Hate governments, not people

I refuse to let government or the media make me hate Russians for the acts of the Russian government. (Or Ukrainians for the acts of the Ukrainian government, for that matter.)

I hate the Russian government, just like I hate all political government and political criminals (including the militaries of those governments and political criminals). But I don't mistake people for the political government that pretends to act on their behalf. I never have. Just as I wouldn't want people to judge me by the behavior of the political criminals who "run" America and send its military all over the world.

Sure, the majority of Russians may "support" that government. I understand that most Russian people don't realize they have the option of not supporting ANY government or political faction. Just like most Americans don't realize the same. So they may end up "supporting" a state because they don't know it's a choice.

If I hated them for that I'd have to hate nearly everyone everywhere.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Invasions and tyrants

Just to be clear...

I'm always against military invasion. I'm against the Russian military invading Ukraine in the same way I was (am) against the US military invasions of various Middle Eastern territories. I want the invader to lose in every case, and be driven out in shame, regardless of the events that provoked the invasion. Being an invader needs to be an expensive mistake.

All politicians are either tyrants or proto-tyrants. They are your enemy either now, or if/when they get enough power. When I suggest a solution to this problem, even if I mention one politician by name because he's the current low-hanging fruit and doing so will be overlooked by the censors, don't imagine I'm only talking about that one political criminal. The point holds true across time and space.

Sometimes things need to be phrased in such a way to confuse the censors, but unfortunately, this can also confuse readers. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Dredging up old failures to make them fresh again

Earlier a new comment notification popped up on an old post from another blog. Why people bother posting a comment on an old, forgotten blog post that hasn't seen any action in years confuses me, but whatever.

I responded because the person was ridiculing an old comment of mine saying that people can (and do) get killed over "taxation".

What is it with these people who refuse to see things that actually happen as they really are, just because they approve? 

Well, this commenter approved of theft if it is called "taxation" and if it is claimed to be for "the common good". Therefore "nobody ever dies for refusing to cooperate with taxation!" Not counting, I suppose, all the people who have been killed over "taxation".

An earlier comment directed at me, to drive home this point, had been about Person A being given a magical alien device that cured everything, and keeping it to himself. The commenter claimed that Person B would be justified in going to Person A's house and taking the device-- killing Person A if that's what it took-- for the good of society. I disagreed.

Because I disagreed, he said I confuse disagreement with resistance. Which to me doesn't even make sense. The commenter deleted this comment so it wouldn't show up, but I got the notification and read it anyway.

I just hope this guy doesn't imagine he's on the side of liberty (it was an anti-libertarian post, so probably not).

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Obedience isn't the ethical choice

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 2, 2022)

Here's something you probably don't hear every day: I dislike obedience. Obedience is not something to be encouraged or celebrated; it's one of the most dangerous human traits there is. Obedient people have caused far more problems than rebels. It's not even close.

The Holocaust can be laid directly at the feet of obedient people-- including people who weren't otherwise bad, but who were obedient. It wasn't only the Nazis and those who enabled them, their victims were also too obedient.

You may think that's a rare case; surely obedience is usually better than disobedience. You'd be wrong. It may seem safe to obey someone today, but their next order might be evil. If you get in the habit of obeying you may not stop to think before you obey the wrong order.

The tendency to follow orders is still a source of trouble, especially among government employees who ought to know better than to obey orders which are unethical and in many cases, prohibited by the Constitution. Yet, obedient employees lack the backbone to refuse when their paychecks, or even their freedom, depend on obeying bad policies.

It takes courage to disobey, especially when the one giving orders has the power to hurt you. Obedience is the cowardly course, but it could be seen as pragmatic when you believe there's no alternative.

Refusing to obey is dangerous in direct proportion to how evil the one giving the orders is. Even in this case, obeying will probably be worse for everyone in the long run. Doing the right thing when ordered to do otherwise might cost you. It's worth it even if you don't see it yet.

I have no respect for anyone who is automatically obedient and great respect for those who disobey bad orders. I can even respect those who disobey and choose to do the wrong thing. They'll face consequences, and I wouldn't save them from themselves, but at least they weren't automatically obedient.

Don't demand obedience in the people you have power over. If you have a good argument for why someone should do what you want, make it. A threat to use violence against someone for not obeying you isn't an argument. It exposes you as an authoritarian. Demanding obedience usually means your argument is weak... if you have one at all.

As government gets more authoritarian, obedience to it becomes less ethical. Don't obey the bad guys.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

The Ford's Theater Solution could help Russians and Ukrainians

It's time for the Russian people to pursue The Ford's Theater Solution. That's never an unethical thing to do, even though it's forbidden by those who don't want to suffer the consequences for their evil actions.

Even some other high-level politicians are now suggesting this course of action, not quite understanding which side of the divide they are actually on.

Of course, once the solution has been successfully implemented, the Russian people would need to make sure some other political criminal doesn't take the office, or they'll be back in the same position again. Learn the lesson!

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Stop fawning over your enemies

Gun owners-- or anyone who values liberty-- supporting the police is exactly like Jews in the cattle cars supporting the death camp guards. 

It makes me cringe to hear gun-owners' rights advocates go out of their way to express support for the only gang that will physically steal their guns and kill them if they resist.

Do what you want, but you're just helping your enemy enslave you (and me). By siding with the bad guys, or a specific subset of them anyway, you're standing against me.

Are you for natural human rights and liberty, or do you support the Ancestral Enemy's stormtroopers? You've already chosen your side.

(Why "defund the police" efforts are doomed to fail, as currently tried: Carefully crafted failure)

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Rebooting their brains

The next time I hear a "Constitutionalist" demanding border/"immigration" control from the feds, I'm going to use their go-to spiel against them.

They always say they are "not against immigration, just illegal immigration; immigrants need to do it legally, in accordance with the law".

OK.
So I'm going to say "I'm not against immigration control, just illegal immigration control; if they do it, they need to do it legally, in accordance with the Constitution-- they have to follow the process and pass a constitutional amendment making immigration control legal so they aren't breaking the law when they try to control the border and regulate immigration".

The same tactic could be used against anti-gun legislation, prohibition, or the existence of any of the "Alphabet soup" agencies. You want it, shut it down immediately-- within the hour-- then try to pass a constitutional amendment making it legal (to take effect in six months or a year after ratification, like they do with any liberty-enhancing legislation); one issue/agency per amendment, no blanket "all the agencies we have been operating up until now" nonsense-- or dissolve it permanently and give away any related agency's assets to the people it has harmed.

Of course, I actually am against "immigration" control and government borders and documents that establish a state and don't expire once all the original consenting parties are dead. I'm just trying to illustrate the silliness of their argument.

You can decide for yourself whether you feel it was wise or foolish to not include the power of "immigration"/border control in the Constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't allowed by the document. 

I'm also against government punishing people for defending their private property from trespassers of any kind-- including legislation enforcers and migrants. That includes the use of armed patrols, drones, and booby traps (all at the property owner's expense, of course). 

It's fun to watch the Constitutionalists' brains reboot-- something I've caused more than once over the years (even though the virus of statism always manages to reassert itself and erase any memory of the reboot-- it's like they have a "restore point" in their brains so as to avoid any new settings).

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Stop making excuses for your abuser

All political governments are evil. I don't support any of them. My sympathy is with the people who suffer because of things government does. 

One of the things government does is invade other lands and break stuff and kill people. This is evil

Yes, sometimes they claim it is in retaliation for some previous act or to prevent a future act, but I don't care. Don't ever invade ... anywhere. The previous act was probably retaliation for something done by the "victim" government, anyway. And stop antagonizing other people with your interference and control and maybe they won't have a reason to invade later.

All governments are my enemy and they can all go straight to the center of the Sun.

All of my sympathy is reserved for their victims-- on every side. The Russian people are suffering from the evil being committed by the Russian government just like the Ukrainian people are suffering from it, but the Ukrainian people also have the Ukrainian government to blame for getting them into this mess. Along with other governments and government organizations around the globe. Yes, including the US government.

Governments are a real problem.

My sympathy for some of the victims, however, is tempered by the realization that they tolerate government. Even work hard to keep it around or mold it into something they can use to saddle others. Where do they imagine this will lead? Wise up and leave your abuser, or be written off as a hopeless case.
.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

When your "advocate" is your worst enemy

You have the right to feel however you feel. Regardless of reality. You never have the right to bully others into going along with you, especially not through the threat of government violence.

I have the right to cosplay as a Klingon. I have the right to believe this is the true me. No one has the right (or the unlimited ability) to control someone else's mind.

However, I have no right to force you to address me as a Klingon or to force you to behave as though I really am one. Compelled speech is a forced lie.

A wise and kind person would advise me against having surgery or drug therapy in order to try to pass as Klingon since it wouldn't make it real.

If you feel you are "really" supposed to be the opposite sex (the incorrect-- but recently dictionary-approved-- use of the word "gender" in this context is intended to muddle the issue to keep people from thinking clearly about it) from what your biology is, a credible doctor who is on your side would try to help you heal by making your feelings align better with biological reality.

As an aside, I'll mention here that the adult men who say they feel they are women-- and have usually felt this way since their earliest childhood thoughts-- are a separate issue from the middle school girls who fall prey to the social contagion of declaring they are "trans". The same word is being used for two completely different phenomena. That's not the topic of this post but may be a topic for a different discussion.

If there's a biochemical reason that your feelings don't match your physical body, a good doctor would address that by helping your mind align with your body by correcting the imbalance as much as possible. A charlatan would encourage drug misuse and mutilation to try to make the body match the feelings, instead. Encouraging drugs and cutting to intensify the problem! This is going to fail most-- if not all-- of the time.

If you come to believe your healthy arm isn't really yours-- doesn't represent the "real you"-- no ethical doctor is going to cut it off. 

Just like a person suffering from anorexia, the problem is with the mind, not the body. If the mind is not treated correctly, and soon enough, the problem will cause irreversible damage to the body. Problems caused by "medical" intervention, in this case.

If you go to the doctor with a simple greenstick fracture and this doctor suggests fixing it requires making it into a compound fracture, you're dealing with a charlatan, Get away as fast as you can. Real friends would help you escape that doctor's influence, not encourage you to follow the "doctor's" advice, even if it sounds like what you want to hear. That's what a doctor who suggests drug misuse and body mutilation as a remedy for misaligned feelings and biology is. A charlatan. Not on your side, but your enemy. Even if that is what you want to hear.

Most of the affected girls still act in completely "girlish" ways in the way they try to act more like they think boys would act, even while claiming offense at their (incorrect) pronouns not being respected. This phenomenon is a very female thing, even as they fight against being female. 

It's not even so much that many of them want to be boys, they just don't want to be girls-- and especially don't want to be women. How has this happened? I have hypotheses relating to the blanket condemnation of "sexualizing" women, but that's just my suspicion-- I may be wrong.

Whatever caused it, it is what it is. How to help them? Not through the encouragement of drug misuse and deep "cutting" resulting in mutilation.

If a friend is suffering from anorexia, you don't cheer for every pound lost. A friend won't encourage someone suffering from "cutting" to continue to express themselves by putting knife to skin. And yet, "advocates" do encourage young girls to harm themselves if they "feel" they are "really" boys. I don't hate the victims, but I do hate these dangerous "advocates". They are sick.

Because no matter what drugs these girls are put on, or what mutilation they endure, every cell of their body will forever scream "Female!", causing them more problems. Problems only heightened by the drug misuse and mutilation they sought help to find. You don't fix a simple greenstick fracture by making it into a compound fracture.

This post will be called "hate" or "transphobia" by some people. That's as ridiculous as it is predictable. 

If I hated them, I would tell them what they want to hear and encourage them to act on these feelings. Like their "advocates" do. That I'm willing to speak up in spite of the hate this kind of honest speech attracts shows the depth of my love and concern. I am not their enemy; their "advocates" are.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

As in almost every case, in every country, the ruler is the enemy of the people and a threat to their well-being. The first step to recovery is always to neutralize the threat. If the Russian people get smart and take out Putin for self-preservation, then withdraw every invader from Ukraine, they should be allowed to go on with life and try to rebuild their country and economy without interference. 

"Civilian" = "Anyone not in our special club; lesser beings". "You people"/"Those people".
It didn't mean that in earlier times.

Common enough to be immune from bans

If everyone, every household at least, in the 1920s and '30s had owned a full-auto Tommy Gun or something similar, would government have still banned them? Or tried? (I know, technically it wasn't a "ban", just a prohibitive "tax" and harsh penalties.) I doubt it would have had the guts (or the guns) to do so.

I think there's a point where a thing is just too common for government to try to ban. It would affect too much of the population and just make people mad and non-compliant. Which might spread to other things.

Eighty-percent receivers and pistol braces and lightning links aren't common enough, and that's a shame. It emboldens the political criminals because who's going to stand up for that minority?

If I could afford to get one of each, just to have them, I'd do it. Just because.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

COVID-19 not worth shutting down over

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 26, 2022)

As I write this I am wrapping up my own adventure with Covid-19. It didn't feel good, but it was nothing worth destroying the economy over. It was not worth any mandates, shutdowns, or other government overreaches.

When I think back on the worst illnesses or injuries in my life, this doesn't even make the top 100 list. Even those experiences in the top ten wouldn't convince me to violate your liberty in the tiniest degree to avoid them. If they could even be avoided by violating you, which is unlikely.

Your liberty and your natural rights matter more to me than comfort or convenience. They matter more to me than the risk of death.

Your experience might differ and you might disagree. It's a matter of values and priorities. Liberty is my priority. I'm willing to suffer and fight for your liberty, even if you don't appreciate it.

Now that the pandemic is over and Covid is endemic, it's just one of the various coronaviruses people will get regularly, regardless of any vaccines. Everyone will catch this, and new variants will arise constantly so you can catch it again. No one in the public will care what name is given to each new variant. For that matter, I doubt anyone outside scientific specialties or the fear industry will continue to care whether their cold is Covid, some other coronavirus, or a rhinovirus. You'll get sick, push through, and get on with life. This is simply how these things work.

Or, it's how it used to work before government decided to see what it could get away with and what people would tolerate. We tried this new way, and it was a circus of destruction. Time to toss it, and the political criminals who pushed it, on the garbage heap of mistakes never to be repeated.

Life can never be without risk. Trying to remove all the risk from life is too risky. The smarter plan is to figure out how to live with the risk.

Imagine if we allowed government to shut down our lives over every cold or flu virus. We'd soon sink into a new Dark Age. Some people would apparently like this to happen. Most of us wouldn't. It's time to stop listening to the fearmongers and authoritarian monsters. It's long past time to end the mandates they pretend can change the reality of common illnesses. It's time to get on with life.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

I am opposed to government trying to control "immigration".
I am opposed to government importing refugees.
I am opposed to government punishing people for defending their property, including by shooting trespassers.

Independent American States of the future

When Texas secedes, it will still be completely American, just no longer part of the United States of America. 

At that point, there will be The United States of America and The Independent American State of Texas, even if it's officially The Republic of Texas or something. 

Both would be "America" (with Texas arguably being the more American of the two) but no longer united under one political government.

This could still be the case if every state seceded but one. Imagine if only New Jersey and Maryland (to pick two examples of stubborn statist regions) remained in the United States of America (the two united states) with every other state being an independent state of America. 

Obviously, I'm opposed to states of any sort, but I'm still in favor of secession every time (including Ukraine). Right down to the level of the individual. Thoughts of secession make me smile and I hate unification.

  

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

Sue the pants off the liars, Kyle

I'm glad Kyle Rittenhouse plans to sue the media corporations who lied about him. I hope he wins. Did I also see he plans to sue political criminals who did the same? I hope that was correct and that he wins those, too. Political criminals need to be sued frequently and they need to lose every time they are in the wrong.

I believe in freedom of speech. That doesn't mean I believe there should be no consequences for lying. I'd much rather see the target of the lies sue than trust the liars of government to penalize media liars. Suing liars protects freedom of speech in a way that government is unable and unwilling to do. It's just a shame we are still saddled with non-credible government courts for such suits. Corporate media, including the fakenews industry, and political government are more likely to cover for each other's crimes than not.

The corporate media and political criminals did lie about Rittenhouse and the events that evening. Over and over again. I read many of those lies and knew they were lies as I read them. Other lies I probably didn't recognize as lies. But the target knows.

The w0ke will never accept the truth, even if Kyle wins his suits and even if the corporate fakenews reports the facts straight. But there needs to be a price for being professional liars and causing harm to the targets of those lies.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Disguised as one of "them"

There's a good argument for being the "gray man" in any TSHTF situation. You don't want to attract raiders or authoritarian attention. 

Personally, I've never been able to blend in-- never at any point in my life, even when I tried really hard and even when I disguised myself to look like everyone else. Apparently, I can't act like the crowd and I always end up saying or doing something that makes people suddenly stop and stare. I speak from experience. (I accidentally stumbled across something that did work-- maybe I'll discuss that another time.)

But, I agree that being the "gray man" is better. I even have a "gray man" costume set aside for such emergencies. 

This train of thought brought a distasteful question to my mind: When TSHTF should you get in line for government food handouts to avoid drawing attention to your preps and so your preps will outlast those relying only on handouts? 

If people notice you aren't going for handouts, will they put two and two together and raid you? Of course, it's harder to notice the person who isn't there when "everyone" else is, but don't count on no one noticing.

Also, the handouts will run out at some point, and you don't want that to be around the same time that your stockpile runs out. If you can just outlast the xombie hordes your chances improve a lot.

If you also accept the handouts, once they stop you'll still have all your stockpile to live on.

This assumes the handouts aren't drugged, don't come with (other) non-negotiable strings attached, or that you won't let yourself become dependent. Those are all risks you'd have to weigh in your decision.

I'm not recommending this tactic. I probably wouldn't do it even if I thought it was smarter than the alternative. It's just something to think about and another piece of the survival puzzle.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!

It's only government overreach if the people do something substantive about it. Otherwise, it's just the new normal.

The unintended consequence of penalties

Many years ago (in a comment on a website) I pointed out that if the penalty for "getting caught" with a semi-automatic rifle was similar to the penalty for "getting caught" with a full-auto, then more people are going to just go ahead and own (and use) the full-auto weapons. Other than the price of ammo, what's the downside?

Years later, someone I respect wrote and told me how my observation had changed his perspective on the topic.

Well, we're there again.

If the penalty for disagreeing with government is similar to the penalty for actually fighting for liberty (the political criminals will call it "terrorism") then why participate in peaceful, civilized protests? Why not just start decorating lampposts? 

Canadians just missed their opportunity to show the world the way. I wish they had matched the escalation of the tyrannical Canadian government. But that's easy for me, who's not in Canada, to say. I'm not the one who'd have to live with the consequences. It's still a bit disappointing. 

If it's not time, it may already be too late.

-

If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.

Learnin' stuff

I guess the experiment worked. I learned something, anyway.

It appears GFM doesn't care about little crowdfunding campaigns that get no donations, so they didn't delete my ambiguously worded gun-funding campaign. I kind of figured they'd still notice anyway, but they must not have. I wonder what the donation threshold is before they notice-- I can safely assume it's somewhere between zero and $9 million.

And GiveSendGo didn't delete the one on their site, either. Not even after I edited to more clearly say it is for a gun purchase. Again, since it didn't get any donations, maybe it never came up on their radar. I'm more surprised that one didn't get any donations since I thought a more conservative audience might be sympathetic to the cause. But if they don't see it, they can't care and won't donate.

Of course, I also didn't push them as hard as I push campaigns for actual needs.

I haven't decided whether or not to leave them up. It's not hurting anything, so there's no rush to delete them as long as they haven't been flagged. I may share each one on FB one more time to see if anything happens, but after that just forget about them. It seems that's not a way to raise money for a gun. I suppose GFM (and Micheal Bloomberg) would be happy about that.

-

Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.

I really, truly appreciate it!