tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45329888531307997532024-03-14T01:08:32.473-07:00Freedom Is ObviousThoughts on freedom and why it is worth restoring and preserving.Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.comBlogger178125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-20717974062770033772023-10-22T06:19:00.002-07:002023-10-22T06:36:33.158-07:00The Human Prospect<p> <span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 13px;">We live in a <i>very</i> angry world.</span><span class="Apple-converted-space" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 13px;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 13px;">Stress levels are very high, thanks in great part to media doing what they do best.</span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Several weeks ago an organization calling itself "Hamas" mounted an attack on Israeli civilians, murdering well over a thousand men, women, and children. Since being founded, Israel has coexisted with the so-called "Palestinians" on tenuous terms, at best. The Israelis see the Palestinians as the bad guys in the strained affairs between them. The Palestinians see the Israelis as the bad guys. Each has their point of view on the matters at hand.</p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">I, for one, see this from all sides.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>There is culpability aplenty for all.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The ones I pity most are the children.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>They get no chance; no say.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>They are nursed on the corruptions of the adults around them. Those corruptions are not always what one might think, and they cover a very broad spectrum of characteristics. It is not the Israeli/Palestinian strife of which I wish to speak now, for that is but one mere example of a world choking on such strife and the chaos and bloodshed it so often drags along with it. It is the propagation of human rot and filth and the inevitable doom it is likely to bring to bear upon us all that I shall address.</p><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The human race is hopeless as a matter of its proclivity to perpetuate the evils and errors of the past, and to spawn and propagate new ones, generation over generation. The fact that we do this with such steadfast reliability is the very guarantee that the day is likely to come where we will seal our destruction as a species such that regardless of whether so much as even a handful of us survive, we will nonetheless have been destroyed in toto, for there are fates out there which are worse than death.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">The entropy of thought, of perception, of the <i>interpretation of perception</i>, can only grow in the superorganism of a culture, which seems to take on a life of its own at some point.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The hatreds and other corruptions held and made manifest by individuals remain safe in the bowels of the collective id of their underlying culture. It is through that channel that those errors pass on from one generation to the next.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>And as humanity's technological levers grow in length, those who wield them do so with with ever greater latitude to act with ever more vast and inescapable effect.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> When such individuals hold such power, harboring all the bitter and hate-fired emotions to which their inherited corruptions invariably give rise, the ultimate outcomes of such combinations can run but one way: to chaos, disaster, and raw tragedy. </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; surveillance hardware, and the now emerging machine intelligence in the hands of men running wildly mad in their perceptions and the opinions which arise therefrom shall be the basis of our ruin; it already is. Worst of all, the midbrains of men running off the rails with a fervor that is bio-functionally indistinguishable from that of the religion they deny, and the God they hate so deeply and disdainfully, will drive every choice they make. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>They shall be thinking of naught but to satisfy the lust for what they believe, however conveniently, is "right". it is by this route that they shall render themselves in no radical way different from those upon whom they vent the rage-hatred that lives within them like a metastatic cancer.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>We are doomed because there will be no stopping what is coming; there is no stopping it because we refuse to so much as see it, much less to act in the defense of what is good between human beings; things worth defending.</p><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Men such as Schwab and Gates have crossed a threshold and have doubtlessly carried minions on their coat tails.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The day will come when those men will act with neither equivocation nor compunction, and humanity will become a settled issue in large part, if not in toto.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>And if some survive, which is likely, those people will believe themselves as having escaped fate, or perhaps as being immune to what had been brewing for thousands of years in the breast of humanity.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>One again shall men delude themselves for the sake of their immediate comfort.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">Much like the Krell</span><span style="font-size: 13px;">, they will never be able to escape what they are, and shutting their minds to the truth of it, they will doom themselves to ultimate extinguishment in ignominy equal to that of those they so self-righteously murdered in the false belief that they were cutting some cord with the past, only to be carrying its seed within themselves, denying its existence any further, and thereby ensuring with absolute guaranty that the beast will arise once again as the cycle begins afresh.</span></p><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">We, the sufficient mass of humanity and the ones most in need of maintaining our thoughts and reveries upon the Sacred, have turned our backs to it.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Is it any wonder that we have ended up where we are, and that we got here by so tortured a path?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>We who ventured from the old world that stood stably for millennia, to build the new, the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>men of European descent whose embrace of "science" which lead to our stepping from the traditional confines that bound us within a circle, needed the Sacred more than any other people on the planet as we ventured beyond those ancient lines.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Yet enough of us turned our backs to it, and now we stare into an abyss of our own contriving.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><br /></p><p class="p1" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Our venturing and the achievements that resulted therefrom, however, were the precise reasons for closing our eyes to God.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Who, having accomplished such things, wishes to share credit?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Few, I suspect.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>And so we march headlong into something of which I have no interest in being a part.<br /><br />The more powerful a man becomes, the more does he need a sense of the Sacred as a guide for his choices. This is precisely what the men currently wielding true material power in the human world lack. The combination of great material power and an absence of that which the Divine lends in the relevant terms can lead nowhere good in a way similar to locking a curious toddler in a room with a nuclear warhead and a button that, if pressed, will result in detonation.<br /><br />Worse yet is the man who is convinced that his sense of duty, which drives his decision making, springs from correct roots. He is the most dangerous of all because he stands so utterly convinced that his views are not only correct, but are uniquely so. Verily is he the perfect mirror-image of the man of religion whom he hates with such depthless and bitter rage.<br /><br />Humanity stands deep in the kimchee, self-extrication appearing ever less likely with each passing minute. Until we choose to limit our prerogatives along lines of choice that coincide with something even vaguely resembling basic sanity, we shall continue the march toward the maw of the beast that consumes everything in its path. Understanding that which is Sacred is key, and no such understanding can come if men are unwilling to stop themselves for a moment to consider the question.<br /><br />I cannot say what will happen along this path on which we find ourselves, but I can speak to the probabilities, none of which look particularly good at this time.<br /><br />As always, give these thoughts some jiggle in your brain, and please accept my best wishes.</p><p class="p2" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 15px;"><br /></p>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-60372598443828233212023-10-13T19:33:00.001-07:002023-10-13T19:54:47.387-07:00Hamas' Half-baked Attack On Israel Reveals Its Truer Face<p><a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2023/10/hamas-half-baked-attack-on-israel.html" rel="nofollow" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" target="_blank">https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2023/10/hamas-half-baked-attack-on-israel.html</a><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Hamas has conducted what was very clearly a carefully planned assault on the people of Israel, murdering well over 1000 presumably innocent men, women, and children. There is no question that the attack took considerable time, money, and care in its design and the preparations for bringing it to fruition. Given the long history of strife in the area by the usual cast of characters, it is also clear that Hamas had to have been keenly aware of the response they could expect in return for their treachery.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">In the wake of the attack, the Israeli hornets' nest was stirred aplenty, and for the past seven days their armed forces have been busily pounding Gaza, resulting in thousands of casualties. In addition, Israel has cut off all electrical power to Gaza, as well as network connectivity, food deliveries, water, and so forth, all these measures being predictable in the extreme. There is no doubt that Hamas knew all this would happen.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">How is it then that Hamas, which presumes to speak for the Palestinian people, and whose rhetoric gushes with intmations of their devotion to same, failed to make provisions in anticipation of the Israeli response that was so readily predictable? Why did Hamas fail to ensure there would be plentiful food hoards? Medicine? Water? Electrical power equipment?</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">If Hamas' cause is so just, so noble, and if "God" supports them, then why do they hide themselves amid the innocent like cowards, virtually guaranteeing widespread injury to the people in whose name they claim to act? Why, if their cause be just, do they make every effort to escape into neighboring nations after having done the deeds they claim as having been righteously taken against the people of Israel?</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">What Hamas has done and continues to do seems not unlike someone who eagerly engages in sexual activities, yet when there is a child to raise, is nowhere to be found.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Furthermore, to label the Palestinians as in any way being mere and innocent civilians (small children excepted) carries an equally foul stench. In order to be genuinely innocent, they would have to stand in sincere and open disapproval of Hamas' existence. Tolerance of an official policy that says "death to Israel" cannot be reasonably taken as innocent, even in the face of threats to anyone daring to speak out. If a Palestinian disapproves of Hamas, then he should take whatever action he is able to thwart and erode the designs of Hamas. Granted, it may not be possible to do much that is immediately and directly effective, given that we are speaking of a terrorist organization which has shown its eager will to spill blood pursuant to their goals and objectives. But there are things that could be done, nonetheless, such as moving away from the area. How about sharing with Israeli authorities information that might help them take effective action against specific individuals who strive to precipitate blood-soaked mayhem?</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Never once have I heard, seen, or read any reference to brave Palestinians risking their skin to help the Israelis defend against the various islamist kooks who incessantly plot against their most hated foes. The silence of so-called "Palestinians" with respect to organizations such as Hamas strongly suggests tolerance at the very least. I will go so far as to say that the likelihood stands that a large number of Palestinians actively support Hamas, even if only morally, though I am confident of the probability that many do more than that. That speaks not a word to innocence.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">So if Palestinians are not working against Hamas, knowing what that organization is and what they do, then it becomes quite the stretch to assess them as innocent civilians who are unjustly made to suffer at the hands of the evil Israelis. Nobody wants to be murdered.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">No matter how you slice this pie, at best Hamas comes out smelling very badly and looking abominably stupid. Taken more realistically, they are cowards and liars of the lowest order who claim to be fighting a war, because soldiers don't take hostages. These are not soldiers at all, but only craven milksop poltroons hiding behind the skirts of little girls for fear of reaping harsh consequences for their harsh acts. They want a free pass to kill and maim those whom they choose to hate. They want the proverbial free lunch.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I will go out on a short limb and assert that Hamas was not only aware of what would happen in the aftermath of their blood-bath, but that those consequences were in fact the point of the exercise. Mount a bloody assault on innocent people, knowing full well that a certain population was guaranteed to take heavy damage in the wake, while making absolutely no preparations whatsoever to deal with those horrific outcomes such that the worst possible horrors would be realized with thousands of dead and viciously maimed, so that you could then parade the mangled humanity upon the world stage and play the victim. This is precisely the brand of cynicism-soaked rot at which Hamas and other islamist interests are playing, all for the sake of seeing Israel destroyed.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Unless there was indeed some deeply concealed Israeli conspiracy to precipitate this attack in the spirit of a false-flag, only better, then it is abundantly clear that Hamas and the people of Gaza are the single and singular bad actors in this instance. As yet, there has been no evidence presented indicating that Israel committed any act that would justify such an attack, reducing Hamas to the standing of rank murderers and leaving the character and quality of the Palestinians in great question at the very least.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">For the record, I write these observations as an indifferent third party who has no pony in this race. My broadest assessment of the players unequivocally indicates that there is plenty of blame to go around, Israel included. I would also note that never once in my entire lifetime have I encountered so much as the most oblique hint from either side that they might actually share in even the least measure of culpability for any act that they had ever committed, strongly suggesting that the problem in question is intractable and that things will not end well for anyone there.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I find the whole situation horrifying and repellent, pitying and despising all at once those who have chosen to embroil themselves in a destructive tantrum that shows no end in sight and whose practical sense leaves everything to be desired. To find this rivalry profitable, as doubtlessly some on both sides do, is distasteful in the extreme, and is worthy of nothing better than our deepest disdain.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Finally, I further note that the Palestinians are religiously bemoaning an absence of help from outside. My view on that, assuming the fact, is that it would seem a very unambiguous message that nobody likes them, perhaps because their problems are mostly all self-inflicted. Some of the Muslim entities are paying lip service to the Palestinian plight, yet none of them to my knowledge have opened their borders to welcome refugees, or their wallets to provide the basics of life for the displaced and injured. Where is the material support from a Muslim world that seems quite fond of boasting the virtues of Islamic generosity and charity? Thus far, I see none in evidence, but let us hope it shall be forthcoming, and forthwith.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">What I see from the Palestinians is a load of cry-babying as they peddle arguments that do not stand up even to comparatively casual scrutiny. They tacitly support a raft of murderous lunatics, and then cry and moan when those whom they have brought to harm understandably retaliate, all the while expecting the world to fall at their feet, kowtowing. This is not likely to serve them well.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">As the world descends ever further into madness, I can but bid you all well and offer my prayers for your wellbeing in these times where the lunatics are running the asylum. While I recognize the futility in doing so, I also hope the people of Israel and Palestine meet with success in finding mutually beneficial solutions that do not involve genocide.</span><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Until next time, please accept my best wishes.</span></p>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-57280787853710040662023-09-26T01:52:00.001-07:002023-09-26T01:52:47.197-07:00Why The "Left" Will Never Be Happy<p> </p><p><br /></p><p>Over the years it has become painfully apparent that those who identify as "left" or "progressive" have never once in my experience showed so much as the least sign of satisfaction in... well, <i>anything</i>, save perhaps the misery of others. No matter the nature of their goals and objectives, even when they "win", they remain of a bitter, anger-logged demeanor for whom their deep-seated resentments come forth in ever growing transparency, made outwardly manifest in torrents of bile and ever expanding circles of wild rage. No matter how much they may gather unto themselves, whether by hook or by crook, more is apparently never enough for them. </p><p><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">The left will NEVER be happy with what they have because they cannot be satisfied as matters of the very fabric of their most basic thoughts, which they have willfully chosen for themselves as the result of the fundamental assumptions they similarly chose to accept as real and reasonable, virtually all of which are fatally toxic to the truths that reality has set before all men as a lavish banquet for our good health and benefit. Those assumptions invariably lead to psychotic formations, which lead those who so subscribe to act atrociously, feloniously, and all too often murderously. The grim histories of the Soviet Union, Communist China, NAZI Germany, the manifold blood-soaked tyrannies of Africa, as well as those of the extremist Islamists; the petty Southeast Asian tyrannies as exemplified by the Khmer Rouge's killing fields; the almost comedic but similarly bloody tyrannies of meso- and South American "revolutions", and now the soft, but ever hardening tyrannies of modern day Europe, Canada, Australia, and the United States of America, stand in bald-faced testament to the universally destructive nature of all that labels itself as "left" or, ever so ironically, "progressive".</span></p><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">As to how they operate, let us assume for argument's sake the lefties were to get everything they want. That would mean over half of the American population murdered. Fine - now that all the vermin are eradicated, they could then set themselves to the task of building America (or even the world with at least four billion murdered, preferably seven) in the image of their ideals. Ignoring the vagaries of those visions, and even if we assume sharply focused and perfectly defined images in a fit of unjustifiable generosity, those ideals will not be realized because it is not possible to do so. </span><div><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">Why? Glad you asked. </span></div><div><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">The ideals of the left spring from a deeply ignorant perception of, and assumption about human nature. It persists regardless of reality's lessons to the contrary, due to a stubborn refusal to acknowledge characteristics and qualities of the human animal that rub in a most unwanted manner against that which they demand: a perfect world where everyone is blandly and boringly equal, nobody's feelings are ever hurt, everything is "free", and where truth is a purely subjective notion. In other words, a world of endless wet-dreams and unicorn poo at every meal, as much as you can stuff into your gob. </span></div><div><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">Indeed, when the overtly fundamental character of humanity is pointed out to a lefty in violent contradiction of their unrealistic views, the predictable response is to retreat into shrieking, howling, and carrying on like ill-bred toddlers as they pitch tantrums worthy of the books. Because of this most unfortunate characteristic of the so-called "progressives", they are emotionally <i>self-wired</i> to concoct political ideas and the attendant requirements of implementation that are blatantly impossible to realize, not to mention patently absurd, prima facie, to anyone in possession of an IQ. Assessing their ideas as rank idiocies lends to them far greater credit than they merit, and hides the greater and most venomous bulk of the ferocious dangers they carry, from immediate scrutiny. </span></div><div><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">Being intransigently wed to their grotesquely malformed archetypes, they will double-down every time their attempts at bringing their clumsy ideas to fruition fail with perfect and universal predictability. Being utterly convinced of the flawless nature of their lunacies, they are compelled to explain away the endless strings of failures, which invariably requires the identification of a class of scapegoats who in their minds obviously had to have acted in "counter revolutionary" measure to thwart the infallible will of the "state", the "people", "satan", or whatever other nonsensical iconography they will have concocted as the presumed basis of just and absolute authority underpinning their felonious nonsense. The Soviet Union and Communist China are perhaps the premier examples of the typical, ham-fisted, and almost comedic manner in which the dullard-chiefs and other agents of those iconic institutions of the worst that humanity has to offer itself have gone about their business. Comedic, that is, were it not for the hundreds of millions of innocents they murdered in the name of their collectively psychotic visions of how life as a human being should be. Worse in a way yet were the NAZIs, whose authoritarian collectivist tyranny carried a sophisticated architecture that can at least be credited with having provided clear and unarguable benefits to its people, or rather, <i>some</i> of them. They were worse in that their tyranny was far more well thought out and carried forth. The enemies of decency and what for them was defined as proper civil life were all the undesirable people - Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and so forth. Even this might have had merit, had the NAZIs not made the fatal error of over-generalizing, which invariably leads to innocents being caught up in the nets that have been set out ostensibly for real and actual criminals.
</span><br />There is no dearth of examples of the universal failures of the nonsense we commonly know today as "leftism" or "progressivism". Failure is woven into the DNA of the world view in question, and there is no surgery possible that can correct this most horrific deformity of thought. But the truth of this is no impediment to the people who choose to join themselves at their hips to this virulent mind-cancer that destroys all it infects. And so we move on to the cycle that even the sanitized histories cannot hide.<br /><br /><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">The infallible architecture having failed so faithfully, and those in power being immutably committed to it, the hunt must commence for the human culprits who in the minds of the overlords must exist because the plan and vision cannot possibly be to blame. That subpopulation will be ferreted out by any means necessary, every resource being devoted to their exposure so that the bosses may then have the criminals righteously eliminated with great fanfare, the hatred-fueled rage of the people backing every move. With the evil having been excised, initiation of the next cycle "forward" commences, which perforce will also fail, leading to the next purge. Taken to its logically absurd conclusion, this rinse-and-repeat cycle of fury-driven auto-destruction under the divine guidance of the infallible leftist institutions of "state", we ultimately end up with but two cavemen remaining on the planet, each waiting for the other to fall asleep first as they nervously eyeball each other from opposite sides of the fire. That is what this brand of mindset brings, and nothing better. Dissatisfaction is the inevitable result of the efforts of the left because no other outcome is possible. Given enough latitude, the tyrants butcher and imprison humanity to the brink of extinction, and still they are not satisfied because they have married themselves to a way of existing that can lead to nothing other than dismal failure. Just imagine for a good moment what that really means - what it means to be so willfully blind to your own error that you keep to it as a drowning man clings to anything that he thinks, hopes, will bear him up and preserve his life. Such corruption cannot be given a number, nor can it be characterized sufficiently, suffice to say that it currently represents the greatest threat to the daily lives of everyone on the planet. As the left takes over, it will become apparent to even the most strident denier that humanity shall continue on the path to destruction of all that is good between men unless and until these criminally insane people are displaced and neutralized.</span><br /><br /><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">That is the general timbre of our prospects, so long as the raving insanities and inanities of the lunatic progressive continue to direct humanity into what can be nothing better than a future riddled with perpetually increasing levels of wholly unjustifiable and readily avoidable poverty, disease, death, and universal misery.
May I prove mistaken in all of this. May the goodness of humanity come forth and set to rights all that is now so wildly and obviously amiss. </span></div><div><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">And until next time, may you all accept my best wishes.</span></div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-61901218521162177682023-08-09T06:11:00.008-07:002024-02-19T18:33:39.888-08:00Property Is Theft?<br /><br />There are those who with bold stridency declare that "property is theft!"<div><br />Let's drill into this idea to see whether it holds any merit. To that end, let us narrow the channel a mite and focus on a single question, assuming the assertion as a given:<div><br /></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div>Is your life your property? That is, do you <i>own</i> your life?</div></blockquote><div><div><br />If yes, then let us revert to a syllogistic form to see where this leads:</div><div><br /></div></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">Property is theft. [assumption] </blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">Your life is your property. [assumption] </blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">If your life is your property, your life is theft [modus ponens] </blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">Theft is by definition, a crime. [definition] </blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">If your life is theft, it is a crime. [modus ponens]</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div>Criminality subsumes theft, meaning all theft is criminal, though not all crimes are theft. [logical consequence of definitions]</div><div>Criminality requires the existence of victims. [by definition]</div><div>The simple act of existing as a living being creates no victim perforce. [self-evident]</div><div>Therefore, one's life as one's property cannot be a crime. </div><div>If one's life cannot be a crime, it cannot be theft, nor can it imply theft. [modus tollens]</div><div><br /></div><div>Proof by contradiction, extensible to any property one may care to name.</div><div><br /></div><div>QED.</div></blockquote><div><div><br /></div><div>One might ask the somewhat naive, or perhaps disingenuous question, "what about stolen property?" The answer there is, of course, very simple: if the property is stolen, it never becomes the property of the thief. This is, of course, the normative truth, but the truth nonetheless. It does not mean that the thief does not wield proprietary control over the stolen goods. It does, however, mean that every act he commits with the stolen property is by its nature one of inherent criminality. This may not help the victim much, but in the case where the property is discovered as having been stolen, at least the victim may be restored in some measure, and hopefully justice served upon the thief.</div><div><br /></div><div>We could stop here, as the matter merits no further consideration, but let us continue for the sake of putting the final nails in the coffin of this most absurd notion.</div><div><br />If your life is <i><b>not</b></i> your property, then a universe of absurdity opens before us, where quite literally anything goes because all consistency of logic and reason will have winged away into the mists of oblivion. The simple fact of the assertion as true makes every human being who has ever lived a criminal by mere virtue of his birth; a felon with no possible avenue of redemption , save to go home to mom's basement, also a product of theft, retrieve dad's revolver, also a product of theft, and blow his own brains out. But are they even <i>his</i> brains? How can they be, if to <i>have</i> brains, possessing them as "property", is in itself the crime of theft? The absurdity of rapidly growing Gordian Knot of wild insanity is, I pray, self-evident to all. But just in case it isn't...</div><div><br /></div><div>Food becomes property when one takes it up to eat. One eats to continue his life, but if eating involves the assumption of property, which is theft and by that virtue a crime, then the act of continuing one's life becomes a crime by virtue of that assumption. Are we to accept that the very acts of continuing our existences are then crimes?</div><div><br /></div><div>One's life <i>is</i> his property. Were it not, one would hold no <a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2016/11/what-are-rights_21.html" rel="nofollow">right</a> to it and, therefore, no valid claim. It would be up for grabs... or would it? It would seem that nobody would have valid claims to anything, including their lives. The world descends instantly into the depths of dementia with the acceptance of three simple words. You would have no right to defend your life against, ironically, "theft" by another, whether it were to enslave, or maim, or murder you.</div><div><br />One's life is what I have come to label as his "First Property". All creatures are enjoined by their fundamental nature to preserve their First Property by any and all means at their disposal; to fight to preserve themselves at any and all cost. If someone attempts to deprive me of my First Property, I will take whatever means I deem necessary to prevent that from happening, up to and including depriving the thieves of <i>their</i> First Property. This is called "self defense" and nobody but the most insanely corrupt individuals deny such acts as those of a fundamental nature common to all human beings and, by logical extension, all living creatures. Poke a paramecium, a single-celled eukaryotic organism, and it shoots trichocysts at you, small pointy darts, in defense of its First Property. </div><div><br />To believe that property is theft is to believe in the validity of chaos, the deeper implication being that <i>all human action is criminally invalid.</i> After all, even if our lives are theft, how can anything we do be non-criminal, save perhaps to relinquish that which we have stolen, including our lives? To accept the notion is to accept that we are irredeemable creatures, that all acts are criminal in their fabric, and that there is nothing good that issues from humanity, whether a kind word or the saving of the lives of one's fellows in distress. This is the <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> of the idea that property is theft.</div><div><br /></div><div>If all property is the product of theft, which is a felony, then by direct implication there can be no valid human action. To interact with another human being in any endeavor, including sexual congress which may lead to new life, which is property and therefore theft, is to engage in the possession, manipulation, transfer, and/or destruction of stolen... erm... "property". And here we see the notion itself, that property is theft, gives rise to a fundamental, self-reinforcing, and inescapable contradiction, some of the branches of which can loop into infinity. The absurdity is self-evident the moment one stops to think on the idea in even the most cursory manner.</div><div><br /></div><div>Example of such a loop: Those who subscribe to the property-is-theft notion also, and paradoxically, tend also to subscribe to the idea of removing the property of others by force, that which one has stolen. But how can this be valid when one is <i>stealing</i> stolen property? So now someone else steals the stolen property that you then stole from the thief. But now he who stole it from you is the thief, so someone steals it from him. And so on it goes because the mutually antagonistic ideas of property is theft, and we must take by force the products of theft, work in self-reinforcing battle between fundamentally incompatible notions. Logically speaking, once you enter that loop, you cannot get out, save perhaps by more criminal action through the violation of the moral duties that those mutually reinforcing ideas place upon the individual by direct implication.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you don't accept the idea of confiscating such property, then you are by direct implication accepting theft as valid, or at the very least, tolerable. That being the case, the sky becomes the limit of human prerogative. Johnny then becomes entitled to rape Janey because the theft of Janey's bodily integrity is no longer an issue.</div><div><br /></div><div>Confused yet? Horrified? Disgusted? Eyeballs rolling from your sockets? You should be and they should be, because this is the sort of raving lunacy to which "property is theft" gives direct and rapid rise.</div><div><br />Furthermore, you as a human being, if you endeavor to continue your life while believing that property is theft, are then a criminal hypocrite whose only obligation is to immediately end your own life because even to feed yourself is theft and the continued support of the product of theft. This is wildly and insanely idiotic on its face and we have soundly demonstrated why it is so.</div><div><br /></div><div>Under the presumption of this notion, one cannot even get to the question of whether that which one creates, whether for oneself or for another, is at any time his property or that of another. Creation of anything material becomes an act of theft. And what of ideas? If I create a new notion, is that theft? If I share it with the world, have I now implicated every human being in a criminal act? The can of worms that opens before one's eyes with the acceptance of this falderal idea that property is perforce theft, has no discernible end. The litany of questions to which the idea leads, stretches on well beyond the horizon, outward to the sides, and upwards and downwards until we drown in them, not a single one having a sufficient and reasonably acceptable answer.</div><div><br /></div><div>Once again, and to be a broken record, the absurdity of this idea that property is theft nudges past the limits of infinity.</div><div><br /></div><div>Conclusion: property is not theft, it is not perforce the product of theft, and that anyone who subscribes to this notion is mentally unsound, morally so, or both.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you have heretofore bought into the notion that property is theft, you may now confidently and comfortably disabuse yourself of this folly, for you no longer have the excuse of ignorance.</div><div><br /></div><div>Live long, prosper, and as always please accept my best wishes.</div></div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-64437601268590267292023-08-03T05:47:00.000-07:002023-08-03T05:47:04.076-07:00We Are As Slaves On A Prison Planet<p> Many people are fond of embracing the lie that slavery had been abolished by the forces of good. This fact befuddles me most perfectly.</p><p>Let us be clear: slavery is abolished on paper only and, practically speaking, only in certain forms and by certain parties for certain other parties. Let us be further clear that those certain parties of the first part reserve for themselves every privilege of the slave master while the proletariate are denied such latitude. They hypocrisy alone is staggering, much more so the wild criminality that this represents.</p><br />Slavery is alive and well in the human world. <div><br /></div><div>Starting at the bottom, there is all manner of sex trafficking going on all over the globe. Muslim nations openly conduct slave trade of all forms. Then, at the supposed "top" of the heap are Europe and America, both of which are metastatic with the slavery cancer. Sex trafficking is the obvious case, but the far deeper cancer is that of taxation and generalized "state" tyranny. "Governments" enact violative statutes that address no crime, yet falsely criminalize the acts in question, whether it be purchasing the services of a prostitute, buying/possessing/using "illicit" drugs, possessing a firearm without some arbitrary permission, or what have you. They then have the brass to call those statutes "law", which is one of the biggest lies ever told by tyrants, who make up any phony baloney nonsense as their caprice might move them.<br /><br />Americans, and in general we are become an appallingly stupid race, believe they are "free". To that, I will tell anyone that if they truly believe that biggest of all lies, then do and by all means stop paying your property tax. In time, you will receive a nicely worded letter reminding you of your alleged delinquency. In more time you will receive a series of other letters, each new one less friendly than the last. Finally, a sheriff's deputy or two will come to evict you from what is supposed to be <i>your</i> property, which of course it is not. If you resist, they will become violent. Resist enough, and they will murder you.<br /><br />Does that sound anything like freedom? If it does, then you stand in deep need of lessons in what actually freedom is.<br /><br />The ENTIRETY OF HUMANITY is up to its eyeballs in slavery, make no mistake about that. That you are in some places afforded an expansive cage makes no difference to the fact that you are indeed a slave because you are by no means free to exercise your rightful prerogatives as a Freeman, but are only given permission to exercise a comparatively very limited set of choices as per the deign and whim of the Tyrant, who eternally reserves the right to rescind any and all rights any time he pleases, with or without cause.<br /><br />The enlarged cage of the pretty slavery that has been foisted upon the world is now mistakenly conflated with actual freedom. That is the saddest joke of all recorded human history.<br /><br />Civilization has proven itself liberty's undoing and the utter destruction of our freedom, in point of practical fact. Setting that first stone at Sumer was perhaps the greatest error ever made by anyone. But now that we are here, it is in fact possible to institute a free architecture and to dispose of all tyrants and with them, their tyrannies. The only question that remains is whether the human race will ever cough up enough self-respect to make it happen. At this juncture, that prospect appears grimly unlikely, which is a terrible shame because the human world could be ever so much better than it is, were it not for the deep and intransigently abiding corruption of the Mean Man.<br /><br />Humans.</div><div><br /></div><div>Give it all a think and, until next time, please accept my best wishes.</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-34505039293043360072023-08-03T05:32:00.002-07:002023-08-03T05:32:42.427-07:00War Should Be Hell, Part Deux<p> Why have all these wars in which America has been involved since Korea gone so miserably wrong? Two main reasons.</p>Firstly, involvement in wars of foreign aggression are FAIL as matters of fabric.<br /><br />Secondly, if you are warring, then war. The ROE (Rule Of Engagement) should be one and only one: kill the enemy until he becomes a footnote in the fart-can of history, or he capitulates without condition. You kill them until there is no more warring going on from your enemy's side. America could have "won" in Viet Nam in about eight weeks, had we gone in with the intention of fighting an actual war. But no, we were there to "help", and got our asses handed to us, and rightly so, given point the first, above.<br /><br />And so it has gone ever since. War is hell, and it ought to be. It should be so unspeakably horrifying that nobody even considers making the first move unless circumstances are so dire that one engages only with the greatest reluctance, and only as the last of all last resorts. When war happens, civilians should be indiscriminately murdered by the millions, pursuant to victory, if that is what it takes to achieve it. This goes for <i>all sides</i>. Let the horror, the real deal, no playing around terror of that thought sink into the minds of every human being on the planet, and we would suddenly see a whole lot less of this greatest of all wastes of time and the best in men.<br /><br />The globalists try to make war sanitary, and therefore passably palatable in the eyes of people such that Theye can get away with waging it... at little to no risk to themseles. Theye are the first people who should be killed in war, along with their entire families. Erase their genetic lines in the most sadistically gruesome manners which most people cannot even imagine. Let the spectacle leave every man deeply injured in his soul in the way even holocaust survivors cannot comprehend. Erase Themme from the earth and let we who remain take that hard and horrific lesson to heart as we witness first hand the butchery of one human being by another on scales that leave men quaking and vomiting in fear and disgust, their souls weeping and wailing uncontrollably at the sight and the memory of it. Leave <i>that</i> in the minds of men and then <i>maybe</i> we humans would change our ways, though I remain to be convinced that it would become so. <br /><br />Nothing short of this sort of brutality to the minds of men will put war to its minimums because the average human being responds intelligently to nothing better. The average man is willing to tolerate the worst outrages committed against some people by other people, so long as they are not the ones whose lives are being extinguished. <div><br /></div><div>Therefore, make us all the victims of the <i><b>truth</b></i> of what war actually means. Let us learn to properly fear war and regard it as something to be avoided at almost any cost, but not to the extent we renounce our claims to freedom. Indeed, the whole idea behind my grizzly design is to get people to better understand the value of life and of our inherent liberties. Nothing else appears to work these days, so I say for the sake of that greater good over which the communist/socialist/forced-collectivist ants so vociferously rant and rail with interminable devotion and rage, embrace the lesser evil - the one that steers us from the greater dishonor and the destruction of all that is good between men. </div><div><br /></div><div>Let the nightmare spectre loom forever in the minds of men, lest they once more run headlong into the breach which is the greatest of all wastes and shames and felonies of humanity.</div><div><br /></div><div>Does this seem horrific? Does the thought repulse you; fill you with repugnant disgust and fear?</div><div><br /></div><div>Good. That should tell you that you are a decent sort, but are you decent enough to become as steadfastly opposed to warring as you might be revolted by my design? Let us hope so.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not a fan of such actualities, but when the alternatives are far and away worse, I prefer sustainable injury to annihilation.</div><div><br /></div><div>Please forgive the directness of this work, but given where we humans appear to be heading, which is nowhere good, I see no viable alternative than to suggest such gruesome measure for the sake of even worse outcomes.</div><div><br /></div><div>Be well, God bless you, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-86514270488538202692023-07-16T03:23:00.005-07:002023-07-16T03:34:07.742-07:00Blaming "Religion"<p>In another forum, someone was going off on "religion" as some universal evil for which men would be well served to stamp from existence. Forgetting the practical problems associated with this ill-considered idea, I would address the logical and philosophical issues.</p><p>Blaming religion, or any other non-substantive entity such as "government" or "the state" for the evils of the human world is a bad move because it is tantamount to excusing the individuals who are the actual culprits of vile, wicked, and dishonorable acts. Such people, and these are common as dirt, use their personal versions of whatever beliefs they claim for themselves as the basis and, perhaps more significantly, the justification of, or even excuse for their actions, however atrocious. This has been done countlessly over our recorded history, a most notable and comparatively recent example being those Germans who, during their trials at Nürnberg, claimed that they were "only following orders". One of the greatest blows to freedom, and a grand opportunity missed, was our collective failure to hold the Soviets and communist Chinese to account and pay for the decades of murder, oppression, robbery, disease, and leaden misery each had foisted upon their own people, but were sadly and tragically allowed to skate when their reigns of terror were called out for what they were and, at least ostensibly in one case, came to ends.</p><p>Worse still are the cases of both America and Europe, each of which know better, yet are so hopelessly corrupted that their respective people knowingly and willfully decline to bring the hangman's noose to bear upon those so richly deserving that fate, we humans being our own worst enemies. This is especially infuriating in the face of all the claims of a moral high ground, not to mention those of being "free" people. The absurdity sits heavily as concrete on the mind.</p><br />Blaming "belief" is not unlike calling organically-intact people "stupid" and excoriating them on that basis, in that it implicitly excuses the bad choices made by those not suffering the faults of actual, clinical stupidity. One cannot hold a truly stupid man responsible for what he does, precisely because he is too stupid to understand the nature of his actions. But the intact man who willfully and knowingly chooses to act pursuant to some idiocy that produces an evil result may be justly held to account for what they have done. This is especially the case for those in "government", for they occupy positions of Special Trust such that when they violate that confidence and fail to make full amends with interest, they should be punished most harshly for both the crimes they have committed against those to whom they swore their oaths of good faith and competent service, and to serve as the most ghastly warnings to all others who presume to bear the mantle of the Public Trust.<br /><br />Let us be clear: religious doctrine in sé <i>does</i> nothing. It is one's choice to subscribe to a set of beliefs, its attendant values, and to behave in accord with those dictates that is the problem when evil results. It is a problem of the individual choice of action, and not one of the notions and commandments themselves. So long as I fail to act, it matters no whit how wildly stupid or dangerous a notion I may choose to entertain. Such specifications have no effect whatsoever if people ignore them, much like the commands of a dictator, military commander, mayor, cop, or evil stepmother. <div><br /></div><div>Tyrants are effective not because of innate power, but only due to what is granted them by the obedience of those who do their bidding. Those, who by force of will choose to do as they are ordered, through the cumulative inertia of a critical mass, end up enthralling and enslaving themselves through their grossly misguided obedience to false authority, becoming cogs in a self-reinforcing network of imprisonment. </div><div><br /></div><div>Obedience to false authority is the greatest of all traps.</div><div><br /></div><div>Had nobody heeded Henry, would Anne Boleyn or any of his other unfortunate wives have lost their crowns to the headsman's axe?</div><div><br /></div><div>Have I mentioned that we are our own worst enemies?</div><div><br /></div><div>It is our obedience to the non-authority of men no more gifted with the power of actual authority than you or I, that brings endless suffering and catastrophe to humanity's abode. It is decidedly not "religion" or "political philosophy", or any other conceptual entity that causes the troubles we all suffer. It is naught other than our own physical selves, acting as the voluntary instruments of wills clearly set against our own better interests that are responsible for the disasters and other miseries of our reality, ninety nine percepf of which are purely synthetic and would disappear in an instant, were we to come to our senses. Our thoughts can direct our hands only with the decision to make it so. Barring that, we are impervious to misapplication and morally abhorrent command.</div><div><br /></div><div>If we are to act as our own worst enemies, aiding and abetting the destruction of the rights of our fellow men, not to mention our own, we should at least show the decency to own up to our culpability in those decisions. </div><div><br /></div><div>We should enough of us be better than that. How much improved would our world be.</div><div><br /></div><div>Be well, and until next time please accept my best wishes.</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-51265587621392007422023-06-16T06:05:00.001-07:002023-06-16T06:08:44.327-07:00Intolerance Of The Intolerable Is Virtue<br /><br />Allow me to begin with the following assertion:<br /><br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>One of the most important things the Freeman must do pursuant to his Liberty, and that of all his brethren, is to adopt a mindset of stern and defiant, intransigent intolerance for all ideas and actions that thwart or otherwise disparage, and thereby violate, the freedoms of men.</i></blockquote><div><br /></div>This may seem obvious to some, yet until is it articulated in clear and unequivocal fashion, the notion lays latent in open sight before the eyes of vast legions of humanity. <br /><br /><br />Since <i>at least</i> the 1950s there has been an assault upon the people of the world, mounted in the war of ideas that has been raging for millennia, but which has, through the agency of twentieth-century technological developments, taken on a whole new dimension, hue, and intensity. <br /><br />One of the spearheads of this assault, and there exist many others, has been the relentless and ever intensifying assertion of the notion of "tolerance". The use of the word has been hijacked by elements inimical to individual liberty. Pursuant to an agenda intent on foisting authoritarian collectivism on the entirety of humanity, the word now commonly carries tacit implications that tend to drive the mind toward a collectivist view. What has been done pursuant to that objective, has been to strip away any impulse to consider the notion of "intolerability". To leave such a notion as intolerability undisturbed and available to the thinking mind, is to reduce the violence and venom against the notion of "intolerance" as a universal, absolute, and utterly abhorrent option in the minds of people. Intolerance in any form, for any reason, save perhaps a small handful of a few very carefully chosen exceptions that facilitate the migration of mind and world-view toward the collective, is to be railed against with the greatest possible emotional bile and violence, crossing the barrier into the physical when "needed"†. <br /><br />According to the orthodoxy of ever-so-ironically named "progressivism", the philosophy that underpins the tyrannies to which Theye subscribe themselves, is that all intolerance is the purest evil... that is, unless we speak of notions such as sexual preference, for example. In that case, intolerance of intolerance is not only acceptable, but mandatory as matters of pure faith, never to be questioned in any way, by anybody, for any reason whatsoever. Death is quite literally too good for anyone who questions the orthodoxy and those who hail as "progressive" will eat their own in such cases. The example of Harry Potter author, J. K. Rowling serves as a fine instance of this sort of cannibalism. The moment the hard-left author raised so much as the mildest question regarding so-called "transgenderism", her own tribe and worshippers turned on her, wishing her dead, threatening her family, and embarking on a wild campaign to destroy the entire Harry Potter franchise. <br /><br />I would also point out that the progressives' <a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2023/05/hypocrisy-is-root-of-all-crime.html">diprotically</a> (hypocritically) inconsistent position on intolerance seems to go unnoticed by the vast plurality of humans, who seem merely to take it all on faith for no other reason than it has all been shouted at them with such frequency and intensity for so many decades, that it all becomes normalized in their minds. In this way do these deeply poisonous alterations of basic notions become truth in the minds of those incapable of, or uninterested in, discovering actual truth in favor of the lies that either don't matter to them, or perhaps serve the purposes of their individual corruptions pursuant to their goal of the proverbial "free lunch".<br /><br />Considering the question of what, precisely, is tolerable v. intolerable, is one of the thought pathways that Theye endeavor to cut off or otherwise thwart at nearly any cost. It is, of course, an element of critical thinking, which must be discouraged with the greatest possible non-unequivocation and prejudice.<br /><br />But in order for one to develop a well-balanced ability and habit of thought, one must be able to consider ideas from many angles, lest he fall into the error of opinions born of some form of tunnel-vision, the condition commonly called "narrow-mindedness" against which the progressives so vehemently shriek and rail. Oh, the irony of it all; the gross internal inconsistency of it. The clarions of open-mindedness who trumpet its mandatory nature, its central importance to all that is good in the world, turn out to be the most hopelessly closed-minded of us all. Did I mention irony?<br /><br />Therefore, in order to understand certain categories of proposition, and here I speak of those political notions that touch upon, and possibly interfere with, the rightful praxeological and philosophical prerogatives of Freemen, one must consider those things which are indeed tolerable, versus those which are not. Contrary to the tacit implications of the progressive orthodoxy, the vistas open for consideration in such questions often tend to be expansive. Even in the most restricted cases, the landscape may be found to be considerably broader and extensive than Theye who would presume lordship over you, would have you believe. The narrower your world, the more easily controlled you become. And yet, this narrowness is peddled to the Meaner as broad. The tenets of modern-day, technologically-enabled tyranny, as set forth in Orwell's "1984" have been precisely and identifiably implemented by the authoritarian collectivists, and they are working so very well in corralling the minds of enough of the people to allow themselves to succeed in such wild measure as I suspect they never thought possible.<br /><br />Pursuant to my infinitesimal and insignificant, yet forthrightly offered, effort to be a thorn in Theire sides to the greatest degree and extent to which I may successfully apply myself, I assert that a knowledge of what is tolerable, vis-à-vis what is not, is essential to a proper knowledge of the political world. This is especially important in a time such as this, where knowledge and understanding are being intentionally destroyed on a daily basis, the ultimate goal of which is to destroy the individual capacity for astute analytic thought.<br /><br />When one has come to the correct sifting of tolerable and intolerable, he is then able to properly apply his attitude of intransigent intolerance of those things that lead to the degradation of life, in favor of that which edifies it.<br /><br />Let me be clear on a very crucial point: very little of the terrors and horrors of the human world which we see today, exist of necessity. Nearly none of them are "organic". Rather, they are the results of synthetic conditions that have been set into place, whether by design, or the happenstance and outcomes of rank ignorance of unintended consequence. In other words, there are no inherent reasons why the world must wallow in the vile filth of misery, poverty, diseases both physical and of thought, and ultimately death. Sure, there will always be some of those sorts of things, but the degree to which they now dominate our daily existences is the product of our own hands. I further assert that that which we set into place, can be removed. We have every resource at out disposal. What we lack, is the sense, drive, and integrity to eat the bitter that would get us to that better land. The current state of the world cannot be wholly blamed on the "politicians", any more than the sidewinder can be blamed for biting the fool who attempts to cuddle up with him by the campfire at night. Onus rests mostly with we, the seeley and abused people whose conditions have arisen precisely because we have allowed it all to be made so. We are the true culprits in all this misery and ruin, and yet the door remains wide open to us to make all necessary amends to Liberty. The world is, in fact, our oyster. We have but to take it.<br /><br />Therefore, I bid every man who wishes or otherwise presumes the status of Freeman, endeavor to learn and distinguish the tolerable from its antagonist. Bring yourself to the pride that enables you then to stand tall as a free being, submissive to no other man, and work as you are able to make clear that which may be accepted and that which must be resolutely rejected.<div><br /></div><div>Finally, I bid that one and all please accept my best wishes.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />† Needed by <i>whom</i>, and for what reason?</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-45646317189040198252023-06-11T06:24:00.002-07:002023-06-11T06:24:55.816-07:00So-Called "Statism" Is NOT A Mental Illness.<p> Just moments ago, a fair and intelligent friend posted on a social media page an article whose headlines boldly proclaimed, "Statism is a self-accommodating mental illness". I have yet to view the article, but felt immediately compelled to respond to the headline, which itself alone merited a reply. To that headline did I produce the following.</p><p>"It is <i>not</i> a mental illness. It is a <i><b>WILL TO CORRUPTION</b></i>.</p>I understand the drive to discount the notion of "statism", as it is eminently worthy of disparagement. But to falsely attribute the willfully chosen position that we tend to label as "statism" as a mental illness is as statist as one can possibly get.<br /><br />Were it not the Soviets and Communist Chinese, in their ultimately statist modes and positions who, so very full of grasping avarice for absolute and total control over the minds and lives of every cockroach and housefly on the planet, who labeled any view on any matter imaginable that varied in the least way from that of their demented orthodoxies as "mental illness"? Was it not those self-same characters who decided that, having labeled an individual as mentally ill, anyone who was suffering from such illness was justifiably a candidate for any treatment whatsoever that the mighty, all-knowing, and <i>infallible</i> "state" might deem appropriate? Did we, those who were, or might have become, the victims of those wildly and dangerously, murderously corrupt individuals, not learn the lessons they so graphically presented the world? Apparently not.<br /><br />There is a double-edged sword here - the edge that discounts those who disagree with the official line of the state because they are "mentally ill", by far the more dangerously razor-like periphery. The other edge is that of the just and appropriate treatments which are <i>forgone</i> due to the use of the misdiagnosis such as found in the former, which perforce leads to unjust and most often horrific treatments that fall far beyond any punishment we might view as proper justice, even when such punishment is the removal of life from a criminal. There are, as I hope we all know, fates worse than death, many of them far more so. With too-casual an examination, one might be tempted to ask what is the practical difference if the result be effectively same? There is a huge difference, even if it is a mite subtle for the average intellect, though I find little subtlety there because the consequences of making this error are far reaching and potentially very severe. The result is nothing less than the corruption of the minds of men into believing a falsehood whose effects may grow as a cancer inside those minds, leading men to eventually accept as just and valid the most unspeakable evils imaginable. Our very souls and that of all human posterity hang in that delicate, precarious balance. This is the stuff of which man's worst nightmares are made: civilization gone wildly wrong, and that is precisely where we are heading today. It needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, and forthwith before every remaining shred of basic sense has fled the last mind of the last man to possess it.<br /><br />In the case of mental illness as the judgment, anyone so adjudged can be simply whisked away for any amount of time, treated in any manner whatsoever, including "medical" experimentation, the potentials of which nobody should need pointing out, given the educational examples we have at hand, courtesy of the likes of Dr. Mengele. Furthermore, the practice leaves the door wide open for indefinite "treatment", along with confinement, because someone unaccountable for his actions, a "doctor" in whom full latitude is given within the expansively broad boundaries of his "professional opinion", is given free run to keep and treat such people in any manner they may see fit for as long as they deem the "patient" as remaining in a state of illness, leaving the door further open to the wildest and most unimaginably sadistic and cruel abuses. Do recall the practice and brute violence of the frontal lobotomy, always carried out with the gentle smiles of the well-intending "doctor". God save us all from the good intentions of men.<div><br /></div><div>No sir. As much as I see "statism" as a threat to everything that is good between men, I in no way or degree will accept the "mental illness" approach as ever being acceptable in any way or measure, just because some vaguely defines symptom has manifested in an individual. Such individuals may deserve shunning, a good beating, lecturing until they pray for death, prison, or even being executed in the most severe cases. But by God they will be brought to their treatments honestly and justly, not just for THEIR sakes, but for OURS, that we do not become that which we proclaim to hate, a circumstance to which we are far more easily arrived than the vast plurality of humanity ever believes, and history proves me absolutely and in every way correct.<br /><br />We must attribute such beliefs correctly or we become as hopelessly lost as those whom we would presume to hold accountable, not for the beliefs per sé, but for the criminal actions they take pursuant to those beliefs, and in satisfaction thereof.<br /><br />To punish someone who is truly non compos mentis is itself an evil act. The man with brain lesions who murders his neighbor in a fit of uncontrollable rage cannot be justly held responsible for the act itself, though he may be justly separated from the company of his fellows for the sake of the future safety of his brethren. But that is an objectively identifiable cause of action, and not the fog-shrouded notion of "mental illness", itself a myth for reasons I will not go into here. Slippery is the slope and razor-thin the edge we tread, when we accept the utter bullshit notion of "mental illness" as rot cause, that being precisely my point here - how presumably well intended remedies so rapidly and stealthily turn into the most quietly subtle, and thereby wildest evil that people see as just and proper. The Devil ain't red with a bifurcated tail, horns, pitchfork, and spewing flaming brimstone from his nostrils. He most often seems the loving and trustworthy elder uncle in whose lap one so willingly reclines and feels so safe.<br /><br />So in the endeavor not to devolve into evil, we shun such punishment in favor of restriction of those who for whatever identifiable PHYSICAL conditions are rendered unsafe for the company of their fellow human beings. This may look like punishment, but it is not the same thing, and it is carried forth with nothing but the greatest reticence, sorrow, and compassion, whereas just punishment <i>should</i> be carried forth with a proper degree of disgust and anger for that which the criminal has committed, all idiotic presumptions of the neutrality of an automation notwithstanding and preferably to be tossed into the dustbin.<br /><br />But when we properly consider the murder in our example as having been undertaken pursuant to very specifically "statist" objectives (perhaps the neighbor was against a welfare state, and so "had" to be eliminated in the opinion of the murderer), we properly endeavor to <i>PUNISH</i> one who has committed such a heinous crime with the aggravating factor of statist intentions. In such cases we may engage in such punishment with a valid and justifiable sense of anger that underpins the similarly justifiable desire to punish, rather than the current hokey stupidity of "rehabilitation", which is nobody's responsibility but that of the criminal, and which comes about purely as the result of an individual's desire to reform his ways and sin no further, rather than the obsequious solicitations and cajoling of... <DRUM ROLL>... the "<i>STATE</i>".<br /><br />So let us dispense with the nonsense and call statism what it is: a will to corruption by the individual pursuant to the corrupt goals of obtaining that to which he is not entitled, using the brute force of the fiction we call "the state" or "government", to wrest by brute force and threats of imprisonment and even death, from the hands of some men the fruits of their labors, or even those associated with one's First Property, what we commonly call their very lives, whether that be their time, energies, or life itself.<br /><br />This places proper onus upon the <i>individual</i>, allows for proper punishment or other treatments pursuant to crimes and misdemeanors committed for the virtue of fulfilling such corrupt beliefs and the wishes that derive therefrom, and leaves we, the people, free of the false notions that, when accepted as true, lead us to the most disastrous outcomes. The history of the twentieth century should serve as all the proof of my veracity of my assertions, and to understand just how precariously tenuous is the most basic nature of human relations, the principles of which drive all human interaction. Get the principles wrong, and everything that follows thereafter will be wrong.<br /><br />Thought is <i>everything</i>, and where mind goes, Brother Ass follows most immediately and with perfectly slavish obedience. Think wrong, act wrong. Wrong words lead to wrong thought, leading to wrong action. The significance and severity of this cannot in any way be over-stated.<br /><br />Words are important; they are the single most important things in any man's life, whether or not he realizes it."</div><div><br /></div><div>Be well, God bless you all - even those who disagree with my views - and as always, please accept my best wishes.</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-20990254019317335282023-06-06T07:04:00.002-07:002023-06-06T09:51:01.433-07:00Do We Need "Government"?<p><br /></p><div><br /></div><br style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><div>Certainly as currently constituted, we by no means need "government". We do, however, need governance. The main form of governance, of course, is that of the individual over himself, which is the ideal. We all know, however, that this fails plenty often enough to have long ago become a serious issue. <br /><br />When one fails to govern his own behavior properly, it then falls to others to govern him in his own stead. This is a most dolorous and taxing necessity, placing a clear and deleterious drag on "society". We might call it a "bad behavior tax". In many cases, individuals take care of the problems that arise from such failures to self-govern by any of several means. Shaming and calling out such behavior is one way, and it used to work quite effectively, at least in the less severe cases - but it seems to have lost much of its power as people have lost their senses of proper shame for committing acts meriting such mortification. Nonetheless, it remains effective in at least a small proportion of instances, most often by parents instilling such senses into their children.<br /><br />Then there is the good old-fashioned ass-whooping. Sometimes a human being needs to have the crap smacked out of him when he behaves atrociously. A well chosen beating, whether serious or a mere smack in the head, can work minor miracles.<br /><br />Finally, we come to the far more serious and regrettable levels of correction and defensivee actions in which nobody with a lick of sense wishes to engage and which often leads to catastrophic injuries and even death. The felon, in the commission of his crime, is rightly thrashed to within an inch of his life, or even killed outright when his actions threaten the integrity of another's justly held properties, most significantly his First Property, which we commonly refer to as his "life".<br /><br />There are, however, many cases where not only is the criminal thwarted in his designs, but he actually survives his felonious stupidity, and having been apprehended alive, the commission of which must be addressed for any of several reasons of accountability and equity. <br /><br />First and foremost is the question of primary consequence for having committed, or attempted to commit, a felonious act. We do not simply dust the criminal off and send him packing with a stern word about sinning no more. There must be a significant price to be paid for his choice of action as both punishment, as a warning that we, the people, are quite serious about our intolerance of such behaviors, and in some cases as a practical measure for dealing with those who have demonstrated themselves unfit to be in the company of their fellows. There is also the compensatory angle. Despite having been foiled, or by other means called to account for his actions, the criminal may have in any event succeeded, however temporarily or otherwise partially, in depriving another of his freedoms and/or the rights that derive so naturally therefrom. Perhaps he injured his victim directly in a physical manner, or perhaps financially. Regardless of the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, the criminal must do everything possible to make his injured party once again whole. In cases where it is not possible to do so, or where the criminal is unwilling, the latter must then pay with the currency of highest value known to men: his time in the form of occupying in a prison cell. <br /><br /><br />For example, if he break the arm of his victim, he must accept and repay all medical expenses incurred to restore the victim's arm to proper function. But once broken, an appendage can never recover quite 100%, and for that irredeemable aspect of his crime, the felon must pay with his time, and plenty of it.<br /><br />So the question really comes down to how do we, as a collection of individuals we tend to call "society", institute governance in the cases where criminals need to be called to account and be punished for their vile and unjust acts? Are we to leave the various compensations for crimes up to each victim or his chosen agents? Ideally, that would seem the best course, but in practical terms it will not fly well, human beings being what they tend. A kid tosses his baseball through your costly plate-glass living room window: do you execute him as your notion of necessary repayment? Let us hope not. But the little darling must be held accountable. What to do? How about courts? Seems like a decent idea, but there are problems, as we are all able to readily see.<br /><br />There is talk in libertarian, anarchist, and similar philosophical circles, of "private" courts. The way this idea is peddled tends to emotional appeal, but I can assure you that such courts would be no different that those of the so-called "state". Why? Glad you asked. Because humans. We have "government" courts, and in far too many cases we see the various corruptions in those dens of the crapshoot, whether it be incompetence, malice, the avarice of blind ambition, revenge, or some other bias that sets men's hearts afoul of the good and the just. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that private courts would play out any better, all else equal, once again because humans.<br /><br />The answer lies not in whether the courts are public or private, but whether and how they are held accountable for their actions. For example, if a prosecutor is compelled by Law to produce to the court all exculpatory evidence, yet fails to do so, there are currently few consequences of any significance to be risked. But if the punishments be truly draconian, how many prosecutors will be willing to risk them for the sake of winning a case they know is bad in the first place by virtue of such evidence? Very few in my estimation, and when the injured parties of such perfidy are free to bring charges against such a prosecutor and the courts are given no choice but to try them, perhaps prosecuted by a party of the victim's choice, justice is likely to be best served, if even then imperfectly.<br /><br />This is but one aspect of governance. Perhaps there are others, but by all means this is the bulk of it.<br /><br />The advantage here is that every walking and breathing individual human being holds an equal stake in the institution, as well as equal power and authority, assuming equal risks for any improprieties they commit. Properly architected and administered, each man holds equal power in that institution, most particularly where injustices and crimes are committed. Imagine that ANY man or group thereof may call to account any other individual or group who, in their capacities as officials of governance (police, officials of the court including judges and prosecutors, etc.) have committed crimes either of malice or blunder. Imagine how different would be our daily reality. Gone would be the fear of saying the wrong thing or exercising a right in a way that would allow a rotten cop to drag you to the station in cuffs, to face an uncertain fate at the hands of a prosecutor and/or judge whose intentions and competence are not up to proper snuff. When all those in the chain of justice, including defendants, face grave consequences for the commission of errors and acts of malice or other corruptions, the landscape is cleared of the minefields into which the innocent so often and ignorantly wander today, often with terrible results.<br /><br />Consider the case where a man shoots and kills an attacker. If he innocently admits that he shot the aggressor with the intention of killing him, even if for the sake of saving himself from being killed, rather than of "stopping the attack", he will likely face murder charges. It is precisely this brand of insane and wild corruption on the part of prosecutors that must be put to its proper and abrupt end, the same to be said for all such acts on the part of those who swear oaths of good faith and competent service to the people. The Law is not supposed to lie as a trap in wait for innocent men, yet that is precisely what it has become, having made a mockery of itself and the justice it is supposed to represent.<br /><br />Make this one fundamental correction and the issue of whether we need "government" evaporates into the aether, as if it had never existed in the first place. By this means and for all practical purposes governMENT is removed, replaced with nothing but the conditions under which proper governance may be implemented and administered. This is the way of an optimally free and civilized society.<br /><br />We humans are of a sort always to press the boundaries of that with which we can get away. That which we tolerate, we get more of precisely because the perpetrators are always pushing that envelope. This is one of the certainties of life, up there with death and taxes. Therefore, onus rests with each and every one of we who draw breath to define the borders and enforce them with a single minded and dare I say vicious intolerance that leaves the criminals in no state of confusion as to what will be their fate if they trespass. This goes for all criminals, but must be trebly emphasized for those in so-called "government" because the tendency to push boundaries is greatest where the temptations are greatest. Those in "government" live with the greatest temptations of them all, and must therefore be held on the shortest possible leashes, to taste the whip most bitterly when their behavior exceeds their office.<br /><br />"Govenment" is just a label. There is not such thing in actual, material existence, but only in virtual terms. Never forget this and always bear it in the forefront of your awareness. It is the people bearing that label who must be addressed in terms of their behaviors and how we respond to excursions beyond their duly constituted authority. They must be treated with grim reprehension and retribution that when we are done with them, they will never again hold the least inclination of be otherwise able to make an encore performance. This way, we enjoy the benefits of the protections of those dedicated to such, while minimizing or even eliminating the felonies of abuse, whether by intent or accident. This is the design intent of the<span><span face="Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif" style="color: #222222;"><span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2021/07/amendment-xxix.html" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">28th Amendment to the Consititution of the United States of America.</a></span></span></span> It is meant to empower every American citizen pursuant to maximizing the individual's ability to stave off the "state" and prevent it from running amok in the ways now so commonly encountered by those agents thereof who believe themselves to hold the authority to commit all manner of heinous crimes against those to whom they have sworn their oaths.<a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2021/07/amendment-xxix.html"><br /></a><br />We have the power to crop "government" abuse by vast proportions. Making it so, however, is wholly up to us. There is no cavalry coming to your rescue, so the time is here for you to decide what it is you want, and it it is proper service by those whose jobs it is to protect your rights, then you need to start moving your asses, an Article V convention of the states being the righteous means to that end. We are far from having exhausted our options and civil war is in fact not the only remaining path to liberty as I had erroneously assumed in my frustrations of days and years past. No, ladies and gentlemen readers, the AVC is the answer and i contend that we must endeavor to pressure our state officials to ratify the call that we may, as architects of America's future, correct the errors that time has revealed in our current scheme of governance. The system is broken and it is up to every last one of us to step up to the Good Endeavor pursuant to our statuses as Freemen and for the sake of our freedoms and those of our posterity. The worst we can do is to sit idly in wait for the cavalry to arrive, because they aren't coming. YOU are the cavalry. YOU are the means by which this blessèd land has fallen into such deep troubles, and out of which it must be lifted. Only we, as lovers of freedom, can bring about recovery and actual improvement. We do this by coming to understand liberty; coming to love it in spite of all the scary and difficult bit therein, and becoming the bigger men by forgiving the sins of those whose views with which we do not agree.<br /><br />By intent or otherwise, those in power have us at each other's throats and it suits them well enough to keep it so. Don't fall for the bait, regardless of how you identify politically. There is an enemy of all humanity: the tyrant and his enforcers. Let us come together in sufficiency to stop him dead in his tracks and ensure that his kind can no longer rise to power. He will always exist, and so it is to the dirt to which we much relegate him, and it is in the dirt to which we must ensure he remains forever. After that, if we want to return to the back-biting, then so be it. But for now, let us be at the very least, strange bedfellows acting in common to displace and render impotent those whose aim is to bring us all to wrack and ruin. We can do it, but we must have the will to do so and to set aside our differences, at least for the time being.<br /><br />God bless America, God bless our freedom, God bless you, and as always please accept my best wishes.</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-15174793612702291682023-05-11T01:17:00.008-07:002023-06-06T04:58:45.375-07:00Diprotisy (Hypocrisy) Is The Root Of All Crime<p>Words never cease to amaze me, not only in their meanings, but in the dangers they pose when their semantics vary over time, most often from mis- or abuse, intentional or otherwise. </p><p>My purpose here is to demonstrate how hypocrisy is the basis of all crime, yet the original meaning of the term makes references other than that which I intent. To wit, Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1785 defines <i>hypocrisy</i> as "dissimulation with regard to the religious or moral character." Dissimulation, in turn, is "the act of dissembling; hypocrisy." Do note the circular definition. Dissemble: "to play the hypocrite; to use false professions; the wheedle." Note again the circularity.</p><p>The Oxford etymological dictionary defines hypocrisy thusly:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> <span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">c. 1200,</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">ipocrisie</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">, "the sin of pretending to virtue or goodness," from Old French</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">ypocrisie</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">, from Late Latin</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">hypocrisis</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">"hypocrisy," also "an imitation of a person's speech and gestures," from Attic Greek</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">hypokrisis</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">"acting on the stage; pretense," metaphorically, "hypocrisy," from</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">hypokrinesthai</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">"play a part, pretend," also "answer," from</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">hypo-</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">"under" (see</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><a class="crossreference notranslate" href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/hypo-?ref=etymonline_crossreference" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #83001d; cursor: pointer; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; outline: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(131, 0, 29); transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;" title="Etymology, meaning and definition of hypo-">hypo-</a><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">) + middle voice of</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">krinein</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">"to sift, decide" (from PIE root</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><a class="crossreference notranslate" href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/*krei-?ref=etymonline_crossreference" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #83001d; cursor: pointer; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; outline: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(131, 0, 29); transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;" title="Etymology, meaning and definition of *krei-">*krei-</a><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">"to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish"). The sense evolution in Attic Greek is from "separate gradually" to "answer" to "answer a fellow actor on stage" to "play a part." The</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">h-</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">was restored in English 16c.</span>"</p></blockquote><p>All of the several other sources I consulted provided no improvement on these results, a "hypocrite" being one whose true opinions or virtues, do not conform with those professed publicly or privately, particularly with respect to religious or moral issues. This original sense of "hypocrite" has little semantic relation to what one can only conclude is a modern mangling of the original, the relationship between the two being apparent, albeit in a somewhat tortuously stretched, tenuously thin, and overly-subtle way. </p><p>The sense to which I refer is that of the "double-standard", a term that somehow does not hold the same oomph as "hypocrisy", not to mention that its first known usage dates back only to 1872, a mere 151 years from the date of this writing. It was my hope to discover a far more ancient term that would convey the sense of a double standard with a singular and unambiguous force, yet I have been unable to identify such a word that met the requirement in a powerfully satisfactory way, which I find perplexing and somewhat disturbing. How, I ask, would a man of the tenth century have described that which many today is known as the double standard? I can't find it. The various thesauri list terms such as:</p>biases<br />favoritism<br />partisanship<br />unfairness<br />favoritism<br />nonobjectivity<br />inequity<br />discrimination<br />prejudice<br />favor<br />illiberality<br />tendentiousness<br />inequality<br />tilts<br />bigotry<br />injustice<br />one-sidedness<br />prepossession<br />preconceptions<br />unjustness<br /><br />None of these words carry the double-standard meaning or implication, save in the most obliquely indirect senses, many of them being either elements of a double-standard, or an effect or result thereof.<br /><p>Therefore, I shall coin the term "<i>diprot</i>", from the Greek διπλά πρότυπα (diplá prótypa, literally "double standard"). Its form shall be as follow:</p><p><b><br /></b></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>diprot, n. </b> A double-standard. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> "<i>Governmental monopoly on force is the most heinous of all diprots."</i></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><b>diprotisy, n.</b> Instance where a double-standard is present. Synonymous with the same, mistaken and modern sense of "hypocrisy", as distinguished from the proper sense of not being as one presents himself.</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> "<i>The diprotisy of his vote on the bill left him untrusted by voters."</i></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>diprotor, n.</b> 1 A <i>hypocrite</i> in the sense of one who judges by, or employs a double standard that either releases an individual from a stricture that is to apply to others, or confers a right or privilege denied to others, in all cases where no just, logically valid, or truthful basis exists for so doing. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> <i>"Commonly known as The Great Diprotor, the judge was hated throughout the land as a tyrant for her uneven treatment of defendants for the same crimes."</i></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>diprotorous, diprotical adj. </b>1 Of or relating to a condition, action, or thing having the quality of a double standard. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><i>"The diprotorous government edict lead to violent revolution."</i></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>diprotical, adj.</b> 1 Of, or relating to a double standard. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><i>"Stanley's resentment arose from his mother's diprotical treatment of himself and his younger brother."</i></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>diprotorine, diprotoresque, adj. </b>1 Having a quality or character suspiciously reminiscent of a double standard. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><i>"The diprotoresque specter of the proposed legislation lead to violent protest in the streets of the city." </i></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><i>"His diprotorine acts eventually left him with little trust from others.</i>"</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>diprotorize v. </b>To imbue with or lend the character of an invalid double standard. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> "<i>If you diprotorize the Law, you will be despised by everyone in town."</i></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><b>diprocate, diprocation v.</b> To act as a diprotor, the act of one who diprocates. </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"<i>His diprocation on punishment for Congressmen's crimes backfired on him wildly."</i> </p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">I find it somewhat surprising that a term dedicated to the double-standard sense of "hypocrisy" is not to be found, since the concept is central to many issues that relate to our innate freedoms, not to mention all other manner of human transactions. Whether this new and dedicated term catches on, only time will tell. Being dedicated to the concept of double standards, unlike hypocrisy, for which that sense is a relatively modern bending of a word, "diprotisy" is dedicated to that notion in its origin and derivation, and therefore cannot be reasonably taken as relating to anything else.</p><p>Getting to our ultimate point, the purpose here is to make clear that diprotisy is a foundational characteristic common to all crime. It is safe to assume that no robbers wish to be robbed. The likelihood of rapists wanting to be raped, is vanishingly small, as would be the case for murderers being murdered. Child molesters are most likely to resent being molested, likely were, and by that means became molesters themselves.</p><p>The criminal, in the commission of his crime is saying "I can do to you, but you cannot do to me". Is this not the very core of so-called "government" operations? Is it not the very essence of the master/slave relationship? All such relationships and events employ <i>invalid</i> double standards, and as such are in themselves despicable, prima facie. In the case of crimes, they are plainly felonious.</p><p>For the sake of clarity and completeness it must be pointed out that there are valid double standards. A fine example of this would be that of parent and child, where the former may admonish the latter with "do as I say, not as I do." The parent may consume alcoholic beverages and smoke cigarettes, yet the child is validly forbidden from such activity for any of a number of self-evidently just reasons. Judging different things based on standards appropriate to each, those standards are perforce going to be different where such differences are relevant to the judging. One does not, for example, judge the flavor quality of an apple using the standards used for similar judging of oranges. </p><p>In issues of sameness, however, such as those of the common innate freedoms of all human beings and the rights that derive therefrom, the standards of measurement and judgement must be mostly and perforce identical across all lines of consideration. To do otherwise, most particularly where disparagement of the rights of an individual or group thereof is the result, constitutes a felony of the highest order, meriting severe consequences.</p><p>There is no case of crime where diprocation has not served as an elemental, overarching, and dominating factor. In such senses, diprotisy stands as an utter evil. To act as a diprotor is an utmost cause for shame to be avoided at nearly any cost. To be labeled as a diprotor should be viewed as grand mockery, a grave accusation, and as such one should use the word with due care in consideration and discretion.</p><p>May you find this discourse of some practical value, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> </p></blockquote><p></p>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-50668351584467180752023-04-30T07:19:00.008-07:002023-04-30T07:19:56.617-07:00The Only Solution<br />Anything in terms of economies that are non-trivial in size and scope constitute as matters of their very natures, large miulti-variate systems, the characteristics of which render them generally nonlinear. Therefore, while possibly predictable (and I contend it is often not so) in trivial microcosm, size not only matters, it fundamentally alters the nature of the beast such that economists can howl and shout about how things shall be, and the system may nonetheless do something entirely contrary.<br /><br />But one thing has proven itself time and again over the thousands of years men have convened civilized marketplaces: freedom is ALWAYS and universally the condition that allows for optimal efficiency to reign, thereby delivering the greatest prosperity possible in any given world. This is the most basic truth that tyrants and wannabes refuse to accept, leading thereby and invariably to war, poverty, disease in all forms, misery, and death.<br /><br />Liberty is not just the best solution to the challenges facing humanity; it is the *only* solution.<div><br /></div><div>Blessings be upon one and all and do accept my best wishes.</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-74405173227130346042023-04-30T00:07:00.003-07:002023-04-30T00:08:20.482-07:00Handling Media For Interviews Redux<p> </p><p><br /></p><p>In "<a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2012/06/strategy-for-handling-mainstream-media.html">A Strategy For Handling The Mainstream Media</a>", we examined a simple method for protecting oneself from the skullduggery in which interviewers now so commonly engage for the purposes of defaming the people they interview. Ambush interviews are now common enough, and regardless of an interviewers intentions, even his bumbling ineptitude and/or that of his editors and other handlers can turn into a nightmare, especially for public figures such as office holders, candidates, and other people of public interest. The damage to reputation can prove very costly, as can be the task of proving one's case in civil court. Best to properly set conditions upfront, prior to damage done such that you retain the power to forestall such catastrophes.</p><p>However, as suggested in the previous article, arriving at an interview with one's own camera crew might prove impractical for some. There are two additional approaches to achieving the same end that we shall briefly discuss today. The first is to simply bring one's own recording equipment and set it up in a manner suiting the interviewee's needs. Good quality video recordings are now easily producible with the common cell phone.</p><p>Of utmost importance is an interviewee's setting of the conditions for granting the interview in the first place. A short and likely incomplete list of conditions might look similar to the following:</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>A full, unedited copy of the interview is to be given over to the interviewee no less than 24 hours prior to broadcast.</li><li>The final broadcast edit is to be made available to the interviewee no less than 24 hours prior to broadcast.</li><li>Neither the interview, nor any portion or other edits thereof, may be broadcast without the explicit, written permission of the interviewee, who shall reserve the final authority to grant or withhold permission to broadcast, in what form, how many times, etc. Interviewee holds ultimate editorial authority over the interview.</li><li>The interview remains the property of the interviewee in equal measure to the ownership interests of all other parties for a period of not less than 99 years from the date of interview.</li><li>If interviewer and/or his agents/superiors/employers choose to reject interviewee's requirements for broadcast, all copies of the interview are to be placed into the physical possession of the interviewee within 24 hours of rejection, and all property rights to the interview transfer solely to interviewee and/or his agent(s).</li><li>Interviewer holds 100% responsibility for the security of all interview materials, regardless of form, until such time as broadcast or other publication has been affected, or those materials have been securely returned to the interviewee.</li><li>The interview agreement must be put into written, contractual form, and perfected by all parties.</li></ol><div>Few media organizations will go for these conditions, at least at first. In order for a potential interviewee to win at this strategy, he must be willing to forgo all interviews for as long as it takes to find an interviewer willing to accede to these reasonable conditions. But if enough of the truly interesting interviewees engage in this strategy, media outlets will then be faced with the choice of accepting such conditions, or no longer providing one of the major elements of broadcast journalism: the interview. In time, I am confident that the networks would have little viable choice but to agree to such a set of conditions, all designed to keep the journalists honest.</div><div><br /></div><div>So long as we play by their rules, they get to do almost anything they please. The moment a critical mass stands tall and uses the leverage it possesses, the game will change and either the media will begin to pale in terms of their offerings, or they will toe the line of reason and straighten up their acts to align more closely with the fundamental ethics of their occupation.</div><div><br /></div><div>Don't allow them the latitude to play you for a chump. You have what they want, and by that virtue you can force the choice between conducting an upright interview, or doing without. The other side of that coin rests with your obligation to be equally ethical in how you comport yourself throughout the process.</div><div><br /></div><div>We don't have to allow these sorts to get away with that which we now witness on a daily basis. Empower yourself discovering and developing ways and skills for countervailing the chicanery of scurrilous people.</div><div><br /></div><div>Until next time, please accept my best wishes.</div><p></p>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-86374777667745014682023-04-26T18:01:00.003-07:002023-04-28T05:14:36.125-07:00Passivity V. Tyranny = Suicide<p> "Understand finally this: if violence were to begin this evening, if neither exploitation nor oppression had ever existed in the world, perhaps concerted non-violence could relieve the conflict. But if the whole governmental system and your non-violent thoughts are conditioned by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passivity only serves to place you on the side of the oppressors."</p><br /> - Jean-Paul Sartre<br /><br />It is our passivity, regardless of our motives, that is killing liberty. I have been telling people this for thirty years, yet they reject active non-equivocation based in the extreme prejudice of knowing what it right between men, v. what is evil.<div><br /></div><div>Passivity in the face of tyranny is tantamount to a self-imposed death sentence, whether it be the death of one's freedoms and the rights that evolve therefrom, or actual physical death at the hands of the butchers. This is one area where the so-called "lefty" or "progressive" seems to hold an understanding superior to those who claim themselves far more broadly as champions of freedom and the liberties man's natural state of being implies. I have found it astonishing that this might be the case, given that in reality those of a progressive ideology, are actually in favor of the very societal/governmental elements that lead to the destruction they claim they wish to avoid. The irony is so thick there, one cannot cut it with a well-sharpened saw.</div><div><br /></div><div>But when examined a bit more carefully, we see that one of the problems with left-looking individuals is threefold. </div><div><br /></div><div>Firstly, their conception of freedom is stilted in that it is ever so narrow in scope. Leftists tend to see freedom as far more narrowly circumscribed than does, say, an anarchist. For example, sexual libertinism sits at the forefront of the list of progressive priorities for individual prerogatives. To be able to engage in whatever sexually-based action one wishes, regardless of its nature, is a very large part of how progressives view their very narrowly defined universe individual freedom. Drug abuse is yet another, and while in principled terms they may be said to be correct on each count, the fact that these two issues constitute perhaps the majority of the corpus of what they view as valid human praxeological prerogative give clear indication of just how narrow is their world view.</div><div><br /></div><div>Contrarily, the progressive views the right to keep and bear arms as non-existent, and that all arguments in favor of that right are invalid and should be met with utmost bile, venom, and in many cases violence of any sort needed to see their wills made manifest in terms of daily practice.</div><div><br /></div><div>Secondly, the progressive view of liberty is perforce and by it's one-sided and unprincipled nature, hypocritical. "Only our list of liberties is valid. Nobody else's counts, save where and how they coincide with ours." Progressives are champions of a very narrowly circumscribed view of freedom and are absolutely and most violently opposed to any deviations from the boundaries that have been defined for them and that which they accept with such blind intolerance of even the least variation.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thirdly, the mean progressive paradoxically favors the application of tyrannical force pursuant to the imposition of his stunted notion of freedom upon the entirety of the human race. He makes no allowance for the diverse interests of individuals and cultures, a truth made so ironic in the face of his never ceasing pulpit-pounding regarding "diversity, inclusion, and equality".</div><div><br /></div><div>And yet, they well understand that refusing to actively defy and countervail that which they (often correctly) see as tyranny is the express-lane to the loss of all hope for achieving their utopian goals, such as they may be. This is a lesson that all freedom-loving men need to learn, understand, embrace, and pursuant to which to develop the requisite habits of intolerance with respect to tyrannical acts, and how they choose to comport themselves with regard to those acts, both philosophically and as matters of daily practice, both as individuals and as members of a population whose fundamental daily goals includes the maintenance of proper individual liberty and the rights which follow therefrom.</div><div><br /></div><div>To tolerate violation carries with it the implicit acceptance of the trespass. This in turn implies that what would otherwise constitute a felonious encroachment upon the sovereign rights of Freemen, is with grave mistake elevated to the status of a valid act. Few human follies rise to this level of wild and wooly danger. Every human failure resulting in tolerating the intolerable serves only to bolster the tyrant's position and his arguments in favor of his perfidies. It endangers not just the individuals against whom the crimes are committed, but by extension all humanity as such acts become rapidly normalized and deeply entrenched in the human psyche. Our history is rotten with examples.</div><div><br /></div><div>Passivity in the face of tyranny is death to one's freedom, not to mention culture.</div><div><br /></div><div>Until next time, please accept my best wishes.</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-20227008049301987512023-04-26T13:55:00.002-07:002023-04-26T13:55:33.846-07:00Public Governance<p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> It should be clear to anyone who has given careful thought to the notion of "government", that it is not the correct solution to the issue and challenges of general governance. This is most especially true of the governmental architectures of the so-called "nation states" of what we may call the relatively modern era of, say, the past 300 or so years. By their very architectures, "governments" thwart the natural propensities of men in ways the outcomes of which have shown to be detrimental to humanity as a whole. Perhaps the greatest ways in which such thwarting has damaged the fabric of human civilization lies in the invalid prohibitions on behavior that are consensual, and therefore not criminal.</p><p>Take dueling, for example. One's initial response to the notion tends to be that of revulsion and a feeling that we speak of a self-evident absurdity. Even if we were all to agree that it is in fact so, that we agree on the matter, it does not follow that we are within our rights to prohibit such activities so long as the participants engage in it with informed consent, and bring no others to harm in the process. This may be difficult for many to accept, and yet it is clearly true once one gets past the initial, conditioned response that was spoon fed them by the culture in which they came up.</p><p>We humans have an overwhelming propensity for falsely criminalizing non-criminal behavior that we find objectionable. Some might chafe at homosexuality and wish it criminalized, which once it was and remains so in many jurisdictions around the world. Others support the false criminalization of illicit drug possession, use, manufacture, and distribution. The list of criminalized non-crimes is rather long, the prohibitions of which have served no demonstrable good, but have in fact rather damaged the social fabric.</p><p>Bear in mind also that just because we acknowledge the validity of public governance (v. "private"), it does not follow that we condone the notion of "government". The general belief of many self-professed lovers of liberty is that anything non-private is "statist", the single gravest insult such people can hurl at another human being, in their eyes. This amounts to presenting a false dichotomy that hog-ties the mind, thereby eliminating avenues of alternate solutions. There are few hazards so grave as cutting off valid solution spaces, especially for some of the more serious problems, yet this is precisely what many self-described "anarchists", "voluntarists", and "agorists" do when they rail and rave at anyone who fails to toe their line of across-the-board privatization of the entirety of human existence.</p><p>What such people have failed to properly dope out is that the essential problem is not that of the evils of public governance, but rather the evil that is the very concept of govern<i><b>ment</b></i>. Governance is an activity, whereas conceptually speaking government is a <i>thing</i>, an object unto itself with an existence separate and independent from humanity itself. The idea of government may not have originated with the intention of becoming this monobloc object in the minds of people, but it has largely become precisely that. This is how many people view "government", along with the attendant and often tacit assumptions of its vast inherent powers and authority, not so much to govern, but to rule. Consider the old saw, "you can't fight city hall", as just one example of how the notion of objectively real government has distorted human perception so wildly out of sound shape that we now as matters of average behavior tend to obey with great and timid compliance any any all edicts issued therefrom, regardless of how wildly idiotic, dangerous, and criminally violative of our rights as <a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-freeman-and-weakman.html">Freemen</a>.</p><p>As I have <a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2010/03/the-state.html">written elsewhere</a>, remove all people from the earth, and with them "government" vanishes without a trace. Govern<i>ment</i> is the root of the problem, along with the darker side of human nature, regardless whether public or private. Private government, in fact, poses at least an equal threat to liberty, and make no mistake about it, whatever you call it, when people become unaccountable for their actions as agents of "government", a people are already well on their ways to being lost.</p><p>Therefore, it is imperative that human beings utterly reject the concept of the object: government. Rather, they must embrace the notion of governance which, properly defined and administered, can but only produce far improved results where liberty is preserved and tyranny stamped out with brutal and cold indifference. When we see people we now view as <a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2016/08/introducing-merecog.html">Merecogs</a> in the machinery of "government", we tend to see them as unassailable because we tend to see "government" in the same way. They become sacrosanct by extension and association, and why? Because "government" says so. A prime example of this is the fact that in most US jurisdictions, if you so much as place a friendly hand on the shoulder of a police officer, he is falsely authorized to arrest you and have you charged with a felony. It is absurd, and yet it is a reality as common as dirt.</p><p>In this way have we built our own prisons of thought and perception with indomitable walls that cannot be gotten over, under, around, through, or be sapped.</p><p>Also be clear on the fact that in a truly free land, governance is the first responsibility of the individual, the duty which he discharges primarily by governing himself in accord with the principles of proper human relations. This is key, because the purpose of having agents of public governance is mainly to deal with those cases where self-governance has failed to meet the standard. Murders, robberies, rapes, beatings, and other real and actual crimes are the purview of governing authority, and not the valid praxeological prerogatives of Freemen. Without the proper comportment of what I will conversationally term the "vast majority" of a people, governing agents become necessarily either overwhelmed wherein they quit their now-precarious positions, or they turn to responses that seem uncomfortably close to those of tyrants. Even this latter may be valid when grave circumstance leaves no choice in what we may call an existential crisis, but such powers may validly hold only for the shortest of periods until such time as people recover proper possession of themselves and return to the ways of proper behavior in the company of others. History shows, as we are living through this very circumstance as of this writing, that once such emergency powers have been assumed, those who have taken those reins are often loathe to relinquish them. But this is a problem more of human nature than of the architecture and implementation of proper governance in a free land.</p><p>The moment we strip away the false facade of "government", exposing it as nothing more than a collection of fellow human beings with no greater authority to act than your own, the pictures in our minds suddenly, radically, and somewhat indelicately change. When you see the police officer in this way, he no longer stands as an irresistible monument of state-sponsored force against those over whom he lords. Rather, he is at best a public servant beholden to serve you in all the theoretically proper ways, and at worst a murdering coward and felon. This alteration of one's perrceptions, of course, does nothing to alter the behavior of cops. Resist their predations and other felonies against you, and you stand to be violated in ways up to an including being murdered outright. But this change in perception, while impotent to alter third-party behavior overnight, at least leads to the possibility of better times to come,. If a critical mass of public awareness is reached, hand in hand with the necessary attitudinal changes by those same people such that public tolerance of tyranny wanes to a point where people become willing to put their lives, their honors, and their fortunes to risk for the sake of their own liberty, as well as that of all those for whom they hold love and affection, a deep transformational improvement cannot be far off.</p><p>With the right change in the perceptions of enough people, the tyrant and his agents are backed into a corner wherein the choice is foisted upon them: cease all malversation, or pay with your lives. This is a reasonable path to change, and I daresay it is the only one precisely because so many people in positions of power tend to wander from the path of reason such that no message other than that of the threat of imminent personal destruction gets through to them. Their positions lead them to behave as petulant, spoiled, <i>well-armed</i> children prone to pitching tantrums that know few limits when the proles fail to toe their lines.</p><p>Privatizing government does nothing to ameliorate this situation precisely because the minds of the governed remain saddled with the same baggage with respect to the ways in which government is perceived, and therefore regarded. Furthermore, privatization invariably leads to diverse definitions of "proper governance", with nothing in principle to assure that any given jurisdiction will indeed govern properly with respect to the principles of proper human relations, which is what governance is supposed to be all about. Furthermore, there is nothing in principle to stop such a private jurisdiction from running off the rails, especially when they have at their disposal a body of armed, able, and willing enforcers, a commodity syndicate all too easily obtained and bent to one's will, especially when imbued with the imprimatur of "authority", whether valid or false. In most cases, as may be readily seen, it is the latter.</p><p>The advantage of public governance is that in the minds of people there tends to be the trend toward seeing the propriety and necessity of a uniformly architected code of guidance and control (when needed) that is to be uniformly administered such that justice is fair and equitable across all social lines, regardless of status, purport to authority, or any other phony baloney exception or claim to immunity from being held accountable.</p><p>You might now wish to point out that this is what we currently have as you read these words, and I would be forced to agree. You might then point out that despite this standard, we are awash in corruption, political falderal, deceit, lies, injustice, and outright tyranny. Once again, I would be obliged to acknowledge the truth of the fact. And finally, you might then ask, "if this be the case, then your theory of the benefit of public governance is disproved", to which I would have to respond by saying "not so fast!"</p><p>The problem is not public governance per sé, but rather the fact that we the people fail to hold accountable those who commit gross and criminal violations upon the people to whom they are in principle beholden by virtue of their sworn oaths of office. I have attempted to offer a fair swag at a remedy for this most grievous and dolorous circumstance with my idea for<a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2021/07/amendment-xxix.html"> Amendment XXVIII (28) to the Constitution of the United States of America</a>. Therein I set forth the notion and basic architecture for holding sternly to account every human being who has sworn their oath of good faith and competent service to the people of America. To my knowledge, no modern nation-state has ever yet saddled their governing administrators with such requirements, threats, risks, and grave punishments. As in the Amendment, I maintain that when those vested in the Public Trust quake in nauseated, sweating apprehension at the very thought of committing a violation against those to whom they swore service, malversation will for all practical purposes become a relic all but forgotten. Those few cases that would on occasion arise to the attention of the public would be punished with extreme prejudice, thus serving as good reminders to the rest of what awaits them when they misbehave as agents of governance, sworn to uphold and protect the very rights upon which they had trespassed without cause or authority.</p><p>I have asserted and I maintain that the solutions to tyranny are simple: hold the criminals who transgress against the Public Trust accountable in such a manner that none but the most severely insane criminals would dare engage. The small handful of psychopaths failing to comport themselves to the reasonable standard may be fed to the flames with a clear conscience as the elimination of the most grave of threats to humanity's inherent freedoms and the rights that issue therefrom stands as a vlid response to such threats, just as shooting the ghost from a rapist's carcass is a most appropriate response by the intended victim. Nail their wicked hides to the church door in the town square that all may bear witness to the condign fate of tyrants and their minions. In the matters of governance under the specifications of Special Trust, only the most brutally non-equivocating responses will keep the wolves at bay. Anything less invites and encourages the disaster that is today's human world. This reality is harsh and in many ways ugly, but ask yourself this: is it any uglier than the results of seventy five years of Soviet-style communism? It is uglier than the ongoing tyranny that is the Red Chinese "government"? Is it uglier than the Khmer Rouge picnic in Cambodia? Idi Amin? Hitler? Any of the other grand butchers of human history who served only to sow death, disease, poverty, and misery unto all whose lives they touched?</p><p>What would you prefer, given there are no other practically effective alternatives: millions murdered in wars and under the various tyrannical purges of murdering lunatics, or a world that holds the tiny minorities of such people to account for their crimes in a manner that leaves the rest of us not just with reasonable feelings of assurance that we are protected from such people as a general rule, but that we are all give something about which to think as the hangman's rope snaps tight upon the neck of the man who would see your children relegated and reduced to abject servitude, and perhaps even extinction?</p><p>I, for one, am fully in favor of killing off smaller numbers of tyrannical administrators of governance, rather than allowing those same people to murder innocents by the boxcar load on trains that stretch for miles into the vanishing horizon. It is not that I wish to see people brought to great harm. It is precisely that I wish nobody to suffer such fates, while recognizing the irremediable nature of the tyrannical personality type. I am willing to see evil for what it is, meet it head-on, and remove it as a threat to good and decent, and peaceable people who wish nothing more than to live their lives as they see fit while bringing no harm to their fellows. This is not an ill-reasoned desire, but is the very essence of the lives of Freemen. Do what thou wilt, but bring no unjust harm.</p><p>Thanks once again, and as always please accept my best wishes.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-64430281891259749962023-04-23T07:54:00.001-07:002023-04-23T08:01:03.481-07:00Private Governance Is Not A Solution<p> The problem with most anarchists and those of similar philosophial bents is that they categorically reject governance. In their understandable desire to see the elimination of the evils of "government", they toss all dedicated <i>public</i> governing activity to the winds with the claim that the "market" will act as the governing mechanism, as if by its own and seemingly magical accord. This notion holds understandably strong appeal with those who love the notion of freedom, but does so in a way similar to the way in which the Star Trek franchise of low-quality science fiction appeals to its fans; the great benefits without having to do any real work. What these presumed lovers of liberty have failed to calculate in this model are a few factors that arise as problems, at least one of them even greater than that of so-called "government". </p><p>Allow me to explain.</p><p>Firstly and for example, when we speak of "private courts" as do so many anarchists, as being the free-market solution to issues of crime, tort, equity, and justice, there is the tacit assumption that those courts are to be beholden to those whom they ostensibly serve. This notion is all well and good, so far as it goes, but it never goes quite far enough. When such a private court goes rogue or corrupt in some other manner, and here it matters not whether it happens once, multiple times, or even becomes a habitual phenomenon, it matters no whit whether it is taken to task if the parties for whom injustice has been served have been irreparably damaged. This is especially true in cases where significant time has passed since the beginning of a sentence and time has already been served. How does one compensate those whose irreplaceable time has been stolen from them?</p><p>Yes, one can compensate with money, but that is a timid replacement for time, careers, opportunities, and family lost, as well as the rest of the grand miseries heaped upon the innocent without either just cause or authority. And who is to say that the courts in question will be held accountable, or even that they <i>can</i> be?</p><p>There is an angle played by anarchists that says the competitive marketplace will handle such situations, but of this I hold grave doubt. For one thing, who will establish the authority for a man or group thereof to hold a court accountable for its failures? By what authority does such a man or body thereof claim the valid power to do so? What is their standard of judgment, who gets to establish it, and by what authority do they do so? Of one thing we may rest assured is that such a court will deny any such authority, which brings us right back to the original problem we face today: an effective "governMENT" having been established and having positioned itself above those whom it is supposed to act as a servant, but in point of practical fact acts as master.</p><p>Secondly, the next grand assumption is that there will be market competition whereby multiple courts act in a given market space to countervail the excesses, corruptions, and incapacities of the another; the good old idea of "balance of powers". What of monopolies? Consider the case where a court does better enough than the rest to put their competition out of business, thereby becoming, let us assume, a regional monopoly. What is to stop them from pulling the Walmart trick whereby as the competition recedes into extinction, the prices are then gradually raised, leaving shoppers little choice, save perhaps to drive long distances to find better venues? What is to stop such a monopoly from going corrupt, and once done, who will hold them accountable? Bear in mind the wholly predictable human habit of seeking greater powers with a stern determination never to allow oneself to relinquish that power, once acquired.</p><p>What does one do when such a court comes into power and stands unchallenged? What does a population do when such a court becomes practically unchallengeable by any means other than that of open warfare, replete with killing, maiming, terrorizing the innocent, and the destruction of all manner of valuable property?</p><p>Such issues are never to my awareness addressed by the proponents of these theoretically free-market driven societies in any detail, save to assert that the market will see to them, presumably in a fair, equitable, just, and non-violent manner. I do not buy this for a moment, the reason being that the people of the United States of America have on their books every means of doing precisely this, and yet now suffer under one of the most virulently corrupt and dangerous governments on the planet at the time of this writing.</p><p>Let us imagine a group of citizens manages to overthrow such a monopolized court. What then? Does that population go without the benefit of a venue in which they may seek justice? For how long? What of the pending cases of the overthrown court? What of the cases closed where people are in prison for crimes they may not have committed? What of torts that never actually happened, yet for which parties had been held responsible? What of equities imposed that were not at all equitable? What of judgments that can now no longer be trusted in any manner or degree? What of the records of such events? What if no other private court steps up to fill the void? How would such a court be held accountable for its actions? By what standards and procedures would the new court take up its position? </p><p>The litany of such queries is vast and many of those questions lead to mine fields of thorny issues that are not so easily solved.</p><p>Let us bear in mind here that these courts are <i>privately</i> established, <i>privately</i> held, and <i>privately</i> operated. There is no principled mechanism by which such entities can be held accountable for their actions, save that the people break out the torches and pitchforks. Each process of establishment of such courts would be private matters, technically beyond the question of the marketplace. Granted, such establishments would almost certainly have to toe a line upfront. But in time and as it gained effective power, such courts would invariably seek to increase their influences, even if done in very thin increments that do not arouse the suspicions and possible anger of the people served, which is precisely what commonly happens with so-called "governments" in universal fashion, if at varying degrees of advance.</p><p>And what of arresting those accused of crimes who have been brought before a judge? Under what authority does one human being appropriate the liberties of another man, effectively kidnapping him for judgment by others? I cannot say that such authority does not exist, but that its application can run amok most wildly and in very short order, unless there are rules. But who drafts them? By what authority do they do so and by what standard? Who holds them accountable to the integrity of the rules they pass into what we may call "effective Law"?</p><p>What of the arrestee who objects to the private court to which he has been taken, perhaps claiming his distrust of the ability to get a fair shake there? What if there are no other venues in the given locale? What of the difference of opinion on such matters of trust between arrestor and arrestee? Will the private court have its own private enforcers to affect such arrests? How would such enforcers, whether officers of the court in question, or ordinary citizens, be held accountable for their actions, most particularly in the case where the accused is found to have been innocent of the charges?</p><p><br /></p><p>We could go on for days hammering out the various questions, not to mention the ways in which practical administration can go wrong. Furthermore, by now we should be able to see that there stands a grand gorilla in this room that speaks to the need for a consistent and universal standard by which justice is best to be administered, however imperfectly at times. Private means private, which means that within the bounds of the entity, what they say, goes. Anyone not seeing the great and looming hazard there is either not paying attention, or suffers from some grave deficiency, mental or moral.</p><p>And so we come in a sense, full-circle, in that it can be seen that a public system of courts remains the best solution in this imperfect world. But a <i>proper</i> public court system would differ from that under which we now suffer in some fundamental ways. More broadly speaking, a proper system of governance would be public, yet very different, not so much structurally, but rather in terms of the nature of the powers of the parties in question, that is, the servants and those whom they are charged to serve.</p><p>Today, "government" stands as the de-facto master, the people being the serfs; the proles; those whose faces are effectively smashed with Orwell's proverbial boot. In a properly formed and administered system of governANCE, the word "government" would be dismissed from service, once and for all time. The powers of the people to regulate most directly the ways in which the servants of governance (we may call them SOGs just to be cute) comport themselves in the discharge of their duties, would be clear and unassailable in principle. Making such powers practically invincible would, as in all cases, be left to the people. Americans hold that power now, yet they have allowed themselves to be cowed into serfdom by forces that have consistently acted against their better interests: the interests of their status as Freemen. The responsibility for this dolorous and rue-worthy outcome rests almost wholly on the people. While it may be said that the so-called "politicians" had neither cause nor authority to engage in their felonious perfidies against the people to whom they swore their oaths, it can come as no surpriser that they have done so, just as it is no surprise that a man is bitten when he carelessly chooses to play with a sidewinder. It is only to be expected that a political office holder or other agent of "government" is going to inevitably go wrong, left to his devices unsupervised.</p><p>Because this devolution is perfectly predictable in effectively all cases, there can be only one practicable solution: the people must hold and <i>exercise</i> the power to hold accountable all such agents of governance who stray from the narrow path that defines their duties, such as they may be in each case. The people must be able to punish such violators of the Public Trust in ways brutal and cruel such that all who occupy positions of Special Trust (in other words, SOGs) are given the occasion graphic reminder of the tenuous nature of their positions and that they serve at the pleasure of the people. I have outlined the basics of such powers and responsibilities in my <a href="https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2021/07/amendment-xxix.html">Amendment XXVIII </a>to the Constitution of the United States of America, a proposal I would see added to the document yesterday and made the Law of the land forthwith.</p><p>When the people are able, ready, and eager to bring violators of the Public Trust to justice, and to mete out grave punishments for those duly convicted of their crimes against those to whom they swore oaths of good faith and competent service upon their words and their honors, the face of the world will change to vast improvement in short order.</p><p>We suffer the slings and arrows not of the chances of outrageous fortune, but of the mostly synthetic machinations of other men, whether their actions are the products of blundering incompetence, good but wrong-headed intention, or outright criminality. It is up to us to change this. There is no cavalry coming to rescue us from the boogie-men of "government". We must be our own cavalry. We must insist upon the changes needed to wrest our freedoms from the hands of the most dangerous men on the planet, keep those liberties close to our bosoms, and guard them with Patrick Henry's jealously, the more greenly covetous, the better.</p><p>At the end of the day, what is required is knowledge and determination sufficient to the maintenance of liberty. There will always be those who seek to take from you that which is yours without your consent. The only way to adequately ensure agains this is an attitude of absolute intolerance for trespass in enough of a population to make the consequences far too ghastly to even contemplate.</p><p>The problem with "government" lies in the minds of men, and not in anything materially substantive. There is nothing wrong with "government" as a concept, but the practice tends to be far removed from theory. That can be remedied, but the cost is high, requiring a vast adjustment in the attitudes of most people. When people take "government" as something that actually exists in itself, independent of humanity, they have sealed their fates as serfs and possibly even as slaves. But when people recognize that "government" is nothing other than a collection of other people no different from themselves, everything becomes open to change in that they see their own authority to hold to account those in whom they have vested their belief that the agents of "government" will execute the functions of governance with competence and faith to that trust.</p><p>The solutions to the problems addressed here lie with you and you alone. Get yourself educated; develop a love of liberty; learn to see the challenges and risks as blessings of freedom and not a curse. Finally, spread the gospel of freedom to everyone you know and have them do the same. It is not too late to reclaim that which has been so wrongly and feloniously stolen away, but you have to act. Waiting for someone else to come to the rescue will assure your fate as a less-than-human.</p><p>Be well my friends, and as always please accept my best wishes.</p>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-51729454424086533792023-03-14T06:42:00.007-07:002023-03-14T07:55:01.287-07:00Practical Governance: Basic Ideas<br /><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>For years I have frequented fora that have been ostensibly devoted to the idea of establishing anarchic societies. One of the common characteristics I have observed in such groups has been the glaring lack of any practical architectures for implementation. The discussions of such arrangements remind me of the South Park episode where the underpants gnomes' plan goes something like:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><i> "Collect underpants --> ??? --> Profit." </i></div></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>In other words, they had no idea how to get from point A to point Z. Such has been the experience in my discussions with ostensible anarchists. The truly alarming aspect of such interactions has been to witness how supposedly intelligent adults neither see the problem, nor want to see it, often referring to those who make reference to the practical challenges of free societal life as "statists", the most grievous insult they can hurl. </div><div><br /></div><div>So let us at least try a fifty-thousand foot peek at what would be needed in order to materially express a free land where neither was there a "government" to insult the rights of men, nor a mishmash of chaotic tribes killing each other for any of the usual human reasons and justifications in grand old feudal fashion.<br /><div><br /></div><div>Recall, if you will, that "anarchy" means "no rulers". </div><div><br /></div><div>This does not mean "no rules". </div><div><br /></div><div>Therefore, if there are rules, then people must be held to the lines said rules draw around each member of the population, lest there be no reason to have rules in the first place. This raises two fundamental issues. </div><div><br /></div><div>Firstly, if we are to have rules, they must be objectively complete, correct, and clear. One of the main reasons so many people have come to hold "law" in such contempt is precisely because most "law" is not Law, but mere statute which represent nothing better than the almost universally capricious will of legislators, with little to no respect for the rights of the people. Statutes that falsely criminalize illicit drugs, for example, are not Law. The same may be said for statutes that prohibit prostitution. Tax statutes are one of the more egregious examples of non-Law that is enforced at the point of the sword with grim vigor by drooling sadists who seem to actually believe they are doing right. </div><div><br /></div><div>Secondly, and conditional upon the fact of the point above, if we are to have objectively proper rules to which people must conform their behaviors, such as not murdering one another, for example, then we must have in place the means of dealing with those who violate those boundaries. </div><div><br /></div><div>In anarchic circles, many believe that such administration of Law can be accomplished "privately", and that any such duties performed by a "state" is inherently evil precisely because the "state" is the administrator. This is likely true, but not for the reasons most seem to believe. Let us remind ourselves that the "state" does not really exist, nor "government". These are confabulations that have no material existence of their own, independent of the human mind. Remove the people and both "state" and "government" vanish into the mists as if my magic. When we strip away such mental fakery, the mind is lead closer to the real truth that these purported institutions are nothing more than mobs of individual human beings holding no greater authority than yourself to make demands upon one's fellow human beings. When we strip away these veils that cloud and often blind us to the greater truths of our inter-human relationships, our thoughts are immediately freed to draw conclusions to which no agent of any "state" wants his peons to arrive: that said agent has no authority, and that even the most cursory examination of the seemingly endless oceans of statutory fiats exposes their gross invalidity and often blatantly ironic criminality.</div><div><br /></div><div>The so-called "private" justice systems to which so many anarchists appear to have wed themselves give rise to risks of the self-same sort, as well as to others that can be avoided, were we to correct the flaws in our current fare. </div><div><br /></div><div>For example, depending on how we define "private justice" there could arise what becomes an effective feudal system of private governance. Furthermore, the possibility exists for differing jurisdictions to have implemented widely differing notions of justice, crime, and so forth, such that the security of the individual who travels between such jurisdictions might never be quite certain. Imagine waltzing over a line in a purple shirt or blouse and being immediately arrested and charged with a felony because purpole raiment is reserved only for administrators of Law. For those who scoff at this as ridiculous, you need to read a little of the history of France and the French kings. Is this what we really want? Free lands must perforce be based in the principles of proper human relations, this being a core requirement and in no way an option, lest the administrators slide ever so slickly into the shoes of tyrants.</div><div><br /></div><div><i><b>Such hazards exist no matter how one labels, or even structures their systems of rules and pursuant justice.</b></i> </div><div><br /></div><div>We see it today, and privatizing what we now have is no guarantee that things would be any better, and that they may well devolve into something far, far worse. </div><div><br /></div><div>Furthermore, the argument that says in the case of a failed private justice system, that the "market" would simply put them out of business carries many flaws. For one thing, there is no assurance that the claims of market correction would prove out. Secondly, and more importantly, even if those claims did manifest, what about the miscarriages of justice that had already occurred? Will every case ever heard by those courts be reviewed and the wrongly convicted released with proper compensation? Will the administrators of the presumably corrupted justice system be held accountable, and if so, by whom and by what means? Are we to assume that those administrators would go quietly into the hands of their accusers to be judged and possibly punished most severely? Given the almost universally consistent historical patterns in such matters, my expectation would be that not only would the accused give their accusers the finger, they would muster their forces to defend themselves with as much violence as would be necessary to avoid being held accountable. What of those cases where the private entity has acted justly and rightly, but yet another jurisdiction found otherwise? What about where one jurisdiction wishes to eliminate the competition in the spirit of good old fashioned human avarice? </div><div><br /></div><div>The advantage to an authority that is "public" is that when properly structured and administered, those who comprise such institutions are given every incentive to act in accord with the propriety of their positions, accountable to those whom they serve. In a so-called "private" justice system, no such conditions may be imposed upon the administrators and other members of the institution, for were they to be so restricted, there would be absolutely no functional difference between them and the public variant, and we are reduced to distinctions sans difference.</div><div><br /></div><div>But what constitutes "properly structured and administered"? The answer has several aspects, the minutiae of which we will not discuss here, and the first of which lies in the need for a very stern accountability standard where those who violate their oaths of good faith and competent service are called upon to face the most dire punishments that could even spill over into their immediate families in some cases, most especially in economic terms. A properly authored oath of office/service would be an operational starting point with every individual required to swear such an oath, with the "people" willing and <i>eager</i> to hold violators accountable with a vigorous will to punish violators in the most grim fashions imaginable. The Public Trust must be preserved at all cost, which means that unamended transgressions by those in positions of Special Trust, in violation of the rights of those to whom their oaths have been sworn, must be met with draconian consequences.</div><div><br /></div><div>What I have described could be viewed as a "state", yet in my estimation it could as easily be viewed simply as a Public institution whose purpose is to provide a <i>Constitutionally qualified</i> service to the people without the same mental baggage that comes with the monikers of the "state" and "government". The mental cancer of these appellations carriy deeply tacit notions of infallible and unchallengeable authority. A "state" can get away with all manner of transgressions against the people that it is supposed to serve precisely because people tend to believe that it can, whether justly or otherwise. A group of Constitutional Trustees in whom the Public Trust has been vested, however, carries a far different mental quality and effect; one that could be saved from morphing into that which is effectively identical to that of "state" and "government".</div><div><br /></div><div>My suggestion is that we need to begin thinking in terms of governANCE, rather than those of governMENT. Govern<i>ance</i> is an action, a function, and a role. Psychologically speaking, "govern<i>ment"</i> is a thing, an object in the minds of people that has become an irresistible juggernaut whose authority cannot be challenged; a thing in and of itself with an existence independent of human thought, this being perhaps the grandest and most dastardly lie ever foisted upon humanity. The difference between the two is 100% fundamental insofar as they affect the minds of people; and always remember that mind is nearly everything. Where mind goes, Brother Ass follows. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the case of "government", the power of belief in the lie of its material existence is immeasurable and of the most dangerous and destructive sort imaginable. It is the single greatest factor in the erosion of our inherent liberties, and "Government" has <i>by far</i> been the single greatest source of human misfortune and misery since men raised the walls at Sumer. The events of the twentieth century alone, with somewhere near two hundred millions murdered by "government" should be all the evidence needed by any nominally intelligent and morally intact adult to conclude that governMENT needs to go the way of the dodo in preference to governANCE, instituted not by nonexistent governMENT painted as a real and materially extant entity, but as affected by other men in whom that Special Trust has been vested and who may be called to account at any moment for their actions by any other citizen of the realm. Such people <i>govern</i>; they do not rule. They govern in accord with Law, and not mere statute, nor do they make it up as they go along. They would be held to a strict standard of good faith and competent service in the discharge of their duties pursuant to their roles as agents of <i>guardianship</i> of the rights of all men. Such men are to be sentinels and champions of the liberties of all men, and not the destroyers thereof.</div><div><br /></div><div>Instilling this mindset would likely prove a monumental task, but what other choice is there - to sit in the wash of the current status quo, waiting idly for the death of all that is good between men in the wake of a "government" that has so very clearly lost its mind?</div><div><br /></div><div>We should all want <i>proper</i> governance, while rejecting "government" as the administrative agent in pursuit thereof. Proper governance begins and ends with <i><b>you</b></i>, and not some airy-fairy notion of a "government" pledged to watch over and defend your rights, which has been the prevailing idea for thousands of years and which has proven a universal failure. </div><div><br /></div><div>Protecting each other's rights should be a paramount consideration of our daily lives, but this requires work and an attitude vastly different from that which today prevails in gross and overwhelming majority. We have failed at this most important task with pyrotechnic misery, entrusting ourselves, our rights into the hands of the most questionable characters imaginable. If I suffer Themme to violate the rights of my fellows, who will be there for me when Theye come knocking at my door? You need to think on that very carefully and for as long as it takes for you to come to the correct conclusion. Governance is a task that "government" has proven itself incapable of doing on a consistently and sufficiently proper basis in even a single case to which one might point since men chose civilization over the savage life of the hunter-gatherer. If we are going to acknowledge the need to respect every man's rights, which is the gateway condition to every man's proper freedom, we must then also accept the responsibilities that go with such recognition. As the old saying goes, freedom isn't free - <i>nor is it inexpensive</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Be well, and until next time please accept my best wishes.</div></div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-19447787579974624242023-01-23T08:46:00.010-08:002023-01-23T14:09:22.311-08:00Making Sense Of The Nonsensical<p> As of this writing, the world appears to be going further into madness, especially in the developed west, and most particularly in America.</p><p>Consider the rise of the so-called "woke" movement, which strikes me as closer to a bowel movement than anything even remotely worth one's while. Nearly everything about them is ridiculous, often flying past the line of hard idiocy. Wokeness rose suddenly and seemingly out of nowhere, aided and abetted in great part by the so-called "established media" that includes the major network broadcast entities such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. </p><p>Consider for a moment the odd, yet striking change in the way the media have responded to the nonsense of wokeness. Not very long ago, say thirty years, those selfsame news outlets would have at least questioned the rise of world views that bespoke brain lesions or other mental disorder. Males becoming females, just because they say they are? Blind adherence to the equally blind assertions of anthropogenic global warming that thus far show no evidence in data as having a basis? The shift from "anthropogenic" global warming to simple "global warming", and then a further backpedal to "climate change", a term devoid of any solidly palpable meaning, clearly intended to instill fear, dread, angst, and all manner of other destructive emotions in those whose personal corruptions include fear and ignorance. At this point, the campaign has been so wildly successful, we have tens of millions of Americans who still cleave to the utterly and transparently vacuous nature of the claim that the climate is changing, portending doom for all.</p><p>Sowing fear, creeping dread, and outright terror is an age old tactic for gaining political compliance from a population, and it works like a charm every time.</p><p>But today I have a different and very specific angle to address: that of the "population bomb", yet another questionable assertion so stridently forwarded by the adherents of Malthus.</p><p>Not so very long ago the monikers of "globalist" and "internationalist" were universally and strenuously denied by all to whom those labels were applied, mainly in a clearly accusatory tone. Today, those same people not only admit and embrace those appellations, they wear them on their sleeves with a smug pride that leaves decent men wanting to slap them across their faces such that some teeth roll right along the flight path. The globalists have come out of the closet, guns blazing, devoid of any apologies for the perfidious insanities in which they so lustfully marinate themselves.</p><p>One of the central themes of the globalist jag is that of "overpopulation". The notion that the earth is overpopulated with humans is forwarded not as a suspicion, a fear, a guess, or a theory, but as axiomatic truth that lays beyond dispute. This malthusian view is so pervasive in their core beliefs that it has been made manifest in documents of institutions such as the United Nations, the so-called "Agenda 21" document being the prime example. Therein we find all manner of wild hand-wringing prognostications of the disasters waiting to befall all humanity if the human population is not reduced. </p><p>Interestingly, nowhere in the document does it give any details as to which populations are to be trimmed, by what means, by what methods, or in what time frame. The document is rotten and lousy with vague innuendo portending the dire consequences awaiting humanity, just around a mist-shrouded corner.</p><p>The internationalist agenda hides in plain sight before the world. The population must be reduced, and there will be no questioning of that indisputable fact, according to the all-knowing wisemen of the globalist cadre.</p><p>In 2019 a virus so suddenly arose, having originated in Wuhan China†. It's official name is SARS-Covid-2, peddled to the public as "Covid19". The media campaign hyping the deadly nature of the virus was full-on almost from day one as the news outlets quickly lapsed into paroxysms of apocalyptic doom for all humanity, particularly if even one person failed to wear a mask and get his "vaccination". This was a psyop of epic proportions, pursuant to the immediate goal of gaining the broadest level of compliance to the tacit mandate as possible. The fear-mongering machinery was at full throttle for two full years, the level of compliance failing to meet what I think would have been the likely expectations, yet still reasonably regarded as a wild success by almost any standard with nearly seventy percent of Americans having been jabbed with the non-vaccine.</p>And now we are seeing a heretofore never encountered phenomenon: people of all age groups suddenly and unceremoniously dropping dead where they stand, whether walking down the sidewalk, food shopping, getting a haircut, or whatever. But this, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the non-vaccine those people received on the initial promise that it would keep them safe from the virus that had a measured survival rate of 99.6%. Careful consideration of the promise reveals it a semantically tricky and possibly true pledge, for it is unlikely that the virus got them, but rather the non-vaccine itself. My what a tangled web we have woven for ourselves, courtesy of our non-critical acceptance of assertions that quickly proved to be false, prima facie.<p>Now to the real point: that of who shall live and who shall be sacrificed. The borders of America have been opened wide since the inauguration of Joe Biden, with torrents of illegal aliens pouring into America, apparently immune to all the demands of immunization against C19. What do we suspect may be an intended outcome of this circumstance? If the non-vaccine is indeed the cause of all these sudden death cases, it will be the well established middle class that stands to be hollowed out in the event that this phenomenon grows in time, assuming it cannot be stayed by any medial means known to common medicine.</p><p>Assuming this is by design and not, as some claim, the product of a long chain of collectively impossible coincidences, why would the globalists endeavor so? The likely answer is plain, clear, and simple: the elite are eliminating what they see as competition. I suspect that third-worlders represent tomorrow's serf labor, cleaning toilets, sweeping streets, lugging bricks, and so on. They carry no intellectual complication and are well bred to obedience, courtesy of the despots of the nations whence they came. They are used to being told what to do and occupying stations of servitude. Most or all the intellectual and attitudinal competition, having been removed, the remaining elite are then freed to run the world in any manner they please, their grip upon the throats of their servant class beyond dispute and invincible because those people have no idea what freedom is, have no interest in it, and are thankful that they live and serve in a place better than that from which they fled.</p><p>The American middle class has long stood as the greatest remaining obstacle to global dominion. The globalists want to rule it all, that goal thwarted by the mere existence of that middle class population. Therefore, the middle class of America must perforce be eliminated. But the elite will not want to live in a world where everyone is elite. What fun would that be? Who'd take out the garbage and wash the toilet? No sir, the elite absolutely require a servant class who will do all the dirty jobs delicate hands refuse. Besides, those who enjoy ruling have to have those over whom to lord. This is not possible with the American middle class, especially those of the white persuasion, who are overly prone to displays of the middle finger when the false authorities overstep some line. The elites appear to be done with being patient and want their cake now. Elimination of those who stand in their way would now appear as the only solution.</p><p>And so here we find ourselves, the guinea pigs in a global experiment in population culling that stands to best ensure success for the perpetrators without overly risking potentially fatal backlashes. After all, if the vast majority of the people believe that those in power are not to blame for the catastrophe befalling them, why attack them? Quite the contrary, the victims are most likely to turn to their murderers for the help they so desperately seek. This is a brilliantly neat approach, if it is indeed what is happening. But if it is not, then what else explains what we are witnessing? Coincidence and happenstance? Not even remotely credible as an offering, so let us not even bother going there.</p><p>At this juncture, I see no other viable explanation in the face of everything that has gone before, and that which is currently unfolding, for example the grandual backpedaling of the very same authorities who so stridenly demanded our obedience just a few short years ago as they now admit in dribs and drabs that the non-vaccine are ineffective in all the ways promised, the talk now drifting slowing to an admission that those poisons are, indeed, deadly introductions that are taking life from those foolish enough to have been cowed by the threats and fear-mongering.</p><p>It cannot as yet be asserted that these notions are anything more than speculation, but once again I would ask what alternative better explains that which we now are experiencing? I am open of mind to all well-reasoned alternatives.</p><p>For those of you who, like myself, have managed thus far to remain untainted by the jab, I would think very carefully and several times over before succumbing to the tactics designed to twist your arm such that you comply. At this point, the jab appears as a nasty end to one's life, something I confidently assume is not the outcome desired by anyone.</p><p>May God watch over us and help us deliver ourselves from the clutches of these rotten human beings who presume themselves worthy of continuance over us.</p><p>Be well, keep your brains in gear, and as always please accept my best wishes.</p><p><br /></p><p>†<span style="font-size: x-small;">It is always instructive to note when the powers that be are up to nothing good. In this case, it was early reported that the C19 virus issued from a bioweapons facility in Wuhan, and that initial examination revealed clear indications of a corona virus that had been significantly modified by human hands. In a matter of a week, two at the most, all such references were scrubbed from major news sources with the shiny new official line of lies set into place that ignored all the glaring questions that might have given rise to revelatory responses unwanted by the perpetrators of what now is clearly mass murder on a scale hearkening back to the twentieth century despots such as Stalin and Mao</span><span style="font-size: small;">.</span></p>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-6058719806802132172022-12-26T16:14:00.009-08:002022-12-26T16:44:54.681-08:00Baby Boomers May Suck, But So Does Everyone Else.<div><br /></div><div><br /></div>In recent years I have found myself amused most drolly by the youngins who refer to those of my generation as "Boomers", meant as a pejorative. It is a bit childish, just as are all such weak attempts at insult. But to those people, and all others on the planet, I do have something to say along those lines.<br /><br /> Despite being otherwise decent and intelligent people, my generation (baby boom) turned out for the most part to be <i>horrible</i> parents. They are, after all, responsible for the so-called "millennial", who in their turn gave rise to "generation Z", a raft of functional weaklings and toddlers in grown bodies who think they are smart, when in fact they are woefully the opposite, again speaking to the mean.<div><br />How did so bright a generation give rise to the utter wasteland that is the major portion of this most recent generation of "adults"? One major answer is actually quite simple: they fell for the bait of the likes of that scurrilous clown, Benjamin Spock, and decided they would be friends with their children, rather than proper parents, based on the false belief that it is important that they be liked by their offspring. Few things could be further from the truth. This may <i>seem</i> an innocent enough position to assume, but it is in fact the basis of the current destruction we are witnessing nationwide as the nation falls to wrack and ruin.</div><div><br />And so we have managed through our good intentions to muck the world up beyond all recognition, and possibly past the point of redemption. But being a low-IQ optimist, I cling to the barest hair-split of hope that this miasma of raving stupidity and abhorrently poor attitudes and habits may yet be corrected. But in order to do so, the first step will be to forgive each other: the young for our unintentional errors, and we, for their wildly misguided world views that, after all, were made possible due to our own errors in child-rearing.</div><div><br />Imagine the utter fit that Theye would have, were we, the warring parties to stop, shake hands, let bygones be bygones, and begin to rebuild the perceptual commons where decency, respect, good manners, basic sense, tolerance of the tolerable, and all the other blessings of freedom are the norm, the old becoming new once more. Theye (those in real material power in the world) would toss a colossal conniption and we would be able to confidently expect all manner of problems to arise, whether those of an economic nature, in finance, commodities, wars, and so forth, because the last thing they want is for you and I to shake hands and learn to become <i>friendly</i>. When that happens, Theye are finished, because without the manifold antagonisms that keep us divided, and therefore distracted, we would be free to come together as one in the political sense of recognizing who is the real enemy of humanity. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's not Republicans or Democrats, lefties or righties, conservative or progressive, men or women: it's the elite and we could de-ball them in very short order, were we to forgive one another and get to the business of restoring liberty to the people of planet Earth.</div><div><br />We don't have to all be in love with one another. Certainly our differences would not vanish, but our <i>reactions</i> to those differences would. Rather than wishing all manner of horrors upon one another, we would respectfully disagree where we differ, yet be generous enough to allow each other our lives and views and preferences. Such as development would drive the Tyrant mad with frustration and fear because he already knows that the moment we stop the back-biting, we might turn eyes in common toward him, his lackeys, and begin to divine what it is he has really been doing to us all this time. In such a case, it would spell the end of things for them all, which means Theye must prevent it from occurring at any and all cost. </div><div><br /></div><div>There is no possible way, short of nuking or plaguing the entire planet, that Theye can successfully dominate us if we refuse their false authority; authority that exists in terms of real world effect only because we accept it as real, when in fact it is literally nothing at all beyond mere belief. So long as we believe, we tend to comply. So long as we comply, the false assertion of authority becomes effectively real. It is a house of cards that stands because we fail to take in even the most meager breath, which is all that is required to blow it down to its very foundation.</div><div><br />Freedom is a heartbeat away, yet it is impossibly distant, not because it is itself impossible, but because we make it so when we play Theire game, nearly every one of us being in that diversion up to our eyeballs. Why else do we have so many people tearing out their hair with hatred for this one or those over there? Theye are whispering in our ears that the enemy threatens, whether it be horrible white males, black females, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and so on down the seemingly endless list of labels that provides objects of fear and hatred for every possible taste.</div><div><br />It's the gag-reel of all time; the biggest scam ever, and nearly every one of us have taken up with it hook, line, and sinker.</div><div><br />The most productive thing we could do at this very moment would be to stop playing, because participation is a loser by intent of design.</div><div><br /> May 2023 prove better than 2022, and may we all forgive one another for our trespasses, real, imagined, and otherwise. What is past is done. Some of it has been indeed horrible, but when we think about it closely, most was really not so bad. We differ. We will always differ. Can we not move on now to more profitable things, such as restoring the liberties that Theye have convinced us to cede?</div><div><br /></div><div>Imagine not living in red-alert mode, day in and day out. Imagine not being filled with rage, outrage, anger, and hatred, all emotions that have their places, but when taken in too generous measures soon becomes erosive of health, happiness, and liberty as we become prisoners of them. Imagine having the power to recognize the real enemies of humanity and turning your justifiable ire upon them! Imagine a world where courtesy reigned; where people were friendly despite holding differing opinions. Imagine a world better than the one in which we are now all inmates in a prison of our own contrivance!</div><div><br /></div><div>It is possible. It is so close, you could kiss it if you chose to see. But so long as we remain in hate-fear mode, Theye shall remain powerful while we remain effectively weak, and that is the greatest and most shameful irony of them all. We, the humans from Earth, could end Themme in no time at all, even if the cost were to prove high. It can be done, but not if we are at one another's throats.</div><div><br /></div><div>May the blessings of liberty be with us all, and until next time please accept my best wishes.</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-79097771999163185392022-12-18T07:39:00.001-08:002022-12-18T07:39:24.691-08:00<br /><br />For a lifetime I have borne witness to the endless rantings of certain categories of people about "NAZIs". The saws are old and hopelessly clapped-out, yet such people never cease to hold up NAZIs as the ultimate evil, so far further down the pit of Hell that no other form of tyranny can compare.<div><br /></div><div>Well, I have a surprise for such people.</div><div><br /></div><div>The NAZIs were no worse than any of the other grand tyrants of history, They were certainly better than the Soviets and the Chinese, though the differences are ultimately irrelevant when one considers the tens of millions of people each had murdered in the span of a paltry few decades. </div><div><br /></div><div>At the end of the day, all tyrants are sufficiently equal in their rot and filth to warrant humanity scouring them from the earth. Sadly, those who cleanse in such ways invariably become the very tyrants whom they displaced, usually with copious amounts of hot lead and, later, the stretching of the right necks. </div><div><br /></div><div>The bottom line is this: mean humanity is beastly in its corruption. Our tolerance of the grand evils and stupidities that yield fruits of marginal and temporary convenience to us, have kept the human race flailing and foundering in the deep end of the septic tank basically since the walls of Sumer were erected,, It is in the deep end where we shall stay because in all truth, we have no interest in becoming any better than that which we have always been: beasts of the lowest order imaginable. </div><div><br /></div><div>Were it otherwise, the world would be a very different place.</div><div><br /></div><div>Saddest of all, we could change this in no time at all, were we to come to sense in the numbers required. Alas, the Tyrant knows so well that the statistics stand overwhelmingly against this ever happening, and were it to occur, the chances of the good lasting more than a brief period are vanishingly small. It has yet to have happened in our entire written history, so my sadly offered recommendation is that you not hold your breath.</div><div><br /></div><div>May we find a better way, and as always, please accept my best wishes.</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-31996511672205988152022-12-18T06:38:00.001-08:002022-12-18T06:38:59.426-08:00Your Thoughts<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><i><br /> "Because the ultimate purpose of crime is to establish the endless empire of crime; a complete state of insecurity and anarchy founded upon the tainted ideals of a world doomed to annihilation."</i> </blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"> </blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>-Dr. Mabuse, Fritz Lang's "The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse"</i></blockquote></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>I've found this most chilling a quote, due in part to its actual semantic content, but more so by the fact that there are people who will come to believe such things, especially the bit about being doomed.</p><br />Our thoughts form our realities, and our words form our thoughts. Though the words come first, there is eventually in each of us a feedback loop of sorts that evolves in our minds. The words we learn and get into the habits of using in the ways in which we as individuals do, shape the ways in which our thoughts form. Those thoughts, in turn, eventually take up their role in forming the ways in which our words are put together to form the sentences that express those thoughts. The words themselves, however, continue to have their effects upon the thoughts, the tendency being that word and thought reach an equilibrium of sorts, such that a more or less consistent and recognizable manner (a "style", if you will) of thinking and of word usage arises in the individual, perpetually maintained by this mutual reinforcement loop between the two.<br /><br />That people come to believe in things such as the absolute inevitability of the utter annihilation of the human race is dangerous beyond my ability to convey. Our thoughts form our realities, and if the right people in the right positions of the right sorts of power come to believe such things, they then stand within the potential to turn those beliefs into the proverbial self-fulfilling prophecy. <div><br /></div><div>We should all of us take some time to think on that awhile, and do so with the knowledge that our own thoughts form our own realities. This is especially worthy of our close attention when thoughts such as "you can't fight city hall" arise, almost unnoticed. By responding in an overly reflexive manner, leading us to give in as individuals, we give in as a whole - a collective, statistical gestalt - a "superorganism", as I have come to call them. In so doing, through our beliefs we come to halt our individual movements in the right directions. This occurs regardless of whether the beliefs in question are true, and this is yet another point to which we should each turn careful attention and consideration.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ask yourself this: what if key beliefs we hold about reality are in fact, false? We see this happening on the so-called "left" with the entire doctrine of the "woke", not to mention the "transgender" phenomenon that has risen so suddenly. Especially the latter, these developments demonstrate the power of belief, which is the power of thought, which in turn is the power of words. Granted, in these cases the applications are unsound, but that is orthogonal to the point we make here: the power of word and thought. Altering your belief alters <i>you,</i> and it can alter reality on a global basis.<br /><br />We, the horde of humanity, could stop Themme (those in real and material power, worldwide) in short order, yet we fail to do so in spite of the clearly stated agenda they have of seeing the human populations reduced by non-trivial proportions in ways, numbers, and timelines that remain mostly held close to the vest. But we see manifestations, especially in recent years with chains of events that any actuary would quickly tell you are nigh impossible to occur without "help", and lots of it.<br /><br />Your thoughts form your reality. Your words form your thoughts and your thoughts form your words. Changing thought can change the world. Therefore, if you change your words, perhaps you can change your thoughts, and if that happens, perhaps the world will change... for the better, I mean.<br /><br />Until next time, please accept my best wishes, and may you find your way good and worthy.</div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-77997240672016374372022-12-16T16:39:00.001-08:002022-12-16T16:39:18.173-08:00Why Civilization?<br />
What has so-called "civilization" brought to humanity on the whole? What is the net result? I submit that it has been nothing better than disease, misery, poverty, destruction, and death.<br />
<br />
It is so very easy to dismiss my claim, what with so many people pointing to the "miracles" of civilization in the form of technology and concepts that presumably did not exist prior to men becoming civilized. But when one conducts even a comparatively cursory but suficiently noiseless analysis of human civilization, it becomes rather rapidly clear that these claims of the purported miracles are eminently questionable. <div><br /></div><div>Once again, words matter: they form our thoughts, and our thoughts form our realities. Depending upon the exact presumptions under which one chooses to labor, civilization may be deemed a blessing, a curse, any combination of the two, the kitchen sink, a barn door, and so on.<br />
<br />
But what does it really mean to be "civilized"? That, too, may change depending on one's presuppositions. Let me not wax too pedantic and come to my own box of brass tacks. The very word itself, the verb "to civilize", to me means to domesticate; to bring to heel; to break the nature of. Don't take my word for it, but let us once again consult several dictionaries.</div><div><br /></div><div>Starting in economy class, dictionary.com puts it this way:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="css-69s207 e1hk9ate3" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(74, 74, 74); color: #4a4a4a; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 25px 0px 0px;"><span class="css-1b1gas3 e1hk9ate2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"><b>civilize</b></span><span class="css-1b1gas3 e1hk9ate2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px; font-style: italic;"> verb (used with object),</span><span class="css-22g4h9 e1hk9ate1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; display: inline; font-size: 18px;"> <span class="luna-inflected-form bold" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">civ·i·lized,</span> <span class="luna-inflected-form bold" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">civ·i·liz·ing.</span></span></div><div class="css-10n3ydx e1hk9ate0" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(74, 74, 74); color: #4a4a4a; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-left: 20px;"><div class="css-10ul8x e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: list-item; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="1"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="enlighten" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;">to bring out of a <i><b>savage</b></i>, uneducated, or rude state; make <i><b>civil</b></i>; elevate in social and private life; enlighten; refine: <span class="luna-example italic" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="barbarians" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4a4a4a; display: block; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">Rome civilized the barbarians.</span></span></div></div></div></blockquote><p>The Oxford etymological dictionary says:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><a class="word__name--TTbAA word_thumbnail__name--1khEg" href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/civilize#etymonline_v_13748" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #83001d; cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 20px; font-weight: 700; margin: 0px 0px 5px; outline: none; position: relative; text-decoration-color: rgb(131, 0, 29); text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; word-break: break-word;" title="Origin and meaning of civilize">civilize (v.)</a><div style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><section class="word__defination--2q7ZH undefined" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #555555; cursor: text; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></div></section></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">c. 1600, "to bring out of <i><b>barbarism</b></i>, introduce order and <i><b>civil</b></i> organization among, refine and enlighten," from French</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civiliser</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">, verb from Old French</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civil</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">(adj.), from Latin</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civilis</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">"relating to a citizen, relating to public life, befitting a citizen; popular, affable, courteous," alternative adjectival derivative of</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civis</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">"townsman" (see</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><a class="crossreference notranslate" href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/city?ref=etymonline_crossreference" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #83001d; cursor: pointer; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; outline: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(131, 0, 29); text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;" title="Etymology, meaning and definition of city">city</a><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">). Intransitive meaning "become civilized" is from 1868.</span><span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.65); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span> </p></blockquote><div>Samuel Johnson's 1785:</div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /><i>To </i>CIVILIZE, siv'-il-ize. <i>v. a.</i> To reclaim from savageness. Wallor.<br /></blockquote><p> So what, then, does it mean to be civil?</p><p>Dictionary.com:</p><p><br /></p><div class="css-69s207 e1hk9ate3" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(74, 74, 74); color: #4a4a4a; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 25px 0px 0px;"><span class="css-1b1gas3 e1hk9ate2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px; font-style: italic;">adjective</span></div><div class="css-10n3ydx e1hk9ate0" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(74, 74, 74); color: #4a4a4a; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-left: 20px;"><div class="expandable css-12x6sdt e1fc5zsj0" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="default-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="css-10ul8x e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: list-item; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="1"><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;">of, relating to, or consisting of <i><b>citizens</b></i>:</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civil life; civil society.</span></li><li><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;">of the commonwealth or state:</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civil affairs.</span></li><li><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;">of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or of the ordinary life and affairs of citizens, as distinguished from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs.</span></li><li><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;">of the citizen as an individual:</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civil liberty.</span></li><li><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;">befitting a citizen:</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">a civil duty.</span></li><li><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;">of, or in a condition of, social order or organized government;</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"> </span><a class="luna-xref" data-linkid="nn1ov4" href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/civilize" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #00248b; font-size: 18px; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration: none;">civilized</a><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;">:</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civil peoples.</span></li><li><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;">adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy:</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">After their disagreement, their relations were civil though not cordial.</span></li><li><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;">marked by benevolence:</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">He was a very civil sort, and we liked him immediately.</span></li></ol></div></div></div></div><p><br /></p><p>Oxford:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><section class="word__defination--2q7ZH undefined" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #555555; cursor: text; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">civil (adj.)</p></section></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> <span style="color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">late 14c., "relating to civil law or life; pertaining to the internal affairs of a state," from Old French </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civil</span><span style="color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> "civil, relating to civil law" (13c.) and directly from Latin </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civilis</span><span style="color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> "relating to a society, pertaining to public life, relating to the civic order, befitting a citizen," hence by extension "popular, affable, courteous;" alternative adjectival derivative of </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">civis</span><span style="color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> "townsman" (see </span><a class="crossreference notranslate" href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/city?ref=etymonline_crossreference" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #83001d; cursor: pointer; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; outline: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(131, 0, 29); text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;" title="Etymology, meaning and definition of city">city</a><span style="color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">).</span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><section class="word__defination--2q7ZH undefined" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #555555; cursor: text; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">Meaning "<i><b>not barbarous,</b></i> civilized" is from 1550s. Specifically "relating to the commonwealth as secularly organized" (as opposed to <span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: italic;">military</span> or <span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: italic;">ecclesiastical</span>) by 1610s. Meaning "relating to the citizen in his relation to the commonwealth or to fellow citizens" also is from 1610s.</p></section><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></div></blockquote><p>Johnson:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /><br />CIVIL§, siv'-il. a. [<i>civilis</i>, Lat.] Relating to the community. <i>Hooker</i>. Relating to any man as a member of a community. <i>Bp. Taylor.</i> Not in anarchy; <i><b>not wild</b></i>. <i>Roscommon.</i> </blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">We see the notion of savageness, barbarity, and wildness are referenced. Therefore,</p><p style="text-align: left;">Dictionary.com:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div class="css-69s207 e1hk9ate3" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(74, 74, 74); color: #4a4a4a; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 25px 0px 0px;"><span class="css-1b1gas3 e1hk9ate2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"><b>barbaric</b></span><span class="css-1b1gas3 e1hk9ate2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px; font-style: italic;"> adjective</span></div><div class="css-10n3ydx e1hk9ate0" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(74, 74, 74); color: #4a4a4a; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin-left: 20px;"><div class="css-10ul8x e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: list-item; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="1"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;">without civilizing influences; uncivilized; <i><b>primitive</b></i>: <span class="luna-example italic" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4a4a4a; display: block; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">barbaric invaders.</span></span></div></div></blockquote><p><br /></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><section class="css-109x55k e1hk9ate4" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(74, 74, 74); color: #4a4a4a; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><div class="css-69s207 e1hk9ate3" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin: 25px 0px 0px;"><span class="css-1b1gas3 e1hk9ate2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 18px;"><b>savage</b><i> adjective</i></span></div><div class="css-10n3ydx e1hk9ate0" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 15px; margin-left: 20px;"><div class="expandable css-12x6sdt e1fc5zsj0" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="default-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="css-10ul8x e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: list-item; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="1"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="ferocious" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;">fierce, ferocious, or cruel; untamed: </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">savage beasts.</span></div><div class="css-1o7vb91 e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: list-item; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="2"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;"><span class="luna-label italic" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="Offensive" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: italic;">Offensive</span>. </span><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="primitive" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;">relating to or being a preliterate people or society regarded as uncivilized or primitive.</span></div></div><div class="expandable-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="css-7rebmo e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: list-item; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="5"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="rugged" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;"><i><b>wild</b></i> or rugged, as country or scenery: <span class="luna-example italic" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="wilderness" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4a4a4a; display: block; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">savage wilderness.</span></span></div><div class="css-1mxqyc7 e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: list-item; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="6"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;"><span class="luna-label italic" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="Archaic" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: italic;">Archaic</span>. </span><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="uncultivated" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;">uncultivated; <i><b>growing wild</b></i>.</span></div></div></div></div></section><section class="css-109x55k e1hk9ate4" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(74, 74, 74); font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><div class="css-69s207 e1hk9ate3" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 25px 0px 0px;"><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: medium;"><b>wild </b><i>adjective</i></span></div></section></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div class="default-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(74, 74, 74); font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><div class="css-10ul8x e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4a4a4a; display: list-item; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="1"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="living" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;">living in a state of nature; <i><b>not tamed or domesticated</b></i>: </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">a wild animal; wild geese.</span></div><div class="css-1o7vb91 e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: list-item; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="2"><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: medium;">...</span></div><div class="css-155esv5 e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4a4a4a; display: list-item; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="4"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;"><i><b>uncivilized or barbarous</b></i>: </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">wild tribes.</span></div></div><div class="expandable-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(74, 74, 74); font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><div class="css-7rebmo e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: list-item; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="5"><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: medium;">...</span></div><div class="css-gud428 e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4a4a4a; display: list-item; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="9"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;">undisciplined, unruly, or <i><b>lawless</b></i>: </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">a gang of wild boys.</span></div><div class="css-1ttkcs6 e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4a4a4a; display: list-item; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="10"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;">unrestrained, untrammeled, or unbridled: </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">wild enthusiasm.</span></div><div class="css-1isuf6w e1q3nk1v2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4a4a4a; display: list-item; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; list-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding-left: 25px; position: relative;" value="11"><span class="one-click-content css-nnyc96 e1q3nk1v1" data-linkid="nn1ov4" data-term="restraints" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1a1a1a; cursor: pointer; font-size: 18px; position: relative; z-index: 1;">disregardful of moral restraints as to pleasurable indulgence: </span><span style="font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">He repented his wild youth.</span> </div></div></blockquote><p>Oxford:</p><p><br /></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">barbaric (adj.)</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">late 15c., "uncultured, uncivilized, unpolished," from French </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">barbarique</span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> (15c.), from Latin </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">barbaricus</span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> "foreign, strange, outlandish," from Greek </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">barbarikos</span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> "like a foreigner," from </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">barbaros</span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> "foreign, rude" (see </span><a class="crossreference notranslate" href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/barbarian?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_52529" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #83001d; cursor: pointer; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; outline: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(131, 0, 29); text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;" title="Etymology, meaning and definition of barbarian">barbarian</a><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> (n.)). The meaning "pertaining to or characteristic of barbarians" is from 1660s. Related: </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">Barbarically</span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">.</span></blockquote><p><br /></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">savage (adj.) </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">mid-13c. (late 12c. as a surname), of animals, "ferocious;" c. 1300, "wild, undomesticated, untamed," also "wild, uncultivated" (of land or places), from Old French <span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: italic;">sauvage</span>, <span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: italic;">salvage</span> "wild, savage, untamed, strange, pagan," from Late Latin <span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: italic;">salvaticus</span>, alteration (vowel assimilation) of <span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: italic;">silvaticus</span> "wild, woodland," literally "of the woods," from <span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: italic;">silva</span> "forest, grove" (see <a class="crossreference notranslate" href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/sylvan?ref=etymonline_crossreference" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #83001d; cursor: pointer; font-weight: 700; outline: none; text-decoration-color: rgb(131, 0, 29); text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;" title="Etymology, meaning and definition of sylvan">sylvan</a>).</p><p><span style="caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">Of persons, "<i><b>indomitable</b></i>, <i><b>valiant</b></i>," also "fierce, bold, cruel" (c. 1300); from late 14c., of persons or behavior, "wild, barbarous, uncivilized;" c. 1400 as "reckless, ungovernable," and by 1610s as "pertaining to or characteristic of savage peoples, living in the lowest condition of development." In heraldry, "naked or clothed in foliage" (1570s). The</span><span style="caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">-l-</span><span style="caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">often was restored in 16c.-17c. English spelling.</span> </p></blockquote><p><br /></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">wild (adj.)</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;">"to run wild, <i><b>refuse to be tamed</b></i>," Old English </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">awildian</span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> (see <i><b>wild</b></i></span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> (adj.)). </span><span class="foreign notranslate" style="box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">Wilding</span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 16px;"> (n.) in the teen gang sense first recorded 1989. Earlier it meant "plant that grows without cultivation" (1520s).</span><p style="text-align: left;"> </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> </p></blockquote><p>Johnson:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">BARBARICK, bar-bar'-ik. a. Foreign) far-fetched. <i>Milton</i>. Uncivilized. <i>Milton.</i></blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">SAVAGE §, sav'-vldje. 90. a. [sauvage, Fr. ; selvaggio, Ital.] ; <i><b>Wild</b></i> ; uncultivated. <i>Milton</i>. <i><b>Untamed</b></i>; cruel. <i>Shak</i>. Uncivilized; barbarous; untaught; wild ; brutal. <i>Raleigh</i>.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><br />WILD §, wild. a. [úïld, Sax.; wild, Dutch.] <i><b>Not tame</b></i> ; not domestick. <i>Shak</i>. ... <i><b>Savage; uncivilized</b></i>: used of persons, or practices. <i>Bacon</i>. <i><b>ungoverned</b></i>. <i>Milton</i>. </blockquote><p> </p>There are two things I would have you notice here. For one, the difficulties apparent in these definitions. One of them is that of circularity. For example, to be civil is to be non-savage. To be savage is to be uncivil. Defining words in these ways is semantically dangerous in those instances where semantic rigor is necessary to proper and sufficient understanding. Furthermore, these sorts of inadequacies in our words underscores the tenuous nature of our communications, which in turn make glaring just how tenuous is our grasps on reality, at least in terms of our abilities to think abstractly. And yet, we manage to get from day to day without destroying ourselves; we manage to feed and house and recognize beauty and danger, love each other, avoid the destruction and other harming of others. To my mind, this is all prima facie proof of the inherently miraculous nature of all that we are, and experience. God is ever so real, and ever so omnipresent, even in the horrors of that which we deem our misfortunes.<br /><div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
We are, at our cores, wild animals. To believe anything less than this is to lie to oneself. It is this wildness that is the very embodiment of our freedom, that thing for which so many here claim to pine and to which they tell the world their honors and fortunes are pledged. But how can this be when most people fail to understand the most basic aspects of their own nature? Any suggestion of the true nature of men gives rise to the deepest and most violent revulsion in the vast majority, and that is the reason the world is what it is: people want pretty slavery and nothing whatsoever to do with actual freedom.<br />
<br />
Even my Canon of Proper Human Relations is something of a fib because it compromises the true nature of men away for the sake of the illusions of peace and security, and that is the unvarnished truth. You want pure and wild freedom? I do. You, most likely, do not - but I shall speak for no other man. True freedom is largely terrifying. Imagine another man attempting to kill you for a stick of gum. While unlikely in a truly free world, it remains a real possibility. However, when we look at it more circumspectly, it is not appreciably more likely than under our current cultural circumstance. In point of practice, it may in fact be less likely for reasons I hope will become apparent shortly. Imagine it: we have literally millions of "laws" on the books and yet people still murder each other for the most inanely flimsy reasons. Law is NOTHING. Human nature and the decisions of the individual man are EVERYTHING.<br />
<br />
The difference between being a savage and a civilian is almost precisely this: the savage assumes full responsibility for his every action, whereas the civilian renounces the greatest proportion of responsibility for that which he thinks, feels, and chooses, preferring to pass them off onto his fellows. But in doing this he abnegates his sovereignty, tossing his sacred freedoms to the wind because he wishes to live his life in the manner of an ill-bred child in preference to being an actual adult.<br />
<br />
In a savage society, every man is free to do precisely as he pleases. If he wishes to walk up to a stranger and attempt to put a sword through the man's belly, that is his choice, just as it is today, all false appearances of "law and order" notwithstanding. The only difference lies in what happens next. In either case of savage or civilian, the intended target may not cotton to the notion of being run-through. The only question then remaining is, "who will prevail?", and generally speaking we may say that it is anyone's guess because combat is inherently non-linear. <br />
<br />
But if we assume Johnny is successful in running his blade to the hilt into Tommy's belly, what then? In purest terms, nothing. Johnny is alive, if a bit blood-soaked, and Tommy is skewered. In more real terms, however, if Tommy survives, Johnny faces the risks and dangers of retaliation. Whether Tommy dies or lives, Johnny may in either event face the same risk of vendetta, whether at Tommy's hands, or those of Tommy's family, friends, or other agents on his behalf.<br />
<br />
There need be no contrived legislation to pose Johnny's hazard, as is the case today. In the savage world, just as in the civilized, the only threats to Johnny in the wake of his choice are other human beings. The difference between the two worlds is that the savage is honest, whereas the civilized is endlessly otherwise. The savage society is honest about how such things work, whereas the civil society lies endlessly about justice, <coughhackwheezegagchokesputter> impartiality, and so on. What a sad and obscene joke.<br /><br />I greatly prefer the savage world precisely because it forces people to be responsible for the things they think, say, feel, and do. The civilized world renders men as imbecilic infants, whose heads become filled with the most idiotic of notions that aim to treat their fellows with gross and often felonious disrespect without having to face any consequences for their perfidies. And they rely upon the machinations of men in suits to pass edicts that guarantee the ability to get away even with literal murder in more than the rare and passing case. The list of ways in which this has been made manifest could take us weeks or even months of dedicated discourse here in order to name, analyze, and discuss them all.<br /><br />The civilized man has been taught to believe in a great and endlessly harmful raft of lies about the savage world. For instance, he has been taught that savages are wildly undisciplined maniacs with nothing but rape and murder on their tiny, misshapen minds, every second of every day. The most cursory analytic consideration of this assertion quickly exposes its raw and suppurating absurdity. Generally speaking, people like being alive and do the best they can to ensure they remain that way. In this, the savage is no different from the civilian. Given this, how long does anyone think a savage society would last if being savage meant endless killing and destruction? It would be over in matters of days; weeks at best. This has never been the case in general terms where savage societies have been concerned. They have survived the millennia just fine. Certainly they have many examples of one group wiping from the earth all traces of another, but this is no different from civilized people. Just consider the countless millions, savages and civilians alike, slaughtered by the Roman church, or the Pharaohs. How about the kings of Europe; the emperors of the various east-Asian empires including but not limited to China and Japan; the empires of South and Middle Americas? Africa? Middle-east?<br /><br />Can anyone point to an example where a savage society has so much as attempted to do what Stalin and Mao did, much less actually accomplish it?<br /><br />So far as I can see, civilization has been the grandest show of smoke and mirrors in all human history. People have fallen for the false miracles of architecture, technology, and the hideous idolatry thereby raised in so many forms. Truly, where civilization has been concerned, the medium has always been the message: pure power - don't mess with us. The typical modern man whines about "muh roads", "muh internet", and so on down a depresingly long list of things that, were they never to have to into existence, would not be missed by anyone. I cannot begin to count the number of people who have used these sorts of miserable examples as the justification for demanding that every man submit to their visions of pretty slavery.<br /><br />The repulsive "leftie" demands not only to be allowed to engage in all manner of unsavory acts, but that everyone must praise him for it. The similarly repugnant "righty" defines freedom more broadly, but still ends up with pretty slavery as his vision of paradise on earth. And damn it if most of them all want "muh gummint" to provide the force needed to compel the compliance of others, no matter who gets hurt or how terribly someone else's quality of life may turn out due directly because of said applications of force.<br /><br />And just look at the pure absurdity of it all. For example, Obama signed an executive order, only to have Trump undo it all with the stroke of a pen. There's your "civilization"; back and forth like a lethal yoyo moving in whichever direction those currently in power decide it shall swing. It is pure whim, and as often as not, caprice. Few give a true damn about your rights. Most don't even care about their own rights, save to the paltry extents their limited and frightened little selves auto-circumscribe and build their own prison walls at the sadly narrow delimiters dictated by their willful ignorance, cowardice, avarice, and indolence.<br /><br />Similarly, some people attempt to justify our slavery because it has provided all the miracles of modern medicine. Once again, the absurdity of this is of such a nature and degree as to leave the thinking man numb. For one thing, the attitude is reflective of the determination to squelch all risk from life. It's the same old rotten saw about wanting something for nothing; in this case, wanting all the perceived benefits of "freedom" without having to pony up for any of the costs. This is the mindset of thieves and dull, ill-bred children, rather than proper adults.<br /><br />It is instructive to note that were all these miracles of modern medicine not available, several things would happen. For one thing, people would SLOW DOWN. Their physical movements would become more careful and deliberate in a world where a broken leg or even a cut could mean death. They would slow down their mouths greatly, the necessities of a truer reality driving them to put their brains in gear long prior to engaging their yaps. Why? Because to speak ill-advisedly could result in one becoming severely injured or even being killed. Death tends to be a wonderfully sound advisor, by and large.<br /><br />A savage land would be different in so many ways precisely because the prospect of death or dismemberment at the hands of other humans, or even just happenstance, as the result of one's poorly considered behavior would teach one deep and abiding respect for his fellows, as well as the cold and hard realities that surround him. He would learn and practice REAL respect, vis-à-vis this thin and hollow gasbag shell so many today mistakenly conflate with actual respect. By "respect", I do not mean the modern and comparatively superficial notion of esteem and the sense of worth, but rather the more ancient meaning, which goes something as follows:<br /><br />deference to a right...or someone...[recognized] to have certain rights...; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment<br /><br />There are so many intertwining layers of the various aspects of this that I am certain a very large, laborious, and verbose tome or three could be written on the matter of what it means to respect another human being in the sense that is relevant to this discussion. It has nothing to do with bunnies, light, love, and running around in one's underwear while making childish noises. It has everything to do with recognizing the just and valid claims of other men such that one refrains from trespassing upon them with intent, and making whole that which has been insulted when done so by accident.<br /><br />Suffice to say that this is a topic that is broad, endlessly deep, and goes on well beyond the horizon. For my money, civilization is more bad than good. Yes, without it there would be little to no modern medicine, but how many have considered the possibility that without the rest of the steaming pile that has been heaped upon us over the centuries, maybe most of the diseases we so deeply dread such as cancer, HIV, etc. may never have come to any notable rise in the first place? How much of that which we suffer can we give thanks for to our forebears who polluted the living hell out of the land, air, and seas? Are we so cock-sure that the ever climbing cancer rates are not attributable to such causes and would have come to what they are today, even if we had we forgone civilization, in favor of the savage life?<br /><br />And I reiterate the fact that despite all these miracles and statutes, people appear today to be more miserable in their spirits than ever their savage forebears seem to have been. Civilization has done nothing as much as it has fought the natural order of the planet. Our technologies and medicine have resulted in a world choking on nearly 8 billion people. The idiotic religions of the civilized world have given rise to thoughts so poisonous, yet so deeply and I daresay terminally ingrained that we fail to see the folly to which we have committed ourselves. That, to me, is the insanity of civilization; it is the codification, formalization, and deification of raving, howling madness.<br /><br />And for those Christians (just to pick on one of many prime candidate classes) who might chafe at the notion that their religion is somehow less-than sane in any aspect, I would point out that had men remained as savages, there would have been no need for God to send a messiah in the first place. Think on that awhile... if you dare do so honestly and with open mind.</coughhackwheezegagchokesputter></div><div style="text-align: left;"><coughhackwheezegagchokesputter><br /></coughhackwheezegagchokesputter></div><div style="text-align: left;"><coughhackwheezegagchokesputter>But since we are as a species now hopeless committed to civilized life, it behooves us most powerfully to endeavor to make that choice as worthy as possible of our lives. That ironically suggests making our collective ways back to savagery to the greatest degree possible, which means a return to liberty. I say turn your back to pretty slavery. Do not allow the false idols of civilization to buy your soul at any price, much less on the cheap. Certainly there are advantages to civilization, but having them does not have to lead to rank servitude. Freedom and civilization are not mutually exclusive, but in order to have them both one must accept the less attractive aspects of liberty. There is no other way, which is why so many people have in fact sold their souls cheaply to those who threaten and cajole, sabers rattling in hand and bellicose words spewing every which way against the man whose self-interest is his first priority.</coughhackwheezegagchokesputter></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><coughhackwheezegagchokesputter><br />The minority of one has written, and please accept his best wishes.</coughhackwheezegagchokesputter></div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-43988370921398821742022-11-19T01:56:00.001-08:002022-11-19T01:56:17.036-08:00Why Do Tyrants Get Re-elected?<p> In one of my other frequented forums, the question of the title above was asked, to which one answer was:</p><p><span style="background-color: #f2f6f8; caret-color: rgb(17, 17, 17); color: #111111; font-family: Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><i>Because the tyrants count the votes. It's the illusion that your vote counts.</i></blockquote><p>To which I responded thusly:</p><p> </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">"That's only a partial cause. The broader issue is the human animal, so easily taking to corruption.<br />The mean man is rotten to his marrow. I know this is not a very flattering view, but one can judge only by the results, and those are net spectacular decay. We are the cause on both ends of the spectrum. On the positive end, we have the scoundrels not just of "government", but those who actively and with much salivation support said scoundrels. Those are the active criminals.</blockquote><p> </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"> </blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">On the negative side we have the rest who, through inaction, enable the felons by tacitly approving their crimes. These are by far the worse of the two, and they are the vast majority of humanity. They are walking, breathing obscenities, and most of us fall into that category.<br /></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">This is not to say that there are no good men, but we can say by all means that there are not enough of them. After all, good men also have families and, for lack of a better way of putting it, something to lose. Why should they risk all for the sake of a vast majority who are not collectively worth the cardboard match with which their hundreds of millions of gasoline-soaked bodies would be set to living blaze in one motion? This is especially valid when one realizes that there is currently no hope of prevailing precisely because armies of one have no chance against the seemingly endless legions of corrupt and IMO utterly worthless humanity who have at best allowed the world to be set to wrack and ruin insofar as our liberties are concerned. Small contingents are swatted like flies as a vast plurality cheer and applaud most thunderously.<br /></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">I have mentioned this before and I will repeat it regardless of rolling eyeballs: I fully understand, and in many ways agree with the globalist view of the bulk of humanity as being nothing better than Kissinger's "useless eaters". If a man will not assert his claims (rights), then he has no basis for complaint when the Man tramples him. It is not that I wish terrible fates for these people, but I simply cannot in all reason get it up to shed a tear for their destruction. Is that destruction a horrific thing? Certainly it is, and when it comes I will not be able to help myself but to shed that tear because at that point logic will have lost most of its significance, leaving nothing but the raw emotions to deal with that dolorous reality. But because people will not stand up for what is theirs, logic barring all emotion leads one to see that those people get what they get as the consequence of having cared insufficiently for themselves to do what was necessary to preserve their rights.<br /></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">A right unasserted or undefended is a right nonexistent. Rights do not exist in sé. They must be made manifest through assertion, and maintained via active defense. The sad truth of humanity is that there are far too many who would rob you of your rights, which is why one must remain ever vigilant, utterly intolerant of trespass, and strike with bitter venom all who transgress, are made aware of their violation, yet refuse to amend. Such people must be beaten with vast savagery, whether in courts, with words, or even physically if circumstance calls for it because such men understand naught but the strong man's retort.</blockquote><p> </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"> </blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">Most people worldwide, make little to no assertion of their rights and most who do fail to defend those claims. In this regard I respect the psychotics of the "left" in that they at least act in both the assertion and defense of what they believe to be their rights, regardless of the fact that their claims are idiotic, prima facie, and their actions made ostensibly in defense of actual rights are nothing better than long strings of very serious felonies. But the fact that they will at least act, however incorrectly, still beats the living snot out of those who know better their proper rights, yet sit idly as Theye put them over the wood, over and over again. Indeed, the latter are the more despicable of the two precisely because they know better, yet are too corrupt to do what is right. Most humans should be ashamed of themselves to the point they burst most spontaneously into flame, much as vampires in sunlight.<br /></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">The world of men could be so fine, yet we choose this."</blockquote><p>I find it sad that it is to such things to which men have reduced themselves. </p><p>Until next time, please accept my best wishes.</p>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-44091080216346941732022-11-01T08:52:00.004-07:002022-11-01T16:05:42.940-07:00Don't Use Theire Made Up Words... Much<br /><div>One of the major FAIL points we find in the average human being is the propensity to play the game of one's enemy. It never ceases to astonish me as I witness this phenomenon. We humans are like sponges in that when something - an idea, a WORD, is put out there, most of us are quick to adopt it and nearly all will do so in time. I, for one, make every effort to avoid this, save when speaking of a specific term.</div><div><br /><div style="caret-color: rgb(41, 48, 59); color: #29303b; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Consider the abuse of the word "awesome". Dopey "millennials" took a perfectly good word and semantically mangled it all to crap through their obscene ignorance such that today I feel constrained to avoid its use for fear that people will misunderstand my meaning. And I will readily admit my annoyance when I hear some bubble-headed youngin' tell me "<em>awesome</em>" when I tell them something that they like to hear.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(41, 48, 59); color: #29303b; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(41, 48, 59); color: #29303b; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The use of the terms of one's opponents and enemies, as those adversaries would use them, is a manner of playing <em>their</em> game. It is a loser's move, no matter how one tries to slice that mold-laced pie, unless one does so with great skill and a rather oblique strategy. Sadly, both are skills well beyond the ken of the average man. The moment you begin such usage, it is likely that you have already lost any argument you may have with them precisely because such use tacitly validates their terms and all that they carry, most of it tacit, vague, and ultimately wrong for any of a number of possible failings. <br /><br />Let me once more emphasize the importance of <em>how</em> such terms are used. To use them as the enemy does, and would likely have <em>you</em> use them, is badness. To use them in the manner of dismantling those words and exposing them for the frauds that they are, is just fine, and indeed at times necessary. A key element in exposing and demolishing the Stupid in the arguments of others, is to expose their made up, phony baloney jargon. So when a "progressive" or some similarly misguided sort comes at you with shrieks of "social justice", for example, it behooves you to get right to the root of such nonsense by dismantling the very notions that such terms connote. Once you obliterate the conceptual foundation of the string "social justice", the rest of the demolition work should be comparatively simple and even easy... assuming of course that one is dealing with rational, intelligent, and <em>decent</em> human beings on the other side of the issue in question. Naturally, that is a bit of a sticky wicket because more often than not, the rational man finds himself in opposition to ranting, shrieking, flailing balls of emotion (mostly raw terror and its attendant venom-laced hatred) that care no whit for truth, fact, or logic. In such cases, arguing tends to rapidly become a fool's errand, so be careful in choosing those with whom you spend time in debate.<br /><div><br /></div><div>Using the terminology of the left like this is a very big mistake as it aids in normalizing their mental and moral cancers. The "left" makes up such nonsensical terms (and they are not the only ones, but the most egregiously guilty of it) such as "ableism" for several very effective reasons. One is that they always seek to run simplistic in their conceptual peddlings. This is absolutely essential to their success, because to use properly structured sentences to express their idiocies would expose the nonsense for what it is. But compressing a concept into a one-word slogan, or a simplistic phrase, enables them to deliver emotionallly-charged messages through obfuscation and innuendo, courtesy of the limited minds to which those messages are targeted. They plant the seed, the dullard filling in the blanks. This is a central pillar of Bernays' so-called "public relations", what we now know as "propaganda". This grosteque mockery and abuse of language is key to the gross manipulation of large populations' perceptions, and thereby their opinions on any matter one might wish to consider.<br /><br />Therefore, I would highly recommend that people refrain from using the terms of one's enemies (and they ARE enemies, make you no mistake), for they were contrived with no other objective than to destroy those who would prefer to live freely. </div><div><br /></div><div>Tempting as it may be to do otherwise, I would refrain from taking the enemy's bait. Don't play their game, but force them to play by <em>YOUR</em> rules. With some learning and practice, taking command of inferior minds is really not that difficult, and if here I sound a mite stuck-up, I say so what? The simpletons of the tyrannical progressives are typically not the best and brightest among us, but they are vast in number, live in strict lockstep with each other, and are by those virtues very dangerous creatures.</div><div><br /></div><div>Teach yourself the principles of the psychological games employed (on ALL sides, because the so-called "right" is also not clean of hand), learn to recognize when someone is attempting to play you, and what you can do to neutralize and countervail their actions effectively.<br /><br />Don't be anyone's chump.</div></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(41, 48, 59); color: #29303b; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></div><div style="caret-color: rgb(41, 48, 59); color: #29303b; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Until next time, please accept my best wishes.</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></div>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4532988853130799753.post-47731029238294217212022-10-24T07:36:00.003-07:002022-10-24T07:36:30.970-07:00The Polidiot<p> Yes yes, I've graced the world with yet another extraneous word that nobody needs.</p><p><b>Polidiot</b> <i>n</i>. : A functional idiot where anything political is concerned.</p><p><b>Polidiocy</b> <i>n</i>. : Thought and other behavior consistent with being a polidiot.</p><p><b>Polidiotic</b> <i>a</i>. : That which is consistent with polidiocy.</p><p><br /></p><p>Why, you ask, have I contributed to the noise stream of contemporary life? Because. Hell, everyone else is doing it. </p><p>The mean American is a polidiot. I hate to have to put it that way, but it is an observable fact. I have witnessed polidiocy in a broad spectrum of political bents. The per capita rate of polidiocy is all at once astonishing, deeply depressing, alarming, distressing, and just plainly pathetic. The rank ignorance that American polidiocy represents is precisely that which the Founders of this still-great, but rapidly declining nation warned us. People cannot at once be free and stupid/ignorant/morally degraded. Polidiocy is founded upon all the latter and is repellent and abhorrent of the former.</p><p>America is drowning in polidiocy. To the rest of the world who would snicker at this, I say "not so fast", because you are in the exact and selfsame boat. </p><p>Polidiocy is a cancer of mind, attitude, and morals. It is a terminal condition, most especially for those who proclaim to be free, for even if they are (which they aren't, for there are no free people on the planet we call "earth"), they will not remain so for long, and for all the reasons that have been pointed out over endless repetitions, to no apparent avail.</p><p>There was a time when polidiocy might have been excusable - ancient times when valuable information about proper human relations might have been sparse, or easily perverted by tyrants for all the standard reasons. But today, what with a global information network t our fingertips, not only is there no longer any excuse for being a polidiot, the risks of becoming and remaining polidiotic are far higher than in the not-so-distant past.</p><p>Tech-enabled tyrants pose a greater threat to liberty than any frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic king of the past could ever have hoped. Now more than ever is it imperative that people give their polidiocy the heave-ho and come to sense about what is good and right between men. Ignore this warning at the peril not of just your own self, but of everyone you claim to love and have affection.</p><p>All is yet not lost. Awareness is the first step, and a necessary but insufficient one. One needs to become properly educated as well, but most important is the shift in atitude, which is absolutely essential in order to become a Freeman. Attitude is the single most important factor, the insufficiency thereof resulting in no hope for the individual.</p><p>Dispense with polidiocy. Don't be a polidiot.</p><p>As usual, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.</p>Freedom Is Obvioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04813627848157670961noreply@blogger.com0