Tim Thomas Makes A Heroic Stand

This story was interesting. Tim Thomas was the goalkeeper for the NHL champion Boston Bruins. The President met with the winning team, but Tim Thomas refused to go. He said that government is way too big and out of control.

This is an important point. When the President meets a sports champion, who is endorsing whom? The official spin is that the President is honoring the athletes. Actually, the athletes are endorsing the President and the State.

Tim Thomas may suffer retribution for standup up for his beliefs. He was benched for his next start after refusing the meeting. He may lose endorsement deals. He may have a harder time finding a new team when his contract expires.

The backlash from the State media is predictable. They are saying “Tim Thomas, you have a high-paying job for playing a game. Be grateful that you get paid so much. Most people only dream of having a job and lifestyle as nice as you. Don’t rock the boat.”

This is an important point regarding State “journalists”. They are professional liars. They are interchangeable cogs. The State media cartel can fire any journalist, and find 100 other people eager to lie for huge paycheck. Most “journalists”, even the low-ranking ones, are way overpaid for their real skills. That enables their bosses to keep them on a short leash, knowing that a firing and blacklisting will lead to a much worse standard of living. Nobody gets promoted to be a high-ranking journalist unless they’ve demonstrated thorough pro-State brainwashing. Even with that, occasionally someone deviates, is disgraced, and has their career ruined.

Even a star goalkeeper is an interchangeable cog. For example, Michael Vick hasn’t gotten any favorable calls from referees, most of which are lawyers and judges. Star athletes and journalists are replaceable. Even if Vick or Thomas are fired, the same number of people will still watch the NFL or NHL.  The real power lies with the media CEOs and their bankster backers. who almost never appear in public. If a mainstream media CEO starts having “wrong” ideas, it’s easy to naked short sell and crash the stock, arrange for a leveraged buyout, and install a new figurehead as CEO.

I’ve heard this viewpoint frequently cited. Athletes and celebrities are *NOT* expected to express any “political opinions”, which really means “non-approved political opinions”. If Tim Thomas said “Support the troops! USA! USA!”, that’s a political statement, but the State media would not complain. There only is backlash when a non-approved opinion is expressed.

Imagine if 1% or even 0.01% of athletes started criticizing the State! That would really start waking up some slaves! For this reason, any dissent must be immediately crushed.

Most sports leagues have a “personal conduct policy”. That can be interpreted as preventing the “house slaves” from expressing non-approved political opinions and starting a slave revolt.  If you’re an athlete, celebrity, or journalist, your real job is to keep the slaves distracted and complacent.  The last thing State insiders want to do is for celebrities to encourage the lower-ranking slaves to start thinking for themselves.

It would be awesome, if some athletes or celebrities started saying “The Federal Reserve is evil!” or “Government is way to big!” or even “All taxation is theft!” Almost all celebrities and athletes are employees and not owners, because the State restricts their economic freedom. Taxes and regulations make it almost impossible for a successful celebrity or athlete to start his own media business.

This is the “Asch Conformity Test” problem. Most slaves think subconsciously “If the government was doing bad things, then some journalists and celebrities would complain.” No objections are aired on TV.  This is interpreted as an endorsement that everything is fine. Most mainstream political debate is an illusion and smokescreen.  A single objection can have a large impact.  Therefore, any dissent must be crushed.

If one person objects, that wakes up some slaves. However, the person who objects is usually ruined and disgraced. That sets an example, and other celebrities and “journalists” learn to toe the line. The recruitment and promotion process for celebrities and journalists weeds out the independent thinkers. If you’re the type of person who might discuss forbidden ideas, you don’t get your reputation boosted by the State media cartel. You must conform or get weeded out.

Getting to be a star athlete also has a luck-based component.  Tim Thomas didn’t become an NHL success until late in his career.  How do you know that there aren’t some great athletes denied the opportunity?  You’d never know, because you’d never hear about them.

Tim Thomas took a heroic stand. He may suffer retribution, in the form of worse contracts, losing his endorsements, and not getting favorable calls from referees. If more athletes and celebrities did this, it would help promote freedom. Unfortunately, celebrities are replaceable cogs, making it a risky career move to question the State.

6 Responses to Tim Thomas Makes A Heroic Stand

  1. Yeah right…Used to think you were one of the faces of American Hockey. Now I’d prefer not see you put the USA sweater on again. This was not a political trip, you made it that. Its an honor and a privilege to be invited to the White House regardless of who’s in power. Just ask all the soldiers and medalists who are bestowed the same invitation for much greater accomplishments. But I guess you’re bigger than all of them too. You’re a hockey goalie, and an ignorant one at that.

    • Everything a politician does is political. You missed the point of my post. If an athlete meets the President, that’s an implicit endorsement of the President.

      What if the whole team refused to go? What if more athletes started speaking out against a corrupt government?

    • Sometimes, but not much.

      That’s another website that says “Something is seriously wrong with the way things are now!”, but doesn’t really suggest alternatives.

      • I was wondering more about their thoughts on ‘directed history’ and such. For example: I was thinking of making an effort to move to Hong Kong (rated freest economy on the planet), but if China were indeed controlled by Anglo-elites, then I’d probably rather stay and work towards freedom in America.

        For example, some Chinese communities seem to have some agorism up and running fairly well, to the extent that they are even funding offshore agorist enterprises: http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/15/chinas-black-market-city/singlepage . Plus, their success with local politics makes me wonder if local politics might not be worthwhile target to aim for.

        Maybe more generally, your thoughts on the prospect of agorism in America vs other countries? And have you heard of ‘seasteading’? A lead developer towards seasteading is actually Milton friedman’s grandson. Now he’s working on sanctioned libertarian enclaves within permissive states: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678720/former-seasteaders-come-ashore-to-start-libertarian-utopias-in-honduran-jungle

        • I’m not so sure about Hong Kong. Allegedly, China is cracking down on gold and silver dealers.

          In China, dealing with politics is even harder than in the USA. For example, it’s illegal to organize a union.

          The Wukan revolt is interesting. Allegedly, the Chinese government asked the villagers to nominate leaders for negotiations, and then those people were arrested for treason.

          Seasteading is problematic. First, it isn’t (yet) technologically feasible for the seastead to become 100% self-sufficient.

          Suppose the seastead is successful and really free. Then the propaganda is “Those seasteaders are selling drugs!” or “Those seasteaders are selling guns!” Then, there’s an invasion and the seastead is shut down.

          That’s the problem with seasteading. It’s too susceptible to invasion.

          It’s also a problem to go to a 3rd world country. All the usable land is claimed by some State. If you have a small group and are successful, you’ll be invaded and shut down.

          If you’re small, you can fly under the radar. Once you’re successful, you’re a target. Even if you have a group of 1000-10000 people, the State military still can crush you. If you’re successful enough, then you’re a tempting target.

          A group of activists in the same area can be both good and bad. It’s good, because you can trade with each other and support each other. It’s bad, because you’re a tempting target if you’re successful.

          Suppose you have a group of 1000 people that are prepared to fight to defend their freedom. First, some of them will be undercover cops and State spies. Second, most people might talk tough and train tough, but they’ll back down once confronted with actual violence. State thugs adopt a “Get the ringleaders!” strategy, so the other people may abandon you when the going gets rough.

          That’s why I like agorism and stealth. Plus, for personal reasons, I can’t move.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>