Saturday, May 11, 2013

A New Paradigm of Law

These days we find endless reference made to "rule of law", as well as an almost incomprehensibly manic devotion toward law in popular cultural outlets such as film and television.  This slavish idolatry of law is enough to leave the intelligent man brain-numb for its utter lack of sense, particularly given that the law has almost universally devolved into an institution of arbitrary and unjust prohibition and mandate, posing far and away greater dangers to the individual than it does protections.

Many nations presume themselves superior and more "civilized" than others because they operate under "rule of law".  Such nations often beat their chests as they boast of their augmented moral positions as places where rule of law reigns supreme.  What appears to escape anymeaningful examination is the fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of so-called "law" is immorally, ignorantly, and criminally conceived, drafted, enacted, and enforced.

Thomas Jefferson referred to the law as often being nothing more than the tyrant's whim.  A truer assessment has perhaps yet to be made, and yet, not all law is absent of proper moral substance.  Few people will argue that murder laws are morally unsupportable, yet laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, the bearing of a firearm, or securing the services of a prostitute chafe against a great many people; a great majority, in fact.

Clearly, then, it may be said that there are two types of law: those that have the respect of the average man and those that earn his contempt.  But how can this be?  Is the law not the great and unassailable foundation of all properly civilized nations?  The answer to that would depend largely upon one's definitions and the presumptions under which he labors.

Suffice it to say that regardless of the commonly presumed normative values, the positive reality is that much of what is called "law" is despised, hated, often feared, and largely disregarded by enormous numbers of people.  Here we refer to ordinary and good people with no criminality about them whose innate senses of justice and propriety tell them that one law is acceptable whereas another is not.

Dictionaries, including Black's Law Dictionary (BLD) define "crime" in a most painfully absurd way, basically asserting that a crime is nothing more than a violation of written and enacted law.  This is yet another glaring example of just how ignorant, corrupt, or fundamentally stupid "legal thought" is.  What such a definition tells us is that a crime is whatever some arbitrarily constituted body of men say it is and therein after all are compelled to act in accord with the dictates, mandates, prohibitions, and other fiats as the so-called "law" may specify.  The utter absurdity of this would be difficult to overstate.

In the world of American jurisprudence, which derives strongly from English law, there are two basic categories of law.  The first is commonly referred to as crimes  mala in se.  Such are the true crimes that would include murder, rape, theft, robbery, assault, and destruction of property.  In other words, the acts are in themselves evil because they result in a harm being brought to another where there can be no justification for doing so.

The other category of crimes are those mala prohibita, meaning those acts or failures to act that are arbitrarily assessed as being criminal and become therefore punishable even though no actual crime has been committed.  Examples of crimes mala prohibita are almost without end, but a short sample list might include the following:

  • Speeding
  • Drug use/possession/distribution
  • Soliciting the services of a prostitute
  • Engaging in oral sex or other "deviant" sexual practice
  • Possession, distribution, or production of pornography
  • Flying an aircraft without a license
  • Operating an unregistered vehicle on public roads
  • Building a house without permits
  • Using dynamite to remove tree stumps
  • Making explosive materials
  • Burning your own house down
  • Walking nude on a public sidewalk
  • Failing to file an income tax statement
  • Bearing weapons for all morally justifiable purposes
  • Attempting to commit suicide

The list of crimes mala prohibita is enormous and, far more disturbing, utterly arbitrary.  The "logic" upon which such statutes are built and their enactment justified defies all rationality.  So wildly fallacious are the foundations upon which such laws are constructed and foisted upon the people of a nation as to do profound violence to one's sense of credulity.  That such huge populations of otherwise and presumably rational persons have allowed this brand of raving insanity to  arise, much less continue, destroying countless lives in the course of time is an aspect of human nature that must mystify God himself, leaving him scratching his own head in utterly failing comprehension of the behavior of his creation.

As we can see, a core issue here lies with the current, profoundly flawed definition of "crime".  Given that definition, crimes mala prohibita are secured their legal credibility for there is nothing in the definition of "crime" that places any requirements or other restrictions on the formulation of new and improved crimes.  The door is left widely open, and the bottom line is basically this: anything goes for which you can get away with life and limb.  That is the underlying principle upon which such law is built, which does not even qualify as the purely pragmatic, for pragmatism often has an understandable basis for its choices.  What we are examining here does not rise even to that meager standard, but rather nothing better than rank caprice and whim.

Given the definition of "crime", we find ourselves hip-deep in the nightmare of the purely arbitrary where any action may be redefined as a crime.  The implications of this are so profound and broad that "staggering" barely cuts the descriptive mustard.  In this world, it is a literal truth that virtually anything goes because there is nothing in terms of identified principle that delimits legislative action.  We can forget, for example, the dictates of the United States Constitution.  Why?  Because Congress forgets them routinely and any time that "old rag" becomes inconvenient to the goals and objectives of that hopeless body of dangerously foolish persons.

Because of the principles involved - or the lack of them, depending on how one chooses to view the situation - the only thing limiting what Congress may enact is the murderous ire of the people.  Thus far, the people have proven almost infinitely forbearing and therefore that little protection is essentially no protection at all.

Given this, there is absolutely nothing in principle to stop Congress from re-enacting Jim Crow laws.  But why stop at so timid a reach?  Why not just enact a law wherein one population is obliged to hunt another?  Perhaps they will instruct black people to hunt the whites, gather them together, and send them back to Africa.  It may sound crazy, but it is no more so than sending the black ones "back".  How can one be returned to a place they've yet to go initially?

How about a mandate for all women to wear the burka pursuant to sharia law?  How about death by stoning for all women failing to comply?

Yes, these are all wildly insane notions, and yet there is nothing to which one may point in terms of formal and enforceable principle that bars the enactment of such laws by necessity.  Forty years ago, who would have ever imagined laws such as PATRIOT and NDAA could ever see the light of enactment?  To have then predicted a day when such insanity would reign over the United States would have had those around you reaching for the phone to dial the nice men in white jackets to take you back to your padded cell and heavy thorazine load.  And yet, look at us now living under this leaden-grey pall as a matter of daily course, the Congress having enacted these outrageous assaults upon the sovereign rights of the people of America with virtual impunity.

It cannot be overly emphasized just how open-ended this process is and how unimaginably dangerous.  Please take the time to fully consider and appreciate just what it means to wield such arbitrary power.  Nothing is safe; not your rights, your health, family, possessions, investments, food sources, water, air, and so forth.  There is literally nothing that the legislators cannot touch precisely because there is no framework of principles to which the ordinary man may turn as a standard of assessment for judging that which the hand of government has wrought.  Without such a standard, there is nothing against which arbitrary law may be judged for legitimacy in accord with rational, complete, and correct principles of human relations.

Arguing against unjust statutes with "I don't like it", "it just feels wrong", and so forth avails one nothing.  One must be able to point to a rational and correct standard of judgment if they are to hold even the least reasonable hope of prevailing in such argumentation when resisting injustice.  But what should that standard be?

The answer may not be exactly easy, but there is at least one place where we can start: the very definition of "crime".  As we have previously seen, the current definitions are so freakishly absurd as to defy belief.  It is the circular meaninglessness of the word itself that must be corrected prior to moving forward.

Let us examine this a little more closely.  As is often the case, it is a good idea to begin with a definition or two.  From Black's Law Dictionary, "crime" is defined:

CRIME. A positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the State.

Note how the definition makes absolutely no reference to any irreducible, invariant, and objective concept or entity.  There is not so much as a single fundamental principle upon which the definition rests.  According to this definition, a crime is any act in violation of law, yet the metes and bounds of law are essentially nonexistent in any objective terms.  The metes and bounds as measured on Monday morning may not be the same as those measured by that afternoon.  "Crime" floats freely in the currents of the capricious ether.

In other words, the metes and bounds of that which constitutes a crime are whatever the legislator says they are and with which he can get away without those whom he ostensibly serves turning on him with torches and pitchforks.  Crime by this definition becomes nothing definite and upon which one may rely to learn, know, understand, and trust as a concept because it may be redefined at any time and for any reason whatsoever with no objective and rational rhyme or reason.  Crime may become the product of pure whim, devoid of any quality to which a man may point and call just, reasonable, or even tolerable.

As such, we are not only  not free, but are in fact  reduced to the status of abject slaves precisely because the legislator can in principle pass any law he wishes with almost guaranteed impunity.  This is the core principle at work in our world today.  There may be practical limitations at any given moment, but those can change arbitrarily and with no necessity of predictability.

Once again, from Black's, the definition of "law":

LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established.  That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences, is a "law."

Note here that nowhere does it make any mention of the source of establishment or by what objective basis law must be obeyed.  It simply states what law is.  Note also that the definitions of both "crime" and "law" are mutually circular in a vaguely implicit fashion. A crime is a violation of a law that defines a crime.  Taken as a whole, the true message is that law and crime are whatever those claiming power and authority say they are and for which the people will maintain tolerance.

When one stops to think about this with due care, this foundation upon which law as a practical matter is built is so shockingly flawed, so ridiculous, and so threatening to the rights and well being of the individual as to defy belief that this is the product of rational and benign minds.  No nominally sane and reasonable child, much less an adult, would accept this as sound and just.

For the sake of a better rounded awareness, let us finally take from Black's the definition for "justice", from which we may then understand what it means to be "just":

JUSTICE: In Jurisprudence. The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.

Given these definitions and if we will be so bold as to presume that the goal of law is justice, how possibly can justice be served if laws and crimes are by their very definitions utterly arbitrary with no principled and immutable mechanism of restraint?  The crystal clear and unequivocal answer is that it cannot be served under such conditions with any faith and reliability from the standpoints of those whom the law purports to serve.

If this is indeed the case, what then is to be done about it, if anything?

The answer, in practice, is difficult.  In theory, however, it is rather simple, elegant, and straightforward.  Let us therefore confine ourselves with the theory, for once we come to apprehend the what, it then becomes better possible to determine the how.

If we begin at the beginning by asking the question of why we should even have law, the concept of justice rapidly comes to mind: to render every man his due.  But what is a man's due?  That answer has proven elusive for many, yet it is plain and simple: his rights.  Nothing more, and nothing less.   For a brief discussion on that topic, see "The Canon Of Individual Sovereignty".  The Canon derives a small handful of fundamental principles by which all proper human relations are conducted.  It provides the irreducible and invariant foundation upon which all other human endeavors are built and to which they must yield and stand secondary.  Without this immutable barrier beyond which none may pass, there exists no solid, reliable, and trustworthy standard by which one may judge his own actions as well as those of his fellows.  It is the simple standard by which one may know right action from wrong.

With such a standard in hand, one may then turn to the notion of justice, which by the given definition concerns itself with ensuring that which is due to all men, which is nothing more or less than his rights, his just claims to life.  Having apprehended this knowledge, it then becomes possible to discard the hopelessly wrong definitions of "crime" and "law" in favor of the correct ones.  To that end, let us see whether we can at least arrive at a respectable first draft of each term.

Redefinition of CRIME: Any unjustifiable act, whether positive or negative, whereby the actor brings demonstrable, qualified, and possibly quantifiable harm to another without the other's consent and in violation of the his rights.

Note the careful wording.  In order for a crime to have been committed, the act must bring harm to another  in an unjustifiable way and that harm must be objectively demonstrable in terms of character and possibly quantity.  By this definition, murder is clearly a crime, whereas killing in defense of life, limb, and property is not because defense is a justifying basis for action.  Likewise, though perhaps emotionally less convincing for some, if one man kills another as per the other's request and it can be shown that the request was made freely and without coercion, no crime has occurred.

Theft is a crime because the thief has brought harm to his victim in the form of removing property that is not his to take.

Redefinition of LAW: That which is laid down, ordained, or established to address issues of crimes committed by one person or group against another person or group.  That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, such that no crime be committed and to which one may be subject to sanctions or legal consequences for violation, is a "law."

With these two new definitions at hand, the practical matter of law in both terms of enactment and administration take on an entirely new character.  Because "crime" is clearly defined such that its metes and bounds are specified in terms of irreducible principles or its derivatives, the formulation of law is now constrained because "law" is now defined very specifically as addressing "issues of crime".  If a proposed bill fails to address an issue of crime, then even if it be enacted it is still not a law and people would therefore be under no obligation to comply with its mandates and restrictions.

Additionally, this restructuring of law based on the new definitions eliminates all crimes mala prohibita because no harm may be demonstrated to have been caused.  For example, if I carry a firearm or other weapon for all morally legitimate purposes, no man or institution may charge me with a crime because the bearing of arms brings no harm to others.  If Johnny Dumb decides he is going to start purchasing heroin and inject it into his veins, the act per se brings no unwelcome harm to others and therefore no crime exists. If, however, after having injected himself with heroin he gets into his automobile and injures someone due to his drug induced incapacity, he would be guilty of having brought harm to another, a crime, and his use of heroin and the irresponsible choice he made to operate a vehicle resulting in injury to a third part could well be regarded as an aggravating factor.

If justice is indeed a worthy goal and is to be properly served, the law and its practice must be sensible to the common man, reasonable, reliable, and must engender a sense of trust in those whom it ostensibly serves. It must, in a word, be just. Anything less than this renders law of less than zero value, for it becomes the agent and instrument of the very harms from which it is supposed to protect us.

While I am sure my proposed alterations could strand some improvement, I am confident that this is a reasonable start.  I hold no illusions of this ever coming to pass, but it is nevertheless a good thing to give people something to which to turn their thoughts, especially in times as troubled as these where usurpers and tyrants run amok across the face of the planet in endless violation and destruction of human freedom and prosperity.

Until next time, please accept my fondest wishes.

The Devil's Advocate

Generally speaking, I despise so-called "Hollywood". Literally speaking, 99%+++ of what they have produced is not fit for the lowest of human filth to view, much less decent folk - and yes, I am just brash enough to make the distinction between the worst and the better among us in this era of "it's all good" relativism. But there is that almost infinitesimal proportion of work the conception and execution of which has been so keenly inspired as to nearly excuse the hopeless wreckage of all its sibling productions. One of those is "The Devil's Advocate" with Al Pacino and so surprisingly, Keanu Reeves, whose next best accomplishment in terms of film was "Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure".

The Devil's Advocate contains many small gems of sorts - most of them setups for larger coups, but all of them worthy. There are, however, the two passages delivered by Pacino's perfectly cast character that drive this film to yon dizzying stratospheric heights. Between the two, there is the exchange between Pacino and Reeves about free will, another gem.

My purpose in posting these here is that these two vignettes within a larger story so very adeptly distill the most strident of all human proclivities in such a way as to drive home with something of the most slightly understated fury why humanity is in such deep trouble, why They are winning the battle for the future of the human race, why liberty-oriented people are losing, and to be depressingly blunt why things are likely not going to work out too well for us on the whole. There is always a chance that the tiger may change its stripes, but let us not ignore the statistical reality in the process of hoping for the best.

If perchance you have never seen this film, unlike most others I can recommend this one highly. The language and some of the notions are coarse, so be warned if perchance that sort of thing offends you. I deem it all well worth cutting through to get to the good stuff, which is very good.

This first gem is from the scene where Reeve's character is relaying to Pacino's the message from "Eddie Barzoon" about maybe ratting the firm out to a government commission investigating them, the Devil being the speaker:

"You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire.

You build egos the size of cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies until every human becomes an aspiring emperor; becomes his own god.

Where can you go from there?

As we're scrambling from one deal to the next who's got his eye on the planet as the air thickens, the water sours? Even bees' honey takes on the metallic taste of radioactivity; and it just keeps coming, faster and faster. There's no chance to think, to prepare.

It's buy futures... sell futures... when there is no future.

We got a runaway train, boy. We got a billion Eddie Barzoons all jogging into the future. Every one of them is getting ready to fist-fuck God's ex-planet, lick their fingers clean as they reach out toward their pristine cybernetic keyboards to tote up their fucking billable hours.

And then it hits home. You got to pay your own way, Eddie. It's a little late in the game to buy out now. Your belly's too full, your dick is sore, your eyes are bloodshot and you're screaming for someone to help.

But guess what?

There's no one there! You're all alone, Eddie.

You're God's special little creature."

The second comes right after Reeve's character's wife commits suicide and his mother confesses to him who his father is (Pacino's character). This one is dialogue and in order to more fully understand it, you will need to watch the film:

"[Devil] You were right about one thing. I have been watching. Couldn't help myself. Watching. Waiting. Holding my breath.
But I'm no puppeteer, Kevin. I don't make things happen. Doesn't work like that.

[Lomax] What'd you do to Mary Ann?

[Devil] Free will. It's like butterfly wings. Once touched, they never get off the ground. I only set the stage. You pull your own strings.

[Lomax] What did you do to Mary Ann?

[Devil] A gun? In here?

[Lomax] Goddamn it, what did you do to my wife?

[Devil] Well... on a scale of one to ten, ten being the most depraved act of sexual theater known to man, one being your average Friday night run-through at the Lomaxes', I'd say, not to be immodest... Mary Ann and I got it on at about seven.

[Lomax] Fuck you!(starts shooting the devil multiple times)

[Devil] Got me! Got me! Yes! Step it up, Son! Come on! That's good! You got to hold on to that fury! That's the last thing to go! That's the final hiding place. It's the final fig leaf.

[Lomax] Who are you?

[Devil] Who am I? Who are you?

Never lost a case.


Why do you think?

Because you're so fucking good?

[Lomax] Yes.

[Devil] But why?

[Lomax] Because you're my father?

[Devil] I'm a little more than that, Kevin.

Awfully hot in that courtroom, wasn't it?

'What's the game plan, Kevin? It was a nice run, Kev. Had to close out some day. Nobody wins them all.'

[Lomax] What are you?

[Devil] I have so many names.

[Lomax] Satan.

[Devil] Call me Dad.

[Lomax] Mary Ann, she knew it. She knew it. She knew it, so you destroyed her.

[Devil] You're blaming me for Mary Ann? I hope you're kidding.

Mary Ann, you could have saved her anytime you liked. All she wanted was love.

Hey, you were too busy.

[Lomax] That's a lie.

[Devil] Face it, you started looking to better-deal her the minute you got here.

[Lomax] That's not true. You don't know what we had!

[Devil] Hey, I'm on your side!

[Lomax] You're a liar!

[Devil] There's nothing out there for you! Don't be such a fucking chump! Stop deluding yourself! I told you to take care of your wife!

What did I say? 'The world would understand.'

Didn't I say that?

What did you do? 'You know what scares me, John? I leave the case, she gets better and then I hate her for it.'


[Lomax] I know what you did. You set me up!

[Devil] Who told you to pull out all the stops on Mr. Gettys? Who made that choice?

[Lomax] It's entrapment. You set me up.

[Devil] And Moyez! The direction you took! Popes, swamis, snake handlers, all feeding at the same trough. Whose ideas were those?

[Lomax] You played me!

[Devil] It was a test! Your test! And Cullen! Knowing he was guilty! Seeing those pictures! What did you do? You put that lying bitch on the stand!

[Lomax] You brought me in. You put me there! You made her lie!

[Devil] I don't do that, Kevin! That day on the subway, what did I say to you? What were my words to you?

Maybe it was your time to lose. You didn't think so.

[Lomax] Lose? I don't lose! I win! I win! I'm a lawyer! That's my job! That's what I do!

[Devil] I rest my case. Vanity... is definitely my favorite sin.

Kevin, it's so basic. Self-love. The all-natural opiate.

It's not that you didn't care for Mary Ann, Kevin... it's just that you were a little more involved with someone else. Yourself.

[Lomax] You're right. I did it all. I let her go.

[Devil] Don't be too hard on yourself, Kevin. You wanted something more. Believe me.

[Lomax] I left her behind and just kept going.

[Devil] You can't keep punishing yourself."

Snip some comparatively irrelevant dialogue and it continues:

"[Lomax] What do you want from me?

[Devil] I want you to be yourself.

You know, I'll tell you, boy... guilt... it's like a bag of fucking bricks. All you got to do is set it down.

I know what you're going through.

I've been there.

[Lomax's "sister"] Just come here. Come here. Let it go.

[Lomax] I can't do that.

[Devil] Who are you carrying all those bricks for?


Is that it?


I'll tell you... let me give you a little inside information about God.

God likes to watch. He's a prankster.

Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do? I swear, for his own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time.

Look, but don't touch.

Touch, but don't taste.

Taste, but don't swallow.

And while you're jumping from one foot to the next, what is He doing? He's laughing his sick, fucking ass off! He's a tightass! He's a sadist! He's an absentee landlord!

Worship that? Never!

[Lomax] 'Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven,' is that it?

[Devil] Why not? I'm here on the ground with my nose in it since the whole thing began!

I've nurtured every sensation man has been inspired to have! I cared about what he wanted and I never judged him!

Why? Because I never rejected him,in spite of all his imperfections! I'm a fan of man! I'm a humanist. Maybe the last humanist.

Who, in their right mind Kevin, could possibly deny the 20th century was entirely mine? All of it, Kevin! All of it. Mine. I'm peaking, Kevin. It's my time now. It's our time."

And there you have it. Humanity statistically wrapped up neatly in a concise and frighteningly precise nutshell.

The question that remains to be answered is this: are there enough good people left who are willing to do what needs doing - the ugly things; the abominal things; the monstrous things to set this world free? And if so, is the race worth freeing? What of it? What is the likely reality of a freed, technologically enabled, self-absorbed humanity? All of we who presume to hold the goal of human freedom, even if only in America, need to sit quietly and alone or perhaps with a small number of trusted and like-minded friends and family and think about this very carefully. I am not sure that the spectre is particularly appealing.

As I see it, the simple freeing of humanity would be an unmitigated disaster. Why? Because people have no experience with actual freedom but only with the pretty slavery wherein the Master's beneficent hand guides the "free man" at the boundaries of his cage so that he will not stray into grave sin, vis-a-vis the petty. This is where the Christian ethic applied to real life has failed catastrophically and monumentally. And the Godless progressives and other such vermin have no hay to make in that black sunshine because their ethics are Christian in their very fabric. Let none of those raving imbeciles fool themselves into believing otherwise. To the extent and in the manner the Christian Church has failed so spectacularly, so have the others - the anti-religious, the stooge-atheists because their standard of ethics are taken from the precise same book.

Furthermore, let us be crystal clear that the Christian ethic, per se, is not what has failed here, for that is only a conceptual body of principles and tenets by which one may choose to live. The bitch and the hitch is that the ethics in themselves mean NOTHING until they are interpreted and applied, and it is we as a race who have done so poor a job of application. The really scary part in all of this is that most of it has been done ostensibly with nothing but the best of intentions.

It was good intention that enslaved the human race in the manacles of imposed love and caring, thereby ripping from it its liberty. It was the self-absorbed church that forced itself upon the world with the sword and the book, perverting the beauty within and changing it into the evil against which the world now thinks it rails, unaware that its own book is the precise same one at heart, only using slightly different wording. It is the cowardice of men that has enslaved humanity; the steadfast and categorical refusal to accept men and the world as they more truly are. Rather, they have adopted this wildly demented masturbatory fantasy of an idealized world that can never exist because it is based upon a world populated by non-human creatures.

There are so many layers, each entangled in endless convolution with the others such that it numbs the mind of the intelligent man who endeavors to understand it. Complete, precise, and correct analysis is unlikely to be achievable. The good news, however, is that it is not necessary. To begin from a clean sheet with principles in hand is the ONLY thing that will provide the basis for our salvation and deliverance back into freedom, once again assuming that we are even worth saving.

A key here lies not in just having the intellectual chops to dope it all out, but the courage and moral and intestinal fortitude to accept the seemingly harsh realities that accompany one along the path toward the goal. Good intentions that work against the wills of people who commit no criminal acts is WRONG no matter what the perceived greater good is. You want a poster child for "crime" - well there you have it - the do-gooder forcing his unwelcome help upon his fellows. In the end, the only person the do-gooder is serving is himself because at the bottom of it all he does not give the least damn about what the targets of his beneficence want. He cares only about what HE wants - to feel better about all the things in the world that he perceives to be unjust; to feel he has righted some terrible wrong and made the world a better place by hook or by crook. This is pure egotism of the worst form, for it is unregulated, non-self-limiting, and so blindly self-serving as to be frightening to even the bravest among men.

A truly pathetic element in all of this is that the forcible do-gooder operates under the delusional presumption that he does all of this devoid of the ego of the individualist. Unlike the individualist, when faced with failure they refuse to demur and they do this because they are devoid of all humility and human decency, all ostensible good intentions notwithstanding. They are the epitome - the very definition of "evil" and "disease" because in the end, everything they do is solely for themselves and not in the least measure for those whom them purport to help. They will take any measure they feel is needed and with which they think they can get away to achieve their objectives.

Let me now be clear as to how such people are to be treated: all who attempt to use force, and here I mean that which ultimately reduces to the physical, may and perhaps ought to be killed on the spot, without hesitation or compunction, and without equivocation. I do not care if it is police, Congress, their agents, robbers, rapists, or the city dog catcher. If one is proceeding without having committed a crime, and here I mean a real crime as in mala in se, vis-a-vis phony baloney crimes mala prohibita, any force applied may be justifiably met with opposing force up to and including that which is lethal. On this I am unequivocal. There is no other way to put an end to the insanity of those who would murder us with their stated good intentions. If we are indeed free beings in our fabric, and I contend that we are, then there exists no authority above that of the individual and all who believe otherwise are deluded. If you think about it, the whole notion of "justice" bases upon the tacit assumption of entitlement, and is questionable.

Truly, we are in quite a corner.  We want what we want, but so much of what we want is pure, suicidal poison.  The great majority of us are just like addicts.  We, in fact, are addicts and such people will pursue that which they crave unto their own destruction.  We are addicted to all manner of morbidity.

The question facing each of us during every moment of every day we live is what shall be our next choice?  What shall we choose to pursue?  What shall we shun?  What sort of person will I be at this very moment? 

Most seem to avoid the conscious choices to the greatest degree practicality will allow, for it is the effort and the accountability that are the ultimate objects of evasion for the common man.  These two things, work and responsibility, are the two most despised, reviled, hated, and feared things in the small, narrow, and shallow world of the Common Man.  Were it not so, Empire would never had the least chance of gaining a toehold in the circles of humanity.  There could have been no Roman Empire, no Third Reich nor Soviet Union, Red China, or any of the other wildly toxic and mortally dangerous human social organizations that have foisted upon the body of humankind the most bitter miseries that no free men could possibly imagine prior to actual experience.

It is clear that continuing on our current philosophical path is leading us nowhere that any sane person wants to go.  Therefore, "what now?" arises prominently as a sore thumb before the eyes of the world.  Indeed, what now?  Do we cave in to the One-World contingent?  Do we fight?  Do nothing and hope for the best?  I cannot answer for anyone but myself and as things stands at the time of this writing it is my decision not to willingly capitulate to the overwhelming forces that are driving the individual's ability to act in accord with his inborn freedom to oblivion.  It is my opinion that there is in fact a good fight to be fought and, having stepped into the breach, I have as yet no intentions of relenting.

As for you, ask yourself, "what will it be?"  If you are too afraid, too lazy, too bemused with the trinkets before you, that is OK.  Not everyone is built for this.  Settle yourself and have the best life you are able.  But if perchance you feel as do I that there are things for which doing battle is worthwhile, then think long and carefully what it really means to commit yourself to the cause of your own freedom.  Make no decision in haste or without its due consideration, but if after having diligently done so you decide the cause is worthy of you, then settle yourself to the commitment and be at peace with your choice.

It seems I have wandered a bit from my original intentions.  So be it.  I leave you to your thoughts now and wish you the best of everything that life has to offer.  May your health be good and your wealth satisfactory.