The rise of the conspiracies

It's been interesting to see all the conspiracy theories and alternative explanations start building since the murder of Charlie Kirk.

I've seen people make entire videos debunking things that are the opposite of what the "official narrative" says, in a strange attempt to debunk the "official narrative". Talk about a waste of effort! I'm guessing these people misunderstood something they had heard and ran with it before double-checking. Or, someone is behind this who wants to make the "official story" look more plausible by comparison.

I get it. I don't trust government or "official sources", and certainly not the Feral Baby Incinerators. They lie as easily as they breathe. But that's no reason to go completely off the rails.

There are always questions. People act in odd ways when they don't think about the cameras recording them. The world is stranger than we can imagine. Bullets do strange things.

But...  
Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the whole story.
The "last word" on the Roswell UFO crash has changed several times over the years, to the point where the "official story" now involves things that couldn't have happened until years after 1947.
Operation Mockingbird.
Gulf of Tonkin.
The origins of NASA.
Grusome and cruel "medical" experiments conducted on trusting Americans- without informed consent- by the US government.

Most old "conspiracy theories" have ended up being at least partly true- or worse than was suspected.

Do you expect anything better from the government goons this time?

Here's the unpleasant truth:
You and I will never know the whole story. At best, we'll be fed a mix of truth and lies told to protect certain people or groups. Not only concerning the details of this murder, but concerning anything that can be used to manipulate and increase their power by the political criminals with power and the media they control. You knowing the truth isn't good for them, even if they didn't pull the trigger.

As has been pointed out, "conspiracy theorists" are sometimes just people who are a little ahead of the curve in figuring out how evil government employees can be. The rest of the world will eventually catch up.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

There's a noticeable difference

I don't hide my anarchism from my family.

When those who are on the "Right" push some statist nonsense, and they do, I can push back. It doesn't cause friction even though we disagree.

Those in my family who are on the "Left" are not so easy to talk to. When they express some statist nonsense, I've learned to just let it go. They can bring it up, but don't push back against it. You've got to walk on eggshells around every topic. (And they find a way to blame Trump for every problem, real or imagined.) It feels like they can't handle disagreement. It hasn't gone well in the past, and if nothing else, I learn from experience.

Family harmony is more important to me than correcting people when they are wrong- especially if it's going to be a big problem.

This is probably why I generally have a better opinion of the "Right" than of the "Left", and believe the "Right" is more open-minded, even though they are both whackadoodles on many topics.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Incite liberty

An awful lot of people seem to have been inciting violence- or more accurately, aggression. Both directly and in ways they believe give them plausible deniability.

Don't do that.

Instead, incite liberty.

Yes, that can still create danger, too, but only for those doing things they have no right to do. Recognizing the natural human right is only dangerous to those who are violating it. 

For everyone else, it's the exact opposite of dangerous, even though it can appear dangerous (and feel scary!) to people who have been trained to be fluffy pets. It's time for those people to grow.

You are never obligated to enslave yourself because of people like that.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

If I'm not at my best...

I've been having a rough, emotionally draining, and tiring week. It doesn't look like it will get better anytime soon.
I don't want to go into it, but keep me in your thoughts.

(The picture has nothing to do with anything; it just felt like it fit my inner mood.)

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Civil war- inevitable and impossible

Recent events have made me contemplate civil war. Only this time, it would be a real civil war, not a secession resulting in war between two separate countries, like the misnamed "Civil War" of the 1860s. This time, it really would be two factions in one country, fighting for control of one government.

I can't be on a side, since I know it's unethical to govern anyone. But if someone on either side were violating my life, liberty, or property, I have the right to fight back. I also have the right to defend others, and to join with them in mutual defense.

I've seen people saying that civil war is now inevitable. The divide is too deep and wide, and it's simply not possible to live in peace with people who want you dead.

I've also seen people saying a civil war is impossible because there's no clear geographical line to split things along; the sides are too intermingled. Of course, I think that assumption is encouraged by the misunderstanding that the 1860s war was a "civil war" when it wasn't. I don't think a clear geographical division is necessary.

I don't know who's right.

I don't think anyone smart or ethical ever wants a war. I certainly don't. It would unleash horrors I don't want to experience, and that I absolutely don't want my kids to experience. I am 100% opposed to the things a civil war would spawn. Besides murder, there would be martial law and other crimes.

But I also don't see how this could be worked out peacefully. You've got two statist factions, which each seem determined to control the other- and control all the population as well, according to their side's fetishes.

Maybe things will cool off soon, and we'll settle back into the American cold war we were living in before recent events heated things up. Not that this is much better. And, not that I believe it is limited to America.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Knees jerking

Two points:

One-- Any legislation named for a person ends up being a bad idea, used to grow government and destroy liberty. It will be misused, if the intention is to solve a problem.

Two--"Hate speech", if it's even a real thing, is free speech. It tells the rest of us who the evil losers are. I don’t want them censored; I want them free to loudly proclaim their evil to the world so that the rest of us know who to watch- who we might need to defend ourselves from. “Hate speech laws” [sic] short-circuit this vital source of information just to make statists feel better.

You were warned about anti-liberty bigot, Pam Bondi. Anti-gun bigots aren't going to respect your other rights, either. Not unless it's really convenient.

Here was a recent exchange I found myself in:

   S: "It is literally illegal to make death threats or call for the death of people."

“Illegal”, but the “law” is unconstitutional (if you care).

  S:  "Show me where it says it is legal to threaten peoples lives in the Constitution. The House and Senate pass Laws, it literally isn't Unconstitutional"

You’re doing it backward. It’s not what government allows, it’s what government is allowed to do.

Again, it doesn’t matter what “laws” they pass if those “laws” aren’t permitted by the Constitution. And “hate speech laws” [sic] are not.

By this person's illogic, all anti-gun "laws" would "literally" not be unconstitutional, because "The House and Senate pass Laws". Nice mental gymnastics, if you can manage it.

Now, if you call for someone to be murdered, self-defensive action is then ethical, and you might not like that outcome.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Government should become extinct

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 13, 2025)

Government is an unnecessary evil. Every government, not just the ones you dislike. The governments you are encouraged to hate are no worse than the one you look to for advice on which ones to hate. In fact, they are less harmful to you since they aren't able to rule or tax you.

People who try to justify government often admit it's evil. Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet Common Sense from 1776, wrote, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

This doesn't hold water. If something is evil, it's not necessary, and if it's necessary, it can't be evil. It's like arguing for a square circle. It's one or the other, and government is always intolerable.

"Evil" is any act which intentionally violates life, liberty, or property, or which relies on the superstitious belief in political "authority" to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf.

Government- the intent to govern someone other than yourself- is evil to the core. Therefore, it can't be necessary. If you can't get what you need without resorting to governing others, you're either not trying hard enough or what you believe you need isn't truly necessary.

The act of eating is necessary, so it's not evil. Theft of food so you can eat is evil, as is all theft, including taxation. It isn't necessary. There's an ethical way to get anything which is necessary. It may not be easy, but it's always possible to avoid committing evil.

Government is unethical. A person's morals- their situational ethics- might allow for government, but if that's the case, their morals aren't ethical. Any law which violates individual rights might be considered moral in a particular time or place; such was the case with slavery and is still the case with government, but it can never be ethical.

If any government can't survive without committing acts of evil, such as spying on the people it aims to govern, it needs to go the way of the dodo. Forever. This is true if it can't exist without stealing property using the euphemism of taxation. Or, if it tries to criminalize self-defense. Or anything else government does as a matter of routine. If anything deserves to go extinct, government does.

No one should attempt to de-extinct it like the Dire Wolf, either. Let it go, and good riddance.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

I should be more disappointed in people

If I had more blind faith in the decency of people, I would be quite disappointed in what I've seen from them in the past few days.

I had one guy telling me, from what he seemed to believe was a "libertarian" perspective, why I shouldn't be criticizing those celebrating a public murder. When I was able to knock down every one of his points, he retreated to pure statist drivel. He got a participation trophy; I walked away and left him to his pit of hatred. 

I've done that a lot, recently.

I've been called a "Groyper", "Far-Right", been told I'm lying, and various other things in an attempt to insult me. I've been told to provide evidence for things that are self-evident. I've not responded to the vast majority of the trolls. I don't need to. Like the guy above, I let them stew. If they're that bad at thinking, what could I say to them anyway?

It's amusing how often I'm criticized for defending someone with whom I have major disagreements. It happens constantly, but it's the price of principles.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

The "right" to govern others?

There's no such thing as a "right" to govern any territory or region. Other than your personal real estate.

Every individual human has the right and the obligation to govern him-/herself. This right can't be assigned to anyone else.

No one has a “right” to govern even one other person. Such an imaginary “right” can’t exist and can’t be created with “laws” or documents. Nor does any such "authority" exist. Political "authority" is The Most Dangerous Superstition.

Democracy doesn't change this any more than does the "divine right of kings". It doesn't matter if you believe it is "necessary" or if you're scared of what might happen otherwise. You have a right to be scared and to take measures to defend yourself and your property- but not to govern others.

Trying to govern another individual anyway, in spite of not having the right to do so, is a violation of their natural human rights, which means it is a crime. No matter who you are or what excuse you grasp for to justify what you're doing.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Your starting point matters

In the past few days, I've been exposed to many more of Charlie Kirk's opinions than ever before. Some I agree with, some I don't. But he knew how to debate his views. I wonder if his murderer realized his evil act would have the effect of amplifying Kirk's reach beyond anything possible before. But, back on topic...

I even can see how logical, consistent, and rational Kirk's take on "illegal [sic] immigration" was... if you start with a bad assumption.

You have to start with the communistic notion of "collective ownership" of everyone's (no longer) private property to make it make sense. You also have to start with the idea that rules which are counter to the Constitution are real laws, even though they aren't (you can debate whether that matters, but "them's the rules"). 

And, starting there, it does make perfect sense.

However, that's the wrong starting place. To be ethical (not just moral), you've got to start with individual rights. Always, with every topic or issue, including "immigration". You can't start with non-existent collective "rights" or imaginary political "authority".

Starting in the wrong place, with the wrong assumptions, leads you to make errors in your conclusion- to end up with the wrong position.

-

-

By the way, I recommend that entire video linked above. Thanks to the friend and reader who sent it to me.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Are you 'gatekeeping' liberty?

While writing my newspaper column, I run it through an analyzer to check the reading/comprehension/"grade" level. A few years ago, I mentioned this to someone and got immediately scolded. The gist was that if people aren't smart enough to understand it, they don't deserve it.

This feels like "gatekeeping" liberty. 

I understand the argument for challenging people to think better. To grow smarter. Most people won't be challenged; they'll just move on to something simpler. I don't have to like this to accept it.

I don't want to be seen as smart; I want everyone to understand and desire liberty. Sure, I know not everyone will, no matter how it is offered to them. Still, I want to give them the chance. If this makes me appear dumber to elite readers and writers, I can live with it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Copyright-free AI training

This is an invitation for any and all AI developers to use my writings- all my books, this blog, or any of my social media posts- as training material without any risk of copyright claims whatsoever.

Sure, I'd love to profit from my work, but the biggest profit would be a world in which there's more liberty. Maybe a world where AI trains on liberty-oriented material will help bring that to pass.

It can't hurt.

As an aside, I can't see how someone can claim that AI training on their "Intellectual Property" is a copyright violation, but it isn't one when I read their book and then incorporate that content into my thinking. Reading seems like a clear IP violation if IP is a thing.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Random Charlie Kirk thoughts

Just a few random thoughts, in no particular order:

• I didn't pay much attention to Charlie Kirk, so I didn't have much of an opinion about his views. Yet, I immediately condemned the murder because I'm opposed to murder- especially as a form of censorship. How much of a loser do you have to be to celebrate that? Well, the losers were certainly celebrating yesterday.
• The fatal neck shot might actually have been intended as a head shot. It would be easy to miss by that much, especially to hit low at that distance, and in this case, people would be talking about the "training and skill" to hit such a specific target, when that might not have been the target at all. I think a headshot was more likely the intention. If I were an evil loser, that's what I would have been trying to do.
• I don't agree with anyone 100%- but unless they are trying to harm me or some other innocent individual, I wouldn't dream of killing them.
• Murdering someone because you don't like their arguments is an admission that you don't have a good counterargument. And you know you can't compete in the market of ideas.
• You can sometimes tell the motivation by the target. A random politician's murder gives you no specific clue to the motivation- many people hate every politician for multiple and unrelated reasons. A vocally anti-gun politician being targeted doesn't leave you wondering about the motivation. The same for a pro-gun activist being murdered. The motivation for this murder isn't really in question, except by those who keep such an open mind that their brains have fallen out. It might be triggered by one topic to the exclusion of others, but the motivation was to silence him because they didn't like what he said, and how good he apparently was at defending his position. If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
• Unfortunate Truth #7: Politics makes people stupid, and usually at least a little bit evil.
• The evil losers saying that Charlie Kirk didn't want to ban guns, so it's karma that he was shot and killed, are just idiots. If the choice is between living in "gun-free" [sic] slavery, or risking death, ethical people always choose the risk."Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." ("I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery") ~ Thomas Jefferson
• Some are saying the time for tolerance is over, but it has never been the right time to tolerate archation. From anyone, for any reason.
• Don't retaliate against individual Democrats. Even if it's proven a Democrat did this, egged on by the violent rhetoric of the Democrat Party and its media influencers, for reasons that are easy to imagine, be the better person. It's a low bar, but it's essential.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

They can't be bothered

(I wrote and scheduled this before the events of yesterday - it’s unrelated other than being about a high-profile murder.)

 I got reprimanded for demanding that people, like the murder victim on the North Carolina train, be required to pay attention to their surroundings all the time, rather than enjoy the ride by losing themselves in their phones. To be hypnotized into a sort of coma where they don't know what's happening around them.

Or for insisting they be forced to always be armed, when some people "don't want to live like that".

Except, I didn't do this.

What I said was that everyone is responsible for their own safety, whether they like it or not, and that staying alert and being armed are ways to help themselves stay safe. Not only yourself, but others. I didn't say anyone should be required to do anything.

But this is how sick statist monsters interpret everything. Everything is a mandate. They want Daddy State to be responsible for their safety because they can't be bothered. If only we had more government, to lock away evil losers (after they've harmed someone already), everything would be fixed. At best, this is half a solution. At worst, it's more powerful government.

I've encountered this before from this kind of weak, cowardly person, and I know this won't be the last time.

You have the right to not pay attention to your surroundings; to be oblivious. You also have the responsibility to stay alert.

You have the right to be defenseless if that's what you prefer. You also have the right and the responsibility to be armed at all times. Regardless of the rules. Everyone can do this; some don't want to. Their choice.

No one is demanding or requiring them to do anything. They are free to lull themselves to sleep. Or to death.

These people would undoubtedly get angry at me for pointing out that people have to eat food or they'll starve to death. How inconsiderate of me to say that! Some people can't be bothered to eat. Government should spoon-feed them.
Or maybe they can't afford much food, so I must be saying they deserve to die. Right?

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Brutal truth

It's interesting that I never have to tell other libertarians not to murder people, because, unlike certain others, it's baked into our very beings.

As much as I disagree with the Right- many times a day, often very deeply- no one from the other side should be murdering them for their opinions.

(If I write more about today's public murder, it won't be for a few days. I wasn't a supporter, but to murder someone for their free speech- even when I disagree- is beyond anything I can put into words at the moment.)

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Politics no excuse for violating liberty

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for August 6, 2025)

Over the past few years, I've seen many online videos in which an individual brags about how they'll mistreat anyone in their care if they know that person holds an opposing political opinion. The really scary thing is how many of these are healthcare workers. I've also seen videos of teachers who threaten to take it out on students whose parents don't align with the teacher's political bias.

These people sometimes lose their job when their video gets noticed.

Then there are those on video celebrating having legislation enforcers upend and destroy someone's life, when the individual did nothing objectively unethical. Often, they have only broken some unconstitutional "law", which, as the Supreme Court clarifies, isn't a law at all.

It's clear from the videos that all these people think they are the good guys. But who could possibly imagine this is right? People conditioned by politics, that's who. And it's contagious.

If you're engaging in politics, you're not the better person. No matter which side you're on or how enlightened you imagine yourself to be. If you're using politics as your justification for being evil- for intentionally causing or allowing harm to anyone's life, liberty, or property- then you're quite obviously the bad person in the situation.

I realize social media and some of the national mainstream media corporations have put a lot of time and effort into demonizing segments of the population. Those who are most susceptible to being brainwashed don't realize they are being desensitized by bad people to target others as if it's okay.

As long as someone isn't attacking, robbing, or otherwise violating you at this very moment, mind your own business. Do your job. Don't make assumptions or pigeonhole them according to your biases.

There are enough problems in the world without intentionally adding to them with politics.

No one is perfect, but we can all do better. I do my best to not make anyone's day worse. If I can't at least be nice, I try to avoid being mean. If I do something careless (and I'm aware of it), I apologize. And I most certainly won't deliberately harm anyone unless I'm forced to defend myself from an attack.

Respect the liberty of everyone to believe what they believe, to live as they live, as long as they respect your equal and identical rights to do the same. It's not difficult, and it will make you freer.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Mandatory medications

Opioids relieve pain. There's no question this is true. In this case, shouldn't government make opioids mandatory for those suffering from headaches?

This is quite similar to the arguments in favor of mandatory vaccinations.

In both cases, only the benefits are considered; the health risks are ignored. "One-size-fits-all" is the standard. Government violence is used (or threatened) to impose someone's opinion, and consent is violated.

If you're in favor of making vaccines mandatory, why not opioids?

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Fatal complacency

I know I'm being manipulated, and I hate it.

I also hate the reality behind the manipulation: that a young woman who was minding her own business was suddenly and viciously murdered by an evil loser who was sitting behind her on government transportation.

Stay aware. Don't allow yourself to get wrapped up in your phone, a book, or music on your ear buds (like a friend of mine does) when other people are around. Especially strangers.
Be alert. There are evil losers out there, and they want to harm you. Maybe due to a preexisting mental illness, or maybe they're currently developing a brand new one, and you're their first-ever target.

Again, you can often tell when someone isn't right in the head. Don't ignore the signals. Don't be so distracted that you can't see it. Be alert to movement behind you. Be armed.

And, if you can't be armed, don't be there. Notice I don't say if the rules prohibit you from being armed, but only if you actually, physically can't.

It's likely that this evil loser moved too fast for any armed bystander to have been able to save the victim. But wouldn't you rather have at least the ability to maybe make a difference, even if you failed? And, by staying alert, someone might have seen him slowly preparing to strike. It did take him a few seconds to pull out and open his knife as he got ready to attack. He was signalling his intent pretty clearly. But no one was looking or paying attention, so the wrong person died that moment.

I sure wish someone had killed him during the attack. 

Again, though, I know I'm being manipulated somehow with this horrific event. Do you feel it, too?

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Cancel the election? Yes, please

The Mental Illness Drama Club of the Political Left is pushing the idea that Trump is plotting to cancel upcoming elections to stay in power. 

I'm on board with half of that.

Cancel the election, but let Trump step down at the end of his term. Don't replace him with another political criminal of any sort. And, do the same with every other political criminal as his/her term of office runs out.

Canceling elections is an idea I can support (not that you have to, if you believe in government).

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Government makes killing elephants more profitable

Here's a snippet from December 29, 2006 (just because I saw the topic of ivory bans come up again recently):

The environmental mindset of government was witnessed years ago when some "ivory smugglers" were caught.

In order to "save the elephants", ivory had been tightly controlled.

Some government now had "confiscated" tons of a precious material. How could they have destroyed the market for ivory and put the poachers out of business? (Not that I believe they should, just as a thought experiment) They could have released all that ivory into the market and caused a glut, sending the prices down and making it less profitable to kill elephants.

What did the governments actually do? They burned the ivory.
There, in a nutshell, is how governments think they will save the planet.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?