It’s been almost a year since my retina detached and set this all in motion. It happened on October 26. I have another checkup on the 18th. But the doctor expects no problems.
Thanks for the support.
If Harris "wins" the election I will be unhappy and I will know there was massive cheating on a scale to hand her the office.
If Oliver "wins" I would be somewhat relieved and I would know I had left my current reality and slipped into a better one, but one still dumb enough to allow rulers to govern others. There's room for improvement.
For me, there's no acceptable outcome from an election.
All elections are rigged because "None of the above; abolish the office" isn't the default on every ballot.
I have no use for a president. I don't need to be governed and I don't need you to be governed to protect me, because I'm an adult, not a helpless child.
It's up to her. She needs to get on it.
When will she be abolishing all taxes, business regulations, and licensing? Before the "election" would be the obvious time.
That's the way you'd promote an opportunity economy. The only way.
Anything else means she's lying.
I would choose my flintlock pistol.
It wouldn't be my first choice, but if things got bad enough that I could only keep one, it is the most sustainable long-term. If I were a nomad without a home base, I might choose differently.
Ammunition is the main reason for my choice.
Black powder can be made at home, so there's less risk from the supply chain or the murderous BATFE's rules. Of course, in such a situation, the murderous BATFE wouldn't exist, so their empty opinions could be ignored.
Powder manufacturing is also why I would choose a different gun if I were nomadic with no place to set up to make black powder.
Lead can be found as trash. I find lead wheel weights on the street all the time, although the zinc ones are becoming more common. You can get a bullet mold the size you need and use it practically forever. In a pinch, you could probably find a way to make do even without a bullet mold.
Patches for sealing the bullet in the barrel can be made from old shirts or handkerchiefs, or can be skipped altogether if you don't mind a loss in accuracy.
Flint or chert can be found just about anywhere, and would be easy to pick up and carry to use later. No, I don't have any locally, but I pick it up whenever I do find it in my travels.
The gun is also simple to disassemble and work on. I think I could keep it running to be passed on to the next generation. If all else failed, someone could probably turn it into a matchlock without too much trouble.
Yes, for defense I would rather have a revolver or a modern semi-auto with a magazine. But unless you can get brass and primers, those won't keep being useful under post-apocalyptic conditions. And, I doubt anyone has enough ammo.
Feel free to explain why I'm wrong and what you'd keep.
Also, until the apocalypse happens, if you want to sign up for the ammo subscription service, AmmoSquared, you can use my link https://ammo2.me/dullhawk and help us both. I've also added the link to the sidebar.
If you sign up from my link, using the "join today" button, once you've spent $20 we each get an additional $25 in our ammo accounts. I put in very little every month, but it's adding up. I hope you'll try it. We both win!
My insider in the local PlastiCrap World told me that a woman got angry last week after being told she couldn't try on underwear. How stupid does someone have to be to think that would be OK? But there's more.
Then she decided to get back at the store by emptying her bladder and colon in the dressing room.
Then, around the time her mess was being discovered, she got caught shoplifting. She was taken away by cops and banned from the store.
Some people would say people like her are why "we need" government.
I say people like her are the ones who'll be v*ting and filling government "jobs". Maybe even running for office. People like her have political power over you.
People like her are why government is a bad idea and why it doesn't work.
They and their employees-- those not ignoring the orders of their employer-- need to be treated as such. At least by those they are victimizing.
If a government employee is threatening violence to stop you from delivering or receiving emergency help, they are worse than Al Qaida, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, Antifa, or the Chinese Communist Party. Combined. Yes, really.
Why are Americans so weak and useless that they allow these enemies to tell them what to do? To prevent them from helping? Oh, right-- because the enemy is armed and has a huge gang providing backup.
No government employee should be allowed to be armed while on the "job". None of them. If that means they can't do their "job", then that's a good thing. Let the people handle it. We can. Better, without violating anyone. Without pretending we have the authority to claim a monopoly of "assistance".
You probably still don't hate government nearly enough.
They like the idea of it but are scared of experiencing it in reality. "Terrified" might be more accurate.
They make bizarre excuses so they can keep advocating for political government. For Rulers and other political criminals. For slavery, theft, superstition, and the ruination of society.
They focus on "corruption" and deny that government is working exactly as it has been designed to work. They live in a state of denial and a state of enslavement; dual "citizenship" for the statist.
They carefully avoid anything which would give them a hunger for real liberty. That would upend their world.
So, "just a smidge" is all they want to taste. It's a sad way to exist, but it's their choice. It's not their choice to impose their cowardice on me.
Me? I want a heaping helping of liberty, and I'm going to eat and digest it all. It's good for the health and good for the soul. Quite unlike the poisonous dish of statism.
I saw it the very first time I saw him, and I still see it. I can't unsee it.
If only real-life political criminals like Walz were as harmless and humorous as fictional authoritarian monsters. We can still laugh at the similarities.
October is also turning out to be a rather busy month with tangled schedules, which is a bit of an issue, but it will work out.
I'll try to not miss any posts, but we'll see how it goes.
More good news is that my bank account is in the black-- I have $3. If you're someone who hasn't donated in a while, or ever before, and you'd like to help me get a little cushion, you can help in various ways. If not, that's fine, too. It's neither your responsibility nor your concern.
I have a lot to do, and some stuff to get, to be ready for the surgery and the month of limited activity afterward. But I have practice, now.
My computer is still dead in the water, but I'm adapting. I really wish I could access my files and pictures, though.
And that's the situation as of now.
If you try to implement this policy on your own organization, you are sabotaging yourself.
Maybe you're doing it because you think it's a good look. It's not.
Maybe you think it is necessary in order to help some people. It's not. You're hurting them.
If you want to sabotage something useless and harmful, like government, then by all means impose DEI-- sabotage-- on it.
But if you like something, keep sabotage far away from it. Hire the best people available, without regard to irrelevant surface characteristics and without worrying about checking certain boxes. Don't self-sabotage so you'll look good to those who want to destroy you.
The one thing that, once heard, either cures the hearer of their belief in statism, or forces them to purge the killshot from their mind as though they’d never heard it so they can keep believing in government.
I know there are many, but there's got to be one that's far more powerful than the others and fits every situation. I'd like to find it. And use it.
What is your best suggestion?
Not due to climate or weather problems, but because of the things government will do, and has done, using it as justification.
So many crises are of this same type. Crime, Covid, the economy, war, "immigration"... the list goes on forever. The "problem" may or may not be real, but the threat government poses, using these "problems" as its excuse for committing evil could lead to our enslavement or extinction.
This is why government is the root problem. It's why government is and always has been The Ancestral Enemy.
The tyrannical taterheads of government believe themselves-- and their "job"-- so important that even if the world is destroyed someone needs to be governing what's left.
Now, they are focusing more on what happens if they are all dead, too, in some sort of merciful precision strike. They want to make sure someone who thinks like them takes their place.
This is arrogant beyond belief. Like "forever" stamps.
You and I are on our own. We always were. We could all be dead, but as long as government continues these authoritarian monsters see it as a success.
Don't be fooled. "They" are unnecessary and harmful. Any plan to keep them ruling you after a "mass casualty event" is a plan for martial law and tyranny to be imposed, to protect their power over you. Forever.
I'm curious if they are worried that an obviously rigged or fraudulent election (aren't they all?) will trigger some widespread "unrest" that is more useful than sauntering through some "taxpayer"-owned buildings. I doubt enough Americans have the courage to be that useful.
Just remember that this kind of response is not even necessary. The simple fact is, if no one obeys, no one rules. Do not comply.
I haven't had a chance to shoot since the eye surgery, but I have done a little dry-fire practice. Political ads are good for something after all. Who knew?
Anyway...
My right eye is my shootin' eye. Or was...
I would have to shoot a rifle left-handed to have any chance of hitting anything other than the broad side of a barn (and that would be from inside the barn).
But I notice that when I aim a handgun I automatically align my left eye with the sights. Without any conscious thought about it at all. My body adapted, without hesitation, the first time I picked up a pistol. I didn't expect this, but I'm glad.
I expect that when I finally get the right eye taken care of, I'll automatically go back to using my right eye. I should find out in around 3 weeks if all goes as planned.
Has anyone else had experience with this?
 |
| Found multiple places online |
I don't go by what people say they are. I go by what they do; how they behave.
Do they follow the ZAP?
Or do they just say they want a smaller government to follow the Constitution, while hanging out with congressvermin and other archators and promoting government programs (and politicians) they like? You know, like the majority of the semi-famous "libertarians" you'll run across on social media.
Time will tell with the world's most prominent android. I don't trust him, but I would love to be wrong and need to apologize to him. Which I will gladly do if he's truly changed.
(This post was immediately removed from FB for "violating community standards". Then they instantly removed the post I made saying the other one had been removed, and pointing to this blog's main page. With a warning about continued violations. So, the answer may be closer than we thought.)
The recent story about the guy who fought a police robot, and lost, caused me to start thinking about the issue.
You might support what the cops did in this case, but if you're smart you know it's only a matter of time until tyrants use robots against those who aren't complying hard or fast enough. Against the good guys.
Today's robots are a joke compared to what we'll be seeing soon.
If you are only planning for defense from human bad guys, you aren't planning. Of course, robots may have the same weakness that F-15s have: human operators. Some may be autonomous, though. You'll need to be able to beat either type.
Ideas that come to my mind are electrical interference, pit traps, entanglements for their legs/propellers, snare traps, and armor-piercing liberty seeds.
What can you think of that I've missed?
I think this is important and will only become more important in the future. Robots are tools, and like all tools can be used by good guys or bad guys. The most effective ones will be reserved "for law enforcement use only", so we need plans to even the odds.
Added: When I say "Robot wars", I don't mean one government's robots against another government's robots- I mean government robots against you and me. I don't care much what happens between governments until they start calling us "collateral damage".
They'll tell you this all the time. Often with a dash of smugness.
It's not necessarily true.
Since most "educators" lean Left, their students are influenced in that direction. Some of those students end up being "educators" and the cycle not only continues, but accelerates. Partly because they feel Left is the wise position since the "smart people" they know all lean in that direction, so to prove they are also smart, they lean Left. Maybe even a little further Left than those who taught them. Or brainwashed them.
The truly smart people reject archation. They lean neither Right nor Left, but toward respecting the rights and liberty of everyone around them. Politics makes people stupid, especially when they think they are being smart.———-
(I’m struggling through a disastrous computer problem, using a combination of someone else’s computer and my phone. This is not sustainable, but I’m still trying to get back into my laptop. Wish me luck!)
My laptop has locked me out.
I’m working on it. I’ve tried everything I could think of and I’ve asked people who know more about computers than I do. So far nothing has worked.
So what if they're right?
Maybe people aren't ready for liberty.
Maybe they'll insist on having political government and on being governed.
Maybe.
That doesn't mean you have to accept their weakness. It certainly doesn't mean you are wrong for not sharing in it.
They'll never grow up unless they are pushed.
That's why we need to keep pushing. Keep ridiculing statism-- because it is ridiculous. Keep pointing out the evil stupidity of political government. Keep showing them that not everyone accepts the premise that government is good or necessary. Keep expressing the many reasons we don't accept the premise. The reasons we never can.
Yes, (the superstitious idea of ) government exists. So? I don't share that belief- not in government as a concrete thing that people have to have. It's an obsolete belief that evil people use to control gullible people. Once the belief cracks, it's never as powerful against you.
Yes, those who believe in it will continue to be a danger to you and to society. I wouldn't expect anything else. There will always be bad people doing things they have no right to do. The hallucinations inside their head that cause them to justify doing those things may differ, but it's irrelevant. I don't care why they do wrong; only that they do.
Mistaking politicians-- rulers-- for leaders is stupidity.
I was just wondering about the person who, in response to my newspaper column about Covid hysteria in October 2020, wrote this to me:
You tell people to go ahead and get out in the same paper that the doctors are asking us to stay in as much as possible. You are incredibly inconsiderate. You go ahead and get out and when you get sick, we’ll just say “Sure there was a cost” but he knew and was happy to risk it.
You need to stop writing until you face reality.
When a statist doesn't like what others are doing, the statist will threaten (and use) government violence against them to stop them from doing it, whether there's an individual victim or not.
We are not the same.
I wouldn't.
I was told I will be forced to sign some constitution, so I'd better sign this one or I'll be signing one that's worse.
I am not signing.
I was told they don't care if I don't sign. They'll insist on governing me anyway.
So, then, why would I sign?
I was told I must have a PLAN! to deal with thugs who would insist on governing/molesting me anyway. I pointed out all plans fall apart as soon as other people are involved. What is his plan? Signing their one-sided "contract"?
The best thing to do is to have principles that you can act on.
I'm still not signing it.
I was asked what I do when armed people show up and demand I pay their "taxes". I asked if he has a plan to deal with muggers.
How would signing a constitution eliminate the thieves? Why didn't it work this time?
I'm not signing anything.
So I was told all I have are principles and ideas that can't be put into concrete action. What an odd thing to say. Especially from someone whose plan seems to involve signing documents forced on him by criminal gangs. Documents which will be interpreted and enforced by the people employed by the criminal gang.
Not gonna sign.
Then he said I was claiming persecution, simply because I pointed out that criminals will always exist, whether you call them rapists, cops, murderers, tax collectors, rapists, or whatever. If you can't live free in spite of them, then you'll never be free.
All I'm saying is that I'm not going to sign, not that I'd try to stop him from signing.
So I was told again that I "hate" the Constitution, that I "keep pretending as if the binary is between 'a perfect stateless system or the imperfect constitution' when in reality the choice is between this imperfect constitution or some other constitution that is worse." Which I never did. In fact, I pointed out several times that Utopia is not an option.
But, I wouldn't sign his constitution.
This was another of those self-proclaimed "libertarians", doing anything he could think of to force people to live under a state because he couldn't imagine any other way.
And, I still wouldn't sign his constitution.
I was relieved to not find my name anywhere on the list. But I did see something a little suspicious.
One of my relatives seems to have made well over 200 donations in the last year she was alive-- up until 8 days before she died in January of this year. Mostly $3 each (198 of them!), with some smaller, some slightly larger, some amounts of a greater order of magnitude, and a couple of $250 donations. All but one going to ACTBLUE.
Maybe she did... but it looks fishy.
She suffered a stroke several years ago and hadn't been 100% since then, unable to speak and be understood by anyone but her immediate family, and unable to walk. I'm not really sure how good her mind was otherwise.
It wouldn't shock me to discover she was a leftist, but it shows she made 13 small donations in one day, and on several days she apparently made 5, 6, or 7 donations.
She probably had the money to do this, but it looks odd to me. There was one other person in this ZIP code with a similar donation profile, also mostly giving to ACTBLUE, but with only about half as many individual donations. This relative of mine beat everyone else in the ZIP code for the number of donations, but not the dollar amount. (One other relative made around 70 donations to various Republican groups and candidates in the past 2 years. This also seems excessive, but as there wasn't only one main recipient, it looks legitimate.)
I'm not going to mention this to her family. As I say, she could very well have been a lefty, and what's done is done. I don't corner people over politics. I can't explain peoples' political behaviors. Plus, it's none of my business. I didn't even intend to see this information, it was an accident as I was looking for my name and didn't know quite how to work the website. It just makes me wonder.
Something else has changed, though. They are no longer correct half the time.
Both sides are focusing most of their time and effort yapping about the things they are wrong about.
Their statist positions disgust me.
The Right would probably claim they push their bad positions-- pro-cop/"lawn odor", borderism, imperialism/militarism, etc.-- as a reaction to the nutty stuff coming from the Left. That excuses nothing.
The Left may still be correct about half of the time-- but they have pushed that half almost completely aside. They've swept it under the rug and focused hard on the things they are wrong about. Things like having government traffic people, banning guns, sexualizing kids, etc. (Things they lie and say isn't what they are doing when it really is.)
Why have they stopped talking about the things they are correct about-- ending prohibition, for example-- and started going so hard for the crazy stuff they are wrong about? Perhaps they'd claim it is in reaction to the nutty stuff coming from the Right. It excuses nothing.
I find it so hard to relate to statists.
(Image made on Gab.ai- look at all those fingers! The better to pick your pocket with.)
If it’s in the name, that agency is working to destroy it.
Or, to at least destroy the credibility of that area of human work and study. NOAA probably can't destroy the atmosphere and ocean, but it can utterly destroy the credibility of those working in that arena. It can prevent any real progress from being made.
Just try to find an exception.
I'm not saying they'll limit themselves to destroying only that which is in their name, though. The FAA (Feral Aviation Administration) is working to destroy not only aviation but also space flight and the very future of humanity. "Good job", clowns.
If you want government oversight over something, you're looking to destroy that which you claim needs this government "help". Why?
Some just hate progress (a defining characteristic of "progressives"), but some seem to think they can profit from the broken pieces that are left after government steps in. Maybe they can, if they are evil enough.
If you call for government oversight over something, I see you as wanting to stop or destroy that thing. I don't see you as a serious person, looking to make the world better, but as a micro-tyrant hating to see anything good succeed or survive. Which is the same as destroying it.
(Image made on Gab.ai)
Government makes up "laws" on the spot, violates its own laws, and then acts like you're the criminal for not submitting to their criminal behavior. I was going to link to a video from the UK of police doing this (and then posting an apology for "getting it wrong") sent to me by a reader in the UK, but someone has had the video taken down. Cops are scum in every country.
Government traffics humans, calls them "refugees", and then prohibits you from defending yourself, your property, and your cats from them. It claims its "borders", open or closed, negate your property rights.
Government steals your money, calls it "taxation", and pretends it has the "authority" to steal it. And that it's a good thing they do. They used to pretend this was how they fund government, but it has always been a way to defund you, instead.
Government rations your tools of defense, then acts like it does so to make you safer. But does nothing to fill the gap this leaves in your defenses. And then it becomes what you need to defend yourself from.
Government violates your rights and acts as though this somehow promotes social behavior. Being "social" by being antisocial? How is that supposed to work, exactly?
Government goes around the world creating enemies who are willing to die to kill you, then it wants you to thank it for "protecting our freedom". Government is a liar.
The ways government shows itself to be your enemy are too numerous to list. I can think of more ways faster than I can type them down.
If you still think any political government is good or necessary, you're deluded. It's useful... if you're a bad guy who wants to govern others. Otherwise, no. If you can't do what you want to do without the power of government, you have no business doing it at all.
I've learned something new. Or, at least I've recently noticed something.
The "conservative"/Republican newsletters don't pretend to be anything other than biased opinion-- even when they present it as "news", they don't try to pretend to be neutral. They don't try to look like press releases.
The "progressive"/Democrat newsletters pretend to be unbiased press releases. They pretend to only be presenting the facts-- facts no one could argue with.
I get them all the time on the issue of "climate change". They have language about "how to talk about the climate", and all the experts they offer come down on the climate crisis side, but they still present themselves as unbiased information. As a neutral press release for "science".
I got one just now on the topic of "immigration". Again, all the talking points and all the experts were on one side of the issue. None on the other. Since it was presented as a neutral press release, all the bias was pro-"immigration". All the voices were obviously Democrat-adjacent.
Make of this what you will. It's just interesting data to me.
