Abdul, the sniper

Things have gone badly for the people living in Alternate America.

The bombing of the Middle Eastern country's nuclear plant by rogue "democracy" extremists from Canada was blamed on America, or at least taken out on Americans because the US government "supports" Canada- by which I suppose they mean the two governments are not at war with each other.

Armies from several Middle East countries have invaded the cities and towns of America, destroying the infrastructure and fouling the water supply and electrical grid beyond repair.

The invaders show how compassionate they are by rescuing the orphans and injured their actions have created; treating them in hospitals, and giving them some bottled water and dolls. The people back home lap it up, but Americans see the propaganda for what it is.

Americans are fighting back in every way they can manage- sabotage, becoming more radical about their American beliefs, spying, and recruiting fighters... and for those willing to kill- personal firearms for most; garage-made bombs for the so-inclined. Everyone agrees: extreme threats require extreme measures.

A guy named Abdul is hiding on a roof top in Wichita, using a scoped rifle to shoot people he believes are intending to kill other members of his army of invaders. If the person in his scope looks American- in other words, if the person obviously isn't one of his guys- and is armed, he shoots. Man, woman, child- it makes no difference. After all, he tell himself, these dogs deserve it because they are all the same, and they want to kill him and his guys.

This goes on for years.

After a great many kills, but fewer than he'll claim, Abdul goes home.

Abdul is proud of his service, and brags that killing terrorists was the most fun he's ever had. He'd love to go back and do it again. He is praised as a hero, and the notion that he saved his country is pushed by all good patriots. If it weren't for him, they would all be speaking English and living under Christian Law, and "democracy". Shudder!!

Abdul is a serial murderer. Abdul claims he was killing terrorists, but he was the true terrorist. Sure, doing what he did took courage. Cowards don't go into someone else's house, knowing the resident is armed and willing to defend his life and property. But, bravery is irrelevant in this case. His actions were still evil.

Reversing the roles changes nothing.

-

Added: Also published on LewRockwell.com, 2-10-2015

.

Embrace the degradation?

I really pity anyone who could lower themselves enough to become a cop.

I have also observed that those who are the most degraded are often the most haughty. It doesn't make sense, but it is what it is.

Even more bizarre is how many rabid ("statid") supporters those degraded thugs have- and just how devoted they are to defending the indefensible actions of the cops they support.

The clear fact that there are no good cops, by definition, won't change their minds, because it isn't about facts. It is about feelings- a sort of religion.

Liberty Lines follow-up

Thinking about possible reactions and objections to my Liberty Lines column, which I wasn't able to address in the paper due to space limitations:

Maybe "convert or die" is a winning strategy. People could say that history shows the "convert or die" methods of the New World's newcomers was  pretty effective. The indigenous peoples did "convert or die"- and a lot died even after converting.

Perhaps Muslims could also defeat the rest of the world in the same way.

Indigenous Americans lost due to the invaders' superior weapons and because of imported disease. Both a result, in large part, of a lack of science in the New World culture.

Muslims attacking America is like what would have happened if indigenous Americans had tried to raid Spain. The results would have probably been much the same as happened.

Remember, Islam claims earthquakes are due to female immodesty. Not a culture with a firm grasp on how things actually are. Yes, there was a time long ago when Islam was the scientific leader of the world; when Muslims invented algebra and were the advocates of science.

That time is not now.

Imported diseases aren't going to be much of a threat- not an extinction-level threat by any means. We have modern medicine and understand basic hygiene. They don't have superior weapons or technology. All they have going for them is religious fervor and a willingness to kill and die. Yes, that can be very dangerous to individuals who get in the way, but not to the "culture" as a whole. Unless you would just roll over and submit. I won't do that, will you? I didn't think so.

Maybe you'd better get in the habit of refusing to submit to aggressive extremists now. For practice.

.

Liberty Lines Feb 5, 2015

(Published in the Farwell TX/Texico NM, State Line Tribune- Feb. 5, 2015)

I have some good news that you may not like hearing: Islam won't take over the world. Its fanatical adherents would like to; they just can't. Not without some civilization-ending catastrophe to pave the way- such as a major asteroid strike, a plague wiping out most of humanity, or some other "science fiction" scenario. Sure, those things could happen, but they're not likely, and not something you can control, so you shouldn't obsess over it. Besides, at that point Islam would be the least of your worries.

Still, it is completely self-defeating to support policies which empower the fundamentalist Muslims- such as the modern secular Crusade led by the US government. This does nothing but recruit more to their cause, and give them more reasons to emigrate from the war-torn region.

It's like kicking a hornet nest and being surprised at the results. But these are humans we are talking about. You can't annihilate the entire nest without killing more innocent people than guilty ones. That would be just as evil as what the aggressive Muslim fundamentalists are doing.

If it weren't for the US government constantly going to the Middle East (with money stolen from you, to the cheers of fans of never-ending war) and repeatedly poking Islam with a sharp stick- giving it energy, motivation, and justification with each poke- Islam wouldn't be spreading so much and wouldn't be an issue outside that one part of the globe.

I realize Islam has a nasty "convert or die" outlook. This is the Islamic year 1436; their 15th Century. You wouldn't happen to remember what was happening in the New World beginning in the Christian 15th Century and beyond, would you? Does the word "Conquistador" ring any bells? How about Pizarro? "Manifest Destiny"?

"Convert or die" is always wrong, always barbaric, but it isn't exclusively Muslim.

The only real danger is the danger which always lies in politics. Until people get over the sick idea that it's OK to govern others, and that a majority can vote their will on a minority "for their own good", there is always a risk that someone will outvote you and impose their silly or destructive rules to govern you in a way which violates your Rightful Liberty, and which you object to. Nothing can make that right. It's long past time to stop repeating this destructive pattern.

(Also, check out the next post for a little follow-up I didn't have room to put in the paper.)

.

She's growing

My daughter is beginning to understand the difference between "subjective" and "objective".

She will sometimes say "That color is ugly!" or something like that. I mentioned a few times that her opinion about that was subjective; that other people might think it was beautiful and neither person would be wrong.

Then I mention that things such as hitting someone who simply makes you mad, or taking something that belongs to someone else, isn't subjective- it's wrong. I have explained that's the difference between "subjective" and "objective". She does seem to be starting to catch on.

It would be (subjectively?) nice if more adults understood that difference.

.

Control is in government’s nature

Control is in government’s nature

(My Clovis News Journal column for January 2, 2015)

“If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one.”
— Robert LeFevre, libertarian businessman

One common argument for government is that people are evil, greedy, and cruel, so government is necessary to protect people from each other.

This seems to ignore the fact government is made up of those same people. How giving some of those evil, greedy, and cruel people authority over the rest is supposed to solve the problem has always mystified me, and asking how this is imagined to work goes unanswered. It's a justification devoid of reason.

Human qualities run the gamut. Humans are selfish and selfless. We are greedy and generous. We fight and we cooperate. We are cruel and we are loving. We like having leaders and we often fall for Rulers.

History shows the negatives tend to be much more additive than are the positives. It is easier to commit evil if you can spread the blame to a group, rather than doing it on your own.

I'm not saying groups can't do good things- they often do- but true evil on a monumental scale usually takes a political "movement". Leaders convince followers to do all sorts of things they'd never dare doing on their own. This can either mean reaching for greatness which otherwise would never have been accomplished, or it can mean participating in genocide or democide. Charismatic leaders can convince people to reject their own principles for "patriotism" and for "the common good". Since humans do have some negative qualities, the worst thing you can do is give them justifications for putting those qualities into practice.

Some of the negatives aren't really negative. Selfishness often causes people to do nice things, because it makes them feel good. There's nothing wrong with that. Greed inspires people to give customers what they want in order to gain more in the long run. At least it's how it works in the free market where truly harmful behavior has consequences.

It seems funny that those who distrust human nature the most are under the impression that giving those flawed humans power and authority over others, and shielding them from the consequences of their actions by allowing them to hide within a group, will make them turn from their negative nature and bring out the best in them. The very nature of political power selects for people who have a desire to control the lives of others- in other words, the very sort of person who should never be permitted to hold power.

Keep doing the same thing, expecting different results. I'm sure it will happen this time.

.

Giving your attention to Washington state's most worthless parasites

About the liberty activists planning to go break some anti-gun "laws" in the state of Washington:

Go for it if that's what makes you happy, but think about this... by acting as though the "laws" have any legitimacy- especially enough legitimacy to motivate you to go into the hive- you just prop them up.

A better way to live- as I see it- is to simply ignore the fools who dream up "laws". Don't go protest, because that makes them think their opinions have weight. They only have weight if you give them weight. By protesting you make the law polluters feel important. You are giving them some of your life and energy. You are revolving around them and wasting time you could be spending on other things.

I know there are a lot of people who feel the need to do "political" things. I understand that desire to a point. I also hope your activism gets the result you want, and that no innocent people get hurt or killed.

But, seriously, do those clowns matter so much to you, personally, that you'll arrange your life around them? Why?

.

"Former libertarian"?

Saying "former libertarian" is like saying "authentic replica". A "real counterfeit". A "genuine fake".

.

Prepping- just do it.

It amazes me how people can ridicule those who prepare- coming up with justifications for not doing so themselves. It's always that someone else can help them, or that the store is just a block or two away, or "that will never happen".

Well, "that" can always happen, and does to someone every day.

Then when their lack of preps comes back to bite them, they still refuse to see how much better it would have been for them to have been ready. "Oh well, I survived and it's too late to worry about it now."

And they still never do anything about it to be ready for next time.

Next time may be worse.

I gain nothing by convincing you to prepare. I make no money from it. I probably don't even know you in person and might not notice if you were no longer there. I doubt you are close enough that I would feel guilty if I didn't share my preps with you- cutting into my own preparations- in case of disaster, and I wouldn't be at risk of you coming to take my preps if you were "that sort" of person, simply because of geography. But I try to get people to prepare because I care.

I can only tell you how important it is, and how many times my preps have helped me, even in the absence of any major disaster. Your decision at that point is yours alone. But, please, just do it. Do something. Today. Even if you don't have everything ready, anything you do is better than nothing.

.

Cosmos and "Climate Change"

(Previously posted to Patreon and my subscribers)

Last night I watched the "Climate Change" episode of Cosmos.

It was heavy on ideology, and all the science in the show was presented to prop up that ideology- and there were holes. There always are. 

I have enjoyed the series, and I even enjoyed this episode. It was interesting and informative- and I think I am able to tell which is science and which is ideology. 

They probably could have kept the show more credible by leaving out the bit with Dr. Mole People, Dr. Frank Baxter- an English professor, not a scientist, by the way- warning his audience decades ago of human-induced climate change.

I still don't *know* if any change in the climate is due to human activity- and neither do the scientists who are so concerned. Show me a time in earth's history when climate wasn't changing, and I'll know you are cherry picking data to prove something that you and I both know isn't true. Even if the climate is changing, and it is due to fossil fuel use, we don't know it will be harmful on the whole. Yes, some species might have to migrate; some will die off. But some which would have otherwise gone extinct will probably survive due to any change. As we all find out through life- trying to avert one problem usually creates other problems. It's not something you can foresee or prevent, you just have to be ready for unintended consequences.

Much is made of the fact that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching levels not seen in 3 million years. So? Life was doing pretty well 3 million years ago. For a show which keeps presenting the long view, 3 million years is awfully narrow.

Don't get me wrong: I am all for solar power and wind power. But, there are downsides- environmental downsides- to both of these which will be used as an excuse to demonize them once enough people and industries are dependent on them. I am reminded of the campaign to promote fructose as a healthier alternative to sucrose/sugar- until fructose became ubiquitous, when the tide shifted and fructose syrup became Satan's ooze. It's all about demonizing things that taste sweet.

Solar cell production has toxic byproducts, and wind generators kill migrating birds- and that's just for starters.

There are probably even better solutions out there, but they will all have consequences, and none will make everyone happy.

Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) pushers will become something else at that time. I don't think they will ever be against technology for themselves, but the rest of us need to accept that we harm Mother Earth too much when we have it. Just let them be the High Priests of Technology and dole out crumbs to the rest of us as they see fit. Just the way anti-gun bigots would like to do with guns.

The truth is that there are people out there who simply can't tolerate seeing people happy and comfortable, and they'll use any excuse to try to prevent it. And this is one example of how this mental problem manifests itself. Maybe it's because they feel bad because not everyone has access to the same things. The solution is to help those who want access, not to cut off access to those who already have it.

In the episode Tyson speaks of the risks of not changing how we live, but ignores the risks of changing. If AGCC is real, it still might not even kill as many people as immediately ditching fossil fuels would.

There are an awful lot of "ifs" in this campaign.

And, even if true, handing control to the various governments is the worst possible reaction. But it is what the AGCC promoters always advocate.

"Climate Change" has become a religion, and "Climate Change Denial" has become a competing religion. Like all religions, silly things are said and promoted and facts get pushed aside.

I don't advocate pooping in your own nest. I believe people should be responsible and clean up after themselves and not mess things up unnecessarily. But trying to force (by "law" and taxation) people back to pre-industrial lives is not the solution.

.

Check out the WLGCLAJ

Hey, here's something that looks like it's worth a look! The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

And, the first post dovetails nicely with what I've been trying to say.

.

Your flawed system may defeat your goal of gun liberty

Those who have conniptions about "illegal immigrants" ganging up with American anti-gun bigots to vote away my liberty are, again, missing a big part of the picture.

Just as their behavior is creating new "Democrats" (as if "Republicans" respect liberty any better), they are driving them to be anti-gun.

If you were to move into an area where people are gnashing their teeth about your presence, and you were given the (illegitimate) opportunity to vote to take those people's guns away from them, you'd need to have a very solid foundation in absolute human rights to pass up that chance.

I could do it- as my lack of support for "borders", anti-gun "laws", and assorted State actions that might "benefit" me in some way should demonstrate. But most people, especially coming from a place where government and freelance aggressors were constantly shooting the "legally" disarmed innocent, need some better experiences to learn from.

Hating them, telling them they must go through an illegal "legal" process to live where they want, and then acting like a threat to them, isn't going to accomplish what you claim to be your goal. You have adopted a really bad system to get where you claim to want to be, and the result will be inevitable if you don't change tactics.

.

Shocked!

I'm shocked when I discover an otherwise intelligent person is "conservative" or "liberal".

That's like discovering an astronomer who believes in horoscopes.

Or a neurosurgeon who believes headaches can be relieved by letting the evil spirits out of the sufferer's skull by drilling holes in it.

Or a biologist who believes flies spontaneously spring from rotting meat.

Or an astronaut who believes the Earth is flat.

It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

.

I'm such a slacker

I guess I should sent the State Line Tribune another Liberty Lines soon. Shame on me for slacking.

.

If you're right, what do you care what I think?

Recently I have upset a lot of people ("conservatives") with my opinions on the mass murderer, serial killer Chris Kyle, and "capital punishment".

That is understandable.

I'm still right on both counts.

However, what does it matter? It's "just" my opinion.

Chris Kyle is dead, the movie beatifying his worthless murdering hide is a huge success, and my opinion won't likely talk even one person out of selling their soul to the State, especially if they hunger to murder large numbers of people without "legal" consequence. Those on that path aren't going to be reading my opinion anyway. I wouldn't use The State or its "laws" to stop them even if I could.

And, on the topic of "capital punishment", statists are going to do what they are going to do. I am powerless to stop even one "execution". Sure, if I saw a person in the public square, kneeling to be beheaded, and I were able to take a shot- just like a military sniper- to kill the executioner as he raised the sword, I would do it. Before you compare me to a military sniper, let me remind you this act would be my responsibility; my "fault", individually. Not "just following orders" or "just doing my job". I couldn't justify my actions by the gang I belong to. This would be killing to save a life by stopping a government action, against a person not currently initiating force nor property rights violations, in progress. Not just a potential act, but an imminent one. I would not shoot the same guy if he were simply walking through the square with a sword or firearm, nor if he were going after an obvious armed trespasser (obvious by the gang colors the trespasser wore), there to cause him or others harm. But, unless public executions become a thing in America, I wont be in any position to stop one. I don't trespass uninvited.

So, basically, all the anger over my opinions is silly. People are getting upset over what I think of them, or of people and practices they like. If I'm wrong, what do you care what I think of you? Not enough people read this blog for it to have much impact in how others think of you or those things you support.

If you believe you are right, keep doing or supporting those things and don't worry your conscience. If deep down you suspect I might be right, do some thinking for yourself.

.

Slavery can be red tape or chains

Slavery can be red tape or chains

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 26, 2014)

Most people think of slavery as an evil from the past, at least in America and other "first world" places. Yet it's still all around us, only in slightly modified form. Libertarians are the modern day abolitionists seeking to change this.

Is slavery OK if you believe the slave would die without being owned and controlled? After all, the slave master feeds, clothes, and houses his human property so they will continue to live and be useful to him. A dead slave is of no use to anyone. And, perhaps, giving a slave his freedom and allowing him to live in Rightful Liberty would result in some tragedies.

That seems a poor justification for slavery.

Liberty is worth the risk every single time.

Does it change anything if the slave doesn't realize he is a slave?

Of course not. I would prefer to point out his condition and encourage him to change it, and offer my help.

Just as I don't want my loved ones to be slaves, even if their master feeds, shelters, and clothes them, I don't want to see things I love- such as parks, zoos, libraries, roads, and education- enslaved by being part of government.

Not only does that mean I don't want them dependent upon money taken from its rightful owner through the act of "taxation", but I don't want them controlled by a bureaucracy which tries to exempt them all from market forces. This only entrenches the status quo and makes real innovation less likely. I want them to be free to be the best they can possibly be, without any red tape whatsoever. Finding a better way to do anything requires the freedom to experiment, risk being wrong, and not be constrained by regulations or any sort of bureaucracy.

It's odd to me how many times I see people comment that if I don't want government providing something I must hate it and not want it to exist at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want the things I love to flourish and spread in every conceivable arrangement.

The year 2014 is wrapping up fast. In many ways it was a good year, but I'd love to see 2015 be even better. My fellow abolitionists and I would love to think 2014 would be the last gasp for slavery of any kind, anywhere in the world. But, as Harriet Tubman is reputed to have said: "I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves."

Happy New Year, and throw off your chains!

.

Living in FoxNewsIstan

OK, honestly, I can't say if they were influenced by any "news" channel.

I overheard some people discussing the mass murderer movie. Salivating to go see it; grieving that it is always "sold out". Propaganda has never been so profitable. The State risks none of the stolen money it controls, lets corporations do it instead, and both reap the rewards.

A nice gig if you can get it, I suppose.

Anyway, they were talking in reverent tones about the movie, unaware of its inaccuracies. And refusing to see the despicable events it portrays as bad in any way. Because, "Muslims!", and "America!"

Then, the talk shifted to an older movie from a few years before "9/11", where the hero spoke of not negotiating with terrorists. They commented that if (Islamic) terrorism had been "nipped in the bud" back then, "we" wouldn't still be dealing with it now.

Ignoring the reality that the terrorists were created, in large part, by the US government or its policies. No, "we" don't negotiate with terrorists- "we" create them, so "we" will have an excuse for never-ending war and tyranny at "home".

But, they were simply parroting the "conservative" mantra, and around here, it is gospel. And, in a very real way, it makes me feel sick.

Recently, I have been upsetting a lot of "conservatives". Not sure why; they should know by now I am not one of "them". I am the opposite of "conservative" and "liberal". Where they adhere to a respect for Rightful Liberty, I am right there beside them. When they veer off course into the swamp of statism, I don't follow them to oblivion. It's just my way. I just wish they would be consistent and choose a side: Liberty or State. But, not my circus; not my monkeys.

.

Disappointment

I am feeling a lot of disappointment.

I am disappointed when someone who knows better does wrong. I put no one on a pedestal, so any individual's actions don't pull the rug out from under me. But I am still disappointed.

That disappointment is magnified exponentially when the response from people who also know better is to start chanting for revenge, punishment, and other evils which form the very foundation of The State and are antithetical to justice. Like a pack of dogs when one falls, they lose their minds and pile on, to tear the fallen dog to shreds, not really caring who else gets hurt in the free for all.

This is the greater tragedy, with the most far-reaching and long lasting repercussions and damage to the most individuals. In the long run, it is much more harmful than the evil actions of one person toward one other person. It shows how bad individuals can behave when herd behavior takes control.

What is the difference between a liberty lover and a statist if they act the same way- even to the point of calling for the exact same response- to a horrible situation?

This kind of "thinking" is why The State still hangs on. It is, as is said, "why we can't have nice things".

It makes me feel alienated. It takes the wind out of my sails. If supposed liberty lovers don't "get it", how can I expect anyone else to?

This disappointment drives home the fact that I can never really "belong". I am me. Alone.

I have said where I stand and what I believe in over 8 years of blog posts- and you can witness through those posts as I have pared away inconsistencies and relinquished the clinging bits of statism I have shed over the years. I have explained how I will behave toward others, however they behave toward me. I am not associated with others beyond where our beliefs, and how we act on those beliefs, are parallel- where we diverge, we diverge.

It makes me just want to post cat pictures.

.

Patronizing, anti-gun, gun lovers

From time to time I'll see someone posting online about a cool replica gun they have built. That is fine as far as it goes.

I can appreciate their works of art. I have a nice non-functional replica, myself, although I didn't build it. I also have a lot of toy guns, and cheap sci-fi toys based on Star Trek and Star Wars guns. So, I see nothing wrong with appreciating fake guns, too.

Occasionally, though, I misunderstand and mistake their pictured replica for a real gun, and make a comment based on that misunderstanding. Some will laugh it off and inform me that their gun is a non-functional replica, and we can go from there discussing the nice points of their fake gun.

But, what I don't like is when someone takes that opportunity to get patronizing, telling me that "real guns are too dangerous", and going on a diatribe based upon their beloved anti-gun beliefs. Yeah, that can really irritate me.

Maybe real guns are too dangerous for them. In that case, they are probably too stupid to own fake guns, too. After all, acting stupid with a fake gun can get you just as dead as misusing a real gun.

.

"Capital punishment" is murder. Here's why

The reason a State death penalty is murder seems to be lost on some people.

Killing someone who is currently attacking or violating private property is not murder. It is self defense. If self defense fails and the victim is murdered, it is still OK- or wonderful, even- if the attacker is killed at the time and place of the attack by a bystander since the assumption that everyone around is still in mortal danger would be reasonable. If no one happened to be there to kill the attacker at the scene, killing him is then off the table, ethically.

Killing that same person later- when they are no longer an imminent threat- is a revenge murder. I realize a large majority of people think revenge is sometimes OK... but it isn't.

For one thing, if you weren't there, you don't really know what happened. Making a mistake and demanding restitution from someone who turns out to have been innocent is bad enough, but making a mistake that results in death is unforgivable.

Having a government employee do the killing on the victim's (or "society's") behalf changes nothing- unless you believe the propaganda about the State- meaning the individual humans comprising it- being somehow exempt from the ethical rules all humans are subject to.

.