In this video, I have an amazing conversation with a special guest, David Whitehead from Way of the Truth Warrior.
We opened up by getting some background on David. We then discussed the context of ‘Falling Into Movement Traps’ and the recent work I’ve been doing which is the reason I wanted to have David on the show. He’s been covering such topics as crowd psychology, the climate change debate, the United Nations, Prophets of Doom, and much more.
I’ve linked David’s new series in the resources below, “CULTS Of Death & Power”, as well as many other recent works from David which I urge the guest to check out. Thanks for watching and let me know if you have any comments or questions on the comment section below.
The Rule of Crowdocracy is the third in the series, Falling Into Movement Traps. In this episode, I discuss “groupthink” and the psychology of crowds.
The “Rule” is the fact that when groups of any number of people form under a set of ideas/ideals which motivate the group into action, there is a rule that there will be inherent errors in the accepted edicts of the group, movement, or cause. It doesn’t matter which political, philosophical, religious, spiritual, activist, or anarchist group that it is, they will always have these implicit issues which I discuss in the episode.
“Ignorant people remain ignorant because they have a secret agreement to call one another intelligent” – Vernon Howard
Democracy itself is just mob rule. It’s the rule of the crowd, even though this is just pretense but the crowd believes it to be true. Ultimately, “Democracy” (Fabian Socialism) is just another culdesac setup for the rats to feel they are progressing toward the ultimate cheese at the end of the maze.
Crowdocracy has certain rules and attributes which withstand all the movement in history and the present.
What we find is that the soulless beings in any group or collective are living the inauthentic life. The crowd will do its virtue-signaling, and the frontline will contain social justice warriors sent to protect the crowd’s baseless rules and moral claims. However, the individuals found within these movements can easily be discovered as being entirely inauthentic with even the most basic inventory of their thoughts and opinions.
The Secondary Matrix is the second in the series, Falling Into Movement Traps. In this episode I discuss the various “Freedom Movements” and the issues that can be discovered therein.
I distinguish what the difference is between Primary and Secondary Matrix dwellers. That in the Secondary Matrix we still are largely ineffective at creating positive changes and combating evil and destruction, tyranny and chaos.
In order to fully exit the Matrix and build a more prosperous and free world, there is far more to it than your typical activist, anarcho-whatever, “freedom movement”, or spiritual adolescent has come to discover.
This video was produced live on 09/22/2019 and streamed via my various social media platforms.
The Struggle For Freedom is the first in the series, Falling Into Movement Traps. In this series, I will be discussing the issues surrounding the so-called “Freedom Movements” and the contradictions I’ve uncovered from the first-hand experience with these groups. In part 1, we take a deeper look at the struggle and find that there are very important questions regarding mans desire for freedom (or lack thereof).
In this video, I talk about how anarchy is the source of the legal matrix.
Resources:
ANARCHY – [ˈanərkē ] – Noun. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority: “he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy.” Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. Synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection. Antonyms: government, order.
ANARCHY – A situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws. 1a: Absence of government. 1b: A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. 1c: A utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government. 2a: Absence or denial of any authority or established order. 2b: Absence of order: disorder – not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker> 3: Anarchism.
Examples of ANARCHY:
Anarchy reigned in the empire’s remote provinces. When the teacher was absent, there was anarchy in the classroom. Its immigration policies in the last five years have become the envy of those in the West who see in all but the most restrictive laws the specter of terrorism and social anarchy. —Caroline Moorehead, New York Review of Books, 16 Nov. 2006 Origin of ANARCHY: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchoshaving no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-.
First Known Use: 1539
Related to ANARCHY: Synonyms: Lawlessness, misrule.
Here is the result of a word search of “anarchy” from the etymology online website (http://etymonline.com/)
ANARCHY – 1530s, from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia “lack of a leader, the state of people without a government” (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), noun of state from anarkhos “rulerless,” from an- “without” (see an- (1)) + arkhos “leader” (see archon). Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is … death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with you! [Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921)]
ANARCH – “leader of leaderlessness,” 1660s, a deliciously paradoxical word used by Milton, Pope, Byron; see anarchy.
ANARCHIST – (noun) 1670’s; see anarchy + -ist. The word got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution.
ANARCHISM – (noun) 1640’s; see anarchy + -ism.
ANARCHISTIC – (Adjective) 1845; see anarchy + -istic. Also see anarchic. Related: Anarchistically.
ANARCHIC – (Adjective) 1755, chaotic, without order or rule,” from Greek anarkhos “without head or chief” (see anarchy) + -ic. anarchistic (1845) which tends to refer to the political philosophy of anarchism. An older word in this sense was anarchical (1590s). Anarchial is from 1710; Landor used anarchal (1824).
To subscribe to updates please enter your email address below:
In this video I discuss a comment that was made on my Voluntary Slaves post.
The comment is quoted below:
“I still don’t see the contradictions in “voluntaryism”. I see how we always have choices whether to comply or not, but I don’t see how advocating against monopolistic mindsets is contradictory. There is a belief system that monopoly powers are good for society (commonly called “statism”); there is a belief system in the opposite, that such powers shouldn’t be assumed or supported by anyone… and “voluntaryism” is a good word for that.”
In this video I continue to discuss the issues with Voluntaryism and other “Freedom Movements”.
The above video on the Voluntary Slaves is an introduction of sorts to the upcoming series, “Falling In to the Movement Traps”. I’ll be publishing part one of this series soon.
In order to understand why I would title this post, “Voluntary Slaves”, we need to understand what Voluntaryism (or Voluntarism, Volunteerism and so on) really is. Not the fake and misinformed definition of what the libertarian activists think that it means, but what it really means.
In the video and in this brief article I will be bringing forth some of my arguments which I know will ruffle feathers for anyone in the Voluntaryist/Libertarian cults. I have even been associated with these cults in the recent past. Hopefully, I now have a better understanding of what these groups are all about after spending time in and around these movements.
Admittedly, this discussion and commentary is very surface level. In the future I would like to go much further in depth on the voluntary nature of our slavery and the nature of evil in this contract. Evil and destruction act under a mask which we end up condoning and even begging for, “voluntarily”. Of course, there are many things that could be completely voluntary and also maniacally evil.
Voluntaryism provides no shield or resistance in defense of freedom for those who condone and desire their slavery and condone it for you as well. What of those who voluntarily subject themselves to all manner of immoral and degrading behaviors which ultimately end up enslaving the larger society to external control? What if the vast overwhelming majority of people in a society are voluntarily subjecting themselves to forms of external rulership and control? Even if that external control is composed largely of psychopathic, satanic, pedophiles… what if people still voluntarily agree to go along with this system, what then for the “freedom movements”?
As you can clearly see, Voluntaryism is nothing but words. Just air spoken to sooth the inauthentic souls who are lost on their own personal path to freedom.
The reality of Voluntaryism is that it is the doctrine of master-servant, or that of master-slave. Government is a voluntary agency and all citizens of government are voluntarily so. The entire “voluntary society” movement is a misinformed fallacy by definition. What I’ve found is that these groups are basically bunch of children that know nothing about law and how citizenship actually works.
What’s needed is far more than these false “freedom movements” in order construct the conditions of true freedom and prosperity. That being said, I still felt it was worth my time to break down aspects of these movements that I have found to be completely contradictory and thus need to be removed from the general consensus. A naive and foolish endeavor to be sure.
No man acting in a United States person (legal status) or other national citizenship is an involuntary slave, but necessarily and by law is a volunteer. To consent directly or indirectly is to volunteer to the doctrine of master and servant.
That beings said, it’s not required to contract with the government. It’s possible and quite simple to remove your citizenship status. Contracting with the government is completely and 100% voluntary. The argument that there was a gun to my parents head when they signed my birth certificate (a common argument from the Libertarian/Voluntaryist movements) is utterly false. There was also no gun present when I then applied for a drivers license, contracted under a w4, registered my vehicle, purchased property and all other actions which require the use of me acting under my legal name. This was all done voluntarily. The argument that we have been forced into the conditions we’ve created is a lie. We are creating these conditions through our own free will decisions.
If a parent voluntarily signs the ownership of a child over to the government they are not being mugged and forced to do so. They are voluntarily doing this. There is no gun being pointed at the parents and it’s not required to subject the child to being a citizen of the United States.
There is no amount of coercion, financially or otherwise, imposed upon parents which justifies the action to sign a child over to the state and claim that you have involuntarily done so. It is voluntary to consent to be governed and any other claim is a contradiction, misunderstanding, or possibly a lie meant to confuse and control it’s believers. There are plenty of ways to exist outside of this legal contract and it’s not required for life to be a citizen of any nation.
In order to remain a voluntary slave, the child must continue through life operating in the legal fiction which has been created for them. Their own ignorance of these conditions will validate and provide the consent necessary for the government to qualify the behavior as that of its voluntary citizen. Ignorance is not an excuse that nature is going to give us a break on. We will suffer the consequences of our actions regardless of how ignorant or even nescient we were when acted and created these conditions.
There is no guarantee of safety if one chooses to revoke their voluntary citizenship and serve no government. If one chooses to obey only the laws of Nature (Gods law) there is nothing in Nature which provides a guarantee that there won’t be threats or acts of violence conducted against you.
Giving up our freedoms is still a choice regardless of any excuse we want to make as for why we behaved a certain way. Even if there is a gun to your head, which there almost never is, it’s still voluntary how you choose to respond. There is no guarantee that your choice will lead to immediate safety. You know, the whole “liberty or death” sentiment. Even if we are being held in a state of duress we will have the ability to choose how we will respond.
Freedom does not guarantee safety. Putting a feather up your butt does not make you a duck and wearing the label, “Voluntaryist”, doesn’t give anyone the moral high ground. If we are being honest with ourselves, then the truth is that we are all Voluntary Slaves! That’s a hard pill to swallow, especially for those in the “Freedom movements” who would never dare to admit they are really just an ignorant coward. This would at least be honest. We can then provide for this truth by starting from what is real. The real conditions of our servitude is that the chains are loose and can be taken off at any time.
I see the average voluntaryist basically saying “I will say one thing, but act completely different”. It’s a contradiction in itself to claim you are a voluntaryist, but then voluntarily maintain relations that are “non-consensual” by the voluntaryist own definitions.
Voluntaryists will go along paying all manner of taxes and claiming that they pay their taxes under a state of duress. However, what this means is that by definition that are actually not a voluntaryist. It’s a contradiction and you are a slave who does what their master says to do. In other words, you are really a volunteer, but it appears you’ve only begun to understand what this really implies and now are throwing a fit on the floor like a two year old and demanding the relationship which you consented to end. Well, that’s not how it works folks. Reality doesn’t work that way.
