“Oligarchs like protecting themselves from peasants…”
– Gus Demos of Perpetual Assets
The guys at Perpetual Assets are not only fellow warriors in the struggle against oligarchy and fascism in the USSA, they are also friends. It’s been great getting to know them over the years, and working with them in this existential struggle we face.
The way in which they have chosen to make a difference is in hard-asset protection, which is why they started the company. With civil asset forfeiture currently in the spotlight, it’s worth remembering that there has been a marked rise not just in occurrences of civil asset forfeiture, but also in scope. Any asset that you do not control is potentially at risk. One of the ways in which Perpetual Assets tries to help in this regard is to jailbreak your retirement account through an LLC IRA, with which you can even take home delivery of gold and silver bullion. Check out their tutorial on the process here.
Moving along, I think the following interview is one of the best I’ve ever done. It was more a discussion than anything else, and the range of topics discussed is incredibly expansive. From moats around the White House, to agent provocateurs. From the feasibility of anarchy, to the precious metals market. It has it all. Enjoy!
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
Okay, I’m one of those people in the anarchist / voluntarist camp, and I believe you would benefit from more thinking on this matter.
You talked about voting, and I’d like to add something to that discussion. While there’s some use in Ron-Paul types in congress, I think it’s very dangerous to have anyone with a libertarian flavor anywhere near the Presidency. There isn’t enough time or ability to effect enough political change to avoid the coming slump/collapse. When it happens, whoever is President will be blamed in the eyes of the masses. If a libertarian happens to be in power, Libetrarianism will be scapegoated for the failings of neoliberalism/royal mercantilism — even more than it already is today.
To borrow a metaphor, you wouldn’t want to captain the Titanic hours before hitting the ‘berg.
Non-voting is not about “not caring”, but about the realization that a political solution is no longer available. I’d argue it’s been unavailable for somewhere between 40 to 100 years (somewhere between the Fed and WWI and Nixon’s final, official termination of the gold standard.
This, by the way, coming from a guy that went to NH to campaign for Ron Paul back in ’07, and I watched very closely in ’11. I have learned well from this experience — the political system is closed to meaningful change away from mercantilism, serfdom, and monopoly. We, the irate minority, should not waste our limited energies on impossible solutions.
Avoid the dollar. Stay away from debt. Raise children peacefully. Ostracize and shame the fraudsters. Grow responsible communities and build scalable decentralized reputation systems. Take meaningful self-directed action where it is possible, rather than beg the masters to fix the political system they impose on us.
Keep up the good work. And mybe do some more podcasts, I myself prefer listening over reading while driving…
Hi and thanks very much for your comment. I generally agree with all of what you wrote, and I think you misunderstood most of what I was saying. I’m not sure if you read my article on Rand Paul recently, but here’s some of what I wrote:
Readers of this site will be well aware that I spend very little time focusing on Presidential politics. There are many reasons for this, but more than anything else, I believe there are two key components to genuine cultural change, and none of them have to do with electing a savior. These are:
1) Knowledge – Ignorance is not bliss. Particularly when it comes to the advance or decline of a civilization. Thomas Jefferson said it best:
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.
I am trying to do my own little part in that regard here at Liberty Blitzkrieg.
2) Internal Change – It is much easier to complain about others and the world at large than it is to improve oneself. I’m as guilty of this as anyone, but I am cognizant that you can’t change the outside world unless you have changed what’s inside. Gandhi said it best:
We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.
We can elect all the saviors we want to positions of power, but unless we are able to master the above, nothing will permanently evolve in the right direction, and we will be cursed into repeating the same painful cycle over and over again. Crash and burn.
Here’s a link to the whole thing: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/11/18/this-is-why-rand-paul-is-hilary-clintons-worst-nightmare/
My point about anarchism/volunteerism is not that I don’t agree that such a perspective and implementation in one’s life is extremely important to changing society, my point was that human beings are social creatures. We organize and create societal arrangements. Even if 50% of humanity didn’t feel a need to organize and create such structures, the 50% that do, will, and that’s a reality we need to be aware of and accept whether we like it or not.
I think the founders understood that, which is why they created a Republic which set down unalienable rights of the people to diminish the negative impacts of the inevitable busy bodies that would ultimately take over political power and try to micro-manage everyone’s lives.
Thanks for your reply, Mike. I don’t visit your blog with regularity, so I missed that article from the 18th. After reading it, and the discussion in the comments, I am unswayed from my original position. I also don’t think you addressed my concern — that Libertarian philosophy will be scapegoated for the coming collapse should a libertarian-flavored candidate make it to the presidency.
It is true, Rand Paul might speed up the termination of the current American incarnation of the ‘Drug War.’ And he might run a less destructive foreign policy. And he might say a few unkind words directed at the budding panopticon made visible to the public by Snowden et. al. And perhaps he’ll even try to carefully downsize the welfare state to more manageable levels.
Even if all those things are true, I still would not vote for Rand Paul. The Drug War is already on its way out, both in the popular perception and in the political sphere. And toning down the drone bombings won’t stop the clandestine operations run by the alphabet soups to stir up terrorism in the Caucasus and the Middle East. And the panopticon will remain in effect regardless of the Executive’s wishes — the “best case” is that it will be “reined in” by legislation and committees… whose members are spied on and blackmailed by both the CIA and the NSA (see Pelosi’s admission and the testimony of Russ Tice for evidence.) And gradually downsizing the Welfare State will not suffice to either sufficiently reduce Federal Debt or to wean the dependent population before that said debt crashes the system to a grinding (or perhaps gradual several-decade-long) halt.
I repeat my initial assertion — gradual transformation of the state into an institution that serves people better than the crooks, thieves, liars and sociopaths is at best too late, and at worst impossible. The elites are still in control of the financial system and have the capacity to trigger a financial catastrophe at will. Having a libertarian president may help a little — but not enough to prevent decline and collapse, while at the same time giving elites with itchy trigger fingers a perfect scapegoat for another economic calamity. I don’t think they’d do this for their favorite man Hillary Clinton, or a more mainstream republican like a Romney or a Perry. Like I said before, this ship’s headed for an iceberg, and it is already too close, and our ship too heavy and too slow to turn away in time — and that iceberg is so much bigger than we see from the surface…
You also appear to misunderstand the philosophy of voluntarism, or anarchism of a capitalist flavor. I am not opposed to social organization or the building of social structures. I am, however, opposed to aggression, and aggression is an indispensable tool of any democracy to keep any minority from failing to support financially the choices of the majority. I disagree with the premise that the best way to get things done in a society is to coerce people to do them. As for the sentiment of the Founders, I have to wonder how a government designed to be the smallest in existence took only 200 years to grow into the most violent and oppressive state on the face of this Earth. …But this is a separate point and perhaps we can discuss it separately.
Now, I may be wrong, but so far as I can tell, the only vote I’ll be placing is a Vote of No Confidence.
Thanks again for your follow-up comment. Each time I read your words, I think to myself that I basically agree with what you are saying. Once again, I think you are misunderstanding what I’m getting at.
1) I wasn’t trying to sway you.
2) The issue of Libertarian scapegoating was more or less addressed in the interview itself, when I said I agreed with Peter Thiel’s suggestion that Hilary would win, everything would fall apart and she would be a one-term President.
3) The Rand Paul article and my comments in the interview were reasonably clear (at least I tried to make it that way), that I do not believe in political saviors. Nor do I think we should be putting most of our efforts into Federal politics. I do think internal change, and grass roots change are far more important.
The article also wasn’t a gung-ho let’s get behind Rand Paul piece. The title summarized it best, that he is the only candidate who can beat Hilary. I also made it clear I don’t think he will get the nomination within a corrupt GOP not looking for any real changes.
4) I’m not misunderstanding the philosophy of voluntarism. I quite clearly stated I am sympathetic toward it and believe in the philosophy behind it. My issue is that I am not convinced human nature has changed enough to have this philosophy flourish in the way you imagine. At least not in the near-term. I do think ultimately it is possible, but I think enough people will still organize socially in an anti-social and aggressive manner, and those who choose to do so will then impose their aggression on the the non-aggression communities through war, deception or both. The way people describe how they expect to transition suddenly to a world of volunteerism to me often sounds naive and utopian. I really hope I’m wrong, because the world you want to see I want to see as well. Hopefully human nature or consciousness can change faster than I think (although I concede it does seem to be moving in a more positive direction).
Oh, this comment pane is getting rather narrow…
We do indeed misunderstand each other somewhat, but I hope you agree that we march to the beat of the same (decentralized) drums. So let me try to be more organized in my response this time. I’ll answer you point-by-point.
1. Well, alright. I wouldn’t mind if you did try to sway me though, in fact I welcome it. I sure am trying to sway your opinion of the matter — with the full knowledge that perhaps it is I who needs swaying. I’m just not sure why you thought it necessary to make this point.
2. Thiel’s prediction, my reservations about the man notwithstanding, would be the best case fast-collapse-scenario from our perspective. Neoliberalism gets a black eye, and the elites dispose of the already-disliked Clinton for some catharsis points from the masses. If the collapse is coming in the next 4 years, I would prefer Thiel’s scenario. The scapegoating that I was referring to would occur on the condition that Rand Paul wins the presidency. I believe the elite and the handlers of the elite understand political dynamics quite well. If they want a presidential candidate scuttled, whether through blackmail, electoral shenanigans or whatever other shady tactic, they can do it and they can get away with it, too. I cannot think of one president in the last hundred years who, by election time, did not already figure into the plans of The Powers That (Shouldn’t) Be. What I mean is that a Rand Paul presiding over part 2 of the economic collapse is a very valuable thing for the ruling elite — much more than a Hilary presiding over the same collapse. Rand Paul would be of some, but ultimately very little help, as the forces driving us towards the (second) cliff are far exceed the grasp of the lowly position of the American presidency. Were this to happen, Rand Paul would be known as The Libertarian That Watched America Sink. I conclude this because I think this portrayal would be invaluable to the ruling elite. It’s kind of how in the eyes of many, the free market got the blame for the ’07 crash because the Republicans sold their actions as free-market, and how Greenspan was hailed as such a free marketeer, when they were nothing of the sort — but the blame stuck. Or how school “US History” textbooks blame Harding for triggering and exacerbating the Great Depression, while casting him as another “ship will right itself” free-marketeer. You and I — and probably anyone reading this blog — know better, but that’s the narrative the dinosaur media has been able to craft. Remember, we are engaged in a battle with masters of public perception.
More on this in my response to point (4).
3. I did not interpret your article and the interview as gung-ho support for Rand Paul, nor do I think you desire political saviors. But you did not dispute my argument about it being too late to “right this ship” via executive action, so I take it you are in agreement on that point.
Remember, by, the way, that in ’08, only Ron Paul was polling with a chance of beating Obama (polling conducted during the primaries). But Ron Paul was untenable for the establishment, and all the grassroots effort put in was destroyed by the hijacking of the Tea Party movement as well as the mafioso electoral shenanigans the GOP employed to utterly squelch the libertarian voice in the party.
Rand, however, is a different animal. Rand plays ball, so the elite may well play their games on him. There’s something to be said for secret clubs and sacrificial bulls…
4. Ah, this is a tough one. Indeed, I do not think mass-scale voluntarism is possible today. It will take some generations of peaceful parenting and free thought to repair the societal damage of welfare-state irresponsibility and the tolerance for abuse of power that the vast majority of people learn and internalize during childhood. As long as the majority fails the Milgram Experiment, harming another peson simply because they are commanded to do so, voluntarism is impossible. Like you said, it’ll take individual action and grassroots motivation to get there.
To that end, I tackle the issue of the transition to a voluntary society with long-term, multigenerational strategies.
It is quite possible that presidential politics may be some key part of those strategies. My point is only that Libertarians should stay clear until the next collapse, so as to be well-positioned to offer the public a new direction in light of the failure and smoldering embers of the neoliberal/neoconservative mercantilist ideologies. Those will be decisive times, and you and I will live through them.
I suspect that after the collapse, the masses will have on offer the choice between global socialism and some flavor of state libertarianism. The elites would prefer the former but I think would have no option but to tolerate the latter. And while I find both flavors distateful, the libertarian option is one I can stomach, if only for a time. But not yet. First we must clear the danger, lest the elite use it to sink us along with the ship they themselves have steered into that iceberg.
Perhaps you are looking at the fast-paced lightning war for liberty, whereas I expect a century-long campaign.
Anyway, be well and keep doing what you’re doing. We may discuss this in some more detail on the ski slopes of Colorado…
Hi and thanks again for the detailed response. Comments and discussions like these are very valuable. Let me respond again.
1) The reason I said I wasn’t trying to sway you was because I don’t feel such a strong aversion to what you see as differences of opinion within the decentralized drumbeat to which we both march. As far as I can tell, I feel there were misunderstandings you had about my philosophy of things, so I wanted to emphasize and clear up those perceived misunderstandings rather than sway you since I very much respect and appreciate where you are coming from to the point I don’t feel it necessary to try to sway you on anything as far as I can tell.
2) As far as Rand, I don’t disagree with your view that him winning in 2016 would ultimately be a bad thing for libertarian type ideas (to be clear I do not identify as a libertarian or anything for that matter) for the reasons you espouse. Just because I think he is the only candidate who can beat Hilary, doesn’t mean I think he will. I don’t think he will even get the GOP nomination, but we shall see. If he does end up getting it, then I think everything you said about TPTB and them wanting him to be some sort of sacrificial lamb takes on added importance and relevance. As it stands now, I basically see oligarchs who want to keep things the way they are, are short-term obsessed, and will push for the sure thing (Hilary). I actually don’t give the power structure the credit you do. However, should they nominate Rand, then I will have to reevaluate my own thought process.
As far as free markets being demonized after the 2008 crisis, I fully agree with you that this was the intent of the status quo. However, I think that intent was an utter failure. Libertarianism/anarchism/volunteerism has been in a huge upswing since 2008. That is not how they wanted to spin it. I have found the dissent since 2008 in general to be rational and productive.
3) Basically, see #2 above. Rand is absolutely different than Ron, in fact, he may just be a power hungry politician like the rest and not a statesman at all. I am not sold on Rand. As far as power players using him, you might be right. Time will tell, I am open to all possibilities on this.
4) What can I say, brilliantly said. I have nothing to add.
I’ve greatly enjoyed our interaction and I hope you continue to read and engage at LBK. Send me an email through the contact section of my site, and happy to connect if you are in Colorado.
interview with former World Bank economist Peter Koenig
http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-brics-a-viable-alternative-to-the-u-s-dominated-world-economic-system/5415375