Trapped in the box

Statism is a box. It's a trap. It is hard for people to think outside the box; to escape the trap. It's even harder when they can't see they're trapped in a box.

It's a big box. There's lots of room inside.

There are partitions inside the box, keeping matter and antimatter apart so the box can survive. Or, rather, keeping those trapped in the box from communicating with those inside the other chambers and discovering their common condition. If they were really allowed to get to know each other and to communicate, the box wouldn't survive.

Inside the box are things like both defending and defunding the police, borderism and importing migrants, taxation and how to spend it, support for presidential candidates, Constitutionalism, citizenship, woodchippers and other death penalties, the myth of the rule of law and the superstitious belief in political authority. It's where people debate what kind of government to impose on themselves and others.

Outside the box is where you can see beyond the greasy cardboard walls. 

There you can see that borderism and importing migrants look opposed, but are both flavors of statism. Both lead to the same tragic end: government supremacy.

It's where you can see that copsuckers and most of the "defund the police" people have more in common with each other than with those who understand that cops are the standing army the founders of America warned about. They each think cops are the key-- either to "law and order" or to ending racist policing. Either path, separated from the human right to defend yourself and others from ALL attacks, leads to a police state.

Outside the box is where you can see that taxation is theft, extortion, and slavery, and arguing over how to spend the stolen loot is evil. The outside-the-box discussion is how to stop the taxers from taxing.

Outside the box is where you can see the futility of arguing which politician should be running your life rather than demanding they back off.

Inside the box are all those who aren't aware that everyone has the right and responsibility to govern himself, and no one else. 

Is there a way to get through to those trapped inside the box? Yes. It's rare but it happens. Is it more useful to notice that even outside the box is a larger box encompassing those who think they've escaped?

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

It doesn't mean you're a monkey

The first time I ever heard of Monkey Pox was when I worked at a pet store. We had ordered some prairie dogs but the order was canceled by the wholesaler because Monkey Pox had been found in their facility. 

That would have been in the mid-90s.

Back then no one was afraid the name Monkey Pox would offend anyone, so no attempt was made to change the name to "M Pox". 

I guess now Chicken Pox and Rat Bite Fever need to be dishonestly renamed in case anyone feels they are being equated with chickens or rats, or are being accused of having sex with chickens or rats, if they catch those diseases.

It's just so stupid.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Toxic twins

Imagine twins who have been hurting each other since they were in the womb. Neither one wants to stop, and each points to all the times in the past when his twin has hurt him as justification for each new attack. As adults, the twins have formed mafias to commit their acts on each other and the family members of the other. Somehow they believe this mafia makes their behavior more legitimate.

Each twin has his own supporters and haters. Egging him on to hurt the other again. Their behavior threatens everyone in the whole world.

I have zero sympathy for either twin.

This, to me, is the story of the Middle East.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Amendments Convention a trap

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 14, 2024)

Roosevelt County has stepped into a trap. Convening a U.S. Amendments Convention would be a mistake.

The Bill of Rights already contains the most important Constitutional amendments and the federal government usually disobeys it. They interpret those amendments into nothingness any time one would stand in the way of government doing something it wants to do.

The fundamental human right to own and carry weapons? Government illegally decides what kind of weapons it will allow the people to keep and bear, which people it will allow to exercise their rights, where those rights will be allowed, what kind of government fees will be charged, and it regularly throws people in prison for exercising the right in a way government doesn't like.

It's also an amendment many people would repeal.

Any faction which doesn't like any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights will claim it can simply pass another amendment to change it. Of course, alter any part of the Bill of Rights and the whole deal is off; the federal government can pack up and leave the country.

The only justification for amending the Constitution is to close loopholes which allow tyranny to sneak in; to place more rights off-limits to legislation and more limits on government. New amendments would need to restrain government, not the people.

I don't trust politically motivated people to amend the Constitution responsibly, but to try to buy votes with tyrannical amendments their base wants.

What if they did stick to limiting government power? History suggests it won't work any better now than it has over the past two-and-a-half centuries. Government will not be limited.

How about adding an amendment to strengthen the rest? I'm talking about an enforcement amendment, spelling out exactly what the penalty would be for any government employee who violates any part of the Constitution; hot tar and feathers or a rope being historically appropriate fates. This is the only sort of amendment I would support. It won't work. As long as government gets to investigate itself, it will keep finding it did nothing wrong. Or someone would find a way to use it against the people.

The best use for the Constitution at this time in history is to illustrate how criminal the US federal government has become. Inviting more amendments won't turn out well for anyone other than those who won't let a document restrain their power.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.

Reminder: Keep prepping

This seems like a good time to remind you to keep prepping. 

Expect trouble during and after the s/election. If it doesn't happen, at least you were ready in case it did. The natural world can always throw a disaster your way, too. As can general human incompetence. Be ready- stay ready. It will never hurt to be more ready than is necessary.

If anyone makes fun of you for being ready for something that didn't happen, just know that smart people will never do that.

Lately, my prepping has come to a grinding halt, due to various circumstances. But there's nearly always something that can be done. This is a reminder to myself to find something and do it.

If you don't have money to stock up on things, practice your skills (they'll always matter more than the things anyway).

If you can't practice for some reason, read books or articles, or watch videos on prepping. Get ideas.

Make lists. What you have (check expiration dates), what you need, what you've realized you don't need, what might need to be replaced... whatever lends itself to a list. See what you might be missing that you didn't notice until you had things written out. 

Sort through your preps and make sure everything is in order. If nothing else, this will help keep you in the prepping state of mind, which is always useful.

Be ready out there.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

What brings her joy?

Koala Harris' cackling is being rebranded as "joy". She's "joyful".

Perhaps.

I know people whose sense of humor is limited to enjoying seeing people get hurt. Jokes or humor which would require thought to find funny don't register as funny to them. That kind of stuff is more likely to anger them.

Evil people feel JOY when they violate others.
So, yes, I'm sure the Kackling Thing truly is joyful. It would fit her type.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

I can see clearly now (out of one eye)

I'm back. I had to get reading glasses before I could do anything on the computer.

I'm seeing pretty well... out of the left eye. The shortcomings of the formerly "good" eye are more obvious now. Having a good lens shows me how bad my vision has been- shockingly bad. I have apparently been seeing everything in a muted sepia-tone. And clouded and smeared. An unexpected benefit: the new lens is making the world bright and colorful. I didn't know what I was missing.

I'm having a bit of trouble adjusting to using the eye I haven't been able to see out of since the end of October. But now it's the good eye, so I have to consciously switch to it sometimes.

I'm anxious to get the right eye done. Even knowing what it entails.

The laser procedure was kind of horrific. The lens replacement actually was, too. I think I would prefer to be unconscious for both, but I guess they don't do that. At least it was fast.

As soon as I left the surgical center, my vision in the eye was perfect. Soon the post-op swelling and grittiness set in and the vision got blurry. The next morning, my vision was still bad, but it cleared up within just a few hours. It still has a ways to go, but the surgeon said it will continue to improve over the next couple of weeks.

It's not quite a bionic eye, but it almost feels that much superior to what I have been living with.

I'm already really impressed.

I highly recommend having it done if you need it.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Speaking of being able to see...

Being able to see through the lies of all political parties is a superpower. It's not something very common in today's world.

It seems to be limited to libertarians and anarchists. Which isn't surprising.

You'll get used to being accused of being on "the other side" each time you criticize the stupidity or evil you see on one side. Or assumed to belong to a side each time you call out something a side is doing right. (Yes, they do occasionally do something right.)

Let it roll off your back.

Politics makes people stupid, and usually evil, too. It makes them blind to reality, seeing everything through the lens of politics-- a lens even worse than the one I had surgery to remove. But they don't want their flawed lens removed. It lets them imagine they see what they want to see.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Surgery day

I’ll be arriving at the eye surgery center in about 10 minutes. I’m getting there a bit early- hopefully they’ll let me in. They were a bit adamant about not having much of a waiting area.

I’ll see how this goes. Smoothly, I’m hoping. I hate medical procedures, though.

UPDATE: I’m home. My eye feels gritty and dry. As long as the eye anesthetic was working I could see perfectly out of that eye. Now that the anesthetic has worn off I’m keeping that eye closed for comfort.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

They'll sell you out

If government does manage to get the rifle ban it drools over, don't expect any meaningful support from gun stores.

In particular, I don’t trust any gun store that promotes drug prohibition to stand up against a ban on AR15s. 

They'll roll over and sell you out, just as I've heard of them doing to people who bring in a firearm that lacks a serial number.

I understand why they feel they have to do it-- they believe they require licensing from government, and these licenses can be revoked. And will be revoked if they don't carry water for the authoritarian state. This is why licensing of any kind-- even if you feel like it's a good idea-- is one of the worst things ever.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

It might be an improvement...

My daughter asked her mom if she knew who the vice president was.
She didn't, so my daughter said "It's Kamala Harris".
Her mom said "Koala?"

So, now when I hear of Harris and her campaign, I think of a red communist koala eating your dollars, pooping out equity and gun bans.

(Image generated with Gab AI)

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

I will speak out as long as I'm able

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 7, 2024)

You are probably familiar with the poem, First They Came, by Martin Niemöller. The one which begins, "First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist." It goes on to list more groups "they" came for.

We are living in such a time again. People in power are coming for those they don't like: often the ones who speak out against the evil being committed by political criminals in positions of power. They are coming with lawfare, inflated charges, SWAT raids, and censorship.

What would the poem say today?

First they came for the January 6ers and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a January 6er. Then they came for Donald Trump and I didn't speak out because I'm not Donald Trump. Then they came for the Republicans and I didn’t speak out because I’m not a Republican.

Remember how Niemöller's poem ends? "Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me."

When they come for me, will there be no one left to speak out for me? That's the way it might go if society stays on the same course. I don't intend to let that happen.

The reality is I have no illusions I would be last on any list to be rounded up. With this realization, from the beginning, I-- unlike the man in the poem-- have spoken out. Even though it makes people mad. I will continue to speak out against those who come for any individual for any reason besides violating the life, liberty, or property of another person. Even if I don't otherwise support anything they believe or do.

It's also an unfortunate fact of life that those who have been targeted in the past will usually target those they see as their oppressors as soon as they gain the power to do so. I've seen this happen repeatedly as long as I've been alive. It's wrong, making things worse instead of better, but they do it anyway.

With this in mind, when they come for the addicts I will speak out though I'm not an addict. Then they come for the migrants, the sexually confused, and the Democrats I will speak out though I am none of those.

Whatever happens, I will continue to speak out as long as I am able, and I hope you do, too.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Feeling a little Jonah-ish

The world has gone mad. It didn't have far to go to get to this point, but it made the last jump pretty fast.

It could be interesting to sit and watch everything play out.

Stay armed. Stay prepared in other ways, too: food, water, off-grid energy (solar, muscle power, etc,), and above all, skills and mindset.
Do not comply.
You don't owe loyalty to any politician or state-- they've put in the work to earn your contempt. Let their chickens come home to roost.

Take care of yourself and your tribe-- however you define it. Let the archators take each other out-- out of your way; it's what they want most and what they've v*ted for. Honor their wishes. And duck!

Those who have begged for authoritarians to rule them are getting ruled good and hard. They won't learn anything through this lesson. They'll keep believing superstitions such as that money can't exist without the state because theft gives money its value. Or that government can be good and is necessary, and that anarchy is death and destruction.

If you want to warn them of their folly, go ahead. They won't thank you or even listen. Maybe a bystander will, though. If you'd rather watch them burn for their ignorance, that's fine too. At this point, whatever happens to them is because they've demanded and enabled it. I know I have no right to force them to safety.

I just hope you and I can avoid the worst of it. Preparedness will help.

If I had the ability, I might be tempted to poke and prod to see what happens. 
On one hand, the longer things take to play out, the more time you and I have to prepare.
On the other hand, the longer this goes on, the worse the final implosion will probably be. And it might be on the heads of our kids and grandchildren.

And, yet, maybe things will settle down. A little worse than before (as always), but not so bad that it crashes around our ears. The slow crawl to collapse could keep moving relentlessly onward. Like a glacier. I would like to think it could be reversed, but I see no evidence anyone but you and I are even aware of what's going on. How can it be reversed if no one will even admit what's happening?

Part of me says that previous generations have also thought the world was in trouble in their time. Some of them were right. We may be in a similar situation, but there are new variables that have never existed before. Will they make a difference? I guess we'll find out.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Taxation gives money its value?

The guy mentioned in the previous post, who wanted me to admit to loving some forms of socialism, also has strange ideas about money. Ideas so odd that I'll just have to show you exactly what he claimed.

I've explained my understanding of money in the past.

When I said if something can't be provided voluntarily, without "taxation", it needs to go away, he countered with:

"You're effectively asking for an anarchy where everyone looks after themselves. No laws, no money. I say no money because it's something created by the state. Taxation is interesting, it's something that has to happen to give value to money. Without it you could use anything you can get people to agree on. But taxes make you need $s so the gvmt are in charge of money. There's a conversation to be had about the rate of tax though"

Yes. Anarchy, please. It's not what he claims, but that's for him to learn by experience. I'm surprised he didn't whip his Somalia out and wave it around.

Anyway, he believes money is "created by the state"? That money has no value unless it is given value through taxation? It sounds like he's describing fiat "money", not real money. 

I told him that was cute and asked if he'd like to admit to any other superstitions.

"No doubt you think money comes from the people, or business. You got a printing press laying around?"

My response was: "That’s not money. It is a substitute for money that people accept. It’s a receipt for money that no longer has money backing it up. Just the promise that government will keep stealing to prop it up. The US dollar has lost nearly 100% of its value since it [sic] the Fed began the scam."

He concluded with "As Minsky said anyone can create money, the trouble is getting other people to accept it."

He's not wrong about that. I suppose the way government pulled off the scam was to start with real money, then take away the reality of it a little at a time until nothing is left, but people still accept it out of habit when they probably shouldn't. The same scam is likely to work for anyone with the resources to pull it off.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

"But you love THIS socialism, right?"

In response to the sick Tim Walz comment about "One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness" I posted the image shared above.

A statist thought he'd get me with "Is the police department socialism? Fire department? Military? If you think any of these being controlled at the national, state, [or] civic level is a good thing then you just supported a form of socialism."

I know. And...?

No. I don't think letting government control any of those things is a good thing-- I don't support them. At least not in their government iteration. They are funded with theft ("taxation"), you can't opt out or provide a competing service for yourself (and others) and save your money. And I told him so.

So he tried a different approach: "Police & fire departments are funded by local taxes. The military is funded by the senate authorising the creation of money."

What does that have to do with the topic? But, I'll play. I told him they were still socialism and unethical. If something can’t be funded voluntarily it needs to die.

Because of his bizarre comment about money, though, and his apparent need to educate me, this then devolved into a discussion of what "money" is, which will be part 2.

Really, though. Do people who oppose political socialism have that hard a time grasping that government police, firefighters, and military don't get a free pass? That if a service is actually necessary and wanted, people will support it without being robbed and threatened?

Do socialists believe the rest of us are this clueless? And is this why they think they can get us to embrace socialism if they frame it a certain way?

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Blog alert

I'm approaching time for my eye surgeries, which means blog posts may not be as regular as normal after next Tuesday. But they may be-- I just don't know how things will go until I get there.

However, this morning as I was leaving for the final requested pre-surgery eye test, I managed to slam the end of my right index finger in the front door. 

I'm not good at typing under optimal circumstances. I use 3 fingers, and now I've lost the use of one of those-- the primary one and the one I depend on for using the mouse-- for a couple of days or so. Depending on how long it keeps throbbing. 11.5 hours and it's still exceedingly painful, but maybe it will not be as bad by morning.

Anyway, if blog posts are a little less reliable for a while, that's the reason... or the reasons. I'll do what I can. I did manage to get one written and scheduled for tomorrow morning, and I wrote this.

Yay, me.

(UPDATE: It's morning. The back (proximal) half of my fingernail is a nice blackish-purple color and my fingertip is swollen and a little red. The finger still hurts, but it is usable as long as I don't hit the keys too hard.)

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Playing the "slur" card

Nasty people who want to stop discussion now call anything they don't like a “slur”. I've seen it and so have you.

It is one of the most irrelevant, dishonest, manipulative, censor-y things anyone can pull when they have nothing to stand on.

Most of the time it’s just a lie.

I saw a video of George Snuffleupagus interviewing some guy, and George, because he's a racist, just wanted to talk about "race". He kept going back to that topic no matter what. It was disgusting-- I don't even know (or care) who the man being interviewed was (probably a politician). The other guy was trying to get back on topic, but to derail the conversation, George would accuse him of using a "slur" again and again. And I never saw him using one.

If accurate observation feels like an insult-- a "slur"-- to you, you're probably the liar.
If you are feeling insulted on behalf of someone else, let them speak for themselves. They don't need your infantilizing.

Call me what you want. It's either true or it's not, but I'm slur-proof. I have had statists try their best. They've expected me to feel insulted when they've called me an anarchist. This is accurate and I'm not insulted. They've tried to label me a "globalist", but since this is a lie it has no power over me. It's just showing them to be ignorant.

If you want to try to "slur" me based on my true characteristics-- "race", sex, sexual orientation, beliefs, or whatever-- it's not going to happen. I am what I am. I'm not so fragile that I'm going to scream "slur!" over it. It's either true or it isn't. None of it is anything to feel insulted over.

Statists get all bent out of shape when it is pointed out to them that they are statists. Like it's a "slur" rather than an accurate assessment of their position. They believe that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor, but they apparently don't want to admit it. If your stance brings you shame, maybe you should reconsider and change something in yourself.

If anyone tries to use the "slur" card, that's not going to go the way they want, either.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Who's the hater?

To me, it seems like the more w0ke someone is, the more they hate people in general. 

I know someone who’s quite w0ke and who often accuses me of hating people I don’t hate. Yet they are the one constantly saying how much they hate people. And wanting people to be controlled by legislation. 

I want people to live in liberty, free of authoritarianism. This w0ke individual does not seem to want this, but keeps advocating the opposite.

You have to hate people to want more legislation enslaving them and to want more enforcers imposing legislation on them.

It doesn’t look like an anomaly to me since I keep observing this same behavior in others.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

It seems almost intentional

I oppose government borders and restrictions on people moving where they want to go.

But I also oppose governments importing people or encouraging them to move in by offering or giving them handouts and preferential treatment, even and especially when they refuse to assimilate and, instead, choose aggression and intimidation. Which is why I understand borderists, even though I disagree with them.

I also oppose governments disarming the people and forbidding them from defending their life, liberty, and property from ALL archators- foreign and domestic.

I oppose governments pretending to be the final arbiter of justice. Giving some people cover when they violate others- because “they come from a different culture” or something like that.

I oppose the idea that rights are subject to a v*te. It doesn’t matter if those v*ting on whether rights will be respected or not were born on the other side of the planet or next door. The majority being against rights, and using the superstitious idea of government to impose their will is stupid and evil.

I oppose government.

It’s no wonder this sort of situation explodes in anger and disorder. It probably guarantees it, given time.

It’s a recipe for disaster. For violence. For death. Hopefully for insurrection and rebellion.

I wonder if governments do this intentionally to cause societal trouble so they can crack down on the population. To have an excuse to become even more authoritarian and violent toward the population. It wouldn’t surprise me. Whether calculated or not, it creates a crisis government uses to gain power. Government is the real enemy.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Keep independence part of holiday

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 30, 2024)

Do you celebrate Independence Day or do you celebrate the Fourth of July instead?

It’s the difference between celebrating insurrection, secession, and the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government in the cause of independence, or demonstrating your loyalty to an even more tyrannical government and its military.

I know which one most people celebrate.

Most holidays get corrupted and co-opted over time. Complaints about the commercialization of Christmas are as traditional as Christmas gifts. Yet, no holiday has changed more than Independence Day. It has become a celebration of the opposite of its original spirit. It would be as though Christmas had become a day of hatred and theft. This is probably why almost no one calls it "Independence Day" anymore, choosing instead to simply identify it by the calendar date.

I'm sure this is no accident. The US federal government would prefer you believe the holiday is about remembering it as the hero of the story for defeating the evil British government centuries ago. It wouldn't want you to think outside the box and make any inconvenient connections beyond the curated events as told in history books. Or notice that the British government of that time was less authoritarian and tyrannical than the current US federal government has become-- by a wide margin.

Independence Day is not about cookouts, fireworks, or military appreciation. It's about violently throwing off the rule of the most powerful government in the world at that time.

Unfortunately, those who accomplished this feat immediately made the fatal mistake of replacing the cancerous tumor they had removed with a "new and improved" cancerous tumor; one which has grown larger and worse than the original had ever dreamed of being. It's an error most revolutionaries make. I suppose they didn't know any better. They were apparently still suspicious of liberty in spite of their impassioned speeches praising it.

Where do you stand? With liberty and against political government, or with the majority?

Do you love liberty, or do you prefer "liberty, but"?

Do you follow the crowd which rejects liberty-- the right to do everything which doesn't violate anyone else-- preferring the freedom to do whatever you feel like doing, regardless of who you violate, as long as it's legal? Or, like a politician, do you not understand any of these words apart from what government says they mean?

Keep independence in Independence Day; it’s the reason for the season.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.