© Copyright 1993 By Frederick Mann, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
In 1976 I first read Lysander Spooner's The Constitution of No Authority. Spooner indicated that the so-called "U.S. Constitution" was never signed in a way that made it a legal or valid contract. Therefore, he argued there has never been such a thing as the so-called "United States of America." Furthermore, all the so-called "Presidents," "Secretaries," "Ambassadors," etc. have been frauds and impostors. He also indicated that the same applied to all other so-called "countries" in the world.
In other words, all the political systems in the world are fraudulent hoaxes. By the way, the syntax "so-called "U.S. Constitution"" indicates that the very concept of "U.S. Constitution" is being challenged. A more powerful syntax is "falsely-called "U.S. Constitution,"" "falsely-called "President,"" etc.
Since 1982 I've been trying with limited success to get freedom-oriented people to see that the entire political system is a hoax and a fraud. I woke one morning with what might turn out to be a breakthrough idea: BOUGHT-INTO-THE SYSTEM.
Ten days ago a friend sent me this fax:
"A Summary of Political Thought
at the Dawn of the Third Millennium:
LIBERALS: The Emperor should help the poor!
CONSERVATIVES: The Emperor should help the rich!
LIBERTARIANS: The Emperor has no clothes!
ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS: Why do you call that naked man Emperor?"
We have represented here degrees to which various people have bought into the system. The "liberals" (most modern-day "liberals" are not very liberal (by the original definition) in that they advocate all kinds of fascist, socialist, and communist forms of government force) buy into the system to an extreme degree. They see government ("the emperor") as a solution to practically everything.
Conservatives buy into the system to a lesser degree. They think there are certain things government must do, but apart from these things there should be a free market. (Nevertheless, many Libertarians see no essential difference between liberals and conservatives. They talk about "demopublicans" or "republicrats.")
Libertarians buy into the system to a still lesser degree. We need a distinction between political and non-political Libertarians. Political Libertarians seek to bring about freedom via political means to change the political system. They have bought into the system in that they employ political means.
Non-political Libertarians reject political means to bring about freedom. They tend to buy into the system to a lesser degree than political Libertarians, but they still tend to believe they can't be free unless the political system is changed. They may focus on educational activities such as distributing literature and writing letters to newspapers. They've bought into the system to the extent they believe they must obey the system and the system must be changed for them to be free.
Mr. Klien (of Atlantis Project) and his supporters have given up on the political means to change the system. They've decided to build a floating-city free country with a very free (though not entirely free) political system.
The freedom philosophy of our freedom organization is based on the recognition that individuals are free and sovereign by nature, as primarily espoused by Rose Wilder Lane (The Discovery of Freedom) and Harry Browne (How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World). By acquiring certain knowledge, methods, and skills (Freedom Technology), we can live free. Anarcho-Capitalists practice the economic means to freedom and liberty. We also create alternative voluntary institutions. We induce people to shift their economic activities into the free enterprise sector. This shift will eventually bring about the collapse of coercive political systems. In the meantime, we enjoy a great deal of freedom, make and keep more money, and even make money from the effort of inducing others to shift their economic activities into the free enterprise sector.
The Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy and strategy are also based on the recognition that the entire political system is a hoax and a fraud. This suggests that rather than trying to change the system, we need to persuade people to stop believing in the system. We need to make a distinction between physical reality and social reality. The North American continent is an aspect of physical reality. The notion that a certain portion of this continent is the so-called "U.S.A." is social reality. The notion is a function of social agreement, rather than physical reality. Similarly, the notion that "Bill Clinton is president of the U.S.A." is a function of social agreement. To the extent that you regard these notions as valid, you buy into the system.
The Libertarian (particularly the non-political) says, "The President has no clothes!" Thus the Libertarian buys into the system by accepting the notion that "Bill Clinton is president of the U.S.A." More fundamentally, the Libertarian buys into the system by accepting the concept of "president" (in the political sense) as valid. The Anarcho-Capitalist says, "Why do you call that naked man President?" Thus the Anarcho-Capitalist rejects the notion that "Bill Clinton is president of the U.S.A." If you believe there's such a thing as the supposed "U.S.A." with Bill Clinton as its so-called "President," you've bought into the system. The Anarcho-Capitalist who accepts as valid the concept of "president" (in the political sense), is still buying into the system.
When we interact with people we need to judge the degree to which they've bought into the system. The policeman acts as if the political/legal system is physical reality and he carries a gun to prove it. You don't argue freedom philosophy with him and his gun.
In general, political Libertarians are not the best prospects for our organization. Our concept, philosophy, and strategy are all based on having jumped out of the system. To the political Libertarian everything about our organization might seem absurd. However, some political Libertarians are disillusioned with the lack of results achieved so far through political actions. They may be prospects for our materials.
There's a huge divide between the political Libertarian and the Anarcho-Capitalist. The former believes freedom comes from changing things outside yourself. The latter changes self to expand personal power and freedom. The former believes in fighting and making sacrifices for the cause of freedom. The latter expands personal freedom and power and profits from creating expanded options in life generally. The shift from political Libertarian to Anarcho-Capitalist is a much bigger shift than that from "average person" to political Libertarian.
The advanced Anarcho-Capitalist eventually realizes that the most fundamental basis of the coercive political system is a system of concepts. To jump out of this system, it's necessary to develop the thinking ability to analyze and question concepts. Let's take the concept of "king" as an example. Suppose I were to visit a naive society that doesn't have concepts like "king" and "subject." Suppose that I could get the people of this society to believe that I'm a special person with superior powers, therefore I'm to be called "king." Because of my superiority I have a higher status; they are therefore my inferior "subjects." If I can persuade the people of this society to accept the concepts of "king" and "subject" I will gain great advantages over them. Because I'm "king" and they're "subjects," they must obey me, feed me, kiss my feet, provide me with women for my pleasure, protect me against enemies, etc.
To the extent that the people of this society accept concepts like "king" and "subject," they've bought into the system and they pay the price. They have, in fact, enslaved themselves by accepting the concepts of another and making them their own.
The semantically free Anarcho-Capitalist says, "Why do you regard the concept of "Emperor" (so-called) as valid?" If you use the concepts of the enemy as if valid, you've bought into the system at the most basic and most powerful level.
Some years ago I stayed with an Anarchist Libertarian friend in New York. One evening he and several friends were discussing World War II. My friend was much too young to have participated in the war, but when talking about the successes of the American army he repeatedly said, "We did so-and-so." Similarly, I've heard Libertarians talk about "our government," "our president," and "doing my taxes." They've bought into the system at the most basic and most powerful level.
We've established a hierarchy of levels of bought-into-the-system. Generally, you have to talk to people at their level or slightly above. You can't talk to most political Libertarians about Anarcho-Capitalism and expect to get anywhere.
It's relatively easy for Mr. Klien to sell his project to political Libertarians because it's pitched at a level only slightly above theirs. Instead of changing the system, we build our own country on the sea with our own political system. Mr. Klien also operates in a mode familiar to political Libertarians: asking people for contributions for the cause.
I must emphasize that there's nothing wrong or inappropriate with political Libertarianism or Mr. Klien's project. Freedom expands as the cumulative result of many different strategies and tactics. Different audiences are ready for messages at levels appropriate to each. In attempting to communicate freedom, we need to be very aware of the level of our audience.
Buying into a system is an investment. In a way, jumping out of a system involves writing off the investment. All along the levels, people invest in the systems they buy into. The political Libertarian invests in the form of paying taxes and feeling bitter about it, contributing to the cause, and working without pay.
Psychologically, presenting the concepts of Anarcho-Capitalism in our materials to political Libertarians is telling them that their investment was a mistake and they must write it off. It's much easier to sell our materials to non-political Libertarians because they've already become disillusioned with political action and written off their investment in that domain.
The psychological, intellectual, and emotional investment in concepts is enormous. Asking someone to question the validity of concepts like "king," "subject," "state," "country," "government," "nation," "president," "law," etc. is for most people too much. Many Anarcho-Capitalists will have trouble questioning these statist concepts. In a way, questioning a basic concept challenges your entire knowledge structure. To question a basic concept, you have to be willing to consider writing off the investment in at least part of your knowledge structure.
The jump from "Why do you call that naked man Emperor?" to "Why do you regard the concept of "Emperor" as valid?" may be a much bigger jump than that from Libertarian to Anarcho-Capitalist. The ratio could be as follows:
Freespeak and Slavespeak
Chapter 8 of Robert J. Ringer's book Restoring the American Dream is titled "Keeping It All in Place." Ringer's theme is that coercive political systems are held in place by words. He indicates how Hitler gained power through his skill as a "word spreader." He enumerates the "arsenal of words" used to maintain coercive political systems. He lists "government" as one of these words.
Central to coercive political systems is mind control. The most basic unit of mind control is the word or concept. Earlier I indicated what happens if I were to visit a naive society, and persuade them that I was "king" (falsely-called) and they were "subjects" (falsely-called). Suppose I were to further persuade them that my words have a special power, must be obeyed, and are "the law." If they accept the concept of "law" (falsely-called) as valid, they put themselves at a disadvantage to me. By accepting the concept, they enslave themselves. They have bought into my system to control and dominate them.
Similarly, I can persuade them to accept the concept of "tax" (falsely-called). "Theft" is more appropriate. By persuading my victims to buy into my system, I gain the power to live off their labor like a parasite (or cannibal).
Slavespeak consists of coercive political control words: "king," "queen," "president," "state," "government," "law," "tax," etc. To the extent that you use these words as if valid, you speak Slavespeak.
To the extent that you speak in a manner that demonstrates your rejection of the validity of these words - and you also induce others to question these words - to that extent you speak Freespeak.
There's a trap here. You have to be very careful with Freespeak. Very few people are ready for Freespeak. If you try Freespeak on people who are not ready for it, you'll only antagonize them. Advanced thinking skills are required to question words like "state," "government," "law," etc. In general, to communicate, you have to speak Slavespeak - or lose your audience!
Fortunately, you can use a "transition technique" or "intermediate method" of communication. Instead of "state," or "government," you can use terms like "territorial criminals" or "territorial gangsters" ("TGs"). You're not directly challenging others' concepts, while at the same time you don't perpetuate and reinforce the "government" scam. You could also use the term "terrocrat" - short for "terrorist bureaucrat or coercive political agent." When you explain to people why you use these terms, some will understand and follow suit. This could eventually become a powerful tactic. Imagine what would happen if a thousand freedom communicators were to use these terms over the airwaves and in print!
Jumping out of the System
To jump out of coercive political systems at least the following steps are necessary:
1. Recognize that you are a free and sovereign individual - see Reports #04: How to Find Out Who You Are and #05: How to Discover Your Freedom.
2. Recognize that all coercive political systems are fraudulent hoaxes - see Lysander Spooner's The Constitution of No Authority.
3. Recognize that words are different from the things words supposedly represent. We have some words, which upon critical analysis, turn out to represent nothing - or an illusion. For example, the word "king" represents the illusion of "magical superiority."
4. Develop the ability to critically analyze words/concepts to determine if the acceptance of these words/concepts as valid provides you with advantages or disadvantages.
5. Become aware of "holdcepts" and "jumpcepts." A holdcept is a word or concept that keeps you stuck in a system. Slavespeak words like "state," "government," "law," etc. are designed to keep you stuck in coercive political systems. Words like "territorial gangster," "territorial criminal," "terrocrat," etc. are designed to help you jump out of coercive political systems.
6. Read Chapter 8 of Robert J. Ringer's book Restoring the American Dream, titled "Keeping It All in Place." Consider each word or phrase he classifies as part of the politician's arsenal. Think about how the acceptance as valid of each of these words/phrases keeps people stuck in the coercive political system. Realize that each of these words or phrases is a holdcept. For each, invent a jumpcept. For example: "welfare" becomes "badfare"; "Department of Justice" becomes "Department of Injustice"; "government" becomes "gang of liars, impostors, thieves, robbers, and murderers"; "constitution" becomes "constifusion"; etc.
7. Use words consciously - particularly Slavespeak words like "state," "government," "law," etc. - in the attempt to produce specific results. Become very aware of your audience and how they react or respond to words. By consciously I mean that you need to choose your words, keeping in mind the level of understanding of your audience. When you use Slavespeak words, the only reason for doing so should be to gain sufficient psychological and emotional acceptance from your audience so your message will be heard. In doing so be careful to not fall into the trap of being suckered into the thinking patterns of Slavespeak.
8. Experiment with jumpcepts, for example, the syntax, "Clinton, the falsely-called "president."" Compare politics and religion. The falsely-called "pope" is supposed to enjoy "papal infallibility" (so-called), meaning it's impossible for him to make a mistake! Falsely-called "papal infallibility" is an illusion. Does accepting such concepts as valid provide you with advantages or disadvantages?
9. Developing your thinking skills. In Chapter 8 of Robert J. Ringer's book Restoring the American Dream, titled "Keeping It All in Place," he quotes Bertrand Russell:
"Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin, more even than death. Thought... is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is... indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid."
10. Here is a partial list from the words Mr. Ringer includes in his "arsenal" used by the "governing elite" to seduce their victims: "the people," "the public," "society," "government," "country," "taxation," "conscription," "patriotic," "public good," "public property," "public interest." Conspicuously absent from Mr. Ringer's list is the word "law." Think about these Slavespeak words and phrases and how they keep people locked in Slavethink.
Ideally, you would communicate without using Slavespeak at all. However, if you eliminated all Slavespeak, very few people would understand what you're talking about. So focus on: What is the specific result I wish to obtain on this occasion with this audience? Through such focus you develop your thinking skills.
Levels of Statism
Statism occurs at three levels:
Filing and paying "your taxes" (falsely-called) is engaging in overt statist behavior. (Irrespective of the extent of your freedom-development, your situation may be such that it's appropriate for you to file and pay.)
The belief that taxes are necessary is statism at the level of belief. Libertarians or Anarcho-Capitalists who believe that they have to pay taxes or go to jail, are practicing statism at the level of belief.
You can be a statist at the level of behavior, belief, or concept. If you regard concepts like "Emperor," "government," and "law" as valid, you practice statism at the level of concept. This is the most fundamental and most powerful level of statism.
To regard the noises and scribbles that emanate from the mouths
and pens of territorial gangsters as "the law" is quite
absurd. The notion of the "law" (so-called) is an "hallawcinotion!"
It sounds even better in French: "La notion de la loi (soi-disant)
est une halloicinotion!"
Downloaded from the Personal Empowerment Resources Web-Site: http://www.mind-trek.com/