False Rape Accusations

My post on Kenneth Moreno And Franklin Mata led to an interesting flamewar in the comments. Normally, I don't bother arguing with fools, but I wanted to see how persistent the pro-State troll would be.

That post ranks high in Google now. A pro-State troll was very hostile, because I sided with the victims/defendants. It is possible that the lawyer representing the accuser in the upcoming civil lawsuit was the one leaving hostile comments.

Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata were acquitted of rape but convicted of "official misconduct" (a misdemeanor). They were fired after the verdict was announced. Until then, they were on "paid leave". Due to police unions, whenever a policeman is accused of doing something wrong, he gets a paid vacation until the investigation is over. The "official misconduct" conviction automatically disqualifies them from working as a policeman, so the city can finally fire them.

One interesting thing I've learned from blogging is "The more negative comments a post receives, the more important the subject." The flamewar in the comments convinces me that false rape accusation are a serious problem.

I was surprised by the severity of the pro-State trolling. I can't say that the policemen were wrongfully accused, without being a misogynist and rapist? It's wrong for me to say "WTF? There's insufficient evidence!"? That's pretty severe misandry.

My point is that State law is biased against men. It is very easy for a woman to make a false rape claim or false sexual harassment claim. Instead of "innocent until proven guilty", it's "guilty unless proven innocent".

My other point is "It takes more than the testimony of a drunk woman, to send someone to jail for a false rape conviction."

Divorce law is another area of law with anti-male bias. With "no fault" divorce laws, there's a huge financial incentive for a woman to cheat a man.

Suppose I enter a contract with you. You can break the contract, but I still have to pay you. What kind of idiot would make such a contract? Due to State law, every marriage contract can be arbitrarily broken by the woman. Your wife can have an affair, get pregnant with another man, divorce you, and you still owe her alimony and child support? What kind of idiot would make such a one-sided unfair contract?

You still can get married, but you have to choose *REALLY* carefully. If your wife is playing the parasite role in the marriage, you *WILL* almost definitely be cheated.

Many State propagandists say "All types of rape are equivalent." Biden said "Rape is rape is rape." This is false. For "date rape", the woman is partially responsible, because she made bad decisions. That isn't morally equivalent to forcibly raping a stranger. There's a lot of State propaganda, that forcible rape is equivalent to situations where the woman is partially responsible.

You have to be responsible for where you go and who you hang out with. You have to be responsible to make sure you don't get too drunk. Anyone who suggests otherwise is pro-State trolling.

This is an important point. People say "I'll complain to the State when something bad happens!" rather than "I'll have individual responsibility for what I do. I'll be careful to avoid situations where something bad might happen."

There are many scenarios that the State falsely treats as rape:

1. A woman consents and later changes her mind.
2. A woman gets severely drunk.
3. A woman acts like she isn't sure what she wants, and the man is too aggressive.
4. statutory rape
   

Compare those scenarios with:

1. A woman is forcibly raped by a stranger.
2. A man slips a drug in a woman's drink.
   

For the first four scenarios, the woman is partially/mostly responsible for what happened. The last two are clear crimes.

One particularly evil type of rape claim is when a woman consents and later changes her mind. If the man says "She consented!" and the woman says "I didn't consent!", that's clearly insufficient evidence.

I also reject the legal principle of "too drunk to consent". Try an equivalent argument, "The drunk driver is not responsible, because he was too drunk to know what he was doing." That's silly. You are responsible for the decision to get drunk. If you are planning to get drunk, make sure there are arrangements for someone to take you home.

Now, a pro-State troll says "FSK likes raping drunk women." That is false. Alcohol breath is disgusting. I can point out this is irresponsible drunkard behavior, without exploiting drunk women.

Why should a woman be so eager to support the false accuser in the Moreno/Mata trial? Unless you're an irresponsible drunkard, the acquittal should not offend you. If you aren't an irresponsible alcoholic, you won't have the same problem as the false accuser.

Another false rape scenario is when the woman acts inconsistently. A woman says "no", but she's emotionally sort of interested. This comes back to another point, "Everyone is a little crazy!" Most people don't have the logical and emotional parts of their brain synchronized. A woman might logically resist, while being emotionally interested.

In such a scenario, the guy may be too aggressive. I would not do that. State law is so messed up that you have to be careful.

However, this is a very important point. A woman can logically not be attracted to you, even if she's emotionally somewhat interested. It's better to avoid crazy people. However, everyone does this to some extent. It was shocking to notice that most people (men and women) have an emotional mental state that doesn't match their logical mental state.

It also was shocking to realize that a woman can say "I'm not interested!", even if she is sort of interested. Looking back, I wasn't as persistent as I should have been. Still, you have to be careful.

For example, if a woman says "I have a boyfriend!" out of context, does that mean she isn't interested? Or, does it mean she is interested because you made her start thinking of her boyfriend? Is she telling you to leave her alone? Is she thinking of upgrading? It depends on the context. Before I cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I would only listen to what a woman said and not notice the body language. It was confusing, that they were frequently the opposite.

However, State law and State brainwashing are pretty harsh. If you're dealing with a situation where what a woman says and her body language are opposite, you have to be very careful.

"Statutory rape" is another example of false rape. If you're biologically an adult you should be treated as an adult. The State and State schools force people ages 13-21 to be treated as children.

A pro-State troll says "This proves FSK wants to rape 14 year old girls!" I can point out that a law is stupid, without breaking that law. Given that the law is crazy, I avoid anyone under 18.

This story was offensive. "Women's rights groups" protested the jury acquittal. Why aren't some "men's rights groups" protesting that two men were falsely accused, lost their jobs, and had their reputation ruined based on zero evidence? I have better things to do than attend a protest.

Look at the picture in the above article (this one). The spin is "Look at all those angry women." It's only 50 people, out of 7M+ people living in NYC. That isn't an overwhelming show of support.

Those could be friends of the accuser. They could be professional protesters, hired by her lawyer, to create a favorable impression for her $50M+ civil lawsuit.

This comes back to another point. Evil people will organize and lobby, to manipulate the State. An intelligent person has better things to do. Even if 10,000 women attended the anti-male rally, that's still a minority of people in NYC. However, it would be hyped in the mainstream media as evidence of how women should be angry at men.

This NY Times article was offensive. It's a narrative, told from the viewpoint of a woman similar to the accuser, that she's angry over the acquittal. If you don't read it carefully, you might think the woman is the accuser. How is this "news" and not propaganda? Why not tell the narrative of a man, angry how the policeman were falsely accused of rape, after he had once been falsely accused himself? The narrative of the incident is to reinforce that women should have no personal responsibility, and complain to the State when something bad happens after they do something stupid and irresponsible.

There's another disturbing aspect of the story. The US mainstream media did not publish the name of the woman who made the false accusation. Even if you believe her version of the story, she's an irresponsible woman with a drinking problem. Any future employer or boyfriend should know.

By protecting her "privacy", the mainstream media encourages false accusations. Moreno and Mata's reputation was ruined, even before they were convicted of "official misconduct" but acquitted of rape. It's unfair to publish the names of the victims/defendants, but not the accuser.

I did some googling, to try and find out the name of the false accuser, but could not find it. It isn't illegal to publish the name of a woman who makes a false rape accusation. However, the mainstream media colludes to enforce this rule. If I had a mainstream media job, I'd be fired for breaking it.

Does anyone know the name of the scumbag accuser in the Moreno and Mata case? I could not find it anywhere.

Even if the jury had voted "guilty" for rape, I still would have believed it was a false accusation. There clearly was insufficient evidence. Without the false rape accusation, nobody would have cared about "official misconduct". I suspect that policemen fake records all the time. They shouldn't do that, but the State bureaucracy makes it necessary. For example, the NYPD recently had a "ticket quota, arrest quota" scandal.

This could be an example of "No good deed goes unpunished." The policemen were concerned about her and decided to check up on her. They faked the records so they could do this. The accuser is getting even with all the men who had sex with her while she was drunk, and she never saw them again.

Consider the opposite headline "Police took a drunk woman back to her apartment. They left her alone. She choked and drowned on her own vomit. What were those policemen doing?"

The woman probably a false memory of being raped by the policeman. Her lawyer might have encouraged her to have the false memory. Her lawyer probably coached her on what she should say. She might be confused with all the other times she came home drunk with a man, and she never saw him again.

There are plenty of men who would have a one night stand with a drunk woman, and then never call her again because she's a useless tramp. I'd never do that. If you're an irresponsible woman there are plenty of men willing to exploit you. That woman doesn't have the names of other men who took advantage of her stupidity, but she does know which policemen took her back to her apartment.

I still say that Mata is a decent guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He did what his more senior partner asked him to do. Moreno seems like a sleazy character, but not a rapist. If I were judge in a free market court, I'd award her $50k-$100k (paid by Moreno and not the NYPD).

The woman has a pending civil lawsuit against the city, for $50M+! She has a financial incentive to lie. She's an irresponsible drunkard, and now she's trying to hit the State lawsuit lottery.

A $50M+ civil lawsuit seems like flagrant golddigging. Moreno probably could have shot and killed her for only $10M! I would not award huge civil damages, because the woman is partially responsible. I would award some damages, because Moreno did some stupid things (but not rape).

I support compensation-based justice and not punishment-based justice. There's no point in sending Moreno or Mata to jail. It would be reasonable to order Moreno to pay reasonable compensation to the accuser ($50k-$100k). A $50M+ lawsuit against the city government is silly.

Even if there was proof of rape, $50M in damages is excessive. Since she didn't get a STD or get pregnant, a fine of more than $250k seems excessive.

As I mentioned before, suing the government is pointless. If the woman wins a $50M+ verdict, every taxpayer in NYC pays higher taxes to compensate. Why should I pay $10 more in taxes, to give this irresponsible woman a windfall?

As part of their NYPD employment agreement and union contract, the State agrees to reimburse them for any claims. The woman is not suing Moreno and Mata as individuals. She's suing the government. Any verdict is not deducted from NYPD salaries. It's paid from the city's general fund. I'm going to pay higher taxes, to pay for any financial windfall earned by the scumbag woman and her lawyers.

It's also an awkward contradiction for State lawyers. First, the State was arguing that Moreno and Mata raped her and belong in jail. Now, in the civil lawsuit, State lawyers are required to argue that they didn't rape her.

Also, Moreno and Mata already suffered a huge loss. They lost their jobs and pensions. That's a bigger loss for Moreno than Mata, because he's older. For a State employee, the juicy pension is a large component of your salary.

A policeman job is very lucrative financial, both in salary and benefits and pension. Suppose an NYPD policeman could sell the right to his job to someone else? How much would that be worth? It'd be worth a lot. Policeman is a high-pay low-skill job.

If you want to work as a policeman, you have to work for the State. The State has a monopoly for selling police protection. The NYPD won't hire them back, and no other city will hire them. However, they probably will find a job as private security guards.

An incident like this one could not happen with free market police. First, there would be more precautions to make sure the police didn't do anything that appears improper. Second, there would be a clear agreement, regarding service if you're severely drunk. For example, a policeman could stay with you all night, and then send you a bill for $500-$1000. In the present, the policemen had a problem. They wanted to stay with the woman and help her, but they also had other responsibilities.

Free market police may have a policy of "wear a camera at all times", so they can be exonerated when falsely accused. Some police departments are experimenting with such cameras, but they "mysteriously malfunction" whenever the policeman is accused of doing something wrong.

Also, with free market police, if you thought that police vendor X was irresponsible, then you can fire them. In the present, even if you're outraged by the acquittal, you can't fire the NYPD. The only way to boycott the NYPD is to stop paying taxes. If you stop paying taxes, an NYPD policeman will come to kidnap you or take away your stuff.

State police have a monopoly. This encourages irresponsible police behavior. The real evil is the State police monopoly, and not anything any individual policeman does.

I believe in compensation-based justice and not punishment-based justice. There's no point sending Moreno and Mata to prison. They are not at risk for being repeat offenders. They already suffered a huge financial loss. As a free market judge, I'd award small compensation to the woman, paid by Moreno. A $50M+ lawsuit is silly. Obviously, the woman seeks to hit the financial lottery. $50M is a disproportionate award, compared to any injury, even if he did have sex with her while drunk. There's insufficient proof.

I was surprised that the mainstream media is uniformly saying "Duh! They raped her!", rather than "Duh! There's no evidence!" The completely one-sided coverage makes my "conspiracy spider sense" suspect that was a false accusation.

Some pro-State trolls say "Moreno confessed!" Actually, he denied it many times, and then finally told her what she wanted to hear so she would leave. Moreno didn't know she was wearing a wire. Moreno certainly is an idiot. He thought he could dissaude her from filing a complaint, while she'd already filed a complaint and lawyered up. Her lawyer probably helped her prepare to extract the false confession from Moreno.

Here's the full transcript of the taped "confession". When you read the whole thing, and not just excepts, it doesn't look as bad. Plus, that's just a transcript. You'd have to listen to it and hear voice inflection. The mainstream media quoted the "confession" out of context, by publishing the most incriminating excerpt.

Sentencing hasn't occurred yet. The mainstream media is pressuring the judge to make the "Acquitted Conduct Sentencing" error. The mainstream media is saying "The judge should consider that the policemen were accused of rape but acquitted, when determining the sentence." That is false. The judge should only consider the charges for which they were convicted. With misdemeanor convictions and no criminal history, the judge probably should choose probation, maybe some "community service", maybe a fine, but no prison time.

The Moreno and Mata false accusation is interesting. It shows that State "anti-male bias" lie is more important than the lie of "absolute immunity for police". It's more important for the State to portray men as evil, than it is to say that policemen get immunity.

You might wonder "Why is an anarchist defending a policeman?" I'm offended at all people who are victims of State abuse.

Also, I was wrongfully accused of sexual harassment at a job. I was fired without any due process. As an "at will" employee, I had no legal recourse. That makes me sympathetic to other people who are falsely accused. If there are going to be lots of false accusations, then it's not surprising that the victims are sympathetic to each other.

I'm surprised by the State propaganda surrounding Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata. It seems like an obvious false rape accusation based on insufficient evidence.

State law is biased against men. State law is biased against individual responsibility. Marriage law is biased against men. Many non-crimes are falsely categorized as rape. Everyone has individual responsibility for what they do. You shouldn't be an irresponsible drunkard and later file a false rape claim.

On "Kenneth Moreno And Franklin Mata", the pro-State trolling was severe and persistent. Based on that, I see that anti-male State law is an important subjects. False rape accusations are a serious problem.

Memorial Day - Blogging Holiday

I'm skipping making a post today.

National Debt Mechanics

There's one point I want to clarify, from yesterday's post on Debt Ceiling Fallacies. It's the mechanics of the national debt.

The details are carefully obfuscated. It's more complicated than "Let's print new money and spend it!" By obfuscating the details of deficit spending, it seems legitimate.

Congress has (unconstitutionally) delegated money-creation authority to the Federal Reserve. However, the Treasury may still create Treasury debt. That debt is sold to the banksters and Federal Reserve, for newly created money.

Suppose there is $1T of deficit spending.

The Treasury secretary creates $1T of new Treasury debt.

There is a Treasury auction. That $1T is sold to the banksters.

There is fractional reserve banking, with a 10:1 reserve ratio. Having just purchased $1T in Treasury debt, the banksters now have a reserve deficiency of $100B.

The banksters take $100B of Treasury debt and sell that debt to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve creates $100B of new reserves and buys that Treasury debt. This is the "monetizing the debt" trick.

The Treasury bonds sold to the Federal Reserve are usually not the same ones just auctioned. However, in "Quantitative Easing 2", the banksters bought Treasury bonds and immediately flipped them to the Federal Reserve for a profit. The blog "zerohedge" was tracking this more.

Now, the Federal government has $1T of new money. That money is spent, purchasing real goods and services. This causes $1T of inflation.

If the money supply increased from $10T to $11T, then everyone holding dollars lost 10% of their purchasing power to inflation.

If the Federal government directly printed and spent $1T, that would be to obvious. The details are carefully obfuscated.

By making deficit speding unnecessarily complicated, it gives the process an illusion of legitimacy.

Debt Ceiling Fallacies

In 2008-2009, politicians were saying "OMFG! We need deficit spending to 'stimulate the economy'!" Now, politicians are saying "OMFG! We need to cut the deficit!"

That isn't a logically consistent viewpoint. In 2008-2009, deficit spending was desperately needed. Now, a balanced budget is urgently needed?

Congress will eventually raise the debt ceiling. What else are they going to do? Are they going to quit and get a real job?

It was amusing to see Wednesday's Colbert Report. His guest was Austan Goolsbee, a "budget economic expert". He bragged "I've been working for Obama since 2009! I was studying this subject academically for more than 10 years before that!" My reaction was "So what? You've never had a real job."

(That's a frequent criticism of Obama. Most of his advisors only have academic experience or government experience. In other words, they were employed in the parasite sector their whole lives. Of course, a CEO of a large corporation doesn't have a true "free market perspective" either.)

There's a statistic structural defect in the monetary system, which I call the Compound Interest Paradox. In a debt-based monetary system, the only way new money is created is when someone borrows it. However, only the principal is created and not the required interest payments. This means that you need continuous inflation to keep the scam running. Exponentially-increasing debt and money supply is required, in a corrupt debt-based fiat monetary system.

I'm seeing other sites starting to mention the "Compound Interest Paradox" argument. However, they don't call it the same name as me. I've also seen it called "The Debt Virus".

During a severe recession, banks stop lending. This would lead to a money supply crash and hyperdeflation. No new money is created via loans, but outstanding loans are still due. Money is destroyed as loans are repaid, leading to a money supply crash.

That's one way the banksters cheat people. In a recession/depression, the money supply temporarily crashes. Old loans are still due, but the money supply is shrinking. Individuals lose their homes and their savings, while insiders get a bailout. Each business cycle is a massive wealth transfer to the banksters. The banksters profit from inflation during the boom. The banksters foreclose on real assets during the bust, and then get bailed out.

The Federal government may have unlimited debts. Therefore, in a severe recession, deficit spending by the Federal government prevents hyperdeflation.

The Federal Reserve may create money, bailing out banks.

Technically, TARP was unnecessary. The Federal Reserve could had bought bank assets with newly-printed money. However, that would have been too obviously corrupt. The Federal Reserve stealth bailouts were much greater than TARP.

The "national debt" is an accounting fiction. Theoretically, Congress could change the Federal Reserve law and print enough money to pay off the national debt. However, with 10:1 reserve ratios and fractional reserve banking, printing $14T to pay off the national debt would cause approximately $140T of inflation. If Congress printed new money to pay off the national debt, fractional reserve banking practices would need to be changed.

Another common misconception is "Our grandchildren will pay the national debt." Most people's reaction to this statement is "Yeah! Let's cheat our grandchildren! Who cares about them?" Actually, the cost of the national debt is not deferred to the future. The cost of deficit spending is paid immediately via money supply inflation.

For example, if there is $1T of deficit spending, there is immediate $1T of inflation. There's no free lunch.

There also is a wealth transfer to the banksters via "interest payments on the national debt". The State collects money/wealth via taxes, and gives it to the banksters via interest payments on the national debt.

China (and other foreign governments) do not profit from the national debt. This is a common misconception. China has an unleveraged long position in Treasury debt. The interest payments are insufficient compensation for inflation.

The banksters profit from Treasury debt, via leverage. They borrow at the Fed Funds Rate and buy higher-yielding Treasury debt, making a practically guaranteed riskless profit.

In a fiat debt-based monetary system, the "national debt" is an accounting fiction. It's an excuse to transfer wealth to the banksters, via interest payments. When there is deficit spending, the cost is not deferred to the future. The cost of deficit spending is immediately paid via inflation. The cost of the national debt is not deferred to the future. It is paid immediately. There is a continuous wealth transfer to banksters, via interest payments on the national debt.

Congress has to raise the debt ceiling. It's necessary due to a statistic defect in the monetary system rules.

In a fiat monetary system, there's no limit to deficit spending and inflation. The only limit is complete currency collapse and hyperinflation.

Once inflation crosses a certain threshold rate, inflation becomes too obvious. The slaves stop holding State paper money. People rush out to spend their paycheck immediately after getting paid, due to inflation concerns. Once that happens, it's all over for the State paper monetary system.

Historically, every paper monetary system has ended in hyperinflation. The US paper dollar is dangerously close to hyperinflation.

President Obama Steals $90k From A Family Who Sold Rabbits

This story is widely cited. To give their children business experience, a family was raising and selling rabbits. There were selling them for a very small profit.

An FDA agent asked to inspect their rabbit farm. The family consented. DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE! EVER! The family was threatened with a fine. They can settle for $90k, or go to trial and risk losing $2M+.

A pro-State troll says "The title of this post is an exaggeration. President Obama didn't personally rob $90k from this family." The President is personally responsible for everything the Federal government does. He could issue a pardon. He could direct the FDA agents to focus their enforcement efforts elsewhere. President Obama did not do that. Therefore, President Obama personally approves of this abuse of State power.

It was offensive to see pro-State trolls discussing the issue. Many pro-State trolls said "The law must be strictly enforced as written! No exceptions!" Why is the law written that way? Regulations are a regressive tax. They hurt people who try to bootstrap a small business, like this one.

A pro-State troll says "The rabbit farm was unsafe! Those poor rabbits!" First, rabbits are property. You can do whatever you want with your property. Second, the rabbits were voluntarily sold as pets, and seemed to be in good condition. Third, why should the State be interfering in private transactions? Why can't the farmer do whatever he wants with his property?

Finally, even if the family was abusing the rabbits, that isn't a crime. Rabbits are property. Mistreating a rabbit isn't morally equivalent to mistreating a human. However, some sources say the rabbits were well treated.

Notice the offer of "We'll settle for $90k, but it'll cost $2M if you go to trial and lose." That's a clever ploy. First, $90k is probably more than the State thugs spent so far. The State will profit from this extortion incident. Second, $90k is probably cheaper than fighting it. If the family hires a lawyer, the bill will probably be $50k+. The family won't recover the legal fees even if they win. If they go to trial and lose, the fine may be $2M+. Unless they estimate their chance of winning to be more than 99%, it's in the family's rational self-interest to settle. The legal system is stacked in the State's favor. Their chance of winning is probably less than 50%. The prosecutor, via biased jury selection, will only pick jurors who think "The law must be strictly enforced as written!"

Finally, the family probably has assets worth much more than $90k. If they have a farm and retirement savings, they're better off settling than risking all of it. A middle-class family is a juicy target for State extortion. If you're flat broke, there's nothing to steal. If you're super-wealthy, you can hire lawyers, bribe politicians, or afford to fight and lose. A middle-class family has enough assets that there's something to steal, enough assets that they might rationally choose to pay rather than risk losing everything, but not so well-connected that they can defend themselves.

For example, if the family only had $5k in net worth and they were threatened with a fine of $90k, they would obviously refuse to pay and fight it pro se. If the family has a net worth of $1M, then they have a strong incentive to settle rather than fight and risk losing everything. In this manner, it's easier for the State to extort from a middle class family, rather than extorting from someone who's broke.

I'd like to see the family say "Up yours! We're fighting this, and we're going to do it pro se!", and then make a "jury nullification" argument. However, I understand if the family caves and settles. It would be pointless to hire a lawyer and fight, because that's more expensive than settling. The State thugs know that a lawyer costs more than $90k, when they made the $90k settlement offer.

The odds are stacked against the family. It's in their rational self-interest to settle.

I'd like to see a system like "tax resister insurance", where someone bankrolled this family in their fight against the State.

This is a flagrant abuse of State power. I'm offended by the people who say "The law must be strictly enforced as written!" It's like President Obama personally walked into that family's home and stole $90k from them. That would be obviously evil. Via "color of law", the net effect is the same.

The War Powers Act

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and the President discretion for the details of how to fight the war.

Congress doesn't authorize each troop movement and each battle. That would be silly. The President has some discretion. However, Congress does have the power to declare war.

With the War Powers Act, Congress partially delegated its war-declaring power to the President. For 60 days, the President can deploy troops without Congress' authority, but only if it's an emergency. This law may be Unconstitutional, but Congress and the Supreme Court haven't rejected it.

The "war in Libya" has lasted more than 60 days. That puts President Obama in violation of the War Powers Act. Plus, Libya's problems were never an emergency for the USA, making the initial deployment a violation of the War Powers Act.

Unfortunately, the President will almost definitely get away with it. If Congress feels offended, their only recourse is impeachment. There's no way Democrats would vote for that.

Congress should just do away with the farce. They should say "The President can do whatever he wants." That would be more honest that a complex system pretending to follow "rule of law".

The President and the police can do whatever they want, with practically no restriction.

1. The President can declare anyone a terrorist and murder them without a trial, whether they're a US citizen or not, no matter where they are located.
2. The police can search your property without a warrant or reason. You aren't allowed to resist.
3. Via "asset forfeiture", the President or police may seize your property, without trial.
4. If accused of a crime, you may be held indefinitely without bail.
5. Via income taxes and other taxes, all your labor and property belongs to the President and the State.
   

The "war in Libya" is clearly illegal. Most slaves don't care. Congressmen won't complain too much. Democrats won't criticize their leader. Republicans want to do the same thing when their guy is President. Insiders profit from war, so they will let it continue.

There is no rule of law in the USA. The President and insiders may do whatever they want. If you're targeted by a State prosecutor, he'll say "The law must be strictly enforced as written!" When insiders commit crimes, there always are excuses and loopholes.

Utah Didn't Make Gold And Silver Legal Tender

This story is commonly misquoted. Utah did *NOT* declare that gold and silver are legal tender.

All the law did was repeal state capital gains taxes and sales taxes on gold and silver. It only applies to gold and silver coins minted by the Federal government.

Here are things the law did *NOT* do:

1. Federal capital gains taxes are still owed on Utah gold and silver transactions.
2. If you go into a store and buy something with a $50 American Eagle one ounce gold coin, the store only is legally required to give you $50 credit. Really, you should get credit based on melt value and not legal tender value. Utah's law should have said "gold and silver have a legal tender value equal to melt value (plus or minus a small transaction fee)".
3. It's still illegal to operate a gold and silver warehouse receipt bank in Utah. (Such banks aren't explicitly illegal. They're so heavily regulated that it's effectively illegal.)
4. Due to Federal laws, there still will be limited liquidity, for trading gold and silver coins for FRNs.
5. The law only applies to Federal-issued American Eages, and not generic bullion.
   

This law is a half partial measure. It did not declare that gold and silver are legal tender. It merely repealed State sales taxes and capital gains taxes.

In Utah, you still can't use gold and silver as money, valuing it at melt value and not face amount. There still are Federal laws restricting the ability of people to use gold and silver as money.

Specifically, if you use gold or silver as barter money on-the-books, *BOTH* parties owe tax at the 28% barter rate. That's much more unfavorable compared with FRN transactions. This Federal law still applies in Utah.

Utah's law is *NOT* a full nullification of Federal anti-gold and anti-silver laws. Those laws still apply in Utah. This is a weak partial measure falsely touted as a win for free money. All Utah's government did was repeal Utah capital gains taxes and sales taxes.

Iraq Order 81

This story was very offensive. The US had a military occupation of Iraq.

As part of the military occupation, "Order 81" was one of the laws imposed. "Order 81" made it *ILLEGAL* for Iraqi farmers to use the heirloom seeds they had been using for decades. They were required to buy seeds from US-controlled agricultural corporations.

That's a clear example of war profiteering. One "side benefit" of the invasion was more profits for Monsanto!

War is an excellent opportunity for insiders to steal. Insiders profit from war, while forcing the slaves to pay. War is a great excuse for taking away freedom. "Order 81" is a flagrant example of war profiteering.

Kitchen Nightmares And Psychopaths

Ramasay's Kitchen Nightmares frequently has bits that illustrate productive/psychopath relationships. However, Ramsay doesn't explicitly call people out for being psychopaths. He will call someone out for serving rotten food and for lying, but never explicitly accuse someone of being a manipulative psychopath.

I don't understand why anyone would agree to be on "Kitchen Nightmares" without watching the show first. Ramsay always complains about:

1. poor quality food
2. too many items on the menu
3. frozen food
4. rotten food
5. dirty kitchen

How could anyone not clean their kitchen and throw out rotten food, before agreeing to appear on the show? Don't you watch a reality show, before agreeing to appear on it as a guest?

Even before I cracked my pro-State brainwashing, it would have been impossible to lie to me about Math. It was difficult (but not impossible) to lie to me about software.

That was the incident that led to my first panic attack. A highly-skilled psychopath was lying to me and everyone else about Math and software. He didn't fool me, but he had everyone else fooled. I couldn't understand it.

From my point of view, he was obviously a manipulative liar. From his boss' point of view, he was a brilliant genius and they were lucky to have someone like him. The psychopath had everyone fooled. I was somewhat resistant. Therefore, the psychopath was targeting me for elimination.

For example, the psychopath told me I was doing a decent job, while telling everyone else I was an unqualified loser. I had been doing a great job up before the psychopath became my boss, so I couldn't be fired. The psychopath was steadily eroding my reputation. I've had psychopaths do that to me multiple times.

The psychopath thought I was an evil person trying to steal his job. Actually, I was an intelligent person trying to do a good job. I couldn't understand why he wouldn't let me fix the bugs I found in the software he wrote. He couldn't admit he didn't do a perfect job. Therefore, he couldn't allow me to fix bugs.

That led to my discovery about how psychopaths work. It was a shock. I always assumed that everyone else had good intentions and was trying to do the right thing, like me. This guy was a psychopath. Originally, I thought he was misinformed and merely needed to be educated. Actually, he was doing it consciously on purpose. He had everyone else fooled. Most people don't have the capacity to defend themselves from psychopaths.

It was a shock to see how psychopaths worked and how they manipulated people. It was like a huge block was removed from my brain. It was shocking. The discovery led to my panic attack. I was forcibly drugged. If I didn't refuse to take the drugs, then I would have been drugged up for the rest of my life. The harmful psychiatric drugs would have prevented me from seeing the truth.

(Surprisingly, my current drug, Seroquel, seems to be working. Seroquel has cured my color blindness, which is a shock and a reason to keep taking it. Most mental health patients take Seroquel plus something else. Almost nobody takes just Seroquel.)

Now, it's nearly impossible to lie to me. I'm immune to most mainstream media lies. You can't fool me about economics and politics anymore. Unfortunately, in a "majority vote" system, keeping a majority brainwashed helps prevent progress. Even in a dictatorship, there's an incentive to brainwash people. In a democracy, brainwashing people is also effective. The current USA system is the functional equivalent of a dictatorship/oligarchy.

Even though I know more than most people, I still only get one vote. Voting is pointless. The truth is not determined by a majority vote. Voting does not legitimize theft via taxes.

Just like you can't lie to me about Math, you can't like to Gordon Ramsay about food. He can instantly taste rotten food. He can taste frozen food. He can tell if the food is lousy.

I have much more sensitivity to rotten food now. I'm much better at refusing to eat rotten food.

Ramsay seems to have the "abused productive" personality type. In the context of managing a restaurant, he's so skilled that he can logically explain why psychopaths are doing a bad job. He has a high enough reputation, that he can convince the owners strongly enough to break the psychopath psychological control.

Gordon Ramsay has one important point. There is an objective universal truth, as to whether your restaurant is successful or not, namely "Are you making money?" When a restaurant is struggling, 95%+ of the time, the problem is "poor quality food".

Friday's episode, "Oceana" was very interesting. This example nearly perfectly illustrates the psychopath dynamic. Notice the characters.

Owner #1 - Moe, older brother
Owner #2 - Rami, younger brother
Executive/Head chef - Damon - psychopath, completely unqualified to be a head chef

Here are several indications that the head chef is a psychopath. Notice the way his eyes twitch when he lies. Notice the laugh line pattern on his face, nearly vertical laugh lines like a permanent sneer. Notice his hair. These all are psychopath indicators.

There also is a productive/parasite relationship between Rami and Moe. Moe isn't really a psychopath. He's an "abused productive" person trying to be a psychopath. That's why he gets angry and frustrated. Moe wants to drink all day while his employees earn money for him.

2:50 - The food comes back, but Damon snows the owners into thinking the food is good. Moe is fooled, but Rami isn't. However, Moe outranks Rami.

7:10 - Notice the laugh line pattern on Damon's face. He has nearly vertical laugh lines, like his face is in a permanent sneer. That's a clear parasite indication.

7:18 - Notice the way Damon's eyes twitch when he lies and says the food is good. Psychopaths and parasites frequently have their eyes twitch when they're lying. You can sometimes see this on CNBC. (That's a good exercise. Watch CNBC and notice the eye movements of the guests.)

7:50 - Notice the way Damon's eyes twitch when the first dish comes back. Notice the way Damon snows Moe, that the food is good.

Notice the lie about frozen/fresh crab cakes.

Notice the lie about how the duck is tender. Moe is snowed by Damon. Rami isn't fooled.

10:24 - Notice how Damon's eyes are twitching.

Notice the laughter in the kitchen. Damon has established an alternate reality, where he's a brilliant chef and Ramsay is an unqualified faker. This breaks down later.

11:10 - Notice how Damon's eyes are severely twitching here.

Damon lies and says the crab cakes aren't frozen. Rami had to expose the lie.

Notice how it's lined up, Damon and all the people he psychologically controls, vs. Ramsay. Rami breaks ranks and joins Ramsay.

Notice the conflict between Rami and Moe. Moe is defending Damon, because he doesn't want to admit he was conned. Rami is more logical and serious about improving the restaurant. Rami is submissive to Moe, taking the "abused productive" role, so he can be more logical. Rami is a co-owner, so Damon can't manipulate Moe into firing Rami. Instead, Damon convinces Moe that Rami is wrong.

The head chef doesn't know when the duck was cooked?

13:00 - Notice how Damon's eyes are severely twitching here.

Notice the near-fistfight between Damon and Ramsay. Ramsay has shattered Damon's illusion that he's a brilliant chef.

14:30 - Notice how Damon's eyes are still severely twitching. Rami knows that Damon is unqualified. Moe is still fooled. Moe is still psychologically dominated by Damon.

16:00 - Notice the dispute when the turtle soup comes back. Damon's eyes are twitching as he insists the soup is good.

Notice how, when food comes back, it's the customer's fault and not the chef's.

When I go to a restaurant, and the food is lousy, I don't send the food back. I just don't go back.

Also notice how Damon was able to psychologically manipulate Moe, into believing that the food was good.

16:30 - Notice Damon's eyes twitching during the rotten food inspection.

17:45 - Moe is finally convinced that Damon is unqualified. Ramsay was able to logically explain that Damon is doing a bad job, even though Damon had everyone psychologically manipulated.

18:30 - Notice Damon's eyes severely twitching here.

Notice Damon attempting to blame his subordinates.

That probably explains the "frequent firings" at the restaurant. Damon would be able to spin the blame for problems on others, and get them fired. If anyone became suspicious that Damon was doing a bad job, then he would be fired. Moe would actually fire them, but Damon would manipulate Moe into doing it.

19:30 - Damon's eyes are severely twitching.

Ramsay says "I didn't come here to humiliate you. I came here to help you. Why are you lying to me? Why are you serving me rotten food?"

Ramsay is wrong here. From the psychopath's point of view, Ramsay *IS* there to humiliate him and ruin him. From the psychopath's point of view, Ramsay isn't logically explaining why the food is rotten. From the psychopath's point of view, Ramsay is out-psychopathing him!

From the psychopath viewpoint, logically explaining why something is wrong IS AN EVIL MANIPULATION TRICK.

I always assumed that psychopaths were people with good intentions like me. A psychopath assumes that an intelligent person with good intentions IS ACTUALLY AN EVIL MANIPULATOR JUST LIKE THE PSYCHOPATH.

Ramsay already has a high reputation, so he can convince the owners. If it was some random food consultant, Damon would have been able to manipulate the owners into believing that the consultant was wrong. Ramsay already has a high emotional reputation, in addition to his logical restaurant owner skills.

Even worse, Damon probably didn't learn anything. I feel sorry for whoever hires him next. He isn't going to learn to be a better chef. He's going to learn how to be a better psychopath. Damon will try to emulate Ramsay's behavior, without actually learning to be a better chef!

Damon is completely underqualified. That's why he has to lie to try and keep his job. He'll have a hard time finding another idiot owner to hire him.

24:15 - Notice how Moe gets angry.

This is an important point. The psychopath doesn't get angry, because he can always emotionally manipulate people to get what he wants. If an "abused productive" person is trying to be a parasite and failing, then he gets frustrated.

24:30 - Notice how Moe is drinking.

Finally, the owners fire Damon. It's presented as the owners' decision. You can be sure that Ramsay advised them. This is the only "Kitchen Nightmares" episode where the head chef was fired after day 1. However, there are several episodes where a psychopath chef or manager is manipulating the owners and wasting their money.

Rami probably wanted to fire Damon all along, but Moe refused. With Ramsay around to back him, Damon can be fired.

Rami is probably the one who applied to have their restaurant on Kitchen Nightmares.

Later, Moe gets sick when he contemplates the changes Ramsay is making. Moe is resisting the change. Rami knows there are problems.

25:20 - Notice Damon's eyes twitching. Notice how he's still trying to save his job. He's blaming his subordinates. That's a cheap excuse. As boss, he's responsible.

At the end of the episode, Moe is obviously drunk. You can tell his speech is slurred. He asked Ramsay to go drinking with him.

This goes back to what I said in another post. If you have a drinking problem, that's a sign of a weak character. What kind of person gets drunk when Ramsay is visiting your restaurant for his show?

Many episodes of "Kitchen Nightmares" feature a psychopath who has the owner fooled and is wasting his money. This episode, "Oceana", clearly illustrates the psychopath dynamic.

I was disappointed that Ramsay didn't explicitly call out Damon for being a psychopath. He probably would have been sued for libel if he did that. Also, I was surprised that the "twitching eyes" wasn't explicitly mentioned by the show's narrator.

Notice the way that Damon's eyes twitch when he lies. Normally, Damon can fool other people. Ramsay is resistant to Damon's lies. Notice how pathetically obvious psychopaths are, when confronted by an intelligent person. Damon's eyes are twitching because he's confronted with someone who's challenging his lies. Damon can't psychologically manipulate Ramsay like he usually does.

Notice Damon's facial wrinkle pattern, especially the laugh lines. Notice his hair. Those also are psychopath indicators. They aren't 100% reliable, but it's a good indication.

There is a productive/parasite relationship between Rami and Moe. Moe isn't a full psychopath. He's a low-skill parasite. Moe has the "abused productive" personality type and he's trying to be a psychopath, leading to failure and frustration.

The head chef Damon is a clearcut psychopath. He has the head owner Moe totally fooled. Rami knows that Damon is unqualified, but is overruled by his brother Moe. This episode has a clearcut illustration of the psychopath dynamic.

Strike Or Lockout?

Stephen Colber had the Jets' coach on for an interview. He referred to the labor dispute as a "strike" and not a lockout.

I noticed that the mainstream media frequently makes a similar gaffe, calling it a strike and not a lockout.

It's an important distinction. Who is the aggressor? In a strike, the players are the aggressors, demanding concessions from owners. In a lockout, the owners are the aggressors, demanding concessions from workers.

In the NFL, the owners are demanding concessions from players. The players would be happy to sign a contract that had the same terms as the last one.

However, labor law and antitrust law makes it too risky for the owners to play the season without a contract. If the players were unionized, they could play most of the season and then strike at the end, as the baseball players did once. With antitrust law, the draft and free agent restrictions might be illegal. The State legal system is so inefficient that a full ruling will take years. A simple question of "What labor practices are illegal?" takes years for the inefficient legal system to answer.

If the State legal system could make a ruling in a week or two, this whole lockout issue would have been resolved by now. Instead, it's stuck in legal limbo. A simple question of "Is this legal or not?", and State judges can't give a straight answer.

State labor law encourages brinksmanship negotiation. There is no incentive to make concessions until the last minute. If the players raise their offer 10% and the owners only move 2%, that will be held against the players in later stages of negotiations. The owners may have made huge concession demands initially, so they can compromise and make a better offer.

If negotiation is "Take the midpoint of both offers!", then the incentive is to make an aggressive initial offer and not budge until the last minute.

The NFL/player negotiations are not a true free market negotiation. It's entirely determined by the State, via labor law and antitrust law. The player's aren't free to start their own competing league, because the State protects and subsidizes incumbent businesses.

I was disappointed to see the mainstream media spin the NFL labor dispute as a strike and not a lockout. The owners are the ones demanding concessions. Due to the nature of the State, there will be no meaningful progress until the last minute. State law explicitly encourages brinksmanship negotiation, due to a non-free market.

What Is The Real Unemployment Rate?

State comedians publish the "unemployment rate", as a measure of how the economy is doing overall. However, that statistic is completely misleading.

The "official unemployment rate" does not count people who are underemployed. The "official unemployment rate" does not count people who have a job but don't actually produce anything.

For example, I'm currently underemployed. It's a waste of my abilities to be writing stupid financial reports. Anyone who accepts a low-quality job is underemployed.

A pro-State troll says "If you don't like it, start your own business!" I'm going to try that. Unfortunately, the State makes it hard. For example, if I start an independent filmmaker business or independent journalist business, then part of the taxes I pay subsidize large corporate cartels.

I'm also wastefully employed. The financial reports I write are completely meaningless. I follow the algorithm I'm asked to implement. However, the result is meaningless. I'm participating in the farce that the financial industry produces something useful.

I'd rather have a job producing something useful. However, the non-free market offers me the highest salary when writing financial software or other meaningless software. In retrospect, all the jobs I've ever had were a complete waste of time.

I'd rather do something useful. However, I have to respond to the signals of the non-free market. The State offers me the best job writing meaningless financial software. It is a great tragedy, that the State pushes intelligent people into careers that are wasteful or outright destructive.

The financial industry produces nothing. Suppose the financial industry hired 10% more people. The unemployment rate would go down. The amount of useful work remains unchanged. In fact, it's a bad thing. By hiring more workers, the financial industry raises labor costs in the productive sector of the economy.

Many people are employed in the parasite sector of the economy. They have a job, but produce nothing. It's a drain on the economy, but counts as lower unemployment.

The "official unemployment rate" is completely misleading. It doesn't count underemployed people. It includes people who are employed in the parasite sector of the economy. If you have a job but produce nothing, you aren't really employed.

I'm underemployed. I'm also employed in the parasite sector of the economy. However, I have to respond to the signals of a non-free market and take the best job I can get. The non-free market says it wants me to write financial software. I will try my own business, agorist-style or on-the-books. That may take awhile to get started.

Unfortunately, the parasite sector of the economy is growing and the productive sector of the economy is shrinking. This will lead to collapse.

The Banksters Stole $300M From LinkedIn Pre-IPO Shareholders

This story was interesting. In LinkedIn's first day of trading (LNKD), it more than doubled from the IPO price of $45/share, closing over $94/share. Approximately 10% of the shares of LinkedIn, valued at approximately $300M, were offered in the IPO.

The spin is "Hooray for LinkedIn!" Actually, it's a disaster for pre-IPO shareholders. Do you see why?

SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE
SPOILER SPACE

When an IPO has a huge opening day spike, THAT MEANS THE PRE-IPO SHAREHOLDERS WERE ROBBED. Shares were sold for $45/share when they could have fetched $90/share. In effect, the pre-IPO shareholders sold 10% of the business for less than half it was actually worth.

The pre-IPO shareholders sold $600M of equity for only $300M. Where did that $300M difference go? It went into the pockets of the banksters.

There are alternate systems that would be fairer. Of course, they would never be implemented. For example, shares could be priced via a "dutch auction" like Google did. Also, only sell a tiny slice of the corporation at IPO, minimizing loss if it's mispriced.

Here's a radical reform that would be never be implemented, because it would threaten insiders. The IPO could be handled via the NYSE or NASDAQ, using their usual opening price discovery algorithm.

Here's how that would work. The IPO corporation enters an order "sell 10M shares limit price $40 at open". Then, the stock market has its usual opening price auction, including the IPO order as a regular sale. Anyone who wants to buy the IPO places a regular buy order to the NYSE or NASDAQ. The opening price would be the price where buy demand equals shares offered. All the extra revenue would go to the pre-IPO shareholders, rather than to insiders via an opening day spike.

Insiders love the current system. The IPO process artificially depresses share prices. Insiders buy at a discount, then flip for a practically guaranteed profit. Reform will not occur. The banksters love ripping off the pre-IPO shareholders, while pretending that the opening day price spike is a wonderful thing. Only a bankster would cheer at how wonderful it is, as he robs you.

As an individual investor, you're an idiot to buy on the IPO day or in the first 6 months of trading. For example, an ex-coworker bragged about buying PALM for $130/share at its first day of trading in PALM's 2000 IPO. That didn't work out for him.

Most insiders have agreements and SEC rules banning them from selling during the first 3-6 months after the IPO. There's a limited supply of shares, making it hard to borrow shares for short selling. (However, naked short selling is frequently common after a hot IPO. For example, NYMEX wound up on the SEC's SHO list immediately after its IPO.)

It's a bad idea to invest in a "hot" IPO. There are short sale restrictions. Insiders cannot sell. That leads to an artificially inflated price. It's better to wait 6 months, until the restrictions lapse. For some IPOs, like the NYSE, there were restrictions on insiders selling for 3 years. (When the NYSE converted from a member-owned nonprofit to a public for-profit corporation, the former seatowners were barred from selling all their shares for 3 years.)

State comedians were saying "Hooray! LinkedIn shares spiked on the first day of trading!" Actually, that means the pre-IPO shareholders were ripped off by the banksters. They sold part of their equity for much less than what it was actually worth. The pre-IPO investors don't mind, because they made a bundle after the price pop. They still were robbed, by an amount equal to the difference between the IPO price and the opening day closing price, times the # of shares sold at IPO.

In the case of LinkedIn, the pre-IPO shareholders undervalued their offering by approximately $300M. That's a wealth transfer from the people who built a business to the banksters.

State Technical Debt

In software engineering, there's a concept known as "technical debt". As a software system ages, the cost of patching and fixing increases. At some point, the cost of patching becomes greater than the cost of the rewrite. However, most managers are adverse to doing a rewrite. The path of least resistance is to keep patching.

The accumulated lousy code leads to "technical debt". You're wasting time patching a lousy design. It would be better to do a rewrite, but it's too hard to overcome the inertia.

In my current wage slave job, some systems are 20+ years old. It's a horrible mess of patches. However, most managers prefer to keep patching to old system than rewrite it. The sure loss of extra work is less risky than the possibility of a failed rewrite.

State law has a similar problem. There's a severe "technical debt" problem. Each year, politicians pass more laws than they repeal. This leads to more and more laws over time.

Bad State law has accumulated, almost the same way that lousy software accumulates in a legacy system. Instead of fixing the fundamental flaws with the laws, more and more patches are added. For example, instead of fixing the law that says it's illegal to possess marijuana, police are allowed to do a warrentless no-knock raid if they smell marijuana, lest you destroy evidence.

It's almost impossible to repeal a bad law. For every bad law, someone is profiting from it. The people profiting from a bad law will always lobby against reform.

For example, farming subsidies started during the Great Depression. Now, large corporations get a lot of farming subsidies. They will always successfully lobby against repealing the farm subsidy. If you're receiving a State perk wortk $1B+ per year, you will always spend $10M+ lobbying/bribing to keep it.

If you told a politician "Let's repeal every law and start over!", they would say it's a stupid idea. Insiders want to preserve the system the way it is.

Reform isn't possible. Complete collapse is much more likely. Then, people will get to start over with a new system.

Over time, State law gets more and more inefficient. The State has a monopoly. There's no incentive for insiders to reform. Inefficiency and corruption become greater and greater. The end result is complete collapse.

Current State law resembles a crusty 20+ year old software system, more than it being efficient and useful. Insiders keep adding stupid patches, rather than fixing the fundamental problems.

The Sovereign Government Movement

"60 Minutes" did a propaganda piece on the "Sovereign Citizens Movement". The spin was "Some people who criticize the government murder policemen. Therefore, everyone who questions the legitimacy of the government should be arrested and prosecuted for treason. It's so annoying and unfair, that the 1st Amendment gives people the right to question the government."

"60 Minutes" is almost entirely State propaganda. However, it's a good measure of what State comedians are promoting. Normally, people who criticize the government aren't mentioned at all. State propagandists felt so threatened, that they did a smear piece.

It's an indication of progress, when the State media starts criticizing people who question the government. However, it could be a bad sign. By hyping "dangerous Sovereign Citizens on the Internet", that could be used as an excuse for censorship. However, I doubt State thugs in the USA would get away with China-style Internet censorship.

They focused on "Sovereign Citizens" and not "market anarchists". By hyping people who make a weak criticism of the State, that makes all people who question the government monopoly seem like fools.

"60 Minutes" focused on people who follow stupid tactics. They were focusing on "Some people will murder a policeman over a minor dispute." and "Some people make 'frivolous' legal arguments. Some people file 'frivolous' lawsuits and liens, against bureaucrats/judges/police who mistreated them."

Almost every story on "60 Minutes" can be inverted to tell the real truth. Instead of criticizing the "Sovereign Citizens Movement", it's more accurate to criticize the "Sovereign Government Movement".

Imagine an honest news story on the "Sovereign Government Movement". Imagine someone reading the following in an authoritative news anchor voice:

There's a small group of people threatening America's freedom. They believe they have the authority to tell everyone else what to do. They are prepared to use deadly force, to get what they want. Anyone who disobeys them is kidnapped or killed. This dangerous group of criminals call themselves "The Sovereign Government Movement".

They will tell you what type of food you may eat. They will tell you what type of medical care you may get. They tell you what type of car you're allowed to drive. They tell you what type of light bulbs you may buy. They tell you what type of toilet you're allowed to use. They tell you what type of shower head you're allowed to use. They tell you what type of job you may have, via licensing requirements. Through complicated and burdensome regulations, they restrict your ability to start a business. They directly or indirectly control almost all aspects of your life.

Claiming your body as their property, they restrict your ability to use certain drugs or smoke certain plants.

They demand you get permission from them whenever you work. They demand half of all your labor via "income taxes". They demand you pay them rent or "property taxes" on your home, or else they will use violence to kick you out of your home and steal it. They steal a little bit from you via "taxes", whenever you do anything. Via inflation, they gradually steal the money out of your wallet and out of your bank account.

They have set up a system of "schools", where your children are brainwashed to obey them. They are prepared to use violence to force you to send your children to "school". If you disobey, they will kidnap your children. If your child is resistant to their brainwashing, then they will forcibly drug your child and kidnap him if you refuse.

Almost every day, the Sovereign Government Movement makes up new "laws". Each new "law" is a threat of violence against any who disobeys. There are so many laws on the books, that practically anyone can be accused of a crime for anything. This makes it very easy for members of the Sovereign Government Movement to ruin people who they don't like.

Each new "law" benefits some members of the Sovereign Government Movement, at the expense of everyone else. For example, the "law" banning raw milk is a regressive tax on small farmers, favoring large corporate milk farms run by members of the Sovereign Government Movement.

The Sovereign Government Movement sends spies to see if anyone is selling raw milk. Then, they will use deadly force to kidnap the farmer, steal his cows, or force him to close his business.

The Sovereign Government Movement does this in almost every industry. They will use deadly force to prevent anyone from operating a business that competes with businesses run by members of the Sovereign Government Movement. Every large corporation is run by members of the Sovereign Government Movement. Via a system of "lobbying"/bribery, laws and regulations are passed that makes it hard for small businesses to compete with large corporations.

The Sovereign Government Movement sends spies to infiltrate and subvert any group of people who question their authority. For example, the Sovereign Government Movement plants spies in peaceful anti-war groups. Even nonviolent dissent is treated as a grave threat by the Sovereign Government Movement.

The Sovereign Government Movement has set up a system of "courts" and "justice", where they pretend to impartially rule on disputes. If you have a disagreement with one member of the Sovereign Government Movement, then another member of the Sovereign Government Movement will get to "judge" the dispute. Any dispute with this criminal gang is decided by another member of the same criminal gang, making an unfair outcome very likely.

Via "legal opinions", "laws", and "lawyers", the Sovereign Government Movement makes a mockery of justice. They claim to be following natural law, but they're just making fancy-sounding excuses for taking away people's freedom. Legal opinions use fancy language, but they're really gibberish. A "judge" makes up a fancy excuse for doing what he wanted to do. The "judges" help preserve the illusion that The Sovereign Government Movement isn't one big criminal conspiracy.

Members of the Sovereign Government Movement claim to be restrained by their own rules. However, they can violate their own rules with impunity. They know that other members of the Sovereign Government Movement will protect them, if they are accused of a crime. Like all criminal gangs, members of the Sovereign Government Movement protect each other at every opportunity.

They have set up a system of "elections". In an election, both candidates are members of the Sovereign Government Movement. This makes the election one big farce. Elections help provide the illusion of legitimacy for the Sovereign Government Movement. People don't realize the elections are rigged. Elections give people the illusion that they can prevent the Sovereign Government Movement from stealing too much.

Recently, members of the Sovereign Government Movement are starting to get more and more desperate. Due to their massive criminal activity, the "economy" is falling apart. Desperate to preserve their lifestyle, the Sovereign Government Movement is stealing a larger percentage of all productive work.

Recently, members of the Sovereign Government Movement stole trillions of dollars on a "housing bubble". Instead of being punished for their crime, fellow criminals in the Sovereign Government Movement bailed them out. They lost trillions of dollars, but got a bailout and kept their jobs. They are stealing again right now. Recently, many banksters had a "perfect trading quarter", making a profit almost every day from the Sovereign Government Movement's rigged financial casino.

The Sovereign Government Movement is a grave threat to every American's freedom. They are a group of dangerous criminals. They are prepared to use deadly violence to steal. They are prepared to use deadly violence to impose their will on others. They will kidnap or murder all who disobey.

Members of the Sovereign Government Movement are sensing that their scam is ending. That makes them even more dangerous. They are prepared to use more and more violence to preserve their lifestyle.

That was amusing. If you refer to "The Sovereign Government Movement" instead of "The Sovereign Citizens Movement", it's much more accurate. I noticed that many "60 Minutes" stories can be inverted to tell the real truth.

Do I count as a member of the "Sovereign Citizens Movement"? I know that government is one big criminal conspiracy. I know that the government's authority is not legitimate.

However, I'm trying to avoid a violent confrontation with police. Having been involuntarily hospitalized with a "mental illness", I can no longer get a gun permit, even though I was the victim of medical malpractice. However, I never would have realized that it's desirable to own a gun, if I hadn't discovered that almost everything I knew was a lie. My "gun preparedness" plan is to find a legal gun owner who'd keep a spare gun around, to give me in a SHTF scenario. A gun is useless in a confrontation with State police, because they'll just murder you on the spot.

I'm focusing on high-reward or low-risk resistance. If I get paid on a 1099 or W-2 or on-the-books, I'll declare the income and pay the tax, rather than making a "frivolous" tax return. I'm not going to attempt to pursue justice via the State legal system.

I was the victim of medical malpractice. I realized that it wasn't feasible for me to file a malpractice lawsuit. (Originally, I believed "All psychiatric drugs are harmful." Now, I'm more inclined to believe "I was given the wrong drug." That's still malpractice, albeit a different type.)

There's a key difference between a "market anarchist"/agorist and a member of the Sovereign Citizen Movement. Agorist tactics are likely to be effective. Sovereign Citizen tactics are more likely to lead to murder or kidnapping via a confrontation with State thugs.

By promoting "Sovereign Citizens" and not agorists, 60 Minutes is promoting stupid resistance instead of effective resistance. By promoting antigovernment fools, they try to make everyone who criticizes the government seem like a bloodthirsty lunatic.

If someone files "Strawman Redemption" papers in a State court, that makes it very easy for State thugs to put you on a "dangerous fruitcake" list. I wonder if some undercover State spies are intentionally promoting stupid forms of resistance?

Alfred Adask was the "Sovereign Citizen guru" highlighted as an anti-government extremist on the "60 Minutes" propaganda piece. Obviously, he's making a weak criticism of the State, making everyone who criticizes the government look stupid. Is he a disinformation agent? Is he a misinformed "useful idiot"? It would have been more accurate to interview Stefan Molyneux or Marc Stevens or Larken Rose or George Donnelly.

State propagandists carefully selected Adask as the person to "make famous" via a "60 Minutes" interview. Either Adask is a disinformation agent, or he's someone who presents a weak criticism of the State. Adask says "If only government respected its proper Constitutional limits!" rather than "All taxation is theft! By its very nature, government is a massive extortion racket and criminal conspiracy!" For example, searching Adask's website yields zero references to the phrase "Taxation is theft!", making me very suspicious of his seriousness as a freedom activist.

However, that link did have some good bits. Adask gave some insight on how "60 Minutes" and the State propaganda engine works. The power to selectively edit is an incredible censorship power. Practically nobody can speak on a subject for 2 hours without saying something that looks bad when quoted out of context. The interviewer kept hammering the same question, regarding the second Amendment and the right to violently resist police and politicians. Apparently, he keeps asking the same question until an answer is given that makes the interviewee look stupid.

When Adask tried discussing topics that interested him, the interviewer was uninterested and kept changing the subject back to the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't a "determine the truth" type of interview. It was an interview where the interviewer had already decided that he was trying to make the interviewee look bad.

Even if you know the mainstream media is trying to make you look stupid, you should accept the interview. In the present, someone with a clue can do their own research on the Internet, and find a website where you tell your version of the story. If I were serious about "promote agorism via standup comedy", it'd make rational sense for me to pay $10k+ as a bribe to be "featured" on a mainstream media program, even if I was ridiculed on the appearance.

A pro-State troll says "It's reasonable to cut the interview for time. They can't air 2 hours." However it's not fair when the selectively edit and quote someone out of context. Another pro-State troll says "So what? It's the free market at work!" It is a problem when a handful of people control all media corporations, and all those insiders have a similar mindset and a desire to preserve the State extortion racket. The Internet is changing the equation somewhat, but the mainstream media still has a lot of influence.

However, people are starting to become desensitized to State propaganda. I'm sure some people saw the hit piece and thought "I should investigate these 'Sovereign Citizens'." However, they'll be researching stupid anti-State arguments, and not proper market anarchism.

Some commenters on Adosk's blog claimed that the "60 Minutes" website was censoring unfavorable comments. That doesn't surprise me.

Someone from quatloos said that Alfred Adosk was "carefully selected" as the "guru" to be featured on the program. Someone like Stefan Molyneux or Marc Stevens or Larken Rose or George Donnelly would be unsuitable, because they are able to more coherently explain why the State is evil. It's better to promote someone who weakly criticizes the State. It's much safer to promote someone who says "If only government respected its proper Constitutional limits!" rather than "All taxation is theft! Who needs a government monopoly?"

Also, one of the quatloos regulars, JJ McNabb/Demosthenes was interviewed. She gets consulting contracts with the Southern Poverty Hate Center (SPLC) and the State to study anti-government extremists. There are a lot of people feeding off the State gravy train. There's always a big budget, to provide funding for people who study/infiltrate/disrupt the anti-State movement. Most of the quatloos regulars are people who profit from the State extortion scam, and have a financial interest in preserving it.

The "Sovereign Citizen" is an example of "right conclusions, poor tactics". A "Sovereign Citizen" is correct when he says that the government's authority is not legitimate, although most "Sovereign Citizens" can't explain it clearly like I can.

The "Sovereign Citizen" is usually focused on one evil, rather than realizing it's all one big scam. One target is the IRS. Another target is the requirement to get a driver's license and register your car with the State. It might be a pointless lawsuit against a specific Statist who mistreated the Sovereign Citizen.

Here are some stupid things that "Sovereign Citizens" do:

1. If you get into a small dispute with a policeman or bureaucrat, don't escalate it to the point of deadly violence. It's better to focus your resistance efforts where there's a better reward.
2. Don't file liens or lawsuits against policemen, judges, and bureaucrats. If you believe the legal system is corrupt, what do you expect to accomplish via a lawsuit?
3. Don't expect to get a fair trial.
   
4. There isn't some magic paperwork you can file with the State, to get your freedom back. If it actually worked, everyone would do it. If it actually worked, politicians would find a way to close the loophole. Freedom is more work than magically filing the right paperwork with the State. It's more important to act free, than try to get permission from your masters.
5. If you get paid on a W-2 or 1099, declare the income and pay the tax. It's better to work completely off-the-books for cash/silver/gold.
6. Don't make up your own license plates. Don't drive around without a license and registration. Otherwise, you're daring the policeman to kidnap you. Like most laws, that's an invalid law, but it's a poor risk/reward ratio for breaking that law.
   

"60 Minutes" mentioned Jerry Kane and his son Joe Kane. CNBC's "The American Tax Cheat" also mentioned them. Every propaganda story on violent anti-government extremists mentions them. If anti-government extremists are so common and dangerous, then why does every story mention Joe Kane? Aren't there other examples of crazy extremists? The story of Jerry Kane is repeated over and over again. (Some people claim that the Joe Kane incident was fabricated. They say he was framed for the murder of the policeman and assassinated. It certainly is a good narrative, that makes everyone who criticizes the government seem like a bloodthirsty lunatic.)

Jerry Kane is someone who figured out that government isn't legitimate *AND* he's a con artist. Therefore, everyone who criticizes government is a con artist. Jerry Kane went around giving "magic get out of debt trick" seminars. A debt contract with a bank isn't a valid contract. That doesn't mean you should borrow and refuse to repay it. It is offensive that banksters got bailed out while people lost their homes and their savings. A foreclosure trial or debt collection trial is a bench trial with no jury, precluding the possibility of jury nullification.

Jerry Kane decided to not own a driver's license. He made up his own license plates. This led to many frivolous arrests/kidnappings. He was getting frustrated. A policeman had stopped him. The policeman was about to start the arrest/kidnapping process. Jerry's son Joe shot and killed the policeman. They fled, there was a chase, and they were summarily executed.

This is an example of "death penalty for an unpaid parking ticket". Jerry Kane refused to have a State driver's license. He was prepared to resist kidnapping with deadly force. Therefore, he was executed. Most people would say "Jerry Kane committed suicide via cop." Another viewpoint is that the policemen were aggressors, enforcing an invalid law. Jerry Kane had a history of abuse by police, and he decided that he was going to go down fighting. It isn't "Jerrry Kane shot a policeman for no reason." He had a history of being abused by State thugs. However, a more sensible person wouldn't escalate a minor dispute.

As State abuse gets bigger and bigger, more and more people will spontaneously decide "I'm going down fighting!" Even if they don't coordinate and share information, many people will spontaneously crack when they see massive injustice.

Most people would get a driver's license. Most people would pay a parking ticket. Most people would surrender peacefully, when arrested/kidnapped. It's stupid to escalate minor disputes.

Many people would agree that it's morally acceptable to use deadly force to resist a mugger or (non-policeman) kidnapper. A traffic ticket or arrest is a type of mugging or kidnapping.

Is it morally acceptable to use deadly force over a minor theft? Are the mugger and policeman different? It might be poor tactics to violently resist a mugger. The police may decide to charge yoy with a crime! It's definitely stupid to violently resist arrest. The police will execute you on the spot. You might be morally correct, but that's no consolation when you're dead.

Right now, there are more policeman than there are people who know that government is one big criminal conspiracy. If everyone who really understands "Taxation is theft!" violently resisted, then the police would happily murder/kidnap all of them.

Besides, even if you could risklessly kill a State criminal who deserved it, someone else would eagerly take his place. The police have superior numbers and resources. You'd be throwing your life away for nothing, if you resisted violently. However, if every slave resisted at the same time, then everyone would be free.

It's a tough coordination problem, a variation of the Prisoner's Dilemma. If you're the only one who resists, you're throwing away your life away for nothing. If everyone resists at the same time, then everyone is free. It's hard to coordinate "Everyone resists at the same time!" due to State control of information/media. State spies will disrupt any attempt to organize resistance.

That's why I like agorism. You only need a handful of people, and you use stealth. It won't be possible to 100% avoid taxes until the State collapses, but you can reduce your taxation rate. (For example, property taxes must be paid even if you work 100% off-the-books. If you rent, property taxes are a component of rent. If you look at property tax rates, rental properties pay a higher taxation rate than single-residence home! State thugs do this because, for a rental property, the landlord sees the property tax bill and not the tenant.)

Do I count as a member of the "Sovereign Citizen Movement"? I prefer to call myself a "market anarchist" or agorist. Like "Sovereign Citizens", I know that government is one big criminal conspiracy, even more than most "Sovereign Citizens". However, I'm not interested in a violent confrontation with police. I'm not interested in "paper terrorism" or fighting State thugs on their turf in the State legal system.

If I'm falsely charged with a crime, I might decide to defend myself pro se. If I'm a tough target, State thugs might pursue softer victims. However, if I gain a wider audience, then it's a greater priority to "set an example".

It is possible that all people who criticize the government will be lumped together with people who get violent over minor disputes. For example, the prosecutor in the Nothaus trial referred to him as a "domestic terrorist". Is everyone who criticizes the State a terrorist? State insiders would like to be able to get away with that.

At one time, the Alien and Sedition Act made it a crime to question the legitimacy of the Federal government. President Lincoln arrested newspaper editors who criticized the Civil War. The Internet has made it easier to discover and promote freedom. Are State thugs eager for a crackdown on free speech on the Internet? Any criticism of government could be interpreted as advocating for violence, leading to censorship.

The "60 Minutes" hit piece was pure propaganda. However, it's interesting. Are State thugs getting concerned? Do they know that their scam is ending? Are State thugs trying to promote censorship of alternate viewpoints? I think it's a favorable sign. At this point, the collapse is inevitable, no matter what State criminals do. All the "positive feedback" in government is leading towards greater corruption, rather than real reform.

The Silence And Psychopaths

Sometimes, insiders leak the truth under the guise of fiction. For example, the movie "The Matrix" may have been an attempt by insiders to leak a deeper forbidden truth.

In the new season of "Doctor Who", there's an enemy called "The Silence". They have the ability to alter people's memories. They have the ability to issue subconscious commands. They have the ability to make others forget them.

When I saw "The Silence", my reaction was "That's nonfiction! Psychopaths can actually do that!"

Psychopaths rely on their ability to psychologically manipulate and control others. They have almost all the abilities that "The Silence" have! When I saw that, I was wondering if some insiders were intentionally leaking bits of the truth.

For example, a psychopath will make vague statements during a meeting. Later, he will take the position that, in retrospect, seemed correct. He will convince others that was his position all along. He literally altered other people's memories.

I suspect (but can't prove) that scientists in some military research lab are working on the psychopath problem. Even if you believe that having a government violence monopoly is a good idea, something must be done about the psychopath problem. The threat of psychopaths is more serious than the threat of government.

The State *IS* the psychopaths, combined with the intelligent-but-deluded people that psychopaths control. If the psychopaths could be eliminated, then real reform might be possible.

That's one big reason I'm an anarchist. The official lie is that government protects people from dangerous psychopaths. The reality is that the biggest psychopaths control the government. Under "color of law", they get protected from negative consequences for their crimes.

Not everyone in a State leadership position is a psychopath. The non-psychopaths are somewhat intelligent, emotionally weak, and easy for psychopaths to control.

I'm able to nearly instantly tell if someone is a psychopath. Now that I'm mostly unplugged from the Matrix, I have a natural sense of disgust when I meet a psychopath. Most people have this ability. They suppress it due to their pro-State brainwashing.

A psychopath convinces everyone else they're a super-awesome genius. When you see the psychopath and have a reaction of disgust, you think "Everyone else thinks this psychopath is a genius. I'll also say he's a genius, so I don't look stupid." You learn to suppress your emotions. Even though you may have doubts about the psychopath, you want to conform to what everyone else is saying.

Psychopaths can also instantly categorize other people. They can identify someone as:

1. a fellow psychopath
2. a parasite (low-skill psychopath)
3. someone that's easily manipulated
4. someone who can see through them (like me)
   

Fortunately for psychopaths, psychopath-resistant people are rare. They are easily manipulated, disgraced, and fired. A psychopath would never allow someone like me to be successful in politics. Even without verbal pre-agreement, psychopaths would spontaneously cooperate to ruin me, when they sense that I am questioning their scam.

One example of a high-skill psychopath is Bernard Madoff. Whenever someone started questioning him, he was able to psychologically manipulate them. When some regulators started getting suspicious, he went over their heads. He convinced their bosses, fellow psychopaths, to give an order to back down. Psychopaths always spontaneously instinctively cooperate, when they see an intelligent person questioning their scam. The psychopath SEC boss thinks "Bernard Madoff is a psychopath like me. If he's disgraced, then I might be next."

Psychopaths spontaneously cooperate. They can easily identify fellow psychopaths. This creates the same outcome as a massive highly-coordinated evil conspiracy. Psychopaths will always cooperate to crush an intelligent person trying to do something good (i.e. something that threatens their gravy train).

Another example of a highly-skilled psychopath is Chuck Schumer. I wonder if someone is studying him? Psychopaths are naturally drawn to high-ranking State jobs. Once most insiders are psychopaths, then the intelligent people are excluded and mislabeled as dysfunctional.

Here is another example of psychopaths in action. Suppose I go on a job interview. I am interviewed by four intelligent people who think I'm a strong candidate and one psychopath. Each interview is one-on-one. The psychopath will be very threatened by me, because he knows I'm able to see through his scam. There's no way for me to conceal from a psychopath, that I have hightened awareness and am not a psychopath myself. After the interview, the psychopath will literally edit the memories of the other four interviewers. No matter how much they liked me, the psychopath will convince them that I was a weak candidate. I'm not there to defend myself. They will never know that they failed to hire a highly-skilled worker.

If the any of the other four interviewers were not people the psychopath could control, he would arrange for then to be fired. The psychopath needs intelligent people to do his work for him, but not people who are able to see through him or question him.

The psychopaths are very much like The Silence. They are draining the productivity of everyone else, misdirecting it for evil purposes.

I wonder if the writers for Doctor Who intentionally leaked a hidden truth? Psychopaths really can manipulate people, almost as efficiently as The Silence! Most people don't have the defenses to identify psychopaths.

Even if I explain "Taxation is theft!" to you, that isn't enough. It's important to learn how to identify psychopaths. Emotional pro-State brainwashing is much more dangerous than logical pro-State brainwashing.

Kenneth Moreno And Franklin Mata

This story is interesting. Kenneth Moreno And Franklin Mata are NYPD policemen. They took a severely drunk woman back to her apartment. They are accused of raping her.

Kenneth Moreno is accused of rape. Franklin Mata is accused of sitting in the other room doing nothing, while he knew his partner was raping her. Kenneth Moreno had more seniority.

This is an interesting story. It pits two important State lies against each other.

1. Police have nearly absolute immunity for on-the-job misconduct.
2. A woman may accuse a man of rape for the flimsiest of excuses.
   

I don't see how the prosecutor could overcome "reasonable doubt". The woman claims she was raped. The policeman claims he didn't do it. That's all the evidence.

There is no physical evidence of rape. The woman waited several days before filing her complaint. The only semen samples from her bed matched three other men!

I'm strongly opposed to police misconduct. However, I'm siding with the policemen this time. There has to be more evidence than a drunk woman testifying.

Doesn't the woman have some responsibility? She shouldn't have gotten so severely drunk. She should have had a friend to take her home.

It also was interesting to see coverage. ABC's website referred to the woman as "the victim". The NY Daily News referred to the woman as "the accuser". Those are interesting choices of words.

Saying "victim" includes a presumption of guilt. A jury hasn't decided yet if she was raped. Legally, there's no victim until the jury says "guilty". If she wasn't raped, the she isn't a victim.

Saying "accuser" emphasizes the woman as villain. An accuser deserves scorn. A victim deserves sympathy.

It seems the policemen are also scummy, in addition to the accuser. That doesn't prove rape. It seems like a dispute where both parties are scumbags.

I also was disappointed that the newspapers didn't publish the woman's name. The policemen's reputation was ruined. Why not also ruin the woman's reputation? Even if you believe her version of the story, she's an irresponsible drunkard.

I also was disappointed that the judge didn't say "Dismissed for insufficient evidence!" The judge is a wimp who doesn't want to prevent a trial based on flimsy evidence. It's better to let the jury decide. Besides, it could always be overturned on appeal.

If the judge dismissed the case before trial, that could lead to hostility. It's less risky for the judge to give it to a jury. From the judge's point of view, the least risky thing to do is to let the jury handle the case, even if he thinks there's insufficient evidence.

This story illustrates two State evils conflicting with each other. First, policemen usually have nearly absolute immunity for on-the-job misconduct. Second, a woman can accuse a man of rape with zero evidence, even when the woman made irresponsible decisions like getting drunk.

This incident is interesting, because two important State lies are conflicting. The legal system is very biased in favor of policemen. The legal system is very biased in favor of women, when they falsely accuse a man of rape. Which lie will win this time?

Suspicious Derailments

These two stories are suspicious. Last weekend, there were two train derailments in the NYC area. One was on the PATH, the other was on Amtrack. There also was a derailment on the METRA in Chicago on Friday.

This is suspicious. Were they accidents? Were they an act of sabotage?

The official explanation is "All three incidents were accidents." That is possible. In retrospect, you might see coincidences that aren't there.

State comedians are eager to scare people regarding terrorism. If there was any evidence of sabotage, they would have mentioned it.

On the other hand, State insiders might want to hide evidence of sabotage. Otherwise, people might be afraid to commute to work.

Train tracks are a tempting target. There are many miles of unguarded track.

In this case, I believe the official explanation, "All three derailments were accidents." It's slightly suspicious. It is possible that terrorists have decided to attack commuter trains. It's disturbing to see three derailments in one week.