On Drivers and Waggoners and Car-Sons

As I write this, the Crutcher shooting in Tulsa is making news. I'm tempted to add "Crutchers" to that title, but I won't. He stopped being a driver as soon as his car was disabled. Then he was just a Crutcher. Get it? The disabled don't operate vehicles. They operate crutches. And why is the car in the middle of the street? It's blocking traffic in both directions, for no apparent reason. But there is a reason, of course. Those responsible for turning the real economy into a casino of theft and corruption are simply ramping up their gambit, by associating the only choice left -- reversing their crimes and dismantling their hoax economy -- with literally killing the disabled in the middle of the road.

Ben Carson said a couple of interesting things during his presidential campaign. One of them was "It's nice to know that people are actually listening to what I'm saying as opposed to how it's being reinterpreted."

He also made a rather obvious, creepy display of his hands during the last primary debate, saying "these hands have saved a lot of people." What was he referring to with that? "Benjamin" can have several meanings, including "hand of God," "good hand," "right hand," "son of the right hand." So a display such as this could refer to his name, or it could refer to the Hidden Hand of the Masons/Illuminati/Rothschilds.

But this topic is really about one of the largest government-sanctioned scams operating in America today -- car culture. And the entire thing hinges on the meanings of certain words that most everyone takes for granted. Do you know what a "car" really is? A "driver"?

My uncle was really proud of himself when he got, in the 80s I believe, a station wagon. I think it even had wood on the sides. Everyone else thought it was ridiculous. Why would anyone put fake wood trim on the outside of a car? And why would anyone drive something that looks like the bastard child of a limousine and a van? Because it's not a car. It's a "wagon". And if you have one, you aren't a "driver", you're a "waggoner". Being a "driver" puts you in the same category as professionals like taxi drivers and truck drivers -- people who drive as a business, who pay up to a million bucks for the privilege. But being a waggoner, I guess, just puts you in the same category as people who steal ranches.

Obviously this topic will get more content at some later date.

What is a car, then? What does the word actually mean? A car is a carriage. A carriage is equivalent, in a lot of ways, to a package that you send through the mail. You own the package. But others are responsible for getting it where it's going. And there are rules about how to do that. For instance, you don't want people opening up your packages, willy-nilly, as they travel across the country, do you? Well, the same applies to your carriage. In fact, in the shipping industry, a package is even referred to as "carriage".

Now, a carriage requires horses to pull it. And it requires a driver to drive those horses, and to make sure that they're watered and to generally manage the entire operation.

But note that the driver doesn't drive the carriage; he drives the horses. And they might not even be his horses. Horses will only go so fast, for so long, after all. If they are his horses, but not his carriage, then he's just a driver. But if he's using someone elses horses to pull someone elses carriage, then he's also an operator; he's operating a vehicle, ie. an investment. (Note that 'operating' is a medical term. It implies doing something to someone, for their own supposed benefit, without their continual, conscious knowledge and assent.) And if he's using someone elses carriage to carry packages that belong to a third party, or he's carrying third-party (fee-paying) passengers in someone elses carriage, then he's engaged in commerce, and he's a commercial driver.

But if he's just riding along on his own horse, or riding in his own carriage, then he isn't any of those things. He's just a rider. And riders don't need licenses at all. That was the case in the past. And if that's the case today, then your car isn't really a carriage, either, because it doesn't require horses or someone else to drive them or any of that crap. It isn't at all like a package placed in the hands of others and dependent upon them to get where it's going. It's only dependent upon you, its owner.

And why, even, would you care that a driver of your carriage is licensed, or specially qualified in any way? Well, if you're a wealthy and important person, wealthy enough to own your own carriage, then you might want to go on a long journey in that carriage. And you don't want to drive horses yourself. You want a driver. In fact, you might even want several drivers. Because a driver can only go for so long. But if you're just sitting there, in your carriage, then what do you care?

So, at the breakneck speed of 25 miles per hour, if you want to go on a non-stop journey of over a couple-hundred miles (ie. beyond the next state), then you need more than one driver. Or if your driver falls off the carriage or gets dysentery and dies, or gets drunk at the local saloon during a pit-stop, then you don't want to be stuck in some one-horse town a hundred miles from civilization. You need to be able to pick up another driver. The driver is replaceable. He's a known quantity. That's the entire point of licensing drivers. Driving is a business. And drivers are responsible to the carriage owners, and to the riders in them.

That's all well and good for a hundred years ago, but what do we have today? We have horseless carriages. And since a driver only drives horses, pulling other peoples carriages, then legally we have driverless carriages, as well.

Except, that isn't what seems to have happened, is it? Instead of getting rid of the (now unnecessary) licenses, and keeping the right to travel, we've gotten rid of the right to travel and made everyone get (mostly) unnecessary licenses. You don't need a license to drive unless you're driving for someone else. According to the Supreme Court, we do still have a right to travel. So, why is it that if you attempt travelling alone in your own car, without a license to drive, armed men will pull you over, threaten to shoot you, open your car, drag you out of it, and take you to jail?

Gangster government, that's why. Literal gangsters, operating under color of law. Gangsters who engage in all manner of commercial fraud, create fake jobs, fake money, a fake economy and, ultimately, end up stealing ranches in Texas and elsewhere, filled with oil wells, to pay for all of it.

And once they've offered you a 'license' to exercise your right to travel, these gangsters want to force you to have a license to use Bitcoin, as well. Money-printing can only profit gangsters, after all, if they can force you to use their currency instead of an alternative.

In case it's not obvious, so-called "ride share" programs like Uber and Lyft also fit into this, as well. You aren't really "sharing" rides when you sign up for them. Perhaps you were, at one time. And the idea of doing so is fairly revolutionary. But, today, now that they are mainstream, you're signing up to be a driver. And the legal reality and employment ramifications of that arrangement are questionable, at best.

So, if you think at this point that all of this is just neo-feudal nonsense, and that no one would take any of it seriously, then think again. And ask yourself, does the phrase "driving a wagon" sound odd to you? You probably think that you drive a car. But what do you do to a wagon? A "teamster" was originally the name of someone who drove a team of horses, pulling a wagon. Today, it's a labor union with legendary ties to organized crime. Not a coincidence.

Last Updated on 02/07/17