I'm not breaking the rules...

I'm playing a different game.

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. 

-

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?

You know what's best for you

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 9, 2026)

I don’t know.

What don't I know? I don't know exactly how you should live or every detail of your situation. I don't know how to solve every possible random problem in the world. I don't know what complications might arise. I don't know solutions I can’t see or haven’t thought of. All the variables; the consequences of any potential solution. I don't know how, or if, society should be run...read the rest...

-

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

Maintaining liberty your responsibility

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 5, 2026)

Every system people create takes effort to keep working. Someone must keep fixing the problems which otherwise pile up until the system fails. None are "set it and forget it". This is true for all systems of government: democracies, constitutional republics, monarchies, and communist dictatorships.

It even applies in the absence of a system of government, as detractors of anarchy like to point out while they carefully ignore how the same applies to the system they prefer.

Yes, in the absence of government, evil, power-hungry crooks, with the assistance of irresponsible cowards who prefer to live as cattle, will keep trying to impose a government. Just like those who manipulate every governing system to their advantage so they become the ones with the power and the easy wealth. Someone will have to stop them every time they try it.

Everything must be maintained as it breaks down. Nothing is permanent. You can't escape the need to fight entropy.

Why would people who justify not doing something because it isn't permanent brush their teeth, bathe, or eat? They must see no point in cleaning the house or washing laundry. The clean doesn't last forever, so why bother? They must not see why it's necessary to keep fueling their car, because they'll only have to do it again later. It's a strange, childish way to live.

Those who cry "but warlords will take over" in the absence of government ignore reality. It already happened. It's how we ended up replacing a free America with the United States empire through the Constitution. That was the time to rise up and maintain the liberty which was being stolen. Warlords took over, and the people cheered.

I have been blamed for not protecting the Constitution from domestic enemies who violated it and got away with doing so generations before I was born. It's an odd accusation.

The system we are currently living with is a trap. It wasn't properly maintained, plus the seeds of its own destruction were planted at its founding. It's not corrupt, because it's working exactly as designed; those who gain power from the system tried to hide the design from you.

Establishing a state was the mistake. The best part is no part; don't waste time trying to fix what shouldn't exist. The choice is between liberty and government, which can't coexist. Defending liberty against the entropy of those who would govern is your never-ending responsibility.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Is sadness a consequence of awareness?

It makes me sad to be aware of all the liberty we are missing out on- all our rights that are being violated- just because so many people don't want to be responsible for themselves, but want someone else to tell them how to live. 

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.

-

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?

What's left of the Bill of Rights?

I have objections to the Constitution, seeing it as a betrayal of everything America could have been.

However, IF each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights had been followed to the letter by the fe(de)ral government, and enforced by each individual whom that government sought to violate by ignoring the Bill of Rights, then things today would be a lot better than they are. Not perfect, but objectively better. (Except for the poor government-supremacists, who would suffer from hurt feelings.)

As it is, every amendment in the Bill of Rights- with the possible exception of the 3rd Amendment*- has been torn to shreds by the authoritarian maneuverings of the feds; endlessly justified by government-supremacist citizens who don't care about rights or liberty, but only about giving government illegitimate power.

I say the possible exception of the 3rd Amendment* because I consider being taxed to support (house, clothe, and feed) illegal standing armed forces in perpetuity to be a clear violation of the spirit of that amendment, if not the letter of it. Some would disagree (but they're wrong, of course).

If we never have "peacetime" because the criminal government keeps starting armed conflicts, that shouldn't be my problem.

So, as I've said before, the Constitution is effectively dead, and its only utility at this point is to show how deeply criminal the US government has become.
And, the Constitution was a mistake in the first place- the result of an unethical conspiracy to establish a nation-state in place of a free America.

The founders didn't trust liberty, but wanted to be governed- or more likely, to be the governers. We are paying the price.

-

*Third Amendment-
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

-

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?

A negative "cult of personality"

A "cult of personality" has a flip side; a negative. Currently, this is seen most clearly in TDS sufferers.

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.

-

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

There's only one word...

This is my 20-year blogiversary! That’s 7,305 days, and 8,101 blog posts.

I feel this should be significant in some way, but in what way? I don't know.

The world- and America, specifically- is so much more authoritarian now than when I started writing here. Hopefully, that's a coincidence, or inertia; a correlation and not causation.

-

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...read the rest...

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Good rule of thumb: Mind your business

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

People who believe they have a right to not see or hear something they don't like are one of the biggest roadblocks to liberty. They imagine they have a right to not be offended. This nonexistent right is more important to them than letting others use their own property as they wish.

Offense is subjective. What offends you doesn't offend others. Something about you offends someone. It sets a dangerous precedent to attack others based on what offends you.

Being offended is a personal character problem, not a condition which creates a right to control someone else. The obligation is on each of us to respect the right of others to do what they want as long as they aren't harming anyone.

If you're offended by the sight of someone's tattoos, piercings, opposite-sex cosplay, or by the words they use, you need to mind your own business unless they violate your life, liberty, or property in some way.

Some people are offended if you don't have a uniformly short, green monoculture called a "lawn" surrounding your house. I prefer seeing a healthy, diverse system of native grasses and other plants which don't require a dangerous waste of water to sustain.

If you're offended by someone's private property, remember it isn't yours to control. As long as it isn't breeding swarms of rats, flies, or other vermin to cause you actual harm, you have no claim against the owner. If it is causing you harm, you are owed restitution, but not control of their property. No one loses their rights because of how you feel about what they are doing.

Those who lust for the power to control others don't like this fact. They want to do what they want while preventing or punishing others for doing what they want. When this hypocrisy is pointed out, they'll lie about how this "offensive" view or "offensive" speech actually violates them in some way. It doesn't.

This applies doubly if you represent government interests and believe it gives you the right to control others and their property or their speech.

Remember, government doesn't legitimately own anything or have any rights. Everything it possesses is either stolen from the rightful owners or purchased with stolen or counterfeited money. If you want to be bothered by something, be bothered by that. Don't use this illegitimate gang as a tool to violate others. That's uncivilized and should offend everyone.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

Is it necessary?

The recent water crisis we've gone through locally made me realize something about myself. Often, before I do something, I ask myself if it's necessary.

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.

-

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

Being mainstream would be easier

Sometimes I wish I could fall in line with the mainstream of society. But then, we’d both be comfortably wrong.

I know... this isn't the first (or even the 100th) time I've thought this.

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.

-

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

More theft equals "the best life's"?

Statists get really upset when it is pointed out that taxation is theft. European statists- or statists who have a fetish for spending the stolen money according to the European model- most of all.

I had one educate me with this brilliant observation:

"Go to Europe dummy, they pay more in taxes and live the best life’s. Your taxes are stolen to,build a basketball arena instead of giving you a healthcare program. Stop electing a**hats that squander your taxes -problem solved"

There is so much wrong there; it's hard to address it all. I responded:

"Yeah, I see how your "healthcare" programs work. No thanks. I can spend MY OWN MONEY better than anyone else can spend it for me."

Maybe he's the one who should go to Europe, since he likes their taxation so much.

I also could have pointed out that paying taxes is the problem, not necessarily what the stolen money is used for. My objection isn't that the money is stolen then squandered, but that it is stolen at all in the first place. 

I could have pointed out that "the best life's" is subjective. Higher taxation isn't going to improve my life in ways that matter to me. In fact, taxation lowers the quality of my life considerably.

I could have pointed out that I don't support anyone being "elected" to rule, but statists impose these people on me regardless of my wishes. Electing different political criminals isn't going to fix things, or magically change taxation into something other than theft.

His "solution" solves nothing. But people like him are so hypnotized by statism that they can't even imagine an alternative. And, he's rude.

-

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

Technology- good and bad.

I am not a Luddite or anti-technology. I like new technology- when it improves my life.

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.

-

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

An intelligent refutation of libertarianism?

I've never read an intelligent refutation of libertarianism/anarchy. And I've encountered a lot of attempts to do so! Thousands of them.

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. 

-

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