The 'rich' aren't the problem

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 3, 2026)

There's a lot of hostility toward "the rich". Especially billionaires. The hostility is misplaced.

The real divide is not "the rich" versus "everyone else". It is those who seek to rule, versus everyone they seek to rule.

Some of your enemies who seek to rule you are also rich; most of them are not. Even with the rich, it isn't the wealth itself causing the problem; it's how the wealth was amassed and how it is used.

If someone becomes rich by providing products and services people want and are willing to pay for, they are a benefit to us all. They are not your enemy, even if you don't like them as an individual. You are free to trade elsewhere.

Even as a child, I didn't understand the anger toward rich people. I hoped to join their ranks one day, but it didn't happen. It's not Jeff Bezos's or Elon Musk's fault I'm not a millionaire. It's weird how many people seem to imagine it is, like the economy is a pie and the size of someone else's slice means my slice has to be smaller. It doesn't work that way- the pie can keep growing exponentially. In a truly free market, there's enough pie for everyone.

Unfortunately, instead of a free market, we have governments.

Riches gained through politics are different. Political deals where your life, liberty, property, or data are the assets being traded harm you. You are violated by every one of these deals, even if you don't notice. Getting wealthy through the political means is cheating. The only real monopolies are maintained by government. You can't refuse to do "business" with those controlling the political realm.

It's not "the rich", but government, that makes you poorer.

It would be easier to build a successful business without government's roadblocks. Especially the taxes it extracts at every step of building a business, doing business, or trading. Honest businesses are forced to fund their adversary with the taxes extorted from their accounts.

Honest businesses don't use government to stifle competition, force people to do business with them, or chase government contracts. They don't help government control you.

I understand envy. It's possible to feel envy without wanting to hurt those you envy- those you wish you could join. Unless you're a "the grapes are probably sour, anyway" kind of person who thinks more money couldn't possibly do anything to improve your life- against all available evidence.

-

Thank you for reading.
Support this blog.

When did the "American Experiment" end?

I see people arguing all the time over when, exactly, "the American experiment" ended. It seems to be on many people's minds, especially with the recent 250th commemoration of the Declaration of Independence ("Independence Day").

I think most of them believe it lasted much longer than it did.

The American experiment lasted only from the signing of the Declaration of Independence until the ratification of the Constitution. That was the end of that.

Shays' Rebellion was a clear sign that the founders had made a critical mistake by creating a government, but once they established an actual State with the Constitution, it was done. The experiment had failed, and everything since then hasn't been "American", but something less; a cheaper version designated by the letters "USA".

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

The Call of the Wild

I've been feeling a stronger pull back into primitive survival. If I lived in a place that didn't make it nearly impossible to practice it, I'd probably be doing more of it. 

As it is, about the most I could do around here is sit in my yard, near the intersection, and stare at the dirt. Or I could go into someone's cotton field and stare at the dirt. Less fulfilling than you might imagine.

What triggered this?

Seeing the things that "normal people" say about how government treats us and our rights makes me feel sick. Seeing how they'll excuse any violation, saying "if you don't like it, change the law" is disappointing. Any spirit has been drained from these people. 

I know it's frowned upon to say so, but they are sheeple. Less than sheep- sheep still have some spark of survival instinct, even if it is weak. There's no animal as ethically weak and empty as a government supremacist bootlicker.

These people will tolerate anything if government tells them it's necessary. I honestly doubt anything could ever cross the line and make them stand up. Their love for legislative rules is too overpowering for them to resist. Oh, they'll protest a little when their puppetmasters tell them to hate a president, but that's about it. And half the time, they'll get that wrong.

The modern world has worn thin for me. Again. I'll probably get over it. Again. At least for a while.

Until then, I'll be the weird neighbor throwing knives and tomahawks in my nonexistent backyard, practicing firemaking in the living room, thinking of things I wish I could order (but don't need), and watching lots of mountainman videos.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Hard truth

The Left and the Right are the same, they just tell different lies.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Independence Day, 250 years later

I want to celebrate Independence Day, but anymore it feels like a memorial service rather than a real celebration. It's like gathering around an autopsy for a cookout.

The United States government is much, MUCH worse than the British government was in 1776. Worse than that ambitious government ever dreamed of being. With higher taxes, more meddling, and more presence. Greater evil.

Most “patriots” pretend otherwise. 

I get it. People want to celebrate, and they want to ignore unpleasant realities. They resent those who have a realistic understanding of the situation.

And the Declaration of Independence is celebration-worthy. If only they had meant it. The Constitution showed that they didn't. They wanted a State to sit on the world stage more than they valued independence and loved liberty. "Everyone else is doing it!" So that's what they got. That's what they saddled us with. And it has metastasized into this global Empire we see all around us today.

Make a "patriot" comfortable. Forget independence. "Happy Fourth."

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Worse than "gun control" [sic]?

It's quite possible that I hate Flock cameras (and related technology) even more than I hate anti-gun rules. If you know me, you know that's saying something!

You can go here to see how many of those abominations infest your area. And see where they are and where they are aimed. Then use that information as you will.

Someone needs to invent hand-held directed EMP technology that can disable such things from a distance. Or, if they are shielded from EMPs, lasers to burn them out. That's more responsible than using hunting rifles for that sacred task.

Others have said that FOIA requests, public records requests, and/or audits often result in the cameras being removed to prevent disclosure. If you're legally minded, this might be something to try.

On an individual level, I wonder if a small shelf above the slave plate of your vehicle could prevent the numbers from being seen from the height of those spies. Just a thought. Maybe they see it from too far away for this to work. I wonder if there's any spray that would be unnoticeable to the eye, but opaque to the cameras. 

Or, if you just want to avoid being tracked by these things, knowing where they are and where they are aimed can help you. 

It's important to track the trackers, regardless. 

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

The base

Everything in the material world comes down to physics. 

Similarly, everything in the social world comes down to liberty.

Some people like to try to insert woo-woo into the material world, but then they are talking about something other than the material world. Maybe they are speaking of a spiritual world or something else immaterial, but you can't plot an orbit or describe a chemical reaction this way. You have to stay in the realm of physics to do so.

Others like to try to insert their antisocial desires and fetishes into the social world, but then it's no longer a social world they are talking about. They are describing a political world instead. You can't respect the rights of others while pretending there are things you "should" do to violate these rights when they make you uncomfortable.

I suspect there is even a way to merge physics and liberty; a sort of Grand Unified Theory. I can see it and feel it, but I can't articulate it. Yet. It may come to me someday.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Political winners: Those who don't participate

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 27, 2026)

Every time there's an election- a religious ritual for those who believe in the imaginary authority of the state- the cheers and tears begin as soon as the votes are tallied. The reaction depends on whether the individual voter ends up on the winning or losing side. Either outcome means the state has won at the expense of liberty.

Politics is designed to divide people into winners and losers, and the only way to truly win is to refuse to play.

People who want you trapped will claim that if you don't vote, you're still voting for whatever the majority voted for. Nonsense. You're going to be handed that repulsive load regardless of what you do.

Democracy is mob rule; might (through superior numbers) makes "right". You say America isn't a democracy, but a republic? This only means it's a democracy with extra steps.

The Constitution, which was sold as the safeguard against America becoming a democracy, failed. Now the majority fetishizes democracy and demands government ignore the Constitution when it would prevent something they want. The political criminals are happy to oblige. But demand government obey the Constitution? They'll drag their feet for decades or more, until they can claim they've traditionally exercised this illegal power and it's too late to reverse course now.

Politics is what you use against your fellow humans when you can't convince them to go along with your harebrained schemes, so you cheat. Instead of using logic and persuasion, you default to threats of violence against those who would prefer a different path. Voters accept politicians, politicians make up laws, and laws are threats of violence. Do what politicians say, or government will steal your property, cage you, and escalate the situation to the point of killing you if you refuse to go along at any step of the process. A process weighted to favor the state and its opinions.

If you place your hope in a politician, you'll be disappointed.  A politician will never save you. Politicians are never the answer. Politicians can only ruin you.

Some politicians are a little better than others, and some are a lot worse than most, but none of them has the right to govern even one other person. Doing something you have no right to do, even if others approve, is the only rational definition of "crime". Why place your faith and hope in a criminal?

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

Easiest "job" in the world

Being on the Supreme Court ought to be one of the easiest "jobs" in the world. Even if you pretend they have the "authority" they stole for themselves in 1803.

It shouldn't require any training as a lawyer or any political expertise whatsoever; just the ability to read and understand what you're reading. (I know that's asking a lot these days.)

This is how complicated it should be:

Someone brings a government rule, policy, or legislation to you.
You read it.
You observe if it is something the Constitution explicitly allows government to do, based on what is actually written, not on interpretations or political wishes...
And then you rule on it by that standard and none other. 

Easy-peasy.

An AI could easily do it (although crooked political humans would corrupt the programming for their political agendas).

Does the Constitution explicitly allow government to do this? Let it stand.
Does the Constitution not explicitly allow government to do this? Gone immediately. No delay; no scrambling to save it or to find a way around it. Just gone this instant.

Only political criminals would make it harder or more complicated than that. Yes, that means 99% or more of the government would be done for. That's a good first step.

My evaluation of their performance is even easier: If they rule in favor of government power, they got it wrong. Every time.

-

Thank you for reading.
Are you craving the opportunity to subscribe or donate?

Migration or human trafficking?

I'm opposed to government control of migration or "borders".

On the other hand, I'm opposed to whatever appears to be happening in Europe (and, to some extent, in some places in America).

It seems (if the reports are true*) that people are being imported (trafficked)-- which is not the same as "immigration"-- and then allowed to archate, almost to the point of being encouraged to do so, while the "native" population (people who have lived there for multiple generations) is forbidden to defend themselves, prohibited from owning or using proper defensive tools, and punished for doing or saying anything about the current situation.

It's no wonder a movie about a man who decides "enough is enough" is making waves around the world.

This is a government-created problem. Entirely government-created. I don't expect government to solve it, or do anything other than make it worse.

Governments seem to be trafficking in people who don't have many prospects at home, then using them to demoralize the "native" population (to gain more control over them).

No one has the right to archate (by definition), and that includes by forbidding self-defense and defense of property. If you then allow archation to happen by protecting the archators and punishing the victims, you deserve whatever fate befalls you when the chickens come home to roost. And they will. It won't matter that you've made it "illegal".

Anyone who tries to stab or behead a random person in public needs to face a universally armed population, and an eternal dirt nap in the company of worms and maggots. The same goes for any political criminal who tries to punish any defender of such victims. They are just as bad.

-

*I tend to believe the reports are true because of how hard the European governments are trying to suppress them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Suppressors- none of the State's business

Once I discovered that suppressors didn't silence a gunshot, I lost nearly any interest in having them.

I understand the arguments in favor of them (hearing protection, and it's your right). 

I also know the arguments against them (criminals will use them to silently murder) are based on imaginary TV/movie silencers that work like I wish they really worked. The people who want them banned or regulated are coming from a place of supreme ignorance and fear.

I'm just not personally willing to put a big, expensive cylinder on the end of a pistol for so little benefit. I'm completely in favor of you being able to order one online and have it mailed to your door without any paperwork or proof of ID.

I've noticed the politically addled people have two arguments they keep pushing: that "silencers" are "arms", and that they aren't. They each seem to believe this doesn't change government's "authority" to regulate them. it just shifts the direction a little.

If suppressors are "arms", then they believe this gives the illegal ATF the "authority" to regulate them. I believe this makes it a crime for the ATF criminals to do so.

If they aren't "arms", then some people believe this means they aren't protected by the Second Amendment, and thus are subject to regulation by the aforementioned illegal ATF. I believe this puts them outside anything the criminal ATF believes it has the "authority" to do.

Either way, the unconstitutional ATF has no legitimate say over suppressors. Nor does any other government agency or bureau or employee.

And they know it, even if they won't admit it. They are just trying to buy time until they can get a new crew of Supreme Courtjesters to agree with them.

Which leads to another argument in favor of getting a supressor: make them so ubiquitous that it doesn't matter what anyone says about them-- make them as common as flies at a feedlot.

-

Thank you for reading.
Itching to subscribe or donate?

"What about...?"

If it results in more power for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more money for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more data for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more control for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more employees or dependents for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more "responsibilities" for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more reach for government, I'm against it.

If it results in more government, I'm against it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you like to subscribe or donate?

A new way to celebrate Independence?

I'm opposed to vandalism.

I'm also opposed to ubiquitous surveillance. I'm not going to damage some individual's doorbell camera because of this. Nor would I support anyone who does.

Flock cameras and that sort of thing are an entirely different matter. The people who destroy the enemies' spy cameras are heroes to me. They are no more "vandals" than Robin Hood was a "thief". They are fighting back against the nasty modern equivalent of the Sheriff of Nottingham. Or worse. 

Flock cameras are tools of anti-American spies; dangerous invaders, even if they were born here.

I'm not proud to have reached this point. But if you're going to put cameras everywhere to provide information to government, you are a bad guy. A terrorist! I want you to lose your investment. I want it to not be worth the effort and expense to replace them, even though I know the political criminals will keep paying out the stolen money for these things because they are determined to rule us. Even if it kills us. Even if it means the end of America.

It's not about safety for you and me, but only for the political criminals who want to know what you're doing every second of every day.

I hate them, and I hate their spy cameras.

The ONLY good Flock camera is a dead Flock camera. I think Independence Day could have a new tradition beginning this year.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you like to subscribe or donate?

How did theft (and murder) get this popular?

I have no particular love for rich people just because they are rich. Nor do I hate them for being rich.

But, watching the number of people-- including many rich political criminals-- piling on to encourage other rich people be robbed because they are rich, concerns me. Those rich political criminals fanning the flames of hate, greed, and envy from "public office" have the power to actually hurt other rich people they disagree with by imposing legislation. 

I've also seen people advocating rich people be murdered because they are "greedy". Because they aren't willing to waste their money on counterproductive "social programs" that the envious person thinks need the money. Gullible morons listen to them and act.

None of this is OK. It's creating a dangerous situation that risks getting out of control.

So how did theft and murder get so popular? Politics- it makes people stupid and at least a little bit evil, too.

I will continue to speak out against this sort of thing- even while clearly stating that any person who gets rich through the political means isn't innocent. But the solution- the only ethical solution- is to abolish the state, not to steal the money and hand it over to The Ancestral Enemy to be wasted and used against liberty. Giving more money to the state is much worse than letting a greedy, evil person keep their own money.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you like to subscribe or donate?

Beware The Blob – its mission is creepy

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 20, 2026)

If you give government an inch, it will take a mile. Or, in most countries, 1.60934 kilometers. Some people refer to this as "mission creep"- government's tendency to keep moving the goal posts and grabbing more power over more things; things government has no business having any involvement with.

Those who originally justified a government with tasks like the armed defense of the territory's population and protecting the residents from criminals soon started believing government should also be involved in more things. Like "public health", education, animal ordinances, travel, property registration, and the economic lives of the people.

The idea of "the general welfare" was a cancer. It has metastasized to include anything the control freaks in government want power over. And, they want to be involved in absolutely everything; those few things they aren't yet meddling with, they'll point to and call "freedom". Until they also take that away.

Government pursues these arbitrary powers to the point where it neglects the things originally used to justify its existence, because, apparently, it's safer and more profitable to interfere with regular people.

As for those antiquated justifications for government? Now, government sends its military around the world, creating enemies out of thin air, ultimately threatening the safety of all Americans. They ignored Thomas Jefferson's advice of trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none, and we're paying the price.

Here at home, you're now more likely to have your life, liberty, or property violated by a government employee enforcing a rule or "law" than by a freelance criminal. Government has become the very threat it promised to protect you from.

Those who work for government now believe they need to watch everything we do, make sure they approve of all our activities, and verify our age and identity before we are allowed to do those things. You'll do nothing without government oversight, and possibly even a license.

Government keeps getting worse; its mission creeping like The Blob over more of our lives. This will continue until it collapses from its fatal arrogance. Some nabob will then wring their hands and say they need to try again, but they'll do it right this time. They won't. They'll make the same old mistake of not trusting liberty enough, and their new government will grow beyond any limits set for it. Any government mission will always creep because the lust to govern others is creepy.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to tip.

The witch doctors' lies

Once upon a time, people believed that without a sacrifice, the rains wouldn't come, the herds would never show up, the winter would never end, and the Sun wouldn't come back after an eclipse.

They believed these things because the witch doctors told them so. These beliefs were useful to the witch doctors. This was how they protected their power.

It was all a pack of lies.

Now, most people believe that without sacrificing to government through taxation, kids will not get educated, roads will crumble, property couldn't exist, planes wouldn't fly, and criminals would run rampant.

They believe these things because modern witch doctors- government "teachers", pundits, politicians, bureaucrats, and generic statists- tell them so. These beliefs are useful to the modern witch doctors. It's how they protect their power.

It is all a pack of lies. No more true than the lies told by the ancient witch doctors and priests to the gullible tribespeople.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you like to subscribe or donate?

Envy and greed don't create the right to Gangtax

And then it blocked me.

I see every call to tax "the rich" the same way I would see a lowlife trying to justify raping someone who doesn't agree to have sex with them. I guess consent isn't important to this faction after all.

These people already hate Elon Musk because he left their reservation. This hatred feeds their envy and greed for his money. His becoming a trillionaire has sent them over the edge into insanity.

So, they want to see him gangtaxed. Some want to see him murdered.

Elon Musk isn't an angel. I don't idolize him. I do admire some of his accomplishments, but I know he's still a statist. But he has never oppressed me in the slightest; government has. So who is admiring their oppressors? That's right: it's the tax fans.

Musk has gotten government contracts and handouts. He partners with government- partly because if he didn't, they would shut him down and murder him if he didn't cooperate. Rockets are too dangerous to the State for it to allow them to be beyond its control. And you know it! His partnership with government has helped him get richer. I have an issue with that as well.

The foundational problem is government, not his wealth. I would shut down the State to remove that crutch so that neither he nor others can ever use it to their advantage again. I wouldn't suggest stealing a percentage of his money and giving it to the State to use against me. That would be stupid, counterproductive, and evil.

Which is why the people justifying a gangtaxing of Musk and other rich people are all for it. Envy and hatred have made them embrace evil- as it usually does

Remember, the point of taxation isn't to fund the state (it's unnecessary for that purpose since government can counterfeit all the money it needs through the Federal Reserve scam), but to DEFUND YOU. To punish you for succeeding, for buying things, or for making smart financial decisions. To manipulate your behavior. The worst thing about taxation, other than that, is that the stolen money still goes to the state, anyway. I don't want the state to have a cent, so I don't want my worst enemy taxed. It's worse than a freelance robber getting your money.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

"Brandishing"

The claim that a cupholder can't "legally" qualify as a holster (didn't say it's a good holster), brings up another nonsense "gun offense" that I've seen used against people more than once: "brandishing".

Simply being seen to be armed can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.
Holding a weapon in your hand, ready in case it's needed, can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.

To be a real crime, brandishing must mean pointing a weapon at an innocent person (someone who isn't violating anyone's life, liberty, or property at present). 

Pointing a firearm at a violator is what you should be doing in some cases, and it's not "brandishing" as a crime.
Letting a bad guy know you're armed by showing your weapon is a peaceable attempt to discourage the bad guy and convince him you're not an easy target, not a crime. Only a criminal would treat such an act as a crime.

I hate the way the anti-gun bigots of government use this word to mean whatever they want it to mean to excuse their crimes against self-responsible, prepared people. 

Just so they can shoot their friendly labradoodles, probably.

And, of course, the armed goons who work for the state never get punished for ACTUALLY brandishing in a dangerous manner* when they point their weapons at- or shoot at- innocent people. That's how you can tell it's a nonsense "offense" made up by copsuckers and other government supremacists.

-

*There's a specific case I'm thinking of, and I remember at least one photo showing a family in a car, the man who was driving holding his hands up, and a cop pointing a rifle in his face. It seems the image has been scrubbed from the internet; flushed down the memory hole. Unless I'm imagining the whole thing. I don't think I am.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

I don't think Texas knows what the word means

Any state that allows its armed goons to molest, rob, kidnap, or murder anyone for a "gun offense" is NOT a Constitutional carry state. It's a criminal organization. Its "law enforcers" are the criminals.

A Constitutional carry state would fire (and probably arrest) any law enforcer who attempted to enforce any such illegal rule. 

It wouldn't then compound its crime by illegally prohibiting its victim from being armed while the case is active- there would be no case. This is yet another violation of the Second Amendment. Two strikes, at least!

The Constitution doesn't allow government to dictate how a weapon "may" be carried. Shall NOT be infringed! 
Ethics don't allow a government to have any say in how a weapon may be carried.

Even if it did (it doesn't), who do they think they are to even make the spurious claim that a cupholder can't be a holster? If it is being used to contain a gun, it is a holster.

I don't know the basketball player, James Harden, or anything else about him. It's irrelevant. I don't care why he is being mistreated this way, or who is being mistreated this way; I only care that he is being mistreated by a supposedly "Constitutional carry" state that is showing what it really is.

Do the right thing. Drop the charges, fire the cop and any prosecutor or judge that allowed this case to be brought against him, give him their personal property as restitution, and stop being a criminal gang committing criminal acts!

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

Aliens, government, and "disclosure"

There is most likely life on other planets. Intelligent life and civilizations are probably widespread throughout the Universe.

I consider it a remote possibility that maybe some of them have visited Earth for some reason.

But, if governments ever confirm it through "disclosure", I'm going to change my mind on the visitation part. 

That is more likely to be propaganda than reality. I'll then assume government hasn't got a clue, but is saying it to manipulate the public to fit some agenda that empowers government.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate.