Which one?

I just got this notice on my blog administration page:

 Of course, Blogger gives me no clue whatsoever about which post they are whining about. Is it the one I just wrote and scheduled to post tomorrow? I don't know.

I looked over the past few weeks and can't find any missing posts (when comparing it to the Wordpress backup blog-- if anything, Wordpress is missing a few things I forgot to mirror over there).

If I ever run across it, I'll find a work-around. Still, it's frustrating and odd and is a failure of Blogger.

UPDATE- The warning is gone now. Maybe it was a glitch or a bug.

UPDATE #2- I found the post they were upset by and reposted it after deleting the original.

-

Help

Statists don't-- or can't-- plan ahead

I've pretty much accepted the realization that statists simply can't plan ahead. And they won't accept responsibility when their chickens come home to roost.

They are surprised when massive handouts ("stimulus checks") end up causing inflation. And they'll deny there's any connection even though they were warned well ahead of time.

They are surprised that zero reserve "banking" causes bank failures. They've been warned, but they ignored the warnings. Government told them it would be alright.

They've been told that mandating defenselessness will cause more rapes, robberies, and murders, but they don't listen... and pretend that the cause is too much liberty-- something they didn't do. Gotta close those liberty loopholes! For the children! They were told what the result would be. They can't see it when it is put right in front of their eyes and explained to them as if they are a somewhat slow child.

Anyone with any sense understood that "qualified immunity" would cause the Blue Line Gang to become even more criminal than it was before. Statists can't see what's coming and will deny it if they get warned. And then they'll say it's your fault for not worshiping their "heroes".

If you keep meddling with countries abroad, you will bring conflict (and death) to your allies. Everyone who isn't a delusional statist realizes this basic reality. But look how "surprised" the government supremacists pretend to be when their constant meddling causes a war.

Heavy smokers sometimes act surprised by a lung cancer diagnosis and heavy drinkers often seem shocked when they develop cirrhosis. But, more of them seem to realize what they are risking in the future than the statists who are addicted to political government. 

The statists are the ones in denial who simply can't seem to see what consequences they are bringing on themselves. Not even when they are clearly warned long ahead of time. I try to feel sympathy for them, but they wouldn't listen when their disasters could have been averted, so what can I do now?

-

Help

More communication failures

There are a couple of people in the family who can’t communicate well. For entirely different reasons.

One thing they have in common is they don’t listen to what others are saying and they try to put in their two cents' worth based on what they imagine the other is saying. Probably based on notions they already have in their head. It's confusing to the person they are trying to talk to and either frustrating or amusing to any observer (depending on your level of detachment).

Sitting there listening to them try to communicate with each other is an even more bizarre experience. 

It’s as though each is in their own world, and they don’t even realize it. They just keep talking past each other, misunderstanding everything the other says, thinking they are talking about the same thing, and the conversation goes further off track the longer they talk. I've tried to step in and get them both on the same page, but often it's pointless. Just let them run their course. They'll end up making plans and neither one knows what the other thinks they've agreed to, and then it's up to others to untangle it later.

It's like trying to have a conversation with a statist.

-

Help

Some people are Astronomical Holes

People are like Black Holes. The astronomical kind.

What others see is our event horizon, but the thing that is real, which makes us what we are, is invisible to everyone.

I try to keep this in mind when I run up against someone who wants to violate others in some way-- usually with legislation or other types of government violence. I only see their event horizon, not their true self.

The problem is, a Black Hole can still kill you and destroy everything around it without you knowing "why". Without there even having to be a "why". You'll get destroyed by the gravity well no matter what its motivation might be (if it has one).

I don't have to understand why someone hates or fears guns before I stand up to their attempt to do things they have no right to do to try to keep guns out of people's hands. All I have to do is see the effects of their event horizon on the surroundings-- then warn others about what is happening and label things as they really are.

-
Help

All cops? Yes, ALL of them.

All cops are bad.

That's just because of what they are required to do as a condition of keeping the "job", not because of who they are as a person. It's not collectivism because it is based entirely on what they have chosen to do, not who or what they were born. Like it or not, in this way they are exactly like rapists in that this condemnation is based on actions only.

To change my mind, at least in one individual case, you'd have to show me one cop who has never:

• enforced prohibition in any way.
• enforced a gun "law".
• enforced a seat belt rule or any traffic rule that didn't have an individual victim. No speeding tickets, etc.
• enforced any rule about showing ID when approached by a cop without clear and reasonable suspicion that an individual has been violated. "Resisting arrest" is coved under this, too.
• supported any rule being applied to non-cops that isn't applied identically to cops.
• enforced any rule or policy that didn't have a specific individual victim whose life, liberty, or property was harmed or put under a credible threat of imminent harm.
• Has stood up loudly and consistently, without backing down, against any other cops who have done any of the above.

This is even ignoring the fact that their salary comes from government. We'll ignore that for this discussion. If you can show me one cop who has never done any of those things, I will admit you have found one good cop. If not, stop whining when reality is pointed out to you.

Of course, then the question arises as to how this singular cop has managed to keep his "job" while refusing to do what he is required to do.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Upcoming surgery. Need funds.

I'm going in for colon surgery on April 4. I had a consultation with the surgeon today, and it's going to be more extensive (and expensive) than I had feared. I present some unique challenges, but it seems like the surgeon has it under control. I hope. At least he exudes confidence. 

But the longer we talked, the more upset I became about the whole situation. It's just one of those things.

I started a GiveSendGo (https://www.givesendgo.com/G9WN1). Do you think I should start a GoFundMe, too? If you think I should (and if it doesn't violate someone's terms of service to do both) I'll update this post.

Share the link with anyone you think might want to help. Thank you.

.

Tyranny 'for own good' still tyranny

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 5, 2023)

Almost all of us want the same thing: to live in peace with what we need to survive and enjoy life, free to follow our interests. Problems arise when some of us think we can get there through socialism or legislation.

I believe liberty is the only way to get there.

Thomas Jefferson seemed to have been hinting at the same thing when he wrote: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

That sounds peaceful and civilized.  

He went on to say "I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

It's clear Jefferson wasn't a fan of "law and order". At least, not in the way the word "law" is commonly misused-- using the word "law" when speaking of legislation.

The law is "don't hurt people or take their stuff". Everything else is legislation which goes against the law, and which he categorized as "the tyrant's will". Legislation is always about violating liberty in some way; to prohibit people from living in peace, from having what they need to survive and enjoy life, or from following their interests when a powerful minority decides it should be prohibited.

The result is the same whether the peaceful person is violated by the mob through democracy or by politicians and their hired guns making up and enforcing unethical legislation. The tyrant can be one person or an entire political system-- it's only a matter of what they do, not who they are.

Liberty is important enough that I will stay out of your business so you can live your life unobstructed, even when I don't like what you do. As long as you stay within the limits drawn by the equal rights of others so it isn't necessary to defend anyone from your actions.

It makes me sad to realize this is too hard for most people. It's not asking much, but most can't even respect the rights of others this far. They want what they want, and are willing to enslave and rob you-- for "your own good", of course-- to force it on you. 

Society is run by spoiled toddlers who believe their feelings are the center of the Universe. Only this type of person believes society needs to be "run" at all.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Taxation isn't about funding government

Taxation isn't about funding government so much as it's about defunding you.

Government can counterfeit every cent it "needs" (which is also bad) through the "Federal Reserve" [sic]. It doesn't need to tax you at all. Yet, it chooses to do so anyway. Why?

Part of it may be so it can keep up the charade. Statists want government, so they might be willing to keep paying confiscatory taxes if they believe it's necessary to fund government. Gotta keep that military-industrial complex going and growing!

Mainly though, it seems to be about taking away your money and your options. Keeping you less free than you could be. If you are hurting financially, you are easier to control. The government doesn't need your money, it needs your compliance.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Project on Patreon

I need magic (updated)

Broken tooth, very sick cats, colon surgery consultation, dentist visit, vet visits. 

My week sucks so far and looks like it's going to continue to suck. I hope yours doesn't.

Added 3-7: I've got about half of the Horrible Things behind me now and I'm not so overwhelmed. The sickest cat is on the road to remission and the other sick cat got over it. The dentist appointment is behind me, too.
I honestly think I may have PTSD with regard to doctor/dentist appointments/ If so, I know the events that caused it.
I can think again.

.

Leave if you can

Found at Bryan Hyde's site

Over the years I've been hard on Scott Adams. Especially his bad takes on guns.

As I've pointed out several times, he's usually right about things, and when he's wrong, it's invariably because he has taken the government supremacist position. That's just always going to be automatically wrong, even if it's popular.

His latest mess wasn't due to government supremacism, and not coincidentally, he isn't wrong. 

If you discover that a lot of people among some identifiable group don't like you-- don't even respect your right to exist-- why would you linger in their presence if you are able to leave?

Hating, and canceling, him for saying this is ridiculous. Probably evil.

And, as he pointed out, the advice would be the same no matter who you are or who it is that doesn't like you. Get away if possible. Shunning is always the ethical move.

I've noticed that most of those who have a problem with it didn't hear what he actually said, but are going by what someone incorrectly claimed he said. In other words, fake news. Maybe even a hoax, depending on whether it's intentional.

Found on Twitter

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Offering an alternative to "national divorce"

There's been a lot of recent talk about a "national divorce". In other words, secession.

I am unwaveringly in favor of secession. In every instance, down to the level of the individual. I do not believe a bigger government is ever good for liberty, mainly because smaller governments might be easier to resist in the long run. It's also good to pit governments against each other so that liberty can thrive in the spaces between. 

All political governments must be resisted if liberty is to survive. That's just the way it is.

The anti-secessionists are practically having a meltdown over the idea even being discussed. One part of this faction wants everyone subjected to the tyrannical rules they want to impose. The other seems to be the "We're number 1!" club, vicariously feeling relevant because of the US government's power and influence, and they fear losing that feeling. Both are just run-of-the-mill government supremacist types.

However, I am willing to offer them an alternative to secession-- at least a temporary compromise until they can adjust to the idea of secession (which they will because it is inevitable in the long run).

The alternative to secession— a national divorce— is to roll back the power and influence of the US feral government to the point where it’s no longer tyrannical, nor relevant to the daily life of any resident of America. Make it so weak it is safe for most people to ignore it.

The entire reason a national divorce is necessary is that the feral government has become too overbearing. It has intruded into every facet of life, and reasonable people find this intolerable. There is a solution, but government supremacists will find it unthinkable. Make them think about it.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Irrelevant concerns

I don’t care what color someone’s skin is, where they were born, or what language they speak. 

What I do care about is if they embrace a culture of archation. Wherever that culture is based. Those cultures are found all over the world, with a high concentration in inner cities and in every government office. But those aren't the only places they exist.

Such cultures are worse than worthless. And membership in one is what makes the biggest difference in whether someone will make a good neighbor or not.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Carrying weapons a human right

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 29, 2023)

Politicians and their allies who want you unable to defend yourself from violent attackers are at it again.

They are pushing for more anti-gun rules. I don't say "laws" because they can't be laws-- the U.S. Constitution makes all such rules illegal. You can't have an illegal law. Even the Supreme Court has admitted this, although they apparently try to play both sides.

Even those supposedly on the side of liberty fall into the trap of using the enemies' words, sometimes calling standard semi-automatic rifles "assault rifles". They aren't. An assault rifle is capable of firing automatically; it continues to fire bullets with only one pull of the trigger until the trigger is released or the ammunition runs out. An assault rifle is a machine gun-- which, by the way, is something everyone has a natural right to own and to carry, in spite of what politicians claim.

A semi-automatic rifle shoots only one bullet with each trigger pull, no matter how fast or hard you pull the trigger.

At least assault rifles are real, unlike "assault weapons". Those don't exist except in the minds of anti-liberty activists. The term can be traced back to 1988 when anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann wrote that this term should be used because it would confuse people who were clueless about firearms and would increase public support for anti-gun rules. It was a calculated lie from the start.

Well-meaning people argue over which weapons the Second Amendment covers, and by doing so demonstrate they've missed the point. The Second Amendment doesn't "cover" any weapons-- not just firearms, either-- because the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to tell the people what government is not allowed to do. Making up rules about weapons is one of those explicitly prohibited things.

It doesn't make exceptions if you believe something is "too dangerous" or unpopular.

Proposing an anti-gun rule and pretending it is law is a serious crime. It should be treated as such... and would be if more people understood what is going on.

The good news is no matter what rules the political criminals impose, the natural human right to own and to carry whatever types of weapon they choose, everywhere they go, without asking permission from government, will forever remain unchanged. It doesn't hinge on constitutions or politicians' opinions and it never will.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Reject all governmental poisons

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 22, 2023)

Why can't most of the public see how ridiculous it looks to fight over the various forms of government? They argue over whether to be ruled (and to rule each other) with socialism or capitalism, communism or theocracy, by a dictator or by the mob through democracy. It’s like arguing with others over what kind of deadly poison to add to your soup.

The right choice is to rule your own life and not try to rule anyone else; to not add any sort of poison to your soup.

Each of these government options is antisocial because all political government is inherently anti-liberty. Liberty and the state-- political government-- are mutually exclusive. Yes, that includes constitutional republics.

You should still accept that some poisons or forms of government rule are worse than others. Of course they are, but none of them are good and none should be intentionally added to your life. To fight and argue over which one you want instead of kicking them all out of your life is insane.

Consider how many millions of people have been murdered in wars, and how many more will suffer this fate in the future, all because people want to impose their own preferred brand of evil government on people who prefer a different brand of evil government. Think how close civilization has come to nuclear annihilation on the altar of which government is best.

In spite of patriotic noises to the contrary, it's not even a matter of conflicting principles. Just look at the past century of American history if you don't believe me.

The conservative faction is constantly fighting against the policy changes pushed by the progressive faction. The "right" versus the "left".

Yet, when leftist policies, even actual socialism such as Social Security, get entrenched enough that they are part of a historical legacy, conservatives start wanting to "conserve" them as well; to keep them around. As the saying goes, the left wants exciting new evils while the right prefers traditional evils.

In the former Soviet Union, I'm sure it's the conservatives who want the return of Communism. The progressives are probably the ones who are pressing for more democracy, without realizing they are promoting mob rule; might (through superior numbers) makes "right". Pick your poison? I reject them all.

I'll keep pushing for liberty while those who want to add poison to society keep fighting for which type of poison they prefer.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Do what works

As much as I dislike pragmatism, I may have to use it.

No matter how hard I work, or how many hours I put in on my various projects, they never pay off very well. I usually end up losing money. 

(If you're still reading by this point, you're probably unusual.)

Writing this blog comes the closest to "paying off". I'm kind of ashamed of how little it comes to per hour, especially if you include the newspaper column as part of the blog, but at least it continues to bring in something. If money were the only reason I write, it wouldn't be worth it, but it isn't.

On the other hand, asking for donations pays off about a quarter to a third of the time. It has also cost me-- how much, I don't know-- because I've had people leave in disgust because I asked for money.

Perhaps they were like my first wife and were just looking for an excuse to leave and that gave them one. I'll never know.

So, to be pragmatic for a change, I'm asking for donations and subscriptions. Because it has a decent chance of working. 

If you don't want to see me asking in the future, don't donate. Maybe even berate me for asking. If it completely stops working or draws too much hate I'll stop asking.

.

Is communication impossible?

No one understands anything. Myself included.

I had someone tell me, using words, that words are meaningless. I asked why he used words to try to communicate this idea to me, then. He said he could have used GIFs. I'm skeptical. How could he be sure I would interpret the GIF as he intended? He couldn't.

Then, I had someone disagree with me that "conservative" and "liberal" are both incompatible with liberty. He claimed to be a "classical liberal" who is also an anarchist. I said I can't be a classical liberal since I don't believe in the "night watchman" state. He replied that he doesn't believe in that either, so I asked in what sense is he a "classical liberal" since (my understanding is) that this is the defining characteristic of the group. He said he believes that definition is outdated, but when asked, he couldn't give me his updated definition. He said he'd have to think about it.

You may not agree with me, but I think I can at least explain my position-- using meaningless words, unfortunately. Words which I can also define (using more meaningless words, I suppose).

In another instance I said there are no "good cops" for exactly the same reason there are no "good rapists"-- the actions they choose to take are not actions a good person would take. Someone demanded to know if I was comparing all cops to all rapists. I said, "I’m saying it’s legitimate to judge a group of people by the actions they choose to commit." Of course, the message couldn't get through his conditioning.

The current Scott Adams/Dilbert mess is also based on a breakdown in communication. He used words that people interpreted to mean what they wanted them to mean (and take out of context).

It makes me wonder-- and I know I've expressed this before-- if communication between people is possible beyond a simple "Me Tarzan. You Jane." information exchange. I guess these days, even that breaks down. What a mess.

Maybe it's time to revert to a pre-linguistic state and just grunt and point and whack each other with sticks.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Don't be hobbled by unfortunate people

Over the decades I've heard some of the dumbest well-meaning people proclaim: “Don’t waste money on space (travel, exploration, commercialization, etc.) while there is poverty and suffering here on Earth.”

If that’s your standard, nothing worthwhile will ever be accomplished. You'll be trapped by the existence of unfortunate people, never to escape. Unfortunate people will never be totally eliminated by spending money on them. Since they'll always be around, you'd never be able to spend money on anything else. Not even those things which might have a long-term positive impact. Such as opening up a whole new frontier full of options and opportunities.

Why only complain about space? Don’t waste money on art, either. Or anything else that makes life better or more colorful in the long run.

I agree governments shouldn't be spending money on space (or on anything else), since governments have no money to spend without stealing it or counterfeiting it. But if you have the money and that's what you want to spend it on, go ahead. Then, if you have some left, you could even send a little my way.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Losing the ability to violate others (without consequence)

Would it scare you to lose your ability to violate other people’s rights and get away with it? 

Or would that anger you?

I'm betting if you're reading this, it would do neither.

I think the vast majority of people have one reaction or the other. They believe they are entitled to violate the rights of others, and they have a negative reaction when something makes that harder to get away with.

Most people take the slimy path of dishonestly violating others through political government rather than doing the hard work themselves, but there's no ethical difference. And they don't like it one little bit when their ability to get away with violating others gets hobbled in some way. Is it fear or anger?

Sometimes fear and anger look the same to an observer, so I'm not ever quite sure which I'm seeing. Sometimes it looks like anger and other times it looks like fear. It always looks negative.

Imagine being this addicted to violating others. Who would want to live like that? Statists, that's who.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Project on Patreon

"You don't care"

Many times in online discussions, someone will scold me that I "don't care". It might be because I am against mandatory shots or masks or shutdowns, because I am against censorship, or because I am against anti-gun rules.

"But Grandma/children/I might die!"

The fact that this "argument" doesn't sway me is used as evidence to my critic that I don't care.

Well, looked at a certain way, they are right. I don't care to impose "safetyness" tyranny on people; to violate their liberty for imaginary "safety".

Life isn't safe. No rules will ever make it safe. You and I aren't going to avoid death. I would rather live free than live as a slave to people who hallucinate that they know how to keep everyone (and their feelings) safe from the real world.

If "caring" means enslaving everyone for some psychotic karen's fears and feelings, then I don't care. I can't care.

If "caring" means respecting your liberty, and helping you if I can-- without taking away your autonomy-- then I care a lot.

I care, I just don't care to make you a slave. If that's not good enough, then you're out of luck.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Tolerating the pro-slavery coalition

Imagine a group of politicians who could be counted on to submit bills every year to reinstate chattel slavery. No matter how badly their bills failed, they'd keep trying every year like clockwork just because they can't take "No" for an answer. They will keep trying, hoping for a favorable political climate where their pro-slavery agenda can be pushed through.

Should these criminals be tolerated?

Well, that's the situation, only it's a group of congressvermin who keep submitting anti-gun bills every year. They will keep trying and trying until or unless they are decisively stopped from ever trying again.

I don't have an answer as to how this can be accomplished.

No, I'm not under the impression that any legislation they manage to force through has any "authority". No one is obligated to obey any such rule. It is unethical. It is illegal (if you care about that). It is anti-liberty and anti-human. 

And they keep trying to impose it anyway. It's time to stop tolerating these criminals.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Statist speech

I'm a free-speech absolutist. One good reason for this is to allow bad people to expose their badness in public. I want bad people to feel free to tell me exactly who they are so they can be dealt with appropriately.

This is why I encourage people to talk all they want, without limits, so I can identify statists or government supremacists without any doubt remaining as to who and what they are. Just like you want to know if a dog is rabid, you need to know if the virus of statism has a foothold in a person's brain.

There are unambiguous signals to be found in their speech. Here's what to listen for:

If they call politicians "leaders", that's a clear tell for government supremacism. It takes a fool to be led by a politician.

"Our" or "my" when applied to a government, president, congress, supreme court, "laws", etc. is the same sort of signal. If they want to claim the criminal gang as their own, that's their business, but it reflects poorly on their personal ethics.

Calling anything which is government-funded or controlled "public" is another statist lie. It's not public,

Of course, any support for government's legislation enforcers ("Back the Blue"), even claiming there can be such a thing as a "good cop", is a loud signal for government supremacism.

If they try to justify taxation as "the price we pay for a civilized society", they've shown their hand. The truth is, civilized society is something humans sometimes manage to create in spite of uncivilized acts such as taxation. Only an unrepentant statist could believe otherwise.

If they conflate government and society (or civilization), don't trust them. If they are unaware of the difference, how can you trust anything else they say to have any value?

If they talk as though government has rights, and your rights are secondary to government opinions, they are a government supremacist. Yes, government may have the power to violate your rights, but government is always wrong to do so.

If they start trying to shame and control you using the social contract, they've shown themselves to be a statist.

If they claim your personal views on the danger (physical or social) of something is the same as their advocacy to ban something they don't like, they are trying to bring themselves up to your level or pull you down to theirs. Don't fall for it. You can warn of the harm of something without looking for government to "save" you from it. They are not the same as you.

They are statists.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Politics is picking fights in (socially) acceptable way

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 15, 2023)

Politics seems to appeal to people who are addicted to drama. How else can you explain two years of hand-wringing over an insurrection that never happened? Or the recent election disasters and fights over which side are the real fascists? Those flames are fanned by people who don't want the drama to end.

Political drama turned a new cold virus into a worldwide histrionic meltdown, undermining trust in medicine and related scientific fields. It was a goldmine of drama. Can the lost trust ever be regained? Not unless science and medicine can be separated from politics.

In truth, you could point to just about anything which happens in the political realm and see how it is drama for the fans of politics. Like a drug for an addict.

People like drama-- at least, most do. This is fine within limits and in the right circumstances, such as in fiction. Fictional stories without any drama would be boring and pointless. Many people take this desire for drama with them into the real world, which makes things worse for everyone in the long run. People who crave drama prefer politics over cooperation.

I've watched people pick unnecessary fights. They could have walked away at any time and no one would have thought anything about it. They chose to fight. They pick fights because they want drama. Politics is the act of picking fights in a socially acceptable way, by people who feel they are above fighting physically. Socially acceptable to some people; not to me.

If you want excitement and drama, don't pick fights, learn to skydive, instead. As long as you don't fall on someone, your hunger for thrills won't harm others. The wrong way to get more drama in your life is to impose your will on others. Taking hostages or using political power is exciting, but harmful to society because individuals are harmed. Politics is antisocial.

It doesn't matter if you chase drama democratically or by taking control in a coup. A coup might seem more dramatic looking back through history, but if elections keep losing credibility among those who feel elections are important, this may change.

Oh, and the fight over who are the real fascists? When you remember that fascism is authoritarian government controlling business through taxes, regulations, and special "public-private partnerships" you see clearly who the fascists are. This is why the fascists would like to redefine "fascism" as something else.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

They aren't "public"

Government schools are not public schools because you and I can’t just walk in off the street, sit down at a desk, and start learning a subject. 

Calling them “public schools” is, and always has been, a dangerous lie.

Calling the gov-school monopoly an "education system" is also a lie. It may have once been true to some extent, but this hasn't been true in decades. Have you seen the recent reports of the gov-school graduates in some areas who can't read? And not just a minority of them, but all of them.

Schooling doesn't equal education. And making schools more dictatorial and cruel to the inmates isn't the answer, either.

I've known people who couldn't think their way out of a box, but who made great grades in school-- they were able to parrot what the "teachers" wanted to hear, and they were rewarded for doing so. 

That's not even the worst of it. The inmates are often miseducated and always indoctrinated into the religion of Statism. How could it be otherwise, seeing who controls the system? They are so indoctrinated they can't even imagine alternatives to the state-- as they imagine its natural order must be because that's what they were trained to believe.

Gov-schooling, and any alternatives that follow the same (Prussian) model, are worse than doing "nothing". Civilization needs less of this, not more.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Misfit interests

I've never been one to be a slave to the clock. However, one of my quirks is that I love old non-electric/non-electronic timepieces. Everything from pocket watches, to the old "regulator" wall clocks, to grandfather clocks, to wind-up wristwatches. Even things like sundials. 

Clocks are a misfit interest for me-- they don't "fit" me, but I like them anyway.

During my stint in Pennsylvania, one of the best things to do (besides karaoke) was to visit the antique stores on practically every corner. And some of my favorite things to see there were the old clocks. (And the antique crank wall phones without dials-- another misfit interest of mine.)

I was in a thrift store yesterday and it looked like someone had dumped some antiques, and even though I knew I shouldn't, I bought an antique clock for $20. (I passed up some other interesting things.)

It's an E. Ingraham Company gingerbread shelf clock, "St. Louis Assortment" (is that the style or model?), and I think it was manufactured in the late 1880s to early 1890s. And it works!

I love old clocks in the same way I love old wood and steel guns. I especially love old stuff that still works.

I have always thought it was odd that I like old clocks so much even though I'm not that interested in "the time". 

In a similar vein, I know people who aren't brainwashed by politics, and don't imagine it is legitimate, who still enjoy keeping up with politics. As a sport or hobby. It seems really strange to me, but when I think of my enjoyment of old clocks, it kind of makes sense in a way.

I guess you can like the mechanics of a thing without becoming a slave to it.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

When you have nothing else to fall back on

Someone was arguing against liberty, using every justification for political government she could think of (probably with the help of years of statist indoctrination). 

She kept having every objection shot down by everyone she was engaging with. So, having lost the debate, she played the "race" card:

“Others” will be able to choose who they help. “Others” always choose to help the people they think deserve help, which won’t be people who are not white. So I’m not name calling, I’m calling it out. And I’m not interested in asinine alternate perspectives, thanks.

This is a standard statist perspective- both the assumed racism of others and admitting a disinterest in "alternate perspectives".

I have never once used "race" as a deciding factor for whether or not I'd help someone. Not once. Even when I easily could have. This is beyond the comprehension of those indoctrinated into statism. They assume "race" matters as much to others as it apparently does to them. 

It's not the first time I've run across this-- I remember old "academic" Robert Lindsay, before he got shot down and deleted his entire blog after claiming libertarianism is racist and throwing a hissy-fit when presented with evidence that he was wrong.

It shouldn't be shocking that government supremacists are bigoted in other ways as well.

Me? I don't care about anything but whether you're going to archate. Anything else is insignificant. I don't care who you are, I care what you do. And statists archate, by definition.

-

Please support the Tobbles Memorial Project on Patreon

What does it cost you?

To stand back and let people steal from you or your business (or in your presence) does something bad to your humanity. I still suffer emotionally from one such event from around 35 years ago-- because I chose not to act.

To allow people to dictate the words you use also does something bad to your humanity. To participate in a lie degrades you.

Sure, I understand those who say just let it go. If you can just let it happen without getting worked up over it, you might have an easier time of things.

So what if a shoplifter (or a violent mob of them) is blatantly stealing from your place of business? Insurance will probably cover it and it's not your property they are taking (unless you own the business). It's best (we are told) to just stand back and let "the professionals" (refuse to) handle it later. What does it cost you to stay uninvolved?

Why care what words you are told you must use? Truth is subjective, right? You might hurt someone's feelings if you don't go along or if you insist on using the correct terms for people or things. What does it really cost you?

What does it cost?

I think it costs plenty. There's something lost if you allow yourself to be cast aside and trampled by the current thing. Be it the acceptance of theft or participation in dictated lies. I understand why some good people might choose to not make a scene. I also understand why some might put a foot down and refuse to go along no matter the cost to themselves.

Sometimes there is a cost either way and you've got to decide which one you're willing to pay.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

Statists hate Team Liberty

Imagine how it must feel to be on one of the popular "teams".

I'm constantly astounded by the stupidity and evil of the Left-Statists and the Right-Statists. If it's not one brand of authoritarian monster stunning me with its attempt to control people, it's the other.

How would it feel to be cheering on one of those teams?

I'll never know. Even when one side does something I kinda like, they generally manage to poison it somehow. 

Something along the lines of ending (some) prohibition, so the substances can be regulated and taxed. No, no, no!

You were so close, but you still managed to screw it up!

It's the same story over and over, on every issue the government supremacists touch. Because they hallucinate legitimacy for political government, they don't seem able to let go and just respect liberty.

I'm on Team Liberty, so those on the Right and the Left will never stop trying to fight against me and the values I hold. I've come to accept it, but I'll never like it.

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating. 

A "TruthTeller" tells lies

A liar on Twitter using the facetious handle "LJTruthTeller" didn't like my above meme, which I had sent to California's top political criminal in response to some anti-gun bigotry he'd posted.

The liar said "Your meme is a meme of lies and distortions of the 2nd Amendment. This is the TRUTH about it..." and posted this:

This is what the anti-gun bigots imagine is true? No wonder they keep getting everything wrong.

I would invite anyone with historical literacy and the ability to think rationally and logically to compare what I posted to what they posted and judge which one is honest and which is the lie.

And that's ignoring the fact that the liar skipped right over the truth that rights don't come from documents or governments, but are inborn in individual human beings-- which is shorthand for saying no one has a right to stop you from doing these things.

Again, I am left wondering, are these people really this ignorant or are they simply evil?

-

I'm doing this for you.

Consider subscribing or donating.

Less government means more liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 8, 2023)

You probably hear a lot of complaints about government corruption these days-- especially over these past several years. I don't see any corruption; I see government acting as it was designed to work.

When an institution is built on a foundation of theft, power, and coercion why act surprised when those things happen?

Even the Constitution is at fault, so you can't fix it by "going back" to the Constitution. As abolitionist Lysander Spooner once said, the Constitution “has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

No one in politics wants the Constitution followed-- other than the parts they agree with. Modern conservatives want immigration control and modern liberals want "gun control", both of which are violations of the Constitution.

If government employees feel they are entitled to some of your property because taxation has been declared legal, why wouldn't they keep trying to take more? A little legal theft justifies a little more. Why stop at taking your money when they can get your house through eminent domain, your guns through new gun bans, and your car by passing "climate change" regulations? It's not corruption, it's government.

Were you surprised to discover the FBI is a tool of one of the big political parties? When you give a group power they will use it for their benefit. The FBI was never authorized to exist by the Constitution, yet here they are. The same goes for the CIA, the BATFE, and every other alphabet agency used against the liberty of Americans. How could this happen? It may look like corruption, but it's just government being government.

You can't turn poison ivy into a rose by picking off the aphids and dead leaves. You've got to dig it up by the roots. Yet, even a rose has thorns and will need to be dug up when it grows old, too large, and diseased. Keeping an old, twisted tangle of dead branches and thorns around for sentimental reasons isn't wise. Recognize government for what it is and stop imagining corruption when it doesn't work like you wish it would.

Instead of focusing on what you see as corruption, focus on taking away the power of government employees to do anything to people or their liberty. It would be more useful in the long run.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Defeat the defeatists

I came across what may be the best description I've ever encountered of the control freaks among us in a book I'm reading: 

"...the centralizers, the closet statists, the we-have-no-choice defeatists for whom freedom is a mere trinket to be sacrificed to some 'practical' end."

And he was talking about people in a stateless society!

I'd use the word "liberty" rather than "freedom" in this context, but still, doesn't that just hit the nail on the head?

Some evil loser murders people. "Ban guns!"

Some liars fool lots of people. "Ban their speech!"

"Oh, no! Something bad happened! We need to ban something to make sure it never happens again!"

"We have no choice! We must act! For the children!" 

Yes, they are defeatists. They don't feel like arming the potential victims. They don't think they are able to counter lies with truth. The bad things didn't defeat them-- they surrendered without even trying. They want the state to save them from whatever they feel powerless against.

Liberty for these people only matters if it seems safe enough. If it aligns with what they want people free to do. The moment the dangers of reality rear their head they want liberty smashed "just a little". It's not that important to them; it's a mere trinket to be admired as long as it is comfortable. 

That's evil.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

UFO invasion

It's a lie. Why are governments lying about this, now?

These UFOs being shot down are only UFOs because political criminals are keeping their identities secret. You know they know what they are. They just don't want you to know-- they want the story to stay alive.

They haven't claimed they are alien craft, but it seems like they'd like for people to make that assumption. And see the military that shoots them down as fearfully powerful.

If they were alien craft (spacetime craft, dimensional craft, etc.), Earth military craft wouldn't be successfully shooting them down unless they wanted to be shot down. Decoys? Toys? Anything with technology that advanced probably wouldn't even need to fight back-- just let the pursuing craft destroy themselves while trying to take them down. It wouldn't even be a contest.

These UFOs are probably a big nothing. Just ordinary Earth hardware (or trash). Maybe from the Chinese government gang-- maybe from the US or some other criminal government gang. That's if they even exist at all. So why are they being focused on? What are governments wanting to distract you from?

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.