Don't be puppet for government

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for October 1, 2025)

If you change your behavior strictly because of what someone you dislike thinks you should or shouldn't do, you are their puppet.

Last week, when government came out with the cautionary advice to not take Tylenol (Acetaminophen) during pregnancy- advice which actually agrees completely with Tylenol's published advice- there were reports of pregnant women on the political Left going against this advice and taking the medicine to spite Robert Kennedy Jr. and President Trump. Some made videos of their act of defiance, just to do the opposite of what the current regime told them they probably shouldn't do.

Again, advice that Tylenol's manufacturer has been giving for years.

That's not rational behavior.

I've also seen people on the political Right do dumb things as a reaction just because the Democrats in power advised them against doing it. Or mandated them to do it.

I knew someone who littered because the "environmentalists" on the Left told her not to. Truthfully, I've known two people who did this- and I picked up after them when I could, because I'm not an irresponsible idiot who is easily manipulated by politics. It's not smart to soil your own nest, even if someone you dislike tells you it's a bad idea.

There are people on the Right who now refuse any vaccinations just because the sketchy Covid shots made vaccinations a Democrat virtue.

This is no more rational than what the Left was apparently doing last week. Truth is truth, no matter who says it.

Long ago, someone pointed out to me that if I alter my behavior for no reason but to defy someone, they are controlling me as surely as if I were obeying their every command. I don't want to be a puppet.

Wouldn't you feel stupid if you ended up damaging your health, the health of your child, or costing yourself extra money simply because you wanted to do the opposite of what some politician told you?

It's smarter to weigh everything someone tells you to do. If it makes sense and is good for you, do it. If it seems like it would be bad for you, do something else. Check with sources you trust- the less political, the better. You might even be wrong sometimes. Make your choices and accept the consequences. Never put yourself in danger for no better reason than to figuratively spit in the face of a politician. Be smarter. Think for yourself.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"... similar to Communism in how it ignores reality"

Statists love to equate libertarianism and anarchism with communism. They believe this comparison gives them an automatic win. Far from it.

Some guy got upset that I said "ALL government is The Ancestral Enemy" (in response to an eye-patched political criminal). He thought he had squeezed out a gotcha with his quip that "Libertarianism is anarchy with extra steps", and went on to try to associate it with communism, as they so often try to do.

I asked him to explain. This was his attempt.

"When you decentralize a society and implement what is de facto mob rule, you will always have chaos and crime. Libertarian principles will never save the day, because order must be enforced. The solution is centralized authority, which is why it always comes back in the end."

That's an awful lot of straw men and assumptions in one paragraph.

Let me break it down bit by bit.

"When you decentralize a society and implement what is de facto mob rule, you will always have chaos and crime."

How odd that he believes decentralization is "de facto mob rule". What, like v*ting leads to? He's the one promoting someone ruling others, not me. I want everyone to rule himself. I know some wouldn't, just like they don't under government now. There's an ethical solution to that: defense of life, liberty, and property from all violators.

No matter what, there will always be chaos and crime. Always. Regardless of the "system" you implement. I've never seen an example of a government that doesn't have (or promote) chaos and crime. Not one. An argument that fails this hard shouldn't keep being dredged up. But it's one of their favorites, so they can't let it go. I’ve never heard of even one libertarian who expected liberty to result in Utopia; this is strictly something statists demand of it. And something they would never expect of their own “system “.

"Libertarian principles will never save the day, because order must be enforced."

Non sequitur, and it's wrong anyway.

Libertarian principles save the day all the time. Without them, there's no such thing as society. They provide just the right amount of order- not too much and not too little. 
They work for me every day, in every way. I've never encountered a situation that could be improved by violating libertarian principles.

Do they make life perfect? No. Nothing does. Including government. This is an attempt to excuse violating others just because the alternative you don't like isn't perfect.

Some order must be enforced, yes. Within limits. Too much order is just as deadly as too little. There is a balance, and that balance is anarchy- or libertarianism, if you prefer. Why does he believe a criminal organization that exempts its members from the rules it imposes on the rest of us is the proper way to enforce order? Why is he so addicted to order? It is each individual's responsibility to protect life, liberty, and property- to enforce ethical order. That statists try to abdicate this responsibility to government doesn't change anything. Not a single thing. 

"The solution is centralized authority, which is why it always comes back in the end."

That sounds an awful lot like the communism he was trying to smear libertarianism with. When I mentioned this, he claimed it is a "false equivalency".

"Authority" is The Most Dangerous Superstition. The reason it "comes back in the end" (or has so far) is that humans are superstitious and have been brainwashed to believe in it. But your superstitious beliefs don't obligate me. You do what you want, but I know your "authorities" are nothing more than criminals with a 12+ year indoctrination program to fool people into seeing them as something they aren't. You can't make me believe in the false legitimacy of the illegitimate, no matter how you try to frame it. Even if your thugs murder me, I know they are nothing but criminals.

It's amusing to me how often (like, every single time) their objections apply equally to the "system" they believe they are defending from scary liberty. Dolts.

It seems that they ignore reality to keep believing what they believe.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Space invaders

The right of association is an essential human right; this means you can exclude anyone from your space for any reason, or on a whim. Any "law" saying otherwise is a violation of your basic human rights.

It's a bad feeling to be excluded. I've experienced it and I didn't like it.

It doesn't matter.

People have a right to their exclusive spaces. They can base them on any criteria they choose, or it can be totally arbitrary, based on "I don't like how you look".

Those who have been excluded from some space have the right to establish their own spaces and exclude those who excluded them. Or not.

It doesn't bother me that I am not allowed in a women's dressing room or restroom. I can imagine an emergency situation where I might invade a women's restroom- but I would know I am doing something I have no right to do, and I would be as respectful and contrite as possible. I wouldn't act entitled, but I would be extremely apologetic. If someone punched me for being in there, I would deserve it.

If people of some particular "race" wish to have a club for only "their own people", I would respect that wish. Even if I really wanted to participate. If I liked their club idea, I might establish a similar club for myself and those who want to join- I can't imagine excluding anyone because of something as trivial as "race". Anyone who didn't enter and try to archate would probably be welcome. If they smelled really bad, I might ask them to address that issue before coming back- unless stinking was fundamental to the purpose of the club.

I have never understood those who want to invade other people's spaces. Why insist on being where you aren't welcome? So often, they then ruin those spaces, making them into something even they don't want to be a part of anymore. It's just dumb.

Respect the right of association. If you want to join, try to earn an invitation. If you can't, move on. You'll be OK.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Collectivist "thinking"

I’ve noticed an epidemic of collectivist hatred among too many people who otherwise appear to lean toward liberty. It’s their obsessive hatred of Jews. I'm running into this in places where it has no bearing on the topic; where it seems some ignorant people just feel the need to insert it everywhere, just so you'll see their opinion. Some openly advocate the discredited socialist swastika cult.

It’s wise to hate countries and governments, but not to nurture a blanket hatred of people who share nothing in common about their behavior. I hate behaviors, not generic people. Individuals' behaviors.

I dislike the Somalis who move to America and become politicians, not because they are from Somalia, but because I dislike politicians. Everywhere, no matter who they are or where they were born. Politicians aren't good people because they seek power over others. I am not anti-Somalic; I am pro-liberty.

It's the same with Jewish people. I dislike the ones who seek to rule others, whether as part of an Israeli government or as a US politician. Not because they are Jews, but because they are archators. Jewish people who aren't archators are perfectly fine by me. And that's the vast majority of them- the political element is a small minority of any group (other than the self-selected group comprised of politicians, bureaucrats, and other political parasites). They are the bad apples.

It's smart to be biased against individuals who violate others, and against individuals who choose to join a group based on violating others, but not based on their genes or accidents of birth. Actions are all that matter.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Food as a human right

To be clear:

• You have the right to hunt, gather, and grow your food. Any government rules that make this difficult or impossible violate your human right to acquire food.
• You have the right to barter or buy food from others who hunt, gather, or grow food. Any government rules that make this difficult or impossible violate your human right to acquire food.

Food is a human right. 

Having others provide you with food is not a human right. That’s slavery.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Obeying their lizard brain

I used to see welfare recipients as thieves, but I eventually came to see many of them as victims. They just don't know they are victims, or they imagine some other victimhood. 

Victims who'll blame those who aren't victimizing them when the handouts stop.

I blame those politicians and bureaucrats who steal and redistribute, not the saps who fall into the scam. I can't get too angry at people who are told, "Here's some free stuff- take it", for taking what they are offered. 

Part of this lies in my low estimation of the intelligence of the general population. 

Most people aren't aware enough to see it as a scam; they just hear "free stuff!" without the necessary awareness to realize there's no such thing as "free". Someone always pays, and there's a cost to the recipients, too.

The thieves who steal and redistribute are buying loyalty, and maybe even v*tes.
Those who receive the stolen money are only doing what their lizard brains tell them is good for them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Fatal involvement

The looming food stamp riots show one thing clearly: Government shouldn't be involved. In anything. It doesn't matter what the topic is.

Government shouldn't be involved in food distribution. When it is, look what happens.

That's not all, though.

Government shouldn't be involved in healthcare, justice, security, business/economy, money, making rules, education, transportation, arbitration, defense, or any of the other things government tries to involve itself in.
Even more dangerous are the things which government decides to enforce its artificial monopoly over.

Central planning is always a flop. Every time it is tried, it fails. If you believe it didn't fail in some instance, it's because government got involved in (and destroyed) education.

Also, I have no objection whatsoever to anyone decisively ending a food thief who believes they are entitled to the food in a store. That person can choose whether or not to be a thief, and if that's the choice they make, I have no pity when that choice has deadly consequences. There is ALWAYS a better option than theft.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Best to reject politics in all forms

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 24, 2025)

One of the main reasons I can't be conservative or "liberal"- Right or Left, Republican or Democrat- is that all of them trust government to some degree. I don't trust it because I can't.

They trust government with different issues; their specific degree of trust depends on which political party holds the most offices this week. I trust government with nothing- based on its actions, not its promises, and its perpetual failure to fulfill the bare minimum justification for government throughout history.

Each political faction also has areas where they doubt government, but I distrust it entirely- especially in critical matters like life, death, ethics, or natural rights. Handing those to government was a mistake.

They believe government can protect them from their fears: "immigrants", guns, disease, poverty, crime, or even their own mistakes. It can’t. It doesn’t try. Being controlled like livestock isn't safety, unless you believe the danger comes from predators outside the fences, while the biggest danger is from those planning to profit from your body and your labor without your consent. Not through mutually agreed-upon deals like civilized people would pursue, but by robbing you of the fruits of those consensual arrangements.

They believe government will provide for them. It won’t, not for long anyway, and always with a catch. Government can only give you what it takes, by force or threats, from others. That’s its nature, and it won’t change.

Government has an enduring history of violating rights.

Both of the mainstream factions push for government censorship against the other side. Either directly or through pressure on licensed platforms. Whichever side has the power uses it, and the other side screams in protest, pretending they didn't do the same when they had control. This is the best argument for abolishing obsolete agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); government has no business licensing anyone's rights.

The Left has become the most hateful side, but the Right's calls for censorship are wrong. It can sometimes feel good to make the other side play by the rules they've been using against you. On the other hand, Republicans Abraham Lincoln and Joseph McCarthy both had a hand in setting this censorship table long ago, and political people are going to do what political people do when given the opportunity.

This is why I reject politics entirely. Trusting government, no matter who’s in charge, is a dead end.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Need more evidence that communists are dumb or dishonest?

"Profit" is not a dirty word, nor is it wrong to make a profit. It’s the motivation to do things that are necessary, but that you might not choose to do otherwise. 

I ran across a dumb "meme" from a communist that said, "The only reason people go hungry... It's because food is grown to make profit instead of feeding people."

Yeah, commies don't understand how things work. It's why they are communists.

Profit from growing food? The horrors! But, that profit is the incentive that gets the farmer to make the effort to grow more food than his family needs. He works more so that others can eat; to feed many others! 

Growing food in quantity isn't a cheap endeavor. When I was a kid, I was amazed to find out just how much money went through my farmer relatives' hands- it didn't make them rich because they didn't keep it, but it was a huge amount that they took in and sent right back out to keep the farm going. That's capitalism in action.

This is why communism always results in starvation, sooner or later. And why the profit motive has reduced poverty and hunger to the lowest levels since humans made the agriculture mistake.

Commies prefer slavery, where people are forced to work, then hand their goods to others in exchange for what government believes is their "fair share" (after the parasitic government takes its prime cut). It never works. It isn't compassionate. It results in mass starvation, every time it is tried, so the lie that "The only reason people go hungry..." doesn't work for them. Communism results in far more hunger.

And it requires a police state to make sure no one "profits" and tries to keep their family alive "unfairly". Communism is barbaric.

I saw another post by an ignoramus (or maybe a troll) saying that farmers would be replaced by UberEats within 3 years. But why would someone go to the effort of delivering food and putting that wear and tear on their car and use the fuel, if they didn't get some profit to help support themselves? Even if food appeared by magic somewhere along the supply chain (which isn't a chain, but a cobweb) without anyone actually producing it, someone has to prepare it and deliver it. Or, maybe urbanites believe food appears in the delivery vehicle for no reason at all, other than that they ordered it.

Even if everything were free, you'd have to incentivize people to work to provide "everything". Unless you can find a way that playing video games or watching TikTok somehow powers robots that do all the work- but who's going to bother to invent, program, and manufacture those robots if they don't get anything extra from it? It doesn't work like that.

Profit isn't poison, it's the fuel that powers humans to do things they might not do otherwise.

Communists fail because they are lazy, ignorant slavers who refuse to accept reality and who don't understand human motivation.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Mamdani and foreign-born v*ters

I saw a graph showing the breakdown in v*ter support for Commie Mamdani in NYC. 

The vast majority of his support comes from foreign-born v*ters. 

This was used as an argument against foreign-born people being allowed to v*te in America. 

You know what my first thought was? Why is anyone allowed to impose a politician- of any stripe- on others? It's a bad idea, and it's unethical. If you tolerate such nonsense, this is what you'll get. Maybe not every time, but eventually.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Dangerous, entitled parasites

Have you seen the entitled morons complaining, “If I don't get my food stamps, I’ll just steal the food and nobody better try to stop me as I walk out the door!”

Then there are the people, some are store employees, who say they’ll look the other way, because "hunger" or "compassion". "It's Trump's fault!"

They are no better than the thieves.

This illustrates why handouts are a bad idea. Why it's a bad idea to even start feeding the wildlife. I understand why some would want to, but it isn't really helping most of them.

People get entitled. And they enslave themselves to whoever holds the purse. They are handing control over their life to people who don't actually care what happens to them. I addressed this 19 years ago in my post titled MountainMan wisdom.

They also get dangerous if the handouts get shut off.
Well, no store owner has to tolerate that nonsense.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

"I'll do whatever I want"

A year or so ago, the guy my daughter was seeing told me he was a libertarian. I tried to make sure he knew what the word meant, but it doesn't seem to have gotten through.

He also claimed to be "Punk". Desperate to distinguish himself from the crowd, as so many young people seem to be.

He has a distinguishing characteristic now. He got a tooth knocked out in a fight with my daughter's new boyfriend a few days ago, after stalking him and confronting him at home, just minutes after getting caught at our house and fleeing into the night.

Now the ex is threatening to shoot the new boyfriend. 

The new boyfriend (who has plenty of issues of his own) went to "the authorities" about the threat, and now he's in legal trouble for the fight, and the ex seems to be facing no consequences whatsoever. Typical.

The police chief supposedly said, "It's not my problem" when told about the threat.

Anyway...

I knew the ex didn't get what "libertarian" means, and that he didn't listen to a thing I said. Not that I'm surprised.

Libertarian doesn’t mean "I’ll do whatever I want", because it’s grounded in liberty- freedom tempered with responsibility. Claiming you're libertarian because you like the freedom to do whatever, but ignoring your responsibility to not archate, doesn't cut it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Hyperbolic Hillary

Oh, to be Hillary, the hyperbolic alcoholic (allegedly).

Could someone please "destroy" part of my house and build me an addition I'd enjoy? 

I'd really like an indoor (underground!) shooting range, just in case anyone is looking for ideas.

As for the White House, I have an idea what the entire facility could be better used for... if it's really my house. Hillary wouldn't lie about that, would she?

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Killing over opinions is depraved

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for September 17, 2025)

If you are on the side that believes it's justifiable to kill people over their opinions, you're on the bad side.

If your ideas are so fragile and empty that you'll resort to censorship or murder to prevent someone from continuing to dismantle them with reasoned debate, you've already lost. You've admitted you have no counterargument.

When you feel you have to silence the opposition with a bullet instead of presenting better ideas of your own, you've broadcast to the world that you have no better ideas. Even if the one you silenced was wrong. Especially if they were wrong.

It's why I'm a free speech absolutist: let the bad guys reveal themselves and their schemes openly. Those who resort to threats, intimidation, censorship, or murder in an attempt to silence their opposition do so because it's all they have.

I don't always agree with any individual. Not even fellow liberty lovers. As for the rest, some people have opinions I find repugnant. I don't need to kill them, even if I were so pathetic I thought it was acceptable, because I trust the strength of my arguments. Always.

Sometimes I'll choose not to engage in debate with someone because it's obvious they are simply reciting a script, completely devoid of thought. Anti-gun advocates are particularly prone to this nearly every time you engage with them. In this case, I may toy with them for a while, giving them enough rope to entangle themselves, realize their mistake, and run away. Or they may double down, which is even funnier.

If, during a debate, I realize the other person has a stronger argument with valid points, I will change my mind. I'd rather be on the right side than "win" an argument, even if it means adopting a new perspective. I'm never afraid to engage with those who disagree with me, as long as their disagreement remains civil.

I've received credible death threats over these columns. It's been a few years, but it raised my awareness of the risks involved in expressing opinions which some people- especially those radicalized into aggression by their influencers- despise. I'm completely empathetic to anyone who speaks out and gets unhinged people angry enough to act with aggression, either personally or by hiring someone to do it on their behalf.

Murdering a person over their opinions is vile; something only a depraved, evil loser would even think of doing.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

The opposite of pragmatism

The opposite of pragmatism isn't Utopianism, as so many pragmatism addicts want to pretend. You have to do what works, but within the limits of what you have a right to do. Deciding you're not going to violate others isn't "Utopian".

I hate those who justify evil on pragmatic grounds more than just about anyone.

I understand why they do it- evil frequently works, so it’s obviously “pragmatic”. But it’s still wrong. If your argument is for being pragmatic, without considering whether it's ethical or not, I'm not going to respect your opinion at all. Nor will I cooperate with your schemes.

Pragmatism of some sort is a nearly universal political trait. It forms the basis for justifying anything a politically minded person wants to justify. The only counterargument would be if this evil had never "worked" anywhere at any time. But of course it has. Archation "works", it's just unethical.

Museum robberies can get you the crown jewels.
A mugging can get you some money.
Killing someone will stop them from saying things you don't like- although this is less effective in the age of video recording.

Governing others, and extorting money from them, will fund "services".

But, it's wrong to do any of that. Doing it anyway makes you the bad guy- the real criminal, even if your criminal acts have been "legalized" by the criminal gang you work for.

Crime can be pragmatic if you've set up a system to make sure it "works" and no one can effectively opt out. It's still wrong.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Quite a pickle

The Left calls us "Far-Right Nazis" because we don’t go along with their insane authoritarianism, and the Right says we "only help Democrats" because we won’t v*te for their worst candidates and support their worst policies.

Neither has the self-awareness of a pickle.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

Foam weapons, plastic beads, and "Ron Swanson libertarians"

I used to be involved in "buckskinning"; recreating the pre-1840 mountain man Rocky Mountain fur trade era. I still hold it dear.

One big principle in that hobby- at least while in camp- is "no plastic" and nothing that is obviously anachronistic for that time period. Even things like cameras/phones and necessary medical equipment are supposed to be kept hidden or disguised in a period-correct manner. You couldn't wear a naugahyde fringed jacket and microfiber suede pants and expect to get any respect in camp.

That's why my eyeglasses were always an antique style. Plus, I just prefer the look and feel of the old stuff.

When I moved here, there were no local buckshinning groups. I'm much too broke to travel anymore, so I can't get to their rendezvous, and my tipi is damaged, plus my lodgepoles were stolen years ago.

So, I was looking for another hobby. 

I dabbled in the local SCA group a few years ago, and I had high hopes. It didn't work out. It just felt too fake for my tastes. Their focus wasn't on living, but fighting. And they used fake swords and plastic armor. I tried to get into it, but it just wasn't for me. 

There's nothing wrong with it, and if I hadn't been involved in buckskinning first, I might have fit in better.

It's the same feeling I get when I run across a "Ron Swanson libertarian"- someone's idea of what a libertarian might be, played by an actor, to seem libertarian to people who don’t understand the concept of being libertarian. 

I like the"Ron Swanson" character. He's funny, and I agree with him a lot of the time. On other things, he's just not libertarian (even if it's still funny).

Like a lot of the "libertarians" I see online. Some are just "conservatives" who prefer a little more liberty/less government in specific areas, and some are Leftists who lean a little bit toward liberty in some areas. But they seem to be wearing plastic armor and carrying foam weapons. They are giving a performance for an audience.

They may be sincere, and they are probably better than those who don't even make an effort, but they just feel too fake for my tastes. I rarely call them out, because I'd rather not alienate them. My hope is that they'll keep growing if given a chance. I also wonder how they'll ever have that chance if no one points out how off-course they are.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

No Kings-- no, not yours, either.

Just in case you imagine I'm giving "the Right" a pass recently, here's a list of some of the tyranny of the Right:

• Unconstitutional "border" enforcement and "immigrant" crackdowns.
• Anti-gun enforcement and trying hard to keep both the NFA and GCA, and all their unconstitutional crimes, intact and enforced.
• Supporting police, even when they enforce counterfeit "laws".
• Prohibition.
• Military bases in nearly every country on Earth.
• Taxing you for things they want.
• Governing others.

All these anti-liberty things are reprehensible, and I give their supporters no leeway whatsoever.

But, I'm not so stupid as to hallucinate that the only threat, the only "kings", are the rulers on the Right. That's just pathetic. I oppose their prospective kings, too.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

"Needs" or "Wants"- You don't necessarily know the difference

Anyone who argues “No one needs…” is just wrong.

Maybe no one needs a gold-plated AK-47. Some people might want one. (I don't, but some people undeniably do.)

If you only have what others say you need, you wouldn’t have a satisfying life. You could have all your biological needs met in a cage. Some people die from captivity regardless.

Everyone needs at least some of their wants met, too. Otherwise, I don’t think they can survive. They certainly won't thrive.

So to argue over whether something is a "want" or a "need" is dishonest. You don't know for sure what all the needs of another person may be-- especially not whether they'll survive if you deny them this mere "want".

No one is obligated to provide others with these wants (or needs), but everyone is obligated to stay out of your way as you provide them for yourself. Including not interfering with a background check if what you want is the gold-plated AK-47 that some people will say “No one needs”.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

The only real solution

When people discuss that troublesome region known as "The Middle East", one common debate is whether to pursue a "One State Solution" or a "Two State Solution" for the troublemakers of both sides.

Those plans are both wrong because the only sustainable solution is the No State Solution: No one gets to govern their neighbors or their enemies. States are the problem.

Will this result in regional peace? No, because the people in that area don't want peace. If they did, peace would be easily attainable. 

What it does is return aggression to a private matter between individuals. It removes any veil of legitimacy from either side in the conflict. Aggressors are just aggressors, with no justification.

If you, as an individual, wish to send your money or weapons to anyone over there, at your own expense, you should be free to do so. It is within your rights.

If you wish to buy a ticket and go there to fight against individuals you dislike, I'm not going to stop you. You may be the aggressor or the defender, but that's on you. No governments or political criminals, anywhere, for you to shift the blame to. Which is how I already see it anyway.

-

Thank you for reading.
I'm in need of some donations.