 'Project for the New American Century' agenda: I blame the American people. They have allowed their government to be hijacked and have tolerated this since at least the time of JFK being killed and greatly before too. They have allowed their country to turn into a Police State and to be run as the tax-cow for a Hegemonic Corporate Fascist Empire war machine.

The bulk of the people are so dumbed down as to the truth and so hyped-up over false rhetoric it is shameful. The many Americans who do understand the dangerous nature of this conundrum need to act, have to act, else they are just part of the problem too.
Act or pay the price folk. You are at war, you are under attack. Accept this no longer. Do not rest or resign till you succeed or die. Fail to act and the outcome will be disastrous for you, for your land and for the people of the world.

Act does not mean violence. Violence will fail. The one thing your state is good at is violence. They want you to be violent. They want to kill you. Yes: they want to kill YOU. Don't give them any excuse for violence. Don't even just protest. Protest is just 'silly begging' of your slave-masters for them to grant a little change. Protesting is accepting the authority of 'the state'.

The action required is to get organised, find others to work with, share knowledge and resources, plan and then just get on with the business of educating your fellow citizen. Keep off the 'wacky', deal with the substantive. Teach people how to understand, for themselves, what is happening and introduce them to the range of topics. The ones so dumbfounded they cannot listen or understand: brush aside. Move on to the next and the next and the next.

Secondly: reject the false belief in 'the state'. It has not worked, does not work, will not work and never can be made to work. 'The state' is only the device of your enslavement and the best tool of your enslavers. All apparent benefits of 'the state' are deception and can be better achieved in other, more simple and efficient, ways. If you do not understand this yet: work on it. You will never be free whilst there is a state to contend with. And you will never be free in yourself until you get this set correctly in your mind.

The Legitimacy of the All Mighty State

At least as many human cultures have some form of religion as they do some form of leadership.  If belief and gods and religions were not an inherent human propensity there would be numerous cultures without gods or religion.  Religion comes from the part of the mind that sees a figure in the shadows, the human's mind is always trying to make sense of  their environment.  That is the job the brain does: it hears a sound, matches it to every other sound it has previously listened to and draws a conclusion as to the probable source.

I do not deny that seeking leadership in social orders is also something humans have a propensity for.  Leadership is something different to having government.  The word 'leader' does not imply that you are compelled to obey the leader - you can always leave.  'Ruler' is something different.

The utility of leadership and the propensity for belief in gods combine.  In its earliest incantation leaders adopted or invented religions which then gave them greater validity and power.

Leadership has evolved into the state.  That alone does not make the establishment of the system, aeons old perhaps, the most productive means for humanity to structure society into the future.  No more than murdering a neighbouring tribe, raping young women in the woods, sacrificing babies to a god, abusing prisoners, being whipped-up into violent action by a cunning orator and so on.   These are just things a human animal may have a propensity towards.

It is natural for leaders to want more power and absolute power.  It is not natural for people to want leaders with absolute power (though it can appear so if they are seeking advantage themselves from or within that establishment).

I do not see our modern society as having progressively become more atheistic.  I see that science has progressively dismissed mumbo-jumbo religions and so in turn the state itself, which first just took its mandate from the religions of Gods, has diverted religious belief from being a belief in Gods over to the idea of the state as being real instead.  We still live in an age of religious indoctrination: now one of belief in the state as an entity which warrants man's unquestioning capitulation to its real necessity and its supreme power.

Man is infinity adaptable.  If we were born into the world of being jellyfish we would adapt to that the same as we adapt to being born a king or a slave.   Born into a world of states we accept the paradigm as being normality.

One must separate the issues.  It is no good thinking: 'we must have a state, regardless of its legitimacy, because a state is essential'.  That is cognitive dissidence.  Try a thinking exercise for imagining that there is, already, a known answer for every need of human society without needing a state, (or at least restrain from being overwhelmed by the converse belief when it rises).  Would you still demand the necessity of a state then?  A 'state' without it having assumed the authority to make people do what it decrees is not a state.  So a state must have the ability to use force.  If it has the authority to use force it must do so even without voluntary agreement.  Would a state be legitimate if there was no need for it?

Therefore the issue is not is a question of: is 'the state' legitimate, because clearly it is not.  Its imagined legitimacy comes instead from asking the question: is the state essential despite its illegitimacy. 

The act of freedom happens in the mind: we can never be free whilst our minds are enslaved.

 The only thing one can rely upon in a human society is that generally people will act first in their own self-interest. It may be likely that a majority will act reasonably most of the time but it is improbable that that alone would be sufficient to allow an ordered society to function. I do not see where my proposals rely on anything more than just a realistic level of reasonable action - that we are not all thieving psychopathic rapists, just a few are.

I do think most people are generally reasonable and most people realise that their self-interest is best served by their being reasonable and not by acting in a manner harmful to others. But clearly this propensity for fairness and reasonableness is not going to be a sufficient mechanism alone for an ordered safe prosperous society to function.

It certainly is not realistic that some imagined telepathic hocus-pocus could do this job of ordering society because, as far as we know, such a thing does not exist.

A woodland does not need a central planning committee to order it to be sustainable, for the good of the life that thrives in it. But it does need central control if it is being grown as an ornamental park though that would be a very superficial means of determining the wood's surface appearance. If the woodland management stops it quickly reverts to being a natural environment which is more efficient and robust that the man-made model. We need to stop the action of government impinging on human society and allow society to develop the natural systems in place of the false actions of the state. Human society may change its appearance a little but it would be more robust as a result.

People and human society manage to do all sorts of things without the fundamental involvement of government to manage the various processes. A good example is the production and distribution of food. Where the state is involved mostly the result is a deterioration of efficiency - farm subsidies for example. More efficient is allowing pure market forces to find the most profitable means to fulfil the market's demand. Where government did take complete control in the USSR the result was inefficiency, lack of choice, starvation and shortages.

Indeed most of human activity is, thankfully, greatly free from over interference of the state and works just fine. The more government meddles the more distorted the systems become. All we need are market forces responding to the market meeting needs and self-interests.

I like the thinking that everything mankind does is actually part of a 'natural' process.  If that is building nuclear power stations or genetically engineering a new species based on the original human it can all be understood to be the activity and development of a natural creature - much like termites building a mound or chimpanzees murdering the young of mating and resource competitors.

The evolution of leadership in human society is part of a natural ordering that has evolved just the same.  That would make a seed change towards a society that did not require an authoritarian state using force to implement its mandate part of a natural process too.  It would not be artificial, how could it be imposed outside of just being a next step in the development of human society I am not sure (short of extraterrestrials brainwashing humanity as an anthropological experiment perhaps but even that would be 'natural' within a galaxy wide ecosystem).

I am not suggesting that a human society ordered by a plethora of spontaneously formed, needs-based, non-hierarchical, self-organised, systems developing in response to demand would be without imperfections.  I am suggesting that it would respond to such imperfections rapidly and effectively.  The responses that fail to provide the most efficient solutions would be less likely to be as widely adopted as those found to be efficient and successful.

A reasonable quick outline of this science can be found at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order

My proposal is not to do with expecting that a self-organising society will return humanity to some pre-technological style of existence.  That humans are natural creatures living in a natural world does not mean they would not continue to cause market forces that utilise the best of advancing methods.  The analogy with a self-organising ecosystem is intended to only be analytical in that a modern human Societal ecosystem, (whilst still a complexed counterbalanced series of relationships, with causes and effects), can nevertheless include whatsoever advanced solutions service and goods providers find market forces indicate as most advantageous for their commercial success.

Far from government providing a 'firewall' between the weak and the exploitive and to muster initiative at times of duress, the state is the most exploitive mechanism kept at the behest of an elite oligarchy to funnel tax and power to their interest and the state is the predominant cause of violent death by way of war and holocaust.

The Establishment Plagued with Sociopaths, Psychopaths and Useful Idiots
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/04/29/the-establishment-is-plagued-with-sociopaths-psychopaths-and-useful-idiots/

DEMOCIDE: MURDER BY GOVERNMENT
Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

A clear mind can not condone this corrupt system.

Recommended Pod-casts

The Corbett Report       
Open Source Intelligence News   
http://feeds.feedburner.com/CorbettReportRSS

CorbettReport.com - Feature Interviews       
http://feeds.feedburner.com/CorbettreportcomInterviews

Cutting Through the Matrix with Alan Watt
Alan Watt gives you Both an Historical and Futuristic Tour on who runs society, gives you your thoughts, trends, your entire reality - through media, entertainment and 'education'. This is a controlled global society, planned long ago by an elite group wo   
http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/AlanWattPodCast.xml

Freedomain Radio with Stefan Molyneux       
The Logic of Personal and Political Freedom  
http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadioVolume6

Gnostic MediaPodcast       
"gnostic" is for knowledge
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/category/gnosticpodcast/feed/

Mises Media: Audio Mises Daily      
The audio versions of selected Mises Daily articles
http://feeds.feedburner.com/AudioMisesDaily

The Peace Revolution Podcast       
Subscribe. Listen. Learn. Exit the Rabbit Hole.   
http://peacerevolution.podOmatic.com/rss2.xml

Red Ice Radio       
Questioning the Artificial Constructs
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/radio.xml

School Sucks Podcast: Education Evolution       
Indoctrination + Regurgitation + Graduation ≠ An Education     
http://schoolsucks.podOmatic.com/rss2.xml

What On Earth Is Happening       
Truth, Consciousness, Mind Control, Natural Law, The Occult, Real Solutions For True Freedom
http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/WOEIH-Podcasts.xml

Freedom

 

The act of freedom happens in the mind: we can never be free whilst our minds are enslaved.  Once it is truly understood that we actually are already free - that authority is an illusion or rather a mass delusion - then we should: set upon the work of inspiring others to grasp their freedom too whilst denning the edicts of those who continue to suppose to be our masters.

Real slavery is the slavery of the mind.  Chains or laws may hold us to the ground but ethereal chains, those upon the mind, are by far the most treacherous.

As Larken Rose writes in his immeasurably important recent book 'The Most Dangerous Superstition':
'Even most of those who recognise 'government' as a huge threat to humanity speak of doing away with it, as if it actually exists.  They speak as if there is a choice between having  'government' and not having 'government'.  There is not.  'Government ' is a logical impossibility.  The problem is not actually 'government' but the belief in 'government'.
See http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/145075063X

Fooling trusting people who cannot see these predators.

In ancient Persian times a priestly class known as the Magi would sit in judgement of people's crimes and rule by convincing their subject's through the use of illusion and deception that they were the all powerful, rightful authority.  The Magi had occulted considerable varied knowledge and skills, including keeping a perpetual fire burning (so people would literally come to them to start their fires in their home), of science, of human psychology, and had extensive medicinal knowledge. 

Today's Magistrate is a reflection of a modern version of these priests and their name historically originates with the Magi.  Not much changes.  Men's minds continue to be deluded by much the same type of illusion, a modern version, now to subjugate all to the authority of the state.  Those who desire the authority of the state to remain have learnt these principles originally applied by the Magi and have almost all eating from their hand.

And you have the gall, the failure of vision, the intellectual weakness, to suggest I am brainwashed. I can only laugh or weep.

A response to an earlier comment

If I refuse to pay tax it is not 'my' taxes that I refuse to pay, I don't own them. They only become 'my' taxes if I accept them, (if I accept the paradigm of the state as being true, real and correct). I may pay them because I understand the negative consequences I am threatened with if I do not (and I may hand my Rolex to a mugger too but that does not mean I accept he is entitled to rob me - I just don't want to get stabbed).

The threat is not from the 'state' or from the state's 'government'. The threat is from the individuals who would carry-out the threatened consequences under the auspices of their belief that: whilst as individuals they understand they are not entitled to regularly extort from me a proportion they judge correct from my property by threats of violent force and kidnap, with the special office they accept from other individuals, who they believe to be in 'authority' over human society, they are under the delusion they are entitled to act under such irrational orders or mandates.

If nobody believed in or even knew of the concept of the state the concept of the state would not have any effect. It is only the belief in and acceptance of the concept of the state that causes people to act as though it is a legitimate construct.

Conversely if nobody believed in or even knew of the concept of Human Society, human society would still have an effect. If people were then introduced to the concept they would say: "Oh yes, we understand, we have one of those. This is the way we already live together and cooperate".
It is not necessary to force belief in and to force acceptance of the concept of Human Society to cause people to act as though it is a legitimate construct.

There are many many different choices of political system by which a 'state' can exert its control over human society. If a state charged no tax it would follow that it would not need a robust mechanism to collect such revenues. Conversely if a state required the payment of an exorbitant level of taxation it will need to have a robust system in place. That can be a system of precise evaluation and unstoppable collection. That can be a system of providing justification and public support for taxation. The state has a plethora of such controls at its disposal.

If a state turns up socialism, gives widely approved of and more abundant social benefit, it can turn down its more totalitarian methods. There is a cost/benefit equation to be enjoyed between all of these systems and finding the most productive series of balances is the preferred option. The USSR has shown their totalitarianism, driven greatly by warring political idealogical factions and disparate oligarchies, was not the most productive means by which to function.

China has more recently found a different mix where currently their authoritarianism and global-corporate/capitalism appear rather odd bed fellows.

In the UK the system flips polarity vaguely with a minuscule shifting between socialism and corporatism, the two also constantly oozing closer together and further from the relatively liberal society we once enjoyed.

You state "it would be difficult, if not impossible, for capitalism to exist on a large scale without a state" but you do not expound meaningfully on this outstanding proclamation.

Capitalism is no more than trading between people. It is an innate human quality and the fabric upon which humanity is built. You drive the game to me, I kill it, we share it.

The state is the greatest burden on capitalism. All the functions which the state has usurped greatly precludes entrepreneurship from entering those markets. How can, for example, private education undercut a competitor who takes money via the threat of violent force from everyone regardless of if they have children or not.

How would you like your child schooled by protection racketeers who made every child attend an establishment where they controlled the entire curriculum for at least a dozen years. And you think they would not be trying to indoctrinate their pupils?

How would you like those same racketeers to be handing-out the licences to radio and TV stations (or in the case of the UK owning the BBC and even CNN at one point).

How is it my friend that when it was clear to every thinking person before the invasion of Iraq that the planned war was wrong and the claims of WMD were false yet 'the dog did not bark'. The UK and US went to war when the press and mainstream media should have TORN Blair and Bush into scraps - before the killing and destruction of a nation ever got started. And you have the gall, the failure of vision, the intellectual weakness, to suggest I am brainwashed. I can only laugh or weep.

It is corporatism that is dependent on government not capitalism. Corporate owners are greatly granted immunity from their debts and it is corporations who influence government to act in their interest.

Rather than resist what I have to say and defend your way of thinking why not show me you understand the proposition and yet then can argue against it? You fail to do that so I know your resistance is simply because you have not allowed yourself the opportunity to tentatively venture outside of the most basic statist mode of thinking.

Slaves to the Banker State

The missing factor in the housing market equation is the lack of consequences or to express that another way: imaginary limitations granted to lenders and borrower's liabilities.

This is the fault of the state. How? If I lend the capital to a house purchaser and they default I suffer a loss - that focuses my mind as to the real risk and consequence. If my loans to borrowers were made with capital that I did not own but was nevertheless available to me as a result of, say, my substantial and consistent business cash-flow, that would be a risky business strategy, but I could argue I was still not actually 'trading insolvently' because the loan I had made formed an asset on my balance sheet.

How could I take such a risk (knowing if my borrower defaults I cannot pay my liabilities)? Easily if I have a state registered Limited Liability company (Ltd Co) and I measure the potential for profit exceeds the value of my Ltd Co should this loan default and the company go bust (unable to pay creditors). Most Ltd Co's do not see this sort of prospect as making commercial sense even with their directors enjoying Limited Liability protection because they do not see the potential for sufficient return against capital available and the prospect of risk as a viable equation (let alone its questionable legality within the scope of trading insolvently as a Ltd Co).

Yet banks do expose themselves to this risk. Why? Because they can create almost as much money as they require so long as they are either receiving deposits at a sufficient rate, are re-financing loans or are able to enjoy interbank lending to fund the loans they are making. And then the full risk is ultimately mitigated because the central bank will act as 'lender of last resort' should their house of cards threaten to fall. Whilst the beneficiaries of central banks are hard to identify the guarantor is not: it is the state. But what actually is 'the state'? The state is a conduit for the power of the forced taxation of human society.

The only viable and moral solution is to remove the link between the productive, wealth creation, ability of human society and the financial indemnification of all types company owners for their losses - especially banks. Bank's owners will be very focused as to the risk they are taking when they see all their private property, past and future, is at risk. Bankers want the all the reward for themselves and YOU to take all losses. Bankers have used a succession manufactured wars to indebt states to them and to force states to allow the grant of this present banking system. They have created repeated economic bubbles and crashes to force the state to borrow more of the money they create via the permitted wizardry of fractional-reserve-banking.

Whilst we continue to have human society controlled and bleed via a 'state' we continue to allow a means for the banking money power elites to tap-in to the life-blood of humanity, through the power of state taxation, for their own gains at the cost of all others. The only enduring protection is to end the state!