Tuesday, March 17, 2009

I Want My Two Dollars! Why Taking Back the AIG Bonuses is Meaningless

Democrats are ENRAGED!

No, wait...they are LIVID!

AIG took billions in corporate welfare and the Dem's are feigning rage over the the shocking revelation that a bunch of people got filthy stinking richer off the backs of the people.

How sweet.

On paper, it sounds practical. We gave them money to help get out of our oncoming depression, they misused some, and we want it back. The fallacy, of course, is that

A.) The State "bought" most of the company by devaluing the dollar even more through the artificial creation of said funds to "buy" said company.

B.) If you give 200,000 dollars to the mob and they use 5,000 of it for a watch, and you demand that 5,000 back, ultimately the act is meaningless because you have barely scratched the surface of the dough you dished out.

You see, the only reason the Dem's are "livid" is because the people never wanted these bailouts in the first place. So, of course they'll play like they are going to protect our money from evil capitalists. But it is all a scam. A joke. A charade.

Be advised:

Of the BILLIONS given to AIG, grabbing 170,000,000 back is meaningless because we the people won't see it, and it isn't real money anyways, as the State just prints it off, borrows it, or taxes the people further. That "money" will be juggled around in the innards of the State, and AIG and others will continue to prosper greatly from the actions of the politicians in Washington.

Basically, you are being ripped off and the politicians make you think they are fighting for you when all they are doing is fucking with you so you'll stay quiet and go back to sleep.

They grow in power, and their friends grow very rich.

Think of the red pill as a philosophical no-doze.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Hate the State: It's Good for You!

Every day there is more news on new spending by the State. Obama is seeking over 200 billion more dollars for the war machine. He has just unveiled his trillion dollar budget. After the State "withdraws" from Iraq, there will still be 50,000 troops there...INDEFINITELY.

Now, I don't mean to be a DOWNER, but it's time to talk some serious shit about the State, its nature, and our part in perpetuating it.

The State functions by means of coercion in all that it does. In other words, the means to whatever ends those in government aim, no matter how well intentioned, are accomplished through threat of violence. If we do not pay taxes, we go to jail, and if we try and escape, we'll be shot. There is another type of organization that generates revenue through the threat of and/or initiation of force: the fucking MOB.

If there is any doubt about this fact, then I ask you: why do you voluntarily give the State your money to fund its foreign adventures of war and murder? Maybe you DON'T pay them voluntarily, eh?

The new president, the man so many have hope in, is going to continue occupying Iraq, and send more soldiers to Afghanistan. Where are the protests? Where is the anger?

All this time, it has not been about a moral stance against war, but about opposing a Republican.

And even though we have our first black President and Democrats control the state, corporate welfare and war persist with gusto. The social progress of many voters has simply been exploited by the state. This is evidenced by its core behavior.

In short, the State is a criminal organization which wages murder and corruption domestically and internationally, functioning always this way despite what group controls it. Policy and rhetoric changes here and there are ultimately irrelevant.

Violence is the State's NATURE. It is inherently corrupt.

Yet we perpetuate it.

We as people naturally desire to have things within our society improved. This is natural as we are social animals that wish to survive, and therefore, in many respects, cooperate with one another. Those in the State, and those who support it, claim that the organization is what manifests when people cooperate in the larger social climate. While this claim bears truth, it also secretly inserts a lie, namely, that the State, and better yet, democracy, is the best we can do. That we need not aspire to better alternatives.

The truth is we do not need violence for bridges and roads. We do not need violence to have schools. We do not need violence to have health care. That is the core fallacy of the State: violence against one another is necessary in order to have goods and services.

I've heard it argued that more people have become involved in politics, and that this is good. How can ever more people joining a murderous organization be good? Keep in mind, I like Ron Paul, Peter Defazzio, Dennis Kucinitch (even though he is so fucking weird), and Ralph Nader. And I know there are many other politicians like them.

Hold your breath.



IT DOESN'T MATTER! Politicians with integrity (oxymoron?) get nowhere. Clipping at the leaves of corruption is nothing to hacking at the root (thank-you Thoreau).

The State is that which is the very worst about humanity. It is our most vile by-product.

The remedy?

Stop voting, donate to charity, volunteer with private charity organizations, and look for every moment of your life that is untouched by the State and EXPLOIT it.

Maximize freedom, eliminate the State.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

I'm Not Bashing Obama

Lately I've had friends ask me why I don't like Obama. I don't personally dislike Obama. In fact, arguably he is a better president in 48hrs than 8yrs of Bush.

I AM, however, bashing the State. It is an evil organization filled with murderers and thieves, of which Obama has shown he is in his first couple of weeks as president: massive corporate welfare, and the murder of Pakistani people.

This is in keeping with with the type of actions of his predecessors.

It is not the new president, it is the organization that he is now head of. Until we realize that the root of the corruption lies in the nature of the state as a violent, criminal organization, we will continue to rape and pillage ourselves and the rest of the world.

Take the red pill.

"Because I'm a Realist"-Why the Left Will Now Defend War

After the new administration bombed Pakistan less than a week in office, the news was met with a resounding "meh," from the political left. It was neither reported, nor did the president do much to talk about the action that killed some civilians, including children.

Myself, I emailed MoveOn and Credo, asking them where the outrage was, where the mass emails were, and I received...form letters.

In asking different friends of mine about this issue I've been met with the usual answer that we can't expect the state to not use military violence against poorer, defenseless lands. In fact, I had one person claim that the area bombed wasn't even technically Pakistan, that it was just a chunk of desert, as if murdering kids is all right as long as it's not in an actual country. Hmm.

One of the more unsettling comments came from a woman I know. She claimed that she was not an idealist, but a realist. She claimed the president prefers diplomatic choices and that he has a "hard" job filled with "difficult" decisions. Basically, the murder of children appears justifiable as long as the president doesn't do it as much as the last guy.

War is not so bad as long as a Republican isn't waging it.

Let's put things in a different light. Suppose you have children and must choose a babysitter. Both are child molesters. One molests ten kids a week. The other molests one a year, and already met his quota.

Will you be an "idealist" and choose neither? Or will you be a "realist" and choose number 2?

The same woman, when asked where the outrage was over the new president's decision to continue America's military violence, sadly replied that, "People can't be outraged all the time."

The 53 million people who voted for the new president appear to be sinking back into slumber.

The murder and torture will continue as usual, but now the left can sleep like babies knowing they won a glorified pissing contest.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

My Letter to MoveOn


As you know, the United States military bombed Pakistan last week, killing a few militants and some civilians, including children. At the beginning of the Iraq war, your organization was an inspiration to me in the anti-war effort. I have long since become disenfranchised with the organization as it ultimately manifested as a mouth-piece for a political party.

You see, I've realized that war is the health of the state, and this proves to be consistent under the new administration. But where is your outrage? Where are the mass emails opposed to such military violence?

Will you not hold THIS president accountable because he is in your party? That kind of behavior was last seen in another group of people in America. They were called Republicans.

New policies do not cancel out the murder of children. Within the first WEEK Obama has committed Pakistani children to the grave. The first WEEK. Their lives in exchange for political clout amongst war hawks, apparently.

Your organization is in a unique position to hold the new president accountable, and to keep awareness generated.

This is not about political contests, this is about the lives of innocents people in poor lands being sacrificed for cheap statist purposes. That is not change.

That is business as usual.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Portland's Political Dysfunction

Portland, Oregon's mayor Sam Adams had sex with a young man a few years ago and lied about it before the election. The city is having a political/emotional/religious/moral epilepsy. It's even made nationwide news.

Now I'll be honest: I Like Sam Adams a lot. I met him once in my neighborhood. I walked down the street and chatted with him. While I was still voting, I cast one for him. I believe he is a good man.

People are calling for him to resign, others ask him to stay. I feel bad for Sam, sex life plastered on TV, reputation tarnished. But he's a politician, and this is the price of such a vocation: public life. The great irony is that a politician lied, which they are oft to do, and the people are ENRAGED! Ever heard of George W. Bush? Or Bill Clinton? Or Richard Nixon? And coming soon, Barack Obama?!

The whole issue is illustrative of one thing: the absurdity of the state. The notion that a man's private sex life with a consenting adult is an issue in the first place should set off alarms. But the fact that the state forces the citizenry to pay politicians creates a divisive social environment, wherein the people react to what should be a non-issue with passion and vehemence. It doesn't help that so many feel powerless against the leviathan of the state that their reaction to things on a local level becomes ever more brazen. The logic says that on a local level, we can fight more directly for or against those in power.

The picture becomes clear as we take a step back and look at what we are dealing with. The state is a violent, criminal organization which by its very nature divides the people against one another. Right now, in downtown Portland, protesting, are people who voted for the same president and are now divided amongst each other due to the actions of those in government.

If we are stolen from by the state, then we will naturally act out in defense or offense of those we elect. It's a natural response to an aggressive environment, and this whole, silly "scandal" is so clear and so obvious...that nobody will notice.