Letting the terrorists define "terrorist"

And it's only gotten worse since 2012

It's telling that pro-liberty has become (to the "mainstream", anyway) synonymous with "anti-government". What this tells me is that government (and pro-government) is anti-liberty.

I believe this has always been the case; some believe there can be a pro-liberty political government.

In recent years government has tried hard to paint everyone who opposes its tyranny as a potential, or active, domestic terrorist. This is a lie.

Government is the domestic terrorist cell. It is the terrorism threat-- the biggest one and the only one any of us is likely to encounter. They try to point the finger elsewhere, at things that aren't a fraction of the threat they themselves pose. 

And why wouldn't they? They can get away with it because they define the crime.

Anyone who supports government is an enemy of liberty.

Not all governments employees are equally bad, though.

There's a difference between a librarian at the public [sic] library and the scum that works for BATFEces. Yes, both live on stolen money, but the librarian provides a service the market would otherwise provide while the BATFEces trash doesn't. Eliminate the state and there will probably still be libraries (of some sort) with librarians, but there would be no BATFEces anymore. 

Libraries serve people, BATFEces serves only the political criminals who believe they own you. Librarians aren't domestic terrorists just by existing, BATFEces employees are. That's a monumental difference.

-

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

Know who I don't trust?

I don't trust government with my health, my safety, my security, my liberty, my property, my money, my information... nothing. 

That's because I don't trust government-- the state-- ever, with anything. I don't consider it legitimate. It's not credible. It is criminal. 

Why would I trust it or depend on it to do things right? I can't think of a reason, either.

-

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

The Constitution's biggest mistake

I was talking to someone a while back and they were complaining that government doesn't obey the Constitution. Of course, this person is anti-"illegal immigration" and I pointed out that this, too, goes against what the Constitution allows government to do. Surprisingly, I didn't get any pushback on this. For once.

Anyway, I said that the only thing that might have saved the Constitution would have been a clause that specified that killing politicians for any reason would never be a crime and could never be punished, and which could never be rescinded without invalidating the whole document (and thus abolishing the "Union"). This shocked her, but she didn't disagree. (I mentioned this same idea in a recent reply to a comment to another post.)

Blaming our forbears for not "defending" the Constitution well enough is just silly. 

Letting government decide what's "constitutional" or not was doomed to fail-- it is always going to keep moving in the direction of more power for itself. It's always going to criminalize anything that would be effective at stopping this development.

There would have had to be a remedy that was beyond the reach of government. One that was in the hands of each and every individual; up to one person, not to the majority.

Would that have been enough? Would it have at least been better? I don't know, but it's the only thing that might have worked. The founders failed to include that, and here we are. It's too late now.

-

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

Can't join Libertarian party, either

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 5, 2022)

I'm libertarian, uncapitalized, to separate the ethical philosophy I follow from the political party I can't.

A Libertarian, capitalized, is a member of the Libertarian Party.

Ethical libertarianism is based on the recognition that no one has the right to use-- or threaten-- violence, personally or politically, against anyone who isn't currently violating the life, liberty, or property of another. This is the guiding principle which distinguishes a libertarian from anyone else. Follow it and you're libertarian, don't and you're not.

"Classical liberals", who believe in the legitimacy of a "night watchman" state, sometimes refer to themselves as libertarians. They want a government to claim a monopoly of force and run institutions and services too important for government to be running. This is closer to what the Libertarian Party appears to stand for, but it isn't for me.

The Libertarian Party seems to value "smaller government" over liberty or any guiding principle.

Many Libertarian Party members are confused about why more libertarians won't support their party.

Maybe I would if they were more libertarian. I was once, for a year or so, a member of the Libertarian Party. I couldn't stay with the party because they didn't seem very libertarian and were too political. The politics seemed more important to them than being libertarian; so important they kept nominating candidates with completely anti-liberty positions. They probably did this because those candidates seemed more electable. I felt they ignored libertarianism for a chance to sit at the government table with Democrats and Republicans. If that's what matters to them, they can do it without me.

A half-joking description of political Libertarians goes, "Libertarians; plotting to take over the world and leave you alone". Yet some people are scared to be left alone, wanting to be told how to live, and they are going to see this as a threat. A more libertarian approach might say "Plotting to keep anyone from taking over the world so you can live life as you see fit". As long as you don't violate others.

I don't support politics of any sort. I understand the appeal of winning political office, if only to keep someone worse from getting the power. I don't see any benefit in gaining the office if you betrayed your principles to win. If you're going to act like the people you replaced, why bother? Unless it's only about the power.

Also: Why I can't be a conservative, and Why I can't be a liberal

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

I could sure use some monetary influx.

Reality and truth are the enemies of w0keness. But w0keness doesn't worry either of them at all.

Choose: prosperity or government

It's gotten to the point where you're going to have to make a choice-- do you want to keep supporting political government or do you want America (or any place where you live) to enjoy prosperity?

Political government is a drain. It's a millstone around your neck; shackles on your hands and feet.

It's expensive to fund and it destroys prosperity wherever it exists. It gets in the way of trade and still demands a cut of every trade you manage to make in spite of its interference. It steals your property to fund gangs who claim to protect your property. It enslaves and molests and calls this "freedom" and "security". It picks fights and then forces you to die in its place. 

It's a parasite posing as the host.

Enough!

Wouldn't you rather build up your society instead of letting government tear it down? I know I would.

-

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

The freak show

Social media is a freak show.

Sure, it's probably always been one, but it only seems worse now. 

I don't have TikTok, but have recently been "treated" to some of its "amazing" content by others. Largely it seems to be a contest to see who can act the most mentally ill to attract views. People actually watch these "content creators" nap, eat, or suck on a baby bottle.

On second thought, it may be that the worse mental issues are on the viewer's side of the screen.

Suddenly girls selling bodily gases in jars almost seems noble.

And I thought Facebook was dumb! (Well, it is, but by comparison, it looks sophisticated and intelligent.)

But, whatever. It's not breaking my leg or picking my pocket. I'm not being forced to participate or fund it. I'm just observing the situation... and backing away slowly.

By avoiding such things as much as possible, I'm gaining an advantage over those pulled in by the time-wasting sites. At least it makes me feel better about myself.

-

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

Criminals on a crime spree-- BATFEces spins out of control

Crime, real crime, is an action that violates life, liberty, or property. Sometimes these actions also violate legislation, not that this matters. Of course, that irrelevant bit is the only part government-- a gang of criminals-- cares about.

Any government making up or enforcing any rules concerning weapons is crime.

The BATFE (they like to be known as the "ATF") is a gang of criminals, founded by another gang of criminals-- in direct violation of that gang's charter-- to commit crimes against gun owners. Their very existence is a crime, and every act they commit is another crime.

Now, this gang of criminals is raiding Amish dairy farms, kidnapping YouTubers, and kidnapping people over little sheets of metal that these goons dishonestly call a machine gun. This reminds me of when these criminals declared shoelaces to be machine guns in an earlier era. Stupid, or just evil? Even if they were machine guns, enforcing any government policy against them-- or any weapon-- is a crime. 

It has also recently been discovered that this gang of criminals is keeping records-- in clear violation of the laws which apply to their actions-- of something like a billion guns (and thus, the owners of those guns). If you ever imagined they weren't keeping track, you're vulnerable to sleazy bridge salesmen.

No good person would work for this gang UNLESS it was as a mole, working diligently to destroy every record they could get their hands on and otherwise saving people from the clutches of the gang. 

The BATFEces needs to be flushed away. Their criminal task not reassigned to anyone else, but abolished, and all records shredded, burned, along with all their computers, which should be ground into dust along with their charred bones. Why would anyone tolerate the existence of this criminal gang?

-

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

Hey Canadians, "Time's Up" is for everyone

Recent events have demonstrated the stunning evil of the government-supremacists, and the depth of their lies.

Some such losers on Reddit were celebrating a truck driver being fired for draping a "right-wing terrorist flag" on his company truck. Because those Reddit losers are so w0ke and informed and all. 

A "listed terrorist entity"? Listed by whom? The Southern Poverty-pushing "Law" Center? LOL!! Zero credibility there.

It was only a "Three-percenter" flag. I disagree with the statism of many (or most) of the Threepers, but they aren't terrorists. (I accept that they might terrorize cowardly Left-Statists, though. But what opposition wouldn't?) I even incorporated the "III"-- with the permission of the originator-- into my proposed coin design that never got off the ground. 

This "terrorist" characterization is a lie just like the dangerous lie about Oathkeepers, another group I fundamentally disagree with, but which I won't lie about for Social Credit points.

I understand that a trucking company has the right to employ whomever it wants, and can prohibit any signs or flags on its trucks. Yes, they are jerks for firing the driver regardless, especially if they allow pro-tyranny designs, but whatever.

Anyway, I got to thinking: Time's Up flags would work just as well for liberty-hungry Canadians. I know the Gadsden flag isn't really part of their history, but this one could be. It applies everywhere, regardless of which authoritarians are trying to stamp out liberty.

Sure, if the corporate media or Left-Statist liars ever discovered the design it would get called "right-wing" and a "terrorist flag" too. Those liars can't think outside of their box, so would be desperate to categorize it in a way that makes sense in their hallucination, no matter how wrong they are. So in a way, I'm glad the design never got famous, even though it has had some close calls over the years. This way it can still have some utility without the baggage.

-

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

Bits and pieces-- Bad neighbors, Neil Young, and Canadian Truckers

Bad neighbors: There are two neighboring households I'd like to feed to the wolves. One can't be bothered to get their trash in the dumpster. Often doesn't even put it in bags, so that it blows around. They also toss in trash cans full of used toilet paper(!), so you can imagine my joy at that blowing around. The other trespasses regularly, just walking through my yard right past the "No trespassing" sign. When they were moving in, they actually parked their cars in my yard. And their visitors-- of which there are many since they often have large gatherings-- park and partly block my driveway for entire days. I've tried being nice and I've also been reduced to telling them to stay out of my yard. No effect. I've also watched them throw fast food bags from their vehicles into my yard. They are just the worst. Thank goodness for the one neighbor who doesn't do anything like these others, but who is nice, respectful, and helpful.

Neil Young: In my opinion, he's a piece of trash, just like anyone who demands censorship (or like my bad neighbors). As far as I know, I've never listened to one of his songs. The only thing I know of him I heard in the song Sweet Home Alabama, which gave me a negative impression of him that has stuck. It looks like he's been doing this sort of thing for many decades. I'm always going to side against the person who says "Do what I demand or I'm taking my toys and going home". All he did by making this demand was make my impression of him even more negative than it was before. I don't need him around, anyhow.

Canadian truckers: How is it "fascist" to demand an end to fascism? Well, that's what it is according to the Covidians and government-supremacists. I'm never in favor of a protest getting in the way of normal people who are just trying to go about their lives. But, in this case, the truckers are trying to stop others from getting in the way of normal people trying to go about their lives, so it's a little fuzzier than usual. And I always hate the control freaks a little extra. See the above about Neil Young.

-

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

For your tool kit

I don't know if you've ever run across it, but I recently found the videos by Academy of Ideas, and all of the ones I've watched so far are excellent. Here's an example: Why We Can't Vote Our Way to Freedom (They are also on Vimeo)

I wasn't familiar with this group/individual/academy before I ran across a video from them a week or so back. Maybe you already knew about them.

It's another tool to place in your kit, alongside TOLFA and (I hope) my blog. Take advantage of it.

-

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

Politics divides

There's a primary election coming up locally. So, there are yard signs popping up like statist toadstools.

This time, there's a twist. You can tell the ethnicity of the political addicts with yard signs by which of the two candidates they are supporting. I also heard someone refer to one of the candidates as "that Mexican". So politics magnifies the problems that already exist-- and how could they not, considering the coercive nature of the ritual?

Politics is just sick. I don't need either of those political criminals to have any power over me.

-

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

Can't call myself a political liberal

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for December 29, 2021)

Once upon a time, the word "liberal" was used to describe people who were "generous", "open-minded", and "accepting of other opinions". It was closely related to the word "liberty". This description no longer applies to political liberals. Describing their backward-thinking as "progressive" or their nightmarish denial of reality as "woke" is equally ridiculous.

This doesn't mean they are always wrong. I agree that everyone has value, but their value has nothing to do with superficial features like sex, race, or ethnicity. They have value because they are human.

I don't agree that historical wrongdoing justifies punishment today. Slavery in our ancestors' day doesn't justify slavery today; calling it "reparations" or "social justice" doesn't change anything.

I agree that drug prohibition is wrong. Drug abuse is stupid, but prohibition is evil. This doesn't mean I am responsible for protecting drug abusers from the consequences of their actions. I am not obligated to pay for their drugs, their needles, their healthcare, or the basic needs they can no longer provide for themselves because of their drug abuse. Nor am I obligated to tolerate my rights being violated because of their choices.

Political liberals seem to not understand: if you shelter people from the consequences of their mistakes they won't learn to avoid mistakes. You get more of anything you encourage.

If you prohibit people from defending themselves with effective tools, you'll encourage more people to commit crimes. Defunding the police wouldn't be a problem if people weren't forbidden to defend themselves (and others). It's not about police, it's about all consequences.

Political liberals today are very defensive of democracy. Yet, democracy is nothing more than mob rule; might (through superior numbers) makes right. The mob gets to decide what rights you are allowed to exercise. This isn't a workable system.

This is why I can't be what is called a "classical liberal" either; I can't believe in the right, or political authority, to govern others. Even if the governing is done lightly, it's still beyond what anyone has a right to do. You have the right to govern yourself, but no one else. Democracy or a constitutional republic can't create this right out of thin air.

So, while I am generous, open-minded, and accepting, and I value liberty above everything, I can't be politically liberal; I understand people too well. Maybe someday liberals will become truly liberal and we can then be on the same side.

-

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com

No need to believe in it

I don't "believe in" liberty. 

Like gravity, it just is; there's no need to believe in it. It also-- like gravity-- won't stop being true if you deny it.

That's how reality works.

-

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

They are out there. Somewhere.

Just when I was starting to wonder whether it was worth the effort to keep writing the weekly newspaper column, I got a lot of positive feedback this week. The timing was good.

One was about an apparent reprint of last week's column in the Roswell Daily Record, which I wasn't aware ever printed my columns, and which I can't find in a search. But I got a supportive note from a reader there who said that's where they read it, so it seems it was in there somewhere.

I even got a nice note from someone who was just passing through the area on their way back to Minnesota when they encountered my column-- so that was kind of cool.

Sometimes it seems so pointless to keep writing about liberty as authoritarianism and tyranny rage out of control in this country. Seeing the criminal acts being committed right now by the BATFEces thugs who just make up rules as they see fit while pretending their victims are the criminals has just about pushed me over the edge. So, it's good to see that not everyone is a cowardly government-supremacist. There are still some people out in the wild who "get it". Let's help them spread and multiply.

-

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

Give 'em a canteen of air... maybe

Governments are a threat to life, liberty, and property. But especially to life.

Now governments on the other side of the world are posturing to fight, and the criminal government closer to home feels the need to get involved. To make me less safe, and poorer, just so it can assert its dominance.

I would put all these political jerks in a rocket and strand them on the moon to fight it out. I might even let them have a canteen of air if they begged.

I hate every political criminal on the planet. I hate that they exist, that they continue to live at our expense, and that they feel entitled to rule the rest of us. I really, honestly, without reservation, wish death on every single one of them. From presidents and prime ministers to lowly bureaucrats, tax agents, and ATF thugs. And the FAA.

The world would be better off without them taking up space and molesting the rest of us.

-

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

A New York liar lies.

No, you authoritarian scumsucker, there is no such thing as an "illegal gun"-- there is illegal gun legislation. ALL of it, in fact.

That makes those enforcing it or invoking it-- like YOU did-- the real criminals. Anti-gun bigots are exactly as evil as bad guys who shoot people who aren't currently violating anyone.

It irritates me when liars call any object-- or person-- "illegal". Calling an object or a person "illegal" doesn't magically make it true. Objects can be used to do crime. People can do crime. But the object or person can't be "illegal", and any "laws" declaring them so are, themselves, the real crime.

-

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

If I could clone a dinosaur, I would clone a Tyrannosaurus rex, but engineer it to have big, muscular front legs just to see if that makes it the supreme creature on Earth. Maybe those tiny arms were holding it back. I'd release it in one of those authoritarian stinkpits-- Washington DC, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Austin, etc. so as to minimize any damage to society.

The military is not liberty's friend

The military is not on your side. It is there to protect your Ancestral Enemy, the state. It will defend them from foreign threats, but also from you.

The military doesn't defend your freedom. The only freedom it defends is the freedom of political criminals to continue violating you.

Every time the state's interests and your rights clash, the military will take the side of the state-- that's who controls it and signs its checks.

People who were once in the military, but who have escaped the brainwashing, may be on your side. They aren't going to be defending the military.

-

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

If you can and if you want to

I've tried to avoid rattling the tin cup, but it's necessary.

If you can and if you want to, please consider tossing something in. Thanks.

-