Why I will vote in the Brexit Referendum

I shall not be voting to beg our political masters: please sir, can we leave this nest of vipers.

I will cast a 'vote' and by doing so I will be, simply and only, signalling the fact (putting on notice) that I no longer consider the political relationship between the UK and the EU to be a valid one or one that is applicable to me.

If the outcome is remain I shall be a dissident.

Storm Warning! Is NOW the Time to Holdout in the Hills and Hunker Down?

Or do we say no!  We can stay in our homes, we can embrace our land, can embrace our people, can demand our good ways of living and we can hold firm.  We can tell our brothers and sisters what we can see and they too will already be feeling it, smelling it.  They will know that what they taste in their mouths today, that bad taste, is a coming death, the death of their freedom, the death of the wealth they have built themselves and that great gift given to us, TO US, by our parents and our grandparents and all our people before.  And then they will start to hear, from muffled to clear and bright.  They will hear because everyone knows, in the hearts, that this is coming but all just hope it cannot be, hope it will not be, wish they can pretend pretend and wish it all away.  But now before long they will see for themselves too, it is coming.

What will you do my friends.  Will you run and hide or will you work to spread the word we must all learn to say, to cry out, to roar.  We must learn to all say NO NO NO!

Those who know what I always have to say will have to rock back whilst I make my most important point again: we cannot beg our rulers to stop, we cannot force our rulers out only to replace them with more of the same.  That will change nothing but only perhaps just delay this inevitable decay, this decay that will only result from allowing the power of human society to be pathetically given-up to 'the state'.  No matter what limitations are imagined, if the power to rule is held in any form greater than the individual to rule himself it will always be stolen by those who would take it for their own.  We not only will be slaves but, without complete liberty, we already are.

Belief in 'the state' is indoctrinated, by every means, into human society by 'the state' in order to preserve itself but only for the advantage of whosoever always wins control.  Belief in 'the state' is a belief in a power that is illusionary, that is false.  Belief in 'the state' is not like a religion, it is a religion.  And those who are indoctrinated into following a religion are simply cult followers.  'The state' is a cult religion.  We must end the cult of the belief in the religion of 'the state' or we will not pass to our children, our grandchildren and all the right people the future of our nations.

This fine gift is a gift we were given and have been entrusted to preserve and enjoy only whilst we have our moment of time here on Earth, not to let it all be squandered.  Our one simple duty is to make it better where we can and then pass it on.  Not to strive, in every imaginable way, to do so is a failure most diabolic.

Images stolen from 

http://masksoftheworld.com 

outstanding expert in the subject and sale of fine masks

The Legitimacy of Authority between Leaders and Rulers

I have no issue with leaders, the existence of leaders is a good and proper circumstance within a natural human society.  It is rulers to whom I object and will struggle against.  A leader does not need to rule to lead but a ruler can only lead by rule.  Ron Paul, amongst others, helped lead me to a place where I could see that my innate desire for freedom was legitimate, conversely 'the state' rules that desire illegitimate and, in doing so, leads the masses to believe the legitimacy of that rule.

We cannot all be authorities on all things, there are those who are legitimate authorities on matters and by being so they are leaders in that field.  The ruler's authority is only supposed authority because they rule it so and that does not make them leaders in that field but rather just rulers of the field instead.

Finding Cogitative Harmony in a Statist World

The solution to the quandary of 'the state' is to see it for what it is: an illusion. 'The state' does not exist, it is only the sum of the people who act as though it is real, who believe it is real, that makes it appear to them as though 'the state' is real at all.

Those who do believe that 'the state' is real, is indispensable, has good utility, believe also 'the state' is endowed with powers no individual, and therefore no group of individuals, can legitimately take upon themselves: the initiation of the use of force. Use of force in self-defence is permissible but use of force to exert one's will against others is never permissible except, apparently, in the imaginations of those who believe in the legitimacy and utility of 'the state'.

It is not 'the state' that beats a protester, that steals goods from reluctant tax-payer, that kidnaps and imprisons a dissident, that goes to war, that bombs families in their homes. It is the sum only of the actions of the individuals who believe in 'the state'. Those 'statists' are lost in a delusion, true, but there are masses of them. It is a mass delusion! It is a mass delusion in a belief in a thing that does not exist but that they, the believers, believe does exist and that they believe has the right to powers that exceed those that are natural to a man.

The believers believe the power of 'the state' is legitimately greater than the natural powers belonging to any individual, that 'the state' rightly has extra powers, that 'the state' holds the right to powers above the natural powers, that 'the state' rightly has a super-natural power. This sort of belief is a religious belief, an unquestioning dogma, a blind capitulation to an inevitable existence and legitimacy.

And belief in this religion, the religion of the supernatural power that is 'the state', is so deeply ingrained in almost everybody, so all encompassing and fundamentally indoctrinated, it is a cult. A cult religious belief. Not 'like' a cult, it is a cult.

 
So I do not want to add to the worries for you, dear reader.  You have, no doubt, found all this 'stuff' you see wrong with the world, and, I trust, concerned yourself with seeking solutions; but if you are going to worry you may as well worry about the right thing! The solution we should be seeking is that we need to get rid of the false paradigm of the cult belief in the religion of 'the state'. For whilst we retain 'the state' we will never be free of the harmful effects caused by 'the state'. (Because the very existence of 'the state' is the cause of the greatest propensity of harmful effects).

I accept: it is not so easy to see this solution, to the harm, as leaving an effective mode-of-operation for human society to function within.  I know, I understated.  To see this requires a pealing back of the multi-generational layers of statist indoctrination, from childhood, from school, from home, from life, from almost every direction.  Indoctrination that we are all constantly exposed to.

To realise, to learn how to see, that humanity is infinitely capable of finding solutions, good and proper solutions, without central planning and control, is to see that: not only would the problems caused by 'the state' be dispensed with, in its absence, but that the utility of a stateless human society is far more efficient, faster to react, more creative of wealth, more innovative, infinity more peaceful, more compassionate, more durable, infinity more logical, defiantly more enjoyable, more harmonious and on and on, without the illegitimate false utility of 'the state' utterly spoiling it all, life on this Earth, for almost everybody.

Better still: you will also realise, upon reaching this conclusion, that you already are free yourself. That whilst 'the state' may try, and often succeed, in forcing you to need to comply, 'the state' can not force you to believe in it any more. 'The state' cannot make you believe it is moral, legitimate, truthful, necessary.

And with that understanding, that understanding of your existing, innate, freedom, your sovereignty within yourself, with that understanding comes happiness. Anger occasionally, perhaps from frustration and such, but the happiness of being a free man, albeit for now in an un-free world still burdened with the primitive doctrine of rulers being necessary, but an understanding that brings happiness nonetheless.

Statelessness is just the next scenario - or not!

The thing about beliefs is that they can appear to work, and as they endure they develop to become more refined they can apparently appear work better still. I have a few friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Now there are plenty of very serious and negative things about this dogma (and cult) but the fact is they are truly all very nice, apparently well balanced, people and generally appear to live satisfactory, happy lives. So why not all live like they do?

The cult belief in 'the state' is also a system of thinking that appears to work, with some limited success, in organising a deeply complicated world; and its followers, devotees, are all on the lookout for ways in which it can be reformed to function more effectively, more equitably too. So that appears also to be all good.

My opinion is that the concept of 'the state' is beyond being able to modify to reach closer to an ideal; because it is fundamentally flawed. The fundamental flaw can never be corrected and so, instead, will always contaminate 'the whole' to a point that 'the whole' will always be less than that which could be enjoyed (without the application of the concept of 'the state' being included in human society in the first place).

That does not mean a human society without a 'state' will undergo such an enormous seed change as is outwardly conceived as inevitable to occur in the absence of 'the state'.

Most aspects of our lives are already lived in an autonomous, self-directed, manner. The changes with statelessness would be more as if the operating system polarity was changed from a top-down to a to a ground up means of deriving most effective actions. Statelessness is just the next scenario on a road from clan chief, priest, tribal king, national monarch, imperial emperor and presidential statesman which will allow humanity to avoid the otherwise apparently inevitable alternative: a world state.

If we do not place the freedom into the hands of the individual now, to live as they wish without oppression, the danger is that this coming alternative could be, looks set to be, deeply oppressive and one that may well endure as-good-as indefinitely. If human society is subjected to a global state the natural condition of human society, the belief in the one right of the individual (to live as an individual with their property, in self and in effect), could be forgotten forever. That will be to the absolute detriment of humanity and yet is, I consider, near imposable to avoid without the understanding of how statelessness is the better alternative by far, the ideal.

Property Title in a Stateless Society - and Royal Prerogative

A stateless society is not by any means, de-facto, a society without a legal system (an arbitration system). Independent arbitration services will be able to offer judgements over matters, and establish a tested common law, which will then allow individuals to act with legal confidence.

Just sticking a flag in to the ground will likely be judged not sufficient, by an arbitration court, to support a claim of ownership of land. Taking good title through inheritance or purchase is probably going to still be the most common means of acquiring property. Usage, or homesteading, will be an other legal means for having a valid claim to land. If land is claimed to be owned by a first party and that ownership is to be challenged by another party, staking a claim, the first claimant is likely going to have to show a court both: 1. good title and 2. exploitation/usage. That usage can be argued to be as a wilderness nature reserve, or some such, but it will likely need to be an evidenced assertion.

Generally property that is not exploited in some demonstrable way could be up for adoption if you can get a court to agree with your claim and defend any further appeals attempted against that judgement. It is not so different in the UK today. If I maintain land or live in a building for ten years, without challenge, I can claim title and, if successful, that title awarded is as good as if I purchased the property.

If some clown wants to pay an Inuit tribal elder for a tract of ice covered land in central Greenland and for thirty years never does anything to care for or utilise that land: does he own it? If between times the Inuit tribe demonstrate they continued to exploit the land in every feasible way: to hunt across the land, live close by, manage wildlife, lead expeditions and assist scientific research; when it then comes about that natural gas reserves are found there the Inuit tribe are going to have a good case that they have the best claim to rights over that land.

If the clown can show he sold the Inuit annual hunting licences, rented the areas to them where they built their settlements, had studies carried out to direct wildlife management programs and paid for the proscribed work to be undertaken, commissioned local services for assistance with leading his client's expeditions into the landholding and requested that any other such activities were duly referred to his offices for permissions, then he will have maintained a good title.

The Royal Family in GB can likely prove better title to the land, rivers and sea bed of the Crown Estates than any other party, (with the exception, perhaps, of holders of freehold titled land within their curtilage). So if it was that 'the state' in the UK ended, the Crown could well argue that: everything still belonged to the Royal Family, as proven by descent. The Royal Family may need to consent to allowing property that was sold with a 'freehold title' was not reasonable to retain; but even so: if there were no heirs to an estate on the death of the freeholder, the Crown could then well argue they had better title to the land then any other party.

It could be argued that Royal Family land was obtained by illegal force but it would have to be proven precisely who the true heirs to the title of the stolen lands then would be, that their original title was true and correct, for those parties to demonstrate better title to a court of arbitration. (An argument just that the Norman Invasion caused 'the people of North Wales' to lose their land on Mount Snowdon would not be sufficient).

It is true that the Royal Family could argue that they did correctly own full title to the land of GB and that they were therefore entitled to dictate the terms of usage for people who chose to operate within the curtilage of their estates (state). Instead of openly 'spelling-out' to the population the true nature of the arraignment they are 'subjects' of, and then risk being violently overthrown by revolution, the British Royal Family have greatly distanced themselves from the process of Government and generally from the working processes of 'the state'.

And what is interesting in respect of America is that title to the land of America is dependent upon that assented in the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which means that the tile upon which 'the state' in American depends is only based in that which was granted by the British Royalty - much like the 'freehold title' of privately 'owned' property within GB itself. That means the property of America could prospectively, in the right circumstance, legally revert to the British Crown. So watch it OK!

The End of the State is Not the End of Governance (since Individuals Self-Regulate their Property Ownership Interests)

The phrase 'public property' is indeed an oxymoron, a nonsense, (one in which also an important 'something' of the nonsense of 'the state' is relieved).

In GB, where I live, not only is 'public property' actually described as 'Crown Property', (distinct from the personal property of the Queen, such as Windsor Castle), additionally 'The Crown' is considered the ultimate owner of all property, so, for example, if a property is found to have no title holder it 'reverts' to The Crown.

I consider it proper that the owner of land should be entitled to make whatsoever demands they should prefer of those who, duly informed, choose to be within that property's boundary. That could included everyone calling the owner the King, establishing an elite group amongst favoured tenants and such. A 'King' could even require that a tax was payable on all tenant's income and spending - if such a system could be made to actually work.

It would not be permissible for anyone, including a self proclaimed King, to obtain property through force nor to force people to move in and then remain on their land, their realm, or suffer conditions if they did not wish.

Within ourselves, our minds, our bodies and the product of our labour we all are sovereigns too, so whilst a self-proclaimed 'King' can demand people within their realm act as though they are they are the only sovereign if the 'subjects' are of clear mind they know that whilst they may be required to act in such a way, in that estate, it is not true and they can move.

This proposition is only apparently so quizzical when it is a question of scale. If the King's realm is a large island we can see it to be very much like a ruling monarch and if it is a modest building on the edge of town we see it is very much like an eccentric boarding house.

I call not for the end of 'government' although I presume that with the end of 'the state' the specific management system of 'the state' will be dispensed with too. That does not mean there would not be systems of governance, every organisation beyond a certain size employees some such system.

An individual employs self-governance and a group of self-governing individuals have a system of governance which is perhaps only the combined effect of their individual self-governance but that is their system of governance none the less. Every functional system must employ a system of governance of some type and form - be self regulating. There will always be systems of government in human society but the duties and appearance of systems of government in a stateless society will surely just be something unlike those of 'the state'.

'The state' is a different entity to a government. The government of a 'state' derives its supposed power only from 'the state'. It is the authority of 'the state' that is illegitimate and immoral and its implementation unnecessary and of no proper utility. A government without power is only able to govern by voluntary subscription - more like an association of some sort or other. Government then is simply 'the system by which affairs of human society is conducted' whatsoever that may be.

If all property can only be that which belongs to individuals, sovereigns within their property if you like, and the system of governance best suited to optimising any and all property is the self-regulation of the individuals who are owners of property then I think we can derive that such a system of governance will be the one that is both best for individuals and the optimisation of all property.

In the Cult Religion of Evil - Beelzebub Rules

The system of 'the state' is a system only of perversion. 'The state' is based on a monopoly of violent force, a right which no individual can legitimately or morally hold and so, in turn, no collective of individuals can hold either.

 No matter what percentage of people say they want a monopoly of force to be placed in the hands of 'the state' it is a perversion of morality and of legitimacy. So therefore, being a permanent condition, 'the state' has this fundamental perversion at its very core.

The only way to eradicate the perversion permanently is to reject the belief in the morality and legitimacy of 'the state'. The belief in 'the state' is irrational. It is not that belief in 'the state' is 'like' some kind of religion, with 'the state' just an all powerful but imaginary God, it is a religion with 'the state' a God that believers believe is real!

'The state' only appears to exist because of all the people who believe it to exist and act as though it exists but as soon as those people stopped believing in the existence of the God of the state, poof! It would be seen to have never existed. So we can accept 'the state' does not exist. We can accept 'the state' only appears to exist whilst people believe in it and act as if it is real.

 

We can also see that; as a religious belief, the religious belief in 'the state' is not one people just come around to understand and accept, it is a belief that is rooted in indoctrination. About the only thing that 'the state' is really good at is indoctrinating the public into unquestioning belief in the legitimacy and morality of 'the state' and in the necessity and utility of 'the state' too - the process is fundamental to the schooling system and much else besides.

The belief in the state is so deeply indoctrinated, so widespread, so all encompassing across human society, so unquestioned and so apparently fundamental to almost everyone's perception of humanity that it is nothing less than being a cult. A religious cult. A religious cult belief in a false God.

The wish to find and elect only good people is not the solution, has never worked, will not work and cannot work. How can the all powerful cult of 'the state' always make sure that: people who are not good people, 'bad people', (or good people who turn bad) do not get into, (or remain in), positions of power to then abuse that power. The power allowed by 'the state', having an apparently legitimate and moral right to use force, is a power most attractive to 'bad' people.

Good people, really good people, do not want that power strongly enough to fight their way past the clamoring of 'bad' people, the corruption, the lies, the aggression, the compromises necessary to gain and hold effective 'state' office. 'The state' is a bad person's game. To stop the perversion from setting in permanently the only solution is to bring about an end to the religious belief in the cult of 'the state'. Nothing less.

P.S.  Please excuse the rather vulgar URL - I was trying an experiment in building traffic only to now find it less easy to dispense with than originally envisioned (and slightly amusing too).

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.

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.

Dry-rot and the infestation of the state on the fruit of humanity

The State.  No more or less than grubby little people with their hands in our pockets looking to purloin whatever they can, from you and me, for naught.  And don't content yourself that these thieving bastards are the exceptions - it goes throughout the system like dry-rot.

For the development of dry rot, a special set of conditions must exist.  For thieving bastards to use the apparatus and mechanisms of the state to rob you, me, our inheritance, our children, our wealth, our future, our businesses, farms, villages, towns and our whole darn nation, scoffing every morsel they can, there needs to be a special set of conditions too.  And those conditions are no more, or less, than simply the presence of the apparatus and mechanisms of the state.

To Hell in a Handcart

If the apparatus and mechanisms exist you will be robbed, endlessly.  Not maybe but 100% defiantly because that is exactly what the apparatus and mechanisms of the state are designed for.  It has always been that way and it always will.  The only variable is how powerful the apparatus and mechanisms are, the weaker the less effective they are at thieving the lifeblood of humanity the better you may be able to get-on.  But weaker they are not getting.  No no!

Like dry-rot, the state, once it infests, can only momently stagnate or grow.  You will not get it to go away without destroying every timber it has reached into.  If you let it grow it will consume more and more.  It is ruthless and it is veracious.

The only good thing is that eventually it destroys everything of the material on which it is hosted and then it dies.  So in the end, ultimate victims of the ultimate state, we will all be sucked dry and left to crumble in the wind.  Then we may have a chance to build it up again and we can only hope that next time with more resistance, confidence and pragmatism. What chance of that?  Better find the confidence to move human-society on to a next more developed phase: a functional human society that dispenses with the harm inevitably resulting from 'the state'.