Joining us today is returning guest Etienne de la Boetie2. In a follow up to How to Present Info for Visual Learners, this time we discuss his new book, To See The Cage is to Leave It and the 25 techniques of control that it elucidates and demystifies. We talk about how visually interesting information is a more effective tool for unlocking minds, how people can see through the techniques of indoctrination that the oligarchs use to get us to worship the state, and what a world free from the cult of statism would really look like.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
SHOW NOTES
To See The Cage is to Leave It by Etienne de la Boetie2
How to Present Info for Visual Learners
Etienne de la Boetie2 at Anarchapulco 2020
James, I hope you read this.
I’ve sent you an email the other day about your site, it’s important. Please read it.
I haven’t sent an email, but I gather we have the same problem(s). Can’t access My Profile and the email address I created for this site is now being spoofed. I’ve now disabled that alias.
Maybe it’s exactly the reason why it’s disabled.
Same here and, this has been going on for ages..and, for a lot of sites…
I exposed some psychopaths some years ago which clearly triggered various blocks of my person…
Take a deep breath and read and send mails directly here…we’re clearly surrounded by small, small (none existing) brains….
Let them go…they’re worth nothing…and, know you must have written something good for this reaction to hit you ❤️
Huh?
Tao Buddhism is also akin to political anarchism.
So I think we can learn from its history.
For a “religion” it has of freedom of thinking, and allows a personal way of looking at things.
Since according to Buddhism, everyone is like a god stuck in illusions (maya).
From a religious point, it regards non-natural life as a cage.
This includes the governments and the laws and excessive property.
Yet, China, the center of this version of Buddhism, became communist.
It may be interesting to research the historical and cultural perspective that caused this.
It may be like a cultural backlash over many generations.
The people in China tend to see the family (and elderly) as more important than the individual.
The people also believe that problems are caused by fate /karma, and do not put much effort in avoiding such problems.
Wealth and artificial is today regarded as positive.
I am mentioning this, because people keep going back into the cage.
“….research the historical and cultural perspective that caused this….”
Pretty sure the Chinese ended up as commies because guys with guns told them they were liberated, lol. 🙂
While Maoism has a lot of local traits it’s an alien ideology imported from the west.
From what I know the country was destroyed by a “century of humiliation” and then Ww2 and the civil war. The reds just took over because they had the opportunity ,rather then because the culture was prone to socialism.
Then based on your reply, the answer is to have a strong army even in peace time.
The Chinese also had problems with the Mongolian armies.
I think that Europe was evolving in warfare and weaponry, due to all the small states
that were fighting each other.
While they were starting with a lack of knowledge after the fall of the Roman empire,
the wars gave rise to new weapon technologies.
Like Armor, Horse, Crossbow, Cannon, Warships, etc
While other continents did not need such technologies.
“…Then based on your reply, the answer is to have a strong army even in peace time.…”
Obviously, 🙂 since no one cares about my high morals unless violating them results in pain.
There is a proverb…”if you want peace then prepare for war”…..it’s ment to be Chinese but who knows? The Romans had a similar one.
Folks like the guest focus upon the individual- which IS Important- but tend to forget that at the end of the day all man made law comes from force.
If you can stomach them SM Stirlings Draka books (first three) act have a lot more social commentary then the author realized.
No one gives a F about the NAP when the mongols arrive, lololol.
The NAP and hyper individuality is a luxury belief of the ultra wealthy, where as most people in history died if their people got over run, died if their people threw them out, and died if they acted like selfish a holes and ignored their responsibilities to family and clan.
All those things are virtues today, hahaha, let’s see how that goes for us.
As CS Lewis wrote the man who is brave and kind is a work of art, not nature
9 min long – cs Lewis “on the necessity of chivalry “
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-StpwwoU0dg&pp=ygURQ3Mga2V3aXMgY2hpdmFscnk%3D
>Folks like the guest focus upon the individual- which IS Important- but tend to forget that at the end of the day all man made law comes from force.
I don’t see that the man’s position is incognizant of that at all, or has forgotten anything. Rather it looks to me like you have confused voluntaryism with pacifism. Voluntaryism and the NAP allow for forceful self-defense, and defense of the peaceful from initiation of aggression.
The NAP is not a “luxury belief of the ultra wealthy”, it’s natural law morality that applies universally. Identifying the aggressor in a conflict as “in the wrong”, while affirming that non-aggressors have the right to be left alone and defend themselves and their property, should be common sense, regardless of whatever happened in history.
It drives me crazy when people disagree with the NAP. I have to resist an urge to punch them in the face, take their wallet, and then laugh in the face of their claim that I have done any wrongdoing. By what standard? By what definition? Maybe then they would get it, lol.
Oakgnarl
“… Voluntaryism and the NAP allow for forceful self-defense, and defense of the peaceful from initiation of aggression.…”
I never said they did.
What I said was
1) that the assumption that you can do anything like that without being part of a group is wrong
2) That you can be part of an effective group JUST via voluntaryism is wrong
The rituals of CULTure are what hold that culture together….any group has similar rituals and unfounded beliefs that are just as silly (like parroting the “NAP” as if it actually matters if one does not have the force to back it up)
The focus on the NAP is a luxury belief based upon living in a safe and wealthy society where the more brutal realities (such as you nicking my wallet) impact us less.
As to your punching me to take my wallet….what authority did you think I would be complaining to IF NOT force of arms??
If i can stop you doing so (via cops or myself) then you will be punished for the behavior…..but if you run off freely how exactly can you say it’s against “natural law”????
Question:
Where does this “natural law” you speak of come from????
What is its source????
How will I be punished if I break it? WHO will
Punish me??where do they get the right from?
Natural law only makes sense if it comes from an external source outside of nature- and even then it’s based upon divine infliction of violence upon those who break it….al else is just humans doing what they can get away with
>What I said was
>1) that the assumption that you can do anything like that without being part of a group is wrong
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. “Do anything like” what exactly? Initiation of aggression, violating the NAP is wrong, by definition, or perhaps you can offer a different definition of what exactly defines “wrongdoing”.
>2) That you can be part of an effective group JUST via voluntaryism is wrong
So, you’re saying that initiation of violence is necessary to be part of an effective group? Again, I think you should define “wrong” clearly and precisely.
I don’t think you have a very clear grasp of voluntaryism. Perhaps if you could state more precisely and accurately what your position is, I could understand it better.
>The focus on the NAP is a luxury belief based upon living in a safe and wealthy society where the more brutal realities (such as you nicking my wallet) impact us less.
Why isn’t it a “brutal reality” that I am interfered with or punished for nicking your wallet? Your wallet is an easy way for me to get money to feed my children, which is technically a “good outcome”. Other than consequences of getting interfered with and punished, which I can perhaps avoid, why shouldn’t I just take it from you?
For that matter, how do we distinguish rape from sex, theft from purchase, “brutal” from peaceful, if not by specifically acknowledging the rights of a rightful property owner being aggressed upon? Every case of wrongdoing from rape to murder can only be defined coherently as “wrong” by logical, identifiable, and consistently applied criteria. The only thing that makes sense for that criteria to be based on is initiated aggression against the rightful property of an individual (against their consent, which is key).
>Where does this “natural law” you speak of come from????
People arrive at the same definition through different means, and it’s controversial. Some say it’s from God, and I wouldn’t disagree, though I might argue about what “God” is.
My view is that it is based on the observation and acknowledgement of universal values: human beings universally value their lives and their freedom. If it is acknowledged that we wish to live in freedom, then the only logical code of behavior to achieve that end is one of mutual respect. Furthermore, one’s only logical and valid claim on the “right” to life and freedom, and to demand that right be respected by others, is to extend and recognize it as a universal right to which all are born without exception. In other words, no one has any special claim to freedom that any other peaceful person doesn’t also have equally.
As far as where the “right to freedom comes from”, I would say it’s a default resulting from no one individual having any logical basis for claiming authority to rule over, dictate to, or enslave another human being.
Oakgnarl
“….Initiation of aggression, violating the NAP is wrong, by definition, ….”
By WHAT definition?
Who will punish me if I ignore that definition and am able to get away with it???
“…or perhaps you can offer a different definition of what exactly defines “wrongdoing”….”
Good question- personally I say that which is again he will of the supernatural God is wrong.
Do you agree with me?
Or do you have some other source for morality?
“…it is acknowledged that we wish to live in freedom, then the only logical code of behavior to achieve that end is one of mutual respect.…”
That does not follow logically.
I might want to a burrito, it does not follow from that that I should give you one too…it may even be more “logical” for me to steal your burrito so I can enjoy that one too.
The founding fathers wanted freedom and many kept slaves.
“….So, you’re saying that initiation of violence is necessary to be part of an effective group?…”
No I am saying that unless you are ABLE to defend your “rights” they don’t matter, if the EXIST then you have yet to tell
Me from whence they flow.
Rights must flow either from the supernatural, or from the ability to protect them in the physical world…which do you think??
As to the idea you can meme your way into freedom….if you dissolve the rituals that bind a social order then that social order will fail….you will then be either helpless because you won’t be able to unite with others OR you will just create a NEW set of binding beliefs and rituals.
You can’t jump off that wheel….and people telling you to break the systems holding a society together are either fools or have an agenda outside of this comments scope. Nor can you build a group JUST based upon the choice to be in it…..the “cult” is part of culture. More is required
“…far as where the “right to freedom comes from”, I would say it’s a default resulting from no one individual having any logical basis for claiming authority to rule over, dictate to, or enslave another human being…”
Weirdly no one appears to have cared about that for most of u
Human history while keeping slaves…..maybe it’s a preference not a rule?
Also does a parent have a right to rule their child?
>By WHAT definition?
By the definition as defined in the NAP: it is wrong to initiate force or aggression, it is not wrong to defend against such.
>Who will punish me if I ignore that definition and am able to get away with it???
>I am saying that unless you are ABLE to defend your “rights” they don’t matter
Me. I’ll punish you. But that’s beside the point. Let’s say I find a helpless little girl in the woods, and I can abduct her, do nasty things to her against her will, and get away with it scott free. I would be in the WRONG, morally, according the definition given in the NAP. It has nothing to do with whether I will get caught or that the girl has no ready means to defend her rights, her right to having her property remain unmolested is absolute, regardless.
>Rights must flow either from the supernatural, or from the ability to protect them in the physical world…which do you think??
Neither. Rights are distinct from abilities and are not dependent upon them.
>personally I say that which is again he will of the supernatural God is wrong.
>Do you agree with me?
I don’t define God as “supernatural”, nor do I think “because God made it that way” suffices to understand natural law, any more than it would for mathematics, which I believe God also made. We can safely leave God as a reason out of the discussion.
>Or do you have some other source for morality?
Again, I would argue against the burden of proof being placed on me for the claim on my freedom, and instead argue that someone must demonstrate why they have any special right to violate mine or anyone else’s property. Why would you have any right to violate my property, while I don’t yours? There is no such special claim of authority by one person over another, therefore the right to life and freedom is equal and universal, and this is the source of natural law morality, IMO.
>Weirdly no one appears to have cared about that for most of u Human history while keeping slaves
That’s beside the point. Slavery is still immoral, as is rape, theft, and murder, according to natural law, regardless of who cares or not. You can either understand the common sense basis for this, or keep trying to pretend that there really is nothing immoral or wrong with these things.
Why people are so insistent to deny there is anything inherently immoral with violence like rape and murder, I’ve always found curious and unsettling. I can only imagine it’s due to the psychological avoidance and denial of personal moral responsibility which our “culture” is largely conditioned and seduced into.
>Also does a parent have a right to rule their child?
There are times when it is appropriate to violate someone’s consent, the parent-child relationship is a valid exception, and also in the case of severe mental disability. I’ve had to do this, my brother is severely schizophrenic, and I, and others in my family, have had to interfere and go against his wishes many times, including forcing medication.
My dad also recently had to have my stepmother committed to a care home because caring for her with her dementia became overwhelming, naturally she didn’t want to go. It’s tough when you have to do something like that, but maybe some things that need to be done should be tough. It means you care. It’s not hard for the people that don’t care for others or for doing what’s right.
The consent rule applies to adults of sound mind. Taking someone’s keys (temporarily) when they are too drunk to drive is also valid for instance. It works the other way too: children should not be considered as having the capacity to provide adequately informed consent for instance for sexual contact or other activities that they are not mature enough to understand the consequences of, and I absolutely believe that parental authority is valid and flows from duty to protect and nurture.
Or for instance if a retarded person tried to give you a handful of money on the street, I don’t think it’s right to take it, unless you intend to give it right back or to their care provider.
Outside of these fairly well defined exceptions (even though in practice it can be a very tricky judgment call), the consent rule should be held as sacred. Your property and body is yours to decide where it goes, what goes in or comes out of it, mine is mine.
Pt2
Oakgnarl
“…..Why isn’t it a “brutal reality” that I am interfered with or punished for nicking your wallet? Your wallet is an easy way for me to get money to feed my children, which is technically a “good outcome”. Other than consequences of getting interfered with and punished, which I can perhaps avoid, why shouldn’t I just take it from yo…..”
Yes… what “logical” reasoning says you should not IF you can do so without consequences????
Your kinda making my point for me here
>Yes… what “logical” reasoning says you should not IF you can do so without consequences????
The reasoning goes like this: My claim on my right to my life and freedom being respected can only be valid by virtue of it being universally applicable and equally claimable by everyone else. Therefore it behooves me, if I do not wish to be a hypocrite, to respect the life and property of others, regardless of the consequences or lack thereof of failing to do so.
If you have a problem with the “natural” in “natural law”, I might invite you to explore an alternate take on the concept of objective morality: The Anti-Subjectivist Manifesto:
https://antisubjectivism.com/manifesto
It reaches similar conclusions regarding moral principle, but takes a different route on the logic to get there, maintaining that nature is inherently amoral, and that there is ultimately no purely objective basis for law based in it. I agree with the argument being made by the manifesto, though I tend to resonate with the more traditional “natural law” perspective and definitions, and see this difference as being mostly semantic.
Oakgnarl
“….don’t define God as “supernatural”, ….”
lol.
Not much of a god if they are subject to natures law.
But, assuming your version god IS partbofnthe natural universe then what makes them “god” ??
“….nor do I think “because God made it that way” suffices to understand natural law,….”
Really?
Because your reason in the NAP is circular.
You appear to think the NAP is god, or at least the source of morals
You said
“…….I would be in the WRONG, morally, according the definition given in the NAP.…”
BUT you did not tell me WHAT gives the NAP (rather then “equality” or “Race welfare” or “the proletariat” or “I fkin said so”) this power to SAY WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT.
I can at least say “God will punish wrong, be he is infinitely powerful” which is at least a logical extension of “might is right” but “the NAP says so” doesn’t even have that.
any more than it would for mathematics, which I believe God also made.
“…Again, I would argue against the burden of proof being placed on me for the claim on my freedom…”
You may claim freedom…but at the end of the day you might claim to be a tree to.
Claims do not make it real….since you can’t show me where this “freedom”
Comes from your only claim to it is if you can hold onto it.
You yourself try to make a distinction between the rights of adults vs children and the mentality ill…..this you DO NOT BELIEVE that “freedom” is a right ALL humans share.
If freedom is a “natural human right” then it’s shared by every? Rught??
Or do you have a right to take that freedom from someone who is not using it in a way YOU think is right???
Do you see now why the talk of rights without the supernatural will always boil down to the will of the powerful???
Your philosophy has nothing to stand on….turtles all the way down.
Either “might makes right”
Or
There is a supernatural source for those right.
And if they are gifts from outside then it must be said that they are not unlimited – as even you admit talking of the infirm or the very young.
Oakgnarl
“….The reasoning goes like this: My claim on my right to my life and freedom being respected can only be valid by virtue of it being universally applicable and equally claimable by everyone else……”
Clearly NOT true.
People who are free have owned slaves.
People who were free ended up as slaves.
Did the founding fathers loose their freedom because they owned slaves? no
Did they gain their freedom by good arguments and morals or by force of arms?
The later
“….. Therefore it behooves me, if I do not wish to be a hypocrite, to respect the life and property of others, regardless of the consequences or lack thereof of failing to do so…….”
1) is there a punishment for being a hypocrite?
2) REGARDLESS of consequence??? REALLY??
if you know your neighborhood is full of thieves and murderers are you morally bound not to act until they attack you?
If you run the local pedo porn collector out of town on a rail, even before he’s ACTUALLY touched a kid, are you in the wrong because you violated his rights??
“……Why people are so insistent to deny there is anything inherently immoral with violence like rape and murder, I’ve always found curious and unsettling. I…”
It’s unsettling because it makes you face the fact that such people exist and must be dealt with in some way for you to survive.
Like I said about luxury beliefs…they melt
>Did they gain their freedom by good arguments and morals or by force of arms?
>The later
Again, you seem to be confusing rights with abilities. They won their freedom by force, as it is unfortunately often that violators of human rights must be fought back against with physical force in order to be repelled.
According to natural law, aggressors are always in the wrong. To the extent that the “founding fathers” owned slaves themselves, they were hypocrites and acting immorally. No one gets a pass, not even the FFs.
>1) is there a punishment for being a hypocrite?
What? You’re fine with it as long as you don’t get caught and punished for it? Alrighty then. The question isn’t whether there is some cosmic (or human) punishment, the question is what is the reasonable code of conduct that can be applied universally (fairly, equitably), that, if followed in good faith, is conducive to people living together in freedom and harmony?
If you steal my burrito, I’m going to pull my gun, and now we aren’t living in freedom very effectively are we? Compare that to a policy of mutual respect, that, to the extent that we adhere to as a community, will provide maximal freedom for everyone as an individual? Isn’t it obvious which one is viable as a policy or rule that is conducive to freedom?
Stealing my burrito maybe works for you short term, but hardly works as a policy for all of us to operate by if we value life and freedom.
>2) REGARDLESS of consequence??? REALLY??
Yes. To an extent. There is a very high place in my value system for the moral principle, but, admittedly, it’s not the apex. Value for life and well being itself is the apex, and I will prioritize that when that end is not served by the moral principle.
So yes, I would hypothetically steal a penny from a billionaire, (a technical wrongdoing), if it meant that I could then stop some terrible tragedy from occurring to someone’s life, like a rape or a murder or a bunch of people dying. Though after the emergency was over, I would feel responsible for returning the penny to its rightful owner, and be willing to subject myself to accountability for my violation, acknowledging it as such.
>It’s unsettling because it makes you face the fact that such people exist and must be dealt with in some way for you to survive.
Right. It’s unnerving when people, posing as presumably decent and caring, will ruthlessly steal your burrito the second they think they can get away with it. 😝
>Like I said about luxury beliefs…they melt
Look, I get the appeal. Adherence to morally principled behavior is so hard… such a bother. Just hand-wave it away as a “luxury belief”, and live as depraved as you like without any pesky conscience bothering you. Nice.
>if you know your neighborhood is full of thieves and murderers are you morally bound not to act until they attack you?
Of course not. You are only bound to not act aggressively on peaceful people or their property.
Though by the way, the very concept of a “thief” requires that we distinguish a rightful property owner from an aggressor, and is a statement or acknowledgement of wrongdoing on the part of said aggressor, necessarily. The word is literally meaningless otherwise.
So if the NAP is just a luxury belief, then there really are no “thieves”, and the aversion to murder is purely just a personal preference, like whether one prefers strawberry over chocolate, or cream with their coffee. It’s just a meaningless coincidence that such an overwhelming majority share the same arbitrary preference to go on living, and to not be forcefully deprived, against their consent, of items and material they have worked hard to acquire peacefully. There is no more basis for murder or theft being a crime than eating chocolate in that case.
>If you run the local pedo porn collector out of town on a rail, even before he’s ACTUALLY touched a kid, are you in the wrong because you violated his rights??
Why would you even care to do that? On what basis do you object to the pedo porn collector and bring forceful action against him? You got anything more than a luxury belief you’re acting on there?
> Voluntaryism and the NAP allow for forceful self-defense, and defense of the peaceful from initiation of aggression.
At what point is forceful self-defense allowed?
People walking on “your property”?
Could be looking for trouble, or fleeing a tsunami (Hawai)
Some grey options
People with weapons, who say they are running away
Hunters, etc
People 15 miles away who setup cannons pointed at your home
People with drugs or slave-wives
People with very different ethics, talking with your children
A neighbor who like to shoot guns around when he has a party
Some things seems easy, but in my experience the people
with bad intentions will have a cover story. Or even
pretend to be the victim.
There are also very different cultural standards.
Communication is often very difficult, because different cultures and
different countries have different languages and ways of communicating.
Even the gestures of Yes/No can differ (Greece/Italy)
Zyxzven
Yes….there are indeed groups of people that are “enemies” ….people who want or do things that are directly against the things YOU want
Which brings up the point that many folks here, in the powerful west, assume that everyone in the world “has an American inside trying to get out” (oh how we laughed when we heard THAT one…imagining a fat dude in a Hawaiian shirt bursting out of a Muslim clerics chest) BUT ITS NOT TRUE.
The lie most people fall for (and always have) is that their own system of morals and way of life is the best and anyone who doesn’t want them is just ignorant…..a lot of the time it’s not commmunication it’s that people just don’t like the way other people do stuff.
Imagine putting up a George Floyd mural while allowing the following….
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
>At what point is forceful self-defense allowed?
As soon as property rights are violated, defense of those rights are recognized as moral and rightful actions, under the NAP.
The principle is clear, though there are many edge cases, such as ones you’ve pointed out, especially where what is happening exactly is unclear, where the application of the NAP becomes a difficult judgment call. Fortunately, in the vast majority of conflicts or potential conflicts, it’s a fairly easy call.
> As soon as property rights are violated
What is even property?
Cultures have very different ideas about that.
Tao Buddhists can regard properties as illusions.
And most nature related cultures would state that everything belongs to nature. You only take what you need.
While other people would regard your land as their property, because someone signed some paper.
Or because you do not “have a flag!”
And other people see your land as their property,
because they think that “they have the right”.
Or because “we are strong and you are weak”, the natural law of bandits.
How much do you want to pay to cross “their bridge” over “their valley”?
This is not to attack voluntarism.
It is about how it works inside a world with people that have different ethics and different cultures.
When I look at natural tribes, I see some of that voluntarism at work. But at the same time all those tribes were driven from their lands and nearly exterminated.
>What is even property?
At the most basic level, to illustrate the principle, each person’s body is their own property. Without this basic construct of property and acknowledgement of “self-ownership” we have no coherent concept of freedom.
“[Freedom is] the societal condition that exists when every individual has 100% control of his own property.” -Andrew Joseph Galambos
Extending beyond our body, our property are the things we have peaceably acquired or taken possession of (without stealing).
Ownership is essentially the actions associated with:
A) Acquisition
B) Possession
C) Control
Applying natural law, for ownership of property to be rightfully acquired and maintained, another type of action must be exercised:
D) Responsibility: ownership and usage must NOT violate another’s property rights.
>How much do you want to pay to cross “their bridge” over “their valley”?
Indeed. It’s messy however you try to work out the “fair” way of handling land claims and disputes.
Here’s the way I see it, which is just my personal take, which there are admittedly difficulties with applying this where the rubber means the road, it’s the best I have come up with:
Ownership of land carries stewardship responsibilities that don’t allow one to poison the water and air flowing over it and into other people’s lives or which cause massive damage to the ecosystem which supports all life.
Everyone has the right to rightfully acquire (not steal) and control a reasonable stake of land, fence it off for private use at their discretion, and in general do what they please with it. No person or group has the right to claim so much that other people are being deprived of their right to access and claim land (and therefore life itself); nor to destroy land, due to the responsibility to preserve it for use by future generations.
How do I know this?
Because ‘ownership’ at its essence is a description of behavior (taking the actions associated with acquisition, possession, and control), and rightful behavior is always determined by the natural law principles of morality: harm none, steal from none, everyone has the same rights.
The illegitimate claiming of all land by governments is land exclusion, violating people’s rights to access land and thus the resources of life. Land exclusion is a key element of the control grid which forces people into being dependent upon the corporate economy for their resources.
Oakgnarl
All thise electrons spilt but you have not yet told me a convincing argument for how a “right” exists, if it can be violated without consequences, nor what source created it….nor, more importantly WHAT a RIGHT IS – since its not based on ability, nor an external standard set by the almighty, it sounds like a fog or something doesn’t it?
Without God, Might is Right. With God, His Might makes Right
“…The question isn’t whether there is some cosmic (or human) punishment, the question is what is the reasonable code of conduct that can be applied universally…”
Two points of failure here
1)
Humans DONT all want the same things – or rather they VALUE things differently….a religious Jew might value snipping his kids dong more then the kids bodily autonomy. A Muslim might value his religious law over freedom to jacknoff to porn. A racist might value his race more than the rights of other races. The priority (often the goals themselves) are valued differently by different cultures and people….even the concept of “freedom” is fluid and there were four versions of what that word even means in the founding of the US (see “Albion’s seed” book)
2)
All those electrons spilled and it still comes down to the fact that you are making a METAPHYSICAL claim…..your axiomatic assumption is that a code of conduct “must” apply.
Why?
You kinda see that yourself when you say I’m confusing “rights” and “abilities “ but you can’t have such universal concepts without an outside source for them….a closed “physical “ or “materialist” system has no basis to make claims to moral values (whatever Sam Harris says, lolol) because
1) Materialism cant deal with metaphysics like morals
2) the physical world does not display morals- see clip from the Great Author of the western world
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vPS5Yw_YsHA&pp=ygUWRGVhdGggaGlnZmF0aGVyIGJlbGVpZg%3D%3D
Even prattchett here is making a claim of “I want it to be so”
You can make utilitarianian arguments (“we all get along better” or even “if you steal my burrito I shoot you”) but those either assume a fixed moral good (“getting along well”) or they fall down to power (“I shoot you”) and are thus not moral arguments about universals , just statements of your ability- not your “rights “
>your axiomatic assumption is that a code of conduct “must” apply
It’s not that it “must” apply for no reason, it’s that we “should” apply what makes the most logical sense and will provide us with what we value.
>Humans DONT all want the same things – or rather they VALUE things differently
My position is that there is indeed a subset of values that we can, for practical intents and purposes, consider as universal, (namely valuation for life and freedom) and within that consideration, it makes sense to act in a way that is conducive to obtaining what we value.
>All thise electrons spilt but you have not yet told me a convincing argument for how a “right” exists, if it can be violated without consequences, nor what source created it….nor, more importantly WHAT a RIGHT IS – since its not based on ability, nor an external standard set by the almighty, it sounds like a fog or something doesn’t it?
Perhaps the “failure to be convinced” is your own. For my part, I think I have provided adequate explanation for why this construct of “rights” makes sense, and we can just agree to disagree at this point if you don’t see it.
Definition: A right, broadly, is any action that can be taken which does not harm (violate the property rights) of another individual.”
An individual’s “property rights” being defined as the sole and sovereign authority over their body, and the possessions they have acquired peacefully (without stealing from someone else).
By what virtue is a right defined as such? Because no one can demonstrate any argument explaining why it would be logical that one person would have a rightful ability to interfere with another peaceful person, while someone else does not, and the need for a logical and equitable construct and code of conduct is self-evident, IMO, for instance to have a consistent and reasonably defined way to handle disputes.
If you’re not interested in claiming rights or recognizing and honoring any such construct, or answering the question of what kind of policy we should adopt to help manage and govern ourselves reasonably and peacefully, then have fun in your world of “might makes right”, if you think that makes better sense. It doesn’t to me. Might is simply might and it NEVER “makes right”. It can be used for either right or wrong. If you’re not willing to acknowledge or define any differentiating criteria between “right” and “wrong”, then the phrase “might makes right” is completely meaningless.
For me, I claim ownership of my life and property, recognize the difference between a valid and invalid claim of ownership by others based on reasonable criteria, and will use what ability I have to defend rightful property by this criteria. I’ll do me, you do you.
I feel like we’re going in circles, and I’m feeling done here. So feel free to get the last quack in 🙂 Thanks for playing, Duck!
Oakgnarl
“…..It’s not that it “must” apply for no reason, it’s that we “should” apply what makes the most logical sense and will provide us with what we valu…..”
Ok.
So BY THAT DEFINITION a guy who finds the helpless girl and wants to abduct her SHOULD do so IF she can get away with it??????
He values sex
He values his freedom
Totally logical + Totally evil.
WHAT part of your definition makes it important for him to NOT violate the rights of others IF he can do so without punishment??????
You are making “should” out of a “can”.
Even when you say Might makes right leads to trouble and strife you are USING THE CONSEQUENCES not establishing a Principle- there are plenty of helpess people to prey on who can not cause their oppressors harm.
Where do THOSE people derive rights from?
Thanks for playing too 🙂
>So BY THAT DEFINITION a guy who finds the helpless girl and wants to abduct her SHOULD do so IF she can get away with it??????
No. My argument is NOT that merely because something is valued or desired whimsically, that it is therefore necessarily justified to take by force.
>WHAT part of your definition makes it important for him to NOT violate the rights of others IF he can do so without punishment??????
My definition has no influence on his value priorities. Maybe he’s a complete imbecile.
Assuming the would-be perp cares for his own life, freedom, and property to remain unmolested (assuming these particular values to be universal, which is logical and necessary, IMO), his willingness to violate the life, freedom, or property of another person represents a betrayal of good-faith action that is logically necessary for us all to enjoy the benefits of these universal valuations.
Mutual respect works as a policy, promoting peaceful interactions, in alignment with our obvious universally mutual valuations, if adhered to in good faith. While take-what-you-can-get-and-screw-you as a policy does not.
A policy that would allow him to abduct and molest the girl, is not something, that if we all followed, would be conducive to our universal valuations being achieved. It would be a chaos of free-for-all violence based only on individual interests or even depravity, rather than our most basic recognized and universally shared interests.
I hope you can see the difference.
>Thanks for playing too 🙂
I’ll try again to shut-up now 🙏😅
Oakgnarl
You are STILL claiming taking “abilities “ not “rights”- your using utility as an argument for them but (as history shows) there are many people that can be preyed upon without consequences and you have NOT YET shown me where their rights exist or flow from.
The question you can not answer (without metaphysics) is where the girls rights come from when no one knows or cares about her fate.
I wish THAT was just rhetoric and theory, but truth be told , the Muslim rape gangs of the UK and Epstein both preyed on people without protection or (mostly) people who cared about them.
“….. Assuming the would-be perp cares for his own life, freedom, and property to remain unmolested (assuming these particular values to be universal, which is logical and necessary, IMO), his willingness to violate the life, freedom, or property of another person represents a betrayal of good-faith action that is logically necessary for us all to enjoy the benefits of these universal valuation……”
Why is “good faith” important if the perp can escape punishment??????
You have not shown a logic for why Epstein or thise rape gangs care about “the common good” rather then what they can get away with….this is the disease of Classic Liberalism where people who mostly thought the same about morals and behavior decided not to sweat the small stuff after the wars of religion.
Also…when you think a ou how important “freedom” is do you consider WHAT that freedom is for?
You yourself cite times when people you know have freedoms taken from them because they can’t “use it properly” due to infirmity…..so even you agree freedom has legitimate and illegitimate uses.
The point of this world play is to say…. Freedom is a good, it’s not the HIGHEST good. There is a reason we have hierarchy and government, it’s because we don’t use freedom properly- just like an addict or a schizophrenic or a person with dementia cant. The guest here throws the baby out with the bath water IMO.
Duck
Liberal hypocrites. Over looking the big stuff to bask in the smaller good. Can you spot the hypocrisy
Waddle, dottle Duck
Whipped his horse
To get him up
P.I.T.A said you can whip him twice but whip him again and you are not nice.
The poor horse didn’t want to be whipped at all. He will have to be clever, creative and ambitious to experience freedom.
Indigo Swan, an exceptionally strong psychic, wrote about thought hierarchy and had a hypothesis on thought originating from the nonphysical to the physical. If that is so then our rights are metaphysical in origin. Creativity , rights, flow down to the lower realm where it’s manifested in the physical world, though you can only experience it, but there are just as real. Those things you experience are generally more valuable then physical objects.
Love, respect, honor , virtue, freedom. Priceless and at the pentacle of thinking and being.
It’s much to long to print here but can be found in his book ;
” To Kiss Earth Good-bye”
>You yourself cite times when people you know have freedoms taken from them because they can’t “use it properly” due to infirmity…..so even you agree freedom has legitimate and illegitimate uses.
It’s not a matter of legitimate use cases in my view. It’s a matter of being able to take responsibility for it. In order to maintain your right to freedom (or in other words, to have your right to use your property as you wish acknowledged and respected), you must continue to act responsibly with it.
I like Andrew Joseph Galambos’ definition of freedom:
“the societal condition that exists when every individual has 100% control of his own property.”
We are all free to act as we wish with our own property, but not in a manner which would interfere with another person’s property rights.
So it becomes legitimate in certain circumstances to interfere with someone else’s property (to a limited extent, only as necessary) when they are no longer capable of or willing to take full responsibility for it, or are using it to violate others. This is the basis of the self-defense principle.
Always you see people criticizing the moral principle by trying to propose situations (often hypothetical) in which the principle is difficult to apply, or even in which it makes sense to violate. I agree, there are situations in which it’s difficult to apply, and there are situations where I myself would violate it and hope others would violate it as well, even against my own property if necessary.
But the criteria of “initiated aggression against property rights” is the only logical criteria that I can see for defining moral behavior.
>So BY THAT DEFINITION a guy who finds the helpless girl and wants to abduct her SHOULD do so IF she can get away with it??????
>He values sex
>He values his freedom
>Totally logical + Totally evil
You yourself say this is “totally evil”. Why? By what criteria do you define it as such? I define it as such because it’s clearly an initiation of aggression against property rights. That’s the criteria that defines an action such as rape, theft, or murder as immoral, not based on some laundry list in some book.
“But where do rights come from?” Rather than continue around in circles on this, I invite you to think about it like this: Where does math come from? Does it make sense to ask where the laws of mathematics come from, or does it make more sense to simply observe what they are from a practical standpoint?
I would say the laws of math come from God, because I define “God” specifically as the primal source of all things. But that definition won’t help one understand math or make one a mathematician. Similarly, understanding that natural law comes from God won’t help you understand the criteria that defines it.
If we value not having our bridge fall over, we will value getting the math right.
If we value living in peace and harmony collectively, we will value getting natural law right.
>There is a reason we have hierarchy and government, it’s because we don’t use freedom properly-
Because SOME INDIVIDUALS don’t use THEIR freedom responsibly is an argument for defense and interfering with those acting as such. It’s not an excuse to exercise violence on peaceful people by robbing them with taxation, never mind the fraudulent nature of the monetary system government is funded by.
>just like an addict or a schizophrenic or a person with dementia cant. The guest here throws the baby out with the bath water IMO.
Government is slavery. “Totally evil” as you like to put it. There is no baby, it’s just a tub full of sewage, and makes about as much sense.
Oakgnarl
“….It’s not a matter of legitimate use cases in my view. It’s a matter of being able to take responsibility for it….”
So WHO decides when someone is taking responsibility to use it properly? Does not the infirm, addicted or mentally ill pwry”own themselves as property to dispose of as they set fit?
If a guy wants to use drugs, or listen to the voices that tell him to cut himself then by what measure do others have a right to judge it irresponsible??? The fact that you see it as as responsibility show that you know freedom OF ITSELF is only given to be used in certain ways.
The thing is….if you know that freedom must be taken IN SOME DEGREE from some people then by what measure do you call out those who take taxes from you and forbid you from snorting coke or doing meth outside the school?
As to how “I” judge the rapist in the example as bad….i dont claim to think ALL government is illegitimate or immoral. I claim that God established rules for human behavior and Government is a function of the need to restrain fallen human nature.
As to rights and maths….while most math is “self evident” ( where as rights don’t appear to be as they are so often ignored in a way maths cant be) but even math depends on certain unprovable axioms that must be accepted without any ability to actually prove them true.
That puts rights in the realm of faith, where they fit into Christian cosmology BUT NOT generally speaking non Christian ones….the Greeks didn’t believe in rights,as you understand them, nor does Islam or Buddhism or any of the others
>So WHO decides when someone is taking responsibility to use it properly?
Who indeed. Certainly not some bureaucrat or politician. There is no argument for any higher authority than the individual. It’s a judgment call. Principle is clear: each individual owns their own property. If someone pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet while you are minding your own business, it’s very clear whom the aggressor is, and therefore whom is in the wrong.
In many types of edge cases however, it is obviously not always so clear. We can only do our best to make the judgment call as best we can when that choice is upon us, by striving to adhere to the moral principle as much as we can. Just because it’s difficult to always adhere to doesn’t negate the principle.
>Does not the infirm, addicted or mentally ill pwry”own themselves as property to dispose of as they set fit?
Yes, until they are no longer taking responsibility for themselves, becoming belligerent or irrationally destructive.
If good friend, whom I normally consider of sound mind but is harming their body, say with a drug addiction, I might choose to interfere by taking his drugs, especially if I thought he was in danger of dying from overdose. I can’t make an argument that that is principled though. I can only say I care about my friend’s actual life more than I do his property rights.
But that doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize the principle, and even that I have violated it. Unless I have a reason as powerful as saving someone’s life, I feel compelled to respect moral principle.
>The thing is….if you know that freedom must be taken IN SOME DEGREE from some people then by what measure do you call out those who take taxes from you and forbid you from snorting coke or doing meth outside the school?
“IN SOME DEGREE” meaning only to the degree of stopping them from causing harm, not some arbitrary degree like you now can make them a tax slave forever.
By what measure? By the measure of moral principle that I have been talking about. If I am not using my property irresponsibly by violating others’ property rights, then by taking my taxes with violence, they would be the aggressors, according to natural law.
Forbidding me from snorting coke or doing meth is also a violation, similar to me taking my friend’s heroin if I was afraid he might overdose. I would be in the wrong in that instance, according to natural law, unless he was doing something to harm others. I might be willing to take consequences for that though.
I will admit, in edge cases, it can be difficult to apply, but in most conflicts, the moral criteria as defined in the NAP is the only policy that makes sense, and it leaves no room for rape, murder, theft, or therefore a “government” that imposes taxation, which is not an edge case by any stretch.
>As to rights and maths….while most math is “self evident” ( where as rights don’t appear to be
“We hold these truths to be self evident…”
>the Greeks didn’t believe in rights,as you understand them, nor does Islam or Buddhism or any of the others
I think they mostly did. They just don’t all express it in the same language. The construct of “rights” is just a way of talking about it. For instance the golden rule, which most major faiths the world over have some version of, I believe points to the same observation: our shared values for our lives and property. You don’t want your life and property aggressed upon, therefore you shouldn’t aggress upon others. You want consent to be respected regarding your property, therefore you should respect others similarly.
(I realize there are various interpretations of the golden rule, this is my take).
Mostly this is how humanity operates. That’s what makes a peaceful marketplace is everyone respecting each others’ property “rights” and making only voluntary based exchanges. Violence and discord in relations specifically break out when one or more people are violating the rule.
I think it’s fair to say that “rights” are just an arbitrary conceptual and linguistic framework, but IMO, one that is very useful for communicating this universal and timeless principle.
>I claim that God established rules for human behavior and Government is a function of the need to restrain fallen human nature.
But how you determine the criteria for what those rules are?
The need to restrain “fallen human nature” is no excuse to perpetrate slavery and violence on peaceful people, such as taxation does.
“…There is no argument for any higher authority than the individual…”
The infirm individual is still their own authority by your reasoning.
The fact that you are willing to “violate natural law” shows that this is NOT a what you are as the “highest” good. You know that there is “some other” , higher , good that must be served.
Your clinging to the principle that the individual is the highest measure or good, but I think you understand on an instinctive level this is not the case or you would never think it’s ok to take a man’s drugs ,like he is your property that you need to maintain. Like wise if you think you have the right to control a free man’s drug use it follows that there must be things a Government may do to make YOU act in a “responsible” way…..
The idea of “the individual” being the player in a market place of ideas is a unique product of the European wars of religion- the Greeks did not have it and neither did anyone else. It existed to solve the issue of how culturally similar people could live together without fighting over religion….islam does not have it and I really think you need to reread your Greek history if you think that they were OK with “you do you and I di me” on an individual basis….lol, Plato designed the ultimate fascist/commie utopia in “the republic” and Aristotle though some people were natural slaves.
As to “WE hold these truths to be self evident”….those were often slave owners who (even if they hated slavery) thought blacks and some euro’s were not suitable to live in the USA under it’s government.
As to how we determine what rules a God might set…such a being is clearly able to make its will known. The Bible is the only internally (and externally) consistent religious text I have read.
Any God not able to make His will known would hardly be “God” would he? lol.
The issue is that people want to make the”natural law” or “the Bible” say what THEY want it to say….THEY wanna be God, but they’re not. They lie and prevaricate about the text instead of reading what it actually says…they want to conform nature to THEIR swill rather then conform their will ti nature
The Statist thinks the state is God…THEY a are just as misled
Alright. I think I’m done trying to explain to you the reasoning behind my views. At this point, you either get or you don’t. I’m not sure that you do, but I’m ready to move on regardless.
>As to how we determine what rules a God might set…such a being is clearly able to make its will known. The Bible is the only internally (and externally) consistent religious text I have read.
You still haven’t answered my question: What exactly are the rules God has set for us, and how exactly do we know precisely what those are?
“God can make his will known”. Ok, sure. But people don’t tend to always agree on what his will or the rule is, so what does God’s rules state for us, and how exactly do we know them? Are we suppose to take the 10 commandments on faith or what?
Do you think that according to God’s rules for humanity, that he commands us to “not steal”. Leaving aside how we arrive at the conclusion, do we agree that theft is indeed immoral? I believe one of God’s “commandments” is indeed “do not steal”.
>Like wise if you think you have the right to control a free man’s drug use it follows that there must be things a Government may do to make YOU act in a “responsible” way…..
I never said that. I specifically made the point that by taking my friend’s drugs, I would be in the wrong, that I have no right to do that. I think anyone who takes someone else’s drugs should be held formally accountable, as any thief, including myself. I wouldn’t take or sell the drugs in that case by the way, I would keep them in safe keeping, and be voluntarily willing to go to mediation to settle the dispute and return the drugs if it was deemed that I had made an error in judgment or just violated my friend’s rights outright. I might do this just in the hope that it would serve as a wake-up call to my friend by bringing more attention to his issue. Maybe my friend would decide that I was a jerk and never want to speak to me again lmao.
In any case. A community should follow a policy of natural law IMO (and we should as individuals as much as we can as well), where theft is recognized as wrong, and where thieves are held accountable as much as is reasonably possible.
Also, I am defining “responsible” by objective criteria. The “government” nor anyone else can’t just make up what that is at whim. Acting “irresponsibly” specifically means violating someone else’s property, such as theft or assault. If I’m not doing that then no “government” has a right to force me to do anything, much less enslave me by demanding labor or tribute on a regular basis.
Oakgnarl
“….Also, I am defining “responsible” by objective criteria. …..”
I think you are using “objective” wrong because what objective standard are you basing that definition ON???
While is it different when YOU decide how a mentally ill person or a drugie SHOULD act then when the Gov decides you MUST be responsible and get your 13th vax????
You and the Gov are both defining what “responsible” behavior is….sure, you can say your doing it out of live but the “Gov wants to keep us safe”…..SAME thing, different power levels.
The lint is YOU KNOW that freedom for its own sake and rights for their own sake are not the highest good because IF they were you would never “do wrong” by trying to save those who choose self destruction….you clearly think life (or maybe well-being) matters more then freedom.
Second section
As to taxes….while not a lover of the IRS myself let’s explore “theft”
If you knock up a woman and she has the child di you have a responsibility to pay for the kid? Even if you used a rubber?
You did not contract to give the kid life….assuming you don’t want to pay for the kid is it theft when a court makes you pay????
Here your either saying
A)responsibility can be thrust on you without your choice (thus taxes may be ok)
Or
B) it’s ok if the kid you made starved to death because you didn’t choose ti give it life
>I think you are using “objective” wrong because what objective standard are you basing that definition ON???
I already told you. “Irresponsibility” in the context of “using freedom irresponsibly” specifically means violation of other people’s property such as theft or assault.
>While is it different when YOU decide how a mentally ill person or a drugie SHOULD act then when the Gov decides you MUST be responsible and get your 13th vax????
Wouldn’t you agree there’s a reasonable standard of mental health to apply as a criteria for whether intervention is justified, and that people of sound mind should be allowed to make their own medical decisions and drug use as a matter of policy?
I’ve already mentioned several times that the rules of natural law can only apply strictly to adults of sound mind.
>If you knock up a woman and she has the child di you have a responsibility to pay for the kid? Even if you used a rubber?
Yes, if you engaged in the act together, you are jointly and equally responsible together for paying for whatever expenses result from that act. So, there is no “thrusting of responsibility” happening in this scenario.
But this is an not a fair scenario to analyze “theft” as a matter of basic principle.
The analogy is unfit because there is no parallel for me having engaged in some act that would incur responsibility for taxation. Taxation is more akin to yanking some guy off the street who didn’t even have sex, and making him pay. But your mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that theft is immoral and justify taxation is impressive.
I’m going to offer 2 facts:
1. God says theft is wrong, according to the bible.
2. Taxation is theft.
Therefore government is immoral and against the laws of God.
Checkmate. 🙂
>you clearly think life (or maybe well-being) matters more then freedom.
Yes, I’ve indicated this a number of times directly.
Life is the ultimate form of property, and I value it more highly than property rights (freedom), as applied to lesser forms of property. I would do a minor trespass to save my life for instance, and I wouldn’t begrudge the same being done to me if that was necessary for someone to live.
Or if me and my children were dying of thirst in a desert, and a semi-truck full of water bottles rolled up, but the driver wouldn’t part with a single bottle, and as the truck rolled away, a gallon jug of water fell off the truck, enough to save our lives, I’m going to drink that and save my kids’ lives with it, even though it’s technically theft. “Theft” can be very minor and petty next to someone’s life, IMO.
Of course all of these hypothetical edge cases where I might violate moral principle have never occurred in my life. I’ve never taken my friend’s drugs, despite that some of them have been pretty bad off with them, and don’t ever expect to be in any kind of situation where I would steal someone’s water jug.
But this is the value system that makes sense to me. As a matter of recognizing natural law, a trespass is still a trespass, as a matter of fact and definition, and it’s not “justified” just because I don’t care to follow it strictly. People value natural law differently. Some people might die before they trespass on someone else’s land, or even let their kids die of thirst in that desert. Thieves don’t value it at all, but that doesn’t change what it is. The law is the law: don’t steal or trespass on others’ property (without their consent). No exceptions when it comes to people of sound mind, and only limited exceptions (to genuinely care for them or stop them from doing harm) when it comes to the mentally disabled.
Oakgnarl
“….already told you. “Irresponsibility” in the context of “using freedom irresponsibly” specifically means violation of other people’s property such as theft or assault….”
If the druggie is not stealing then what property crime has he committed?
If the mentally ill person harms themselves what property crime have the done?
In both cases they are destroying their own property (assuming you think people own themselves) …. Thus they do NOT meet your definition of “irresponsible”
How exactly can you limit a “natural” right only to people that YOU consider to be “of sound mind” ??? Some people would (and did) argue that misinformed conspiracy theorists who wouldn’t get their coof vax were mentally unwell.
Now as for me, I DO think that we should limit things like the vote and curtail the behavior of some people- welcome to the “far Right” 😉 glad to have you here.
Second part
You started off saying the NAP was not a luxury belief…..but you just told me the extreme situation when you would be Wiling to break it.
If you break it when things get harsh but follow it when your safe is that not the DEFINITION of a luxury belief?
Third part
Taxes were paid in the Bible and Jesus told people to pay unti Caesar what is Caesar’s…..the Bible is also OK a with slavery under certain circumstances. (No I am not in favor of bringing it back)
You may make a religious argument against taxes, but you can not make a Christian one.
Part four
It’s not that I am against rights, they do indeed flow IMO from God ….i am just against throwing all natural order out and declaring it ALL iligitimate.
It is also a mistake to assume that all authority is legitimate.
We have rights, but we also have duties that go with them. Like Paine said, humans are social animals and require order to live with each other….the unnatural atomism of people today is a luxury based on the pile of wealth our ancestors built and will end when we run thise systems they created into failure
>If the druggie is not stealing then what property crime has he committed?
>If the mentally ill person harms themselves what property crime have the done?
These questions have already been addressed, and the fact that you repeat them, without addressing the answers that have already been given means I have to repeat myself and we go in circles. I’m not going to respond to redundant questions.
If the mentally ill person harms themselves what property crime have the done?You haven’t reconciled the fact that God tells us not to steal, and the fact that taxation is theft, nor refuted that therefore government is immoral and against the laws of God.
>Now as for me, I DO think that we should limit things like the vote
Voting is an act of violence.
https://forejustice.org/vote/voting_is_an_act_of_violence.htm
>You may make a religious argument against taxes, but you can not make a Christian one.
I’m only taking the religious angle because you expressed a belief in God’s laws as coming from the bible. It’s just common sense to me.
Taxation is robbery, extortion, and violence for which no one has ever provided the slightest reasonable justification. It funds murder and violence at almost unimaginable scale.
I personally haven’t filed or paid taxes since 1987 (living in the US) because I realized I was funding war by doing so. If you’re okay with funding and participating in mass murder, that makes you a bad person in my book. I’m not here to wag my finger, but I personally am trying to not be a bad person at least most of the time. I feel an obligation to not allow my labor to be siphoned off by the thugs of the state and used to fund things that are totally evil. You’re okay with that? I guess most people seem to be, and that’s one of the things I find exasperating about being on this planet. I find it reprehensible.
>It’s not that I am against rights, they do indeed flow IMO from God
But you won’t say exactly what those rights are nor give any specific explanation for how exactly you arrive at what they are. And what could they possibly be anyway if they don’t at least include the right to not have your property stolen and your life taken by force against your will?
You have yet to refute either of the 2 facts:
1. Theft is immoral
2. Taxation is theft
And let’s add a third shall we:
3 Taxation funds murder (I’m pretty sure God tells us not to do this one either)
It’s one thing if people tell me, “Oh, I know taxation funds murder, but it’s not my fault because they steal it from me and there is nothing I can do about it.”, which I can’t technically argue against, though I must admit I can’t help but feel some disdain at what appears to me to be pathetic and cowardly excuse making, but when people try to tell me that it’s all justified and that I should “pay my taxes” because that’s the “right thing to do” to “contribute my fair share”… I have an especially large middle finger or two for that type of BS.
>Taxes were paid in the Bible and Jesus told people to pay unti Caesar what is Caesar’s
In Mark 12:13-17, Jesus is specifically asked whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar (the Roman government). He replies by asking whose image is on the coin, and when told it is Caesar’s, he says, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”.
Considering they were living in a time and place where what you said publicly could get you arrested and crucified, I consider the possibility that these were carefully chosen words. I suspect there is a reason he said it like this, instead of plainly: “of course you should pay your taxes like a good citizen”. I believe he was likely hinting at rejection of the state currency altogether, while also avoiding incriminating himself.
In Matthew 17:24-27, the question arises whether Jesus pays the temple tax. Jesus uses the opportunity to teach that, as the Son of God, he is exempt; however, he instructs Peter to pay the tax on both their behalf, “so that we do not give offense”. This act illustrates Jesus’ willingness to comply with religious obligations to avoid unnecessary offense, even though, strictly speaking, he declares himself and his followers as “children” who are technically exempt.
Again, that’s very interesting regarding he himself and his followers being exempt, and this hardly reads like he is a fervent supporter of taxation, but rather was going along to get along like everyone else has to do to some extent just to be able to get by in life.
It’s very difficult for me to take away from this that Jesus clearly endorsed taxation. On the other hand, I see a lot of statist propaganda in most Christian traditions, and I’ve met few that can question the legitimacy of government rationally without getting blinded and tangled in their conditioned biases and emotional attachment to the state as a construct.
Taxation is clearly both theft and a very brutal form of violence, and there is nothing that separates it from slavery, as a matter of pure fact and definition.
>the Bible is also OK a with slavery under certain circumstances.
No comment. This statement speaks for itself, as well as to the dubious nature of attributing authority to something written down by people, without any attempt to even question the truth or legitimacy of it for oneself.
Oakgnarl
Dude, like I said before if you have the balls not to pay taxes due to principles I admire your gumption.
However- God, the God of the Bible, most certainly tells people to pay taxes
At Mark 12:13-18 and Matt 17:24on (here Jesus tells people to pay TEMPLE tax)
Thus- Biblically speaking Tax is NOT the same as theft…..NOR is government automatically regarded as illegitimate or evil. Nor are people free ti do whatever they like – even slaves like
Onsimus (in Philemon) are told to obay their earthly masters and respect the natural order (just as the master is expected to behave in certain ways).
Not all authority is regarded as legitimate NOR iligitimate in the Bible.
You can certainly choose to break the law, but in this case you can not say God told you to do so.
Second
“… These questions have already been addressed, and the fact that you repeat them, without addressing the answers that have already…”
You have quite clearly shown that SINCE YOU WOULD VIOLATE the NAP and “natural law rights” in certain (extreme) circumstances, that
A) The NAP is something you prefer but will drop when needed (the water jugs) so it is a belief you have because you live in a safe place…a Luxury belief
B) You DONT treat natural law as the highest good….you yourself said preserving LIFE matters more. Again, that means respecting Rights isa preference for you, not a real, binding, objective thing.
Third
As I said I admire your conviction, for giving the finger to the IRS.
Also with money printing you actually do pay taxes via inflation….its the main tax since half of people get more money from the Gov then they pay in taxes.
That said
You have certainly BENEFITED from all that theft going on…..you drive around on roads built by tax money, unless you live in some urban dump or out in the boonies you benefit from cops keeping banditry to a minimum, you don’t have to form a milita to repel invaders because that theft pays for the military. The Soviets really would have colonized the US if they could have.
I assume you expect contracts to be honored, because judges (paid in theft money) fine those who cheat.
Even us taking here is possible thanks to Government “theft money” building the Internet back in the day.
So….in a lot of ways you benefit from the “stolen labor” of others.
Those taxes have made a nice cocoon for you to enjoy your freedom in relative safety…..
Do you think you could have lived the life you lived in the US in Russia in the 80s thru 90s? Or even now?
Post Soviet Russia is an example of state collapse, people were BEGGING for a strong man to restore order….because order is what preserves life
>So….in a lot of ways you benefit from the “stolen labor” of others.
>Those taxes have made a nice cocoon for you to enjoy your freedom in relative safety…..
>Do you think you could have lived the life you lived in the US in Russia in the 80s thru 90s? Or even now?
One more thing about this. Government provides nothing in the way of freedom or security at source. Everything it does is funded by the people. Anything the government does by way of “protecting me”, we the people could do better and cheaper without the gross inefficiency and waste that is government, VOLUNTARILY.
I attribute the relative ease and freedom I enjoy in life today to the aggregate consciousness of the people around me, geography, technology, and market forces like the availability and ease of distribution of resources. I refuse to accept that institutionalized violence is some kind of requirement. That’s asinine, IMO. I’m very willing to contribute voluntarily to fund and build peaceful and more efficient alternatives to funding everything with theft and violence all the while making fat cats out of corrupt bureaucrats and feeding the state/corporate structure of enslavement and global plunder.
Anyway, I think you should get Etienne2’s books. He covers all of this much better than I, lmao. Good God, I just can’t shut up. 😅
>people were BEGGING for a strong man to restore order….because order is what preserves life
That says everything to me about the brainwashing of the people, their having been conditioned into gross abdication of personal responsibility, and is an absolute nothing burger by way of justifying theft and violence as any kind of rightful “solution”.
CONTINUE
“…. You have yet to refute either of the 2 facts:
1. Theft is immoral
2. Taxation is theft
And let’s add a third shall we:
3 Taxation funds murder (I’m pretty sure God tells us not to do this one either….”
Theft is only immoral if you believe in objective values….a preference not to steal is not objective because it can be over ridden by my appetite.
I am not actually arguing theft is moral- I’m saying theft (from out groups) is the NATURAL behavior of people. Only Christian thinking made anyone think otherwise
2
Taxation is only theft when done by an illegitimate ruler.
It’s not theft in the Bible
It’s never been considered
theft by subjects over thousands of years of taxation
It’s just theft now….because, what, natural law???? Why wasn’t it theft before????what changed?
3
War is not murder
Execution of criminals is not murder
The Bible is pretty clear on the differences between legitimate killing and murder…..and virtually no one ever thought war was murder for 99.9% of history.
War as murder is a weird perversion of Christian theology.
>You have certainly BENEFITED from all that theft going on…..you drive around on roads built by tax money, unless you live in some urban dump or out in the boonies you benefit from cops keeping banditry to a minimum, you don’t have to form a milita to repel invaders because that theft pays for the military.
I never agreed to pay for any of that or asked for any of it. Therefore I reject any claim that I am in any way obligated to pay. Contracts are only valid by mutual agreement and consent, and I never consented to having any of those “services” provided to me, and don’t consider them to be of any “benefit” whatsoever, and you have no authority to tell me otherwise. It’s a scam and a criminal racket. I don’t want to fund evil under the guise of being protected.
>Also with money printing you actually do pay taxes via inflation….its the main tax since half of people get more money from the Gov then they pay in taxes.
I do not keep savings in fiat currency, converting it to other assets immediately when I get paid. So the value I exchange my labor for doesn’t sit in a pool that then gets drained by currency debasement. For the most part, when I get paid, I make sure to retain the purchasing power from time of payout. Also, I mostly work on the land I live on now, and the benefit is direct in the form of food and infrastructure for my living, so there is no siphoning of that work through the monetary system. When I operated a business in the counter-economy for many years in the past, purely under the table and unlicensed, I adjusted the prices of my products to keep pace with inflation as well. The trick to not being exploited is to raise the price of your labor to keep pace, and not store your savings in depreciating fiat currency.
Of course, I can’t say I manage to not support the state financially at all, (probably enough to cover my use of roads, especially considering DMV fees, but that should be all be handled by the private, by which I mean peaceful and voluntary sector, IMO. Collecting money for roads with violence is not only immoral, but highly inefficient.) but I try to at least be mindful and keep my footprint of state support small and shrinking.
>A) The NAP is something you prefer but will drop when needed (the water jugs) so it is a belief you have because you live in a safe place…a Luxury belief
The NAP is a principle. It’s not a luxury belief just because I personally have limitations in where I will apply it, for instance if my children’s lives are at stake. People’s property is their property regardless of what I prefer.
>order is what preserves life
Violence is not order
>War is not murder
On the part of the aggressors, yes it is.
As for most of the rest of the stuff you said, we’ve already gone round and round, and I’m getting tired again of beating this dead horse. I can usually flog it with the best of them, but even I am clearly no match for your stamina in this regard, you win lmao 🙂
God bless!
>Taxation is only theft when done by an illegitimate ruler.
There are no “legitimate” rulers. Rule of one human by another is called “slavery”.
>It’s not theft in the Bible
>It’s never been considered
>theft by subjects over thousands of years of taxation
It’s theft by definition:
Theft is someone taking your property or money by force against your will.
Taxation is government taking your money by force against your will.
If you can’t see how that’s EXACTLY the same thing, by definition….
>It’s just theft now….because, what, natural law???? >Why wasn’t it theft before????what changed?
Nothing changed it always was. Perhaps in the past people failed to recognize it as such. People have historically had a lot of problems with being convinced that other human beings have the right to rule over them. I’m ok with being ruled by the laws of nature, or the laws of God if you prefer, but in no way is it acceptable to be ruled over by other people.
“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.” -John Locke
Oakgnarl
lol, I wasn’t going to respond because you were done….but then saw you posted again 🙂 dude, your as bad as me.
“….I refuse to accept that institutionalized violence is some kind of requirement….”
That is a whole new question TBH…..but you yourself admit that consequences are what stop criminal actions- i steal your wallet and you shoot me, and such.
Thus a voluntary order is STILL based on violence….the community (to survive) probably would be like “hey, let’s lynch that wallet stealing ass!”
If the community does NOT do things like that I can get ten of my scum friends and pretty much steal what I like.
THIS is the difference between legitimate Gov (I mean, the community makes rules doesn’t it?) and illegitimate Gov (my ten guys just do what we like) but IN BOTH CASES order rests on violence.
I don’t like violence or advocate for doing more of it but in the Natural world it’s pretty much one of the twin bases of human interaction- fear of violence or use of violence.
The OTHER basis is love – wanting to take care of the people and things you value.
What you call natural law is actually SUPERnatural…proper behavior is cultivated and striven for because it’s not the normal way people behave. When I say the NAP is luxury it’s NOT that it’s bad- we should certainly not go around stealing and raping and such……it’s just that the NAP goes away very fast when we’re scared or hungry or poor because it’s UNnatural for us to follow it.
>we should certainly not go around stealing and raping and such
Glad to hear it!
>it’s just that the NAP goes away very fast when we’re scared or hungry or poor because it’s UNnatural for us to follow it.
No it doesn’t go away. Even if I choose not to follow the NAP, I don’t stop believing in it. I recognize the validity of the principle at all times and in all situations. Most thieves know they are doing wrong, it’s not that they “believe” in the rightfulness of what they’re doing when they steal, they just don’t care.
The reason we call it “natural” law is because the criteria that determine things like stealing and raping are bad are NOT whimsical, not just made up by someone arbitrarily. Raping is immoral, and this is non-negotiable, not up for debate, certainly not up for vote.
>I mean, the community makes rules doesn’t it?
No. Raping is wrong, against natural law, it doesn’t matter if every other person on the face of the earth voted for it to be done. It’s inherently wrong, not because any group of people whimsically decided that it was one day, and no community can suddenly decide that it’s fine now.
>Thus a voluntary order is STILL based on violence….the community (to survive) probably would be like “hey, let’s lynch that wallet stealing ass!”
Orders are not voluntary, by definition. Organized cooperative defensive actions however are allowed under voluntaryism. If the community has to take action “to survive”, that’s legitimate defense and distinct from initiated aggression or “violence”.
>🙂 dude, your as bad as me
Guilty as charged!!! I thought I could resist.
“….I refuse to accept that institutionalized violence is some kind of requirement….”
>That is a whole new question TBH
No, it’s the crux of everything we have been talking about. The reason I’m against government is because what it is on its face and by definition is institutionalized violence.
I’m not against governance. Self-governance. I’m not against roads, courts, security forces, etc. I’m only against having all of this funded with violence. With the public being fleeced (caged or murdered if they don’t cough up), and all while the money they take with violence only gets abused in the most extravagant and heinous manner.
>but you yourself admit that consequences are what stop criminal actions- i steal your wallet and you shoot me, and such.
Yes, consequences must be imposed on actual criminals (those violating natural law morality). But we as individuals and as a community must take responsibility to solve this without we ourselves becoming violent criminals in the process, which is exactly what taxation is. We can’t become criminals, and institutionalize criminality so that it operates an 1000X scale, to solve the problem of there being criminals.
Oakgnarl
Dude….if you’re using what Jesus said then you can’t say “yeah, but he really meant” lol.
Jesus was OK with taxation, I never said he was enthusiastic about it. The apostles were probably not enthusiastic about slavery, but they accepted it as a fact (like most people in most places in most of history)…..yet somehow people discovered these “natural “ rights in the 1700s….weird that no one noticed them before dont you think?
“…The reason we call it “natural” law is because the criteria that determine things like stealing and raping are bad are NOT whimsical, not just made up by someone arbitrarily. Raping is immoral, and this is non-negotiable, not up for debate, certainly not up for vote…”
Well, let’s look at that
1) rape and theft is pretty common in the animal world
2) They were also common to most of human history and most human cultures
3) they go on to this day
So how exactly are they “against nature”???
They appear to be very natural and normal for everywhere except a little slice of Europe….in fact one of the issues their having in Europe is the weird need to tell migrants that it’s NOT ok to rape the kids.
So your telling me that a natural right is a “Real thing” but no one knew about it, and it’s seen it nature , but it’s not natural…..?
I mean, I like white people as much as anyone else but I dont think we’re gonna magically know this stuff when no one else does.
As to natural rights….they are “real” and
A)not everyone knows about them (have you ever lived with 3rd worlders ?)
And
B) I can violate them and nature does not punish me?
Sure YOU might punish me for being a scum bag, but that’s because YOU (not nature) act on me…..if I try to break other natural
Law (like gravity) NATURE punishes me. You see why i am skeptical of these “natural rights” existing outside a social construct?????
we don’t live in a nation made of euros whi share a common moral outlook anymore- your arguments made sense when those with different moral outlooks were unknown wogs far away that we never met in person
Re: “Yet, China, the center of this version of Buddhism, became communist.” There is an account of how this came about in the book “Return To The Middle Kingdom”, Yuan-tsung Chen.
Short story: China has experienced Sun Yat-sen and various study groups have become well formed and from overseas, Western educated Chinese have migrated in to build a new China.
A delegation is sent as observers to the Versailles Conference post WW1 and to their dismay learn that the Great Powers are planning to occupy / exploit China in the near future.
Once back in China they report their findings and a decision is made to ally with the newly formed Soviet Union which would forge a doctrinal opposition to the colonization of China. This led to young Chinese patriots being sent off to the Soviet Union for indoctrination and for Soviet operators being sent to China to organize things.
As intended, the Great Powers avoided advances on China and one of the young Chinese patriots sent to the Soviet Union, Mao Tse-tung, made the cover of Rolling Stone, as it were.
So the communism started in resistance to colonization by the west.
I will try to find that book.
The fall or reshaping of civilizations.
Always an interesting topic
Zyxzven
If your interested in civilizational cycles you might like this guy
Sir John Glynn, Fate of empire, being read aloud. It’s all about how we rise and fall and the signs and cycles.
The channel has his other one (search for survival)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SBLPDfu8XGQ&pp=ygUUR2x1YiBmYXRlIG9mIGVtcGlyZSA%3D
You might also like the book “Prophets of doom” by Neema Parvini, he goes thru the cyclic history guys and condensed their work down to an overview.
Glubb not Glynn-typo in my post
Sold! Gonna buy a copy now.
Regarding some of my own thoughts on the breaking of chains and the leaving from cages of the mind.
https://corbettreport.com/nwnw594/#comment-179395
For an in depth exploration of some of the psychological warfare tactics used by oligarchs to indoctrinate people into the global Statist Cult and make them into willing (and often enthusiastic) life long debt slaves suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/implanted-sociopolitical-identities
It’s Etienne de la Boetie2 here… Thank you for supporting our work! I have some pro-tips in the comment below on the best way to buy the book since we are on our way to being sold out! In Liberty,
Etienne de la Boetie2
Executive Director, The Art of Liberty Foundation
Author, To See the Cage is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many
Get the book: SeeTheCage.com
All Our Important Links: https://linktr.ee/ArtOfLiberty
My original writings and research: ArtOfLiberty.Substack.com
Our daily summary of the best of the alt. media: DailyNewsFromAoLF.Substack.com
http://www.ArtOfLiberty.org
@HSL
Thanks man I appreciate the comment.
I have a copy of your first book (“Government: The Biggest Scam in History Exposed!”) and I find it to be a great tool at gatherings for sparking meaningful discussion. My only point of contention with it is that while you highlighted the parallels between the statist regimes of the US, USSR, Nazi Germany and East Germany you totally neglected to highlight the fascistic, totalitarian and starkly cultlike statist indoctrination methods that are prevalent here in the land many people call “Canada” ! I felt so left out! I mean, we did have a cult leader that went full on Caesar mode for a bit and declared a state of emergency in order to nullify any illusion of “rights” for protestors etc… surely he deserved a page or two of dishonor! And what about that twitchy lady that likes to freeze people’s bank accounts if they ask for their bodily autonomy to be respected!? She is in a league of her own as far as statist goons and stage actors go! 🙂 Well I look forward to seeing if you have mentioned the methodology of our in the closet fascist government here in Canada in the next book. 😉
When I went to order your book, I took a minute to reconsider and I thought what about some form of transaction where we minimize feeding into all the middlemen in the Fiat currency (banking transaction) rackets?
What about a trade? I`ll trade you a copy of my book, which you can learn more about here https://recipesforreciprocity.com/ (and some heirloom seeds saved from my garden that can help you boycott big pharma and big ag) for a copy of your book.
What do you think?
Hi Gavin, Definitely glad to do barter! Please send me your address and I will ship out a signed copy of To See the Cage and a signed copy of the new 5th Edition of “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! for a copy of Recipes for Reciprocity and some heirloom seeds!
If anyone else is interested in doing barter, silver, Goldbacks, crypto, or can’t afford a copy then please e-mail me at Etienne@ArtOLiberty.com and I’ll get you hooked up!
@HSL
Right on brother! I`ll send you an email and we can do a book exchange.
I love subverting the fiat currency scams and trading knowledge for knowledge (in a physical low-no tech format).
Looking forward to reading what you have put together and sharing in my circles.
@HSL
Some hints offering a sneak peak of a couple of the seed varieties I am gonna send you with your signed copy of my book 🙂
These felt particularly apt given the nature of your book and your professional experience in finance.
We can find seed # 1. via taking a little flash back to a 2022 thread on here about The Original Outlaw Seditious Rebel Grain! 😉
https://corbettreport.com/december-open-thread-2022/#comment-143580
For info on seed variety #2 check out this thought experiment post where I offer a formula to turn a handful of seeds into 30 million dollars worth of produce in 7 years!
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-best-investment-on-earth-is-earth
(i`ll send you info on the other seed types I am sending you via email)
No.
“The control of information is something the elite always does, particularly in a despotic form of government. Information, knowledge, is power. If you can control information, you can control people.”
– Tom Clancy
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
“There’s really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear.”
– Ted Turner
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
“The American people don’t read.”
– Former CIA director Allen Dulles, speaking about how the American people would respond to the inconsistencies in the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Using visuals forces a person to accept the author/presenter’s idea of what is being discussed. With words the reader can use their own interpretation of what is being presented. IE: You are walking down a beach, it is a beautiful day. A picture forces on to accept that as the subject. But one’s experience and imagination will create what sort of beach, what time of day, etc.
In my song videos without images, and just a clever thumb nail, I offer in 3 mins on average complete stories with a beginning, middle, ending.
GET OFF THE PHONE (song)
https://old.bitchute.com/video/2QbsxZOkIYjA/
It’s Etienne de la Boetie2 here.. cool tune.. I am going to make that the Truth Music of the week in our Five Meme Friday newsletter! In Liberty,
Etienne de la Boetie2
Executive Director, The Art of Liberty Foundation
Author, To See the Cage is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many
Get the book: SeeTheCage.com
All Our Important Links: https://linktr.ee/ArtOfLiberty
My original writings and research: ArtOfLiberty.Substack.com
Our daily summary of the best of the alt. media: DailyNewsFromAoLF.Substack.com
http://www.ArtOfLiberty.org
hey there, i was wondering about the penname and when you said towards the end that you want to be the person who goes viral, etc. do you mean yourself or your pen name? i’m not trying to be snarky, i’m just kinda wondering how you identify or keep the personalities distinct. or are they the same? i’m too simple minded to be able to operate under a pen name!
I used the pen name because my ex-wife had my kids in the “government” school system. My kids are over 18 with one finishing and one already graduated college so I could go back to my real name BUT now everyone knows me as Etienne de la Boetie2. Many, many people in the Liberty movement know my real name, every donor to the Art of Liberty Foundation knows my real name, I will eventually share it but expect to keep publishing under EdlB2 to not confuse the market.
I don’t think anyone’s world view has changed because of my books. What people tell me just seems like lip service.
@Vienticus Prime
Do you mean books you’ve written or books you recommend to friends?
books I’ve written
Vienticus
Books can change someone’s mind about a lot of things, but they need to be open to the change for that to happen
At the end of the day a book is just a speech stored on paper, plenty of people have heard good speakers and then decided the new POV they “could” adopt is not in their interests, or does not suit them emotionally.
The reason memes and visual images are effective is that they side step thinking and work on the emotional level.
Most people decide what they want ti believe based on their feelies
pretty much
At about 23 min the guest shows the clip of the TV sign off with “subliminal messages” and it’s not very convincing for the following reasons
1) The text color and font look nothing like the movie clip
2) subliminal messages saying “obey” and “consume” appear to be more of a homage to the movie “They Live” then a message you would put in a real subliminal (both are very open ended, as far as I know subliminals tend to be direct and simple, not philosophical)
3) This chap claims to have a recording without the messages, and further claims that this was not a universally shown clip.
“Oddity Archive: Episode 4.5 – National Anthem Conspiracy Theory (or, Sign-Offs Vol. 2)” YouTube
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj5b_z5kGvg&pp=ygUsU3VibGltaW5hbCBzaWduIGlmZiB0diB0cnVzdGJ0aGUgZ292ZXJubWVudCA%3D
I’ve seen the clip before and thought it looked doctored , it’s been doing the rounds for years.
Etienne de la Boetie2 here… Vigilant Citizen has done an ever deeper dive into the subliminal messages in the sign-off video where he acknowledges the specifics of the Oddity Archive claims but breaks down why they are not conclusive and additional evidence that the video is authentic: https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/broadcast-national-anthem-1960s-contain-subliminal-messages/
Thanks.
I’ll go ck it out in a bit
Just like UFOs or Bigfoot, to answer the question as to whether the subliminal is real or not, becomes an impossibility to truly know. Flat Earth people and their opposition can’t truly prove their ideas are correct because they haven’t personally gone out into space to see the reality of things. With some muddled areas of conjecture (aka conspiracy theories), some things can simply not be known except as personal, anecdotal accounts.
I’ll provide one of my own.
I am no Spring chicken and I’ve taken my trip around the sun more times than I’d like to remember. As a teenager, I was very, very suspicious of gov’t and television. You might say that I was a precocious conspiracy realist.
I recall an incident where, back in the 70’s, I’d just woken up out of bed, grabbed a cup of coffee and popped the TV on. The show was ‘Happy Days,’ about which, even in my teen years, I had suspicions. (Mind you, I believe the key point here is that I was half asleep, with my brain probably still producing theta waves.)
As the show played, I heard incidental music: a guitar strummed once, and while the iconic Fonzi was on screen, I heard male voices say, “He’s cool.” The guitar strummed again and I heard the voices again, “He’s murder.” What the point of that subliminal was, I can’t tell you, but it was a very, very strange experience indeed. I shook my head in disbelief.
Can I prove I had this experience? Obviously not. To this day I regret that I hadn’t documented the title of the episode I’d seen.
It is my belief that when the brain is in a state of waking up from sleep, it’s able to–how to put this?–slow time down. So, I’m going to relate another experience I had when my brain was in this slowed down state.
Fast forward to 2003. I had just begun recording my first CD, Loop Du Jour. My producer gave me a sample CD to assess. I distinctly recall we had done a major edit on ProTools on one of the songs. I popped the CD in and thought I’d listen while drifting off for a nap. I melted into that half-asleep/half-awake state just before officially falling asleep.
The song with the big edit began to play. Now, mind you, me and my producer, when in the studio, had high fived that edit while marveling at the magic of digital editing. It seemed to be seamless. We were overjoyed!
As that song play to my half asleep ears, I suddenly was jarred awake. I not only heard the edit but it sounded atrocious! So, now quite alert, I played the song back to the area where the edit occurred. I couldn’t hear the edit whatsoever.
Point being that when the brain is shifting into sleep mode, we are capable of perceiving more than just the obvious but also the subtle. If that star spangled banner clip was for real, it would make sense that it would be played at the sign off, when people are at the end of their day and ready to sleep.
Vincignito
“….Just like UFOs or Bigfoot, to answer the question as to whether the subliminal is real or not, becomes an impossibility to truly kno…..”
That’s a very silly way to look at it.
It is either a fake someone made or a real message….odds are clearly on n fake
There is a video- one can certainly compare it to ones others have (which do NOT have the subliminal)
One can certainly compare the font and text color (which look nothing like the visible text – a font expert could probably date the fonts creation
One can look at what messages it’s putting out and if they happen to be a copy of the “they live” messages rather then actually used subliminal messages.
The idea that “you cant” know and comparing a simple dating and verification job wiyh “Bigfoot or ufos” is soft thinking that will let you believe anything that suits your taste whether true or BS…..a pretty useless way to think since the general point of knowing stuff is correct action and soft thinking can not provide that
Hi Everyone, It’s Etienne de la Boetie2 here… James was partially correct when he described “The Corbett Bump” we received for “Government” – The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! We didn’t sell out of one print run… We sold out of seven plus print runs… We’re on track for the same sell-out this time around, despite being better stocked than last time. Here are some PRO-TIPs for buying the book: 1. Please Do NOT buy the book on Amazon (A Mason!). It takes us longer to get the book to Amazon, and for them to restock it. Plus, they rip us off with fees and run dirty tricks like “Losing the Buy Box”. 2. Please buy the book on SeeTheCage.com, OR you can get the book by going paid on ArtOfLiberty.Substack.com. Use the Coupon Code: Substack10 at SeeTheCage.com for 10% off, which will cover some of the cost of “free” shipping. 3. Please get your order in as early as possible. We already have hundreds more copies on the way.. They have to hit our distribution center 1st before we can ship them to Amazon, so it is the fastest way to get the book. 4. Please don’t be afraid to backorder!! It is still the quickest way to get the book! 5. You can get a SIGNED high-resolution hardcopy of BOTH books + Liberator Flash Drive + everything else in our “Everything Bundle” by becoming a Founding Member of the Substack at ArtOfLiberty.Substack.com. THANK YOU to James and Broc for such a fantastic interview, and THANK YOU to everyone who supports the work of the Art of Liberty Foundation! We are going to win this thing! REAL Freedom… Worldwide! –
In Liberty,
Etienne de la Boetie2
Executive Director, The Art of Liberty Foundation
Author, To See the Cage is to Leave It – 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many
Get the book: SeeTheCage.com
All Our Important Links: https://linktr.ee/ArtOfLiberty
My original writings and research: ArtOfLiberty.Substack.com
Our daily summary of the best of the alt. media: DailyNewsFromAoLF.Substack.com
http://www.ArtOfLiberty.org
HSL
Hi
I posted ,in the comments here, a criticism of the inclusion of the video on subliminal messages.
You might want to check out the authenticity of that clip before you link it to your name
Etienne de la Boetie2 here… Vigilant Citizen has done an ever deeper dive into the subliminal messages in the sign-off video where he acknowledges the specifics of the Oddity Archive claims but breaks down why they are not conclusive and additional evidence that the video is authentic: https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/broadcast-national-anthem-1960s-contain-subliminal-messages/
I love your work Etienne.
Everything you say/do makes so much sense.
I tried to apply the Coupon Code: Substack10 at SeeTheCage.com for 10% off but it didn’t work. It applied around 1% off.
Can you please e-mail me directly at [SNIP – sorry, Etienne, no email addresses in the comments section. People can contact you at your contact link or email me for your direct address. -JC]
Trying to teach humans via text is like trying to dig ditches via spoon.
lol, thats funny but I dont think it’s true. It’s more like the ditch digger is too feeble to lift a spade and has to use a spoon.
Another analogy might be the people who try to do old school karate but dont don’t do the years of conditioning they would need to actually make the techniques work well.
Text is great for teaching, BUT ONLY WHEN dealing with people who have got enough training and experience to actually get anything out of it. You can’t expect people who were deliberately taught “reading is hard and no fun” to willingly study anything.
I managed to make a few new enemies this past January with my remarks during the national anthem pre-game festivities before the NFC (american football) Championship Game. One of the few rituals remaining from my former normie life is that a normie friend and I attend a viewing of said game annually in a banquet hall full of dyed in the wool sportsball fans.
This year’s game, held in Philadelphia, featured a pre-game salute (for which the banquet goers, for some unknown reason, feel compelled to stand for even though it’s on TV and not in person) which included a falconer who brought an eagle on a tether, which was released so that the eagle may fly one lap around the stadium, followed by a flyover of military jets over the stadium.
My remark, which was said maybe a bit too loudly, was “nothing screams freedom more than a captive eagle who dutifully returns to his master, followed by a reminder that the military can bomb us into oblivion at any time.” Thankfully the response was just a lot of dirty looks lol.
haha! awesome!
You sure are one party pooper.
This book sounds – and looks – very interesting, but as some commentators mention, this is the way it happened in the US, but things went very differently throughout history in other countries, other continents (I live in Ireland but am originally from France).
I was wondering if Etienne de la Boetie (pronounce Boecie) would mind if I tried to rephrase – and reimage – and adapt his book to different histories / other countries… Well, two of them. Trying could be fun.
Of course, I would send anything I write to you both, James and Etienne, before sending anything to anyone else…
And again, thank you for what you do. And carry on!
Federal employees most certainly pay taxes. In fact, they receive threatening prompt emails prior to tax time citing various punishments if they fail to pay their taxes on time. Yes, they are paying taxes from the salaries paid by the Feds. They are also subject to summary layoffs, firings, promotion freezes, etc., because the Feds have complete power over them. In the past, an attractive benefits/retirement package served as a powerful carrot: that has been seriously degraded.
Is it any better when they are fired and get a job for a private govt contractor? Not really.
Here’s a podcast i’d like to see : James Corbett with Etienne de la Boetie (squared), AND Alexander C. Karp. To See The Cage is to Leave It VS The Technological Republic. The epitome of one side with the epitome of the other. Debate is the best!…really. Debate is where it’s at.
Interesting that Hitler tried to remove “class consciousness” from the youth through his youth programs. Profound really..
The Nazis were every bit as revolutionary as the Bolsheviks and the New Deal administration. The Nazis were often running into conflict with olde schoole monarchists and the aristocracy of the old system as well as commies and such.
The stated aim was to create a peoples state (presumably where they drove about in “peoples cars” , lol, the VOLKS Wagon and drank Fanta which was the Nazi version of coke)
If I recall right the SS ( a party organization shoe horned into the military) were taught to call each other “comrade” and Hitler was personally focused on making German food manufacturers take nasty chemicals out of the food. The media have always mixed up the Prussian officer types and the Nazi types, when actually they were very different.
Good books on that “ww2 thru German eyes” Lucas
“The Nazi war on cancer “ Proctor
this was a great interview and really sold me on the book. gonna buy. i originally wasn’t that interested in a memebook as it originally seemed but i think it would actually be a good way to try to get my husband to understand voluntaryism and why we shouldn’t have government. I was really intrigued by the cult line of reasoning. I feel like as a born and bred Texan that i have also been subjected to the cult of Texas, in additional to the cult of the US, etc. I have long been aware of the granfalloon that is Texas and all the other fake identity groups, but i never really thought of it as a cult. until today. Very interesting conversation you posted. thank you.
It’s in the doing.
Q4C, the comment section has changed. This is another distraction. The head banging gets in the way of the message. The message is causing the head banging. It certainly doesn’t matter as much as the good news of the message. Have you done something ,finally addressing the comments section?
The comments are a complete distraction. It’s there for a reason. Is it not one of the 25 ways and means of the invisible cage Boetie2 has pronounced?
Mr. Boetie2 has so many insights and realizations of the framework that creates or culture. It is a cult and woe to anyone who goes against the flow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m looking forward to September ,to my little university i attended , who will be playing D1 football against ..NAVY. The spectacle has been and will certainly be a poop show of all Mr. Boetie2 has illustrated.
What a wonderful venue to hand out his book. The illustrations will help those in my circle who have taken 2+ boosters of the jabby jabs , purely for patriotic reasons.
I believe a Thank you Mr.Boetie2 is in order.
I hardly can afford it, the 5 bundle of books. On the invoice it said an additional 5 paperbacks were listed as free.
I’m assuming you are sending 10 copies?
That’s what I really wanted , the $100 I didn’t have in my pocket today, would have gotten the 10 books I wanted. So 10 are coming and the last $68 bucks I had will get the 10 . Life is a miracle and thank you Mr. Boetie2 . Maybe out of the 40,000 people at the game I can find 9 people who will read your book. That’s a Good day at the track if you ask me .
GBW
“….as much as the good news of the message….”
The good news…..almost like a Gospel? 😉
Thats maybe a bit of a cult like a way to phrase it. The message is only good if it’s useful to the people it reaches.
Quack !
This abstract idea, need be a review. Heisenberg review, will it show in your minds eye what a base thrown on acid or an acid thrown on a base will create.
“The message is only good if it’s……(?) Or (!) [that’s a question (?) or an answer (!)]
Useful for who? The receiver or the deceiver?
Are You or are you not a skin bag of acids and bases ? Do you have a certain culture? Do you have precursors? Are you an anaerobic action waiting for oxidation to spark you into animation?
So in the end is voluntarism any less or more than statism? Using Heisenberg uncertainty of position or momentum which way do we go ? And how fast are we getting there ?.
Get to work Duck.
Gbw
Dude, whatever your smoking does not improve your clarity of communication.
The guest here made many good points about the cultish nature of “the state” but one should be careful when throwing acid around to dissolve bonds. The nature of CULTure is that it’s held together by common ideas and bonds and just as one can dissolve ones own body , and die as the organs perish, wiyh acid one can dissolve the social “body” that allows us to survive.
Only the most stupid of boomers actually think they can exist as an atomic individual for long without a firm culture….even the Illuminist nut job Paine understood that man is a creature of community. Do you think you can hold a community together by intellectual will? Choosing every second if you will or will not be part of it?
It’s good to see, it’s good to see thru glass, it’s not good to see though absolutely everything because if you do you are actually blind.
But as to “…. So in the end is voluntarism any less or more than statism….”
They are not really opposites. They are ends of a spectrum, or perhaps a circle that meets when you go far enough around.
Such a case might be when you think voluntaryism is a Gospel to share rather then a set of ideas made by men.
“…. Get to work Duck….”
There, I did. Your welcome;)
Quack Quack
That wasn’t very much work. aside note: what does ” wyih” mean?
Now as far as culture goes; from Google:
Learned and Shared:
Culture is acquired through a process called enculturation, where individuals learn the norms, values, and behaviors of their society. This learning process involves socialization through various institutions like family, education, and media.
[ Note the last line; …various institutions…- family, education, and media.]
Then going farther;
Dynamic:
Cultures are not static; they change and adapt over time in response to various factors like globalization, technological advancements, and new experiences. [ Note the last line ; …various factors…- globalization, technological…and new experiences .]
Heisenberg , Duck, not dope smoking quack head.
Position per Google is fixed enculturation . Ironically Google Learned and Shared : says family , but we all know it’s media at the top, education next and family way down the list. Is it not headed towards annihilation . Take out the leadership of the family and….position is easily fixed.
Next the momentum; as you can see Google fixes the dynamic on Globalization, Technology and NEW
Experiences.
This all leads to Socialization.
These bonds won’t weaken without alchemy . They won’t uncreate the Google interpretation of momentum and location being definable,comfortable and compatible with reality. So here’s your chance to do something with the base and the acid of the real world. They are not going away unless they are unbound.
Gbw
“….what does ” wyih” mean?….”
Dude….I ask myself the same of your circuitous writing and weird allusions.
Like, for example ,I just read what you wrote and I can’t actually find you making any country points ti what I said…..you do have a pretty good impression of Charlie Mansons speech patterns going on there though.
If you actually disagree with what I wrote earlier then try to make it clear what your saying and I will probably get round to responding
Duck
You quack me up. You and I share so many similarities. But one I can say for sure is you have no capacity for abstract thinking. So, I too was a dyslexic , it made my world full of weird allusions. Right was left . I said it was on right All the while I would point to the left and say it was on the right. Impatient, read over and past things. Spelling was pure memorisation, too impatient for that until it dawned on me how important it is. Comprehension, caused me having to read things multiple times. It took lots of practice, time and effort. Saying things clearly is so boring . Puzzles and math were where the intuitive skills were born. Boetie2 confirms a small visual can speak volumes. Allusions flow , patterns form to precognitive levels. That helped a lot in mechanical contracting. You had to visualize everything . Diagnosis had to be fast and accurate to make the big bucks. Not many academics in the field had a clue how to diagnose anything fast.
It was rewarding to help those in the field better themselves. You… so much promise, you show potential for a chicken farmer dabbling in other fields.
I just want to get along with you Rodney while the nightstick glides gracefully up side your head, I guess I can’t help with making the country points ti. Or the 30 or more wyih uses this last month.
So far you have answered no questions to our romping around these abstract statements. You probly read over them. Why not answer the questions? You gonna give up the secrets to Ducking out?
You did have a great idea about the journals. Applying them to here and all the other feeds of personal interest could be very enlightening. There is something there. Damn sure is. Answer if you will take your time I’m bored to death waiting on God.
https://images.app.goo.gl/CgT78NfVnofRRRCW8
Charlie bottle washer
“….Boetie2 confirms a small visual can speak volume….”
Yes, they can indeed.
But that does nit shiw yew tee hole pictore do yt?
A meme can just as easily tell a lie, probably more easily then text can because (like the TV) it can slip past your reasoning faculties and slide right into your brain.
A meme can convey a lot, rapidly, but that does not make it “true” or “correct” – like jokes and comedy from such people as Carlin it can also JUST be propaganda that acts like an acid ti dissolve without actually conveying anything better or giving you anything useful.
I may not be a likeable chap, Charlie, but I do try to put something usefoin a comment- and to be useful it must be intelligible (heven thro te typoos)
“….just want to get along with you Rodney while the nightstick glides gracefully up side your head, …”
Thank you.
I doubt we shall ever meet in real life (for which I am also thankful) so hopefully neither of us will ever have to see what the results of such a thing might be.
Duck,
You make a fun endeavor difficult. You don’t have to explain your artistic work but it would be nice. I don’t like wrap at all but this i think is the originators of wrap. I may be wrong but at the time it was allusionary.
Maybe we’ll meet some day, at the track, Lone Star maybe. I don’t go to strip clubs or dispensaries , crack popper gay clubs so maybe the track.
You quack me up, really. Origin of the nightstick reference.
https://youtu.be/2RZdg_DRXw8?si=8VwIppYoDE2JiDMx
James, thank you for interviewing Etienne. His simple, visual style is incredibly informative.
“It was actually a survival trait to have a strong leader”
>was
Until when? “Leaders” we have but they are by no metric strong. For a leader to have strength it necessitates that they can’t be got at (regardless of temperament) which isn’t what we have now.
Found it a little odd when I’m told that a people like the American Indians were manipulated by evil whitey in government schools but the next breath we hear “the once free Indians” is a little to noble savage Rousseau for my liking. Mankind is part of the animal kingdom and on some metric I think the voluntarism doesn’t have much hope precisely because of property rights and free association. At some point when you talk about property rights you’ll have to reach for a stick to defend them. Then when you’ve decided whats fair for you to have you might expand that to your family and on to your tribe. Wouldn’t even need to be violent. Just look at the steady advance of the Amish.
>The Amish Population Has Grown Over 130% Since 2000
https://amishamerica.com/the-amish-population-has-grown-over-130-percent-this-century-2025-report/
I’m taking that at face value
The one thing which the Amish have is shunning. So a person doesn’t like living in a community that doubles every 20 years? They can leave any time. You can criticize conformity on any metric you like but you have to admit on the evolutionary front it packs a punch.
That was another thing which kind of bugged me “the founding fathers warned us about” and a few moments before we’re hearing about the ridiculousness of “the constitution”. These things don’t just fall out of the sky and sometimes the reason a people are in the middle of conforming is because a group of people love them on the level of family or kinship. The reason we aren’t seeing so much of the rah rah flagwaving that we used to isn’t so much that people are “waking up” (in the logical sense) but rather the conformity they are failing with has to do with the atomised and cosmopolitan vision of the future which next to nobody wants. Thats why you’re seeing the government in England wetting the bed with all this censorship guff. Who do you think they have in mind? Well in truth its all homogeneous peoples for the policy of divide and conquer.
>The Online Safety Act is having a ‘catastrophic’ impact on free speech after people were blocked from viewing videos of asylum seeker hotel protests, campaigners have warned.
>Users of X – formerly Twitter – complained they were unable to view clips of police detaining activists in the UK, with messages on-screen saying it was ‘due to local laws’.
>X even barred users from watching a powerful speech about grooming gangs which Conservative MP Katie Lam made to Parliament earlier this year.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14945805/Online-Safety-Act-free-speech-users-blocked-asylum-seeker-hotel-protests.html
Then again maybe I’ll change my mind when I finally get to that Robert Putnam book…
Limey
Things got really bad when we stopped making those who wanted power go fight as officers….as scummy and evil as JFK and Bush the 1st were they had to go thru the Great Filter of having people trying to shoot them. The very worst of them go or didnt make it thru. The freaks in charge today are disgraceful
“…a little to noble savage Rousseau for my liking….”
There is a lot of that, i kinda wonder what the average age of a member here is because the Boomers were the first to get programming wiyh that slant.
Consider how much “dances with wolves” type propaganda even “awake” people consumed if they were youngish in the 90s. I find white saviorism a bit disgusting TBH, but they were pumping that stuff into our heads until at least the early 2010s
The real black pill is that most people, even if they get all the information about how the world actually works, cant dump the emotional hook of that propaganda…..they still think we live in a Hollywood movie.
Thinking of Étienne de La Boétie, one of his quotes that should definitely be put in image is “They appear great only because we are on our knees”.
It’s direct, simple and already very much illustrates the notion of indoctrination.
As a female, I can’t tell you how exciting it is to see the beginnings of this kind of dialogue and attempt at structural change. The future of our species literally depends on it. What urgently needs to be discussed, IMO, is male culture, male models of thinking, male dominance across time, top to bottom, left to right, the saturation of male pattern sociopathy which is repeated endlessly, not to mention male pattern psychopathy which is gradually killing everything. By male pattern I mean competition, paranoia, secrecy, warring, winning, brotherhoods. By male pattern I mean originating from the testicle imperative, the bio-drivers which we cannot escape and yet nobody seems to want to discuss or even acknowledge. Females have it, too, I call it tyranny of the ovaries.
How will you good males, the ones who see the problems and want to change them, make the “bad” males go away and stay away? How will you good males keep the bad guys from power? And in before the typical response: Yes, females are part of the problem, females can be worse socio-psychopaths than males, but they are simply patriarchy’s handmaidens, steeped in male pattern thinking, and they are in the micro-minority; so that takes us back to the essential truth that males run the world, and males will have to evolve humanity and its myriad of social/political/economic structures–and also evolve themselves–or we will never get out out of this chronic malaise.
Jordan Peterson recently discussed the issue of sociopathy/pschopathy in male leadership and for me that was viscerally exciting to see.
S
“….What urgently needs to be discussed, IMO, is male culture, male models of thinking, male dominance across time, top to bottom, left to right, the saturation of male pattern sociopathy which is repeated endlessly, not to mention male pattern psychopathy which is gradually killing everything….”
Maybe, but the real issue we have today is that the ruling class has turned many women into a weaker, more easily controlled version of a man…..a version that will default to obedience to authority since that tends to be female nature.
Meanwhile men, stripped of their traditional roles are often pretty pathetic as they step aside from their actual purpose.
The problem with “male thinking” is more that the social structure of patriarchal systems has been torn up and men act like defective women and focus on their own needs rather then lead a family…there is a LACK of actual male thinking which would demand fair wages to provide for their families.
Both the defective males and defective females have no future- their birth rate is only as high as it is ( which is not even sustainable) thru the artificial addition of Gov money to supplement women bringing up kids in broken homes, when that ends (as it will if we want it or not) only historically normal people will make it thru.
Consider how bad things are when boyd need a freak like Juden Peterson to tell them normal junk they would have gotten off their relatives and friends 🙁
>By male pattern I mean competition, paranoia, secrecy, warring, winning, brotherhoods.
Of these things, only “warring” is necessarily unhealthy, and only on the part of the aggressor. Immorality (unprincipled behavior and thinking) is the real problem, not testosterone. While I acknowledge that there has historically been an unfortunate trend of hyper-masculinity that is unbalanced, being out of touch with feminine qualities such as receptivity and compassion, and that is a large and valid problem, I agree with Duck, perhaps larger problem for men culturally (and more recently) is the emasculation and feminizing of men, not “competitiveness”, and certainly not “brotherhood”, which have very positive aspects in their own right. And let’s not forget that the attack on both genders through inversion, the effort to pussify males and make women act like men, has been largely a feminist agenda.
Balanced consciousness is the key, IMO, and we need to be careful when we address hyper-masculine imbalance that we don’t over-react and eviscerate the sacred masculine in the process, which embraces the positive aspects of things like “competition”, “brotherhood”, and even “winning”.
>How will you good males,
Ahem. I’d like to step up, and include myself as part of this group 🙂
>the ones who see the problems and want to change them, make the “bad” males go away and stay away? How will you good males keep the bad guys from power?
As a “good male”, I accept the charge of responsibility for protecting my community and family from “bad” males (or females for that matter), using force if necessary and where that will be effective. But, we good males, we’re not God almighty. The power of the brainwashed collective is too great for us to overcome in some kind of final victory (at least for now). We can only do what we can, and which we should.
To this end, as a “good male”, I will attempt to be a good role model for my children, and for children generally, and for my peers. To educate both them and myself, to exemplify love (genuine care for others’ well being), balanced consciousness, value for both masculine and feminine qualities in both men and women, and above all, to respect life by acting in consistency with moral principle.
The Art of Liberty Substack link is incorrect. It links to Arts of Liberty – it should link to Art of Liberty.
Thank you for pointing that out! That was my mistake. The link has been corrected.
“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”
― Étienne de La Boétie
One of my favorite and most cited quotes from the original Étienne… my guiding light regarding the question of “so what do we do about it?” In practical terms today this means not voting, and not paying taxes (or more precisely: avoiding being robbed by the state). Of course, “not paying taxes” in the broadest sense includes boycotting fiat currency.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich CANNOT escape his cage.
His most recent statement from 7/30/25 :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFVapSpNWe4
“Sunlight Prosecuted The Trial of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Justice Made in Germany” book by Andrea G. Henning is available at thriftbooks.com (if you wish to avoid amazon).
To not speak, is to speak. To not act, is to act.
The state has the power to erect and abuse these physical cages, and perpetrate crime under the banner of “justice”, only because of the mental cage in which it holds a majority of people: the mental enslavement that is belief in authority, belief in and support of the state. The economic power of the state flows directly from this delusion, this willingness of a mass of people to vote, pay their taxes, join the police or military, and ultimately to follow rules and orders that violate moral principle. This is precisely why messages and content like the guest’s is so important.
“I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason.”
“The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” – Frederick Douglass
“The law of freedom states that aggregate morality and aggregate freedom are directly proportional to each other.” – Mark Passio
“When the people recognize and accept no master, they will have no master. Ultimately, their bondage, and the means to escape it, exists entirely inside their own minds.”
“enslaving the mind makes enslaving the body unnecessary. And that is exactly what the belief in “authority” does: it teaches people that it is morally virtuous that they surrender their time, effort and property, as well as their freedom and control over their own lives, to a ruling class.” -Larken Rose
Here’s a good case example of what happens to the excellent crypto technology when the “majority” is brought into question. In the crypto world, this qubic thing is a minnow at best. There can only be one and I forsee people getting wiped out.
https://takebackourtech.org/moneros-51-attack-centralization-vs-decentralization/
Why can’t the comments be latest ones at the top? Some of the comments were very lengthy and just a few words per line taking even longer to get to my submission box!! Gov are certainly curtailing us in France – we are still stopped from getting Rumble; and I have always agreed that Governments have always ripped us off! Found out by the way that in Gaza there are only 3 distribution centres (only in the South) which are in COMBAT ZONES this is breaking contravention 4 of the Geneva Convention. The rest of the population are starving and isolated. When Jonny Moore arrives – all spick and span then someone shows up and a baby comes to the fore – just a bag of bones!
If you press the “X comments” link below the article title, on the right hand side, the page will scroll automatically to the bottom, where the comment box resides by default.
I can’t seem to find the earlier interview about Government. Where is it? Thanks
It’s the second link in the show notes.
https://corbettreport.com/how-to-present-info-for-visual-learners-solutionswatch/
There is also this one.
https://corbettreport.com/solutionswatch-whiterose/