Beware The Blob – its mission is creepy

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 20, 2026)

If you give government an inch, it will take a mile. Or, in most countries, 1.60934 kilometers. Some people refer to this as "mission creep"- government's tendency to keep moving the goal posts and grabbing more power over more things; things government has no business having any involvement with.

Those who originally justified a government with tasks like the armed defense of the territory's population and protecting the residents from criminals soon started believing government should also be involved in more things. Like "public health", education, animal ordinances, travel, property registration, and the economic lives of the people.

The idea of "the general welfare" was a cancer. It has metastasized to include anything the control freaks in government want power over. And, they want to be involved in absolutely everything; those few things they aren't yet meddling with, they'll point to and call "freedom". Until they also take that away.

Government pursues these arbitrary powers to the point where it neglects the things originally used to justify its existence, because, apparently, it's safer and more profitable to interfere with regular people.

As for those antiquated justifications for government? Now, government sends its military around the world, creating enemies out of thin air, ultimately threatening the safety of all Americans. They ignored Thomas Jefferson's advice of trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none, and we're paying the price.

Here at home, you're now more likely to have your life, liberty, or property violated by a government employee enforcing a rule or "law" than by a freelance criminal. Government has become the very threat it promised to protect you from.

Those who work for government now believe they need to watch everything we do, make sure they approve of all our activities, and verify our age and identity before we are allowed to do those things. You'll do nothing without government oversight, and possibly even a license.

Government keeps getting worse; its mission creeping like The Blob over more of our lives. This will continue until it collapses from its fatal arrogance. Some nabob will then wring their hands and say they need to try again, but they'll do it right this time. They won't. They'll make the same old mistake of not trusting liberty enough, and their new government will grow beyond any limits set for it. Any government mission will always creep because the lust to govern others is creepy.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

The witch doctors' lies

Once upon a time, people believed that without a sacrifice, the rains wouldn't come, the herds would never show up, the winter would never end, and the Sun wouldn't come back after an eclipse.

They believed these things because the witch doctors told them so. These beliefs were useful to the witch doctors. This was how they protected their power.

It was all a pack of lies.

Now, most people believe that without sacrificing to government through taxation, kids will not get educated, roads will crumble, property couldn't exist, planes wouldn't fly, and criminals would run rampant.

They believe these things because modern witch doctors- government "teachers", pundits, politicians, bureaucrats, and generic statists- tell them so. These beliefs are useful to the modern witch doctors. It's how they protect their power.

It is all a pack of lies. No more true than the lies told by the ancient witch doctors and priests to the gullible tribespeople.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you like to subscribe or donate?

Envy and greed don't create the right to Gangtax

And then it blocked me.

I see every call to tax "the rich" the same way I would see a lowlife trying to justify raping someone who doesn't agree to have sex with them. I guess consent isn't important to this faction after all.

These people already hate Elon Musk because he left their reservation. This hatred feeds their envy and greed for his money. His becoming a trillionaire has sent them over the edge into insanity.

So, they want to see him gangtaxed. Some want to see him murdered.

Elon Musk isn't an angel. I don't idolize him. I do admire some of his accomplishments, but I know he's still a statist. But he has never oppressed me in the slightest; government has. So who is admiring their oppressors? That's right: it's the tax fans.

Musk has gotten government contracts and handouts. He partners with government- partly because if he didn't, they would shut him down and murder him if he didn't cooperate. Rockets are too dangerous to the State for it to allow them to be beyond its control. And you know it! His partnership with government has helped him get richer. I have an issue with that as well.

The foundational problem is government, not his wealth. I would shut down the State to remove that crutch so that neither he nor others can ever use it to their advantage again. I wouldn't suggest stealing a percentage of his money and giving it to the State to use against me. That would be stupid, counterproductive, and evil.

Which is why the people justifying a gangtaxing of Musk and other rich people are all for it. Envy and hatred have made them embrace evil- as it usually does

Remember, the point of taxation isn't to fund the state (it's unnecessary for that purpose since government can counterfeit all the money it needs through the Federal Reserve scam), but to DEFUND YOU. To punish you for succeeding, for buying things, or for making smart financial decisions. To manipulate your behavior. The worst thing about taxation, other than that, is that the stolen money still goes to the state, anyway. I don't want the state to have a cent, so I don't want my worst enemy taxed. It's worse than a freelance robber getting your money.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

"Brandishing"

The claim that a cupholder can't "legally" qualify as a holster (didn't say it's a good holster), brings up another nonsense "gun offense" that I've seen used against people more than once: "brandishing".

Simply being seen to be armed can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.
Holding a weapon in your hand, ready in case it's needed, can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.

To be a real crime, brandishing must mean pointing a weapon at an innocent person (someone who isn't violating anyone's life, liberty, or property at present). 

Pointing a firearm at a violator is what you should be doing in some cases, and it's not "brandishing" as a crime.
Letting a bad guy know you're armed by showing your weapon is a peaceable attempt to discourage the bad guy and convince him you're not an easy target, not a crime. Only a criminal would treat such an act as a crime.

I hate the way the anti-gun bigots of government use this word to mean whatever they want it to mean to excuse their crimes against self-responsible, prepared people. 

Just so they can shoot their friendly labradoodles, probably.

And, of course, the armed goons who work for the state never get punished for ACTUALLY brandishing in a dangerous manner* when they point their weapons at- or shoot at- innocent people. That's how you can tell it's a nonsense "offense" made up by copsuckers and other government supremacists.

-

*There's a specific case I'm thinking of, and I remember at least one photo showing a family in a car, the man who was driving holding his hands up, and a cop pointing a rifle in his face. It seems the image has been scrubbed from the internet; flushed down the memory hole. Unless I'm imagining the whole thing. I don't think I am.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

I don't think Texas knows what the word means

Any state that allows its armed goons to molest, rob, kidnap, or murder anyone for a "gun offense" is NOT a Constitutional carry state. It's a criminal organization. Its "law enforcers" are the criminals.

A Constitutional carry state would fire (and probably arrest) any law enforcer who attempted to enforce any such illegal rule. 

It wouldn't then compound its crime by illegally prohibiting its victim from being armed while the case is active- there would be no case. This is yet another violation of the Second Amendment. Two strikes, at least!

The Constitution doesn't allow government to dictate how a weapon "may" be carried. Shall NOT be infringed! 
Ethics don't allow a government to have any say in how a weapon may be carried.

Even if it did (it doesn't), who do they think they are to even make the spurious claim that a cupholder can't be a holster? If it is being used to contain a gun, it is a holster.

I don't know the basketball player, James Harden, or anything else about him. It's irrelevant. I don't care why he is being mistreated this way, or who is being mistreated this way; I only care that he is being mistreated by a supposedly "Constitutional carry" state that is showing what it really is.

Do the right thing. Drop the charges, fire the cop and any prosecutor or judge that allowed this case to be brought against him, give him their personal property as restitution, and stop being a criminal gang committing criminal acts!

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

Aliens, government, and "disclosure"

There is most likely life on other planets. Intelligent life and civilizations are probably widespread throughout the Universe.

I consider it a remote possibility that maybe some of them have visited Earth for some reason.

But, if governments ever confirm it through "disclosure", I'm going to change my mind on the visitation part. 

That is more likely to be propaganda than reality. I'll then assume government hasn't got a clue, but is saying it to manipulate the public to fit some agenda that empowers government.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

It's "Random Acts of Anarchy Day"

What will you do?

Find better solutions without government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 17, 2026)

I hear a lot of people saying the local community should have this or that. Or pointing out things they believe should be improved. But they always seem to want government, or at least someone else, to provide what they want or to fix their problems...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

No good reason to reject liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 13, 2026)

People find many reasons to reject liberty. Fear. Envy. Ignorance. Tradition. In fact, there are probably as many reasons to reject liberty as there are people on this planet.

Those whose careers depend on violating liberty will use any excuse they are handed.

If they use envy, they can impose socialism and raise taxes on the rich. They can make people believe they have a "right" to things which others must work to provide them. It can never be your right to enslave others!

Using ignorance, political criminals lie and hope that too few notice to do anything about it. It's how we get things like "assault weapon" rules, carbon credits, and the War on (some) Drugs.

They also combine ignorance with envy, so those cheated in the brain department will demand to be coddled to dumb down society so that no one feels stupid. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge; stupidity is a dedicated effort to remain ignorant.

Tradition, when applied to historical evils, is a particularly dangerous justification for rejecting liberty. Just because "it's always been done this way" doesn't mean it should continue to be done this way. When certain rights have been sacrificed in the past, it was wrong. It's wrong to violate rights now, even when ceasing to violate them is unthinkable. Slavery has been around for thousands of years, in every society all over the world. It was traditional everywhere. That's no reason to keep enslaving people.

Of all the reasons to reject liberty, fear may be the most common excuse, used even by some people who generally support liberty. Fear is the one thing politicians count on the most. They feed it, fan the flames, and lie about how much danger you'll be in if other people don't have their liberty crushed under the heel of The State. They'll construct nightmare outcomes they hope will scare you, so you'll beg for someone's liberty to be limited in some way. Liberty restricted is liberty violated. Nearly everyone has one fear a politician can use. You need principles to say "No".

The problem is, no matter what facet of liberty you want to consider, someone is deathly afraid of it. If your rights depended on not scaring anyone, you would have no rights. You would have no liberty to exercise.

Don't fall for any reason to reject liberty. Instead of rejecting liberty, reject the excuses used to justify violating it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Hitting a nerve

I saw a discussion online lamenting the low v*ter turnout for a local election. They were trying to figure out why so few people cared.

I helpfully pointed out that the reason might be that people are tired of playing a rigged game.

I was immediately told to mind my own business and stay out of the conversation, because it didn't concern me.

Seems like I hit a nerve.

One person did ask why I say it was rigged, and I explained my reasons: you are only allowed to choose from pre-approved candidates, no real change is ever permitted, and "None of the above/abolish the position" is not the top, default choice on every ballot. I doubt that was appreciated.

Statism is a religion, and unless you believe with all your heart, they don't want to hear from you. Even when they ask questions, they don't want honest answers.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Vigilantism vs Government

Say what you will, but vigilantism, with all its flaws, is still better than government. 

That’s why government tries so hard to demonize it; to use it as a boogeyman to scare you into the "safe" and "loving" arms of government.

It doesn't work with me.

Yeah, there are real problems with vigilantism. But to deny that there are just as many (or more) problems with government is to be delusional. Don't be a useful fool for the state.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Unethical laws that prevent help

Someone was posting on a local social media site about an injured hawk they'd found, and lamenting that there are no local resources to help.

They made calls to several agencies; no one would help, but everyone reminded them it was illegal to keep the hawk.

Government is garbage.

Back when I did a lot of wildlife rescue, I didn't ask permission. I didn't talk about what I was doing. I knew it was "illegal", but I didn't care. I even had state wildlife officials bring me an injured bird of prey once. And he recovered and went free about a month later.

Yes, it was more common for "authorities" to look the other way back then. They are much worse now.

I didn't volunteer to help this person, since their social media post has made the situation public- even more public than calling around asking for help had already done. Plus, they said they had done as they were told and released the hawk to its fate.

When the laws are wrong, good people ignore the laws and bad people enforce the laws.

I did reply to the post, suggesting they keep "authorities" out of the loop and not post about such things in the future, but just do what they can to help. I know the group's resident copsucker will tell me to stay out of it because it's none of my business (she's done it before).

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Choose the right tribe

Many people are terribly tribal and horrible to anyone they consider "other". I'm seeing a lot of this online. Fortunately, even though I know it happens, I don't encounter it much in real life. Yeah, I live in an out-of-the-way place (which many locals and unwilling residents consider the armpit of New Mexico), and I generally avoid neighborhoods known for crime. Other than the occasional (obviously mentally ill) beggar with a chip on his shoulder, I don't see much open hostility.

A tribe can be a good thing. It means someone has your back, even if they don't necessarily know you personally. I've seen it in sportsball fans, people in a particular career, fans of certain entertainment types, and based on other irrelevant things.

I even feel a tribal kinship with people who wear hats (as opposed to caps). We sometimes give each other a knowing look when we pass. I know it's odd. It still feels nice.
And if I see someone displaying something Firefly related, I almost get giddy.

Where tribalism goes wrong is when people from a tribe gang up on someone for no reason other than they perceive them as being from a different tribe. I don't respect that kind of tribalism.

Yesterday I stopped at a fast food place to grab a drink, and there was a young girl of another "race" coloring at a table. She had dropped a crayon on the floor. I picked it up and handed it to her, and she said, "Thank you". I told her she was welcome and turned back to my business, and she excitedly told her mom that she had dropped a crayon, and I gave it to her. It made me happy to know I had made her happy, even in such a small matter.

I didn't think more of it until later, when I got online and saw people of different "races" and tribes hurling hatred at each other. For no reason but that they believed they belonged to different tribes based on skin color. I don't want to live that way!

I know any encounter with another person can go bad. It's my responsibility to not start the trouble- to treat everyone with courtesy until they give me a reason not to. In which case, I'll try to put distance between us. It's also my responsibility to be ready to defend myself and others. From anyone, of any tribe. If I see a guy wearing a hat attacking an innocent person, I instantly switch tribes. I stand with the person who didn't start the trouble. Any other tribe affiliation loses importance at that point.

It's strange to me that this isn't the default.

My most important tribe will always be comprised of those who respect the life, liberty, and property of others. The rest is just costuming.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Accepting my ignorance

The “news” is trying to manipulate you and me.

To keep from being manipulated, I constantly remind myself that I wasn’t there, I didn’t see it happen with my own unbiased eyes, and thus I shouldn’t push my ignorant opinions of such events on others.

With the Karmelo Anthony case, my initial feeling was that it was clearly murder, not self defense.

But, my dangerous curiosity drove me to look into reports and witness accounts of the event. Now I’m less sure. Yet, again, I wasn’t there and I don’t know what really happened.

I’m still inclined to say Anthony overreacted. I don’t believe his life was in danger, and there was nothing happening that necessitated a lethal response. He should have left.

I am also inclined to say that someone seeking shelter from a storm in your team’s tent is not a good reason to insist he leave and to use force to evict him. It doesn’t sound like he was a credible threat until others chose to escalate the situation.

Unless he was acting aggressive from the moment he arrived.  I wasn’t there and I don’t really know what happened. I don’t trust reports.

It’s also a fact that Austin Metcalf, in the photos of him I’ve seen, looks like the smug jock bullies I endured during my govschool years. That doesn’t mean anything, but it might bias me against him. Anthony also has a similar look, so that may cancel it out. I get the feeling I wouldn’t have liked either one of them.

It sounds to me like a case of toxic tribalism and teenage bravado on both sides. Two people who couldn’t tolerate “disrespect” running against each other, and both lives being destroyed.

It’s unfortunate. 

You may have heard or read different versions of the events. If so, you probably have your own opinion. I’m not cemented to my opinion of the case- my ego has no horse in the race. Different information could easily change my opinion, but even in that case, I’ll admit that I don’t know anything for certain. I wasn’t there and I wasn’t an eyewitness. I don’t automatically trust video, either.

While on the topic, my opinion of the attack in North Belfast was that it was clearly a case of attempted murder. Facilitated by regional political criminals who insist on disarming the population, giving evil losers an advantage. I don’t feel the same lack of confidence in expressing my opinion about that event. But I could still be wrong. Always.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

The fear of liberty is irrational

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 10, 2026)

I've never considered myself a particularly brave person, but I've never been afraid enough to feel like I needed to be governed or to have you governed on my behalf. I've never been so afraid that I was willing to give up essential liberty for a false feeling of safety. I can't comprehend this level of irrational fear...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Liberty not subject to majority rule

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 6, 2026)

My experience, gained from years of talking with many people, suggests that when most people talk about freedom, they mean "the freedom to do as I please, and the freedom to prevent others from doing the same".

That’s one way to express your freedom, but it's not good enough for me.

It’s why I prefer to talk about liberty- freedom tempered with the responsibility to not violate others' equal and identical rights. It's how liberty works, and it's awesome!

The problem some people have is that those rights include things they wouldn't choose to do, and would prefer others didn't choose to do, either. This doesn't change the fact they have a right to do those things. No legislation or rule can change this reality. Your natural human rights aren't subject to majority opinion or political edict, even if you've been trained to believe otherwise.

We are all free to make mistakes; we don't have the right to violate others to prevent them from doing something we believe would be a mistake. Or something we find offensive.

In exercising their liberty, some people will do things which offend you. Many people want you to believe if they've been offended, they've been violated somehow. They haven't. Being offended isn't the same as having your life, liberty, or property violated, even though weak people who want to control others often use this ploy. Don't play along.

If I try to stop others from doing what they have a right to do because I don't like their choices, how can I complain when they do the same to me? I would be a hypocrite of the worst sort. No matter what you do, someone is going to be offended by it. Guaranteed.

The majority of people don’t like this constraint of respecting others' rights. They want to be reassured that they have the imaginary right to control others. Telling them they have no such right angers them. It’s probably why they continue to vote for politicians who encourage them to deny their responsibility and who feed their lust for control.

Be big enough to support liberty. Do as you please, as long as you aren't harming others, and let them have the same freedom. Don't seek to violate their rights just because the system currently allows it. Any system which allows rights to be violated is wrong. Once upon a time, the system allowed slavery, too.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Liberty is fun

Liberty should be fun. Liberty is fun!

My BBQ Gun post is a reminder of that. A reminder to have fun. It appears a few of you also thought it was fun.

If liberty were as miserable as statism, what would be the point? Statism is easier than liberty, so why make the effort if there's no benefit? If liberty doesn't make you happy?

"A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having." - V

"Fun" is subjective. Most things I find fun don't seem to resonate with many people, and things others think are fun are often things I can't see myself making it through for more than a few minutes before I'm itching to escape. 

A few times, though, I've managed to survive situations long enough that I actually started having fun at things I never imagined I would enjoy. An art show populated by faeries and nights at karaoke are a couple of examples I can think of right off the top of my head. You never know until you try. Embrace discomfort and see what happens.

If your fun isn't something I'm interested in, that's my problem, not yours. You go have fun. You're always invited to join my fun if you're interested.

You'll regret the things you didn't do more than the things you did- or so I've been told. Take the chance and have fun with it.

I'm all for people doing what they enjoy, as long as they don't enjoy controlling or violating others. If they do, I hope they encounter someone whose idea of fun is watering the tree of liberty. It's best if it never gets to that point, but that line in the sand is important to keep clear.

It's easy to get discouraged by all the statism and Statanism surrounding us. Don't give them a win they didn't earn. Carve out your own fun. Have fun in spite of them. Have fun, in their faces, to spite them. 

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

BBQ Guns

I occasionally see videos where the topic is "BBQ Guns"- a gun you would wear, openly, to a gun-owner-friendly BBQ where that was the dress code- or even kind of the whole point.

I want to go to a BBQ like that! I've never been to one, but it sounds like a lot of fun. 

Anyway, the point is that you wear a really nice, or at least unusual/interesting, gun to show off a little.

I don't have any highly polished, gold-plated guns. I tend to find those boring, even if they look nice. But I do have a couple of ideas of what I'd wear in such a case.

My DL-15, shown above, is probably my top choice. It might not be anyone else's idea of a BBQ gun, but I really like it. And, judging by the reactions I get at the shooting range, it's interesting and unusual.

If I had to choose a backup, or if the invitation demanded a BBQ revolver, I'd wear my "Man With No Name" 1851 Navy.

If you were to pick a BBQ gun for yourself- either from your collection or from your want list- what would you choose?

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Fear and aggression

Fearful people (and animals) are unpredictable and dangerous. They are prone to aggression. That's part of what makes statism so dangerous.

You can pretend there's no problem, but that doesn't change it.

You can try to protect the feelings of the fearful by avoiding the issue. Their dangerous fear is still there. Quiet, behind the curtains, influencing their every move.

You can try to calm their fears, but fearful people aren't likely to be rational enough to listen or watch. Even when the truth is a lot less frightening than what they imagine. Everything they experience is filtered through the lens of fear. They see and hear only what they want to see and hear.

They'll often want you to lie to protect their feelings and make them less afraid. They'll still sense you're lying, so don't bother.

You can try to show them how to handle what they fear- or just be an example. Teach them how to handle situations that they've been afraid of, if they are open to learning. This works on a few.

If you give in to your fear of what dangerous people might do, you're in danger of becoming afraid enough that you advocate for the same sort of things they are advocating for, to "protect" you from them. You've seen it happen in politics.

It's a twisted cycle. Don't participate.

Be dangerous only in that you will defend yourself when they force you to do so. Not by using the aggressive methods of statism and calling it "defense".

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

I don't trust these experts either

Every time Bitcoin starts tumbling and the “experts” go back to predicting its demise, I graciously offer a Bitcoin Disposal Service, so that they can anonymously rid themselves of the doomed crypto.

Funny thing is that no one ever takes advantage of the offer.

That tells me that either they don’t believe what they say, or they don’t have any Bitcoin anyway, so why would I listen to them reassuring themselves they didn't miss the boat? 

It’s kind of funny.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Curing Statism?

So, if fear is the foundation of statism, how can that be addressed?

How can you make people less afraid of being ungoverned? Less afraid of liberty?

How can you cure someone's irrational fears?

You can't reason most of them out of their fear. They won't listen and can't hear- their fear keeps them sheltered. If they do hear you, they'll assume you are lying. After all, that's what they do to advocate for their side; they project their own flaws on you.

Maybe you can show them. Exposure therapy. Demonstrate that you don't need to be governed. That people can cooperate and coordinate without being forced.
But showing them anything that goes against their biases is hard because statism acts like blinders, and liberty isn't generally in-your-face. And if it is, it scares them.

Neither of those paths address the root fears.

Summing up all their fears, they seem genuinely afraid of liberty and of what others might do with it. They won't understand that there's no such thing as "too much liberty" when even a little liberty in the hands of the other guy scares the pants off them.

Statism is liberphobia, where "-phobia" really does mean "an irrational fear", not just a strong dislike, as so many tend to misuse it today. (A related clinical term is eleutherophobia, but that clumsy word refers to a fear of freedom, and I prefer to talk of liberty.)

How can I fix it? Why fix it? I don't know about you, but I'm tired of them being a threat to my liberty. To your liberty! But is it even possible to fix something someone doesn't want fixed; that they would deny needs fixing?

Statists didn't become statists through thought and reason; thought and reason may not be the way to cure them. But, how to reach their feelings? Can feelings only be reached through irrationality? How would that work? Lowest common denominator media? Habituation? 

If I were inclined to use their own unethical methods against them (and pretend they planned a method), I would suggest weaponizing fear to turn the tables and make them more afraid of government than of liberty. No, that wouldn't be right, but it might happen anyway, and if that happens, it will be government doing it. 

About the only thing I can see working in the short term, until enough people get smarter, is to live parallel to them, defending yourself and others from them when you have to. And, of course, that will probably only make them more afraid. That is the opposite of my goal.

It's a conundrum.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Statism is terrorism

If my conjecture is correct, and fear is the foundation of all statism, then statism is terrorism.

Terrorism is defined by Dictionary.com as:

• the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.
• a terrorist method of governing or of resisting a government.
• intimidation or coercion by instilling fear.

Leaving out the arbitrary distinction of "unlawful" and the irrelevant definition ("the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism"), it fits.

Statism uses and promotes violence, specifically aggression; initiated force. 

Its followers want to violently impose a State on people, if those people don't consent, and they will take advantage of largely irrational fears to make them believe it is necessary. This is intimidation to further its objectives. It is how they coerce the people to go along. By scaring them and threatening them with harsh consequences if they don't cooperate. Manipulation is coercion.

All government uses aggression and threats of aggression to keep the population in line. If it didn't, but was by unanimous consent, it wouldn't qualify as anything you'd call "government".

Statism is terrorism.

Do not be afraid. If you can't be terrified, you are immune to statism. It has no power over you.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

The 'rich' aren't the problem

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 3, 2026)

There's a lot of hostility toward "the rich". Especially billionaires. The hostility is misplaced.

The real divide is not "the rich" versus "everyone else". It is those who seek to rule, versus everyone they seek to rule...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Left, Right equal enemies of liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 29, 2026)

It’s wild how people pretend “Left” and “Right” are mortal enemies. They’re not. They’re two bowls of the same authoritarian slop: theft and enslavement sold as “the greater good”.  

When the Left rules, they’ll tax you into the ground to fund their pet projects, regulate your speech, your guns, your business, your very thoughts, and call it compassion.

When the Right has a turn, they’ll ramp up the surveillance, the wars, and the “law and order” boot on your neck, all while waving a flag and quoting scripture.

Same result: your money, your time, your choices- stolen by someone with power. Only the propaganda differs.

I can’t even blame one side more than the other. Both cults worship the State. Both believe they have the right to point guns at peaceful people in the name of governance. Both cheer when their team wins and will suddenly discover “tyranny” the moment the other team takes the reins. It’s the same disgusting ideology wearing different colors.  

Which is the greater threat right now? Both.

When Democrats are at the wheel, their brand of authoritarianism- green mandates, speech codes, endless redistribution- does the damage.

When Republicans seize it, their version- endless spending on “defense”, border theater to expand the police state, moral crusades backed by badges- takes its turn.

Americans keep losing.

I lost income during the pandemic because politicians of both teams proved they could shut down the economy on a whim, and most folks would comply and thank them. That lesson wasn’t lost on either side. They now know exactly how far they can push before people resist.  

The binary is a trap. It keeps libertarians, the actual liberty-lovers, arguing over which master is preferable instead of rejecting all masters. Left and Right are not opposites; they’re both whistling the tune of “we own you” in different keys.

I love people. I also know humans are flawed. Which is exactly why no one should ever be handed the power to rule the rest of us. There is no "right to govern". Until enough people wake up and stop cheering for their favorite brand of authoritarianism, we’ll keep trading one set of thieves and slavers for another.

The only sane position is to despise both teams equally and demand they keep their filthy hands off our lives, our property, and our liberty. Stop volunteering to be enslaved by "your team".

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Fear

I'm more and more convinced that fear is the foundation of statism. Not evil intentions, not ignorance, not greed. Fear.

I asked the question, "What justifies government?", and got a lot of input from Statists. I did my best to ask the question in a non-biased way, and even to ask unbiased (as possible) follow-up questions of those who answered flippantly. It’s hard because I’m obviously biased for liberty, and after I had the answers I sought, I let my bias shine.

A pattern emerged in those answers. 

Fear is the most common excuse I see used to justify government. It's what every justification I've encountered distills down to, even when they try to frame it otherwise. They are scared and feel safer under government.

Don't want the government taking its "laws" off of machine guns, even though you acknowledge all such rules are illegal under the Second Amendment, because you're afraid of criminals having machine guns? That's advocating statism because of fear. (The most dangerous criminals already have machine guns if they want them, and always will.)

Justify "borders" because you're scared of what migrants do or might do? That's advocating statism because of fear.

Over and over again, I watch the same thing.

Maybe you're afraid that poor people would die without government help. There it is: fear. 

Maybe you're afraid children would remain ignorant without govschooling.
Maybe you're scared that without government, children would be exploited, violated, and killed.
Maybe you're afraid the natural environment would be wiped out without government making up rules protecting it.
Maybe you're afraid that corporations- a government creation- would take over the world without government stopping them.
Maybe you're afraid criminals would run rampant without "laws", police, and a "justice system".
Maybe you're afraid people would drive dangerously without government traffic enforcement.
Maybe you're afraid there would be no roads to drive on at all; all we'd have are cow paths and potholes.
Maybe you're scared your culture will be eradicated without government propping it up in some way.
Maybe you're afraid radio signals would overlap, and the airwaves would be nothing but unintelligible gibberish without government allocating frequencies.
Maybe you're scared of drugs, and think that without prohibition, people would die of overdoses and contaminated drugs.
Maybe you're scared of being invaded and having foreign rulers replace the rulers you've grown accustomed to.
Maybe you're scared of having to figure out what time to set your clock to without government guidance.

I could go on like this forever. This doesn't begin to cover the answers I got, but there's a common root.

It's all fear, and it's all misplaced and misguided, since the worst-case scenario is almost guaranteed to happen, not prevented but actually facilitated by the entity statists look to for protection. 

And, if you address the fear, questioning the justification for government, you'll experience their anger.

Everyone feels fear. Not everyone gives in to it and sacrifices the world to their fears. Statists do.

Giving in to fear is cowardice. Even if it just means excusing government's existence.

Do not be afraid. It’s one of the most common messages in religions (even Statism).
You don’t need government. Fear makes you believe you do. Fear not. And reject that which is justified by fears.

-

Related: Statism is terrorism
        And Curing Statism?

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

The Statist "solution"

The foundational statist lie is that if you don't want government involved in everyone's life, you "don't care" about them.

One such example from one of statism's brightest:
"The libertarian solutions (all of them) come down to a simple one-liner, 'Just let the poor people die.'"

As opposed to the statist solutions (all of them), which come down to, "People are government's property; kill them if they resist".

Yeah, that's so much more caring. Right? LOL

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Repeating the repeats

If you've been reading my blog for a long time- or even just living in the world- you have probably noticed that the same things have to be explained over and over again. Once is never enough. People don't get any smarter.

When I was writing yesterday's blog post, I was thinking of how many times I have already explained that same thing. I'm not sure exactly, but it is probably several. But, people "out there" aren't getting it. 

That's not the only example, either. Nearly every post I write, dealing with some simple reality that shouldn't be hard to understand, is a re-statement of things I (or others) have said before, addressing bad thinking that has taken root and is still there despite all attempts to uproot it.

I know that almost no one "out there" in the world, percentage-wise, has been exposed to my blog, but I also know that if I can see and know something like that, many others do as well. I don't claim to be the only individual who can see these things. The opportunities are all around. Freely available.

I also know that when people say something dumb and demonstrably wrong, they often get pushback. I see it happen. They resist learning, though.

So, we repeat ourselves. Endlessly. And each time, it's as though no one has ever addressed the broken thinking before. Are these concepts not being explained well? Or have those who refuse to learn built defenses to protect their strange (often, political) beliefs, which results in the same result.

So, if you start reading this blog, or something else, and you get a feeling of deja vu, it's probably that you really have read something very similar before. We have to keep repeating ourselves for the slow kids in the back.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

Born with it, or choosing a path

It's very strange and sad- to me- how few people can see the difference between the statements "Those [of that 'race'] are bad people" and "People who [commit this act] are bad people".

Why is that? 

In the first case, it's a collectivist blanket statement of people who have nothing relevant in common. They are being grouped by superficial criteria. You can't look at anyone in this category and know anything important about who they are as an individual. Part of that is because, although there are cultural differences that can correlate with "races", people aren't doomed to a particular culture just because others who look like them are part of that culture.

In the second case, people are choosing to act a certain way; to self-categorize themselves by how they behave. This is 100% a choice, and has nothing to do with traits that are inborn and unchangeable. You can know important things about them by noticing which group they chose to belong to; what they are willing to do to others in exchange for a paycheck. This is a culture that self-selects for membership, and if you don't fall in line with the behavior of this culture, you won't truly belong and will be kicked out and punished.

Yet, the people in the second category will tell you that seeing all of those who choose to belong to a group based on behavior is "like racism".  That if you condemn them for choosing to be on this path, you're like a racist

That is useful to those who choose to do bad things.

I think you can see the reasons this false narrative is pushed. Why an inability to see the difference in the statements is encouraged by the supporters of the bad guys.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate. 

They'll do what's "best" for you, even if it kills you

They believe they know what's best for you, and they intend to impose it on you. Consent is irrelevant to them. That makes them archators.

Whether it's intentionally spreading a disease that makes people allergic to red meat, trying to criminalize self-defense, collecting all our data to use against us, or filling the streets with their weaponized drones, it's for "the common good".

And, yet, they'll lie and claim that those of us who don't want any of this garbage are imposing our wishes on others. On them. Oh, the poor babies!

No, this goes only one way.

Telling the control fetishists to leave us alone isn't us imposing our will on them. It's drawing a boundary and telling them we expect it to be respected. They can do whatever they want to each other, just leave us out of it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

The Script

I've discovered that when responding to statists online, they follow a few rather rigid scripts. It could also be thought of as executing a program, but to think of it as a script seems more human.

This is one of the most common scripts:

Ignore the mountain of evidence all around.
Demand evidence.
Receive evidence.
Say "I'm not reading all that!"
Demand more specific evidence.
Receive more specific evidence.
Say, "That's an isolated case."
Demand different evidence.
Repeat.

Once they start following The Script, they've shown they are immune to reason and can be ignored. It's a waste of time to try to reason with them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.

I have an unplanned vet visit coming up this afternoon.

Political winners: Those who don't participate

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 27, 2026)

Every time there's an election- a religious ritual for those who believe in the imaginary authority of the state- the cheers and tears begin as soon as the votes are tallied. The reaction depends on whether the individual voter ends up on the winning or losing side. Either outcome means the state has won at the expense of liberty...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

If you're forced to pay, it's theft

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 22, 2026)

Taxation is theft. People are free to disagree because everyone is free to be wrong. You might debate what kind of theft it is; whether extortion, a ransom, or an armed robbery, but it's theft.

We used to know it. The story of Robin Hood has morphed into a socialist fairy tale of someone who "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor", but originally, he was a hero who recovered stolen property from tax collectors and returned it to their victims. Government and other socialists don't want this story told, for obvious reasons.

If you are taking someone's property- their money- under threat, when they'd rather keep it to use as they see fit, you are a thief. No document or political criminal's opinion makes it something it isn't. No bureaucrat can change an unethical act into something right and good. No matter what the money ends up being used for.

I don't want any money going to fund government agencies, programs, or projects. If something can't be funded without stealing money through taxation to pay for it, it needs to go away.

Yes, that too.

However, if you are forced to pay for something anyway, you have every right to use it with the others who are also forced to pay.

If the local mafia uses your stolen money to dig a well, posting armed guards to prevent you from getting water at the creek, you aren't wrong to get water from the well. Until you can remove the mafia.

Roads are another example.

Driving is a right, not a privilege like government tries to brainwash the population into believing. That argument simply doesn't hold up to critical thinking. Licenses are another tax; more theft.

Do you really believe Benjamin Franklin would have complied with any absurd rule to register his horse or buggy with the state and get a license to travel on a road his stolen money built and maintained? I don't think so, and I suspect he would have supported hanging anyone who tried to impose or enforce such a rule.

These are examples of the authoritarian government most people have been trained to accept. One tick at a time, we are being robbed and enslaved.

Taxation is theft; you can reason it out in your mind, and you know it in your bones. Don't get complacent about it or let anyone claim otherwise without being corrected.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Looking at the problem backwards

It's not that "Democrat run cities" are "soft on crime"; it's that they are hard on defense of life, liberty, and property. Really, just about all cities, states, and countries are. It's a universal feature of government. It's that whole "monopoly of violence" scam.

I saw another story recently where someone focused on the wrong thing. Again. As always.

“A man in New York City walks into a bakery with a large bag and cleans out the entire display case. The same witness ran into him half an hour earlier at Home Depot where he was stealing there too. Two stores. One morning. One bag. Zero consequences. This is what happens when you decriminalize theft in a Democrat run city.”

No.

This is what happens when you criminalize defense and the proper tools with which to carry it out.

It’s not a case of too little “law”, but of too much, and aimed at the wrong people.

Government coddles criminals because government is made up of criminals. It’s professional courtesy.

It's your right to defend your property, or any property with which you've been entrusted. Or anyone else's property you witness being violated. Government "laws" violate this right in favor of criminals. 

It's not kindness or compassion. It's slavery. You are being enslaved by a coalition of freelance criminals, governing criminals, and their hired goons.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate,