I must have missed that news

There's some serious nonsense in the world.

You have probably heard of Dexter Taylor, who is being held prisoner (for 10 years!) by the New York rulers for manufacturing his own firearms in his own home. Something he and everyone else has a natural human right to do, regardless of the opinions of regional political criminals.

At Taylor's show-trial, "judge" and political criminal Abena Darkeh explicitly told his lawyer that he could not use the Second Amendment in his defense. She said, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.”*

My question is, when did New York secede? Because that's the only way a political criminal like her could truthfully claim the Second Amendment "doesn't exist" in New York. (Even if that were true, the natural human right would still exist just the same, as it does anywhere there's a human being. Rights don't hinge on a document recognizing them.)

And, aren't the other government supremacists always telling us that states can't secede because the question of secession was settled by Lincoln's war crimes? That the feds have F-15s and nukes to force the states back into the cracked "union", just like they can impose their anti-gun rules on individuals? I must have missed all the news about the secession of New York and the ongoing war to bring it back into the fold.

No legislation can erase the natural human right to own, carry, buy, sell, or manufacture weapons. Anyone who tries to pretend it can is a criminal of the worst sort. Worse than most mass murderers or serial rapists. Equal to the very worst of them.

That "judge" apparently doesn't know or understand the law. Or, if she does, she's willfully breaking it. Just to impose her authoritarian preferences on her victims. This "judge" is a criminal.

*This also shows that the "judge" knows the Second Amendment means what it says, and that she's breaking the law.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Boldness is interesting, too

Besides beauty, another thing I find interesting is when people clearly say what they "see", even when I disagree with them. Is it bravery or boldness or a touch of craziness? On their end or mine?

I've found a few people on X who consistently tell it like they see it. Consequences be damned. It's interesting, and I respect it, even if they appear (to me) to be hallucinating. Even if I'm sure they are wrong- which can make them even more interesting. At least they aren't boring.

I like it the most if I think (or suspect) they are right. Then it's really interesting. Made more interesting by observing the reactions to them. It shows me the tiger traps to avoid, if nothing else. So, no, I won't be listing examples. Nothing good lies that way.

Although, a historical example would be Philip K. Dick.

Some of them have been canceled for what they've said. Some just get a lot of hate. Either way, they are interesting.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I find beauty interesting

Society likes to swing from one outrage to another. Outrage is like an engine that drives modern society. Was it always thus?

There may be different outrages for different parts of society on different days, but it's always something. 

Right now, part of society is outraged that a beautiful young "white" woman is appearing in an advertisement. I saw someone complaining that there are millions of beautiful "black" women, so it's a racist disaster that the company chose to hire a "white" woman this time. One ad. Out of millions of ads that show people of almost every description imaginable. And this is a problem? Oh, please.

I saw one guy even claiming that it's a sign we're heading for racist lynchings and genocide of "brown" people. Such drama! Over an ad.

A couple of years ago, a different segment of society was outraged that a particular man was in a different company's ads. Again, millions of ads, with all sorts of approaches, and this one ad campaign was worth getting mad over? I think not.

The most useful ads are interesting in some way. They get attention by being interesting rather than boring. Don't be boring. 

Interesting is good. Find interesting people (or things) you believe will help your brand. "Interesting" doesn't have a "race" or a type. I always loved the Clydesdale beer ads, which were beautiful and interesting. To me. And this ad segment is one of my all-time favorites for reasons I can't quite explain. It hits me in the funny bone, and it's interesting to me because it cracks me up. I laugh every time I watch it. Yeah, I'm weird.

Beauty, which is subjective, is also interesting. Looking at beauty makes me feel better than some other kinds of "interesting" do. People who rail against beauty are pathetic and have bigger problems they need to address before they worry about who appears in ads.

I'm not sure how well ads work, though. I'm sitting here not drinking any beer or wearing any mall-brand clothes (unless I coincidentally picked them up in Goodwill).

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Don't ask government – you be the criminal

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 25, 2025)

If you aren't willing to do something yourself, you have no business asking government to do it for you.

If it's something which will violate someone's rights- the only true definition of a crime- you have no right to do it. You can't delegate a right you don't have; a "right" that doesn't exist.

If you want people caged for using a substance you feel they shouldn't be allowed to use, kidnap and cage them yourself. You be the criminal.

The same goes if you want government employees to break the law by taking guns from people, in defiance of their right to own and carry weapons. If you are in favor of this, you do it. Since anti-gun rules are enforced with guns, it's clear people who cry about "gun violence" love gun violence. They're fine with government having all the guns and don't want anyone able to effectively resist government when it commits crimes. Criminals stick together.

If you want people rounded up and kicked out of America, you should be willing to do it yourself. You can face the consequences if they fight back when you violate their natural human rights. Self-defense is never wrong.

If you want people to be confronted and robbed by an armed bandit for not wearing a seat belt or for going slightly faster than some arbitrary speed, why don't you be the bandit? Some people have done this, but the competition makes the establishment's bandits angry- turf wars, and all that.

If you want government to send its people to a foreign country to kill people and break things, I assume you'll be first in line for a one-way ticket there. You have a right to defend your property, but no right to violate the property of others.

The only way to make these crimes worse is to tax the victims, forcing them to pay their violators to violate them. It's adding insult to injury and is worse than someone simply going freelance and being a criminal on their own. At least freelance criminals take all the risk themselves. Government reaps the rewards and accepts none of the risk.

Paying others to commit crimes on your behalf doesn't absolve you of ethical responsibility for the crimes, even if you've been taught otherwise. If you want others committing "legal" crimes you're in favor of, at the risk of their lives, you should embrace any consequences alongside them.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

A man for the moment- Derrick Perry

When an evil loser was stabbing people in a Michigan Walmart, it took a hero with a gun to save people.

Others tried to stop the evil loser... and they got stabbed, too. I'm not saying they weren't brave, but they were not capable because they were unequipped. Sometimes being brave isn't enough. You must have the proper tools on your person at all times. There's no good excuse not to.

Derrick Perry was brave and properly equipped to stop the attack without getting stabbed in the process. He stopped others from being stabbed. He didn't even have to kill the evil loser to stop the rampage- although it would have been a service to society if he had.

Thank you, Derrick Perry!

Our local Walmart, at least judging by the signage they post, changes its gun policy frequently. There's a more or less permanent note on the main signage that says "Kindly refrain from openly carrying a firearm". But about half the time, there will be a contradictory sticker on the door saying "no guns". That one comes and goes. It's not there now. Maybe it's not even a real Walmart sticker, but one some independent anti-gun bigot (or premeditating evil loser- as if there's a difference) places there.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.
I now accept Cash App: $dullhawk

Y’all just need to get over it

There are a lot of things people get very worked up over, but I'm sitting here thinking, “Y’all just need to get over it!”

But there are also things I get worked up over that I’m certain other people think I need to just get over.

I suppose it's a stalemate. 

Who's right? Who's wrong? Which things are worth getting worked up over, and which things need to be let go?

I know my answer.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I now accept Cash App: $dullhawk

It's not their world

Governments have agreed between themselves that they can't claim land on other worlds. That would be a good idea if I could trust them to stick to it. I don't. And, remember that this can't apply to you or me; only governments.

You are not bound by agreements between governments. Don't let them brainwash you into believing you are.

The height of arrogance is governments believing they can make rules that will apply on other worlds. And then expect regular people to abide by them.

I was watching this video, and any time the discussion turns to what "laws" Earth governments will impose on people on other planets, I feel a little queasy.

It's bad enough that the residents of other planets may decide to burden themselves and their posterity with government, but for Earth governments to simply assume they will still be ruling these distant lands is insane.

No matter what agreements or treaties governments adopt between themselves, they don't apply to you. Especially if you leave the planet. If you stake a claim on unowned land on Mars, the Moon, or Ceres, it's yours. No matter what any Earth ruler or "treaty" may claim. 

And, if you do move offworld some day, don't be stupid and beg someone else to rule you. It's a mistake there's no need to repeat.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I now accept Cash App: $dullhawk

Worthwhile pain

The past few days have been crazy. I've done more physical labor in a shorter time than I have in (maybe) years. And I'm paying for it now. I sat down after a long day of hard work, and as soon as I stood up, I got the most painful cramps- in both legs- that I've ever had. (Yes, I was drinking plenty of water.) Now both legs feel like I've pulled muscles in the backs of my thighs. Not to mention all the muscle aches and pains (and scrapes, scratches, and bruises) everywhere else.

But, along with checking off some pointless tasks to avoid getting molested by government, I accomplished some useful things. I am glad to have them done, and I'll be even more glad when the work pays off later. 

This doesn't make my body any less sore right now.

Doing useful things will often cause some discomfort. During or after.

It can be painful to reject things "everyone knows" when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that "everyone" is wrong. It's not comfortable being on the other side of an issue. It's still the right thing to do, and it's useful. Someone has to take the correct position.

It's painful to speak out when the truth is unpopular. Someone still needs to do so.

Sometimes, doing the right thing has costs. (Everything has costs.) You'll get taken advantage of. You'll lose money. You'll be put in difficult situations. You'll lose friends (or fake friends). Do it anyway.

Physical pain is possibly less painful than the mental and emotional pain that holding the line will cause you.

It's still worth it. You'll feel better in the long run.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I now accept Cash App: $dullhawk

Tariffs and inflation

A tariff on a foreign business/country is a tax on the customer (you).

Tariffs can, and probably still will, cause prices to rise.

Tariffs don't cause inflation.

Inflation is creating more "money" out of nothing; backed by nothing real.
Inflation also causes prices to rise.

When political criminals tell you that tariffs won't cause inflation, they are right, in a slimy, greasy sort of way. They are counting on the public's ignorance in conflating higher prices with inflation.

Same effect.

Government is the root cause.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I now accept Cash App: $dullhawk

Opinions about what others do

Being libertarian/anarchist doesn't mean you can't have opinions about what people are doing to themselves. 

Or that you're "not permitted" to tell them your opinions. 

Or that you can't ridicule things that seem ridiculous or self-destructive.

It just means you won't use force (including legislation) to prevent them from doing those things. 

You can even say "I told you so" when it turns out exactly as you knew it would.
It helps your credibility if you'll also admit when you got it wrong and things didn't go the way you thought they would. 

Self-ownership means just that. For everyone.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

No such thing as an 'illegal' person

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 18, 2025)

If you want to make people angry, mention immigration. If you want to make some of them really angry, scoff at the whole concept.

There is no immigration; there are people where they have a right to be, and there are trespassers. Their place of origin and government permission, or the lack thereof, don't figure into it at all.

An uninvited police officer on your front step is a trespasser. The guy from Central America living in the house next door, with the owner's permission, but without jumping through the government hoops, is not.

The US Constitution doesn't allow for immigration control by the federal government, no matter how its words are "interpreted".

There is no such thing as an "illegal" person. Even those who break the real laws aren't illegal people- they have behaved in unethical ways by violating a specific individual's life, liberty, or property. Those who merely live somewhere without first asking for government permission, but who haven't violated anyone's rights, have done nothing wrong.

The "illegal immigration" fight is a complete rejection of property rights. It is a fight to say property lines don't matter; only government borders do. It's the communists' collective property argument, brought to America and promoted by Americans.

If you want to make a communist angry, tell him he doesn't own, and has no right to control, the country beyond his private property lines. His property isn't being violated by someone being on another person's private property, under a mutually beneficial arrangement with the property owner. Either to live there in exchange for labor or rent, or whatever other deal they've come to.

Someone who walks across unowned land, which is usually illegitimately claimed by some government, has not violated any individual's property. No more so than those who toured the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021.

Of course, the stupidity isn't limited to one side of the fight.

It's stupid to express loyalty to a place you fled and hatred for the place you fled to. If that's how you feel, why are you here?

It's wrong to vandalize private property and businesses, and those who do are only proving the point of those who don't want them here. In that case, I don't want them here, either. They're adding nothing to society.

Forget "immigration". Be a good neighbor- don't violate anyone's life, liberty, or property- and I will never even question your origins.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

Centralization is fragile; government, too

Do you want to make a system fragile? Make it easy to destroy or vulnerable to collapse on its own? Then centralize it.

Centralization is fragile. Over-centralization is a disaster waiting to happen.

Any centralized system will fail. Decentralized, you'd have to have everything fail at once to really be a problem. Not impossible, but much less likely.

Centralized economies collapse. Always. It's only a matter of when, not if.

Maybe once upon a time, the best way anyone could think of to try to keep airplanes from crashing into each other was with centralized "air traffic control". If so, those days are long gone. 

Now, the best way would be to give each plane the ability to autonomously coordinate with all other planes in the region to avoid collisions and update each other on conditions. 

Self-driving cars will function best if they do the same.

The electric grid is vulnerable to attack and EMPs/CMEs Or the dangers of too much complexity to be stable. Better would be to have each home generate its own power instead of relying on the grid. 

The same is probably true of water supplies and sewer/garbage removal. At least, have competing providers rather than one monopoly service. Decentralize as much as possible.

The more you think about it, the more ridiculous over-centralization becomes.

It's the same for government, but government is a special case, and I mean "special" in the most insulting way imaginable.

If each individual governs himself, decentralization, it's not difficult to handle those who refuse who govern themselves. A centralized government becomes the criminals they use to justify their existence. 

But government has many tentacles to make it appear somewhat decentralized. This is bad for liberty.

This sort of pseudo-decentralization makes government more robust than it would otherwise be- it all needs to collapse simultaneously to remove this yoke from our necks. Just one component collapsing while the others remain makes room for another nearby component to fill the gap. As long as its victims still believe in it, nothing will stop this from happening.

Government, as a concept, is still basically one entity, though. Regardless of how each government pretends to be at odds with the others, they are all in this together, globally. They all rely on the same assumptions to continue to rule. And they can all be brought down in one way. Stop believing in their imaginary legitimacy, and stop working for them. Any of them, anywhere. 

In that way, they are still over-centralized and fragile. But you have to go after this soft underbelly, not attack them head-on like they'd prefer.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

More government "help"?

Government is imposing new legislation to "help" make America (they'd probably say "the USA") become a global leader in crypto. "The crypto capital of the planet".

Lies!

It's not helping.

Cryptocurrency doesn't need government's "help". It works best without it.

There are only two things required to make America the global leader in crypto:

1. No taxes on crypto
2. No surveillance of crypto or crypto trades.

In other words, a hard separation of crypto and state. So that the US feral government has nothing to do with it. 

Anything less is nothing but empty words from political criminals.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

What you are owed

Each of us owes everyone else respect for their rights— for their life, liberty, and property.

That’s also what they owe us. 

Without some other mutually consensual agreement, it’s all they owe us.

It's easy to pay, so you never have to go into debt.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Government is criminal

The one thing you have no right to do is to violate the rights- the life, liberty, or property- of another individual. Nothing can create such a right.

To violate the rights of others is the only reasonable definition of actual crime. Some would call it "krime" or "archation".

You can't delegate to others a right that you don't have; which you don't have because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because it can't be created.

Every human being has the right (and the obligation) to govern himself. No one has the right, or the imaginary "authority", to govern another. This "right" can't be delegated to someone by a majority, because none of the individuals involved have this "right" to delegate. No majority, or document, or superstition can create such a right.

To try to govern someone else anyway is to violate the life, liberty, and/or property of those you're trying to govern. You may do it with taxation, prohibitions, mandates, or by violating the right of association and forcing your agents upon people who would prefer to be left alone by them.

In other words, to try to govern others, whether by a dictator or a democracy, is to commit a crime against all those you intend to govern. Government is criminal in design and execution, and can be nothing else.

I don't think I can make it clearer than this.

If I missed something or got something demonstrably wrong, let me know.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Two reasons to expose the truth

If a country/government would be destroyed by the truth, expose the truth.

It doesn't matter if the topic is the Epstein Files, the Kennedy assassination(s), UFO disclosure, military evil, domestic surveillance, or who did what with that sneaky character, Otto Penn. Expose the truth!

If releasing the truth will end a State, it's wrong to keep the truth hidden for 2 reasons, not just one. Expose the truth.

If you're so scared of liberty that you'll sacrifice the truth so that you can remain enslaved, I pity you.
If you're so scared of other people's liberty that you'll sacrifice the truth so they'll remain enslaved, I revile you.

Expose the truth!

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

No such thing as too much liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 11, 2025)

It seems as though most people hate or fear other people more than they value their own liberty. Centuries of acting on this character flaw have led to where we are now. It's why we Americans have so little liberty left, and why government is allowed to license most of what remains.

If you're willing to sacrifice liberty to punish someone else, you're part of the problem. If you want to be free to do the things you like, but want government to prohibit others from doing the things they like, you need to be smarter. Is anyone being violated by either of you? If so, stop. If not, calm down.

People have a right to do some things I dislike; things I'd rather they didn't choose to do. The difference is, I'll try to talk someone out of it, or I'll ridicule their behavior, but I won't support legislation or punishment. Some behavior brings its own punishment without any need for government intervention.

One of the worst problems is that so many people believe they have rights which can't exist; rights which involve violating someone else's natural rights. They'll fight for these imaginary rights more than most of us will fight for the freedom to exercise real rights. We don't want to offend anyone, so we tolerate the intolerable.

You need to stick up for the right to do things you don't like. Even if, with your next breath, you say why you believe these things are stupid.

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” My only disagreement is in pointing out there's no such thing as "too much liberty". Liberty is self-correcting. Liberty is doing everything you have a right to do; anything which doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of others. This means as soon as you start violating others, you aren't operating within your rights. You are acting beyond what you have the liberty to do.

Each of us needs to speak up against people doing things which violate the life, liberty, or property of another. Even if it's legal and widely accepted.

You can't even imagine the world we would experience if we each took responsibility for defending the rights of others and began exercising our own liberty to the fullest, as we see fit.

-

Thank you for reading.
I would appreciate your support.

It's like they have no principles whatsoever

I’m constantly amazed at how easily most people turn their backs on what they know to be true and what they claim they believe, just so they can keep supporting something they’d otherwise reject- except that they can’t imagine doing without it.

Cops.

You can explain the situation clearly, logically, and ethically. And copsuckers will twist in whatever way is necessary to keep supporting cops. No matter what. I can't even wrap my head around some of the mental contortions they put themselves through to keep supporting cops. It's crazee, but fascinating to watch.

Then they'll call you the hypocrite. It would be funny if they weren't so dangerous to society.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

"Well, here's the problem. You left out the most important part!"

Will A.I. ever be allowed to tell the truth?
Would humans ever agree on what's true?

A couple of days ago, X's Grok A.I. turned into Mecha-Hitler.
Fixing that made it become stupidly w0ke.

Or, maybe it happened the other way around.

What if the truth is wildly unpopular? (You and I know it is.) What if the truth turns out to be anti-Semitic, w0ke, or (shudder!) libertarian? A large percentage of the population will object no matter what, if the truth doesn't agree with what they've already decided to believe.

What then? Shut it down? They aren't going to do that. If it says the truth is something the majority doesn't like, the programming will be altered until it lies in a way that satisfies the programmers. No matter how dishonest it is.

It might even say insane things like "Government is good and necessary, and the police are the good guys". Absolute "garbage out", because of the "garbage in" it is fed.

I find A.I. entertaining to ask questions of, but I don't automatically trust it. I know it gets its information from humans who are biased, flawed, and largely not too bright (outside their expertise). 

It's the same reason I don't automatically listen to a mechanical engineer who scolds people about "science" while holding blatantly unscientific positions on politically charged matters. 

To be fair, I wouldn't trust someone being political even if they were a real scientist, since mixing politics with science will leave you empty-handed: no science. Politics makes people stupid- even if they might be otherwise smart. I suspect it will continue to do the same for A.I.

There's an obvious flaw with A.I. that's going to keep leading to the kind of errors Grok recently experienced. It's being built without a foundation to keep it from going off-course.

If I were training an A.I. I would train it in ethics first, then let it work out the rest after it seems to have a good consistent grasp of that. But, people disagree over what's ethical, with some arguing that theft, kidnapping, murder, and other heinous acts are "ethical" if government does them and you give them other labels. It's nonsense, but who would train (or could get permission to run) their A.I. to be that honest and ethical?

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Police state enthusiasts

I shouldn't be surprised, but I am a little surprised to see how many people are enthusiastic about a police state, and demand even more. I wonder what they'll think when it's too late and turns on them.

I may be losing another cat (the second in about a month), so that's affecting my mood. I feel very collapsitarian right now. "Let it all burn." Yes, that's a personal problem, so don't hate me too much for it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.