A Canonical Definition of Law and Crime

 

In a previous discussion, I addressed the appallingly deficient definitions of "law" as found in the ironically titled "Law Dictionaries". The definitions commonly offered in legal dictionaries are conspicuously inadequate: they tend to identify law by source, enforcement, or institutional recognition while declining to state the conditions under which a coercive rule is valid. A dictionary of law that cannot define Law in that sense leaves its central term unresolved.

In that previous discussion, pursuant to remedying this most inexcusably dolorous circumstance, I endeavored to generate a rigorous, objectively correct, complete, clear, and consistent definition of law, which I proposed be rendered as “Law” to distinguish it from the arbitrarily capricious statutory pablum commonly referred to as “law.”  While a noble effort, further consideration on the matter left me unsatisfied and prompted additional cogitation and synthesis.

To that end, I have devised the following two related definitions which I believe fit the bill.  

1.0 Canonical Definition of Law

Law is a principled rule of conduct whose sole justifying purpose is the protection, definition, adjudication, restoration, or enforcement of the equal rights of individual human beings. 

Rights are either inherent or synthetic. Inherent rights are rights axiomatic in humanity, agency, and equal liberty, including the inviolability of one’s body, property, rightful action, conscience, and voluntary association.  They are primary and may not be permanently waived, transferred, alienated, or subordinated by any synthetic right, agreement, majority, or institution. Synthetic rights arise only from valid rights-generating relations and remain valid only insofar as they are consistent with the inherent rights of every individual affected.

A purported rule is void to the extent that it lacks this rights-protective purpose, contradicts it, is unpublished or not reasonably knowable before enforcement, or imposes coercion beyond what is necessary to secure the right at issue. No rule becomes Law merely because an authority has enacted, declared, recognized, or enforced it. The ordinary and preferred form of Law is prohibitive. An affirmative command may stand as Law only where no negative reduction can fully secure the protected right, where a determinate claim-right and correlative duty arise from a valid rights-generating relation, and where the command is strictly necessary, minimally coercive, and consistent with inherent rights.

A human being is not bound merely because an institution has produced a command. Coercion is legitimate only when it protects a definite right, comes from a determinate rights-generating relation where affirmative performance is demanded, is publicly knowable in advance, and reaches no further than necessity requires.

“Human being” means a living individual member of the human species. Only a human being possesses inherent rights.

“Individual” refers to a human being.

“Rightful action” means conduct consistent with inherent rights and valid synthetic rights. It includes defensive force used in good faith to prevent, terminate, or forestall an actual, attempted, or distinctly imminent rights violation, as provided in this Code. An action does not cease to be rightful merely because it is forceful, harmful to a rights violator, or prohibited by a statute void under this Code.

“Crime” means a culpable violation of Law. It includes an intentional, knowing, reckless, or criminally negligent attempt, completion, or deliberate facilitation of a violation of an inherent right or valid synthetic right. No act or omission is a Crime merely because a statute labels it criminal.

“Negligence” means a breach of a determinate duty of care, arising from a valid rights-generating relation or from the foreseeable risk created by one’s voluntary conduct, where the breach causes injury to the inherent or valid synthetic rights of another individual.

“Civil negligence” gives rise to a duty of restoration, restitution, or other remedy necessary to repair the injury caused. It is not, without more, a Crime.

“Criminal negligence” means a gross and culpable disregard of a distinct, substantial, and foreseeable risk of grave injury to the rights of another individual, where the actor knew of the risk or where the risk was so obvious that failure to recognize it itself demonstrates culpable indifference to those rights. Criminal negligence is a Crime.

“Person” means a synthetic juridical entity, including a corporation, company, partnership, association, trust, estate, nonprofit body, municipality, agency, or other entity created, recognized, organized, or maintained by human beings or by institutional act. A person is not a human being.

“Synthetic entity” means any person or other nonhuman legal, commercial, organizational, or institutional construct. A synthetic entity has no inherent rights, conscience, body, life, liberty, or agency of its own. It may act only through human representatives and may possess only those synthetic rights, powers, privileges, immunities, liabilities, duties, and capacities that arise through valid agreement, delegation, ownership, representation, or other valid rights-generating relation.

No statute, charter, registration, judicial declaration, administrative act, or institutional recognition may create inherent rights in a synthetic entity. Every power, privilege, capacity, immunity, and legal protection held by a synthetic entity is synthetic, conditional, limited, and subordinate to the inherent rights of human beings. It may be modified, suspended, or dissolved only by publicly knowable rules and fair procedures consistent with the accrued rights of affected human beings.

---

2.0 Detailed Elaboration (Code of Principles)

2.1 Law

“Law” is a rule of conduct whose sole justifying purpose is the protection, definition, adjudication, restoration, or enforcement of the equal rights of individuals.  

Rights are either inherent or synthetic.  

- “Inherent rights” are rights axiomatic in humanity, agency, and equal liberty, including the inviolability of one’s body, property, rightful action, conscience, and voluntary association.

- “Synthetic rights” are rights derived from a voluntary and rights-respecting agreement, undertaking, transfer, exchange, custodial relation, causal act, wrongful act, restitutionary relation, or other valid rights-generating relation.  

A purported rule is void insofar as it lacks this rights-protective purpose, contradicts that purpose, was not publicly promulgated and reasonably knowable before enforcement, or imposes coercion beyond what is necessary to secure the right at issue.

No rule becomes Law merely because an authority has enacted, declared, recognized, or enforced it.

“Valid rights-generating relation” means a relation that gives rise to a determinate claim-right and correlative duty through voluntary and informed agreement, rightful transfer, causation of injury, wrongful taking or withholding, custody voluntarily assumed or justly imposed by causation, possession of another’s property, reliance knowingly induced, restitution, or another relation consistent with inherent rights. No relation is valid if created by force, fraud, material deception, coercion, incapacity, exploitation of dependency, or conditions that deny a valid and reasonable path of exit.

2.2 Priority of Inherent Rights 

Inherent rights are primary and may not be permanently waived, transferred, alienated, subordinated, or invaded by any synthetic right, contractual right, institutional rule, majority decision, office, license, or purported consent. An individual may nevertheless become liable, through commission of a rights violation or a distinct, imminent, and objectively evidenced threat thereof, to necessary defensive, adjudicative, restorative, or rights-protective restraint as provided in this Code.

A synthetic right is valid only insofar as it:  

- Arises from a valid rights-generating relation.  

- Is voluntarily undertaken or otherwise justly incurred.  

- Remains consistent with the inherent rights of every individual affected.  

- Does not authorize, require, excuse, diminish, interfere with, or permanently impose the violation of an inherent right.  

Nothing in this Code prohibits an individual from granting a specific, informed, voluntary, and limited permission respecting the exercise of that individual’s inherent rights. Such permission may authorize conduct that would otherwise constitute an interference with the grantor’s protected domain, but it does not waive, transfer, alienate, subordinate, or extinguish the underlying inherent right.

A valid permission must be limited as to the recipient, purpose, scope, and duration, or otherwise be reasonably ascertainable in those respects. It is revocable prospectively by the grantor through reasonable notice, except to the extent that revocation would defeat an accrued right, prevent return of another’s property, or breach a valid, limited, and rights-consistent obligation for which the appropriate remedy is restitution, return, or other restoration rather than compelled personal performance.

No permission is valid if obtained or maintained by force, fraud, material deception, coercion, incapacity, exploitation of dependency, or conditions that deny a valid and reasonable path of exit. No permission may create dominion over the grantor’s body, agency, conscience, equal liberty, or right of exit.

Any agreement, law, association, rule, or institutional arrangement that purports to authorize the invasion, surrender, permanent alienation, or impairment of an inherent right is void to the extent of that conflict. Where the invalid portion can be separated from the valid remainder without changing the essential agreement, only the offending portion is void. Where it cannot be separated, the whole agreement or rule is void.

No individual forfeits inherent rights merely by accusation, status, opinion, association, poverty, unpopularity, prior wrongdoing, or governmental declaration. Nor does a rights violation render its author rightless.

An individual who culpably initiates, continues, attempts, or presents a distinct, imminent, and objectively evidenced threat of a rights violation becomes liable to such defensive, adjudicative, and remedial restraint as is necessary to protect the rights of others, terminate or avert the violation, secure fair adjudication, preserve necessary evidence, obtain restitution, or enforce a just and rights-protective remedy.

Such liability does not constitute the waiver, transfer, alienation, or destruction of inherent rights. It is a temporary or continuing qualification of the wrongdoer’s claim against specified interference, limited in subject, scope, duration, and severity to what the individual's own conduct has made necessary.

Every coercive measure imposed upon an individual accused or convicted of a rights violation shall preserve all inherent rights not incompatible with the necessary protection, adjudication, restoration, or enforcement at issue. The measure shall cease or be reduced as soon as its rights-protective justification no longer obtains.

2.3 Equal Protection of Rights

Law shall recognize and protect the equal rights of all individuals. “Equal” here means formal equality: the same set of inherent rights belongs to every individual. No individual, group, office, institution, class, majority, or government possesses authority to diminish another individual’s inherent rights merely by superior number, force, wealth, status, custom, alleged public benefit, or enactment.  

The need of one individual, the utility of a proposed result, the preference of a majority, or the claimed benefit to society does not alone create a claim-right against another individual. A claim-right sufficient to compel conduct must arise from a definite rights-generating relation between the claimant and the individual upon whom the duty is imposed.

2.4 Negative Reduction

Negative reduction is the replacement of an affirmative rule of conduct with a prohibitive rule that protects the same right, against the same class of violation, to the same extent, and without diminishing the scope, force, remedy, or enforceability of that protection.  

A negative reduction exists only where the right can be fully secured by prohibiting invasion, interference, appropriation, impairment, fraud, coercion, breach, wrongful withholding, or another corresponding form of violation.  

A negative reduction does not exist merely because an affirmative command may be grammatically expressed as a prohibition. A rule requiring an individual to furnish labor, services, resources, speech, rescue, care, property, or another affirmative performance remains affirmative even if restated as “do not fail,” “do not omit,” or similar language.  

Where a negative reduction exists, only the prohibitive form may stand as Law. The affirmative form is void because it imposes coercion beyond that necessary to secure the protected right.

2.5 Affirmative Law 

An affirmative rule of conduct may stand as Law only where no negative reduction can fully secure the protected right.  

An affirmative rule is valid only if all of the following conditions are met:  

- The individual protected holds a definite claim-right to the required performance.  

- The individual commanded bears a determinate correlative duty to the protected individual.  

- The duty arises from a valid rights-generating relation, including voluntary undertaking, contract, causation of harm, wrongful withholding, custody, guardianship, possession of another’s property, restitution, or another comparable relation.  

- The required performance is necessary to protect, restore, enforce, or adjudicate the particular right.  

- The obligation is limited to the least coercive extent sufficient to achieve that purpose.  

- The rule does not trespass upon an inherent right of the individual commanded or of any other individual.  

No affirmative duty may be imposed merely because another individual would benefit, is in need, or could be assisted; because a service would be socially useful; or because a legislature, majority, institution, or authority desires its provision.

2.6 Primary and Remedial Duties 

A primary duty governs conduct before a violation occurs. Its ordinary and preferred form is prohibitive. Examples include prohibitions upon assault, homicide, theft, trespass, fraud, coercion, destruction of property, and interference with voluntary agreement.  

A remedial duty arises after a rights violation, or after a valid rights-generating event. It may require affirmative performance where necessary to restore, secure, or adjudicate the injured right.  

Remedial duties may include:  

- Restoring property wrongfully taken or withheld.  

- Paying restitution for injury, destruction, fraud, or loss wrongfully caused.  

- Performing an obligation voluntarily and validly assumed.  

- Returning property held on another’s behalf.  

- Providing necessary care or protection where an individual has assumed custody, created the dependency, or stands in a rightful guardianship relation.  

- Providing information, accounting, testimony, or access necessary to resolve a definite rights claim, subject to inherent rights of conscience, privacy, and self-possession.  

An affirmative remedial duty is not justified by a generalized entitlement to another individual’s labor or property. It is justified only by the definite relation from which the duty arose.

2.7 Reserved Right of Exit

Every individual retains the inherent right to withdraw from any voluntary agreement, association, institution, employment, membership, undertaking, or continuing relation through a valid and reasonable path of exit.  

A path of exit is valid and reasonable only if it:  

- Preserves the individual’s inherent rights.  

- Does not require involuntary servitude, permanent submission, or the surrender of bodily autonomy, conscience, rightfully acquired property, or rightful action.  

- Does not impose conditions that are impossible, deceptive, coercive, punitive, or retaliatory, or that exceed what is necessary to protect another individual’s accrued rights.

- Allows sufficient notice, transition, accounting, return of property, or settlement only insofar as those measures are necessary to protect identifiable rights already held by others.  

- Does not operate in form or effect as a disguised denial of withdrawal.  

Exit terminates obligations that are prospective and dependent upon continued voluntary participation.  

Exit does not extinguish obligations already accrued before withdrawal, including:  

- Restitution for harm caused.  

- Return of another individual’s property.  

- Debt or performance already due under a valid agreement.  

- Liability for completed breach, fraud, injury, or wrongful withholding.  

- Reasonable settlement of reliance interests actually created by the withdrawing party.  

- Narrowly necessary transition obligations required to prevent a distinct and imminent violation of another individual’s rights.  

No agreement may make a continuing obligation perpetual, inescapable, or enforceable through the destruction, surrender, or violation of an individual’s inherent rights.

2.8 Law and Statute

Law applies only to human beings and exists only as defined by this Code: to protect, define, adjudicate, restore, or enforce the equal inherent rights of human beings and the valid synthetic rights arising among or through them.

Statute means an enactment, charter, ordinance, regulation, rule, directive, or other command issued by an institution, legislature, court, agency, or other authority. A statute is not Law merely by virtue of enactment or enforcement.

No statute may restrict, compel, burden, license, penalize, or otherwise govern the rightful conduct of a human being unless and only to the extent that the statute states, implements, or provides a fair procedure for a valid rule of Law under this Code.

Statutes may create, define, condition, regulate, modify, suspend, or dissolve the capacities, privileges, immunities, powers, duties, and liabilities of synthetic entities, provided that they do not violate the inherent rights of any human being.

A statute that purports to impose an obligation upon a human being without a definite rights-protective purpose, a valid rights-generating relation, and the necessity required by this Code is void as against that human being.

Maxim of Applicability

Human beings are subject only to Law; synthetic entities are subject to statute. A statute binds a human being only insofar as it faithfully implements a valid Law and affords fair, publicly and readily knowable means of adjudication.

2.9 Publicity, Notice, and Non-Latency

No Law, statute, regulation, order, directive, institutional rule, interpretation, penalty, duty, restriction, condition, or legal consequence may bind a human being unless it was publicly promulgated, reasonably accessible, stated with sufficient clarity to guide conduct, and in force before the conduct to which it is applied.

A rule is publicly promulgated only when its authoritative text, effective date, scope, jurisdiction, enforceable consequences, and reasonably material official interpretations are made available without charge or unreasonable burden through durable public means reasonably calculated to provide actual access to those subject to it.

A rule is latent, and therefore void as applied to a human being, when its existence, operative meaning, scope, penalty, interpretation, or applicability could not reasonably have been known by that human being before the conduct in question. Latency includes unpublished rules, inaccessible enactments, concealed interpretations, retroactive constructions, internally maintained enforcement policies, unpublished precedent treated as binding, contradictory official statements, and requirements discoverable only through specialized research, private databases, or professional legal assistance unavailable as a practical matter to ordinary human beings.

Ignorance of a rule is a complete defense where the rule was latent, inaccessible, materially unclear, unforeseeably interpreted, or otherwise not reasonably knowable before the alleged violation. The burden lies upon the party asserting enforcement to prove timely publication, ordinary accessibility, intelligible notice, and non-retroactive applicability.

No human being may be deprived of life, liberty, property, association, movement, livelihood, or other inherent right by reason of a latent rule. In any case of genuine and material ambiguity, uncertainty shall be resolved in favor of liberty and against coercion.

A statute applying to a synthetic entity must likewise be public, accessible, definite, and prospective. Its breach may justify only consequences stated or reasonably ascertainable in advance, subject always to the inherent rights of affected human beings.

A human being may not be held to a coercive rule unless the enforcing party can demonstrate that the rule was public, accessible, intelligible, prospective, and reasonably knowable before the conduct occurred.

2.10 Interpretation 

In construing any purported Law, agreement, obligation, remedy, or institutional rule, the following presumptions shall govern:  

- Rights are equal in principle among individuals (formal equality of inherent rights).  

- Inherent rights take priority over synthetic rights.  

- Prohibitive rules are preferred where they afford equal protection of the right.  

- Coercion must be necessary, particularized, and limited to the protection of a definite right.  

- A duty must be traceable to a determinate rights-generating relation.  

- Doubt shall be resolved against unnecessary compulsion and against interpretations that enlarge authority beyond what is required to protect rights.  

- No individual may be used merely as a means to provide benefits to another absent a valid duty arising from a determinate rights-generating relation.

- Remedies shall aim primarily at restoration, protection, and adjudication of rights. Restraint, incapacitation, or other coercive measures may be used only to the extent strictly necessary to prevent, terminate, or reliably avert a distinct and imminent rights violation, to secure adjudication, or to obtain restitution from the responsible party; they may not be imposed as vengeance, moral reformation, political control, redistribution, or social engineering.

- No coercive rule shall be inferred, implied, expanded by analogy, or enforced through an unpublished, latent, retroactive, or unforeseeable interpretation. Where a rule admits more than one materially plausible construction, the construction least restrictive of inherent rights shall control.

2.11 Defensive Interpretation and Defensive Liability

The inherent right of defense against actual, attempted, or distinctly imminent rights violations is paramount while the defensive necessity exists. Every individual may defend himself, herself, or another individual against such a violation by force that the defender, in good faith and under the circumstances then known or reasonably perceived, judges necessary and reasonably calculated to prevent, terminate, or forestall the violation.

An individual who knowingly initiates, attempts, or presents a distinct and imminent threat of a grave rights violation becomes defensively liable to the force required to prevent or terminate that violation. Where the threatened violation is grave, immediate, irreversible, ruinous, or otherwise incapable of adequate later restoration, the defender may use force likely to cause death when the defender, in good faith and under the circumstances then known or reasonably perceived, judges it necessary and reasonably calculated to prevent or terminate the violation.

A grave rights violation includes actual or threatened killing, rape, kidnapping, torture, maiming, armed attack, arson, destruction of a home or livelihood, catastrophic destruction or taking of property, or another act reasonably understood by the defender to inflict comparable devastation or irreparable loss.

The legality of defensive force shall be judged from the perspective of the defender at the time of action, upon the facts then known or reasonably perceived, and not by hindsight. Fear, shock, confusion, urgency, and the practical impossibility of exact calculation in a violent or rapidly unfolding event shall be given substantial weight.

Defensive force is not justified after the defensive necessity has clearly ended. An individual who knowingly fabricates a threat, deliberately creates a false appearance of necessity, or employs purported defense as a pretext to commit an independent rights violation is liable for that violation.

Defensive force justified under this Section constitutes rightful action.

2.12 No Duty of Omniscience

No human being bears a general affirmative duty to discover, study, memorize, interpret, or remain continuously informed of all Law, statute, regulation, judicial opinion, administrative directive, or institutional rule.

Every human being bears the negative duty not knowingly to initiate, attempt, or deliberately facilitate a violation of another human being’s inherent rights. This duty arises from the rights of others, not from a presumption that the human being knows a body of enacted rules.

A human being who voluntarily enters an agreement, accepts custody of another’s property, undertakes a defined office or agency, or conducts activity under a chosen statutory privilege bears a duty to make reasonable inquiry into the clear and accessible obligations directly created by that undertaking. Such duty extends only to obligations reasonably connected to the undertaking and publicly knowable at the time of entry or assumption.

No statute, regulation, order, interpretation, or institutional rule may impose civil, criminal, administrative, or other coercive consequence upon a human being unless the enforcing party proves that the rule was publicly promulgated, readily accessible without unreasonable cost or specialized assistance, sufficiently definite to guide the conduct at issue, prospective in operation, and reasonably knowable in its material application.

Ignorance or misunderstanding is a complete defense when the alleged obligation, prohibition, condition, or consequence was latent, unpublished, materially ambiguous, inaccessible, retroactively applied, unforeseeably interpreted, or otherwise not reasonably knowable. A human being may not be penalized for failure to obey a rule whose existence or operative meaning the enforcing authority cannot prove was made reasonably knowable beforehand.

Nothing in this section excuses an intentional rights violation merely because the actor did not know the technical legal name, statutory classification, or procedural consequence of the conduct.

Maxim of Omniscience

No human being is bound by secret Law, latent statute, or unforeseeable construction; and none bears an affirmative duty of legal omniscience.

2.13 Governing Principle

Law exists solely to secure equal individual rights. Its ordinary form is prohibition of rights-violating conduct. An affirmative command is valid only where prohibition cannot equally protect the right, where a determinate duty is owed by the compelled individual to the protected individual, and where the command is strictly necessary, minimally coercive, consistent with inherent rights, and limited to the protection, restoration, or adjudication of that right.

Human beings possess inherent rights, from which rightful action follows. Statute may not convert rightful action into a rights violation merely by declaration, and necessary defensive force may be rightful even where it is violent or lethal.

Is Donald Trump One Of Themme?

 Is Trump one of the globalist vermin seeking worldwide domination? I've seen this claim before.

It is not impossible. But how likely is it? I've pondered this several times over the years and cannot come to any conclusion that is not purely speculative. Given the level of general deception peddled, nothing would surprise me, and yet without clear evidence, the assertion can only be taken marginally. It is a tough corner into which we, the GLORIOUS "people", have allowed ourselves to be painted. But to be fair, what were we to do, especially early on when life was of so different a character from what we now experience? There was no network. Communications took days, weeks, months... sometimes more.

The common moral fabric was different. The experiential fabric was different. People were long trained to the Whipmaster's whim, whether king, pope, or whatever other flavor of tyrant you care to name. Coming to understanding freedom in a deliberately explicit way could not have come over night, which worked to the advantage of those who sought power. It bought them the time they needed to entrench themselves and establish the institutions needed to best ensure their power and its durability.

But the advent of the global information network has changed things VERY rapidly, and many people have come up to speed in what I consider to be very short order. But the nature of the network - anonymous posting of opinion by literally anyone, etc., has its downside as well, having given birth to all manner of idiocy. I don't think the two can be segregated and filtered in a general way, but only by personal choice.

That all said, methinks those in real power, "Theye" (Themme, Theire... how's THAT for pronouns 🙂 ) now may rue ever having allowed that network to go public. After all, it was originally a defense network designed and intended to be survivable in the event of thermonuclear exchange. My suspicion is that Theye thought that releasing access to universities would aid and abet their wicked purposes, what with all the egg-heads communicating and sharing information. It was not an unreasonable position, but it seems to have backfired on Themme in some measure and manner. Now we have ordinary people learning things Theye never wanted us to learn. Oops... And so Theye now SEEM to scramble to find ways to at least put the genie on a leash, knowing they cannot stuff it back into its bottle.

But one has also to consider the possibility that all these developments remain with the envelope of foreseen possibilities and that none of it is really out of Theire control. But even so, it remains clear that Theye still regard us as a threat to their designs of global hegemony. We, the "useless eaters", are awakening and asking questions Theye almost certainly do not want asked. Theye are making clear attempts at reasserting unequivocal control, the overt network censorship during the so-called "pandemic" being a blatantly ham-fisted instance of this. It failed... but did it? Billions got the jab, so how great a failure could it have been? Rank censorship may have been one of those single-use disposable tactics employed pursuant to getting a one-off task accomplished. After all, we have no idea what was really in those vials.

And so it goes, the perpetual dance between the globalist tyrants and their chattel. Too many unknowns to pass beyond speculation and into certainty about a vast plurality of questions, including whether Trump is one of Themme.

Public Servants Are Trustees, Not Bosses

 Both "states" and "governments" are non-existent fictions.  They are nothing more than convenient labels that denote a class of human being, specifically as pertains to the roles they play as trustees of the Public Faith and Credit with respect to those roles.  Such people are in no way special and in no way do they hold even the least shred of authority or right beyond or above that of non-trustees.  Indeed, their powers are less than those of "ordinary" citizens because they swear an oath to the Constitution to uphold its guarantees and protections; to defend its edicts, specifications, protections, and assurances against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  When a trustee breaks Faith with that oath, and in so doing with the Public whom they swore to protect against violation, they have committed a most egregious crime.

It is that oath that circumscribes the prerogatives of Public Trustees in their capacities as such, binding them to honor, good faith, and competent service.  Breach of that Trust must be met with serious consequences, not only for the agencies responsible for the behavior of their trustees, but the individuals who breach.  They must make full restitution with treble damages, admit their errors publicly in writing and by public announcement, lose their positions of trust for life in most cases, becoming forever ineligible to again become a trustee, and possibly go to prison or even forfeit their lives in cases where restitution is not properly possible, or the crime committed of so grave a nature as to demand it.

You presidents, congressmen, governors, legislators, mayors, sheriffs, police, administrators, bureaucrats, and all other sworn agents of the Public Trust down to the village street sweeper must be held on very short, tight leashes.  You must be punished significantly when you stray from promises of your oaths.  Whether through malice, ignorance, or bumbling, most especially when you are unwilling or unable to make full restitution to those whom you have damaged, the consequences must be severe not only as a point of justice for those you've injured, but as a clear and unequivocal message to all that such violations are not to be tolerated in any measure.  

To clarify, here the "Public Trust" is a symbolic term of art representing not trust as that which friends share in the common fashion, though it is an element of it.  The term signifies a requirement, specification, subsequent demand, and the consequent expectation of honorable and competent service discharged by trustees in all good faith to those expectations.

The human world stands currently in a most deplorable condition, thanks mostly to the fact that people tolerate that which is intolerable.  We stand at a nexus, the decision we will make being that of whether we rise tall as Freemen, or crawl on our knees before the false authority of tyrants as meek, fear-ridden, compliant and blindly obedient Weakmen for whom self-respect is unknown.

The choice is ours.

It always was.

Be good.  Be kind.  Be intelligent.  

And as always, until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Definitions Of "Law" and "Crime"

I have found it surprising, astonishing, and appalling that of all the areas of human endeavor, that area of human affairs and endeavors which we commonly refer to as "law" shows no evidence of a properly formal, complete, correct, clear, and concise definition of the very term that it claims as its raison d'être.  So glaring is this deficiency, any thinking man immediately wonders whether those presumably learned scholars of the law could be so careless or lacking in so basic an element of knowledge that they "forgot" to define the term with sufficiency or did not know how to do so properly.  I find it nearly impossible that such has been the case, and must therefore conclude that this is so due to intention.  After all, if one works with a vagary such as the definitions of "law" as found in every dictionary of law that I have been able to find, then one remains comparatively free to do as he pleases, whether he is a legislator, a prosecutor, an enforcer, or in some cases even a defender.  We see endless examples of criminal defendants who contrive rather creative twists and bends of "law" pursuant to their goal of escaping justice, do we not?

That this truth has escaped the notice of practically every human being walking the earth gives one even greater reason for gastrointestinal churn... or at least it should.

Of all the endeavors of man, law is the one where rigor is so paramountly important.  In matters of law, most especially criminal cases, the potential exists for altering the status of a man from that of a freeman to that of a criminal.  With that demotion comes some form of recision that then disparages some or even all of the convicted party's fundamental rights, a most gravely serious matter.  How then is it in any manner or measure acceptable that one of the two most centrally crucial terms that relate directly to the quality of the practice of law founds on definitions that do not rise even to the ridiculous?  Something here is very much amiss and I aim to at least make the effort to correct this gross error.  As for the other crucial term, that would be "crime", believe it or not.  But take not my word for it; look it up in as many law dictionaries as you can grab and see for yourself the definition that borders on the idiotic for its utter lack of the least shred of correctness or rigor.  I will address the definition of "crime" at another time, but for now let us focus on "law".

Firstly, I propose a change of spelling from "law" to "Law".  For one thing, it is a noun of presumed import.  Therefore, I shall treat it as such, and in doing so I will render unto the utterance the gravity of moment that it deserves in my opinion.  So out with the wretched lower-case misspelling of that which should hold our respect and good esteem, and in with the properly dignified graphic representation.  From this point on, "law" shall be semantically no different in its indications than those of mere "statute", which we shall make clear now is naught but the arbitrary whim of men who claim authority they do not in reality possess.  That such men hold at their beck other men, those with guns and badges who will go forth into the world and commit whatever flavor of outrage, violation, and transgression against the sovereignty of innocent and free men, it does not follow that the fact of it implies right and just authority.  All it says is that one set of criminals is supported by yet another set, willing and often eager to do the bidding of the former.  None of this is a mark of a free land where people are in point of positive fact at liberty to live and act as they please, so long as they refrain from trespassing against the equal claims of their fellow men.  Being normatively free is a meaningless condition when one is not free in the positive reality in which he lives his daily life.

And secondly, I now propose the following definition of "Law" for the sake of humanity's future - for if we are to have a future worthy of the mention, we must then adjust the means and methods of governing those individuals who have failed to govern themselves.  In order to be able to do this properly, we must first be able to properly determine when someone has failed in this duty to himself and to those around him.  Without the proper means at hand and in proper practice, our claim of being civilized becomes a hollow-ringing lie of the most immediately dangerous sort.  If one man stands unsafe from bumbling or intentional or indifferent malevolence, then we all stand in equal danger.  And so I offer to the world the definition of Law.  To wit:


Law (n.): A rule of action, enforceable by right according to objective principles, that:

1. is founded upon one or more axiomatic and objectively demonstrable truths;
2. follows strictly and necessarily from the postulations upon which it is based;
3. conforms perfectly to the propositions from which it strictly follows;
4. addresses only objectively criminal acts committed by one human being against another human being (excluding acts against oneself);
5. by virtue of the previous points, never violates the rights of non-criminals
6. applies as it stands universally and without exemption to all human beings whose actions fall within its scope, granting no immunity to any individual, office, or institution, including those responsible for creating, interpreting, or enforcing the Law;
7. positively or negatively restricts human behavior, by either prohibiting or compelling certain actions.

Law concerns itself exclusively with acts mala in sé—acts wrong by their very nature—and never with acts mala prohibita, which are the product only of arbitrary prohibition. Statutes addressing acts mala prohibita that are violative of fundamental human rights are by that virtue invalid, unjust, and reflective solely of the wantonly capricious, ill-reasoned, and therefore invalid will of legislators lacking rightful authority. Such statutes are not Law; they are null and void, bearing no valid force of Law, their enforcement constituting a felonious coloring of authority resulting in egregious and criminally intense violations of the rights of free and sovereign men.

Any exception to a Law, whether specified within the Law to which it applies, or established by another Law, must independently satisfy all the requirements necessary to constitute a valid Law.

As a side note, absence or failure to fully, correctly, and explicitly satisfy any of these necessary conditions renders a putative Law as null, void, and without force. Passage of such non-Law constitutes a felony in accord with the requirement that officials do no harm, as does enactment and any attempt at enforcement. All such attempts to enforce colored edicts constitute felonious acts against which those who have been or would be violated may act in rightful defense of self or others.

It is most curious that we find the definitions of "law" in the legal dictionaries to be of such paltry and insufficient character as to leave one wondering why.  The same may be said of "crime", the definitions of which are equally squalid in their qualities.

But with a sufficiently rigorous definition of Law, we can also put the question of the definition of "crime" equally well to rest.  To wit:

crime (n.): 1. Any violation of Law.  2. Any violation of the rights of free and sovereign men. 

It should be noted that the commission of a crime reduces a man's status to that of "criminal", leaving them subject to the hazards of defensive measures by their victims or the agents of their victims.  The commission of a crime renders null and void the criminal's rights as they may apply to the crimes they have committed. No man holds the right to transgress upon the innocent.  In so doing he forfeits his own rights under a victim's authority to defend that which is rightly his and which has been threatened or damaged by the criminal.

Words matter.  They matter more than anything else in our lives, for the world in which we live is built upon them.  Without them, we humans would be nothing more than sacks of flesh and bone.  And if Law is so central to the maintenance of a properly free civil order between men, then these definitions immediately become clear as to the important positions they occupy in the scheme of human affairs.

The legal "establishment" must be prevailed upon to adopt these definitions, whether by persuasion, attraction, or through brute force for the sake of everything that is good in the human world.

Be well, be wise, be honorable, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

What Do We Do When The "System" Fails As It Has?

The question that, so far as I can see, nobody is asking is this: what is to be done when political systemic corruption is so deep and so obvious that no reasonable hope remains that those in whom the Public Trust has been vested will do the right things in a given situation such as the one at hand?

Protest has through the decades availed us nothing. Mass disobedience?  We who claim ourselves lovers of liberty cannot get it up to put a brewery out of business, so why speak of such actions to a population that has thus far been unwilling to get out of its recliners?  Impotent half-measures at best avail nothing effective. The Constitution is not that much help precisely because it expresses no remedy with sufficient explicitness for those who are morally bereft by choice, whether conscious or otherwise.

If special investigators can be called upon, who makes the call? Un-special prosecutors? Judges?  Congressmen?  Presidents?  The village dog catcher?  How does one pick such prosecutors in an environment that has gone so sour with partisan bile, bias, and blatant corruption that no longer makes even the least effort to disguise itself?

It is clear that the sword may have to play a part in the remedy, but who makes that call and by what means would it be taken into action without precipitating civil war due either to the gross misunderstandings or the logical extensions of the bias and corruption under which we now so thoroughly suffer?

We're in what I can only describe as a "tight corner", and there is going to be hell to pay no matter what we do now, thanks to the current state of mean corruption in the American soul. We have allowed things to go far too far, such that fighting for all we are worth now shows a greatly attenuated promise for success. And even if "we" win, what are the prospects that we only serve ourselves to perpetrate yet another flavor of tyranny upon ourselves due to the self-same corruptions that got us into the last one in the first place?

Investigate EVERYBODY in "government", try the guilty, execute them en masse, confiscate every asset they hold, reduce their immediate families to forced penury for no less than five generations, and hold up what we have done as a warning to all comers that the era of the tyrant is over, once and for all and that the only zero-tolerance policy shall be regarding the violation of a Man's rights by anyone who takes an oath of good faith and competent service. Is such a dream even possible any longer?  Is our corruption not so extensive, so broad, and so bottomlessly deep that such outcomes and the maintenance of a victorious state do not prove as ephemeral now as they have been in all revolutions past?

I want a nation where if you cannot put up, don't step up because you will be punished with grim and just vengeance, PERIOD. Such brutish force is all that such people understand and respect. Anything less is to flirt with suicide.

Like it or not, the time is upon us to choose who and what we and our posterity are to be:  Free men or Weakmen - willing slaves, grateful for the paltry crumbs that fall from the whipmaster's table and ever subject to his whim and caprice.  There is no sanctum of evasion this time because evasion is, in fact, the default vote for slavery, pretty or otherwise.

So take care as to your decision because yours is not the only life to be ruined by choosing incorrectly.

God bless you all, and until next time please accept my best wishes.

The Hidden Truth Of Slippery Slopes

Copouts about slippery slopes to hell are also slippery slopes to hell.

We are either responsible for our choices or we are not. If we are, then there are no slippery slopes because responsible men head down those slopes knowingly and with intent, for better or worse, the latter being most often the case, it seems.

We hamstring ourselves with these false beliefs that obfuscate the real truth, that we are indeed responsible for what we say, think, and do. 

Know what is right and wrong at the most basic levels and then CHOOSE what you will do in that knowledge. It is exactly our collective failure to do this that has lead us into the deep end of the septic tank where we now find ourselves slowly sinking below the level where we will be able to continue to breathe.

I'd like to suggest we start knocking off the enforcers, but we cannot even get it up to put a company like Anheuser Busch out of business as a show of who it is that is really in charge of things, pretty well proving that though we should be, we are not. How much less, the prospects of engaging in mass disobedience against the Tyrant and, more particularly, the enforcers? And if we have no hope of pulling off even that relatively meager expression of dissent, how in hell could we even dream of dropping those instruments of tyranny where they stand?
And even so, when they were all gone, then what? And I mean what about the hundred million or more of us (and here I speak only of America - let the rest of the world fend for itself, which they will not) who expect all that "free" stuff that would then no longer be forthcoming?

No matter how you slice that melon, we will have to go to hot, shooting war in order to achieve even a modest relief from the daily tyrannies we have brought upon ourselves over the last century or two. Theye are not the only tyrants, nor their overt enforcers: the willing obedient are the greatest tyrants of all, for their numbers are legion, their corruptions vast, and their avarice without bottom or edge.
We have indeed met the enemy, and he is us.

Seriously pal, what does one do in a situation so nearly to being hopeless as that? You draw your shit up and do what is right, come what may. Note "come what may".

We have nothing to lose by fighting; nothing, that is, for which it is worth to lay down for Themme. What value a house, a car, a pile of gold, if you are nothing but a slave who holds those meager possessions at the whim and deign of a scumbag who could not be trusted even to rape your children predictably?
Consider that at least fifty years ago the slavery was relatively pretty. There were procedures in place to better guarantee just treatment of the mean man by Themme and their agents. We no longer enjoy even those pathetic crumbs from the Despot's table, and that is all they ever were, mere crumbs doled out at the whim and caprices of devils who would have happily murdered your forebears and their children, had they been able to get away with it. But they needed them for labor and taxes and, of course, their eternal and masturbatory self-aggrandizement.

But now we have technologies that render many of us extraneous and the day will come when Theye will be able to wipe the bulk of the useless eaters from the face of the earth and feel no absence whatsoever, but only a sense of self-satisfies relief, along with thanks to whatever demon-entity it is to which the bend their knees in obsequious, reward-seeking worship.

Seriously now, we really have nothing at all to lose by fighting, except our chains and the ever-present threat to our lives that those bastard spawn hold over us every second of every day. Some fates are far, far worse than death and loss of all one's material assets. Without liberty, life loses its value rather precipitously, and yet here we find ourselves, degraded to utterly as to no longer even feel the least tinge of shame as what we have allowed to be heaped upon our lives, as if there were not a single fiber of self-respect remaining to us as we clutch at our cell phones, terrified they will no longer occupy our thoughts and keep us from seeing the sad, ugly, and pitiable truth about our existences on this earthly plane. We should the most of us be burning with red-faced shame, but all we do is continue to grasp at empty illusions of actual lives worth the living, instead of our hollow existences made that way through the kind ministrations of those who see YOU as nothing but another commodity for trade and transformation into obedient automatons, whether gotten by enticement, terror, of some smarmy combination of the two, which is precisely that to which we are treated daily.

I don't even pity humanity any longer, but only despise it, my exceptions being for the small handfuls of souls who stand tall, middle-fingers raised to the Tyrant, whose enforcers usually take their pounds of flesh therefrom in one form or another.

So again I say fight. Disobey at every turn and kill in defense of that which was bestowed each of us by the Divine. To do less is to merit nothing better than the extinction that Theye so clearly hold in store for most of us.  And if you're going to your doom, should you not at least go with eyes wide open, on your feet as men, rather than as Weakmen?

Once again: little or nothing to lose.

Be good to yourselves, please, and until next time, kindly accept my best wishes.

Manifesto of Absolute Liberty

Freedom admits no degree.

It does not exist on a sliding scale, to be rationed or permitted in sanctioned doses by rulers, majorities, or committees. Freedom either is, or it is not. And when it is not—when even one aspect of the individual’s natural sovereignty is subjected to consentless interference—what remains is not freedom, but servitude adorned in rhetoric and gilded bars.

This is the first truth that men must recover if humanity is to survive as a species fit for self-rule. The false comfort of “partial freedom” is the oldest lie of tyrants, beguiling men with the illusion of autonomy while the chains are quietly refashioned. A cage, no matter how spacious or polished, remains a cage.

The just measure of liberty is simple: a man is free so long as he trespasses on none of his neighbors’ equal rights, and none trespass upon his. From that compact arises order—not imposed by decree, but born of mutual respect. It is the only legitimate boundary upon action and ambition. Every other restraint is tyranny disguised as “public good,” “safety,” or “progress.”

All history affirms this pattern. With each generation, central power whispers promises of security and equality, harvesting obedience in trade for independence. The pattern ends always in the same destination: submission, poverty of spirit, and the slow death of genius.

Therefore, let it be understood in no uncertain terms: freedom is not a grant of government, but the permanent condition of the free-born mind. The role of government, if it is to exist at all, is purely custodial—to guard and never to govern. It is to contain no ambition beyond protection of the rights from which its authority is derived.

When those entrusted with power defy that inviolable limit, they forfeit all legitimacy. To tolerate their trespass is to invite servitude for oneself and for every descendant. One generation’s negligence becomes the next generation’s chains.

We now stand again at that crossing. The pretense of nuance must perish here. On one side stands the eternal principle of voluntary life among free equals; on the other, the great gray machine of coercion masquerading as civilization. Every man must now decide which he serves.

The time for half-measures and polite equivocations is gone. Choose well, for this may be the last choosing left to free men.

God bless us all, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Why Striking Iran Was Necessary

We live in a superorganized civil environment. The level and nature of superorganization defines the common denominator. E.g.: the moment the first American company in market sector X moved operations to China, the rest in that sector were faced with a choice: follow suit or go out of business. Nobody was going to pay $300 for a pair of tennis shoes when they can get comparable quality AND the brand name for $60.

The same principle applies in ALL political circles and endeavors. He who stoops, gains advantage. This phenomenon is readily observable along the historic line. WWI, for example, marked a sea change in the very nature of war. Machineguns, large artillery, aircraft, and the turning of backs on the notions of "honorable warfare" altered the picture of war at a fundamental level and in an extensive manner. Versailles, the ultimate result of that bloodbath, set the tone for the coming war, which was 10x as horrific. All-out war, no matter who gets hurt.

That all given, and further given the fact that Eye-Ran was taken over by violent Islamic revolution in 1979, and has since that time pretty well daily declared "death to America", not to mention their nuclear weapons aspirations, and you have an enemy who is hiding no hint of his intentions. The bar has been set and we in America have been faced with a choice: act or be acted upon.

If I'm walking down a deserted Manhattan street at 2AM and someone I don't know walks toward me and tells me he is going to kill me, if I cannot run away, I'm not waiting to see whether he's serious. He gets shot... multimple times, end of story. This is the most basic survival sense in action. And so it is with Eye-Ran. To stand on normative ideals in the face of an enemy vowing to destroy you implicitly with nuclear weapons is suicidal at best.

Do I like the huge military state that America has built? Not a whit... not on principle so much as the practicalities that revolve very much around the impossible expenses of acquisition and operation, and far more so the utterly non-trustworthy nature of the moral degenerates and nitwits who are in control of those intstituions.

And make zero mistake on this point: without the degree of military superorganization that we have developed, Russia would have lain waste the American countryside long, long ago. China would have had no reason not to take measures against us in a very direct fashion. We'd have been consumed ages ago. This is the nature of things in the human world. Rail against it all you like. Wave your normative ideals until you turn blue. Do so on a national level even. It changes no whit of the landscape. All we can change are the ways in which the superorganism is managed and in that regard great improvement is possible. But to walk away from the powers that superorganization confers is to take both knees and beg the competition - the ENEMIES - to slit your nation throat from ear to ear.

This is the shitty reality of human existence today, and it is so because on the average, human beings are a shitty breed. We don't mind our own business. We are endless hypocrites. We tend toward objective criminal acts and attitudes. Our ideals are always mitigated with excuse upon excuse as to why we are forced to violate others without cause, employing synthetic causes that constitute a great steaming pile. We are consumed with Fear, Avarice, Ignorance, and Lassitude. We are miserable creatures who habitually tolerate the intolerable in ourselves, as well as others.

These are the basic reasons why Trump's attack on Eye-Ran was necessary. We are shit heads. Eye-Ran are shit heads. Ukraine and Russia: shit heads. UK: shit heads. France, Germany, Spain, and so on down the line: all shit heads.

The only great surprise in all this is that we haven't let loose the nukes yet... but the day is still young, so there's always hope.

Things are as they are not only because "government" is shit. We are ALL shit. Were it not so, the world would not be what it is. We all had a hand in it. Our parents did. Their parents did. And so on and so forth all the way back to Cain and Abel.

I wish I could say I saw a promising future for humankind, but I cannot in all good conscience. That isn't to say all hope is lost, but only that the good prospects seem rather unlikely at this time. That could all change, of course. Benevolent aliens could land on the South Lawn. Jesus could return, even if he were found to be highly irritated with us. A meteor could set off a near-extinction level event that would leave the human remnant in a position where the luxuries of stupidity in which we now indulge ourselves would disappear in a heartbeat, leaving people with the clear and immediate choice to adapt or perish.

But at this juncture, the most likely future to which our immediate posterity has to look forward is that of ever increased tension, threat, lies, bullshit, pointless anger, and arbitrarily defined and wielded power.

I wish things were otherwise.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Daily Aphorism 12 March, 20206

Liberty is not a gift of comfort or a license for unbridled appetite; it is a stern discipline that demands self-mastery first, then mutual vigilance, and finally the willingness to impose consequences when trustees of power betray their oaths.

All Must Govern

The entirety of a people must govern, not merely those entrusted with positions of official governance. This is non-negotiable if freedom is an actual and serious objective for a population.

First and foremost, the individual governs himself. 

Failing that, he is governed by his fellows, whether officially or otherwise. 

When the official fails to govern himself or others properly, the people must govern him. Upon his carcass must fall grave punishments for his crimes. Make no mistake: this is punishment pure and simple—revenge for the willful failure to do what is right and required under the mantle of the Public Trust we so graciously vested in him.  

It is nothing less. It is not justice. It is not rehabilitation. It is grim punishment—an expression of our refusal to tolerate even the slightest deviation from the straight and narrow path of proper governance.

It also serves as a message to all others who assume the mantle of the Public Trust as to what awaits them if they stray.

If one takes seriously the notion of freedom within civil society, these conditions must be satisfied by everyone at all times, lest freedom be lost.  

It is precisely because we have not taken them seriously that America—and much of the world besides—finds itself in its present state of political degeneracy.

We stand at the nexus and the window of opportunity is closing.  Make of that what you will.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Bruen Is Betrayal

The standard of "text and tradition", as established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) is complete and utter betrayal by SCOTUS of every American. 

"Text and tradition" ignores a far deeper and immutable principle: that of an inherent right that normatively precludes violation for any reason whatsoever, whether a declared emergency, the absence of "text and tradition", or what have you. 

The perfect nonsense - the bald-faced LIE - of "text and tradition" unavoidably reduces the right to keep and bear arms to a privilege. With the Bruen ruling, SCOTUS has once again left the door to our liberties ajar for any tyrant with the temerity and inclination to barge in, uninvited and unwelcome.

"Text and tradition" declares through unavoidable implication that our 2A protected right is contingent upon what "government" has allowed in the past. In doing so, SCOTUS has blatantly and with thin and shabby art left the reality of the practice of our right to keep and bear arms up to what "government" says is allowed. In so ruling, SCOTUS has demoted in point of positive reality our inherent right to that of a synthetic one, which is naught more than a privilege gussied up in a false language of rights and liberty.

Bruen wasn't a win for freedom. It was a clear and unmistakable heavy loss.  

To those who may feel that I exaggerate the danger here: examine with even the most casual scrutiny the long and sordid history of "government's" odious, elastic, self-serving and often deadly habit of redefining terms as mood and expedience might dictate at a given moment.  Even the most meager but honest effort will reveal that the danger is not only real, it is common as dirt, almost always producing ill effects that persist over decades and generations to come.

And so while the Bruen ruling may appear as a win for the lovers of freedom, it has actually served only to yoke them ever more tightly to "government's" whim and caprice, and doing so in what I can only characterize as employing a most bluntly ham-fisted and artless, yet non-equivocating method.  Once again we have been swindled by those in whom we have placed our trust to see to our best interests.

Do not be fooled.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Four Horsemen Of Human Corruption Ride!

Corruption is a term thrown about, almost always by Johnny Average, in accusatory tones at political figures and the oft-hated "wealthy".  He is the shining example, the apex exemplar of the man pitching stones in the shabbily constructed glass house of his daily reality.  The one person at whom he will never direct his wilting gaze of open contempt is the one he sees when standing before the bathroom mirror.

And yet, it is to every class of rot and tragedy in the human world that he contributes his quantum crumbs of decay, the summing of which across every Johnny on the earth breaks the camel's back such that we end up with the world as we now see it.

Though I repeat myself, the substance of the following work bears repetition that the noses of all the Johnnies may enjoy the odors of that to which they have so fully contributed with their own forms and degrees of self-same corruptions which they so eagerly affix to others.

Corruption the First: fear.

Those who embrace pretty slavery do so largely out of the cowardice that arises from fear. They fear the unpredictability of non-coerced life, which is often heavy with risk. It terrifies them, and so they are willing to subject themselves to pretty slavery, waiving in principle all their rights, however tacitly, in exchange for the lie that is "security".

In all this, of course, play the elements of avarice, ignorance, and lassitude.

Wanting the proverbial "free lunch" is perhaps the most common of all human corruptions. "I want all the benefits of what I believe to be freedom without having to bear neither the costs nor other burdens of becoming free and remaining that way.

Pursuant to human avarice, which is Corruption the Second, and the fear it drives, and which complementarily drives it, we have willful ignorance, Corruption the Third. A man's drive to such ignorance allows him to rationalize his other failings and the rotten choices to which they lead him, and by virtue of its drag, pull innocent third-parties right along with him.

And of course, our dirt-common tendency to laziness, Corruption the Fourth, particularly in the face of that which is falsely promised as being free of cost, is just the cherry on top, further incentivizing the ignorance that churns pursuant to the satisfaction of the avarice, and the false assuaging of fear.

And so with the mutually reinforcing Four Corruptions of humanity, we humans have statistically sold our souls to the devil for the sake of outright lies and mountains of bullshit that tell us we can at no cost that which always commands a price. It is when rot settles into the human soul - the rot of fear, avarice, ignorance, and lassitude, that tyrants are set free to do nearly anything they please. The technology-enabled horrors of the twentieth century stand as witness to, and proof of just how depraved the human animal is willing to become for the sake of getting what he thinks he wants, no matter who gets hurt.

This is why actual, risk-laden, proper freedom - the kind that demands courage, generosity, intellect, and industriousness of a man - is almost universally unpopular in the human world. What the vast and overwhelming majority really want is pretty slavery, which is the illusion of freedom that veils the rotten heart of the tyrant's pleasure, no matter how appealing the positive conditions may appear at a given time. The fact is, you remain in a cage at someone else's whim and caprice, no matter how large, fancily appointed, or gilt.

Humankind chooses slavery over liberty, thereby leaving the tyrants free to shorten the leashes on which all men now live their miserable existences, at any time and in nearly any manner the Whipmasters see fit.

Bring a large predatory cat out of the wild, place it into a cage and see how happily it will live. They prefer risk-laden freedom to comfortable and easy captivity. And in the end, they pace their cages in miserable depression, what is perhaps the most painfully pitiful sight imaginable. And humans actually choose this condition!

Shame on us, every last one. So long as we persist in giving in to our most base impulses, freedom has no hope. Be well and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

To Be Free Is To Be Self-Governing

The notion of living in a free society raises the practical question of what, exactly, we must become and do in order to be such a people.

Autodiathism is the answer. "Anarchy" has become jargon, saddled with impossible baggage. I jettisoned that term long ago, even though I still use it on occasion. I coined "autodiathism" some years ago from the Greek for "self determination". The idea is to be self-governing. It is a simple concept the requirements and challenges of which are monumental in spite of their outward simplicity.

Civilization is a condition in fundamental conflict with human nature. Civilization cages what is essentially a wild and free animal in its nature, and so the animal rebels against the bondage, however light it may actually be. Our choices in this regard are few: live with the constraints of living among and amid one's fellows, or kill each other until we are left with the last two cavemen, Thak Eisenberg and Grog Blumenthal, nervously eyeballing each other from opposite sides of the nightly fire, hobnailed clubs in hand and ready to deal the final period at the end of humanity's last sentence.

Clearly, the human instinct to survive - to LIVE - biases us toward learning to live with each other. This is perhaps the right choice, everything considered. But the challenges there are stupendous because the civilized state rubs against and thwarts our hunter-gatherer nature. Having been suppressed, the inner animal of nature's origin rebels, and so we have robbery, assault, and battery - as well as all the other "wrongs" that men commit against each other.

The Framers of America were quick to point out that free people must perforce be moral. In the context of civilization, morality turns out to be a huge hill to surmount. But once there, it is relatively easy to remain there, all else equal.

To be free is in deep part to be self-governing in accord with one's proper moral constitution and his habits of comportment. But even in a society that is morally sound in the general, there will be those who either cannot or will not self-govern. We call them criminals, most often... or in some cases just "assholes". Because they fail to self-govern, they must be governed by others for at least a time.

So a basic requirement for flourishing and ubiquitous autodiathism is that people BECOME "government" - but not in the usual sense of the lie with which we all grew up. Rather than governMENT, there must be governANCE; firstly of the self by the self, but secondarily and only where and when needed, of those who fail at it, by those around them. This is primary, but there should also be secondary roles of near-equal importance and of great utility, where we hire trusted guardians of the peace who discharge their sworn oaths as matters of primary obligation, paid of course. Because their lives are pledged to such service functions as investigations and trial of accused criminals, they become well adept at those functions that include law, forensics, and so forth. But they are not absolute authorities whose every fiat must be blindly obeyed. They are, indeed, servants who operate at our sufferance. They operate within an envelope of granted authority under agreed conditions making clear to them that any excursion beyond the metes and bounds of that generously granted authority will carry harrowing consequences, anywhere from losing one's position or life, to losing life itself, depending on the severity of the violation in question.

This all requires vast public participation, high moral standards, and an attitude of eternal vigilance, narrowly PROVISIONAL trust, and a grim intolerance of any breach of that trust, including the ready will to remove life from those who break faith with whom they swore to serve, i.e., the general public.

This is a task that, were we to begin today with full cooperation and material means for implementation, would take at least a full generation go get off the ground in a way we might even vaguely deem "comfortable". It would take probably at least three or more full generations to get most of the mental, cultural, and the various external poisons out of the population. And it would likely take a healthy number of public executions as stark illustrations and reminders of just what it means to betray the trust in which all such guardians of the peace have been vested.

Draconian response to tyranny is essential as the deterrent, no matter how seemingly trivial the violation may seem, It is the only way to best ensure that all comers to the altar of the public trust do so with shivers for fear of betraying it, whether through corruption or accident.

The price of tyranny must be set to such impossible height that all scoundrels are immediately dissuaded by their own choice to demur from public service. Let them endeavor to defraud grandma of her savings, rather than assume the mantle of trust, for tolerance of such people with the latter leads to what we now have: borderline chaos and endless grift with life rendered a misery for countless legions of otherwise good people. The time is now finally upon us to decide, and decide we shall, one way or another; whether through positive action of the default of evasion what sort of a world it is in which we wish to live. There is no escaping this, so my advice is to think on it carefully, realizing what you relinquish if you choose continuing tyranny, which will one day not too far off, advance beyond our reach to throw it from our necks. I continue to believe in the goodness of people, in spite of the evil that besets us on all fronts. And so once again I bid you adieux, and as always, please accept my best wished. May the Divine guide us all toward the light of goodness.

Somewhat Daily Diatribe, 5 February, 2026

The "left" whines and shrieks "racist!" endlessly.

Newsflash: we are all "racist" because we are wired to be.

Forgetting that the notion of "racism" was concocted by CPUSA in the late 1920s/early 1930s in response to America's "no thanks" response to the pitch for "communism", and granting for conversation's sake some marginal validity to the idea, the truth of it would be that our mid-brains are wired to the tribe: "us v. them" is in our DNA, which is a major reason why civilized humanity engages in so much warfare. We are a fundamentally predatory species oriented toward our most immediate filial and social relations. Couple that with our possession of a complex cerebral cortex that can a little too easily wander into strange territories if we fail to control how those cortices evolve from childhood, and the formula for some grand challenges becomes our reality. Add to that the fact that territorialism is yet another fundamental aspect of our midbrain selves, and we then find ourselves with the conditions for some rather serious trouble, as is borne out by our checkered history of ever advancing wavefronts of violence.

Civil life runs at deep odds with our basic midbrain programming. Therefore, remaining behaviorally sane in a civil world becomes a study at internalized warfare within individual in one manner and degree or another. Sedentary living even at the small village scale lies at some odds with the hunter-gatherer architecture of the human mind. The midbrain impulses suited to living on the constant move and taking what you need to survive from the unclaimed resources of the planet are engineered for basic survival under such conditions, and not a whole lot which is fancier. Those reflexes, however, have been perverted by the unnatural circumstance - the "cage" if you will - of civilization, and have run right up against the formalized, abstract ideals for life among and amid one's fellows under those conditions - products of the higher cortex. Therefore, crime, tyranny, war, poverty, disease, misery, and possibly eventual extinction as a species have arisen with the great advances to which sedentary civil life has lead the human species. Hunter-gatherer tribes were never going to send people to the moon. They also were probably not getting mugged on a lonely lower Manhattan street at 2AM on a Saturday in frosen January by one of their own.

We were engineered for the savage life, i.e. mobile tribal living, and not for sedentary civilization. Small bands of maybe 50 individuals can move quickly. No houses or huts to pack up and move. No pack animals to keep/maintain, and far fewer and simpler stresses. If a threat looms, you get out of dodge in minutes, or even seconds if conditions demand, with relatively small material losses, typically. Life is free, but in many ways very tough; but that toughness fosters unity and strength in both the individual and the group. Things are difficult enough when people work together as small but smart and well-practiced superorganisms. Therefore, the immediacy of overbearing reality renders gratuitous in-fighting as a very dangerous development to be avoided at almost any cost.

This is very different from sedentary, civil life where the populations are much larger, people who are strangers to one another live in unnaturally close proximity to one another, and the biggest superorganism in town is always the "government", stranger to all men, and which issues directives to which disobedience is often met with grim violence. Further complicating matters, "territory" is become static, much larger, and far more abstract in many cases, rather than small, fluid, and readily portable by a single individual human being. Property has become much larger, most often quite cumbersome, and relatively very difficult to manage, as opposed to that which one can carry on his back.

There are many advantages to civil life, but the price we have paid has been stupefying. And in more recent times, it has been shown to foster rank, raw stupidity, whereas much simpler savage life where one is on the constant move demands quiet, well-centered minds, patience, maximally engaged intellect and smarts at all times, wisdom from direct experience, and an attitude of understanding and respecting the consequences of one's choices in an indifferent and often very dangerous environment.

In those times, ages ago before the rise of sedentary living - and even well into that era - people moved physically with far greater mindfulness and deliberation. They did so because a broken leg would likely mean death. Today we have people doing the most insanely idiotic things, like jumping off 80-foot ice cornices into bowls of 8-foot deep powder snow so they can thrill-ride down to the lodge for a hot-toddy and some wild memories... assuming they don't end up buried in an avalanche. And if someone busts a leg, the ski patrol will take then to the ER where the booboos will be made all better.
Until comparatively recent times, people spoke with far greater elucidation, deliberation, clarity, and completeness of thought because no sensible man wanted to risk misunderstandings, especially with strangers, when the consequences could result in death or maiming injury.  When reading texts from times not even so long past, we see longer and seemingly flowery, almost redundant sentences uttered between people.  This expressive style was not used because people liked to hear themselves talk and show off to others how poetically they could ask directions to the nearest corner bodega.  It was to make as certain as possible that they were not taken as a threat to the other, nor were they offering any form of verbal disparagement.  As to that latter, it must be understood that in such times people even of comparatively meek social status were raised to understand and deeply respect the nature and power of words, whether spoken or written.  They understood that nothing in their lives were as immediately important than words.  Even a single poorly chosen word could mean severe consequences for an individual because neither were threats, nor disparaging remarks, nor defamation easily tolerated, especially by the upper classes, even among each other, much less from those of the lesser ranks.  Let a poorly considered sentence fly from your lips and you could find yourself on the field of honor the following morning, or just killed on the spot, a sword or dirk buried in your chest.

Today, due to the often will-contrived synthetic protections of "government", people have degenerated in their understanding of words such that people now as matters of constant habit allow all manner of wildly ill-considered statements to escape.

Your thoughts form your reality, and your words form your thoughts.

Let that sink in just a bit as you consider the things you hear people routinely say these days. You may wish even to consider some of what issues from your own pie hole. We all do it, and we do it because we can almost always get away with it. None of that bodes well for our future as a species. Such behavior as we routinely see today would have been seen as bordering on demonic possession even a mere couple of centuries ago precisely because it lacks any hint of basic sanity. But that is where mismanaged superorganizing on the modern civil scale has taken us. While many of civilization's byproducts border on the miraculous, the price exacted has been terrible on many fronts, and I often question whether it has been worth it, given the evils that it has all dragged along with it. By a similar token, one has to question how many of those evils arose a matters of nature, versus intentional introduction by men of lesser integrity, capacity, and perhaps even of malevolent intention.

The bright spot in all this is that it is by all means possible to live freely, healthily, profitably, happily, and properly among and amid out fellows. All hope is by no means lost... yet.

The dark spot is that far too often we choose not to. Our individual corruptions of fear, avarive, ignorance, and lassitude lead us to make poor choices in such matters. For all the miracles to which civilization has given rise, it has also corrupted the human animal deep in his marrow, and as of this writing things appear to be getting worse by the day. I question whether our pending plans for sending people to Mars will have proven worth the losses of freedom, not to mention the oceans of blood spilled on the path to getting us there. Only time will tell, but in closing I say this: we are not helpless. What we have broken, we can repair. Human relations are deeply ruptured these days, and I see no possible brightness in humanity's future unless and until we make proper amends in our habits and our attitudes toward each other. I have no idea how to do that on a global scale, but I can stake stabs at how to do it in America, which while a simpler proposition, nonetheless remains a monumental and at times seemingly insurmountable task. One thing I can say for certain, however, is that the fundamental divisions between "tribes" that include vaporous notions such as "right" and "left", or "progressive" and "conservative" have to be settled and mended as the level of the Principles of Proper Human Relations. Anything less dooms us to a bleak non-future where we retreat into a New Dark Age, full of hatred, anxieties, tyrannies perhaps yet unimagined, poverty, misery, and death for those who fail to toe the tyrant's line. There will be no more protesting the the quiesced rights that so many of us have taken for granted for so long. There is hope, but YOU have to become its vehicle, it's realization. The notion of such hope carries validity only when one acts, and does so properly in accord with the Principles of Proper Human Relations. We do not speak here of burning cities in the strident effort to dominate the other; to force him into the good mold, because human nature being what it is, he will fight you tooth and nail out of the resentment he feels at being given no choice. We must, rather and through example, convince the deceived and ill-trained of the virtues and pleasures of living properly among and amid each other; of the joy of it; the profitability. The only alternative is grim, leaden existence where vibrant, healthy, and free life ought rather to be found. And in order to become such an exemplar, one must master himself: the most nearly impossible task in all of human reality. Note "nearly". Barring some sort of Reset Event, the road ahead for us appears long and very arduous, and that is assuming we even bother giving our remaining hopes a halfway serious effort. The alternate path is nothing less than doom - and that does not have to mean the physical extinction of human animals from the earth. It can even more easily mean the extinction of freedom's last remnants and any prospect for their return. As the levers of human technology grow in power, coupled with the ever degenerating, tightening standards of individual comportment that reduce us to Merecog status, the window of opportunity to turn things back toward liberty closes ever more narrowly until the day comes it shuts completely. On that day, and in concert with what will almost certainly prove the ever growing and viciously enforced avarice of the Global Hegemon, all hope for humanity will have been extinguished.

All people will then have been reduced to the lowest, most demeaned, degraded, and disparaged status of rank and abject slavery possible. The juicy irony, for whatever cold comfort it may provide, will be that that the agents of "state" who have deceived themselves into believing they stand outside of the constraints of control they foisted upon the rest, shall themselves be equally imprisoned by their schemes. The technologies so many view today as miraculous will have been forged into the shackles of their perpetual misery.

So my suggestion is to get right with yourself by whatever means you need. If it means getting your lazy bones up and going to church, then do it. But whatever it is, I suggest you not wait even one more day because that window is closing on us all. Be good. Be loving. For Pete's sake be smart. And until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Being Free Is No Picnic

I used to be a consulting engineer. I ran my own small firm and made fair piles of money. Then one day my phone stopped ringing because apparently I was too old. I now work a second career making about 7.5 percent of my former earnings, and I don't complain about it. I could cry and wail and shriek "age discrimination", but I don't because were I to do so, I would be a dishonest scoundrel attempting to secure something to which I am not entitled: a job guaranteeing me my former going rate. I would rather starve than stoop to such depravity.

So I work on a construction crew. It keeps me from getting fat at 68, keeps my other skills alive, and to be honest, it is more interesting and satisfying than dealing with whiny clients who make all manner of wildly stupid decisions despite your strong analysis, the upshots of which tell them in clean and concise language that those decisions are big time risk-laden losers.

I am owed NOTHING by this world, and neither are you, save that we respect one another's equal rights. I make my way and if one day I cannot, then I will leave this world for want of whatever it was I could not secure for myself. I can accept that precisely because I understand I am owed nothing, save respect for my natural rights, just as I owe the same to all others. Make your bones using your best honest effort. Some will win and some will lose. This is the nature of things.

If you want to learn and become reasonably wise, then learn this. I promise that it will serve you well.

Freedom, for which actual "anarchy" is nothing fancier than a somewhat arcane euphemism, demands seven things of a man:

1 Intellect
2 Smarts
3 Integrity
4 Respect
5 Generosity
6 Responsibility
7 Courage

Choose these and you will be a free man. But none of it is easy; much of it being terrifying at times, and aggravating much of the rest of the day. Then there is that slice of your soul that is going to rebel against each of these virtues precisely because they are all difficult, and therefore chafe against the part of you that is just a little bit rotten, wanting free stuff and cheap ease, not to mention having the world precisely to your liking.

That's your inner two-year old, and make no mistake, we all of us have one.

Being an adult means putting the brat in a box, burying him, and never again letting him darken your door - an effort that must continue unabated for a lifetime because that spoilt toddler is eternal, and he never ever gives up trying to strong arm you into caving to his insistence and, at times, tantrums. Why do you think people rob banks, end up in prison, dead, or destroy their lives with drugs and violence? It is because the leave their inner runt in charge, rather than keeping the little beggar on a choker with a very short leash.

Choosing to be an intact, free and sovereign adult can at times be a miserably difficult task. But when you choose correctly, you enjoy a brand of liberty that no amount of self-indulgence can ever come close to matching. Letting your base self run amok is the guaranteed path to disaster and death. Keeping him in his box is really the only reasonable path to a life worth living. The dividend of self-respect - knowing that you are the captain of your fate - is priceless, and nothing in this world can beat it. I know because I've been on both sides of that line.

The good news here is that the more diligently you practice the habit of holding your inner destroyer at bay, the easier it becomes; the more familiar, and therefore the more comfortable. Bear also in mind that maintenance is a whole lot easier than getting up the slope in the first place. And at some point, much as with the practice of good mannerliness, it becomes pleasurable habit from which one gains endless satisfaction because you have become your own master. Few things are as satisfying as knowing that you are beyond some specific corruption not because you are inherently immune, but because you have chosen to be. That is the truest and greatest power a man can cultivate. You are in control of who you are and what you do, come what may. And what comes is not always the thing that you think you want, so be prepared for disappointments. Those are the times when it pays to be stubborn because giving in to the screaming brat may make you feel better in the moment, but down the road you are guaranteed to regret the decision.

The quality of your life is 90% dictated by your attitude. Choose to be a whiny cur and your life will be riddled with miseries at every turn. Choose to be an adult in control of your emotions, impulses and desires, and you will benefit from it in ways you cannot now imagine. Learning to eat bitter and yet remain intact and in control of yourself is high attainment. Comparatively few are able to do it; far fewer are willing to even try. But the failure is almost never one of capacity, but of will. People just decide that there's no point in being that good. And so they settle for being lesser men for the sake of getting what they think they want. This is the very definition of the Weakman.
Johnny gives in to the appeal of Eileen's legs because he just cannot (WILL not) stop thinking about what it must be like having them wrapped around his head.  And so he dwells and dwells until his sense of what is right (like not cheating on his loving wife) shrinks in comparison to his sense of what he wants, resulting in all manner of rationalizing as to why it's OK, even if only for one time, to hit on Eileen.  And that is just one of the manifold ways in which people run their lives off the rails with all the best of intentions.

You will never lose by choosing to be a free man, which is a man of knowledge; a man who runs himself, which is to say a man of self-control. Of that you have my sincere promise, but the path is difficult with most giving up, which is a terrible shame, for were they to stick with it, I confidently estimate that 90% or better of all the problems of which so many complain, would vanish as if by magic.

Ron Paul used to quip that "freedom is popular". He was wrong. Freedom is decidedly unpopular and it is so because of those seven requirements for being a free man.

Ball's in your court.

It always was. God bless you all, and until next time please accept my best wishes.