To have a bit of money for this weekend. I have things to do that a little extra money would make more pleasant.
Thanks.
(Update: I spent irresponsibly.)
Yet human sacrifice is absolutely foundational to statism.
Statism is built on war and legislation enforcement (which always results in death).
Statism requires that human rights-- liberty-- be treated as optional. Violating liberty kills innocent people.
Even that other pillar of statism-- property violation (taxation, property codes, zoning rules, eminent domain, etc.)-- sacrifices human life to prop up the failed cult of statism. When you violate property rights in any amount you damage the ability of people to stay alive. You're making the case that you value The State over human life.
Maybe the ancients and modern statists are right that human sacrifice is somehow necessary to keep society unified and functioning. If so, that's a strike against society, not a reason to embrace human sacrifice.
Statists have no grounds for feeling superior to Aztec priests ripping the hearts out of thousands of victims when they refuse to disavow statism and all its gory facets.
-
Part of me really hates to spend Bitcoin, I much prefer to HODL... but another part of me knows that spending it-- making it a useful medium of exchange-- is what will, in the long run, make it more likely to increase in value. Sitting on it doesn't do that.
It's kind of like hoarding ammunition and never "spending" any for shooting practice. It doesn't do you much good.
Back when I first got into Bitcoin, I spent some on silver. Multiple times. Now I look at the amount I spent on silver and realize it's as if I paid thousands of dollars per ounce. Ouch! I try not to think about it that way.
But back then my thinking was that if Bitcoin became worthless at least I'd have some silver to show for it. I suppose that's still true, even though I think the chance of Bitcoin becoming worthless-- short of a Carrington Event-- is tiny.
So I'm doing my small part in making the price of Bitcoin go up over the long term. To keep gaining more acceptance as money. You're welcome.
And I still have my smallish nest-egg of Bitcoin. It would be nice to see it get much larger due to the price of Bitcoin going "to the moon". I also accept donations in Bitcoin, too, in case you have some you no longer want.
-
I stepped in to help someone who was doing something nice yesterday. Yet, I felt I needed to warn them that the nice thing they were doing would need to be done quietly and in secret since it was highly "illegal".
I just don't want anyone to get caught up in some legal mess due to not realizing that "laws" are arbitrary, harmful, and stupid.
In a way, I felt as though I was perpetuating the stupidity by even warning them, but on the other hand, I don't want to see someone who is doing the right thing get punished for it.
I really hate legislation. All of it.
-
I've experienced it many times.
Someone is rude and insulting, but the second you stand up to them on behalf of those they are being rude to, the bully falls apart and blocks you. They can't handle having their narrative destroyed.
I've seen it in real life, but even more online.
I don't participate on Reddit, but for some reason, I ended up on a highlight mailing list. I'll sometimes look at it to see what's going on if a headline catches my eye. I rarely comment, but when I do it is nearly always because the participants are being rude (most frequently Left-Statist) idiots. I'm not rude in return but I don't coddle them. I get "permanently banned" from the group nearly every time I wade in. They simply can't handle someone calling them out for their nasty idiocy.
I've seen the same, but to a lesser degree, on Twitter.
Nasty people can't handle being told they are being nasty. Their reaction exposes them. And I'm OK with that.
How interesting.
Usually, I'd say "it takes one to know one", but in this case, they don't make any sense.
Government is the embodiment of hatred. It runs on hate, feeds hatred, and creates hate with nearly everything it does. What ethical person wouldn't hate that?
So the hate group (SPLC) says that if your group is against anything the biggest hate group (government) does, you are a hate group. You are guilty of anti-hate. Wouldn't this make you a hate hater?
That seems odd. Now I'm confused.
Especially considering that many "parental rights" advocates aren't even anti-government. They love Big Brother-- they just want it to do things their way. What a weak and pointless hate group.
-
He's right-- it doesn't change the Second Amendment, it just violates it into irrelevance.
This is like saying I’ll leave your body unchanged and respect your human rights while I hack off your arms and legs with a cleaver. My words wouldn't match my actions-- I would be lying. Judge me by what I do, not what I say. Do the same with him.
Just because a powerful political criminal asserts that he isn't breaking the law and is respecting you doesn't make it true. He's lying. (What a shock.)
And, yet again, I remind you that the right to own and to carry weapons (not just firearms) doesn't come from the 2nd Amendment or any document and doesn't hinge on government's cooperation. It is a fundamental human right that predates the first government and will outlast the final one.
People in London England, Mbeya Tanzania, Abilene Texas, Sydney Australia, and any other place on the planet you can (or can't) think of have the exact same right-- it's just that the local political criminals routinely violate it and have brainwashed most of their victims into accepting the violation. It is a basic human right inherent in every human alive, on or off the planet. No rules can change this fact.
Be warned: governments will murder you for exercising this right, so be as sneaky and cautious as you have to be, depending on the specific depravity of the nearest political criminals.
The only unique thing the Second Amendment does (and it doesn't do it very well) is make it a crime-- a serious crime-- for any government employee in America to impose or enforce any rule restricting weapons in any way. It's just that it's "illegal" to hold them accountable in any meaningful way.
It is good that Gruesome Newsom has finally admitted that the anti-gun rules he wants to impose are illegal under the 2nd Amendment, and he’d need a whole new amendment to get them. This admission needs to be used against him and his agenda.
It's up to you to live in liberty in spite of the tyrannical rules imposed around you. Everyone now and into the future is counting on you. Outlast the tyrants. We CAN do it!
-
I measured over 7" of rain (and hail) in May, and June is on track to be nearly as wet. That's probably close to half of what we get in a normal year, in only one month.
That's good, but it does have its drawbacks. I've spent the past two days laboring intensely to tame the jungle that is my yard. Amazing what a bit of rain will do to long-dormant seeds.
If I didn't live in town I wouldn't bother with hacking down the greenery. I'm not a lawn person. I'm perfectly content to let the growth become overgrowth. I prefer wildness anyway. Neighbors and town cops, though, have other opinions.
Wrong opinions, but opinions nonetheless.
So I have exhausted myself to avoid trouble. And it won't last.
I feel like I've been beaten up and cooked in a steamer. We don't normally have humidity, but this isn't a normal year. Anyway, I'm too tired and sore to have anything interesting to say.
-
“Undocumented”. That should be the natural order of things.
Its opposite, "documented", is an Orwellian term when applied to human beings.
Who documents people? Government. I don’t want anyone “documented” by government. No, not even them.
I don't mind if a contract is documented (recorded) by someone who isn't acting governmental-- if they are behaving governmentally you can bet something in the contract will be used against you eventually.
I don't care if property is voluntarily documented by someone such as an insurance company, as long as those records are kept out of the wrong hands. Government is always the wrong hands.
Government has no business documenting who owns which guns, for example, but as long as an insurance company isn't in bed with government, I wouldn't mind them having a record of what I own in order to insure it. Under today's circumstances where just about every company rolls over for the state at the first hint of a request? I don't think letting anyone know what you own is usually a good idea.
But people? Don't document people. Not ever. This sort of thing never turns out well in the end, so just don't allow government to get away with it. At least not when it's in your power to prevent it or monkeywrench it. It's a "Jews in the attic" situation.
-
As if this makes any difference to human rights!
You could argue, using this same logic, that some people are better off with (other forms of) slavery and others are better off without it.
I'm sure anyone who feels they can't thrive without slaves doing their labor for them would say they are better off with slavery and anyone who has been enslaved would point out they are better off without it.
Where human rights are concerned it makes no difference if some people are "better off" if they are allowed to violate your fundamental human rights. Even if it means they die.
In my "Top Secret Notebook of Vital & Important Stuff" (Yes, really) I have several pages dedicated to writing and drawing up the ideas I had for this business.
Recently I've seen ads for a new Disney experience, the Galactic Starcruiser (which is soon closing, so maybe it didn't work out for them). The first time I saw that advertised it was like deja vu. Like someone had sneaked in and stolen my plans. Great minds think alike.
It's just the latest in a never-ending parade of ideas I've had (and drawn up plans for, which are in the binder) that someone else eventually put into action. I dreamed up "texting" and devices for doing so-- which worked very much like cell phones did before smartphones-- in junior high, for example.
I was (and am) good at coming up with ideas, but I have neither the technical knowledge nor the money to bring any of them to life. Back then, I used to try to get others onboard with my ideas, but that didn't work well, either.
But I suppose if any of those ideas had worked out for me I wouldn't be writing this now.
...Anyway, for your entertainment pleasure (excuse the outdated technology), here's part of the first two pages on my Starcruiser idea from the "TSNotebookOV&IS":
-
I’ve seen bullies who might have believed they were behaving in a masculine way. But they were just being bullies. I've seen guys who were jerks, too.
I’ve seen men doing manly, responsible things that weak, whiny people took issue with.
I don’t believe “toxic masculinity” is a real thing. If it's toxic, it's not masculinity.
Then there are things which are nothing but toxic. Like statism.
"Toxic statism" is redundant. All statism is toxic by nature. It’s all archation and it can’t exist without toxicity at its core. It’s toxic toxicity. Since that makes no sense, it's better to just call it statism and recognize that statism is always going to be toxic. It can't be otherwise.
That was a local government employee's response to my next-door neighbor when she went to city hall to complain that our trash didn't get picked up and the dumpster was overflowing...again.
She set him straight right away, with some choice words. I wonder if she actually got through to him, or if he's really as clueless as he seems.
He probably sees no connection between his paycheck and the money stolen from residents through "taxation". Money which goes to pay him to-- apparently-- not do his job.
Now, he's not personally responsible for picking up the trash, but he is in charge of "public works" [sic], which is responsible for ensuring the trash company picks up the trash like they are paid to do. It is literally part of his "job".
She asked if she was the only person to have told him their trash didn't get picked up and he admitted she wasn't. He even showed her a picture of an overflowing dumpster that had been sent to him by a resident and said "This isn't that full-- it could be pressed down". We had been pressing our trash down.
When he said "What do you want me to do about it?" she suggested he call and let the trash company know they didn't finish their route. He said that if he had known a day or two before that they didn't pick up the trash he could have called them, but it was too late now. Besides, they would be there to pick up trash "tomorrow".
He just kept shrugging at her and smirking, and that was probably a mistake. I think she's now on a mission to see him replaced.
About 15 minutes after her visit, the trash truck came and emptied our dumpster. It turns out there was a substitute driver who decided to not finish the route and didn't tell his boss. The company owner came to personally empty our dumpster. I appreciate that. It's the worthless middle-man of government I could do without.
Things swing too far in one direction then they reach a limit and swing too far in the other direction.
Like clockwork.
Why can't the pendulum come to rest? Because it keeps getting energy from somewhere. Not from a spring or from weights, but from someone pushing it. Sometimes for good reason-- at first.
The "middle ground" isn't necessarily where some would like for you to believe it is. The middle is equal and identical rights for everyone. Fewer or "extra" rights for none. No "rights" for government or any other collective.
The middle resting position is liberty.
No one seems content with this condition.
People who hate/fear guns might at least consider the rules of the mid-20th Century to be the basic starting point for imposing more rules. The number of anti-gun rules in the 1950s was still too many. The pendulum at rest would be no political rules concerning weapons whatsoever. Not anti- and not pro-. Just none. Liberty.
But people who want to rule you see any reduction in the rules they like as "too far". And those gun owners who want to use politics want rules favorable to them. Liberty suffers.
I want no rules other than the natural rules of responsibility.
Some people don't want any person they don't like to have equal and identical rights to their own. So they'll try to stand in the way of letting the pendulum move toward equal and identical rights, But because of social inertia (which is usually destructive), it won't stop in the middle. It swings too far, where the individuals demand "extra" rights.
Those who weren't happy with respecting the rights of others to begin with will eventually manage to put a stop to the pendulum and it will get shoved back and swing too far in the other direction again. If no one would try to push things too far, maybe the pendulum could take a break. Maybe it could come to rest at Liberty.
Instead, the pendulum keeps swinging between extremes, destroying liberty bit by bit with each pass beyond the middle. And people keep pushing it to give it the energy to keep going.
Then I remembered times when I was out wandering the backcountry and realized I had traveled much too far. And I still had to go all the way back to my starting point. Plus, I dislike traveling back along the path I've just walked, which is one reason I keep going miles beyond where I should have turned around. I know this about myself but it happens anyway.
It seems I should have learned my lesson after the first time this happened, but apparently, I didn't, since this was a recurring theme.
At first, I usually thought I just couldn't do it. I was already tired and there just was no way I could make it back. Once, this thought struck me about the time I sprained my ankle as I was turning back.
There's no way I'm going to make someone come out to "rescue" me in that kind of situation-- usually (against all common sense) no one knew where I was anyway. As long as I was conscious, I was going to keep going. So I did.
Somehow, every time this happened, I found the stamina to make it back to the car or to my camp. Every time. And it was never as bad as it seemed when I first turned back. I always got some extra energy and it never even seemed like much of a chore once I started going. The worst part was always the point where I realized I needed to head back and I knew I was "too tired" to make it out.
In the midst of feeling discouraged earlier, these memories popped into my head, and I knew it's not impossible to push through. It's possible and it's necessary. You just gotta keep going.
This is true with many important words, as illustrated by the word "rights". If you prefer, it could be described as the concept of rights, and less about the word (for people who can't think clearly about either). The result is the same whichever way you think about it.
They'll say "rights" is just a word or a concept. Nothing real. Nothing important. Something to ignore while geeks and nerds waste time discussing it. It's only about the power to do something. Just do what you want when you can get away with it.
People who don't want to respect the rights of others when doing so would get in the way are big on this one. Even many who you'd think would know better. They don't understand that rights concern only things you don't have the right to do, not things you do have a right to do.
Any "right to do something" is actually an example of something no one else has a right to stop you from doing. Theft isn't in that category. No one has a right to steal, nor to forbid anyone from stopping a thief. This isn't how it seems to work in so many big cities these days.
To act as though rights are meaningless leads to destruction and the collapse of functional society.
It's how you end up with people who believe they have a "right" to steal, a "right" to govern, or a "right" to do whatever they feel like doing. No, they don't.
Look at the looters or entitled shoplifters in many of those big cities. You'll see people who believe they have a right to take what they want. To do what they want. To do anything they want to anyone who stands in their way of doing what they want.
The same is true for politicians and bureaucrats.
They don't have such rights because no such rights exist. Because of this, I don't care even a little when they suffer the consequences and "find out".
Waco, Ruby Ridge, Wounded Knee, those who became "collateral damage" [sic] in every war, victims of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, victims of "welfare", victims of the war against gun owners, and victims of the IRS. There are victims of government healthcare rationing, too. The list is practically endless if you keep thinking about it.
Government, or the belief in government, is deadly.
If this day is to serve as a memorial to some of those victims, I'll choose to remember the rest as well.
