How It Was Supposed To Work

 Few "American" have any clue how their country was supposed to work.  They have never read more than the first paragraph of  the Constitution, civics classes have been replaced with condom-rolling lessons, and at every turn, the media and politicians pound minsinformation into their heads - not that those idiots have any better clue.

Let's take a moment to imagine what the United States would be like today if it was still the united States.

There is no nation called the United States, and no such citizen as a US citizen.  There are 50 semi-autonomous nations who have delegated certain functions to a central body to share the cost of defense and military command, regulate interstate traffic of goods and ensure people could travel freely among the States, and formulate foreign policy for the mutual benefit of all the States, and most of all to mint a single currency for use in all the States with equal weights and measures to facilitate commerce.

There is no such thing as a US passport and no individual is subject to federal law.  In fact, the only internal power the federal government has over the States is to adjudicate disputes between themn and issue a tax bill every year to fund the federal budget.  

The tax bill is apportioned to each State according to its representation in the federal government (population).  The States then determine the means by which they will collect the taxes and pay the bill - be it sales tax, per capita tax, lottery, or some other means.  The feds have no control over the internal workings of the States, except to protect the rights of individuals from usurpation by the State.  The only other tax the federal body could collect is tariffs on imports and exports.

The decadal census determines how many people live in each State, a number of Representatives is approtioned to the State, then the State divides its population up into equal units, called Districts.  Each District elects their Representative to the federal House.

The people also elect their own Legislatures, who in turn choose the two Senators that each State has.  In this way, the people hold the Legislators accountable, who in turn hold the Senators accountable, who in turn approve of every major action taken by the Executive branch, including appointments and treaties, to ensure the Executive is held directly accountable to the interests of the States.

Other than border patrol and customs, and federal district courts (one district for each Supreme Court justice), there are no federal agencies allowed to operate within the sovereign territory of the States.  The federal government cannot own land, there are no national parks, there are no territories or protectorates (Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.), and in fact the only possession of the feds is 100-square mile plot of swamp land called the District of Columbia, which essentially means it is held in commonwealth for the States.

There is no Department of Homeland Security, no FEMA, no FBI, no Parks and Wildlife, no Health and Human Serices, no Department of Education, no NASA, no National Endowment for the Arts.  The Cabinet could publish advisories on Best Practices for the States, but they could not enforce anything.

The only laws that affect individuals are passed by the States for their own citizens and according to their unique cultures and situations.  This keeps the process and enforcement of laws close to the people who must follow them, because people who live in Connecticut have different sensibilities and living conditions than those in New Mexico.

Folks living in the State have almost no interaction with the federal government other than the gold and silver coins they use in commerce.  There is no national bank.  For those who prefer, the State banks print paper certificates equal to the amount of gold and silver in the State banks, so people can carry and use paper notes in their daily affairs, rather than heavy coins.  

Most folks who travel State to State will cash in their notes before leaving the State, unless the State has a transfer agreement with other States, which most do, since the weight and measure of the coins is regulated by the federal treasury and is the same in all States by Constitutional requirement.

Imagine a world where anonymous jack asses living high on the horse while digging in your pocket don't exist, where your representative lives down the street from you, where hordes of uniformed thugs have no power over you.  Imagine a world where they were treated and acted like servants to sovereign individuals who lived on the land, not citizens.  Imagine a world where your money had had the same value for 6,000 years and couldn't be inflated because they couldn't manufacture it out of thin air.

Image a world where there was only one legal system for everyone, great or small.

That's what the united States were supposed to be.

The Wasteland (w/ salute to t.s. eliot)

If you are one of those people who believes your government is a benign and righteous entity out to serve you and your best interests, stop here, because what follows is a thorough trashing of anything remotely resembling a government.

Most militaries are functions of governments.  They are the thugs that enforce the government's will on perceived enemies, both foreign and domestic.  At a local level, the military is usually called "police," at a state level its the "national guard" or "state police," and at a national level its called "army" or some variant thereof depending on medium over which it seeks dominance (the elements of earth, air, water, space, etc.).

Sometimes, the military serves the public interest, be it good, bad or indifferent.  Most of the time it is out of control and either covertly or overtly runs the civilian powers.  In the covert function, we commonly call it the Military Industrial Complex.  Overtly, we call it "junta" or "martial law," or similar epithet.

Most people think the military serves a valuable function.  They have been trained since birth to "support the troops" or "bend the knee," but in any case they bow to force of any kind.  This is because people think of "life" as a limited commodity, thus they will cower behind any entity that promises more of it.

A military runs on strategy.  If you've ever programmed in the archaic FORTRAN language, then you have a deep understanding of how military thinking works.  Everything in the world is an IF>THEN statement or a DOLOOP.  You either respond and advance/retreat, or you get bogged down in a morass.

To game out these situations, militaries create War Colleges.  This is a collection of a nation's best strategists, who pull out a piece of paper, make two columns (OFFENSE and DEFENSE) and proceed to think of every possible scenario and how to respond to it with any given set of resources.

I assure you, the current global situation has been gamed to the Nth degree for decades, down to air pressure and wind direction.  The creation of AI and supercomputers has made it all the more complex, adding dimensions of timing, stellar alignments and (based on your Amazon buying habits) the projected behavior of billions of people at any moment.

What it boils down to, is that we are being gamed by someone.  Our collective response is already known.  The headlines are written to extract the exact reaction from a precise demographic.  Every news outlet knows who is watching and what they want to hear, and the information put out is tuned to their sensitivities.

No matter how smart you think you are, you are susceptible to this Beast.  Even though I know how it works and why, I fight a continuous battle to break out of the programming and think clearly.  When you know precisely how an atomic clock works, it doesn't stop you from being amazed by the unerring vibration of Strontium-50.


In our modern world, everything has been gamed.  Information has been weaponized.  The human condition has been modeled down to being able to predict your behavior by your purchases.  If you have any social or economic habits of any kind, someone can predict how you will behave in any given situation with a fair degree of accuracy.  There are a finite number of personality types, and you are one of them.

We have reached a point in our collective development that most of our deepest thought processes are now algorithms.  I can determine your profile, enter it into a computer, adjust the conditions, and be fairly certain you will do anything I predict with a table of uncertainty built in.

With a big enough computer (think super or quantum), I can load in demographics for any given population, feed in a set of external conditions, and get a table of likely outcomes with their associated percentages of certainty.  And they are pretty damned accurate, with the outcomes plotted on a candlestick graph showing the likely range of reactions.

Add to that the ability to control what the individual knows in any given population, and now I can predict what you know and how you will react.  With sophisticated media, I can even control how any given group will react by sensitizing that group over time with certain views and beliefs.  In other words, by controlling how groups interpret religious beliefs, I can control how they will react to specific inputs based on their programmed worldviews.

Given that most of the world has some type of religious belief system and has been educated in a certain curriculum, I now have the ability to tailor information to get any group of people to behave a certain way.

There is nothing magical here, in the strictest sense.  These techniques have been studied for the better part of two centuries, with religious tool sets stretching back into antiquity.  These tools have been developed and refined for millennia.

With all that said, do you really think a novel virus has to be released into a global population?  How many people reading this can verify information coming out of China or Italy or Spain or New York?  How many of us just accept the infection and death tolls without calling a colleague in another country or hot spot to confirm?  How many of us choose an "authority" and just follow that without question?  Do you reject Trump but like Fauci?  Do you accept the Pope but reject the Dalai Lama?  Do you listen to the CDC but dismiss the WHO?  Does the FED have more weight than the IMF?  The UN over your personal governmental agencies?

Whichever set of "authorities" you choose will determine your outlook on the current situation.  That is predictable.  Whatever viewpoint you adopt based on those "authorities" will color your responses and activities based on the information packet you ingest.  That much is predictable.  At some level, someone can predict at a global, regional, national, and local level just how any group of people will react to any given set of headlines.

And now back to the military.

In this brave new world, there is no need to bomb, strafe, invade, or even fire a single bullet.  The most advanced war colleges have already gamed this situation.  They know what it would take to start it, what every possible response will be, and have some means to counter it.

You are not reading headlines or listening to reports.  You are being attacked by one group, and covered by another.  It makes no difference who/what you believe.  Whoever wins this war will decide what was right and what was "enemy".

At a certain level, we are all pieces on a game board being advanced and withdrawn in a game we did not sign up to play, but that we support with our undying allegiance to governments and militaries.

All of your possible responses have been modeled and anticipated.  You have been sensitized to follow certain "authorities" since birth.  There really is no way out, because even if you call bullshit on all of it, you are part of a demographic that will carry you along with it willing or not.

There is/isn't a new virus.  It is/isn't infecting/killing people.  Your "authorities" are/aren''t responding appropriately.  Civilization will/won't survive.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe/don't believe.  We are surrounded by billions of preprogrammed automatons and our habits and resources have been duly noted and modeled.

The war began before you or I were even aware of it.  The game is already well under way.  How you and I respond is inconsequential.

With that set of conditions, where do we go from here?

Q d'Etat

Previous posts:
Deep Throat v. Q
Q The Conspiracy - A Phenomenon
The Gospel According To Q
A-Marketing We Will Q
The Name Of The Q
Q The LARP Carp
Spe-Q-lating On Q
In The Twilight Of The Q
Jonesing For Q
Analyzing Q-Analysis

The Silence of the Q

The Q Prophesy
To Q Or Not To Q
A Quantum Of Q-Bit
Surfing the Q Wave
CQ CQ CQ
Q Tips And Quislings
Some Quick Q
The Voice Of Q
The Q Treason
Q The Endgame
Right On Q?
Q The God-Emperor
Who Is Q?
Behold The Qult
Notre Dame du Q
The Q Genesis
Behind the Q Ball
The Qiller Q

NeoNationalism + Kung Flu + Social Distancing + Q = Brave New World

Like it or not, folks, the world has/is changed before our very eyes, and in what amounts to a flash in historical contexts.  There is no return to "normal," whatever that is.  From here on, we are writing the rules as we go.

Nearly 700 years ago, the bubonic plague struck Europe and Asia, killing by most accounts 25% of the population.  To this day, Westerners reflexively say "bless you" when someone sneezes because of that event.  Children, too, still play Ring Around the Rosie, which details the signs, symptoms and preventative for bubonic plague.  We will likely see similar multi-generational fall-out from the current event.

As I have tried to outline over the past two years or so, Q was a harbinger of change.  It doesn't matter what our "feelings" were about this psyop.  Feelings don't matter in the great scheme of things.

Q has been warning us of great upheaval in our future, but it was up to us to choose whether we wanted it.  Because we were blinded by the Geezer Media, or hatred of Trump, or normalcy bias, or a combination of all of them, the New World Order is upon us and we must adapt or die.

In ways we have yet to begin to fathom, Donald Trump has become the de facto King of the World, and we are now completely dependent on his personal integrity.  Humans, when in possession of this kind of power, rarely relinquish it.

Trump's activation of certain war powers has made himself effectively a dictator.  It is interesting to note how his most vocal critics, both political and social, have suddenly begun falling in line.  Entire swaths of the planet are following his lead.  At will, he can completely restructure the US economy, and the world will have little choice but to follow.  The US market drives most global commerce in one form or another.

If the corona virus epidemic causes political and social structures to break down, at least in the US but I imagine most countries have similar provisions, then the Lieber Code (a.k.a. General Order 100) will kick in.  If you wend your way through all the legal intricacies, you will see that martial law has been invoked and the first steps have been taken.

Friend or foe, the Q Phenomenon has spent the better part of three years creating a global following of die-hard believers, whose quasi-religious fundamentalism unquestioningly accepts and rationalizes every utterance and action on the part of the Trump administration.

Furthermore, according to Q Drops and "research," Q is composed of "less than 10 people, 6 of whom are military intelligence."  This is widely interpreted by Qvians to be why Trump has asked for restrictions on gatherings of 10 or more people - in other words a Q Proof.

The Qvians have already gamed out the current situation and see it all as part of The Plan.  World events have been scripted.  Believers are to unquestioningly accept it all as Patriots taking back the reigns of power from evil Globaists and Deep Staters.  The Storm is upon us!  Enjoy the show!

In other words, we are powerless to stop current events. It has been planned and ordained since before the 2016 election, and Trump is the key to activation.

If all goes according to Qvian beliefs, the Federal Reserve will be disbanded, hundreds of thousands will be arrested, the military will be/has been activated to control social unrest, and a New Day will dawn that will appear to be a quasi-theocracy, restoring Christianity as the rightful center of public and private life.

In any classic coup d'etat, it is absolutely vital to control all movement of people and goods, silence opposition and create enough chaos that any potential push-back can be neutralized, both effectively and in the sphere of public opinion.  We saw this with the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, though the scale of the current coup is unprecedented in human history.

What was missing in the Kennedy and 9/11 events was a multi-year quiet campaign to not only soften potential blow-back, but to actually enlist it as an ally.  In the extant case, we have witnessed the Q Phenomenon do just that.

Whether you adhere to Globalism or Nationalism, a hybrid of the two, or neither, we now have no choice in the matter.  In the case of the former, it was a relentless march over decades to centralize power and eliminate national identity and cohesion.  In the latter, a simple virus in the span of three months has resurrected militant nationalism, though the centralization of power seems to be proceeding.  Regardless of which side you or I think is right, the choice has been made for us, and for the most part, the world has rallied out of fear and anxiety, not out of rational and deliberate thought and action.

Within the Qniverse, there is an overwhelming sense of relief and excitement.  Everything they have been waiting for is here.  Q, Q+ (POTUS) and the Patriots are in control and the world is being remade into their image and likeness.  Alarmingly, none of them can say with any certainly what the result will be, only that it is all good and right and we must fall in line because, um...reasons.

The entire Q Movement is wholly faith-based.  There is nothing more than speculation and consensus informing its adherents.  They have only their unshakable hope that Q and Trump are real, benign and as in control as they must be to pull off the supposed Plan.

Whether one views this situation as good or bad depends strongly on one's political alignment, which for the most part falls on an artificial left-right paradigm.  As I have mentioned in previous articles, my personal views are not limited to one dimension, but rather I see political systems and beliefs as a 3-D bubble graph, with left-right, up-down and in-out components.  There are oppositions, overlaps (left-right), degrees of expressed and repressed views (in-out), as well as strength of convictions (up-down).

Combined with my profound distrust of all governmental systems of any kind, in any place and at all times, I am prone to see the negatives behind every system and movement.

Thus, I reveal my personal bias in all this.  No matter how many positive aspects one amasses in favor of this or any other movement, there are a whole list of dangers arrayed against it, not the least of which is human nature.

Think for a moment what rights have been suspended in the past few weeks just in the US alone, and with cheering from the right wing, no less.

The right to travel, gone.  The right to assemble, gone.  The right to free practice of religion, gone.  The right to free speech?  Well, it's getting harder to say certain things, since cancel culture in now a cross-spectrum phenomenon.  The right to keep and bear arms?  It's a bit difficult to purchase firearms and ammo when entire regions are on lock-down - effectively gone.

Perhaps this is why the political left is increasingly aligning with Trump.  Intentional or not, Trump has achieved most of the left's goals with nary a whimper from hard core rights activists.

If all of this goes south, there is hardly a person alive who can point the finger of blame at any member of the Q Task Force.  Outside of pure speculation, projection and supposition, no one knows who they are, and even Trump has plausible deniability.  Q is nothing more than text on a "conspiracy" website.  Trump has never overtly acknowledged Q, and all the so-called Proofs are purely coincidental and easily brushed aside, no matter how fervent the argument.

One of the strongest arguments for proximity of Trump and Q are the timing of Q Drops and Trump Tweets with Zero Delta (no time delay).  This is called front running, and trading houses have used it for years.

Assuming Q is indeed military intelligence, then they likely have the ability to monitor and control data streams.  When Trump hits send on a tweet, the Qomputer sees it and inserts a message milliseconds in front of it.  No magic.  Goldman Sachs has gotten fabulously wealthy over the past two decades doing the same thing with your buy/sell commands.

Solid cases have been made on all sides.  If the current coup operation works, Trump and Q reap the accolades.  If it all goes to hell, well, it was all a conspiracy theory with a lot of people projecting their personal biases on it.  Whether the outcome is desirable remains to be seen, but I submit that military coups are rarely beneficial to the majority.

In any case, Q and Trump dance away virtually unscathed.  After all, there is bipartisan support for all the current actions, and out of fear, the entire populace is in lock-step, so we are all to blame, right?

One has to stand in awe at the intricacy, genius and audacity of this operation, regardless of what one thinks of the outcome - and assuming it is real.

In the end, what I find interesting is that Q has never directly acknowledged the corona virus.  In fact, it has gone completely silent since 9 March, with the rather ominous message that "GOD WINS".  That phrase is absolutely packed with possible interpretations, not the least of which is summed up in the final book of the Christian Bible.

Suddenly, Trump the God-Emperor doesn't seem so ludicrous.

And hey, wasn't that God-Emperor float in...ITALY?

And isn't Italy THE global hot spot for corona virus at the moment?

Oh, and isn't the word corona Latin for "crown"?

And isn't Latin the official language of the Vatican?

And isn't the Vatican in Rome...in Italy?

Just sayin'.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UPDATE: Q began posting again on 22 March and has published 22 Drops as of 8 April 2020.  Topics range from berating anyone who questions the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, to Henry Kissinger's Evil Plan for Global Domination, to religious and patriotic messages to bolster the troops - images of flags and snippets of Scripture (Christian, of course).  There's impications that the world is run by cannibals who practice "spirit cooking," a long rationale for defunding WHO, and a number of links and statements that parallel things Trump has been saying during the daily pressers.  Click here for the latest.

Musings On Feral Gummint

If the people of the United State of America have any sense whatsoever, then we should hear almost immediately calls for an end to the Transportation Safety Administration, loud and unending demands for the dismantling of the surveillance state and Homeland Security, and gun sales should not only hit the roof, but blow through it.

Why?

Because one of the most notorious criminals in recent decades was being held in a federal maximum security facility in New York City on suicide watch with 24-hour surveillance while in solitary confinement guarded by dozens of government agents and employees.  And he...um, died at a moment when the round-the-clock cameras just happened to fail and somehow this person had the means to "hang" himself though completely denuded of strings, belts, sheets, or other material suitable for the job.

If the feral gummint could not protect this person - either from himself or others - with all of this security around him, then it is completely powerless to protect anyone anywhere at any time.

There is, in fact, no place that is secure under the watchful eye of omnipresent gummint.  It can not stop anyone from harming me or my family at any time in any circumstance.  The only real alternative is to arm every man, woman and child, teach them proper gun handling and use, and stop paying for police services, prisons, surveillance, spies, military, et cetera ad nauseum.  It is all completely useless and Jeffrey Epstein is the proof we all need to see.

Gummint is by definition a concentration of power and wealth initially justified as a means to protect the rights and safety of a people.  However, the very act of concentrating power and wealth attracts corruption the way sugar attracts ants.  The most vile individuals in society gravitate towards gummint and ultimately they find ever new and creative ways to bilk, rob and control humanity.

History is replete with examples of gummint gone wild.  Tale after tale demonstrate that gummint is the deadliest force ever conceived by our species.  Millions upon millions of lives have been shattered and destroyed by gummint.  There is no scenario where it remains benign.  It is a cancer that grows and spreads until it consumes the society off which it lives.  The greatest contradiction of all time is the term "good gummint".

What the Epstein example shows us is that there is no place safe, no amount of security, that comes from gummint.  It is controlled by powerful individuals who can turn its knobs, push its buttons and pull its levers to make anything they choose happen.  It is painfully plain that gummint does not exist to protect us, its sole function is to ensure "they" are safe and sound from us.

Jeffrey Epstein had the power - through corruption - to bring down the global political, financial and academic power structure.  He was a glorified pimp to those who fancy themselves masters of humanity.  In an unguarded moment, he could have uttered a handful of words that could collapse entire nations (and may yet do so).  He spent most of his adult life providing forbidden fruit to the most wealthy and powerful individuals in the world. 

Do we really think he wouldn't have spilled the beans to save his own hide?  He figured, in his warped little mind, that either his own fortune or that of others would get him off (again) so that he could return to business as usual.  He had no reason to kill himself and thought no one else would either.  What's more, he was protected by the full force and power of the US feral gummint.

Fat lotta good it did him.

The point is one I have made repeatedly on this site: there is no reforming a broken System.  It is a self-protecting and self-perpetuating morass of evil and corruption that can not be excised, healed, repaired, or rehabilitated.  At best, people can take back their right and responsibility to protect themselves, but this cancer will only grow back more malignant than before.

The US feral gummint is a three trillion dollar per year fiasco that could not protect one individual is a maximum security facility - either from himself or others - surrounded by all the trappings of power.

This is not just true of one gummint, it is true of all of them.  This is just the most recent and blatant example.

The next time you are subjected to a phalanx of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, body pat-downs, luggage searches, interrogations, X-ray machines, safety rules and regulations, and calls for the elimination of self-defense tools, ask yourself:

What would Jeffrey Epstein think of all this?

If the goal is to save our children from predators, then let's begin with the Beast at the lowest level of Hell - the one that protects and enables all the others.

Jungle Rantz: Government (video)

Despite thousands of years of bloody history, humanity continues to inflict government upon itself.  In this video, we take a moment to reflect on the role of government and whether there are any moral and ethical alternatives to brutal force.

This is a new, short one-topic format that we are trying out.  If you enjoy the video, please "Like" and "Subscribe", and don't forget to share the link with you social circles.  Also, leave a comment and let us know what you think.



Please consider a monthly stipend @RadioFarSide Patreon to help us focus more on this type of content. A $1 monthly subscription gets an end credit and audio shout-out. For $5 per month, you can suggest topics for future videos and get listed as Producer if your topic is selected. And for $10 per month, you can request custom videos with your listing as Executive Producer, and you get final cut before it's posted publicly. Thanks for your ongoing support and for stopping by Radio Far Side! Please like and subscribe for future updates. Sampai jumpa, y'all!

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/farside
Blogger Blog: https://augenguy.blogspot.co.id/
Steemit Blog: https://steemit.com/@radiofarside
Twitter: https://twitter.com/RadioFarSide
Gab: https://gab.ai/RadioFarSide
DTube: https://d.tube/#!/c/radiofarside

Guns, Guts And Glory

Gun-Control Victims - Poland

"God created Men and Sam Colt made them equal!"

Being a seventh-generation Texan, I have spent my entire life with guns.  I started shooting at around 4 years old, got my first .22 rifle for Christmas when I was 8, and at one point I owned more than a dozen guns of all different types and calibers.  At no point in my life have I ever pointed a gun at a human being, and only once did I expose a side arm to diffuse a potentially nasty situation.

I was a member of the National Rifle Association from almost the time I could walk, much less hold a gun.  I was a competition shooter rated as Marksman at 100 feet for .22.  Thursday was Skeet Club at my high school, and on those days there were more guns and ammo in my school than in a battalion of some armies.  At one point, I even had a callous on my right shoulder and permanent specks of gunpowder in the skin of my trigger finger from shooting guns.

Growing up on the farm, it was the norm to see 12-year-old boys driving pickup trucks around the area with an entire arsenal in the front seat and gun rack just to plink beer cans down by the creek on Saturday afternoon.

When I say arsenal, I mean everything from .410 snake guns to 30-30 shoulder cannons and .45 semi-auto handguns, not to mention hunting bows, throwing knives and various other goodies.  We all knew safe handling like we knew breathing.  There was never horseplay with guns.  That was a serious offence, even among kids.

I never knew anyone that was injured by a gun, other than two relatives that ate their own bullets for whatever reasons they had to do that.

There wasn't much crime, either.  No one in their right mind would try to rob a bank or store when just about everyone else in the store was packing heat.  Occasionally, the news had stories of shoot-outs over in the bad side of town between a bunch of drunk rowdies, or maybe the rare fugitive holed up against the cops.

In the aftermath of events like Las Vegas, the whiners all come out in force saying guns need to be banned.  Well, folks, opioids killed 64,000 Americans in 2016, while gun homocides were about 12,000 (the actual number is almost impossible to find). 

Just for comparison, automobile accidents killed 35,000 people in the US.  Both cars and opioids are licensed, controlled and sanctioned by the US governments at all levels.  For a bit more perspective, cigarettes killed around 480,000 people last year, and tobacco is also licensed, controlled and sanctioned by the government in the US.

In fact, lightning strikes about 260,000 people, and kills roughly 24,000, per year annually, which means you are FAR more likely to be hit by lightning at any given point on the planet, than killed by a gun in the US - approximately the same odds as winning the lottery.

While events like Las Vegas are indeed very tragic, politicians and media calously use them to advance agendas that have nothing to do with our safety.

You see, America was founded by folks who clearly understood that government itself was the most dangerous force ever unleashed by humanity on itself.  They knew that the only way for humans to protect themselves from the vile force and power of government was to equal the playing field by guaranteeing that the populace would, in the aggregate, constitute an army that no government could ever conquer.  They ensured that the rights of religion, speech, assembly, and the press would be backed up by the right of the people to destroy by whatever means necessary any force that tried to take them away.

That is the true, if often unacknowledged, purpose of the US Second Amendment.  The right to own guns was not for hunting or self-defense (though they are valuable benefits), it is for the express purpose of eliminating a tyrannical government.

And that is why the government keeps trying to take away guns, whether by vile abuse of tragedies, or by creating tragedies to try and stampede the majority into giving up guns.  Put simply, no government can have absolute power as long as the people under that government have the power to fight back, and with 90 admitted guns per 100 people in the US, that's a mighty force for a tyrant to overcome.

Ask the victims of Hitler, Stalin, Ho Xi Minh, or any of the other tyrants of just the last century if they agree with gun control.  I'm willing to bet almost all of them would gladly have accepted a gun to even the fight just a bit.

To my mind, the only agreeable situation that might encourage me to give up guns would be for all the governments of the world to disarm first.  Even then, I'd be hard-pressed to let go.  With well over 100 million people dead at the direct hands of governments in the past 100 years, it makes good sense for all people everywhere to keep and bear arms.

Circumlocuting Repetitious Circular Problems

Maybe I think too much.  Certainly something I've been accused of over the years.  I'm just a bit gob-smacked by the astounding amount of double-think people are capable of, though.

When I survey the various hot-spots and crises around the world (done daily for Twitter followers @RAdioFarSide), it seems so obvious to me that nearly all of them are caused directly by governments.  That part is not surprising, given the long history of humanity being abused to death by this unholy creation.  What is surprising is the way in which people continue to turn to government to solve the problems it creates.  What's worse, the solutions are even more egregious than the problems they supposedly remedy.

The entire Middle East quagmire is entirely caused by governments - whether regional ones bickering with each other, or outsiders imposing their agendas on the region.  From the Roman Empire to today's headlines, the region has been one long history of government meddling in people's affairs.

What's the solution?  Why, more government meddling, of course.  Whether it's the horribly misnomered "peace talks," or the Saudis killing everyone and everything in sight, every single issue in that region can be traced to a government program or policy or agenda.  So hey!  Let's keep asking governments to solve the problems!

How about Europe's immigration mess?  Here, governments have allied with private interests (the very definition of fascism, by the way) to uproot people from one region and transplant them in other region, with both groups having diametrically opposed cultures, lifestyles and philosophies (such as they are).

This little government gem of an immigration agenda has led to untold deaths, rapes, thefts, impoverishment, disruption, economic hardships, tax burdens, social service collapse, and destruction of thousands of years worth of cultural heritage.

What solution do people seek?  Why, more government, of course.  Surely, the evil bastards who caused the problems will have the ready solution that will make everyone happy - except for the obvious one of dissolving the extant governments and agencies, and jailing the complicity private interests.

Venezuela, China, India, the Koreas, Brazil, Argentina - you show me a troubled region, and I'll show you out-of-control government, and in most cases an alliance between government and some private interest (usually banksters).

Why is it that we humans, despite thousands of years of experience with these matters, continue to create governments and turn to them to solve the problems they create?  The very circular nature of the issue makes one dizzy.  How can we hold these two mutually conflicting ideas in our heads?  And why can't we extract ourselves from this obvious insanity?

For the most part, humans managed to slough off monarchies, which amounted to little more than privileged individuals demanding moral and ethical behavior from their subjects, while having no such limits on themselves.

We replaced the monarchies with democracy, which now gives us "elected" groups of people who act like monarchs while burdening the masses with yet more laws controlling morality and ethics.

The problem is quite simple, really.  Whenever money and power are concentrated, evil rears its ugly head.  The more money and power, the more evil.  It is a simple, linear progression and the outcome is as dependable as sunrise.

And yet - insanity is repeating the same miserably failed actions, expecting a radically different outcome.

Government, and by extension organized religion, which is nothing more than an older form of government, is provably and obviously the greatest evil ever unleashed on humanity - and we did it to ourselves.

Let's take two shining examples of this insanity at work:

Americans recently elected Donald Trump, and stacked the federal House and Senate with Republicans, hoping to clean up the past eight years of Democrat corruption and immorality.  Almost immediately it became clear that Americans had duped themselves.  As the grumbling grows, can you guess what the electorate is thinking?  Why, let's replace them with Democrats (again).  That will fix it!

Likewise in France, an overwhelming majority elected Emmanuel Marcon to clean up the mess left by Hollande (that has all but destroyed the national identity).  Almost immediately - even faster than Trump - the French have turned skeptical and even wary of their new president.  Naturally, folks are talking the next election to clean up the mess left by the politician elected to clean up the mess.

Perhaps an exerpt from a children's rhyme will illuminate the insanity better than I can:

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly;

I don't know why she swallowed a fly - perhaps she'll die!
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider;
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her!

She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!
There was an old lady who swallowed a bird;
How absurd to swallow a bird!

She swallowed the bird to catch the spider;
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her!
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!

And the madness continues...

Anarchy Is Bliss

When no one is looking, some jerk declares him- or herself king, appointed by God with unquestionable powers. He or she can take any or all of your property by declaring a new law this morning over breakfast and by the way, you are property, too.  Oh, and their kids will be the all-powerful rulers after they die.  This is monarchy.

All the folks in your neighborhood get together and decide they are going to charge you a fee to use your car on the neighborhood streets.  If you refuse to pay, they will storm your house and take everything you own.  That's called democracy.

All the people in the neighborhood get together and elect a representative to come to your house and extract a fee to use you car on the neighborhood streets.  If you don't comply, they will nominate other representatives to force you to pay, or yet others will take away your property.  This is called representative democracy.

All the companies in your neighborhood bribe the elected officials to take whatever want from you, regardless of whether you follow the rules or not.  This is called fascism.

Self-appointed "representatives" take over all the companies in your neighborhood and use them to take whatever they want from you, regardless of whether you follow the rules or not.  This is called socialism.

All the folks in the neighborhood decide they are going to share everything equally.  One neighbor can come and help himself to your Makita carbide-tipped circular saw for as long as he needs it, but hey!-you can use his Maserati whenever no one else is (which is almost never).  Ultimately, everyone downgrades to the cheapest crap since they will lose it anyway.  This is called communism.

In all the above systems of government are immoral on their face.  There is nothing that justifies any of these organizations in taking your property.  Even if you are duped into participating in an "election" of representatives, there is still no moral justification to deprive you of your property or compel you to follow rules you don't agree with.

In other words, there is no such thing as moral government.  It doesn't exist.  In all of time and history, there has never been a moral government, only less malignant ones.  At some level and at some point, they all use some justification to take your property "for the greater good," and whether the justification is an imaginary deity or 63 million of your neighbors, it is all immoral.

My lifelong friend and a successful Miami lawyer said to me, "Hey, taxes are the price of admission."

I responded, "So, if your neighborhood Kiwanis club decides you owe dues, and if you don't pay, they show up at your door with guns and take your stuff, that's OK?"

"Well, of course not," he said, "But that's different."

"In what way," I inquired.

"Governments operate by the consent of the people.  They create laws and members of society must follow those laws."

"So, if Dade County voters decided that all lawyers should immediciately be divested of their property and codify it in law, that's OK?  Even if they require you to pay taxes to pay the enforcers who show up at your door to take your property and put you on the street?"

"That's an absurd proposition," he argued.  "That cannot happen because there are layers of checks to prevent it."

I pressed on, "I don't agree with my country going and bombing non-aggressive countries into the Stone Age simply because they want to accept something other than dollars for their raw materials.  If I want to fight it, I must use the very system that is doing the evil acts, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, hire a team of lawyers who are officers of that same system, just to register my disgust?  I would lose in that stacked game before I even started, since the system can decide whether or not it wants to hear my case."

(Pause) "You can move to another country," he countered.

"Oh, so if I don't agree with the Kiwanis demanding dues for a club I don't want to join, I am free to choose another location where the Rotarians or Lions or whoever can demand fees for clubs I don't want to join?"

"Yep, that's about the sum of it," he declared.

"That's immoral," I protested.

"That's life," he said, dismissing the entire issue.

In point of fact, the only moral form of governance is that of Self.  I have the right and moral authority to govern myself.  That's it.  End of story.  To the extent that my wife has half-interest in my property, she has an equal say in its use and disposal.  In that we have guardianship and responsibility for minor children, we can guide and direct them.  That is the full extent of any human's authority.  No amount of "backup" in the form of guns or people or machines changes the equation.  All they do is modify the odds of the outcome.

Within the bounds of my Self and my property, I have the moral right to use and dispose of it however I like, provided I don't cause harm or damage to anyone else.

Think of it - how many social problems in the world right now would be solved by this simple change?  No need for "special" rights.  No need for draconian laws.  No wars of mass destruction.  No human having more or less authority than any other human.

In other words, anarchy is the only moral form of governance ever conceived by humans, and it is the most vilified form, as well.  Probably a relationship there.

Anarchy does not create chaos, it alleviates it.  When people are left alone to live their lives however they see fit, there is nothing to argue about.  Chaos is caused by immoral acts perpetrated by immoral organizations using whatever justifications come to hand.  What follows is war, strife and despair.

The one thing we all fear most - chaos - is the very thing we create with our institutional "authorities".  Since the information we are given is wrong - by accident or design - we can never make a right choice based on it.  Anarchy is good, moral and necessary for genuine peace and happiness - and it is the one thing the immoral organizations fear the most.

In other words, keep you cotton-pickin' hands off my stuff, and I'll do the same for you.

Fear And Loathing In The Jungle

OK, folks.  Looks like we need a little remedial class in Terrorism 101.

FACT #1: Terrorism is ALWAYS sponsored by the ruling elite.
FACT #2: Popular movements don't get popular by attacking the populace.

In any REAL revolution, the opposing side will ALWAYS attack the people and symbols of the ruling elite.  The reasoning is simple:

A revolutionary wants the masses on his side.  If he attacks the masses, they will - by default - turn to the ruling elite for protection, thus empowering the elite the revolutionary is fighting.  In other words, if you are trying to overthrow the government, you don't do things that make the government look good.

Conversely, if you are the ruling elite, it serves your purpose to manufacture and unleash enemies who APPEAR to be revolutionaries.  When they attack the masses, the masses will turn to the ruling elite for protection.  The elite can then dictate the terms of the protection and the masses will follow out of fear/terror.

I know.  A lot of people out there didn't read Nicolo Machiavelli's The Prince, or Sun Tsu's The Art of War.  (read for free-no excuse now)  You should.  You would be amazed at how much of today's headlines start to make sense when you see the strategies behind them.

Fear is a powerful weapon.  People don't act rationally when they are afraid and will do pretty much anything to remove the object of their fear.  Think about the last time you panicked.  You probably did more damage in the panic than the perceived object of fear did.  It's like stampedes at concerts and football games, there's usually nothing that starts it but one or two startled people who panic.  Once the first person does it, the rest will follow.  It's like a disease that spreads incredibly fast.

Take, for example, the Great Hurricane Panic of 2005.  Hurricane Rita followed within weeks of the storm Katrina that chewed up New Orleans.  When Rita appeared to be heading for Houston, thousands - maybe millions - of people panicked and caused what is probably still the longest traffic jam ever recorded (350 km) trying to run from a storm that ended up knocking down some trees.  It was an unbelievable sight: people fleeing from a perceived threat and causing more problems than the threat ever did.  Oh, and Katrina was a completely man-made disaster, as well, brought on by official incompetence and mass panic.

Every one of those panicked people was listening to the government-controlled media and government "authorities" who were hyping the fear and purposely giving false information.  But hey, they got more toys and funding out of the deal, and I got hours of entertainment as I drove around taking photos and video of the lunacy.

It is a long-established fact that governments love terrorism, which is closely related to false-flag operations.  When the masses get panicked, their first instinct (at insofar as we've been trained) is to turn to "authorities" and "officials" for information and protection.  It's a primitive reflex and one that an individual has to work at to deprogram, but it is possible.

The next step is for the "authorities" and "officials" to offer solutions, and the solutions almost always involve surrendering some amount of self-dependence and rights to the same people who started the panic.

It's a vicious and deplorable act to use people's natural reflexes like that, but it is a tactic used for thousands of years...and it always seems to work.  By the time the masses wake up from their fear-induced stupor, it's too late and the shackles are already in place.

In the American Old West and into the Dust Bowl Period, the masses idolized outlaws.  This would not be the case if the outlaws were going around attacking everyday people.  Instead, they robbed banks and trains and post offices - symbols of power and control - and openly or not, the masses admired them for standing up to the "authorities" and "officials."

Conversely, after 9/11 and the subsequent "attacks," there has been a global push to give up more and more rights and to submit to the most heinous violations of individual privacy all in the name of stopping the "terrorists."  Now ask yourself, who/what has benefitted the most from those attacks?  Was it the terrorists, against whom the armies of the most powerful nations on Earth have rallied?  Or the governments and institutions of control that are enslaving the masses?  If you guessed the latter, then you would be right.

Do you think Osama bin Laden or al-Bagdadi or any of the other "terrorist" leaders feel successful in their graves?  Do you think the NSA, CIA, FBI, GCHQ, et al. ad nauseum feel successful?  Could there be a reason that it has taken 16 years and counting to rout out a handful of cave-dwellers?

Now the problem is, when people start to wake up and realize they've been played like a cheap piano, they get angry, and to protect themselves and their egos, they continue to submit to the "authorities" to make it seem as if it was a good idea all along.  They fool themselves into accepting the onerous iron rule of the elite, because to do otherwise would be to admit that they are dumb, panicky animals.

It truly is amazing to watch, if you are able to keep an emotional distance and not buy into all the "terror."  To see huge numbers of people panic and gaze hopefully up at the Olympian Heights for a savior just boggles the mind.  It is virtually impossible to snap people out of it, too.  They are either in a complete fear coma, or they are in profound denial to protect their egos.

In the end, though, it is painfully obvious who are the true revolutionaries and who are the terrorists.  The revolutionaries are the ones attacking the power structure, not empowering it.

As an exercise, start replacing the word "terrorist" with "authority" in your mind.

A couple of years of that and you'll be on your way to free thinking!

For Laura Lee, Wherever You Are

When I was about 5 years old, I had a neighbor friend named Laura Lee.  I don't remember her sister's name, but we all played together often.

Laura Lee had a playhouse in the back yard that her dad built.  It wasn't more than a few sheets of plywood barely held together with 2x4s and some 10-penny nails, but it was a palace to us.

One afternoon, we had, for some long-forgotten reason, decided to put bricks on the roof of the playhouse.  Must have seemed like a good idea at the time.  Laura Lee was up top and I was handing the bricks up to her.  One slipped and caught me square on the left temple.  I was rushed a couple of blocks away to Dr. Bonin's office, who put three stitches on the wound.  To this moment, I have that scar and I often rub it and think about Laura Lee.  I don't remember her face, but I can tell you a lot about her up until she was 5 years old.

One day we were playing out in the street and her mother called her home.  There were two men at the door in Navy uniforms and mother looked upset.  Come to find out, Laura Lee's dad had been killed in action in Vietnam.  He was in the Navy, and I really never knew what happened, but not long after that, Laura Lee and her sister and mother moved away.  I never heard from them again.

My dad owned the house.  In fact, he owned all but one house on the block.  After they moved, I helped him clean out the house and tear down the playhouse in the back.  It was strange going in there.  All I could think of were the times we had played in various rooms, or the nifty scar I had on my temple from loading bricks on the playhouse.  I was terribly conflicted, thinking about the man I barely knew (he had been gone most of the time), a war I vaguely understood, a land I couldn't find on a map if you paid me, and my poor friend Laura Lee who would never see her dad again.  It was an incredible thought for a 5-year-old for whom the world never changed.

After that, I started noticing things.  A stop sign at the end of the block had been spray-painted so that it read, "STOP WAR."  I suddenly noticed Walter Cronkite talking about the men dying in someplace called Vietnam.  Dan Rather was showing me pictures of soldiers running through swamps or diving for cover in rice fields, and other pictures of strange Asian people jabbering in a mystical language with a serious, deep voice speaking English over them.

I heard about other dads in the neighborhood who would never be coming home.  I didn't know them like I knew Laura Lee's dad, but I knew what happened when they died: the families moved away and were never heard from again.

I started paying attention to the heated discussions among the political people my dad was around a lot.  Some were saying we needed to 'increase our presence,' while others were hard-line against it, and wanted to end the war before it 'tore this damn country apart.'  My dad was on the former side, saying if Vietnam fell, it would cause a 'domino effect of commie expansion.'

I thought all commies looked like Asians, because I had little experience with any other kind.  They must have been bad, though, because they killed Laura Lee's dad, and I spent a lot of time under my desk on Friday at noon, with air raid sirens going off.  It was just a drill, but I could only imagine what those Asian commies would do if Vietnam fell.  Just look at Laura Lee's dad.

Eventually, I came to understand that the Vietnam war was a proxy for the US and USSR.  Instead of fighting each other directly, they were using this poor Asian country to hash out their differences.  Even later, I learned that the only reason the US was there was because of a mutual defense treaty with France, who had gotten into the war in the first place.  It wasn't a war about political ideology, it was to protect France's colonial interests in Asia.

I realized that people like Laura Lee lost their dads because of bullshit.  People were just things to throw at imaginary enemies, with little or no regard to the children who would never know their dads.  Governments used people's lives to back up treaties and political ideologies and strategies.  I came to despise governments because of Laura Lee's dad.

No Vietnamese person had ever done anything to me or anyone I knew or anyone I even heard of, except that one of them killed Laura Lee's dad.  But he wasn't there to defend his home.  The Vietnamese weren't marching down the street taking pot shots at us.  In fact, I had never even seen a Vietnamese person except in Dan Rather's pictures.

It wasn't until years later that I finally met some Vietnamese people.  They were refugees that had been resettled in Houston, which was a major center for such things, due to the fact that many Vietnamese made livings growing rice and fishing, and Houston was a major rice center and just miles from the Gulf of Mexico.

When I finally met some Vietnamese, they seemed pretty normal.  They weren't ravenous commies or yellow devils, they were a bunch of Laura Lees with dads who had died in the war.

Governments, on the other hand, were evil faceless machines that sucked up dads and spit out bones, and if you were luck, you got a couple of guys in uniform at your door and maybe a check.  I always imagined that it was hardly compensation to Laura Lee, but I will likely never know for sure.

What makes me angry is that all these wars are not to protect Laura Lee, or me, or you.  They are economic and political.  They are just part of the standard tool box for a government, and all the Laura Lee dads are just tools inside it.

How gross.  How course.  How sad.

When I look at the Middle East, or Israel, or the Ukraine, or any of a number of other wars that people like George Soros and various government agencies have committed, I think of Laura Lee's dad.    When I see all the strife and anguish and refugees in the world, I think of Laura Lee's dad.

And it makes me really, really angry.

Removing The Blinders

To start off today's rant, let us first define "government."  Government is a human institution designed to erect barriers to creativity that protect favored entities (regulation), be a parasite that leeches off of the productive parts of society (taxation) and provide life-long employment for those members of society who are unwilling or incapable of being creative or productive (bureaucrats).  Like bacteria, government will grow until it consumes all of the resources available within its jurisdiction.  In other words, there is no such thing as a "good" or "benign" government, and this is true in every form, in all places and at all times throughout history.

What prompts today's tirade is the annual repeating of the Indonesian government mantra, "We are incapable of managing within our limits."  Last year, it was this whining article, this year it's (naturally) even more dire.  In keeping with the character of all governments everywhere at all times, there is no discussion of laying off apparatchiks or scaling back government programs, there is only talk of how to steal more money from the productive parts of society to feed the parasite.

Let's begin with the vaunted government "tax amnesty" program.  This was conceived as a way to get people to fess up and pay in all those taxes they hadn't reported in the past, with the carrot being a 'promise' not to cause grievous bodily harm to those who 'voluntarily' threw themselves on their swords.  Everything was all optonistic at first, as the government crowed that folks would happily deal the government in on their personal wealth if they just weren't afraid of retribution.  In the old days, this was called a "protection scheme" used by mafia and gangs to extract money from local shop owners.

Turns out people really are as broke as they kept telling the apparatchiks.  The program has so far brought in less than 25% of the expected windfall the government originally represented to investors and bankers.  Stocks and foreign investment have duly registered their disappointment with this situation, as the market deflates like a farting balloon.

All of that would be bad enough, but wait!  There's more!

The next example of government beneficence recently in the news is the Natuna Gas Project.  Here we have a case of one of the largest estimated gas reserves in the world sitting under the Natuna Sea, and the Natuna island chain.  Let's forget just for a moment that this rich gas field is sitting right next to the South China Sea, and is surrounded by Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Brunei, in addition to Indonesia.  If this sounds like a recipe for disaster, it gets better.

The Natuna people have lived in these islands since before records were kept, and certainly longer than the 70-year history of Indonesian independence.  They dwell in relative obscurity, being at the very frontier of national boundaries and receiving attention only because they sit on top of a veritable gold mine.  Can we have a show of hands, how many folks think these people will directly benefit from the wealth under their feet for the past millennium or two?

Let's begin with government regulations, shall we?

Under current Indonesian resource laws (updated during the 2009 coal boom), the government wants to "partner" with a producer to drill and extract the gas.  The government wants the producer to take all the risk and expense, bringing all the necessary equipment to do the job.  The result is that the government will then own all the production and take ownership of all the machinery and infrastructure that was imported to produce the field.  Furthermore, under Indonesian cabotage law, all vessels used to import the equipment and cart off the gas much be Indonesian flagged in national waters.

In other words, you do all the work, cover all the costs, and we get all the benefits.  Such a deal!  Anyone who finds this a fair and equitable arrangement please contact me right away so I can manage your investment for you.

Naturally, the locals will be promised the sun, moon and stars in exchange for their cooperation.  They will be offered government indoctrination centers (schools) and government resource management centers (hospitals) that, if they are worth a damn in the first place, will soon devolved into deteriorating skeletons of empty promises.

Finally, once (if) the money starts rolling in, there will suddenly be layers upon layers of government apparatchiks, brokers and corruptors of all stripes with ladles in hand, ready to siphon off as much of the wealth as possible.  The locals will be forced to join in the festival of slime, or find themselves completely out of the loop, watching as tar balls and trash wash up on their once-pristine beaches.  And all this assumes the government can find a competent sucker to come in under its terms in the first place.

Meanwhile, those companies who were stupid enough to hang a shingle under the government's oh-so-equitable rules are finding themselves under attack with few options for relief or response.  GOOGLE has been hit with a US$400 million tax bill for 2015 alone, with the past five years under the microscope, and its only options for appeal are the Indonesian tax office (good luck) and/or the Indonesian courts (hahaha!).  In other words, their only option is to ask the very leeches who live off GOOGLE blood to stem the flow just a bit.

Don't get me wrong.  I really don't like or trust GOOGLE, but this makes for a great case study of government greed and desperation.  After years of corruption, bloated hierarchy, mismanagement, convoluted and overlapping ministries, waste, sleaze and slime, the government finds itself running out of options to perpetuated itself, with the one obvious option of cleaning up its act being quite far off the table.

Under Indonesian tax laws, GOOGLE has two options: pay the government's tax claim, or face years of audits and court hearings to determine if this money is actually owed.  Given the government's track record, GOOGLE will end up being liable for the money AND being out all the lawyer and court fees, as well as penalties and interest.  Great options, ne l'est pas?

Notice that the article mentions the one tool to which all governments always resort - force (read guns property confiscation and grievous bodily harm).

What all this boils down to, and Indonesia is by far not the only or best example, is that governments are destructive.  They stand in the way of real people making real profits and creating real things.  They are protection rackets that take money for the promise of protection from phantoms, while failing to protect people from the real threat - government itself.  The reason that governments appear to dance so well is their habit of constantly shooting themselves in the foot.

The reason that all governments are corrupt in all places and at all times is that they are collections of people who have been granted exclusive use of force to collect money that pays themselves.  If this is not a classic recipe for disaster, then nothing is.  Corruption and waste are natural by-products of organizations that produce nothing and get paid for it at the point of a gun.

Humans have yet to devise a system of governance on a large scale that does not eventually become its own worst enemy.  It is a parasitic institution that is utterly dependent on its ability to suck the life out of everyone who submits to it.

The only viable option is to have the smallest possible scale so that the 'leaders' are as close to the people being governed as possible.  In this way, 'leaders' can only be as corrupt as the communities they 'serve,' and the ability to escape corruption is as easy as a short move away to a neighboring community.

What we, the real people, must disabuse ourselves of is the notion that there is any such thing as benign government.  It does not, nor cannot exist.  At some point, the parasite always turns on the host in order to promote its interests over all others.  It is always a negative force that produces nothing and offers no rewards.  It simply takes, and when threatened, it takes more, until the host expires and rids itself of the infestation.

It is thus that we part with our new mantra, "All governments are always destructive at all times and in all places."

Jingo Bells

I make a sharp delineation in my mind between patriotism and nationalism.  The words "patriot" and "nationalist," at least in American usage in the 20th century, have been severely diluted and warped.  To me, and according to older dictionaries, a patriot is someone who defends and protects the land, culture and history of a place, while a nationalist is someone who defends the government of that place.

Frankly, I have little to no use for government of any kind.  The only things I have ever gotten from governments are things they told me I had to have, like identification papers, and that I had to pay for them and renew them on a regular basis, since my identity changes regularly.

I certainly have never received any benefit from government.  I have, on the other hand, paid a pretty penny to maintain government, but to what end I really don't know.

I've heard hundreds of times that I have to pay my fair share, but for what?  What share am I supposedly getting that I have to pay so dearly for?

Well, security and protection, I'm told.  Yet, my home and those of pretty much everyone I have ever known have never been attacked by foreign invaders, though I must say my home has often been attacked by domestic invaders - government goons worried about what I am doing in my home, for the most part.

When it comes to security, I am ready, willing and able to defend my home and family without help from any goons.  I am also under no illusion that there is such a thing as security.  Every lock can be broken and I would rather be responsible for losing my own stuff, thank you very much.  Depending on government for security is like keeping a rabid dog in my bed for defense.  It tends to bite the hand that feeds it.

As for protection, well I was a registered marksman and owner of a fine collection of firearms.  I still maintain a formidable collection of knives that I am pretty handy with.  I have also learned to make a wide range of booby-traps from household items, just for shits and grins.  My assumption is that if a bunch of goons ever come around wanting to protect me, they will probably draw fire and do more damage than if I was left to my own devices.

I was raised in the ancient tradition that any able-bodied male is a defender.  I never saw much use for the armed forces, since my country has not been attacked since 1864, and that attack was carried out by the very folks claiming to be my protection.  Sounds like a mafia protection racket to me.

Most of what I have ever seen from government was a bunch of lard-ass blowhards looking all serious about making laws that have little intended effect, but make nifty reasons to harass people, when the need arises.

These glorified mountebanks get a lot of my money to sit around in fancy buildings thinking up new things to me to do.  They wear splendorous titles and expect honors and deference, yet they are nothing more than common crooks in three-piece suits with nifty little flag pins on their lapels.

Under them are thousands of uniformed goons who run around enforcing laws they have never read and couldn't care less about, as long as the paycheck and benefits keep coming - out of my pocket, by the way.

I'm a patriot, I suppose.  I love the land and the people, the culture and the language.  I would defend those things to my death, so that my children could also enjoy them and further enrich them with their own contributions.

I am not a nationalist, though.  I have little use for government.  I want nothing from it but to be left alone.  It offers me nothing I need, and takes everything I have to support a privileged few at the expense of the many.  Under all the pomp and circumstance, government is nothing more than a bunch of hoods with bigger guns than me that they bought with my money.

What puts me in the frame of mind is watching the US elections.  All I keep thinking about is the brilliant humorist P. Jl O'Rourke's book title, "Don't Vote, It Just Encourages The Bastards."  And as comedy genius George Carlin said, "If you vote, you have no right to complain."

Tax Man Be Damned

Marco Polo

Folks who've been around here for a while already know that I am back into a major project, thus causing my unusual silence this past week.

Never one to hold still, I am now partnering up with some good folks to bring cabaret to Jakarta - something heretofore unknown.  In fact, a search for "cabaret in Jakarta" will return one hit for one show on one night last year at a rented venue.  Well, we can't have that, so I'm going to open a new venue with original shows and create a whole new form of cabaret unique to Indonesia.

But in the meantime...

I am really cheesed off at the whole damn tax situation - not just here, but globally.  I'm even more cheesed off at those slave-minds who dribble platitudes like, "Gotta pay your fair share," and "Taxes allow the government to operate."

For the latter, one EXCELLENT reason to banish taxes altogether.  Never met a government worth the price of admission.  All they are is make-work for folks who don't create anything but paper-trails and headaches.

As for the former, I could get hopping mad about that one.  My fair share of what?  Murder, mayhem, lying, cheating, corruption, graft, and a dozen other choice accusations.

Taxes do not pay debt, they pay private corporations called "Central Banks" for the pleasure of using their money.  They can issue it in great huge piles and fast as they want to, and we all pay the price in inflation and debt service for the rest of our natural lives (and maybe beyond).

Taxes are a mechanism for social control.  They are a means to bend your personal habits to satisfy the international banksters.  They have NOTHING to do with repaying government costs or debt.  The banksters WANT us in debt, so they are happy to shovel out more cash to keep governments running.

Instead, taxes are used to force you and me to adjust our behaviors.  If the banksters don't want us to smoke, they get the governments to make new laws and raise taxes on cigarettes to make them too expensive for us little folk.

This makes sense to the banksters, not because they give a good holy damn about our health, but because nicotine protects the pineal gland - and thus the brain - from remote control through brain-wave entrainment through media and other electro-magnetic outlets (cell towers, etc.).

Beef is too healthy.  Makes us strong and all the protein builds muscle.  Can't have that, so the banksters want to raise taxes on beef until it is just too damn expensive to eat.

The one I really love is when a population starts to get too wealthy and independent, they spring all these new rules on you, or suddenly remeber rules that have been hiding for years, and then tell everyone they have to fork over penalties to shovel great piles of cash back out of the common man's hands.

This last one is especially egregious.  In Indonesia, they suddenly sprang this (obviously) little known procedure that requires everyone to file property tax receipts with their annual income tax returns.  But hey, at least they are nice about it, you have until September to fess up and pay a 2% penalty, or December to get a 3% penalty.

Keep in mind, this is NOT about paying the taxes.  When you buy a house or car here, you go down to one of the State banks and pay the VAT and get a receipt for payment, called a bukti.  No, this is all about not having attached a copy of the bukti to your annual income tax.

Considering NO ONE I know has ever done this, nor even knew it was required, everyone is running around in sack-cloth and ashes trying to figure out how to pay the penalties, which are levied against the purchase value of the property.

To call a spade a spade, this is complete and utter bullshit.

What this is - and no one in "government" will admit it - is an attempt by the banksters to cool down inflation.  Since the economy here is no longer running at a growth rate of 7%, as in years past, they need to siphon cash out of the market to cool things off, and this previously UNKNOWN regulation has been trotted out to basically yank millions of rupiah out of each and every person who owns property.

This is nothing more than social control and has nothing to do with the government's ability to pay debt or add services.  In fact, since the freakin' amnesty program started, the public services have gotten considerably worse, as if to show everyone how the poor widdle gummint can't pay to keep things going and needs to steal more money from us.

Bullshit.

Taxes are, and always have been, a means of controlling populations, from the time King George III raised the Stamp and Tea taxes and caused the American Revolution, to modern-day efforts to control out eating and smoking habits.  Taxes have nothing to do with paying government debts.

Let's take, for instance, the US.  In the first half of 2016, the US government COLLECTED a record US$1.4 trillion in taxes!  Under the Obama administration alone, the US government has collected US$20 trillion in tax revenues, while at the same time, leaving the country US$9 trillion deeper in debt.  The current US debt is US$19 trillion.  That means that Obama could have paid off the national debt and had a trillion or so left over to play with, but that's not the point, is it?

No.  If taxes were meant to pay down debt and offer public services, most countries would not have any debt.  But that's not the game the banksters play.  They want us bent over a debt barrel so they can harvest us for their pleasure.  And frankly, a government that can't operate on a trillion a year ain't worth having, is it?

By comparison, Indonesia's national debt is US$222 billion, or IDR4 quadillion, or just 27% of GDP.

It's time all these slave-minded folks who talk about "our fair share" and "supporting government services" get hog-tied and force-fed reality.

Taxes are nothing more than a control mechanism.  Since the banksters are more than happy to print money and pay national bills, for a price, and use the strings and levers of government to make us all dance to their tune, there is obviously no incentive for anyone IN government to admit they are stealing our money for nothing.  Hell, it's not even money.  It's just paper with fancy colors and pictures all over it.  It has no value at all, but what we invest int it.

Best to let the great Marco Polo, who brought the concept of paper money back from China in the 1200s, tell us all about it:

"How the Great Kaan Causeth the Bark of Trees, Made Into Something Like Paper, to Pass for Money All Over his Country: The Emperor's Mint then is in this same City of Cambaluc, and the way it is wrought is such that you might say he hath the Secret of Alchemy in perfection, and you would be right!  And the Kaan [Kublai Khan] causes every year to be made such a vast quantity of this money, which costs him nothing, that it must equal in amount all the treasure in the world.  And all the while they are so light that ten bezants' worth does not weigh one golden bezant.  Now you have heard the ways and means whereby the Great Kaan may have, and in fact has, more treasure than all the Kings in the World; and you know all about it and the reason why."

Hmmm...and who is kicking the world's economic blessed assurance these days?

As George Carlin reminds us, it's all bullshit and it's bad for you.

Have You A Fag Mate?

In the past month or so, the spate of news on "gay marriage" has created an environment that begs the question, "What is marriage?"

In what has to be a headline writer's dream, the Queen signed the British gay marriage act into law, making it now possible for men to marry men, women to marry women, and for sheep to start trembling with foreboding.

Headline?  Queen of Queens

Before that, the US Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriages, thus setting up a flurry of lawsuits and bureaucratic hand-wringing about what new regulations and such must be promulgated.

Headline?  Supremes Love Queens

So, what is marriage?  Why should this sea-change in what is and isn't legal marriage cause so much vitriol on both sides of the issue?

What we think of today as marriage is really a fairly recent development, beginning in earnest in the 1800s.  Before that, it was primarily reserved for royalty and upper class as a means of securely transferring wealth to heirs and to aid the blue-bloods obsession with breeding themselves like show dogs.  Before a couple could marry, one had to know what the intended breedstock's Dam and Sire history was, much like the vetting of Kate before William could officially call her his intended.

With the rise of the middle class, us regular folks started getting some goodies, like land and other property, and we wanted to ensure that the proper heirs received it all after we entered the Undiscovered Country.  Since title to real property was registered by government agencies, then it stood to reason that government agencies had to register our marriages and breeding habits to legally protect inheritance.

After the 1930s, and the rise of employee benefits and insurance, we had greedy companies who didn't want to give away more bennies and coverage than they had to, so one had to be 'legally' married in order to share those bennies with a spouse.  And if one died without a will and no 'legal' spouse or children, well old Uncle Sugar could avail himself of the family wealth, after the lawyers quit arguing over it.

Under English Common Law (for us commoners), marriage used to be simple.  You shacked up with the farmer's daughter, called yourselves husband and wife, and *POOF* it was done.  This was often used in old-Timey America when a man and woman would meet for a tryst at the local motel and register as Mr. and Mrs. Smith.  Under the Common Law, that made them a married couple.

Since government was given the power to register and sanction who was and wasn't married, for the purposes of inheritance and social benefits, then the government was given the power to determine who it would and wouldn't consider 'married'.  Very simple process with far-reaching implications.

Let's strip away all the paperwork, celebrations, traditions, and rhetoric and see just what marriage is.

In effect, humans require pretty much a lifetime of raising.  A parent's work is never really done, though around age 18 or so (much later for some), the children become independent and require much less intensive nannying.

What this means is that the male and female of the species find it efficatious to guarantee each other's support for at least 20 years to raise and care for the offspring.  There are as many variations on this practice as there are human cultures, but they all boil down to the male promising economic input, while the female promises emotional.  Along with this arrangement, the female desires fidelity to ensure that her offspring receive the full attention and resources of the male.  The male desires fidelity to ensure the progeny are his.

Some societies see this mutual exchange of promises as a covenant, meaning each party is bound regardless of the actions of the other party.  Some consider a single spouse for life enough, while others are a bit more liberal in their interpretation, with multiple wives being the norm, but there are examples of multiple husbands

Add to this the whole mystique of female virginity.  In the pre-DNA-testing era, motherhood was certain, but fatherhood was not.  A virgin wife more or less guaranteed the sire's legacy.  This would seem to be a rather antiquated notion any more.  DNA testing has roughly a 98% certainty, compared to virginity's significantly lesser amount.  There is at least one famous case of virgin birth on the books.

In light of the history of marriage, it would seem that gay marriage is a joke.  After all, two males or two females are not likely to produce offspring (see virgin birth) unless they steal or adopt, which brings the whole legal system back into the matter again.

In fact, until the dawn of social welfare programs, insurance and employee benefits, the whole concept of gay marriage was pretty much pointless.  The irony of this is that all the social and legal protections heterosexual couples have fought for to aid and abet their breeding cycles has led to a situation that almost cries out for gay marriage.

If duly and legally registered marriage is a prerequisite for receiving tax benefits, spouse insurance, social welfare payments, and the like, then it stands to reason that only allowing male/female marriages excludes some portion of the population from participating in all the goodies.

You may argue the old way of doing things was just fine.  What?!  There was an old way?  Sure.  Male and female homosexual couples used to marry each other's partners and then live in close proximity to each other in order to enjoy all the bennies of heterosexual lifestyles, as well as provide plausible deniability for their predilections, should prejudice rear it's ugly head.  This practice is well-documented in 1940s and 50s America.  Lest you feel appalled, there were similar arrangements among polygamists in heterosexual unions.

To summarize, legal marriage was created to ensure 'legal' right of inheritance and provide assured breed-stock for the 1%-ers.  As the middle class grew, this practice filtered down.  With the rise of the nanny state, increaded social and political benefits were granted 'legal' marriages to encourage the production of cannon-fodder for the state.  With the world moving toward democracy, everyone felt entitled to the benefits, being equal to all others under the 'law'.  Therefore, it follows that the 'law' must recognize all sexual unions to grant all bennies to all people equally.

So really, heterosexuals set up the system for themselves which had to be shared eventually because those same heterosexuals believe that democracy is a great thing.

So quit yer bitchin'.

If you are one of those who believe that gay marriage is an aberration and against the natural law, then you must follow though with that and return to natural law.  You cannot worship the state and beg on bended knee for scraps from Uncle Sugar's table, and then complain when crowds start developing around the scap heap.  It doesn't work like that.  The more power you give to government, the more it will take.  It is a fact of life so entrenched that it is nearly as axiomatic as needing a male and female to produce children.

Government loves these kind of issues because people always turn to government for answers, which empowers it to do whatever it wants, which is take more power.

People are completely missing the point on the gay marriage issue.  It is not whether government recognizes this or that kind of marriage, but that it has the power to so in the first place.  The entire matter boils down to our attitude towards government and the culture we have built around that attitude.  Simple as that.

In the future, don't be surprised if the age of consent is lowered to 9, or human-beast marriage is sanctioned.  The government will do whatever necessary to capture the most amount of power and revenue, and that means ensuring the greatest number of people come to it begging for permission.  Nor can you depend on lawyers to protect the common sentiments, since their vested interest is to create the maximum amount of strife to ensure a steady flow of customers from prenuptial to divorce, and all the filings in between.

You cannot have a little bit of government.  That is akin to being partially pregnant.  Either you have a cancer on society that will grow until the society is destroyed, or you have a healthy organism.  Despite the best efforts of the best minds throughout all of history, no one has found a happy medium.

If you enjoy any benefits from government at all, then you are part of the problem and have no room or right to complain when others nudge you down the slop trough.  It is a fact of life as sure as the birds and bees.

If you are considering getting married, then consider doing it without the blessing of government.  And don't register the births of your children, either.  if you can do that, then you can get in line at the complaint window.