Don't believe government necessary

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 7, 2026)

I can understand why so many people believe they need government. Many of them seem unwilling or unable to govern themselves.

Grocery stores are a good example of these bad examples...read the rest...

-

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

Services can be provided sans government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 2, 2026)

I don't want or need to be governed, but I still want a few of the things people claim government does or provides.

The difference is, I want these things provided voluntarily, without taxation or other forms of coercion. If something isn't essential enough for people to chip in and fund, it needs to go away. Forever, or until enough people decide to pay for it without being forced.

I want children to be educated. I don't want schools run by government, funded by taxation, or their standards established by government. A century and a half of this mistake has resulted in a population of functional illiterates.

Even if you support centralized schooling, there are better ways to do it. Come up with what works best for you. The only limit: you can't force others to pay for it, or force them to send their children to it just because you believe it's best.

Justice for crime victims is important. America doesn't have a credible system for providing justice. Governments have punishment systems, which they've fooled the population into confusing for justice. Justice means restitution, or a best effort at restitution. Government is good at punishment- less good at punishing only the guilty, and terrible at facilitating restitution. Restitution doesn't give government money or power.

Keeping accurate records of who owns what, in case of disagreements over ownership, is an essential service. It's a disservice to keep records of ownership so you can tax those belongings, or so you can later deprive someone of their property because a political criminal has written a rule making this property illegal. If you can't imagine a way to keep records without violating rights, you aren't trying.

Defending liberty is critically important, but government has proven itself utterly incapable or unwilling. It's too busy looking for loopholes around liberty. It's nearly impossible to find a government employee, including those tasked with defending liberty, who could give an accurate definition and explanation of the concept. They'd probably spend the time trying to justify their own job, instead.

I even want robotic probes, explorers, and colonists sent to other planets, but not enough to force you to pay for it. I can wait for a billionaire to find a reason to send them.

If there's something you want, why do you believe it's not popular enough that others would join you in paying for it voluntarily?

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

"Just doing my job"

When a federal, state, or local government employee, doing government's bidding, violates life, liberty, or property, they should be held personally responsible for paying restitution. (They are responsible; they just aren't currently held responsible.)

They should pay the full price; not the tax cattle.

Or, if you believe in punishment/revenge as a facet of justice, they should be subject to whatever someone else, not working on behalf of any government, would face if they'd done the same sort of thing.

A government "job" doesn't absolve a violator of their responsibility or guilt. It never has. It's weird that anyone would believe otherwise.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

I oppose human sacrifice

It needs to be repeated.

The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack by the intended victim or a bystander. I'd be thrilled if this were the outcome every single time.

Killing the killer later is revenge- it's even in the name: "capital punishment". Punishment is revenge, the opposite of justice. It's a capitulation to feelings, not rationality.

Restitution isn't possible in such a case, which feels unsatisfying to people who want revenge, but it's true.

It doesn't stop future murderers from murdering. They never think they'll get caught, or they act in the heat of the moment where conscious thought doesn't figure in. There is no preventative effect.

If you "execute" for the state, you are part of a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. You are ethically identical to the person you murder. The threat has already been neutralized: they are in a cage. Murdering them won't bring their victim back. Legalistic word games like claiming "you can't murder a murderer" don't change the reality. (Try that line if you get caught doing it on your own and see how well it works.) Working for the state doesn't erase the individual responsibility.

I understand the lust for revenge- for punishment- because I've felt it myself. But I can't support it being institutionalized and made into a quasi-religious cleansing ritual of human sacrifice. Not on my behalf!

I don't trust government with the power to murder people. Unlike a lot of statists. Unlike some "libertarians".

I'm so serious about this that I don't even support this fate for politicians/police.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Don't cave to fear of (freedom from) government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 26, 2026)

I used to wonder how people could still support the existence of government. It has failed its most basic supposed mandate for over 6000 years. It has never protected the rights of the people it ruled, or made their lives better than they would have been without it. It does have a skilled and dishonest public relations team working to convince its victims otherwise, though.

Government is obviously a criminal gang; unaccountable to the people it rules, and refusing to be limited by the rules which apply to it. Like in all criminal gangs, there is infighting. Sometimes the opposing factions fight and focus on someone who is also in government, but they'll ignore those who have done worse to punish someone who has stepped across a line the other politicians somehow notice and care about.

I used to wonder how people could be so blind to the situation and keep supporting the existence of government in spite of the evidence right under their noses.

I used to wonder, but I don't anymore.

It's fear.

Some openly admit it. They are afraid of what other people might do if their liberty is truly respected, or afraid of what will happen to them, personally, if government isn't there to dictate the allowable boundaries. They are afraid of what might happen without a government routinely violating their rights and their property for the stated purpose of protecting their rights and property.

They are scared of living without the largely imaginary government safety net propped up with coercion and theft, instead of a superior, and completely voluntary, social and cultural safety net. They prefer government "welfare" over charity. I guess consent isn't important to them after all.

The smarter government supporters will frame this desire for being governed in some way that sounds nice if you don't think about it too much. They hide the fear under pretty excuses and noble words. If you bother to examine it, it's still fear.

Everyone feels fear. No matter what you're afraid of, your fear doesn't give you any right to violate the rights of others in an attempt to feel safer. Doing so anyway doesn't make you a mature, reasonable, or good person. It makes you part of the problem.

Government uses your fear and works hard to create fear and fan the flames. Fear is government's most useful weapon against you. Don't sacrifice yourself to fear. Bravery and liberty look better on you.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Don't violate others – problem solved

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 23, 2026)

Why are we forced to pretend not to know the solutions? To pretend solutions are mysterious or too hard? Because government doesn't benefit from solved problems. It loses power when problems are solved and people no longer beg to be rescued. Often, getting government out of the way is the solution...read the rest...

-

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

Normalize self-defense

If you hide the solution, the problem will keep getting worse. Guaranteed. It can't go any other way.

If you don't allow people to say what the solution is, you are actively hiding the solution, and fewer people will understand; the situation will get worse. Every single time. You're the bad guy causing the problem to escalate.

Yes, the solution is sometimes violence- but never aggression.

This is the reality that needs to be spoken. Expressing it needs to be normalized, not punished.

If you punish people for saying so- for telling the truth- you're empowering the bad guys. You're picking the wrong side to defend.

I understand that the thought of being violent upsets many decent people. They want to see themselves as "peaceful" for some odd reason. They think suggesting violence, even when that's not really what was done, needs to be stopped. They confuse violence with aggression.

The thought of their intended victims being violent to stop a crime scares the bad guys and upsets political criminals and those trained to think like they do. There's a lot of overlap in that Venn diagram; it's basically a circle unless you go microscopic.

Find ways to speak the truth, even as the bad guys try to stop you. It's necessary. Normalize self-defense so completely that bad guys- freelance, governmental, and corporate- can't silence us all. Stop letting them hide the solution.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

There's no excuse; Self-defense isn't a crime

One of the most humiliating crimes government commits is stealing someone's gun after they defend themselves or others from a criminal. It's a crime on top of a crime.

This treats the defender as the criminal. And often, they never get their property back.

There’s never a reason for government to steal the defender’s gun after an act of self-defense. 

It's not "evidence". Letting government steal someone's defensive weapon as "evidence" in a crime they didn't commit, but stopped, is nothing but a lie told to disarm them. Any legitimate "evidence" could be collected at the scene without stealing anyone's weapon. 

Treating self-defense as a crime is the real crime.

It's a punishment for doing the right thing. A punishment for demonstrating that the cops were useless and unnecessary, and that "laws" don't protect the innocent from freelance criminals. It gives government criminals a foot in the door.

Sometimes, the criminals of the state add other punishments on top of "only" stealing the gun. This is the opposite of justice, and should come with tar and feathers, ropes and light poles, for the crooked judge, cops, and prosecutors.

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Don't suggest real solutions or else

I'm in X jail because the algorithm hates the suggestion that there's a 9mm solution to being attacked by archators. An alternative to being a helpless victim. 

But, according to those who prefer criminals over the good guys, this suggestion promotes "violence", and self-defense is much worse than being the archator attacking innocent victims. We must protect the poor, aggressive monsters among us from their uppity victims. Right?

Anyone who reports this as "violent speech" needs to be locked out of their account. They are the ones promoting violence- that's what demanding that criminals be protected from their victims is. I've always thought that those who make the false reports need to suffer the consequences they bring onto their victims, but that never happens. Whether it involves false reports of content or false reports of a sexual assault. The karens who report others are treated as precious jewels who must be shielded from the consequences of their actions- just like the archators they apparently care so much about.

Censoring the suggestion that there's a solution to such attacks is not helpful.
Come on @X, do better. 

-

Thank you for reading.

Would you care to subscribe or donate?

That time I failed to stop a crime

...And, felt awful about it for years!

I really believe I've written this story before, but I can't find it, so here goes.

One year, just before Christmas, I went to the mall with my first wife. We were walking through the parking garage when I heard someone yelling, "Stop him!"

There was a guy running directly toward us, holding a shopping bag or two. I think it was a snatch-and-run.

I tensed. My wife grabbed my arm and said, "Don't you dare!" I was so shocked and taken aback that I lost my concentration, and the guy ran past us and climbed over the fence bordering the parking garage.

That gnawed at me for years afterward. 

If no one does anything, bad guys keep getting away with it. I think I could have tripped him, at least. This was just a couple of years before I started carrying defensive tools, but I still believe I could have done something. In the long run, it might have even saved the thief's life.

Maybe it was better for me, personally, that I didn't intervene. But it tore me up for a long time. I had such guilt haunting me when I'd be trying to go to sleep.

That was the time I failed to stop a crime, and I swore I'd never be in that position again. I know it's a promise to myself I may not be able to keep, but I'll do my best.

-

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

That time I stopped a crime

Many years ago, on my day off (which tells me it was probably a Thursday), I was home alone, in the bedroom at the back of my very small house, when I heard the front door open and close. 

My wife-at-the-time was at work, and it must have looked as though no one was home. I glanced out the window, but my wife hadn't come home early.

I picked up the only gun I owned- a lever-action .22 rifle, which was loaded- and went towards the sound.

Standing in the middle of my living room was a kid of around 12 years old. He was startled by my sudden appearance (I'm a stealthy walker) and by the fact that I was holding a rifle at low ready.

I asked what he was doing in my house. 

He stammered something about looking for me. I said, "Here I am. What do you want?"

He couldn't think fast enough and came up with some obvious nonsense, and I told him to get OUT of my house. He did.

Later, I found out that there had been several burglaries around our rural neighborhood. I have no doubt that had I not been home, we would have come home to a burglarized house. Of course, if I hadn't been home, the front door would have been locked, and I'm not sure the kid was breaking in or just opportunistically checking for unlocked doors. Either way, the burglaries stopped. Or moved.

And that's the story of how I once stopped a crime in progress.

Somewhere, I believe I've written about the time I failed to stop a crime, and have felt bad about it ever since. Not my finest hour. I can't find any such blog post, so I'll write it for tomorrow. Link here.

-
Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Not looking for a fight, but finding one anyway

On X, an account posted a tragic story about a woman in Australia who died after being repeatedly drugged and sexually assaulted by her husband's friends. Truly horrible, and it makes me sick!

An account that shared the link said, "men don't care". 

When I said I care, she (I'm going to assume the account owner is female) doubled down. I wasn't trying to start a fight, but she had other intentions, it seems.

So, I shared this true, painful story from my past (that I didn't really want to tell) as anecdotal evidence to the contrary of the claims made:

I once found out an acquaintance (and her children) was being physically abused by her husband, who was (until then) a friend of mine. I lived 700 miles away*, but I made one phone call** and got her out of that situation. She never spoke to me again, because she'd told me in confidence and sworn me to secrecy. That's not the kind of secret I will keep. If he had killed her, I would NEVER have forgiven myself. It was worth losing her trust/friendship to save her life.

That's when she started pivoting in strange ways, resulting in lots of personal insults, weird assumptions, profanity, denials, and story changes, but if you want to see all of that, go to the link. (I recommend following the link for an eye-opening experience, but "language warning". And I saved it all in a long screenshot, in case she gets embarrassed later.)

Yes, MEN care. When we know of a situation like that, we don't ignore it or try to excuse the creep doing it. It's sad that she is around so many weak, worthless "men". I guess it's what she attracts or is attracted to- if she's interested in men at all.

I think she was just trying to make a point about "that divisive trial", but failing. Hard.

-

*I just realized that wasn't true- I lived over 1000 miles away.
** To her parents, not the cops.

-

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

The anger trap

What's the "proper" response to current statist conditions? Sadness? Or anger?

I responded to a video of a racist socialist who was happily exposing their plot by posting my "socialism" meme. 

One of those kind and tolerant people with a "***.bsky.social" X account (to distinguish itself from run-of-the-mill "fascist" X users) replied:

"Don’t worry, when our time comes we’ll be taking a lot more from you than just your 'stuff'."

Here's one of these people saying out loud that they plan to "take" something more than just our property when they can get away with it. What else, besides "stuff", is there to take? Well, there's also life and liberty. 

They seem to imagine they are on the right side of history, while admitting they will act like previous generations of fascists/socialists as soon as they get the chance. It sounds like a credible threat; one that justifies any level of self-defense.

It makes me a bit angry to know so many people mindlessly align with this view.

Then you have the people who are supposedly on our side who say some version of "resistance is futile".

"You can’t eradicate human nature. Most people want to be led."
"We’re never let out of it. We’re always caught up in the tides of tyranny because we’re so outnumbered."

Does he think I'm supposed to give up and wither away because I'm outnumbered? Roll over and take whatever they dish out? That kind of defeatism makes me angry, too.

Not all of us want to be "led". Not all of us are so weak and useless that we want to be governed. As long as there are a few of us who rise above this, there's hope. They are NOT going to change my mind. It doesn't matter how outnumbered I am. I know they are wrong. They are the bad guys. 

Statism, and the threat it poses to human flourishing, angers me. It's not in my nature to quietly take it, even if I know it's not usually smart- or feasible- to fight it one-on-one. Because there's never only one of them. Statists are pack animals, acting on herd instinct without sapience.

It all makes me so mad. 

I don't lash out in anger, though. That's the anger trap. It's not the time to act rashly. Rather, let it inspire you to plan and plot. Look for your opportunities. So far, all the bad guys who stood above the general level of mundane statist evil have been brought down. Maybe this, at least, can continue until the time is ripe for the end of the religion of Statism altogether.

I see that trap. Even seeing it, I flirt with falling into it sometimes. Just imagine how dangerous it would be for someone who doesn't see the trap at all.

-

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

That divisive trial

I'm torn.

Yes, I believe that woman murdered her children. 

I'm also aware that government lies to get the verdict it wants. My belief that she did it, based on hearing that she confessed and that there's plenty of evidence, is only that: a belief. I wasn't there, so I can't know for certain- and I never will.

I still believe she did it, for what that's worth.

Yes, I believe she is/was insane. Insane, but guilty. I don't believe insanity or hormonal issues absolve a person of responsibility for their archation. 

If that were the case, a lot of convicted and admitted rapists should get a new trial since testosterone is sometimes called the violence hormone.

I'm in favor of jury nullification. I think it applies when you believe the person did what they are accused of, but "laws" prohibiting the action are illegitimately prohibiting something every individual has a natural right to do. I don't believe that fits in this case because no one has a right to kill their defenseless offspring.

I also believe a government court is the least credible place to seek justice. They are designed to punish, not to provide justice. Those children will never receive justice by caging ot killing the woman who killed them. Justice is out of reach; it's not an option here.

I wouldn't mind too much if every jury trial resulted in a mistrial to demonstrate the absurdity of the ritual. Of course, if government can't get the outcome it seeks through a jury trial, I expect they'll dispense with that in the small percentage of cases that still go that route. They'll skip right to the punishment phase. Maybe a jury trial complicates this.

As always, I'm against imprisonment, partly because it is funded by theft, thus leaving the victim victimized twice. Also, because it is Crime University. Third, because it is too easy to use for political purposes. Plus, it doesn't provide restitution, but punishment.

I would much rather leave bad guys out among the general population, who are completely aware of what they did. Don't attack them to punish them, but watch them (not with government spyware, though, since that isn't public), and if they try to violate anyone else, they (like the others who do the same) would likely be Darwinized from a free society. That's usually the best outcome, even if some think it's harsh. Otherwise, as long as they never archate again, leave them alone. 

As always, there's a possibility that I'm completely wrong in my views on this case and everything else.

-

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

"Great Reset"? I'll go one better

Fellow frogs, the pot is boiling.

To avoid an open-air prison ("open-air" until the Rulers decide to close us in), the whole thing is going to have to be turned off. Unplug it, count to 10 years, then plug it back in- see if it works.

Claire Wolfe Time has come and gone, and nothing was done. 

We acted like the push for "safety" was a mere difference of opinion.
We let political criminals impose anti-defense "laws", place cameras everywhere to spy on us and track us, and install shut-off switches in our essential utilities so we can easily be punished for wrongthink.

I like the benefits of technology, but the control freaks are making this reset necessary. It has to be done if there's to be any shred of liberty left. The benefits of allowing government access to technology no longer outweigh the costs.

It would be great if we could just cut off government's access. Either by making it impossible for government to use technology beyond wooden sticks and twisted grass strings, or by eliminating government altogether. Then, the people would still have the benefits of technology. But that's not in the cards.

So, as rough as it would be, we need a Mother of All Solar Flares to fry all the electronics. If that's what it takes to blind and neuter the creepy Watchers, then that's what is now essential if humanity is to have any future worth living.

Bring on the Greatest Reset.

-

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

But have they tried tar and feathers?

Looked at objectively, every single migrant problem is a government problem. 

Government either imported (trafficked) the migrants or coddles their criminal behavior while forbidding the victims from using self-defense (and the proper tools designed for that purpose).

I see videos from Europe, and what I see is governments causing, or at least failing to prevent, the attacks. And punishing those who actually do something about the problem- like trying to defend themselves and others.

Then, people who don't see to the root of the problem blame the criminal migrants instead of the political criminals who essentially gave them permission to do what they do.

Tar and feather the politicians, and the problem would quickly solve itself.

-

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

Cops are the worst criminals

Support for police is support for crime. Real crime. Every police officer is a criminal. Anyone supporting police is supporting criminals.

People who constantly parrot cop talking points (squawking points?) and threaten to report people for defending liberty or breaking a counterfeit "law" are at least as bad as the cops. Maybe worse.

Those who support cops may do so because they imagine that at least the cops are "tough guys" fighting on their side against freelance criminals. 

They aren't. 

These cop supporters are simply supporting gang warfare between competing gangs. Gangs often fight each other because they want power over the territory and its residents, and they don't want to share this power with other gangs. This power struggle doesn't make the residents safer- especially when they get caught in the crossfire (which is common). It's just to decide who gets to rob and molest the residents; there's no option for being left to live in peace as long as you imagine you have to choose between the criminal gangs.

And remember that much of the crime that empowers freelance gangs (and other criminals) is directly created by rights-violating legislation made up by political criminals and enforced by the police. 

Cop supporters are the people who would have been reporting Jews in the attic and capturing runaway slaves. They are the ones currently defending Flock spyware and crying for more "safety" because they are scared of life. Or, because they hate others more than they value liberty. Either one is equally terrible.

I'm not sure how long America can survive these people. Or, if it is already dead at their hands.

-

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

The Ancestral Enemy's eyes are also in Farwell, Texas

The domestic enemies who rule this little town have crossed a line. The politicians and all the legislation enforcers have declared war on the residents.

This is a line that makes me incredibly angry with everyone involved.

These new Flock spy cameras have been installed right at the state line. It's possible one of the reasons is to catch people who visit the weed store in New Mexico, then molest them if they cross into Texas.

Or, maybe it's more general than that; just basic authoritarian surveillance and rights violations. Watching people crossing a "border" that is otherwise uncontrolled (for now).

This business, Tireworks Tire Pros, is one I've used for years. Really nice people. They are also the only local FFL. I can't in good conscience patronize them anymore if they are willing to sell me out to those who want to track us all. Don't partner with the enemy and expect me to ignore it. Or forgive you without an apology and a simultaneous change in behavior.

I want these cameras gone. I don't want them replaced with something from another brand. If anything, place them to watch police stations and officers' and politicians' homes. But they can not be allowed to watch the rest of us.

These cameras are clear evidence that government is your mortal enemy. The Ancestral Enemy. It needs to die. Even if it "only" rules a tiny town on the Texas/New Mexico state line in the middle of nowhere.

-

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

A set of rights violations masquerading as Law

If someone wants to live under Sharia "Law", I say let them. But don't apply those rules to anyone who doesn't explicitly agree to them. Their rules don't apply to other groups.

The same applies to any other set of "laws".

Counterfeit "law" from any source doesn't apply to anyone unless they agree to it. Since all counterfeit "law" is based on religious ideas rather than ethics, it's all actually a sort of Sharia anyway. It only applies to the believers.

But they'll say we can't live without rules. They'd be right.

Real Law- natural law- applies to everyone. Don't murder, kidnap, steal, attack, defraud, govern, or otherwise aspire to violate life, liberty, or property; don't archate. Not even if your religious "law" says you're allowed or obligated to do so. If you do any of these things anyway, you owe restitution. Pay it.

Counterfeit "law" violates natural law, so it is all null and void before it even begins.

But its cult will rob, cage, and murder you for breaking it, and the brainwashed masses will cheer and say you should have complied. That's how you know this isn't real law, but a set of rights violations on a pedestal.

-

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

LPR (Flock) cameras are watching you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 8, 2026)

One of the most important fights in our lifetime, a fight for the future of America, is shaping up right over our heads. It's the fight against license plate reader cameras and the related spyware that is already being used against you and your liberty.

This may even be more important and urgent than defending the natural human right to own and to carry weapons without government interference. These data collectors will be used to violate your right to bear arms and all your other rights as well. If this is to be stopped, it must be stopped now. Before long, it will be too entrenched to stop. Public attention is fleeting. Outrage fades. Political criminals will say, "But we've done this for years, and no one cared before."

Maybe you imagine this is only an issue in big cities you rarely, if ever, visit. If so, I have an unpleasant surprise for you.

If you check out the interactive map available at deflock.org, you'll see that they document 22 of these Fourth Amendment violations right here in Clovis, New Mexico. A flock of them, watching you, every time you pass one. Scooping up your data. Without a warrant. That's unacceptable,

Constitutionally, it's a criminal act.

Any politicians, including police department officials, who are using your confiscated money to steal your privacy are your enemies and a serious threat to your rights.

They claim it's "for safety", but you may have noticed how few real crimes are solved this way. Even if they were, it's not worth it. Not even close.

Instead, the spyware is being used to collect data to use against you. If not today, then next week or next year.

This is not for your benefit.

It would be better for you, your safety, and your liberty, if every one of these cameras-- and whatever comes next-- were removed from public spaces and placed inside government offices and chambers for all to see and record what goes on there. Watch the watchers, not the people. You have a natural human right to privacy; government officials have none.

Groups are organizing across the country to fight these unconstitutional spies. Find one and support its efforts. You might not realize how important this is, but your grandchildren and future generations will. Will you fight for them or betray them? You're making the decision now, whether you realize it or not. Choose wisely.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.