This is a documentary film about the New Hampshire Free State Project.
This is a really cool documentary about the New Hampshire Free State Project which is largely about restoring personal liberty and limited government in the New England "live free or die" state. The basic goal of the Free State Project is to convince 20,000 liberty lovers to move to New Hampshire in order to have a greater impact in its government.
From the film description:
"101 Reasons: Liberty Lives in New Hampshire" is a documentary adaptation of the Free State Project's list of 101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire, which was written in 2002 by Michele Dumas.
The FSP is an effort to move 20,000 liberty-minded people to a low populated state that has an existing pro-freedom culture. In 2003, participants of the FSP voted for the "Live Free or Die" state, New Hampshire, as its destination.
For over 12 years the 101 Reasons list has helped inspire thousands of activists and entrepreneurs to sign up for the FSP and continue New Hampshire's reputation as a beacon for liberty.
Manuel Rápalo discusses the announcement by the cities of Seattle and Minneapolis to supplant Columbus Day with Indigenous People's Day in order to bring awareness to the boarder history and current plight of Native Americans.
Why is it that we cannot travel freely and live where we choose upon this earth while a Canadian goose can do so without passports, papers and permission from the government?
There's a lot of talk regarding national borders, especially here in the United States where it is quite common to hear people discussing how "illegal immigrants" are undermining the fabric of our society, stealing our jobs, reaping benefits they don't deserve and raising all sorts of havoc.
I find myself wondering why it is that so many human beings feel that other human beings should be confined to geographic locations designated by borders that exist only in our imaginations. How is it that we are not allowed to travel freely and live where we choose upon the Earth of which we were born, yet a Canadian goose can do so without passports, papers and permission from the pornographic pedophiles of the Transportation Security Administration?
I think many people that support the division -- or perhaps confinement would be a better word -- of certain cultural elements of the human race do so not because they have thought about such things them selves, but because they have been infused with this mindset by governments and the media. It's something many simply take for granted; you need a passport to travel here, papers to work there and pink form BS-9999-A to visit that country because it's on some government invented blacklist and that's just the way it is. Without borders the planet would erupt in chaos, right? I think there are some very important questions that are being overlooked regarding borders however, as well as much broader issues.
The more curious among us might wonder who it is that benefits from restricting free travel? Borders are founded and enforced by governments, not populations. Without them governments would not be able to control those that reside within their established territories and i think regional governments might ultimately disappear as a result, along with a lot of the money they extort through taxation and penalties from those under their control. Perhaps the entire monetary system that has enslaved the people of every "developed" nation on the planet would also collapse without borders. And if the monetary system collapsed, so would Wall Street, Ponzi schemes, the IRS, the CIA, the NSA, the U.N., the CFR, state militaries, and, yes, even the Bilderberg Club and many of the other secret societies.
Illegal immigrants are ultimately human beings which, like all of us, were born of this Earth; this one, tiny, incredibly beautiful planet we all share. I think it is quite ironic that some of us, especially in the U.S. apparently, attempt to somehow legitimize the term "illegal immigrant", in the face of the fact that the only people that reside here that aren't immigrants are native Americans, of which there would be a lot more of today hadn't we "Americans" slaughtered around 80-90% of them. And what does one have to do to become an "illegal immigrant"? One has to cross an imaginary line and, presto, they can now be arrested, locked in a cage and sent back to where they didn't want to be in the first place.
OK, so tomorrow it is announced to the world that all national borders will become defunct at 12 midnight, UTC time (FOX News reports that Iran is to blame and Israel calls the whole thing anti-Semitic and begins purchasing massive quantities of bricks and mortar). Now what? Chaos? Murder? War? Do people from one former country suddenly pull up stakes and move elsewhere?
In September of 2009, the town of Portishead, England (pop. 22,000) conducted an experiment in which they turned off the traffic lights on a congested roadway for nearly a month. Many people thought the idea was simply ludicrous and articles were written condemning the experiment even before it commenced. The results were quite different than what many prophesied however; people were generally courteous and began to pay attention to each other instead of the traffic lights and they quickly adapted to the situation. Congestion was greatly reduced as well as the time spent traveling through the area. Petty arguments over traffic congestion stopped and apparently there were no accidents at all during the test.
"A new hierarchy emerges with vulnerable road users at the top. Pedestrians in the shared space scenario, when there are no lights to dictate behavior, are seen as fellow road users rather than obstacles in the way of the next light."
So let's take a stab at wrapping my non-original concept of an Earth without government borders around the no traffic lights experiment...
I think the above quote is very interesting and revealing because it tells us that, without the lights, pedestrians were now seen more as equals rather than "lower class" obstacles by their mechanized wielding counterparts. The traffic lights (the borders) were removed and thus the "class division" between the vehicle operators and the pedestrians was also removed, at least to some degree. People seemed to have gotten along better and found that a way of life, if you will, that they might have never thought feasible was in fact not only feasible, but substantially improved without the government dictating behavior through a binary system of traffic lights, telling everyone when it's OK to do something and when it is not, as though it were utterly inconceivable that people could figure this out on their own.
UNGRIP is one of my favorite documentary films which explores in great detail what it means to be a free, responsible, sovereign human being with as little reliance on "the system" as possible:
Of course there is much more to consider when one contemplates what society might look like without borders and since i'm no expert on the subject by any stretch of the imagination, it would be somewhere between incredibly difficult and bloody impossible for me to paint any kind of an accurate picture. There are however a number of benefits that come to mind, perhaps the most important of which is that the size, power and intrusiveness of government would be greatly reduced. There would also be a cascade of what many of us agree would be hugely positive changes, including the dissolution of many local and international government entities and assets such as the U.N., NATO, intelligence communities, militaries, nuclear weapons and other arms, and a whopping pile of others. Language barriers might eventually dissolve and one would be free to travel and live where they choose instead of where a government allows. And of course there would be no wars fought over imaginary lines. Speaking of war, does one ever wonder what the true purpose of government sponsored war really is? Here are some interesting quotations from a document titled, REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN: ON THE POSSIBILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF PEACE:
The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable internal political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its "legitimacy," or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, or reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of a society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer.
The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers. [...] On a day- to-day basis, it is represented by the institution of police, armed organizations charged expressly with dealing with "internal enemies" in a military manner. Like the conventional "external" military, the police are also substantially exempt from many civilian legal restraints on their social behavior. In some countries, the artificial distinction between police and other military forces does not exist. On the long-term basis, a government's emergency war powers -- inherent in the structure of even the most libertarian of nations -- define the most significant aspect of the relation between state and citizen.
By now some of you might be thinking that i'm aligned with "them". You know, that fascist/communist/elitist self-serving scum that has infected the Earth like a plague, sucking the life-force out of us and promoting their New World Order ideology, complete with a one-world government and universal religion ... and no traditional borders. Except i'm not. Their idea of a New World Order is based on a top-down control system through fear and enslavement while the concept i am promoting is based on a bottom-up co-op with freedom, harmony and education at its core. It is entirely free of bankers and traditional monetary systems. Personally i think Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco got it right...
"To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?" -- Kevin Alfred Strom, 1993
"To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?" -- Kevin Alfred Strom
Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Many countries do not adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights however.
For each of the countries listed below there are laws that restrict historical revisionism and freedom of speech, or legislation which is being considered that would restrict freedom of speech, or the country has a history of persecuting holocaust revisionists. If you live in one of the following countries you should research any legislation that may be applicable before possessing, publishing, sharing, or even discussing in public any subject which is critical of the mainstream historical record, particularly the alleged Jewish holocaust of World War II:
I applaud all historical revisionists who have the courage to publish their findings despite the consequences. It is through the work of these courageous people that we have the opportunity to shake the chains that bind us and explore our human potential.
This is a cursory examination of electronic voting machine fraud and the companies facilitating the manipulation of the results.
This article was last updated on [date]
It has become clear to me that it may no longer be possible to vote our way out of this messes we find ourselves in regarding politics and societal issues. Much of the voting process has been put into the hands of a few private corporations of which only two, Election Systems and Software and Diebold Election Systems, provide the vast majority of the voting hardware, software and services. Two additional corporations that play a large role are Sequoia and Hart Intercivic. All of these companies have been implicated in multiple instances of fraud and other illegalities, the following representing only a fraction:
Electronic voting machines are in use everywhere and the vast majority of voters, at least in the U.S., are forced to use them. As with any electronic device, they are susceptible to hacking and in some cases seem to be intentionally designed to be hacker friendly.
While many may appreciate their right to elect our representatives, let us not fool ourselves; if the outcome of elections in the 21st century can be, and in fact are manipulated, then we must ask ourselves, how it is that we can reasonably expect to effect change when votes are registered by insecure electronic voting machines and then counted in secret.
Forget about the alleged Russian meddlers that the mainstream media entertains you with. We have far more serious problems. The following is a video of Clint Curtis, a computer programmer at the time, testifying during a Senate hearing that a), computer programs exist to manipulate the vote count of electronic voting machines, b), that it is trivial to write one and c), that he himself was paid to write such a program for Tom Feeney, a Florida politician:
One of the nation’s largest voting machine vendors, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), has admitted to installing vulnerable remote-access software on some of its election management systems (EMSs) equipped with modems and sold to states between 2000 to 2006.
In a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), written this past April and recently obtained by Motherboard, ES&S disclosed that it installed pcAnywhere — a third-party remote-access software produced by antivirus and cybersecurity software company Symantec — on some of its EMS workstation machines.
In computer terms, many voting machines are antiques that have been in use for decades. A person with nefarious motives and access to these machines could change the results without anyone knowing, because there are no real safeguards in place.
At the Def Con cyber conference earlier this year, experts pronounced that seven models of voting machines — all still in use around the country — were highly vulnerable to hacking. One, the Express Poll-5000, actually comes with the root password “password� — breaking the one password rule even the least tech-savvy person is aware of.
Just three companies — Dominion Voting Systems of Denver, ES&S of Omaha, Nebraska, and Hart InterCivic of Austin, Texas — sell and service more than 90 percent of the voting machines used in the US. Critics claim that these firms favor convenience over security, making it both easier to manipulate the machines and harder to detect such manipulation.
Watch this week’s video to learn more.
For a great deal more on the absurdity of electronic voting machines, i highly suggest watching the very informative documentary, Hacking Democracy: