If It’s Not About The Money . . .

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Ron Martin of Frisco, Texas says his goal is the same as that of police: To encourage safe driving. But the cops’ goal, of course, is different. Their goal is revenue collection. As much of it as possible. By any means possible. “Safe driving” is the window dressing – nothing more.cop behind sign pic

Martin was arrested by Frisco police (news story here) for warning motorists of a radar trap down the road. “Police Ahead” read his sign.

Cars slowed down – before they got to the trap. Before they could be issued payin’ paper. That they slowed down – what we’re told the cops’ desire most of all – mattered not at all.

What mattered was that Martin cost them money. And that could not be tolerated. Hence, the cuffing and stuffing.

It was punitive, pure and simple. Martin caused no harm, threatened no harm. Except of course the harm he caused to the quotas and balance sheets of the Frisco police.Ron Martin pic He committed the same “crime” committed by people who flash their headlights or use a hand gesture to advise fellow motorists of the presence of pork.

If cops were really motivated by safety rather than money, they’d not only have no issue with what Martin did, they’d emulate what he did. They could use their mere presence to get people to “slow down.” They’d want to be seen.

If it gets people to “slow down,” isn’t that enough?

The fact is, cops hide behind bushes with their radar guns at the ready in order to make sure you don’t slow down – not before they can issue you a ticket, that is. In a very real sense, they want you to speed – so that they can catch you doing it and make you pay for having done it. Hence all the sneaking around. The unmarked cars. The cops riding incognito in big rigs. The artfully designed cut-outs along almost every Interstate designed specifically to obscure the presence of a cop from approaching traffic.

Dirty pool, Gomez Addams would have styled it. "speed zone" pic

But it’s the cant that accompanies it that’s insufferable. The meretricious song-and-dance routine they – and we, their victims – are forced to act out. They pull us over, knowing it’s all about the money and just another quota fulfilled today, but nonetheless the obligatory sermon about “speeding” and “safe driving” must be delivered. We, for our part, feign agreement. Express dismay – and regret – for having somehow been so feckless, so careless, as to have exceeded the sacred limit. All the while despising the cop as much as he despises us.

jefe picAt least in Third World countries, the theft is honest. A costumed goon – usually of a much nicer sort, incidentally – may stop you for literally no reason at all, or an obviously trumped-up one. But all he wants is your money – and (bless him) doesn’t try to pretend otherwise. You hand over a $20 (maybe a $50 – it’s probably gotten more expensive South of the Border since I was last there) and that’s it, you’re done. No patty caking about “safety.”

They call this the mordita – the little bribe.

Infinitely preferable to the colossal fraud we have to deal with here.

Throw it in the Woods?   

PS: Please consider supporting EPautos.com. We got dumped by Google – see here for the full story about that – and now we depend on you, the readers, to keep the lights on and the wheels spinning.

The link to our “donate” button is here. You can also mail stuff our way – if you prefer to avoid PayPal. The address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane, SE
Copper Hill, VA 2407


  1. So-called Japan is an American puppet state, the USA is also a central bankster/corporate/military puppet state. Japan, being an openly conquered state, is unable to act freely, so too China is a mostly conquered state itself.

    Much of American military and missile hardware is useless without proprietary Japanese guidance and micro-technology, it is unlikely they will be allowed to unite and reconcile with their Southwestern Brethren in the near future.

    1) There are 18 million Jomon Japanese in Japan. This remnant of the Ainu is the only portion distinctly Japanese still on the island. An island completely conquered from 300BC to 300AD by the off-island Yayoi.


    2) There are 106 million Yayoi Korean/Manchurian-Chinese in Japan


    3) There are 2.5 million foreigners in Japan.

    4) There are 1.5 million diaspora Japanese in Brazil, and 1.2 million in the USA. There 0.5 million more throughout the world, mainly in China, Philippines, and Commonwealth Nations.

    The Japanese people have been deceived into thinking they are far more racially distinct from the rest of East Asia than they are. Simple traditional accounts of everyone in East Asia emerging from the Yangtze river are far more accurate.

    Japanese Roots Are Surprisingly Shallow – Japan Times

    • Dear Tor,

      A letter to the editor of Singapore’s Straits Times that I penned back in 1999.


      Rape of Nanking
      Once was Quite Enough
      Bevin Chu
      October 02, 1999

      Letters Editor
      Straits Times

      Dear Sir/Madam,

      I would like to commend Mirko Stoll for his unflinchingly honest letter about how Germany has faced up to the Holocaust, confronting it boldly without turning away. By doing so Germans have earned the trust of their former victims.

      This is in sharp contrast to the way Japan has dealt with the Rape of Nanking, bobbing and weaving for the past fifty years, evading responsibility.

      The Japanese need to realize that until Japan comes clean, and I mean from the bottom of the heart, without playing disingenuous semantic games with weasel words like “regret” instead of “apologize,” they will never fully be trusted by their neighbors, no matter how many quality high tech consumer products they might purchase from Japan, Inc.

      Whether 300,000 Chinese died in Nanking at the hands of the Japanese Imperial Army, or “only” 140,000 is hardly the point.

      The reason should be no mystery. It is not about a pound of flesh. It is not about payback. It is about peace of mind.

      As the American historian George Santayana once observed “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.” Anyone who has ever been in psychotherapy, Alcholics Anonymous, or any twelve step program, knows that only after one has acknowledged what one is, can one change into something different.

      Fritz Perl’s “paradoxical law of change” applies to collectives as well as to individuals. This is why former victims of Germany feel safer than former victims of Japan. Japan’s neighbors understand this in their guts, even though they may not always express it in these terms.

      It is high time Japan understood it too. No nation in east and southeast Asia wants to be victimized a second time by a resurgent, fascist Japan which did not learn its lesson the first time around.

      Once was quite enough, thank you.

      Japan, stop dragging it out. Admit your responsibility once and for all, and get it over with. Then the rest of us can all relax, confident Japan won’t be a repeat offender.


      Bevin Chu
      Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

      • Hi Bevin,

        Japan’s postwar legacy is rather interesting. To get a handle on just how interesting, imagine if, in Germany, there existed a shrine to leading Nazis – and this shrine was visited annually by leading current German politicians, who paid their respects.

        This is exactly what occurs in Japan.

        Also, unlike the swastika flag – which cannot be displayed in public in Germany – the Japanese retain the imperial ensign (and national flag).

        And of course, they have the emperor.

        Related to this: Italian Marshall Badoglio – who succeeded Mussolini – was directly involved in the gassing of Africans as Italy sought to pacify Eritrea and Somaliland. Yet he was never brought up on war crimes charges.

        But Julius Streicher – who never killed anyone (apparently) and whose only crime was publishing an obnoxious newspaper – was hung.

        • Dear Eric,


          Basically the vagaries or political fortune “spared” Japan an essential truth and reconciliation process. The eruption of the Cold War and the perceived need to use Japan’s war criminals as resources in the confrontation with Global Communism, resulted in Japan being largely let off the hook.

          The irony is, this did Japan no favors.

          Absent this purgative process, Japan remained mired in a kind of “Who me?” mode utterly disconnected from the facts of history. The Japanese government skool system proceeded to indoctrinate Japanese school children with the notion that two atomic bombs were dropped on them out of nowhere, utterly without provocation.

          The Japanese military invasions and occupations of its neighbors Korea, China, the Philippines, Indochina, Thailand, Burma, Singapore, Malaya, Indonesia? The Rape of Nanking? The Bataan Death March? Unit 731 Joseph Mengele style experiments on living human beings?

          Blank out. What invasions? What occupations? What atrocities?

          Predictably, as anyone who has experienced even a smattering of Gestalt and other forms of psychotherapy knows, Japan has remained stuck and unable to move on.

          Gestalt Therapy

          In what has now become a “classic” of Gestalt therapy literature, Arnold Beisser described Gestalt’s paradoxical theory of change.[21] The paradox is that the more one attempts to be who one is not, the more one remains the same. Conversely, when people identify with their current experience, the conditions of wholeness and growth support change. Put another way, change comes about as a result of “full acceptance of what is, rather than a striving to be different”.[22]

          Obviously the situation is complicated by the different actors involved. In both the aggressor nations and victim nations, one has “The Government” and the general public. So when I use collective terms, it is merely shorthand.

          • @Bevin et al…

            Wow! I had no idea Japan had this bullheaded national impenitence. That’s a real national character flaw–a remarkably stupid attitude.

            From what little I know of it, I respect Japan’s culture; or, at least, the romanticized Ronin/Samurai version of it…and their disciplined dedication to producing beautiful products.

            But this is an ugly side to the national character.

            I suppose one could point out (er-hem) several in American culture…

            • Hi Meth,

              I, too, admire much about the Japanese. They are industrious, courteous and manage to be incredibly stoic (and civil to one another) when faced with major problems. The lack of riots/looting in the wake of natural disasters comes to mind. They have a sense of honor (and shame) that we could learn from.

              But like any culture, they have their less-than-laudatory side, too.

              The truth is they were not berated with war guilt the way the Germans were. In Germany, it is a crime to give the Hitler salute and (IIRC) veterans are not allowed to wear Nazi insignia or medals at get-togethers/parades and so on. But in Japan, veterans may openly wear imperial uniforms and medals and the national flag is still the national flag. The Navy ensign is the same “rising sun” battle flag that flew on the conning towers of the carrier task force that attacked Pearl Harbor and there are shrines/public displays of reverence toward the fallen leaders of the Imperial government.

              The same hypocrisy is evident in the lack of public opprobrium for the Soviet Union, including for the officials of the Stalin era, whose hands are just as soaked in blood as the leaders of the German Reich. Yet no member of Stalin’s government was ever hounded for “war crimes.” No ex KGB thug was ever indicted. One can wear a T shirt with Stalin’s picture on it and not get beaten up. Etc.

              This is no defense of Nazi Germany or its leaders. It is merely a statement about selective condemnation.

          • Dear meth,

            Yup. The situation is further complicated by recent geostrategic developments.

            Barry Obomber’s “Asian Pivot” is an attempt to mollify the Neo-Con global hegemonists unhappy about his neglect of the Western Pacific frontier of the empire.

            Sure. Amerika has to be in Iran and Syria. But that doesn’t mean Oceania can afford to neglect EastAsia.
            Gotta “contain” the rising Chinese dragon, after all. Right?

            US officialdom knows perfectly well that the Diaoyutai Islands belong to China. During the Cold War when they used the islands for bombing practice, they applied for permission with the Republic of China government on Taiwan.

            But as Orwell noted, down the Memory Hole. Now the MSM routinely refers to the islands as “The Senkankus,” the Japanese name.

          • Dear meth,

            It is indeed unfortunate that Japan has behaved this way. It isn’t only the Chinese who feel this way. The Koreans do too.

            I will be the first to acknowledge that no culture is free of egregious human failings. The Chinese are no exception. They are neither angels nor demons.

            Over the years, I have authored many angry diatribes against Japanese militarism and imperialism. But in many other respects, I have enormous irrepressible admiration for the Japanese. Especially in art and architecture.

            Each culture has contributed to civilizational progress in one way or another.

            America for example. Without America, where would the premise that private individuals have the natural right to keep and bear arms be?

            The Chinese invented gunpowder and primitive guns. Yet ordinary Chinese have never been able to enjoy the rights affirmed by the 2A. I find that so very very sad.

            The way to civilizational progress as I see it, is to call them whenever they fail to live up to the NAP, and to acknowledge them when they contribute to human progress.

    • Unit 731’s commandant got the “paperclip” treatment after war, IIRC.

      His “valuable research” in exchange for his life. Go to work for Uncle now – just like SS Major Werner Von Braun and General Walter Dornberger and General Reinhard Gehlen and (very probably) a particularly nasty Nazi by the name of SS Obergruppenfuhrer Dr. Ing. Hans Kammler….

  2. 6 Types of Socratic Discussion Questions

    If it really isn’t about the money, nor safety, then what other things might it be about? Power? Gaining adherence to international norms? Creating a culture of acquiescence to force? Fear of loss of societal control?

    1 Questions that probe assumptions:

    Is this a gut feeling? Is this article based on anecdotal evidence? Is this just a case of group think writ large? Are our assertions of a growing police state based on the same pseudoscience as global warming and general environmental destruction?

    2 Questions that probe reasons and evidence:

    Why are they writing so many more tickets? Why are they creating so many crimes? What proof is there that they are doing so? Are these enforcers really oblivious to how vile and loathsome they have become in such a short time?

    3 Questions about Viewpoints and Perspectives:

    Given that cops are bill collectors and human cattle wranglers now, what should we do about it? Do the cops honestly believe they are being productive worthwhile human beings? At the end of the day, isn’t a job just a job?

    4 Questions that probe implications and consequences:
    What generalizations can you make? Are the people going to rise up? Will the next generation of Muricans be a bunch of compliant royalist fops like the nations that have monarchies?

    5. Questions about the question: Why are we asking such questions, shouldn’t we be busy prepping? Why are we here on this blog? Isn’t this just more collectivism, who needs it? Do words accomplish anything, or is it only action that’s important?

    6. Questions for clarification: How much money is raised from tickets? Isn’t this really a transfer of payments from federal to local jurisdictions? Is there a real industry underlying this phenomenom? Are tickets part of common law, statutory law, administrative law, no law at all?

  3. We’re all in this together yet each on our own. Each of us must learn the critical lessons, and be able to direct ourselves and others. Anarchy is not the most important consideration. The system we live under is of secondary concern.

    Autonomy is the crucial factor. We must function self-sufficiently. Think self-sufficiently. Know where to go, who to go to, what to do, when to do it, how to do the things that must be done when the time arrives. We must know what crucial one-on-one-cooperation and societal-level-cooperation looks like, be able to dismantle it, and put it back together in our sleep.

    Start with a search engine search, world newspaper site, world television news site, to determine what is occurring and why. Alex Jones and Live Leak will get some things right, yet many things wrong. In every source there will be lies, omissions, honest mistakes, and counterfeit narratives everywhere.

    The Ultimate History Lesson – J.T. Gatto & R. Grove

    Trivium Method of Critical Thinking and Creative Problem Solving, useful to the Peace Revolution

    Natural Law the Real Law of Attraction

    In The Matrix Of Reality… There Is But 1 Law… At Work At All Times. This Law Is Hidden To Control You… A Historic Seminar On Cognitive Liberty… A Lifetime Of Wisdom… By Understanding 1 Law

    Develop primary sources, self-guided research, and autodidactic educational methods which help facilitate your consciousness.

  4. The following table shows the current and the envisaged future allocation of Germany’s gold reserves across the various storage locations:

    __________ 31 December 2012 _____ 31 December 2020
    Frankfurt am Main 31 % _____ 50 %
    New York _____________45 % _______ 37 %
    London________________13 % ________ 13 %
    Paris______________ 11 % ________ 0 %


    German gold reserves are the second-largest in the world after the U.S., they amounted to 3,387.1 tons as of Nov. 30, 2013.

    The US mines 260 tons of gold per year


    • On that note, Tor. This was the first I’d read that the Germans only wanted 1/5 of their gold back:


      Up until now I’d thought the brough-ha-ha was about them wanting Alll their gold back. All this hemming and hawing over 1/5th!? ….Seven years?

      The saying about sweeping the curtain back and seeing the Wizard of Oz working the controls, it’s just not a strong enough statement for what’s going on, is it?

      It’s even worse than finding out Stephen Segal isn’t one of the good guys.
      It’s way worse than that!

      The worst part is, many people have gotten tired of the likes of you and I trying to tell them what’s in store for us at this juncture of the Yellow Brick Road and they’ve become disillusioned, distracted even. It’s like they are (pardon the sexist slant) it’s like they are pretty blondes looking away and saying, “Ooo, look at that pretty flower”… all the while a two ton heavy thing swings in their direction.

      Crap, it gets even worse, cause I’m looking at that flower, too.



      50/50 chance it hits this year?

      Oh mang, people are getting so tired of hearing that.
      So back to what the pretty blonde is looking at, we go?… Whee! This investing stuff is making me queezy!

      Oh,… pardon the rant. MJR rant /OFF.

    • Dear Pan,

      No, no, no. From what I read, the Germans quite sensibly wanted all their gold back.

      But the lying sacks of shit in DC probably told them, “We have it, but we don’t have it have it,” then added that “If you want any of it back, you better not raise too big a stink,” they settled for part in advance, hush hush, on the QT.

      Will they ever get it all back? I wouldn’t want to hang by a rope until they do, given that the shit may well hit the fan in 2014.

      Mainland China has pretty much resigned itself to a massive loss when America, the “indispensable nation that stands tall and sees further than other countries into the future,” refuses to make good on the 1.2 Trillion that it owes China. That’s why it’s buying gold on the open market as fast as it can. To soften the blow, and preserve its wealth.

      Gold Gone? Germany baffled as Fed bars access to bullion

      • Is Germany’s gold in France as impaired as its gold at the New York Fed?
        Submitted by cpowell on Mon, 2014-01-20 00:01. Section: Daily Dispatches
        4p PT Sunday, January 19, 2014

        Today’s fuss about the German Bundesbank’s repatriation over the last year of only 5 of the 300 tonnes of its gold that it planned to repatriate from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York should include a fuss about the Bundesbank’s similarly pitiful repatriation of its gold vaulted at the Banque de France in Paris.

        A year ago the Bundesbank said it would repatriate 374 tonnes from the Banque de France:


        But today’s report in the German newspaper The World on Sunday –


        – quotes the Bundesbank as saying that it has managed to repatriate only 32 tonnes from France so far.

        Is the German gold supposedly vaulted in France as impaired as the German gold supposedly vaulted at the New York Fed seems to be?

        CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
        Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc

      • @Bevin – Makes sense to me:

        China ties new gold ‘spot’ contract to the Yuan

        China’s aim is eventually to stand alone without the dollar and the new Yuan priced gold contract is a step towards a greater use of the currency internationally.

        China continues to not only liberalize and internationalize the gold market there it is tying a new gold ‘spot’ contract to the Yuan. The new Yuan priced gold contract on the Shanghai gold exchange is a step towards a greater use of the Yuan internationally as foreigners who wish to buy this product must sell dollars to buy Yuan so they can buy this gold contract.

        In this context we need to see how this contributes to the big picture of China’s arrival center stage in the world. China’s aim is eventually to stand alone without the dollar. How big is this story? In the past the developed world took 80% of global income. In the next six years this will drop to 35% with the emerging world taking 65%. The turbulence that accompanies this change favors gold.

        says Julian Phillips.
        Author: Julian Phillips
        Posted: Tuesday , 21 Jan 2014

        • Dear Gary,

          As we market anarchists know, there are no “good governments.” Only bad governments, and worse governments.

          Ironically, to everyone’s surprise, including my own, Mainland China is currently the former, rather than the latter. Miraculously, it is actually doing somethings right. For example, it is actually urging Mainland citizens to buy gold!

          China and Gold
          By Alasdair Macleod
          Posted 18 October 2013

          So why is the Chinese Government so keen on gold? The answer most likely involves geo-politics. And here it is worth noting that through the SCO, China and Russia with the support of most of the countries in between them are building an economic bloc with a common feature: gold. It is noticeable that while the West’s financial system has been bad-mouthing gold, all the members of the SCO, including most of its prospective members, have been accumulating it. The result is a strong vein of gold throughout Asia while the West has left itself dangerously exposed.

          The West selling its stocks of gold has become the biggest strategic gamble in financial history. We are committing ourselves entirely to fiat currencies, which our central banks are now having to issue in accelerating quantities. In the process China and Russia have been handed ultimate economic power on a plate.

          It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly stupid “The Best and the Brightest” can be.

          People like Nobel Laureate in Economics Paul Krugman formulate USG monetary policy. Yet these “geniuses” are bankrupting America and making her currency worthless.

          Either they know what they are doing, or they haven’t a clue. Either way, no explanation makes any sense.

        • Dear Gary,

          LRC just uploaded this article on the German gold fiasco.




          At the time of the initial announcement Bill Gross of Pimco, the world’s largest money manager, summed up the situation perfectly in a tweet, which today appears even more prescient:

          @PIMCO Gross: Report claims Germany moving gold from NY/Paris back to Frankfurt. Central banks don’t trust each other?


          • @Bevin – China likes German products and cars, and wants to trade with them. When the global monitary reset happens in a 2-6 years the new central bank international money will be gold backed. So China and the BRICS are accumulating for that event. The west is transfering gold to the east and will default on debt, trade for land and resources or start a global war to keep the sheep occupied. The money masters will not loose either way, as they have already moved to China.

          • @Bevin & Garysco:

            Gary you’re right, that’s their plan…since roughly the early 1950’s when they funded Mao’s ascent, and finalized the deal with Nixon’s visit to the new globalist satrapy.

            But per Bevin’s note–remember that these people are psychopaths. They cannot help themselves; it is their nature to betray, to steal, to lie, to manipulate and it doesn’t respect its own breed.

            Do cancer cells politely give way to other cancer cells? No, it’s one of the hallmarks of malignancy–they lose their “social controls” and climb all over each other.

            Just so, the psychopaths’ malignancy is “trampling and being trampled”. They PLAN to desiccate the West, fund the East with the plunder, and use the 2 billion+ slaves their as their New World Order slave factory.

            But the infighting has begun already. And it will accelerate…because it’s their nature, they cannot overcome it.

            I’ve heard–but not seen good evidence–that some of the Elite are incredibly intelligent. Doesn’t matter; they’ve mastered psychological manipulation, they see us as subhuman cattle–but they haven’t mastered their own nature.

            And they’re dependent on us–because for all the intelligence of the psychopath, it is monomaniacal. They lack innovation, that creative spark; they depend on the twisting, corruption, and redirection of our creative energies to manifest their dark dreams.

          • Dear Gary,

            Funny about historical grievances.

            The family of a Jewish friend of my late brother absolutely refused to buy any German cars. The Holocaust you know.

            Many Chinese people absolutely refuse to buy any Japanese cars. The Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, comfort women, etc.

            For a while I said, the past is past. But recently Japan has been at it again, attempting to seize the Diaoyutai Islands from China, with the complicity of the USSA. So I too am boycotting big ticket Japanese items.

            Dear meth,

            I’m reminded of the plight of the Russian people under both Stalin and Hitler, as depicted in “Enemy at the Gates.” Like I said, there are no good governments. All governments consist of sociopaths. There are only bad governments, and even worse governments.

            Once in a blue moon, the poor suffering masses get some brief respite when two organized crime families with flags, aka governments, neutralize each other.

            But in the end, only the complete shattering of the Myth of Authority is going to make us free.

          • Dear Gary, meth,

            I just watched “The Creature from Jekyll Island” video on YT again, as a refresher.


            G. Edward Griffin is one hell of an orator. Toward the end of his talk, he underscores the global elites’ ongoing efforts to achieve total world domination.

            I’m reminded of the line in “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” when Haymitch tells Katniss, “Remember who the real enemy is.”

            The real enemy is not other contestants. It is the PTB in the Capitol. Needless to say, just like Orwell’s “1984,” Collins’ trilogy should not be taken literally, but as political allegory.

          • @Bevin & meth –
            TPTB are not a single unified mind but a coalition of the most powerful with a single agenda. They own it all, including you and me. Go ahead, try to exist without dollars/ euros/ renminbi etc. They don’t always agree on current tactical moves but are in agreement on the goal. We never get beyond playing checkers while they have the luxury of hundreds if not thousands of agencies and directed politics in a multi-level chess long term plan of “must be” goals. They operate beyond money like Orwell told us in 1984, the game is power over humanity. They care not a wit about political lines drawn on a map beyond how to use them to manipulate for their gain.


      • Mainland China has pretty much resigned itself to a massive loss when America, the “indispensable nation that stands tall and sees further than other countries into the future,” refuses to make good on the 1.2 Trillion that it owes China.

        Don’t bet on it. They are also making long term contracts for purchases of primary materials on terms that look good at first, but have locked in the US$ terms. If they make enough of those, by the time any single supplier notices that all the suppliers are committing to taking the US$, they are locked in. For instance, this is one such contract that was put in place over ten years ago, and has already shown the catch.

  5. One of the statists/propogandists for Fox News actually said the cops arrested Martin for his safety because what he was doing was dangerous and not just to their revenue collection efforts. What a crock.

    If all it takes to get a job Fox News is to spread bullshit, then I can really give some good stuff.

      • Fox is the “Loyal Opposition.” They are the “competing viewpoint” that must be heard in order to produce an “orderly society.”

        That’s what the “New Neutrality” BS was all about (and is, since it’s coming back again.) The intent is to control who has access to what information. And it’s far easier to control the flow of information if you have only a few media outlets, and give them their talking points directly.

        One argues that taxes need to increase to meet the repair needs of our roads;
        One argues revenues must increase because the “poor” are being unjustly injured in our economy.

        Result is, no one QUESTIONS what happened to the last 13 BILLION in revenues brought in – the debate has been framed, the sides defined, the playing field, rules, the game itself, has been DECIDED before the public hears that there’s a revenue “shortfall.”

        Hegellian dialectic, start with the end in mind, construct two “opposing” sides and make people align with those two sides. Exclude any contrary information or thought – do the thinking FOR your audience. And you will get them EXACTLY where you want them.

        Fox, NBC, ABC, CNN, et al – all the same dog and pony shows.
        Owned by a total of 6 companies, IIRC – Time-Warner, for example. They own publishing, radio, and TV. They are “content providers” for the Web, too.

        Guess what happens when you only get a few shades of difference between views?

        Mob Control – because they never think, never challenge their pre-conceptions. And TPTB exploit every aspect.

        • Exactly, Jean.

          Infuriating, isn’t it?

          I was at the gym the other day listening to a “debate” about Obamacare. It was just as you’ve described. On the Right, a critic of its cost. On the Left a critic of the services provided. Neither one ever mentioned the idea of government forcing people to buy insurance. That was an assumed given.

          The system is really well set-up. You have to give them that. Nine out of ten people (perhaps 99 out of 100) are never even exposed to the real point of contention. But they believe “opposing views” have been fairly aired – and by implication (though this is never spoken of out loud) no one’s viewpoint is suppressed.

          If you’re unaware there even is another viewpoint, how could it be suppressed?

          • Dear Eric, Jean,

            Retail clerks are taught a trick.

            They show the lookie loo a couple of items then ask him or her “So which one would you like to take home today?”

            They don’t ask “Do you even like either of these?” That’s because they merely want to make a sale. Now this hard sell is harmless enough in the private sector.

            But when the phony “choice” involves state violence it’s another story altogether.

            Needless to say this is the ploy behind the “America has a two-party system” bullshit. It is the bullshit “non-choice choice” behind “Red State vs. Blue State,” “elephant vs. donkey,” “GOP vs. Dems.”

            Free and Fair Elections: The Illusion of Choice

          • I totally agree with what you’re saying about this, Eric.

            I’d personally only get into this debate with intelligent people, such as yourself or virtually anyone here. I don’t really see any point in doing it with your regular joe on the street. Even getting them to see that blowing people up with drones in Pakistan is wrong is hard enough sometimes. Getting them to go for abolition of taxation is pretty much impossible. My personal opinion is that you do kind of need a set of laws as a default, if people agree on something else, that’s fine, but there should be a default that is generally accepted, and compatible with the NAP, that can be fallen back upon if there isn’t an agreement made.

            In a perfect, purely private property system, I’d be OK with solely allowing family members to determine punishment for crimes, because then anyone who didn’t want to interact with people who were given mercy after committing violent crimes need not do so. Its not that simple when “public” property exists, so I think at the very least exiling a murderer kind of has to be a given in this type of society, even if the victim doesn’t want to punish them.

            Will follow up later, have to go to class.

      • I don’t watch Fox but I assume this is accurate. It sounds accurate. What I don’t understand is how regular people who are generally skeptical of govt. can be so in favor of the people with the badges. I have a certain degree of forgiveness for things that regular people would still consider justified (Note that this is not an excuse) but even then I still don’t like it, I just don’t hold bitterness toward the people that don’t know better. To a certain extent that could apply to the people who have heard the ideas of liberty but reject them for some reason, but its still not OK.

        • Not strictly on topic, but as I was thinking through the whole “law and order” thing and how many Christians fall into it, I am reminded of one Christian who is running for US Senate (In the Republican Party, no less) that at least mostly gets it. I really enjoyed listening to this:


          Any of you who live in NC should consider supporting this guy. I know I would, and its not easy for me to get excited about someone in politics. I view this guy as like the equivalent of Ron Paul.

          • Hi David,

            As I read the gospels, Christians are enjoined to “turn the other cheek” – to be non-violent. That it is for God to judge men – and so on.

            I trace the current Christian militancy to the teachings of fringe cracker Pentacostal preachers of the RB Thieme sort and Israel-firsters like Pat Robertson, et al. I can recall, as a kid, being aware of its rise – first evident when Ronald Reeeeeeeeeagan became Dear Leader.

            Ironically, these Christians are the mirror image of the “Muslim fanatics” whom they heap so much abuse upon.

            I say throw ’em both in the woods!

          • Hi Eric.

            Personally, I respect pacifism’s ideals but don’t subscribe to them. “Turning the other cheek” refers primarily to insults and not actual aggression (Based on context… admittedly, slapping someone on the cheek is technically aggressive, but more akin to spitting on a person than trying to murder them.) I believe violence is justified in self-defense or as retaliation for an act of aggression, although if at all possible I think such retaliation should be proportional to the crime committed and done by the community at large rather than an individual taking unilateral action. I believe the NAP is taught in such passages as Proverbs 3:30 (Strive not with a man without cause, if he does you no harm), Matthew 5:9 (Blessed are the peacemakers) and Romans 12:18 (As much as it depends on you, live at peace with all men.) I don’t know for sure if I’m right about all this, I have considered whether violence is ever compatible with Jesus’ teachings and I still consider it. But most people who criticize me on this point are hypocritical to the point where I don’t really consider them much, because they support more violence (just via government) than I do.

            With regards to judgment, that passage is one I don’t agree with you on and think it is often taken out of context. Jesus and Paul were very harsh and judgmental with false teachers. They just reserved their anger for those who claimed they were good, yet taught these false gospels of works-based salvation (Compare how Jesus treats the adulterers, prostitutes, and tax collectors [the latter being rightly known as wicked in the New Testament] with how he treats the Pharisees and Saducees.) The point is not to judge hypocritically. Its not about making all judgments. A Christian can rightly judge a murderer, a thief, a homosexual, a prostitute, an adulterer, etc. as being sinful. However, 1 Corinthians 5:11 teaches that only when such a person calls himself a Christian and refuses to repent should the Christian refuse to fellowship with them. We’re supposed to have grace with the people of the world.

            Will follow up later.

          • I do take a bit of issue with your statement that “retaliation should be… done by the community at large rather than an individual.” By definition, the “community at large” cannot retaliate; only an individual (or multiple individuals) can do so. Lest I be accused of splitting hairs, the distinction is important, because, if we’re going to accept the principle of retaliation at all, we have to accept that said retaliation will be performed unilaterally by some individual or individuals. The problem then becomes identifying the individuals who we believe are qualified to dispense violence in recompense.

            I’m not being flip, here; I view this is a *very* important question. Your comment indicates that you are shy of the idea of retaliation being the sole responsibility and province of the aggressee. So then to whom does it belong? By what rule do we identify these individuals?

          • Darien, you’re not splitting hairs, and I agree that there are multiple individuals involved. A few things:

            First of all, I’m making a moral distinction between vengeance and justice, not a legalistic one. Legally speaking, as long as you can prove that your vigilante justice is proportional and that you did it against the right person, I’m with Rothbard that there should be no sanctions for doing it. I’m also with Rothbard that its not a good idea (At least in a free society, I can understand making “lesser of evils” type choices in this screwed up society.)

            But, as a moral stance, if possible, when someone aggresses against you the solution is to take them before the community at large or some kind of private arbitrator. The person would stand trial and, if convicted, would have to pay some kind of reparations or otherwise compensate you for your wrongdoing. In serious cases, like murder, maybe the penalty is death. But to some extent a third party should be involved, in order to ensure that the person’s guilt was proven and that the sanctions being assessed are fair. I don’t want to try to speculate too much on how this would work because, as with all things free market, we really don’t know. What I’d rather not see, and I suspect most people wouldn’t want to see, is violent feuds between families going on and on because one person claims that they were stolen from or had someone murdered and they just unilaterally take action without the community’s blessing or any proof, and the other family insists that it didn’t happen, and then before you know it, ten people are dead because the families are at war with each other… kind of like mini-states. Far better to take it to an arbitrator, before the community, something along those lines.

            And… I know that the existence of a massive, gang (The State) throws a wrench in some of this. If a Nazi SS guard drags away your Jewish family member and throws them into a gas chamber, I won’t say you’re necessarily morally wrong for taking the guy out. And I’m sure you could find similar scenarios that take place in any country. When you have a monopolistic legal system that protects its own, sometimes you may have to take unilateral action and I get that. What I’m talking about is the free market ideal, not necessarily how to act while under the power of the jackbooted thugs, which is much more subjective.

          • Eric, with regards to your Christian/Muslim comparison, I don’t think its quite accurate, even if its more true than I’d like to admit. But I’ve never heard a fundamentalist preacher say they want to force women to cover themselves head to toe or execute infidels or whatever. Some evangelicals can be quite bad in various ways, especially on foreign policy, but most of them are motivated more by fear and/or American exceptionalism than a theocratic agenda like the Sharia-toting Muslims (note that I’m speaking of a specific category of Muslims here, not all Muslims.)

            • Hi David,

              Ah, but many would very much like to impose a theocracy – and make illegal “violations” of their dogmas. Exactly like the “radical Muslims.” Perhaps they are not quite as open and blatant as the most extreme proponents of Sharia, but among themselves, I have no doubt they yearn for the day when the Bible (as interpreted by them) is law. When non-believers don’t have political/civil rights. In which any questioning of “bible doctrine” would be criminal.

          • @David re: pacifism and Christianity–

            I’m no biblical scholar, but one scene that plays vividly in my mind is Christ’s behavior at the garden of Gethsemane. One of the apostles cut off a Roman guard’s ear; Christ healed it and adjured him that it wasn’t the right time.

            But in Luke, he advises them to sell their cloaks if necessary to buy a sword. It’s important to note that the Roman sword was the deadliest weapon a man could carry; it was the AR-15 of the day.

            I also remember clearly the only act of violence Christ committed on earth–kicking the shit out of the banksters in the temple!

            I may not subscribe to formal/mainline/doctrinaire Christianity. But the overall libertarian themes flow heavily through the Bible and I’m very appreciative of their formative role in Western thought…

            …and Western thought, despite its idiotic detractors, has gotten the world where it is today in terms of prosperity, individual rights, health, science, art, and philosophy. Its downtrend right now is a retraction to feudalism….a much earlier state of man’s political development.

          • David wrote, “In serious cases, like murder, maybe the penalty is death.”

            That should altogether be wrong and never happen, imho.

            In a moment of self-defense, it’s one thing. As a penalty, it’s just vengeance and subject to error and all sorts of things – and – is quite another thing from self-defense.

            Christians, as I understand it, abide by the idea that vengeance is only the Lord’s.

            Also, a death penalty after the fact seems to me to be a violation of the N.A.P.

            How does the death of a person make another whole? Private justice is about making the other party whole. Not vengeance.

            Pardon the interruption. I couldn’t resist.
            Just ignore it and stew on it awhile?

          • @Methylamine- I agree with pretty much everything you said. With regards to the temple cleansing, I doubt Christ would have been too happy with even honest economic trade in the temple (“in the temple” are the key words here) because it was a place to worship God, but the fraud added insult to injury.

            @PanarchistamericanHelot- I support the right of the heirs of the victim to accept economic or other compensation instead of the life of the murderer, but the proportional punishment is death. Leftists and some libertarians argue that the death penalty detracts from the sanctity of life, I disagree. In fact, it is the very sanctity of life that is so serious that those who transgress against it by committing murder must die. That’s how serious it is (As per Genesis 9:6.)

            As for the NAP, I don’t see how execution inherently violates the NAP any more than any other kind of punishment. It arguably could if it is not proportional. It could be argued to violate the NAP if the rightful heirs do not want this penalty to be enacted. But otherwise, how is it? I could just as easily argue that trying to force a thief to pay restitution to his victims is “theft” and thus a violation of the NAP. I suppose you could construct an ethical system where its immoral to even enact proportional retaliation against criminals (“criminals” meaning NAP violators here, not those who break statutory laws yet harm no one) but frankly, such a system would not be very useful, since someone who decided to build The State from the ashes could not be punished. More importantly, that system is not Biblical, and so I reject it on those grounds alone.

          • David, you don’t see how execution inherently violates the NAP any more than any other kind of punishment?

            For one, it’s irreversible.

            For two, because of that there’s no margin for error for those who are innocent and unjustly convicted. What of those? Repayment in kind later on when the truth comes out? (There’s your generational family feuds?)

            For three, capital punishment is raw aggression. That aggression is the ‘A’ in N.A.P.

            And just never-mind that whole, he without sin throw the first stone, bit?

            To me, private justice is about making the other side whole, punishment does not fit into that equation, anywhere.

            Punishment is about revenge, nothing more… except maybe gaining power?
            Revenge does nothing positive for the victim. That’s certainly where things are today.

            The view from here is, it’s as if you’re justifying shooting someone in the back as they run away? They had it coming to them? The end result is the same as capital punishment.

            Not too mention, capital punishment removes the chance of,… oh, what’s that they call it when someone realizes their mistake and asks their God for forgiveness?

            Anyway, punishment is a whole different ball game from self-defense and making the other party whole. (Even banishment is not really a punishment, it’s more of a self-defense.)

            When a thief has to pay back what they stole, that is not a violation of the N.A.P. Rather, that’s either returning to the owner what is rightfully theirs, or making them whole in some other way such as via a payment. Under private justice, the thief is not punished. Punishment is what authoritarians dish out to their subjects.

            Not even a duel is a punishment, it’s a challenge and a chance. And quite preferable to capital punishment under a private justice system. At least the wrongly convicted innocent have a fighting chance? Nothing is perfect I suppose. But that is better than what is in place now. Preferably all parties would seek other ways to settle things, one more beneficial to both, for the good of us all?

            At least that’s how I understand it.
            Hope I put that well at this late hour.

          • I’m basically with Pan on this one — I’m against punishment of pretty much any stripe. It’s just useless, violence-perpetuating force for force’s sake. If there is to be any retaliatory action against a criminal, restitution is the only proper, moral response.

            The reason compelling a thief to return stolen property is not considered just as much a violation of the NAP as is an execution is because the thief is not considered to have any rightful claim to the property. You’re not stealing it because it’s not his. Reduce it all the way ad absurdum if you will: you see me writing something, and you try to grab the pen out of my hand, but I refuse to relinquish it, and instead I pull the pen back toward myself. Have I aggressed against you?

            In no way can execution be considered a parallel. It simply is not the case that a murderer (say) has literally “stolen” the life of another human being, and can be compelled to return it. Nor can he be compelled to forfeit his own, which will then be given to the original victim — it don’t work that way. Lost life is simply *lost.* It’s not taken or exchanged.

            In closing, though I know it certainly lacks the moral, philosophical, or historical heft of a Bible quotation, I’d like to quote my very very favourite line from the Lord of the Rings. Here’s Gandalf hisself:

            “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

            • Hi Darien,

              I like the idea of restitution, too. It’s restorative – you get back what you lost, or something in kind. And it’s just – the person who caused damage/loss is obliged to make his victim whole in a quid pro quo sort of way. You steal a car, you owe the person the car back – in the same condition prior to the theft. Or its monetary equivalent.

              It gets tougher, though, when you are dealing with crimes such as murder, rape, child abuse. How does one quantify these?

              I reluctantly support execution in case of murder (guilt established to a very high standard) not so much as a punitive measure but rather as a preventative one. I’d be ok with life imprisonment (to be paid for… how?) if it could be guaranteed that the offender would never be free to murder again. One cannot take back a murder. But one can prevent future ones by executing known murderers before they are able to kill again. This is the strongest argument in favor of the death penalty I’ve yet come across – and I find it persuasive.

          • Eric, with regards to Christian theocrats, I have yet to truly encounter any of these. The closest things I’ve seen are theonomists, who are both rare and in practice more libertarian than the Republican Party when looked at as a holistic whole. But most are too busy waving their “God and country, God bless America” flags to come anywhere near advocating anything that radical.

            Regarding the death penalty thing and restitution: Eric, my understanding is not only does the crook have to return your car, they also have to give you another, equivalent car (Or monetary equivalent.) Because, proportional punishment is they lose what they tried to take from you. If all they had to do was return the car, is there really any incentive not to commit theft? If you get away with it, you get away with it, if not, no harm no foul, you just return the item. I don’t think that makes any sense, hence why you have to give the originally stolen item back, PLUS equivalent.

            Regarding murder, rape, child abuse, those are hard to quantify. I know that if anyone did any of the three to me, I would kill them, but maybe some people are more merciful than me, and I get that. I have a hard time imagining life imprisonment really working in a libertarian society, because as you say, how in the world will it be paid for? Maybe someone would volunteer to house the criminal if they could keep the proceeds of his labor (Which comes close to slavery, but I don’t necessarily have a problem with that in this case) but I have a hard time imagining this being very profitable. So, I agree with you. I think you really have to kill them. Life for a life.

          • It’s odd to me there appears to be a problem with the how and who would pay to hold a person in a prison for life, yet at the same time, there’s no problem with the question of who would pay for an execution. Are they not funded the same? And why would any one want a panel of so-called “trusted experts” to have the power to decide? Would that not turn into what there is now?

            The people running the states of Texas and Illinois all thought they had a system to establish guilt to a very high standard. And yet many innocents were put to death. Why would a freedomista of any stripe support a system like that one?

            Why must all people who have murdered someone be treated the same as if they would do so again, if that is the reason used to justify putting them down? Is that not a bit like saying all speeders must be treated as if they drove into a crowd?

            What’s wrong with expecting individuals to provide for their own defense to prevent murder, rape and such, rather than kill preemptively those who might do so?

            The death penalty in states such as Texas don’t appear to be working to stop people from murdering one another, nor is such a law what keeps normal people from doing so. Why would a freedomista type think a threat of death is a deterrent to those intent on doing so? Are the murder rates astronomically high in states with no death penalty compared to those with one?

            Anyway, what about the innocent person unjustly convicted? Too bad, so sad, sucks to be you? Hang ’em high? If it happened to them, they deserved it? It’s God’s will?

            Pardon the bad grammer and poor structure, Ed. Typing on the fly.

            • Hi PanArch,

              You make some compelling points – although I do take issue with the comparison of a speeder who might have caused harm and a person who has actually murdered someone. (Intent must also be considered, as well as the actuality of harm done.)

              Is it just to “write off” a person who is known to have already committed a murder?

              Let’s leave aside the case of the unjustly accused/convicted innocent person. Assume for the sake of discussion that the person is guilty; that there is no question he committed the murder. What shall be done?

              In an anarchic system, I suppose it would be up to the family of the victim to seek redress. Is it anyone else’s business? From an an anarchic point-of-view, probably not since we have rejected collective concepts such as “society.” Not to mention the mundane mechanistic things such as providing prisons and courts and so on with public money to house/deal with offenders.

              This may be the toughest final redoubt of minarchism. I admit to it being tough for me to grapple with.

              That is, can there be a civil order absent any civil authority?

              On the small scale (family group, small village)… probably. But on a larger scale? It is undiscovered country.

              Who watches the watchmen?

              Can people live with one another in peace absent the watchmen?

          • I’m still with Pan here. I just cannot agree that the ends could possibly justify the means — killing is wrong. It is, in fact, arguably the wrongest thing there is. The only regard in which I am prepared to accept that *any* aggressive act (let alone killing) is justified is in defense. Does an execution qualify? I say no: just because someone has committed a crime in the past does *not* establish with any degree of certainty that he will do so again. How could it possibly be right to kill someone because, in the future, he might commit a crime?

            To say nothing of, as Pan brings up, wrongful executions. How many innocent people are you willing to see put to death? I know what my answer would be. If I’m convicted of stealing your car, and forced to return it to you, but then later it’s discovered that the car was mine all along and you had some forged title and lying “witnesses” and fooled the court into expropriating me, that can subsequently be made right. But once somebody’s been killed, he can’t be unkilled.

          • Hey Eric,

            Regarding the “watchmen” issue, I think in a large scale society there is always going to be specialization of labor. If you want to solely be responsible for protecting yourself or bringing people who steal from or otherwise agress against you to justice, that’s fine. But most people won’t, much like most people will hire a mechanic rather than fix their own cars, or an electrician rather than fix their own electricity or a plummer and so on, most people will probably want someone else to protect them. So I think you’ll always have private systems of police/constables/peacekeepers/something. The issue is when they are tax funded.

            Regarding the family and the justice issue, what if I kill a member of my own family? Heck, what if I killed all of them? The person who would have a right to demand justice under this system would be… me…. That just doesn’t make sense.

            The thing that makes murder different from any other crime is that the person who was victimized is no longer alive to offer leinancy. Theft, or even rape, the victim can say they do or don’t want to press charges, but murder… they’re dead. Thus, unless their will says otherwise, I would presume that the person wants their life to be avenged, and thus anyone would have a right to carry out the deed (After trial and conviction, of course.) Then again, I find scenarios where the family doesn’t want some kind of punishment for the killer to be unlikely.

            As for the cost of execution, its effectively the cost of a bullet, which is nowhere near the cost of housing someone for the rest of their life. I doubt that would be a serious issue.

            • I agree, David.

              I tend toward minarchism on this issue. That is, I am – so far – not persuaded that a basic system of criminal and civil courts (for the objective adjudication of disputes) is necessarily at odds with principled Libertarianism.

              The main issue, as you’ve touched on, is how to fund it. My own opinion is that if the system were strictly confined to dealing with NAP violations (e.g., assaults on people, property crimes) it would be a very small operation, low cost operation and could be funded by a system of voluntary subscription (like a volunteer fire department) as well as by the labor-in-compensation of criminals. For example, the car thief could work off his debt by laboring for a period of time to help erect the county jail (and so on).

              But no one would be forced to pay taxes to support any of this.

              And absent that, no honest citizen would in any way have his liberty constrained or impinged upon.

              The key thing is that all laws comport with the law.

              The NAP.

          • Dear Everyone,

            Re: anarchist response to murder

            “Is it just to “write off” a person who is known to have already committed a murder? ”

            I for one, definitely don’t think so.

            One thing about market anarchism that even many market anarchists tend to overlook, is that in such a society, one would be free.

            One would be free to voluntarily contract with Private Defense Agencies, and equally free NOT to contract with PDAs.

            If one contracts with a PDA, then one is bound by its terms. If one commits murder, then one must abide by the terms of the contract, which the family members of the murder victim would also have agreed to, in advance.

            If on the other hand, one chose not to voluntarily contract with a PDA, in the hope that one could then literally get away with murder, it would be “Open Season” on the murderer.

            The family members would then be free to exact their own “vigilante justice” without fear of retaliation. This would provide a powerful disincentive to anyone who mistakenly assumed that anarchism=chaos and a golden opportunity to violate the NAP.

            The key is that as long as people remain free, they will not tolerate the intolerable. They will be free to evolve solutions consistent with social order and stability.

          • Eric,

            One of my cousins says that I’m a minimalist and not an anarchist. One poster on another forum pointed out that its likely if the “ideal” society was ever achieved, minarchists and anarchists would probably argue with each other about which one it “really” is. Personally, I don’t really care what term someone wants to use to define my beliefs, but I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist on the grounds that I think that peace keepers, arbitraitors, and national defense (I guess its debatable whether there would really be a “nation” at that point, but you get my meaning) should all be privatized. If someone wants to say I’m a minimalist because I support a codified system of law (the NAP) and that I think legitimate criminals should be punished, I’m OK with that. Ultimately, the distinction is very small.

            • Agreed, David.

              I don’t worry much about the debate over whether having a system of criminal/civil law (all based on the NAP) is at odds with Libertarian or anarchic ideals. It may well be. But if we had a system that was based solely on the NAP – in which the only enforceable laws (criminal and civil) required proof of tangible harm done to a real person/persons (or their property) the degree of liberty we’d all enjoy would be so expansive I doubt few would complain.

              Even scaling things back to what they were circa 1960 would be a transformative event. Anyone over 40 today knows, firsthand, how much more everyday freedom once existed in this country when they were 20 vs. today. It is startling – and depressing – how closed-in and outright mean this country has become in such a relatively short space of time.

          • For some reason my last post didn’t go through (I think I clicked “exit” too quickly, had to run to class) but basically what I was going to say is: if we could get to a point where property was all privatized, I could see letting the victim or his family alone make the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute murder, rape, or other serious crimes. That way, at least nobody would have to interact with those people, even if the victim or his family were merciful enough to want to “turn the other cheek” so to speak. Effectively, that would likely mean exile, if nothing else. But in a public property regime, I don’t think its fair to say “Well, you murdered those two people, but since the victims’ families want to show grace, we’re now going to ignore the fact that you’re clearly a danger to peaceful people, and we’ll let you associate with the rest of us on the roads, in county parks, etc.

            So, while I do sympathize with the ideals of completely leaving enforcement of (NAP abiding) laws to the victims or their families, I don’t think that’s possible until “the public good” is eliminated from other spheres of life.

          • At January 23, 2014 at 11:20 am, Eric wrote:-

            Anyone over 40 today knows, firsthand, how much more everyday freedom once existed in this country when they were 20 vs. today.

            No. For instance, I have never been there and so I only have indirect and second hand knowledge of that – but, since that doesn’t have a bias relating to when I was more naive, it tells me something subtler: that claims that it ever was better are a myth, in that oppressors were always hidden and active, and that at best it was a matter of more people escaping the notice of oppressors who had fewer resources.

            • Hi PM,

              I assure you that in the US, things were indeed much more free 20-30 years ago. I can give you several examples:

              * Cops had no power to force you to “buckle up” for safety.
              * There were no random checkpoints. Cops had to have specific probable cause to stop you/interrogate you.
              * Police could not simply take cash from you on the assumption that mere possession of “large amounts” of cash meant “drug money.”
              * SWAT teams were big city only and very rarely used. Home invasion-type assaults were extremely infrequent, exceotional rather than routine.
              * One could fly without being fondled, without being subjected to humiliating searches.
              * The government could not filch through your personal mail or listen in on your phone calls without a specific warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause.

              I could go on, but hopefully this makes the point.

          • Replying to Eric of January 24, 2014 at 7:48 am…

            I think we are using “free” differently. You think you were free because you found you did various things then that you don’t now. But that’s not the test of freedom; the test is whether you can do (or avoid) things, as something that flows from you and not (from the point of view of others) because they let you. So let’s work through your list, checking it twice as the saying has it:-

            – Cops had every power to force you to “buckle up” for safety. They didn’t often do it, because there weren’t as many of them around and those that were sometimes had the idea that they weren’t allowed to do it – but yes, they had every power, and in many black communities just that happened, even in those days. (You weren’t confusing “power” and “authority”, were you?)

            – There were random checkpoints, just nothing like so many, and none of those were admitted – because cops had to be able to produce the appearance of specific probable cause to stop you/interrogate you, if their superiors challenged them on it. But if you think there weren’t any things like that, you ought to read up some of the history of the wobblies, and then realise that the, shall we say, extramural activities against them never really went away, they just went into storage. (And if any readers want to argue that the wobblies were a real threat and deserved it, well, that’s certainly arguable, but arguing it doesn’t prove that the methods weren’t there and at the disposal of the powers that be, it proves that they were there but seeks to make out that that was a good thing.)

            – Police could not simply take cash from you on the assumption that mere possession of “large amounts” of cash meant “drug money”; well, that’s sort of true, but the thing is, it was amazing how many tickets people bought for police widows’ and orphans’ fund raisers, all of their own free will (for certain values of “free” – but that is what you were thinking was free, right?).

            – SWAT teams were big city only and very rarely used. Home invasion-type assaults were extremely infrequent, exce[p]tional rather than routine. For that, the police went off duty in those days, and so there were actual home invasions and assaults by real intruders who were never caught. And, of course, the likelihood of your being eaten by a man eating tiger isn’t a test of whether there are any – and when there are only a few, there will soon be more, which matters even more.

            – One could fly without being fondled, without being subjected to humiliating searches. That is very true; travel distortion was so much less crass then. Why, if you wanted to go from the U.S.A. to Cuba or North Vietnam and back, why, nobody at all did those things to you as you got on or off the aircraft.

            – The government could not filch through your personal mail or listen in on your phone calls without a specific warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause – not and tell you that it had with a straight face, anyway. Why, nearly a century ago the Germans were never at any risk that the U.S. government would intercept and decode the Zimmerman telegram; it was just that if it somehow got into the government’s hands anyway, that was hardly the government’s fault. And if the C.I.A. were barred from listening to U.S. communications, it was hardly their fault if side lobe transmissions from Boston were so sloppy that their listening equipment in Windsor, Ontario picked them up as well (hey, they had to listen to them just to identify which ones to take out of the collection). Oh, you mean that those things weren’t happening much? Why, that’s all right then, it’s like being a little bit pregnant; it’s not as though it could ever grow, or if it could ever be a big deal for those it happened to anyway, since they could always console themselves that there were so many getting away without being hit after all.

            “I could go on, but hopefully this makes the point” – the point that outsiders can see some things more clearly. Here, the point is that in those days you already had the disease – hell, you had it ever since your ancestors bought into the troublemakers’ propaganda about being liberators, way back in the 18th century – but you weren’t yet showing obvious symptoms and being seriously slowed down and distorted by it. But yes, if someone who caught syphilis twenty years ago and won’t lose his mind, looks, strength and life for a few more years can be said to be “free” of syphilis, yes, you were free then. It’s just that I would describe that as having had a lot of rope rather than no leash at all.

            • PM,

              No, you’re wrong. Demonstrably so.

              “Buckle up” laws are a relatively new thing; they did not exist 20 years ago. Cops had no legal power to make you wear a seatbelt. Or, for that matter, a helmet. Or use a child safety seat.


              Random checkpoints were illegal – a clear violation of the 4th Amendment – until the courts made them legal via the doctrine of implied consent. Americans were not subject to East German style checkpoints prior to this (1980s and earlier).


              You concede my point about police seizing cash simply because it is cash (and hence, “evidence” of illegality). That is no small thing.

              What has North Korea or Cuba got to do with what goes – what went on – in American airports? Now you are spouting non sequiturs and nonsense. The fact is you could fly in the US – and to and from the US – without being physically searched. The fact is you could pay cash for an airplane ticket without showing ID and board the damned plane just minutes prior to departure. The difference Then vs. Now could not be starker.

              My point about SWAT tactics stands. Your comments are non sequiturs.

              In re phone tapping and so on: The point is it was illegal – and if they got caught it was a major offense. People lost their jobs- and could be held criminally as well as civilly liable. That is a major distinction vis-a-vis today.

              You make reference to “wobblies” – a UK reference that has no bearing on what goes on/went on in the United States. I was very clearly speaking about the extent of individual freedom here. What goes on/went on in the UK or anywhere else is irrelevant to the points made.

              I’m surprised by your poor logic/reasoning on this one, PM. Usually, you stick with facts.

          • Yes, I’m right, demonstrably so, because you’re doing a bait and switch, no doubt because the propagandists have clouded your thinking so that you have confused the reality with their bits of paper. Let me show you again:-

            – ‘”Buckle up” laws are a relatively new thing; they did not exist 20 years ago. Cops had no legal power to make you wear a seatbelt. Fact.’ is a bait and switch. You just made up that part about “legal power”! Didn’t you take on board the distinction I made between power and authority? Look, here in Australia, they made bicycle helmets compulsory around twenty years ago, state by state. After that, the police had “legal power” to punish you for not wearing them. What do you think they did in the months before the law came into effect? Why, they stopped riders anyway, so they could “instruct” them what was going to become compulsory! So try telling me again that the police didn’t stop people who weren’t wearing safety belts, just because they weren’t supposed to. It may only have happened when they wanted to achieve something else, and to only a few people, but if they could physically do it, you can bet your lily white arse they did from time to time (or even more often, if it is a darker hue).

            – ‘Random checkpoints were illegal – until the courts made them legal via the doctrine of implied consent. Americans were not subject to East German style checkpoints prior to this (1980s and earlier). They were illegal. Fact.’ And what the hell has that to do with whether they happened? No, it only affects whether they sometimes used other tactics in preference, and whether they tried to have a different explanation ready in case their superiors asked. Did they do it? yes. Is your going on about it being illegal anything to do with it? no, though it would have been relevant to some hypothetical country that followed the spirit as well as the letter (read Joe Orton’s play Loot some time; the disguised police inspector’s claim that you don’t need a warrant if you’re from the water board is based on actual practice, though in another country).

            – I ‘concede my point about police seizing cash simply because it is cash (and hence, “evidence” of illegality). That is no small thing.’ – true, but did you miss the point I was making that it is only the labels that have changed? That they used to use different excuses to get your cash off you whenever they felt like it? They could get you to give anything less than 100% of it “willingly”, particularly since otherwise 100% of it could just be lost entirely and neither of you would get any of it until it turned up some time – if ever. Since they had to look better in those days, they couldn’t safely use any of it without the cover of a free donation – but oh, what could happen if that didn’t happen…

            ‘ “What has North Korea [sic – you made that up] or Cuba got to do with what goes – what went on – in American airports? No you are spouting non sequiturs and nonsense.” Far from it. I was highlighting that the only difference was how much less crass and in your face tactics used to be, by way of showing that there were still tactics. In those days, if you tried the wrong things (like North Vietnam and Cuba), you didn’t get as far as the American airports before you tripped up – and, if you pushed harder, you tripped harder.

            – ‘My point about SWAT tactics stands. Your comments are non sequiturs.’ It’s going to look like a non sequitur when they don’t officially acknowledge what they’re doing, so the fact that they used to be lower key and fewer people noticed what they were doing has no bearing on it. Does it matter to you if you get done over by an on duty SWAT team or by an off duty group of policemen reliving the glory days of the Cairo Gang? Yes, the ones doing it are now organised and acknowledged, and there is more of it. No, it is not something that used not to happen, it is something that they used to be more low profile about. Umm… did you know that many of these methods were refined in the Shanghai international zone in the 1920s and ’30s, and influenced many countries’ police and military practices, e.g. special forces? Fact, as you like to say (but I do advise you to research it separately, as I don’t use “fact” as a rhetorical club; but I do have a little background knowledge about these issues… I probably shouldn’t have mentioned “C.I.A.” and “Windsor” and “Boston” and “side lobes” together, but it’s done now).

            – ‘In re phone tapping and so on: The point is it was illegal – and if they got caught it was a major offense. People lost their jobs- and could be held criminally as well as civilly liable. That is a major distinction vis-a-vis today.’ Of course – so, they never tapped phones (themselves) and never got caught (themselves) and never lost their jobs (themselves) and were never held either criminally or civilly liable. But that is a trivial distinction vis-a-vis today, since they got all those things at the hands of others, when it suited them, as far back as a century ago; yes, it was more trouble, and less of it happened, but that was the whole theme I was bringing out there: that the disease was already fastened on, just less advanced.

            So I can throw back at you your “I’m surprised by your poor logic/reasoning on this one, [Eric]. Usually, you acknowledge the facts.” – though I do recall your having difficulty distinguishing between the Government genuinely incurring a moral obligation to pay benefits, and a non-existent assertion that taxpayers owe the government funds to meet that (it’s like saying that if a thief stole my money, he doesn’t owe me money because if he goes on like that he can only get it by more stealing; he does owe it, and he ought to go straight to pay it, since insisting on his owing isn’t me giving permission to double up – and he would go on stealing just as much anyway, if he doesn’t face up to the fullness of it).

            • PM, you’re simply not making any sense. Your facts are wrong.

              Buckle up laws (and helmet laws) did not exist in this country until fairly recently. When I was in college (1980s) police had no legal power to compel you to wear a seat belt. There was no law on the books. They had no basis for issuing a ticket. The courts could not prosecute the “offense” because it did not exist in law. It wasn’t even brought up. It was a given that you had every right to decide for yourself whether to wear a seatbelt or not. Period. A cop who tried to force you to wear a seatbelt would have been clearly acting outside of his legal authority – and been regarded as demented and out of control. No court would have backed up such a cop.

              Ergo, this is a very clear case of More Free in the past vs. Less Free today. Cut and dried. Black and white.

              And again, Australia is not at issue here.

              Same as regards internal checkpoints. They were not things Americans routinely had to deal with. Fact. They are now. It is a major difference.

              What is your problem with facts, PM?

              Air travel: It is fact that as recently as the 1980s, one did not have to show ID to board a plane; one could pay for a ticket 10 minutes before departure with cash. One was not subject as a matter of routine to physical searches of one’s person. It would have been – it was – inconceivable for government agents to touch little kids’ private areas, women’s breasts and genitals… etc.

              Again, facts. A clear, objective example of things being different (less free) today than they were in the past. Both in actual practice as well as in terms of the law.

              SWAT: Your equate occasional abuse without color of law with routinized practice done under color of law. It’s absurd. There is a qualitative difference – and I’m startled someone as bright as you are cannot comprehend that.

        • It’s like so many things that people are taught to respond to by rote. Think how kids are taught from earliest awareness to regard cops as almost super heroic. Very hard to shake off that conditioning. We’ve of course swallowed the red pill – and once you’ve done that, it’s much harder to fathom the mindset of those who swallowed the blue pill!

          • This is really more in response to the other conversation but its easier not to scroll up, have you ever considered writing an article on road privatization? Because that’s one debate I usually don’t win, and would be curious as to your thoughts on it.

            • Hi David,

              Yes, I have. It’s a difficult subject and requires careful treatment. I wish I had a clone – or more time. I enjoy the editorial freedom I have these days running my own publication, but I admit I do miss the days when all I had to do was write three articles a week, file ’em with my editors – and that was it. Seems like a dreamworld that never actually existed – but it did.

              Hunter Thompson once quipped that writing is “a hard dollar.”

              How right he was….

          • David, to tide you over, here’s a video discussing, Privatization of Roads and Highways “I present two cases: the moral and the economic.”

            There’s also a link there to a free PDF of his book, Privatization of Roads and Highways.


            See also: The Road to Freedom: An Interview with Walter Block


            Check out the surprsingly long list he mentions here at footnote number 5:

            “there is a wealth of published material refuting these and all other criticisms of private highway ownership and management.[5]”


            Perhaps you’ll write the next article on the subject?

          • You’re right that its a hard topic, I’ve tried to explain the idea and I’ve always failed at it. I know… logically, that the market always works better than the government, but its still a tricky debate topic.

            I hope you find the time some time. I want to read through Walter Block’s “Privatization of Roads and Highways” as well.

            Just noticed that someone else mentioned Block as well. Will take a look at that stuff. Thanks, Pan!

        • I have a certain degree of forgiveness for things that regular people would still consider justified (Note that this is not an excuse) but even then I still don’t like it, I just don’t hold bitterness toward the people that don’t know better. To a certain extent that could apply to the people who have heard the ideas of liberty but reject them for some reason, but its still not OK.

          And, those who have heard the word of Christ and rejected it…?

          Something to consider.
          Bear in mind, the three major religions ALL hinge on global domination: Jews crucified Christ (He wasn’t the Messiah who would lead them to global power). Christians (esp Catholics, since Catholic means “universal”) are no different, and they too espouse the idea of Law (Authority) = Justice. (Anglicans might be a special case, not sure. They have placed the religious subject to secular authority. ) But Islam is the same, too: They want to rule the world – it’s their Second Caliphate, when the rocks and trees shall call out, “O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him” (I shit you not.)

          The woman has taken to watching Criminal Minds. Personally, I find it too contrived (and also too close to home), but – the megalomania is the same. The Arrogance of believing you are “the chosen” just because of which Spook you venerate…

          Sacriligious, but doesn’t make it untrue.
          And if you relate to the “heathens” that way – better bet, it’s the same attitude others will show.

          Most people are, I’m sorry to say, essentially good and opportunistically self-serving. They won’t steal from you directly, but check your wallet if you let them near it. And don’t turn your back.
          We don’t use locks to prevent theft, but to keep “honest” people honest. Because if you don’t they’ll assume it’s free for all to take, and profit from, your posessions or efforts.
          In other words, their honesty is in direct proportion to the difficulty of getting away with it. And usually, they won’t attack you directly (literally or figuratively.)

          So they appoint someone else to steal on their behalf, and call it government. and Cesar rules with God’s permission, so “render unto Cesar…” Even as Cesar orders you nailed to the cross.

          Cesar is only acting on the “will of the people” (Even if his name is pilate – let’s stay on point.)

          I have never been confortable with the image of Christ as the “Good Shepherd” when everywhere you look, any time in history, the WOLVES are the ones who write and enforce the laws. What sort of shepherd abandons his flock, as he’s omniscient – and can see who will “exercise their free will” and HOW – and to what level that individual will injure others? If God is Omniscient, he’s a sadist,or at the very least, doesn’t have any connection with a human’s definition of “sanity.”
          If he’s NOT omniscient, hs cannot be all-powerful, either. Can’t have power without knowledge. (Parallel would be, nuclear fission. We didn’t have the power until AFTER we had the knowledge. Nature knew fusion already, but we didn’t MAKE nature.)

          Ultimately, it comes back to, “God helps those who help themselves.” Whether it is through direct action (planning, wheedling, persuasion through logic), or the more cynical, “taking” (IE, force), is irrelevant. YOU must be the prime mover. YOU must take action. If you give a direction, people will follow. They will grab on like a drowning man grabs anything to keep his head above water.

          Right now, as with the film, “The American President,” there is a crisis in leadership.

          Lewis Rothschild: You have a deeper love of this country than any man I’ve ever known. And I want to know what it says to you that in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism.

          President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-…

          Lewis Rothschild: They don’t have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.

          President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we’ve had presidents who were beloved, who couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.

          It is not a NEW situation, and using a MOVIE doesn’t negate the Point.
          We have the HNIC right now; before him, the Chimp; before him, the First Black President; Before him, Shrub; before him, Ronnie Ray-gun; Peanut before that; Ford, likely bright as the engine block of one of his namesakes… Etc. (I’ve run out of denigrations for these dick-taker in chiefs).

          Christ didn’t run on a populist platform. He wasn’t a hippie, nor Buddy Christ. He did what had to be done (if you believe). And Judas did what he HAD to do – because without Judas, there would BE no Christians. Judas was as instrumental in creating Christianity as Jesus.
          And Lucifer is instrumental, too – because without Lucifer, no fall, no temptation.
          You cannot HAVE good without evil. These poles define each other. Look at what has ahppened with the depolarization of Male and Female. I was the “good child.” I’m shunned. I was first-born (only-born) male son; I lived at home until I was 27. Wasn’t allowed to drive until I was mid-20s. (Cost too much.) I am poorly socialized in an informal setting – I don’t know what to do, and what to say. The rules I learned (was taught) are from the 50s, if that. Buzz Killington from Family Guy… Right actions, wrong century. But (to my parents), the WORLD is wrong.

          They’re correct – insofar as, it’s not a Christian world, and no one gives a damn about anyone else, basically. But that’s not what’s meant by, “Be in the world, not OF the world.” We HAVE to live here. We can care less about others, improve social skills, learn useful trades… Ultimately, though, no amount of Prayer will get you social skills: you need to get out there and SOCIALIZE. Take a chance.
          You can’t PRAY out how to use a band saw; you need to find one, get it, get advice, maybe buy some armored gloves just in case, and play with it.
          Software doesn’t write itself, nor cars build themselves, not even food grows itself (Usable quantities for modern world.) WE have to do it. If we apply ourselves, it can be accomplished – at cost ot other things. Can’t be a performance violinist on the stage at Lincoln Center, AND an olympic powerlifter. The time required for one excludes the other. And time spent trying to (for example) succeed in life, and make your parents proud of you – means nothing to them. They see only the finished product, unless you are incredibly close. (Q.V. my family, year since I saw them, went back for Dad’s death. FML.)

          They could’ve called. I could’ve, too. Had too many other demands on my time. Commuting (can’t hear; no service). Dog needs walked, I need to help make dinner, work is demanding 20 hours a day…
          Then when you do call, there’s no relationship any more. Try to avoid the “hot button” topics, and … there’s nothing else to talk about.

          You’re proselytizing, and may need to be the shepherd who holds back the wolves – because the damn sheep are too stupid to do anything themselves. They’ll sit and be shorn, or eaten, because the flock lives on – and they HAVE no identity. No soul, if you will.
          They are unrealized, unaware – clay golems, given life by accident. They have no interest in self-analysis, or evaluating different viewpoints. “If English was good enough for Christ, by God, it’s good enough for me!”
          They never question their faith, environment, motivations (sadly animal-like), politics… Nothing. They’re lost. And they’re happy that way. Lord of the Flies lies a micron under their civilized veneer. Not evil, mind – just uncaring, selfish, oppportunistic. Like Jackals or Hyenas, they’ll take what they can get, and not work for more. Being truly Evil – Actively harming others – doesn’t enter into their mind. Not because they’re good – it just takes too much effort.

          You see, post-fall, Lucifer stopped, on the way to hell. And he thought, and then returned to Heaven’s gate.
          He said, “There is a new creature to be made, Man. He shall need laws.”
          God responded, “What, YOU, his eternal temptor, would make his laws as well?”
          “Beg pardon,” said Lucifer, “I only ask he be allowed to write his own.”
          And so it was.

          In a sense, that is the source of Jefferson’s line about the Tree of Liberty, being watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
          We can only tolerate so much; if we cannot leave when TSHTF, we MUST fight – there’s no alternative. For all the empty territory here in the US, it’s still on the express route to a dictatorship, or worse. And the technology is advancing too fast, and too quietly, for most man-animals to consider, let alone adapt to, and forget about understand. We have pre-crime cameras in California already; DC is so monitored you can’t fart without the government knowing what you had for dinner last night; and the cameras, microphones, webcam trojans, key loggers, back doors, warrantless searches, stop and frisk, violent police, etc, etc, etc.

          I begin to agree, that there are too many people – that we need to cull the herd (flock) by about 6.5 BILLION people. Disgusting, but – remove the “need” for governance (and the numbers), and I think that people would resent more and more the intrusions into their lives. Can’t do anything if there are 10 cops to every citizen; but reverse those numbers, and we’ll see a quick change. (Right now, we’re so “on edge” from constant “terror alerts” that we’re informing on each other… Let alone the normal animal instincts of any such purge).

          God’s going to sit this one out, Padre – And our families aren’t likely to be helpful. They’re mired in ancient bullshit – ideas that were shoveled down their throats since World War 1, if not before. My parents still thought memorization was the key to everything. That my note-taking skills (abominable, yes, but WTF is the text book for?) should’ve been better – not just for the organizational aspects, but for the cleanliness, and learning.
          If you’re above the average of the herd?
          They will shun you.

          Like dogs and wolves drive out the sick pack members. You’re TOO intelligent? You’re “sick.”
          Humans don’t have the corresponding “too stupid” aspect any more. Ancient Greeks used to practice infanticide; now, we keep those who can NEVER take care of themselves as “Special little snowflakes.” After all, “Every sperm is sacred…” Utter BULLSHIT, but it’s been FORCED down our throats for generations. Religion and the State teamed up.
          Just like Islam… Hey, we’re dancing around the same theme each time, just got different names for it.

          The founders were more Deists than Christians, but they agreed on the basics. NAP isn’t far off from the founding principles.
          Somehow, though – we’ve gotten to here. Because each person wants, and acquires, without regard for others… As long as it’s not TOO much work. Until psychopaths don’t care about the work; they acquire, period. Once the psychoppaths are allowed to play, our days are limited. We can’t be left alone, you see; like the record companies see each copy of a song as a sale they didn’t get – whether the recipient would ever buy or not – the psychopaths see the money in YOUR pocket, and believe it’s THEIRS. The honest ones take it by force; the dishonest get elected and delegate autority to someoen else to reach into your pocket, crush your balls, and extract money from your wallet while you writhe in pain…
          But you’re only rendering to Cesar…

          Keep it all in mind: your family may likely decide you’re too much trouble to try and “correct.”
          Be prepared.
          Christ told us he did not come to bring peace; he would turn father against son, mother against child, brother against brother; and there is a time when if you have no sword – I tell you, sell your cloak and buy one… (Somewhere in Acts, IIRC.)

          Taking Refuge in the Will of God means turning a blind eye to what YOU can do to make this world a better place.
          Act before it’s too late.

          Hope you can do better than I did, keeping your family. But don’t rely on that.

          • My immediate family is better than most. My mom is at least starting to understand where I’m coming from, because she had a situation where she felt like a law was ridiculous and that the cop who enforced it against her was wrong. I told her that’s how I feel all the time. My dad listened to the same Greg Brannon video that I posted here and he thought it was excellent… he’s not an ancap but he’s a real constitutionalist, not a neocon. I hope he moves even further in our direction, as I did, but even where he is he’s better than most.

            As for your question about Christ, I don’t resent people who reject Christ. Their eternal destiny is another matter. I think most Christians hold a lot of unChristian ideas, but I will not say they are necessarily not Christians unless they deny the gospel: that salvation was entirely paid for by Christ on the cross. If they believe in that + works they are definitely satanic.

          • Excellent post Jean! I was with you throughout the whole post, but you brought up points that I hadn’t considered in the context that you had presented: God remaining on the sidelines and Christ tearing families apart (which happened to mine, but mainstream Christians would fault me for not taking their wide road to destruction)

      • Nor does it end there.

        Fox also runs god knows how many “hero cop” shows on its various entertainment channels.

        It even has a channel devoted exclusively to the topic, “FoxCrime.”

        Basically it’s the Amerikan counterpart to Nazi Germany’s Ministry of Propaganda.

        • I’m not sure which stations run them, but the ones that disgust me the most are the ones about Shaquille O’Neal and Steven Seagal abusing mundanes because, hey, they’re famous! That’s almost as good as being a cop!

          • Dear Darien,

            I left a comment at the Seagal video.

            Bevin Chu
            5 hours ago

            “I wanna protect my guys that I love.”
            Get it?
            “My guys that I love.”
            Not you. Not the hard-working taxpayers whom they are sworn to “protect and serve,” but “my guys that I love.”

            One fascist pig’s touching concern for his fellow fascist pigs.

  6. Can anyone explain or provide a link to more info on the following line from this article?
    “The artfully designed cut-outs along almost every Interstate designed specifically to obscure the presence of a cop from approaching traffic.”

    • @Rusty Shackleford,

      You may think of LEOs using the geography to hide from their “customers’ ” view until they are ready to ponce and hand out some paying paper.

      This can include hiding behind bushes, bridge embankments, other vehicles, etc.

      If the goal was to keep people at or less than PSL it would be easier if they were more visible to the traffic passing along the road.

    • “cut-outs along almost every Interstate”

      I took that to mean/include the “maintenance access points” between the Interstate lanes. The ones that often have signs which say, ‘No U-Turn’ …unless you’re a cop.

      Those cut outs are often in a dip, or after the crest in the road, conveniently such that a cop car is obscured to oncoming motorist until it’s far too late to slow down. We have several within 20 minutes of here. It’s almost a given they have a cop running radar on certain days and at certain times. The cut outs remind me of deer blinds or duck blinds used by hunters.

  7. Firstly let me state that I am a retired police officer, retired for 26 years for ‘on-duty’ motorcycle accident. Secondly, I have been cognizant of Eric Peters hatred of police, and I might add, I have no love and affection for today’s police, by and large. Too, let me state that I have been to 10 police officer wakes, and I never hear Eric Peters lauding those men who have died protecting their communities, and as have I, been labeled 100% permanently disabled because of the neglect of an inattentive driver. If Mr. Peters, at times, lauded the decent and caring of most police he would have my respect, but nothing, but nothing from him other than vilification and hatred, ant I might add–lies.

    In 25 years, I have never, ever once been instructed to issue traffic citations because of money–never! No such admonition was giving directly, or hinted. He is deceiving his readers by writing that they (we) do it for the money. I believe his hatred of the police stems from incident(s) he has encountered wherein he has perceived himself a victim of police tactics, realistic or no. Frankly, I am surprised that Lew Rockwell continues to publish his diatribe against the police; again, I am no lover of jack-booted thugs as I see much of nowadays, but they are not the enemy–so far, of the decent law-abiding citizen. I have a Master’s degree in Psychology, and I suspect that Mr. Peters is in dire need of psychotherapy to discover the real reason for his hatred of the police, or better yet, the real reason for his contempt for the police: he knows, but he is not telling us.

    • The number one sure sign of intelligence: psychoanalysis from a distance, backed up with spurious “I have a degree” claims. Perhaps you should look into therapy yourself to discover the real reason behind your contempt for forming proper sentences.

    • “Master’s degree in Psychology” So what?

      Eric doesn’t like cops because most of them have extremely low IQs, can’t think for themselves, abuse power, cite people for technical fouls, and seldom go after real crime.

      What’s to like?

    • Were you ever instructed that you were required to meet a performance target?

      This many stops per day, or per week, or per month, of this particular type?

      If the answer is ‘yes’, then you feeding the revenue trough.

    • Dear Paddycakes,

      “I have a Master’s degree in Psychology… ”


      And Paul Krugman has a PhD in Economics. He even has a Nobel Prize in Economics.

      Krugman is “an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times. In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences… “

      So what?

      His theories are exactly wrong. They are nonsense on stilts. Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with Austrian School economic theory can rip Krugman’s Nobel Prize winning gobbledygook to shreds.

      Facts and logic stand on their own. Appeals to “authority” are pathetic.

      Not surprising that a cop/retired cop would appeal to authority, to his badge/academic credentials, rather than facts and logic. After all, that’s the psychology that motivates authoritarians to begin with.

    • I cannot speak for Eric, but as for me, I don’t “hate” cops in general. As a group, I dislike them, but I don’t hate them. I understand Eric’s logical reasoning for why I may technically wrong about this, but I don’t really think of the average cop as being much worse than the average (government supporting) individual. And I think those cops who actually do pay conscious attention to the types of laws that they are enforcing, like that Ron Paul supporting sheriff who wrote Eric recently, are far better people than the average cheerleader for the military and police who sings “God bless America” to himself and completely cluelessly continues to vote for people who want to expand the size of the government. By default I view cops as being ignorant pawns of the government rather than deliberate sociopaths unless I see reason to feel otherwise in a given case. I think Eric agrees with me here, but maybe not.

      Regarding the “law abiding citizen” bit, here’s the problem, it presupposes that “the law” is inherently morally good. The truth is that it often isn’t. Stealing is morally wrong. Killing is morally wrong. And both actions involve aggressive violence against other people. Some things (at least, in my belief system) are morally wrong, yet involve no aggression, such as sleeping with a member of the same sex or surrending your reason by voluntarily intoxicating yourself. In those cases, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is the ethical rule. You might not approve of your neighbor’s behaviors, and you can tell him so if you want ,but to pre-emptively attack him because of those actions is just as immoral as if he did so to you because you didn’t live up to his moral code. And some actions, while they might not be completely “safe”, are not immoral nor guaranteed to cause harm, and thus using force to prevent them is completely immoral. For instance, “speeding”. Or not “buckling up.” You might not personally approve of how fast someone chooses to drive, or choosing to drive without a seat belt on, but that’s his choice. His actions are not necessarily causing harm. You cannot rightly pre-emptively attack someone, or steal his money, because you think his actions “Might” cause harm some time in the future. You don’t know that it will, and you have no right to decide that it will. People drive safely at different speeds, and one poor driver causing an accident doesn’t give you a right to punish other people for his poor choices. Again, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Dressing in a government-issued costume, and calling your violence “law” is not an excuse for these aggressive acts. Calling someone else’s actions “illegal” does not justify your attempts to use violence against the people who do those things. I don’t know if you are a Christian or not, if you are, take a look at Deuteronomy 17:14-20. Even the Kings of Israel (Which they were never supposed to appoint, as per 1 Samuel 8) are bound by God’s Laws, which includes doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and living at peace with all men as much as it depends on you. Most police work, including speed limit enforcement, violate these Biblical dictates, as well as the general principle that those who live peacefully with others should be left at peace.

      Regarding cops getting killed, I don’t know how those people were killed, or if they were really “protecting their communities” or not. Too often “protecting your community” really means “dragging someone out of their home for using drugs” or something like that, and, while I do not condone illegal violence, you really have it coming if you break into someone’s house without their permission, much like a burgler who did so would have no legal right to protection. Of course, its also possible that these people were killed by murderers or thieves or the like. In which case, I give them credit for those good actions, despite the fact that they probably committed some bad ones as well during their jobs. And… good actions do not make up for bad ones. They do not excuse the bad, aggressive actions, that cops take.

      BTW: I’m talking about principles here, not trying to personally attack anybody, including police. One of the strongest Christians I know is a cop. I think that he, like most people, doesn’t quite understand, or accept, the principles of liberty and non-aggression like he should. That’s not an excuse, however.

      • Christians who engage in fleecing their fellow man are just simply greedy. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, but your friend, like many others don’t care how much money they take from another just so long as their $’s keep coming. It is one of the most disgusting ways to make a living there is our screwed-up world.

        I was in court last week and part of the proceedings included traffic court. The cops and prosecutor were having a great time, while the poor souls they oppress were worried about what they would have to do without in order to feed their greed.

        I don’t want to state publicly what I would like for God to do these sick scumbags.

  8. This very thing happened to a friend of mine — and I live in the bluest of blue states.

    He drove past a hidden speed trap, then flashed his lights, in warning, at oncoming motorists. A second cop car, down the road, spotted him flashing his warning lights, pulled him over and gave him a citation for warning oncoming motorists of the upcoming speed trap.

    My friend appealed the citation in court, asserting his right of free speech. It’s not illegal, he said, to issue a warning.

    The judge disagreed. By warning oncoming motorists of the upcoming speed trap, my friend was causing motorists to drive more slowly than they otherwise might have driven. Some of these motorists, had they not slowed down in response to the warning, might have exceeded the speed limit when passing the speed trap. Thus, by slowing down in response to the warning, there would have been no consequence to otherwise violating the law, if these motorists had otherwise violated the law; and so, by not having violated the law, they would have escaped the a just citation on the basis of their having violated the law.

  9. Ha! Speeding tickets = “Usage tax”. If it weren’t for State Farm jacking up your rates for three years or more, (to the tune of many hundreds of dollars) I would just accept the usage tax and move on. Thankfully, though as I get older I find myself less in a hurry. (But I still watch myself thru small towns….)

  10. When a cop asks you “Do you know why I pulled you over?” respond with “Does it involve money?”. It worked for me once and I got no ticket.

  11. Eric, when I was on the job and ordered to write tickets we all knew it was about revenue. Safety was not even talked about in regards to our quotas. I was in a large police department (NYPD) and as such the direct financial gain from these revenues were never felt by us. Smaller departments survive on these revenues and as such directly benefit from these revenues and survive on such. Ever notice how these smaller departments are very into laws of profiteering? Searching cars and raiding homes on a whim for forfeiture proceedings, fines and or sending people to the prison profiteering industry. Remember Eric…..this is marketed to you to save you or as is more palatable……”save the children”.

    The oldest rule of investigations has always remained constant through history….”follow the money”

    • Hi Joe,

      How did you stomach being part of it? My understanding is you pretty much have to play ball – write a certain number of tickets – else you get hassled (or worse).

      A long time ago I briefly considered police work – not handing out tickets but going after genuinely bad people (murderers, thieves, etc.). But such work seems incidental to the primary work of police these days.

      It really is a shame.

      • Eric. When I went on the job in the early 80s it was about crime. Summonses were asked but it was not enforced so I loved what I was doing, I only dealt with the 3%. Contrary to what people believe back in the day we only harassed career criminals, the 3% as we were told and that same 3% holds true to this day. What changed were these “wars” on “terra” and “drugs”. Couple those two wars with a failing economy and the need to produce revenues. If you think people go primal when they get hungry imagine a department/government with firepower and black ropes backing them up. Things have changed in the last 30 years that I personally witnessed but it’s not just the police. Look at these stupid pointless wars, TSA, Obamacare, Tolls going thru the roof, NSA, Homeland Security, FBI finding twits to plant fake bombs and the list goes on and on. How do they stomach what they do? That answer is easy….$$$$$ doing nothing for a living with the utmost in job security

  12. Why don’t they just drop all pretense. When one re-ups their registration one could pay the speed fee. Say $20 for every 10 over they wish to do, with impunity speed wise.

  13. Eric,
    The word for the “south of the border” version is “mordida” not “mordita”. As a former LEO, I can verify that 95% of traffic “enforcement” is all about revenue. The politicians always increase pressure on the street “snuffies” to write more payi’n paper.

    • Thanks for the correction, ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ – Spanish never was my strong suit!

      On the rest: I believe most cops understand this, too. I cannot imagine being a part of it. There’s got to be a better way to make a living.

        • Not only more honorable but more honest and ethical as well. Whores provide a service that benefits both parties, typically. LEOs enforce laws that are unethical mostly and downright tyrannical typically. The interaction between whores and johns is totally voluntary….the interactions between people and LEOs is typically a different kind of fuck, one that has no pleasant upsides at all. LEOs also enforce “laws” that are created arbitrarily with no oversight. Whores just name a price, do the act and everybody leaves satisfied. Whores are, in fact, more honorable and ethical than any government employee at any level…..

          • The problem is that most people don’t think this way, and they’ve been conditioned not to think that way. I think that applies to most, or at least, a good number, of the cops as well.

            I think a lot of them are well-intentioned, and frankly, that’s the hard part. You can’t just go up to them and say what you just said there, nor can you do that to the people who support them. Or at least, it will be extremely unpleasant if you do. And understably so. Because again, at least a good portion of them THINK that what they are doing is good. They’ve been lied to for so long, they believe the lies. The evil is socially accepted. I don’t see how that’s ever gonna change, and although I do like Eric’s comparison to abolitionists, I seriously doubt it will ever play out for us like that. Its much easier to see the evil in keeping a slave than it is to see the evil in giving somebody a traffic ticket. To see the latter requires a logical capacity that I’m blessed to have and that most people just aren’t.

            • Hi David,

              The key – I think – is making them confront the violence they swim in. For instance, when you next happen to find yourself talking with a girl who blithely goes on about how the government ought to “help the poor” (or make college “free” – and so on) point out to her what she’s advocating. Make her follow the chain of events to the rough men with guns and fists and cages and batons who will force others to give up their property (and their lives, if they resist) in order to make her wishes come true.

              It’s the evasion of the violence that underlies the system that makes the system itself possible. Because the system can maintain the illusion of being a benign entity – no, a positively good entity – that exists to “help” us all.

          • Eric, your point about violence is interesting, and I thought of it again when I was in a conversation with my mother about homosexuality. She’s not really politically savvy, so she wasn’t so much arguing a particular point but when I said laws against public displays of homosexual behavior were “violent” she was completely confused and didn’t know what I was talking about. I responded by writing this:


      • mordida means the little bite…….if you spend much time in Mexico, central America or South America you will be familiar with the term. Many people mis-spell the word as mordita……I remember flying into Roatan Honduras once for a dive trip and being surprised to be singled out to pay a little bribe to get through customs…..it was my third trip there and the first time I had to pay the mordida….but it was only a couple of bucks….a lot more pleasant than being dragged over by TSA and butt raped……

  14. Dear Everyone,

    Looked around for a good article to paste this YouTube link under. Couldn’t find one, so I’m just going to put it here, under “If it’s not about the money.”

    Why? Because these YouTube videos are about the money.

    This guy, Michael Maloney, exposes monetary fraud with the same simplicity and clarity that Larkin Rose exposes hidden coercion.

    His channel, “Why Gold and Silver/Mike Maloney’s Hidden Secrets of Money” is a “must subscribe.”

    I’ve never seen an easier to understand explanation of how the central banking fraud actually works. Check it out. You won’t regret it!

        • Back in university I took a few economics courses. I was two short of being able to pick up a minor in it. Even back then I remember thinking all of the principles/equations/theories taught in the courses could all be worthless. These days I’m certain of it!

          • Dear Dom,

            Samuelson and company I bet!

            Neo-Keynesian voodoo economics. “Stimulate the economy” by “priming the pump.” All total bullshit.

            Something for nothing. The economics counterpart to perpetual motion in physics.

            Samuelson concluded the economic description of the Soviet Union and marxism in 1989: “Contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, the Soviet economy is proof that … a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.” [16] The Collapse of Communism happened during the same year and the Soviet Union broke up two years later.

            The amazing thing?

            Except for the Austrian economists, the mainstream intelligentsia remain totally mired in the same delusions to this day.

            He spent his career at MIT where he was instrumental in turning its Department of Economics into a world-renowned institution by attracting other noted economists to join the faculty, including Robert M. Solow, Franco Modigliani, Robert C. Merton, Joseph E. Stiglitz, and Paul Krugman, all of whom went on to win Nobel Prizes.

            Paul Krugman! I rest my case.

          • I took economics in high school, and, while I bought into most of it (didn’t know any better), the description of the great depression as a “depression of plenty” caused by everybody just having too much of everything was such obvious, palpable nonsense that even sixteen-year-old me saw through it. And I’m dumb as a post!

          • Dom, when I got an MBA, many years ago now, an interesting thing to do was to compare and contrast what I knew separately by that age with what the units were teaching or omitting, including the economics units. Of course, I had more sense than to contradict any of it.

            Bevin, it’s subtler than that. In the right circumstances, printing money really can work, i.e. increase production, it’s just that those circumstances are rare and special. For instance, the Dutch used currency depreciation in the East Indies as part of how they raised the capital to apply to new production. That was for their own benefit at the expense of the locals, of course, but the point is that they didn’t simply achieve a one off wealth transfer from a one off depreciation (which was safer than doing it over and over), they applied it to building up something from which they could keep getting revenue indefinitely. However, there isn’t always a “something” like that available, let alone is it usually the target of money printing.

  15. Waking up is a process, as this article reminded me. My gut reaction to the “South of the Border” thing was “they pull you over for no reason? That’s awful.” But then… most people “Speed” here and so could similarly get pulled over on a cop’s whim, so its really no different. Except that here, they pretend that its for “your safety.”

    I think I’ll send this one to my dad, though I probably need to wait a couple days because there was a politically related fight in my house last night and this monring. My family thinks I’m obsessed with the subject, lol.

    • Ugh. I struggle with that with my extended family and sister. “Why don’t you think of other things too?”

      I dunno. Aside from my wife and kids and some work stuff, I do spend huge hours researching what’s happening…politics…history.

      But “obsessed”? Only in the sense of not wanting me and my kids to die horrible fucking deaths in FEMA camps. Y’know, to be prepared mentally, spiritually, and physically to not disintegrate into a pissing, slobbering hysteric when the collapse we all expect finally comes.

      So, no, I wouldn’t call it obsessed. Just prepared. And awake. And saving your ass in the future.

      • I’m glad you don’t agree that I’m “obsessed.” I don’t really agree either. But that’s what they think and say.

        BTW: I don’t have a clue how to be “prepared” for this sort of thing, and I’m not.

    • Hi David,

      It’s hard to find people who want to talk about serious things. By which, of course, I mean heterodox things. Most people get evasive/uncomfortable/hostile when certain subjects – certain viewpoints – are brought up. They’ve been socially conditioned to react this way. It’s a big part of the way the system works.

      This is also why they’d rather talk about (and watch) fuuhhhhhhhhtttttttball, or some other vapid TeeVee “show.” They can vent emotions harmlessly this way. And it’s a great time-filler.

      • and yet, video games are “too violent.”

        Venting your emotions on “the bad guy” getting killed by the FBI Profilers in Criminal Minds? That’s OK.
        Killing “the horde” in Gears of War? No, that’s TOO VIOLENT, and induces evil actions in those who play the games.
        (I chose Gears to avoid the whole, “You’re dehumanizing people” / “getting the children used to killing humans.”)

      • Its a combination of different things. Part of it is the “social acceptability” which frankly, I have a hard time caring about. I don’t necessarily want a bunch of friends. I’d rather spend my time online most of the time because the people are more intelligent. I have a couple friends from my childhood who I am still friends with who don’t see eye to eye with me on this stuff or are really that interested in it, which I’m OK with, and I can still get along with them, but I don’t feel a proactive desire to go find more such people, and I certainly do not enjoy talking about the frivolous among large groups of people. Regarding football, maybe its a vice, but I do enjoy it (I don’t watch it particularly often, and I recognize that they have the nonsensical America worship before I watch the games, but I still enjoy watching the games.) Despite the fact that I enjoy it, though, I’m not really obsessed with it (You wouldn’t know it from looking at my room, I have a bunch of old stuff from when I WAS obsessed with it… lol). I only watch a few games a year, we don’t have cable, and I’m OK with that. But occasionally I do get burned out with the “serious” stuff. Who doesn’t? I’m human…

        But I’d much rather talk about serious stuff. I mentioned to my friend (one of the ones who I’ve had for a long time) that I frequently spend several hours in political debates online and he basically said “I could understand if it was a SPORTS debate” and I was like, really? He says he was joking, he probably was, but I totally get what you’re talking about.

        Another part of the issue, and you’re going to see this as a debate between the irrational (me) and the more irrational (everyone else) but I’ll bring it up anyway… Most people I know would rather just focus on Jesus Christ and the gospel. I do not blame them for this. I strive for the same thing. But too often, I feel like its Christianity and then something else, and still, as you mention, excuses for refusing to get involved. The “things are going to get bad anyway” arguments don’t really reasonate with me, because I feel strongly that WE DON’T KNOW when the end of the world is coming. Most Christians think it will be soon, and I point out to them that most Christians in the 1st century thought the same thing. Maybe they are right this time, maybe they aren’t, but since we don’t know, we have to keep fighting.

        I agree with you that to a certain point, its the viewpoints. I was arguing in one conversation (this is the multi-day fight that I referred to) that speeding laws are a sham, and that they’re simply a revenue scam. My mom and cousin go on about how people would die if I had it my way, and then when I prove that the system is a scam using my own mother as an example (Remember, I DON’T generally “speed” when I drive because I’m still a crappy driver, my mom is a good driver and she does speed, and she knows it too) of someone who speeds literally every time she drives and yet has never caused an accident. So then she replies with a “Who really cares?” Now, I’ll freely admit that speeding laws are nowhere near the biggest issue to fight against (Frankly, I think that sheriff who you were doing back and forth with is a better American than 90+% of the country, I’m not going to throw him in the woods because he’s wrong on what is a relatively minor issue of how public property [the societal fiction that shouldn’t even exist] should be handled), but that wasn’t even really her point. She just doesn’t “Get” that the government steals from her, she feels like most people aren’t as good drivers as her (Which is probably true) and that if they drove like her they’d get into accidents and she thinks the police enforcing traffic laws is protecting her. And I don’t think she wants to get it, because then you get the “good cops” dilemma that you wrote an article about earlier, and I’m guessing she’d just rather never consider it. She then tries to get me with a yes/no question about traffic lights. Which I couldn’t answer with a yes/no because, despite the fact that I understand that there are certain intersections that would simply be unsafe to cross without some regulation of traffic, I also believe in the NAP and I think any solution to that problem other than private roads is imperfect. But no… she wants a simple yes/no answer (I’m not certain that the answer I wanted to give was correct, BTW, I think it was but I’m relatively new to libertarian theory. The fact that my answer might have been wrong doesn’t change the fact that its not a simple yes/no) and I get accused of “not answering her question” when I try to make the issue “complicated”. So then I try to walk away on the grounds that she’s not willing to consider the question at the intellectual level that I want to discuss it, and she takes it as an insult to her intellect and thus “disrespectful.”

        My parents don’t get how important libertarian principle is to me, they think I live in the theoretical and think I’d be better suited spending my time trying to learn to drive and getting a job than engaging in these types of debates. Now, I don’t dispute that I need to learn to drive and get employed, of course, but I’m fundamentally an intellectual thinker. That’s how I am. Which is why I want to teach history to begin with. And they get on me for having an attitude of “superiority” which, honestly, is something I struggle with. I admire Ron Paul for being able to deliver the principles without coming off that way, but at the same time, how do you NOT feel superior, at least in the area of logic and knowledge, to the people who are too lazy to apply logic and knowledge to the political issues? I get not having the logical capacity for such (And frankly, much as I love her, I think my mom is in that boat) but then… don’t argue with people who are far more intelligent than you are, especially if you claim you aren’t interested in the topic anyway. Interestingly, the discussion was originally a spin off of a discussion about technology which was predominately “anti”. I pointed out that the internet has woken me up to a lot of our government’s abuses of power, which my mom wonders aloud whether that’s a good thing. Again, I GET it, because she wants to focus exclusively on Christ, but I feel like I can advocate for Christianity and for liberty at the same time.

        My posting this comment is probably going to lose me the opportunity to use this article as a persuasion point, since I’d rather my parents not know I’m complaining about them on the internet at the present time. Next year I will possibly be going to Patrick Henry College. The upside is that the people there are generally actually interested in this stuff, the downside is that they are generally wrong about that sort of stuff, but hopefully I might have an influence on the people there.

        • We are up against a system that has for generations worked to stifle the ability of the typical person to be reflective, to think independently – as opposed to responding like a Parrot to various stimuli. Orwell’s explication of doublethink gets at what I mean. He described it as a habit of mind that automatically blanks out the heretical tending thought before it even becomes a consciously heretical thought. It is characterized by a strident repudiation, though the repudiation is of the shout-it-down sort, not the pick it apart using logic sort.

          Another useful example is Stalin’s chicken. Have you read about it? Stalin was asked by a visitor how he kept control of the masses, given their privations and the obvious cruelty of the Soviet system. In answer, Stalin roughly plucked a live chicken until the poor creature was shivering and naked. He then spread some scratch grain on the floor and the chicken came right to him and huddled by his leg.

          Most Americans venerate the authority that enslaves them.

          Cop worship, in particular, is one of the biggest obstacles we face in terms of successfully prosecuting this intellectual-ethical war for people’s minds.

          I think we have a chance because we are making progress. The over-the-top tactics/responses that are becoming all-too-routine are becoming harder and harder to “cognitive dissonance” away. Regular middle class people are beginning to feel the same fear that lower class/urban people have felt for years.

          They’re beginning to understand we’re all “niggers” now.

          • The best way I’ve heard it framed is that ‘we are all indigs now’.

            Indigs being short for indigenous population. The population of an occupied territory.

          • I’ve never read about Stalin’s chicken, but that sounds about right. Government creates a problem, then creates a solution (That doesn’t completely solve the problem) and people wonder where they’d be without the government.

            Just out of curiosity, Eric, have you ever had a real conversation with one of the cops? I mean, not just of the “he pulls you over” sort, but with a cop that you actually knew in person? Did you approach this subject at all? If so, how? Did you get the idea that they knew what they were doing is screwed up, or were they just as duped into it as the average person?

            Regarding people in general, a person may agree that some of the laws a cop enforces are ridiculous, but then you have the good laws, laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. that cops also enforce. So people would, probably rightly, protest that even though cops do some bad things, they do some good things too. What are your thoughts along these lines?

            And… its really hard not to have a superiority complex when you have a clue and the person you’re talking to, whether friends, family, etc. don’t “get it”. How do you deal with that? (I feel drained during and after most real life political conversations for this reason.)

            • Hi Dave,

              I’ve talked with a few retired cops. I’ve had little opportunity to talk with active ones and – frankly – would be reluctant to because the power relationship is severely unequal. They have the legal authority of the state behind them; getting on such a man’s bad side is not necessarily smart policy.

              On: “So people would, probably rightly, protest that even though cops do some bad things, they do some good things too. What are your thoughts along these lines?”

              I have a T Shirt. Caption: What about all the good things Hitler did?

          • David:

            My brother’s a cop. I’ve obliquely brought it up with him before; his mentality is that he’s just “doing his job” and that’s that. It obviously bothers him (he’s been pretty much always miserable since becoming a cop), but I guess he just tries to rationalise it away with dopey platitudes (well, and drink it away with scotch) because they pay him so well. I’ve gently suggested that maybe he could get a job that suits him better — he’d make an excellent karate instructor, and I know he’d love doing it, so why not open a dojo? He has a wife and kids, though, and I expect he’s worried about being able to provide for them. And his job as a costumed enforcer is extremely lucrative, and comes with a full pension after twenty years.

            In short, yes, I’m pretty sure he knows that what he’s doing is messed up.

            As regards how to talk about this stuff without seeming superior: I think the only way this can happen is in a situation in which people willingly come to you to find out what you think. If you get in their faces to lecture them, you’re automatically creating a one-over-one sort of relationship.

          • Darien, just out of curiosity, since your brothers a cop you might know the answer to this, what do the higher level cops actually do. As in, police captains? (I ask since I know one.) I know from what I’ve heard its more of an office job but don’t know the details.

            Eric- I really like your T-shirt caption idea but I think most people would instantly dismiss us if we approached it that way. Most people think that the idea of comparing enforcement of “the law” to Hitler murdering Jews without cause to be ridiculous. Again, I get what you’re getting at (I even said I liked the idea) but I don’t think most people are intellectually capable of getting what you’re saying there. Or maybe I underestimate people. I don’t know. In my experience most people would use that sort of thing as an excuse to stop thinking critically.

          • I think it’s mainly paperwork, but I don’t really know. My brother’s not a captain — he’s just a patrolman — and I don’t really know the details of how the department is organised. The one higher-up I ever dealt with was a Lieutenant, and I know he spent his days pushing papers.

      • I like to think my time spent in intellectual discussion and debate is better than TeeVee and professional sports…. well it may not come to much but at least I learn something and it is at least interactive.

        • Me too.

          There are some worthwhile programs on TV (cable series, educational programming) but most of the network stuff is vacuous, overwrought, contrived and neither funny nor entertaining. I’d rather read a book – or post here!

    • I have to laugh at the “focus” the Japanese press has on something as mundane as what kind of Mercedes the gangsters prefer. It’s so typically Japanese as is the rest of the presentation. Still, I have to wonder, what does it have to do with the article above?

  16. If “South of the border” is referring to Mexico, then you misunderstand the System here.
    First of all, only the Transito (Traffic Police) can issue tickets and their vehicles are clearly marked. If I am sitting at a Red traffic light with a police car next to me and it is clearly safe not bothering to wait for the Green, I cannot be issued a ticket if I drive through it. Nor can that policeman call the Transito and have a ticket issued to me. The only thing which could happen is I can be stopped and “checked or searched” which is why few people will do this sort of thing.
    If a Non-Trasito cop stops someone for a traffic violation (I assume you were in Tijuana, Nogales or some other Border Town), he is assured the driver is a Non-Mexican and doesn’t know the System. If that driver demanded a ticket be issued, dispite the cop saying he will have to take him to the Station, nothing can be done (if the driver is polite) because what that policeman is doing is illegal.
    I think Tijuana is now giving each Transito cop 10% of the cost of each ticket he writes. If you can determine what the cost of a ticket is, offer him 15% and you’re off the hook.
    By the way, Politeness is very important here. A few years ago, I was issued a ticket by a Federali for 100MPH in a 61MPH Zone. He apoligized for writing me and told me I could expect no more Radar Cops until I entered the next State.

  17. There were 91,550 tickets issued by red-light cameras in (DC) the year that ended Oct. 1, an increase of almost 14,000 over the previous year, according to data AAA obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

    The District took in almost $13 million from red-light cameras last year, a $1.8 million increase over fiscal 2011, AAA said. Fines racked up by speed cameras amounted to $72 million. It received an additional $92 million in revenue from 1.9 million parking tickets.

    “Drivers might as well face it, the District is a strict enforcement zone,” said John B. Townsend II of AAA. “The odds of getting a photo-enforced ticket are demonstrably greater in Washington, D.C., than they are in all of the surrounding jurisdictions combined. The District collects nearly two-thirds, a stunning 61.6 percent, of the [red-light camera] revenue total for the national capital area.”

    The speeding and traffic light cameras have become more lucrative as their number in the District has increased. Combined, they issued tickets valued at $24.4 million in 2007. That figure more than doubled by 2010, to $50.9 million, and it reached $84.9 million in the last fiscal year.

    The D.C. police say the number of tickets issued indicates that too many people are either unaware or disregard that it’s illegal to make a right turn at a red light without coming to a stop.

    “Motorists who do not stop and look all ways prior to turning on a red light are endangering themselves and their passengers in addition to any pedestrians, bicyclists, and other motorists who have the right of way at that time,” said police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump.

    New York Avenue, home to the District’s most lucrative speed camera (it issued 116,734 tickets valued at $11.6 million in one 23-month period), also is home to three of the five most productive red-light cameras. Together, those three cameras generated $2.1 million in ticket revenue in fiscal 2012.

    Although it’s impossible to know, a great many of those tickets may be issued to vehicles stuck between crosswalks when the light turns red during the traffic congestion that plagues most of the day at each of the intersections.

    The hottest red light cameras in the District, based on number of tickets issued last year, are at:

    ●Westbound New York Avenue at Fourth Street NW (5,297 tickets, worth $794,500).

    ●Southbound on the South Capitol Street ramp before I Street SW (4,884 tickets, worth $732,600).

    ●Westbound New York Avenue at Florida Avenue NE (4,849 tickets, worth $732,350).

    ●Westbound Suitland Parkway at Stanton Road SE (4,679 tickets, worth $701,850).

    ●Westbound New York Avenue at New Jersey Avenue NW (4,134 tickets, worth $620,100).

    • I fall to me knees and thank the motor gods that I do not have to deal with DC anymore.

      I Used to have to drive across the city, from Key Bridge to New York Avenue on the DC-MD border every day for work back in the ’90s. I made the trip in 10 minutes or so, breaking every got-damned law that got near me. The stretch NY Avenue just before The Times building was a great racetrack. I got several press cars thoroughly exercised there.

      It must be insufferable now. You can’t even try to evade/fight the Clovers – because the cameras are everywhere.

      • @Eric- Over 11 million dollars from one intersection! And if you are a black female driving badly near the White House they will chase you down and fill your car with hollow point bullets. I don’t blame you, that is one tough place.

        • I used to fly by the White House and vicinity. I mean, 70, 80 MPH sometimes (this was typically in the very wee hours of the morning, heading to the paper on NY Avenue; very few if any other cars on the road).

          That kind of driving looks to be seriously inadvisable today.

          It is amazing. As recently as the mid-1990s, even downtown DC was still – relatively – free.

          Just barely 20 years later it’s on lock-down, with cameras and automatic-rifle-toting Heroes at every corner. I can’t imagine what it must be like to live there – or even drive through there.

          • @Eric – Dem’ polEticians are definitely afraid of the people up there. In Spain every time the polEticians make more restrictive laws the public go out and burn and riot more. Same in the Ukraine. We are just not disgusted and hungry enough to put a stop to their Marxist playing with our lives and the economy here. Yet.

          • I do not know the origin of the quote.
            I do find it amusing how the statists project their own emotions on others though.

            They are scared of undefined boogie men and they are reasonable as they fear these undefined enemies hiding everywhere…. meanwhile those who want liberty can point to a very real armed force that is at least for the moment selective in its crimes. But who’s paranoid? It’s so bizarre as to be laughable.

      • I wondered someday…if for a few months what would happen if everyone…literally EVERYONE broke no laws? Just as a thought experiment, pretend that absolutely nobody ran a light, speed, stole…nothing!

        What would the cop’s do? No revenue to take in…total boredom would make the corrupt be more blatent, and they’d have to justify their existence in this new “crime-free area”, thus their budgets would be cut. Money they don’t have anymore would dry up, and they’d have to be more blatent in stealing from the people, as they seem to COUNT on the revenue.

        But the money they take in is addictive! Would the local gouvernments start making new laws to trap people? Would the mere absence of crime make the area decend into chaos as the cops run wild desperate for their cash and power fix?

        Really now, just what WOULD happen? A fun thought experiment I thought…

        • That would be exceedingly hard to do, Mamba – because it is literally almost impossible to not break some law or other every single day without even knowing it. Consider just the tax code. Not even IRS tax lawyers know, definitively, what’s “legal” – and what’s not. They give you their best guess.

          This fact – Byzantine laws – is a defining characteristic of an authoritarian system. One in which the average person cannot function without doing something – intentionally or not – that the state could go after him over.

          • True, though i guess if you spent your one day crime-free day home and watched TV or play with your family, if you never left the house they’d have to at least stretch to nail you with something. I’m guessing that day a lot of “surprise raids” would be suddenly scheduled. 🙂

            I realize this is an impossible situation realistically, but as a thought experiment it puts the priorities of the cops in perspective.

    • “Drivers might as well face it, the District is a strict enforcement zone,” said John B. Townsend II of AAA. “The odds of getting a photo-enforced ticket are demonstrably greater in Washington, D.C., than they are in all of the surrounding jurisdictions combined.

      It’s hard to imagine that this surprises anyone. Just one more form of theft inside of an enclave that has no other purpose for existence than institutionalized theft.

      • I enjoy my little one-sided conversations with the Houston thugs SO very much! In 2008, one of their cameras thinks I crossed a yellow light too late, so now we chat regularly. Well, I say “chat”; they talk, I laugh, so it’s very one-sided.

        A few times a year–since 2008–they’ve sent me these adorable little letters. They can be so colorful; with very artistically blurred blow-ups of JPG’s of Houston police department logos, or City of Houston insignias or just the company’s logo.

        Sometimes their language is funny too; they like to joke about things like withdrawing my car’s registration, and sometimes also they make funny ironic remarks about affecting my credit rating.

        Gosh those guys crack me up!

        You know how sometimes a joke gets more and more funny the more it’s repeated, until you’re just WAITING for them to come back to the same point again? They’ve been really clever with that, too…the letters cycle among the cute “threats”–“we’ll charge you extra! We’ll block your car’s registration! We’ll send you to a collection agency! And then it will hurt your credit!”

        But I know they’re just kidding. And they were kidding A LOT of people, but eventually we shut the whole comedy down, because Houston had a referendum and kicked the cameras OUT. We also joked back at them, which was funny, because we called them funny names like “motherfuckers” and “rotten bastards”. I think they knew we were just kidding.

        And I know THEY were just kidding. Because none of those things came true that they talked about; my credit rating is fine, and my car has been registered several times since 2008.

        I don’t know why anyone was upset about the whole thing. I just thought we had a great comic practical joke for a few years here and I really enjoyed it.

        They must have spent a LOT of money sending me all those hilarious letters! I almost feel bad for never responding, but I just couldn’t think of anything funnier to say back.

        Gosh those were swell folks.

        • A few years ago one of my coworkers renewed his registration by mail. The Communistwealth of Virginia cashed his check but neglected to send the stickers. He inquired about the missing stickers and the VA DMV parasites sent him a “yeah we screwed up, you can drive on your plates until we get your stickers out to you, keep this letter in your vehicle” response. His wife had to go to DC (District of Criminals) for her job and one of their “meter-maids” ticketed her vehicle for expired plates. My buddy sent the DC thugs a copy of the DMV letter with an explanation. DC sent him a response letter that started out with “The fine for expired license plates is $$$. If you wish to appeal it, you may do so, but the cost of appeal is $$$$ paid in advance. You have X days to do this. Blah-blah-blah. Please pay the amount due shown below.” The amount due shown below was $0.00. That’s right, zero dollars, zero cents. Knowing that I was somewhat of a “latrine-lawyer” he showed me this letter and asked me what I thought he should do. I said “Send ’em a check for zero dollars and zero cents.” He asked if he shouldn’t just send them a dollar or a penny. I said “No. Do exactly what the letter says. Write them a check for zero dollars and zero and enclose it with that letter.” That was exactly what he did and he never heard another word out of them. Sometimes it pays read the instructions all the way to the end and follow them to the letter.

  18. Americans care more about perception, about image and illusion than reality.

    And they don’t want to admit they’ve been duped so they go on with the illusions.

    The system continues to move to collapse because practically nobody wants to deal with reality while those who are get pushed to the fringes of society. called kooks and worse.

    • Tell me about it!

      When I was still (albeit peripherally) a “mainstream media” journalist, I got all kinds of looks (and comments) for departing from The Orthodoxies. Today, of course, you get more than looks and comments.

      You get fired.

      Or never hired in the first place.

      • Speaking of mainstream media journalists, I miss the old “Car & Driver”. A good hunk of my ‘waking up’ is probably attributable to 1980s and early 1990s C&D.

        They used to do excellent articles on the insurance cartel, the clunker laws, and so forth and so on. You probably could have fit right in with the rest of the C&D staff circa 1988.

        • Oh yeah.

          I met Bedard once. I wish I’d have been around in time to hang out with Yates.

          Those guys had a strong Libertarian (an American) bent. They loved speed, thrill, beauty, engineering audacity.


          That was something old ladies fretted about.

          Today’s automotive press is corporate and metrosexual. There are also some insufferable women. There are exceptions, but few.

          Re-education has been quite successful.

          • I took C&D just as soon as Road & Track morphed. I kept that sub for decades and loved it. They were always doing highly illegal things and laughing with their readers all the way to the bank, even had lots of “avoidance” tips each issue.

            They told the story of MADD getting all these top flight race car drivers together and having them drink a shot of booze after establishing a baseline for the course and then re-running it. After several shots, there was only one person who wasn’t bettering his time. Of course it never saw print. They performed their own test of MJ and driving and that article was hilarious. How the hell are you going to wreck when you’re only going 12mph? I had a friend driving through Nashville on the interstate in the wee hours of the morning and he got stopped by the hiway patrol. What’s the problem occifers? he asked. Reply, You were going 12 mph. Cop told him to speed up a bit and let him go. Of course this was in the 70’s and the cop might have been stoned too.

            • That stuff’s all gone now… they were my heroes as a kid. I wanted to be like them. Now it’s career suicide to be like them!

              So be it.

              Life’s too short to be someone else’s poodle.

          • Dear 8sm,

            “After several shots, there was only one person who wasn’t bettering his time. Of course it never saw print. ”

            Typical! Needless the same goes for rigorous studies that prove “More Guns, Less Crime.”

            Including some conducted by liberal academics who hoped their studies would prove the opposite, but didn’t!

      • Dear Eric,

        According to the article:

        “Martin told News 8 that he is not opposed to speed traps.

        “Absolutely not,” Martin said. “I think it’s absolutely important for officers to be on the streets and enforce laws.”

        Hopefully his abuse by the Swine Blue Line will make him rethink this conceit.

        • I think – just a gut reaction, really – that Martin is being wise like a fox. He’s playing their own game. It’s all about “safety,” donchaknow!

          • Dear Eric,

            I prefer your version to mine. I hope he was doing what you said.

            1. That would make him smarter (I would like to think people are smarter than they often seem)


            2. It would mean that there is one more guy already on our side.

    • Absolutely right BrentP–a great insight.

      I much prefer honest thievery. The sheeple aren’t comfortable with the cognitive dissonance. So they contort themselves like Cirque du Soleil mentally to maintain the delusion, to cling to the fantasy, that’s it’s still alright, that it’s just for safety.

      It’s cowardice of the worst kind. And I despise it.

      And it’s so easy to overcome. Rip off the Band-Aid, face reality, suffer a few weeks of “Oh my god how did it get this bad??“…and start fixing it!

      For 95% of us that’s all it takes. Once the delusion ends, once we accept the reality, the withdrawing of consent, the spreading of the truth, happens automatically. No pitched gun battle, no endless protesting and marching.

      Just. Stop. Believing.

      • That’s why I respect mercenaries more than “regular” troops of our far flung legions. They at least don’t pretend to be doing it for patriotic propaganda.

        • Dear MoT,

          I agree. Mercenaries under global statism end up being tools of national governments. Blackwater in Iraq for example.

          But under market anarchism, they would assume a far more constructive role. They would replace standing armies and the Military Industrial Complex.

          It’s sort of like what Tor and I were talking about re: Google. Absent Big Government, Google would be a force for good.

          Re: the hypocrisy, it applies to so many areas of life.

          Almost all organized crime cartels engage in extortion. The organized crime cartel that calls itself “The Government” attempts to distinguish its extortion by labeling it “taxation.”

          But shit doesn’t stinks any less just because you called it by its name in French, merde.

          And how about counterfeiting? That’s one of my favorites. The organized crime cartel that calls itself “The Government” attempts to distinguish its counterfeiting by labeling it “monetary policy” or more recently, “quantitative easing” or “QE.”

          • If Governments would all only agree to just get out of everyone’s way, yet not reduce itself an iota, we would all prosper, I believe.

            Then we’d have one world Googlement. Except in China, where there’d be Baiduchy. Every device in the world would know your citizen score, your crimes as it were. Linked to your IP and so on.

            The pounding on the door would be from a scrum of herobots. “We’re Boston Dynamics, and we’re part of the Googlement, how can we help you? Please be advised we’re streaming this live to the entire world. You’re attorneybot is here as well, you have the right to an attorneybot…”

            CNET Update – Google adopts Boston Dynamics’ animal robots

            DARPA Robotics Challenge – BostonDynamics LS3&WildCat Demonstration

          • Dear Tor,

            “If Governments would all only agree to just get out of everyone’s way, yet not reduce itself an iota, we would all prosper… ”


            I’ve made the same observation frequently to my friends. If only those who pass laws and and enforce laws would be content to take their ill-gotten gains, go on junkets, but leave us the hell alone!

            But no. They are sadists who feel a compulsion to abuse other human beings. I often wonder whether that isn’t a more powerful motive for them than the money.

            • Morning, Bevin!

              In re: “I often wonder whether that isn’t a more powerful motive for them than the money.”

              I have no doubt it is.

              Once one has say 10 million what’s another million? Or ten? How many yachts can a man sail?

              It’s not about the money, per se. It’s about the power that more money brings.

          • But wait!

            Actually, there is an organized crime cartel that is usually content to take its cut but then leave us alone.

            It’s called “The Mafia.”

            So which is more evil?

          • Dear Eric,

            I think so too.

            There’s a key scene in Roman Polanski’s “Chinatown” that touches on the motivations of the power elites.

            Jake Gittes: How much are you worth?

            Noah Cross: I have no idea. How much do you want?

            Jake Gittes: I just wanna know what you’re worth. More than 10 million?

            Noah Cross: Oh my, yes!

            Jake Gittes: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can’t already afford?

            Noah Cross: The future, Mr. Gittes! The future.

            By “the future” of course Noah Cross means the sociopathic compulsion to shape the world in his own image, not through independent discovery and invention, but through the imposition of brute force political control over other human beings.

            It’s what occupies the consciousness of those “movers and shakers” who gather at such venues as Bilderberg, Davos, and the CFR.

            • It’s awful, isn’t it?

              I try, but I can’t understand the mindset.

              For me – for most people, probably – financial success sufficient to have a paid-for home, enough income to comfortably support it and one’s family needs, plus perhaps a few hobbies/indulgences (classic cars/motorcycles, for instance) would be enough.

              Indeed, the object of most sane people is to cover their “necessaries” so that they have more time with their families/friends/hobbies. The money is a means to that end and once achieved – you’ve “won.”

              Money beyond this is not merely superfluous, it is corrosive in that it (usually) requires more and more time/energy spent making it (or stealing it, if you’re a bankster) which necessarily means less and less time available for normal human pursuits.

          • Dear Eric,

            I have a hard time imagining their mindset as well. It’s a stretch.

            Speaking of banksters, ya gotta watch this guy’s videos!

            Michael Maloney, financial guru, a bona fide expert of hard money and the banksters’ fiat currency scams

            I just happened to stumble across him. He explains central bank monetary policy and how it robs us better than anyone else I’ve ever come across.

        • Patience and perseverance. You can’t win against power *via* power — the only way to do it is to keep talking, and keep waiting.

          • Can’t enlist a few snipers and reduce their numbers effectively?

            I’m still not sold on that. Big shits produce little shits.
            Eliminate big shits preferentially, the power of numbers will overcome their (increasingly consolidated) wealth… Get it to the young ones too stupid / unknowledgeable to manage or use it, they’ll become poor very fast.

            Of course, it only flows to new holders, but eventually it’ll be more distributed.

            Also, I concede it may take generations, effectively. And losses on the Patriot’s side.

          • Jean–I think I’ve consolidated my thinking on this now.

            Aggressive violence against the sociopaths-in-charge would be a terrible mistake right now.

            They’re discrediting themselves weekly…daily…hell, hourly at this point. Their desperation is palpable–because if we keep calling them out at every turn as the criminals, liars, thieves, perverts, freaks, and assholes that they are–they’ll be lucky to avoid jail or execution.

            Defensive violence against an individual sociopath who’s threatening your life immediately–well, if he’s not wearing a special costume and tin insignia, no problem. If he’s wearing the appurtenances of the State–choose your battles. If one of them kills a member of your family…well, you have my blessing.

            The KEY is maintaining the moral high ground–and right now WE HAVE IT. Hang on to it–because it’s crucial to further de-legitimizing the State. We here all know it’s already completely illegitimate; but the masses are only now awakening to that truth.

            Don’t give them any moral basis…and aggression against them now would be the very thing they’re DYING to have. They PRAY for terrorist incidents to justify their existence; hell, they stopped praying and just MAKE those incidents.

            Deprive them. Starve them of any legitimacy.

            Speak of violence only in very direct self-defense.

          • Meth:

            I agree with everything you said, but I would take it a bit farther than that. Perhaps if the problem were a specific set of rulers, then violent action could solve it, but the problem runs deeper than that — the fundamental problem is with the entire rotten concept of “rulership.” The problem is the idea that some people have the moral authority to compel others through force to do their bidding. We need to fight against that concept, and we’ll never be able to do that by employing violence ourselves. If we’re ever going to be successful, it can only be by eschewing power, force, and violence. Turn our backs on the whole horrible idea.

          • Jean, if you must think in terms of violence, at least don’t think in terms of the kind of violence that doesn’t achieve your purposes but does provoke retaliation (Heydrich) and/or the loss of sympathy (the Phoenix Park murders), which is what you get in terms of bang for the buck when you target those at the top and hit them (and you still get all the downside with even less gain if, as is usual, you miss). The Irish did eventually work out better methods though, e.g. under Michael Collins (no, I won’t tell you what they are – but do remember what happened to Michael Collins as a necessary consequence of his success).

            • Hi PM,

              Wasn’t the Reichsprotecktor actually rather successful? My reading has it that it was precisely because he was so successfully pacifying the Czechs (via the “carrot and stick”) that he had to be eliminated. Heydrich was among the few truly able top Nazis. He was also arrogant and reckless – and that made him easy meat for the British operatives tasked with eliminating him. After his death, he was replaced by Kurt “Dummy” Daluege, a character much more to Sir Winston’s tastes!

          • Erich, the Heydrich assassination (not by agents who were British but by Czechs who had got out and joined British agencies) was good for morale in itself (though Lidice wasn’t, which was why the Germans followed up with that). But it aimed at seriously reducing the Czech contribution to the German war effort, either directly or by needing more effort to be set aside to securing it. That wasn’t a material outcome. Sure, since the assassination came off the effort was probably a net gain for the allies, but it wasn’t the most cost effective use of resources. Which is the message I had for Jean…

          • Dear Bevin,

            I am not well read on the the way the world works, but it occurred to me that those who have “tons of Money”, and want to rule the world don’t need our money. Nor our stuff.

            What they want is to control the masses. The masses who, without their money and property, will have no opportunity to unite and resist.

            The masses will be too busy full-time trying to put food on the table. Too busy to prepare against the takeover.

            What they really want is for us to beg them. Beg to keep our hard earned money and stuff.

            Like to child tormenting a helpless animal just to see what the animal will do.

            We are the animals. “They” want to see what the wild/tame animals will do.

            Will we beg?

            Will we struggle to break free?

            That is the great quest for TPTB.

            Keep the magnifying glass focused on the ant. And watch it self-destruct.

            It is all about total control!!

            What kind of human being wants to be in control of everything and everyone?

          • Dear Linda,

            I don’t disagree. I think you put it well.

            I think the priorities of the PTB are a darkside perversion of humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs.”

            Only instead of ascending a hierarchy to self-actualization and nobler concerns, the PTB, being the sociopaths that they are, go the opposite direction.

            They use their leisure to descend to the depths of depravity. The film “Eyes Wide Shut” dealt with just that.

    • It is too painful to admit they’re defrauded.

      It will last until doing this ritual gets even more painful, and then all hell will break loose.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here