- Written by Kurt Tischer
- Category: Philosophy
"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names." -- Chinese Proverb
It is regularly said that the soldiers of the 20th and now the 21st century fought (or are fighting) to make us free. This is a wonderful sentiment and SHOULD evoke gratitude, if in FACT there was a shred of truth to it.
The END of the "free" era of human progress started in 1914 when WWI erupted across Europe and it has pretty much continued to this day.
If soldiers fought to make us free, we should be FAR MORE free after 100+ years of near universal war. The most empirical test would be whether we are MORE free today than we were in say 1912 or 1913. Let's TEST that theory RIGHT NOW.
In those days, there was NO INCOME TAX. There was no CORPORATE TAX. The federal, national and local governments around the world survived on 6-7% of GDP, raised primarily through excise tariffs and customs duties. There were no papers that anyone had to carry. There were no licenses that anyone had to have. There were NO PASSPORTS. I'll say that again. There were NO PASSPORTS. You could travel from one country to another -- FREELY. One could come to America, sail under the raised arms of the Statue of Liberty and as long as you weren't coughing up a lung, you walked into the country free and clear.
Surely, if the millions of men, women and children in the 20th century were slaughtered like pigs for our freedom we should be even MORE free now than we were before WWI. When there was no Federal Reserve System to destroy the value of our currency, very little goverment meddling in the economy, no Department of Homeland Security. Sorry, but it's just not true. Not in the slightest. It's not even close to true. Frankly, it's the exact OPPOSITE of truth.
And there's this myth that is floating around, that people actually believe, that the way to honor the MURDERS of so many millions of people is to say that humanity acheived some tangible, positive "good" from that. I do not believe in an afterlife, but if I did, there would be a CHORUS of eviscerated ghosts screaming at us and admonishing us that their deaths actually helped to enslave us. To honor their deaths is to actually NAME the TRUTH of what happened to them AND to us as a result of these wars. We can't make their deaths "good". But we can at least try to rescue some virtue from it and we shouldn't be doing it by PRETENDING that they died to make us free because we are LESS FREE -- FAR LESS FREE now than we were before these slaughters began.
Even with all of its problems (slavery, no rights for women, children treated like dogs), the amazing growth of wealth in the 19th century and the industrial revolution was staggering. And almost to a dollar, WWI WIPED OUT all of that progress. All of the accumulated wealth of the 19th century was torched and destroyed by the first world war, where a guy from one country killed a political leader from another country and then, to capture this "terrorist", a war began. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?
This is how LITTLE progress we've made. And why have we made so little progress? Because for the most part, we don't understand the true nature of violence. We still believe that it's possible to strangle a soul into virtue.
A very brief tour of the 20th century helps us to understand. So, you have this war that began out of practically NOTHING -- a single assassin. So for the sake of one man dying, TEN MILLION died in the trenches and another TEN MILLION died from the flu epidemic that the soldiers spread when they returned from the front to a weakened population. Three years after the war began, the Allies were exhausted and they were going to call an end to it and not screw up Europe. They were going to rewrite the original boundaries and they were all gonna go home. And if they had actually done that, if that had actually been allowed to happen, the 20th century would have been ENTIRELY different than it was.
But Nooooo ... what happened was that sick bastard, Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat), got the U.S. into the war, 100 thousand troops slaughtered, 300 thousand EVADED the draft (back then they still had some REAL sense of "honor") and the entry of the U.S. into WWI prolonged the war by at least a year, causing millions more deaths, and gave the Allies such an upper hand that they could impose the BRUTAL Treaty of Versailles on Germany and the blockade that continued until long after the war ended in 1918. A blockade where no food and no medicine was allowed into Germany, causing the deaths of many more German civilians. Mothers watched their children die of starvation and simple illnesses. And tens of thousands of innocent American civilians died as a result of those sanctions. This leaves a scar and a desire for vengeance,
So the Treaty of Versailles that imposed unbelievable reparations payments on Germany, screwed up its economy, rewrote the borders of Europe in a completely insane way, carving off parts of Germany and Czechslovakia and handing them off to Poland and France, cutting people off from their country in the same way that if Texas and California were given to Mexico, you'd yearn to rejoin the United States.
This set the stage for WWII. The German government ended up printing insane amounts of currency to pay off the reparations, or face another blockade and possible invasion. This caused hyperinflation which spread around the world, destroyed the middle class in Germany and paved the way for a thug like Hitler to come in. And Germany so so desperate to stop fighting this two front war with Russia on one side and the Allies on the other that they sent Lenin in, ARMED AND FUNDED to overthrow the Czarist regime, which is why you had the foundation of the Communist regime in Russia in 1917 that tyrannized huge sections of the world for the next 70 years.
If America had not come into WWI, there never would have been a WWII, or a Cold War, or the tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, and Kruschev, and Brezhnev. Hitler would have been a famous artist and vegetarian dietician and not a famous megalomaniac. There wouldn't have been a situation where all of Eastern Europe was swallowed into the caverous maw of the Soviet Union with its disgusting and violent Communism.
These people did not die to set us free. They did not die fighting any enemy other than the one the previous deaths had created. Violence is a genie that attacks everyone. We all want a gun that we can take out and point at someone else, but as was said in "Lord of the Flies", "a spear is a stick sharpened at both ends." You cannot unleash violence upon others without it coming back to you. Think about THAT when you consider WHY four airliners were used as projectiles in September 11, 2001 and all the other repercussions that have come from U.S. Imperialism.
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names. Soldiers are paid killers. And I say that with all sympathy to men and women who are SUCKERED into a life of evil through propaganda and the labeling of "heroic" to a man in costume who kills for money. I say this with all sympathy to the destructive effects of propaganda, which keeps alive the most bigoted aspects of religion, patriotism, the military, a militarized police, and wars. The lies of collective virtue, and the lie that "honor" is accepting ordered killings for money and prestige and pensions. In the 18th century people didn't say that a medieval doctor was a "bad" doctor because he didn't prescribe antibiotics (because they didn't exist). We create the possibility of moral choice by communicating the truth about ethics to people. That, to me, is where REAL heroism and real respect for the dead are found. Real respect for the dead lies with exhuming the corpses and listening for what they would say if they could speak now. And they would say, "If any ask us why we died, tell them because our fathers lied. Tell them because we were told that charging up a hill and slaughtering our fellow man was heroic and noble and honorable." But these hundreds of millions of ghosts who circle the earth in agony and remorse will not be released from our collective unconscious until we lay the truth of their murders on the table and look at the horror that is the lie; that murder for money or prestige can be virtuous.
How do we support the troops? By taking away the ethical support for the evils that they do. These men and women are propagandized into an "undead" ethical status. Lied to about what is noble, virtuous, courageous, honorable, decent and good to the point where they are rolling hand grenades into children's rooms under the illusion that doing so is going to make the world a better place.
We have to stare this in the face if we want to remember why they died. They did NOT die to set us free. They did not die to make the world a better place. They died because the world is ruled by sociopaths. They died because collective murder is the moral fantasy of mankind; that guns and violence and bullets can create a better world. The only thing that can create a better world is the truth, virtue and the honor of standing up to the genocidal lies of mankind and actually calling them what they are -- LIES.
People seem to think that if we pour more bodies and more blood into the hole of the mass graves of the 20th century we can build some kind of Cathedral to a better place, but it NEVER happens. You can pour as many bodies and blood into it as you like and it will NEVER be full. It will do nothing but sink and recede further into the depths of human depravity. We can't build peace upon blood.
We need to look back and see the army of the dead and see that every time there was a war, the government grew and GREW, and NEVER went back to its original shape, and that we are still so addicted to this LIE that they died for our freedom and that we honor the dead by ADDING to their number. We need to see that these bodies bury US. This addiction to this ocean of blood drowns us, drowns our children, drowns our future and drowns the world.
When we pour more people into this endless pit of LIES, we follow.
We should be APOLOGIZING to these people for sacrificing their lives for absolutely no benefit to anyone but the sociopaths who rule us and who orchestrate wars for profit.
- Written by Kurt Tischer
- Category: Philosophy
What is Money?
1. A promissory note is a written promise by one person to pay to another or to bearer a fixed sum of money. See: Davis v. Spencer, 267 Ill 57; 107 NE 826; Jencks v. Rice, 119 Iowa 451; Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass 113.
2. As a decree by a court of the U.S. for the payment of money can be made only for the payment of so many dollars of some specie of money that is made lawful money by a statute of the U.S., it follows that a recovery upon such a promissory note or contract must be for some dollars in gold and silver coins. See: The Edith, D.C. N.Y. (1875), 5 Ben. 144, 8 Fed. Cases 4,281; Forbes v. Murray, D.C. N.Y. (1869), 3 Ben. 497, 9 Fed. Cases 4,928.
3. The general rule is that a final judgment for money must specify the amount awarded. See: U.S. v. F. & M. Shaefer Brewing, 356 US 227; 45 Am Jur 2d 81.
4. An act by the legislature of Alabama, September 30, 1920, page 36, providing when a check is presented or forwarded to the payee bank for payment, it may at its option pay or remit the same in money or in exchange drawn on its reserves. However, it is unconstitutional and void as an attempt by the state to make a class of debts payable at the option of the debtor in something other than gold and silver coin. See: Capitol Grain and Feed Co v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, D.C. Ga. (1925), 3 F.2d 614, 269 US 589, 70 L Ed 427.
5. As bills of credit were entirely abolished, the paper money of the state banks was the only currency or circulating medium to which the prohibition (Art. 1, Sec. 10) could have had any application. See: Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 US 533. (What is checkbook credit, lines of credit, etc.?)
6. Congress was vested with the power to borrow money and that the promise of payment having been given, no authority remained to alter or destroy the original promise. See: Perry v. U.S., 294 US 330.
7. The states are not forbidden to issue coupons receivable for taxes, nor execute instruments binding themselves to pay money at a future day for services rendered or money borrowed. See: Poindexter v. Greenbow, 114 US 70; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 US 567; Houston & Texas Central R.R. v. Texas, 177 US 66. (If this is true, then why do states borrow from banks? States issue bonds and the banks buy the bonds by creating a new demand deposit and nothing is deposited. When it comes time to pay the bonds, the state acts as a collection agent for the bank.)
8. Neither the president nor the cashier of a bank has a right to accept anything but money in payment of an obligation due the bank. See: Aliquippa National Bank v. Harvey, 12 A.2d 409, 340 Pa 223; First National Bank of Mt. Holley Springs v. Cumbler, 21 A.2d 120; Re Bowen 46 F. Supp 631, 16 A.2d 409.
9. "Some years ago a new type of installment credit appeared in banks throughout the country. It became known as check credit or revolving check credit. Basically, it provided that those eligible for such credit be granted a line of credit in the agreed amount. In order to use that line, the borrower needed merely to write checks. The checks were special checks, and were NOT actually checking accounts. The check was merely the instrument by which the loan account was activated. Usually it did not go through all the processes that an ORDINARY check does once it reaches the bank. However, it had the APPEARANCE of an ORDINARY check, and was so used by the customer and the person to whom he gave the check." Source: "The Bankers Handbook" (? edition), page 530. (Does the bank disclose this information to you? It should be quite important for you to know that the bank just created a bookkeeping entry to create the "loan", and that the checks were not actually checks, but had the appearance of checks. This is what is known as a common law cheat and should be in violation of Fair Trade Practices because it gives banks a much greater advantage in business than you or I, or other businesses.) See: Title 15, Sec. 1635 of Chap. 41.
10. Unless there is what the law considers a valuable consideration, it will not be sufficient to maintain an action. And there is a distinction between a valuable consideration, other than money, and a money consideration. While in the "former" case the slightest consideration will support a promise (consideration other than money) to pay the largest amount to the full extent of the promise, in the latter the consideration will support a promise only to the extent of the money forming the consideration. The law leaves the measure of a valuable consideration other than money, for a promise to pay, to the parties to the contract; but money being the standard of value, is not the subject to be changed by contract, and will support a promise to pay money only to the extent of the amount of the consideration. See: Sawyer v. McLouth, 46 Barb 350.
- Written by Kurt Tischer
- Category: Philosophy
If I can control the meanings of your language, I can control your thoughts, and if I can control your thoughts, I can turn you into a slave.
Has this happened? Have we practically become a nation of slaves? Well, let’s start with checking out what you “think” a particular word means.
First let’s take a multiple choice test. Let me ask you what a “dollar” is.
Is a dollar a piece of paper? Is it money? Is it a weight of measure?
If it is a piece of paper, would you need 10 of them to make 10 dollars?
If it is money, according to the Federal Reserve definition, then wouldn’t it be durable, a store of value and divisible?
If it is a weight of measure, then what is it a weight of measure of?
If you answered that it is a weight of measure, you were correct. According to the Coinage Act of 1792, a dollar is how our money is supposed to be weighed.
“DOLLARS OR UNITS--each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.” [Coinage Act of 1792]
So 416 grains of standard silver or 371.25 grains of pure silver weighs one “dollar”. Just like 128 liquid ounces is equal to one gallon.
Now if someone was intent on controlling the economy through deceptive means, wouldn’t it be beneficial for them to take control of what the people use to buy and sell with from the people and control it themselves?
You see, we have been living a lie, believing that a piece of paper is a dollar, when in reality it is nothing but paper.
“All the paper money issued today is Federal Reserve notes. The real backing for the nation’s money is faith in the strength, soundness and stability of the American economy.” - The Hats the Federal Reserve Wears, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Faith ... in a lie.
There is actually no such thing as a “silver dollar” — there never has been. They were DOLLARS OF SILVER.
If you were to go into a butcher shop, you wouldn’t ask for a chicken pound! You would ask for a pound of chicken.
See, by controlling your language, I can control what you think.
And if I can control what you think, I can make you my slave.
Just something to think about.
“Appearances are of 4 kinds: Things either are as they appear to be, or they neither are nor appear to be, or they are but do not appear to be, or they are not and yet appear to be.” — Epictetus of Phrygia, 100 B.C.
- Written by Kurt Tischer
- Category: Philosophy
First, I would break down "an education" a bit. The whole concept of "education" as something apart from living and learning bugs me anyway. I assume you're talking about things like reading, writing, math, etc. The more important things (i.e. not the things mentioned above) can and should be learned from ethically sound and reasonably intelligent parents, whether they can spell "arachnid" or not.
As for "academic" stuff, or anything else the parents don't know, but that the children should learn, a trade (moolah in exchange for instruction) is fine and dandy by me. Actually, in these modern times, it is quite easy for people to, in effect, teach things they don't know. Things like computer programs, the Phonics Game, the zillions of math puzzles, etc., make learning at home very effective, even if no one in the home knows the stuff. As for learning about more specialized stuff, the Internet kicks some serious butt for research about virtually anything (especially if you are doing research on "HOT WILD SEX"). It is now a lot more valuable to know how to find the truth, than to know a lot of little pieces of the truth. AltaVista rules. Good old-fashioned encyclopedias do, too (I mean the really old ones that are made of paper, not the plastic silver discs).
For some specialties, however, the best arrangement (in my arrogant opinion) is called "apprenticeship," where someone learns something by helping someone do something who already knows how: bicycle repair, computer programming, music production, hired assassin (just kidding). This works for 5-year-old students and 80-year-old students alike — and often makes money for the apprentice in the meantime — and that way they learn from someone who knows something, not something from some theorizing beanhead professor who couldn't get a job in the real world.
Incidentally, moronic child labor laws and the minimum wage (price control) often screw this arrangement up.
I have a couple major beefs with the accepted formal "education" system (and I mean the whole concept, not whoever happens to be screwing it up at the moment):
(If anyone is offended by these … tough shit.)
1. Parents should be raising their children. Handing off your kid to someone else for eight hours a day is not parenting. Eight hours a day, five days a week, a few hundred days a year, for twelve years or so is a lot of time. That much lack of exposure of a kid to his parents sucks ass. The time left over is usually pretty damn noneducational and nonstimulating, i.e. everyone eats, collapses, watches TV, goes to bed. Kids learn by example, from the day they are born until at least the teenage years (and often until they die). I intend to be that example to my children, not trust that some school will provide such an example. (Radical, I know.)
2. The curriculum and clone quality of the formal "education" system is about the worst arrangement I can think of for learning. For 30 minutes, you will sit in your chair and hear about geography, whether you give a care about it or not. For the next 30 minutes, you will stop learning about geography, even if you started actually getting interested in it. You will then sit in your chair and hear about math, whether you give a care about it or not. Regardless of whether you started getting interested in math, you will now sit and hear about history. Do that a bunch more times with a bunch more subjects, and you will have had the most inefficient exposure to raw truth imaginable. The clone mentality sucks ass. If a kid is interested in something, let him learn about it! There's this sort of religious underlying assumption that all kids must know a list of things by a certain age. Know how to add by age ____. Spell "cat" by age ____ (and I'm pretty sure the ___ is lower than Joe's age ). Name the states by age ____.
Since I ragged on Joe just then, I'll use him as an example, and give him a big, fat retarded head. His spelling wasn't exactly superb a while back (although I bet it's above average by a good bit now). What did it matter? Yeah, there are times it would look better if he didn't use "your" instead of "you're," like on a resumé ("I think your going too bee glad ewe highered me" … aak). How does that inconvenience compare with the benefit to him of his "research" into what he was interested in? Not even close. I've seen enough anal-retentive, mindless, communist-and-don't-even-know-it, anti-human, anti-mind, crowd-following spelling masters to say that they aren't shit compared to Joe. If he never gets "your"/"you're" right, how much does it really matter?
Now expand that to all grade-school subjects. If someone learns to think, which happens most often when that person is allowed to pursue what interests him, the ability to spell, add, conjugate a verb, or find the volume of a cylinder, is not that important. That being said, someone's interests usually give them some degree of competency in these areas anyway.
I'm not saying parents shouldn't try to spark interest in things, but dragging some kid through 200 hours of listening to something he couldn't care less about does no good, not even in that subject. I remember jack squat about history from school. I didn't care about it then. I sat through plenty of it, and forgot it all by the time I handed in the test that I spewed it back on. Recently I've started to care about it, and I've accidentally (without any real intentional research) learned more about it in a few months than I ever learned in school. The assumption that everyone should know the same stuff, in the same amounts, by the same age SUCKS ROYAL ASS. Not only that, but the methods used to try to make this happen don't work.
"I know lots about _________, and I learned it all outside of school."
Fill in the blank above. I can think of a few for myself. Now try this:
"I know lots about _________, and I learned it all at school."
Um … I'm drawing a blank here. How about you?
In general, formal "education" does not:
1. Teach anyone to think.
2. Teach anyone much that they remember a month later.
3. Give a good example of how human beings should behave.
Instead (again, in general), here's what the "formal" education system does teach:
1. You should sit still and wait for the "authority" figure to enlighten you. (aak)
2. You should learn the things that the "authority" thinks you should know. (Aak)
3. You should not talk to anyone without permission from the "authority." (Aak!)
4. If accused of doing something wrong, you must prove your innocence. (AAK)
5. If one person does something wrong, it is okay for all to be punished. (AAK!)
6. You have nothing that is not subject to a search by "authority." (AAK!!)
7. "Authority" will determine every detail of what you will do, and when. (AAAK!!!!)
The list goes on, but I better stop before I get the urge to go blow up the nearest public school.
Anyway, to answer the question (if I can remember it after all that ranting), paying someone to help instruct your kids in a way you feel you can't is fine and dandy by me. A kid learning something from someone other than his parents is not somehow evil, but a lot of the things that often go with it are. If a kid wants to know something, it's tough to keep him from knowing it. If he doesn't want to know something, it's tough to make him learn it. Once an interest is sparked in something, the dog will pretty much walk itself (you just make sure it doesn't wander into the road, or poop on someone else's living room rug).