Questioning the TSA

I decided to use the resources at www.tsa.gov to see if they really are trying to protect us from ourselves. I’m able to confirm that they are, at least, driven toward convincing the citizenry they’ve thought of everything for us. I decided to ask them if they allowed questionable materials through checkpoints. This seemed like a logical query.

A really good question. Their response was almost comical; it nearly made me despise their organization that much less. I thought since they’re looking after our transportation safety and all.. Oh wait, that’s not correct anymore. Now they’re into groping students on prom night at schools. That which has power can only seek more. I suppose they have to condition the citizens while they’re young otherwise they won’t accept it later. Oh, that’s not entirely accurate either. The elders have been accepting this blatant disregard to personal sovereignty too. Hmm, this is tricky. Perhaps I should have asked if I can bring “my dignity” through the security checkpoint. That would have been more appropriate (and less likely to get me flagged) but I stopped caring for my safety long ago. I don’t believe in safety except for that which I supply myself.

I was surprised the TSA harbored such humor:

I figure since I own the TSA, it won’t be a problem to ask them direct questions on their website, which citizen taxes supposedly fund. Actually, since private institutions have been bailing-out others, there is no telling who owns what anymore. As soon as assistance is requested, accepted or granted; there exists the leverage to influence. Right now, that influence is in the trillions of dollars. US citizens are not in control and haven’t been since at least the early 1900’s. And centuries ago, Mayer Amschel Rothschild said “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”

I asked a multitude of other interesting phrases, all of which returned severely uninteresting “Item Not Found” messages:
[to be added]

-Jeremy Edward Dion

An Analogy for Government

Upon the establishment of government, it rarely relinquishes control. The US government is like a giant bus barreling down the road with many scheduled destinations. If the bus were to travel without a safe driver for any amount of time, it could cause much destruction.

The bus is populated by many different people with unique destinations and they all would like to safely arrive in a timely fashion. These are the citizens. The driver is like the policy makers hopefully guiding the bus safely. If the driver were to abandon the wheel while in motion, almost instantly another would rush to the wheel. This is the electoral and political arena. But there are other bus drivers aboard to take over when the previous driver faults. They are the politicians that are trained to go along with the established agenda. They don’t want to stop the bus and they are eager to take the wheel. If a citizen were to take the wheel, they would steer and slow the bus to a halt in as safe a manner as possible. This is the natural inclination toward survival. Slowing the bus is like the loosening of the government’s regulations upon us. It takes regular citizens in politics to return to us our freedoms.

In current times, it’s best to think of the bus as a prison bus. The bus driver is a lone and very strict man with one destination on his mind. And if he were to fail in his duties, the bus would be fought over by a collection of frenzied criminals all trying to head in drastically different directions. The most infamously violent criminal would likely take the wheel and steer the bus toward his goals. Congratulations, you now understand our current state of affairs. Our current government is populated by criminals that pay no mind for the needs of the citizenry.

What do you do to a prison bus that’s been overrun by its occupants?
You spike the tires and destroy the radiator and when it comes to a halt you gas the occupants until they’re unconscious or surrender.

Think about how that translates to a solution for our predicament.

And: Happy Rapture Day to all the Camping’ Christians! Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

-Jeremy Edward Dion

Embrace the Anti-Utopia

The idea of a free society of absolute liberty has long existed. This anarchic state may be unachievable but we should regularly endeavor toward it. The freedom to choose comes from not regulating our possibilities. Understand that a utopia would have to be highly organized, monitored and regulated. While these three traits are viable, it can’t supply happiness. A utopia is hopeless unless everyone has the same values and the society can supply their needs and wants. But with the addition of the chaotic nature, the Utopian idea quickly dismantles itself.

I imagine an anti-utopia to be a chaotic, unmonitored, anarchic region. This concept frightens most pampered individuals because of the classic definition but they would have more opportunity to pursue happiness. Since a Utopian society cannot exist, I’m using anti-utopia as the opposite of what the utopia would actually be. Everyone wants the allowance to do their own thing and without regulations they’re free to do so. This is an infinitely easier state to bring into existence because it exists without specific design or labored organization. The problems with the anti-utopia is like-minded people may organize and bring harm to others (gangs and tyranny). Order is an autonomous side-effect because the brain is a logical organ and prefers the organization that springs from classifying relationships. Thus, the will of the establishment is to endure.

In truth, the established orderly nations cannot willingly return to an anarchic state because of the fears they’ve manifested. Some of the fears are valid while some of them are unreasonable. A valid fear is that more orderly cultures will come to harm the less orderly. That’s actually very true but what does that say about organization? For example, look at what the US Empire does to the lesser organized cultures. They inflict rule by force. Again, this proves that organization supplies the ability to do great harm. Meanwhile, the disorderly are overrun. But establishing massive super governments of oppressive managing rule is like inventing a nuclear weapon. Once imagined and brought into existence, the idea cannot be uncreated and the fearful want the design. This is improperly called progress and limits mankind by manufacturing greater fears. And where there is fear, there is control. Policies are created from these fears. Most rule in this fashion. The closer to Rome; the greater the fear.

An unreasonable fear is that people wouldn’t be able to take care of themselves without government. This is an irrational fear. The will to survive outweighs the influence to submit to death. Also, compassion is a far more common emotion than hate. A simple autonomous order with civil relations is more likely to survive than rampant chaotic struggle. So, an autonomous order would exist. When you try to be exorbitantly managing, then you must have bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is indifferent and can bring much harm to whomever those policies entangle. Since the natural inclination is to survive, then by introducing regulation you invite the contrary. Much death and poverty has been caused by regulation.

If we simply observe the golden rule, we can have our freedom. It’s the freedom to choose to live securely in our persons and homes or become victims. This was the purpose of limiting the establishment (gangs) from tirelessly invading our lives and affairs. The 4th Amendment will be missed. The men in their castles forget what it’s like to be free. The time has arrived for them to be humbled.

-Jeremy Edward Dion

Supreme Court Is Invalid

I just learned of the May 12th 2011 decision by the Indiana State Supreme Court to cancel the protection of the constitutional 4th amendment. This decision is under the excuse of hoping to prevent violence. Ha ha ha ha, that is so illogical that it’s clinically insane reasoning. This will only serve to produce violence and home invasion occurrences. If there was ever a time to start a gang or join the existing police gang and traipse over the land to invade homes under authoritative identity, now is the time!

The individuals responsible for this ruling have proven their incompetence and the dangers of giving such radical policy-making power to a group of crusty old farts. These men are: Justice Randall T. Shepard, Justice Brent E. Dickson, Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr., Justice Robert D. Rucker, and Justice Steven H. David.
Three of these five men do not represent the interests of the public or safety. If they did, they would honor the idea that your home is your castle and no individual may intrude without permission, warrant or probable cause. This is nothing more than a highly organized home invasion. The so-called authorities have become the real face of terrorism but it’s even more transparent now.

I will write out a scenario that will happen if this illegal ruling is allowed to survive and be practiced:
A group identifying themselves as police or other authorities comes to a door and demands entry. The homeowner asks for what reason and if they can produce a warrant to prove their validity. They proclaim they need no such reasoning and brush past the homeowner and continue to do whatever it is they wish to do. The next occurrence should come as no surprise. A family member gets alerted or scared and tries to go for the phone but is detained by one of the intruders and subdued under watchful eyes for safety. This has now become a classic home invasion scenario. The remaining family members produce weapons and begin hostilities against the intruders, as they have a duty to do so. This results in the death of the intruding authorities, but that’s okay because there is no shortage of dumbbells. Now more foot soldiers show up after the initial group never returns or reports in and they proceed to murder the entire home occupants by kicking in the door and breaching the windows in combat gear with assault rifles and shotguns. I mean, they were a family of domestic terrorists after all; right? No, they were Americans.

This scenario will play out as described. It’s the logical progression of events. I wouldn’t have it any other way. Oh wait, maybe I’d prefer the authorities to actually produce warranted reasoning to forcibly enter. Otherwise, people get angry. If this happens to you, gut the pigs.
I now carry a firearm to the door. Why? I may have to shoot some idiot that claims authority without presenting valid justification. I don’t live in Indiana but I do live in liberty and I will preserve mine by threat of force.

-Jeremy Edward Dion

Incalculable Chances of Chaos

The phrase “survival of the fittest” could only be an assertion from observation. How do we really know that the fittest survive? Of course, if something lives long enough for us to notice it is alive then we can say that it has been fit to survive up to that moment. While this is a simple observation and relevant point, it may not be the rule.

I witnessed a tiny moth helplessly caught in a puddle the size of a quarter that had collected at the bottom of a water filter in the kitchen. I interfered with a folded paper-towel and contacted the gem of water, absorbing it entirely. The liberated moth then used what I expect are some of its final living moments to climb several centimeters up the side of the base of the water filter. I tilted the water filter away from the side with the moth and placed a new piece of folded towel beneath and returned the filter to rest on it. Then I assisted with a bit of wind, moving the moth to the surface of the paper towel, hoping it will absorb some of the moisture from its surfaces. Perhaps the moth won’t die like the others I’ve witnessed experiencing similar occurrences. I will know shortly.

The point is this: In a world of such bright lights, thrashing winds and moist chaos; how do any moths survive long enough to serve whatever purpose they have? I propose that fitness is not the rule for specie progression. Like moths, some of us are not fit to live in this world but we all have chances. So a rule, if any, for determining the fates of species, is better concluded as the incalculable chances of chaos.

I’m sure “survival of the fittest” is flexible enough to incorporate the “incalculable chances of chaos” within its boundaries. And it can be argued with merit that they mean the same but I thought this old saying at least deserved minor clarification.

-Jeremy Edward Dion