12 votes

They want you to stay in the system

I like Ron Paul andI heard Rand Paul speak in Boston in'07 / '08. They are both thoughtful passionate people who appeal to most of the same fundamental core principles which guide me in my life. I'm glad that there are an increasing number similar folks who are becoming prominent and known.

After the '08 GOP Convention, which I attended, and subsequent election which was the last election I voteed in, I decided that the whole system is fraudulant, currupt, and rotten to the core. Nothing will fix it because it's not broken. It's working just as it was designed to - as a system for the extraction of value and wealth from all sources. It is a system which has enslaved, subjugated, impoverished, and murdered uncountable numbers of people around the world for centuries. It is also a system which has been perfected in its subtlety of conditioning of acceptence, its obedience training, and its masking of its Marxist adjenda in the cloak of national patriotism and the delusion of self determining freedom by the US. Yet all participants are unwittingly approving and supporting this system by participating in it. This is what it means to be a US citizen and a voter.

So all those who talk about using your vote to elect some number of white knights who will change the system for you, regardless of their virtuous intentions, are really encouraging you to remain in the box, a subject to the system's arbitrary statutory laws, enforced by violence, while voluntarilly abdicating your natural rights and access to lawful government.

Therefore, the only course of rational action I can comprebend at this point is to let the system collapse under the weight of its own disfunction as fewer and fewer people support it with their labor, wealth, talent, and participation. Attrition is the only answer to dealing with this malignant cancer.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I tend to agree, but then I

I tend to agree, but then I tend to be a glass is half empty guy, bearish on the chances of turning this thing around from political action. The chances of empire collapse, in my mind, far outweigh the chances of dramatically reducing the size and scope of government via elections.

It seems to me that those who did not gravitate to Ron Paul's message during the recent campaigns are just not ready to hear the message. When, if ever, will they be?

I'm in the camp that believes a more libertarian world is possible, but only if we all tend to our business of building libertarians through personal relationships. Those who are raising children, if you teach them ethics, treat them with respect and do whatever us necessary to keep them out of the indoctrination camps known as public schools, it is quite likely you will have raised libertarians. Work on your relatives and friends. Challenge the idea that statism is necessary at any level.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

I totally agree

They want us to stay in the same co-opted system, one that is beyond repair, and beyond morally bankrupt.. Rigging elections have become dirtier than ever. Some people think Rand Paul can save them -not.

But the sad part is the lack of a critical mass who've come to the same conclusion; people who've completely escaped the many boxes of the matrix.

I guess try to surround yourself with liberty minded people.
But they're not all on the same level.


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Why I don't agree

Having spent a number of years in Hawai'i 1970s, growing up, the sovereignity movement was very popular then, as it is now.

I was in Los Angeles, going to a college there, and had a Hawai'ian instructor who told us about the American coming to the Island, locking up his grandparents, changing their name to an English name, because they could not pronounce his Hawai'ian name. I sensed regret, so after class, (he knew I had grown up in Hawai'i), we had a chat, which I said, it's a shame Hawai'i was unable to become free from the USA.

He said, he was happy Hawai'i was part of the USA. I was surprized, and I asked why. He said that being the nature of Hawai'ian people, the proximity of the Islands, it was only a matter of time before some nation came and claimed Hawai'i. "Would it have been better for us under the French, or the Japanese, or the Chinese, or Koreans, or the Russians? No", he said. "Hawai'i was blessed in many ways to become part of America, for we thrived instead of being slaughtered or abused and neglected".

He said, that he joined the US military and that allowed him to travel, and afford a family, and extended career, and he has done well for not just himself but his family too. All of his family did much better than any time in history, and furthermore.. he likes hot running water, electricity, clothing, medicine and an assortment of foods.

Today, when I see such an argument as yours, I think.. perhaps what you are neglecting to see, is by giving something up with nothing to replace it, you create a vacuum for someone who is more powerful to take you, after all, you are not free.

If you allow the USA to collapse, will NATO and the international bankers come and take it from you by force? I think so.

Is that what you want? If not, how will you stop them?

USA vs. uSofA

I appreciate your thoughtful response. Hawaii like all states (countries or nations) in union in America possess a natural sovereignty as expressed in The Law Of Nations and acknowledged in law by the treaty of Paris 1783. They have their own constitutions for this reason. The union has been, for many reasons, a prosperous one. But the underlying thread of its history has been the struggle to establish a central bank and set up the mechanisms by which to extract the wealth and property from the people of the several states. But it wasn't until the "so called" Civil War did Congress and the federal government exert authority over the internal sovereign rights of any state beyond that of its role as international agent for the union states, its only legitimate purpose. It was never intended to have jurisdiction over the people of the several states, but achieved this coup by implementing the 14th Amendment which legally nullified the suffrage of state nationals, and provided for a new and novel civil status: the US citizen who is now solely governed by the "national" (really international) government, and by its federal territories or subsidies "the State of..."

Federal citizenship is slavery because it exists outside of the several state's national boarders where the natural rights of men and women are protected by the Constitution. Washington DC is not a nation and not a state of the union. The "law of the land," the Constitution in not in effect there. If you are a US citizen the Constitution affords you no protection. Leaving its jurisdiction for that of the nation where you were born (providing you were born in one of the union states) is a rational man's only course of action.

I am not knocking the union, but speaking out against its elimination through the Marxist/ fascist federal citizenship which eliminates lawful and natural nationality by birth.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

And I also appreciate your thoughtful response

And I still think Hawai'i is better off, even with it's stuggle with the state of the union, it's better than if it was a state of China.. IMO.


True... if those were the only two choices. and particularly given the law form which it has adopted in Statehood with in the Union which offers a remedy to all the people who dwell there.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/


it is concerning to me that maybe we are approaching the days when we are no longer America as we know it. Why NDAA, etc? Why do they want to take the guns? I am somewhat concerned that we have been taken over, unknowingly, and are perhaps an inconvenience to who ever. But I don't know.

It never was what we thought it was.

The devastating moment that changed everything for me was years ago when I realized that I had been lied to about the history of what I had been told was my country and its relationship to the rest of the world. My patriatism was a lie. My country was not what I had been taught it was. Everything I had been taught about my country was a lie, even, or especially, the law and the electorial system!

The union has never been what we were taught. The unoin is not the country. Your rightful and lawful nation is NOT the Unites States. The lawful US is an international agent administering the international affairs of and between the now 50 American nations in union. Nothing more.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

I don't think it's us they are coming for

I think it's the children.. it's children who will not have guns, or freedom, because they fight parents, while educating children.

"Your parents are bad people for having guns"..

"You want to teach your kid to shoot a gun? You're nuts!"

Anyways,, that's what I think is going on. So my advice is LOVE your children and don't let the government come between you and them. Teach them to LOVE God and trust you. That's really ALL that matters.



Maybe they already have the children and just need to get rid of us and the guns...anyways, that just came to mind.

Yes, families need to stay close. Thank you for the reminder! Ron Paul is wanting people to home school I see. Our go to private Christian and there are times I wish they didn't even have some of the outside influences, but I am not the teacher type. Barely the mother type lol :)

I do not think so

I think the govt wants you to think they have your children, and if they can get them.. they will.

I think you are a great teacher here because you ask inteligent questions, and so many learn from your questions.. I do for one.

(((((bearly))))) the mother type.. you are so funny today!!!!

I lean more towards your - I

I lean more towards your - I don't know - as being more correct than not. Exactly who, speculation might be on.

I don't believe Eisenhower's farewell address on the military industrial complex was a warning. I believe he was stating that they already were in control.