An Excellent Example of Parasitic Behavior

I saw this YouTube Video, and my reaction was "ROFLMAO!" I only watched the first minute, but it was pretty funny and pathetic at the same time.

The poster claims to be debunking Stefan Molyneux's arguments. He seemed to be arguing "There is not an absolute universal standard of truth."

Watch the video carefully! The speaker has the *EXACT SAME* tone and body language as Stefan Molyneux. However, if you listen to the logic of what he's actually saying, it's incoherent gibberish.

It seems that the speaker was carefully studying Stefan Molyneux and then mirroring his body language, while ignoring the logic of what he's saying.

That's exactly the techniques that parasites use. They mirror the tone and body language of someone intelligent, but their logic is incoherent gibberish.

The poster has comments saying "Yeah, that Stefan Molyneux is such a jerk!", exactly the same as I get comments saying "Yeah! The State really is evil!" In this manner, the parasite doesn't receive feedback that he is a fool. (You might have the same criticism with me for driving pro-State trolls away from my blog. I deal with pro-State trolls enough in other contexts. I don't have to worry about not being exposed to stupid ideas. Recently, I read part of the NY Times, looking for fnords.)

It's also interesting that the speaker claims to be an anarchist (based on his T-shirt). Just because you identify yourself as an anarchist, doesn't mean you aren't a fool!

It's like you have two different groups of people speaking completely different languages. One group is sane, and the other group is insane. Each group claims that their members are sane and the other group is insane.

The only way to settle this dispute is via an experiment with practical agorism. Idiots like the guy speaking in that video won't be convinced no matter what you do. If the pro-State trolls and the agorists form two separate economic systems operating side-by-side, which one will be more productive?

There are valid criticisms of Stefan Molyneux, but that isn't what the speaker is emphasizing. My criticisms of Stefan Molyneux are:

1. His videos are too long. He uses a lot of words for simple ideas.
2. He doesn't emphasize the importance of a corrupt taxation system, especially the income tax.
3. He doesn't emphasize the importance of a corrupt monetary system.
4. He doesn't emphasize agorism as a strategy for defeating the State.

Maybe the speaker in that video really is an anarchist. I have no idea what points he was trying to actually make. The important point is that his body language was that of an intelligent person, but his logic was incoherent gibberish.

Evil Gods and the State

On "Should Michael Vick Be Allowed to Return to the NFL?", someone got offended when I compared the God of Christianity to the State. When most people say "God", they mean "God of Christianity". For the rest of this post, to simplify things, I'm going to say "God" when I mean "God of Christianity". There are other more reasonable gods, such as the God of Computers, but they're not the point of this post.

I found this discussion interesting:

But taxation isn't theft, it's more like rendering unto caesar.

...

Are you kidding me, Matt? Taxation is not stealing, Christ acknowledged the right of the state to tax. And if someone steals from you, Christ taught to give even more, in part because he recognized that the thief likely had a need.

To review the argument these idiots are making, "Taxation is not theft, because the Bible says that taxation is not theft." Of course, just because these Christians are idiots, doesn't mean all Christians are complete fools. Unfortunately, there is a lot of similarity between Christian religious brainwashing and pro-State brainwashing.

I should write my own book and claim it's the verbatim word of God. If I can brainwash/convince enough people to agree, then does that make it a fact?

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is an aspect of pro-State brainwashing. "Give the State that which belongs to the State. My money and house and labor and body belong to the State. I should not resist when the State claims them."

Another aspect of pro-State brainwashing is "turn the other cheek". That's believable, because it's half of the truth. "Turn the other cheek" can be interpreted as "Don't initiate violence against others." Unfortunately, "turn the other cheek" also means "Don't resist when others try to steal from you!" The correct answer is the Non-Aggression Principle, which says "Don't assault others or steal from others. Defend yourself if others attempt to assault you or steal from you!" A "turn the other cheek" attitude helps you be a good slave.

Another aspect of pro-State brainwashing is "Accept abuse while you are alive, and you will be rewarded after you die." That philosophy encourages people to accept abuse. The reward that God will give you after you die is much more valuable than any suffering you may incur while you are alive.

The fallacy is that, by definition, nobody knows what happens after you die. If a priest claims "If you do X, then you will be rewarded after you die!", then how can you be sure that the priest isn't mistaken? How can the priest know what happens after you die? This is a form of "lie by repeated assertion". If everyone acts as if Christianity is the One True Religion, then it becomes believable. It's unlikely that so many people would be conned by such an obvious fraud. The human brain isn't designed to consider the possibility "All the humans around me are completely insane!" You learn to mirror their insanity, instead of recognizing what's happening.

Similarly, if taxation really were theft, then wouldn't some humans notice and point out the scam? If all the humans around you think that the State is the One True Religion, then it's very hard to discover and spread the truth.

A couple of hundred years ago, someone who said "Christianity is a lie!" would probably be murdered. In some Islamic countries, it's currently illegal to say "The official State religion is wrong!" Luckily, in the USA, people are allowed religious freedom. I'm also lucky that, in the USA, I have the freedom to write "Taxation is theft!" I wouldn't have such freedom in many other countries.

When people say "The USA is a Christian nation", this really means "The USA is a nation of slaves." In many ways, the USA is a theocracy as much as Iran. The are many similarities between the cult of the US Constitution and the cult of the Christian Bible. Both are revered as holy documents, when they contain a lot of huge mistakes.

According to this page, "In God We Trust" started appearing on paper money in 1964, long after the gold standard was abandoned. The State appeals to God to legitimize its authority.

Most politicians talk about how they're such great Christians. Even though the USA has no official religion, all politicians are expected to be Christians. State insiders appeal to God for their legitimacy. Several hundred years ago, the king claimed to have been personally appointed by god, and therefore his authority is legitimate. All the priests were expected to recite this propaganda.

Another interesting bit is the pyramid and eye that appear on the back of the one dollar bill. That also wasn't added until after the gold standard was abandoned. That logo is the banksters' way of saying "HAHAHAHA!! Your money isn't worth anything anymore! Suckers!" It seems weird that such a satanic symbol would appear on money in a Christian country.

Another evil aspect of Christianity is "believe without evidence that God exists". That is silly. "Believe in God even without tangible evidence!" is closely related to "Believe without evidence that government is good!" People are trained to not think for themselves.

Christianity has a lot of logical contradictions. For example "If you do bad things, but believe in God, then God will forgive you." and "If you live a good life, but don't believe in God or never heard of Christianity, then you will suffer eternal punishment." A brainwashed Christian learns to ignore such logical contradictions. Similarly, people learn to ignore logical contradictions when supporting the State.

Paradoxically, insiders want people to be religious, but not too religious. If people are somewhat religious, it's easier to control them. If people are strict Christian, then they'll start thinking "War is immoral!" For example, Quakers were very strict Christian. As the Picket Line occasionally mentions, at some points in US history, Quakers refused to pay taxes in protest of war.

Another flaw in the Bible is that it's treated as the verbatim final definitive word of God. There's no finite list of rules that covers all situations. That's the "Incompleteness Theorem". "The Bible is the ultimate reference for making decisions!" sounds a lot like "The US Constitution is the ultimate reference for making decisions!" The Bible and the Constitution are both treated as holy documents. Any finite document necessarily has flaws.

Another interesting historical footnote is "People should feel guilty about sex and their bodies!" was not an original aspect of Christianity. That part was added later. About 1000 years ago, the political leaders discovered that by making people insecure about their own bodies, it would be easier to control them.

The God of Christianity is pretty insecure. He demands that mortals worship him without evidence. A real God doesn't care what mortals do. If mortals want to ignore the truth, that's their problem. The God of Christianity punishes mortals randomly and for no good reason. For example, if you say "If God is so good, then why must people suffer so much?", the answer is "God works in mysterious ways!" rather than "Let's figure out a way to make life better!" This is closely related to "If government is so good, then why must violence be used to collect taxes?"

Similarly, a State judge is pretty insecure. If you tell a State judge "Your authority is illegitimate!", then he will imprison you for contempt of court. He will hold you prisoner until you apologize. Similarly, God demands that his worshipers apologize for their sins.

Christianity teaches "All humans are intrinsically evil!" This leads to "Therefore, a government is needed!" Many pro-State trolls cite "Humans are intrinsically evil!" as justification for the State. The reality is that there's a scale from good to evil. The most evil people are the ones who control the government and the church.

I read a story where, in Italy, priests were ordered to preach "Tax evasion is a sin!" That's an example of the church explicitly supporting the State.

In certain historic times, the tithe to the church was mandatory in the same way that income taxes are mandatory now. "Tithe" means "tenth", a 10% income taxation rate. The tithe paid to the church was in addition to taxes demanded by the king.

If you read the Christian myth correctly, Lucifer is actually the hero. Lucifer means "bringer of light" or "bringer of truth". Lucifer called out the God of Christianity as being a fraud. A real God wouldn't mind if someone questions if he's doing a good job or a bad job.

Adam and Eve were punished for seeking the truth. "People who seek the truth are punished!" is an important aspect of the Matrix. People who seek the truth are overwhelmed with the horror, and wind up labeled with a "mental illness". Until the creation of the US government, it was considered a crime to criticize the government. In Europe, it still is sometimes a crime to criticize politicians.

The story of Cain and Abel also has an evil fnord. Cain was punished by God for murdering his brother Abel. In older versions of the Bible, God's punishment for Cain is that he turned his skin black. This was used as a justification for chattel slavery. That's no longer politically correct, and that bit of the story was retconned out.

If you analyze it carefully, "Be a good Christian!" is in many ways "Be a good slave!"

If Christianity were 100% lies, it wouldn't be effective pro-State brainwashing. If Christianity were 100% a lie, it wouldn't be believable. Christianity is a carefully calibrated mix of truth and lies. By learning Christianity, you learn some bad things and some good things.

I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to be both an anarchist and a Christian. It's implausible that someone would know "Government is one big scam!" without also considering "Is Christianity one big lie?" Of course, you're free to believe whatever lies you want. The problem with false beliefs is that they restrict your actions.

If you get offended when I write "The God of Christianity is really to God of Absolute Unopposable Evil!", are you offended because I'm obviously wrong? Or, are you getting offended because I'm contradicting your pro-State brainwashing?

Christianity is an important aspect of pro-State brainwashing. If you substitute "God" for "State", there's nearly a direct correlation.

Man With Assault Rifle Says "Taxation is Theft!" Outside An Obama Event

This story was very interesting. Watch the linked YouTube video, which presumably was made by the protester's friends. I could explain the philosophy of freedom better than the speaker in that video, but he did a decent job. (I wonder if he read my blog? I doubt it.)

Another man brought a gun to an Obama rally. This man was saying "*ALL* taxation is theft!" He seemed to understand "Just because a majority have voted for taxes, doesn't make it morally acceptable!"

I wonder if the national mainstream media will carry the full story? I suspect the answer is "no". As far as I can tell, only one or two small newspaper websites covered this story *AND* included the "Taxation is theft!" aspect.

The story made the front page of Yahoo. Notice that the story does *NOT* mention that the protester was saying "Taxation is theft!" The mainstream media said "Someone was carrying a gun near an Obama speech!" They failed to mention a key point, that the protester was saying "Taxation is theft!" That's an example of catching the mainstream media red-handed censoring the message "Taxation is theft".

CNN also covered the story, but didn't mention "Taxation is theft!"

Here's the AP version of the story.

It's interesting to notice blatant censorship of the "Taxation is theft!" aspect of the story. Notice how none of those 3 mainstream media sources (Yahoo, CNN, and the AP) mentioned "Taxation is theft!" The Internet allowed the person carrying the gun to directly publish his viewpoint and bypass mainstream media censorship.

Is there progress towards promoting really free markets? The mainstream media won't mention "Taxation is theft!", but people are sharing the truth directly on the Internet.

In *MOST* cities it's illegal for non-policemen to openly carry a gun. This was in Arizona, which is one of the few states that allows non-policemen to openly carry guns.

There's another important point. "Bringing a gun to a political rally is wrong, because it's an implied threat of violence against State employees." The State *IS* violence. Every law or tax must be backed by violence. Otherwise, people would merely ignore the tax, law, or regulation. There's a double-standard. The threat/use of aggressive violence by State police is noble and heroic, when used to collect taxes or enforce stupid laws. The threat of self-defense violence by non-policeman is immoral.

I disapprove of his tactics. Bringing a gun to a Statist political speech is a waste of time. The parasites don't care. The police will arrest you or place you on their "People to monitor!" or "People to harass later!" list. So many things are crimes that if a State agent inspects your home or business and rigorously enforces the law, then he will find some crime.

The bad guys say "This guy is a fruitcake. Therefore, all people who believe 'Taxation is theft!' are fruitcakes." Just because one person who believes "Taxation is theft!" does something stupid, doesn't mean that all people who seek freedom are fools. This is The Strawman Fallacy.

I'm not saying I disapprove of his decision to openly carry a gun near a speech by Obama. I'm saying that it's ineffective tactics. It should be legal for anyone to carry a gun anywhere. According to natural law, carrying a gun (holstered with the safety on) is not a crime. If you take it out and threaten people with it, that is a crime.

I liked some of the spin. "This guy is obviously a plant, placed by opposition to Obama's healthcare plan." That doesn't seem likely. The bad guys wouldn't sponsor someone saying "All taxation is theft!" They would sponsor someone with a different message. This guy probably was acting on his own. I agree with "Taxation is theft!", but his tactics were stupid.

If this guy was a deliberately planted spy, then the mainstream media would have eagerly covered the story and included the "Taxation is theft!" point. A guy who shouts "Obama's 'Death Panels' are evil!" is news. A guy who says "Taxation is theft!" is not news.

"Taxation is theft! Who needs a government anyway?" is the #1 story in economics and politics for the next 10-20 years, until the State collapses.

Carrying a gun to a political speech is stupid. The correct solution is to boycott the State completely via agorism. If you're an agorist, stealth should be a priority. Going to a political rally carrying a gun is like wearing a giant bullseye.

Right now, the bad guys have superior numbers and superior resources. A direct violent confrontation would get yourself killed for nothing. Agorism is a better strategy for seeking freedom.

There's nothing immoral with carrying a gun for self-defense. That includes self-defense from ordinary criminals, and self-defense from criminals wearing badges and uniforms. Unfortunately, most people have been pro-State brainwashed to associate "He's carrying a gun!" with "He's going to use that gun to hurt/rob someone!" If you see a policeman carrying a gun, there's nothing wrong with that. If you see a non-policeman carrying a gun, you should *PANIC*! There's nothing immoral with publicly carrying a gun, but I prefer to spend my energy on other things.

In NYC, it's illegal for non-policemen to carry guns. Also, I can't get a gun permit because I was involuntarily hospitalized with a "mental illness". (I wonder what would happen if I applied for a permit and left that question blank, answered dishonestly and was prosecuted for lying, or if I answered honestly but was rejected? I'm not going to bother trying. There's no way for me to prove "The psychiatrists made a mistake!" and reverse the decision they made in the past. I suspect that the bad guys have sufficiently disorganized records that I probably could get away with lying, but it's not worth the hassle of trying.)

It's interesting to see cracks in the Matrix developing. Even though this guy accomplished nothing, it's promising to see that more people are gaining awareness of "Taxation is theft!" Maybe a couple of people will read about this guy and think "Hey! Maybe taxation really is theft!"

Astorturf and Town Hall Meetings

Parasites have been organizing "Town Hall Meetings" as a means of promoting Statism. In a "Town Hall Meeting", a politician visits a small city. The politician meets with some voters. Are such events are open to the general public, or are they "invitation only"? My guess is that only people with the "right" viewpoint are allowed inside.

Suppose I went to a "Town Hall Meeting" on health care reform. Suppose I were given the opportunity to ask a question, and I asked "Are government licensing requirements for doctors harmful?" The politician would give a pro-State troll response. I wouldn't be given the opportunity to say "Don't give an evasive answer, ***hole!" My microphone would be cut off and if I were persistent I would be Tasered and arrested. The news would not cover my question, or they would cover it and give the pro-State troll response as if it were correct.

Attending a "Town Hall Meeting" is a waste of time. If I want to promote freedom, other tactics are more effective. I help more people by blogging, than I would by attending a "Town Hall Meeting". If I attend a "Town Hall Meeting", then I'm acting like a slave begging his master to be less cruel.

The "Town Hall Meeting" leads to the problem of "Astroturf" or "fake grass roots". Via Astroturf, there's the manufactured illusion of popular support for a viewpoint.

Consider healthcare. Pharmaceutical corporations and insurance corporations and the AMA hire PR firms to advocate for their viewpoint. The PR firm hires a handful of people to go to the "Town Hall Meeting" and loudly advocate for "Obamacare sucks!".

Obama's "healthcare reform" proposal really does suck, but not for the reason his critics give. The real reason that healthcare is expensive is State licensing requirements for doctors. This artificially raises the price of healthcare, by restricting the supply of doctors. The mainstream critics of Obama's proposal don't mention this issue. Nobody goes around saying "Government licensing requirements for doctors are wonderful!" It's an implicit hidden assumption that's never publicly discussed or debated.

If 200 people attend the "Town Hall Meeting" and 20 are outspoken advocates, this creates the illusion of humongous support for a viewpoint. When you see a handful of people being loud, that makes other people more willing to go along. "Obamacare sucks!" really is true, but not for the reason his critics give. This makes the Astroturf campaign very easy to sell.

The mainstream media then covers the loud people at the "Town Hall Meeting". This is presented as news. Then, other people start echoing the viewpoint of the loud people at the "Town Hall Meeting".

If someone said "Government licensing requirements for doctors are harmful!" or "Taxation is theft!", and they were persistent, then they would be Tasered and arrested. The mainstream media would not cover that incident at all.

The "Town Hall Meeting" is attractive for lobbyists and people with nothing better to do with their time. I have a wage slave job. It'd be a waste of my time to use a vacation day just to attend such a meeting. Besides, such meetings are usually held in small cities. I don't know of any held in NYC. It'd be pointless to go and be one of 100,000 people. Even if I were allowed to ask "Is taxation theft?", the politician would give a pro-State troll answer, and I wouldn't be allowed to retort "Stop avoiding my question, ***hole!" The power to cut off a questioner is the power of censorship. It's a waste of time to attend a venue where I'd be censored or ignored.

In a "Town Hall Meeting", there's usually someone screening questions ahead of time. You're only asked to speak if you ask the "right" question.

The "Town Hall Meeting" is a venue that's particularly subject to abuse. PR firms plant agents in the audience, who deliberately disrupt the discussion. Seeing a handful of vocal people, other people mirror their behavior. The "Town Hall Meeting" provides the illusion of openness, while the format is firmly controlled by the bad guys.

This is an important part of the process of "manufacturing consent".

Obama's healthcare reform proposal really does suck. None of the reform proposals address the damaging effect of State licensing requirements for doctors.

Obama The Joker

This story is interesting. A poster has been circulating comparing Obama to The Joker. It's a picture of Obama edited to show him in makeup, looking like The Joker. I'm surprised that The Daily Show or The Colbert Report hasn't done a bit on this poster. That's an interesting bit of censorship.

Such a poster is offensive and interesting, because it reflects a deeper hidden truth. All politicians/statists are as insane as the Joker. Statists use fancy language to justify their theft.

If politicians went around acting exactly like The Joker, then the scam would be obvious. Instead, they mirror the body language of a real leader. Insiders use the illusion of State legitimacy to cover up their crimes. Now that I can see the fnords, politicians *ARE* acting exactly like The Joker. It's a sophisticated but transparent disguise.

The pro-State trolling in that article was interesting. "The Joker is an anarchist. He goes around destroying things."

That is an important aspect of pro-State brainwashing. "If you're opposed to government, then you go around blowing up stuff and destroying things." The reality is that more wealth has been destroyed/stolen by bailouts and government than any terrorist could ever hope to accomplish.

The reality is that Obama and Congress have destroyed more property than the Joker ever could.

If I had my own comedy show or YouTube channel, I'd do a sketch about an interview with The Joker. The Joker would be complaining about how Obama totally outdid him, and he's embarrassed that he hasn't been able to destroy as much property as Obama. "My mother always told me that, if you want to steal or destroy trillions of dollars and hurt millions of people, you should become a Congressman or President. I was a fool for ignoring her advice."

The mainstream media falsely portrays anarchists as fools who go around destroying things. "Without government there's chaos!" is an evil fnord that's repeated over and over again.

Jon Stewart and the Crank Cycle

On the August 3, 2009 episode of the Daily Show, Jon Stewart did a bit that seemed like it was straight from my blog. It was "The Crank Cycle", but it could have been called "The Fnord Cycle".

A comedian on The Fascism Channel (Fox News) said "If the government can't manage the 'Cash for Clunkers' program, then how is it going to be able to manage healthcare?!"

Then, a woman at a "town hall" meeting said "If the government can't manage the 'Cash for Clunkers' program, then how is it going to be able to manage healthcare?!"

That moment was probably scripted. If the woman had said "Taxation is theft! Government has no legitimacy!", then she probably would have been Tasered and the incident would have not been mentioned. Such fake moments of honesty are usually scripted. On the other hand, with so many brainwashed zombies, it's practically certain that someone will recite propaganda they read elsewhere.

Then, the comedians on The Fascism Channel covered the incident as if it were news. They acted as if the woman had an original thought, rather than reciting what they themselves had spoken a few days ago.

In effect, this was the birth of a new fnord phrase "If the government can't manage the 'Cash for Clunkers' program, then how is it going to be able to manage healthcare?!" That evil fnord serves the established interests of the medicine cartel, the AMA, insurance corporations, and the pharmaceutical corporations. The true issue "Government licensing requirements for doctors are harmful!", is not mentioned.

Jon Stewart joked "They're doing it on purpose!" Was it merely an accident? Or, is the introduction of new fnord phrases carefully scripted?

Suppose that there was an attempt at honest news. Then, there could have been a fnord phrase "State licensing requirements for doctors are damaging!"

I wonder if any writers for The Daily Show read my blog? With only 200 regular readers, it's very unlikely. If I attempt "Promote agorism via standup comedy!", writers for The Daily Show might see me perform. Some of the people who organize "open mike" nights in NYC claim to be writers for The Daily Show.

It was amusing to see a bit on The Daily Show that seemed like it was copied from my blog.

Obama's Birth Certificate Fnord

Another weird conspiracy theory has been circulating. It's "Obama never produced a valid birth certificate. Therefore, he isn't a legitimate President."

The bizarre thing is that the mainstream media itself is promoting this conspiracy theory.

I heard a State bureaucrat say "People with blogs write the stupidest things. This story about Obama's birth certificate is nonsense. We should pass a law restricting the ability of bloggers to write about whatever they want."

This issue distracts from the real issue, which is "The State has no legitimacy at all." Birth certificate or not, no politician has the authority to use violence to impose their will on others. No politician has the authority to steal via taxes.

Also, this conspiracy theory is an easily-debunked one. According to several sources, Obama really does have a birth certificate from Hawaii. Of course, such paperwork is easily forged, but Obama probably really is a US citizen by birth.

Are such conspiracy theories promoted as an evil fnord? People who are disgruntled with the State are attracted to these weird conspiracy theories, and distracted from the truth. Then, the mainstream media can say "All conspiracy theorists are fruitcakes." This allows the people saying "Obama has no birth certificate!" to be lumped together with those saying "Taxation is theft!"

It seems weird that this bizarre conspiracy theory is promoted by the mainstream media. It's probably an attempt to discredit all conspiracy theorists/factists.