The Truth About "Communism/Socialism"

On another forum, an individual was going on about so-called "anarcho-communism". I pointed out how the term was a maximal oxymoron, with the grand emphasis on "moron". He went on the cite the common etymological root between "communal" and "communism", an error so grave that I felt I must respond. The exchange, fruitless as it may have proven, got me to thinking that a restatement of the basic problem of political philosophies such as communism may be in order, if for no other reason than to offer yet another expression of the argument against such arrangements. And so here we find ourselves.

To put it very bluntly, communism is a game of felonies. 

Communism plays on all the worst that is in a human being, most specifically, FAIL (Fear, Avarice, Ignorance, and Lassitude).

In practical terms, communism is all about the individual riding the wave of graft and other crimes against his fellows. It is mob rule not unlike democracy in its ultimate practical results, but with differently colored grease paint on its face.

Even the dullards among us immediately recognize the opportunities for said graft that communism radiates outward in it messages of "equality".  Humans, beasts that they tend to be on the average and in so many respects, see only themselves and devote their efforts to conjuring the ways in which they will be able to live off the labors of others.  As sufficient numbers of such ways become apparent to them in mere seconds, they are immediately on board with the idea.  "Oh HELL YES!  I wanna be a communist!"  

We could speak for volumes on the ostensible reasons for the eager desire to embrace communism/socialism, but the underlying truth to which few will admit is simply that they expect to get something for nothing.  Working for a living is for the suckers.  Shoot, if a mob of men with swords is willing and able to force my neighbors to pay my rent, feed, clothe, and supply me all I desire in life, sign me the hell up!

Let us not be fooled by the disingenuous talk of altruism, a concept that makes my skin crawl for its falsity.  It's all lies, and even in the rare case where someone has managed to convince himself that his motives are altruistic, the blind ignorance of such belief constitutes a top-tier human obscenity.

Forget the fact that the would-be beneficiary of the great socialist utopia will almost certainly prove bitterly disappointed and left without recourse in his deep state of buyer's remorse.  That is the bitter harvest of the poisonous seed for which he exchanged his soul and that outcome has been demonstrated in literally every case where socialism has been tried.  The paltry numbers of those whose lives materially improved because they'd been the bottom of the socio-economic barrel don't count for anything. Even those poor slobs, rather than having experienced a net benefit, suffer gross net loss due to the loss of their freedoms, a condition about which they may or may not care, so long as their bellies have something in them, however stale or rancid.

Communism/socialism is a shell game that makes everyone below The Line more or less equally impoverished, diseased, wanting, and miserable.  The only real beneficiaries are those who live above The Line.  Here, by "The Line", I specifically refer to Themme (pronoun referring to those people who sit in seats of actual political power - the string-pullers).  Consider the Soviets - a cabal of stooges who, through outright lies and the point of the sword, lived like fat rats at the expense of their hunger-stricken and miserably impoverished proletariat fellows.  Did the rust factory worker have a dacha on the Black Sea?  No.  Generally speaking, the only people with such bourgeois luxuries were those in the inner circles of the Communist Party.  Add hypocrisy to their long list of crimes.

Communism != communal living. The two have nothing to do with each other because the latter is a descriptive term, whereas the former is proscriptive. The one is a simple observation of what is, the other a specification of what should be: positive v. normative. One sees what's happening, the other barks orders and edicts at you, backed by the false authority of the sword.

Can I make this any more clear?

Do not be taken in by the superficial similarities and the tacit assumption that appearances represent the deeper truths upon which they are painted. Nor should you make the grave error of trusting the competence of those peddling these slippery terms to the world. And finally, always remember and never forget that the intentions of those who peddle these pills of conceptual poison are utterly irrelevant. 

Far too many of us are in the habit of miring ourselves in the arguments of a criminal's intentions, as if ostensibly good ones would somehow excuse the felon's actions and the harms he has brought to others. Intentions count for absolutely nothing at all, especially in such cases. Result is the only thing that matters where such issues are concerned and the unamended violation of a man's rights is always an outcome of the criminal variety, by definition.

Language is a powerful tool, and as we can see, those of malicious intent or who are insufficient to their claim to authority use language to foul ends.  Equating "communism" with "communal living" is an example of folly that dives headfirst and without due circumspection into the deep waters of wild danger.

As I have written before and shall continue to repeat: language is the single most important skill you will ever learn in all your years in this life.  Nothing else even comes close to its import and effect on everything in this world.  And to make things even stickier, language is one of the most fiendishly devilish endeavors imaginable.  It is only through awareness of its significance and nature, coupled with an attitude of determination to become linguistically masterful and vigilant in our communications habits that we Freemen stand even the least chances against Theire hordes, for the misuse of language is far and away easier, cheaper, and more devastatingly effective than it's judicious application in our interpersonal transactions.  This is the somewhat sad truth of these things.  Just as the "negative" emotion of hatred is far more potents, pond for pound, than love, so it can be said of the misuse of words versus the proper.  We may call this the "entropy of language"

It make take years to erect a large office building, but it takes only seconds to bring it all down with properly applied pyrotechnics.  The explosive demolition of edifices is a prime and readily observable example of how entropy works in our daily lives.  The far less apparent, yet vastly more dangerous example is that of the destructive force of words chosen poorly, or very adroitly for effect.

If you do  yourself no other favor in your life, endeavor to develop strong linguistic expertise and the right habits, the latter being perhaps even more important.  If your skills, such as they may be, are not put to proper use through the adoption of razor-sharp habits of communication, then you may as well have no such skills.

Be well, be smart, be intolerant of the intolerable, and as always and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Living Amid Weakmen

In times prior, ignorance of political reality may have been excusable. Today, however, it is not for most people. The truth is out there, yet few seek it, proportionally speaking. My observation has been that when confronted with the truth about freedom, FAR too many recoil in horror, then proceed to clinch their eyes tightly shut, put their fingers in their ears, and screech "I can't hear you" in rapid repetition (sometimes after calling you "poopy face"), then run away as if to fend off the badness.

That, my friends and fellow Freemen, is WILLFUL ignorance, WILLFUL stupidity, and WILLFUL corruption of everything that might have once been decent about a human being, now long mummified, and there being no discernible hint of even the least interest in watering that dead vestige of their soul.

At some point the despicable behaviors and attitudes of the Weakman begin to have deleterious effects on their betters. There is a threshold beyond which there can be no recovery from the contamination of the good by the infected and the Freeman is faced with the choice to do nothing, perhaps out of a misplaced sense of live-and-let-live, or act to save himself from the Taint. This is the sad reality about humans - we are born magnificent creatures in our potential, but suffer the defects of our virtues, the worst of them being our eminent maleability, which today seems to lead to corruption at least as often as to anything better.

Most often, a child becomes that which he is taught. Teach the wrong things and a monster grows from the seed that was once an innocent infant. And our children have been taught the poison thoughts given them by men who have either no interest in their welfare, save that it servers their own interests, or out of a misbegotten sense of righteousness, likely the product of that which they had been taught.

Obedience blind and unquestioning. Collectivism. False authority masquerading as something valid. Relativism. The wildly wrong belief that rights are illusions and the individual must surrender himself to the "greater good" of the hive. Flight from pain. Fear of difficulty. Sex as mere entertainment. Life as non-sacred. These are but a small, yet very telling sampling of the evils that have been spoon-fed now to at least four generations in ever greater proportion, press of the boundaries, and stridence.

Americans represent a unique earthly population, having been given a portal to actual freedom (however imperfect) that no civilized population has ever before had the opportunity to enter. The Framers of the Republic left the door to freedom ajar with a tone that was almost a dare to their posterity to open and walk through. We came so close, but in the end proved ourselves, statistically speaking, as Weakmen - those hideous curs who may talk a big talk regarding liberty, but who in practice shun it with vigor and vehemence as they pull the classic Orwellian trick of calling freedom anything other than what it is, and their slavery "freedom".

Every known human corruption now enjoys primacy in the brave new world of early twenty-first century America. The endless and unbroken succession of tyrants has made certain that the once strong moral backbone of the mean American has been broken, working each successive generation ever more deeply into states of individual wretchedness, depravity, and other corruptions. The children are now taught the New Orthodoxy of the State in perfect Orwellian fashion. Words no longer mean what they mean. Responsibility is a thing of the past, save that you are a good little Weakman and toe the line of said degradations of humanity, in which case all your foibles of perversion and irresponsibility are hailed as grand virtues and rewarded just enough to keep you on the hook whose line drags you ever further along the path of self-destruction.

The young are now taught that the world owes them; that they are "special" and deserve everything they want in life, the subtext there by way of implication being that they should not have to work for any of it.

The result of all this brilliant training? A nearly perfected Weakman who blindly obeys the edict of false authority whose mind is systematically narrowed by the precise broadening of it to perversions of all sorts. These young people are fragile, brittle, narrow, grossly, shockingly, and appallingly dependent, unwilling to learn to do for themselves that they might actually become capable of independent thought and consequent action, all the while believing themselves to be enlightened beyond what for them is the endless stupidity of all generations that came before them.

The world of the Weakman is precisely 180º out of sync with nearly every one of the truths of cold, hard reality to such a degree that it is surprising that nobody has yet announced gravity itself to be a lie - a "social construct".

In large numbers, Weakmen are the most dangerous creatures on the planet, for given the right motivation, they will rise as one and smite anyone who is not of the body. Contrive the right narrative, and Theye can get the vast hordes of Weakmen to do absolutely any bidding they might deem desirable, up to and including committing acts of genocide. Such is the art and craft of Theire "public relations" machinery.

Reason, logic, generosity, truth, courage, and all the other virtues of the old world have been successfully removed and supplanted with the raving insanities of the "woke" generation, who are just this side of not being able to tie their own shoes without direction, no matter how many times the task has been repeated - not because they are constitutionally incapable of learning it, but because they see it all as unworthy of the effort. Hey, just look up "shoe tying" on one's cell phone and there it is.

Having acclimated entire generations to the vicissitudes of barking madness, Theye have finally discovered the keys to perfected tyranny. With patience and proper selection of paths moving forward, there is nothing Theye cannot make the critical mass of mindless humanity do.

Global hegemony counts on the utter diminution of the mean man to such appalling rates of discount because the basic animal that is a man is by his inborn nature wild, free, and abhorrent of the yoke. Leave a man to his own good disposition, and he will perforce grow from child to Freeman, ready and willing to destroy any and all comers who would dare seek his subjugation regardless of degree. And so it should be, save that Theye who presume themselves the overlords of all humanity cannot have such a circumstance, for the Freeman is strong, independent, and nearly impossible to force into the molds of serfdom that Theye have set in wait for him. Rather he would die fighting than live on bended knee before a despot.

And so the modern tyrants to whom I refer as "Themme" must have Weakmen as subjects; humans degraded perhaps beyond all redemption who will at the very least react in ultimately bland fashion to the outrages heaped upon them by those who presume. This explains with perfection everything to which we now bear witness, the whistling, rocketing madness to be found in every crack and crevice of our lives, oozing into the minds of those trained to remain unaware of what is being done to them such that there is no degradation or idiocy to which the mean man could be subjected that is not accepted at the very least with resignation and, preferably, eagerness.

We have entered the New Dark Age - that of the Weakman.

Today, if a man of good reason should express an opinion or even state a readily observable and confirmable fact that chaps the delicate sensibilities of a Weakman, there will be no sound, politely offered argument in rebuttal. Rather, there will be heard the shrieking and freaking of a terror- and/or hatred-stricken toddler, hurling every obscenity you know toward the utterer, often wishing cancer-laden fates to him and his children, or that they be kidnapped, raped, and murdered. This may sound outrageous and unlikely, but it occurs every day as the brittle generation finds itself ever less tolerant of anything with which they disagree, as they wail and rail and demand that everyone not just tolerate their views and actions, but accept, and kowtow to them in praise.

It will be interesting to see how humanity ends up if the creed of the Weakmen prevails. Who will produce the commodity goods? Robots? Perhaps, but what if that development fails to come to fruition? Will we have a situation similar to that found in the film "Idiocracy", or will Theye be able to maintain an inner cadre of adepts who will retain all the necessary knowledge and skills such that they will be able to properly instruct, direct, supervise, and manage the hordes of dull-witted sorts who shall by then make up the vast bulk of humanity and who have been trained perfectly to do as they are told, no matter how dangerous or demeaning to themselves?

Perhaps the much anticipated cull of several billions of humans will be brought to bear upon the global population, leaving behind a remnant Theye deem as suitable and sufficient for the continuation of the species who from there on shall live carefully guided lives, perhaps much along the lines of Huxley, what with his alphas, betas, and gammas.

Cringeworthy is it all, the prospects for the race of men at this time being ghastly on its best days. And yet it seems there is nothing to be done by men of better sense, as they appear to be vastly outnumbered by those willing to sell their souls in exchange for mere comforts and the illusions they seek as cornerstone truths of their lives.

Sit back, crack a beer, get out the popcorn, and watch as the circus continues on its merry way to the bottom.

To all those of you who are of a bent that aligns with that of the Freeman, please accept my best wishes, and may the day come when enough of us shall rise in rebellion against that which seeks to destroy all that is good in life.

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.