The Paytriot Delusion

[RonneJJones]

http://sovereignsentience.blogspot.com/2009/09/paytriot-delusion.html

The Paytriot Delusion
By Matthew D. Jarvie
September 18, 2009
Dissecting the New Age


You may think I am able to say that patriotism is a sham and that countries are nothing more than areas of land separated by imaginary lines drawn on a map, without being accused of supporting world government. Well, not according to some who have swallowed the "take back the Republic" BS hook, line and sinker. So let me say it again: Patriotism is a joke and what you believe is "your" country is nothing more than a piece of real estate which isn't nor has ever been yours at all. Patriotism is another artificially-created religion aimed at people's emotions and has historically served no purpose other than to get people to willingly go off and fight in some bogus war fabricated by an international banking syndicate when the time was right.

Now a new and improved form of patriotism I call paytriotism is being used to get people into a reactionary and confrontational state of mind that will be eventually exploited by the controllers to create an order out of chaos scenario. Do you not find it odd that "mainstream," particularly "conservative" (i.e. Republican) media talking heads like Glenn Beck are now saying many of the same things commonly heard in the "alternative" media and on "paytriot" (pay-to-riot) radio for the past eight years? Do you think this is by some mere coincidence? I think not.

I believe that what some people have been saying is correct, that there will be a revolution in America. Except it won't be a revolution of or by the people as there has never been such a thing, even in this country's past. It will be a revolution of and by the NGOs and think tanks (CFR, CNP, Bilderberg, RAND, etc.), the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.), and its lapdog media, on behalf of the international banking elite and their Ecclesiastic Freemason handlers hiding behind the facade of organized religion.

As people continue to go on about "revolution" and how it is a good thing, perhaps they should first understand the true meaning of the word REVOLUTION. A revolution is the great solar myth referring to the sun rising to a "NEW DAWN," ushering in a NEW AGE. Perhaps this explains why there hasn't been a revolution in modern recorded history that hasn't had Masonic fingerprints all over it. My feeling is that the next revolution will be no different.

The elite do not fear paytriots with guns, but perhaps they do fear too many people owning guns -- hence an increased push for further gun control and the deliberate depletion of ammunition around the country. However, when the time comes they will depend on just the right number of useful idiots to react in a way that creates the pretext for them to bring out their experimental crowd control toys and come down hard on us all. In an age of directed-energy weapons, guns are virtually obsolete.

It's quite clear that civil unrest is slowly being fomented in this country for a purpose unbeknownst to most. Most people's frustration is indeed genuine and justified, but that doesn't mean there are not devious people looking to exploit that frustration to further their own diabolical agenda.

 

[ScoutsHonor]

http://sovereignsentience.blogspot.com/2009/09/paytriot-delusion.html[url]http://sovereignsentience.blogspot.com/2009/09/paytriot-delusion.html[/URL]

The Paytriot Delusion
By Matthew D. Jarvie
September 18, 2009
Dissecting the New Age


You may think I am able to say that patriotism is a sham and that countries are nothing more than areas of land separated by imaginary lines drawn on a map, without being accused of supporting world government. Well, not according to some who have swallowed the "take back the Republic" BS hook, line and sinker. So let me say it again: Patriotism is a joke and what you believe is "your" country is nothing more than a piece of real estate which isn't nor has ever been yours at all. Patriotism is another artificially-created religion aimed at people's emotions and has historically served no purpose other than to get people to willingly go off and fight in some bogus war fabricated by an international banking syndicate when the time was right.

Now a new and improved form of patriotism I call paytriotism is being used to get people into a reactionary and confrontational state of mind that will be eventually exploited by the controllers to create an order out of chaos scenario. Do you not find it odd that "mainstream," particularly "conservative" (i.e. Republican) media talking heads like Glenn Beck are now saying many of the same things commonly heard in the "alternative" media and on "paytriot" (pay-to-riot) radio for the past eight years? Do you think this is by some mere coincidence? I think not.

I believe that what some people have been saying is correct, that there will be a revolution in America. Except it won't be a revolution of or by the people as there has never been such a thing, even in this country's past. It will be a revolution of and by the NGOs and think tanks (CFR, CNP, Bilderberg, RAND, etc.), the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.), and its lapdog media, on behalf of the international banking elite and their Ecclesiastic Freemason handlers hiding behind the facade of organized religion.

As people continue to go on about "revolution" and how it is a good thing, perhaps they should first understand the true meaning of the word REVOLUTION. A revolution is the great solar myth referring to the sun rising to a "NEW DAWN," ushering in a NEW AGE. Perhaps this explains why there hasn't been a revolution in modern recorded history that hasn't had Masonic fingerprints all over it. My feeling is that the next revolution will be no different.

The elite do not fear paytriots with guns, but perhaps they do fear too many people owning guns -- hence an increased push for further gun control and the deliberate depletion of ammunition around the country. However, when the time comes they will depend on just the right number of useful idiots to react in a way that creates the pretext for them to bring out their experimental crowd control toys and come down hard on us all. In an age of directed-energy weapons, guns are virtually obsolete.

It's quite clear that civil unrest is slowly being fomented in this country for a purpose unbeknownst to most. Most people's frustration is indeed genuine and justified, but that doesn't mean there are not devious people looking to exploit that frustration to further their own diabolical agenda.

Would we be better off sitting on our a*ses waiting to be arrested, shackled, vaccinated, chipped and dipped ... on the whim of the beasts from Hell?

 

[BillyDkid]

I have always felt that "America" is an idea and not a geographical location. In that respect we lost America long ago. But the idea of America still lives in the hearts of many of us. What America really is is the people in whose hearts the idea of America still lives. It is obvious that that idea still lives in many of our hearts. I love this continent and it is a beautiful place from sea to shining sea - but this continent is not what America is. Wherever we are is where America will be.

 

[ScoutsHonor]

America is the land of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and others who created this great, goodhearted country that, for a long time, was a beacon of liberty to the whole world. I am very proud of our Founding Fathers for creating such a masterpiece.

Thanks for your post!

 

[expendibleater]

Would we be better off sitting on our a*ses waiting to be arrested, shackled, vaccinated, chipped and dipped ... on the whim of the beasts from Hell?

We'd be better off sitting on our butts then doing the enemy's bidding. So, my answer to your question is, yes.

 

[ScoutsHonor]

We'd be better off sitting on our butts then doing the enemy's bidding. So, my answer to your question is, yes.

Doing nothing is not an acceptable option, either. Sheeple are detestable, I don't wish to become one of them.

There's a good possibility that more thought on this subect would produce better, or at least alternative, answers.

 

[RonneJJones]

Doing nothing is not an acceptable option, either. Sheeple are detestable, I don't wish to become one of them.

There's a good possibility that more thought on this subect would produce better, or at least alternative, answers.

Don't be fooled, we are the sheeple

 

[STAND-or-fall]

Just a quick question ron, WHY ARE YOU HERE?

 

[RonneJJones]

Just a quick question ron, WHY ARE YOU HERE?

To speak my mind.

Is there a problem with that here? Is it frowned upon to tell people what they don't want to hear? Am I supposed to be part of the "team"? Not hurt the "movement" and all that kind of stuff?

 

[CCTelander]

To speak my mind.

Is there a problem with that here? Is it frowned upon to tell people what they don't want to hear? Am I supposed to be part of the "team"? Not hurt the "movement" and all that kind of stuff?

Well, yeah, pretty much.

You keep on showing that regretable streak of independence and you'll probably find your time here, shall we say, interesting.

Anyway, from one independent thinker to another, welcome.

 

[NoMoreFed]

This forum is a decent place for information and for throwing different ideas around and seeing how people respond.

Other than that, for anything politically viable to take place, what needs to happen is massive awareness, self-organization, and emergence of leadership.

Unfortunately, non-propaganda based learning on a group scale is tough, information is passed from above through headlines, and interesting/thoughtful people generally get banned from what I've seen of political forums.

However, I think having a voice is better than not, and one can work within our system of communication. It's certainly better than in some other countries.

 

[YumYum]

To speak my mind.

Is there a problem with that here? Is it frowned upon to tell people what they don't want to hear? Am I supposed to be part of the "team"? Not hurt the "movement" and all that kind of stuff?

The movement right now is about HR1207. Outside of that, it is people freely expressing their views, including Ron Paul.

 

[Mini-Me]

We'd be better off sitting on our butts then doing the enemy's bidding. So, my answer to your question is, yes.

Out of curiosity, how many duplicate accounts do you even have on these forums?

You're right that the establishment may very well want to foment revolution for their own "order out of chaos" purposes. However, it's important to remember that they won't even NEED to do that if everyone sits on their ass and complies without resisting. Both violence and compliance will play into the hands of the elite, which is why the correct course of action lies somewhere in between, i.e. non-violent resistance (unless and until such resistance is trampled violently). Maybe change through the political process is possible at some level, i.e. federal, state, or local. If not, as long as people sit on their asses and pay their taxes, things will only get worse and worse...and the only kind of "sitting on their asses" that will do some good is "sitting on their asses" and NOT paying their taxes.

 

[STAND-or-fall]

Hey Ron, by all means speak yer mind there dude. I'm just wondering why someone with such a bleak, deafeated attitude would seek out a liberty forum. Seriously , to hear you tell it, we're allready dead and burried!

 

[expendibleater]

Well, yeah, pretty much.

You keep on showing that regretable streak of independence and you'll probably find your time here, shall we say, interesting.

Anyway, from one independent thinker to another, welcome.

Is independent thought really frowned on here? Why?

 

[CCTelander]

Is independent thought really frowned on here? Why?

Certain kinds of independent thought are likely to be viewed in a negative light, and get one flamed. It really depends on a lot of things.

For example, any criticism of electoral politics as an effective means of achieving liberty is usually viewed as an attack on the majority here who are advocates of that approach, and is usually responded to with extreme hostility.

Advocating a stateless society, or failing to worship the federalist constitution is another form of independent thought that's frowned upon. It is also usually viewed as an attack, and is highly likely to elicit hostility.

But hey, if you come up with a new, creative way to raise money for political candidates, that kind of thing goes over well.

 

[YumYum]

Is independent thought really frowned on here? Why?

Yes, because it goes against dependent thinking.

 

[Mini-Me]

Certain kinds of independent thought are likely to be viewed in a negative light, and get one flamed. It really depends on a lot of things.

For example, any criticism of electoral politics as an effective means of achieving liberty is usually viewed as an attack on the majority here who are advocates of that approach, and is usually responded to with extreme hostility.

Advocating a stateless society, or failing to worship the federalist constitution is another form of independent thought that's frowned upon. It is also usually viewed as an attack, and is highly likely to elicit hostility.

But hey, if you come up with a new, creative way to raise money for political candidates, that kind of thing goes over well.

You're sounding a little jaded there, CCTelander.

I may be missing something, but I haven't really seen any hostility directed towards people who criticize electoral politics...just against the posters who actively discourage those efforts and insult people or tell them they're part of the problem when they try to affect change that way (Kraig comes to mind, even though he's banned now). Similarly, the results of the recent Federalist/Anti-Federalist poll should speak for themselves, considering it was almost unanimous in favor of the anti-federalists. It's really only a vocal few who constantly deride the an-caps, let alone anyone criticizing the Constitution for being too permissive or unenforceable.

 

[CCTelander]

You're sounding a little jaded there, CCTelander.

I may be missing something, but I haven't really seen any hostility directed towards people who criticize electoral politics...just against the posters who actively discourage those efforts and insult people or tell them they're part of the problem when they try to affect change that way (Kraig comes to mind, even though he's banned now). Similarly, the results of the recent Federalist/Anti-Federalist poll should speak for themselves, considering it was almost unanimous in favor of the anti-federalists. It's really only a vocal few who constantly deride the an-caps, let alone anyone criticizing the Constitution for being too permissive or unenforceable.

Jaded? Nah, just guardedly pessimistic!

Seriously though, I think you're missing a strong undercurrent of hostility toward certain philosophical points of view.

I also disagree with you, at least in part, when you say that the hostility is only directed at "the posters who actively discourage those efforts and insult people or tell them they're part of the problem when they try to affect change that way."

First of all, it seems to me that ANY time one criticizes electoral politics as one of the least effective, most resource intensive tools we have available, it almost invariable gets interpreted as an attempt to "discourage" those efforts, which, I guess, it is in a way. But then it's usually taken even further and the person doing the criticizing is accused of "hurting the movement," and other such tripe.

The problem here is that IF electoral politics is, in fact, ineffective and wasteful (keeping in mind I'm only proposing a hypothetical here), then NOT saying so, NOT at least attempting to propose something more effective, would, in fact, be truly "hurting the movement."

The way I see it, we, as a "movement," have VERY limited resources with which to work.

Our opponents, on the other hand, have virtually unlimited resources, in terms of money, access to media time for the purposes of propaganda, etc.

Seems to me that it would behoove us to use the limited resources we have in the VERY MOST EFFECTIVE manner conceivably possible. Am I somehow wrong here?

That being the case, anyone attempting to discourage electoral politics, assuming it IS as ineffective and wasteful as some of us believe it to be, would be providing an invaluable service to the cause of liberty, even if all they had to offer as an alternative was the suggestion that we, as a group, make some effort to brainstorm other ideas.

Again, show me where I'm wrong, please.

Ultimately, there has always been a tendency around here to give in, at times, to a witch hunt type of mentality. It's actually a pretty normal, human thing to do, but it is still disturbing.

The people who detract from such things as electoral politics should, IMO, at least be given the respect of being assumed to be well-intentioned. Usually they are not.

Anyway, that's my perspective.

 

[Mini-Me]

Jaded? Nah, just guardedly pessimistic!

Seriously though, I think you're missing a strong undercurrent of hostility toward certain philosophical points of view.

I also disagree with you, at least in part, when you say that the hostility is only directed at "the posters who actively discourage those efforts and insult people or tell them they're part of the problem when they try to affect change that way."

First of all, it seems to me that ANY time one criticizes electoral politics as one of the least effective, most resource intensive tools we have available, it almost invariable gets interpreted as an attempt to "discourage" those efforts, which, I guess, it is in a way. But then it's usually taken even further and the person doing the criticizing is accused of "hurting the movement," and other such tripe.

The problem here is that IF electoral politics is, in fact, ineffective and wasteful (keeping in mind I'm only proposing a hypothetical here), then NOT saying so, NOT at least attempting to propose something more effective, would, in fact, be truly "hurting the movement."

The way I see it, we, as a "movement," have VERY limited resources with which to work.

Our opponents, on the other hand, have virtually unlimited resources, in terms of money, access to media time for the purposes of propaganda, etc.

Seems to me that it would behoove us to use the limited resources we have in the VERY MOST EFFECTIVE manner conceivably possible. Am I somehow wrong here?

That being the case, anyone attempting to discourage electoral politics, assuming it IS as ineffective and wasteful as some of us believe it to be, would be providing an invaluable service to the cause of liberty, even if all they had to offer as an alternative was the suggestion that we, as a group, make some effort to brainstorm other ideas.

Again, show me where I'm wrong, please.

Although I'm somewhat skeptical of our political chances myself, and I agree that political action is inordinately resource-intensive, I think you're overlooking the crucial point that getting involved in the political process motivates and energizes a lot of us. I mean, compare the grassroots atmosphere now with the atmosphere during Ron Paul's campaign! There used to be this electrifying feeling that we were accomplishing something positive, and that energy - along with Ron Paul's presence in the political debates - drew a lot of people into the mix who probably wouldn't have even given Ron Paul or libertarianism a second thought otherwise. I think I may be one of those people, though I'd like to think I would have come around eventually anyway. As someone born into the liberty movement (although I may be getting you confused with someone else?) and someone who already subscribed to the liberty message, you might not fully appreciate the reach and "message force" the Ron Paul campaign had compared to previous political and non-political efforts, but that one political campaign sparked moments of revelation and drastic ideological change in countless people.

Until someone actually comes up with a more effective unifying idea that people can collaborate on and draw as much motivation from, discouraging political activism in the meantime will really only encourage people to do nothing in practice (rather than "something better"). Because of that, I can definitely see why it would generate some hostility and possibly be considered trolling. Still, most hostility I've seen has been towards the people that take the hard-line anarcho-capitalist position that participating in the system is immoral, counterproductive, and part of the problem (because political activists would naturally take that as an attack). Besides, we can always brainstorm on the forums while continuing to try politics; the two are not mutually exclusive.

Ultimately, there has always been a tendency around here to give in, at times, to a witch hunt type of mentality. It's actually a pretty normal, human thing to do, but it is still disturbing.

The people who detract from such things as electoral politics should, IMO, at least be given the respect of being assumed to be well-intentioned. Usually they are not.

Anyway, that's my perspective.

I understand this, but in a movement bound to be infiltrated by political opponents and outright enemies, I think people are somewhat justified in feeling paranoid and suspicious of anyone who says, "Stop everything you're doing!" Also, I think that a person's tone plays a role in how well they're received by others, and someone with an inflammatory or condescending tone is probably more likely to be considered ill-intentioned than someone [like you] who is more considerate. That said, I definitely draw the line at confidently accusing someone (or every an-cap, for that matter ) of being controlled opposition without any real evidence. Being suspicious of someone is one thing, and raising a possibility is one thing, but targeting someone and making stone-cold accusations is something totally different. I DID see a thread where a couple of posters made such ridiculous accusations...but they're the vocal minority I was talking about earlier.

Ultimately, I think everyone opposed to political action would better-received if they spent their posts brainstorming alternatives (as you say should be done) instead of attacking what many consider their best hope for liberty. Even if political activism is a waste, the political activists are still only wasting their own time, energy, and money trying to oppose statism politically, not yours. There may be a time when someone comes up with a better idea that political action would only detract from, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Until then, openly discouraging political activism will simply be taken as little more than discouragement in general by those on the receiving end.