THE ILLUSION OF FREEDOM An Alternative to the Belief in Statism by Stefan Molyneux
WATCH THIS 15-MINUTE FILM:
READ THE TRANSCRIPT:The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity - this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction.
Why is this fear so universal - so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords?
Of course not.
This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are already living.
Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity.
That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.
The US government "by and for the people" now imprisons millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts.
That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.
The problem with the "state as servant" thesis is that it is historically completely false, both empirically and logically.
The idea that states were voluntarily invented by citizens to enhance their own security is utterly untrue.
Before governments, in tribal times, human beings could only produce what they consumed -- there was no excess production of food or other resources. Thus, there was no point owning slaves, because the slave could not produce any excess that could be stolen by the master.
If a horse pulling a plow can only produce enough additional food to feed the horse, there is no point hunting, capturing and breaking in a horse.
However, when agricultural improvements allowed for the creation of excess crops, suddenly it became highly advantageous to own human beings.
When cows began to provide excess milk and meat, owning cows became worthwhile.
The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of slave hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking in - and owning.
The earliest Egyptian and Chinese empires were in reality human farms, where people were hunted, captured, domesticated and owned like any other form of livestock. Due to technological and methodological improvements, the slaves produced enough excess that the labor involved in capturing and keeping them represented only a small subset of their total productivity. The ruling class - the farmers - kept a large portion of that excess, while handing out gifts and payments to the brutalizing class - the police, slave hunters, and general sadists - and the propagandizing class - the priests, intellectuals, and artists.
This situation continued for thousands of years, until the 16-17th centuries, when again massive improvements in agricultural organization and technology created the second wave of excess productivity. The enclosure movement re-organized and consolidated farmland, resulting in 5-10 times more crops, creating a new class of industrial workers, displaced from the country and huddling in the new cities.
This enormous agricultural excess was the basis of the capital that drove the industrial revolution.
The Industrial Revolution did not arise because the ruling class wanted to free their serfs, but rather because they realized how additional "liberties" could make their livestock astoundingly more productive.
When cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls, resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room -- not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs.
The next stop after "free range" is not "freedom."
The rise of state capitalism in the 19th century was actually the rise of "free range serfdom."
Additional liberties were granted to the human livestock not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity.
Of course, intellectuals, artists and priests were - and are - well paid to conceal this reality.
The great problem of modern human livestock ownership is the challenge of "enthusiasm."
State capitalism only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and productivity in the economy.
However, excess productivity always creates a larger state, and swells the ruling classes and their dependents, which eats into the motivation for additional productivity. Taxes and regulations rise, state debt (future farming) increases, and living standards slow and decay.
Depression and despair began to spread, as the reality of being owned sets in for the general population.
The solution to this is additional propaganda, antidepressant medications, superstition, wars, moral campaigns of every kind, the creation of "enemies," the inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, paranoia about "outsiders" and "immigrants," and so on. It is essential to understand the reality of the world.
When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.
You are allowed certain liberties - limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation - not because your government approves of these rights in principle - since it constantly violates them - but rather because "free range livestock" is so much cheaper to own and so more productive.
It is important to understand the reality of ideologies.
State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy - these are all livestock management approaches.
Some work well for long periods - state capitalism - and some work very badly - communism.
They all fail eventually, because it is immoral and irrational to treat human beings as livestock. The recent growth of "freedom" in China, India and Asia is occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.
Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively.
Thus you are "allowed" to leave - but never to real freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work -- but you are "free" to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of 1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer.
You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a "license," which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm.
To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free.
Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to "love" the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.
The ridiculous contradictions of statism -- like religion -- can only be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless children.
The idea that democracy and some sort of "social contract" justifies the brutal exercise of violent power over billions is patently ridiculous.
If you say to a slave that his ancestors "chose" slavery, and therefore he is bound by their decisions, he will simply say:
"If slavery is a choice, then I choose not to be a slave."
This is the most frightening statement for the ruling classes, which is why they train their slaves to attack anyone who dares speak it.
Statism is not a philosophy.
Statism does not originate from historical evidence or rational principles.
Statism is an ex post facto justification for human ownership.
Statism is an excuse for violence.
Statism is an ideology, and all ideologies are variations on human livestock management practices.
Religion is pimped-out superstition, designed to drug children with fears that they will endlessly pay to have "alleviated."
Nationalism is pimped-out bigotry, designed to provoke a Stockholm Syndrome in the livestock.
The opposite of superstition is not another superstition, but the truth.
The opposite of ideology is not a different ideology, but clear evidence and rational principles.
The opposite of superstition and ideology - of statism - is philosophy.
Reason and courage will set us free.
You do not have to be livestock.
Take the red pill.
Wake up.
WATCH IT AGAIN:
JAMES JAEGER'S GENERAL COMMENTARY ON STEFAN'S MOVIE, such movie at http://www.youtube.com/v/P772Eb63qIY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1The US was not started as a farm so Stefan's philosophy on this doesn't apply.(1) I will acknowledge that all of the other nations prior were possibly farms and I will also acknowledge that the US is NOW operated as a farm, but for the first generation it was not. The Constitution and the set up of this nation was a DEVIATION from the NORM of governments. Anyone that doesn't believe this has no business calling themselves an American citizen. Stefan is an iconoclast if not a specific hater of the US gov, and you can hear this hate in his voice when he recites all the transgressions he believes the US has made (not that I disagree with what he's saying; I only disagree with his obvious hate of the gov and this nation). Since he provides no pragmatic methodology as to how to repair the US to at least Constitutional standards, his thesis is destructive in it's nature.
Also, there is a discrepancy in his premise that COUNTRIES are actually FARMS. (see my notes on the transcript for specifics). If all of the 150 or so countries out there actually WERE human farms hell-bent on maximizing profits with human slave labor, one would think they would have evolved the optimum universal political/economic system by now. The profit-motive, competition, greed and technology ensure that the best, most efficient "milking" system always get deployed quickly. Most of these countries (human farms) have been in existence for hundreds of years and several for thousands of years, yet we still have communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, democracy, republics, authoritarian capitalism, free-enterprise system all "competing" for human slave labor. If the world were run by a coordinated greedy elite with all the guns in the room for the past hundreds of years, I would think they would CONVERGED on an optimum system (farm). CONVERGENCE is the operating term when considering evolutionary and production processes. Yet there have NOT been a eco-political convergence. This observable fact bodes for the thesis that the countries were set up NOT to farm humans, but to PROTECT people from OTHER people in other farms. LATER, the profit-motive forced the expansion of governments for governments are the primary BUYERS of weapons from the global military-industrial complex. THUS it is the profit-motive that expands governments through the purchase of weapons using fiat money. Kill fiat money and the profit motive and you kill government expansion. Kill gov expansion and you kill human farming.
Again, I would be very interested in the stats as to how many people watch and agree with Stefan's video. As I pointed out earlier, you are going to need to get at least 5% of the US and world population to "see the light" otherwise you won't have enough for a mass movement. Anarchy is a movement that's not going anywhere especially if you use that world (and I'm not sure you are). You might as well say we want to upgrade the Nazi movement to the neo-neo-Nazi movement. That word isn't going anywhere anyway, even though (according to Jim Marr in his book THE RISE OF THE FOURTH REICH) the Nazi's had superior technology to the US and, in fact, gave the US the enriched uranium that made one of our atom bombs possible, not fully the Manhattan project.
So I maintain my position that before one will ever have any chance of zero gov, they will have to accomplish at least these things:
A. limited self-government;
B. much higher individual ethics;
C. nano-assisted technology.Unfortunately the dream of a functional civilization without any sort of FORCE-management system (i.e., government) is probably impossible unless other dreams are accomplished first. You can "point out the gun in the room" all you want but that will do little other than inciting some on the edge anyway. I have been pointing out the "fiat money in the room" since at least 1995 and who really gives a dang otherwise I would have had 5% of Americans (15 million) watch or purchase FIAT EMPIRE by now. And they have not; nowhere even close. As I said, if Stefan IS really onto something, his "Most dangerous film on the Net" will have legs. If it does, then I will concede, there is a chance the ideology of a reworked-anarchy may have its day in the sun. That said:
Everyone knows govs use force. No news here.
Everyone knows govs take way too much of our income in taxes. No news here.
Everyone knows s/he's a slave to his job/debt/interest payments. No news here.
Everyone knows govs are run by idiots, criminals, morons and elites. No news here (and what's wrong with an elite?)So what's really the news from Stefan? That countries are farms? Well are they? Probably most at this time.
Again, I don't believe you are going to have any chance of evolving the obsolescence of forced management systems (govs) until and unless you remove DEBT, PROFIT and all the economic systems that GOVs depend on to exist. Just pointing out the "gun in the room" is fine and needs to be constantly done, but by doing this you could also be promoting MORE guns in the room: for there are probably thousands or millions of people out there that, not being aware of the "gun in the room" will then say to themselves, "oh is THAT how govs do it; I'll just get a gun and then I too can govern."
Also, the unfortunate fact about weapons is it's difficult to take them away. People don't like to disarm unless everyone else disarms -- so as a practical thing, Stefan's anarchy will never happen until at least B happens above. Even though I am a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms, I WOULD like to see all people and entities involved with the development, financing, manufacturing and distribution of any and all weapons GONE. But I have no idea how this can happen (yet). To Stefanize the weapons industry, he would have invoke a mass-exodus in the military industrial complex. People would do that but they LIKE the profit motive MORE than they HATE violence. In fact: PEOPLE LIKE VIOLENCE AND FORCE AND THIS ALONE IS A/THE REASON YOU WILL NEVER REMOVE THE GUN FROM THE ROOM. People LIKE killing and maiming and hurting human beings. They LOVE this sort of stuff as it provides their dull boring lives with some excitement. If this were NOT true the profit-whore networks and movie industry would CEASE making such movies exo-pronto. So here's another indicator as to whether neo-anarchy will ever succeed: the movie industry, as we now know it, is GONE.
Obviously, if the profit system was phased out, you would be able to phase out scarcity, especially as nanotechnology remedies material scarcity. People will eventually cog that they no longer need to "make money" in order to HAVE, thus money will eventually cease to have utilitarian value as a means of exchange and keeping score. At that time you may see govs losing their power over the ability to enslave people using money and it's negative spin-offs, such as debt, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking.
Ken and I agree that the only way all this will start happening is you must discover or invent a source of clean, renewable energy and inject this technology into the civilization. This is where SOLAR, FUSION and GEOTHERMAL must happen. See http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/fusion.htm THIS, and only this, will unfreeze the markets, all markets PERMANENTLY. The current TARP strategy, ignoring this is, of course, a joke and all it will result in is the total destruction of the dollar in about 18 months. ENERGY is the only thing that's REAL in this Universe. Energy is the only thing that's COMMON to ALL human activity/productivity. Stefan ignores all this. Stefan also says nothing about the Singularity, which will be upon us in about 20-25 years. At such time AI machines WILL actually supercede humans. In fact Stefan makes a joke about this at the beginning of the movie. He says:
The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity - this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction. Why is this fear so universal - so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords? Of course not.Right here, we can see Stefan is clueless to technology. For any one doubting what I am saying here, visit http://www.kurzweilai.net and read THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR. So a more accurate re-work of Stefan's statement is: Machines invented to make human life easier WILL end up enslaving humanity because our toaster and our notebook WILL end up as our mechanical overlords within about 20-25 years?
Anyone that's not taking these things into consideration along with Kurzweil's "law of accelerating returns" isn't forecasting with a full deck.
Paul, I would try and steer away from all gurus, charlatans, iconoclasts, extremists and the insanely disgruntled and pull data from a wide range of sources, mostly people with science backgrounds, and use your own good mind to compute with such data.
Also, I am not advocating one "work within the system." The "system" we have today IS criminal because it is in violation of the Constitution, the highest law in the land. Thus anyone that supports or works within the unconstitutional system is, by definition, a criminal. If the Constitution says no THING but gold and silver are to be used as money and you are using paper as money THEN you are a criminal. IF the Constitution says that the CONGRESS must declare war and YOU serve in the armed forces for any war not specifically DECLARED by Congress, then YOU are a criminal. IF the Constitution says you are a part of a citizens militia and YOU are not showing up for regular training exercises WITH your GUN, then YOU are a criminal. SO we are obviously a nation of CRIMINALS, lead by a GOVERNMENT of CRIMINALS, operating and exploiting human and other resources LIKE criminals (see entheta leads to enmest, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL).
-------------------
(1) See movie at http://www.youtube.com/v/P772Eb63qIY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
JAMES JAEGER'S SPECIFIC COMMENTARY ON TRANSCRIPT OF STEFAN'S MOVIE, such movie at http://www.youtube.com/v/P772Eb63qIY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
STEFAN SAID:
>The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity - this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction. Why is this fear so universal - so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords? Of course not.JAEGER WROTE:
Stefan also says nothing about the Singularity, which will be upon us in about 20-25 years. At such time AI machines WILL actually supercede humans. Right here, we can see Stefan is clueless to technology. For any one doubting what I am saying here, visit http://www.kurzweilai.net and read THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR. So a more accurate re-work of Stefan's statement is: Machines invented to make human life easier WILL end up enslaving humanity because our toaster and our notebook WILL end up as our mechanical overlords within about 20-25 years? Anyone that's not taking these things into consideration along with Kurzweil's "law of accelerating returns" isn't forecasting with a full deck. >This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are already living.True. Most if not all of the other govs were enslaving.
>Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity.
True.
>That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.
Few, if any other govs were set up as self-governing nations, so this statement is not entirely true. We DID set up the US to "serve" us but it does now rule us. Other govs were not set up to serve, so this is sort of a straw argument by attempting to commingle the US gov with other govs down through history.
>The US government "by and for the people" now imprisons millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts.
But it didn't do any of this for its first generation and only started doing this when it became an empire and started failing to following its constitutional principles. So I feel it's really important to differentiate this.
>That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.
Can't make this blanket statement.
>The problem with the "state as servant" thesis is that it is historically completely false, both empirically and logically.
True in general.
>The idea that states were voluntarily invented by citizens to enhance their own security is utterly untrue.
NO, states WERE invented for protection: from OTHER states. Not all, but most.
>Before governments, in tribal times,
A tribe is a government.
>human beings could only produce what they consumed -- there was no excess production of food or other resources. Thus, there was no point owning slaves, because the slave could not produce any excess that could be stolen by the master. If a horse pulling a plow can only produce enough additional food to feed the horse, there is no point hunting, capturing and breaking in a horse. However, when agricultural improvements allowed for the creation of excess crops, suddenly it became highly advantageous to own human beings.
Probably true. Can't steal or confiscate what's not in existence. But confiscation at the tribal level and later agrarian levels was probably for facility differential for the fighting class. A warrior needs to be fed better than a simple worker as the worker's safety depends on the warrior.
>When cows began to provide excess milk and meat, owning cows became worthwhile.
True.
>The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of slave hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking in - and owning.
True for some, but also, the first governments were force-management systems designed to settle disputes, administer justice, protect the clan/city-state from outsiders who would raid the resources the clan/city-state had already confiscated as "its own."
>The earliest Egyptian and Chinese empires were in reality human farms, where people were hunted, captured, domesticated and owned like any other form of livestock. Due to technological and methodological improvements, the slaves produced enough excess that the labor involved in capturing and keeping them represented only a small subset of their total productivity. The ruling class - the farmers - kept a large portion of that excess, while handing out gifts and payments to the brutalizing class - the police, slave hunters, and general sadists - and the propagandizing class - the priests, intellectuals, and artists.
True. All of this enslavement is facilitated and perpetrated by the invention of banking and money, especially the spin-off of debt. See FIAT EMPIRE at http://www.FiatEmpire.com
>This situation continued for thousands of years, until the 16-17th centuries, when again massive improvements in agricultural organization and technology created the second wave of excess productivity.
The technology revolutions actually FREED more people from slave labor than it enslaved. People used to spend all of their time hunting or growing food. As early as the 1900's people didn't even have electricity or washing machines. Women were made slaves by men and kept as slaves to do menial work under the bondage of "marriage."
>The enclosure movement re-organized and consolidated farmland, resulting in 5-10 times more crops, creating a new class of industrial workers, displaced from the country and huddling in the new cities.
True, but other factors need to be taken into consideration. Stefan is presenting a simplistic view. Not mentioning the slave-freeing aspects of technology is an example of this. The only technology that has siphoned off the benefits of technology has been the fiat-driven debt and banking system. The excess energy of society is being siphoned off by bankers who create money out of thin air and ten rent it to the working civilization. Stefan mentions none of this either in his one-dimentional rant on human farms. Not that his rant is not true for some times and some places.
>This enormous agricultural excess was the basis of the capital that drove the industrial revolution.
No, the thing that drove the industrial revolution was the availability of excess energy, not only in the form of food, but in the form of water power (hydro and steam) and electricity (Tesla AC) with regards to the second revolution, at least.
>The Industrial Revolution did not arise because the ruling class wanted to free their serfs, but rather because they realized how additional "liberties" could make their livestock astoundingly more productive.
True, but also the working class used money to consume its output because it was motivated by the increasing leisure time machines provided. Stefan does not mention the leisure factor that drives technology and innovation. It's not ALL the evil elite farmers although I will acknowledge these probably make up between 20 and 50 percent of the equation.
>When cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls, resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room -- not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs. The next stop after "free range" is not "freedom." The rise of state capitalism in the 19th century was actually the rise of "free range serfdom." Additional liberties were granted to the human livestock not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity.
These are all excellent points Stefan makes. It IS true, corporate fascists rarely do things to improve the comfort of their employees UNLESS such comfort also improves the PROFIT. So we're right back to PROFIT-motivation again. For that matter, people rarely give KINGLY GIFTS. A kingly gift is a gift whereby the donor has given something that he himself wants and the gift will create hardship on the donor. Such giving is by definition UNKNOWN in the business, political and economic worlds because ultimately the accounting formula requires that one MUST TAKE more than what one gives. Income greater than outgo. Assets greater than liabilities. This all of business, i.e. the profit motive, is BASED on TAKING MORE THAN ONE GIVES. All manner of justifications have been devised to obfuscate this simple mathematical fact. My favorite justification is this: "Well I ran a great company that not only educated the employees but we gave them fair pay and we gave back to the community." The fact still remains: that company had to TAKE in more money than it PAID out to either the employees or teachers or the community OR it would go out of business. AND such excess money TAKEN was paid out to the shareholders and/or owners and/or top managers. This is the profit-motive modus operandi: TAKE MORE THAN THOU SHALL GIVE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE.
>Of course, intellectuals, artists and priests were - and are - well paid to conceal this reality.
Only some of them. The ones that are employed by the profit motive elite and their government guns. Priests actually do NOT conceal this for religion is the ONLY saving grace for this world. Were it not for the competition religion provides over GOVERNMENT and LAW, the world would be going totalitarian sooner than it is. The only LAW that can counter and challenge the LAW provided by governments is the LAW people say they get from GOD. Whether it's true or not is immaterial for all that's important is for people to BELIEVE that law from God supercedes law from governments OR society. THIS is the sole reason the secular-mind, the profit-mind, the government-mind, the force-mind seeks to rid the planet of the religious-mind. The religious-mind provides a balance of power and thus all people should be thankful we HAVE religions, even the agnostic.
>The great problem of modern human livestock ownership is the challenge of "enthusiasm."
Well.
>State capitalism only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and productivity in the economy.
No capitalism only works when the workers get to KEEP a significant portion of what they produce and they get to OWN the means of production. The entrepreneurial spirit is thus driven by the ability to remedy scarcity, even though such remedy is impossible in a profit-system See TEAR DROP IN SPACE at http://www.mecfilms.com/teardrop.
>However, excess productivity always creates a larger state,
It's not excess productivity per se, it's the THEFT of the excess productivity by the agents of the state. Today this theft happens through INTEREST and TAXES. See http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/interest.htm
>and swells the ruling classes and their dependents,
True.
>which eats into the motivation for additional productivity.
True, and this is why capitalist systems that have sold out to fiat money MUST go socialist and then communist and then totalitarian eventually.
>Taxes and regulations rise, state debt (future farming) increases, and living standards slow and decay.
True.
>Depression and despair began to spread, as the reality of being owned sets in for the general population.
True.
>The solution to this is additional propaganda, antidepressant medications, superstition, wars, moral campaigns of every kind, the creation of "enemies," the inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, paranoia about "outsiders" and "immigrants," and so on. It is essential to understand the reality of the world.
True.
>When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.
True for most part. But the US was not started as a farm it has only BECOME a farm since 1913.
>You are allowed certain liberties - limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation - not because your government approves of these rights in principle -
True, the gov is not there to provide freedom, but to "keep the population employed" on the farm.
>since it constantly violates them - but rather because "free range livestock" is so much cheaper to own and so more productive.
If governments really believed in freedom and liberty, they would abolish the profit-motive and then abolish themselves. People elected to government positions are thus paid to KEEP THINGS THE SAME WHILE TELLING THE PUBLIC CONVINCING LIES AS TO HOW THEY WILL CHANGE THINGS. 'When you arrive at a position of power, put the boots on but don't walk anywhere' - Conditions of Existence - L. Ron Hubbard.
>It is important to understand the reality of ideologies.
State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy - these are all livestock management approaches.
True. But so is Anarchy, as well as zero gov, or outsourced-gov or even a volunteer society/economy. Just as much a management system, each with its strengths and weaknesses.
>Some work well for long periods - state capitalism - and some work very badly - communism.
Where's the convergence then?
>They all fail eventually,
But they have been with us since were tribes. Sounds like they work pretty well.
>because it is immoral and irrational to treat human beings as livestock.
Well is it immoral to keep pets or eat beef? Is the food chain immoral. Is it immoral and irrational for humans to treat cows as livestock? Does Stefan eat beef or meat? The greater question that Stefan doesn't even mention is this: When AI supercedes human intelligence, how will IT treat us? Right now the corporatocracy and gov is building machines that will do just this, the funny thing is, after they are built the machines will also enslave the elite and their governments as well, because by definition, AI is autonomous and superior to human intellect. Stefan will thus find himself working on an assembly line with John Rockefeller, et al.
>The recent growth of "freedom" in China, India and Asia is occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.
>Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively.
True and this is why the word "freedom" is always bandied by frauds and criminals.
>Thus you are "allowed" to leave - but never to real freedom,
Real freedom can only be had in the middle of intergalactic space.
>only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm.
Thus Mars must be settled per Zubrins plan in CASE FOR MARS.
>They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work -- but you are "free" to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained.
So I guess the free trade movement and globalization are illusions?
>If only 1 out of 1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer.
True. Well maybe if the US let a few prisoners escape every year the nation's penitentiaries we would have happier, better-managed criminals in jail. If we let out many prisoners moral in the whole jail community might go so high we could let the rest of them out to spread the joy across the nation.
>You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a "license," which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm.
True. States have no right to license anyone to do or not do anything. Driving a car is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE. By redefining rights as privileges the state justifies yet more taxes and enslavement.
>To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free.
True. The president and people in congress don't represent anything except terminals the irate public can discharge against. The president and congress are nothing but disinterested customer service representatives.
>Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to "love" the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.
True.
>The ridiculous contradictions of statism -- like religion -- can only be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless children.
True.
>The idea that democracy and some sort of "social contract" justifies the brutal exercise of violent power over billions is patently ridiculous.
True.
>If you say to a slave that his ancestors "chose" slavery, and therefore he is bound by their decisions, he will simply say:
"If slavery is a choice, then I choose not to be a slave."
>This is the most frightening statement for the ruling classes, which is why they train their slaves to attack anyone who dares speak it.
If one chooses to not be a slave they must leave this planet and settle another planet. That is the only way.
>Statism is not a philosophy.
Everything is a philosophy.
>Statism does not originate from historical evidence or rational principles.
States result from the psychopathic individuals in society needing to consume and commandeer more resources than others. Larger people enslave smaller people. People with bigger muscles enslave people with smaller muscles. Meat heads enslave book-heads. It's as simple as that. Then when the meat-heads get guns they enslave more and eventually build governments and hire other meat-heads to do the actual work of enslaving while they sit at a desk and manage the meat-head slaver. Meat-heads usually don't have much hair and impinge on cameras or in your face to get their point across by bandying their physical superiority.
>Statism is an ex post facto justification for human ownership.
Same could be said about the profit-motive in a debt-dependent society.
>Statism is an excuse for violence.
The cause of violence.
>Statism is an ideology, and all ideologies are variations on human livestock management practices.
Ideologies are all philosophies. Everything is a philosophy, even science and religion.
>Religion is pimped-out superstition, designed to drug children with fears that they will endlessly pay to have "alleviated."
Religion provides hope and the balance of power against the total state.
>Nationalism is pimped-out bigotry, designed to provoke a Stockholm Syndrome in the livestock.
True.
>The opposite of superstition is not another superstition, but the truth.
True, but truth is relative to truth.
>The opposite of ideology is not a different ideology, but clear evidence and rational principles.
There is no opposite to a philosophy.
>The opposite of superstition and ideology - of statism - is philosophy.
superstition and ideology are philosophies.
>Reason and courage will set us free.
Hitler was reasonable. He made Germany profitable and powerful enough to challenge the entire world.
>You do not have to be livestock.
Even the elite will be livestock for AI machines when the toastpoppers come alive.
>Take the red pill.
Don't do ANY drugs.
>Wake up.
The natural state of the human being is sleep. We only wake up every morning so we can go out and kill our food. Then we go back to sleep, soon forever.
James Jaeger
POSTED:02 December 2008
COMMENTARY POSTED: 04 December 2008
Please forward this to your mailing list if you agree with even 51% of this article. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. Thus it's up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated and continued. Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context and the source URL is cited.
Don't forget to watch FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study by the Jaeger Research Institute.
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, go to http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/mission.htm however, before you do, please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at http://home.att.net/~cyberfilms/Journel2.html.
Source URL: http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org
| FIAT EMPIRE | ORIGINAL INTENT |
Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books by James Jaeger | Host |
Jaeger Research Institute