Success Warrior: The Blog That Embraces ADHD

The Logic Behind a Second Lockdown

So,

The second lockdown has commenced in Utah with the restriction that only people who live in your house are allowed in your house.  Your reaction to this over-reach that goes way beyond what we could have ever imagine happening in the United States is probably similar to what mine was.  This isn't the USSR, after all, but before you run off to post your rant on LieToYourFacebook which will just get censored anyway, hear me out.  I have been doing some research on the logic behind the lockdown and I've had a change of heart.  Let me share my findings with you to see if you too will come around to the right way of thinking.  For some people, the thought of going through logic may sound tedious so I'll use an analogy as I go to help clear up the logic while hopefully making it less boring.

The quick and dirty of the lockdown logic comes down to this: the number of dangerously contagious people in society is skyrocketing and therefore, we need to separate everyone from everyone.  It does impose on those that aren't a risk and those not at risk but the the virus is so deadly that it justifies the oppressive measure.  Until the United States becomes a truly 1984 police state where people wear or are implanted with biometric devices that signal when they are sick and surveillance is so complete that we know everyone that sick person has come in contact with, we have to use this less precise approach.  Luckily, the goal is to have the better solution in place by 2030 so it won't be long before mass lockdowns are a thing of the barbaric past that we'll be able to laugh at.

The problem we are trying to deal with is that people with C1984 are dangerous to everyone else in the population and should be isolated from everyone else.  By doing this, we can stop this cold virus from killing every human being on the planet.   For our analogy, we'll say that people who have accidents on the freeway where the speed limit is typically 75 mph (121 kph) or 80 mph (129 kph) on more remote stretches of road are dangerous to everyone else on the freeway.  The high speed on these roadways means that accidents are much more likely to result in serious injury and death than on roads where cars are traveling much slower.  Obviously, steps should be taken to remove these dangerous drivers from the freeway before they have an accident.  To help get funding and public support for increased safety measures, we need to demonstrate just how dangerous the situation is by reporting the extraordinarily high numbers of accidents that are occurring at the present.  How can we do this?

The key to knowing how bad things are and what actions are required is to identify the dangerous people.  With drivers, we enforce various traffic laws to keep cars in their respective lanes and at a safe speed.  Those that continue to violate these laws are deemed dangerous and their driver license is suspended with the intent of keeping them off the roads, hopefully preventing accidents that they would have caused.  With C1984, the common approach to identifying dangerous people is PCR testing.

Lots and lots of PCR testing.  Testing has skyrocketed around the world.  In Utah, the number of tests being done now is about 500% more than it was in April.  In the UK, I've heard the difference is about 20,000%.  You might think that by doing that much more testing, it might be natural to see a correlation in the number of "cases".  You're on the right track.  If you look at the number of accidents on the freeways now compared to 50 years ago, you would expect there to be more accidents now based on the number of additional cars on the road.  You might ask, "but is this justification to completely outlaw driving or lock everyone in their houses?"  Maybe not but it's a good way to ensure that the number of cases does go up somewhat dramatically and is a good first step toward that justification.  

What if there was a way to magnify the "cases" beyond what people might expect?  If you tested 5 times as many people and rather than getting somewhere around 5 times as many cases, you got 23 times as many cases using April 1 and Nov 1 in Utah as an example.  Now, we're definitely talking justification for removal of all human rights from the populace.  The virus has come back with a vengeance.  The people should feel lucky that we allow them out to get groceries.  We could have the national guard deliver meals on wheels and put everyone on house arrest (without the actual arrest, house detention).  

To accomplish this, we test as many people as possible as outlined above using PCR tests and call any positive results "cases."  There are several reasons why the use of PCR tests is vital for this logical lockdown.

First, and possibly most importantly, PCR tests do not test specifically for C1984.  They are testing for viral RNA, any viral RNA.  If you have a cold, a coronavirus, that isn't C1984, it will still return a positive result.  In our crash analogy, it means that we can count people who back up into a light pole in the grocery store as a freeway accident.  This doesn't carry the same risks as crashing at 80 mph but you have to remember that we aren't looking for truth or reality, we are looking for justification to lock people in their houses, keep them from associating with each other, destroy the economy, and make them more willing to accept the 1984 solutions presented when their lives are in complete ruins.

The viral RNA doesn't even have to be a close cousin to C1984.  According to the CDD and FDA, PCR tests will test positive for bacterial pathogens.  That means that in addition to adding people who run into light poles in a parking lot to our count of freeway crashes (cases), we can add people who ride their bicycle into a mailbox as well.

It gets even better though.  We can manipulate PCR tests so that they detect viral RNA that is long dead and inactive.  This is done by adding cycles to the test.  Basically, that means that we look for finer and finer tiny bits of viral RNA.  RNA that is no longer alive and no longer contagious.  We can get a positive result by testing someone who had a cold 6 months ago.  We can test asymptomatic people who are asymptomatic because they don't have C1984 and never have had it and get a positive result.  So, now in our count of freeway accidents, we can add to today's number anyone who has crashed (car or bike, freeway or parking lot or mailbox) in the past.  Dr. Falsey says that cycles should be limited to 35 or less to reduce the chance of picking up traces of dead RNA.  Other doctors say that it should be 33 cycles or less.  If you are actually looking for contagious RNA, it should be 24 cycles or less.  Companies are testing using 37 cycles, 40 cycles, and there is one using 45 cycles.  By doing this, we make it almost a sure thing that the test comes back positive and gets added to the number of "cases."  I'm sure you can see how useful this is in justifying a lockdown. 

It should be pointed out that the FDA recommends that PCR tests not be used for diagnosis because they don't point to a definitive disease.  We will need to ignore that and pretend like these tests were created for detecting C1984.  I'm sure you understand that this is something that must be done in order to justify lockdowns.

Here's the frosting on the cake.  PCR tests return positive results if the person has the antibodies that makes them immune to C1984.  I mean, it doesn't get much cooler than that.  We can add to our freeway crash numbers people who live in places where there are no freeways, where it is physically impossible for them to be in an accident on a freeway.  Seriously, this one doesn't score us as many positives as the healthy people who were sick with some kind of disease at some point in their lives but there is just something very empowering about telling someone that can't contract the disease that they have it.  In your face!

As you can see, by increasing the number of people being tested and increasing the number of "cases" of this deadly virus exponentially, we have justified any and all unconstitutional or inhumane solutions, including lockdowns.  Easy, peasy, lemon, squeezey.

And that's where you must stop the logic.  If you take the next logical step, you completely undermine all of the work that has been done to this point so we won't do that.  For those of you that are happy that lockdowns have been justified and reinstated on the populace, stop reading here.  For those of you who are curious about the next logical step, read on but remember that this is something that will not be implemented because it completely derails the agenda.

In our car analogy, if you were told that freeway car crashes had increased by 23 times over a time period, you would have some expectations.  BTW, for those that are curious, the number of crashes in the United States has been essentially flat when factoring in the increased number of cars.  If there are 5 times more cars, there are about 5 times more accidents, as you might suspect.  Those of you who came to this conclusion earlier in regards to the number of tests being given really were on the right track.  Anyway, if instead of a direct correlation (5 times), you instead had 23 times more accidents reported by the media, you might expect to see:

• Crashed cars all the time on the side of the freeway
• News stories about how tow truck companies can't keep up with demand
• News stories about the trillions of dollars insurance companies are paying out
• Friends and family members who had been involved in some of these accidents
• Maybe even someone in your own household involved in at least one of these accidents

In short, you would rightfully expect to see a reflection in the real world of what was being reported by the government and propaganda sources.

This extremely deadly virus (which is still much less deadly than the boring old flu) has seen "cases" go through the roof, 23 times more now than in April for Utah.  We should be seeing the number of deaths going up in a similar manner.  You would think they would go up somewhere between 5 to 23 times as much, if this virus is so deadly and so many people have it.  Sadly, for our justification, the number of deaths is completely typical for this time of year.  We aren't seeing any correlation at all between "cases" and death.  This is why it is vitally important that we keep hammering away with "cases, cases, cases" and steer clear of any mention of the deaths or the dreadful lack thereof.  If we point this out, it would show that either the virus isn't that deadly or that there really aren't that many people who have it (kind of ruining the whole "pandemic" angle we're going for).  Just between you and me, it's both and this is something that we can't talk about at all or it will completely destroy the logic justifying mandatory masks and lockdowns.  Remember, the mantra for today is "cases, cases, cases" and let's see if we can get even more people tested with these completely unreliable, easily manipulated PCR tests.

We just need this to last a little bit longer.  We are working on our next scam, COVID-21.  We know that COVID-19 basically died off around June and we're asking you to really flog a dead horse by going along with this paper-thin justification but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.  Soon, we'll hit them with the new and improved (meaning more deadly or, at least, scarier sounding) scam pandemic and we can let go of 19.

For any of you that skipped the section on what to avoid and are looking for some kind of conclusion paragraph, I'll say this.  I think it has been clearly and logically demonstrated that lockdowns are completely justified and we are taking steps to make sure that they remain completely justified for the foreseeable future.  Spread the good news to everyone, especially those who have been wearing masks for so long that the reduced oxygen intake and increased CO2 intake has impaired their critical thinking ability.  

Why I Don't Vote (Part 5): Clean Up

So,

In this post, I'll cover the follow up questions and then I'll make a point in the next post that I have found interesting to ponder in the last week, concerning voting.

First, I suppose I should address this common misconception from the first question:

"Doing nothing gets no results at all."

This is common thread and I suppose that it probably comes from the brainwashing that is done by the current rulers.  People have been trained that if they don't vote, they are doing nothing at all to change the system.  However, we all know that voting supports the system and will never create any substantial change to that system.  If it did, people would not be allowed to vote.  Additionally, not voting does not mean that a person is doing nothing.  That would be like me saying that if you aren't reading this blog, you're doing nothing.  People are always doing something and people who don't vote can still attempt to make changes to the system.  I live my life as an example of a peaceful person, I help my neighbors when I can, I teach my children that no one has the right to be their master and that dictating to others what they can do and can't do at the end of a gun is immoral, and I try to teach others about ethics and freedom.  It may not seem like a lot but compared to the nothing of voting, I am doing a hell of a lot more to change the system than voters are and there are people out there doing far more than I am doing.  I have been wrapped up in my day to day existence of starting a new job, still attending classes, moving, and being part of my family but I haven't given up on changing the system and I do what I can when I can while voters fight to keep the system from changing.

"So how do you reduce the coercion if you don't get in the system to change it?"

First off, the fact that you understand that government is coercion and you support it should prompt some soul searching for you.  Even if you had a sliver of a chance to change the system from within the system, are you willing to sell your soul in the effort?  Using force to compel others to act in a way that you find acceptable is evil.  If you are willing to lower your standards to that point, these blog posts have been in vain.

Secondly, you can't reduce the coercion by voting in support of the coercion (That don't make no sense!).  You reduce the coercion by not taking part in the coercion, teaching others about the reality of the system, and creating and using systems and resources outside of the system as much as possible (and in line with your risk tolerance).  Most people avoid doing what they see as evil and are quick to condemn those who stray.  You point out that voting in support of the system is unethical and socially unacceptable.  People in a civilized society do not use violence to force others to do their bidding. 

Do you know what is scarier to the 1% than a Libertarian being voted into office?  An election where no one shows up to vote.  A populace who views the use of coercion as evil and voices this truth to others and refuses to take part in the coercion will make substantial and lasting changes.  People want to be good and they tend to shun that which is evil.  If you want to change the system, continue to point out the evil of the system and the system will collapse.  Why do you think Australia has a law making it mandatory that citizens vote?  Voting ensures that the system never changes.

"In mob rules as we now have, I believe you need to get someone in place to pull the state back in layers. The government will never just let it's power go."

We don't have mob rules.  We have 1% rules.  You're never going to get anyone into the system who has the power to pull the state back in layers.  This government is going to continue until it implodes, as all empires do.  What's important to me is what people will want to put in its place.  This is why education on ethics is so vital.  If this government is replaced by another government, we have gained nothing.

"I have studied a lot of history. It appears someone is always in power."

Then it truly would be a change if there were no rulers.  You do want change, right?

"I suppose I'm trying to get people to organize so they have a say and their group is in power and it is a real choice."

If there are no rulers, then you have a *real* choice.  Otherwise, your choices are limited by the dictates of the rulers.  My next post will be on choosing between rules and rulers.

"Maybe get a trusted person from your group in power. This opens up the possibility for the public to have a real choice."

The only person that I trust to decide when and when not to point a gun at my head is me.  The only person that I trust to have the ability to control every aspect of my life is me.  You want a small government but I want a smaller government.  I will govern my own actions and I refuse to use force to govern the actions of others.  People who have this same ethical code are people that you can truly trust.  Anyone who runs for office in an effort to gain control of that power is suspect.

"And if your group is ethical and your guy goes on some super power grab you can toss his ass out."

My group is ethical.  That's why my group never has a candidate in an election and never encourages people to take part in such an unethical system.  No truly ethical person would ever voluntarily take part in something so evil.

 

Why I Don't Vote (Part 4): The Rigged Game

So,

Compared to the first two reasons, this last reason is like a sprig of parsley sitting next to the main course.  I include it though because in my own search for the answer of what can be done, this fact spurred me on to keep looking.  Prior to the 2008 presidential election, I was in a position that was probably very similar politically to the person who asked why people don't vote.  I was part of the Ron Paul Revolution and luckily for me, I was living in Nevada at the time.  Most people probably don't know this but the Ron Paul Revolution won the Nevada Republican caucus but the record books won't show this. 

Not even with an asterisk?

Not even.

Going into this process, I understood that the game was rigged and that the 1% picked two acceptable candidates to represent the two faces of the one-party system.  I understood that the media companies the 1% own (all of them) programmed viewers to choose one or the other and disparaged any candidates other than the two they found acceptable.  My Democrat friends had been swept up in the Hopey Changey mantra and I admit that I was too although I knew that with Obama, there was no hope for change.  They still went with their guy even though many of them had a gut feeling that he would not change anything but they so *wanted* to believe.  I wanted change to and I found myself more involved in the political process than I had ever been and I was shown exactly how pointless it all was.

The grass roots campaign for Ron Paul had been strong across the entire nation but in Nevada, we rocked!  People took classes on how the caucus works and parliamentary procedure, went door to door, set up call centers, and made plans to win the caucus.  It worked too, incredibly, amazingly well.  Ron Paul won precinct after precinct and county after county.  Going into state caucus, there was an air of excitement because it was a sure thing that Ron Paul was going to win and even though the politically small state of Nevada would not change the outcome of the election, it would be a great moral victory and possibly garner attention for future elections.

Stickin' it to the 1%.

Even in losing, that would have felt good.

At the state caucus, it quickly became apparent to the Republican National Committee (of the 1%) that Ron Paul was going to win the caucus and do so unanimously or nearly so.  Again, this would have no effect on the election but it would be a moral victory for the people and the 1% may have seen this as Smaug's missing scale.  This small opening, this chink in the armor, this giving of hope to the people that they can actually make a change could not be allowed.  It would only encourage people to continue to attempt to change the system.  To make sure that never happened, the caucus was closed, the results locked in a casino vault, and the RNC hand picked McCain supporters and sent them to the national convention.

That probably saves a lot of time too.  They should just do that every time.

That would take away from the fake drama created by the fake system.

Of course, the Ron Paul Revolution did not just shrug their shoulders and walk away.  They filed a complaint with the RNC who reviewed what had happened.  They sided with the Ron Paul supporters and said that what was done was wrong and they dismissed the McCain supporters that were set at the state level.  The RNC replaced the dismissed delegates with McCain supporters that they hand picked themselves. 

That seems fair.

GIGO.

The happy ending to this story, for me personally, was an unwavering knowledge that you can't change a rigged system from within the system and a better understanding of just how rigged the system is.  Going into the process, I understood that we had to fight against media blackouts, which would change to intense mudslinging if we managed to garner some attention.  I knew that the media would continue to steer the mindless Republicans and Democrats into fighting for the candidates chosen to be the front runners for either side (the idiocy of the horse-race mentality) and that the sheer number of zombies would crush any chance of Ron Paul getting elected.  I knew that we weren't going to win but I truly thought, hoped, that we would make some small difference.

A naivete bested only by Obama supporters.

Which is only bested by those who voted for Obama a second time.

I was stunned for a while with the blatancy of the cheating that was involved and the motto of a government for the people, by the people still makes me want to hurl.  The American people are not allowed to have a say in anything that the 1% deems important, especially who is going to "represent" them.  This is a government for the 1%, by the 1%.  I suppose that it always has been although in the past, they used to try to conceal it better and be more subtle in telling the American people to "Suck it!"  Those days are gone.  Obama's promise of transparency is one that he has actually kept, just not in the way that he was pretending that he would.  He has openly served the 1% and has embraced the use of violence in a way that probably gives Cheney wet dreams. 

I don't vote because every vote is a wasted vote.  The system is designed to give people a false sense of control in order to keep them from looking for actual solutions which are outside of the system.  It's a mental prison that keeps people under control and productive.  Keeping people under control through the explicit use of force is expensive, creates physical resistance, and can sway public support to the people being oppressed.  It's much better for the rulers if people will voluntarily submit to the rules and they probably laugh about having people actually vote to have their human rights stripped away.

Once your mind escapes this Matrix-like system, you can never look at it the same ever again.  Like Neo, I was looking for an answer, always feeling uneasy with how things were.  The Ron Paul Revolution was my red pill.  I won't kid you into thinking that it was an easy thing to wrap my head around but I will add that there is no way that I would ever intentionally go back to that level of ignorance or naivete.  I know that there is still a long, uphill battle in getting the changes that I want but knowing that my choice is ethical and makes sense logically and that even if I discarded those two aspects, I wouldn't be able to change the rigged system anyway, knowing these things, I have found great peace of mind in this area of my life.

Why I Don't Vote (Part 3): Logic

So,

The unethicality of voting is reason all by itself not to vote.  People who are trying to lead good lives really don't need any more reason not to vote beyond the fact that voting supports an organization based on unethical actions and, more than that, is an attempt to take control of that organization so the evil power can be wielded according to their desires (even if that desire is to lessen the amount of evil being done, in the case of Libertarians).

But some people are better at doing evil than others.

And what kind of people do you think are attracted to a position that excludes them from the bounds of ethical behavior?

Underlying this principle is a certain logic, in that, if it is unethical for people to take the property from others through force or intimidation and "the government" is an organization of people, then it clearly follows that if they take property from others through force or intimidation, their action is unethical.  This simple logic is why it's so important to point out that there is no such thing as a government.  The government doesn't collect taxes and fuck up the lives of people who resist.  It can't because there is no such thing as a government.  People collect taxes and people fuck up the lives of those who resist.

You want I should break his legs?

Try late fees and fines first, to get more money out of 'em.  People with broken legs pay less taxes.

This simple fact, that "the government" is just a group of people who have claimed the authority to initiate violence on everyone within a certain geographical area (that area is called "The World" if it's the United States government) undermines, logically, arguments put forth by people who want to use "the government" as a solution to some stated problem.  I pointed this out in my posts about gun control. 

Gun control activists want to outlaw guns.  If you ask them who will enforce the law, they will say, "the government," and then try to change the subject to what they think will happen on <insert some assinine TV show name here since I'm out of touch with the current popular idiocy>.  They don't want to think about what they are really saying and if you tell them what they are saying, you'll just piss them off.  Since there is no such thing as "government," they mean that people will enforce the laws.  To ensure that happens, gun control activists will issue guns to people even though the main premise of their argument is that people with guns are dangerous.

Libertarians are not free of violating this law of non-contradiction.  If you take a very basic premise that government employees should do no more than provide cops, courts, and a standing army and drill down a bit, you find the same problem.  One reason that there should be cops is to protect citizens from having their property taken from them against their will, such as robbery and theft.  How, exactly, will the Libertarians pay for these protective government employees?

Bake sale?

That's a better idea than by taking their money through the use of intimidation.

Not only does it boggle the mind to think that the protectors will take money from people through the use violence and threats of violence in order to keep people from taking money from people through violence and threats of violence but the disparity between how much will be taken by the two groups of thieves is monstrous.

I looked at some stats, unfortunately a bit aged, but common sense should fill in the gaps.  There is a 99% chance that someone will steal something from you in your lifetime at least once.  Odds drop considerably (single digits) that you will be a repeat victim.  Robbery, once in a lifetime, was about 30% with very low odds of repeat victimization.  There weren't numbers on the dollar amounts that were stolen but I can't imagine that it's very high.  A couple hundred bucks or a couple thousand?  For most of us, at least.

How much do government employees take from you every year in income tax, property tax, sales tax, and other fees, fines, and taxes?

Like taxes tax.

Is that a tax on your taxes?  You are probably being gouged by the stupid tax.

I'm going to be honest with you Libertarians, I'd rather roll my dice without your "protection."  There is absolutely no way in the world that I would be the victim of robbery, theft, and burglary in my lifetime to the point where my loss would ever come close to what government employees take from me every single time I make a purchase at a store, every year that I want to keep *my* property and live in my house, or every April 15th.

Your "cure" is like giving me cancer so I don't get a cold.  No thanks.  I'll take my vitamin D and vitamin C and take my chances.  If I catch cold, I'll deal with it.  You can keep your solution to yourself.

Plus, they don't really prevent that much.  Mostly just try to catch the bad guys afterwards.

And government employees keep the fines and the victims pay to feed and house the bad guy in jail.

Are you guys trying to take over my blog?

Well, we would do a better job.

I'm with the twit on this one.

This collection of fines by government employees and revictimization of the person who had their property stolen is sold to the public under the euphamism of "justice."  You want justice, right?  Who doesn't want justice?  Government employees take 40 - 50% of everything you make over your entire lifetime, collect any fines they can from the perpetrator, and pass the cost of jailing offenders on to the people who had their property taken.  If there is any justice in there, I can't see it.

Maybe it's like a search-a-word.

Why don't you look for it and don't bother us until you find it.

This isn't just about theft and burglary but it served as a good example.  Just about any proposed "government" solution is like this.  Democrats want to prohibit any monopolies so they support an organization that has a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force.  Can it get any more frying pan to the fire than that? 

The bottom line is that you can't achieve your stated goal by doing the exact opposite.  You can't say that you promote freedom and then put effort into supporting an organization that forcefully rules over the people that you want to free.

I don't vote because I believe humans should coexist peacefully on the planet and that no one has the right to rule over another person through the use violence and threats of violence.  Voting, especially in America, would mean that I support violence and that I believe that there should be rulers over us.  You can't, logically, say that you believe in freedom and also say that everyone should vote for their rulers in order to achieve this freedom.  You can't, logically, say that you believe in peace and then vote to support the most violent organization in the world.

Giving guns to people to keep people from having guns, taking their property to protect them from having their property taken, creating a monopoly to prevent the creation of monopolies, voting for rulers in order to achieve freedom, supporting an organization that exists through the initiation of force on others to make the world more peaceful . . .

  

Why I Don't Vote (Part 2): Ethics

So,

I gave this aspect a brief shout out in my original answer.  I did give it as the first justification and maybe the reason I didn't elaborate more on the topic is that it's a topic that doesn't really need elaboration, at least not in itself.  Most people want to make ethical decisions and might consider ethics to be a no-brainer although they may be confused about how it can be unethical for me to vote while it's their "duty" to vote.  Most likely, they would just blow it off as some crazy notion and give it no more thought because that would require thinking.

What is this "thinking" that you speak of?

It's like when you really try to answer a question but it hurts.

I did that once.  Didn't llike it.

You and just about everyone else, my friend.

People don't apply the same ethical standards to government employees as they do to themselves.  Government employees are allowed to violate common ethical standards.  In fact, they are tasked with actions that violate ethical behavior.  That's their job.  If they didn't act unethically, they would be shirking their duties and would be fired.

I believe, and this is just my view, that the reason for this obvious double-standard lies in the reification of the abstract concept that people call "government."  People speak and act as if there really is such a thing as a "government" when, in fact, there isn't.  I have written in the past how this reification is something more, something approaching deification, but most people would reject the notion of the government as a god out of knee-jerk reaction and, once again, give it no more thought.

You're obsessed with this "thinking" thingy.

It does fly in the face of America's Cult of Ignorance (hat tip John McDaris).

In seeing the government as something that exists but something that is not human, something that is greater than humans, something with powers and abilities beyond those of mere mortals, people allow government employees to do things that they would never accept in themselves or their next door neighbor (even if their next door neighbor was a government employee but was "off duty").  It's unethical to murder and steal but it's okay for "the government" to do these things.  Now, obviously, to help with the disconnect, this double-think, euphamisms have to be put in place that will be applied when government employees take actions that others would otherwise look down on because of emotional ties to the words like murder and theft.

If you blow someone up with a missile, it's called murder and terrorism and dangerous.  If a government employee does it, it's called a targeted drone strike and patriotic duty and promoting safety.  In the past, for a quick summation, I have said that government is violence.  George Washington said it this way: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force."

Pshah!  What does this George Washington guy know about government?

You never cease to amaze me.

It would probably be just as true to add that government is spin.  Yes, it's violence, force, coercion, rule by intimidation but I think that it only exists because people mentally and emotionally give government employees exemptions from accepted ethical standards.  They do this by talking about how the "government" will do this or that and by hiding the truth of what this or that really is by using euphamisms. 

You can see the fringe of this disconnect in stories about individual lawmakers.  Many times there is public outrage when a senator or congressperson performs some unethical action for their own benefit.  When one of these people, whose lives are a quagmire of evil actions, performs an evil action outside the scope of "government," it suddenly becomes wrong again, in the eyes of the people.  The truth is that the action is evil regardless of who the benefactor is but many people will condone these actions if they are purportedly done on behalf of "the public."  By lumping themselves in as "the public," they can also pretend like unethical actions aren't being taken for them directly.  If a government employee takes money from someone and uses the money to build a road for "the public," then the person using the road can take comfort that the money wasn't stolen and the road built for them.  That would be wrong.

This brings us to voters.

Really, two-thirds into the post and you are finally going to get to the point?

I'm with the twit on this one.

When you vote, you are hiring someone to perform evil acts on your behalf (as well as a shitload of evil acts that you would never ask anyone to do, ever).  Even if you vote Libertarian and your agent never gets the position, you are still announcing your support of having people act on your behalf in committing actions that you would never do yourself, ever.  In that way, it can also be seen as cowardice.  You wouldn't steal money from your neighbor but you're more than willing to hire someone to rob your neighbor for you.  Most voters may go with the lesser of the two evils (as they perceive it) and Libertarians will go with the least of the three proffered evils but they are all still voting for evil.  Plain and simple.  People try to console themselves and rationalize away any uncomfortable feelings by telling themselves and others, with a shrug, that they voted for the lesser of the evils.  Most everyone around them will let them get away with it, especially if they also voted for agents to peform evil actions on their behalf.  It would be way too uncomfortable to delve into what it might mean about their own character, their own ethical standards, if they admit they just hired someone to perform evils actions for their own benefit.

And if you point it out to them . . . goodbye friends.

Truer words were never spoken by a twit.

I should point out that "their own benefit" doesn't necessarily mean some direct benefit.  It could be simply to force people to live their lives in a way that the voter finds acceptable.  They want laws passed that will require everyone in the country to abide by what they believe to be tolerable behavior.  They want to use government violence and threats of violence to force everyone to live within what they personally feel are accepted norms.  That's not just unethical, that's psychotic.  Laws, used in this fashion, are nothing more than an opinion with a gun.

I would never force anyone to live their life in a way that I see fit.  I would never take money from someone through intimidation to use in a manner that I would then have to attempt to justify to be good enough to outweigh the evil of taking the money in the first place.  I would never do this and most people I know wouldn't do these things either.  Voters manage to get around this inconvenience by voting for a middle man rather than "hiring" one, using abstract terms like "government" and "public" to escape ethical standards applied to humans, and coloring all of the evil actions with euphamisms so they can pretend they aren't really evil actions.

I don't vote because, not only would I not do these actions, I also wouldn't hire someone to do these things for me.  That would be just as evil as if I had done the actions myself.  I don't pretend that there is a magical entity called "government" that doesn't operate under the same ethical standards as the rest of humanity.  When a government employee takes money from another individual through intimidation, it's just as evil as when a non-government employee does the same thing.  People are people and the rules that apply to one person apply to every other person.  I won't hire an agent to do evil on my behalf and I won't support the delusion used to bypass ethical standards.

Hammers and Nails

So,

Here I am with a blog post.  Amazing, I know.  College took more than even I expected this last term and the next one, which starts tomorrow, doesn't look like it will be any lighter.  I haven't been able to stay up to date with current events in the depth that I prefer and have been reduced to scanning headlines most of the time.  A recurring theme I have heard is that when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I saw a video (posted below) about the Quebec student protests that brought this to mind this morning.  Students in Quebec (and around the world) are upset about the escalating cost of higher education and are letting the government know about it.  Someone with half a brain would think that an appropriate response would be to work on some way to lower the cost of education.  Unfortunately, we are talking about politicians. 

The truth is that the hammer *is* the primary tool in the government workbelt but the reason that it is finally getting so much press is that it's been used more transparently, more often, and predominately against the 99%.  The Internet has been effective enough at reducing the other major tools (propaganda and indoctrination) that the hammer is being used liberally while the 1% tries to find a way to gain control over the world wide web.

Instead of looking at reducing tuition costs for students or even *saying* they will look at reducing tuition costs for students, the rocket surgeons wielding the hammer passed a law making it illegal to protest without permission from the police.  That's like a patient going in to take care of an itchy rash on his right arm and the doctor tying down the patient's left arm to keep him from scratching it.  Actually it's worse than that because, in this case, it brought extra people into the fight on the students' side.

People who were not protesting tuition hikes came out to protest the new anti-protest law.  Shortly after the law was passed, 700 people were arrested for illegally protesting.  This just brought more people out to protest the arrests and the heavy-handed tactics used by the police.  The response to the hammer seems to be such a no-brainer that it leaves me wondering what game the lawmakers are playing.  Have they painted themselves into such a corner that they are powerless to do anything else?  Wouldn't it have been better to do nothing than fan the flames? 

What do you think?  Why are lawmakers around the world making symptoms illegal instead of dealing with the disease?

WTF Has Obama Done So Far?

So,

I've been encouraged to visit the cult website a few times because this will somehow cultivate an acceptance in using violence to jam my opinion down someone's throat and kill or imprison anyone who doesn't see things my way.  I believe that I did visit the site a year ago or so but I have to admit that if I did visit it, it was so unmemorable that today, when I finally decided to see if I was missing something, I did not recognize the site at all.

For those of you that haven't been and have no desire in tazing anyone who disagrees with you, I'll give a quick description (admittedly based on the small part that I saw).  It's a collection of pages with one-liners of "inspirational" things that Obama has done.  There is one little, teeny, tiny, string attached to how inspirational the statements are.  The level of inspiration received from the statements is inversely proportional to the reader's level of morality, knowledge, and willingness to seek the truth.  Cult members eat this shit up.

What are you inferring?

I thought it was clear.

The first statement that popped up for me was that Obama has cut Medicare drug costs by 50%.  First off, the law is unConstitutional but at this point, that's Standard Operating Procedure for The Great and Powerful Oz.  From the cult member perspective, I think the Constitution is irrelevant when it's something that they want.  Not that they wanted this bill.  None of them have probably read it but they do want to support their prophet and gawd's laws are above man-made laws like the Constitution.  Tossing that aside, let's look at this claim.

Now, the thing about Obama's lies is that there is usually some bit of twisted truth in there somewhere.  It seems obvious that he's lying but I like to dig to find out what he's using for the basis of his lie.  What can he point to and say, "See?"

Certainly not his leadership abilities.

Or his very own set of balls.

After someone on Medicare spent over $2,700 in the year 2010, Obama send them a check for $250.  No one has yet claimed that Obama knows anything about math.

Or economics.

Or ethics.

Under the old law, grandma had to pay 100% of drug costs from then on until she had spent $4,550.  This crippling financial gap where grandma is more likely to die than cross the finish line is lovingly referred to as the "Donut Hole."  If she can survive on cat food and saltines until then, she only had to pay 5% of the drug costs until the new year started.

Under this great new law (which imposes a 10% tax on fake baking, oddly enough - and I'm not going to mention the other stuff in this bill), grandma only has to pay 50% for prescriptions after she passes that $2,700 mark.  Don't get me wrong, that's better than 100%, especially since Obama and his predecessors have created a system where drug companies can charge $150 for a pill that costs $.02 to make.  If you could escape their protectionary "laws", you'd cut grandma's prescription costs by more than 50% on all her prescriptions, even saving her from that initial $2,700 gouging.

It's close enough to the truth for cult members to get goosebumps.

It's really important for cult members to pretend like they care about people.

There's some truth to it and if you ignore the rest of the bill, you could say this was a "win".  I was thinking that I may be persuaded to the use of violence to solve any desire that I had after all.  I clicked to the next one.  It was about how Obama pays travel expenses for families to fly out to see the body of their dead son/daughter/husband/wife who died trying to make sure that Exxon and BP keep making record profits.

I threw up a little in my mouth and went out to play basketball with my son.

One thing, skipping back to the first wtf page that I read, that I have often wondered about is the possibility of some agreement, implicit or expressed, between cult members and minions.  Democrats and Republicans are constantly battling each other using talking points handed to them by talking heads, who most likely also have not read any of the bills. 

At this point, I probably don't have an cult members or minions as readers, which is unfortunate because I'd like to hear the rules of engagement for their arguments.  From what I've seen, there must be some sort of pact where they are only allowed to use propaganda from their team in these arguments.  My guess is that anyone who uses truth or morality is red-carded.

Anyway, if you want a chuckle, go visit the website.  You won't learn anything useful there but if you ever find yourself in an argument with a Republican minion, you can zing these statements at him like they are deadly ninja stars.

Made out of origami paper.

Folded by a three year old.

Highlights

So,

I unintentionally took two days to write my "Summer is coming" warning post and then the weekend hit where I have to work my day job instead of working on my dream job of being a professional blogger.

I'd rather work at Victoria Secrets helping women try on bras.

Smartass does have a point this time.

Anyway, the world just keeps on moving so today you're going to get highlights of things that I have run across over the last few days that have not made it onto this blog and are not going to get their very own individual blog post.  Here's what been happening, in no particular order:

The Euro Zone has officially entered its second recession in three years, according to the European Commission who lied about the first recession ending.

Maybe the recession ended because it went into depression and now it's back up to recession.

I don't think it works that way.

This was in the pile but it's actually from last November.  It's a chart of the Criminal Financial Institution Fraud Prosecutions over the last 20 years.  It looks like the financial institutions are playing by the rules now and aren't committing as much fraud.

They're probably afraid of Obama's tough stance.

Or the 1% has gotten rid of most of their competition so there's no one left to persecute.

The Great and Powerful Oz trotted out the fact that his plan is working and the United States has reduced its dependence on foreign oil.  Huzzah!

Wait!  Were his lips moving?

Why do you always think he's lying?

What he accidentally failed to mention in his "Silver Bullet" speech is that US dependence on foreign oil increased from 37% to 40% but US demand for oil has dropped off so much because of the depression that US use of oil has dropped enough that even though foreign oil is a bigger percentage, it's at a lower overall quantity.

If his plan is working, does that mean he's working to keep the economy crippled?

The depression does lower usage of foreign oil.

Here's a side thought that I have when the president, any president, tells outright lies like this.  He obviously does it because enough people are stupid enough to believe him or too lazy to check into the facts.  It's something that I stated previously.  If Obama told this lie and all of the media ran headlines of "Obama Lies About Foreign Oil Dependence," he would probably stop.  Of course, the establishment media supports the 1% and won't do that.  Plenty of us bloggers do but sometimes it just seems like breaking through the spoon-fed ignorance is such an uphill battle.  I just read an article about people being too stupid for Democracy to flourish and I look around at the world and say, "Duh!"

Chicago is bringing out the big guns for the G8 and NATO summits where leaders will get together to decide the fate of their subjects and if there is one thing that these leaders don't want, it's input from their subjects.  To this end, Obama is moving the G8 summit to Camp David and Chicago camps are bringing out a historic law to deal with NATO protesters.  It's a Class 1 Felony to audio record someone without their consent.  Any video with sound (and let's be honest, it won't matter if there is sound or not) of a cop beating down a protester will land the videographer in prison.  It is illegal in Chicago to hold public employees (you know, people who supposedly work for the public) accountable.

It does cause problems for the government when these videos go viral.

They should pass a law making it illegal for videos to go viral.

The TSA, my beloved TSA who I have not mentioned recently despite some horrendous actions on their part, have started doing vehicle checkpoints and plan on expanding them.

In the hopes of catching someone driving a Chevy Volt into a skyscraper?

Papers!  Papers please!

Representative Charles Dent, a Republican from a state where late-term abortion should be legal and they should start by aborting Rep. Dent, has come up with something that I actually find to be stunningly ingenious and thinking outside of the box.  I am an expert at thinking outside the box and I found this tactic surprising.

One of the biggest problems that Obama, his band of 535, and the 1% have is all this clamoring about Americans having Constitutional Rights.  It seems like just about every law passed lately violates the Constitution in some way and Americans are actually starting to take notice.  Everyone also knows that Occupy Wall Street is going to come back bigger than ever and that it will be a long time before December snow quiets things down again.  Not to worry, Dent has solved the problem.

He has introduced a law to fix all this cry-babying about the government completely ignoring the Constitution.  Here's the summary of bill HR 3166, The Enemy Expatriation Act:

"To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality."

It doesn't even list suspected terrorism like NDAA did.  All you have to do is engage in or support hostilities to the government of the United States and they will revoke your citizenship.  It's hard to whine about your Constitutional Rights as an American if you aren't an American.

You can't scare me with this gestapo crap.  I know my rights.  I want my phone call.

And tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?

***

Follow me on Twitter to get updates on when new posts show up on this blog (plus get random thoughts on the life of Success Warrior) and feel free to "friend" me on Facebook.

Success Warrior is an Independent BeachBody Coach for BeachBody.com, a company that offers fitness programs, supplements, and equipment that have absolutely changed my life.

Have you heard of P90X? That's BeachBody. They also have Insanity, Turbo Jam, TurboFire, RevAbs, Brazil Butt Lift, and many more. They have some of the best exercise programs on the market. These aren't just DVDs but are complete programs to transform your body. They also have the hugely popular, and what they call "the most important meal of the day", Shakeology. Go HERE to learn the most inexpensive way to get Shakeology.

They have equipment and supplements in addition to Shakeology and popular exercise programs. Visit BeachBody.com and click on the "Shop" link to see everything they offer.

There is also a business side to all this fitness that you can take advantage of. Whether you're looking to just make a couple hundred extra dollars in fun money or are looking to take complete financial control of your life, BeachBody can help you get there. If you have a desire to be more fit and would love to help other people do the same while making some money at it, visit BeachBody.com and click on the "Coach" link. Team up with me and I'll help you reach your goals, in fitness and finance.

NOW DC Should Be Seen and Not Heard

So,

Occupy Wall Street never stopped and is picking up steam again as we head into spring.  The group that will be occupying DC may be adopting a new name, National Occupation of Washington DC or NOW DC.  I believe there is supposed to be some big kick off event at the end of March.

Here's a weird coincidence in timing.  Guess what's about to become a new law?  Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.

Well that sounds like a good cause.

Just remember that laws are named opposite of their intention**.

This law to improve buildings and grounds doesn't do anything at all to improve buildings and grounds in the way that the 99% would think of as an improvement.  If you are one of the puppets for the 1% though, this is going to be a vast improvement.  Here's what the law will do after President FuckTheConstitution signs it:

You will no longer be allowed to protest in proximity to anyone who is being guarded by the SS.

This obviously applies to the White House . . .

. . . but wait, there's more.

Act now.  Callers are standing by.

It applies to anyone that has Secret Service protection and applies to temporary sites of that person.  Obviously, no more mic checks at one of the Great and Powerful Oz's "I'm so full of shit" speeches but maybe not so obviously:

• Mittler Romney has had SS protection for some time now - no more glitter bombs
• Rick inSanitorum has recently started getting SS protection
• Foreign dignitaries are routinely guarded by the SS
• The G8 Summit in Chicago - fogedaboudit
• The Republican National Convention - the Ron Paul Revolution will be federally charged
• Even the Superbowl is guarded by the SS

After NDAA, striking down the First Amendment isn't shocking and it's actually quite a tribute to how effective Occupy Wall Street has been.  This is a sign of fear from the puppets.  They want to sit in their big white domed buildings pissing on the 99% and they don't want to hear any complaining about it.  They don't want people confronting them with their lies and corruption.  They want people to play within the ever-increading rules of the system that they control because they know that anyone dumb enough to try to change the system from within the system is easy to control and anyone daring enough to challenge the system is a threat. 

Sit down and shut up!

You should run for Congress.

I'm sure that Obama will regretfully sign the bill into law and maybe even jot down a signing statement saying that he doesn't think that this bill is right but he's really got no choice in the matter.  After all, the people voted for these lawmakers who are acting as representatives of the people and the vote was 388 for and only 3 against so it is the will of the people that they not be allowed to voice their displeasure with their representatives.  And even if Obama wanted to veto this and I'm sure that he does because he cares so deeply about the American people and he is well versed in Constitutional Law, the cult member apologists will surely point out that with a vote of 388 to 3, any veto from the well-meaning puppet-in-chief would just get over-ridden anyway.  And so, sadly and with a heavy heart, Goldman Sachs' MVP will sign this into law and continue on his path to destroy any trace of freedom in the United States of America. 

We're going to have to change the national anthem about "land of the free".

You're an idiot!  They'll pass a law making it mandatory that everyone sing it.

And smile.

** Update: I ran across a video today that fits perfectly with the statement made by one of the voices in my head.  The topic of the video is what the GOP primary actually looks like compared to what is being reported in the news.  It's the last quote from Ron Paul that fits today's post:

Interchangeable Parts

So,

The mafioso president at the World Bank has stepped down and the rumor goin' 'round is that Hillary Clinton is going to get the job.  Her people are denying the rumor which is political speak for, "Hillary Clinton wants the job but needs a referral from the Great and Powerful Oz and isn't sure she's going to get it."  If she acts too confident and the job goes to someone that is better at sucking the cocks of the 1%, she could lose face.

Is that possible?

Seems like getting a 1% facial is the height of losing face.

A couple of months ago, the vice president of the EU bank gets appointed to be the prime minister of Greece.  In true political nature, prime minister Lucas Papedemos had this to say about his appointed subjects setting fire to Athens, "Violence and destruction have no place in a democratic country."

I suppose the obvious question is, "What does your statement have to do with the fires in Greece?"

Speaking of pretend democracies, I read an article tonight about Chicago Gangster Mayor Rahm Emanuel getting ready for the G8 summit.  In a new "law", Emanuel can purchase stuff without the city council's approval and without submitting the purchase for bids.  He can choose the person that offers the most in bribes and award contracts to that person.  Handy, n'est pas?  He has used this new power to buy new helmets for the police with face shields designed to allow officers to wear gas masks.

So they can't smell the stank of corruption?

Do they make gas masks that strong?  Might I suggest SCBA's?

Additionally, there will be aerial surveillance and snipers in place to deal with anything remotely looking like democracy.

Snipers are harder to catch on video.

The whole world is wat . . . BANG!

Back to the theme of this post . . .

It has gotten to the point where the parts between Wall Street and other large corporations are interchangeable with politicians.  It's like watching tag-team wrestling.

"Z-Man Zoellick reaches out and tags up with Battle Kat Klinton who takes Blankfein's dick out of her mouth and jumps in the ring."

Can you smell what the crock is cooking?

In the near future, it's going to be like watching hockey.  If a politician gets tired of Occupy Wall Street doing mic checks on him, he'll just head for Goldman Sachs in the middle of his term and someone from Goldman Sachs will jump the barrier and take over for him.  Like Papedemos, they won't wait for the next election, they'll just appoint senators to seats and call it democracy.

Will there be fires in Chicago?

Violence and destruction have no place in a demo . . . BANG!

Speaking of Chicago-style politics, Obama came down hard on the big five banks who have to pay about $40 billion in a settlement for foreclosing on people illegally.

See?  He's not Wall Street's bitch after all!

Wait for it.

As part of the settlement agreement, the banks can use tax payer money to pay the settlement.  The home owners lost their homes illegally to the banks and if they still have a job, they have to pay the settlement for the banks.  As good as I am with words, I really can't think of anything strong enough to describe how truly evil the 1% and their bitch puppet president are.

Not that the 1% care in the least what I, or anyone else, thinks of them or their parasitic spokesperson.  If the people get tired of Obama, the 1% will just sub in someone else.