no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

The Strawman Conspiracy Theory

November 20th, 2011

It is an interesting conspiracy theory that I’ve heard bandied about for years but ultimately I think it is just that: an interesting conspiracy theory, and an utter waste of time. Here is a good primer that sums it up:

For an article that explains in detail the intricacies of this conspiracy theory, you’d think they could fact-check the one verifiable piece of information not subject to tin-foil hypotheticals: The Federal Reserve act of 1913 happened 5 years BEFORE the armistice, therefore WWI could NOT have “depleted the treasury” and could NOT have been an impetus for the Fed.

Moving on…

Why is your name in all capital letters on government documents?

Google the “All Caps” thing. Nothing but conspiracy theories all saying more-or-less the same thing. The ALL CAPS version of your name is a shell corporation which is owned by the government/NWO/Rothschilds/Illuminati/etc. You believe that it’s you, they use this ruse to extract your productive labor in order to service the national debt.

Is it true? Some people claim you can get out of all sorts of trouble by invoking your individual sovereignty and rejecting the assertion that you and all caps YOU are one and the same. Try it in court, and let me know how it turns out for you. There are two reasons why I think this portion of the conspiracy theory is utter bullshit:

  1. The idea that there’s this secret loophole, the “Strawman corporation” defense basically assumes that, despite whatever ill intentions led people to set up such an elaborate ruse (to circumvent individual sovereignty), these same usurpers would actually respect individual sovereignty when called on it, is inconceivable.
  2. If these laws are in-fact secret, if most of the people (95%+) don’t even know they exist then fact is, these laws could say anything, which negates the intent of drafting secret laws and then secretly adhering to them in the first place let alone the preposterous notion that the slavemasters can rely on an army of patsies none of whom have any knowledge of what they’re supposed to be enforcing, yet all of whom miraculously enforce the secret laws (that they don’t know about and would probably abhor if they did know about) in exact accordance with the conspiracy theory.
The other reason is that capitals seem easier to deal with. Fifty or 60 years ago, hell even 30 years ago you were talking about typewriters and whatnot, why worry about 52 characters in the alphabet when you could deal with only 26? It simplifies things. Not a bulletproof rebuttal by any means, but certainly worth noting.

Is your birth certificate the government’s title to property (i.e., you)

The theory takes great pain to establish an “obvious” link between birth certificates and warehouse receipts. The theory claims these are printed by the American Banknote Company and as a result of this therefore your birth certificate is a bond which indentures you to pay off or service the national debt (that the debt is held by a private banking cartel is basically true, though).

According to this belief, everything printed by the American Banknote Company is  imbued with some magical properties and in the case of your birth certificate, this magic makes it a “bond” and this makes you liable for some amount of federal debt which you pay off during the course of your life. My principle objections to this part of the theory are elementary:

  1. The ABNC is essentially a printer/engraver who specializes in stock/bond paper, banknotes, and other secure documents. In other words, they make very nice and durable paper, the sort you would naturally choose for documents intended to survive the test of time.
  2. The mere fact that some (or even all) birth certificates were printed on paper by a company that also produces banknotes does not necessarily mean that these birth certificates are bank notes, bonds, etc.
  3. I further doubt the ABNC produces all birth certificates – some are printed by Midwest Banknote Company which, founded in 1956 does not appear to be a subsidiary of ABNC, and according to this report, there are over 14,000 legitimate forms of birth certificates in existence, and they are issued and processed by over 6,000 entities) and that makes it even less believable.

The government really does own you, though

Yes, as a matter of fact we are essentially slaves. I just think this particular conspiracy is mental masturbation, that’s all.

Whether your birth certificate is (according to the secret law) a title establishing someone else’s ownership of “you”, is irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that nations, or rather their ruling classes, have always treated the working classes as a sort of “capital” or productive property which enables their largesse – that is, the ruling classes have always bought them, sold them, and mortgaged them as collateral for their debt. They don’t need a “warehouse” receipt. Propaganda is usually sufficient and when that fails firepower almost always works.

The trick is to overcome the propaganda and misinformation without drawing fire.

When enough people have  swallowed the proverbial “red pill” the threat of violence will not be sufficient. Their weapons are only useful against individuals, not ideas. And when the idea that we should all be free has blossomed, neither bullets nor batons will be able to keep us enslaved.

It’s Only a Matter of Time…

March 21st, 2011

If you hold any even remotely “extreme” point of view it is only a matter of time before someone tries to censure you by labeling you a “conspiracy theorist”.

Someone did that to me recently, responding to one of my posts in defense of Wikileaks. I hastily deleted the trackback/backlink after reading the intellectual diarrhea that was his argument.

Firstly: I didn’t mention any conspiracy, or allude to any conspiracy at all. As if that is not significant enough, it’s entirely possible that there is no “New World Order” Illuminati behind the holocaust that is American Empire or the attempts to censor Wikileaks.

It doesn’t require a dedicated, focused cabal to do this sort of thing. All that’s necessary is that the actors involved, in however disjointed and dysfunctional manner is possible, act in their own best interests under color of law to conceal mistakes, missteps, and where they occur, crimes. It works like this in a nutshell:

The most powerful government in the world hates the fact that wikileaks is exposing its crimes.  Some members of this government (and others), without any real authority to do so, make vague threats pertaining to wikileaks and anyone assisting wikileaks. The corporations that rely on this government for corporate welfare, spectrum rights, credit monopoly, etc., play an extremely conservative hand ceasing to offer anything that could even remotely be construed as “assistance” to wikileaks. DNS drops them. Mastercard stops sending them money. Paypal stops letting them receive money. Amazon drops them from their s3 servers. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Consider what happened to Wikileaks in the immediate aftermath:

  • EveryDNS dropped support for Wikileaks, effectively removing the main site from the web.
  • Mastercard stopped customers from giving funds to Wikileaks
  • Paypal closed their account
  • Amazon ended mirroring or hosting the site content on their web servers
  • The Swiss Bank froze their legal defense fund
  • Etc.

All they had to do was make some threats and the corporations fucking crumbled, caved in to their demands.

You cannot say that you’re not a “yes man” and simultaneously reject the openness that something like Wikileaks provides.

We know that Wikileaks has revealed evidence of crimes which were previously held under lock and key, labeled confidential, swept under the proverbial rug. Without whistleblowers like Wikileaks, these injustices would never have seen the light of day, would never have been revealed for the crimes they are.  And there is evidence to back this up. Prior to the digital age, the record of States and their agents selflessly admitting to their own misdeeds is atrocious to say the least.

You might call for a watchdog, an overseer, an audit of some sort. But what is that? Another layer of bureaucracy, impenetrable to the public at-large and impervious to the real scrutiny that comes when the words and deeds of public servants are made public?

I don’t believe in democracy. I don’t believe in government. But insofar as you do believe in these institutions, how can you possibly endorse or defend the actions taken by your representatives and agent , without knowing the nature of these actions in the first place.

You can say that you do. But you can’t.

Saying that you do is just rationalization for abandoning your moral compass, while assuming that those who act on your behalf are in-fact acting on your behalf and in the interest of humanity as a whole (fuck your iPads and Happy Meals and $3/gallon gasoline if it comes at the expense of humanity, right?), without any transparency, without any way of validating your beliefs, and hence, your argument is a null program, a proof without premises.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics