No Such Thing As A Good Cop

Today I begin with the thesis that there is no such thing as a "good" cop. If you are one of those who are ready to jump down my throat and hurl rotten tomatoes at me, I ask that you remain calm until I have explained my position in sufficient detail. Bear in mind that most of what I will assert and attempt to defend bears the modifying amendment of "as currently constituted" and/or "as currently defined". I will do my best to make all of this clear in short order.

To begin, I strenuously and unequivocally object to the concept of a "law enforcement officer" for the reason that "law" stands ill-defined in every source I have come to know. In the dozens of attempts at defining "law" that I have read, which range from Bouvier's and other law dictionaries, to various less-formal swags, nowhere have I encountered a definition that was in any way so much as approaching the sufficiency of rigor. This is more than a little surprising, given that the future's of countless lives have hung and continue to hang on the concept, which speaks directly to the much vaunted idea of "justice". How can one have justice if we cannot define that which is just?

Even more surprising is the fact that one of the very best treatments on the subject can be found on wikipedia.org, a source I generally and validly view with keen suspicion and doubt. And yet, the article acknowledges my assertion that there exist no proper definitions of the term. To wit:

There have been several attempts to produce "a universally acceptable definition of law".

The article goes on in some detail, citing the various opinions regarding that which constitutes "law", the value there to be found in the confirmation of just how hopelessly inadequate are the extant definitions.

The one commonality that most definitions hold is the assertion that law is a system of "rules of action". While this is correct, so far as it goes, it goes not nearly far enough to satisfy the requirements of rigor.

I have, therefore, chosen to coin a new term, "Law", and do note the capitalization. "Law" is distinguished from "law" in that the factors arbitrariness and non-substantiation are absent. One might also call it "objective Law". Objective Law is that which can be demonstrated as objectively valid regardless of differing frames of reference and other variances between individuals or larger populations that are often used as the bases for justifying the arbitrary whims of so-called "authorities" in different places.


"Law" must be provably valid, a requirement which today is absent to an almost universal extent, most often leaving legislatures free to enact nearly anything they please. Statutes relating to firearms and taxation are perhaps the ultimate examples of the freewheeling arbitrariness that is so typically found these days.

Returning to the topic at hand, and assuming a properly rigor-laden definition of "Law", I would hold less objection to the idea of "Law enforcement officer", though I still see the keen and central emphasis on "enforcement" as being problematic. I am far more amenable to the old-school label of "peace officer", for in my opinion maintaining the public peace is far more in keeping with the proper role of a cop, enforcement being what we might regard as a regrettable secondary requirement to be undertaken only in the most grave of circumstances.

The enforcement of "law", vis-à-vis "Law", is perhaps the central problem that soundly discredits any claim of there being "good" cops. It is precisely the fact that "law" almost always represents the arbitrary and most often capricious will of a legislative body and that the enforcement of such arbitrary fiat is the core duty of law enforcement personnel that proves beyond argument that there are no such things as "good" cops. This is not to say that there are no good men who are cops or that cops never do good things. Quite the contrary, law enforcement officers do all manner of good things.

We often hear stories of cops who save drowning children and puppies. They apprehend dangerous criminals such as murderers and child molesters. All such acts are laudable from both practical and normative moral standpoints. But on the other hand, they also arrest people for possession of illegal drugs; growing cannabis; soliciting the services of prostitutes; gambling in non-approved facilities; bearing firearms and, until recently, engaging in homosexual congress. These are just a few of the more common statutory prohibitions of non-criminal acts that cops enforce at the points of guns and with threats of bodily destruction, financial ruin, prison, etc.

In other words, they enforce non-Law. This, of course, ventures into a far deeper and broader philosophical discussion, which we shall save for another day. But if for now you will partially suspend your inner skeptic and accept that proper Law cannot be arbitrary in its dictates, then the argument is very nearly mine at this point.

There are those who would cite the many good deeds of cops as some sort of justification for calling them "good". Let us briefly examine this through a simple comparative thought experiment where we set the Wayback machine to the early 1900s. As we step into 1908 Brooklyn, we find ourselves in a fine old-world Italian neighborhood where the people simply love their local hero, Vito Corleone. When Mrs. Poor Widowini was evicted for having a dog, Don Vito interceded on her behalf with the landlord, who eventually came around to his way of seeing things and not only allowed her to stay, but to also keep the dog, and reduced her rent by five- no, ten dollars per month!

Vito Corleone also gave countless thousands of dollars to innumerable good causes and saw to it that no foreign interloper caused trouble in his neighborhood. When the little girl needed surgery her parents could not afford, there was Don Vito with his open wallet to save the day. Signore Corleone was a true hero. A good man who was faithful to his wife and loved his children with great devotion. He was a "business" man, said business occasionally requiring something of a sterner hand with some of his associates. Every once in a while, when a partner got too far out of line, well... you know how that can go, and when Roberto Gandini suddenly disappears without a trace, what can one say? The Gowanis canal can be a dangerous place.

Do all the good deeds - those which grossly outnumber those criminal - excuse Vito Corleone's occasional acts of murder? Does the fact that he gives so much for his beloved neighborhood suggest we should turn a blind eye to the very serious crimes he commits, however infrequently?

If the answer you give is "no", then how could you or anyone so answering be able to excuse the crimes that cops commit as they carry out their duties in enforcing statutes that are not only morally repugnant and reprehensible, but are actually and provably felonious themselves?

This is where "as currently constituted" comes into play. "There is no such thing as a good cop, as their duties and responsibilities are currently constituted." It is impossible to credibly claim otherwise when their official acts result in the destruction of the lives of innocent people. When some sad sack, lonely man turns to a streetwalker for comfort, an act that in itself holds no element of criminality, and he is arrested, his name published in the newspaper as a "john", is fined countless thousands of dollars, and is jailed for a year with hardened criminals, there is nothing that can be said about the arresting cops to validly justify their dastardly act. The same may be said of the young punk who decides to fire up a gigantic spliff on the steps of the Manhattan courthouse and goes to prison for twenty years as a result. Stupidity does not perforce equate to feloniousness.

Taking action against those who commit crimes mala in sé is a valid role for cops. 

Enforcing statutes for acts mala prohibita, on the other hand, is not a valid role for cops. In such cases, the act of enforcement itself becomes criminal, reducing cops to the status of felons whose acts cannot by any valid standard be justified as anything other than first-degree felonies.

Because of this dolorous circumstance of morally corrupt job requirements, cops are set between a rock and hard place. There is no doubt that many cops seek to do the good, but such intentions count for nothing when pursuant to such goals they unjustifiably bring innocents to harm with the complicity and protection of "the state".

This, my friends, is why so many people fear, despise, and hate cops. I can think of no person I have ever known who would fault a cop for arresting a bank robber, rapist, murderer, etc. Such acts represent true and actual crimes with true and actual victims. Conversely, I know and have otherwise met large numbers of people who consider cops to be dangerous and corrupt because they enforce statutes prohibiting activities such as gambling, drug use/possession/sales, sex for money, running naked through the streets, and so on. 

Until the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of cops are amended to reflect the proper corrections to the gross and unjustifiable insufficiencies in the specifications of said duties, etc., a vast plurality of Americans are going to retain their jaded and mostly unfavorable opinions of law enforcement personnel.
There may be those who say "so what if some of us have no respect for cops?" To those people I would point out that such disharmony serves nobody well, save those few who stand to profit from such tensions, which is to say the political class who have historically used strife and its byproducts to justify usurpations of ever greater power.

Do cops want to be hated? Doubtless some may get off on the idea, but my money says most do not want to be the objects of broad ridicule, hatred, and ostracization. Therefore, it behooves us to redefine the role of the cop such that the vast and overwhelming majority of the people will be inclined to live in agreement with those roles and be more inclined to helpfulness, rather than fear or indifference.


We have a huge problem, and the status quo is not helping. Many say cops need to be reeled in - I even say it myself at times when I find myself exasperated with the current reality. Perhaps the better term would be "reshaped" into roles with which one would become hard-pressed to disagree. 

I do sincerely believe that the redefinition of what it means to be a cop, when done competently and honestly, would go a long way to a significant general improvement in the quality of the lives of everyone, save the political class who would doubtlessly rail like sirens against any such changes.

Be well, be good, and as always, please accept my best wishes.

Delete Government

What is a stage play in actuality?  Glad you asked.

It begins with a script that tells a story.  The script also assigns roles to be filled by selected people we most often refer to as "actors" who fill those roles by learning their lines, the mood for any given interaction, and so forth.  The actors then come together at the assigned place, the theater, at the assigned time, and perform their roles before an audience in accord with the specifications of the script.

When I describe a play in this way to people, most often they will nod their agreement.  On occasion, someone of a theatrical bent may correct my description in some trivial way, but even they agree that for all practical purposes I have described the thing we call a "play" correctly.

The play has no reality of its own, another point to which people universally have agreed with me.  Without the actors, there is no play.  There may be a script, but the only reality it has is its own pages and the ink that represents the elements of the story, roles, and so on.  The script is not the play itself.

And yet, when we speak of "government", when one asserts that it possesses no material reality of its own, a vast plurality of people will look at you funnily, sometimes wondering what is wrong with you.  But if you ask them to demonstrate "government" - to produce an example of it upon which one may lay hands - they invariably point out material entities such as courthouses, congressmen, etc.  A courthouse is nothing more or less than a building.  We could conduct the business of courts in my bathroom, were we able to fit all the personnel inside.  There is nothing special about a court building that makes it materially "government", vis-à-vis a privately held parking garage, for example.  We could repurpose a courthouse, or a capitol building, to house people, perhaps converting them into condominiums.

A congressman, a cop, the city dog catcher - none of these are "government", but only people very much the same as you and I.  The differentiating factor between them and everyone else is that they are analogs to the actors in a play.  "Government" and the "state" are, in fact, very strong analogs to the venerable stage play.  

Government is a notion - a story of sorts, the only material reality that it possesses being the written specifications that define the story, roles, and other elements that we might find in a typical script for stage.  Paper and ink is it.  Government is nothing more than a script for a nation that tells everyone their respective roles and holds them to playing it in accord with the written requirements thereof.  This may seem foreign to you at first, but if you take the time to shear away the extraneous elements and assumptions, you will see that it is indeed and in fact the case.

As such, government does not exist.  Government is a ghost.  More properly, government is a lie; it is in fact the biggest lie that has ever been told.  I would wager that it is also the lie that has remained in continuous effective use longer than any other and whose effect no other lie can come close to matching.

The notion of government has been peddled in one form or another for a human eon.  Since the days of Sumer we humans have been peddling the lie of government to each other, and ourselves.  And what is that lie, exactly?  The greatest lie ever told is that government actually exists as a thing.  The lie is largely tacit and is the assumption that serves as the armature upon which the vast and attendant tyrannies and other nonsense of so-called "government" hang.  It is the largest, oldest, and most wildly successful smoke and mirrors act of all time.

We refer to "the government" as if it were an actual thing, rather than a collection of ordinary people comporting themselves in accord with their respective roles.  Think about it carefully and you will come to see how true it is.  The congressman's, or other legislator's primary role is to put forth and vote upon legislation.  The role of the cop is to enforce bills that have been enacted by legislators and signed into effect by presidents and governors.  The role of the DMV employee is to drive you to drink in agonized frustration at the stupidity and inefficiency of the "state".

The rest of us are supposed to play the roles of obediently unquestioning serfs.  And when one of us fails to play our role according to specification, the "government's" role is to correct us, fine us, and punish us in accord with the requirements of the applicable statutes.

You may be wondering what is the big deal in all of this.  After all, we cannot have people running about murdering and robbing and beating one another and expect life to be good.  People must be governed.  Nobody in a rational and well-reasoned state of mind will deny that this is so in some manner and degree, and it is not the notion of governance that is harmful, but rather that of government when taken as an entity unto itself, which it almost always is.  When we regard government as something real, something material, we pitch ourselves into a rabbit hole that leads to one place, and one place only: hell on earth.

It is when we accept "government" as a thing, rather than as an idea and an arrangement between individuals, that those in positions to discharge the various duties of governance are enabled to work this cognitive misstep into something evil that disparages the sovereignty of those whose interests are supposed to be served by the very nothing that we have been convinced to accept as a standalone reality, replete with material existence, will of its own, rights, and authority above and beyond that of the individual.  It is the issue of our credence of the material existence of this non-thing and its blindly asserted characteristics that leads us onto the path of tyranny.  Because we think that government is actually government, rather than nothing more than a collection of individuals with no greater authority or rights than any other randomly chosen individual, and who are playing their respective roles pursuant to governANCE, we many of us become convinced to be obedient to it.  THERE IS NO "IT".  What you think is large and mighty and real is naught more than vapors and shadow.

How inclined would you be to comply with the demand for blind obedience, were mere individuals with no authority greater than your own barking the orders?  The inclination would likely be very much less  than when it is "government" almighty that is issuing the commands.  "But wait!", you might say, "That's exactly why "government" must be given this mythical stature, so that people will obey!"  And what do you say when the colossus decides it's time for all Jews to get on the cattle cars, or that all capitalists must go for "reeducation"?

There are precious few human beings walking this earth who would object to murder laws, or those proscribing rape, robbery, theft, battery, destruction of property, etc.  These prohibitions constitute actual Law because they address actual crimes, whereas statutes banning prostitution, smoking a spliff on the courthouse steps, injecting heroin into your veins, flying an aircraft without a license, and so on do not have the vast support and respect of the people precisely because they ban non-criminal behaviors, an authority that no man or group thereof holds, regardless of purport to the contrary.

"Government", we have been taught, holds an authority that must be obeyed without question, no matter how absurd and criminal a given fiat may prove.  Pay those taxes.  Don't manufacture, use, possess, or distribute drugs.  Don't secure the services of prostitutes.  Don't be homosexual (OK, that one's no longer applicable, but it used to be the commandment in America and remains so in many nations).  Do this, don't do that, and woe be unto those who transgress!

All this obsequious compliance in kowtow to an entity that doesn't even exist in itself!  How could it be?  Because we are convinced that it actually does exist and that it holds magical authority to which you must subject yourself with a smile.

If we are to salvage liberty, the very notion of "government" must be stripped naked for all to see it truthfully, so we may consequently toss it into the dustbin, never again to lend it the least shred of consideration as anything other than the lie that it is; the filthiest, most dangerous lie of all human history.

But would we not have chaos without government, you ask?  Certainly no shred more than what we currently enjoy under the tyrannical tutelage of "the state", and most likely a whole world less. Disposing of the Great Lie that is governMENT does not mean that we toss our governANCE.  All we will have done is removed the cognitive flaw that established our impediment to being able to properly regard and assess the actions of other human beings in whom we have entrusted some of the roles and responsibilities of governance.  Such roles should not be meant as those of dictators imposing their wills upon the rest, but rather those of guardians of that which is right and proper between men.

The vast bulk of the duties of governance falls to the individual, that he would regulate himself in the presence of his fellows.  Being humans, we do at times fail to properly govern ourselves, whether inadvertently or through choice.  Those who fail to self-govern open themselves up to being governed by others.  For example, when the mugger goes out to rob someone on the street, his claim to sovereignty are forfeited such that his intended victim may bang him over the head with an iron bar in self-defense, or perhaps even draw a sidearm and shoot the ghost from his carcass.  When one fails to self-govern, bad things often result.

What will have been removed is the false notion of the "state" or "government" as a thing in itself that holds all this power and authority to command you as it pleases.  Revealing governors such as police, mayors, and so on, for what they truly are: fellow human beings with no authority above yours, with dedicated roles to which duties attach that they have agreed to discharge in good faith and service to their fellows. 

But it is not only those sorts of behaviors that become abruptly yanked into sharp focus for all to see in terms of their proper truths, but also that of legislators, for example.  When the American Congress is seen as a group of individuals with no status, power, or authority whatsoever to violate the rights of their fellow Americans, rather than some mythical mono-bloc of legislative authority whose will is to be obeyed without question or hesitation, all of a sudden their ability to engage in corruption and other chicaneries, such as assuming mind-crushing debt in your name, is curtailed most tersely.

Retain governance.  Reject government.  Always bear in mind what "government" actually is: a script and nothing more.  Neither building, nor vehicle, nor fancy robes or uniforms or titles constitute  "government", for it is but a notion, and a very dangerous one because it falsely connotes a thing that is in point of fact, nothing at all in sé.

The task of stripping away delusion begins with the first step of removing the lie from your life. Do that one thing, and the rest becomes not only possible, but nearly easy.  Free yourself from the prison-construct that is "government" and free your mind by choosing truth over the lie, and take your rightful place among your fellows.  You are no less than anyone else walking this beautiful earth.

Be well, good luck, and until next time please accept my best wishes.

West Bashing

The so-called "left" love to bash the "west". It is part of their stock in trade to such a degree that is has become second nature to them. According to the typical "progressive" (actually and ironically a regressive mindset), the west is nothing more than a raft of greedy, self-absorbed whites who think only of themselves and hate anyone who is not them. This, of course, is a prima facie lie, born of rank ignorance and spewed with the vigor, power, and dedication that arises only from one source: blind, seething hatred.


There is envy of the successful, the entrepreneur who puts it all on the line, often through multiple failures, but who through persistence and diligence ultimately prevails, providing value to markets who seek what he offers. The envy is often accompanied by the self-hatred of those who, being aware of their own inability or unwillingness to proceed in the spirit of the entrepreneur, projects his own insufficiencies onto those who can and do the things required to succeed at some business. The projection provides them a target for their hatred, other than themselves, which in turn allows them to lie to themselves and come to believe that their failures to make anything of their lives is not in fact their own fault, but that of the greedy "capitalists" who have somehow stolen success from the poor victim who, it is certain, would have become a trillionaire in under twenty minutes' time, had the others not somehow denied them their due opportunities.


The lefty is typically self-hating, born partly of the deep-seated, yet unacknowledged recognition of his own gross shortcoming arisen in the wake of his poor life choices, such as described above for example, and partly from a pathological level of self-importance. His self-absorption is so monumental, so wildly and morbidly out of control, that when combined with his painful and dangerous ignorance, invariably drives him toward causes that reinforce his warped world views. For the lefty, those causes are always the ones that excuse and indeed glorify his every failing and corruption.


Hesse wrote in Steppenwolf that self-hatred is the most extreme form of conceit in existence. I agree wholly with that assessment.


Therefore, for the lefty, the entrepreneur serves only as a burning reminder of what a sad, failed individual he is, rendering the successful businessman the most logical and worthy target for the roiling frustration and anger that would otherwise be turned against himself, as it most likely ought to be.


Aldous Huxley wrote the following in "Island":

“Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence—those are the three pillars of Western prosperity. If war, waste, and moneylenders were abolished, you'd collapse. And while you people are overconsuming the rest of the world sinks more and more deeply into chronic disaster.”

Huxley's statement is simplistic, particularly in its innuendo.
I was once told by an acquaintance that " it may be simplistic, but completely understandable." I responded that it was only understandable in a simplistic world view that appeals to pure negative emotion to the neglect of broadly and competently employed reason in one's perceptions. The "west" has made endless mistakes, some of them horrible. So has every other culture on the planet, barring a mere handful. The Chinese are a horrible, barbaric people, as are Japanese and the rest of the east Asians. The Africans of nearly every stripe are no better. South America? Same. In the sense that the left works so dedicatedly to disparage the image and reputation of the west, characterizing those people as horrid and unworthy of anything good, the precise same is true of virtually every other culture on the planet.


Huxley's words hold a narrowly marginal validity, beyond which they fall short of the honor and care of circumspection and equal application to all parties. There is guilt aplenty to go around for everyone, so to couch things in the tone Huxley employs is clearly false, which should prompt you to ask yourself what purpose it serves and whether it is any good. It implies that somewhere "out there" there are people fundamentally superior to those of "the west", which I would remind you refers to all of Europe, the Americas, and Australia. The implication is laced with the precise same prejudice and hatred that advocates of that world view complain about in those of the west, not to mention the fact that a vast plurality of such people are themselves westerners, once again pointing to the self-hatred to which I have made reference.


This brand of speech is no different in semantic architecture than "they all look the same to me", painting vast and impossibly diverse populations with the same tint. In so doing, Huxley commits the same sort of sin against which his very words issue complaint. I won't assume that he intended on being a hypocrite, but that is the net result when looked at critically.

Huxley also fails to acknowledge the miracles the "west" has brought to the world, as if such things come without cost. This is a great problem with people, wanting all the benefits of life without so much as having to acknowledge the burdens of having them, much less bear them.

The west, having brought those non cost-free miracles, has proven itself the most effective and practically intelligent and driven people in the world. The advances we have brought to the world have also come to present the greatest threats the globalist hegemony has ever had to face, what with all this talk of individualism, freedom, and rights. That is perhaps the prime reason that those seeking global domination feel compelled to destroy the west, whom they view as their greatest competition and therefore threat to their designs. 

The vaporously implied "innocence" of the "rest of the world", other than being an outright lie, if assumed otherwise is directly attributable to the corresponding lack of contribution to the state of men. The "west" brought "science" to the world. Without the "west", the world would still be living in 13th-century conditions, if that. Nary a one of us would be here to have these discussions or to berate that of which many of us are parts. So before trashing the "west", perhaps a more circumspect consideration might be in order.

"We" have made and continue to make grave errors. So does everyone else. Blame enough for all. I am no subscriber to such lop-sidedly ignorant views of things. Much of what I see makes me angry, true. But I temper my emotions by broadening my vision; something few others are willing to do, IMO because they are so married to their anger and hatred, two emotions that were trained into them by third parties and not the organic result of the natural reaction to unbiased perception.

While I admonish all to believe as they wish, I also suggest the higher paths of discipline, self-control, and reason over raw and undifferentiated negative emotion, which is what most people have taken for their common habit, to their detriment, as well as that of those around them. The world of men is a mess, but not quite for the reasons those who typically identify as "left" believe. I wish that such people would be willing to step away from their tortured emotions for a moment, that they might have respite from the self-destructive states that understandably arise within people who hold them, often through no fault of their own. That which we could accomplish, were we not to be at each other's throats in the ways so commonly found nowadays, would lead to solutions that I believe the lefties would find agreeable, on the whole. But they have been lead to believe that such solutions which lie outside of their collectivist visions do not exist, and that centralized force applied in the abetment of the tyrannical imposition of "equality" is the only way to their utopia.


Let nobody fool you into believing the lies and the more dangerous half-truths they spew about the "west". The very core ethic the left espouses as the greatest virtue of all is in fact nothing other than the western ethic, yet another irony and indeed hypocrisy at which to marvel, courtesy of the wildly gone-wrong world views of the left, which appear to be nearly impossible to dislodge, no matter how much truth, reason, logic, or dynamite one may apply to the problem. But as the policies of the left have produced the predictable results of further perdition and misery, some of the morally less corrupted lefties are coming around to the better truth.


Keep the faith, and as always, please accept my best wishes.

Why Has The Fed Unleashed A Whirlwind of Inflation?

In one of the forums I frequent, someone asked why should the Federal Reserve Bank be unleashing a "whirlwind" of inflation upon us, now of all times? To that, I respond as follows.


Why NOT unleash one?

Turmoil is the politician's game - always has been.

Do note how it's always one thing after another, how we are never left in peace. Does anyone think this is mere coincidence, or some new necessity of reality, arisen for heaven only knows what reasons?

My suspicions come closer to confirmation by the day: Theye are sowing endless strife and relatively minor chaos in pursuit of the goal of wearing us down - wearying us so that when they finally make THE move, either we will no longer care to fight, no longer have the wherewithal to do so, or both. It is a combination of acclimation to insanity and wearing us out so that we no longer have in us the will or ability to effectively resist.

Consider the starfish; not a particularly strong when compared with a clam, but they are able to apply their meager pressures for extended periods. They latch on to a clam and put just a small pressure upon them. The mightier clam, well... clams up, as the saying goes, and in a couple of hours is exhausted from no respite, becomes incapable of further resistance, and becomes a meal.

Consider the dog versus the deer. Deer is WAY faster than the dog, but the dog can run for miles without tiring. The deer is fast, but is soon spent. The dog simply runs them out of breath and the deer succumbs.

This is a very common pattern in nature that manifests in human politics as well.

Theye are destroying us piecemeal; of that there is little question. The evidence of this is so overwhelming as to be unmistakable, and yet the majority fail to see it. This naturally begs the question of "why?". The answer comes most clearly when one thinks "set up". Set up is the most important component of any build. I do all manner of things - machinist, black/gold/silversmith, cabinet maker, jujutsu, shooting, and so on down a considerable list. In ALL of these endeavors, the set up is the essential prerequisite to execution and usually takes the most time. But without careful planning, execution is often for naught.

For those who are ready to proclaim this all as a wild conspiracy theory, I say OK, let us assume it to be the case - I am insane with paranoia and my attributions to malice are unfounded.  It makes no difference, for the outcomes are all that matter.  Whether we are the victims of true malice, or those of good intentions run wildly off the rails, the result is the same and if we have any basic sense and courage left to us, the right course at this point is to resist Themme with everything we have got, come what may.  Mass refusal to comply with orders is the right next step for us.  It paints Themme into a corner, though it is by no means a guarantee of happy results.  The reasons for this are manifold and perhaps we shall discuss it in another post.

So all these decades of apparent nothing-to-write-home-about on Theire part was the time for the great setup. Turning fer too many American men into sissies, and women into the least feminine creatures imaginable. Teaching children how to not discriminate so that they are no longer able to tell right from wrong, save in a very narrowly channeled, pre-planned sense of the terms. How to view FREEDOM as SELFISHNESS - to turn the perceptual commons upside down so that people no longer know one from the other.

And when the meaner is reduced to so low a state of mere existence, so weakened by the false beliefs that have been pumped into his head and reinforced daily by media and his fellows who parrot the approved lines of nonsense, he is further attacked - mostly mentally - with horrors like planes flying into buildings, endless wars, threats of "terrorism", economic stagnation... PLAGUES. Neighbor is pitted against neighbor with false oppositions drawn from the thin air and often based in things that people cannot help such as their sex or morphology. Turning people against those who have chosen to make something of their lives beyond mere existence, demoting them from subjects of admiration to objects of envy and bitter derision and through the false characterization of their success not as the results of diligence and smart choices, but of theft.  But the theft is not of some vague generic form, but it is from you whom they have committed their felonious and immoral acts!

When one does as I have done long ago - developed the ability to step far enough away from the trees to see the forest, the truth becomes clear, showing pointed patterns that repeat themselves over and over to the point they can no longer be taken as coincidental departures from the natural patterns of normal distributions of events. These are events of human deliberation; of intent beyond the normal patterns of daily living. They reveal purpose, none of it good for the lowly and unworthy free men of the world.

Given all this, while I can see no specific reason that the Fed should be hitting us now, I equally see none for why they should not. I consider much of what has occurred in the political sphere since 9/11 to have likely been probes to gage how we will react to this event or that - an evaluation of whether the turkey is fully cooked, so to speak. And I believe that the answer is either a clear "yes, it is time to serve the dinner" or we are very close to it. We have been served up one outrage after another, any one of which SHOULD have prompted Americans to halt in their track of obedience and slaughtered anyone daring to apply force to further us along. But we complied - meekly - each and every time.

What, then, in our responses would lead Themme to believe that we pose any substantive threat to their hegemonic position when the most we ever do is moan about each new violation?

So if we are ripe, then why not begin the harvest?

As close as Theye appear to be to invincibility, I do not believe it to be the case, save that we aid and abet our destroyers nearly every step of the way.  We could stop Themme in their tracks, were we to find the will to do so.  That is not to say that a campaign of committed defiance would not have terrible costs, for Theye control resources most people cannot imagine.  Think "plague", for instance.  Hold you doubtless that Theye would likely unleash pestilence unimaginable upon the entire globe, were they to be challenged in any serious manner.  There are nuclear weapons, false flags, and foreign armies more than willing to murder anyone, given the orders.  There is economic destitution, the power of which rests in Theire hands thanks to the system of false banking that we have allowed Themme to foist upon us.  Electronic currency disappears as quickly as it comes into seemingly miraculous existence out of the thin air, in the trillions of units, and far more.

Theye could, and likely would, wreak blind havoc upon the entire world before allowing themselves to be displaced, much less destroyed.  Those are the challenges we would face, and yet to submit to Themme casts a specter many orders of magnitude more horrible to anyone not committed to their own servitude.

The righteous path is clear.  The question remains as to whether we have the sense and sand to embark upon it.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Law v. Statute

With regard to so-called “law”, I find it most curious to note that nowhere have I been able to find a definition of the term that did not possess the following three objectionable qualities:

1. Arbitrariness, save in the otherwise lacking definitions of “natural” law. 
2. Overbearingly self-serving to those in positions of power. 
3. An utter absence of anything that might be remotely seen as rigor. 

I have examined many dictionaries, including several purporting to specifically address “law”, Black’s and Bouvier’s being but two examples, and have been surprised at the wholesale inadequacies to be found in those sources, which should set any man of good intellect and character to deep disturbance.

In a sense, this short treatise is given in backward order, for it is not my purpose here to deal with the matter aforementioned, but rather to discuss the fallacies that include but do not limit to the fact that statute and Law are rarely the same things. The question and issue of what it is that defines “Law” is of greater complexity, far greater import, and shall be addressed in another work.

For now it shall suffice to shed some light on the juxtaposition of Law and statute, an understanding of the distinction between the two being one of great importance to Freemen. Without such an understanding, it becomes verily difficult to know how to assess any rule that is laid down as “law”, where one stands normatively with respect to such rules, and how to at least begin to formulate arguments against those who have no proper authority over the prerogatives and Rights of the free man.

It shall serve well to notice that “Law” and “law” are not perforce the same things. The capitalized form refers to actual Law, whereas the uncapitalized form is essentially synonymous to “statute”. I will therefore begin with two postulates that state: “A: law != Law” and “B: Law >> law”. For the purposes of this work I shall neglect to convey any rigor to the meaning of these postulates and allow for a far less formal use of them as I believe the points shall be made sufficiently clear even in this more casual manner.

As to the definition of terms - once again I will dispense with formal rigor, which shall have to come in a subsequent treatment of Law, and rely on the sufficiency of intuition and common sense to carry the day in this work. In so doing, we now turn to somewhat informal definitions of “Law” and “statute”, to wit:

Law: A rule of conduct which may forbid, or compel behavior based on that which is deduced from the nature of those things to which it refers, as well as any principles that derive therefrom.  Note that Law never allows, for to do so is to imply that it may also forbid the very thing at another time, which further implies the authority to grant privilege.  Law is not in the business of granting anything, but only of recognizing the principles of proper human relations, the consequent rights that follow therefrom, and codifying a very sparse set of rules based upon those principles, specifying the correspondingly few requirements of human conduct pursuant to that which those principles imply.  

Statute: A codified expression of the arbitrary and, most often, capricious will of a legislative body which presumes the authority to enact and expect enforcement of such expressions.

With respect to Law, the definition hints strongly at what most dictionaries refer to as “natural law”. While I agree with the general notions regarding natural law, I am loathe to employ that term for two reasons. Firstly, the usual absence of sufficient rigor to make the term useful and ironclad in its resistance to “interpretation”. Secondly, the term itself has been greatly abused to the point that it carries far too much historical baggage such that a vast plurality of people automatically dismiss the notion as unworthy of credit and consideration. So far as I am able to determine, this sad circumstance is the result of a concerted effort on the part of some to disparage the idea, the implication most often being that it is the quaint notion of bumpkins lacking the intellectual chops to understand the real nature of law. To such people I say hogwash, for either it is they who lack the power of mind to apprehend the truth of natural law, have been ignorant of that truth, or are pushing an unpublished agenda.

I have therefore come to spell “Law” in capitalized form (though I have have also considered and retain “Lawe” as a possible alternate) as an indication of the respect that true and actual (natural) law merits, thus making the unequivocal distinction between itself and mere and perforce-invalid statute.

In order for written law to correctly reflect Law, it must be demonstrably based in immutable truth and principle, the truest indication of this being that it in no manner violates or in any other way thwarts the inherent freedoms and the consequent rights of the individual.  Absent any one of those qualities, a given written law stands null and void, with no individual responsibility of compliance.  This very assessment was given by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 1803.  To wit:

"...an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void^†."

In the dictionaries, “statute” is sometimes equated with “arbitrary law”, if only by implication. Nothing could be more true, this being readily verified by a direct examination of the manifold statutory enactments currently in positive effect.  

For example, this from https://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary:

"LAW, ARBITRARY. An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things; such law, for example, as the tariff law, which may be high or low. This term is used in opposition to immutable."

Statutes criminalizing acts such as the manufacture, possession, sale, and use of certain chemical compounds and herbs, the securing of the services of prostitutes, or the individual possession and bearing of arms are prime examples of the unprincipled and arbitrary will of so-called “legislatures”, which have no demonstrable authority to issue such proscriptions, much less punishments pursuant to “violation”.

There are those instances where statute and Law intersect. Statutes against actual crimes such as murder, robbery, battery, rape, destruction of property, and so forth, are prime examples. In such cases, statute manages by happy coincidence to be tantamount to Law. These cases, however, tend to be few and far between, the remaining bulk of written statute being naught more than the arbitrary and most often capricious will of a vanishingly small minority imposed by the sword upon the rest.

As an aside, mention of “actual crimes” leads to another terrible inadequacy of every “law” dictionary on which I have been able to place my hands. In every single instance I have discovered that of all the terms a law dictionary might address, “crime” stands shoulder to shoulder with “law” as the two most singularly important examples. And yet, in not a single case was the definition of “crime” anywhere nearing sufficiency. The so-called “definitions” were, in fact, so horribly devoid of specific meaning as to defy credulity. We should all be considering why this might be the case, always asking who might stand to benefit from such a circumstance. After all, “law” and politics are intimately interlocked.

As to arbitrariness, some might wonder what is the big deal. Were men generally cut from a better cloth in terms of individual integrity and trustworthiness, the corruptions of which run along a vast number of lines, it might not be so big a deal. In the case of the occasional errant statute, we might then be able to count on the smarts and solid ethic of those who have made wrong to correct their mistake. But that is clearly not the case with any legislative body one might care to name. At least in America it appears to be very much the opposite such that the more egregiously "government" officials violate the rights of those to whom they have sworn oaths of good faith and service, the more intransigent they become in the face of just complaint.

In America, the Congress and the manifold state legislatures, not to mention the countless municipalities, are constantly and without much exception of which I am aware, analyzing their various legislative machinations not so much out of a concern and respect for the natural and inherent Rights of their fellows, but to best determine how much it is with which they can get away. Analysis for “constitutionality” most often has nothing to do with a heartfelt regard for the rights of men, but of pushing the boundaries of power as far as someone thinks they can.

This all at once it leaves us in a terrible position, and with a priceless opportunity. On the one hand, we can now see that there is something deeply amiss in terms of the most basic and foundational notions relating to so-called “law”. The two most fundamentally key concepts, “Law” and “crime” remain ill-defined to the point of making one’s hair stand on end in alarm and disbelief. The path to the good result begins with awareness, which in its own turn brings the opportunity to correct that which has run so wildly from prudence, truth, justice, and good reason.

We now have at least the seeds of a better definition of Law. Law derives from the nature of things and the principles and other consequents of that nature, this in stark contrast to the arbitrary nature of statute. This knowledge in itself is of endless value, for it is the very clue we need to lead ourselves to a clear, correct, and complete definition of sufficient rigor by which we may then make our forceful arguments and demands for the constraint of those who would enact “law” in the form of arbitrary statute against the sovereign rights of those whom they ostensibly serve. The same stands equally so for “crime”, for Law that prohibits, perforce addresses crime either directly, or otherwise.

Due to its arbitrary nature, owing mainly to the absence of definitional restrictions to the contrary, statute represents one of the most dangerous evils in the world of men. Consider the countless lives that have been destroyed in the so-called “drug war”, the declaration of which could only have come about in the wake of statutory prohibitions and the draconian punishments that attach thereto. Consider the waves of crime to which false prohibition has given rise with huge numbers of lives lost in the attendant violence. Now consider that those items represent but two points of fact in demonstration of the ironically felonious nature of the very statutes that have been set into effect by those with zero authority to do so. And yet, Congress does just that in bald-faced violation of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly recognizes in catch-all fashion the broad right of every man to do as he pleases, so long as he refrains from violating the equal rights of his fellows.

Awareness is the dawn of change. Knowledge lends us the tools to bring forth demonstrably just and right improvement to our dolorous circumstance. The only other factor is our will to make it happen, something that we must provide for ourselves. To establish rigorous definitions of what may be the two most centrally significant terms in the human vocabulary, thereby clarifying the concepts themselves, stands every man to profit, save perhaps those already in the legal profession, whom I suspect would fight such change tooth and nail as the status quo keeps them well able to pay their bills with plenty left over for their weekends.

Such an effort speaks to the very foundations of a culture, without which sound, prosperous, and free life cannot hope to attain. We stand lost at this moment in our history precisely because our foundations are nowhere nearly sufficient for the establishment and long-term cultivation of freedom. Our house is built on a poor underpinning and until we correct that, the very structure of our lives as political creatures stands to decay even further. Is that what you want for your own life; those whom you love; your children?

Be bold, but work not in vain. Toil to good fruit with smarts and the will to see it through to an end, starting at the bottom and working your way up, for if everything you do is undermined by lousy and inadequate basics, then you work to no good avail. Be smart. Be efficient. Be determined. Learn and become expert in knowing that which is right between men, and work to see it made real. Freedom is the answer and force against liberty is always the work of evil, any good intentions notwithstanding.

May we all find our paths to the better outcome.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

† Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 01 February 1803, line 401

The Gift From Donald J. Trump To America

Unless EVERYTHING we observe is political theater, and that cannot be quite ruled out, then imagine the degree to which President Donald J. Trump pissed in the Establishment's cornflakes. Imagine the disruption to Theire grand circle-jerk, that they would come out of the closet to show the entire world the degree of buffoonery to which we all now bear witness. 

Imagine the depth of that cancer, the tickling of which has drawn out the klowns as openly as has the Trump presidency. Prior to this time, even the already buffoonish sorts of Obama and Clinton were mild and meek in their public faces when compared with the desperation-driven break dancing of the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, and McConnell. And yes folks, the Republicans are in it up to their eyelids as well.

This wild-west show's metes and bounds are expanding like the wave-front of a super nova as it lights up the galaxy, flinging itself wildly outward to ungodly distances, consuming everything in its sphere of hellish destruction. And the action is just beginning. Think about it. The genie is out of the bottle. Pandora's little creatures have escaped the box and we are all witnessing it. How can Congress and the rest of the Tyrant's cadre ever go back to their false front of dignified and benevolent "statesmanship"? I doubt that they can. In their panic, Theye have blown their own cover, letting the truth out for all the world to witness the cancerous filth for which they stand so brazenly.

  They now have really only one option: bald-faced despotism. I find it amazing that in the choice between the "Brave New World" and "1984" models of modern terrorist rule, the Tyrant and his minions foolishly chose the latter in the end. It started off as the former, which was the wise choice - maintaining an illusion of freedom and plenty. But the rise of the so-called "left" dropped a turd in the punch bowl, what with all the talk of overpopulation, environmental destruction, the idiocy of anthropogenic global warming, and now of course the most recent contribution of global plague, where could we have ended up where we now find ourselves? In an important way Theye undid all their work, for concealment is an objective in itself for the sake of longer term success. Never let an enemy know that you exist as their enemy.

  Even if Theye have always intended a global cull, why paint the grim picture? Would it not have been wiser to keep the illusion of happy-happy joy-joy alive right up to the point of delivery of the final coup de grace? Or did Theye just have to let us know what was up, that they were the one's up to it, and that we could do nothing about it? Who can say what goes on in the thoughts of another human being, but Theye have exposed themselves to the world for what they are and that is always the stupid move. The trap-door spider doesn't dance about, alerting the world to its presence and nature. It lies hidden under its cover, striking only as the unwary prey comes too close. But being "human" (are lizard people prone as well?), Theye perhaps could not help themselves but to brag and over-extend; it is, after all, what we tend to do on the average. And when the Trump card came to be played, laying open to the world the seemingly endless stretches of Theire crimes, Theye reacted as would any average-or-worse character: they went nuclear with panic, hatred, and abandonment of self-control that comes with the territory of being outed, thereby exposing oneself to observation by anyone with eyes who is not in a coma. It's a classic mistake that has been repeated by every rotten-in-the-marrow tyrant who's ever walked the earth. It would seem we cannot help ourselves, which is a good thing in the end. We Americans may, and ought to, thank Donald J. Trump for at least this one most spectacular gift of revelation, even if he ultimately were to prove part of the problem, and I am not saying he will. He has exposed Themme to the entire world, forcing them out of the closet and into the light of day, swinging for the fences in their bitter, uncontrolled, and venom-soaked anger for the man who ruined everything for which they'd striven for at least a full century. The question that now remains is this: what will we do with that which has so freely fallen into our laps? That man did his bit. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump has sacrificed more than I suspect any of us will ever truly know, and now the ball is in our court. Neither Donald Trump nor any other cadre can save us. That is our work, and we now openly face the choice of fighting the evil that can no longer hide from examination, or be consumed like sissies, undeserving of the great gift of true equality and the freedoms that attach naturally and inherently thereto. Stop looking beyond yourselves for salvation, because it ain't out there. God isn't going to come running to save you, no matter what you may read in books and choose to believe to the contrary. He isn't sending Jesus either, or his angels. He gave you miraculous life - self-awareness - intelligence enough to live freely, and the freedom to choose how to live. Just imagine the immeasurable largesse of such a being as that - to give and give and not interfere. So there you have it - the cold truth of your circumstance. Time is here. Time to choose. What will it be? And for those thinking they can just sit this one out, shut that nonsense because you will choose, by positive action or by default. To do nothing will be to choose to be consumed in the flames of open tyranny; tyranny that will no longer put the candy coating of Huxley on everything, but the dreary grey, grimace of Orwell. Georgie boy warned us and thus far we refused to listen. The left, as embodied in the Democrat party and abetted by the Republican party, having been exposed, has nothing to lose by going full throttle to cinch up what they long ago started and screwed up so neatly in the end.

So go ahead and bugger off yet again if it pleases you, but when you are in the heat of the flames, you will have no recourse at that point and I promise that your regret at having ignored the truth will be bitter beyond mere terminal shock, every moment laced with the soul-withering regret born of the knowledge of what you lost and, most pointedly, that you could have at least fought to retain it.

It's here and it's now and Theye are no longer in hiding. You WILL choose, so let's hope you make it a good one. It's not just your future you're deciding, in case that matters at all to you.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes for you and all the world. God knows we need them.

More Reasons Why Hope For Humanity Wanes

The Gordian Knot of American legislative tyranny is so vast, it would probably take many years of having both the Office and Congress to undo all of it.

The framers of our Constitution had it right in some respects, and gravely wrong in far too many others. 

Perhaps they were between rocks and hard places as well, what with all they owed at the end of the Revolution. After all, there was nothing to eliminate the possibility of France and GB teaming up to spank and re-take us for non-payment of debt to the Frogs. Those two could return to murdering each other after reeling in the dangerously thinking Americans.  

The treachery of humans in general is our greatest problem. Were we better than we are, I'm thinking maybe we'd not be in the terrible mess we find ourselves.  The somewhat surprising bit in all of the horrors of war and tyranny is that we choose this for ourselves, either directly or through various oblique avenues of choice, all of them fired by phony baloney rationale that always fails the smell test, or sometimes more forthright forms of corruption.  More surprising still is the apparent fact that for generally lazy and self-corrupting a species, we choose the path that is actually more work than the alternates of minding our own businesses and living in freedom.  Why would this be?  I will tell you.

Our choices root largely in the worst of all our corruptions, and it is not a simple one.  Why, for instance, do men tend to despise and even hate the Superior Man?  It is because the Superior Man shames them by his presence; his very existence. That is why the Mean Man always endeavors to marginalize the Superior Man, and in many instances to physically destroy him.  The Meaner cannot stand the burn of shame that is corrupted self experiences when he stands in the glaring light of his better.   He would rather bring better men to ruin than to face the truth of his status as less-than; a state which in almost all cases he has chosen for himself, rather than it having been imposed upon him by forces beyond his control.

Were the Meaner of so low a character by virtue of pure nature, he might in some cases still feel the burn, but I submit that more likely he would not, for he would know in his heart of hearts that such was the lot he drew in life and that it is nobody's fault.  In that case, it would be much like one's sex; it is determined by factors outside the limits of individual choice.  But he knows, even if subliminally, that that is not the case.  By and large, the Meaner knows that his shoddiness is not the gift of fate, but of his own making.  Being precisely mean, he possesses more than sufficient intellect to not only understand this truth, but to choose differently for himself.  He further understands all too well that what he has chosen for himself is something for which his shame is appropriate.  

Because of this understanding, regardless of how deeply buried the conscious awareness of it might be, and in concert with the nature of the very corruptions with which he exists ass an individual, any examples of the better man all too often sets ablaze within him the roaring fires of raging envy.  Some will respond to the Superior Man with wonder and even a desire to better themselves in some truly worthy manner.  Most, it appears, fall into that envy, which leads to hatred and the inevitable desire to see the object of that hatred brought down in some manner and degree, anywhere from being "right sized" to outright physical destruction.

There is no apparent solution for us, save that we get knocked backwards literally to a stone-age, hunter-gatherer circumstance, necessitating very small tribal populations. 

We prove to ourselves and one another every single day that we are unwilling to live well among our fellows in the broadest terms. There is always some group trespassing or otherwise infringing on the perceived claims of others, perception being key.  So long as we perceive and consequently think and behave as functional imbeciles, we will be inclined to act as such. Because of this will to The Stupid, a very hard reset may be inevitable, seeing as we have not learned a damned thing from all our thousands of years of gore-laden history and endless tyranny, beyond how to become more materially powerful and use that power in the further reinforcement of our rotten ways. 

We CHOOSE our corruptions, and because a small few choose the rot and filth of blindly grasping tyrants, the rest see themselves as having no choice other than to follow suit for the sake of survival, physically and culturally.

In political terms, it takes very few men to drag the rest of the human race into the Pit.  Entropy is king in human affairs, it always being so much easier and requiring so few to set asunder that which so many took so long to build.  It all seems a terrible shame.  Perhaps this is just the way things are supposed to be?  Maybe, but I for one will not accept that we are meant to be nothing better than a raft of barbaric, mass-murdering turds.  We have demonstrated that we can be more than this; better.  But being better requires effort that most appear unwilling to expend, and so her we find ourselves at this time, a species with the emotional maturity of low-IQ and ill-bred toddlers, in possession of nuclear bombs and an ever increasing ability to cobble machinery and change at the genetic level.  

None of this bodes well for our future.

Pray for miracles, because we stand in dire need.

As always, please accept my best wishes.  

The Purge Is Started

 Short missive to all Freemen.

On 6 Jnauary, 2020 the United States Senate effectively declared the American Republic no longer in existence.  The following day, I found one of my two Facebook accounts permanently disabled, as well as that of my twitter account.  One of the facebook groups I'd established had also been given the axe and I got several messages from people I know that they too had been hit as well.  

Since then I have read reports of many such occurrences, seemingly all from people not aligned with the far-left side of the political spectrum.

The top man at ABC news has publicly called for a "purge" of all Trump supporters.  That is very dangerous talk, the significance of which one is well advised not to dismiss.

But "purge" is the right word, for that is what now appears to be in effect at facebook and twitter, as well as in the hearts and minds of a great many so-called "Americans".  We are now entered into a dangerous time.  Caution is my word to all of you.  I have no idea what is going to happen, though one of my predictions appears to be coming to fruition: there is a litany of proposed legislation, none of it good, waiting in the wings for the next Congress to consider, much of it calling for registration of both firearms and ammunition.  These stand to move rapidly through session and to Biden's desk, who will undoubtedly sign them into effect.

Hide your weapons and ammo and if the "authorities" come for them, politely smile and tell them "no".

Most importantly, this is the time to get very serious with yourselves and consider what it is you are going to do.  Will you capitulate to the Tyrant, or will you fight for that which you know to be right between men?  Time is here.  There is no more evasion because Theye are not going to be merciful to those of us unwilling to smile through rape that is to come.

Will you stand to arms?  Will you be civilly disobedient? Will you fold?  Will you relegate your children to lives of servitude and degradation; mere existence as another man's chattel?  Are you yourself willing to live the remains of your days on your knees to men unworthy of life itself, much less mastery of yours?

The time for talk is pretty well past us now, the Tyrant having removed his gloves and will soon, I suspect, be unmasking himself for the nation to see.  Once Theye get on your neck, there will likely be no removing them, so all rationalizing about never being violent, and all that rot now becomes an act of suicide, both personal, filial, communal, and national.

Is this what you want?  If not, it is time to get real and prepare for the onslaught that is close to hand.  There is indeed a real enemy out there and if we do not put them to their ends, we will all be consumed in the roast the Tyrant has in store for us.  The enemies of freedom must not be simply neutralized, but destroyed.  It is a terrible thing that looms before us and it is a great sadness, a horror, that we are called to make the choice between peaceful capitulation to perpetual terrorism and the taking of what could be millions of lives, but it is soon to be before us in stark black and white and there will be no evasions.  To fail to decide will be the decision to capitulate to hard tyranny.  Theye are apparently done with all tolerance of the Freeman and are about to undertake their campaign for his elimination.  That means you.

I wish all my fellow Freemen well and that we will all have the nerve, good sense, and honor to do what it right.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Rights Do Not Exist

If the seemingly outlandish title has gotten your attention, then I say "good!"  But what does it mean, that rights don't exist?

Let us hearken back a few years where I addressed the question, "What Are Rights?"  In that essay we defined a "right" as a "just claim".  What I neglected to elaborate upon, however, was the fact that a right does not exist in any meaningful way whatsoever until it is asserted by an individual.  That act defines the birth of a right.  Proper action pursuant to the claim keeps it alive.  The moment the claim is abandoned, it ceases to exist and that which was claimed, arguably comes up for grabs in some manner and degree, the implications at times being profound and wide-reaching.

A right does not exist if it is not asserted in the face of challenge.  Where rights are concerned, assertion is tantamount to defense.  It is certainly the first step, though in some cases it may not be sufficient, other measures becoming necessary as challenges grow in magnitude of threat.

If I fail to assert my right to my First Property (i.e., my very life), it can be validly argued in some circumstances that I do not in fact hold that right.  This, of course, assumes that I am not asleep, in a comatose state, mentally impaired such that I am incapable of making the assertion, and so on.  In other words, the statement is qualified with the usual caveat of "all else equal".

This is the stark and most fundamentally real nature of the notion of a right.  Because it is a claim, it must in some cases be explicitly asserted in order for it to become manifestly valid and due the respect of one's fellows.  If our history has shown us anything about ourselves, it is that we tend not to respect our fellows, unless given good reason.

Consider one's abode - their home, as it were.  If I fail to assert my right to my home by allowing strangers to enter thereupon, uninvited, and to rifle through my refrigerator to eat as they please, consume that very costly bottle of single-malt whiskey, sleep in my bed to the exclusion of myself, shower, use the toilet, and basically act as if they owned the place, I have then pretty well relinquished my claims to those properties.  Furthermore, reestablishing a claim that has been allowed to the ravages of rivaling scavengers most often proves difficult, at times very costly, is risky at best, and is potentially hazardous to life and limb in some cases.

Does this mean that a man must assert all his rights every time he moves his eyeballs in order that those around him be made clear?  No.  We assume many of the claims tacitly and this is even reflected in Law.  For example, just because I do not tell you that I claim my life as my First Property, it does not follow that you may murder me, or render me into slavery to yourself or another.

But there are those circumstances, which I will conveniently call "special", where the explicit assertion of one's rights is required if one wishes not to be trampled by some third party.  Interactions with "government" is perhaps the ultimate example of this, especially in the courtroom.  In court, if you fail to assert your rights, chances are good to excellent that you will be procedurally disemboweled, drawn, and quartered by opposing counsel as the judge passively allows it because it is not his job to see to it that your interests are served, as that would indicate bias in one who must remain impartial.  The responsibility lies wholly with YOU, which is why the smart man secures the services of a competent and diligent lawyer for all such matters as may end up in a courtroom.  In court, the only person interested in your welfare is you, and maybe (hopefully) your attorney.  The rest are, at best, neutral.  Onus rests solely with you so see to your welfare in court.  And so it is with life in general.

Many people see a right as an entitlement.  While this is true in an abstract sense, it only becomes real with assertion, and only in the case where sufficiently reasonable action is taken pursuant to the claim in the face of third party threat.  That which defines "sufficiently reasonable" can become a complicated and messy issue for another day's discussion, so just accept it on faith for the time being that there exists proper answers for this question, somewhere out there in the aether.  The only time one's rights need explicit assertion is when there exists a threat, real or potential, of disparagement, deprecation, denial, or some other violation.  That is always the case in courts of law and virtually always so in any interaction with "government", precisely because the "state" is always on record as assuming authority that it cannot prove to hold, in point of fact, yet maintains at the point of the gun.

Therefore, onus rests with every individual to stand tall and to make clear to anyone or anything posing so much as the minutest potential challenge to one's sovereign rights, that they waive no whit of even the seemingly most insignificant of them, for no right is insignificant.  The moment you lose sight of this centrally important truth, you have in principle lost it all.

If you will not assert your rights, then they do not exist.  Period.  Imagine you're on the street and someone asks you about your car that happens to have the keys laying on the seat, saying "hey buddy, is this your car?"  If you say "no", you have told that guy that you make no claim to the vehicle.  If he then gets in and drives away, you have no basis for complaint in the wake of no longer having a car.  Indeed, if you were to file a criminal report with the police, the fact that you failed to assert your claim might well have the cops telling you to take a walk for that very reason.  It would be similar to giving him your car and then going to the police afterward.  And in the case where cops did your rotten bidding, chances are good that if it went to trial, a reasonable jury would look at you as the architect of your own misfortune, precisely because you failed in your duty to yourself to make clear to another human that you claim the vehicle in question.  I know I'd find for the defendant, all else equal.

One cannot lazily count on the good will of others to protect his claims to Life, for his trust will almost certainly prove grossly misplaced at precisely the moment when its fruits are needed most.  This is a sad truth about the empirically observable and common behavior of the mean human being.  If you will not help yourself when able, you merit none and deserve that which comes to you, such as it may prove.

Failure to assert and defend one's rights is the ultimate abdication of responsibility for oneself.  Such failures ought not, and must not be rewarded.  If in the face of sufficient ability, one fails to make and reasonably affect the defense of his rights, then in terms of positive reality he holds no such rights, nor any defensible claims in Law against the acts of others whose behavior would have become criminal, had he faithfully and properly discharged due diligence with respect to the affirmations to which he ought to have attested, had at the time he wanted that which a valid assertion would have made manifest.

Absorb this; understand it; accept it; alter your behavior in accordant comport and habit with it, that is, if your rights are important to you.  Otherwise, much of the world will trample you into the dust and never bat an eyelash because at the end of the day, even the best among us tend to look out for ourselves first and foremost, which is precisely as things ought to be.  This is the nature of life on planet earth and one either gets smart and acts the part, or is consumed by the manifold interests that conflict with his own.

Look at it as maintaining a balance between yourself and a potentially hostile world.  It is a necessary skill and habit for all who do not wish to be consumed in the frenzy of human activity, which cares no whit for any individual's welfare.  

Stand tall or risk being stricken.  The choice is yours.  It always has been.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Law of Human Inertia

Today we make it short and sweet.  I present you the Law of Human Inertia, the LoHI:

The Law of Human Inertia: 

Those habituated to freedom tend to fight to remain free. 

Those habituated to servitude tend to cleave to their chains and will often fight to preserve their status as serfs.

Those converted from one state to the other tend to cleave to the new state.

It is easier to incite a Freeman to slavery than a Weakman to freedom. 

I maintain that it is a prima facie obvious, valid, and truthful assertion that once a population passes a tipping point in terms of some sort of corruption, practically the entire population tilts toward it in time.  I further assert that the general condition of the global human population is now at or past that point. We are therefore faced with a choice regarding what sort of people we wish to be.

Time is here, and so until next time please accept my best wishes.

A New Political Concept?

Today I would like to introduce a (possibly?) new idea, or at the very least a new term, actually two.

I would like to introduce the idea of the unamended violation.  My intention here is that the term itself be considered as political or Law jargon with a very specific meaning as it applies to anyone elected, appointed, hired, or contracted to political office or political position of any sort whatsoever.  In other words, anyone who acts in the name of the so-called "state" is someone to whom this idea, its strictures, and its consequences would apply.

Most of us are perhaps familiar with the idea of the violation of a man's civil rights, a very broad term that could refer to anything from stealing a piece of chewing gum to kidnapping and the unjust taking of life.  This notion is important, yet it gets very little attention by media, in our schools, by parents with their children, and so on down the line of issues of immediate concern to people on a daily basis, regardless of whether they are consciously aware of it.

Federal Law addresses such violations and there have been many cases, for example, where state prosecutions of individuals for crimes such as murder have gone all wrong in the courtroom.  In cases of clear miscarriages of justice where acquittals should never have happened, federal prosecutors have charged the defendants with "violation of civil rights", a rather broad sounding charge with a catchall feel to it.  Ignoring the double-jeopardy issue, as well as that of the sanctity and authority of juries, the notion of the criminal nature of such violations is not completely foreign to many of us.

Where my idea may become somehow novel rests in part with the application, which in this case would be against any government instrument or agent who, in the course of his duties as such an instrument or agent, commits a violation of the rights of those to whom they have sworn oaths of good faith and competent service.  In such cases, the individual in question is offered the opportunity to personally make amends to their victims.  In the case of amendments made, the violation would be looked upon as amended insofar as Law and governance is concerned, meaning that the guilty party has made the good faith effort to right the wrongs he has admittedly committed in the name of the "state" against his fellows.  This may or may not mean that he is free and clear of other consequences such as loss of position or prison time, as well as others.  It does, however, serve as a mitigating factor in the final disposition of such cases, come sentencing.

The other side of that coin presents the unamended violation, where the guilty party is either unwilling or incapable of making restitution to his victims.  Unamended violations are ultimately serious in terms of their gravity, as well as the punishments that await those who either refuse to restore their victims or, due to the nature of the violations in question, are unable to.  An example of each may now be in order.

In the first case, the guilty party for whatever reasons, refuses to restore his victims to wholeness.  Such refusal may be taken as prima facie proof of the absence of repentance and of either malice aforethought or depraved indifference with respect to the losses and consequent sufferings of their victims.  There is, however, one fly in that ointment: unjust conviction.  In the case of one who has been falsely accused and convicted of such a violation, the question arises as to how one deals with the convict's refusal to make amends dictated by the court in a given case.  This is no small fly, either, and I am quick to admit that I have no quick answer to the problem, an issue for another day.

In the second case, let us say that the actions of the guilty party was to cause the loss of an eye or limb of the victim.  In this case, and as of this writing, there is no way to restore missing body parts of these sorts and so the offense cannot be amended as a matter of the nature of the injury.  In that case the violation is also unamended and at sentencing there would be premiums placed upon the punishment of the convict.  Murder would be another example, as would be the destruction of a loved and irreplaceable family heirloom.

In my opinion, holding this sword of Damocles over the heads of all government workers, up to and including the President would go a long way toward stemming the torrents of corruption and wrong doings, whether it be the skimming of public funds from some revenue pile, or killing an infant during execution of a no-knock warrant at the wrong address.

It is only when the cost of committing such violations far outstrips the benefits of commission, coupled with the promise and prospect of rock steady and consistent application of such standards of Law to government agents of all stripes, that corruption and other gross and intolerable wrong-doing by government officials, agents, and other related entities will begin to trail off with precipitous rapidity.

By the same token, anyone who falsely accuses such an individual of having committed a violation against the Public Trust will suffer trebly in the event he is discovered, charged, and convicted of having done so.  For example, Janey is angry that officer Jim issued her a parking ticket and decides to concoct a story that he pulled her over and raped her, an inordinately serious charge that, given Law in accord with the disposition of such cases would land Jim in a whole heap of very deep kimchee.  Proof of her lie and, given sufficient evidence to charge, Janey would be given the opportunity to recant her charge and publicly admit in bold neon that she'd lied and that officer Jim was a fine and upstanding man who never did anything to violate her inherent rights.  There might still be prison time for Janey, but the sentencing for this amended violation of officer Jim's rights would be peanuts when compared with that, had Janey refused to leave her violation unamended.

In the unamended case, had officer Jim been sentenced to a year in prison, Janey would have to serve three.

Finally we come to the notion of partial amendment, which could also be taken into account at sentencing.  Making amends to the degree possible, though incompletely satisfactory, might also serve to mitigate sentencing.

As a matter of procedure, the time for making amends would be prior to going to trial, which requires an admission of guilt with the promise that one will make suitable amends where possible.  If the defendant refuses the offer, upon conviction the violation is by nature unamended and sentencing is made pursuant to that condition.

If we, the people, do not fight for such restraints upon those who are supposed to serve us, but who rather presume to lord over us as masters, the abuses and hazards of tyranny will not only remain, but will continue to grow until such a pass is reached that neither will people such as myself be able to write about such concerns and issues, nor will people such as yourself be able to read or even speak about them. Given advances in technologies, the capabilities of which will only grow in time, one day you may not even be able to ponder them in the privacy of your own thoughts.

Think on this awhile; let it roll around in the back of your mind to digest.  The future to which you relegate not only yourself, but all your fellows including those whom you love dearly, hangs in the balance, contingent on our collective ability to force the hand of "government" such that effective measures for reining in the tyrants are made real, and are readily and handily applied by anyone against those who believe themselves to hold the authority to bring unjust harms to their fellows and to stand beyond unaccountability.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Nexus

By whatever dint of fate, the free people of America now stand at a nexus.  What we choose to do with the opportunity that stands before us will determine the quality and character of our lives for a very long time to come, possibly centuries.

An ugly truth about Americans is that we have erred gravely as Freemen almost since the first days of this republic.  While we started off well enough with our Articles of Confederation, those in whom our forbears placed their trust as "leaders" quickly saw the limitations the architecture specified therein placed upon them as the trusted governors of The People.  That realization brought forth the eventual contriving and adoption of the Constitution, a weakly and vaguely written architecture for an ostensibly free land.   Fit for saints only, the vagaries of that document coupled with the power to tax (the power to destroy) made all the easier the manifold corruptions that have landed us in our current circumstance in this, the early twenty-first century.  It shall not be my purpose here to argue the veracity and validity of my opinion on the matter of our Constitution, for it is irrelevant to the facts of our current circumstances that include but are not limited to rioting, out of control politicians and their agents, corrupted courts, and many millions of people whose sanity is unquestionably and dangerously unhinged.  Freemen and freedom itself stand in grave peril that becomes more immediate by the day.

In piecemeal fashion, the parade of tyrants have through the years and since the very earliest days of the republic steadily trimmed away the rightful prerogatives of free men to the point that they now stand in real and immediate peril of losing the few shreds of remnants of the rights born into every man in all corners of the earth.  Statutes prohibiting the manufacture, possession, use, and sale of illicit drugs is a prime example of the suppression of human rights by wildly ignorant, if presumably well-intending politicians.  Prohibitions on the right to keep and bear arms is perhaps the ultimate example of the violations against men by corrupt government.  Statutes against prostitution, "hate" speech, etc. have encroached upon the rightful prerogatives of all men as those corrupt politicians and their agents trespass upon those to whom they swore solemn oaths of good faith and service.

Police have gone from keepers of the peace, questionable enough a role itself, to enforcers of arbitrary, capricious, and utterly invalid statute, devoid of any authority whatsoever beyond that of armed men able and willing to bring to harm those who fail to comply.  Statute is the product of men corrupted beyond any forgiveness, deserving of our ire, correction, and indeed in many cases, our vengeance.  And yet, we the people have mostly kowtowed to the felonious edicts of men with no valid authority to issue such fiats.  This having been the case since the first days of this land as a nation, who is really to blame for the dolorous political conditions we now face?  Hint: it's not the politicians and their vile enforcers.  They get away only with that which we allow, and it is my assertion that it is high time that such allowance comes to an abrupt and permanent end with extreme prejudice and through acts of non-equivocation.

Through our willful ignorance, complacency, self-centeredness, narrow-mindedness, cowardice, and all the other manifold corruptions that lead men from the status of Freemen to that of Weakmen, we have allowed ourselves to be debased by the false authority of "government" and "state".  Those two entities do not even exist in and of themselves, save only as scripts, the roles to which most of us have been assigned do we play with full and willful compliance, regardless of how demeaning, impoverishing, and destructive to ourselves and our fellows.  

The march to abject chattel status has been long and steady, the average American taking it all in stride as if it were innocuous; unavoidable.  "You can't fight City Hall" has been the phony baloney excuse used by our corrupted selves in order to evade individual and collective responsibility for ourselves, as well as that to our fellows.  "City Hall" issues an edict and, almost regardless of how absurd and damaging to the lives of Freemen, the people heave a sigh of dissatisfaction and proceed to comply, unwilling to rock the boat for whatever ill-considered reason.

In the past two decades, since about the time of the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 11 September 2001, the bites taken from us by those in power have grown steadily in size from the nibbles originally dared by the tyrants of the late eighteenth-century, to the full blown assaults upon our liberties of more recent years.

The unexpected election of Donald Trump, however, put a twist in the fabric of American political life that I am not sure anyone would likely have predicted as probable.  I am inclined to suspect that the results we have seen over the past four years may be in some measure attributed to the Left (what some might call "Deep State") having overplayed certain hands in the aftermath of Trump's election, a result that has left them burning with the implacable fury of bitter envy.   Fueled by the inflammatory rhetoric of Democrats and the "leftys" for whom they are a front, and abetted by an apparently eagerly willing press, the useful idiots self-identifying as "left" went progressively further off the rails in their blind and knot-headed hatred for the president.  So wild has been that mindless loathing that when George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis Minnesota in the summer of 2020, the event became the cause célèbre of the frenzied zombies of the regressive left.  It became their pretext and excuse for the steady up-ramp of violence, destruction, and murder.  Since then there have been additional police shootings of black suspects, each adding fuel to the gaining fire that now threatens to consume the nation from sea to shining sea.

The events in question have occurred almost exclusively in places that one might conversationally call "left-", "blue-", or "Democrat-" dominated, the perpetrators of the innumerable crimes actually and openly aided and abetted by the governmental officials local to each area in which said crimes were being committed, en masse, whether through positive assistance, or negatively through the refusal to actively put an end to the criminal activities.  Predictably, the support has served to greatly embolden the rioters and looters to the point that they are now murdering innocent people in the apparent belief that they will get away with their felonies, which thus far they largely have.

All during this time, the rank and file American has bemoaned these admittedly terrible events, not only specifically, but in a more general sense in an outcry against the chaos and violence.  What most appear to have missed, however, is that because the governmental authorities local to the rioting and looting have willfully failed to discharge their duties to keep the peace, they have abdicated all authority.  Having stood down, authority has devolved once again into the hands of those to whom it ultimately belongs in any event: the people.  That would be you, me, and everyone we know.

Because "government" has failed so abominably, we the people are now presented with a once-in-centuries opportunity to snatch back our authority as individuals and communities; to rip away and deny the false authority of the "state" in favor of that which is ours; that which is true and actual authority of free men.

The implications of this opportunity are literally staggering, not only in the rights to be reasserted, but the corresponding responsibilities as well.

Men of Snohomish Washington recently took up arms in defense of their town against roving bands of looting rioters who thought they were going take their poor behavior into that town.  When they saw the armed defenders, they moved on.  No violence, no gunshots.  The men of Snohomish did what police could not or would not do.  They reclaimed their authority as free men to keep the peace in their town and this example should become the paragon for the behavior and comport of all Americans and their respective communities.

Time is here.  Time is here to take back that which has been stolen from us.  Time is here to ignore "government" and its agents, the police and sheriffs whose authority was never valid in the first place, but which they were able to assume because we allowed it. Time is here to realize that we do not need police or any other enforcers; that they are indeed great detriments to liberty.  We do not have to allow tyrants to continue.  We have the means to stop it in short order and by God we must not waste this opportunity to do so.  My great fear in all this is that things will settle one way or another and Americans will go right back to sleep, content to allow police to run amok as always they have, enforcing the invalid and injurious edicts of the governmental felons we put into office.

These events are proving that we do not need enforcers; that we the people are easily good enough to be trusted with those duties and that we are, in fact, far and away more worthy of the public trust than are any of those who have been so vested on a professional, full-time basis.

There is much more to the list of necessary changes that must occur if we are to properly and fully take advantage of this impossibly rare gift to reclaim our statuses as free men, but that is a discussion for another day, however soon to come.  For now, just let it sink into your awareness the realization that the troubles we see, while terrible on the one hand, offers us an opportunity to reassert ourselves as the masters over "government" that we will almost certainly not see again for at least ten generations to come, if even ever again it will present itself.

The rioters seem hell bent to spread their chaos to all corners of the land.  I would implore all men of good constitution and faith to stand tall, take up arms, and show not only yourselves and the rioters who is boss, but those in "government" as well, especially the enforcers.  Remove them as threats to our liberty and we will have taken a giant leap in the direction of better living.  Without the enforcers, the rest of the political elite have no means of making good on their felonious and tyrannical designs.

I daresay that we will never see this opportunity again in our lifetimes.  Please, I beg you all, do not allow it to slip through your fingers.  We can do this and I promise you that if we do it right, we will have no basis for even the least regret, for we will have rescued ourselves from what I deem the New Dark Age that is now upon us and have set ourselves upon a path toward lives of men who are free not only in principle, but in point of practical and positive fact.

May you all be blessed with the sense and desire to do the right thing.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.