The Biggest Obstacle to Freedom

The Biggest Obstacle to Freedom
Bevin Chu

June 25, 2007

The biggest obstacle to freedom is not logical, but psychological. We the Sheeple are accustomed to Big Brother’s definition of freedom, as carved on the face of the Ministry of Truth:

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

We cannot imagine life without government. We cannot imagine not having to pay taxes. We cannot imagine not being told what to do. We dismiss as “lunatic fringe” those who suggest that maybe, just maybe, we could actually live our lives perfectly well without Big Brother watching over us. Genuine freedom, not the slavery passing for freedom that we know under democracy and other forms of dictatorship, elective and non-elective, is quite literally unimaginable to us.


The Shawshank Redemption (1994, directed by Frank Darabont, written by Stephen King and Frank Darabont): Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

Voter/taxpayers in “advanced democracies” are little different from the prison inmates in The Shawshank Redemption. Both voter/taxpayers within democracies, and inmates within prisons are thoroughly “institutionalized.”

Voter/taxpayers within democracies are institutionalized first by the psychological bars within their minds, then in the event some of them wise up to the scam, by physical bars around their bodies.

Inmates within prisons are institutionalized first by the physical bars around their bodies, then with the passage of the years, by the psychological bars within their minds.

104 EXT — PRISON YARD BLEACHERS — DUSK (1954) 104

ANDY
I just don’t understand what happened in there, that’s all.

HEYWOOD
Old man’s crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse, is what.

RED
Heywood, enough. Ain’t nothing wrong with Brooksie. He’s just institutionalized, that’s all.

HEYWOOD
Institutionalized, my ass.

RED
Man’s been here fifty years. This place is all he knows. In here, he’s an important man, an educated man. A librarian. Out there, he’s nothing but a used-up old con with arthritis in both hands. Couldn’t even get a library card if he applied. You see what I’m saying?

FLOYD
Red, I do believe you’re talking out of your ass.

RED
Believe what you want. These walls are funny. First you hate ’em, then you get used to ’em. After long enough, you get so you depend on ’em. That’s “institutionalized.”

JIGGER
Shit. I could never get that way.

ERNIE
(softly)
Say that when you been inside as long as Brooks has.

RED
Goddamn right. They send you here for life, and that’s just what they take. Part that counts, anyway.


Andy Dufresne and Ellis Boyd ‘Red’ Redding, inmates of Shawshank Prison, played by Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman

Champions of democracy smugly assure us that democracies, unlike other forms of dictatorship, are “responsive to the will of the people” and “provide for peaceful regime change.”

Oh, really?

As Ron Paul noted in his recent debate with other 2008 GOP presidential candidates, 70% of the American people oppose Gulf War II and want the troops to come home, yet the Bush II regime remains stubbornly indifferent to their clearly expressed wishes.

So where is democracy’s “responsiveness to the will of the people?”

The only candidate with the guts to openly oppose the war and who has explicitly sworn to end it if elected, is libertarian Ron Paul. Guess what? He is being shut out of future debates. Both the liberal and conservative wings of America’s Demopublican one party system intend to trot out someone “mainstream” who will parrot the same Chickenhawk policies as Bush II.

So where is democracy’s “provision for peaceful regime change?”

Apparently any regime change under a democracy must be non-peaceful, just like under other forms of dictatorship. Unless one is willing to resort to the desperate extreme of non-peaceful regime change, one is just going to have to lump it.

The cruel irony is that democracy makes regime change even more difficult than under other forms of dictatorship. Democracy’s bogus claim that it provides for peaceful regime change inside the system makes the Great Silent Majority unwilling to sign on to non-peaceful regime change, even when peaceful regime change under a democracy is impossible. Democracy’s bogus reputation for “accountability” enables an unresponsive regime to dig its heels in even more deeply, enriching the “players” who know how to work the system, and impoverishing the nominal “masters of the nation.”

The result is an elective dictatorship, even less responsive to the Will of the People than other forms of dictatorship, and even less susceptible to regime change, peaceful or otherwise.

That is why a benevolent dictatorship such as Singapore’s can sometimes be better than a democratic dictatorship such as Taiwan’s, Indonesia’s, or the Philippines’.


The Shawshank Redemption: Andy Dufresne “de-institutionalizes” himself

The solution to the problem of dictatorships is not to pick and choose among different forms of dictatorship, including democratic dictatorships.

The solution is to reject all forms of dictatorship. The solution is to “de-institutionalize” ourselves.

The solution is to choose free markets, to privatize each and every function “normally” provided by government monopolies, including the police, the military, and the courts. The solution is to choose free market anarchism.

But that requires that we overcome the biggest obstacle to freedom, fear. That requires that we psychologically “de-institutionalize” ourselves, the way Andy Dufresne physically “de-institutionalized” himself in The Shawshank Redemption.

We must conquer our fear of the unknown. We must reclaim our hope for the future. We must reject the attitude embodied in the expression “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”

As the tagline from the film put it so well: Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

Advertisements

US is "Really in Trouble" says Bloomberg

The New York Times
June 19, 2007
U.S. Is ‘Really in Trouble,’ Says Bloomberg, Sounding Like a Candidate
By DIANE CARDWELL



Comment:
The US is really in trouble. Bloomberg is right about that much.

The solution however is not “Bloomberg for President!” any more than it was “Perot for President!” Pinning ones’ hopes for the future of America on some “Third Force” is too little, too late. Even a dyed in the wool minarchist libertarian like Ron Paul can’t fix the system from within.

That’s because the system is broken, and broken beyond repair. New personnel plugged into the old structures will result in a marginal improvement at best. Probably not even that.

The root of the problem is that the “client-agent” relationship between the citizen of a democracy and the elected officials of a democracy, his so-called “public servants,” is not really the relationship between a client and his agents. It is not really the relationship between a master and his servants.

It is merely a progressive sounding veneer applied to the surface of the old subject-monarch relationship. A citizen of a democracy is merely an imperial subject who has euphemistically been spun as the “true master of the nation.” The elected chief executive of a democracy is really a monarch who has euphemistically spun as a “servant of the people.”

A real client retains the power to fire his agent at his individual discretion.

Can a citizen fire his “public servant” at his individual discretion?

I don’t mean “censure” him. I don’t mean “impeach” him. I mean fire him. Can a citizen fire a “public servant” the way a private sector client can fire a private sector agent, i.e., a real servant?

No?

Then you already have your answer to why governments remain chronically unresponsive to the “Will of the People” in the US and other “advanced” democracies.

The New York Times
June 19, 2007
U.S. Is ‘Really in Trouble,’ Says Bloomberg, Sounding Like a Candidate
By DIANE CARDWELL

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., June 18 — Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, sounding every inch the presidential candidate he insists he is not, [told] a crowd of Google employees that the nation was “really in trouble.”

In unusually stark terms, Mr. Bloomberg expressed his frustration with the state of the nation.

Mr. Bloomberg also took a swipe at the presidential candidates of both parties, saying they were not offering serious ideas about improving public education or lowering street crime.

He ended the day in Los Angeles, where he assailed what he called the “swamp of dysfunction” in Washington.

Russia to recognize California as a "Separate Nation" in Retaliation over Kosovo

Russia to recognize California as a “Separate Nation” in Retaliation over Kosovo
By Sorcha Faal
June 13, 2007

Comment:
Foreign political leaders are finally catching on. They are finally becoming aware of the American Imperium’s long obvious Achille’s heel. They are beginning to realize that when the American Imperium sanctimoniously accuses other nations of colonialism and imperialism, it is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to its own, far more egregious colonialism and imperialism.


Mexico, prior to the unequal Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

I’ve made an issue of this at The China Desk in recent years, but not out of any prejudicial “Blame America First” mentality. As my fellow alumni from the 60s know perfectly well, I was never one of the “America Stinks” crowd. I began criticizing the US government only belatedly, well after the end of the Cold War. I began doing so only in response to the relentless demonization of an increasingly liberalized post Communist China by Taiwan independence and Tibetan independence fellow travelers.

Neocon China Threat theorists point accusing fingers at China for its territorial claims in the South China Sea. But as the name of that body of water clearly denotes, it is squarely in China’s own backyard.

The US government by contrast, lays claim to Pacific islands as far away as Hawaii, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and Guam, on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean. These islands were long ago settled by other peoples, and had their own cultural traditions and their own political systems. They are, not to put too fine an edge on it, currently under colonialist and imperialist occupation. And I haven’t even mentioned lands within the continental US stolen from the American Indians.


The sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii, currently under US Occupation


Guam: Why does this Island on the opposite side of the Pacific this belong to the US?

By contrast, China’s claims to uninhabited islets in the South China Sea, quite close to the Chinese mainland, far closer to the Chinese mainland than Guam or even Hawaii are to the US mainland,
are far more geographically plausible, not to mention far more historically justifiable.


China’s Nansha Islands, which western colonialists persist in referring to as the “Spratly Islands”

One can’t help asking, just exactly who’s the colonialist? Who’s the imperialist?

So why aren’t celebrity China bashers Richard Gere and Steven Seagal railing against the US government’s annexation of territories that rightly belong to its southern neighbor Mexico, or the US government’s continued occupation of the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii?

Could it be that these wealthy and privileged Hollywood luminaries are more Chauvinistic and less humanistic than they would have the world believe, and hold the US government to more lenient standards than they hold governments headed by “wogs” (wily oriental gentlemen)?

The US government has been remarkably successful in playing Rudyard Kipling’s “Great Game of Empire.” It has managed to divide and conquer one potential strategic rival after another, citing the very rationale the Russians are using against the US right now.


The Conquest of Aztlan: Mexico is reclaiming its former territory


Republica del Norte circa 2080 AD?

When the Russians call the US government on its annexation of territory belonging to Mexico, which is ironically being rapidly repopulated by Mexicans and other Hispanics, they are merely giving the US government a taste of its own medicine. They are merely saying “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.”

Russia to recognize California as a “Separate Nation” in Retaliation over Kosovo
By Sorcha Faal
June 13, 2007


Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, during a press conference held in Sweden today, threatened the breakup of the United States by stating that an American unilateral recognition of Kosovo as an independent Nation ‘could’ prompt Russia to do the same for California ‘should they request it of us’.

Foreign Minister Lavrov’s stunning comments were said to be in response to President Bush’s declaration on Kosovo, and as we can read as reported by Pakistan’s Daily Times News Service in their article titled “US ready for showdown with Russia on Kosovo independence”, and which says:

“The United States is pressing for a quick UN vote on Kosovo, but is ready to take on Russia’s threat of a veto and move on to unilaterally recognise the Serbian province’s right to independence.

US President George W Bush on Sunday chose Tirana as a backdrop to make an urgent call for Kosovo’s independence, refusing an “endless dialogue” on the future of the UN-run province.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “will be moving hard to see if we can’t reach an agreement” in the UN Security Council between US and Europeans which are for Kosovo’s independence, and Russia, which is against.

“And if not, we’re going to have to move,” said Bush. “Independence is the goal, and that’s what the people of Kosovo need to know.”

Though technically a Serbian province, Albanian-majority Kosovo has been UN-run since the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation assault in mid-1999.”


Kosovo, a Province of Serbia: Not the US’s to give away

To the outrage of the Serbian Nation towards the unprecedented remarks by the American President we can read as reported by the Australian News Service in their article titled “Serbia ‘disgusted’ with Bush Kosovo call”, and which says:

Belgrade was “disgusted” with US President George W. Bush’s call for Kosovo to quickly be granted independence, Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said, insisting Washington had no right to give away Serbian territory.

“The United States has a right to support certain states and nations in accordance with its interests, but definitely not by giving away as a gift something which does not belong to it,” Mr Kostunica said.

Mr Kostunica’s strongly-worded reaction came a day after Mr Bush underscored the need to speed up the process of granting the ethnic Albanian majority province independence under a United Nations plan vehemently opposed by Belgrade and its ally Moscow.”

To Russia’s President Putin’s stance on Kosovo we can see as reported by the Turkish Weekly News Service in their article titled “Russia: Is Moscow Prepared To Make Stand On Kosovo?”, and which says:

“One day after the Group of Eight (G8) summit wrapped up in Germany, Russian President Vladimir Putin met on June 9 with Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica on the sidelines of an economic forum in St. Petersburg.

Afterward, Putin told reporters that it was “with pleasure” that he had informed Kostunica of the outcome of the G8’s negotiations on the future status of Kosovo.

It was a deadlock — with Russia once again rejecting a UN Security Council draft proposal that would grant a form of internationally supervised independence to the province, which has an ethnic-Albanian majority.

Russia has thrown its weight behind its longtime ally Serbia, which strongly opposes formally losing the breakaway province of Kosovo. And despite growing pressure from many UN members — particularly the United States — Moscow seems determined to stand its ground.”

Foreign Minister Lavrov’s equating of the United States State of California with Kosovo does appear to be apt, as like the breakaway Serbia Province being controlled by Muslim Gangs, California is, likewise, controlled by Mexican Gangs, with the California Department of Justice stating that the number of these gang members in California are estimated at a staggering 300,000 [2004].

To the dangers of the Muslim Gangs who have taken control of Kosovo under the protection of NATO, and known as the ‘Islamic Mafia’, we can read:

“FBI has recently announced that ethnic Albanian gangs, including immigrants from Kosovo, are replacing the Italian La Cosa Nostra mafia as the leading organized crime outfit in the US.

According to a CNN report the FBI “Officials said ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro” make up the emerging American criminal cartel and “represent a major challenge to federal agents because of their propensity for violence and brutality.” This statement comes several months after Amnesty International declared NATO-administered Kosovo province a hotbed of organized crime activity.”

It is, also, most curious that President Bush was received by the Albanian criminal Nation with ‘wild’ enthusiasm and cheering crowds, who, according to some news report, stole his watch while he shaking hands with them.

To the greater danger, however, facing the United States is the growing independence movement in California being led by the Nation of Aztlán, and which is described as:

“The Nation of Aztlán is a Latino patriot and independence organization headquartered in Whittier, California, United States. Its platform states that United States must return the land that was stolen from Mexico during the Mexican-American War and which it calls “Aztlan territory” in order to form an independent nation.”

Russian Military Analysts, in their reports, state that California does indeed contain those elements needed for an independence movement, which include: 1.) A large armed militia (gangs) separate from and in conflict with US government control. 2.) A growing illegal migrant base willing to displace the local population. 3.) A foreign state on their border sympathetic to their cause, in this case Mexico.

To what the American people in California could expect, should Russia recognize them as an independent Aztlan Nation, we cannot see it being any less traumatic to them than that faced by the Serbian peoples in Kosovo, and as we can read:

“Serb leaders in the breakaway Kosovo province Thursday accused four European countries and the United States of assisting ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo by handing them immigrant visas. Marko Jaksic, president of the Alliance of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo, said the US, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland were among the countries which helped Kosovo minority Serbs to emigrate, paving the way for Kosovo independence, demanded by majority ethnic Albanians.

“What is happening now is just a perfidious continuation of ethnic cleansing,” Jaksic said. Referring to the fact that over 200,000 Serbs have fled Kosovo since it was put under United Nations control in 1999, he said the international community would do better to rebuild their destroyed homes and facilitate their return, if it really wanted to live up to its declared goal of a multi-ethnic Kosovo.”

© June 13, 2007 EU and US all rights reserved.

[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.]

China’s Rise is a Fact. How will Taiwan Cope?


Caption: China’s rise is a fact. How will Taiwan cope?

On June 7, 2007 a local Taiwan television talk show asked its guests a question: “China’s rise is a fact. How will Taiwan cope?”

The fact that it would ask such a patently absurd question shows that much of the intelligentsia on Taiwan is pretty far gone. Bear in mind I’m not talking only about Deep Green Taiwan independence fundamentalists such as Trong Chai. I’m not even talking about Pale Green “liberal democrats” such as Hu Chung-hsing. I’m talking about any number of Pale Blue talking heads. Out of pity I will not identify them by name.

Let me put it this way. Say you live in San Francisco, and an American television talk show asks the question: “Silicon Valley’s rise is a fact. How will San Francisco cope?”

Wouldn’t you do you a double take? Wouldn’t you respond, “What kind of idiotic question is that? Why is Silicon Valley’s rise a problem that San Francisco must cope with? Silicon Valley is an integral part of California. Silicon Valley’s rise is a benefit to all of California, including the entire Bay Area, including San Francisco. What the hell are you talking about?”

Of course you would.

By the same token, any right thinking citizen of the ROC living in the Taiwan region of China would respond, “What kind of idiotic question is that? Why is the rise of the mainland region of China a problem that Taiwan must cope with? The rise of the mainland is a benefit to all of China, including the Taiwan region of China. What the hell are you talking about?”

Taiwan is part of China. That does not mean it is ruled by the current government in Beijing. Being ruled by the government in Beijing is not synonymous with being part of China.
Like Germany before German reunification, China has two governments. One government of China is located in Beijing. The other government of China is located in Taipei. The Taiwan region of China is ruled by the government of China located in Taipei.

The rise of China is not a problem that Taiwan must “cope with.” It is a positive development that Chinese people living in the Taiwan region of China will benefit from and ought to celebrate.
The question the organizers of the show should have asked is “[Mainland] China’s rise is a fact. How will Taiwan benefit and celebrate?” The fact that it didn’t, reveals how lost the intelligentsia on Taiwan is, even many Pan Blues.

The fact that even a Pale Blue oriented television network such as TVBS would ask: “China’s rise is a fact. How will Taiwan cope?” shows that much of the intelligentsia on Taiwan has already been successfully indoctrinated with Taiwan independence Political Correctness.

Joyce C. Huang is a renowned native Taiwanese author and political commentator. She is the “Sophie Scholl of Taiwan.” As Huang and I have pointed out in our writings, Taiwan today is in many respects like Germany in the 1930s.

Just as even “Good Germans” bought into Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, so even “Good Taiwanese” have bought into Pan Green Hoklo fascist propaganda over the past decade. And just as Germany eventually needed a “de-Nazification” program to restore it to normality, so one day Taiwan will need a “de-Nativization” program to restore it to normality.