They’ll try to beat you over the head with the “social contract”. Since that doesn’t exist, it’s like a mime flailing at you with an imaginary hammer. It can't hurt you if you don't let yourself be hypnotized into believing it's real.
I'm going to help others when I can because it's the right thing to choose to do, voluntarily. Not because they believe a "social contract" I've never seen or signed says I'm obligated to do so. Or says others are entitled to my help. There's ONE thing I promise that comes closest to an "obligation". The only thing anyone is really entitled to is to not have their rights violated.
They’ll try to scare you with “what if”. That only works on people who aren’t sovereign and who are afraid of every shadow and sound. "What if?" Then this… and I’m still responsible for myself.
Most of their scariest "what if" scenarios are a description of the current situation anyway. Warlords have already taken over. Crime gangs already attack, kill, and victimize your children- they just bring badges and official titles. Hordes of thieves already take your property; most of them call it "taxation", "asset forfeiture", "licensing", or "property codes".
You can't scare me into going along by threatening more of what you're already getting away with.
Don't get pulled into their hallucinations, but remember that hallucinating people can still harm you. Be ready to defend yourself, but don't fall for their nonsense.
Every day, I anticipate the Wordle hint on Thomas Knapp's blog. Not so much to play Wordle as intended, but to see if I can guess the word in one try based on his hint- and maybe by using the first letter. I usually can.
Getting hints and the first letter isn't technically playing Wordle, but it is the game I'm playing. For me, it's more fun than the game they designed.
I've realized that I do this in a lot of other areas as well. That doesn't always work out well, but it's what I tend to do. Especially when I find the "game" uninspiring, dumb, or rigged against me.
The "game" as established isn't for me, so I play it my own way. Other people can play it however they want.
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.
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."
To protect them from their own incompetence.
Because of someone's fear.
I don't want to be sad.
But being unaware of the situation wouldn't change the reality. Pretending it doesn't matter won't make things better. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
Ignorance isn't really bliss; you'll just be surprised when the police state catches you in its gears. I know- I've seen it happen to people who denied the situation because the denial was comfortable... until it wasn't.
Yeah, it makes me sad to see how many people are content with government stealing liberty and violating rights. But there's no going back.
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.
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.
Look, I hate a LOT of the things Trump does. A lot of them, and I hate them intensely.
Those in the negative iteration of the Trump cult of personality don't seem to hate what he does, especially; They just hate him.
If their favored political criminal was doing the exact same thing, they'd be defending it.
Just like those in the Trump cult of personality would hate the crap he does if it were a different politician doing it.
You know this is true.
If the person matters more than the action, it's probably not rational. I've fallen into this trap, too.
I'm not saying it's good or bad. But it is political, and as we all know, politics makes people stupid.
I looked online, and while Grok admits this "negative cult of personality" is a real phenomenon, it says it doesn't have a specific name. It should.
Every time I turned on a faucet for the past few weeks, that question crossed my mind. Along with, just how much water do I need for this? Right now?
It made me realize I do that to myself all the time, with other issues.
Is it necessary to spend this dollar?
Is it necessary to go? Is it necessary to drive there?
Is it necessary to do this?
Is this argument necessary?
If it is necessary, I do it with open eyes and (usually) a clear conscience.
Often, I realize something I was about to do isn't necessary, and I don't do it.
If it's not necessary, that doesn't mean I won't do it. Some unnecessary things are important enough- to me- to do anyway, but it's good to do them with that understanding; not mindlessly on autopilot.
I also know there are things I see as unnecessary that others feel are very necessary. Government, for example. Too bad they can't have their "necessity", but keep it off my property and out of my life. Because liberty is necessary for me, and their government fetish prevents it.
Everyone who advocates that others be governed has some issue they'd be willing to see the State kill you over to prevent you from doing what you have a right to do. Just because they don't like it.
This includes "libertarians" who have some issue they'll defend the State's position on. And there are a lot of them. I suspect some are lying because they don't want statists to think badly of them, or they have seen how libertarians who stood up to the authoritarian narrative were treated in the past. I get it.
They'd be better off keeping their mouths shut than defending the State's position, but they don't.
A current example is public spyware. I can't get over the supposed libertarians who are defending Flock cameras, using the excuse that you don't have the right to not be photographed by a random stranger in public. That's not even close to the same thing.
If a random stranger took photos of you in public places, then used the information gained in those photos to track you down to rob, kidnap, cage, or murder you, you have the right to use deadly force against that stranger. (The State might dispute this, but the State is often wrong.)
You have the same right if that stranger works for government and uses Flock spyware, but you aren't "allowed" to defend yourself in this case. No matter how blatant the violation or how immediate the threat. Why do these people pretend they can't see the difference?
If the "law" allows you to be photographed and tracked so that your life, liberty, and property can be violated, the "law" is wrong. If the "law" forbids you from defending yourself from someone doing this, the "law" is wrong.
I'll stand up to those who say otherwise, and I'll question their motivations and their ethics.
But, I admit life would be simpler if I just went along with the mainstream and begged for safety instead of demanding liberty. Instead of sticking up for uncomfortable rights and inconvenient liberty.
Spying on me, tracking me, and controlling me is not an improvement to my life.
Nasty little cowards who are afraid of the world and want Big Brother to keep them safe feel otherwise. Unfortunately, a lot of new technology is tailor-made for them. They beg for it, and someone is creepy enough to give it to them. Or, more accurately, someone will create it and sell it to The State, which is evil enough to use it against all of us on behalf of those people. For "safety".
Because of this, I can relate to people who are anti-technology. I'm trying not to join them, but I understand where they are coming from. They are better people than those making and deploying technology to spy, track, and control the rest of us.
Instead, I've seen intelligent people grasp at straw men, misunderstand the topic, deflect, project, and flat-out lie.
As soon as I read "The problem with libertarianism is that, just like socialism, it...:" I know I'm in for some weapons-grade enriched Retardium.
Personally, in all these tactics, I only see their irrational fear. Regardless, they invariably believe they've done what they set out to do.
Unfortunately for them, that's not the case.
It's obvious they care more about hating liberty and loving government than about getting it right. Why? Because politics.
