If Freedom is Nature, the State is Tillage

Here is a patch of ground - how does it get along? With a natural order each organism appears to struggle for success against others, the worm is eaten by the bird, the trees take light from the ground. Soon a more stable, infinity flexible, order becomes prevalent; one that is optimal for the situation and for the life that can best flourish there. It needs no maintenance, the system is self-correcting. If rabbits boom the fox population grows too and counters that occurrence.

And it is deeper than that. It appears that each organism is an actor in this process but it is not entirely because each organism is a conglomeration of individual cells that are all acting individually in their best interest; which is to work in an ordered but highly complicated system of cooperation to form the organism they comprise.

This patch of ground needs no central planning and nor could that be achieved so supremely as it organises itself just fine. The systems are so intensely complicated it would be imposable to manage 'top-down' but left to operate as it naturally does, ground-upwards, it always produces a harmonious balanced and optimised environment.

Now the alternative is to attempt to work against that natural order and impose some apparently unified mono-culture on the patch - a lawn. It is going to take a lot of work, it is going to require force and resources. It is going to be unsustainable without constant attention and even then it is only going to look like a lawn when its is still just endlessly a natural environment struggling to return to its proper balance.

For what. Why does it need to be a lawn? Human society is not the sum of blades of grass to be unified and simplified, forced and controlled. That is not necessary if the idea is to see life flourish on this patch. Humans are as diverse as they individually wish to be and, acting as individuals, will make the vast plethora of decisions they need to work in their own best interests which then, as parts of a whole, adapt and develop to allow a balance order to flourish.

The 9/11 Epiphany

It was through realising the 'US government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory' is clearly an outright lie, that, searching for solutions, I came to the conclusion, the understanding, that those who believe in the religion of 'the state' form the most dangerous cult in the history of humanity. 

It is the belief in the legitimacy and necessity of 'the state' that empowers it, that makes it appear to be real.  It is not real, 'the state' only exists because people believe it is real and act as if it is real.  You think it is real?  show it to me, not its actors, not its buildings, its papers, its tanks, its schools, its violence.  Show it to me if it is real.

The world may always have bad people who want to cause and profit from harm.  The vast number of them, the psychopathic, gravitate to make use of the power this belief in 'the state' enables.  There is no possibility of restraining 'the state' to prevent its abuse (the USA is proof of this - the most liberally conceived nation in the history of humanity has turned into the most massive war machine in the history of humanity).  There is no modification of the model possible to prevent it from becoming a monster for, for no matter how great or small, it is always, and only can ever be, a monster (or a baby monster in the making).

The great thing about 9/11 - the one 'good' thing - is that: to those who are capable of opening their eyes, their minds, of doing the work, of undoing and setting aside a lifetime of indoctrination, to those capable, they can see that 9/11 was a colossal lie.   Once this is truly realised, really accepted, it is then evident that no other persons, properly informed and who examine the facts, can be of any other conclusion.  It is then logical that not only the US government but the governments of the whole world must also realise this evident truth too. 

So how can the governments of the world's nations continue to operate with such a colossal falsehood in their midsts and yet still be trusted, still be believed in?  They cannot.

How many more lies have been dealt to humanity, before and since, by governments?  How much harm?  How much stolen prosperity?  How much squandered happiness?  How many lives?  Plenty I say. 

Once the paradigm is shattered, once one truly breaks free from the indoctrination that 'the state' is real and valuable, once one learns to see that, far from struggle, without the belief in 'the state' humanity will thrive, one learns to see that 'the state' has caused humanity's progress to be wickedly thwarted and perverted.

When free from the belief one can see: whilst humanity has the propensity for good - that people are intrinsically humane, the opposite is true of 'the state'.  Without the use of force, the coercive threat of violence, with that faux legitimacy denied from 'the state' the state collapses, ineffectual.  The power that 'the state' is dependent upon does not legitimately exist for any individual, does not exist for any group of individuals, majority or not.  'The state' only exerts the power of violent force because it has, granted to itself, that monopoly.  That is, at its centre and fundamental to it, outright evil.

So not only is the religious belief in 'the state' a cult belief, it is a cult based in evil to its very core.  And the only reason why the world is not an even bigger mess, than it clearly is, is because that evil, the evil of 'the state', is moderated by the fundamental good inherent in humanity.

The One Certain Truth of 9/11

Whilst I am well informed of a broad range of suggestions I am highly resistant to advancing any alternative ideas with certainty as to how the events of 9/11 came about, none of them are based in solid, indisputable, factual evidence. None of them stack-up as unquestionable. And that includes the, so called, official theory. The official theory is full of inconsistencies that defy belief too.

There is just one thing I am certain of as regards 9/11 and that is we do not know, beyond any reasonable doubt, the truth of the events of the day. And we certainly do not understand the mechanisms by which any of the WTC towers structurally collapsed and how then so much of their residue had greatly disappeared. It defies logic and science.

Basing ones confidence just on the indisputably of the word of the US government and the main-stream media is not enough to 'hang your hat' on that as being fact. Take that notion out of the equation and the house of cards upon which the narrative is built collapses to the ground in a moment leaving nothing but dust blowing in the wind.

Your Property is the Last Resort of the Fractional/Central Banking Complex

I do not have a fundamental issue with a fractional reserve banking system nor with a central bank as a banker's lender of last resort. What I do have an issue with is 'the state' using its monopoly power of violence based coercion (the threat and use of force) to tax the people and underwrite that central bank.

In a stateless society people could legitimately offer banking services which employed a fractional reserve method of money creation and dealt in a form of money brought-about in this way. These banks, by way of assurance of their eventual solvency, could employ the services of central banks to effectively 'insure' their ability to repay depositors.

What those stateless central banks could not legitimately do is force the public to underwrite their losses. It would then just be up to the prospective customers of such banks to judge if they believed their deposits were safe in such institutions. And if those banks went bust the owners and directors of the bank would be liable to the creditors for their losses, every penny of their personal assets would be liable for forfeit.

So I think it is important to, truthfully and accurately, identify the real 'elephant' in this room. The elephant is not money, not fractional reserve money creation, not the bankers, not the banks, not the central banks, not even the inflation of an over-produced fiat currency. The elephant is the relationship between 'the state', money and banks, a relationship which indemnifies the banking system from its losses at the expense of an unwitting public.

It may be that the bankers have manipulated and cajoled 'the state' into the position of offering their commercial interests this indemnity (along with the protection of limited liability incorporation); that much is apparent to those who have studied the history of banking. But that is the prerogative of businesses: take whatever advantage you 'legally' can within the prevailing system.

Clearly 'the state' should never subcontract the function of the creation of money to entities outside of itself and yet continue to offer the resources of 'the state' to back-up that non-governmental commercial banking system. But whilst there is a central power, such as 'the state', it will always be at risk of being subjected to whatever pressures can be brought to avail. Pressures to turn the power of 'the state' into the service of those who would see that 'usurpation of power' gives them an irreproachable commercial benefit.

'The state' is, first and foremost, the mechanism by which the money-power and ruling oligarchy does their bidding. That is the purpose of 'the state' and all other apparent functions just illusionary 'window dressing' to fool the people into the belief that the role of the state is to serve the interests of the people.

Is My Enemy the State

I suppose the solution goes something like this: 'the state' does not exist, it is a belief, it is an illusion, it is a just another cult (but nonetheless a cult that is extremely prevalent - perhaps the most widespread cult in the history of humanity). Once people stop 'believing' in this, the 'cult of the state', it disappears, poof! (like a monster from a dream fades to nothing as soon as the dreamer wakes).

If 'the state' does not exist who is it that is a constant threat to the freedom of people. The answer, plain and simple, is: it is those who act as though the state is real and believe legitimises their various actions supposedly carried-out on the behalf of that belief they call 'the state'.

Those servants of 'the state' need to be fearful, fearful that, as this simple but evasive comprehension spreads, (that the state is a false construct which is harmful to the betterment of human society), that they, as willing agents of the imagined state, will be held personally accountable for their actions. Morally, financially and punitively. It will become 'risky' for them.

If it comes to a 'war' between 'the state' and 'human society', the people, in rebellion, will not be targeting the hard, the armed militarised police on duty, but will target the soft, all those 'servants of the state' who suckle on the teat of succour.  (Succour that is no less than the produce of stolen property obtained through the threat and use of violent force and the coercive system of physiological deception. They will soon need to live in fortresses and those fortresses will then quickly become no less than their jails).

I'm King of My World (as you are of yours)

I am a monarch, ruler and subject, sovereign of myself and myself only!  A state of anarchy does exist, has to exist, can only exist; now and at all times.

The impositions and bamboozlements of the believers in the cult of 'the state' has to work against, deny and hide this constant state of anarchy from view.

'The state' is false, an illusion, and therefore does not exist.  'The state' is just cult members doing whatever it is they think they are required or authorised to do.

There is only one freedom and that is the freedom of your mind.  They may chain you to the ground but whilst your mind is free you are free.

End 'the state'!

The False Definition of Anarchy

When I hear the word 'anarchy' I think 'without rulers', (as in the word's origin: Mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler').

When I hear someone using the word 'anarchy' to describe 'violence' I fear I may be confronted by a person who does not respect the basic tenants of liberty and freedom.  A person who has taken that word to mean its usurped bastardisation, its twisted propagandistic corruption, its false inversion.

A society without rules and rulers is by no means de-facto one that will be racked with violence.  Indeed look at the record of violence that result from the actions of 'the state', by far the greatest numbers are murdered by people who believe that the magical authority of 'the state' immunises them from normal human decent conduct whereupon they, for example, go to war and slaughter with apparent personal immunity.  It is a simple fact that many more have died at the hand of the cult of 'the state' in the last 100 years than all other non-state based violence together.

The only way 'the state' survives is through the use of force, the constant threat of violence.  Without the monopoly on violence 'the state' would collapse.  So is it any coincidence that in modern understanding the one word that describes the solution to this hateful system has been twisted inside-out to be taken to mean the very opposite, to strike the greatest threat to the cult of 'the state' a slanderous blow.  NO!  This is how language is used the build fase ideas into the minds of the common man.

I am not a clever clogs picking at use of words I am (a clever clogs) picking at use of an expression that says that: an absence of rulers would defiantly result it the total and violent breakdown of social order.

I say an absence of rulers could only result in a pure, balanced and harmonious social order.  The only thing preventing a balanced and harmonious social order from manifesting is but one of the effects of having rulers.  Far from 'the state' preserving social order, 'the state' causes social order's breakdown by reserving for itself the supposed right to total violence - especially through the coercive and constant threat of violent force.  Do people see this effect of 'the state' in their everyday experience?  Not always, they accept the tyranny, living kowtowed under the threat of use of violent force, as normal, an easily acceptable trade-off to allay their implanted and false fear, therefore essential, desirable even.

This is where I differ from the Libertarian.  Just as it is imposable to be a little bit pregnant, I do not believe there can ever be social harmony whilst there exists any form of 'the state'.  Whilst belief in the cult of 'the state' remains, no restraint can be devised that will stop it from growing into the Leviathan.  Just look at the degradation of America: from being the nation with apparently the most liberal constitution in the world's history of governments to what it is now, a disgusting military and intelligence complex, a police state and a nest of fascism: a human tax farm to feed the corporate internationalist oligarch's global hegemonic ambitions.