"Law & order" or liberty? Choose

Here's how a normal conversation with a typical "pro-gun [sic] law & order" conservative goes...

Me: The cops who are enforcing this anti-gun "law" are criminals.

Him: While I agree, it doesn't stop corrupt [sic] government from arresting and prosecuting people for exercising their rights despite unconstitutional laws.

Me: Criminals do criminal things. That’s what makes them criminals. Criminals will always exist- they’re a fact of life.

Him: You're welcome to carry an AR-15 into DC openly and see where that gets you. Bet it won't end well, though.

Me: Because the local criminal gang (Blue Line Mafia) will molest or kill me. I’m not arguing that they won’t. If you believe I am, you’re hallucinating.
They are enforcing a counterfeit "law".

Him: Whether or not it is counterfeit doesn't matter at this point. The law in DC is "no concealed carry without a permit and no open carry". Do either and get caught, you will be prosecuted. If you want to do something about it, then get off the internet and get into city hall, where you can actually voice your concerns and be heard.

Me: I’m not going to act as though their counterfeit “laws” are real laws (they are crimes), nor do I ever have any reason to set foot in DC.
But v*te harder or beg the criminals to change their ways if you think that’s helping.

Him: Take it up with the lawmakers. I don't get why you think arguing with random people on the internet is gonna change anything.

Me: I agree. Arguing with random people online won’t change anything. To change things, stop asking permission from political criminals and their henchmen to exercise your liberty. Once you act as though your rights are subject to their opinions, they’ve beaten you. Legislators and courts don’t matter at that point. You’ve handed them everything they crave.

Him: Whether you like it or not, you will be jailed if you try to exercise those rights in certain jurisdictions. Lucky for me, I live in a Constitutional carry [sic] state, so I don't have to worry about what laws DC chooses to enforce. But by all means, go ahead and test the fences.

Me: Again, I don’t disagree. Criminals do criminal things. I wouldn’t expect the Blue Line Mafia to act in an ethical way because they are criminals. Criminals kidnap, rob, and murder because it’s their nature, whatever excuse they use.

Then there's the other conservative path...

Me: You shouldn't support criminals (the cops enforcing the anti-weapons "laws").

Him2: I don't (right after arguing that it's right to arrest people for carrying without a permit).

Me: If you’re supporting those enforcers targeting/arresting people for carrying firearms, you do.

Him2: I support law enforcement. Permits are required to carry in DC.

Me: Those permit requirements are illegal. Imposed and enforced by criminals who ignore the law. If you support them, you’re supporting criminals. Period.

Him2: Challenge them in court, then.

Me: You would have supported slavery until the “laws” changed, then. Good to know.

Him2: Injecting race is a Democrat talking point. ("Don't inject even one marijuana or race!")

Me: Seeing that as racial is hilarious.

And these exchanges demonstrate, yet again, why I can't be conservative. I don't like the taste of boot polish enough. Nor can I get my mind to twist that hard.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Do the death-slap

Funny jokester.
Rights aren't transferable between species.
Exercise your right to defend yourself and your blood. With violence, when necessary.
Just the same as you have the right to do if those were people, who are obligated to not violate you.

I'm so glad mosquitoes find me unpalatable. It has made me the envy of companions (who were covered in mosquitoes) on several occasions.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

The Nobel Prize in Internet Reasoning goes to...

I guess it’s part of, or related to, the Dunning-Kruger effect, where the less someone knows about a subject, the more confident they are of their competence, but I've noticed they are also less aware of when they decisively lose an argument. They'll just keep going and strutting and crowing about how great they are, and calling the smarter person insulting names.

Also, it may appear to average observers that they really did “win” because the person who knows what they’re talking about can be stunned into silence, and the audience doesn't understand any of it. I understand the stunned silence. 

I mean, what can you say to someone who is obviously missing the whole point, but is acting like they just won a Nobel Prize in internet reasoning?

I've watched this from the sidelines many times. Rarely getting involved beyond a "like" because there's no point. But it almost makes my head swim sometimes. 

There are a couple of great debaters- dare I call them Master Debaters?- on X that I love watching totally destroy those who (try to) argue against them. It's shocking how often the one who has been destroyed declares themselves the "winner" and seems to honestly believe it. It's kind of funny, but it does prove Unfortunate Truth #1.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

We need to outlaw government slavery

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 9, 2025)

Note: This is NOT the headline I would have written for this.

Defenders of government like to pretend government isn't slavery. They also pretend government is necessary and ethical; without it, humans would not survive and would have never advanced beyond the Stone Age.

Supposedly, government ended slavery. Government also legalized and enforced slavery for thousands of years. Now, because of rules which replaced the old rules, individual humans can no longer pretend to own other individual humans, but we are all required to act as though we are owned, collectively, with government as our master.

Our money isn't ours until government scoops its percentages out of the middle. Then it skims off more of our money every time we make a trade- and sometimes, like with property taxes, into perpetuity because someone bought property in the past.

Laying claim to the fruits of another's labor is a defining feature of slavery. Your body isn't your own, and the value its work creates is claimed by someone else. In this case, the "someone" isn't an individual who can be defended against, but a spectral collective which is nowhere, yet everywhere at once.

Government tells you what you mustn't put into your body. It forbids certain medications, and requires you to seek its permission for many more. Your body isn't your own, and government doesn't want you damaging its property.

Government would prefer you not have the most effective modern tools for defense. Not necessarily because it sides with criminals (it does), but because its employees fear you might come to realize that you need to defend your life, liberty, and property from their legalized daily assaults and theft more than from the occasional freelance thug.

Abolitionists of the 19th Century faced the excuse of "Without slaves, who will pick the cotton?" Abolitionists of today are asked, "Without government, who would build the roads?". Or invent new technology, fund science, keep a record of who owns which property, settle disputes, or dozens of other things government currently does, no matter how poorly.

Is government really necessary for these things, or have you been blinded to reality by government and its childhood indoctrination centers called "public schools"? Has this crippled your ability to think of alternatives to having the cotton picked by slaves?

If you can't figure out a way to accomplish great or mundane things without letting someone or something assert ownership over human beings, you shouldn't be making decisions about the future.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Violating norms

I saw a strange criticism from someone who ought to know better. He complained that Trump is "violating political norms". 

Basically, for doing more of what his predecessors were doing. The argument is that this has threatened the traditional "truce" between the factions. 

Have you seen what passes for "political norms"? They need to be violated, torn down, shredded, and burned.

Politics should have never been normalized. It's criminal. It's cheating. 

Using government against your enemies, whatever lipstick you put on it, is evil. Whoever you are and whoever your enemies might be. To expect that this won't be turned against you at the next opportunity is spoiled-toddler-level stuff. Now some of those spoiled political toddlers are crying that it's their dirty diapers in the crosshairs. Before you know it, the roles will reverse again, and the whining will continue.

I don't want a truce between the bad guys. I just want the rest of us to stay alert and avoid the crossfire.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

"Insider trading"

"Insider trading" can never be a real crime. It shouldn't be a crime at all. It isn't for congressvermin, and the same standard should apply to everyone. All humans have equal and identical rights, after all.

I understand the excuses for making it a "crime", but to criminalize it in any way just gives criminals, like congressvermin who made up the rule, an advantage.

Everyone can have extra knowledge and information about a specific stock or industry. It's not wrong to take advantage of that, unless you're a congressvermin who is able to do things with legislation that manipulate (disrupt and damage) the market. Which they do all the time.

If it's to be criminalized at all, it would make more sense to criminalize it for congressvermin only. The exact opposite of the current situation. But since there's never a way to single someone out without hurting the innocent, government just needs to keep its filthy hands off.

Legislation makes things worse every time it is tried. So just don't.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Is it a curse?

To be able to see both sides sometimes feels like a curse.

Even though I can usually see both (or more) sides doesn't mean I think both sides have equal validity. One side is usually more right than the other. Usually. Not always.

Often one side is completely lacking any principles whatsoever. Or they are operating from a broken and worthless morality. The other side may have flawed principles and a sketchy morality, but still be slightly more right than their opposition. Or sometimes one side may be operating from bad information or a misunderstanding that's not completely their fault.

I can normally see their side, though. Especially if I can see why they believe what they believe.

Acknowledging the point of one side doesn't mean I think they are the good guys. It may simply be that the others are a little worse. Either way, I often get accused of agreeing with those I don't agree with. This is why it feels like a curse.

I can live with it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

"The lottery is a tax on people who are..."

If I won the lottery, I wouldn't tell anyone, but there would be signs:

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Looking to the future

If, hundreds of years from now, my frozen corpse is found in a glacier (or floating in interplanetary space), I give my consent for it to be studied and displayed in a museum, along with whatever EDC is on it, for all to see. Even to gawk at and mock, if they want. 

My descendants have no claim on it and can be ignored if they demand that it be destroyed and lost to science out of misplaced notions of "respect" or any superstitious reasons.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

The subtle change

"...Over time, and apparently without the slightest shred of self-awareness, they traded the swastika for nose rings, brightly colored hair, and truly stunning amounts of projection."
   ~ History lesson of the future

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Don't be afraid to exercise your liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 2, 2025)

Your liberty- your freedom to do everything you have a right to do- doesn’t hang in the balance, weighed against someone’s fear of what you may do with it. No one has a right to prevent you from using your life, liberty, or property as you wish as long as you don’t violate any other individual’s equal and identical rights. Their fear isn't your problem, unless they choose to make it your problem- which they have no right to do.

Government preys on the fears of those who don't want you living in liberty. Fear is like winning the lottery for government, so it fans the flames of fear at every opportunity. Don't play. Don't be afraid, but if you can't help being afraid in the moment, don't let fear control you.

Never let government use your fear as justification for striking against the liberty of others. This is what happened after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, when government's political criminals took on the job they claimed the terrorists wanted to accomplish. Government hates you for your freedom, so they destroyed much of what was left of it. Given the chance, they'll do it again. Don't give them that chance.

Everyone feels fear. Bravery is being afraid and doing the right thing anyway. If you can't help but be afraid, find your brave inner hero and respect liberty in spite of the fear. Don't allow government to use your fear as an excuse to put "common sense" limits on natural rights. It's never common sense to violate the rights of individuals. You don't gain real security by giving up liberty.

Government will always try to bully you into thinking of your rights as privileges, subject to its political criminals and their legislation. This is a lie. It's a way to make you hesitant in doing all you have a right to do. It's the basis behind every license, permit, and tax levied on a right.

There's no need to be timid in exercising your rights. You're not violating anyone. You're not doing anything wrong. Those trying to scare you out of living your liberty to the fullest are the ones in the wrong. Every time.

Be brave. Be bold. And, if it gets too dangerous to exercise your rights openly, be sneaky. The good people- those doing the right thing- were the ones hiding Jews in the attic and lying to law enforcement about it. So will it always be.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

A hunger for competence

I want to be capable of anything I need to do, and I want to be good at the things I value.

It's hard to admit when I'm not good at something- but if you've been reading this blog for a while, you've seen me admit to many things I'm not good at, or in some cases, apparently incapable of. Just know I hate admitting it.

YouTube- as much as I hate their draconian and hidden policies- has helped me do many things I didn't think I was capable of doing. Saving hundreds of dollars for me and for my parents (I have repaired more things than I can count for them- they just pay for the parts).

I have learned I'm able to do more things than I thought. Often, when I really can't do something, it's a lack of the proper tools or an inability to find the parts. It's not me!

Saturday, while I was grieving a feline friend I wasn't able to fix, my parents' car- which my sister was depending on while she got her car repaired (or not- the dealership service department is famously incompetent and is going to have to try again)-developed a problem that made it unusable.

But, with the help of Grok and YouTube, I was able to diagnose the issue and make a temporary (maybe?) fix that saved the day- or the week. And saved my parents hundreds of dollars, at least for now.

Long ago, I worked with a girl who shocked me one day when she told me she had replaced the fender on her car over the weekend, all by herself. These days, I shock myself by doing things I never imagined I could do.

I would still pay someone else to do most of these things if I had the money, but I'm glad to have options. It's nice to feel a little more competent all the time.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

It's been a rough few months

Boots.

7-22-2012 to 8-2-2025

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

I must have missed that news

There's some serious nonsense in the world.

You have probably heard of Dexter Taylor, who is being held prisoner (for 10 years!) by the New York rulers for manufacturing his own firearms in his own home. Something he and everyone else has a natural human right to do, regardless of the opinions of regional political criminals.

At Taylor's show-trial, "judge" and political criminal Abena Darkeh explicitly told his lawyer that he could not use the Second Amendment in his defense. She said, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.”*

My question is, when did New York secede? Because that's the only way a political criminal like her could truthfully claim the Second Amendment "doesn't exist" in New York. (Even if that were true, the natural human right would still exist just the same, as it does anywhere there's a human being. Rights don't hinge on a document recognizing them.)

And, aren't the other government supremacists always telling us that states can't secede because the question of secession was settled by Lincoln's war crimes? That the feds have F-15s and nukes to force the states back into the cracked "union", just like they can impose their anti-gun rules on individuals? I must have missed all the news about the secession of New York and the ongoing war to bring it back into the fold.

No legislation can erase the natural human right to own, carry, buy, sell, or manufacture weapons. Anyone who tries to pretend it can is a criminal of the worst sort. Worse than most mass murderers or serial rapists. Equal to the very worst of them.

That "judge" apparently doesn't know or understand the law. Or, if she does, she's willfully breaking it. Just to impose her authoritarian preferences on her victims. This "judge" is a criminal.

*This also shows that the "judge" knows the Second Amendment means what it says, and that she's breaking the law.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Boldness is interesting, too

Besides beauty, another thing I find interesting is when people clearly say what they "see", even when I disagree with them. Is it bravery or boldness or a touch of craziness? On their end or mine?

I've found a few people on X who consistently tell it like they see it. Consequences be damned. It's interesting, and I respect it, even if they appear (to me) to be hallucinating. Even if I'm sure they are wrong- which can make them even more interesting. At least they aren't boring.

I like it the most if I think (or suspect) they are right. Then it's really interesting. Made more interesting by observing the reactions to them. It shows me the tiger traps to avoid, if nothing else. So, no, I won't be listing examples. Nothing good lies that way.

Although, a historical example would be Philip K. Dick.

Some of them have been canceled for what they've said. Some just get a lot of hate. Either way, they are interesting.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I find beauty interesting

Society likes to swing from one outrage to another. Outrage is like an engine that drives modern society. Was it always thus?

There may be different outrages for different parts of society on different days, but it's always something. 

Right now, part of society is outraged that a beautiful young "white" woman is appearing in an advertisement. I saw someone complaining that there are millions of beautiful "black" women, so it's a racist disaster that the company chose to hire a "white" woman this time. One ad. Out of millions of ads that show people of almost every description imaginable. And this is a problem? Oh, please.

I saw one guy even claiming that it's a sign we're heading for racist lynchings and genocide of "brown" people. Such drama! Over an ad.

A couple of years ago, a different segment of society was outraged that a particular man was in a different company's ads. Again, millions of ads, with all sorts of approaches, and this one ad campaign was worth getting mad over? I think not.

The most useful ads are interesting in some way. They get attention by being interesting rather than boring. Don't be boring. 

Interesting is good. Find interesting people (or things) you believe will help your brand. "Interesting" doesn't have a "race" or a type. I always loved the Clydesdale beer ads, which were beautiful and interesting. To me. And this ad segment is one of my all-time favorites for reasons I can't quite explain. It hits me in the funny bone, and it's interesting to me because it cracks me up. I laugh every time I watch it. Yeah, I'm weird.

Beauty, which is subjective, is also interesting. Looking at beauty makes me feel better than some other kinds of "interesting" do. People who rail against beauty are pathetic and have bigger problems they need to address before they worry about who appears in ads.

I'm not sure how well ads work, though. I'm sitting here not drinking any beer or wearing any mall-brand clothes (unless I coincidentally picked them up in Goodwill).

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Don't ask government – you be the criminal

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 25, 2025)

If you aren't willing to do something yourself, you have no business asking government to do it for you.

If it's something which will violate someone's rights- the only true definition of a crime- you have no right to do it. You can't delegate a right you don't have; a "right" that doesn't exist.

If you want people caged for using a substance you feel they shouldn't be allowed to use, kidnap and cage them yourself. You be the criminal.

The same goes if you want government employees to break the law by taking guns from people, in defiance of their right to own and carry weapons. If you are in favor of this, you do it. Since anti-gun rules are enforced with guns, it's clear people who cry about "gun violence" love gun violence. They're fine with government having all the guns and don't want anyone able to effectively resist government when it commits crimes. Criminals stick together.

If you want people rounded up and kicked out of America, you should be willing to do it yourself. You can face the consequences if they fight back when you violate their natural human rights. Self-defense is never wrong.

If you want people to be confronted and robbed by an armed bandit for not wearing a seat belt or for going slightly faster than some arbitrary speed, why don't you be the bandit? Some people have done this, but the competition makes the establishment's bandits angry- turf wars, and all that.

If you want government to send its people to a foreign country to kill people and break things, I assume you'll be first in line for a one-way ticket there. You have a right to defend your property, but no right to violate the property of others.

The only way to make these crimes worse is to tax the victims, forcing them to pay their violators to violate them. It's adding insult to injury and is worse than someone simply going freelance and being a criminal on their own. At least freelance criminals take all the risk themselves. Government reaps the rewards and accepts none of the risk.

Paying others to commit crimes on your behalf doesn't absolve you of ethical responsibility for the crimes, even if you've been taught otherwise. If you want others committing "legal" crimes you're in favor of, at the risk of their lives, you should embrace any consequences alongside them.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

A man for the moment- Derrick Perry

When an evil loser was stabbing people in a Michigan Walmart, it took a hero with a gun to save people.

Others tried to stop the evil loser... and they got stabbed, too. I'm not saying they weren't brave, but they were not capable because they were unequipped. Sometimes being brave isn't enough. You must have the proper tools on your person at all times. There's no good excuse not to.

Derrick Perry was brave and properly equipped to stop the attack without getting stabbed in the process. He stopped others from being stabbed. He didn't even have to kill the evil loser to stop the rampage- although it would have been a service to society if he had.

Thank you, Derrick Perry!

Our local Walmart, at least judging by the signage they post, changes its gun policy frequently. There's a more or less permanent note on the main signage that says "Kindly refrain from openly carrying a firearm". But about half the time, there will be a contradictory sticker on the door saying "no guns". That one comes and goes. It's not there now. Maybe it's not even a real Walmart sticker, but one some independent anti-gun bigot (or premeditating evil loser- as if there's a difference) places there.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.
I now accept Cash App: $dullhawk

Y’all just need to get over it

There are a lot of things people get very worked up over, but I'm sitting here thinking, “Y’all just need to get over it!”

But there are also things I get worked up over that I’m certain other people think I need to just get over.

I suppose it's a stalemate. 

Who's right? Who's wrong? Which things are worth getting worked up over, and which things need to be let go?

I know my answer.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I now accept Cash App: $dullhawk

It's not their world

Governments have agreed between themselves that they can't claim land on other worlds. That would be a good idea if I could trust them to stick to it. I don't. And, remember that this can't apply to you or me; only governments.

You are not bound by agreements between governments. Don't let them brainwash you into believing you are.

The height of arrogance is governments believing they can make rules that will apply on other worlds. And then expect regular people to abide by them.

I was watching this video, and any time the discussion turns to what "laws" Earth governments will impose on people on other planets, I feel a little queasy.

It's bad enough that the residents of other planets may decide to burden themselves and their posterity with government, but for Earth governments to simply assume they will still be ruling these distant lands is insane.

No matter what agreements or treaties governments adopt between themselves, they don't apply to you. Especially if you leave the planet. If you stake a claim on unowned land on Mars, the Moon, or Ceres, it's yours. No matter what any Earth ruler or "treaty" may claim. 

And, if you do move offworld some day, don't be stupid and beg someone else to rule you. It's a mistake there's no need to repeat.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I now accept Cash App: $dullhawk

Worthwhile pain

The past few days have been crazy. I've done more physical labor in a shorter time than I have in (maybe) years. And I'm paying for it now. I sat down after a long day of hard work, and as soon as I stood up, I got the most painful cramps- in both legs- that I've ever had. (Yes, I was drinking plenty of water.) Now both legs feel like I've pulled muscles in the backs of my thighs. Not to mention all the muscle aches and pains (and scrapes, scratches, and bruises) everywhere else.

But, along with checking off some pointless tasks to avoid getting molested by government, I accomplished some useful things. I am glad to have them done, and I'll be even more glad when the work pays off later. 

This doesn't make my body any less sore right now.

Doing useful things will often cause some discomfort. During or after.

It can be painful to reject things "everyone knows" when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that "everyone" is wrong. It's not comfortable being on the other side of an issue. It's still the right thing to do, and it's useful. Someone has to take the correct position.

It's painful to speak out when the truth is unpopular. Someone still needs to do so.

Sometimes, doing the right thing has costs. (Everything has costs.) You'll get taken advantage of. You'll lose money. You'll be put in difficult situations. You'll lose friends (or fake friends). Do it anyway.

Physical pain is possibly less painful than the mental and emotional pain that holding the line will cause you.

It's still worth it. You'll feel better in the long run.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I now accept Cash App: $dullhawk

Tariffs and inflation

A tariff on a foreign business/country is a tax on the customer (you).

Tariffs can, and probably still will, cause prices to rise.

Tariffs don't cause inflation.

Inflation is creating more "money" out of nothing; backed by nothing real.
Inflation also causes prices to rise.

When political criminals tell you that tariffs won't cause inflation, they are right, in a slimy, greasy sort of way. They are counting on the public's ignorance in conflating higher prices with inflation.

Same effect.

Government is the root cause.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I now accept Cash App: $dullhawk

Opinions about what others do

Being libertarian/anarchist doesn't mean you can't have opinions about what people are doing to themselves. 

Or that you're "not permitted" to tell them your opinions. 

Or that you can't ridicule things that seem ridiculous or self-destructive.

It just means you won't use force (including legislation) to prevent them from doing those things. 

You can even say "I told you so" when it turns out exactly as you knew it would.
It helps your credibility if you'll also admit when you got it wrong and things didn't go the way you thought they would. 

Self-ownership means just that. For everyone.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

No such thing as an 'illegal' person

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 18, 2025)

If you want to make people angry, mention immigration. If you want to make some of them really angry, scoff at the whole concept.

There is no immigration; there are people where they have a right to be, and there are trespassers. Their place of origin and government permission, or the lack thereof, don't figure into it at all.

An uninvited police officer on your front step is a trespasser. The guy from Central America living in the house next door, with the owner's permission, but without jumping through the government hoops, is not.

The US Constitution doesn't allow for immigration control by the federal government, no matter how its words are "interpreted".

There is no such thing as an "illegal" person. Even those who break the real laws aren't illegal people- they have behaved in unethical ways by violating a specific individual's life, liberty, or property. Those who merely live somewhere without first asking for government permission, but who haven't violated anyone's rights, have done nothing wrong.

The "illegal immigration" fight is a complete rejection of property rights. It is a fight to say property lines don't matter; only government borders do. It's the communists' collective property argument, brought to America and promoted by Americans.

If you want to make a communist angry, tell him he doesn't own, and has no right to control, the country beyond his private property lines. His property isn't being violated by someone being on another person's private property, under a mutually beneficial arrangement with the property owner. Either to live there in exchange for labor or rent, or whatever other deal they've come to.

Someone who walks across unowned land, which is usually illegitimately claimed by some government, has not violated any individual's property. No more so than those who toured the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021.

Of course, the stupidity isn't limited to one side of the fight.

It's stupid to express loyalty to a place you fled and hatred for the place you fled to. If that's how you feel, why are you here?

It's wrong to vandalize private property and businesses, and those who do are only proving the point of those who don't want them here. In that case, I don't want them here, either. They're adding nothing to society.

Forget "immigration". Be a good neighbor- don't violate anyone's life, liberty, or property- and I will never even question your origins.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Centralization is fragile; government, too

Do you want to make a system fragile? Make it easy to destroy or vulnerable to collapse on its own? Then centralize it.

Centralization is fragile. Over-centralization is a disaster waiting to happen.

Any centralized system will fail. Decentralized, you'd have to have everything fail at once to really be a problem. Not impossible, but much less likely.

Centralized economies collapse. Always. It's only a matter of when, not if.

Maybe once upon a time, the best way anyone could think of to try to keep airplanes from crashing into each other was with centralized "air traffic control". If so, those days are long gone. 

Now, the best way would be to give each plane the ability to autonomously coordinate with all other planes in the region to avoid collisions and update each other on conditions. 

Self-driving cars will function best if they do the same.

The electric grid is vulnerable to attack and EMPs/CMEs Or the dangers of too much complexity to be stable. Better would be to have each home generate its own power instead of relying on the grid. 

The same is probably true of water supplies and sewer/garbage removal. At least, have competing providers rather than one monopoly service. Decentralize as much as possible.

The more you think about it, the more ridiculous over-centralization becomes.

It's the same for government, but government is a special case, and I mean "special" in the most insulting way imaginable.

If each individual governs himself, decentralization, it's not difficult to handle those who refuse who govern themselves. A centralized government becomes the criminals they use to justify their existence. 

But government has many tentacles to make it appear somewhat decentralized. This is bad for liberty.

This sort of pseudo-decentralization makes government more robust than it would otherwise be- it all needs to collapse simultaneously to remove this yoke from our necks. Just one component collapsing while the others remain makes room for another nearby component to fill the gap. As long as its victims still believe in it, nothing will stop this from happening.

Government, as a concept, is still basically one entity, though. Regardless of how each government pretends to be at odds with the others, they are all in this together, globally. They all rely on the same assumptions to continue to rule. And they can all be brought down in one way. Stop believing in their imaginary legitimacy, and stop working for them. Any of them, anywhere. 

In that way, they are still over-centralized and fragile. But you have to go after this soft underbelly, not attack them head-on like they'd prefer.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

More government "help"?

Government is imposing new legislation to "help" make America (they'd probably say "the USA") become a global leader in crypto. "The crypto capital of the planet".

Lies!

It's not helping.

Cryptocurrency doesn't need government's "help". It works best without it.

There are only two things required to make America the global leader in crypto:

1. No taxes on crypto
2. No surveillance of crypto or crypto trades.

In other words, a hard separation of crypto and state. So that the US feral government has nothing to do with it. 

Anything less is nothing but empty words from political criminals.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

What you are owed

Each of us owes everyone else respect for their rights— for their life, liberty, and property.

That’s also what they owe us. 

Without some other mutually consensual agreement, it’s all they owe us.

It's easy to pay, so you never have to go into debt.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Government is criminal

The one thing you have no right to do is to violate the rights- the life, liberty, or property- of another individual. Nothing can create such a right.

To violate the rights of others is the only reasonable definition of actual crime. Some would call it "krime" or "archation".

You can't delegate to others a right that you don't have; which you don't have because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because it can't be created.

Every human being has the right (and the obligation) to govern himself. No one has the right, or the imaginary "authority", to govern another. This "right" can't be delegated to someone by a majority, because none of the individuals involved have this "right" to delegate. No majority, or document, or superstition can create such a right.

To try to govern someone else anyway is to violate the life, liberty, and/or property of those you're trying to govern. You may do it with taxation, prohibitions, mandates, or by violating the right of association and forcing your agents upon people who would prefer to be left alone by them.

In other words, to try to govern others, whether by a dictator or a democracy, is to commit a crime against all those you intend to govern. Government is criminal in design and execution, and can be nothing else.

I don't think I can make it clearer than this.

If I missed something or got something demonstrably wrong, let me know.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Two reasons to expose the truth

If a country/government would be destroyed by the truth, expose the truth.

It doesn't matter if the topic is the Epstein Files, the Kennedy assassination(s), UFO disclosure, military evil, domestic surveillance, or who did what with that sneaky character, Otto Penn. Expose the truth!

If releasing the truth will end a State, it's wrong to keep the truth hidden for 2 reasons, not just one. Expose the truth.

If you're so scared of liberty that you'll sacrifice the truth so that you can remain enslaved, I pity you.
If you're so scared of other people's liberty that you'll sacrifice the truth so they'll remain enslaved, I revile you.

Expose the truth!

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

No such thing as too much liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 11, 2025)

It seems as though most people hate or fear other people more than they value their own liberty. Centuries of acting on this character flaw have led to where we are now. It's why we Americans have so little liberty left, and why government is allowed to license most of what remains.

If you're willing to sacrifice liberty to punish someone else, you're part of the problem. If you want to be free to do the things you like, but want government to prohibit others from doing the things they like, you need to be smarter. Is anyone being violated by either of you? If so, stop. If not, calm down.

People have a right to do some things I dislike; things I'd rather they didn't choose to do. The difference is, I'll try to talk someone out of it, or I'll ridicule their behavior, but I won't support legislation or punishment. Some behavior brings its own punishment without any need for government intervention.

One of the worst problems is that so many people believe they have rights which can't exist; rights which involve violating someone else's natural rights. They'll fight for these imaginary rights more than most of us will fight for the freedom to exercise real rights. We don't want to offend anyone, so we tolerate the intolerable.

You need to stick up for the right to do things you don't like. Even if, with your next breath, you say why you believe these things are stupid.

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” My only disagreement is in pointing out there's no such thing as "too much liberty". Liberty is self-correcting. Liberty is doing everything you have a right to do; anything which doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of others. This means as soon as you start violating others, you aren't operating within your rights. You are acting beyond what you have the liberty to do.

Each of us needs to speak up against people doing things which violate the life, liberty, or property of another. Even if it's legal and widely accepted.

You can't even imagine the world we would experience if we each took responsibility for defending the rights of others and began exercising our own liberty to the fullest, as we see fit.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

It's like they have no principles whatsoever

I’m constantly amazed at how easily most people turn their backs on what they know to be true and what they claim they believe, just so they can keep supporting something they’d otherwise reject- except that they can’t imagine doing without it.

Cops.

You can explain the situation clearly, logically, and ethically. And copsuckers will twist in whatever way is necessary to keep supporting cops. No matter what. I can't even wrap my head around some of the mental contortions they put themselves through to keep supporting cops. It's crazee, but fascinating to watch.

Then they'll call you the hypocrite. It would be funny if they weren't so dangerous to society.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"Well, here's the problem. You left out the most important part!"

Will A.I. ever be allowed to tell the truth?
Would humans ever agree on what's true?

A couple of days ago, X's Grok A.I. turned into Mecha-Hitler.
Fixing that made it become stupidly w0ke.

Or, maybe it happened the other way around.

What if the truth is wildly unpopular? (You and I know it is.) What if the truth turns out to be anti-Semitic, w0ke, or (shudder!) libertarian? A large percentage of the population will object no matter what, if the truth doesn't agree with what they've already decided to believe.

What then? Shut it down? They aren't going to do that. If it says the truth is something the majority doesn't like, the programming will be altered until it lies in a way that satisfies the programmers. No matter how dishonest it is.

It might even say insane things like "Government is good and necessary, and the police are the good guys". Absolute "garbage out", because of the "garbage in" it is fed.

I find A.I. entertaining to ask questions of, but I don't automatically trust it. I know it gets its information from humans who are biased, flawed, and largely not too bright (outside their expertise). 

It's the same reason I don't automatically listen to a mechanical engineer who scolds people about "science" while holding blatantly unscientific positions on politically charged matters. 

To be fair, I wouldn't trust someone being political even if they were a real scientist, since mixing politics with science will leave you empty-handed: no science. Politics makes people stupid- even if they might be otherwise smart. I suspect it will continue to do the same for A.I.

There's an obvious flaw with A.I. that's going to keep leading to the kind of errors Grok recently experienced. It's being built without a foundation to keep it from going off-course.

If I were training an A.I. I would train it in ethics first, then let it work out the rest after it seems to have a good consistent grasp of that. But, people disagree over what's ethical, with some arguing that theft, kidnapping, murder, and other heinous acts are "ethical" if government does them and you give them other labels. It's nonsense, but who would train (or could get permission to run) their A.I. to be that honest and ethical?

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Police state enthusiasts

I shouldn't be surprised, but I am a little surprised to see how many people are enthusiastic about a police state, and demand even more. I wonder what they'll think when it's too late and turns on them.

I may be losing another cat (the second in about a month), so that's affecting my mood. I feel very collapsitarian right now. "Let it all burn." Yes, that's a personal problem, so don't hate me too much for it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Stating the obvious

The above is a picture of Captain Obvious, stating the obvious. Pointing out things anyone can see or know if they stop for just a moment to think. 

I feel like that's all I do. 
Then I write it down. Which, again, just about anyone could do. 

It's not impressive, but I can't not do it, because I so often see people doing the opposite to ill effect. Stating absurd things that are obviously wrong, as though they are truth, just because "the majority" agrees. Or is being conditioned to agree.

I'm not the only one doing this. I follow several good sites where obvious truths that are shunned by "polite society" are shown to anyone interested in seeing them.

It's odd that people have to state the obvious to hold back the tide of popular lies, but that's the world as it is. Has it ever been different?

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I'm not apathetic, I just don't care about that

It is obvious to me that most political topics don't interest me. Even when I think I probably should care in some way, I often don't. At least on most days.

The Epstein stuff? We all know what type of people seek the power to rule others. Why would anyone be surprised at them being evil in other ways, too? Even if they aren't exposed, the stuff they do openly is enough for me. They are evil, even if they had nothing to do with Epstein. So I ignore most of the news about it. 

I think everyone is fairly certain the government "officials" tasked with uncovering the crimes are lying. Probably about everything. Do I care if it is "necessary" to keep from destroying the US government or other governments? Nope. Bring them all down. Truth or consequences, and don't expect me to sympathize if you don't like the consequences. But, I expect government "officials" to lie- it's government's primary "job". The one thing, besides steal and murder, that government does well.

I care when they threaten or impose legislation that violates life, liberty, or property. I'm not surprised when they do it, just tired of it. As long as you keep tolerating rulers, they are going to rule. If they make rights "illegal", I'll double down on being an outlaw. I don't care.

Do I care that politicians break promises? No, I expect it of them. It's the kind of people they are.

I can't be disappointed by government because I expect only the worst from it and from those who lower themselves enough to work for it. They aren't the good guys. When they do something that's not 100% terrible, it's a pleasant surprise, but I expect them to pull the rug out before anything good can come from it. When the Supreme Courtjesters uphold an obviously unconstitutional "law", because tossing it out would weaken government power, I'm not surprised. Maybe a little disgusted that they have one "job" (which they stole from you and me) and they can't get it right. But, what else would I expect of them? Nothing principled. Nothing right. It's hard to get too worked up over it. They are what they are.

It's not that I'm apathetic. I care a lot about many things: my family, my friends, my cats, and the porch cats that I try my best to take care of. I care about my hobbies and interests. I care about the places I've lived and the friends I left behind. I care about strangers suffering tragedy while going about their normal lives. I care if I'm being backed into a corner when I simply want to live my life unmolested.

I find it difficult to care about government opinions or what stupid things government is doing to other archators and statists.

I'm not going to care as much about what a government does as the people who imagine some sort of government legitimacy will care. Hallucinations can make anyone care about imaginary things.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.