Your primary earthly enemy

In everything it does, government proves it is liberty's enemy. It is your enemy. The Ancestral Enemy, because it has been the enemy of humanity-- including all your ancestors-- since the day the first crooks came together to create it.

Government makes up "laws" on the spot, violates its own laws, and then acts like you're the criminal for not submitting to their criminal behavior. I was going to link to a video from the UK of police doing this (and then posting an apology for "getting it wrong") sent to me by a reader in the UK, but someone has had the video taken down. Cops are scum in every country.

Government traffics humans, calls them "refugees", and then prohibits you from defending yourself, your property, and your cats from them. It claims its "borders", open or closed, negate your property rights.

Government steals your money, calls it "taxation", and pretends it has the "authority" to steal it. And that it's a good thing they do. They used to pretend this was how they fund government, but it has always been a way to defund you, instead.

Government rations your tools of defense, then acts like it does so to make you safer. But does nothing to fill the gap this leaves in your defenses. And then it becomes what you need to defend yourself from.

Government violates your rights and acts as though this somehow promotes social behavior. Being "social" by being antisocial? How is that supposed to work, exactly?

Government goes around the world creating enemies who are willing to die to kill you, then it wants you to thank it for "protecting our freedom". Government is a liar.

The ways government shows itself to be your enemy are too numerous to list. I can think of more ways faster than I can type them down.

If you still think any political government is good or necessary, you're deluded. It's useful... if you're a bad guy who wants to govern others. Otherwise, no. If you can't do what you want to do without the power of government, you have no business doing it at all.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Propaganda as press releases

I've mentioned several times all the mailing lists I have ended up on, probably due to my newspaper column making my email address public. Lists I really don't want to be on, but that I don't usually immediately unsubscribe from because I know I can learn things from them.

I've learned something new. Or, at least I've recently noticed something.

The "conservative"/Republican newsletters don't pretend to be anything other than biased opinion-- even when they present it as "news", they don't try to pretend to be neutral. They don't try to look like press releases.

The "progressive"/Democrat newsletters pretend to be unbiased press releases. They pretend to only be presenting the facts-- facts no one could argue with.

I get them all the time on the issue of "climate change". They have language about "how to talk about the climate", and all the experts they offer come down on the climate crisis side, but they still present themselves as unbiased information. As a neutral press release for "science".

I got one just now on the topic of "immigration". Again, all the talking points and all the experts were on one side of the issue. None on the other. Since it was presented as a neutral press release, all the bias was pro-"immigration". All the voices were obviously Democrat-adjacent.

Make of this what you will. It's just interesting data to me.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Obey, or suffer

Once again, I hear people saying that if you don't follow the rapist's directions to the letter, and immediately, don't be surprised when the rapist hurts or kills you.

Oops, I mean "police officer", not "rapist". It's understandable confusion due to the fact they both use the same methods and excuses.

Copsuckers disgust me to the core.

Yes, bad guys will hurt you if you don't obey their demands-- because they are bad guys. Saying that people must obey cops without question because they are cops is the worst opinion out there. It may be safer in the current environment, but that doesn't make the cop right. Cops don't have "extra rights".

I don’t know who the guy is that the cop attacked. He may be an entitled jerk. What he was doing may have been dangerous. What the cop did was also entitled and dangerous. Both can be in the wrong. Bad guys often clash with bad guys.

Cops are not automatically the good guys- it's more likely in current times that they aren't.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Don't eat MY cats

I'm skeptical. I have my doubts that Haitian refugees are eating pet cats. I have somewhat less doubt they may be eating waterfowl from the parks.

If you're starving, you do what you gotta do.

However, if anyone tries to eat one of my cats, it's going to be a bad day for them— quite possibly their last day. Then, I'll feed my cats whatever is left of their earthly remains. Chopped fine, with gravy.

Yes, this means I value my cats' lives over the lives of people who would try to kill animals I am responsible for rather than just asking me for some food. I don't value the lives of thieves, and if what you're stealing (and killing) is one of my animals, then I value your life even less than that. So little an electron microscope wouldn't see any trace, if my valuation were a physical thing.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

He's lying about his books being banned

Stephen King says Florida has banned 23 of his books. Yet, "banned" would mean the Florida government has made it illegal for bookstores to carry those books for sale. Maybe even criminalized the possession of those books in your home or on private property. Like when drugs or weapons are banned. Is this what has happened? 

Or is he lying? 

It seems he's just mad that an institution he probably supports isn't providing his books for the inmates to read.

Telling schools they can't provide sexually explicit materials to kindergarteners (or other pre-adolescents) isn't censorship. It's not an example of "banning books"; it's being a responsible adult by keeping powerful things out of the hands of those developmentally incapable of properly handling them, primarily due to their age. 

It's like being responsible by not handing an unsupervised 6-year-old a loaded and cocked pistol and sending him out the door. Maybe school libraries shouldn't provide guns for the kids to check out, either. As much as I support the natural human right to own and carry weapons, I know this wouldn't be the right thing, or the smart thing, to do. This isn't supporting "gun control"; it's not being part of a problem. Stephen King is part of a problem.

I'm opposed to government making up legislation on either side of the issue-- or, about anything at all. I'm also opposed to the existence of government schools. This is only an issue because government is doing lots of interlocking things it shouldn't be doing-- things it has no right to do because government has no rights.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Allowing politics to divide us tragic

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 4, 2024)

Politics divides. That's the nature of the thing; what it's designed to do.

Worse, politics often culminates in elections. Every election feels like the majority coming together to give a mass murderer the keys to my house and holding me at gunpoint to make sure I won’t do anything about it.

This is an outcome I can't consent to. But in the name of democracy-- even if it was once a republic-- it’s the outcome which is guaranteed every time. Other political systems are not better.

It's natural that politics divides. No one wants to be ruled by people who have different values and preferences, and the power to enforce those values and preferences on them. Dog lovers don't want cat lovers put in control to outlaw dogs and persecute dog lovers. I can't blame them. Yet this is what politics is and what it does. It can't be otherwise.

Why is this hard to understand?

It's a ridiculous system. Society doesn't need to be run, which is good since it's not possible to run one. Any attempt to run society ruins society.

Politics guarantees that all elections are rigged. Even if there's no overt cheating, liberty is never on the ballot because there’s no option to abolish the political office.

I’m not saying all candidates are equal, or equally evil. I think the gross communist who promises to cut everyone down to achieve equity-- equality of outcomes rather than equality of rights-- is the worst possible choice. Others think the weird nationalist who is the focus of lawfare and who wants to imprison people over freedom of expression is more dangerous.

Both believe, without proof, that they have the right to govern you. This is an utterly absurd superstition, but it’s a popular belief they use to their advantage against you. As long as you don’t realize it’s superstitious nonsense, they have you under control.

The country, communities, friends, and families are divided over which one of these people should be running things. Neither should be. The last people you want to give power to are those who want power. It's disqualifying.

Allowing politics to divide us is a tragedy. Nothing will change as long as politics, through government and legislation, has the power to control our lives, destroy our liberty, and violate our natural human rights. This is the inevitable outcome. Don't pretend to be surprised when you get exactly what you choose.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.

Make Statists irrelevant

It's fun to poke statists, to mock and ridicule their insane ideas, but the best way to make them irrelevant in the long run is through education.

And one of the best sources of the good kind of education is still TOLFA.

It has been a while since I recommended it to you, and I needed to fix that. So here it is: Go to http://tolfa.us/ and learn. It's not hard and it's fun. 

You'll be glad you did, and you'll be making the world a better place.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

The Evil Loser in Georgia

The FBI knew the kid was turning into an evil loser a year ago. They chose to wait.

The school knew someone had threatened to kill people at the school, that day. They chose to wait.

And now, anti-gun bigots like Koala Harris want to enslave us because those who knew what was happening, and could have done something to prevent it, chose not to. It's as though they want the deaths to happen. But that would be crazy... right?

I have sympathy for the victims, but nothing but contempt for those who chose to do nothing, And for those who want to blame me for something I didn't do and would give my life to stop if it happened in my presence.

Your safety-- your life-- means nothing to anti-gun bigots. They'll happily sacrifice you and your children for anti-gun talking points to sway the idiots among us. They don't want you to have effective tools of defense. They don't care who this would kill as long as they get what they want.

My rights don't go away because those who could have prevented it didn't. My rights aren't what stopped the teachers in that govschool from being effectively armed and equipped to stop the evil loser as soon as he pulled out his gun-- at least before he fired a second shot. Their blame and hatred condemn them.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

You can't put Humpty together again

Once the spell is broken, you can never again see government as anything other than a mafia. Never again will you be able to see it as a legitimate institution. Everything changes. Humpty Dumpty has shattered and can't be repaired.

The problem I see with most (if not all) "former libertarians" is that they never broke through that wall. They never stopped seeing government as legitimate; they just wanted it to do only certain things or to do things a certain way. But they couldn't let go completely. So the first time they wanted something they couldn't figure out a voluntary, mutually consensual way to have, they "realized" libertarians were "spoiled, selfish children clinging to something that would never work".

I see this in a lot of statists who have "libertarian" in their profile names; some who are quite "famous" in their social media circles. It's only a matter of time until they either denounce libertarianism or try to redefine it to be statist-lite. Some of them have already done so.

They are so close. 

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Statism's policies of statism

Governments and politicians have policies. I don't have policies. Policies seem to always involve using human lives as pawns.

Politically involved people want to hear politicians' policies. If a politician doesn't have any policies they are willing to let the public see, that's mighty suspicious.

I've heard some policies that were less bad than others, but I've rarely heard a policy that didn't sound like raw tyranny. Policies that are popular among some segments of statists.

But, policies are also information about how evil any particular politician is. Most politicians might like to hide this information. At least until they are in a position to commit these acts of politics against helpless victims, and it's too late to do anything about it.

One thing that is never a valid policy: Statism. And yet, aren't all government policies statist by their nature? Yes, they are.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Concede the argument; let them feel their failure

No matter the plan, people will conspire to mess it up. That's human nature. You've got to keep maintaining it if you want it to work. No matter what it is.

Every time I'm discussing liberty with a statist-- especially a borderist-- they love to tell me how foreign gangs and governments will swarm in and enslave the lazy unorganized population, and stripmine the land of all its resources, without a government to protect them. "Libertopia" [sic] will last ten minutes at most, I'm told. All because people will mess up what their betters have created.

My thought is that if governments were able to prevent this with their wonderful military and borders, why aren't they stopping it now? What are they waiting for?

But, anyway, I may try a new approach next time. I may just agree.
"You're right. Liberty is impossible."

I'm not saying I'd really act like this, but I'll make the argument for it.

I am the liberty-loving frog, the Democrats are the frying pan, and the Republicans are the slow boil. The frog is doomed either way, but the slow boil is more dishonest. It might be more refreshing to get it over with in an honest fight than to keep dealing with quislings who won't allow liberty because it doesn't look like what they want.

So, if I'm not going to be allowed to live in liberty anyway, why would I help the side that's going to drag out the torture? Why not help the side that'll bring on the collapse faster? And get some handouts in the meantime. And make the elites happy so they can be distracted from telling me how horrible I am to believe people should keep their own property and speak freely.

Maybe I should register to v*te, then help the side that's going to destroy the whole broken system the fastest. Sure, things could get really bad, but if I'm not allowed to have what I want regardless, maybe it doesn't matter.

Maybe it's better to be surrounded by those who'll stab you in the chest rather than those who stab you in the back. I don't intend to comply with the "laws" of either side anyway, so what does it matter? If I'm going to be surrounded by people who won't let me enjoy liberty, maybe I can use that to my advantage in some way.

If the borderists love government so much, maybe the thing to do is use their precious government against them. Report them for every infraction of the rules they insist must keep being imposed on society. Make them miserable enough that they snap. Make their system fall apart as surely as they say liberty would fail. You'd think they would have noticed the failure of the Constitution by now, the failure of "limited" government, the failure of government to protect the rights of the people... but no. 

Being nice to statists doesn't work. It's not enough that you'd let them have their little governance clubs, they insist that I have to be subject to the rules of a club I don't belong to. Just because they can't allow anyone to opt out-- they know it would show the flaws in their system.

So I'm willing to hit them where it hurts. Sabotage what they want if they want let me have what I want.

Show them that you might as well take a chance at what you really want, rather than supporting a system that makes sure you can't get it.

Wouldn't that be horrible of me?

Added-- I just tried a "lite" version on someone. I'll see how that goes and adapt the strategy.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

No amount of slavery will be enough to satisfy them

I'm sad that Polymer80 was sued out of business by the anti-gun bigots. I shouldn't have put off buying a kit from them-- although, there haven't been any available on their site for a long time. I did keep checking.

People and activist groups shouldn't have the ability to do this.

I'm not saying "there oughta be a law", but what I am saying is that any "law" that makes it possible to sue a business for the acts of evil losers who just happen to have used their product is a "law" that shouldn't exist. That kind of "law" needs to be stricken from the books.

Anyone who does this sort of legalized extortion should be subject to repercussions of some especially painful variety. I hope they suffer the consequences while I'm still around to enjoy seeing it.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Presidents a distraction from issues

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 28, 2024)

Is Joe Biden still the US President? Will he soon be forced out, by using the 25th Amendment, due to his cognitive decline? Is he physically healthy enough to continue in the position or to survive his term? Will Kamala Harris be any better? Interesting times.

What you may not realize is how little it matters. US Presidents have always been figureheads; this has become more obvious over the years. Presidents hold little power; most of it is exercised by unelected bureaucrats and those in intelligence agencies who tell the Presidents what they'll be allowed to do.

There's a joke making the rounds that America is running out of conspiracy theories because they're all being proven true. This is more accurate than most people want to admit.

I know "The Deep State" sounds like a conspiracy theory, but if you think rationally for even a minute, you'll see it has to be how things work.

A President takes office and changes the head of some agency, choosing among candidates for the position who have been pre-approved to pick from. The agency doesn't change, its agenda speeds up or slows down.

My go-to example is the unconstitutional BATFE. This agency may change the ways in which it violates natural human rights, but it never relinquishes power willingly. It never admits its policies are all unconstitutional and therefore criminal acts. No, it simply speeds up, slows down, or picks a new target.

This is how something on the edge of the Deep State works. Now imagine how it is for nameless agencies which are completely hidden from public view. It's worse than you can imagine.

The most any President can manage is to ask an agency to double down, to concentrate more on something else, or do what it does a little differently. So far no President has had the ethical courage to start abolishing these agencies. Nothing really changes; it just gets a new paint job and the doorknobs get updated. Even if every employee were replaced the agency has a life of its own and will continue doing what it does.

Whatever your feelings on the topic, the truth is the President is neither the problem nor the solution. Some are worse than others, but they are mostly a distraction to keep you from seeing who the real enemy is. The root problem must be dug out and burned before liberty can thrive.

-

Thank you for reading. Show your support.

How 'bout neither

Statists love the false dichotomy. Such as the one above. You either accept government violating you or Venezuelan gangs violating you. There is no third option of not being violated.

I'm protecting the identity of the "libertarian" minarchist who posted it. Whether I should or not.

I waded in where I knew I wouldn’t be welcome.

I pointed out that "No gangs would be taking over anything had government not whittled away the natural human right to defend life, liberty, and property with the most effective modern tools available. Government is the problem; more government is not a solution."

Instead of addressing my point, he said: "Yet here we are, in the real life world. Not a philosophical thought experiment in a vacuum."

Me: "So you believe a real world tighter border wouldn’t require a much stronger, bigger government than currently exists? In real life? I’m talking real world, not utopian 'necessary government' delusions."

Him: "I subscribe to the minarchist view on this, that pragmatically, securing a border is one of the few “legitimate” functions of govt in our current reality. Allowing culturally distant, militant, organized, criminal, communist people or organizations to come free is suicide" There's that evil "pragmatism" again-- the belief that anything is excusable if you can make the argument that it "works".

Me: "Are you a libertarian or a minarchist? There are libertarian solutions and there is statism. The gulf between the two is unbridgeable. 
https://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/2024/08/it-seems-almost-intentional.html"

He stopped replying, but someone else jumped in: "Given that our government is already the most overblown, powerful force in the history of the world I think we could conceivably direct some of that power to the border without 'expanding it'”

Me: "'Could conceivably'… But they wouldn’t. Nothing in the history of government gives any indication that they would."

Person 2: "So you’re fine with millions of people from 3rd world countries pouring in who cost taxpayers billions a year, who do not share your values whatsoever and who will cement a permanent one party state if they are naturalized, as long as the gov doesn’t get a little more power?" Mind reading must be such an exciting superpower... if only they could do it well.

Me: "Read the blog post I linked to and you’ll find the answer."

And so it goes. Of course, I eventually got blocked. I get it- I'm frustrating. I'm the tar baby. I have patience and I've heard it all before.
Anyway...

If government can get you to beg them to save you- with legislation or border control- they win. And you won’t actually be saved.

To those who believe government holds the answer, the statist approach is always the "pragmatic" way, even if you know government will never do it. Government might close the borders, but if they do, it won't be to make you safer or make your life better in any way. It will be to trap you. To control you. You'll still need to take up arms to defend your own life, liberty, or property.

To them, the libertarian approach, even when it’s no more far-fetched than the statist approach, is “philosophical” and not realistic. Just because they seem to believe so strongly in government. Even when both approaches are on equal footing as far as the state agreeing to the conditions. (It won't.)

"Close the borders", using the government power that already exists so you don’t end up with more powerful government, knowing that this isn't how government has ever worked, and it's not going to magically change now. It might work this time?

But respecting the natural human right to defend life, liberty, and property? The ONLY thing that has ever worked or ever will? This is unrealistic. You've got to beg government to save you from the conditions it created and sustains with its illegitimate power.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

I’m resting

I’m still alive.

I’m spending my days bingeing Mystery Science Theater 3000– napping through a lot of it. 

Not feeling great physically. Feeling much worse about rescheduling the surgery.

I was so looking forward to being able to see with two eyes again. I’m tired of reaching for things and missing because I have poor depth perception. And missing steps when going down. 

I understand there are people in worse shape, permanently, but I hate having the rug pulled out from under me like this. I could see the light at the end of the tunnel and it got switched off by the Fauci Bug.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Things never go smooth

Last night I developed a fever, cough, runny nose, and body aches. My daughter tested positive for the Fauci Bug on Monday, so that's probably what I've got.

So, I'm off the surgical schedule for tomorrow. #@%*!

The next available date is October 16, but they'll watch for any openings before then.

I'm really unhappy about this.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Better than any government

Any ordinary criminal is better than any government.

Nearly every extraordinary criminal, like a mass-murdering child rapist, is still better than any government. And better than most government employees.

If you side with government against other criminals you're not helping. You're not on the right side. At best, you are choosing one monster over another monster.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

The more you know... the unhappier you are

The more you know about what's happening in the world, the less happy you'll probably be.

If you don't pay attention to it you'll be uninformed, but if you do pay attention to it you'll be misinformed. And miserable. It's quite the conundrum. 

You need to remember that "the news", when the topic is anything political, is fake. It's all lies.

One way to deal with this is to not listen to anything going on outside your personal sphere. You'll run the risk of being blindsided by something horrible you didn't see coming because you weren't paying attention, but you'll avoid the constant bad feeling of knowing what's happening in other places-- things you can do nothing about. 

Which is worse? Which will have more of an impact on your quality of life? It may depend on who you are.

People who use politics against others are just the worst. It's dangerous to not watch them and see what they are doing, but it is going to ruin your life if you spend much time seeing the evil they are perpetuating on everyone around them.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Giving government power over you

Government really only has whatever power over you that you give it.

It doesn't seem like it much of the time. 

Government employees can murder you-- and may be as likely to do so as freelance thugs. If not yet, then soon. 

Just as the amount of property stolen by government now exceeds the amount stolen by freelance thieves (and has for several years- and this doesn't even count taxes!), the number of people murdered by government may soon surpass the number killed by freelance murderers. It wouldn't surprise me even a little.

Still, if you don't let freelance thieves and murderers control how you live your life now, why let government?

You don't owe them your compliance and obedience. You don't owe them respect. If you owe them anything, it is only what they have earned: contempt. 

If you go out of your way to express this contempt, you are still letting them control you. I have known people who couldn't pass a cop without flipping them the digitus impudicus. Me? It's not worth my time and effort. I neither go out of my way to avoid cops, nor do I seek them out. They are irrelevant to my life, just like a noxious weed or diseased vermin (until someone has shoved them down my pants). Other coercive government employees are the same.

I refuse to give them the power to control what I do, beyond what I have to do in the instantaneous present to keep them from murdering me. And even that is probably too much.

What are your thoughts on this?

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Assassination wrong, counterproductive

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 21, 2024)

Once again, some evil loser killed a person, but not the specific one he wished to kill. Donald Trump, his presumed primary target, survived with a minor injury. I am no fan of politicians or their institutions, but this isn't the way to change things for the better. Not even close!

If you dislike a politician, vote against him, or better yet, do something productive. Build a life for yourself that doesn't hinge on politics or depend on government doing things your way. Be independent.

Don't try to kill the politician or his fans. It's wrong and doing so only proves the point that you, and those like you, are the problem. You've proven your opponents' narrative about what kind of people those who are against their agenda are. Is this what you want? To become the terrible person your opponents claim you are?

A violent revolution will only engender a new violent regime. It may be different from the old regime but it won’t be better. For real, lasting change, a peaceful revolution always beats assassination.

The best solution-- the right one-- is to walk away. Remove the power of politicians and their institutions by refusing to serve them from this moment forward. This works better than voting. If no one obeys, no one rules.

Politicians need you; you don’t need them. The same goes for any government employee- they need you and your compliance much more than you need their "services".

I encourage this kind of peaceful revolution; simply growing beyond fawning over, or obeying, political regimes. None of them are worthy of your respect. Democracy is mob rule and republics always become democracies on their sure slide into tyranny. Don’t keep following that path if it’s not where you want to end up.

This doesn't mean any other political system is better-- it isn't. No one has the right to govern anyone but himself. Nothing can create such a nonsensical "right" based on the dangerous superstitious belief in political "authority".

Abraham Lincoln was a racist tyrant. "The American Lenin", some have called him. His legacy embodied the domestic abuser's threat: "If you leave me, I'll kill you!" Then, John Wilkes Booth turned him into a martyr whose actual deeds and opinions have been sanitized from most history books. You don't change things for the better by elevating your opponent to martyr status.

Assassination is wrong, but it's also counterproductive and stupid.

-

Thank you for reading.
Show your support.