I have had a lot of experience with wild animals. I was always warned that "wild animals do not make good pets". As I got more experience I came to realize that the reason for this is that too many people do not respect the animal's need for freedom. A raccoon in a cage becomes frustrated and angry. Boiling just below the surface is barely-suppressed rage, waiting for an opportunity to erupt. The captive lashes out at its jailer and both suffer. The wild animals I "kept" still lived life on their own terms; they retained their self-determination and came and went as they wished. They did not depend on me for food, as I didn't feed the adults. Large sexually mature raccoons who choose to stay around do not become resentful, seeking to attack or escape at the first opportunity.
This observation can be applied to people as well. Whether struggling under a tyrannical government or an oppressive relationship, if freedom is suppressed, resentment will fester just below the surface, waiting for a moment of weakness to erupt. People are not well evolved for a life of slavery. Wise people will recognize this fact.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Candidate: "Are You a Libertarian?"
Ads for (slimy) candidates for political office are flooding the airwaves. The first, and often the only, question that needs to be asked of each and every one of these pretenders is "Are you a libertarian? No? Next!"
If, on the rare occasion one of them answers affirmatively, your follow-up statement for the purpose of clarification should be: "So you trust the people of this city/state/country to run their own lives with no meddling from government whatsoever, right? No 'permits'; no 'licenses'; no victimless 'crimes'." If the candidate does not trust you, there is no reason to trust him. "NEXT!"
If the candidate is still on your side, the final test is the big one. Ask if they are willing to back up that position with the Kent McManigal pledge, the pledge that I took as a candidate for President where I state that if elected, I ever support the enforcement of a counterfeit "law", if I ever advocate violating the ZAP, I recognize it as the duty of every American to try to assassinate me if I do not "straighten up", with my successor under strict instructions to give executive clemency to the patriot. If the candidate is still standing by this position, by all means, vote for him or her! Otherwise, find someone better suited for office.
If, on the rare occasion one of them answers affirmatively, your follow-up statement for the purpose of clarification should be: "So you trust the people of this city/state/country to run their own lives with no meddling from government whatsoever, right? No 'permits'; no 'licenses'; no victimless 'crimes'." If the candidate does not trust you, there is no reason to trust him. "NEXT!"
If the candidate is still on your side, the final test is the big one. Ask if they are willing to back up that position with the Kent McManigal pledge, the pledge that I took as a candidate for President where I state that if elected, I ever support the enforcement of a counterfeit "law", if I ever advocate violating the ZAP, I recognize it as the duty of every American to try to assassinate me if I do not "straighten up", with my successor under strict instructions to give executive clemency to the patriot. If the candidate is still standing by this position, by all means, vote for him or her! Otherwise, find someone better suited for office.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Time to Blind Big Brother
New York City's head tyrant is planning to install hundreds more surveillance cameras to "protect" people on the streets. (No doubt he will soon be followed by his clones in other cities.) Add these to the hundreds already out there, and the thousands of private cameras which are aimed out of their property, and are therefore optically "trespassing", and you have a situation where there is no privacy. This is an intolerable situation. It is a situation that can be solved, though. Make it more expensive to maintain these eyes than they are worth, or make the cameras worthless for the enforcers or as a psychological control tool.
Blinding the cameras is justified, but how? I would never encourage anyone to commit a crime.... Shooting the cameras is tricky since it is often impossible to do without endangering people or property behind the target. Vaseline paintballs are too easily cleaned up. Spray paint doesn't have the necessary range. Lasers are mostly ineffective, especially for the cameras which filter out certain wavelengths of light. However, government does not feel the pinch when paying for new cameras every month. After all, the money doesn't come out of their pockets; it is stolen from you and me.
I have no qualms about blinding government cameras, but privately owned ones .... any type of private property.... should be sacred. The problem is that the owners of those private cameras are only too anxious to hand over their videos to the enforcers, becoming a partner to the oppression. They also aim their cameras across the street or at the crossroads nearby instead of on their own property. They should be given a chance to redirect or remove their cameras, unless they have a clear history or aiding tyranny.
Perhaps there is another way to make those cameras worthless, but I doubt it. Disguises would make you a "person of interest" everywhere you went, unless you were an expert makeup artist. The little dramas and plays acted out for the cameras in some cities have done nothing to make the public aware and enraged. Too many people falsely believe that being watched unceasingly makes them safe. It doesn't work in London; it won't work anywhere.
I think the real value of the cameras (for tyrants) is the psychological effect on people who know they are being watched constantly. Government is not truly concerned with preventing or solving crimes, but only in getting people to "sit down and shut up!" Cameras seem to be very effective at that. It's time to stand up and be LOUD.
Blinding the cameras is justified, but how? I would never encourage anyone to commit a crime.... Shooting the cameras is tricky since it is often impossible to do without endangering people or property behind the target. Vaseline paintballs are too easily cleaned up. Spray paint doesn't have the necessary range. Lasers are mostly ineffective, especially for the cameras which filter out certain wavelengths of light. However, government does not feel the pinch when paying for new cameras every month. After all, the money doesn't come out of their pockets; it is stolen from you and me.
I have no qualms about blinding government cameras, but privately owned ones .... any type of private property.... should be sacred. The problem is that the owners of those private cameras are only too anxious to hand over their videos to the enforcers, becoming a partner to the oppression. They also aim their cameras across the street or at the crossroads nearby instead of on their own property. They should be given a chance to redirect or remove their cameras, unless they have a clear history or aiding tyranny.
Perhaps there is another way to make those cameras worthless, but I doubt it. Disguises would make you a "person of interest" everywhere you went, unless you were an expert makeup artist. The little dramas and plays acted out for the cameras in some cities have done nothing to make the public aware and enraged. Too many people falsely believe that being watched unceasingly makes them safe. It doesn't work in London; it won't work anywhere.
I think the real value of the cameras (for tyrants) is the psychological effect on people who know they are being watched constantly. Government is not truly concerned with preventing or solving crimes, but only in getting people to "sit down and shut up!" Cameras seem to be very effective at that. It's time to stand up and be LOUD.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Certified Domestic Terrorist
With this bit of treason-by-government it seems my "Certified Domestic Terrorist" banner is becoming more and more true every day. I would suggest that eveyone with a blog, MySpace or Facebook page, or website add Homeland Stupidity's "CDT" banner to your pages. Only by shining the light of ridicule can we reflect the absurdity of the US government.
Thanks to War on Guns for calling this to my attention first.
......
Thanks to War on Guns for calling this to my attention first.
......
Friday, October 26, 2007
Pomp, Ceremony, and Goofy Haircuts
Too many people feel a inordinate respect for and are highly impressed by trappings of military pageantry. They crave silly rituals, ridiculous uniforms, and goofy haircuts. As the police become more and more militarized, notice how they adopt those same things. Especially the "goofy haircuts" part. (I guess they go along with the full-auto firearms that protect "them" from "us".)
Getting back to the topic: Could libertarians use this knowledge to our advantage, somehow? Not being one of those who are impressed (or intimidated) by such, I have a hard time coming up with a way to "use" the information. It would need to be solemn, at least to the participants. The rest of us can giggle to ourselves. It would also need to be completely voluntary. That way, those of us who have evolved beyond such needs could overlook it.
The problem is, people who engage in militaristic pomp and ceremony (and goofy haircuts)quickly begin to see themselves as better than those who do not. Would (or does) that hold true even in a libertarian society? I'm afraid it might.
On a side note, I just invented a new word by way of a typographical error: "libertarina". Perhaps that could be a new label for female libertarians. We need more libertarinas!
Getting back to the topic: Could libertarians use this knowledge to our advantage, somehow? Not being one of those who are impressed (or intimidated) by such, I have a hard time coming up with a way to "use" the information. It would need to be solemn, at least to the participants. The rest of us can giggle to ourselves. It would also need to be completely voluntary. That way, those of us who have evolved beyond such needs could overlook it.
The problem is, people who engage in militaristic pomp and ceremony (and goofy haircuts)quickly begin to see themselves as better than those who do not. Would (or does) that hold true even in a libertarian society? I'm afraid it might.
On a side note, I just invented a new word by way of a typographical error: "libertarina". Perhaps that could be a new label for female libertarians. We need more libertarinas!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tell Me About Yourself
It's your turn, dear readers. You know all about me, now tell me something about yourselves. You don't need to give away deep, dark secrets; you can remain anonymous if you prefer. I am simply curious who is reading this blog, what region you live in, and what your opinions are. What is your background? Tell me why you read this; maybe what your primary interest is. What do you like or dislike about this blog? What subjects have I ignored or given too much focus? If you would prefer to not publish a comment, email me privately and I will not make the information public.
Thanks!
.......
Thanks!
.......
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Informative Articles and a Request
Here are a couple of articles I ran across while searching for something else. "Gangster cops" is about a tragic, but inevitable result of the War on (some) Drugs, and the other article is about domestic enemy and authoriturd extraordinaire, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
What I was originally looking for, but never found, was a flyer I had once run across online that warned of a new criminal gang, the "Blue Gang", and listed the typical behaviors and style of dress of cops and warned people to be alert and to regard this gang as extremely dangerous. If anyone can point me to it, I would be grateful and I will blog it here.
What I was originally looking for, but never found, was a flyer I had once run across online that warned of a new criminal gang, the "Blue Gang", and listed the typical behaviors and style of dress of cops and warned people to be alert and to regard this gang as extremely dangerous. If anyone can point me to it, I would be grateful and I will blog it here.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Wolves, Sheepdogs, and Sheep
The "wolves" in this common analogy are the criminals. The "sheep" are the average sleepwalking people-on-the-street; people who will never take responsibility for their own protection. Usually the "sheepdogs" referred to are the cops, which is mostly nonsense. The real "sheepdogs" are the alert, frequently armed, people who take seriously their responsibility to make the world within their sphere a better place. Sheepdogs are not out looking for trouble, or causing it. Some cops do fit this definition. Most no longer do.
When cops enforce counterfeit "laws", they are preying on the sheep around them. They have joined the wolf pack. It is up to the true sheepdogs to then come to the rescue of the sheep. The best, simplest solution would be for the sheepdog cops to keep the badged wolves in line, or to cull them from their ranks. They should never support policies of home-invasion "drug raids", and should certainly never take part in such crimes. They should never make a "gun arrest", but only arrest those who have committed a crime against another person.
A fully armed population is the best defense against criminals. Sheepdog cops know this and recognize their fellow sheepdogs; badges or permits are irrelevant. The wolves hate the sheepdogs. They either take advantage of, or enforce laws aimed at rendering the sheepdogs helpless. We need to turn the tide to make most cops once again join the ranks of sheepdogs, and turn from their wolfish ways. I'm not overly optimistic; the allure of predation is very strong.
When cops enforce counterfeit "laws", they are preying on the sheep around them. They have joined the wolf pack. It is up to the true sheepdogs to then come to the rescue of the sheep. The best, simplest solution would be for the sheepdog cops to keep the badged wolves in line, or to cull them from their ranks. They should never support policies of home-invasion "drug raids", and should certainly never take part in such crimes. They should never make a "gun arrest", but only arrest those who have committed a crime against another person.
A fully armed population is the best defense against criminals. Sheepdog cops know this and recognize their fellow sheepdogs; badges or permits are irrelevant. The wolves hate the sheepdogs. They either take advantage of, or enforce laws aimed at rendering the sheepdogs helpless. We need to turn the tide to make most cops once again join the ranks of sheepdogs, and turn from their wolfish ways. I'm not overly optimistic; the allure of predation is very strong.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Libertarian Enterprise
The Libertarian Enterprise is hiding at a different URL this week. Find it here.
Useful Forms
Here are a couple of forms that you may find useful when dealing with authoriturds. The Bureaucracy Encounter Form and the Denial of Rights Under Color of Law form could both be used as a self defense tactic or as intellectual ammunition. I would warn you, however, that government thugs do not like being reminded that they are the criminals. Expect to be tasered.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
"Firearms Refresher Course" Email
I got this in an email and reposted it here after correcting a lot of things. Feel free to spread around this corrected version.
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'~ Thomas Jefferson
1. An armed individual is free. An unarmed subject is a slave.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. "Gun control" is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are stolen by "law", we will use swords ... while we build new guns.
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words and matches cause arson.
7. Free men do not ask permission from government; particularly not to bear arms.
8. If you don't exercise your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution. Do not resuscitate. RIP.
11. The Bill of Rights did not create rights; it listed a few of them.
12. The Second Amendment was a gentle warning to politicians who ignored the others.
13. 64,999,987 American firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have three enemies; rust, politicians, and other ignorant people.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sanctioned Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. Murderers and their friends love "gun free zones"; their bleeding victims don't.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its people tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. There is not a single legal "gun law". Look up "infringed".
24. When you ignore the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves, outlaws, and criminals.
25. The first American Revolution started because of gun control. Will the second?
26. The 9/11 plot succeeded only because of "gun control".
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'~ Thomas Jefferson
1. An armed individual is free. An unarmed subject is a slave.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. "Gun control" is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are stolen by "law", we will use swords ... while we build new guns.
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words and matches cause arson.
7. Free men do not ask permission from government; particularly not to bear arms.
8. If you don't exercise your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution. Do not resuscitate. RIP.
11. The Bill of Rights did not create rights; it listed a few of them.
12. The Second Amendment was a gentle warning to politicians who ignored the others.
13. 64,999,987 American firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have three enemies; rust, politicians, and other ignorant people.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sanctioned Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. Murderers and their friends love "gun free zones"; their bleeding victims don't.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its people tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. There is not a single legal "gun law". Look up "infringed".
24. When you ignore the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves, outlaws, and criminals.
25. The first American Revolution started because of gun control. Will the second?
26. The 9/11 plot succeeded only because of "gun control".
Friday, October 19, 2007
Petition the NRA
If you haven't already given up on the anti-gun antics of the NRA, here is a petition that you, as a life member or an annual member of 5 years or more can send them to encourage them to dump one of their most recent tongue stompers (as in, his foot is deeply and actively in his mouth), director Joaquin Jackson.
There are some other tidbits of news on this at the War on Guns Blog.
There are some other tidbits of news on this at the War on Guns Blog.
The Only Good Government Agencies
If there were a government agency or two that actually did only good, without any harm to any innocent party, that could be financed without stealing money to do so, I would support that agency's existence, even if it wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.
Using those criteria, here is my list of good government agencies:
....
Using those criteria, here is my list of good government agencies:
....
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The Island of Unrestrained Government
I find the artificial island projects off the coast of Dubai fascinating, and it gives me an idea. It makes me think we should build an island somewhere and banish all government to it. To kill two birds with one stone, we could use garbage to build this "Authoritopia". That should help mask the smell of government somewhat, too. I would donate all my garbage quite willingly to such a noble cause. Since this would be a self-defensive act, we would be completely justified in rounding up all the authoriturds at gun-point to deport them.
Maybe a warning could be issued first: "If you try to enforce any counterfeit "law" from this moment forward, you will be deported at gun-point to a new location where your mental defect will no longer harm society. Walk away from your authoritarian mind-set and job today, unless you consent to being forcibly relocated. Any resistance will be interpreted as direct treason and will be dealt with forcefully." Then, just to be fair (much more so than the auhoriturds have ever been with the rest of us) we would leave them alone until they tried to enforce some counterfeit "law". Think how many "volunteers" we could round up at each "sobriety checkpoint".
On their island, the former tyrants and bureaucrats could govern each other to death if they wanted. Just as long as they knew that no such nonsense would ever be allowed in the rest of the world, and any escapees who tried to sneak ashore to spread authoritarianism to the rest of us would be shot immediately, and the shooter would be celebrated worldwide. Well, worldwide with the exception of "The Island of Unrestrained Government".
Maybe a warning could be issued first: "If you try to enforce any counterfeit "law" from this moment forward, you will be deported at gun-point to a new location where your mental defect will no longer harm society. Walk away from your authoritarian mind-set and job today, unless you consent to being forcibly relocated. Any resistance will be interpreted as direct treason and will be dealt with forcefully." Then, just to be fair (much more so than the auhoriturds have ever been with the rest of us) we would leave them alone until they tried to enforce some counterfeit "law". Think how many "volunteers" we could round up at each "sobriety checkpoint".
On their island, the former tyrants and bureaucrats could govern each other to death if they wanted. Just as long as they knew that no such nonsense would ever be allowed in the rest of the world, and any escapees who tried to sneak ashore to spread authoritarianism to the rest of us would be shot immediately, and the shooter would be celebrated worldwide. Well, worldwide with the exception of "The Island of Unrestrained Government".
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Government Harms Babies
It seems that everyone I know either just had a baby or is pregnant. Looking into those innocent little faces, you want to be able to protect them from everything. Especially from government agencies that pretend to exist to protect them.
One new mother I know nicked her baby's chin with his zipper when she was dressing him. She was wanting to take him to the doctor's office for a stomach problem, but wouldn't for fear that the "Child Protective Service" would think she was abusive and take him away. Her mother was eventually able to help her with the baby, and it turned out he was OK, but her fear of an overreaching government stood in the way of seeking professional help.
I also knew of a couple in another state who got into an argument with their neighbors who then carried out their threat and called the state and reported them as child abusers. The last I knew they had still never seen their children again. It is hard to prove yourself innocent, which is why the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecutors. (Tell that to the IRS!)
In many cases the fear of these things happening is overblown. The problem is that you can never tell which tiny thing will get the snowball rolling. On some occasions children do need to be rescued from abusive parents. I don't think that is government's job. Sure, the scorpion of government can sting those who harm children. But that scorpion is stupid and blind and doesn't notice who it stings. The children are often its victims. Is it worth the risk to let that beast near your child?
One new mother I know nicked her baby's chin with his zipper when she was dressing him. She was wanting to take him to the doctor's office for a stomach problem, but wouldn't for fear that the "Child Protective Service" would think she was abusive and take him away. Her mother was eventually able to help her with the baby, and it turned out he was OK, but her fear of an overreaching government stood in the way of seeking professional help.
I also knew of a couple in another state who got into an argument with their neighbors who then carried out their threat and called the state and reported them as child abusers. The last I knew they had still never seen their children again. It is hard to prove yourself innocent, which is why the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecutors. (Tell that to the IRS!)
In many cases the fear of these things happening is overblown. The problem is that you can never tell which tiny thing will get the snowball rolling. On some occasions children do need to be rescued from abusive parents. I don't think that is government's job. Sure, the scorpion of government can sting those who harm children. But that scorpion is stupid and blind and doesn't notice who it stings. The children are often its victims. Is it worth the risk to let that beast near your child?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Parasite in the News
It is all over the news that "the first baby-boomer" has signed up for Social(ist In)security. Why is that news? Did anyone really think she or those who will follow her down the path of parasitism would have the integrity to say "No thanks"? She has been brainwashed all her working life. The lie is powerful, comforting, and ubiquitous. I doubt the thought even occurred to her to refuse.
I heard her saying that she will now start getting back the money she has paid in for all those years. No she won't. Her money is long gone. It was spent before it was taken; paid out to the parasites of her parents' generation (and for the salaries of the bureaucrats who encouraged and administered the system). Now she will be taking the money of those who continue to work and have their money stolen by government. Just because her money was stolen for years does not give her the right to live off of stolen money now.
If you continue to allow government to steal your money, you should consider that money gone, and plan for the future without counting on "getting it back". Otherwise you will probably have a rude awakening when it is "your turn" and you discover that your retirement welfare check won't keep you warm and fed. Don't allow yourself to be used as an excuse to keep propping up the dead system.
You may think that calling welfare recipients "parasites" is harsh. Perhaps. It is not a judgement; only an observation. Parasites live by draining life from the host without giving back as much as they take. Parasites do not cause themselves to evolve that way. The environment causes them to evolve into a parasitic organism. Remove yourself from the mental environment where it is OK to live off of stolen money. Remind yourself what is really being spoken of when "Social Security" is referred to. Choose to evolve into something other than a parasite. Become symbiotic and give something back in exchange instead of living off the lives of the younger generations. It will enrich you more than cashing those filthy checks.
I heard her saying that she will now start getting back the money she has paid in for all those years. No she won't. Her money is long gone. It was spent before it was taken; paid out to the parasites of her parents' generation (and for the salaries of the bureaucrats who encouraged and administered the system). Now she will be taking the money of those who continue to work and have their money stolen by government. Just because her money was stolen for years does not give her the right to live off of stolen money now.
If you continue to allow government to steal your money, you should consider that money gone, and plan for the future without counting on "getting it back". Otherwise you will probably have a rude awakening when it is "your turn" and you discover that your retirement welfare check won't keep you warm and fed. Don't allow yourself to be used as an excuse to keep propping up the dead system.
You may think that calling welfare recipients "parasites" is harsh. Perhaps. It is not a judgement; only an observation. Parasites live by draining life from the host without giving back as much as they take. Parasites do not cause themselves to evolve that way. The environment causes them to evolve into a parasitic organism. Remove yourself from the mental environment where it is OK to live off of stolen money. Remind yourself what is really being spoken of when "Social Security" is referred to. Choose to evolve into something other than a parasite. Become symbiotic and give something back in exchange instead of living off the lives of the younger generations. It will enrich you more than cashing those filthy checks.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Recognize the Tyranny
Government atrocities are difficult to watch. Black-armored, masked stormtroopers kicking in doors, stomping kittens to death, and then shooting or otherwise brutalizing families is not a pleasant sight. Not even if the family is running a meth lab, though too many times the stormtroopers have the wrong address in their crosshairs.
Watching government enforcers with automatic weapons staring down unarmed, non-violent protesters is a scene from the worst tyrannies in history, yet is played out in America anytime enough people care about an issue to show up at a protest. It makes those who care "just a bit less" stay home instead of doing their duty. The goons would rather you simply vote and then go along with the results they report to you.
When people like Ed Brown, Wayne Fincher, or Ryan Horsley get targeted for persecution, it is easy to point and say "well, if only he hadn't done _____....." instead of realizing that if the government decides you are an annoyance, it will find some excuse to destroy you. Either a new counterfeit "law" will be enacted to get you, or you will be charged with violating one of the millions already "on the books". It is easier to turn away and ignore the tyranny than to hold the enforcers (and those who are supposed to hold their leashes) accountable. Don't be a tyranny denier. Call it what it is.
Some say that violent movies have desensitized the population to horrific violence. Perhaps that is half of the problem. I think the other half is that some people can't look at violence and unpleasant things at all. They pretend that the world is Candyland. They refuse to see the atrocities no matter what, and if confronted by undeniable tyrannical acts, they will blame the person who makes them look, not the person committing the act.
Watching government enforcers with automatic weapons staring down unarmed, non-violent protesters is a scene from the worst tyrannies in history, yet is played out in America anytime enough people care about an issue to show up at a protest. It makes those who care "just a bit less" stay home instead of doing their duty. The goons would rather you simply vote and then go along with the results they report to you.
When people like Ed Brown, Wayne Fincher, or Ryan Horsley get targeted for persecution, it is easy to point and say "well, if only he hadn't done _____....." instead of realizing that if the government decides you are an annoyance, it will find some excuse to destroy you. Either a new counterfeit "law" will be enacted to get you, or you will be charged with violating one of the millions already "on the books". It is easier to turn away and ignore the tyranny than to hold the enforcers (and those who are supposed to hold their leashes) accountable. Don't be a tyranny denier. Call it what it is.
Some say that violent movies have desensitized the population to horrific violence. Perhaps that is half of the problem. I think the other half is that some people can't look at violence and unpleasant things at all. They pretend that the world is Candyland. They refuse to see the atrocities no matter what, and if confronted by undeniable tyrannical acts, they will blame the person who makes them look, not the person committing the act.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Sticking to Principles or Being "Stuck" By Them?
It is hard to stick to my principles, when in my personal life I am utterly alone. That is overstating the problem somewhat, but not much. None of my friends care about the encroaching police-state. Some of them even see it as a career opportunity. My family, even when they agree, think it is better to just keep their mouths shut. I was actually told "We agree with a lot of your ideas, but for us, it is easier to just deal with things." OK, just don't sacrifice me to the wolves. My girlfriend has suggested that I can keep my same opinions, but not tell anyone anymore. So, really, except for the few people I get letters or comments from online, it seems I am a lone crackpot.
After recent events where my online presence has been used against me, it makes me wonder what value there is in expressing myself. Am I giving other libertarians confidence in expressing their opinions? Am I giving the little shove to get some fence-sitters to finally choose to come down on the side of individual liberty? Or am I simply giving ammunition to those who hate liberty and love the US police-state and need nut-cases like me to point to? It feels like I have been trying to stick to my principles, only to find myself impaled upon them.
After recent events where my online presence has been used against me, it makes me wonder what value there is in expressing myself. Am I giving other libertarians confidence in expressing their opinions? Am I giving the little shove to get some fence-sitters to finally choose to come down on the side of individual liberty? Or am I simply giving ammunition to those who hate liberty and love the US police-state and need nut-cases like me to point to? It feels like I have been trying to stick to my principles, only to find myself impaled upon them.
Friday, October 12, 2007
"Politics" and Mental Issues
The more emotionally healthy a person is; the fewer irrational fears they have and the fewer people they hate; the less they need "politics". As I have stated before, "politics is the way to deal with people you don't like", and now I would add "and things you are afraid of". Those who use politics to try to insulate themselves from the people and things they hate and fear become authoritarians; the society they create becomes a police-state. They are the ones with the mental problems, yet they try to tell us we are sick. This is why I feel we should strive for a politics-free world.
Libertarian politics is simply a self-defensive reaction to political terrorism on the part of the authoritarians. For the most part, libertarians, as of yet, have not been very proactive (how I hate that pretentious word!, but it fits here). Since we only wish to be left to live our lives in peace, we have been forced to react to the nonsensical, counterfeit "laws" that authoritarians have enacted to control us. We stagger from one blow to the next. So far. Maybe we should start acting first so the statists among us will be caught off-guard and maybe America can regain some freedom before the authoritarians know what hit them.
Libertarian politics is simply a self-defensive reaction to political terrorism on the part of the authoritarians. For the most part, libertarians, as of yet, have not been very proactive (how I hate that pretentious word!, but it fits here). Since we only wish to be left to live our lives in peace, we have been forced to react to the nonsensical, counterfeit "laws" that authoritarians have enacted to control us. We stagger from one blow to the next. So far. Maybe we should start acting first so the statists among us will be caught off-guard and maybe America can regain some freedom before the authoritarians know what hit them.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Apathetic Middle
I doubt there are too many more confirmed statists than libertarians. The problem seems to be that the people in the middle, the vast majority of people in this country who really don't care one way or the other, side with the authoritarians just because they seem to be the ones in control. It is easier for them to ignore any other viewpoints than to think. Especially when the authorities make sure to punish dissent and marginalize the principles America was founded upon. A lot of those in the apathetic middle would probably just as easily side with the libertarians if the authoritarians were driven out of power and this became a free country. The apathetic middle is composed of our friends, families, and neighbors. The same friends, family, and neighbors who would watch as we are loaded into the cattle cars and do nothing because they don't want to make waves. The ones who would help load us in because the "law" tells them it is the right thing to do; with the police waving them onward with automatic weapons and smiles, probably reaffirming how patriotic they are for making America "safe".
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Video That Started The War
Here is the video that started the whole war with Roy and "caused" him to break a deal which had already been made: "Justice Day".
I did not make the video or write the song. I stand behind its message, though. I am sorry if it offends some people, but seriously, with the exception of the artwork illustrating Bushie giving America the "digitus impudicus" and as a vampire sucking the lifeblood from Liberty, all the pictures there were taken from news photos or videos. OK, there was the stuff from "V for Vendetta", too. The only way I can think of for someone to be offended by this video is if they are part of the problem, supporting or enabling the abuses documented in the video, or be so sensitive that the harsh truth of the current American police-state is too difficult to accept. Or just blindly hate rock music. Either way, there needs to be a wake up call. Oftentimes.... reality is not pleasant, but denying it is not the answer. Just watch "Innocents Betrayed" to see more of what out-of-control government inevitably leads to. Start to stand up for America for a change.
I did not make the video or write the song. I stand behind its message, though. I am sorry if it offends some people, but seriously, with the exception of the artwork illustrating Bushie giving America the "digitus impudicus" and as a vampire sucking the lifeblood from Liberty, all the pictures there were taken from news photos or videos. OK, there was the stuff from "V for Vendetta", too. The only way I can think of for someone to be offended by this video is if they are part of the problem, supporting or enabling the abuses documented in the video, or be so sensitive that the harsh truth of the current American police-state is too difficult to accept. Or just blindly hate rock music. Either way, there needs to be a wake up call. Oftentimes.... reality is not pleasant, but denying it is not the answer. Just watch "Innocents Betrayed" to see more of what out-of-control government inevitably leads to. Start to stand up for America for a change.
Details on Yesterday's Blog
I am going to assume that the person whose lack of character so upset me yesterday (you know who you are, Roy) has now read that blog post, and will read this one, so I will go into more details.
One of my mother's aunts owns a house that she has not been living in for a couple of years. She has health problems and has been in an assisted living apartment. One of her daughters and son-in-laws knew I was trying to find a rural house in that area and offered to rent their mother's house to me. This daughter and her husband spent a lot of time with me and my girlfriend last summer and got to know us pretty well. They got together with the siblings and all agreed. No problem so far, until....
In the past couple of days the aunt's son discovered my website. Being a reactionary pseudo-American, he became angry over the things I had posted on MySpace. I assume he has also been looking up other things I have written, including this blog, since I have seen some evidence of this. He obviously thinks George Washington was a traitor to the crown, and doesn't believe in the First Amendment (unless he is the one exercising it in his own way, I am sure). Anyway, he called his siblings and told them he refuses to rent to me. Apparently he thinks I am a drug addict and/or dealer since I see through the bogus "War on (some) Drugs" (more info on D.A.R.E. here) and maybe he thinks I would set up a meth lab at the house. I don't think the sister and brother-in-law who actually know me think I would do this. I wouldn't, by the way.
If someone doesn't want to associate with me or rent to me, that is his business. I have a feeling he has nothing to offer me in the way of intelligent conversation, either. The problem arises when a deal had already been made and I was a week from actually leaving here, travelling 1600 miles, and moving in. They had asked what color I wanted the baby's room painted, even. All the arrangements have been put in place, money has been spent, movers have been hired, notice has been given to my landlord and my storage unit, and my girlfriend has quit her job. I have a baby who is only a month old and this person would just leave us stranded. Nice. Satan would be very proud of him.
Every landlord I have ever had has given me glowing recommendations. I have never had any complaints. No damage has been done, and in fact, I have left every place I have ever rented better than it was when I moved in.
I know I will hear about writing this. People like him don't like to be exposed. Well, he has shown his true colors. What colors do socialists prefer?
One of my mother's aunts owns a house that she has not been living in for a couple of years. She has health problems and has been in an assisted living apartment. One of her daughters and son-in-laws knew I was trying to find a rural house in that area and offered to rent their mother's house to me. This daughter and her husband spent a lot of time with me and my girlfriend last summer and got to know us pretty well. They got together with the siblings and all agreed. No problem so far, until....
In the past couple of days the aunt's son discovered my website. Being a reactionary pseudo-American, he became angry over the things I had posted on MySpace. I assume he has also been looking up other things I have written, including this blog, since I have seen some evidence of this. He obviously thinks George Washington was a traitor to the crown, and doesn't believe in the First Amendment (unless he is the one exercising it in his own way, I am sure). Anyway, he called his siblings and told them he refuses to rent to me. Apparently he thinks I am a drug addict and/or dealer since I see through the bogus "War on (some) Drugs" (more info on D.A.R.E. here) and maybe he thinks I would set up a meth lab at the house. I don't think the sister and brother-in-law who actually know me think I would do this. I wouldn't, by the way.
If someone doesn't want to associate with me or rent to me, that is his business. I have a feeling he has nothing to offer me in the way of intelligent conversation, either. The problem arises when a deal had already been made and I was a week from actually leaving here, travelling 1600 miles, and moving in. They had asked what color I wanted the baby's room painted, even. All the arrangements have been put in place, money has been spent, movers have been hired, notice has been given to my landlord and my storage unit, and my girlfriend has quit her job. I have a baby who is only a month old and this person would just leave us stranded. Nice. Satan would be very proud of him.
Every landlord I have ever had has given me glowing recommendations. I have never had any complaints. No damage has been done, and in fact, I have left every place I have ever rented better than it was when I moved in.
I know I will hear about writing this. People like him don't like to be exposed. Well, he has shown his true colors. What colors do socialists prefer?
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Integrity, Character, or the Lack Thereof
Maybe I am just a crazy libertarian and my views are not "mainstream", but at least I have enough character to stand by the agreements I make. Today I am being put into a very bad position by someone who apparently does not.
Because I am a libertarian; because I have the courage and the principles to speak out against evil government programs; because I am able to see that a government that uses torture (and calls it "enhanced interrogation techniques") has no moral high-ground to defend... because of these things I am considered a "bad person".
Because I speak out on the insanity of the continually failing "War on Drugs" and it's evil step-child, the discredited D.A.R.E. police-state indoctrination program, I am assumed to be an addict, and I am not to be trusted.
I am not a mindless, flag-waving nincompoop. I know the difference between the flag and the ideals it was originally intended to embody, but now opposes. I know the difference between right and "legal". It infuriates me that some can't, or don't want to, recognize the difference.
I am sure this person believes himself to be a "patriotic American", yet nothing could be further from the truth. America was founded on certain principles; principles that have been rejected and trashed by the current government. Patriotism demands the courage to stand up for the principles of America and oppose the policies of the current government. Supporting America, supporting liberty, now means having the courage to point at government and say "Tyranny! Be gone!"
Now, I find myself backed against a wall. Simply because I spoke out about the things I feel are important if America is to ever be free again. I am caught between my principles and someone else's ignorance and hate. And I am mad.
Because I am a libertarian; because I have the courage and the principles to speak out against evil government programs; because I am able to see that a government that uses torture (and calls it "enhanced interrogation techniques") has no moral high-ground to defend... because of these things I am considered a "bad person".
Because I speak out on the insanity of the continually failing "War on Drugs" and it's evil step-child, the discredited D.A.R.E. police-state indoctrination program, I am assumed to be an addict, and I am not to be trusted.
I am not a mindless, flag-waving nincompoop. I know the difference between the flag and the ideals it was originally intended to embody, but now opposes. I know the difference between right and "legal". It infuriates me that some can't, or don't want to, recognize the difference.
I am sure this person believes himself to be a "patriotic American", yet nothing could be further from the truth. America was founded on certain principles; principles that have been rejected and trashed by the current government. Patriotism demands the courage to stand up for the principles of America and oppose the policies of the current government. Supporting America, supporting liberty, now means having the courage to point at government and say "Tyranny! Be gone!"
Now, I find myself backed against a wall. Simply because I spoke out about the things I feel are important if America is to ever be free again. I am caught between my principles and someone else's ignorance and hate. And I am mad.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
"Toward a Police Reform Movement" by L. Neil Smith
In today's Libertarian Enterprise there is a very good article detailing what must be done in order for police to become the peace officers they should be instead of the badged criminals they are: Toward a Police Reform Movement by L. Neil Smith.
To his suggestions I would only add: Police uniforms should be fluorescent orange (with the huge black letters announcing the officer's name and badge number on the back and chest, as Smith suggests) and they should be forbidden to carry any chemical or electical "compliance" devices while on duty.
To his suggestions I would only add: Police uniforms should be fluorescent orange (with the huge black letters announcing the officer's name and badge number on the back and chest, as Smith suggests) and they should be forbidden to carry any chemical or electical "compliance" devices while on duty.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Kent McManigal or Ron Paul
I want America to attempt freedom once again. Then, when America is finally free, it should lead the rest of the world by example. You can't force democracy on other lands under threat of death or occupation and call it "freedom". Not honestly.
To help form a free world, someone has to go first. The only political ("legal") way that can happen is to elect a Libertarian or Ron Paul. No other Republican and no Democrat will steer America toward anything other than a more oppressive police-state. No Demopublican will even try to imagine anything other than a totally controlled population being watched and nannied every moment of every day. Liberty is their worst nightmare.
I am the most hard-line libertarian running. I will not compromise on liberty. I admit I may be too radical for some of you. If that is the case, then you should support Ron Paul. He is part of the way, a large percentage of the way, down the road to where I want to go. As I have said in the past, if you are scared by my vision of total freedom, at least head in my direction. We can part ways on good terms later when you are as free as you feel safe being. Who knows: You may discover that your appetite for liberty has been whetted and you may realize you are responsible enough for real Liberty after all.
To help form a free world, someone has to go first. The only political ("legal") way that can happen is to elect a Libertarian or Ron Paul. No other Republican and no Democrat will steer America toward anything other than a more oppressive police-state. No Demopublican will even try to imagine anything other than a totally controlled population being watched and nannied every moment of every day. Liberty is their worst nightmare.
I am the most hard-line libertarian running. I will not compromise on liberty. I admit I may be too radical for some of you. If that is the case, then you should support Ron Paul. He is part of the way, a large percentage of the way, down the road to where I want to go. As I have said in the past, if you are scared by my vision of total freedom, at least head in my direction. We can part ways on good terms later when you are as free as you feel safe being. Who knows: You may discover that your appetite for liberty has been whetted and you may realize you are responsible enough for real Liberty after all.
Start at Zero
I was talking to a retired math teacher a while back and I told him that math was my worst subject in school. He said "You wanna know why?" I said I did. He asked "What is the first number?". "One" I answered. He smiled and said "Wrong. It is zero. That is why people have trouble with math."
Maybe that is why people have trouble with a lot of things. The beginning position should be zero; a clean slate. Whether it is governments, gods, laws, wives, presidential candidates, or whatever, we should not start counting at one, but zero. Then add one only if it seems absolutely necessary. Zero is a perfectly valid number, after all. Maybe in many cases it is the best number to choose.
Maybe that is why people have trouble with a lot of things. The beginning position should be zero; a clean slate. Whether it is governments, gods, laws, wives, presidential candidates, or whatever, we should not start counting at one, but zero. Then add one only if it seems absolutely necessary. Zero is a perfectly valid number, after all. Maybe in many cases it is the best number to choose.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Societal Evolution
I have seen lists where someone proposes that all democracies go through certain stages in their evolution from freedom to bondage. That's funny, since in my opinion, democracies are not very free. Still, it got me thinking about how societies evolve. I haven't put a huge amount of thought into this, but so far here is what I've come up with. I think societies go from bondage to discontent to revolution to liberty (of some degree) to "patriotism" to dependency to bondage again. I think the majority of the people in America are in the dependency stage. The idea that government has the authority, and is expected, to regulate every aspect of life and "pay for" (with stolen money) every "need" of the people makes that pretty clear to me. The discussions I have been a part of recently convince me of that even more. Each person in a society is not at the same stage; some are still stuck in "patriotism" while others are all the way to "discontent". Some may even be living in "liberty" in spite of the best efforts of the current authoritarians.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Circular Arguing With a "Libertarian(?)"
In an online discussion with someone who claims to "lean toward libertarian ways" I have once again run into the phenomenon of someone who will look for any excuse to not be free. This person only used the "debate" to misrepresent what I said at every opportunity and keep proposing his socialist "solutions". If is "leanings" are "libertarian", I guess I am "Shanubi; King of the Gerbils".
Not that it matters, but this person's gripe was that McDonald's food is unhealthy if eaten to the exclusion of all else, and to solve this he would have government mandate that they replace the lettuce on their hamburgers with spinach, and make them pay penalties for selling "junk food". Now, I like spinach, but I don't want it replacing the lettuce on my Big Macs. I do not expect that my health will be perfect it I eat nothing but hamburgers (of any brand or type) for the majority of my meals. What kind of imbecile would?
He equates feeding McDonald's food to children with performing surgery on them at home or feeding them rat poison. Please.
Whenever I answered the points he brought up, he would claim I was being evasive. He would ask the same thing that I had just answered again. He kept going in circles; chasing his tail. He obviously craves an all encompassing nanny-state to dictate what we are allowed to choose to eat and do. Current counterfeit "laws" were claimed as evidence that more "laws" of this sort are OK. I finally realized that he was only trying to pick a fight and I walked away from the discussion.
I wrapped up my participation with this: "I do not want to live in a society where busy-bodies feel they have the authority to tell me what I am allowed to eat. Who owns your body; you or your neighbors? I know what my answer is."
Not that it matters, but this person's gripe was that McDonald's food is unhealthy if eaten to the exclusion of all else, and to solve this he would have government mandate that they replace the lettuce on their hamburgers with spinach, and make them pay penalties for selling "junk food". Now, I like spinach, but I don't want it replacing the lettuce on my Big Macs. I do not expect that my health will be perfect it I eat nothing but hamburgers (of any brand or type) for the majority of my meals. What kind of imbecile would?
He equates feeding McDonald's food to children with performing surgery on them at home or feeding them rat poison. Please.
Whenever I answered the points he brought up, he would claim I was being evasive. He would ask the same thing that I had just answered again. He kept going in circles; chasing his tail. He obviously craves an all encompassing nanny-state to dictate what we are allowed to choose to eat and do. Current counterfeit "laws" were claimed as evidence that more "laws" of this sort are OK. I finally realized that he was only trying to pick a fight and I walked away from the discussion.
I wrapped up my participation with this: "I do not want to live in a society where busy-bodies feel they have the authority to tell me what I am allowed to eat. Who owns your body; you or your neighbors? I know what my answer is."
Monday, October 01, 2007
Brett Darrow
Here is a post for my "murder by cop" label, only it hasn't happened yet. This comes from The War on Guns: Time to Widen Investigation in Darrow Case.
If anything ever happens to Brett Darrow, we will know who (or rather, which gang) to blame.
If anything ever happens to Brett Darrow, we will know who (or rather, which gang) to blame.