May 282017
 

I met my friend, Morpheus (now in federal custody), in 2005 at a meeting of the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County in Florida. At the time I was struck by how quickly he understood the ethics lessons that I was teaching then. We quickly became good friends and stayed in touch after he moved to Arizona about 6 months later.

In 2012, just 12 months to the day after my wife’s death, I pulled up stakes and moved to the Phoenix area to become part of the freedom activist community in which Morpheus was a well known participant. Since then I’ve had many opportunities to admire his honesty, courage and fortitude in resisting the evils of mala prohibita (victimless “crimes”) enforcement.

The price he has paid for his extraordinary freedom has been severe. He has been robbed of multiple vehicles, beaten, tased, cuffed, kidnapped, strait-jacketed, prosecuted, fined, and caged just for being free – NOT for harming anyone. In fact, he is currently in prison for buying and selling BitCoins – a commodity comprised of strings of numbers and letters. What could be more absurd?

He was arrested on April the 20th while making a BitCoin deal, and then his apartment was raided and he was charged with owning a handful of ammunition that was found in his apartment (no guns though). So now the feds are trying to build a case against him, probably for “money laundering”, but they have as yet not charged him and have not specified a “probable cause” for his arrest. Meanwhile they won’t let him bail because they consider him a “flight risk” – which in fact he is NOT. And he is languishing in prison until a hearing or trial scheduled for August.

So I am appealing to all you freedom-loving, anarchist, libertarian, or constitutionalist, “activists” to ante-up for Morpheus’s defense – because if you don’t step up and help him, there will likely be no one to come to your defense when the Nazi thugs come for YOU… and they will I can guarantee.
I’ve talked to attorney  Marc Victor on Morpheus’s behalf, and he will charge $800 just to go out to where Morpheus is being held and do an initial interview. His actual defense in court is likely to run tens of thousands of dollars.

This case is likely to be a precedent setter. The federal government cannot afford to let anyone buy, sell, or financially transact anything without their demanding a slice of the revenue (in taxes).  So the outcome of this case could result in your total financial enslavement, OR it could set a precedent that will legitimize the first truly free market on the planet in over 8,000 years.

Make no mistake. Unless we defend Morpheus with every resource available to us, his fate will eventually become ours. If you don’t want to rot in some gulag, donate for his defense while you still can.

Via PayPal: borisheir@yahoo.com

Via Bitcoin: 1CnMqpF3dUoHSUg3r4ngAsJoNhSTBU7TY

If you’d like to write to him, here is his address in captivity:
Thomas Costanzo
#373285408
CAFCC WEST
P.O. BOX 6300
Florence, AZ 85132

Live free,

Mar 102016
 

About the Word “Authority”
My friend, Larken Rose, describes authority as “the most dangerous
superstition” – and has, in fact, written a wonderful little book by that title. I heartily recommend it to anyone wanting to delve deeper into the subject than the limited treatment in this article. Having said that, let’s take an intellectual peek into the meaning of the word.

The word, “authority” would appear at first glance to be a noun – though
technically it isn’t one – because it doesn’t describe or name something that can be put in a wheelbarrow. Traditionally, a noun names a person, place, or thing. In recent years some have chosen to extend the definition to include ideas – but I find this more confusing than helpful.

Instead, on the advice of the eminent linguist John Grinder, I refer to such
words as “nominalizations”. As such, a nominalization is itself an idea, but the concept so labeled usually proves, on examination, to represent an action or a process. The same can be said too of the expressions, “power over”, juris diction, and rank – as they are essentially synonyms for “authority.”
In discussing authority, the subject is further confused by the fact that, in
practice, the word has two distinct meanings.

Two Kinds of Authority
There are two meanings for the word in common usage:
1. It can mean an expert – someone who is unusually well versed in a
subject – as in “Einstein was an authority on physics”; or
2. It can mean someone who exercises power over others – as in,
“Governments have authority over their subjects”.

At the moment we are born, naked, helpless, and totally dependent, our
parents are the expert authorities responsible for our well being. We have no choice but to respect their superior strength, knowledge, and experience. In fact, our very lives depend on it. So when they say, “Don’t play in the street”, we do well to obey, and we can take some comfort in the fact that they have more expertise than we when it comes to survival in the jungle, the woods, or the city. This is a case of authority as defined in (1) above.

Unfortunately, it is all too common that parents treat their children as though their authority is of the second type – requiring obedience without regard for the child’s mental/emotional state. “Be respectful! I’m your father!” expresses a typical attitude of such a parent. This is the attitude that is usually meant by the adjective, “authoritarian”.

It is the responsibility of an ethical parent to teach their offspring what they need to know to become independent adults with good self-esteem and a strong sense of responsibility for themselves. This cannot be achieved by maintaining an authoritarian posture in relation to them. This attitude, instead, teaches fear, obedience and dependency. When the posture is based on corporal punishment, it also teaches violence – and is arguably the primary source of violence in today’s world.

An even more profound consequence of authoritarian parenting is its effect on a child’s awareness of self-ownership.

Self-Ownership Implications
As small children it is apparent to everyone that they are owned by their
parents. In school the mandate to obey is largely transferred to our teachers – making them our stand-in owners. And as employees it is easy to imagine ourselves owned by our employers. We are conditioned to accept these roles – even though they are false.

It is very convenient for those who wish to rule us to have us think that we are “free”, when we fail to recognize our own self-ownership. This distortion of our awareness causes us to regard the ruling class as our owners – and to obey its members as would slaves. The conditioning to bring this about begins when we are infants – being raised by parents who have already been trained to obey “authorities”. In reality, “authority” refers to nothing more than coercion by means of force or the threat of force. And the purpose of perpetuating the concept as something else exists only to make us easier to plunder. When we yield to this mandate, we remain permanently child-like, unwilling to take on the true responsi-bilities of adulthood. In effect, we choose our own slavery.

The Adult Quandary
Our culture makes it very easy for us to accept our serfdom – and difficult to honor truth, love, awareness, and creativity. The latter choices put us
immediately in conflict with those who wish to “rule” us, and they aren’t
hesitant to beat, pepper-spray, taser, torture, cage, and kill those who fail to comply. This makes for some difficult choices for those of us not deceived by our early conditioning.

The Unfortunate Default
While some of us maintain an uneasy balance between compliance and self-determination, most people choose, not only to comply with our self-
appointed rulers’ edicts – but to turn on those of us who don’t, by supporting violence that is directed at those of us who are free enough to recognize the falsehood of all forms of “authority”.

The Controllers and the Controlled
The intense need of psychopaths and sociopaths to control others by
exercising power over them derives primarily from the devastating abuse to which they were subjected very early in childhood. That abuse left them feeling so out of control of their lives, that to survive they had to learn to respond in kind – by becoming even more controlling than their abusers. To date there is no known way to heal the results of such abuse.

So, What Is “Authority” and What Can Be Done to Correct for It? The mythology that underpins our subservience to “authority” is no different
today than it was when monarchs claimed the “divine right of kings”. It is
based on the fictional notion that some people have an unassailable right to control the lives of others. In order to gain our freedom from such slavery we must first recognize it for the big lie that it is. The primary mechanism of “authority” is hierarchy.

We know now how to create non-hierarchic organizations that are both ethical and effective. This new model makes the old one obsolete. If there is a key that will end our servitude, this is it.
– Bob Podolsky – 2016

Jan 232016
 

FBI CHILD PORN SCANDAL

by Bob Podolsky

Introduction

A breaking scandal reported by USA TODAY reveals that the FBI ran a “dark web” child pornography website for 2 weeks last year, after taking over the server that hosted it from its original felonious owner. The ostensible purpose of this was to entrap the site’s users in order to charge them with possession of illegal downloaded content.

Child pornography is a highly charged emotional subject; so one can reasonably expect that the public reaction to this revelation will be the object of a great deal of irrational hyperbole promoted by the mainstream media and exploited by everyone with a political axe to grind.

Accordingly, it is important to acquire a dispassionate fact-based understanding of the issue, in the interest of minimizing unethical responses to the revelations of the USA TODAY (USAT) article. Hence this article.

Common Assumptions

Opinions concerning the USAT article and its implications will vary widely because its readers have widely varying assumptions about how the world works. The assumptions listed below illustrate this point, because some of them are true, some are not, and some are sometimes true and sometimes not.

  1. The making of child pornography invariably involves the sexual interaction of a child with an adult.

  2. Sexual interaction of an adult with a child may be physically damaging to the child.

  3. Sexual interaction of an adult with a child is emotionally damaging to the child.

  4. The child may or may not know, at the time, that what the adult is doing with them is emotionally damaging.

  5. The producers and directors of child pornography are “evil-doers”.

  6. The camera operators involved are “evil-doers”.

  7. Those who process the pornographic imagery are “evil-doers”.

  8. The adult porn actors are “evil-doers”.

  9. The parents of the children involved are “evil-doers”.

  10. Those who watch or observe such imagery are “evil-doers”.

  11. Those who distribute the imagery by various means are “evil- doers”.

  12. The children who are victims of child pornographers are further damaged whenever their images are observed.

  13. It is a proper role of government to identify, find, capture, and punish everyone involved in the child pornography industry.

  14. Laws against the production and distribution of child pornography protect the child victims by discouraging the public from buying the pornographic products.

  15. Punishing the customers of child porn reduces the number of customers.

  16. Reducing the number of customers, in turn, reduces the number of children being abused and exploited.

  17. Running a child porn website to ensnare child porn buyers and viewers is a legitimate strategy for protecting child porn victims from those who exploit them.

Child pornography is certainly a symptom of a serious societal problem, because the victims are seriously damaged…AND if one blindly accepts the above assumptions, the damage can be greatly amplified. In order to get to the bottom of the matter, we need to understand the ethical criteria for what constitutes an “evil-doer” and for the allocation of responsibility to those acting.

The Ethics of Responsibility

After thousands of years of philosophical discussion and debate, the most rationally and scientifically defensible definition of an ethical act is:

An act is ethical if it increases creativity, awareness, love, and/or objective truth for at least one person, including the person acting, without limiting or diminishing any of these resources for anyone.

Rationally we know that the responsibility for an act, be it unethical or not, is divided among all the people who took part in the causal chain of events leading up to the act. However, the one most responsible is the one who had the chronologically last opportunity to prevent the act from occurring. For this reason, despite “legal” opinions to the contrary, the hired assassin is more culpable than the individual who hired him (or her).

In the chain of events leading up to the production of a child porno photograph or video, it is the adult who engages the child sexually that is ultimately most responsible for the harm done to the child victim. The parents who fail to protect their child from such exploitation are arguably the next most responsible. Others involved in the child porn production are also acting unethically, though their participation in support of the crime is less unethical than the actual perpetrators – the adult actor who has sex with the child and the parent who fails to prevent the abuse. These two participants are those from whom the child actually needs protection.

The Objective View: Identifying the Hype

The above definition of an ethical act has a number of logical consequences that yield a dozen important principles that are very useful in applying the ethics to everyday decision-making. Chief among these is the principle that unethical means can never achieve ethical ends. Recognizing that this is so leads to the conclusion that Assumption #17 Running a child porn website to ensnare child porn buyers and viewers is a legitimate strategy for protecting child porn victims from those who exploit them, is FALSE. Therefore, assuming that selling child pornography is unethical, an ethical agency would never resort to doing so…for any reason.

Assumptions 14 through 16 are also false. We know this because they justify the prohibition of child porn, and we know from long experience that prohibition doesn’t diminish the demand for an illegal product, nor its availability. Alcohol, gambling, prostitution and drugs come to mind as obvious examples of prohibition failure.

Assumption 13, It is a proper role of government to identify, find, capture, and punish everyone involved in the child pornography industry. is also FALSE, because punishment of wrongdoers has proven totally ineffectual in curbing crime – especially when the crime is a form of prohibition violation. As an extreme example, consider the fact that drugs are widely available in prisons…where those convicted of selling drugs outside of prisons are routinely sent.

Consider the fact that every crime, as defined in law dictionaries, has a victim – someone who has been physically harmed or whose property rights have been violated. For this reason, Assumptions 10, 11, and 12 are also FALSE. The only victims of child pornography are the children, who are unaffected by strangers seeing their pictures. As much revulsion as most of us feel imagining an adult masturbating in front of a video screen depicting children being molested, the fact remains that the child sex actor shown on the screen is not aware of the event and is not harmed by it. Nor is it a proper function of government to protect us from such revulsion.

Assumptions 1 through 9 are also true, however the first four are qualitatively different than the next 5. The first four serve to simply define the crime that takes place in the production of child pornography…which is ultimately where the crime occurs. Assumptions 5 through 7 indicate the responsibility of the producers of the pornography; but 8 and 9 correctly identify the real culprits – the adult actors and the permissive or absent parents.

Conclusions

Back in the 60’s, in the Vietnam war era, Buffy Sainte-Marie wrote and performed a beautiful song called the the “Universal Soldier”, in which she aptly pointed out that the crime of war could not exist without the willingness of men (most of them practically children themselves) to travel half-way around the world to shoot strangers who had never wronged them.

Today the trigger-pulling soldiers, the bomb-dropping bombardiers, and the rocket-launching drone pilots bear the ultimate responsibility for the international murders we call war.

In similar fashion, it is the child-molesting porno-film actors and the victims’ parents, who abdicate their parental duties, who bear the lion’s share of responsibility for the harm done to children who are thus sexually exploited. While the porn producers and distributors bear some of the responsibility for the harm done to the child victims, the producers don’t usually molest the children personally, and the product distributor issues are just another form of prohibition. And we all know how well ‘The Drug War’ – “works”.

For the creation of an ethical society, free of such evils, it is necessary for a dramatic change to occur in human culture…a change that paves the way for our institutions to make consistently ethical decisions. Fortunately, the knowledge of how this will be accomplished already exists, and more and more people are catching on. For details read Ethics Law and Government and Ethical Organizational Development.

Jan 132016
 

Oct 182015
 

The Concept
There are many who believe that killing another human being is always unethical – an evil deed, regardless of the circumstances and motivation behind the act. Because of this, many victims of violence and tyranny have died needlessly – thinking they were acting ethically by refraining from defending themselves. It’s time to set the record straight.

Analysis
To acquire a profound understanding of the issues involved in this matter, we must start with the definition of a valid ethic. Here is an example:

“An act is ethical if it increases the creativity of at least one person, including the person acting, without limiting or diminishing the creativity of anyone.”

From this definition, we can derive the following principles by pure logic:

• Every ethically non-trivial act falls on an ethical continuum, in accordance with the degree to which the act increases creativity.

• Murder is unethical (as is obvious), because, by definition, it reduces the creativity of the person being murdered.

• It is unethical to permit an unethical act if one can effectively forbid or prevent it.

This raises the question, “Is killing in self defense properly construed as ‘murder’?” To answer this consider the following diagram:

|–—————–0——————-|
-100                                                             +100

The horizontal line above represents a creativity scale. A person who consistently makes the most creative choices might achieve a maximum score of +100 – whereas one who consistently makes destructive choices might score -100. These are also obviously opposite ends of a corresponding scale of ethics.

Now imagine that someone credibly threatens to kill you if you do not comply with something they demand. At this point their creativity, and hence their ethics, is at the -100 point on the creativity scale. If you now take action stopping the threat – and if it your action results in the attacker’s death – then you have effectively raised his creativity from -100 to zero.

Note that, in this instance, the attacker’s creativity was raised rather than lowered – so it follows that the act of killing the attacker was not murder.  And, what is more, had you not stopped the attack on yourself, you would have effectively permitted the attacker to murder you – and that would have constituted an unethical decision on your part, by allowing your own
creativity to be diminished.

Conclusions
• When lethal force is required in order to prevent an act of murder or mayhem, that lethal force is ethical.
• When lethal force is required in order to prevent an act of murder or mayhem, one’s refusal to use lethal force is unethical.

While these conclusions will seem counter-intuitive to many, they are nonetheless correct; and identical results will be obtained by the application of any valid ethic.

Oct 062015
 

The probability of a major dollar crisis is very high. Things are mirroring the conditions that existed in 2008 except much worse. Russia and China have stopped buying treasuries and are now bypassing the Petrodollar and buying oil directly from the Middle East. China has started their own International Bank to compete with the IMF and World Bank. So far they have signed on 150 + countries as founding members of this new Bank. They plan on backing their currency with gold. They have even convinced most of the US allies to join this new bank, including UK, Germany, France, and many others. The dollar is losing its status as the Worlds reserve currency which is a death blow. Many of the top financial people in the US that predicted the 2008 crisis are getting their money out of the dollar and recommending that others do the same. Even Jamie Diamond the head of JPMorgan Chase (the largest bank in the US) has said he expects a major event to take place with the dollar very soon.
The dollar is not immune from the laws of economics that have existed throughout history. All fiat currencies eventually fail and the sign of the end is when the central bank (the Fed) of the country starts printing so much money that the debt becomes unsustainable. Even the US Treasury just came out with a report that said the US debt is unsustainable and will cause the dollar to crash unless congress balances the budget immediately. Congress is not capable of fixing this problem.

It is a little scary, but I don’t think he is a fear monger. He has a lot of credibility and really believes this is a likely senerio and he is just one of many that are saying this. This is not a conspiracy theory. Its his opinion based on years of experience.

 

Aug 042015
 

The Experience Recovery

I’m lying comfortably on a mattress in a dimly lit room, recalling a small dream fragment. A fledgling therapist is giving me suggestions, asking me to pretend to be various elements of the dream in conversation with other parts. For instance I’m the mattress, and I’m telling the door of the room what I’m thinking and feeling. The therapist is learning “Gestalt.” A more experienced therapist is supervising as five members of my group act as therapists to the other five. We’re all learning Gestalt.

I close my eyes, and suddenly I’m no longer on a mattress. I’m lying on a cold hard metallic surface, and I seem to be paralyzed. My arms are pinned to my sides and I can’t move – not even a wriggle. As if in a lucid dream, my adult mind realizes that I’m strapped to a surgical table by means of a fabric strap that extends across my torso and arms from a strong-point on one edge of the table to a ratcheted crank on the opposite edge of the table. My adult mind is able to observe and understand what is happening – but is unable to control the events that I’m experiencing

Suddenly a figure appears in my line of sight. I recognize a man’s head wearing a white cap and white surgical mask. “Aha!”, I think. “He’s a doctor and I’m in a hospital. Could this man be my father?” The question seems absurd, since my father, Boris Podolsky was a physicist – not a physician. But somehow the rationale behind the question made sense at the time of the experience.

The masked face disappears, and a moment later my body is racked by intense pain. From head to foot I feel like I’m on fire. Only later did I understand that an infant’s body doesn’t localize pain. The ability to localize the experience of pain requires a little more neurological development than most infants have at the age of eight days (my age at circumcision).

And only much later did I learn that, until recently, most surgery on infants was performed without anesthesia, in the mistaken belief that infants don’t feel pain. The reality, of course, is that infants feel everything more intensely than adults.

By now, of course, I’m screaming – not just in my memory, but in my adult experience. My therapist-in-training doesn’t know what to do, so he calls on the supervising therapist for assistance. She knows what to do, and assists me in extricating myself from the remembered ordeal by holding and soothing me as though I were still that tortured infant.

Consequences

It is a reasonable instinctual expectation, on the part of an infant, to be met with gentleness, love, and maternal bonding during the beginning of life outside the womb. The mere absence of such a response has a profoundly detrimental effect on the development of a child’s brain. To be met with torture is much worse – truly devastating. Such an experience leaves a child in a state of perpetual terror – unable to completely trust his very existence – permanently hyper-vigilant – and, in my case, unable to trust men prior to age 32, at which point the experience above restored some of my ability to develop relationships with men.

More On the Subject

No one is more eloquent than Stefan Molyneux on the subject of circumcision. And it’s not my intent to repeat here the things that he has discussed at length in his philosophical podcasts on the subject. I wrote this little article solely to explain that some of us remember the event, and I for one can personally attest to the severity of the experience and the damage that it inflicted on my life. I wouldn’t wish it on a dog – but then dogs aren’t getting circumcised, are they? Only humans do that to one another.

Feb 182015
 

Rights and privilegesHave you noticed how governments want to own your language, so they can more easily manipulate you into giving up your rights and resources?

All Caps Names

For example, Bob Podolsky is a real person, and has all sorts of natural rights. Yet every single piece of correspondence coming from the BORG such as Bank statements, Drivers Licenses, IRS correspondence, Traffic Tickets has my name in all capital letters. I know these people went to school and learned the same grammar I did. Why is my name is all CAPS? Somehow, BOB PODOLSKY, became a vassal of the state. The argument, the all caps name is not the real person, has been thrown out as frivolous in court, yet there must be a reason why is it done this way.

Right to Travel

Similarly, I have a right to travel on public roads by riding a conveyance under my control. This is something that human beings have done since the domestication of animals, somehow adding a motor to power it and voilà, the state re-names the conveyance a Motor Vehicle and I am now a Driver. Thus the state converts my “right” into a “privilege” and grants itself the “right” to force me to pay for these privileges by buying a title, a license plate, a driver’s license, and specified insurance. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Right to Migrate

Since time began, humans have had the right to move to wherever they pleased, based on resources, climate, scenery or religious beliefs. That’s how the the American Indians got to the western Hemisphere, Australians and New Zealanders got to Oceania, Caucasians moved to Europe and the Pilgrims got to Plymouth Rock. They didn’t like where they were, and they moved. However the government calls the right to move, a privileged known as “immigration”. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Right to Property

It used to be that a human being had the right to own the land they live on. The Government changed this into a privilege by converting all own-able land into “Real Estate” You acquire the privilege of being a “tenant” on your Government controlled Bank owned land. It is impossible to own it. Want to test that? Stop paying the property tax. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Natural person

As a natural person I owe no allegiance to any government “authority” – but as a “citizen”, I’m perpetually at the mercy of every bureaucrat that warms a chair in a government office paid for by money stolen from the “citizenry.” Of course stealing money through threats, coercion, or extortion is crime. When the act is called “taxation, it somehow becomes legitimate. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Right to Eat

As a human being, I have every right, should my circumstances require it, to “forage” in the wild for food. Yet there exist many government bureaucracies that would punish me severely for doing my foraging without first purchasing their permission in the form of a hunting or fishing license, in the absence of which they’d say I was “poaching”. If you don’t fill out forms and pay, this magically grants a ‘right” to an armed group of thugs in costumes to beat you up, put you in a cage, steal your “property” and fine you.

Wasn’t Robin Hood accused of “stealing the king’s deer”? While I’m not very partial to the “heroism” of the Robin Hood character, I dare to raise the question, “Who or what gave the kings and the Government ownership of all the wild critters and everything else for that matter?” Since the “divine right of kings” is clearly a manipulative fiction, by what “right” do those who run the world today, claim to have any “authority” over anyone else? And who is today’s king, anyway?

About “Authority

According to Larken Rose, whose philosophy I much admire, the whole concept of “authority” exists but for one purpose, to fool the public into complying willingly with the demands of a particular class of people who consider themselves our “betters”, our “superiors”, our modern “nobility”, and ultimately our “masters”. In their eyes, the rest of us are of no value to them except as a source of endless plunder – and they are forever inventing new excuses to abuse the rest of us financially, socially, taking away our natural liberties, stealing our property, and enacting violence against us at their will.

While they claim this behavior is necessary in order to “protect the public”, the reality is that this notion is a total fiction, that in fact the real purpose of most of todays laws is merely to excuse the actions of our gargantuanplunderers league” – who do to the rest of us whatever they want, up to and including killing us, with complete impunity. Surely the governments of the world collectively comprise the biggest, most powerful organized crime syndicate the world has ever known – egged on I suspect by previously existing crime syndicates that joined ranks with them – the Mafia, I believe, being a case in point.

Walk into a courthouse anywhere, and at any rank, and consider that the salaries of everyone working in the building are paid for with plunder – money stolen from ordinary folks in punishment for doing the things we all have a right to do. And their only “authority” for doing this is the fact that someone who supposedly “represents” you, wrote on a piece of paper that they had the “right” to plunder you.

Of course people who like to plunder others are always polite and subservient to their higher ranking plunderers.

Of course too, in order to really understand what’s going on you have to get it that no matter how many people sign a document creating upper and lower classes, the document is still fatally flawed, because all divisions by class are fundamentally unethical, and therefore null, void, and invalid. Remember, valid law exists only to serve the ethics – not the other way around.

As far as human class structures go, we have an ownership class (nobility) that controls the central banks and large corporations, the political class that makes the rules dictated by the ownership class, the police and military class that enforces the rules, the slave class that are forced to work in hierarchies, and finally the free class that comprise a very small minority.

Note that this circumstance was not always the case in American culture. In the early days of our country, a sizable portion of the population came to this continent to be free – and was unwilling to be anyone’s slave. Alas that day came and went, as fast as the ink dried on the Constitution.

To rescue ourselves from this state of affairs will not be easy, but it will be simple. The current social system operates as a cartel-controlled hierarchy. As we begin tailoring all our institutions, including businesses, charities, schools, foundations, etc., as consensus-based organizations – we will demonstrate that the most successful form of organizational development dispenses entirely with the pretense of “authority”. Members of the existing system won’t approve of this transformation – but they won’t be able to prevent it happening – and the world will be transformed.

Feb 012015
 

John McCain and Henry Kissinger are Low Life Scums

By Medea Benjamin January 31, 2015 “ICH”

Insane Senator John McCain denounced CodePink activists as “low-life scum” for holding up signs reading “Arrest Kissinger for War Crimes” and dangling handcuffs next to Henry Kissinger’s head during a Senate hearing on January 29. McCain called the demonstration “disgraceful, outrageous and despicable,” accused the protesters of “physically intimidating” Kissinger and apologized profusely to his friend for this “deeply troubling incident.”

But if Senator McCain was really concerned about physical intimidation, perhaps he should have conjured up the memory of the gentle Chilean singer/songwriter Victor Jara. After Kissinger facilitated the September 11, 1973 coup against Salvador Allende that brought the ruthless Augusto Pinochet to power, Victor Jara and 5,000 others were rounded up in Chile’s National Stadium. Jara’s hands were smashed and his nails torn off; the sadistic guards then ordered him to play his guitar. Jara was later found dumped on the street, his dead body riddled with gunshot wounds and signs of torture. Despite warnings by senior US officials that thousands of Chileans were being tortured and slaughtered, then Secretary of State Kissinger told Pinochet, “You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende.”

Rather than calling peaceful protesters “despicable,” perhaps Senator McCain should have used that term to describe Kissinger’s role in the brutal 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which took place just hours after Kissinger and President Ford visited Indonesia. They had given the Indonesian strongman the US green light—and the weapons—for an invasion that led to a 25-year occupation in which over 100,000 soldiers and civilians were killed or starved to death. The UN’s Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR) stated that U.S. “political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation” of East Timor. If McCain could stomach it, he could have read the report by the UN Commission on Human Rights describing the horrific consequences of that invasion. It includes gang rape of female detainees following periods of prolonged sexual torture; placing women in tanks of water for prolonged periods, including submerging their heads, before being raped; the use of snakes to instill terror during sexual torture; and the mutilation of women’s sexual organs, including insertion of batteries into vaginas and burning nipples and genitals with cigarettes. Talk about physical intimidation, Senator McCain! You might think that McCain, who suffered tremendously in Vietnam, might be more sensitive to Kissinger’s role in prolonging that war.

From 1969 through 1973, it was Kissinger, along with President Nixon, who oversaw the slaughter in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos—killing perhaps one million during this period. He gave the order for the secret bombing of Cambodia. Kissinger is heard on tape saying, “[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything about it. It’s an order, to be done. Anything that flies or anything that moves.” Senator McCain could have taken the easy route by simply reading the meticulously researched book by the late Christopher Hitchens, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Writing as a prosecutor before an international court of law, Hitchens skewers Kissinger for ordering or sanctioning the destruction of civilian populations, the assassination of “unfriendly” politicians and the kidnapping and disappearance of soldiers, journalists and clerics who got in his way. He holds Kissinger responsible for war crimes that range from the deliberate mass killings of civilian populations in Indochina, to collusion in mass murder and assassination in Bangladesh, the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile, and the incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor. McCain could have also perused the warrant issued by French Judge Roger Le Loire to have Kissinger appear before his court. When the French served Kissinger with summons in 2001 at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, Kissinger fled the country. More indictments followed from Spain, Argentina, Uruguay—even a civil suit in Washington DC.

Hitchens was disgusted by the way Henry Kissinger was treated as a respected statesman. He would have been appalled by Senator McCain’s obsequious attitude. “Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded,” Hitchens said. “No more dinners in his honor; no more respectful audiences for his absurdly overpriced public appearances; no more smirking photographs with hostesses and celebrities; no more soliciting of his worthless opinions by sycophantic editors and producers.” Rather than fawning on him, Hitchens suggested, “why don’t you arrest him?” Hitchens’ words were lost on Senator McCain, who preferred fawning to accountability. That’s where CodePink comes in. If we can’t get Kissinger before a court of law, at least we can show—with words and banners—that there are Americans who remember, Americans who empathize with the man’s many victims, Americans who have a conscience. While McCain called us disgraceful, what is really disgraceful is the Senate calling in a tired old war criminal to testify about “Global Challenges and the U.S. National Security Strategy.” After horribly tragic failed wars, not just in Vietnam but over the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s time for the US leaders like John McCain to bring in fresh faces and fresh ideas. We owe it to the next generation that will be cleaning up the bloody legacy left behind by Kissinger for years to come.

Dec 292014
 

Phoenix Sky Bridge to No-Where

by Morpheus Titania

Date: 07-15-2010

updated 12/29/2014
Phoenix Arizona – Now back under construction and completed is the NEW $1.1 billion ($1,100,000,000) Phoenix Sky Train to No-where that will “service” the passengers of Sky Harbor Airport. This monumental misappropriation of tax money has reached a dramatic construction milestone. Workers have built a bridge for the train that is 100 feet in the air and crosses a airport Taxi way.

When this incredibly wasteful spending portion of the project is complete, as early as October 2010 planes where planes will roll underneath the bridge on the taxiway! When the boondoggle of epic proportions is operational, passengers to Sky Harbor will have the privilege of viewing planes beneath them while riding the driverless choo-choo train.

The bridge won’t affect takeoffs and landings because taxiways – unlike runways – are roads that pilots use to move aircraft around the airport while they are on the ground

The Sky Train is a white elephant the first of its kind in the US where a transportation system crosses over an active taxiway. What is mind numbing about the onus is its cost for something that buses already exist for. When “the Author” divided the total cost by the miles of construction it turns out, the project costs a mind expanding $229,166,666 per mile, $43,402 per foot and $3616 per inch. In the metric system this works out to $142 per millimeter! How in the world could have our wonderfully smart politicians able to justify such a colossal expense for something that already exists?

When complete the 4.8 mile the Sky Train transport passengers to the airport’s 3 terminals, rental car facility and the 44th street and Washington light rail station. The Phoenix metro Light Rail is part of the valley metro mass transit system which incidentally bilked the taxpayers out of $1.4 Billion $1,400,000,000.

Other than the utterly rediculous cost of the Bridge to No-Where , supersized planes like the airbus 380 won’t be able to get under phoenix Sky Bridge to nowhere. Supersized planes – like an Airbus 380 – won’t fit under that part of the tracks, but there are other places at the airport where, theoretically, future Group 6 aircraft such as the Airbus could get around said Jane Morris, an assistant aviation director at Sky Harbor.

“The airport is building the train to help with traffic and future growth”, said Deborah Ostreicher, a deputy aviation director. So the economy is in the soup, people are doing less flying and that is the excuse to build this monstrosity, is so can prepare for future growth? Where do these people come up with this load of excrement?

The other interesting feature of the Sky Train hokum is how the nothing was being done on the project for a long time; a bridge was built across Washington Rd with the construction of the light rail. Nothing had been done with it since the Phoenix Light Rail train opened up in December 2009. The construction on the Bridge from the useless Bridge to no-where and the insidious Light Rail Station located on 44th St. and Washington was stopped. Then the very day the Phoenix food tax was implemented May 01, 2010 the construction was started again. I had rallied against the food tax.  Very co-incidal that the very day the food tax was implemented the construction for the bridge to No-where was reinitated.   The food tax was for police and fire not for a sky bridge to nowhere.