State vs. Octavia Nasr

This story was interesting. Octavia Nasr used to work for CNN. She wrote a twitter message expressing sympathy, when a Hezbollah leader died. She was fired from her job at CNN.

This is a very common pattern. A State comedian/journalist says something that reflects a forbidden truth. They are publicly humiliated, disgraced, and fired. The truth-speaker issues an apology, but it doesn't matter; they're fired and their career is over. They never will get another job in the State media cartel. The "apology" is an important part of the ritual, because the truth-speaker retracts their statement before being disgraced.

Octavia Nasr's forbidden truth is "Not everyone involved with Hezbollah is a scumbag. Some of them are good guys. They have legitimate grievances, regarding the way the US military treats them."

The State media cartel says "Journalists aren't supposed to express personal political opinions." More precisely, journalists aren't allowed to express opinions that contradict official State propaganda. It's OK for a State journalist to say "Be patriotic! Support our troops!" That's also a personal opinion, albeit a State-sanctioned opinion.

"The State media must be neutral!" is a policy that helps hide the pro-State bias. "Present both sides" usually is false opposites. Right now, some people are saying "The Federal Reserve should raise interest rates." The fake opposite is "The Federal Reserve should keep interest rates low." The correct answer is "The Federal Reserve is a price-fixing cartel. The government should not be setting interest rates." Under the guise of "presenting both sides", the State media cartel seems impartial while suppressing the truth.

A pro-State troll says "So what? It's a free market. CNN executives can do whatever they please!" If it's a free market, then why hasn't Octavia Nasr already been hired by one of CNN's competitors? Hasn't her reputation been increased by this incident?

The mainstream media cartel is controlled by a handful of insiders. These insiders all think practically the same way. Octavia Nasr is effectively blacklisted. She probably will never find a job that pays as much as her CNN job.

A pro-State troll says "Octavia Nasr can self-publish on the Internet!" The problem is that she won't earn as much selling ads as CNN. Executives at a large corporation want to purchase ads from large mainstream media corporations that meet their censorship standards. They don't want to advertise with some fruitcake blogger. There are relatively few small businesses in the USA, so it's harder for an independent blogger to sell ads. You aren't going to earn as much self-publishing on the Internet, as with a State media corporation.

A lot of people are unfairly fired from a mainstream media job, based on something they said. This usually ends their career. There is no explicit written State censorship policy. Every mainstream journalist knows the unwritten State censorship rules.

When someone says a forbidden truth, you don't need to send them to a labor camp. It is sufficient to fire and blacklist them. With the media cartel controlled by a handful of insiders, it's very easy to impose State censorship. The insiders who control the media corporations wield more political influence than most politicians. By hyping some viewpoints and censoring others, the State media cartel enforces censorship more efficiently that China or Russia or other dictatorships. This censorship occurs while telling the slaves "Freedom of speech! Freedom of the Press! It's a free market!"

This is a very predictable pattern. A State insider mentions a forbidden truth. They are shamed and publicly denounced. They are forced to apologize, but they're fired anyway. They're effectively blacklisted. They will never again find another mainstream media job.

State propagandists have a cushy job. They are well paid but have no useful skills. There's always someone else eager to replace them. Therefore, anyone who disobeys is easily fired, discredited, and replaced.

In the USA, there is no real free market in journalism. You can self-publish on the Internet. Even if you have a good blog (like me), it's still very hard to earn a living self-publishing on the Internet.

The Right to Own Assault Rifles

A lot of State propagandists say "Why would someone need an assault rifle? Only a criminal would want an assault rifle." This is justification for banning them.

The reason you own an assault rifle is not protection from small-scale criminals. Assault rifles are needed when the secret police come to kidnap you. With no-knock raids for nonviolent statutory crime, police behave like an occupying army rather than protectors of freedom.

With an assault rifle, the average person can fight at near-parity with professional soldiers. That is the value of an assault rifle. A gun ownership ban is a key component of a dictator's control plan.

If the President announced "Let's round up all the small business owners and send them to death camps!", that would obviously be evil. Instead, regulations are passed that cripple small businesses. If the cost of regulation compliance is $X, a fixed cost, then large corporations have a huge advantage over small business.

One at a time, small business owners are rounded up and sent to jail, rather than jailing them all at once. Under the guise of "Rule of law!", State parasites steal from small business owners. The State thug says "I'm just enforcing the law!", without realizing that the law he's enforcing is wrong.

That helps disguise State evil. The secret police don't round up and arrest everyone all at once. Kidnapping one person at a time is much more efficient. The law is so vague that any person could be considered a criminal.

If you're the only person who violently resists the State aggression, you're throwing your life away for nothing. If everyone did it, then the scam would rapidly collapse. Right now, due to the superior resources of the terrorists, stealth and nonviolent resistance are the best options.

The Myth of George Washington

I was watching Jeopardy and saw the following clue:

In an important precedent, Washington served this many terms as president, though others wanted him to stay on

I was amused. Shows like Jeopardy contain hidden pro-State messages.

In your State brainwashing center, you learned

George Washington decided that no President should serve more than two terms. He graciously declined to seek a third term.

However, this is a lie. George Washington declined to run for a 3rd term because he knew he wouldn't get reelected! Rather than suffer the embarrassment of running and losing, he declined to seek a 3rd term.

In 1796, there were two main political factions. There was Thomas Jefferson, who believed "We should have a Federal government, but make sure it stays small." By 1796, most of the Anti-Federalists were supporting Jefferson.

There was the Adams/Hamilton faction. They believed "We like having a strong government because we like stealing! The main purpose of government is for insiders to line their pockets!"

George Washington was inbetween the Jefferson faction and the Adams/Hamilton faction. Both sides disapproved of the way Washington's government was going. Jefferson wanted a limited government and Adams wanted a Police State. Washington wasn't freedom-minded enough for Jefferson. Washington was too freedom-minded for Adams.

The election of 1796 illustrated a defect in the Constitution. The #1 electoral vote recipient was President, and the #2 candidate was Vice President. This led to the awkward situation of having Adams as President and Jefferson as Vice President, people from opposing factions.

This flaw was rapidly fixed via an Amendment, the 12th Amendment. The 12th Amendment introduced separate elections for President and Vice President. Now, it's impossible for the President and Vice President to be from two competing political parties.

President Adams got Congress to pass the Sedition Act. This made it a crime to criticize the Federal government and its policies. "Freedom of the press" rapidly went out the window. Benjamin Franklin Bache was arrested for violating the Sedition Act.

The leading Anti-Federalist and Jefferson-supporting newspaper editors were rounded up and sent to jail. This was an intellectual purge similar to the Cultural Revolution in China. Jefferson pardoned all of them when he became President, but the damage was done. Benjamin Franklin Bache died of "natural causes" while awaiting trial. The Anti-Federalist newspapers went bankrupt and folded while the owner was in jail.

There was a similar purge while Lincoln was President; he arrested newspaper editors who criticized the Civil War. Many people in the North thought that the Southern states should be allowed to secede.

Some State parasites want to make it a crime to criticize the President or the government. They are looking for a modern version of the Sedition Act, to stifle freedom of speech on the Internet.

While watching Jeopardy, I pointed out to my father "George Washington didn't seek a 3rd term because he wouldn't be reelected." My father said "That's nonsense. You shouldn't believe everything you read on the Internet." Pro-State brainwashing is very effective.

State brainwashing centers present history in a biased pro-State troll fashion. By mentioning certain facts and suppressing others, this creates bias. For "great statists", the good things they did are hyped and the bad is downplayed or omitted. Once I started learning real history, and not the pro-State troll version, history seems a lot more interesting. For example, "history of banking in the USA" is not normally taught in State brainwashing centers. It's interesting to read about how bad laws and bad Supreme Court precedents eroded the American people's freedom.

A lot of mainstream "history" is sanitized pro-State propaganda. "George Washington graciously didn't seek a 3rd term." is an example of sanitized history. It downplays the real conflict between the Adams faction and the Jefferson faction.

The Fallacy of Nullification

On lewrockwell.com, there's a lot of effort promoting Tom Woods' book on Nullification. Tom Woods works for that website. "Nullification" refers to the right of state governments to override bad Federal laws.

"Nullification" should not be confused with "jury nullification". "Jury nullification" refers to the right and obligation for jurors to vote "not guilty", if they think that the law being enforced is immoral. The practice of questioning jurors was invented to prevent jury nullification. If a juror indicates they might vote "not guilty", then the jury selection process eliminates them.

According to Federal government judges, Federal law takes priority over state law. This is an obvious conflict of interest. The decision "Federal law trumps state law!" was made by the Federal government. The Federal government has more resources than state governments, enabling Federal police to violently enforce their will.

The Supreme Court overturned Chicago's handgun ban. If you're a supporter of nullification, then you should oppose this ruling. That is confusing, because the freedom-oriented belief is "There should be no restrictions on gun ownership."

It was amusing to see the reaction of Chicago politicians. They responded to the verdict by passing a new gun control law. The new law is slightly less strict than the one the Supreme Court overturned. It's like they're conducting an experiment to see "What's the strictest law we can pass?"

If you support nullification, then you should support Arizona's anti-immigration law. Federal government lawyers are suing, in a Federal court, to block to law. The freedom-oriented belief on immigration is "There should be no restrictions on immigration. Laws restricting immigration are a symptom of the belief 'People are the property of their government.' Many anti-immigration laws are a type of modern fugitive slave law."

California has attempted to nullify Federal marijuana laws. However, the Federal DEA may still arrest people in California who operate "medical marijuana" stores. In the criminal trial, the defendant is barred from mentioning "I was operating a 'medical marijuana' store, which is legal according to California state law."

The problem with nullification is that it has no teeth, unless politicians and state police are prepared to violently back their declaration of nullification.

Suppose that California's government declares "Marijuana is 100% legal in California. The Federal DEA is blocked from enforcing Federal anti-marijuana laws in California. If a DEA agent arrests someone in California for 'possession of marijuana', then the California police will arrest that DEA agent for trespassing and assault."

California's marijuana law is appealed to Federal court and the Supreme Court. They say "Sorry! This law is invalid!" If California politicians now give up, then what was the point of nullification?

In order for nullification to have teeth, politicians and police in California would have to say "Your authority on this issue isn't valid. We're enforcing this law anyway!" If the DEA attempts to arrest someone in California, the California local police should be prepared to resist, with force if necessary. If California police aren't willing to arrest/kill a DEA agent when enforcing the nullification law, then there's no point of nullification.

Of course, most government bureaucrats and police are cowards. They won't risk their jobs to protect individual freedom. They certainly won't risk their lives to protect individual freedom. If local state police won't protect people from Federal armed thugs, then what's the point of having police?

The Federal government has superior military resources than any individual state. The Federal police will use violence to enforce Federal law. However, if local police had the balls to resist, then public opinion might go against the Federal thugs. That isn't going to happen.

The correct answer is "Anyone enforcing a bad law is guilty of assault/kidnapping/murder." Local state-employed police will not defend individuals from Federal government aggression.

Nullification only has teeth if local governments are prepared to back their order with violence. The Federal government has superior resources. The "nullification" issue is decided the way all political disputes are decided, via violence or threat of violence. Most/all state bureaucrats/police aren't going to use violence to enforce a nullification law. Most government bureaucrats are cowards who won't risk their cushy job.

Nobody is willing to use violence to back nullification. Nullification is a dead-end for people who seek individual freedom.

Stimulus and Austerity

This State control trick is very offensive. State comedians simultaneously claim "We need to do X!" and "We need to do not X!"

One example is the simultaneous demand for stimulus and austerity. "OMFG! Deflation! Recession! We have to stimulate the economy!" and "OMFG! Inflation! We have to balance the Federal budget!" are two logically incompatible ideas.

It makes no logical sense that, in less than a year, the economy went from "OMFG! Bailout! Stimulus!" to "OMFG! Inflation!"

"Stimulus" is a code word for "Steal via inflation and spend it on pork projects!" "Austerity" is a code word for "Higher taxes!" After the "emergency" passes, the "temporary" tax hike is permanent.

State parasites use an emergency as an excuse to grab more power. The incentive is to create as many emergencies as you can! Government is the one business whose executives can claim "We're failing to do our job! Give us a raise!"

The "Bush tax cuts" are set to expire at the end of this year. This might be the biggest tax hike in American history. Of course, the Democrats and Republicans are going to be unable to reach a deal. Not only will progressive taxation rates return to 2000 levels, but via inflation, you're in a higher tax bracket compared to 2000 for the same real income. By doing nothing, Congress ensures that everyone gets a tax hike.

With progressive taxation rates and inflation, everyone moves up to a higher tax bracket every year! The tax schedules are adjusted according to the CPI, which is far less than true inflation. Then, Congressmen "adjust" the tax schedules, claiming to give everyone a tax cut.

"Austerity" is another excuse to cut pensions. State employee unions can vote as a bloc to prevent serious benefit cuts. However, inflation severely erodes the value of a pension.

Suppose you have a pension of $50k/year and true inflation is 25%. Then, the present value of your pension is only $250k! Inflation severely erodes your pension. Some State employees get a CPI-adjusted pension, which is still far less than true inflation.

"Stimulus" is an excuse for theft via inflation and pork spending. "Austerity" is an excuse for tax hikes and defaults and inflation. Either way, you lose. State comedians go from one emergency to the opposite emergency, to keep the slaves confused. In less than a year, State propaganda went from "OMFG! Stimulus! Deflation!" to "OMFG! Inflation! Tax hikes! Balance the budget!" That makes no sense.

Free Keene Foolishness

This story was amusing. To protest an "open container" alcohol ban, some people played a drinking game at a Keene city council meeting. Unsurprisingly, they were kicked out of the meeting.

This raises 2 points:

1. Is it rude to go to a city council meeting and ridicule it?
2. It that an effective use of your time?
   

The people at the city council claim the power to use violence to force people to obey. Therefore, it isn't immoral to ridicule them.

However, going to a city council meeting, even if just to protest and ridicule, implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of the proceedings. A real agorist would completely ignore the city council. By going to the meeting, you implicitly say "It matters what these schmucks do."

There was another amusing bit. One councilperson said "I was going to try to change the 'open container' law. This stupid protest changed my mind." That is invalid reasoning. Even if a few people were rude, that doesn't invalidate criticism of the 'open container' law. The bureaucrat is probably just making up an excuse for what he wanted to do anyway.

One person said "This protest was a bad idea! You're making libertarians/anarchists look stupid. Now, State thugs are resisting change." The protest was bad, because it gave the statists an excuse to be statists? That's like saying "Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are responsible for the Iraqi and Afghan children killed by US troops." This is an example of "Blame the victim, not the aggressor."

Is a "city council" protest an efficient use of time? They did get some publicity from their stunt. However, other things are probably more effective.

At a city council meeting, you're fighting State thugs on their turf. That's usually a mistake. Plus, it seems hypocritical for an anti-statist to go to a State bureaucratic meeting.

The "Free Keene" crowd seem to be doing lots of stupid civil disobedience:

• violating 'open container' laws
• publicly smoking marijuana
• public nudity
• driving without a State permit
• refusing to stand up for a judge
• paying your property tax in $1 bills
  

Those things annoy statists, but don't really threaten the State's core economic/violence monopoly. Technically, those are things that shouldn't be illegal. However, it isn't worth getting kidnapped, just to do any of those things. The State is a bully with superior resources. Therefore, you should choose your tactics carefully. Only an idiot picks a fight with a bully, even when they're technically right.

I don't like marijuana and alcohol, so that civil disobedience seems silly. Driving without State papers seems like a bad risk/reward decision; in NH, you might get away with it, but you wouldn't in NYC. "Pay property taxes in $1 bills." is annoying some low-ranking clerk rather than anything else. He was considering paying in pennies. That's really stupid, because pennies are worth more than $0.01 each!

"Refusing to stand up for a judge" is amusing. Again, you'd never get away with that in NYC. Allegedly, some NH judges no longer throw a tantrum when people refuse to stand up for them. "You must stand up for a judge!" is stupid, but not worth getting kidnapped over.

The "Free Keene" crowd seems to be focusing on civil disobedience that has a poor risk/reward ratio. Have undercover State spies infiltrated and subverted the "Free Keene" movement? They may be encouraging people to do stupid things, rather than effective resistance.

Allegedly, there also are advanced agorist groups in New Hampshire. I don't see them mentioned as much. They might be reluctant to publicly disclose their methods and successes.

If you just evaluate the "Free Keene" stupid civil disobedience, they seem like a bunch of fools. There may be working agorists elsewhere in New Hampshire.

One guy was really upset about paying property taxes. If "property tax" is the only tax you pay, that's pretty impressive! Don't forget the hidden taxes in other things you buy!

I don't see the merit of moving to New Hampshire. If there's a group able to avoid property taxes and defend their homes, I'd seriously consider it. By the time that's viable, the State has already lost. If necessary, the Federal government would dispatch troops to put down a property tax revolt.

I don't see the merit of moving to New Hampshire. As a wage slave financial software engineer, NYC is the best location. If I attempt "promote agorism via standup comedy", NYC is an excellent location. The "agorist grilled cheese seller" is doing fine in NYC. State money is still required to pay State taxes. Even if agorists are successful, they need a "trade surplus" with the State economy, so they can pay property taxes and other taxes. It'll be awhile before agorists will be able to refuse to pay property taxes and successfully defend their homes.

"Stupid civil disobedience in New Hampshire" is a symptom of people who haven't fully cracked their pro-State brainwashing. By "stupid civil disobedience", I mean "poor risk/reward ratio". Is it the effect of State spies, or just plain foolishness? There may be other people in New Hampshire taking a more intelligent approach to fighting State evil, but I don't see it in the "Free Keene" group.

Libel or Legal Extortion?

Shirley Sherrod announced that she plans to sue Andrew Breitbart for libel. Shirley Sherrod is a State insider, and Andrew Breitbart is a non-insider. Therefore, she can use the legal system to silence critics.

The lawsuit was announced, but hasn't been formally filed yet. Even if Andrew Breitbart ultimately wins, he isn't reimbursed for his legal expenses. This enables Shirley Sherrod, who has greater resources, to use the legal system to harass someone.

If a crazy person wearing a robe issues a court summons, you can't ignore it. Otherwise, thugs with guns will come to kidnap you or take away your property.

Via the "Streisand Effect", the lawsuit may backfire. It would be more free publicity for Andrew Breitbart than anything else.

It seems odd to sue only Andrew Breitbart. Allegedly, Fox News promoted the video. If President Obama didn't overreact and fire her, then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

It's hard for Shirley Sherrod to claim that her reputation was permanently damaged by the incident. If anything, she has benefited. She's a celebrity now. The mainstream media has fairly presented her side of the story, which is "I was quoted out of context. I was really telling a story about how I learned from past racist behavior." However, if a white person told a similar story, he'd be sharply denounced.

This whole story seems bizarre. "President Obama fired a subordinate, based on what a blogger wrote." That makes absolutely no sense.

Here's some other "rumors started by bloggers". Let's see if the President does something about them.

• Vice President Joe Biden had a gay sex orgy with Tony Hayward. Tony Hayward was overheard shouting "Yeah Joe! Screw me like a taxpayer!"
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gets a $10k bonus every time an Afghan baby dies.
• The healthcare reform law was written by lobbyists from insurance corporations and the AMA. (That's too silly. Nobody would believe that one.)
• Nancy Pelosi has had sex with thousands of lobbyists, but has yet to find a man that can really satisfy her.
• The financial reform law was written by Lloyd Blankfein.
• A recent scientific study shows that Harry Reid is dumber than cabbage.
  

Since President Obama bases his decisions on bloggers, maybe he'll take those issues seriously.

Libel laws are used to censor non-insiders. In a really free market, there's no such thing as libel. You're free to say "X", and I'm free to point out what a fool you are. Libel lawsuits are legal extortion.