If It’s Not About The Money . . .

@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…

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.

@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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k

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.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/all-wars-are-bankers-wars/

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.

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.)

@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.

See also:

Judge Napolitano on the Virtues of Private Justice

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/09/anthony-wile/judge-napolitano-on-the-virtues-of-privatejustice/

Doug Casey on Juries and Justice

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/doug-casey/we-need-private-courts-and-juries/

You know, perhaps I’m wrong about some of what I wrote? After reading those two links you might find that so. Or, maybe not? Let me know what you see, either way.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/privatization-of-roads-and-highways/

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

http://mises.org/daily/3431

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]”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/04/walter-e-block/dear-madd/

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!

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)

Dear Darien,

That would appear to be A&E.

Yeah. Sickening.

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.”
Reply·

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

Yup. And this is “entertainment.” Watch your favourite B-list celebs from the 90s beat up ordinary people to protect the political elite! Classy.

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.

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:

http://libertyandthegospel.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/what-is-violence/

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.

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.)

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.

Japanese police versus communist rioters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZZDq8S6bhA

In 1985, building Narita Airport made many conflicts between residents and left-wing student groups in the 70’s and it finally opened in 78. But it still didn’t have enough capacity.

So the government decided to expand the airport, then this happened. The riots are “Japan Revolutionary Communist League, National Committee (Middle Core Faction) ” they aren’t ordinary citizens.

Japanese heroes enjoy some enriching American culture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1anM0Cnx_Y

@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.

But remember Eric, we’re the “paranoid” ones.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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)

and

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

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… ”

Absolutely!

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.”
http://chartdiagram.com/maslows-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.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=74860

This link is to the original website, which incidentally, has lots of good stuff that confirms what you said.

http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hidden-and-not-so-hidden-messages-in-stanley-kubricks-eyes-wide-shut-pt-ii/

Dear Bevin,

Thank you for the links. I will check them out.