The Mental Militia Forums

Special Interest => Gulching/Self-Sufficiency => FSW => Topic started by: Claire on January 31, 2004, 05:29:19 pm

Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Claire on January 31, 2004, 05:29:19 pm
I see in the "They'll get my extractor ..." thread Bug and Sunni discussing the FSP vs Boston T. Party's Wyoming project. As a porcupine, I hesitate to boost any of the FSP's competitors. But Boston's is just one of several.

Ben Irvin of the Free West Alliance (http://www.freewest.org/) just sent a copy of his group's logo. (http://freewest.org/FWALogo3.jpg).

I love these folks, and they're ardent in saying that they're not trying to compete with the FSP, but merely give die-hard westerners a free state alternative. Ted N. has already enthusiastically promoted their Grand Western Conference II. It was a great event last year & if I could go again this year, I would. (They don't seem to be getting a lot of participation in their forums yet, though.)
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on January 31, 2004, 08:15:37 pm
Claire,

Ya know, I really liked the rumors going around about BTP's project being similiar to, but more defensive than the FSP.
Clearly if people are going to attempt to change their area towards a more freedom oriented state, they better be ready to defend themselves from those who like things the way they are now, or will be in the future without any change......
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on January 31, 2004, 11:17:10 pm
Zoot - what do you mean by "more defensive", could you point me to that thread?

Thank you.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Ted Nielsen on February 01, 2004, 04:52:01 pm
*
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Claire on February 01, 2004, 05:21:59 pm
Quote
Ya know, I really liked the rumors going around about BTP's project being similiar to, but more defensive than the FSP.
Clearly if people are going to attempt to change their area towards a more freedom oriented state, they better be ready to defend themselves from those who like things the way they are now, or will be in the future without any change......
'Course, there's also the problem that if you go in with a defensive attitude, you'll draw hostile attention to yourself both from "the authorities" and from ordinary people -- people you might well be able to win over without needing any defense at all.

I think the FSP's got the right attitude. The secessionist roots of the idea are very well known, as are the propensities of libertarians to run around armed. But the message that "we're coming in to make peaceful, positive political change" is a comforting one and helps gain acceptance.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick" and all that.

But like Bug, I'm also interested in what specifically you've heard about Boston's project being more defensive. I haven't heard that, but it wouldn't surprise me. Tell us more?

Claire
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on February 11, 2004, 03:23:07 am
Quote

'Course, there's also the problem that if you go in with a defensive attitude, you'll draw hostile attention to yourself both from "the authorities" and from ordinary people -- people you might well be able to win over without needing any defense at all.

 
While acknowledging that Boston's ideation is not suffering from any persecution-complex, but is all-the-while yet aware of the embedded infrastructures of socialist mind-wash which exist in contemporary thought-patterns within the public (which simply through legislative control of existing State governments has certain leverages which could be used against anything culturally akin to "freedom of individuals", if said State saw cause for alarm---thereby justifying in reality a subtle stance of defensiveness), I'll offer my opinion in harmony with your statement.

The reality of the mechanistic police state, its hierarchy, tiers, and the penetrations of its extensions, does, in and of itself, introduce a general wariness among wakeful people. We know it's there, and we know we're the targets as it depletes a world-full of targets by simply dominating global governance, economics, and global media productions of popular thought-insertions world-wide.

But that's "them". We're "us".

We know that defensiveness *always* attacks. We know that defensiveness itself, as a condition of human mentality, harks of an outsourcing latent fear. We also know that action which proceeds outward from the vortex of fear is always, and can only be, futile. (Even in instances in which some temporal appearance of "victory" occur---in the long run is where our children share in the results of our short-term thinking, yes?) A nation who's governance relies upon pre-emptive war as a legitimate trigger for military aggression usually has a population which has been conditioned in fear. That is hardly a secret these days.

By the same token, a freedom movement such as FSP and the recent pulsations from the bosom of the great unconquered West has the choice of how one might formulate the establishing of one's goals in freedom. Either as a defensive venture, or as an extension of the vision of liberty.

We already know we're right. Liberty is popular among people, especially when it's gone. At the current rate of fedgov's ominous intrusiveness into everyone's personal lives, the ongoing "wake-up" which is growing in America advances its numbers in almost quantum-like rates. There is no valid reason for liberty's voices to be defensive. There is every valid reason for liberty's voices to smile forward, extending in the one hand the blessings of peace and in the other the truth of Nature in Life, which needs no defense.

I think that back in the 1960s we used to call it: "positive thinking".

I'm sure that by now you know that Boston T. Party will be at the GWCII. (JJ Johnson of the Sierra Times and Iloilo Jones of FIJA will also be there.) I'm looking forward to a eye-to-eye conversation over coffee with Mr. Party.  My impression of him thus far is that he is more "Serious" than he is "Defensive". One thing I'm noticing at present is that in the upcoming GWCII there shall participate three western States who may be willing to discuss secession with British Columbia and Alberta. Boston's Wyoming and my  Montana and the GRR's (Ghost of Ruby Ridge's) Idaho are in it. I see no reason to be defensive. Simply conceiving "liberty" while living under the most powerful governance device in the world's history IS defense. Therefore, let our actions be of a positive nature, filled with the focused glory of our inalienable birthrights as human beings, owing no apology to anyone, offering no threat to anyone, and trusting in the truth instead of succumbing to illusions spawned of fear.

The announcement for the GWCII is up, btw. I saw your gracious commentary to the Steering Committee about why you cannot attend, but I often hope at times, personally, that certain circumstances might take unforeseen twists and allow you to get free to come and join us there. It could be another round of history in the making. By whatever grinning cast of the Muse's dice, you're one of America's most inspirational and commanding liberty fighters. And I think you're right: defensiveness is not our best-chosen style. Candidness, honesty, forthrightness, bravery, peaceful happiness, lovingness, creativity, honor, responsibility, personal sovereignty, and all such attributes of our higher souls should be the guiding lights of our decisions and the rays by which we see to take our actions. Against such, there is no defense, nor abiding threat.

Salute!
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on February 11, 2004, 04:43:12 pm
Quote
  My impression of him thus far is that he is more "Serious" than he is "Defensive".

I usually do not like to throw incendiaries into conversations, but I have to in this case:

If Mr. Party was "serious" about freedom, he would NOT have opted out of New Hampshire when he joined the Free State Project (as its 5,000th member, with lots of fanfare and special dispensation). He would not be excoriating the Porcupines by calling their decision to go to New Hampshire foolish. He would not be attempting to ride on the FSP's coattails by starting a competing project, either. Though he will not admit - even to himself, apparently - that the GWC IS in competition with the FSP.

These are MY opinions and not necessarily those of Porcupines in general.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Ted Nielsen on February 11, 2004, 08:11:34 pm
*
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on February 12, 2004, 01:19:39 am
Ted - there are two brand-new "organizations" (for lack of a better term) that sprouted up after the FSP vote. The Great West Alliance, and the other one concentrating on ID/WY/MT. I get a little confused about which is which, since they are both in very preliminary form.

Boston's participation in your forum, as far as I am concerned, is endorsement by Mr. Party for the GWA. I believe that Jason Sorens was also invited to your conference. I hope he declines.

The stated goal of the tri-state people is the same as FSP. As far as I can tell, the stated aim of your conference is substantially the same. Let's call a spade a spade.

For all of that. I have made a "fast food" analogy elsewhere on these forums regarding the FSP and the two new groups. I assume that they're all here to stay, and we can merely hope that they will create more "liberty noise" than the FSP can by itself.

My main irritation at this point is the constant denial of reality that these groups ARE competing against the FSP for libertarians. By making Clintonesque style "we're not actively recruiting" statements are at variance with reality.

Just admit that you are doing so, and we can move on. I imagine I will have to quell my irritation at some point, because nobody seems willing to admit the obvious. I can understand Boston's statement that he doesn't want to wait some arbitrary time before participating in something else. But I still think his actions are impetuous.

Emulating the FSP is premature at this time - the FSP hasn't created a free state, yet. It is still recruiting members and setting up the NH "liaisons" if you will.

I'm not attempting to muzzle anybody or prevent another freedom movement from sprouting up. But to prevaricate in any manner is a bad sign, if you ask me.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: ladylearning on February 12, 2004, 04:35:22 am
Quote
I hope he declines.

The stated goal of the tri-state people is the same as FSP. As far as I can tell, the stated aim of your conference is substantially the same. Let's call a spade a spade.

Why would you hope he declines?  Is NH the only place in this nation that freedom minded individuals should be allowed to congregate?  
What's up with that?
Shouldn't we all celebrate the fact that all states should be "free" and endeavor to make that a reality?
As far as calling a spade a spade.  I think that's been thoroughly pointed out by Ted.  Different name, different logo... same vision.
There is no competion here, there is however an abiding desire to live free wherever we choose.  We should all stop the bickering and join forces to create a free country.

LL  
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Scarmiglione' on February 12, 2004, 06:59:08 am
Quote

My main irritation at this point is the constant denial of reality that these groups ARE competing against the FSP for libertarians. By making Clintonesque style "we're not actively recruiting" statements are at variance with reality.

Just admit that you are doing so, and we can move on
Competition is a good thing.  Of course they are "competing", each is attempting to provide a service or fulfill a demand that the FSP is not.  Seems like good old market freedom to me.  Don't understand what the hubub is about.
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on February 12, 2004, 03:31:56 pm
My wife warned me that I should not open my trap.

I agree that competition is good. I merely want the principles to acknowledge that is what they're doing. Is that too much to ask? Did I say to STOP RIGHT THERE!!? No.

I want there to be freedom everywhere. I think everybody should be free.

I think that Jason Sorens going to the GWC II would be like the chairman of McDonalds addressing a Burger King convention. Just doesn't sit right. At least for me, and I only speak for me.

Just acknowledge the facts. Scarmig did. Even LL did, in effect.

Again, my only worry is that if there are two or more competing entities that NONE will succeed because of dilution of membership. The whole idea of FSP is to concentrate enough libertarians in one place to actually get something done, politically.

Having two or more places makes it that much harder to get that block. It will take longer, and may not make its threshold. THAT is the only concern I have.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 12, 2004, 05:10:24 pm
My $.02 (-3.58 after taxes have been extorted).  I am not a porcupine, so take it for what it's worth. When commiting to the FSP, folks had the option to opt out of certain states (if my understanding is correct).  BTP opted out of NH prior to it being selected. Those who are working to coordinate "free people" in Western states are not diluting the efforts of the FSP, since few, if any, of those who would commit to working together in the west would have been moving to NH anyway. The only thing being accomplished by all the "infighting" is to divert the focus from congregating free people together to petty bickering about who is pissing in whose lemonade. A couple years ago, our family was considering joining Wayne Hicks in his endeavor to create an intentional community, Harmony (http://www.realjunkscience.com/harmony.htm), in Arkansas.  For the life of me, I can't remember now why we decided against it.

Where am I going with all this? I don't know. I guess I would just like to see the attitude that all efforts toward a more free society benefit each other.
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Danl on February 24, 2004, 06:28:25 pm
Hi all,

A long time luker, just coming out of my shell.  I will not post often, because of time constraints.

My member number was around 400 or so with FSP.  I rode the thing to its first climax (choice of words, Hmmm).  From the beginning I opted out of all states but Wyo, Mont, Idaho.  There was no competition for my body/vote.  I am not going East.  I respect the choice of those who are glass eaters and the ones who are willing to crowd into that little bitty state, but it is not for me.  

I like the West and made a substantial financial effort to get licensed in my profession in Wyoming and Montana.  I don't think Idaho is quite as viable based on high population numbers.  I could possibly be persuaded to make the Idaho effort if I thought there was half a chance.

I see no competition here.  There are folks who opted out but still want a chance at the dream of a free state.  My kids might see it.  Maybe I will, but I have gotta try to help bring it to pass.  

I wish the FSP NH the best.  I think they can succeed.  I wish the western effort the best, I think it can succeed also.  I think it can succeed in Wyo with 4,000 voters.....

Will I be at the GWC2?  You bet I will.  I was at GWC1, it was great.  If you want a chance at liberty and want to look your kids in the eye and be able tell them you did your best to bring liberty in their lifetime, then join one of these movements and let's concentrate our efforts in a few choice warm and receptive areas and go for it.  At least come and talk about it and get a feel for the enthusiasm that comes when you meet people that are serious about liberty.

C Ya, Dan  :D
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on February 24, 2004, 07:36:24 pm
Quote
I respect the choice of those who are glass eaters and the ones who are willing to crowd into that little bitty state, but it is not for me.


What the heck is a "glass eater"?

Also, just because YOU can't think outside an East/West divide (as aparently JJ Johnson cannot, either), doesn't mean there aren't a large number of people who can or are indifferent.

I live in the West myself. I have lived in the East. I didn't like things about both. I prefer the West. Again, freedom is not about topography or geography.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: suijurisfreeman on February 24, 2004, 08:27:53 pm
Quote
Quote
I respect the choice of those who are glass eaters and the ones who are willing to crowd into that little bitty state, but it is not for me.

What the heck is a "glass eater"?

Also, just because YOU can't think outside an East/West divide (as aparently JJ Johnson cannot, either), doesn't mean there aren't a large number of people who can or are indifferent.

I live in the West myself. I have lived in the East. I didn't like things about both. I prefer the West. Again, freedom is not about topography or geography.

'Bug
>Again, freedom is not about topography or geography.<

In my opinion, freedom is a gift that you give yourself, it's not something that can be found in New Hampshire, Montana, Idaho or Wyoming.  I didn't go looking for my "freedom" in Kentucky, I gave myself the gift of freedom in 1993, I took my freedom to Kentucky when I moved there in November of 1999!  I bought property in Kentucky because I've liked that area since the early 1970's.
So why is it "necessary" to move anywhere to find "your freedom"?
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Danl on February 24, 2004, 08:51:17 pm
Quote
respect the choice of those who are glass eaters

In some of the fora those people who signed up for any state regardless of where it might be, who were willing to move anywhere there was a chance of making a true Free State were referred to as "Glass Eater".  IOW they would be willing to eat glass for a chance at a trully Free State.

Quote
I didn't go looking for my "freedom" in Kentucky, I gave myself the gift of freedom in 1993, I took my freedom to Kentucky when I moved there in November of 1999!

suijurisfreeman  -- I can appreciate your self declaration of freedom and I can appreciate the cost.  I have tremendous admiration for you and the many I know who have made the same declaration of freedom.  I even appreciate the several who have gone to jail while trying to practice their freedom.  I have donated to their defenses I have cried bitter tears with there loved ones as they practice their freedom behind bars.  I trully respect their integrity and their true grit.  I have made a choice to seek a longer term freedom that can be practiced by my kiddoes.  At present I feel like that direction is thru the free state concept. Nevertheless it will take all of us pushing on every front to push the weasels back.

Regards, Dan'l

 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: suijurisfreeman on February 24, 2004, 09:16:20 pm
Dan'l,
I didn't just make a declaration of freedom, I've actually lived my freedom each and everyday since June 4, 1993!  I did spend a total of 51 days in the Hillsdale County jail back in 1994-5 (only because I refused to post bond), but I have not been arrested for exercising my rights since September of 1995.

I don't "try to practice my freedom", I've actually lived my freedom each and everyday since June 4, 1993!

My daughter cried bitter tears when I refused to be bonded out of the Hillsdale County jail.  She actually drove 90 miles one way from Elkhart, Indiana bringing a bailbondsman with her to get me out of jail.  I didn't post bond, I defended myself (no "defense funds" were necessary) and when I was found guilty of not getting a building permit and ordered to pay a $200 fine, given 6 months probation and ordered to get into compliance with the building code, I refused to pay the $200 fine, refused to sign the probation order and refused to get into compliance.

What exactly is a "longer term of freedom"?  I've lived my freedom for over 10 years now and intend to until the day I die - that's what I would consider "long term".  As I've already posted, I can't give my children or grandchildren freedom.  If and when they want freedom, they will need to make the same choice that I did in 1993.  Perhaps you believe that freedom for you and your children will be found in the Free State Project, I hope that you find the "freedom" that you seek.  I found my freedom when I gave myself permission to live my life as a free Human Being.  Each of us must follow our own path, may your choosen path lead you and yours to the freedom that you seek.
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Delos on February 24, 2004, 10:03:14 pm
Quote
Dan'l,
I didn't just make a declaration of freedom, I've actually lived my freedom each and everyday since June 4, 1993!  I did spend a total of 51 days in the Hillsdale County jail back in 1994-5 (only because I refused to post bond), but I have not been arrested for exercising my rights since September of 1995.

I don't "try to practice my freedom", I've actually lived my freedom each and everyday since June 4, 1993!

My daughter cried bitter tears when I refused to be bonded out of the Hillsdale County jail.  She actually drove 90 miles one way from Elkhart, Indiana bringing a bailbondsman with her to get me out of jail.  I didn't post bond, I defended myself (no "defense funds" were necessary) and when I was found guilty of not getting a building permit and ordered to pay a $200 fine, given 6 months probation and ordered to get into compliance with the building code, I refused to pay the $200 fine, refused to sign the probation order and refused to get into compliance.

What exactly is a "longer term of freedom"?  I've lived my freedom for over 10 years now and intend to until the day I die - that's what I would consider "long term".  As I've already posted, I can't give my children or grandchildren freedom.  If and when they want freedom, they will need to make the same choice that I did in 1993.  Perhaps you believe that freedom for you and your children will be found in the Free State Project, I hope that you find the "freedom" that you seek.  I found my freedom when I gave myself permission to live my life as a free Human Being.  Each of us must follow our own path, may your choosen path lead you and yours to the freedom that you seek.




Dammit . . . he is the Messiah!

 :P
 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: suijurisfreeman on February 24, 2004, 10:09:20 pm
Delos,
If you're that damned determined to get me crucified atleast make sure you bring a stepladder and nail puller to get me down!  :lol:  
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on February 24, 2004, 10:41:11 pm
Sujuris - while I respect what you have done, I would submit that it is what I referred to as "nothing left to lose" in another thread. Or maybe this thread, I'm getting confused.

I want the ability to accumulate wealth that I have earned. The ability to drive a late model car, if I want. I want a nice house, with air conditioning and central heat and two or three stories, etc. The primary obstacle in my way is the ridiculous taxation that robs me of 50%+ of my wealth.

I want to be sure that the JBT's won't come crashing in on me someday because some zoning inspector didn't sign off on my children's tree house.

There's nothing wrong with wanting any of these things - it's called enjoying one's life to the fullest in the manner in which he wants to, without being killed or jailed by the government.

There's nothing morally inferior with wanting to accumulate and keep one's wealth, either.

Having these assets also makes it less likely that I'll be thrust into the arms of the nanny state if I get sick later. Of course my alternative would be to die. I don't like either of those alternatives. I want the ability to pay my own way, AND that includes paying my medical bills when I'm older.

What YOU call freedom may be accurate for you. It is NOT for me.

What's wrong with that?

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on February 25, 2004, 03:40:45 am
Quote
(snip)

I don't "try to practice my freedom", I've actually lived my freedom each and everyday since June 4, 1993!

(snip)

  I found my freedom when I gave myself permission to live my life as a free Human Being.  Each of us must follow our own path, may your choosen path lead you and yours to the freedom that you seek.
sj, I do not think that anyone anywhere has anything to add to what you are, what you've done/accomplished, and to what you've just said here to the worrybug.  I salute you, and am grateful that you are there doing whatever you do each day. Btw, I spent most of my life south of the lakes, down in Memphis, but I've been all over the bluegrass state and find it to be a very beautiful part of America. And I'll never forget one summer night's dancing with a chick I met in Franklin, Kentucky under a full moon on a wooded country road. We danced in the car's headlights, out on the road, never thinking about all the owls we might disturb. But I won't bore you with stories about my adventures in Kentucky; just wanted to let you know that imo Kentucky would be a great place for a dude like you. Of course, if you ever changed your mind, or have it changed by martial-law's ominous steel hand, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho constitute a pretty big piece of real estate, and there are, already, birds of a feather out here in numbers which swell the flight to sovereignty and freedom.

Keep hammering away at people who are in the early stages of their self-discovery, who are new to the path of personal freedom, and who think freedom is a definable, quantifiable product of focused effort and intent, something which they will achieve "in the future", when they've done all their tasks which they feel will furnish that freedom. It amuses me to hear them question sagely vision with their own newly-evolving perspectives. Maybe Mr. Worrybug will get it if you just shout it at him a dozen more times: "I found my freedom when I gave myself permission to live my life as a free Human Being."

And a note-in-passing for Mr. Worrybug, as an aside:  Dude, there is nothing *wrong* with anything you value, as stated previously by you. If you want material security, that is fine. Some of us don't, but that doesn't mean we don't have anything else left to lose. Speaking for myself personally, I've had the wealth, the money, the facilitation, the business licenses, the tax accounts, the credit, portfolio, banking, comforts and conveniences which inspire most Americans. If that is what you want, I say go for it. All I want these days is to write down my reflections and live modestly and eat regularly. When my propensity for smoking cigarettes kills me, I'll have died on my terms, by my choices and decisions regarding how to live. That is very central to my personal notions about being free. I will not be in some damn hospital begging or paying some doctor to avert my natural fate, to extend my life, lol! For those of you who believe in the healing arts as practiced by modern AMA-sanctioned standards, more power to you, but I'll pass. You are right; there is nothing wrong with accumulation of the fruits of your labor; in fact, in most cases I think that is a very *good* thing. But you don't have to make an issue over it. You be free, yourself, and then you'll see that you don't have to be with a "freedom group", that you don't have to move or live anywhere, that in fact you can be yourself wherever you are. *That* is your freedom in your own lifetime. Anything else is just something somebody is trying to sell you. A plan. Sure, it's cool to play with the FSP plan, to participate; hell, it's the best game in town at present, imo. I sure do enjoy telling people about it, supporting it with my mentality. And the FSP will doubtess have soul-mate types of people who share your particular sorts of values and y'all may end up with the envy of the nation, a community which literally reclaimed governance by pooling votes. I'd say that would be a good thing. But you're still going to have to claim your freedom, instead of "working toward it", for "working toward it" is an ego-defense system, a mind-set which says, "I am not free, but I cannot find my inner freedom, so I must look outward, elsewhere, for my freedom." You are correct in thinking that you must live your freedom according to your views. But remember: your views come from within. < wicked grin >

If you want to move amid neighbors who promise to share your principles, I see nothing wrong with that.....aside from the fact that once again someone who is not "you" seeks to place a "definition" upon the infinity which dwells in the spiritually-exact meaning of the word "freedom" as it exists inside your soul. You'll make it, Dude; just, in Joni Mitchell's words, try not to "lay your religion on your friends", eh? That way, you won't appear to be a worry bug. :)

Elias
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on February 25, 2004, 04:19:13 am
What, me worry?

Only quibble I'll relate, is that the freedom you espouse is fine, I suppose. It allows you a certain degree of serenity in the midst of a police state.

But it ignores the reality of the police state. I want my children to have it better than I did. The reason this country was formed was because there IS a difference between freedom and servility.

Also,regarding modern medicine. I won't dispute the problems with Western medicine in the long term treatments and life-extension-at-all-costs has some systemic and holistic problems.

HOWEVER, the emergency care of acute problems - such as automobile accident and myocardial infarctions, etc. I think we benefit greatly from Western medicine, and there's no problem with extending an efficacious life under these circumstances. But if I can't pay for it - because I can't accumulate assets because I'm flying "under the radar", that sucks.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on February 25, 2004, 05:22:35 am
Quote
Only quibble I'll relate, is that the freedom you espouse is fine, I suppose. It allows you a certain degree of serenity in the midst of a police state.

 
Try not to worry about what *my* freedom allows *me*, okay?  I did not use myself as an example of what *you* should be, but was merely trying to show you a different perspective. Try to think of this in terms of you yourself.

I do not live in a delusion. I know full well that there is a police state going on out there, and that today it is backed by the U.S. Military, and that some petrified brain molecule of a mutated perversion's skull from some dark and dismal past has reincarnated itself in the visage of one George W. Bush. And if you want to simply be "right", that's okay with me. But if you want to reach out for a new concept which might, just *might*, enhance your own grasp on your own freedom, on the knowledge and awareness of it as it exists already inside your soul, you are welcome to ask me to explain for you just how Fedov is two steps ahead of your desire to accumulate enough personal wealth to cover the costs of whatever medical services you may require in the future. Hint: once Fedgov drops the iron net of totalitarian martial law on this nation, you and I together, and all our good neighbors and friends, are gonna be under a rule which, for the purpose of better serving our needs, shall systemize, organize, structure, direct, fund, and administer to us, including YOU, the dispersion of medical care and treatment.  When this comes down on us, which could be before the November elections, but hopefully will be long long off into the future, the only assets left will all be "under the radar".

But really, bug, nobody except of course Fedgov is trying to deprive you of your wealth. What my line of view is working for is the disempowerment of the mechanism called Fedgov, so you *can* keep your wealth. See? And the best way to fight Fedgov is to fight Fedgov. :)

Elias  
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: suijurisfreeman on February 25, 2004, 05:30:32 am
H.M.WoggleBug, T.E.
>What's wrong with that?<  If it "works" for you, absolutley nothing!  I spent most of my adult life making "good money", I owned and operated my own business for 27 years, so I've played that the game.  BUT in my opinion the following quote just about says it all for me:

Cree Indian prophecy - Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.

I've definitely found my freedom (I know this for a fact because I gave myself permission to live my life as a free Human Being), may you find the "freedom" that you seek.
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: ladylearning on February 28, 2004, 08:59:56 am
Quote

Cree Indian prophecy - Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.

Good qoute.  
It brings to mind the message in Somerset Maugham's book "The Razor's Edge", where Larry Darrell discovered high on a Tibetan mountaintop that wisdom and enlightenment are not found within the cover of a book.  All we need already resides within us.  

LL
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on February 28, 2004, 01:17:18 pm
I'd like to see the genesis of this statement. I sincerely doubt it's very old, certainly not before late 19th century. I'd be surprised if it's more than 20 years old.

Call me cynical, but this just sounds like socialist tripe.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: ZooT_aLLures on February 29, 2004, 02:30:02 pm
Wogglebug,

Here's an older and easilly creditable statement that was uttered in times such as those we have now..

Quote
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen -Samuel Adams


Yup.....even back then there were folks that "wanted" to be free but wanted even more to retain their wealth, and as such had some really tough decisions to make. And there were those that used powerful statements in an attempt to get those decisions made

I myself don't believe that political activism will help, and I don't believe that any "free state" project will help either, except at a local and maybe state level.

What I do see though(and I hope I'm right) is groups of people moving to defendable positions and preparing to defend those positions in the upcoming war for our country.

Our friends have stated on numerous occasions and very clearly the government is not reason or logic, but instead only organized force.
Given this, do we or can we honestly expect government to give up it's usurped powers without using what it's so effectively used for all these generations?
Do you or can you expect goverment to just "go away" without bloodshed?
 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: suijurisfreeman on February 29, 2004, 05:55:06 pm
Quote
I'd like to see the genesis of this statement. I sincerely doubt it's very old, certainly not before late 19th century. I'd be surprised if it's more than 20 years old.

Call me cynical, but this just sounds like socialist tripe.

'Bug
Bug,
I got the "statement" from one of Michael Reynold's Earthship books.  Whether it's 20 years old or 100 years old, I couldn't say.  However to me the words ring true, it would appear to me that all too many people will pursue "money/wealth" without giving one shit about the natural world that we are a part of.  I have absolutely no interest in "socialist tripe", but then again neither do I believe that I have the "right" to take more from the planet than is really necessary.
I just bought the April 1983 issue of National Geographic at the St. Vincent dePaul Society thrift shop for 5 cents, the article "The fascinating world of TRASH" really got my attention.  It points out that during the 17 day garbage strike in New York City back in December of 1981 150,000 tonsof garbage piled up before the strike was settled just before Christmas.  How long can we afford to live in a throw away society such as ours?  Ever been to a "dump" to see all the shit that people throw away?  How many trash cans do you set out each week?  At my daughter's place they set out 3-4 30 gallon trash cans per week.  When I'm at my property in Kentucky I might generate one small Wal-Mart type blue bag per week.  In that National Geographic article they said that something like 40% of landfill trach is packaging materials!  Why all this waste?  I personally think that we as a species are insane, we've gone mad with our consumption of this planet's resources.  But that's just my opinion.
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on February 29, 2004, 06:49:12 pm
We have two different subjects here....

Zoot - I imagine you weren't replying to my request for verification of the "Cree" statement.

I am very familiar with Samuel Adams' attribution. In several places, I have merely brought up the fact that quite a few people say that you can live "free" by basically being poor. I object to that supposition, and present arguments to support my objection.

I have a few possessions, and I'm willing to sacrifice them if it will yield a free society for my family. However, I don't see that as being a) efficacious and B) dictated by logic. I don't see that a sacrifice of that nature on my part will yield a greater amount of freedom.

sujuris - regarding trash - yep, it's amazing how much we produce. My family produces 1.5 cans a week (30 gallon cans). Sometimes I have to do a burn, so it's probably closer to 2 cans per week. Recycling in Oregon is mostly a joke, and we don't bother any more except for bottles and cans with deposits.

We don't bother, because all of the recylables go from the blue bins into the regular garbage after the children leave the dump. We witnessed this ourselves, and queried the operator about it.

That said, trash has its uses. 40% of the land in San Francisco is built up on piles of trash. Not great during earthquakes, but otherwise pretty useful. Same in many other places. In Louisiana, large portions of New Orleans and suburbs would be under water if not for trash of the last 200 years. Some prefer swamp, I suppose, but Louisiana has plenty already.

In places, incinerators burn trash and have even generated electricity. I believe, however, that they don't pay for themselves. In Japan, they build golf courses on trash dumps. I hear the smell is awful, but the Japanese don't mind because they don't have any other options.

When it becomes cheaper to recycle metal from appliances and cars and such into its metal, that's what will happen. See another thread about air conditioners being dumped on roads because of a stupid federal regulation that made it too expensive to dump them in land fills.

On my own property, the previous owner had a trash pile for 40 years. It was formerly a swamp, and was filled in before the idiotic wetlands legislation was in force. It's not a nice place to play baseball and football.

I'm not Joe Sanford, but trash isn't universally bad.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on March 01, 2004, 12:03:24 pm
Quote

  All we need already resides within us.  

 
Well said, LL.

Those who know, intuit, and understand that wisdom are also those who know *why* overpopulation coupled with irresponsible, trash-producing lifestyles and the mindset called "herd mentality", the common people unthinking, are forever doomed to the cultural bug-topia, the time-worshipping tail-chasing avoidance of personal responsibility.

As SJ says, we as a species have gone insane, are mad with the consumption of this earth's resources. Do you remember that danged customer we once had who sought to lay her "consumerism" on our store? "I'm a Consumer!" she would say, and at other times she would say she was *THE CONSUMER!*, which in her statist mentality implied that she could do no wrong, that her every whim was to be acted upon by our store in just the way her precious imagination required, at whatever unpaid cost of course. Jeez. This worry-bug would say, as Ms Consumer: "there is nothing *wrong* with consuming", just as he thinks there is nothing *wrong* with piling up the trash on the planet's surface or accumulating more wealth than his forebearers deemed necessary.  Hell! There is nothing *wrong* with anything, and certainly nothing *wrong* with everything Americans do in their diefied cities, of course.....yet I wonder *why*, with nobody doing anything *wrong*, this world is going to hell in a handbasket? Of course it could not have anything to do with the great American lifestyle, with the me-first whim of covert greed, with false expectations furnished by every icon from Dr. Spock to Viagra, with "win a free vacation" to "The God of Govlish Giveth Forth Thy Great Tax Cut". I think the post-industrial revolution, coupled with mass programming over the tube, the radio, and the daily headlines, has successfully unplugged the bug-people and their culture, their society, their ever-damned cities of infinite duplicates thereof, from reality. So be it. I'll agree with you and suijurisfreedom and Zoot. And hopefully, as he seems innocuous-enough, perhaps some day the worry-bug will gain that perspective from which he would understand why he would voluntarily wish to cease judging your and their comments from within his own un-attached mental circus. There ARE too many people, and as Melville put it, they are a mob of useless duplicates, and they are involved in living the false-god-worshipping lifestyle of the American Consumer, complete with their traid of sacraments: Denial; Sprawl; and Trash. It cracks me up to see the worry-bug  transfer his subliminal guilt into a fabrication which causes him to believe that in the Free State he'll finally find freedom. LOL, LL! Ah, heck, I feel pretty good today, so I'll hope that maybe the dude will wake up some day, so I'll take back all the stones I've thrown at him, teehee!

But it does concern me that in seeking 20,000 liberty-lovers, the FSP may unknowingly be attracting the deluded wannabes who've failed to find their own inner sovereignty and inner freedom already, which is what I think should be the qualification displayed before anyone should be accepted into the FSP. People like bug here, in defending their indefensible failure to achieve the spiritual vision of sovereignty, and who remain dependent upon social mores which have evolved since the telephone, printing press, internal combustion engine, air-transportation, computer, State-given-license, and electricity, seem to think that they can have their cake and eat it too, never wondering about what the next generation shall face in the wake of their cakewalk through a plastic, false lifestyle which was fostered upon them by Feducation's brain-wash when they were helpless children. Look how wildly askew his whole notion regarding "poverty vs wealth" stands in relation to what has been said on this thread. He is very defensive about his need to accumulate wealth, to the point he is willing to deny what today's version of "wealth" is doing to this nation. He goes straight to his shield, saying that he doesn't understand why poverty is a sign of freedom. Well, he's missing the point. There can be freedom in conjunction with wealth, and there can be freedom in the absence of wealth. Bug would have me think that if I choose to trim down my level of material goods I am being the fool. Personally, as a man who has had the wealth and the sanction of the State, I'm quite happy living very modestly. But speaking of wealth, holy sheeit!, I gotta go to work now! Salutes to you and Zoot and Suijurisfreedom, and all other responsible sovereigns. Don't let the bugsters wear you down!

:)

Elias

 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on March 01, 2004, 03:35:39 pm
Quote
People like bug here, in defending their indefensible failure to achieve the spiritual vision of sovereignty,

"Spiritual" - you're right, I don't want any spiritual visions - I want concrete reality. THIS WORLD freedom. Your kind of "freedom" is the kind that a prisoner in Leavenworth can get.

I don't want my cake and eat it, too. However, I do NOT want to buy the cake and have the government eat it out from under me. If the government can capriciously blow me away at anytime, or steal my bank money, or whatever, how exactly is that "free"? I am working to get true freedom in THIS world, for now and my children.

Your diatribe against modern technology reveals your own antipathy toward modern life. Perhaps you're more interested in living in 18th Century Canada or something? When life expectancy was 36 years old, and sunrise to sunset toil was all you had time for? No thanks. I enjoy the modern conveniences that give me more time to argue with luddites with keyboards.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Silver on March 01, 2004, 04:39:07 pm
nevermind
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on March 01, 2004, 05:19:21 pm
Silver - thanks for the support. I wish I was half as cogent in my reply as your were.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: jack on March 02, 2004, 12:36:37 am
Jeeezus... Elias,

Didn't your grandma warn you to stay away from Malthus/Marks/Erlich...? This stuff is pure poison, man ;)  
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on March 02, 2004, 11:12:23 am
Quote
Quote
overpopulation coupled with irresponsible, trash-producing lifestyles and the mindset called "herd mentality",
....
There ARE too many people, and as Melville put it, they are a mob of useless duplicates, and they are involved in living the false-god-worshipping lifestyle of the American Consumer, complete with their traid of sacraments: Denial; Sprawl; and Trash.
...
he thinks there is nothing *wrong* with piling up the trash on the planet's surface or accumulating more wealth than his forebearers deemed necessary. 
....
the FSP may unknowingly be attracting the deluded wannabes who've failed to find their own inner sovereignty and inner freedom already, which is what I think should be the qualification displayed before anyone should be accepted into the FSP.
...
never wondering about what the next generation shall face in the wake of their cakewalk through a plastic, false lifestyle
Whew!

Well, I guess I should be grateful that you're not judgmental !

There are "too many people," huh?  Shall we hazard a guess as to who will be the one to determine which ones are "useless duplicates"?  What does one do with "useless duplicate" people?

I'll stand next to 'bug when they line up the ones guilty of "accumulating more wealth than his forebearers deemed necessary."  If not guilty by the act, I'll certainly be guilty of conspiracy to break that law!

If the FSP were foolish enough to adopt a test, whether administered by the likes of Mr. Alias or anyone else, to determine which ones had "failed to find their own inner sovereignty and inner freedom already"  we'd all know that freedom was truly dead, or that FSP had caught some of those nasty facist cooties wafting north from the DC swamp.

The degree of hatred and bigotry in this rant is quite remarkable, particularly considering the politeness I've generally encountered in the forum.

Clearly, free people everywhere need always watch their back as well as their front.  To find this kind of poison posing as talk about freedom is sobering indeed.

I guess I'll do the best I can to be free in my "cakewalk through a plastic, false, lifestyle."

Peace,

Silver
(Please note: I reserve the right to edit this post after it is placed into the thread. Thanks.)

Howdy, Silver,
Thank you for reminding me to keep an eye on my feet. Before I address your points I would like to tell you that I've read a number of your posts on a few threads here at the boards, and everything I've read to date by you has been wonderfully clear and enjoyable reading. I have personally found that your postings here are refreshing, individualized in a seamless manner, accurate, and indicative of an intelligence I readily respect. I gratefully appreciate your additions to the consciousness, or contents thereof, to these boards, and have not found to this date any reason within my own mind to challenge anything you've written. I just wanted to say that to you before I look into your notes on my discourse with the worry-bug.

Yes, I've been testy with the worry-bug. Actually, I've been testing that guy, in hopes of inspiring him to test his perceptions. But please allow me to note with you that I like something about the worry-bug; that I sense behind his zeal for pursuing his vision of freedom an *intent* which is certainly honorable, if somewhat diluted by his intrinsic fascination for the material "reality" as he calls it. I bear no ill will whatsoever toward the worry-bug. I have been challenging him, however, to question with very difficult questions the very tenets upon which his view of freedom relies. That has not been done with malice or hatred or resentment, and I'm sorry if I came across that way to you and other readers here. I actually like the worry-bug, and am glad to see his voice operating at these boards too. One thing  which I appreciate about him is his resiliency, which denotes a depth of character. I like well-formed character, and our adamant little worry-bug seems, to me, to have a good store of that stuff. Yet character itself can be infused with misperceptions, errors, and/or downright illusionment. I'm hopeful that the worry-bug will gain from my proddings and promptings the motive for requiring of himself the trait of "thinking outside the box".

Next, I'd like to state again very clearly that I support the FSP, that I think the FSP is a wonderful and worthwhile project, that I am grateful to Jason Sorens and his officers---sans, as I've just learned, the work of Mary Lou Seymore---for creating the FSP and devoting so much of their lives toward the fulfillment of the FSP's goals. Also, I do think the FSP can be very successful. I recently obtained a copy of Alex Jones' film "Matrix of Evil", which contains Jones' fifteen-minute address to the Mayor and City Council of Austin, Texas on the subject of why the City of Austin, Texas, should get on record by passing a resolution against the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001. (After Alex Jones' tirade, which itself is very moving, even gripping, the City Council of Austin, Texas did pass a resolution banning the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 in Austin, Texas, joining thereby over four hundred other cities and townships and counties which have done likewise.) Therefore, I, in watching that fifteen minute diatribe by Jones as he stood before Austin's City Council with a full crowd of citizens present, am very encouraged in seeing that a group of inspired citizens can still, in this country, have an effect upon the mechanism of encroaching national governance.

When I rant on message boards about personal liberty, sovereignty, and freedom, I would hope that any reader who chances upon my rants understands that America is laboring already under a militarized police state which itself is but the domestic arm of a campaign for, in Brzezinski's words, "American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives"; in other words, the establishment of the Global American Empire.

My focus, and that of The Mental Militia, is firstly, primarily, at the Global level and upon those players who move the powers on that level. You see, whatever the globalists of the New World Order have up their sleeves bears most-serious and immediate implications for the lives of all Americans and their respective local communities.  Doodoo rolls downhill, if you please. What is downhill from global empire is the demise of national sovereignty for every nation-state, domestic region, township, city and rural sector,  which gets suckered, forced, coerced, levered, tempted, or conquered into the global empire. Should the PNAC boys and the highly-criminal Cheney-Bush Junta get their way, which so far they're getting, we'll soon see the demise of all foreign nation-states' sovereignty, as well as the sovereignty of the USofA. This goal is stated, declared openly, by the CFR, the Trilateral, the Bilderberger group, the PNAC, the IMF/World Bank, and a host of other pillars of Empirism presently under the control of a very few "houses" (families). Those international banking families print the money, own the banks, and own the national debts of all those nation-states who's names adorn the membership rosters of the United Nations. Their ownership of such intangibles means but one thing for Americans---slavery. For readers who do not understand that clearly yet, I'll give it here in one of their champion's words:

~

"Although America's international preeminence unavoidably evokes similarities to earlier emperial systems,  the differences are more essential. They go beyond the question of territorial scope. American global power is exercised through a global system of distinctively American design that mirrors the domestic American experience. Central to that domestic experience is the pluralistic character of both the American society and its political system.

"How the United States both manipulates and accommodates the principal geostrategic players on the Eurasian chessboard and how it manages Eurasia's key geopolitical pivots will be critical to the longevity and stability of America's global primacy. In Europe, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America's central goal should be to consolidate and expand the existing democratic bridgehead on Eurasia's western periphery. (TMM note: that would be, of course, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) In Eurasia's Far East, China is likely to be increasingly central, and America will not have a political foothold on the Asian mainland unless an American-Chinese geostrategic consensus is successfully nurtured.  In the center of Eurasia, the space between an enlarging Europe and a regionally rising China will remain a geopolitical black hole at least until Russia resolves its inner struggle over its post-imperial self-definition, while the region to the south of Russia---the Eurasian Balkans---threatens to become a cauldron of ethnic conflict and great-power rivalry.
 
"In that context, for some time to come---for more than a generation---America's status as the world's premier power is unlikely to be contested by any single challenger. No nation-state is likely to match America in the four key dimensions of power (military, economic, technological, and cultural) that cumulatively produce decisive global political clout. Short of a deliberate or unintentional American abdication, the only real alternative to American  global leadership in the foreseeable future is international anarchy. In that respect, it is correct to assert that America has become, as President Clinton put it, the world's "indispensable nation".
 
"It is important to stress here the fact of that indispensability and the actuality of the potential for global anarchy. The disruptive consequences of population explosion, poverty-driven migration, radicalizing urbanization, ethnic and religious hostilities, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction would become unmanageable if the existing and underlying nation-state based framework of even rudimentary geopolitical stability were itself to fragment. Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally.
 
"The resulting risks to global stability are likely to further increase by the prospect of a more general degradation of the human condition. Particularly in the poorer countries of the world, the demographic explosion and the simultaneous urbanization of these populations are rapidly generating a congestion not only of the disadvantaged but especially  of the hundreds of millions of un-employed and increasingly restless young, whose level of frustration is growing at an exponential rate. Modern communications intensify their rupture with traditional authority, while making them increasingly conscious---and resentful---of global inequality and thus more susceptible to extremist mobilization. On the one hand, the rising phenomenon of global migrations, already reaching into the tens of millions, may act as a temporary safety valve, but on the other hand, it is also likely to serve as a vehicle for the transcontinental conveyance of ethnic and social conflicts.
 
"The global stewardship that America has inherited is hence likely to be buffeted by turbulence, tension, and at least sporadic violence. The new and complex international order, shaped by American hegemony and within which "the threat of war is off the table", is likely to be restricted to those parts of the world where American power has been reinforced by democratic sociopolitical systems and by elaborate external multilateral---but also American-dominated--- frameworks.
 
"An American geostrategy for Eurasia will thus be competing with the forces of turbulence.

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues , except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely-perceived direct external threat."



Taken from pages 24; 194 and 195; 211 in "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission for David Rockefeller, trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations, imminent buddy of Henry Kissinger, among other dubious "honors". Copyright 1997; Published by Basic Books, a member of the Perseus Books Group, New York, ISBN: (paperback) 0-465-02726-1.

Please note that Brzezinski wrote this in 1997, published it in 1998. At that time, the CIA went into Uzbekistan and other Eurasian states in force. The British support divisions were put on alert and began to form for their deployment into the region four years later in October, 2001. U.S. battle fleets were brought online off the coast of Pakistan. And al Qaeda with bin Laden at the helm was set on course by the CIA for the events of 911. THAT is some of what Bush knows and refuses to reveal to the families of 911 victims as they sue and posture for access to PDBs afforded Bush by U.S. Intelligence prior to 911. Ossama bin Laden is a CIA creation; his al Qaeda was funded, transported, trained, paid, and given marching orders by CIA under Brzezinski's, G.H.W. Bush's, Bill Clinton's, and many others' watches. 911 was the globalists' answer to the question of how to "fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues".

~

So, Silver, we have on the one hand a quest for global Empire which is published, announced, and is being actively facilitated by the Cheney-Bush Junta. That arm of the Empire is engaged in establishing footholds on Eurasia's western borders, which include Afghanistan and Iraq.  And on the other hand we have Ashcroft's (and the entire Federal mechanism's) assault on personal liberty and freedom here in the United States of America. In addition to the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001, we also have the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the coming Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (written last year but not passed into law as of this writing) and the two VICTORY Acts. They *HAVE* to control us in order to "fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues". That means: American Empire, its primacy, and its geostrategic imperatives. They know already that general anarchy is the only response which might come from the very peoples which this grand plan shall enslave into the Corporate Dynasty's operation, and they are willing to waste literally millions of peoples world-wide in order to establish this Empire. They are willing to take America into the status of being a cashless society, forbidding "money" both theirs and ours. They are willing to mandate the national ID card. They are willing to control who may "buy and sell". They are willing to implant all of us by force with under-the-skin microchips. They are willing to use technology, bio/chem attacks, the threat of terror, confiscation of property, reallocation of residential grids. They are willing to re-educate in FEMA camps those dissenting voices such as are found on boards like this one. They are willing to do whatever it taks to entrench their Empire as the final reality, even if they have to hit us with yet another "terrorist" attack such as the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 or 911, both examples being now known to have been at least in part *facilitated* by agencies of the Federal government. Expendable individuals also include nice folks who dare not rock the boat of economic largesse.

The momentum of American hegemony, the velocity of the establishment of Empire, means that we're now, presently, running out of minutes to avert it. Severe actions are in order. Radical solutions are required. It is my thinking that Bush has to be impeached and removed along with his entire Cabinet. The Federal Reserve System, Inc., has to be disbanded and the task of printing the nation's money supply has to be brought back into Federal offices at the U.S. Treasury. (note: President Kennedy signed an Executive Order to do just that mere months before he was shot.....which is NOT to say that that was the only reason Kennedy was assassinated by CIA, of course, but it is an interesting point.) We are going to have to eliminate the clandestine sections of CIA and return CIA to its original mission, which is ONLY the collection and analysis of intelligence. We are going to have to rescind all secret treaties involving troop-transfers between nations. We are going to have to do a lot of very serious things, as a people working together, which will seriously overhaul the way this present imposter government administers itself upon the people. We may have to give up some creature comforts, some luxuries, some financial padding, maybe even some of our lives, in order to fight this monster. THAT is what I've been preparing Mr. Worry-bug to conceive. At present, he seems to be looking through a condition which we used to call "tunnel vision", at his beloved "reality", which, btw, would belie the fact of causation from external zones, outside the physical, but that's a point I'll direct to the worry-bug in another post. When this mechanism establishes the police state openly, above-ground, for all to see, feel and know, the FSP and any individual who once cared about financial security, the little guy living week-by-week, paycheck-to-paycheck, as well as the upper-middle class and even the quasi-wealthy, all of us are going to have everything confiscated in the name of national security. Income taxes? Think in terms of more than eighty-percent of gross income, and the "right" to make an income at all will first be approved or withheld by the government, if this mechanism is not stopped in its tracks right now.

How dire is it? Well, the Commanding General of the Central Command, the brassy dude who coordinated the 'liberation' of Iraq last year for the Empire, General Franks himself, puts it this way:

"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."

You see, Silver, these bastards *know* what they're doing, how they will accomplish their goals, and the target of their industrious energies is the individual American "citizen" who might object. THAT present and demonstrated attitude by those who ride at the helm of our ship of state is undebatable. Can you agree with me on that much?

Okay. So much for setting the stage on which I'd like to address your observations in exchange. Thanks for reading so much just to get to this....

Silver: Well, I guess I should be grateful that you're not judgmental !
 
Elias: Actually, I'm quite judgmental, but my judgements are always passive by nature, kept deliberately to the confines of exchanged words, debates, arguments, explorations of mentality. I have not shot anyone I "judged" since Viet Nam. :)
 
Silver: There are "too many people," huh?  Shall we hazard a guess as to who will be the one to determine which ones are "useless duplicates"?  What does one do with "useless duplicate" people?
 
Elias: You would hardly fathom the voluminous nature of the stack of pages your query here elicits in my old head just now. I could write some books, at least, on the over-population situation and how over-population catalyzes the plight of today's libertarian individual. But the notion is not original with me, as someone else on this thread noted, so I can't take credit for its discovery. I can, and shall, however, ask you to note the source of my screed regarding "useless duplicates". I took that phrase from traditional American literature, namely from the book "Moby Dick" by Herman Melville, which he dedicated to Nathaniel Hawthorne. (Published by Signet, New American Library, New York; no ISBN in the edition which I own.) Here is the exact quote, from back in 1851. Chapter 107. page 441:
 
"Seat thyself sultanically among the moons of Saturn, and take high abstracted man alone; and he seems a wonder, a grandeur, and a woe. But from the same point, take mankind in mass, and for the most part, they seem a mob of unnecessary duplicates, both contemporary and hereditary."
 
Now that I've shown that the notion of "unnecessary duplicates" derives a century and a half prior to my using the phrase, and in fact is embedded in a novel which is often considered by scholars and academicians and readers world-wide to be among the top five American works of literature ever produced, perhaps you'll forgive me for drawing from that book in my assault upon the worry-bug's complacency and generalized habit of denial. But now, let's look at the content of your reply to my use of that phrase.  
 
First, you seem to announce with alarm that I somehow implied or stated that somebody should "be the one to determine which ones are "useless duplicates". Silver, that ain't my cup of tea. I did not state that someone, or anyone, should or ought to make such a decision. I understand how the mind can make that leap from what I did say to what my comment *may* imply, but I assure you that I am Voluntaryistic and libertarian in my view of life, and do NOT initiate aggression or force on anyone or upon anyone's property. I do know exactly what you're getting at by implying that since I said the masses are comprised of a "mob of useless (unnecessary) duplicates", someone, therefore, would be needed to ajudge the select exceptions and dispose of the rest. I however am not an authoritarian in any way. I own no one, seek to own no one, and I steadfastly refuse to "order" anyone around, whether it be what someone "thinks" or what someone "does", either in the metaphysical realms or in the worry-bug's corporeal consensus natural Newtonian "reality". But you may wish to reflect with extreme gravity upon this one thing: if there were only you and myself upon this continent, with no others present, there would be absolutely no need for government, would there? Of course not. It is only when the available lands are overpopulated that some perception for a need for governance arrives. As Lao Tzu put it twenty-five hundred years ago, "When mankind lost sight of the way to live, came codes of law and order".
 
However, despite my knowledge of the just reasons to never interfere with the life or property of any other mortal man on earth, I suggest that it is not toward "me" that your, and the bug's,  disapproval might best be directed. I am but a messenger, and well do I know that the message I bring is somewhat less than pleasant. I have removed myself, and my support, from the mechanism which dreamed up the message. That is all. You see, the elite of the New World Order HAVE reached Melville's conclusion regarding the nature and intrinsic value of the masses, and they HAVE devised a plan for reduction of over four billion souls from the world's gross population. I often wonder, daily, whether Americans are capable of seeing what the encroaching police state shall furnish into their presently-enjoyable lives. Slavery to a corporatized State is going to be much more severe than people seem to grasp at present. All the while Mr. Greenspan and Company assure us that all is hunky-dory, the ravages of fiat-money-printing, debt-based economic pillars, and abused "credit" are bound to come home to roost whenever the "rob Peter to pay Paul" syndrome exhausts its momentum and Americans are left standing agape at the collapse of the fraudulently-derived "economy". Prior to such a startling view being permitted to finally dawn upon public consciousness, the globalizing socialist bankers who are robbing America and every other productive nation shall drop that iron net of military-police totalitarian martial-law rule over our every movement, over our very lives.
 
We're talking assignment of careers, placement of all residences, confiscation of all personal property, suspension of habeas corpus, military tribunals and executions, severe punishments for diversions from the prescribed lifestyle as admonished by the State, a prison-based economy, internal passports, tons more "permits and licenses" for everything, state-sponsored interference between parents and children, mandatory service to government (see the article on my website which lists the links for the Senate and House versions of bills already existing in Congress mandating re-enactment of the Selective Service --the *draft* -- for ALL citizens between the ages of 18 and 26, both female and male, for military service AND for other duties in the name of Homeland Security---these bills are already written, and have been introduced into Congress, and are currently being reviewed by the Pentagon), government control over all communications, government control over all transportation, government control over all health-care services, government control over all food distribution and consumption, government control over all Feducation,  government control over all monetary transactions, government control over all 'family planning', and on and on the list runs. These observations are more than the wiles of my wondering imagination. The infrastructure for every one of these aspects of a police state already exists in an amazing array of Executive Orders, secretly-passed "stealth legislations" (thanks, Claire, for that term), and Presidential Decision Directives, among other Fedgov vehicles for pressing authority and control over the 'useless duplicates'. I'm on your side, and on the worry-bug's side. I am not seeking political power, am not seeking to control anyone, am not seeking to "judge" who "should" or "should not" be allowed to live their natural lives on this earth. That is not my nature, nor would such an approach be acceptable to me under any circumstances. I value freedom of the individual, period. But I'm not in a state of denial about the simple logistics of over-population, and I'm damned sure that EVERY American needs to confront this causal source of the acceleration of both governmental power and proxemic implications. Were the masses not financing governmental power, there would be no need for a Free State Project in the first place, now would there? Since there IS a perceived *need* for a FSP, there is obviously already in place the perception, shared by more than five thousand freedom-loving Americans, of the *need* for the FSP. What is the FSP trying to avoid? Isn't it trying to avoid being controlled by government? Isn't it trying to avoid becoming slaves to a "system" put forth by those financial interests which pull the strings on which our governmental offices dance? But to move along here....
 
 
Silver: I'll stand next to 'bug when they line up the ones guilty of "accumulating more wealth than his forebearers deemed necessary."  If not guilty by the act, I'll certainly be guilty of conspiracy to break that law!
 
Elias: And I'll be right there in that trench with both of ye. I'm already there, in fact. But unlike the worry-bug, I have willingly sacrificed the goodies of the system, having closed a damn retail jewelry store which I co-owned for eight years prior to discovering what ails this nation and moving to the mountains of Montana for to fight the beast. I fight to protect the bug's *right* to property and to the accumulation of the fruits of his moral and righteous labor, mentality, and will. I did, however, realize a few years ago that I would need necessarily to close that store and give up my comfortable life there in order to fight against the murder and robbery which this government's leaders presently intend for all of us. Call me a fool. But as I have hinted elsewhere, I've had three businesses, one of which was a sub-chapter corporation; I've paid employer's taxes on my employees' paychecks; I've had the BMW, the frequent rounds of golf with millionaires, the nice home, the money, all the bennies this false system provides to those who are willing to accept their freedom on a leash. When I relinquished all that, I did so willingly, happily, and in full knowledge of the hardships which would inevitably accompany my decision. I did NOT, however, ask anyone else to walk in these shoes with me, preferring to alot my friendships and company among those who already had seen what I see in and of their own accord. But please do not ask me to sit down and shut up about what I see happening to America. Hopefully, my nudging of the worry-bug will some day afford him, if only in reflection upon previous discussions and concepts, the inner vision which would fortify his vision of freedom and enable him thereby to take positive and meaningful action on liberty's behalf. If the cat can come to see what I'm trying to get across to him, he'll become a powerful force in the liberty movement. For you, personally, I see nothing to offer you. You strike me as being a fully-awakened individual, and a fluently graceful one at that. That is why I've not picked on you anywhere at these boards. Truly, I've not disagreed with anything of yours that I've chanced to read here. So please know that I'll be breaking that law right alongside you and the bug, and in fact, already am. Y'all apparently just haven't noticed that the law is already evolving into the horrid reality I'm trying to describe in this post. But rest assured, the face of this beast isn't far from revealing itself in an absolutely undebatable format.
 
 
Silver: If the FSP were foolish enough to adopt a test, whether administered by the likes of Mr. Alias or anyone else, to determine which ones had "failed to find their own inner sovereignty and inner freedom already"  we'd all know that freedom was truly dead, or that FSP had caught some of those nasty facist cooties wafting north from the DC swamp.
 
Elias: If you prefer not to call me "Elias", I like "General Elias" better than I like "Mr.". Thanks. :)
 
Now, to touch on this note by yourself briefly, I repeat that I am not in the business of judging individuals. If my language here implies that I do intend to judge people, it is only because I am not representing my mentality properly with my choices of words.
 
 
 
Silver: The degree of hatred and bigotry in this rant is quite remarkable, particularly considering the politeness I've generally encountered in the forum.  
 
Elias: I would like to suggest that actually, if one were to go back and re-read my words to the worry-bug, one would not find hatred or bigotry among my comments and statements. There is a starkness, a lean-ness, an assertiveness, and a taunting challenge to the bug to re-evaluate his premises in some areas of his portrayed cosmogony. The only thing I "hate" is governance by force, i.e., slavery. What you're construing to be "hatred and bigotry" is merely my rudeness and crudeness, and I do think that I can finally explain *why* I have used that tone in approaching Mr. Worry-bug. Please understand that I have a purpose in my selection of the "tone" of my discourse with him. But to fully define my motive for dealing with the worry-bug in that tone would over-burden this already too-long screed, so I'll await a specific request, at which time I'll treat that matter on another posting sans all the foregoing of this one. I do not hate people. I am not a bigot, except perhaps when it comes to Fedgov, for which I have ample research and historic prompts (I.e., corruption and conspiracy against free people) which give rise to my bigoted resentment of Fedgov.
 
Silver: Clearly, free people everywhere need always watch their back as well as their front.  To find this kind of poison posing as talk about freedom is sobering indeed.
 
Elias: I submit that you will never find a more loyal co-fighter for liberty than myself, and that I stand right alongside you and the bug in our mutually-seen fight for liberty. I'm on your side, Dude, and I'll not knife you in the back, physically OR psychologically. When I chance to see incoming fire, however, I'll be quick to alert anyone else sharing a bunker with me. I know how war is done, and I believe that we're presently in a war which has yet to be declared; there is a reason I speak to the worry-bug the way I do. I'll bet you one drink at a Montana Saloon that the worry-bug shall some day thank me for rattling his cage. Time shall show all.....
 
Silver: I guess I'll do the best I can to be free in my "cakewalk through a plastic, false, lifestyle."
 
Elias: Well, not to fan dying embers too much, but I wonder if you'll also admit that your present lifestyle is totally dependant upon fossil fuel, electricity, and technology? If there IS a dependency by the American public on such things, so that in the absence of such things the infrastructure of survival and health vanishes, at such a time my words to bug will take on a new shine. It is exactly the addiction to government, fossil fuels, debt-based economic platforms, and mass-media mind control which is foremost on the government's collective mindset. As is being evidenced in Iraq and Afghanistan, this power-group will do ANYTHING to keep the American SUVs rolling, to keep the plastic coming, to keep the myriad consumables, video games, sports paraphenalia, drugs, media output, insurance scams, portfolios, social and cultural mores and morays, laws and regulations, taxes, subtle and not-so-subtle coercions, coming and remaining in place so that people never have to worry about the precarious little limb on which their precious industrial revolution has placed them. All I am saying is that for thousands of years, mankind made do with much less, and while there were some features of that more bleak existence which I'm as glad as are you to see vanish into history, I judge that the price we're paying for creature comforts, convenience, and constitutional concessions is greater than the services rendered back to us by that system which is controlled and regulated by Fedgov. For a few examples consider that suicide and divorce rates, the family-unit's integrity, and general stress levels have produced within society an unacceptable series of symptoms which suggest, shout, that something is not quite right in Denmark. An addict is an addict. At present, America is addicted to fossil fuels and an industrial base which itself is dependant upon Americans' drive for "more", for consumption. Consumption is a known killer, ya think? :)
 
But it's not just me. Here's this, written by a really fine friend, a brave and eloquent lady of liberty:
 
"To reach Hardyville, you must grind your way up to Lonelyheart Pass, then slither on ice into the Great Brown Valley. If you know where to look, you'll find the ghost town of Lost Fortune crouched at the foot of the grade. But this time of year, it's best not to stop. From Lost Fortune, count 4,387,004 sagebrush bushes and you'll find yourself at the one-and-only stoplight in the middle of nowhere -- Hardyville.
 
(snip snip snip)
 
"As the snow drives down from Lonelyheart Pass, shutting us off even more tightly from the outside, I know Dora and I are thinking of all the advantages we lack.  
 
No stock exchanges, sushi bars, Furbys, frequent fliers or FBI agents. No bureaus, block grants or Friends of Bill Clinton. No major leagues, no Junior League, no malls, boutiques, department stores or mega-corps. No Red Robin, Red Lobster or Whoppers. No rush hour with choppers reporting traffic-on-the-nines. No Versace, Gucci, Ralph Lauren or Calvin Klein. No personal trainers, credit jewelers, street gangs, liposuckers, homeowners associations, post-modern architecture, deconstructivist intellectuals, PC committees or Lexus dealers. No arbitragers, executive producers, multinational millionaires, multi-level marketers or media stars. Ronald McDonald, Bill Gates, Bill Bennett, Ralph Nader, Martha Stewart, Dr. Ruth and Dr. Laura are all somewhere, far away, beyond the forbidding hills. We are on our own here.  
 
It's a bleak life. But somehow we will survive.  
 
~  
 
Originally published at WorldNet Daily:  
 
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=14079 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14079)
 
 
It is perhaps disconcerting for us all to face the fact that today's society is totally dependent upon an infrastructure which is so fragile that it requires the establishing of a global Empire in order to keep social foundations functioning. Whatever their lies regarding establishing "Democracy" in every nation-state this Empire intends to dominate, the truth is that more than seventy percent of the world's known remaining energy resources are to be found in the 'Stans of Eurasia, and to keep their positions of power, the bankers who own our government and their go-to boys on Capitol Hill will never cease with their military enforcement of ownership of Eurasian energy. I know my message is harsh, but as Catherine Austin Fitts has so sweetly observed, "If we can't face it, God can't fix it."
 
Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry I came across with such vehemence. Now that you have read into my perspective somewhat, I trust you'll see more accurately that I was not trying to defile the polite environment of these boards, and that I was not trying to decimate or destroy the worry-bug.  
 
Salute,
Elias
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on March 02, 2004, 12:56:15 pm
Quote
Quote
People like bug here, in defending their indefensible failure to achieve the spiritual vision of sovereignty,

"Spiritual" - you're right, I don't want any spiritual visions - I want concrete reality. THIS WORLD freedom. Your kind of "freedom" is the kind that a prisoner in Leavenworth can get.

 
Well Jeez, Bug,
What if it turns out that "concrete reality" is in fact merely the extensions of spiritual reality? Have you ever wondered about that? Are you aware of what quantum-physics has learned about invisible consciousness? Did you know that every "concrete" form in this Universe is actually a conscious entity? Quarks, lumen, everything! Have you thought about what that might mean to a person who is seeking "concrete reality" without first admitting the role in which the spiritual planes play, the role of creation? There are some questions which I'd like to ask you. I'll be brief here, but if you hit on this post I'll certainly be glad to go into deeper detail on this issue. Consider please:

~

" The charming landscape which I saw this morning, is indubitably made up of some twenty or thirty farms. Miller owns this field, Locke that, and Manning the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape. There is a property in the horizon which no man has but he whose eye can integrate all the parts, that is, the poet. This is the best part of these men's farms, yet to this their warranty-deeds give no title."

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in the essay entitled "Nature".

~

Now, let us consider what might be the difference between those things symbolized by these three different words:
"Spirit"; "Soul"; and "Psyche"

Let's start with the occupant of the lower planes of invisible reality, the mind, or, as science calls it, "Psyche". Bug, can you and I agree that psyche, mind itself, is metaphysical? I mean, that "mind" has no "concrete reality" in terms of having height, width, and breadth, or in terms of possessing some form, some mass which might occupy a given space, or in terms of having no gravity, no weight, no color, no visible properties of beingness? Can the mind even be approached by either of the five physical senses? Can we agree that the mind is not physical?

In truth, in concrete reality, we cannot even prove that the mind exists, can we? So when it comes to "concepts", such as freedom, we're relying upon an insensible and unprovable activity to even associate some sort of personal "image" from our memory banks, (where we store all our "knowledge and experience, and imagery pertaining thereto, as memory), to the word "freedom", are we not?

That I cannot prove that you have a mind, not directly, not concretely as you would prefer things to be, does that mean that you possess no mind? I do not think so. I'm gonna hold, tentatively and only upon your approval of my intent here, that you actually *do* have a mind, even though we can't prove it in concrete reality.

So how would that mind of yours relate to something called the "Soul"? That is a good question to ask oneself, I say. What are the differences which denote mind and soul? If the two words referred to the same thing, of course they would not be both necessary, agreed? So if the two words imply two different meta-realities, then there shall be certain differences which adhere to their respective definitions. Mind is one thing, soul is another thing. But to someone who thinks of spirituality as some sort of daydream, as unimportant in one's quest for personal freedom, there is little probability within that person's mind which could allow for an understanding of the subtle planes upon which the vibrations of spirituality operate.

Since I've been very rude to and rough on you so far in our exchanges, which I now notice may have been excessive, since it has given rise to much angst and ire from other readers/posters here, I'm going to apologize to you for my abruptness. Hopefully, you will already have read my notes to Silver above, and perhaps already have anticipated my coming around to more cordial formats in which to conduct our exchanges. I'll get to an explanation for my psychological militancy at your expense soon enough---there *was* a purpose in my choosing that tone in which to confront some of your more entrenched memes, which I was inspired to reveal to you yourself through my brashness. Meanwhile, as you think on such things as now are falling your way from my keypad, I would like to also offer you this one interesting quotation from two people, combined into one passage:

~

A long time ago, Elias was reading in "Basic Writings" by Dr. Carl G. Jung. He noticed a passage inferring that the conscious sectors of psyche make use of imagianic symbols as components in the compiling of mental data. Fearlessly, and at risk of being presumptuous, Elias took upon himself the grandiose vanity (all possible apologies profusely invoked!) to merge for a momentary point his own and Dr. Jung's ideology. Together, the two of them produced this tidbit:


"If the material with which we think comprises itself of language and verbal concepts,

are these then not the usages employed by an 'acting force' which

displays the 'discerning ability'

to choose the sequentiating words, and by so doing,

does not this acting force imply it's own invisible existence?"

~

I wrote that some years ago, and I've not often found just cause to trot it out, but this thread may be a good reason to have done so now on your behalf.

One of my questions for you is this: what, in that passage immediately above this line, is implying its own invisible existence? Is it the body? Is it something "concrete"? Let this question settle into your mind, if you will.

And again I'll ask you:  What is the difference between Spirit, Soul, and Psyche? What 'acting force', which power, animates the fields of mentality?

Lemme know?

Elias

 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on March 02, 2004, 01:12:00 pm
Quote
Jeeezus... Elias,

Didn't your grandma warn you to stay away from Malthus/Marks/Erlich...? This stuff is pure poison, man ;)
Jack,
I've immediately googled-up Malthus, and found a lengthy essay on overpopulation, which I've bookmarked for later reading. Prior to your noting that name for me, I've not known anything about Malthus. I'm fairly illiterate in many areas, I must confess, and Malthus came as a complete surprise to me. But since I've not read any of his stuff yet, I do not have any way to know what you were trying to say to me, and would ask you if you would be so kind as to elaborate just a bit.

As for Marks and Erlich, I've not tried even to google them, as I'm guessing that I'll need first-names to go with those last names in order to complete a search.

For what it's worth, I have been called a "Social Darwinist" before.I'm not really too sure about just what that might mean, although I do have some vague abstract of an intuition on that subject.

I am a very quirky person. One of my quirks is that, now that I'm in my old age, I do not think I'll ever enter a hospital or doctor's office. Figure that this old body, which has served me well for so long, was born on earth to die on earth, and that when my body's natural fate, which obviously includes death, comes time to deliver-up my soul to finer fields, by whatever health-malady or act of government, I'll just take that as a matter of nature's course for myself.

But heck, Mon! I don't have many answers, and find that the more I am willing to learn, the more I realize I've yet to learn! Ack! So anything you can share with me would be appreciated.

Elias
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: kbarrett on March 02, 2004, 02:49:53 pm
Malthus, and the other two individuals, assume that population will eventually exceed resources, and crash violently.

All of the folks mentioned assumed that new resource creation by innovation was not important, and that humans are incapable of controlling their birth rate. Malthus can be forgiven, considering how long ago he made his theories, but the other two don't have any excuses ...

 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on March 02, 2004, 03:38:53 pm
Quote
But unlike the worry-bug, I have willingly sacrificed the goodies of the system, having closed a damn retail jewelry store which I co-owned for eight years prior to discovering what ails this nation and moving to the mountains of Montana for to fight the beast.


Hard to get in a word edgewise here - sure you and jtk aren't the same person?

You may be in a "compound" in Montana, but your defense is defuse and last-resort. The FSP is focussed and trying to avoid the last-resort. A large group of people is harder to ignore, and harder to stomp flat then a Ruby Ridge or Waco.

...You ding Silver for not spelling your name properly, yet you yourself blatantly mispell my own name in a derogatory fashion.

...I don't respect most of the "conclusions" quantuum mechanics has come up with since the '30s. Be careful, I know a *lot* about the subject, and the subjective interpretations placed precariously atop curious observations. "Scientists" who "find God" because they feel the need to ascribe unprovable causal relationships to phenomena they do not understand are contemptible, and damage the name of scientists past and present. Shrödinger's feline not withstanding.

...In keeping with the last statement, the whole idea of a separate and superior "spiritual reality" is unprovable and irrelevant. The only reality I am concerned about is the one we all share here and now. The one reality that cannot be explained away, and the one everybody is afraid to cease to exist.

...The only reason Mr. Emerson liked the landscape that nobody earned was because Mr. Locke & company modified it to their own likings. I wonder if Mr. Emerson (a socialist, by the way) would have appreciated a mosquito attack from an unfilled swamp as much. Somehow, I doubt it.

...I am glad you find solace in religion. It is RELIGION that allows the miscreants in THIS world to subjucate, kill, torture, and pillage the productive peoples of the world by telling those poor bastards that justice will occur AFTER THEY'RE DEAD. I find the whole concept contemptible.

'nuff said.

"Worrybug"
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: jack on March 02, 2004, 05:14:02 pm
Quote
I've immediately googled-up Malthus, and found a lengthy essay on overpopulation, which I've bookmarked for later reading. Prior to your noting that name for me, I've not known anything about Malthus. I'm fairly illiterate in many areas, I must confess, and Malthus came as a complete surprise to me. But since I've not read any of his stuff yet, I do not have any way to know what you were trying to say to me, and would ask you if you would be so kind as to elaborate just a bit.
Malthus was one of the first "overpopulation doomsday" prophets. He observed that the population grows exponentialy and assumed the food production can only grow lineary, what prompted him to predict wide spread starvation in a very short time. Well, it never happened, did it. It's easy to spot what his error was - neither population growth is/has to be exponential nor the food production growth has to be linear.

Despite complete predictive failure of Malthus' theory there're still people today who make similar errors - and get widely publicized. Paul Erlich was one of them:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will...liams022499.asp (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams022499.asp)

Quote
For what it's worth, I have been called a "Social Darwinist" before.I'm not really too sure about just what that might mean, although I do have some vague abstract of an intuition on that subject.

:) That seems to be the favorite insult among some lefties. It relates to term coined by Herbert Spencer - here's the link that can explain a bit (and defends Spencer)

 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long3.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long3.html)

The way I look at it: if commies call you "Social Darwinist" you must be doing something right... :)
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: suijurisfreeman on March 02, 2004, 05:56:51 pm
jack,
In my opinion Herbert Spencer ranks right up there with Lysander Spooner, they both rock!  I've pasted out hundreds of copies of his essay The Right to Ignore the State.  Even made that part of my signature line.
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: ladylearning on March 02, 2004, 08:31:04 pm
Quote
...In keeping with the last statement, the whole idea of a separate and superior "spiritual reality" is unprovable and irrelevant. The only reality I am concerned about is the one we all share here and now. The one reality that cannot be explained away, and the one everybody is afraid to cease to exist.

...The only reason Mr. Emerson liked the landscape that nobody earned was because Mr. Locke & company modified it to their own likings. I wonder if Mr. Emerson (a socialist, by the way) would have appreciated a mosquito attack from an unfilled swamp as much. Somehow, I doubt it.

...I am glad you find solace in religion. It is RELIGION that allows the miscreants in THIS world to subjucate, kill, torture, and pillage the productive peoples of the world by telling those poor bastards that justice will occur AFTER THEY'RE DEAD. I find the whole concept contemptible.

'nuff said.

"Worrybug"
Rut Ro! Anybody see elias coming?  :o
I won't comment on any of your points, I think you and I have agreed to disagree in some areas... which is cool with me.
I am curious tho about your comment, re: your knowledge of quantum mechanics.
Would you share from whence that knowledge comes? I'm also curious about your exclusion of In Search of Shrodinger's Cat from your dislike of "scientists who find God".  And what's your impression of The Dancing WuLi Masters?  

LL  
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on March 02, 2004, 11:09:37 pm
LL - I've been studying subatomic physics for about 10 years now on my own. I have several text books, but mostly I read PHd theses online at various universities that post them - such as Stanford and MIT.

Quantuum mechanics was hijacked in '30s, and the overwhelming opinion of the scientists that "won" the debate was basically "cause and effect cease to operate at the subatomic level".

One metaphysical [sic] question they could not answer was how, then, can cause and effect then operate on top of a layer that does not - by their definition? There is no epistemological or metaphysical foundation to support such an absurd notion. They invariably [sic] fall back on "well, we can't explain it". Kind of like they can't explain magnetism, either.

The Schrödinger Cat comment was a throwaway comment to show a ) that I knew something about what I was talking about, and b ) to denote that just because you can't observe something, doesn't mean that cause and effect don't operate. The fact that the tools and math we have now are incapable of predicting precisely what is going to happen when, does not mean you throw out 200 years of observations and embrace a Hindu god or something.

There's an underlying inferiority complex, or perhaps a lack of epistemological training in the very top ranks of scientists. The fact is, that since the very late 19th century, almost all research at this level is government sponsored, and that taints the structure of the experimentation, and the results.

Wu Li Masters is a wonderful example of good marketing via great book titles. "The Population Bomb" is another example.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on March 04, 2004, 03:01:46 am
Okay, lets see.... where were we.... oh yeah; there are several things going on here, several replies needing to be shown.  
 
Jack, and Kbarrett, thank you for explaining about Malthus and company. And Jack, thank you for that link on Lew Rockwell regarding Spencer. I'm like suijurisfreeman; I like Spooner and I'm sure I'm gonna enjoy looking into Spencer. I appreciate it. And regarding your comment about commies calling me a Social Darwinist, well, how did you know it was socialists who have tossed that handle at me? lol! Yes, it seems to be the fate of commies everywhere to deny certain traits of unchecked raw Nature. As for me, I thrive on it.
 
 ~
 
Now, to the Worry-bug's woes and wiles.
 
Worry-bug, you almost could worry me.
 
Dude, I asked you some tailored questions and you failed to find an interest in answering a single one of them, as you made your reply. Worse, you made up some stuff, attributed it to me, and then commented on stuff I did not say. We'll get to those facets after we cut the crown.  
 
Having fun on message boards is a cool thing to do, imo. I like cuttin' up on boards as much as most folks, I'm guessin'. But when a point gets serious, and playfulness seems an improper response, and flippancy even worse, sometimes it's good to face-up to something one started, initiated, inserted or asserted. We're back to your having selected this quote from one of my earlier posts:
 
~
 
Elias:   "People like bug here, in defending their indefensible failure to achieve the spiritual vision of sovereignty,...."
 
To which you neatly replied:  ""Spiritual" - you're right, I don't want any spiritual visions - I want concrete reality. THIS WORLD freedom. Your kind of "freedom" is the kind that a prisoner in Leavenworth can get."
 
~
 
 Now Mr. Worry-bug, as we look at both our statements above, we find that I said some people, like yourself, would defend their lack of spiritual sensitivity, in so many words; and you came right back, saying you don't want any spiritual visions, adding that you prefer concrete reality. So tell me, if you admit that you want no part of spiritual reality, preferring in its stead your perceived "concrete" reality, wasn't my statement correct? You *have* failed to achieve the spiritual vision of sovereignty, just as I noted. And to preclude any reader's granting you the liberty of claiming ignorance, you blatantly and candidly confessed that you view spiritual vision as un-necessary and distractive, that you choose to deny the spiritual vision of sovereignty, don't want it, don't believe in it, and haven't time, interest, or motive to look into the concept while you're busily carving out of the petrified and coagulated details of your life your very own definition of freedom and liberty. Doesn't anything about that circumstance ring any bells, strike you as odd, rattle ominously in your head?
 
Maybe not. You're probably spinning much too much and much too fast, like a little squiggle-tailed sperm on its tubular trail to the egg of the world, to pay attention to the invisible stuff inside your head, for it's, after all, not concrete reality, and can't therefore matter. Which means you've divorced yourself from various levels within your mind, squelched numerous planes which are component to the structure of your subjective, personal psyche---which you can't now afford to admit exists.
 
Personally, it appears to me, from my perspective here, that you've decided firmly that "mind" is no "matter"; and that "matter" is.....well, never "mind". That may work for a philosophy course in school, as an exercise for bored students, but as Jung reminded Freud, there *are* spiritual impulses within the unobstructed mind. Call me on this if I'm wrong, but I think it was Einstein who established something called the theory of relativity, a notion which was fairly dominant in the 20th Century in many diverse venues. Mind *does* matter, for matter *is* mind before we can sense it as matter. That you have built your hypothesis about freedom without understanding the relationship between corporeal reality and spiritual reality doesn't surprise me; it's quite common in today's televised mindset. But that you would take it upon yourself to preach the virtues of the FSP while at the same time denying the very spiritual principle for which the "F" in "FSP" stands, *is* surprising to me. But.....
 
I asked you some questions. You completely overlooked them and, instead, you took the time and energy to distort and fabricate things which you attribute to me but which in truth I did not say. Why, Bug?
 
In getting to those points which I must challenge from your post, let's just start at the beginning. We need to speak about spirit, soul, and psyche, as I asked you previously to consider. Perhaps some things will come of it if we just begin our discourse:
 
~
 
Bug: Hard to get in a word edgewise here - sure you and jtk aren't the same person?
 
Elias: You are free to insert words here to your heart's contentment. And no; I am not jtk3. I'm only me. I do not impersonate other people, nor do I use other screen-names.  I like being Elias. I do use several variations on that theme, such as sometimes using "Old Elias" and "General Elias". But I'm always me. Just me. Not anyone else. Now you know.
 
~

Bug: You may be in a "compound" in Montana, but your defense is defuse and last-resort.
 
Elias: I did not say anything of the sort. I am not in a "compound", nor do I have any desire to be. I'm in the trenches, the front lines of the liberty movement, the 2nd American Revolution, fighting Fedgov for all I'm worth. I'm a loner, one who does not join groups, neither giving nor taking orders or directions, a guerrilla psyche-ops sort of rebel who believes that "consciousness works". I own a copy of "Neither Bullets Nor Ballots" by Watner and McElroy and George H. Smith, and have read it. I am keen on the principles of Voluntaryism. I also am a war veteran who was trained for guerrilla warfare by the U.S. Marine Corps. I know how to operate some *equipment* and stuff. I also know what spiritual impulse lies behind modern war, for as a veteran that same spirit engulfed a period in my life; can't deny it; can't get rid of it; can't overlook it. I'm an American-styled sovereign, well-accustomed to directing myself with honor and honesty. The last place you'll find me is in a damned "compound". Compounds are for defense, logistics, resupply, headquarters, and such. I'm on the offense. My life is an M-LRRP, a mental long-range recon patrol, and I report what I collect through intelligence. Knowledge is the one thing which can destroy today's imposter Fedgov, if it gets into the hands of the public. As Rageboy says: hyperlinks subvert authority. For *that*, I do not need a "compound". So please try not to put words into my mouth with quotations marks as you did. Thanks.
 
~

Bug: The FSP is focussed and trying to avoid the last-resort. A large group of people is harder to ignore, and harder to stomp flat then a Ruby Ridge or Waco.
 
Elias: Um, er, how much time do you suppose you have left for avoiding the "last-resort"? Do you really think there's that much more time left before the bastards drop that iron net of totalitarianism on us all? I've already told you that General Franks has already published the notion that we'll just have to toss out the Constitution and go to a military form of government if we suffer one more major *terrorist* attack. And I've already told you about the entire Federal mechanism's congealing via one national super-database, and I've told you countless other signs and symptoms which surely have not suggested to you that we have all the years it might take to pacify New Hampshire in a way which can save America. So maybe I'm a dumbass; maybe you should tell me how many more years you feel we have to hedge-up, shore-up, store-up, and brace-up before we're fighting jackboots and foreign troops on Federal payrolls in our yards, schoolgrounds, civic centers, religious buildings, shopping malls, and on roads and highways and streets across this land? How long we got, Dude?
 
~

Bug: ...You ding Silver for not spelling your name properly, yet you yourself blatantly mispell my own name in a derogatory fashion.
 
Elias: First part's wrong, last part's right. I had no notion whatsoever to "ding" Silver. I was merely being friendly, letting him get familiar with me, expressing my druthers on names in case he wanted to know my take on that topic. I like and respect Silver, and Silver can call me anything he wishes. But as he's such a sensitive and refined mentality, I figured he may want to know what I like to be called, so I offered without waiting to be asked. That was *not* a "ding", nor was it meant to be. Now as for you, well, you're right. I deliberately distort, modify, play-off-of, have fun with, and provoke you with my diversions upon, your name. Don't let that worry you, worry-bug! Until you have some sensitivity, no insult I can fling at you shall be capable of registering the damage done to your ego defense systems. To feel offended, violated, hurt by words, one must first possess sensitivities which derive from no where else than one's source of spirituality. Since you ain't got that, by your own choice, well, then it doesn't matter how I relate to you, does it? Concrete reality. No invisible stuff like spiritual vision. Just abject plain old reality, physical style, sensible, ever-present, the hard-fast soccer-ball of certainty, the consensus-sharing sensible spectacle.  
 
~

Bug: ...I don't respect most of the "conclusions" quantuum mechanics has come up with since the '30s.  
 
Elias: Well then; I'll have to be sure to let the scientific community know. The poor dears, they've no clue that all their labors have been for nought.  

~
 
Bug: Be careful, I know a *lot* about the subject, and the subjective interpretations placed precariously atop curious observations.  
 
Elias: Yep. It's those danged "subjective interpretations placed precariously atop curious observations", all right! But pray, why should I take your expertise in quantum-physics as a sign to "be careful"? Explain please?
 
 ~
 
Bug: "Scientists" who "find God" because they feel the need to ascribe unprovable causal relationships to phenomena they do not understand are contemptible, and damage the name of scientists past and present. Shrödinger's feline not withstanding.
 
Elias: If you say so. :)

~
 
Bug: ...In keeping with the last statement, the whole idea of a separate and superior "spiritual reality" is unprovable and irrelevant.
 
Elias: So is that premise I shared with you, the one which said that even though I cannot "prove" you have a mind, or even that if a mind exists, I would still give you the benefit of the doubt on that subject, is that premise null and void too, since it is unprovable, if *not* irrevelant? Dude, get a grip. Everyone already knows that psyche creates the physical Universe. Some call that Universe "Maya". You call it concrete. I call it the sea's all-crowing reach, among other things. The physical Universe is simply the sum total of mentality in all its extensions, which are infinite and indefinite. Have you never taken musical lessons?
 
 ~
 
 Bug: The only reality I am concerned about is the one we all share here and now. The one reality that cannot be explained away, and the one everybody is afraid to cease to exist.
 
Elias: Well, then I think I know now how to see you. I should let you know, however, that your statement does not apply to me. I see death as part of life. I have no fear of death, merely the wish to choose the terms on which I embrace that moment. I'm not afraid to die, for I do not id-entify myself with the body. So long as you think you're that body you're presently hovering within, and so long as you know that that body is bound to die some time, you're gonna naturally be afraid of death. That illusion, too, passes, hehehe. How we live, and how we die, of course is a spiritual matter, so you won't be requiring of me anything deeper, right?

~
 
Bug: ...The only reason Mr. Emerson liked the landscape that nobody earned was because Mr. Locke & company modified it to their own likings.
 
Elias: Please, Mr. Worry-bug, you simply cannot make that kind of statement to me and expect me to skip over it without commentary. Truth is, only Emerson *knew* what Emerson liked, and *why*. You were not in Mr. Emerson's head when he was inspired to say that, and if you're truthful you'll admit that. Not being in his head, you've no authorization to say what or why Emerson liked anything. Your statement is simply a deflection aimed at avoiding something inside your own head which I've been trying to arouse despite all your efforts to the contrary. Here's a guideline: you should not put words into my mouth, nor in Emerson's mouth. You'll fare better if you adhere to that suggestion, imo.

~
 
 Bug: I wonder if Mr. Emerson (a socialist, by the way) would have appreciated a mosquito attack from an unfilled swamp as much. Somehow, I doubt it.
 
Elias: See link below....

~
 
Bug: ...I am glad you find solace in religion.  
 
Elias: Again you betray your shallowness by putting words in my mouth. Doubtless, that comment by you is partially what is behind LL's exclamation about seeing Elias coming, lol! Dude, just so you'll know, I am not a religious person. You seem to have equated spirituality with religion. Well, I must tell you that in my view of life, there is absolutely NO connection between spirituality and religion. I am not religious. I am certainly spiritual. Big difference. Once again, you've jumped too hastily to your own misinformed and unqualified opinion, and associated my words on spirituality with the act of being "religious". Your bad.  
 
~

Bug: It is RELIGION that allows the miscreants in THIS world to subjucate, kill, torture, and pillage the productive peoples of the world by telling those poor bastards that justice will occur AFTER THEY'RE DEAD. I find the whole concept contemptible.
 
Elias: Well well! We finally have found something on which we can agree. Hope aboundeth! :)
 
~

Bug: 'nuff said.
 
Elias: Nope. I'm afraid there is yet much to be said. Hang in there, lol, and we'll get a round tuit.
 
~

Bug, signing off:  "Worrybug"  
 
Elias: See? It fits! Even you yourself have used it. It's kinda cute, doncha think?
 
~

Now Worrybug, here is something just for you. It will help you see that I indeed do like bugs. There is, hidden in the lines of this tale, something which I would call "meaning", and that "meaning", I would further hold,  is spiritual in its origin as well as in its application here in "concrete reality". After you read this, please let me know if you could find any meaning in the tale, k? That will help us guess whether Mr. Emerson might have liked a natural buzz of mosquitoes in an un-improved swamp, or not. Like his friend, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson may have seen the miraculous in the commonplace, even in the lowly and pesky mosquito. For all we know.....
 
http://www.thementalmilitia.org/modules.ph...&artid=3&page=1 (http://www.thementalmilitia.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=3&page=1)
 
But Bug, again I must ask, since you've ignored this question: what is the difference between Spirit, Soul, and Psyche? It's really a good question, one worth pursuing, don't you think?
 
Elias
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: SilverGreen on March 04, 2004, 06:16:16 pm
Dear Abby,

What's a Porcupine?

Signed, Clueless in Cleveland   :huh:  
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Silver on March 04, 2004, 06:39:28 pm
nevermind
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: SilverGreen on March 05, 2004, 08:45:14 am
Oh, okay!  That makes sense.
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: RobertH on March 07, 2004, 04:10:22 am
I posted the following response to FSP concerns about the western liberty efforts on a few of the western discussion lists the other day.  Specifically, it was a commentary on J.J. Johnson's response to a letter from FSP'er Neil Alexander, which was featured on the Sierra Times website.  It may be of some interest to those following this schism:

J.J.,

Thank you for your comments in defense of the western liberty movement.

I was a member of the FSP from September 2002 until October 2003. I had
opted out of the states of New Hampshire and Delaware, and I chose to
exercise that opt-out following the vote for New Hampshire. Prior to the
vote, I primarily supported the states of Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska. I
still support the FSP, and I wish it well, but I continue to have objections
to New Hampshire that have caused me to cast my lot with those working for
freedom in the West. I accept the possibility that I may be mistaken about
New Hampshire, and, if so, no one would be more delighted than me.

Two notes on Mr. Alexander's comments:

1. Mr. Alexander claims that westerners are involved in trademark dilution;
however, the fact is that there are a number of us who have attempted to do
what we can to distance ourselves in name from the FSP so as not to "dilute"
its distinct identity and cause harm to the work that Jason Sorens started.
For instance, the group that I am part of is called FWA - the Free West
Alliance. I don't see much potential for confusing "Free West Alliance" with
"Free State Project".

Boston T. Party does have a "Free State Wyoming Project" in the works, and
this may be confusing to some; however, it should be duly noted that not all
westerners are operating under that banner. As for Boston's reasons in
choosing that particular name, as you suggest, Boston can best speak for
himself.

2. Mr. Alexander claims that westerners view the question of potential
recruits solely from the aspect of those who either WILL NOT move East or
those who WILL NOT move West. He says that there is a third potential group:
those who are indifferent on the question of East vs West, and that western
liberty movements could compromise the FSP by drawing off recruits from this
third group of persons.

First off, I'm genuinely puzzled by the attitude of some FSP members that
the FSP itself has some sort of proprietary claim to the concept of moving
for liberty, and thus an exclusive right to first consideration by those who
may be interested in the idea. This attitude not only conveys a remarkable,
and I must say most "unlibertarian" intolerance, but it also suggests that
those of us who are interested in moving for freedom - but who are unwilling
or unable to move to New Hampshire - should sit back, twiddle our thumbs,
and watch our liberties slip away until we're informed that it is now 'our
turn'.

Yes, there are undoubtedly those who are indifferent on the question of East
vs West, and the FSP may potentially recruit some of them; however, it
should be stressed that this does not necessarily mean:

A. That they're indifferent on the issue of moving to New Hampshire, or any
of the western states, specifically.
B. That they're capable of moving a long distance.

There may be those who would move either East or West but would not move to
particular states, and there may also be those who simply cannot manage a
move of thousands of miles. Those in the former group may be too highly
selective to assist either effort, but those in the latter group - and I
suspect this is a large group - could become productive participants in the
fight for liberty in a closer location. Some who live in the West could
likely afford a move to another western state when they would not be able to
afford a move across the country to New Hampshire, just as some now in the
East could afford a move to New Hampshire but not to Wyoming.

Are we really prepared to accept the idea that such folks should simply cool
their heels until Mr. Alexander gives them the green light with the
justification that, unless you're going to move to New Hampshire for
liberty, you really shouldn't move anywhere at all? Or if you do, you should
keep it quiet?

The fact of the matter is that there really are people who are only willing
or able to move to a western state, and they should not be made to feel
guilty because their priorities and/or finances do not measure up to someone
else's. As for those who are indifferent, I say we should assume that anyone
who is willing to move for liberty is also probably intelligent enough to
decide where they would be most effective and whether or not they would be
harming anyone else by their decision. Personally though, none of those I've
seen involved in the western effort to date have seemed indifferent; they've
all been staunchly pro-West.

In the final analysis, I believe that much of the hostility toward the
western liberty effort is grounded in an improper mystique that some in the
FSP created around the number 20,000. For some, it seemed that achieving
that goal was more important than achieving a free state. They utterly
ignored arguments to the effect that there were states where we would likely
not even need 20,000 to succeed, and that an experimental movement such as
FSP shouldn't stack the odds against itself from the beginning by choosing a
high population state. In the end, the FSP not only chose a state with a
comparatively large population, but one with an enormous legislature, making
maximum recruitment essential.

If the FSP does not meet its recruitment goals, I'm sure that there will be
some who will attempt to blame any existing western efforts for diluting the
FSP's pool of recruits. Yet the FSP is struggling for members as I write
this, and the western effort has hardly gotten off the ground. Surely there
is no one who would seriously argue that the West is already drawing off
recruits from New Hampshire.

Again, I wish the FSP only the best. I disagree with the choice of New
Hampshire, but that does not mean that I would like to see the effort fail.
If I come across people who are interested in moving for liberty but cannot
or will not move West, I'll happily direct them to consider New Hampshire.
At the same time though, I feel that this animosity toward those who prefer
to move to a western state is both unwarranted and counterproductive.

Sincerely,

Robert Hawes

http://sierratimes.com/04/02/19/ar_fsp_west.htm (http://sierratimes.com/04/02/19/ar_fsp_west.htm)
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on March 07, 2004, 04:33:02 pm
Though you quibble with Mr. Alexander's confusion about the Western projects, you contradict yourself by mentioning Boston's Western project and therefore you validate Mr. Alexander's statement, while appearing to quibble with it.

As for the attitude that Westerners should twiddle their thumbs and wait for a green light from FSP before proceeding, again, there is no mention of that. Rather that the FSP should be given a chance to progress  - succeed or fail - before its model is emulated. What's wrong with that?

The whole "project/alliance" movement of late is based on the Phd thesis of Jason Sorens. (That thesis which clearly wasn't read by many in the Western movements). For the first time, statistical and scientific methodology was applied to political science to come up with the theory of the Free State Project.

But it's still only a theory.

It created enough excitement that people want to emulate it, and that is understandable. But since it's only a theory, and has not yet been proven, what exactly are you emulating? Nothing, yet.

So we have a bunch of variables added into the mix, and unquestionably confusion added to mix that makes it harder to evaluate progress.

Finally, Mr. Alexander did not bash or denegrate the Western movements. He did not want Mr. Johnson to excoriate the Western movements. He merely asked Mr. Johnson NOT TO ENDORSE them. Huge difference! Mr. Johnson chose to not answer any of his questions, and to go on a diatribe, instead.

Same with me. I merely ask that the people endorsing these various Western projects understand what they are doing. I want them to be honest, mostly to themselves. Their foremost evasion, is that they refuse to admit they are competing with the FSP. Every time I bring that up, they marginalize my arguments, and start waxing on about the "Spirit of the West", and how "Westerners are different than Easterners", and so on.

They also ignore the examples of the (by far larger) third group of people who belong to neither the Westerner nor the Easterners.

That has been my only mission here, is to expose that evasion. Though I did get grumpy from time to time, *I* don't resort to name calling and handle-mangling like a few of my spiritually superior Western opponents.

The FSP is a "new idea" (please don't refer me to the 19th century cults & movements, this is different as stated above). And it's exciting, and I understand why people want to copy it. But, in my opinion, it's too early to copy before its efficacy has been verified.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: kbarrett on March 08, 2004, 01:09:14 am
Hmmmmm .... an appeal to intellectual property rights?

Deeeeeenied!

We'll do as we please. Even you do bash us.....





hot damned .... that's 300    woo hoo!
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: RobertH on March 08, 2004, 02:34:48 am
Quote
Though you quibble with Mr. Alexander's confusion about the Western projects, you contradict yourself by mentioning Boston's Western project and therefore you validate Mr. Alexander's statement, while appearing to quibble with it.

Actually, no.  Mr. Alexander's statement would apply to Boston's project because of the name, but I don't feel that it applies to the FWA, which has deliberately attempted to avoid confusion with the FSP, both in name and in practice.  By the latter, I mean that its approach is different - similar, but different.

Quote
As for the attitude that Westerners should twiddle their thumbs and wait for a green light from FSP before proceeding, again, there is no mention of that. Rather that the FSP should be given a chance to progress  - succeed or fail - before its model is emulated. What's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with the idea that the FSP should be given a chance to succeed.  However, Mr. Alexander took issue with the formation of western groups because he felt that they would "dilute" the FSP's pool of potential recruits.  But I would ask the following:  If these people don't organize in some way, then how are they supposed to realistically do anything at all for the cause?  Organization is a key element to success in any endeavor (except anarchy  :D ).  If westerners who can't or won't move East want to act to perserve liberty, particularly if they want to center on one state or on counties in various states, then they need to organize.  If they organize though, they are likely to attract others to the effort and thus we have Mr. Alexander's issue.

Quote
The whole "project/alliance" movement of late is based on the Phd thesis of Jason Sorens. (That thesis which clearly wasn't read by many in the Western movements). For the first time, statistical and scientific methodology was applied to political science to come up with the theory of the Free State Project.

Why do you say it "clearly" wasn't read by many in the western movements?  If you go back to the "Which State?" section of the FSP forum, you'll find much discussion of Jason's thesis by westerners.  In fact, westerners referred to that thesis repeatedly when arguing for lower population states like Wyoming and Alaska (the Partis Quebecois and the 1:62 ratio, which was the origin of the call for 20,000).

Quote
But it's still only a theory.

It created enough excitement that people want to emulate it, and that is understandable. But since it's only a theory, and has not yet been proven, what exactly are you emulating? Nothing, yet.

Well, the particulars of Jason's theory may never be entirely substantiated.  For instance, it's possible that the FSP might not attract 20,000 but might succeed in making New Hampshire a free state.  That scenario would throw off Jason's numbers, but I don't think anyone would be disappointed with the outcome.   ;)

As a result, I suppose you could say that other folks are interested in emulating the concentration model that Jason outlined, in one form or another.  In addition to the western efforts in old FSP candidate states, there is a "Free West" effort concentrating on Canada's western provinces, as well as a "European Free State Project" as well.  All of these may ultimately prove beneficial, although I doubt that any of them will entirely conform to Jason's exact model.

Quote
So we have a bunch of variables added into the mix, and unquestionably confusion added to mix that makes it harder to evaluate progress.

That is most definitely true.   :)

Quote
Finally, Mr. Alexander did not bash or denegrate the Western movements. He did not want Mr. Johnson to excoriate the Western movements. He merely asked Mr. Johnson NOT TO ENDORSE them. Huge difference! Mr. Johnson chose to not answer any of his questions, and to go on a diatribe, instead.

I agree that Mr. Johnson didn't address some of the particulars of what Mr. Alexander was arguing, which is one reason I thought I'd make the comments that I did.  

Your impression may be different, but when I read Mr. Alexander's letter, I got the impression of someone who believes that the western efforts are almost treasonous off-shoots of the FSP that are out to pirate Jason's idea even if it means harming the FSP in the process.  I don't think he was asking Mr. Johnson to excoriate the western movements because he was already (somewhat) subtly doing that himself.  After all, if he thought well of the western movements, why would he have a problem with J.J. Johnson endorsing them?

Quote
Same with me. I merely ask that the people endorsing these various Western projects understand what they are doing. I want them to be honest, mostly to themselves. Their foremost evasion, is that they refuse to admit they are competing with the FSP. Every time I bring that up, they marginalize my arguments, and start waxing on about the "Spirit of the West", and how "Westerners are different than Easterners", and so on.

Well, you have to admit that there are decided differences between the various sections of this country.  Some of them were regularly paraded about in the FSP discussions prior to the vote.  Still, the point that lies at the heart of what the westerners are doing right now is that there are people who, for one reason or another, will not move East.  Such folks getting together cannot harm FSP's New Hampshire recruitment effort because they are not recruitable for New Hampshire.

Quote
They also ignore the examples of the (by far larger) third group of people who belong to neither the Westerner nor the Easterners.

This is what I spent the largest amount of time trying to address in my letter.  There are more than just the two groups we think of most often (those who WILL NOT move East and those who WILL NOT move West). There is a third group of those who might go either way, depending on any number of circumstances.  I'm fully willing to admit that there is potential for competition here.  Someone in California might say, "Why should I move to New Hampshire when there is a liberty effort underway in Wyoming and Montana, both of which are much closer to me?"  This is entirely possible.

The problem I have here is that, like many of the aspects of Jason's plan, there are variables that are difficult to account for here, so I don't think it is wise to automatically assume that those who don't have a preference between East and West are New Hampshire recruitment material.  For instance, I gave the example of people who might want to move for liberty but can't afford to move a long distance.  The Californian scenario I listed above might fit into that category, or there could be someone living in Maine who would prefer to move West but will go to New Hampshire instead because it's closer and more affordable for them.

It could go either way.  What I object to is the attitude that this third group of fence-sitters is automatically going to be diluted for FSP by a western effort.  I think that's very going to be a very difficult thing to measure unless you get specific feedback from individuals.  Thus, I'd rather that people like Mr. Alexander not get so excited over an impact that is mostly theoretical at this point.

Quote
That has been my only mission here, is to expose that evasion. Though I did get grumpy from time to time, *I* don't resort to name calling and handle-mangling like a few of my spiritually superior Western opponents.

It's easy to get caught up in bitterness in some of these exchanges, but, ultimately, it doesn't do anyone any good to resort to such methods.  If people need to let off steam, I'd suggest a good heavy-bag.   ;)
 
Quote
The FSP is a "new idea" (please don't refer me to the 19th century cults & movements, this is different as stated above). And it's exciting, and I understand why people want to copy it. But, in my opinion, it's too early to copy before its efficacy has been verified.

Well, I believe you're correct in stating that Jason's mathematical approach to migration and concentration is new, but there have been a few examples of migrations more recently than the 19th century.  I believe there was a woman who tried to get people to buy into the idea of forming a town in Texas back in the 80's, and then, of course, there was the hippy/leftist migration to Vermont in the 1960's and 70's.  The Vermont effort wasn't really organized though.  I believe it just came about as a result of word-of-mouth.  And I'm not sure if the "free town" of Big Water, Utah, came about as a result of a migration or not.  I'd have to check on that.  Jason referred to it in a couple of his papers, but I don't remember if he said it was a migration.

Otherwise, I think the idea of concentrating numbers for their massed political effect is sound, regardless of whether Jason's particular theory is proven in New Hampshire.  As I mentioned previously, I'm not sure that Jasons' exact model can be proven anyway.  Even if FSP gets to 20,000 members, New Hampshire's population will probably put it beyond his 1:62 ratio by then.  Again, that doesn't mean that it might not still succeed, but I it's the precise model that we're talking about here.
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on March 08, 2004, 05:25:55 am
Quote
Why do you say it "clearly" wasn't read by many in the western movements? If you go back to the "Which State?" section of the FSP forum, you'll find much discussion of Jason's thesis by westerners. In fact, westerners referred to that thesis repeatedly when arguing for lower population states like Wyoming and Alaska (the Partis Quebecois and the 1:62 ratio, which was the origin of the call for 20,000).

I lurk on the Western Movement's forums. The numbers they bandy about "300,000" (for example), clearly show they have no idea where the 20,000 number came from.

Regarding handle/name mangling - well that's just rude and juvenile, don't you think, Elias?

Also, I haven't bashed the Western movements, merely wanted them to acknowledge reality. We'll have to agree to disagree whether or not that constitutes "bashing".

Finally, I imagine the FSP leadership will probably take the position of benevolently ignoring the other efforts. There's enough work to be done in NH, after all. I hope my fast food analogy will take place, and we'll all be better off.

'Bug

PS(I certainly don't want to be 130 miles from Boston. ICK! Only one "hill range" between me and what, 2,000,000 sheeple?)
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: kbarrett on March 08, 2004, 11:07:29 am
Quote
Also, I haven't bashed the Western movements, merely wanted them to acknowledge reality. We'll have to agree to disagree whether or not that constitutes "bashing".
 
We disagree. No matter how many times you demand we "acknowledge reality" ... that is, agree with your views and stop competing, we wont.

Yes ... having to compete with other groups for recruits will make your job a bit harder ..... get over it. We aren't going to stop.

 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on March 08, 2004, 01:27:10 pm
Quote
Regarding handle/name mangling - well that's just rude and juvenile, don't you think, Elias?

 
In the case of my and your discourse here, I see handle-mangling to be a creative and humorous cavort of sorts. The way in which I've used "handle-mangling" at your expense implies right off the bat that your persistent and ardently-asserted wish that FSPers and BTPers  _must_* ADMIT* that they are copying Jason's idea, his brain-storm, seemed to me on the surface of it to be so irrelevant to any valid concerns that I felt like taking the liberty of playing with you. Your communications efforts here have likely brought a smile to faces other than my own.

When people take their "plan" so seriously that they wish to guard against any divergence from that plan, they often-times can become protective. "Protective" is a word which is often interchangeable with "Defensive". Defensiveness and Protectiveness both imply an insecurity, the opposite of confidence and assurance. Insecurity comes always from conflict, marked by seemingly contradictory bids within the mind which seem to be in opposition to each other and thereby create dis-ease of the mental states in its holder. Your insecurity about other groups forming in the wake of Jason's "original idea" strikes me as being so funny that I grin about it even though my higher self would suggest to me that in fact your insecurity is a sad thing.

Here is something you said elsewhere on this thread: "Boston's participation in your forum, as far as I am concerned, is endorsement by Mr. Party for the GWA. I believe that Jason Sorens was also invited to your conference. I hope he declines."

Why would you care one whit about what's going on out West if you were secure in your mind and heart about the plausibility of Jason's plan succeeding back East? Can it be true that any other alliance of freedom-minded people could possibly dilute the vision of liberty already existing in the minds of the Porcupines? I do not think so. In fact, it occurs to me that quite possibly some good old-fashioned competition could only benefit the FSP. It seems to me that you're mostly concerned that the FWA is going to abduct potential FSPers from the body of the great unwashed masses, snatch them, as it were, right out from under the FSP. Again I'll note with you that there are two hundred eighty *million* potential Free State Project members within the current American population. It's not like there are not enough fish in this stream to provide good fishing to a hundred Free State groups. So I don't see why you are so protective of the FSP's fragile balance in the nation as a whole. And what else could be the motive behind your stating "I hope he declines"? That strikes me as outright insecurity, defensiveness.

Your tenacity in demanding that the Western splinter groups  "admit" that they are "competing" with the FSP shows that in your mind you seek the predominance of your vision over that of your good Western neighbors. That flies to the root of the libertarian principle, imo.

The relentless and dogged insistence that any competition wrought against the FSP could damage the FSP's chances for success are, imo, unfounded and irrelevant. Your refusal to acknowledge facts brought forth from the more Universal view of this entire matter (establishing a "Free State") render your argument itself "juvenile", and possibly rude, considering on which thread you're asserting your fears.

Hence my playfulness regarding your "handle".

But hey Bug, it's a tough ol' world "out there", and some people in that tough ol' world like to think for themselves. I'm one of them. When somebody pops up like an unwanted sales screen demanding I pay some attention to their intrusion simply because it won't go away, I feel no obligation to reply in any other way than my instincts suggest. You are a little worry-bug, imo, and you're incapable, apparently, of suspending what *you* think long enough to execute a "reality check" on the content of your own mentality. That causes me to discount your argument's veracity.

Had you come along here and dropped-off your two cents' worth and let it lay as it might, you'd have ellicited no gamemanship involving handle-mangling from me. But I'm not blaming you for my choice of the manner in which I played with your screen-name. I accept full responsibility for handle-mangling at your expense.  I'm guilty as you charge. But as all can here see, your tenacity and insistence, which could also, like mine, be characterized as stubbornness, reveal your insecurity, your fear that some Western people might DARE to compete with the FSP, and *that* is your vulnerability seen from my point of view. And since you've persistently denied any spiritual value on this topic, "opting out" of the spiritual causality of mentality in favor of "concrete" reality, I've cared little about your preferences regarding how I and my Western neighbors might act.

If Jason declined to attend the GWCII, is that his loss, or theirs? I see his support of the Western splinters as a potential added benefit to the FSP. And again I state: Nobody has ownership of freedom except the person who claims his own freedom inside his own heart and soul. Competing for freedom is a mechanical oxymoron, like any notion which holds that *any* "State" can be free. It's herd-mentality, plain and simple. And so you'll know, I'll also repeat again that while I will support any freedom-oriented activity by anyone anywhere,  I myself am not likely to place my fate with any group, preferring the life of the solitary soul, the "individual way". For that reason alone, I'm not someone you might wish to debate on this topic. It ain't your fault, 'Bug, it's mine; I'm incorrigible. And, I admit it. Is there room in America for a dude like me?

And 'Bug, if I've offended you by mangling your handle, please accept my sincere apology. I kinda enjoyed doing it, and I did not figure you'd be sensitive to my doing so, for you deny the invisible realities of the soul, which, as I see things, should have rendered you impervious to my humorous wickedry. I did not intend to hurt your feelings, I just did not think you'd admit to having feelings, since they're not a part of concrete reality any moreso than is spirituality. I wonder.....from where do "feelings" come?

Like that little ol' Volkswagon I drove around back in the 1960s, which I called back then "The Bug", I only wish for you every peace, and many good miles up life's highway.

Elias
 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: H.M. WoggleBug, T.E. on March 08, 2004, 03:50:42 pm
Quote
Your tenacity in demanding that the Western splinter groups "admit" that they are "competing" with the FSP shows that in your mind you seek the predominance of your vision over that of your good Western neighbors. That flies to the root of the libertarian principle, imo.

No, THEY insisted first that they didn't compete. I didn't bring it up. However, remember, that they were responding to somebody else's statements, and that I was responding to the response. If that makes any sense.

Quote
But I'm not blaming you for my choice of the manner in which I played with your screen-name.
My only issue about this was when YOU got upset about somebody else doing the same to yours. I really don't care, merely wanted to point out the hypocracy.

'Bug
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: rodger on March 08, 2004, 03:55:33 pm
Quote
And 'Bug, if I've offended you by mangling your handle, please accept my sincere apology. I kinda enjoyed doing it, and I did not figure you'd be sensitive to my doing so, for you deny the invisible realities of the soul, which, as I see things, should have rendered you impervious to my humorous wickedry. I did not intend to hurt your feelings, I just did not think you'd admit to having feelings, since they're not a part of concrete reality any moreso than is spirituality. I wonder.....from where do "feelings" come?
My first post here; I read the above and had to register and respond.  I think I'm getting into a pissing contest, though. ;-)

I honestly feel that there is a simple misunderstanding between Elias and Wogglebug on the issue of spirituality.  I'm an atheist, a student of Objectivism, I do not believe in any sort of mystical soul, but I do feel it is still possible to be spiritual.  Not in any mystical way, but spiritual none the less.

And I must say that, Elias, I believe you when in an earlier post you stated "I assure you that I am Voluntaryistic and libertarian in my view of life, and do NOT initiate aggression or force on anyone or upon anyone's property. " (This was in response to a discussion of there being too many people, and who should "do" something about it.)

But you seem to be saying that people that deny a soul, or the existance of anything above material reality, do not feel .  Are less than human.  That you can treat them poorly and it doesn't matter.  That is, I believe, exactly how Hitler felt about the Jews, right?  Gee, the next time we need to perform some risky medical experiments, let's save the poor animals and operate on some atheists, instead.

Once again, Elias, I do not believe you feel this way.  But that is how I read what you wrote.  And you must have known that you were not merely casting these dispersions upon Wogglebug, but upon an entire group of people.

--Rodger



 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on March 09, 2004, 05:55:08 am
Quote
Quote
But I'm not blaming you for my choice of the manner in which I played with your screen-name.
My only issue about this was when YOU got upset about somebody else doing the same to yours. I really don't care, merely wanted to point out the hypocracy.

'Bug
You were referring to Silver's use of "Mr. Alias" in a previous post.

I already explained in a previous post to you that I was in no way bothered, miffed, upset or offended by Silver's using "Mr." with my screen-name. In fact, I, as usual, gave a full statement about your misunderstanding of my comments to Silver. As stated, I was being familiar with Silver, being playful in an introductory manner, when I replied to Silver. I also said something to the effect that I appreciated Silver's mentality, his intelligence, his ability to express very accurately what he thinks and feels. Something like that. There was never a moment's problem in my mind about Silver calling me "Mr. Alias".  Anyone is free to call me whatever they wish. I feel free to say anything I wish.

For the record, I believe I've apologized to you for being abusive with your screen-name. Is there anything else you'd like?

Elias

 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on March 09, 2004, 09:23:23 am

 
rodger: My first post here; I read the above and had to register and respond. I think I'm getting into a pissing contest, though. ;-)
 
Elias: Hi, rodger,
Thank you for registering and adding some of your thoughts in an interesting post.  Welcome to the monkey house. :)
 
~
 
rodger: I honestly feel that there is a simple misunderstanding between Elias and Wogglebug on the issue of spirituality. I'm an atheist, a student of Objectivism, I do not believe in any sort of mystical soul, but I do feel it is still possible to be spiritual. Not in any mystical way, but spiritual none the less.  
 
Elias: I'll try to tippy-toe into this with you, rodger, without ruffling anyone's feathers too roughly. I agree with you totally when you say that the soul doesn't have to be a mystical configuration, and that sans religious import one may still be quite spiritual. Part of my id-entityship includes atheism. I am an atheist, among other things. Regarding Objectivism, I know hardly anything about Objectivism. I think it may be associated with the work of Ayn Rand, yes? But if you would give me a synopsis, a definition, I'd benefit from your gift and could say more on the subject.  
 
Regarding "mystical soul", and whether one "believes" in the existence or reality of the soul, my mind is full of many approaches to an response for you, each vying to tumble out first. I believe this discussion is pertinent to the concept of a theoretical "free state", because I think that freedom itself begins, is created, at the individual level before it can be shared outwardly with one's community. I think I'll try to begin this way.... Please bear with me as I try to lay-in some foundation.
 
There is "religion". There is "spirituality".  
 
Neither has much to do with the other, in my personal view of life, though it is often taught within religions that religion is home to spirit. Organized religion, however, is bashful about defining spiritual planes, substituting instead the logical projections spawned of the misery contained within the human experience. Christianity, for example, portrays some celestial city with streets of gold, off over there somewhere, in the future if....  
 
That is an obvious example of projection, relative to terminology indigenous to the culture from which a particular religion springs, and, via transposition, we find the phenomenon in all organized religions. Projection has nothing to do with spirituality. Projection has everything to do with religion.
 
Religion is a group organized into a given set of concepts which are to be accepted, believed, and applied in a religious person's daily life, for purposes which we here may not need to develop. Spirituality is direct experience, a presently-existing condition which does not draw upon tradition or "learning" from the past. Spirituality cannot be "programmed" into a mind, neither can it be contained in any three-dimensional linguistic definition. Neither does it project into the future. Spirituality exists in the present only.
 
Religion includes deity. Spirituality, in my view, has little or nothing to do with deity. At best, any use of deity by spirituality would of need be only associative, at subjective levels, via personal interpretation. Religion, on the other hand, raises deity to the level of a collective racial archetype. Omniscience, Omnipresence, the Alpha and the Omega, the divining miracle of a cosmic authority playing a game through time with the human race. Game being: "I AM the Perfect God, having created mankind in my image, but also having created a flawed Universe in which my right-hand man acted upon my created-and-furnished principle which says that he could betray me of his own free will, if he chose to do so, thereby plunging mankind into the "fall", which requires that I come up with a plan of salvation for human-kind. Drat! But just because I did not create my creation perfectly, and instead allowed things to get a bit out of control, with pain and suffering, offenses and grievances, stupidity and berserk desire, things of that nature which now abundantly afflict my perfect creation, that does not mean that I'm not Perfect. So obey me, serve me, or suffer the consequences, even maybe burn in Hell."  
 
We spend great effort teaching our children to obey "outside" authority, because we know the benefit to our families which arrives through respecting our parents. So our children are generally taught to be obedient to outside authority, (parental authority, school authority, civil authority), to authority outside their personal, inner selves. It could appear to be a subtle form of submission. This seems to bleed over into other dimensions of our experience as humans, however, and as we purportedly grow and learn, expand our mental horizons, we transfer the childhood lessons of obedience into contexts found in cultural and social and political and economic and religious and philosophical fields of interaction. People who yet require an external authority symbol can be a sports fan, a political follower, a nationalist, a member of a particular religion, an advocate of some form of governance, and etc and etc. The church and the state both require obedience, and social mores and morays require obedience, and most folks, despite admonitions by the founders of their particular religion and particular form of nationalized governance, readily, unconsciously almost, submit their service to both. That's how they know they're doing the "right thing". :)
 
Spirituality is what comes along once one sees through the maze of external authorities with which this world greets newcomers. Spirituality itself, quintessentially, does not even require a deity.
 
So a bit about my view of spirituality. I think that spirituality is what we find when we look within, past the flesh and bone concrete reality of the body, to those more subtle planes where the finer impulses behind our mental states transpire. Spirituality does not require obedience to any external authority. In fact, it requires just the opposite. It requires that one *not* submit to external authorities. Spirituality presupposes "belief". Obedience to any external authority compromises what I call "the soul", which I see as existing on planes relative to those of spirit, between the higher/finer planes of spirit and the lower, coarser vibratory planes of the conscious mind. We'll get to "soul" elsewhere if you please.
 
We can agree upon a consensus reality in which we each possess the five common senses through which we know, and experience, corporeal existence.  We also may agree that the phycical human brain emits various "waves": alpha waves, beta waves, etc. Yet we rely upon science, upon gadgets and machinery, to know that, for our five senses do not normally allow for our sensing of those waves. (Exception being when one eats LSD, or has a traumatically-induced mystical experience, thereby accelerating the endocrinal and central nervous systems, heightening sensory perception.)  
 
That is because brain waves are vibrations characterized by "frequencies", which vary upwardly and downwardly on the scale of vibratory existence, or the corporeal Universe. Every atom vibrates. Every molecule vibrates. Every brain vibrates. We call those vibrations brain waves. They are vibratory fields which have radial fields of reference to our mentality as well as to our physical beingness. Which brings us to note that there is the physical aspect of our lives and there is the metaphysical aspect of our lives.  
 
The 'Bug prefers to focus only upon the physical, which he calls "concrete reality". He seems to me to be in denial about the metaphysical. My premise is that both are interrelated, and that both are necessary. I think that both are related via graduation through gradations.
 
Frequencies on a radio dial range in a spectrum from low to high or high to low. Same with the vibrations of our physical brains. Same with the vibrations of the mind, psyche. The lower the vibratory frequency, the more coarse, more deeply heavy is the vibration which rides that frequency. The higher the frequency of vibration, the lighter, more airey is the vibration which rides that frequency.
 
I use that for a model for the metaphysical. Then I apply a three-dimensional cross (consisting of three co-intersecting arms, which defines horizontal planes intersected by vertical planes *and* direction, giving me height and depth, width, and extension before and after in a unified symbol. It is a symbol which permits inclusion of every possibile point of intersection relative to an indefinitude of other existing points in any configurative arrangement. It is based on the assumption that gravity invisibly intersects the horizon at right angles, and that one standing at some point in relation to the horizon is also being relative to all planes of gravitation and those horizontal planes which they intersect, at one and the same time, and through any such intersecting point of reference I shoot a third plane based upon the relationship of my perspective to the verticle and horizontal planes. It is a three-armed cross. It provides for full mobility among an indefinitude of points, which reduced in our founders' language to what resides behind the term: "inalienable right".
 
It has been said that the mind is the sum of its content. We ask: "what is a thought?" And then we have to ask if thought is asking what is a thought. And we want to know what is this thing called "mind", which is as insensible as are brain waves. Our five senses simply cannot determine the valid existence of mind, nor of thought. Yet the body which provides us the five senses, appearing itself to be quite physical, seems to be incapable of knowing itself, i.e., realizing its existence, without the existence of the mind.
 
I prefer to see the mind as being that which exists beyond the range of perception of the senses when we are looking upward along the verticle pole of my model. The body occupies the lower planes of vibration, the mind occupies the next-higher planes of vibration, the soul occupies the extending higher planes of vibration, and, at the upper-most regions of such a spectrum along our hypothetical vertical arm we find the planes to which I attribute the term "spiritual".  That is all I mean to imply when I use the word "spiritual". It is a designation for the most subtle, most refined levels of vibratory existence.
 
To me, the spiritual planes are simply the most elevated, refined vibrations of existence, the counter to the coarser vibrations of physical existence. Activity between various points of this end of the spectrum of vibratory planes of existence *is* spirituality. The meta-workings on such planes act independently of, and causally to, the lower planes of vibration which I call the soul. Activity within the planes of vibration in the spectrum's region which I call "the soul" acts independently of, and causally to, those planes of vibration on which occur the content of "mind", sub-conscious and conscious both being hierarchically ordered in accordance with our procession downward from the higher planes toward those of the physical body. Mind moves the body; soul moves the mind; spirit moves the soul. Hence the possibility of Jung's "collective consciousness" (meaning "universal consciousness"), which is available to us each and all who shall admit it.
 
All I mean to imply by the term "spirit" is activity within the finer planes at the farther reaches of the human mind, most of which cannot be ascertained or perceived or acknowledged without a person's preparation toward such an ascertainment. (Being an old Beatnik, I used psychedelics to discover such ranges.)  
 
Discernment necessitates foreknowledge that the symbol is never the thing symbolized; that the word is never that which the word represents.
 
It is not necessary to use the word "spirit", but it comes as a handy name for those higher finer frequencies of existence, through which we in our bodies presently struggle. We would anticipate our existence, come to know it as truth, so that upon that knowledge we might proceed to fix the damn problems we find in this best of all possible worlds. It is the drive behind all invention, from incorporation of the wheel into society to the harnessing of electricity and pixels, to the splitting of the atom. It is the source of all motive, the source of emotion, the source of thought. Spirituality. The nether regions of psyche's potential, tender of the progress of man. Call it our "higher selves" if that works better.  
 
Hopefully, I've introduced justification for my use of the word "spirituality". It has nothing to do with any deity, nothing to do with any religion, nothing to do with any external authority symbol or figure or concept, and also is not confined in space-time to those limitations of the physical body. My premise includes the notion that when one's individual body is attuned to its extensions in all directions as provided by mentality, by consciousness, one is in one's best position in which to establish one's sovereignty as an individual. Sovereignty in encountered first in the mind, and afterward as the body. Society with all its "authority figures", teaches the opposite approach, pretending that reality extends outwardly from the body. I see the body as the extension of the mind, and the mind as an extension of the soul, and the soul as an extension of the spirit, which quantum and sub-particle physics of late has formulated in a maze of talk about "probability". Has to be that way, considering the relationship of the meta-physical to the physical. As Edgar Cayce put it, "spirit is the mover, mind is the builder, and the physical is the result". [paraphrased from a faulty memory]
 
As a dude put it in Oliver Stone's movie, Platoon: "Get your head right, and your ass will follow."
 
Getting free first in the mind is a great approach to getting free in the physical world. It is from the mind that all discernment emanates.
 
~
 
rodger: And I must say that, Elias, I believe you when in an earlier post you stated "I assure you that I am Voluntaryistic and libertarian in my view of life, and do NOT initiate aggression or force on anyone or upon anyone's property. " (This was in response to a discussion of there being too many people, and who should "do" something about it.)
 
Elias: You can count on that. While I fully expect I should accept full responsibility for protecting my life and property against an external aggressor, my purpose totally rejects the initiation of aggression against any non-aggressor. I respect peoples' selves, their space and their property. I would like to see this entire world embrace that system of metaphysic. Then people like Cheney and Bush and Ashcroft would have to go find a real job, eh? Then Thoreau's ideal government, that government which governs not at all, would find a world prepared for its establishment. That seems to me to be central to self-responsibility.
 
~
 
rodger: But you seem to be saying that people that deny a soul, or the existance of anything above material reality, do not feel . Are less than human. That you can treat them poorly and it doesn't matter. That is, I believe, exactly how Hitler felt about the Jews, right? Gee, the next time we need to perform some risky medical experiments, let's save the poor animals and operate on some atheists, instead.
 
Elias: It is actually a case of semantics, nothing more. By now I trust you may have grasped that I am not a man who seeks to be any kind of authority. The reason I was hammering on 'Bug's head was because his system of thought robs humankind of any right to know its existence. Knowledge is not physical, although it seems to be associated with the molecular structure of the brain. Knowledge is the residue of memory which derives from experience, from the past, from learning and etc. Knowledge is mental, not physical. In denying the metaphysical, the 'Bug relegates the emotions to non-existence necessarily. I was trying to get the dude to expand his understanding of the phenomenon of total life, total experience, total beingness. I wanted to do that because until someone realizes the truth of the existence of the invisible mind, and all that transpires within its planes of vibratory reality, one limits oneself to a system of physical organs, nerves, glands, tissue, muscle, and etc., *and*, in so doing, one eliminates the possibility of personal motive. There was a very sharp reason why Aldous Huxley developed the character of the Savage in his novel, Brave New World. It stands in contrast to the population of the time in his novel, all of which were content to take soma any time they "felt" a problem, attend all proper social functions and group activities, work and produce and consume within the hierarchical levels of the designed social order, all that. If I saw the 'Bug driving down a road on which I knew was a washed-out bridge in a fog bank, I'd try to flag him down to warn him. That's all I'm trying to do with the cat. Freedom, liberty, sovereignty are all empty wrappers, as concepts, unless there is the existence of the human mind, and the realm of emotion also requires vibratory levels of mind on which to exist. I know the 'Bug has "feelings", but I also know that according to his line of reasoning, which does btw affect his notions about freedom, he would denounce that very region of his mentality which is capable of bestowing "value" on any of his conceptions, his thoughts, his mindsets, his beliefs and perceptions, his 'feelings'. Until he becomes willing to admit that his view negates the basis for feeling, he's short-circuiting his claim of freedom. That is my opinion, of course, and I'm not gonna shoot anybody for not accepting my view on things. :)
 
rodger: Once again, Elias, I do not believe you feel this way. But that is how I read what you wrote. And you must have known that you were not merely casting these dispersions upon Wogglebug, but upon an entire group of people.
 
Elias: One of the greatest things about dissent, debate, argument, is that more than one mind may be involved. While I've directed most of my comments here to the 'Bug, I've never forgot that this board has more lurkers than post-makers. Sometimes I'm more congenial, more amiable, more patient, in respect to the lurkers and readers and other post-makers. Other times I get PMS or PTSD or both, or the damn moon is just in a phase, or I have a lapse in my own standards for myself, or I just get stupid. I'm pretty much a regular, normally-developed person of average standing, nothing to brag about, capable as anyone else of screwing things up, but, hopefully, not yet worth shooting. I am quite capable of abandoning the impulses of my higher consciousness, of falling from my better views, especially if I'm not well-rested or am perhaps feeling less than "fresh" or "strong" in myself. I hate it when I do that. I usually apologize. I make no claim to be right about anything, and certainly do not wish to force my view upon another living human or creature. I try to monitor myself constantly to avoid such ego-activities, yet some times I fail my better mentality and find myself, to my surprise, slugging it out with someone on a message board. While enjoying the venting such romps provide, I also try to learn, to refine my mentality, to see more readily with the wisdom of knowledge instead of my own ego's projections, which are myriad and never-ending. It's a bitch to have to fight a berserk government AND my own damn ego, lol! Anyway, I thank you.  
 
Elias
 
 
 
 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: ladylearning on March 09, 2004, 08:32:23 pm
Excellent. As Claire has said, it's really, really difficult to find words that do justice to some of your posts. So, oftentimes we just remain silent.
I don't know why I told you to find the Blue Book,... methinks you should write your own.
Damn fine reading.  Thanks :)


"Discernment necessitates foreknowledge that the symbol is never the thing symbolized; that the word is never that which the word represents."

The map is not the territory.  

LL


 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on March 09, 2004, 11:12:47 pm
Quote
Excellent. As Claire has said, it's really, really difficult to find words that do justice to some of your posts.
*You* are a Sweetie! Thank you very much. I'm glad you enjoyed it, and I am pleased in knowing that you know about whence it came. Life's a trip, ya think? Your friendship salves my loneliness.

But heck, I have to do *something* every now and then to persuade Debra and Claire to not run me off these boards!

I've got some big ol' mountain-sized hugs for you when I see you next month at the GWCII.

:)

Elias
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: RobertH on March 16, 2004, 07:41:50 am
For those who are interested, the Free West Alliance website has been recently updated and all links are now active - although some still point to pages that are designated as "under construction".  

General comments and suggestions for improvements are welcome.

In particular, we're looking for western and/or liberty-related articles for our FWA Articles Page.  So, if you have an article you would like to see posted, whether it's yours or someone else's, please let us know.

http://freewest.org (http://freewest.org)
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: Elias Alias on March 17, 2004, 01:36:36 pm
Hey, Bro!

The site looks better and better all the time. Nice job!

Thanks for linking The Mental Militia from your site.

Salute!
Elias

 
Title: Free West Alliance
Post by: RobertH on March 18, 2004, 04:56:14 am
Quote
Thanks for linking The Mental Militia from your site.

Salute!
Elias
No problem.  Thanks for supporting FWA!
Title: Re: Free West Alliance
Post by: planetaryjim on June 30, 2008, 06:02:03 am
Kind of sad to visit freewest.org now and find it is a domain placeholder.

Been working a bit on Free Mountain West.  Yahoogroup is groups.yahoo.com/group/freemtwest  with web site to follow.
Title: Re: Free West Alliance
Post by: tozierpatriot on August 14, 2011, 08:58:50 pm
Resurrection! Long time... but I just discovered this thread... interesting! So... when is the website gonna' be available? Is there still a free west alliance?
Title: Re: Free West Alliance
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 15, 2011, 08:29:06 am
Resurrection! Long time... but I just discovered this thread... interesting! So... when is the website gonna' be available? Is there still a free west alliance?

I don't know, but the Free State Wyoming project and forum are still alive and growing. Come take a look if you have not.

http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php
Title: Re: Free West Alliance
Post by: tozierpatriot on August 22, 2011, 11:04:03 pm
Got it... joined... hopefully we can meet eventually.
Title: Re: Free West Alliance
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 23, 2011, 07:19:19 am
Got it... joined... hopefully we can meet eventually.


Great! I look forward to that. :) Mama's house is sort of the hub of action for a lot of FSW visitors. Let me know when you're coming and I'll call the clan. :)
Title: Re: Free West Alliance
Post by: Basil Fishbone on September 15, 2011, 06:34:15 pm
Free West morphed into this

http://www.montana-alliance-for-liberty.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=2b32d2deab2b3c1cb22339c725e58568

The website is not active, but is used to store information relevant to those considering a move to Montana.  The associated Yahoo group is still active.

Basil