Central Banking – A Century of Failure


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Bitcoin, Logic, Philosophy, Police State, Politics, Poverty, Solutions to Problems | Posted on 22-12-2013


The last century has been a complete catastrophe for money/currency. The criminal banksters won in a stealth move on December 23rd, 1913. Since then, they have managed to create more wars and death than at any point in history.

The central banking disease has since spread to almost the entire world. With control of the Iranian central bank now falling into the clutches of the central banksters, it seems only Cuba and North Korea remain, and they don’t need any help in creating misery – they’ve got communism to help them fail there.

But is seems appropriate that after a century of financial terrorism inflicted on the people of the world, that 2013 would be the rise of Bitcoin and crypto currency. Decentralised through a peer-to-peer network, crytpo currencies are faster, easier, and cheaper to use than the worthless digitally controlled fiat printed by the central banksters.

2014 will be an interesting year as crypto currencies consolidate their position as a sane alternative to the destruction wrought by the banks. Major retailers will begin accepting Bitcoins while smaller operations begin accepting Bitcoins and other crypto currencies.

There will be more turmoil as the banksters fight back. They will use the state as their weapon. They will push for regulations and laws. Their arguments boil down to only a few:

  • Terrorism
  • Drugs
  • Child porn
  • Tax evasion
  • Centralisation

They might come up with something else, but it’s unlikely. There is no good reason to not use decentralised crypto currency. Ultimately, it’s about control. And if they lose control of the money supply, they lose their ability to steal from people.

The banksters will use their puppets in government to attempt to create legislation that makes using crypto currency impractical. They will attempt to create new bureaucracies and legal hurdles that make complying with the law either impossible or impractical. They will use the state to attack the people as they always do. They are monopolists. They cannot compete because they have no skill sets that are worth paying for. They require the violence of the state to compel people to their will.

They won’t win. Too many people know what they are – vampires sucking the life blood out of humanity.

We’ve had a century of failure. It’s high time for the demise of the banksters and a century of prosperity. Well, more than just a century of prosperity, I hope. So long as people study what really happened in history, they’ll fight to keep the banksters staked and in their coffins.

Killing Cops is OK. Sometimes.


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Cynicism, Philosophy, Police, Police State, Politics, States | Posted on 08-09-2013

Tags: , ,

V is for VoluntaryThe topic of violence really sets a lot of people off. Those that love it, get upset when you point out that they participate and endorse it. Those that abhor violence, get testy when the topic of defense comes up.

The first of those is easily seen in any discussion of tax with a statist. Lots of those out there, and not hard to find.

The other case, where people advocate violence for defense (outside of the state), isn’t so common. But there are 2 good examples out there.

The first, and best known, is Larken Rose’s “When should you shoot a cop?” (Video at CopBlock)


He raises some good questions.

A more recent phrasing of the question is by Chris Cantwell in his article, “Concord Police, Go and Get Your Bearcat“.

Chris says the obvious when it comes to defending yourself:

So what to do? It’s a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill government agents. The government agents know that, and that’s why they want a tank.

There really isn’t anything very controversial about what they’ve said, i.e. If the state initiates violence (aggresses) against you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself or resist that violence with violence.

If someone is trying to kill you, or attacking you and could kill you, you’re a complete moron if you refuse to use lethal force to save your own life (or that of another person).

Rudolph Rummel is a political scientist that has done a great deal of research on democide (governments murdering people).

He estimates that in the 20th century alone, about 262,000,000 people were murdered by various states/governments.

Those 262,000,000 people stand as a testament to the moral validity and moral imperative of defending yourself and/or other people with violence, and with deadly violence if necessary.

To put that somewhat into perspective, the Nazi murder of Jews represents about 2% of the total number of civilians murdered by government. About 50x more people were murdered that people never talk about.

Ignoring the topic of using violence against the state because violence is detestable, is simply irresponsible. Those that say, “it can’t happen here,” are most likely the ones that most need to discuss the topic. Larken Rose goes over the topic in detail in his video, “It Can’t Happen Here“.


The debate on the topic needs to happen. People need to think about defensive violence against the police and the state.

Nobody is saying, “Run out and kill the first cop you see.” Nobody is saying, “Kill every cop you can.” Nobody want to run around killing people. Well, that’s not really true – it appears that our governments love killing people and really get off on it, but let’s assume we’re talking about sane people – you know – voluntarists and anarchists. 😉

“Under God” is the Wrong Question


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Police State, Politics, Religion | Posted on 04-09-2013

Tags: ,

V is for VoluntaryKeeping or removing “under God” from the US pledge of allegiance is simply the wrong question entirely.

SJC to weigh wording of pledge

The state Supreme Judicial Court will begin hearing arguments this week in an atheist Acton couple’s quest to strike the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance their children say in the Acton-Boxboro Regional School District.

Why are children forced to pledge fealty to the state? Why is there a pledge at all? Isn’t it the job of the state to preserve the freedom of the people? Shouldn’t the state be pledging its allegiance to the people?

The entire “under God” debate is just an idiotic distraction from the real issue – we are all slaves to states that demand our allegiance to them, when it should be the other way around.

NSA Killing Business for Cloud Providers


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Business, Money, Police State | Posted on 29-08-2013

Tags: , ,

It looks like the NSA PRISM scandal will cost businesses in the US between $22~35 billion over the next few years. Big surprise. Would you want to store your data with a company that has no choice but to bend over for the NSA?


A separate report this month by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, or ITIF, a Washington think tank, said US cloud providers stand to lose $22 billion to $35 billion over the next three years due to revelations about the so-called PRISM program.

I have one server in the US, and will be shutting it down. And it’s in large part because I simply have no faith in the US.

Disinfo or Poor Reasoning at Reason.com?


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Logic, Police State, Politics, Software | Posted on 22-06-2013


zxx fontA recent article at Reason.com talks about how a specific font (ZXX) can hide information from the NSA.


This is a pretty silly claim.

The first reason is pretty obvious: If it’s in digital text, then since the underlying character values are all the same as normal text and the font is irrelevant, well, the font is then irrelevant.

But for images or printed copies on paper, the only thing needed is for the OCR software to recognize the font and then match the glyphs (characters) to the proper letters, and again the font is irrelevant. Perhaps it might take the NSA a while to clue into it, but they’d eventually “get it”. Given that they store so much data, how long it takes for them is almost irrelevant.

It’s all pretty simple. Which makes me wonder whether the Reason.com article is purposeful disinformation or whether it is simply not well thought out by someone who isn’t very techno-savvy. It’s probably more likely that it’s just not well thought out, but given the simplicity of the issue, that’s somewhat hard to believe, leaving the question of whether it is purposeful disinformation open.

1 More Reason to Use Bitcoin – Feds Steal Mt. Gox Dwolla Funds


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Money, Philosophy, Police State | Posted on 16-05-2013


The irony here is simply sickening. The Feds have stolen funds from Mt. Gox’s Dwolla account. Don’t they see that what they are doing only gives 1 more reason to use bitcoin? They can’t seize bitcoins, so that danger is eliminated. Governments can steal your fiat stored in banks or payment processors, but they can’t steal your bitcoin unless they steal your wallet.dat file and threaten, coerce, or torture you to get the password for it.


Feds seize money from Dwolla account belonging to top Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox

Mobile payments service won’t move money to and from Mt. Gox post-court order.

The Department of Homeland Security has apparently shut down a key mobile payments account associated with Mt. Gox, the largest Bitcoin exchange.

Chris Coyne, co-founder of online dating service OKCupid, tweeted out an e-mail he received from Dwolla this afternoon. The e-mail states that neither Coyne, nor presumably any other Dwolla user, will be able to transfer funds to Mt. Gox.

Dwolla confirmed the change to the New York Observer, which first reported the story. Dwolla received a seizure warrant from a federal court.

“The Department of Homeland Security and US District Court for the District of Maryland issued a ‘Seizure Warrant’ for the funds associated with Mutum Sigillum’s Dwolla account (a.k.a. Mt. Gox),” a Dwolla spokesperson told NYO’s BetaBeat. “Dwolla has ceased all account activities… for Mutum Sigillum while Dwolla’s holding partner transferred Mutum Sigillum’s balance, per the warrant.”

It isn’t yet clear why this seizure happened, and Dwolla isn’t saying anything beyond confirming the court order. Mt. Gox didn’t immediately respond to an inquiry from Ars about the seizure. A user on Bitcoin StackExchange published this short reply received from an inquiry to Mt. Gox about the shut-down: “Thank you for the e-mail. We can see that the Dwolla transactions are not getting processed right now. We will contact Dwolla and post an announcement regarding this. Your patience is appreciated till then.”

I’m certain the irony will be lost on the technocrat bureaucraps (not a typo) who fundamentally don’t understand bitcoin, let alone what “money” and “currency” are.

The crypto-anarchists are sounding better all the time…

3D Guns Banned by Tyrants


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Philosophy, Police State, Politics | Posted on 11-05-2013

Tags: ,

Information is now officially illegal in the United Police States of America.

Cody Wilson’s 3D printed guns and gun parts have been shut down. Well, kind of. Truth is, the cat is out of the bag.

You can get a torrent of it here:


Now is the time to download it. Pump up the download and seeding stats to show the corrupt politicians that freedom of speech is out of their control. They have failed to muzzle the beast of freedom.

Patrick Henry said:

Give me freedom, or give me death.

This is entirely about freedom. Stand up. Do what you can. Make your voice heard before you are silenced. This is not about guns. This is about freedom and free speech.

For more information, visit:




The Right of Revolution


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Canada, Philosophy, Police State, Politics | Posted on 11-05-2013

Tags: ,

I’d never seen the New Hampshire Constitution before, but man… talk about BAD. ASS. Check out article 10:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

And let me emphasize the last part there:

The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

That’s some serious hard core bad ass mean mother f**ker Constitution.

Just reflect on that for a moment… “nonresistance… is absurd”.

I envy Americans. They have far better Constitutions than the sheeple in Canada.

Obama vs. Reagan


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Logic, Philosophy, Police State, Politics, Solutions to Problems | Posted on 08-05-2013

Tags: ,

Barack Obama:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems.

Ronald Reagan:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.


Nuff said?

Will the UK Break Treaties and Violate the Rule of Law?


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Police State, Politics, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 17-08-2012


I suppose that it is no shock to anyone that the rule of law died long ago in many of the modern western police states, including the United Kingdom. Now with Julian Assange granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, the UK is blatantly flaunting the fact that it is a lawless country of thugs where the rule of law is rotting in a shallow grave as the UK threatens to break 2 international treaties.

But to find out that the rule of law was murdered so long ago? Yes. The rule of law has been dead since at least 1987 when the UK passed the “Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987”. But before that, let’s look at the relevant treaty and the relevant section.

The “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961” is the treaty applicable to diplomatic missions, and specifies the terms for the “premises” of a diplomatic mission, i.e. the embassy. (You can find the original here [PDF].) Article 22 reads:

1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

This is perfectly clear. There is no ambiguity. However, “inviolable” is a strong word that the UK government apparently may not understand. Perhaps English is a second language for them, in which case they may be excused.

The “Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987” can be found here. Part 1, section 1 (Aquisition and loss by land of diplomatic or consular status.), subsection 3 reads:

In no case is land to be regarded as a State’s diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the Secretary of State has given that State consent under this section in relation to it; and if—

(a) a State ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post; or
(b) the Secretary of State withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land,

it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all enactments and rules of law.

Essentially, that means that any diplomatic mission (embassy) in the UK has no diplomatic status if they “don’t feel like it” or “change their mind”. That is not any kind of law. You cannot simply make a law that you get to decide when and/or if it is enacted. This is a fundamental violation of the rule of law.

Further, the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961” is a treaty to which the UK is a party. They will be breaking this treaty if they revoke the status of the Ecuadorian embassy, because diplomatic missions are “inviolable”.

Article 56 of the “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)” reads:

Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal

1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
(a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
(b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

2. A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1.

Has the UK given all 111 party countries and 15 signatories notice? If not, then they’re breaking the treaty.

But if the UK breaks the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961”, then it necessarily breaks the “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)”. I think that’s called “getting two birds stoned at once“.

Ecuador is perfectly within their rights to grant asylum to Julian Assange. The UK is not within its rights to violate a sovereign nation. Not that it stopped it in Afghanistan or Iraq or Argentina or… Well, you get the picture.

This pattern of “escape clauses” closely resembles the way in which you can hear small children in an elementary school playground making up rules that guarantee that they win their game, and that nobody else can possibly do anything to them. It’s a common pattern, and can also be found in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 29, section 3:

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Again, this is the same pattern where they explicitly state that if they do not wish to honour their obligations, they won’t.

Should it be any surprise that the United Kingdom is any less criminal than the United Nations?

Time will tell if they prove their criminality in this specific case with the fate of Julian Assange on the line.