This is how Friedrich Nietzsche described
"the state" in his classic Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in 1884.
Typically, in the history classes taught in the last generation
in "government schools" in America, when Nietzsche is discussed,
he is depicted as the forefather of Hitler's Nazi ideology.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Nietzsche was probably
the most penetrative philosopher and psychologist there has ever
been. He saw right through the falsehoods on which "government"
rests. Fifty years before Hitler came to power he was already
disgusted at what he saw happening in Germany. He predicted that
Germany would suffer a horrible calamity. He was so disgusted
that he renounced his German roots and became a Swiss citizen.
The Nazis did take some of Nietzsche's statements out of context
and used them as slogans. But to teach that Nietzsche inspired
the Nazis is pure brainwashing. Nietzsche clearly saw what a
destructive disaster "the German state" was and expressed his
view in unequivocal terms. Maybe that's why "government monopoly
schoolteachers" try so hard to discredit him.
Nietzsche's is a pretty good description, but
I doubt that it's communicable to but a few. Although Nietzsche
did make it to the front page of Time magazine with his
pronouncement "God is dead," he never got anywhere with "the
state is dead." Nevertheless, he did indicate that "everything
the state says is a lie" and "everything it has it has stolen."
He did indicate that "the state" is an idol and an instrument of
death. He also pointed out the "confusion of the language of
good and evil."
Description of "Government"
First, I'm going to provide my comprehensive primary description
(or definition, if you like) of "government." Then I'll
elaborate further on aspects of this description. I'll also
cover some secondary descriptions of "government." It'll also be
necessary to explain certain thinking skills that are necessary
to grasp the descriptions. Finally, a few important related
topics and arguments will be briefly covered, as well as the
benefits of understanding and applying the information in this
Primary Description of "Government"
"Government" is a granfalloon, a scam, a hoax, a fraud, a
swindle, a theatrical tragicomedy, and a form of parasitism or
cannibalism kept in place by certain fraud-words, by
superstition, by idolatry, by gullibility, by lack of thinking
skills, by brainwashing, by mass hallucination, by terror, and
"Government" is a "Granfalloon."
Author Kurt Vonnegut coined the word "granfalloon" to describe
abstract concepts like "nation," "state," "country,"
"government," "society," "IBM," etc. He wrote, "To discover the
substance of a granfalloon, just prick a hole in a toy balloon."
In his book The Incredible Secret Money Machine, Don
"A granfalloon is any large
bureaucratic figment of people's imagination. For instance,
there's really no such thing as the Feds or the General
Veeblefeltzer Corporation. There are a bunch of people out there
that relate to each other, and there's some structures, and some
paper. In fact, there's lots and lots of paper. The people sit
in the structures and pass paper back and forth to each other
and charge you to do so.
All these people, structures, and paper are
real. But nowhere can you point to the larger concept of
"government" or "corporation" and say, "There it is, kiddies!"
The monolithic, big "they" is all in your mind."
A granfalloon is the lumping together of many
diverse elements into an abstract collection, and to then think
and speak as if the abstract collection is one single entity
capable of performing actions. This phenomenon leads people
to say things like "the government runs the country." I hope you
realize (or will soon) just how absurd the previous sentence is.
"Government" Consists of Individual Human
The human brain is an abstracting device. We might call the
first level of abstraction the "concrete abstract." Consider the
concept "table." The concept or word corresponds to and
represents a physical object "table." However, the concept
"table" is more general than the object "table" - because the
concept "table" can be applied to any of a large number of
objects with flat surfaces and (usually) four legs; whereas the
physical object "table" is one specific object.
Our next level of abstraction we might call
the "collective abstract" - for example, "furniture." It's very
useful to lump together a number of diverse but related objects
and use the abstract word or concept "furniture" to represent
all of them. It makes thinking and communicating more efficient.
Instead of saying, "Clean the chairs, the tables, the shelves,
the mirrors, the cupboards, etc.," you can simply say, "Clean
the furniture." It's much more efficient. But with the increase
in efficiency comes a potential lack of distinction...
"Government" can be described as a collection
of individuals, pieces of paper, buildings, weaponry, etc. Let's
take a look at what becomes possible when we think in terms of
individual human beings, instead of the monolithic collective
abstract "government" - a two-sentence refutation of all the
arguments for "government":
"Government" consists of individual human
beings - or people.
When people say "government is necessary
to do X (whatever)," or "only government can do X," or
"government must do for people what they can't do for
themselves" - what they're really saying is: "people are
necessary to do X," or "only people can do X," or "people
must do for people what they can't do for themselves."
Compare this to all the books containing
lengthy chapters on why "the free market" is better at providing
X (whatever) than "the government" is. Once you develop the
ability to think in terms of individual human beings, it takes
just two sentences to demolish all the arguments for
This is a demonstration of the comparative
power of individualistic thinking as opposed to
Unfortunately, for most people - including
many freedom lovers - it seems impossible to grasp the above
refutation because they are locked into the habit of thinking,
talking, and writing about "government" as a volitional
entity. They say "government does this and that" - as if
"government" is some kind of living, breathing entity capable of
performing actions - collectivist thinking. Sometimes it seems
that when you say to these people, "Look at anything that
"government" supposedly does, like running a school, and you'll
find that all the work is being done by individual human
beings," - individualist thinking - they can't hear you. They
seem so brainwashed with the notion that "government does
things," that their brains automatically shut out anything to
We are dealing with a particular mental
process here: when the mind is confronted with a thought that is
dangerous to the way its knowledge has been organized hitherto,
it tends to either "wipe out" the thought, or distort it into
something more acceptable - as George Orwell wrote in
Nineteen-Eighty-Four: "Crimestop means the faculty of
stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any
dangerous thought... crimestop, in short, means protective
"Government" is a Scam, a Hoax, a Fraud,
and a Swindle
Nietzsche wrote that everything the state says is a lie. Of
course, it's really individuals who lie when they call
themselves "the state" or "the government." Throughout history,
people have used all kinds of trickery to legitimize calling
themselves "the King" or "the government" - for example, "the
divine right of Kings to rule" and in "modern" days, "the
Constitution." Some of this trickery is described in Terra Libra
Report 'Discourse on Voluntary Servitude'.
The issue of the validity or legality of the
so-called "Constitution" is covered in Report The Constitution
of No Authority. The essence of that report is that the
so-called "Constitution" was never signed or adopted by anybody
to make it a valid legal contract or agreement. That means that
the so-called "U.S.A." has been a scam, hoax, fraud, and swindle
from the outset.
It also means that all the politicians and
bureaucrats, calling themselves "presidents," "secretaries,"
"judges," "generals," "congressmen," etc., have been liars and
impostors masquerading as "government" (so-called).
The people who signed the pretended "U.S.
Constitution," called themselves "We The People... " They were
lying. They signed it as individuals. And they never signed it
in any way to make it a binding contract.
It's a basic legal principle that for a
contract to be valid, it needs to be knowingly, intentionally,
and explicitly signed by all the parties involved. For something
like a "U.S. Constitution" to be valid, it would have to be
knowingly, intentionally, and explicitly signed by every single
On the same grounds, every political
system in the world, I know of, is a fraud and a hoax. In
his pamphlet, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,
attorney (one of the good ones) Lysander Spooner wrote in 1870:
"The constitution has no inherent authority
or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all,
unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so
much as even purport to be a contract between persons now
existing. It purports at most, to be only a contract between
persons living eighty years ago... we know, historically, that
only a small portion of the people then existing were consulted
on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their
consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those people, if any,
who did give their consent formally, are all dead now... and the
constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them.
They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon
their children... they did not even attempt to bind them. That
is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement
between anybody but "the people" then existing; nor does it...
assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind
anybody but themselves...
The constitution itself, then, being of no
authority, on what authority does our government practically
rest? On what ground can those who pretend to administer it,
claim the right to seize men's property, to restrain them in
their natural liberty of action, industry and trade, and to kill
all those who deny their authority to dispose of men's
properties, liberties and lives at their pleasure or
discretion?" [emphasis added]
Reading Spooner's pamphlet was an assault on
my whole knowledge structure. It triggered a process of
questioning many concepts such as "constitution" (so-called) -
what does this word represent in reality? If Spooner was right,
then it represented but an empty fraud. It also meant that
words did not necessarily correspond with reality. There
were "fraud-words" which served only to mislead. And if
there is no valid "constitution," then what does the word
"country" mean? What does it really represent? Similar questions
followed about ''government," "state," "king," "law," etc. In
the Introduction by James J. Martin to Spooner's No Treason,
"Since late Neolithic times, men in their
political capacity, have lived almost exclusively by myths [more
appropriate: "fraudulent fabrications "or "murderous
misrepresentations!"] And these political myths have continued
to evolve, proliferate, and grow more complex and intricate,
even though there has been a steady replacement of one by
another over the centuries. A series of entirely theoretical
constructs, sometimes mystical, usually deductive and
speculative, they seek to explain the status and relationships
in the community...
It is the assault upon the abstract and
verbal underpinnings of this institution which draws blood, so
to speak... those who attack the rationale of the game... are
its most formidable adversaries." [emphasis added]
Spooner attacked words and phrases like "the
government," "our country," "the United States," "member of
congress," "King," "constitution of the United States,"
"nations", "the people," "emperor," "divine right," "president,"
"monarch," "ambassador," "national debt," "senator," "judge,"
etc. He indicated that these were all fraud-words designed to
dupe the gullible. In a letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Spooner
"In practice, the constitution has been an
utter fraud from the beginning. Professing to have been
'ordained and established' by we, the people of the United
States, it has never been submitted to them, as individuals, for
their voluntary acceptance... very few of them have ever read,
or even seen it; or ever will read or see it. Of its legal
meaning (if it can be said to have any) they really know
nothing; and never did. Nor ever will know anything."
Spooner indicated that the people who
masqueraded as the so-called "government" could be more
accurately described as fraudulent impostors or a "secret band
of thieves, robbers and murderers." Rick Maybury wrote as
follows in an article, "Profiting from the Constitutional
Convention," published in the November, 1984 issue of an
investment newsletter, World Market Perspective:
"On March 10, 1783, at the town of Newburgh,
New York, a group of generals met to plan a military coup. The
generals offered the leadership to an officer the troops had
respected and admired for many years... for several days the
officer pondered whether or not he would accept the offer to
become military dictator of America... finally, on March 15,
1783, he announced his decision to decline. His name was George
... the First Constitutional Convention which
commenced on May 14, 1787 had George Washington presiding. This
is the convention that created our current constitution. The
procedures and results of this convention have long been held to
be legal, ethical, constitutional, patriotic and in every other
way proper... it was held in secret. It had a hidden agenda. It
was surrounded by clandestine meetings in which numerous deals
were struck. The delegates intended to draw vast amounts of new
power into the hands of the federal government and they violated
every restriction their legislatures tried to impose on them.
The First Constitutional Convention was actually a military
coup. The history books do not describe it this way, but that is
what it was...
It may have been the slickest, smoothest,
most well-lubricated coup any nation has ever experienced. To
this day, most Americans do not understand what was really done
to them. They look back on it all and smile wistfully."
"Government" is a Theatrical Tragicomedy
My Webster's defines tragicomedy as "a drama or a
situation blending tragic and comic elements." The theme that
"government" is theater is expounded by Ferdinand Mount's
excellent book The Theater of Politics - in the
Introduction Max Lerner writes, "politics is shot through with
the theatric, and can be understood best only if we view the
exchange between political actor and political audience as
theater... the element of theater on the American scene has gone
beyond politics and pervaded the entire society. It has become
Let me suggest that when you watch TV, listen
to the radio, or read the newspaper and the topic is politics,
either people are getting hurt or killed (tragedy), or some
political actor is openly joking or pretending to be serious
(comedy). Alexis de Tocqueville in his Recollections
wrote about the 1848 French Revolution:
"The whole time I had the feeling that we had
staged a play about the French Revolution... Though I foresaw
the terrible end to the piece well enough, I could not take the
actors very seriously; the whole thing seemed a vile tragedy
played by a provincial troupe."
Some quotes from Mount's The Theater of
"... [T]he political confidence trick,
whether monarchic or presidential, oligarchic or democratic,
whether necessary or unnecessary, is at any rate effective,
because most people are foolish and gullible."
"Is political history the record of a
mass of mugs being taken for a series of rides?"
"We see the politician rather as an actor
who takes on a part; and we judge him according to whether
he plays well or badly."
"The theory is comforting: they are our
hired servants. The practice is humiliating; we are their
wayward wards, to be comforted, cajoled, bullied, but never
to be treated as equals, never to be told more of the truth
than suits their present purposes, and too often to be told
"He [Churchill] is, as all political
actors must be, the analyst of humbug, the humbugger and the
humbugged all in one."
From Edmund Burke's Reflections on the
French Revolution, describing political rhetoric: "... a
theatrical, bombastick, windy phraseology of heroick virtue,
blended and mingled up with a worse dissoluteness, and
joined to a murderous and savage ferocity, forms the tone
and idiom of their language and their manners... Statesmen,
like your present rulers, exist by everything which is
spurious, fictitious, and false; by everything which takes
the man from his house, and sets him in a stage, which makes
him up an artificial creature, with painted theatrick
sentiments, fit to be seen by the glare of candle-light, and
formed to be contemplated at a due distance... If the system
of institution recommended by the assembly is false and
theatrick it is because their system of government is of the
Words Have Consequences
Of course, words in themselves don't have consequences, but
whenever a word is used, there are consequences. When you talk
to a person, depending on the words you use, that person may
become happy, sad, or angry. Words have consequences.
If words have consequences, then it's obvious
that different words have different consequences. It's also
obvious that we can observe the consequences of the words we
use. We can become aware of the consequences. We can experiment
and learn to use different words to produce different
Also note that when the politicians and
bureaucrats want your money, they don't immediately point their
guns at you. They send you words on paper or by phone. In
general, they only come after you with their guns if you
repeatedly don't give them money. Because most people obey the
words of politicians and bureaucrats, they don't have to use
their guns all that often.
In Terra Libra we talk a lot about Freedom
Technology: the practical knowledge, methods, and skills to live
free. A major aspect of Freedom Technology is to learn how to
use the right words to counter the words of the politicians and
bureaucrats, and to escape having to give them money - without
being jailed or shot.
Let me suggest to you that the destructive
power of the politician, the bureaucrat, and the lawyer stems
much more from their words than from their guns... Take
away their words, and what happens? How can we take away
In order to grasp the nature of "government" (so-called), it may
be necessary to master certain thinking skills that enable you
to handle self-referencing syntax. English - and probably
languages in general - isn't particularly suited for handling
Consider the sentence: "government" consists
of individual human beings. The reason the word "government" is
in quotation marks may indicate that the author questions the
validity of the term. To emphasize the challenge to the validity
of the term or concept "government," the author may say:
When I say - So-called "government" consists
of individual human beings - the sentence includes
self-referencing syntax. The sentence says that part of itself
is invalid - the concept of "government."
There is also a problem with the use of
"quotation marks." They are used for at least a dozen different
purposes. The reader has to figure out from the context for what
purpose quotation marks are being used. In his book How To
Read A Page, I.A. Richard wrote:
"We all recognize - more or less
unsystematically - that quotation marks serve varied purposes:
Sometimes they show merely that we are
quoting and where our quotation begins and ends.
Sometimes they imply that the words
within them are in some way open to question and are only to
be taken in some special sense with reference to some
Sometimes they suggest further that what
is quoted is nonsense or that there is really no such thing
as the thing they profess to name.
Sometimes they suggest that the words are
improperly used. The quotation marks are equivalent to 'the
Sometimes they only indicate that we are
talking of the words as distinguished from their meanings...
There are many other uses... "
Questioning Words or Concepts
Most people take it for granted that there is some kind of
one-to-one relationship between words and the things
represented by those words. They assume that because practically
everybody uses a word like "government," therefore
there's such a thing as "government."
In order to develop an accurate description
of the "nature of government," it's absolutely vital to make a
distinction between the word and the thing it
supposedly represents. The word is a noise that comes out
of your mouth (or some squiggles on paper). The thing is
something you can touch or feel - or discern otherwise. This is
why semanticists are fond of saying, "Whatever you say something
is, it's not that." You see, the thing is what it is - and what
you say it is, is a noise coming out your mouth.
Just because we use the word
"government" doesn't automatically mean there's a thing
"government." For the previous sentence to make any sense to
you, you must be able to question words or concepts. You must be
able to recognize that "government" is an abstract concept.
In contrast, "table" could be called a "concrete concept"
- even though the concept "table" is an abstraction of
the thing "table." There's a word in my Webster's
for construing (regarding) a conceptual entity as a real
I speculate that for most people their
consciousness is rooted in a number of basic concepts, and that
"government" is one of these basic concepts. When their
"government" concept is challenged it's as if their entire
consciousness is threatened and they run a mile.
Later I'll refer to "statist fraud words."
Some years ago I had dinner with a libertarian intellectual
friend in the Atomium Restaurant in Brussels. We had an
extensive discussion about libertarianism. Every time he used a
statist fraud word such as "government," "country," "nation,"
"prime minister," "law," etc., I challenged that word. I asked
him what he meant by it. I asked him for a referent. (The
referent is the thing the word refers to. In the case of
"table," it's the physical object with a flat top and four
legs.) After about 20 minutes of my onslaught, my friend became
sick and had to run to the restroom to puke his guts out! He
blamed me. I speculate that challenging people's basic
concepts may threaten, not only their consciousness, but also
Consider two different isolated tribes somewhere in the jungles
of South America. Call them Tribe 1 and Tribe 2. Each has its
unique language with its own structure. The language of tribe 1
(language 1) tends to be very literal. A man who fishes, for
example, is called "man-who-fishes." The same man, while
sleeping, is called "man-who-sleeps"; while talking,
"man-who-talks"; while running, -"man-who-runs"; while eating,
man-who-eats"; while writing, "man-who-writes"; while making a
chair, "man-who-makes-chair"; while giving orders,
"man-who-gives-orders"; etc. In language 1, distinctions are
made between different kinds of words: "Thing-words,"
"Do-words," "How-words," "Story-words," "Funny-words,"
"order-words," "Panic-words," "What-words," "Who-words,"
"Why-words," "When-words," "Where-words," etc. Abstractions are
rare in language 1. To the people of tribe 1, any word that
doesn't refer to something physically perceivable, is highly
suspect. Their test for reality is physical.
The language of Tribe 2 (Language 2) is very
different. A man who obtains his wherewithal mostly by fishing,
is called "fisherman." (This system of nomenclature would seem
absurd to the people of Tribe 1 - how can you call someone a
"fisherman" when he is not fishing, but sleeping?) Language 2
contains many abstractions - like "happiness." People from Tribe
2 can talk for hours about "happiness." (To someone from Tribe
1, this would be incomprehensible - they only talk about
"woman-who-is-happy" while she is happy, and "woman-who-is-sad"
while she is sad. The notion that you could separate "happiness"
from a real person being happy, and talk about "happiness" as if
it existed by itself, would be completely unthinkable to someone
from Tribe 1.)
To the people from Tribe 2, any word being
used is automatically assumed to be part of existence, otherwise
people wouldn't use it. (To someone from Tribe 1, the word
"existence" would be a meaningless absurdity, because in their
mentality only particular objects exist.) In Tribe 2, the test
for reality is agreement. If other people agree with a word and
the way it seems to be used, then that word is automatically
accepted as valid and useful. They suffer from
One day a strange man arrives at the place
where the people of Tribe 1 live. They ask him: "Who you?" He:
"I King". They: "your name King?". He: "No; my name John." They:
"Why call self King if name John?" He: "I special person, agent
of God." They: "You look different but not special; who God?"
He: "God creator of world." They: "Where God?; How create
world?" He: "God everywhere; God all-powerful." They: "How we
see God?" He: "Can't see God." They: "You speak crazy." He: "No;
I special; I show you." Whereupon the stranger performs various
tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear.
They: "You clever man-who tricks." He: "I special; I King."
They: "You speak funny; you clever John-who-tricks." He: "I
King; my word law." They: "What law? - special word?" He: "Yes;
my word law - you must obey." They: "Ah! You mean order-word!"
He: "Yes; I King; I make law." They: "No; you speak order-word?"
He: "Yes; I special". They: "What special? - Anybody speak
order-word?" He: "You not understand." They: "No."
Eventually John-the-stranger gives up trying
to convince the people of Tribe 1 that he has a "special status"
and that his words are different from the words of anyone else -
so he leaves, to search for more gullible and impressionable
For many days and nights he trudges through
the jungle before discovering the people of Tribe 2. They: "Who
you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?" He: "No, my name
John." They: "Why call self King if name John?" He: "I special
person, agent of God." They: "You look different; what God?" He:
"God creator of world." They: Where God?; How create world?" He
"God everywhere; God all-powerful." They: "Show special?"
Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently
making objects appear and disappear. They: "You King, agent of
God." He: "Yes, my word law." They: "What law?" He: "Law special
word of God through me; you must obey." Whereupon the people of
Tribe 2 bow down and kiss the feet of John - they do not
habitually test abstractions against reality, so they readily
accept John-the-stranger as their "King" and his word as "law."
Thereafter all he has to do to control and dominate them, is to
open his mouth...
"Government" is a Form of Parasitism or
The reason why people call themselves "government" is because it
provides them with advantages - if they can get away with it. In
the case of tribe 1, John-the-stranger called himself "King,"
but the people didn't buy it, so he left. However, the gullible
people from tribe 2 believed him, so they became his "subjects"
- meaning he could live off their effort - like a parasite.
The "state" (so-called) has its origin in a
gang of looters making an agreement with a tribe: "We'll protect
you from other gangs if you give us part of the food you
produce." ("Government" is a Mafia-like protection racket.)
It's much easier to live off the values
produced by others than to create your own values. Being a
parasite is easier than being a producer. Being a value
destroyer is easier than being a value creator. Now if we take
it a step further, and regard the fruit of our labor as part of
ourselves, then we're talking about cannibalism. That's why the
American Declaration of Independence talks about "eating out our
substance." "Government" is a form of cannibalism.
"Government" is also a form of
"self-cannibalism." It continuously eats out its own substance,
eventually destroying itself. It may start off only moderately
destructive - like after the American Revolution - but gradually
(but sometimes with big jumps) it becomes monstrously degenerate
and destructive - like in modern America.
"Government" is Kept in Place by Certain
Politicians and bureaucrats use mostly words to impose their
will upon others - even when physical violence is involved, they
use words to attempt to justify their actions. Thomas Szasz
wrote in The Second Sin, "Man is the animal that speaks.
Understanding language is thus the key to understanding man; and
the control of language, to the control of man." The language
used to control and dominate others I collectively lump together
as "Newspeak." The word Newspeak was invented by George Orwell
and described in his book Nineteen-Eighty-Four. I use the
word in essentially the same way that Orwell did, but within its
domain I subsume words that I don't think Orwell would have:
"state," "government," "law," "king," "constitution," "queen,"
"president," "prime minister," etc. Newspeak, as I use the term,
has developed over many centuries. I contend that the use of
Newspeak by freedom lovers as if valid (i.e., without
questioning its validity, and without considering its
consequences), may easily become counter-productive. I
specifically use Newspeak in the sense of Orwell's "B
"The 'B vocabulary' consisted of words
which had been deliberately constructed for political purposes:
words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a
political implication, but were intended to impose a
desirable mental attitude upon the person using them... the
'B' words were a sort of verbal shorthand, often packing whole
ranges of ideas into a few syllables... even in the early
decades of the Twentieth Century, telescoped words and phrases
had been one of the characteristic features of political
language; and it had been noticed that the tendency to use
abbreviations of this kind was most marked in totalitarian
countries and totalitarian organizations... the intention being
to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not
ideologically neutral, as nearly as possible independent of
consciousness... ultimately it was hoped to make articulate
speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain
centers at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak
word 'Duckspeak' meaning 'to quack like a duck.'" [emphasis
I'm also introducing here the concept of
"fraud-word." I'm saying that certain words are fraudulent in
themselves. You don't even have to use them in a sentence;
the word itself is a lie. For example, the word "King."
We have a perfectly good word "man." When a man calls himself
"King," he's lying as did John-the-stranger above. The word
itself is a fraud.
In his superb book Restoring the American
Dream, Robert Ringer devoted an entire chapter to how
"government" is kept in place by certain words - Chapter 8:
"Keeping It All in Place." Here is my list of statist
fraud-words: "government," "state," "country," "nation,"
"U.S.A.," "empire," "commonwealth," "republic," "society,"
"emperor," "king," "queen," "prince," "princess," "president,"
"prime minister," "law," "constitution," "public interest,"
"national interest," "fair share," "common good," "national
security," "social contract," "public policy," "mandate from the
Two of the Worst Fraud-Words:
"Constitution," and "Law"
If you think about it, you will realize the role of language in
practically all coercion: be it parents or teachers coercing the
young; or those masquerading as (so-called) "state" or
"government" coercing (so-called) "subjects." Politicians and
bureaucrats have an armory of weapons they use to coerce their
victims. I put it to you that fraud-words are the most
formidable weapons in their armory - not guns and explosives. Do
politicians and bureaucrats use guns or words? I further put it
to you that next to "government," two of their most powerful
fraud-words are "law" and "constitution."
Most people believe that some of the noises
and scribbles emanating from the mouths and pens of the lawyers,
politicians, and bureaucrats (masquerading as "government"
so-called) are somehow special and constitute "the law." This is
a grotesque superstition.
The criminals who masquerade as "government"
use "the Constitution" as their shield - they claim that
"the Constitution authorizes or empowers them" to perpetrate
their destructive acts. They use the word "law" as their
sword. Because you broke their so-called "law," therefore
they are authorized or empowered to punish you as they see fit.
"It is illusions and words that have
influenced the mind of the crowd, and especially words - words
which are as powerful as they are chimeral, and whose
astonishing sway we shall shortly demonstrate," wrote Gustave le
Bon in his classic The Crowd, a hundred years ago. About
two hundred years ago, Jeremy Bentham wrote, "Out of one foolish
word may start a thousand daggers" - Bentham's Theory of
Fictions by C.K. Ogden. And 160 years ago Jonathan Swift
wrote in Gulliver's Travels:
"There was another point which a little
perplexed him... I had said, that some of our crew left their
country on account of being ruined by 'law'... but he was at a
loss how it should come to pass, that the 'law' which was
intended for 'every' man's preservation, should be any man's
ruin. Therefore he desired to be further satisfied what I meant
by 'law,' and the dispensers thereof... because he thought
nature and reason were sufficient guides for a reasonable
animal, as we pretended to be, in showing us what we ought to
do, and what to avoid... I said there was a society of men
among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving by
words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black
is white, accordingly as they are paid. To this society all the
rest of the people are slaves."
"Government" is Kept In Place by
The first superstition that keeps "government" in place is the
belief that because practically all of us use certain words
without any thought as to their validity and the consequences
they produce - Duckspeak - therefore these words are valid and
The second superstition is the notion that
certain words constitute "the law" (so-called). This is a most
The third superstition is that because
certain naive and gullible people put pieces of paper into
"ballot" boxes, this action transforms, transmutes,
transubstantiates, or transmogrifies, certain people into
"presidents," "congressmen," etc. This is primitive magical
The fourth superstition is that because some
people call themselves "government" - or organize themselves
into structures called "government" - therefore they acquire
magical powers to perform miracles.
"Government" is Kept in Place by Idolatry
George Bernard Shaw wrote that "He who worships a King and he
who slays a King are idolaters alike." Shaw was greatly
influenced by Nietzsche, who wrote a book called The Twilight
of the Idols. My Webster's definition of idol
includes the following:
A representation or symbol of an object
A false god;
A pretender or impostor;
A form of appearance visible but without
An object of passionate devotion;
A false conception or fallacy.
In my opinion, both worshipping and hating
"government" can be forms of idolatry. In the latter case, it
depends on exactly what it is you hate, when you say, "I hate
government." Could it be that the libertarian or patriot who
says vaguely, "I hate government," is as much an idolater as the
democrat or republican who says "I love my government," or "I
love my country."
The Idols of Human Understanding
by Francis Bacon (condensed and edited):
"The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the
human understanding , and have taken deep root therein, not only
so beset men's minds that truth can hardly find entrance, but
even after entrance obtained, they will again in the very
instauration of the sciences meet and trouble us, unless men
being forewarned of the danger, fortify themselves as far as may
be possible against their assaults.
There are four classes of idols which beset
men's minds. To these, for distinction's sake, I have assigned
Idols of the tribe;
Idols of the cave;
Idols of the marketplace;
Idols of the theater.
The idols of the tribe have their
foundation in human nature itself, and in the tribe, race, and
culture of men. It is a false assertion that the measure of man
is the measure of things. On the contrary, all perceptions as
well as the sense of the mind are according to the measure of
the individual and not according to the measure of the universe.
And human understanding is like a false mirror, which, receiving
rays irregularly, distorts and discolors the nature of things by
mingling its own nature with it.
The idols of the cave are the idols of
the individual man. Everyone has a cave or a den of his own,
which refracts and discolors the light of nature; owing to his
personal and peculiar nature; or to his education and
conversation with others; or to the reading of books, and the
authority of those whom he esteems and admires; or to the
differences of impressions, accordingly as they take place in a
mind preoccupied and predisposed, or in a mind indifferent and
settled; or the like. So that the spirit of man (according as it
is meted out to different individuals) is in fact a thing
variable and full of perturbation, and governed as it were by
chance. Whence it was well observed by Heraclitus that men look
for sciences in their own lesser worlds, and not in the greater
or common world.
There are also idols formed by the
intercourse and association of men with each other, which I call
idols of the marketplace, on account of the commerce and
consort of men there. For it is by discourse that men associate;
and words are imposed according to the apprehension of the
vulgar. And therefore the ill and unfit choice of
words wonderfully obstructs the understanding.
Lastly, there are idols which have immigrated
into men's minds from the various dogmas of philosophies, and
also from wrong laws of demonstration. These I call idols of
the theater; because in my judgment all the received
systems are but so many stage-plays, representing worlds of
their own creation after an unreal and scenic fashion."
Max Stirner: the Greatest Idol Smasher of
Here is a brief "taste" of Stirner (edited from The Ego and
"I no longer humble myself before any supposed "power," and I
recognize that all powers are only my power, which I have to
subject at once if they threaten to become a power against or
above me; each of them must be only one of my means to carry my
point, as a hound is my power against game, but is killed by me
if it should attack me personally. All "powers" that attempt to
dominate me I then reduce to serving me. The idols exist through
me; I need only refrain from creating them anew, then they exist
no longer; so-called "higher powers" exist only through my
exalting them and abasing myself.
Man, your head is haunted; you have idols in
your head! You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a
whole world of "gods" that has an existence for you, a
"spirit-realm" to which you suppose yourself to be called, an
"ideal" that beckons to you. You have fixed ideas!
Do not think that I jest or speak
figuratively when I regard those persons who cling to the
"higher" as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse. The vast
majority belongs to this category. What is it, then, that is
called a "fixed idea"? An idea to which a man has subjected
himself. When you recognize such a fixed idea as folly, you lock
its slave up in an asylum. And is the "truth of the faith," say,
which we are not to doubt; the "majesty of the people," which we
are not to strike at; "virtue," against which the censor is not
to let a word pass, so that "morality" may be kept pure - are
these not fixed ideas? Is not all the stupid chatter of most of
our newspapers the babble of fools who suffer from the fixed
ideas of "morality," "legality," and so forth? Fools who only
seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk
takes in so broad a space?
Touch the fixed idea of such a fool, and you
will at once have to guard your back against the lunatic's
stealthy malice. These lunatics assail by stealth him who
touches their fixed idea. They first steal his weapon - free
speech - and then they fall upon him with their nails. Every day
now lays bare the cowardice and vindictiveness of these maniacs,
and the stupid populace hurrahs for their crazy measures. One
only has to read today's journals to get the horrible conviction
that one is shut up in a house with fools. But I do not fear
their curses, and I say, my brothers are arch-fools.
Whether a poor (or rich) fool of this insane
asylum is possessed by the fancy that he is "god the father,"
the "emperor of japan," the "holy spirit," the "president of the
USA," or whatnot - or whether a poor fool in comfortable
circumstances conceives his mission as being a "good christian,"
a "faithful protestant," a "loyal citizen," or a "virtuous man"
- these are all fixed ideas.
Just as the schoolmen philosophized only
inside the belief of the church; as "pope" (so-called)
Benedict XIV wrote fat books inside the papist
superstition, without throwing a single doubt upon these
beliefs; as authors fill whole folios on the supposed "state"
without calling into question the fixed idea of "the state"
itself; as our newspapers are crammed with politics because
they are manacled to the fancy that man was created a political
zombie - so also "subjects" wallow in "subjection," "virtuous"
people in "virtue," and "liberals" in "humanity"; without ever
putting to these fixed ideas of theirs the searching knife of
criticism. Undislodgeable, like a madman's delusion, those
thoughts stand on a firm footing, and he who doubts them - lays
hands on the "sacred"! Yes, the fixed idea, that is the
The phenomenon of self-abasement
warrants further discussion. When you call someone "King" or
"President," and yourself "their subject," you exalt him and
debase yourself. Similarly, when you regard someone's words as
"the law." When you surrender your power to another - for
example, by political voting or paying taxes - you exalt another
and debase yourself. Similarly, when you subject yourself to an
idol such as "government." These are all vile acts of
"Government" is Kept in Place by
To think of Slick Willy as "President of the U.S.A.," is pure
gullibility. The same applies to Washington, Jefferson, and all
the others. They were all liars and impostors - idols. The
entire "U.S." political system has been a fraud and a hoax since
the outset. The same applies to all the other political systems
I know of.
Why are people so gullible as to believe
politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers? The first reason is that
human consciousness is in its infancy. In evolutionary
terms, consciousness is a very recent development - as Nietzsche
indicated. Erving Goffman started his book Frame Analysis
"There is a venerable tradition in philosophy
that argues that what the reader assumes to be real is but a
shadow, and that by attending to what the writer says about
perception, thought, the brain, language, culture, a new
methodology, or novel social forces, the veil can be lifted.
That sort of line, of course, gives as much a role to the writer
and his writings as is possible to imagine and for that reason
Later in the same book - implying that it's
impossible for people to become more conscious? - Goffman wrote:
"I can only suggest that he who would combat
false consciousness and awaken people to their true interests
has much to do, because the sleep is very deep. And I do
not intend here to provide a lullaby but merely to sneak in and
watch the way people snore." [emphasis added]
The second reason is that many beliefs are
culturally passed on from generation to generation. In
general, people who question cultural beliefs tend to be
ridiculed, punished, cast out, or killed. Furthermore, the
politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers have created concentration
camps for brainwashing (euphemistically called "schools" by the
gullible) where the youth are coercively inculcated with
cultural beliefs designed to perpetuate and strengthen the
The third reason why many people are so
gullible is that few have developed the thinking skills to
question what they are taught and what they see, hear, and read
in the media.
"Government" is Kept in Place by a Lack of
To see through political hoaxes requires thinking skills. The
most important one is probably the ability to question
everything. Robert Anton Wilson wrote as follows in his book
Right Where You Are Sitting Now:
"On a night in September 1927 when he
contemplated suicide at the age of 32, Buckminster Fuller
decided to live the rest of his life as an experiment. He
wouldn't believe anything anybody told him - "golden rule,"
"dog-eat-dog," or any of it - and would try to find out by
experience only, what could be physically demonstrated to work.
In the year following that decision, Bucky
stopped talking entirely, like many mystics in the east. He
insists that he had nothing "mystical" in mind. "I was simply
trying to free myself of conditioned reflexes," he said. He had
met pioneer semanticist Alfred Korzybski shortly before and was
convinced that Korzybski was correct in his claim that language
structures caused conditioned associations - mechanical
reactions that keep us locked into certain perceptual grids.
Fuller tried to break these grids, to find out what a person "of
average intelligence" could accomplish if guided only by
personal observation and experiment...
The language we use influences the thoughts
we think much more than the thoughts we think influence the
language we use. We are encased in fossil metaphors; verbal
chains guide us through our daily reality-labyrinth.
Physicists, for example, spent nearly three
centuries looking for a substance, heat, to correspond to the
substantive noun, "heat"; it took a revolution in chemistry and
thermodynamics before we realized that heat should not be
thought of as a noun (a thing) but a verb (a process) - a
relationship between the motions of molecules.
Around the turn of this century - this is all
old news, even though most literary "intellectuals" still
haven't heard about it - several mathematicians and philosophers
who were well versed in the physical sciences began to realize
consciously that there is not necessarily a "thing" (a static
and block-like entity) corresponding to every noun in our
Fuller's many inventions and discoveries stem
largely from his ability to question everything. It's through
the application of this and other thinking skills that we
discover that the most fundamental issue concerning "government"
is the underlying thought patterns, consisting of statist
fraud-concepts like "government," "state," "nation," "king,"
"president," "law," etc. According to Robert Pirsig in Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:
"But to tear down a factory or to revolt
against a government... is to attack effects rather than causes;
and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is
possible. The true system, the real system, is our present
construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself.
And if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced
it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce
another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic
government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced
that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat
themselves in the succeeding government..." [emphasis added]
Frank Herbert illustrates the same principle
in his book The White Plague:
"There's a lust for power in the Irish as there is in every
people, a lusting after the ascendancy where you can tell others
how to behave. It has a peculiar shape with the Irish, though.
It comes of having lost our ancient ways - the simpler laws, the
rath and the family at the core of society. Romanized
governments dismay us. They always resolve themselves into
widely separated ascendants and subjects, the latter being more
numerous than the former, of course. Sometimes it's done with
great subtlety as it was in America, the slow accumulations of
power, law upon law and all of it manipulated by an elite whose
monopoly it is to understand the private language of injustice.
Do not blame the ascendants. Such separation requires docile
subjects as well. This may be the lot of any government, Marxist
Russians included. There's a peculiar human susceptibility you
see when you look at the Soviets, them building an almost exact
copy of the Czarist regimes, the same paranoia, the same secret
police, the same untouchable military, and the murder squads,
the Siberian death camps, the lid of terror on creative
imagination, deportation of the ones who cannot be killed off or
bought off. It's like some terrible plastic memory sitting
there in the dark of our minds, ready on the instant to
reshape itself into primitive patterns the moment the heat
touches it." [emphasis added]
Let me suggest to you that the "terrible
plastic memory" consists of concepts like "government," "state,"
"nation," "king," "president," "law," etc. The tragedy of
organizing human affairs into structures called "government"
will be resolved when the underlying structures of words, and
the thoughts that stem from the words, are changed. In The
Virtue of Selfishness Ayn Rand wrote:
"If some men do not choose to think, but
survive by imitating and repeating, like trained animals, the
routine sounds and motions they learned from others, never
making an effort to understand... they are the men who march
into the abyss, trailing after any destroyer who promises them
to assume the responsibility they evade: the responsibility of
"Government" is Kept in Place by
My book Wake Up America! The Dynamics of Human Power
(available from Terra Libra) includes a chapter titled "Are our
Schools Concentration Campuses for Mind Destruction?" in which I
describe "education" in some detail.
Ayn Rand's The New Left: The
Anti-Industrial Revolution, contains a chapter, "The
Comprachicos." Comprachico is a Spanish word meaning
"child-buyer." The comprachicos were a nomadic association,
notorious in the seventeenth century. They bought and sold
children - special children, children turned into deformed
freaks, used in freak shows to amuse the public. At an early age
they placed a young child in a porcelain pot with a grotesque
form. As the child's body grew, it had to assume the shape of
the pot. The result was a deformed freak for people to laugh at.
Rand uses the practice of the comprachicos as
an analogy to describe American "education." She refers to our
"educators" as "the comprachicos of the mind." Children's minds
are forced to assume the shape of a grotesque "intellectual
pot." Rand describes the result:
"The students' development is arrested, their
minds are set to respond to slogans, as animals respond to a
trainer's whistle, their brains are embalmed in the syrup of
altruism as an automatic substitute for self-esteem... They
would obey anyone, they need a master, they need to be
told what to do. They are ready now to be used as cannon
fodder - to attack, to bomb, to burn, to murder, to fight in the
streets and die in the gutters. They are a trained pack of
miserably impotent freaks, ready to be unleashed against
anyone." [emphasis added]
In every part of the world, the monsters who
masquerade as "government," do their utmost to achieve monopoly
control of the so-called "education system" - they try to make
it compulsory so all children will be subjected to government
brainwashing. The result is that practically every victim is
degraded into an unthinking follower... or unthinking rebel.
"Government" is Kept in Place by Mass
My Webster's definition of hallucination includes the
We could also describe hallucination as
"seeing" or "perceiving" what's not there - or "seeing" or
"perceiving" more than exists in reality.
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) could be
described as the science of representational systems. In our
brains we have "neural patterns" or "models" that attempt to
represent reality. For example, in my brain I have a "picture"
of a table. If someone asks me to draw a picture of a table, I
access the "picture" or "model" in my head, from which I then
draw a table. These "pictures," "models," or "neural patterns"
are called representational systems. They include intellectual,
emotional, visual, auditory, and other sensory data.
Our representational systems are more or less
"useful." To the extent that we use them to predict
accurately and produce desirable results, we regard them as
useful. NLP people have identified three major ways in which
our representational systems differ from reality:
Generalization - e.g., the
representational system called "furniture" - or the
"intellectual" neural pattern: "all women are the same."
Distortion - e.g., "the color of
my car is blue" - the physicist tells us this is a
distortion; it's more accurate to say that my car's outer
surface reflects light with the wavelength we call "blue,"
while absorbing light with other wavelengths.
Deletion - e.g., "Tom is a
wonderful, generous, happy, healthy individual" - Tom has
many other attributes, some of which have been ignored or
"deleted" from my representational system.
I've identified a very important fourth
way in which our representational systems differ from
Addition - e.g.,
"John-the-stranger is a King, therefore he has special
powers; and the words that come out of his mouth are special
and therefore are the law which must be obeyed." John is
really an ordinary man. By representing him as a "King" in
our representational systems, we have added something
to what exists in reality. Similarly, John's words are
ordinary like those of the rest of us, and when we represent
some of his words as "the law" in our representational
systems, we have added something to what occurs in
The essence of hallucination is "seeing" or
"perceiving" what doesn't really exist or occur. The phenomenon
of addition, as described above, is simply hallucination. To
have a neural patterns or mental models that say "the government
runs the country," "government makes law," "Slick Willy is
President of the U.S.A.," all constitute hallucination.
It's these forms of hallucination that keep
"government" in place. Because practically all humans suffer
from similar political hallucinations, they tend to all agree
with each other about certain fundamental political concepts and
notions - such as "government," "state," "country," "nation,"
"constitution," "king," "president," "law," etc. If anybody
questions or challenges these concepts or nations, they tend to
think he's crazy. The phenomenon is mass hallucination.
Here is one of my favorite sentences: "The
notion of "law" (so-called) is an hallawcinotion" - it sounds
even better in French: "La notion de la "loi" (soi-disant) est
une halloicinotion." How's that for self-referencing?!
"Government" is Kept in Place by Terror
and by Violence
Ultimately, political power comes from the barrel of the gun -
as Mao said. The last resort of the monsters who masquerade as
"government" is terror and violence. That's why they need the
IRS, the ATF, the FBI, the CIA, etc. They have to threaten,
terrorize, punish, and kill to retain their coercive power. Make
examples out of those who question, threaten, or challenge their
That's why it's appropriate to call them
"territorial gangsters" or "territorial criminals" or
"terrocrats" - monsters who use fraud, coercion, and violence to
claim "jurisdiction" over a certain area, and the people who
happen to be in that area. The monsters do so in order to
control and dominate, and to live like parasites or cannibals
off the values created by their victims. The foregoing is
another very useful definition of "government!"
The Man Who Helped Me Open My Eyes
About 14 years ago I visited a Luxembourg bank to deposit some
paper money and buy gold coins. I had to wait in line. I started
talking to the man behind me in the line. After a while he told
me he was a libertarian. After we'd concluded our business we
met in a nearby café for coffee. I told him that I was also a
"Libertarian!" he snorted, "practically all
so-called libertarians are still so conditioned and so far from
the truth, they don't know the first thing about liberty."
I looked at him in surprise. I considered
libertarians to be the leading edge of human evolution. There
followed a sometimes heated discussion about many aspects and
principles of libertarianism. Time and time again this most
extreme radical questioned even the words I used, for example:
When I asked, "What about the laws of a country?" my new friend
"Haw, haw, haw," laughing almost
hysterically. I thought he would fall off his chair. Several
people in the café looked at him in bemusement. "What about the
barking of copulating baboons in the zoo?" he said.
I was bewildered: "What's so funny?"
"My friend," he said, "like most so-called
libertarians, you don't have the foggiest notion of what exists
and what doesn't. You believe in magical "law" like a
spiritualist believes in supernatural "ghosts"... except...
except that your belief is possibly even more absurd than that
of the spiritualist. You see, I've heard of people who claim
that they have seen "ghosts"; there are even purported
photographs of "ghosts." But I've never heard of anyone who
claims that he has seen a so-called "law," never mind
"Anyway," I said, "what does all this have to
do with liberty?"
"My aspirant-libertarian friend," he replied,
"When you free your mind from the false concepts and
misconceptions that fixate your thinking within the mental
grooves fashioned by those who seek to enslave you, then you
will discover what liberty really is, then you will be able to
live free. Most so-called libertarians are like pigs hopelessly
floundering in a cesspool of statist concepts. Just as it is
almost impossible for a fish to imagine life on land, so it is
very difficult, if at all possible, for an aspirant-libertarian
locked into statist concepts, to conceive of life outside his
For a while we were both silent. Then he
continued, "In actuality, the whole world is libertarian.
Individuals are supreme, whether they know it or not. We all
have virtually unlimited choice all the time - we may assume
notions and beliefs that limit our choice, we may also get
ourselves into situations where choice is limited... but those
are also choices... objectively, there are no so-called
"states," "governments," "kings," "queens," etc.; there never
have been and there never will be - I have asked many people to
show me a "government" and to tell me what it looks like. Nobody
has been able to do that. Of course, there are hucksters and
humbuggers who call themselves "government," "king," or
"president"... just as there are suckers who believe them - who
blindly obey them - who blindly oppose them."
"One needs to live one's life in
accordance with actuality: what is, what exists, what occurs.
So I live my life out of a context of liberty, a libertarian
enclave, an anarcho-libertarian enclave. I carry it with me like
an aura. I have abilities: the ability called life, the ability
to own property, the ability to produce, the ability to
exchange, the ability to communicate. And my abilities do not
depend on the agreement of others. I am supreme. I
am responsible for every aspect of my life. My
self-esteem, my power, and my liberty can only be curbed by my
own limitations. There are of course those who think
otherwise, who would seek to violate my abilities - what you
might call "rights." When making choices, I take that into
As we parted he gave me a poem he'd
written... It really made me think.
The Enemy Within
Why do you fear his "parliament,"
This all oppressive "government,"
When darker things lurk deep inside
Your mind; crawling, scuttling, they hide.
Worse by far than "police-state law,"
More corrupt than any "legislature,"
Taxing far above the progressive rate;
A self-made ghost does, your soul subjugate.
For the "rulers of men" are naught but dust
They rise, dictate, but fall they must.
Though out of sight, not out of mind, see?
The "ghost in the machine" saying - you're not free.
Oh deeply wounding psychoplasm.
Why hauntest thou in the mind's chasm?
Why crippleth thee what gives thee home,
Why soil thy nest like a common gnome?
Out, out damn spook, begone I say!
For I have resolved, myself, this day,
That I stand free in body and soul,
Not hindered by chains nor ghoul.
The Thinking Skill Called "Reframing"
Reframing is basically the ability to see things in a different
way. In his booklet Open to Change, Vincent Nolan wrote:
"Reframing means looking at a familiar phenomenon from a new
angle. Any situation can be looked at in a wide variety of
different frameworks, and each one is capable of throwing a new
light on the subject... the ability and willingness to set aside
the conventional framework (temporarily) is one of the key
skills of invention and discovery... these pigeon holes into
which we classify things and situations, events and people, are
themselves arbitrary and artificial: convenient and useful
for some purposes - but one, not the only way to view the world.
The pigeon holes can be suspended (temporarily) and new ones
brought to bear, without cost and with profit.
There is another important dimension to
reframing. Once we accept that the same thing can be viewed in
many different ways, all of them potentially useful, it is no
longer necessary to impose our view of things on other people,
we can accept theirs as alternative viewpoints, valid for
themselves, and potentially enriching our understanding of the
Statist Fraud-Words Have Stupefying and
In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Ayn Rand discusses what
she calls "anti-concepts." As far as I'm concerned, concepts
make it easier for us to understand and deal with reality; while
anti-concepts cause us to misunderstand and fail to deal with
reality. According to Rand:
"The purpose of "anti-concepts" is to
obliterate certain concepts without public discussion; and, as a
means to that end, to induce the same disintegration in the
mind of any man who accepts them, rendering him incapable of
clear thinking or rational judgment. No mind is better than the
precision of its concepts." [emphasis added]
I contend that the statist fraud-concepts are
all anti-concepts. They misrepresent reality. They have a
stupefying and debilitating effect on those who accept them as
valid. This is one of the main reasons for the slow results
produced so far by most freedom advocates.
In his book The Ideas of Ayn Rand,
Ronald E. Merrill discusses Rand's essay "The Nature of
Government" (from her book The Virtue of Selfishness).
Rand did not question anti-concepts like "state," "government,"
"society," etc. - did she blindly accept them, like a trained
animal? Merrill makes the following points:
Rand claimed that the use of physical
force - even retaliatory force - couldn't be left to the
discretion of individuals; only government should have the
exclusive power to enforce.
Rand dodged the issue of the source or
origin of government.
Rand said that 'society' should provide
organized protection against force, but she never explained
who this "society" was and how it would be decided what
"geographical area" her government would police. "Society"
is just the sort of floating abstraction [what is the
referent?] Rand attacked so vigorously in her other work.
Rand proposed a stamp tax to finance
Rand claimed that "only a government"
could enforce contracts.
The above raise some questions:
Did Rand think that because certain
humans called themselves "government," or organized
themselves into a structure called "government," therefore
these humans acquired magical powers to do things other
humans couldn't do?
Did Rand perpetrate vile acts of
self-abasement in respect of fixed political ideas?
Was Rand stupefied by blindly accepting
and clinging to statist fraud-concepts?
Statist fraud-concepts like "government,"
"state," "law," etc. tend to have a debilitating effect. People
who cling to these concepts often feel helpless and impotent
because they see themselves as small and insignificant compared
to the enormous monolithic monster they call "government" or
"state" - collectivist thinking.
On the other hand, when you ditch the statist
fraud-concepts, you think in terms of individuals. You are
almost never faced with a "huge unbeatable enemy"; instead you
are faced with individuals - individual bureaucrats (including
police) with much of their behavior fairly predictable - making
it relatively easy to organize your life and affairs so they are
least likely to bother you - individualistic thinking.
You'll be amazed by how much more powerful
you'll become when you ditch statist fraud-concepts and think
individualistically. You'll be amazed at the additional options
that become available to you. So take off your blinkers and
ditch the statist fraud-concepts!
How to Test Concepts Against Reality
A concept is something we use to represent an aspect of reality.
It is a kind of "mind picture," or "mental image," or "set of
associations." A concept is expressed and communicated as a
word. For example, the concept/word "table" usually represents
an object with a flat surface and four legs. The object is
called the referent of the concept/word. The concept/word is the
map (or menu) and the object is the territory (or meal).
In those cases where the referent of the
concept is a physical object there are generally no problems.
Nobody has a problem with the concept "table." However, when we
enter the domain of concepts that have no physical referents we
find ourselves in a different territory. Concepts can be used to
misrepresent reality, to control and dominate others. For
example, a mother might tell her child, "Son, if you're naughty
you'll go to hell where you'll burn forever." A precocious son
would respond, "Mother, you use the word "hell" - can you show
me its referent?" Mother, "What?!" Son, "Sorry mother. I think
"hell" is a fraud-concept. It has no referent. It is simply used
to manipulate the young, innocent, and gullible!"
Deception is a very powerful survival
mechanism. Among more primitive creatures deception (or
camouflage) is often used as a disguise to prevent being eaten
by a predator; e.g., insects disguised to look like leaves or
twigs. And predators often use deception (or camouflage) to lure
prey into their vicinity so they can be snatched and eaten; eg,
the crocodile that looks like a dead branch floating on the
water, and the squid whose tentacle looks like a worm. The
fisherman uses bait to lure the fish onto his hook.
Much of "modern" human culture is based on
similar deception (and camouflage). Most parents use
fraud-concepts to control and dominate their children. Some
preachers use fraud-concepts to obtain "tithes" from their prey
- in return for a promise of "paradise in the hereafter." Most
politicians use fraud-concepts to obtain "taxes" from their prey
- in return for promises of "running the country," "defending
the weak," "feeding the hungry," "healing the sick," "paying the
poor," "caring for the old," "building houses for the homeless,"
"teaching the young," "controlling inflation," "creating jobs,"
"preventing pollution," "fighting drugs," etc.
The difference between the primitive predator
and the human predator is that the latter is somewhat more
sophisticated. The human predator doesn't usually eat the human
prey or victim (except where cannibalism is still practiced).
Instead, the human predator uses deception and camouflage to
obtain values produced by the prey or victim. The human predator
lives by consuming the values produced by his or her victims,
giving little more than promises in return. The victims are
allowed to live so they can continue to produce values for the
predator to usurp and consume. It is a more sophisticated form
In order to dupe their victims into parting
with their values, human predators use fraud-concepts like
"king," "queen," "emperor," "pope," "government," "state,"
"country," "constitution," "law," etc. The fraud-concepts are
the primary tool they use to subjugate their victims. The
secondary tools they use are fear and terror: "Bow down, kiss my
feet, and call me king - or your head will be chopped off!";
"Pay 25% of your income to the IRS - or they'll take your house,
your furniture, your car, and all the money in your bank
account, and put you in jail!" To ensure that everyone will be
brainwashed and indoctrinated with such fraud-concepts, children
are forced into so-called "schools" where they "learn" to recite
the "pledge of allegiance" like parrots, "respect the sacred
flag" like idol-worshippers, and stand up for the "national
anthem" like puppets - where they will "learn" that if you
don't believe, conform, and obey you will be punished.
In order to become more conscious you need to
throw away most of what you "learned" from your parents,
preachers, teachers, politicians, bureaucrats, and lawyers. You
need to personally test as much as possible against observable
reality. There are a series of tests you can subject any concept
to, in order to determine if it is a fraud-concept or not:
Can the concept be used to manipulate
and control people?
Does my acceptance of the concept
place me at a disadvantage?
Can somebody gain an advantage by
using the concept if it isn't challenged?
Does the concept have a referent?
If so, is there a better concept/word
to describe the same referent?
Note that the fact that practically
everyone you know agrees with a concept is not part of the test.
Let us subject the concept/word "pope" to the
Can the concept "pope" be used to
manipulate and control people? Yes, because the so-called
"pope" claims to be the "personal representative of god,"
therefore believers will obey him and pay so-called "tithes"
to him. Also, he claims to enjoy "papal infallibility,"
which means it is impossible for him to make a mistake -
therefore everything he says is true.
Does my acceptance of the concept "pope"
place me at a disadvantage? Yes, I have to pay for the
"privilege" of obeying whatever absurdities flow from the
"infallible" mouth and pen of the "divine pope."
Can somebody gain an advantage by using
the concept if it isn't challenged? Definitely, the supposed
"pope" can live in splendor off the values created by his
victims. And so can numerous "papal" employees.
Does the concept "pope" have a referent?
Yes, the referent is a man.
If so, is there a better concept/word to
describe the same referent? Yes, "man"; or "a man who lives
by deception, misrepresentation, and fraud"; or "criminal."
Now let's put "government" (as most people
use the concept) to the test:
Can the concept "government" be used to
manipulate and control people? Yes, "The government is the
authority we must obey."
Does my acceptance of the concept place
me at a disadvantage? Yes, I have to pay for the "privilege"
of obeying the people who call themselves "government."
Can somebody gain an advantage by using
the concept if it isn't challenged? Definitely, the people
who call themselves "government" enjoy the status of being
masters financed by their "subjects" or slaves.
Does the concept have a referent? Just
what the referents are is not clear. They could include:
people, guns, bombs, buildings, systems, pieces of paper,
If so, are there better concepts/words to
describe the same referents? Yes, territorial gangsters,
guns, bombs, buildings, systems, pieces of paper, etc.
To discover the extent to which some concepts
are bogus, it may be necessary to dig into history (particularly
revisionist history). For example, in the case of the so-called
"US Constitution" we find that the 70 odd people who signed it
as "We the people of the United States of America" signed it on
their own behalf and made no attempt or even suggestion that it
would apply to any descendants of people then living.
The people who pretend to "govern" in the
name of the so-called "US Constitution" are liars and impostors.
The people who kill in the name of the so-called "US
Constitution" are terrorists and murderers. The people who tax
in the name of the so-called "US Constitution" are thieves and
robbers. Similar considerations apply to other political systems
around the world.
The concepts and words we use have
consequences. Concepts can be "locks" that lock us into
automatic unworkable thinking and behavior. Most humans cannot
question their concepts. Some advanced humans can and do. The
consequences of fraud-concepts, such as "country,"
"constitution," "government," "law," "nation," etc., include
war, poverty, crime, pollution, and a host of other apparently
intractable problems. Most humans cannot see this. So their
"solution" is to "change the government," or to advocate "new
laws," or to "smash the state." They remain stuck in the same
old conceptual framework that is at the root of the problems.
The results they have produced so far have been meager, to say
the least. It remains to be seen whether a sufficient number of
humans can break through the conceptual frameworks of current
primitive human culture, in order to create new civilizations
completely outside our current abominations. Terra Libra is such
The Tenuous Power of Territorial Criminals
"Tenuous" means thin, slender, flimsy, having little substance,
Mahatma Gandhi defeated the armed might of
the British Empire without firing a shot. This was possible
because of the nature of power. The Berlin Wall couldn't be kept
standing by the East German armed might bolstered by several
hundred thousand Russian troops. This was because of the nature
of power. Suddenly one day the Soviets woke up to find that they
had lost their power and that their empire had collapsed. This
was because of the nature of power.
The power of territorial criminals is based
on lies and victims believing those lies. Their
power is also based on power relinquished to them by naive
victims. Expose the lies and wake up the victims, and the power
of the territorial criminals collapses. When victims wake up and
become sufficiently dissatisfied, they become more powerful and
cease to relinquish their power.
By questioning and challenging the statist
fraud-concepts - by exposing the territorial criminals as
fraudulent impostors and liars and by ridiculing them, instead
of taking them seriously - you withdraw power from the
territorial criminals. This is advanced freedom strategy. The
power of our territorial criminals is tenuous - thin, slender,
flimsy, has little substance, and is easily dislodged.
Implications of the Nature of "Government"
The words we use and the way we use them
"Government" is one of the biggest lies
conceivable - the bigger the lie, the easier it is to
sell, and the more difficult it is to question and
The power of the territorial criminals
depend largely on their victims accepting statist
fraud-concepts without question - primarily, "government,"
"constitution," and "law."
When you use statist fraud-concepts as if
valid, you fail to expose the "government" scam; in fact,
you perpetuate and reinforce it.
Many people have not yet developed the
thinking skills to question concepts like "government,"
"constitution," "law," etc. If you try to communicate with
these people in a manner that demonstrates your questioning
of statist fraudulent concepts, they'll only think you're
crazy. So you have to be careful and selective in how you
There is an "intermediate method" of
communication. Instead of "state," or "government," you use
terms like "territorial criminals" or "territorial
gangsters" ("TGs"). You're not directly challenging others'
concepts, while at the same time you don't reinforce the
"government" scam. You could also use the term "terrocrat" -
short for "terrorist bureaucrat." 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 few hundred libertarian and
patriot communicators were to use these terms over the
airwaves and in print!
Some leading freedom advocates are bound
to denounce this article viciously - because they will see
it as very threatening to their statist fraud-concepts and
their freedom strategies. To the extent that freedom
activists cling to their statist fraud-concepts, they remain
statists at the conceptual level. Was this the case with
As long as significant numbers of people
cling to the old statist fraud-concepts, there will continue
to be huckster exploiters who organize themselves into
structures called "government," in order to perpetuate
Even if current political and/or
financial structures were to collapse, as long as so many
people cling to their statist fraud-concepts, they will
simply recreate new master-slave structures.
In order to achieve widespread long-term
freedom, critical numbers of people will have to cleanse
statist fraud-concepts from their brains.
As human consciousness evolves to higher
levels, the rate at which people cleanse statist
fraud-concepts from their brains is likely to accelerate.
It's quite conceivable that as political disillusionment
increases, more and more people will become open to ideas
such as those in this article.
The Benefits of Understanding the Nature
What benefits do you receive from questioning your concepts,
smashing the destructive ones, increasing your understanding of
the nature of "government," and taking personal responsibility
for your own freedom?
First, you'll drop hopeless,
self-sacrificial, unprofitable freedom strategies like
"writing to congress," "financing political parties," etc. -
based on collectivist thinking.
Second, you'll experience greater freedom
of mind and creativity. Through your freer mind you'll be
able to see more options, more choices for achieving the
results you want. The wider range of options available to
you will increase your probability of success.
Third, you'll become more conscious. Your
mind-power will increase - as a result of questioning what
practically everyone else takes for granted, and through
individualistic thinking. Whatever personal problems you
run into, chances are you'll be more capable of resolving
Fourth, your greater freedom of mind,
creativity, and increasing level of consciousness will
enable you to reverse the general tendency of accumulating
more and more mental garbage and eventually becoming senile.
Instead, your mental alertness and intelligence will
increase day by day.
Fifth, you'll find ingenious and very
satisfying ways to greatly reduce the risk of being coerced
by territorial gangsters (TGs). You no longer think in terms
of some huge overwhelming monolithic monster called
"government" or "state" attacking you - collectivist
thinking. Instead, you think in terms of the risk of
being attacked by individual TGs, what you have to do to
minimize such risk, and how you can defend yourself if
attacked - individualistic thinking.
Sixth, you'll be able to earn more money
and put more of it in your own pocket. You'll waste less
time on unprofitable activities.
Seventh, you'll find exciting ways to
convert your far greater knowledge and understanding of
freedom and political systems into profits. If you want to,
you'll learn to sell freedom for profit.
Eighth, you'll open up powerful freedom
strategies - instead of fighting tyranny, you'll learn to
build freedom for yourself and others. You could make a
fortune in the process.
Ninth, ditching statist fraud-concepts
is like taking off your blinkers. Individualistic
thinking is much more powerful than collectivist thinking.
Understanding the more fundamental nature of "government"
will help you become more optimistic and enthusiastic about
the future. Getting your freedom under your own
control is very satisfying. All these factors are
Finally, you'll be able to conceive
bigger and more exciting challenges to tackle. You'll
experience greater achievements suddenly becoming within
Not copyrighted; public domain. Please copy, translate,
publish, and distribute widely. Please include following reference:
Originally published by TERRA LIBRA in October, 1994.