Banning Pornography

Oh, the dreary calls of Weakmen for "government" to ban the things with which they do not agree.

I just engaged in an exchange with some online acquaintances, people who claim to be pro-liberty.  How ironic that in the face of their self-proclaimed love of liberty, they were calling for pornography to be banned, citing very valid concerns such as moral decay, the exposure of children to such materials, and so on.  What they appear to have missed is the fact that those concerns are only peripherally related to pornography itself, and are more symptoms of a deeper malady.

One of my buddies stated in a very authoritative tone that pornography must be addressed, thereafter citing all the moral decay and the attendant woes that have followed, all very well taken as such.  But nowhere did he state the specifics of how it is to be addressed, to which I responded as follows.

"What, precisely, do you mean by "addressed"?  The operating definition of the term in this case is central in predicating your argument.

I am not standing with anyone promoting the degeneracy of children.  Your inference, presumably drawn from my objection to banning pornography, due to an utter absence of innate criminality of the act, per sé, is drawn incorrectly.  

I have no problem with keeping such things from children, just as I have none with disallowing them from possessing, consuming, or dealing illicit drugs.

I've considered pornography carefully.  Most of it is just stupid.  Some is disgusting, and some is indeed perfectly healthy.  For example, I find choking and slapping of women in their faces very objectionable, as I do any portrayal of violence in sex.  My disgust, however, in no way justifies a ban so long as all the participants in a given example are engaging consensually.  

Do recall what I have been saying for at least 40 years: freedom is at least as much scary and sucky, as it is exhilarating.  Freedom is not easy.  It is mostly difficult and at times terribly so.  One is called upon to tolerate things he wishes he could remove from reality.  But he tolerates it because it is the right thing to do.  The other side of that coin, of course, is that others are not free to impose their preferences upon their fellows.  If someone whips out their dick and his boyfriend starts slurping away on it over on fifth avenue just above 34th street and they parade it all before your young children, were I on your jury I would not convict you for having beaten the snot out of them both with an iron bar.

All that said, a free people must perforce be a moral people, for the one cannot be had without the other.  The availability of pornography is not objectively immoral.  PUSHING it actively and with great force upon the children whose parents object to it being imposed in that way, however, is.  Not only is it, it is demonstrably criminal, as it violates valid parental authority with respect to their offspring, as well as those who have been placed in their care, whether temporary or otherwise.

Banning is not the answer.  Holding accountable those who unlawfully engage in an otherwise lawful activity, is.  Sex is not a crime, but rape is.  One presumably doesn't charge me with a crime for poinking my girlfriend.  But if I go into the street and rape a woman in a dark alley at 2AM...  My point is made.

I am the first to acknowledge the problems that have been raised here.  Solving them is not accomplished with bans of non-criminal acts, which is the tyrant's way of approaching the deeper problems.  Every megalomaniacal twerp of the twentieth century approached their cultural/societal problems that way, and look what it brought us.  We Americans have done the same on the one hand, and have done absolutely nothing, on the other.  It seems that each extreme yields the same result, more or less.

Do notice how the calls for banning represents abdication and disavowal of all individual responsibility.  Rather than being accountable for one's own actions, including the ways in which he deals with his children, the mean individual looks to someone else to clean the mess that HE helped come to bloom, whether through active support or by his shameful and morally corrupt indolence.

I see people crying for freedom from the one side of their mouths, while simultaneously shrieking their demands for bans of this, that, or the other by "government", from the other.  One cannot have it both ways.

We either act like Freemen, or we act like Weakmen.  Thus far, only a pathetic few of us are as the former, all big talk to the contrary notwithstanding.

Time is here.  Shit or get off the pot.  Be a Freeman, or choose Weakman status.  You cannot be both.  You cannot have a degree of freedom, but only of servitude - "pretty slavery" as I like to call it.  Choice is yours, every minute of every day, regardless of circumstance."

Thus had gone the exchange.

Tolerating the rightful prerogatives of one's fellows, regardless of whether those choices chafe, is part and parcel of living as free people.  If you cannot accept this, you are not in fact a lover of freedom, but an advocate for Pretty Slavery - the gilt cage, wherein you get what you think you want without having to bear the burdens of liberty, which are many and often rather heavy.

So before professing a love of freedom, you may serve yourself well by gaining a more complete and circumspect understanding of what it is.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Theye Are Evil

The ostensible purpose of any government is to do the right things for the people over whom they govern.  That which defines "right things" may vary significantly from nation to nation, but I believe it is safe to assume that the purport is universally beneficent, on paper.  We could go on almost endlessly discussing the variations of world views of what entail beneficence, which will likely get us nowhere.  Therefore, allow me the indulgence of setting the theoretical normative model of the United States as the best representative standard.  I do believe that most of the people on planet earth would have little complaint on that account.

Given the standard, I must assert that Theye, those who occupy the positions of greatest material power on the planet, are evil.  As some of you may recall, I rarely employ that appellation because I believe that it is a word of great power due to the extreme nature of its semantic.  Evil manifests as great destructive power that is wielded with injustice, whether in major or minor degree.  But don't take my word for it, let us see what the Oxford dictionary says about it:

evil (n.) "anything that causes injury, anything that harms or is likely to harm; a malady or disease; conduct contrary to standards of morals or righteousness," Old English yfel (see evil (adj.)).

Samuel Johnson's put it this way:

E'VIL §, e'-vl. 159. a. [ypel, Sax.] Having bad qualities of any kind ; not good. Deut. xxii. Wicked bad; corrupt. St. Matthew, xx. Unhappy; miser- able ; calamitous. Exodus. Mischievous ; destruc- tive; ravenous. Genesis, xxxvii.

 

E'VIL, e'-vl. n. s. [generally contracted to ill.l Wickedness ; a crime. Shal'. Injury ; mischief. Proverbs. Malignity;corruption.Eccles.ix. Mis- fortune ; calamity. Job, ii. Malady ; disease. Shak-speare.

E'VIL, e'-vl. ad. Not well, in whatever respect. Shak. Not well ; not virtuously. John, xviii. Not well, not happily. Deut. vii. Injuriously ; not kindly. Deut. xxvi. It is often used in composition, to give a bad meaning to a word.

My characterization of evil is less generalized, focusing in on "government" action in particular, and I believe it is accurate.

Assuming all of the above, how then can it be taken by anyone in posifesession of even two functioning brain cells that "government" is anything other than evil?  If the ostensible purpose is to do good, yet the net result of nearly everything its agents and operators do is evil in one form and degree, or another, how is it even remotely possible that anyone could assess such entities and their constituent members as anything other than evil?

A standard argument against such a characterization is that in the cases of an evil outcome, the intentions of the actors was benevolent.  This, of course, is pure falderal; utter nonsense; complete malarky; fully, idiotically, and so very transparently a falsehood.  For one thing, intentions count for nothing in such cases, but only the results.  If you doubt, then I recommend you comb through criminal case files where the defendants were convicted of various felonious acts, despite their good intentions having been clearly established.  While such intentions may at times serve as mitigating factors where sentencing is considered, they have little to no bearing whatsoever where the crimes themselves are concerned.  This is common practice in the courts.  The man who kidnaps his neighbor's daughter and burns her alive at the stake in the sincere belief that he was saving her immortal soul from eternal hellfire will almost certainly be convicted and sent to prison or the psych ward, perhaps for life several times over in any event, his "good intentions" notwithstanding.

If this standard, which in my estimation is quite reasonable, applies to the common man in matters of criminal acts, then why does the same standard not apply to the human beings who have donned the mantle of the public trust pursuant to governing under the aforementioned standards and purport to purpose?

There is also an argument that claims those in "government" who produce evil outcomes do so not with intent, but because they made a mistake.  The most such people will admit is that those who precipitate evil upon the victims over whom their activities look suspiciously similar to lording, are bumbling dolts, which for some reason that is never really made clear, renders them somehow innocent of any crime.

I cannot accept any such feeble excuses.  The people who take up the mantle hold positions of special trust for which no such excuses can be reasonably held as valid.  Furthermore, those holding the loftiest positions in the halls of governance, especially those who have retained their seats for decades on end, cannot credibly claim ignorant good intentions or that their collective results are the product of an impossibly long string of accidents.

Intelligent men of good character, when they observe an undesirable result of their actions, much less those that might be rightly deemed as evil, admit their failure and make amends.  When was the last time you witnessed such an occurrence in the halls of "government"?

What we do see on a daily basis, are men whose scheming produces all manner of injury that could be characterized as nothing better than evil.  We see them never backing away from their rotten outcomes, save to do so in the sense of public relations in order to disassociate themselves while doing nothing to correct the damages they have caused their constituents.  Indeed, in many cases such people double down time and again, most especially when said constituents raise cries of howling protest against what has been done.  The criminals in such cases almost never admit their failure, which in itself is sufficient indication that what they have done cannot be reasonably credited to accident, blundering, or good intentions gone sideways.

All that remains, then, is evil.  Such people are evil, must be unapologetically regarded as such, and must be be held to account in the most grim nature.

There is no place for easy forgiveness where the crimes of people in positions of public trust are concerned. If you are not up to the tasks in question, then do not step up to the responsibility, whether your inadequacy is intellectual, experiential, ethical, or moral.  When such people bring unjust harm upon those to whom they swear oaths of good faith and competent service, they must be held strictly accountable for their acts, forced to make all possible amends, and be imprisoned most harshly as both penance for their acts of evil, and to serve as examples to the rest as to what awaits them when they do wrong, regardless of the reasons for it.

Because the acts of "government" are so consistently evil in their net results, it must be assumed that the overarching cause is outright malevolence, or a felonious disregard for the welfare of one's fellows, particularly and especially in light of the aforementioned oath. Such must be met with grim force that is devoid of all equivocation and reticence.  To do less is tantamount to approval.

Give it a think, and as always please accept my best wishes.

The Danger Of Good Intentions

Let us begin with a blunt premise: good intentions count for nothing.

Consider the Holy Inquisition.  The intentions behind it - or claimed at any rate - were to rid the world of heresy and to serve as last ditch efforts to save the souls of heretics.  And so, the reasoning went, that trussing such heretics up like Thanksgiving turkeys upon a stake atop a huge pile of kindling and lighting it ablaze served the greater good by removing said heretics from God's half-acre and possibly inducing them to admit their sins, repent, acknowledge Jesus as their Savior, and be brought back into the bosom of the Lord.  After all, the heretic was bound for eternal hellfire in the case of his failure to come clean before God, and more importantly, God's vicars on earth, so what's a few minutes more of actual, verifiable burning flesh in the hope of last second salvation?

We can be generous enough to assume for argument's sake that these were the genuine intentions of those who ordered and applied those horrific flames to the living flesh of their fellow human beings, rather than for the expropriation of their vast land holdings and other treasures.  And from there we can immediately come to the conclusion that their good intentions counted for absolutely nothing whatsoever.  Certainly it can be said on behalf of the countless poor souls who found themselves the guests of honor at such events that those intentions proved cold comfort, at best.

It makes no whit of difference what one's intentions might be in the event that they cause the unjustifiable violation of the rights of another.  We all hold equal rights to life.  Barring the commission of some truly heinous criminal act, we retain that right - that valid claim.  No man holds the least authority to violate that claim, whether by reduction or destruction, again all else equal.  Johnny may validly violate the common claim to life if he does so in response to Jimmy's attempt to murder him.  Short of that, no.

The putative intentions of all known forms of forced collectivism, such as communism and socialism, count for nothing at all in the face of the results they have universally produced: poverty, disease, privation, death, and endless misery.  It makes no matter to the man who disappears into the bowels of Lubyanka prison or a Chinese reeducation camp, that the intentions of those systems are the "greatest good for the greatest number".  What are those intentions to the millions of Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin's cadres?  How about all the fine intentions of perfect equality of the North Korean "government"?  Do they mean anything to the people who live in abject misery and fear?  What of the ostensibly good intentions of the typical American lefties, who are no better than rank communists?

How about all those Americans who rot in prison cells for slinging cannabis?  After all, are not the intentions behind the Rockefeller drug statutes not pure?  We have the "right" to thank for that, showing there is blame aplenty to go around.

And what about those poor slobs who had the temerity to defend their very lives against destruction at the hands of violent criminals, and who ended up in prison?  The local statutes that effectively ban the defense of one life for the sake of that of another are born of the best of intentions, are they not?  We see plenty of this worldwide, including in the United States.  In the UK, self-defense beyond calling the police, is considered felonious and will see anyone engaging in such acts into a cell.

How about the New York City Sullivan law, ostensibly intended to protect innocent people from violence?  Not only has it failed miserably, New York City actually enhanced the ability of criminals to succeed at their rotten craft by denying their law-abiding residents the ability to defend themselves against such attacks.  Once again we see how the putative good intentions of legislators count for less than nothing because not only do they fail to fulfill those intentions, the statutes in question actually bring about greater harms, their authors and enforcers immune from all adverse consequences of their lousy, irresponsible, and in fact felonious impositions.

Good intentions that are used as justification for the violation of the rights of free men, and over whom no man walking on the earth validly possesses such authority, should serve as the reddest of flags to all lovers and respecters of liberty.  They should signal to all good men that the time is upon them to rise and put all such justified acts to unequivocal ends.

The time of blind obedience to false authority and tolerance of the violation of proper human rights must now come to its final and eternal close.  It is high time that free men begin acting as such, rather than as subjects to the whim and caprice of those of their fellows who claim by word and deed such non-existent authority to abuse, disparage, violate, and even murder those to whom they have sworn oaths of good faith and competent service.  How else will things ever improve?  It will never happen by trusting those who are the perpetrators of the most and worst crimes: the people of "government".

The choice is ours.  It always has been.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

What Are Theye Really Buying?

The so-called "globalists" seem on a clear agenda of pursuing the objective of giving the global human population a haircut in the style that suits the internationalist opinion on the question of "over-population".  This was made obvious by the ham-fisted operation referred to as the "pandemic", where a common cold virus that was obviously modified through human artifice into a weaponized form was unleashed upon an unsuspecting world.  Perhaps the more appropriate adjective to describe those events would be "blatant".  Any persistent perception of the pandemic as having been "organic" can be attributed only as the product of either deeply vested interest, or that of the manifestation of a deep psychosis.

None of this is surprising.

The globalists are avowed Malthusians. They firmly believe the world is "over-populated".

They may be right.

Or not.

The point is that they do not believe, and as a result, sit with their thumbs in their backsides, waiting for the human world to collapse into dust under the weight of the over-population they believe threatens all. They are marching to actively cull the population down by the force of positive steps grounded in cutting edge biotech.

What we are seeing makes perfect sense. The cull cannot be undertaken in a single fell swoop. Who would bury the bodies? What would the survivors do for things like food, clean water, and the maintenance of civilization in the aftermath? It would be a catastrophe that would consume survivors as well, if only in time.

This has to be done in stages. And it has to be alpha- and then beta-tested, lest the perpetrators be consumed as well.

A coup de grace cannot be fully delivered until at least two things happen:

1. "AI" bootstraps into self-perpetuation. After all, SOMEONE has to pick the lettuce as per Democrats and other psychotic-left lunatics.
2. Energy technology must pass a certain threshold such that the self-maintaining nature of the AIs comes within reach. Without power, there is no AI. A "robot" should be able to function for weeks, months, years, or even decades without having to replenish its power source.

But if these goals were to be achieved, there would be no further reason for the Malthusians to hold back. After all, they would have a race of mechanical agents to do their bidding, programmed as needed to serve the vast array of human purposes on the menu, moving forward.

However, and this is a big "but": I am by no means convinced that the progression of circumstance to fit this picture would produce the sufficiently exact result the Malthusians expect. Yes, strife of most forms would likely be eliminated, but I'm wondering whether they would become the victims of an ill-considered trimming, full of unanticipated and unintended consequences. And if perchance it turns out they were to realize they'd made a grave error, there would be no way to bring back those they murdered en masse. It would take many generations to replenish human numbers.

And perhaps finally, Theye would face the risk of not knowing how to turn off the thinking that got them to the place they will have had brought themselves. Specifically, the thinking now appears to be that of "us v. the useless eaters", which for all intents and purposes reduces to a test of purity. The Malthusians are "pure" and therefore worthy of life, whereas the rest are not. So they wipe out, say, 15 of every 16 people on the planet through engineered waves of pathogenic pestilence.

Now what? That brand of thinking, and here I speak in basic patterns and habits rather than in specific applications, is neither new, nor has it proven easy to eliminate once established in a population. Were it otherwise, we would not see blood feuds between populations that persist for centuries and millennia on end. Jews and Muslims are a fine example of this persistence, as are Serbs and Croats. They have hated each other for periods that make no rational sense. Hatfields and McCoys almost everywhere you look.

Given this, what is to say that once the "parasite class" had been eliminated, the Aryan survivors would not turn their eyes upon their fellows, seeking to discover others who might not be quite so pure as is required by whatever the standard du jour might demand? Or are we to believe that there will have had thereafter disappeared all human failing, including the lust for power by one man over his fellows?

It is not a far-fetched notion that the survivors might turn on one another in piecemeal fashion, reducing even those meager numbers to far skinnier proportions, the various populations perhaps inevitably separating themselves into feudal enclaves, each with their own robot armies poised and ready to rain havoc and destruction upon their once close comrades turned bitter enemies. This is by no means out of the question. Even the most cursory but honest examination of human history reveals this proclivity in stark monochrome. It isn't at all subtle, but rudely glaring and nakedly apparent to anyone with eyes to see.

And so we circle back to the idea that the Malthusians may not be buying what they think they are buying. But by the time they would realize the deeper and abiding truth of what it is they had done, it would be too late to retrieve. By doing it to the the Other, they may well have had done it to themselves. Could it be that the "useless eaters" were not quite so useless, after all? Only time will tell, of course.

Therefore, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.