Kill The Tyrant

How do we effectively neuter the Tyrant without resorting to open war as the party to fire the first shot?

How do we reduce the Tyrant to irrelevancy?

In a word, we starve him out. 

It is quite that simple, if not quite that easy. 

To wit, we:

1. Pay him no heed or tribute, effectively ostracizing him by simply turning our backs to him
2. Resist him at every turn through non-compliance with his command; make him sweat and toil maximally for his every violation, giving no quarter such that his wretched existence becomes a misery of toil with every breath and twitch of his rotted mind.
3. Defy him openly, head high so he knows he is flouted, which tends to enrage him.  Feed that rage until either he quits in frustration, or looses his dogs.  Either way, he loses.
4. Show him naught but utter, cold, scientific indifference, for that is one of the greatest weapons one has over an enemy. In so doing, the Tyrant is diminished by his own hand, as we cause his sick mind to act against his own interests.  We become as a great black hole, giving him nothing whatsoever in return for his foot-stamping edicts and tantrums.  He destroys himself, the beauty in it being that it all transpires in his own mind, the bad place being the only one where such people ever go because it is the only place they can go.  That inevitability leads him to consume himself.

Make the Tyrant sweat blood for every trespass he commits against you and your fellows. Defend the rights of all men, even those who curse and disparage you. Always be the better man.  Always be better than the Tyrant and his rotten lackeys.

Make the price of playing his cheap game so high, the Tyrant comes to hate his days for the anguish of his interminable frustrations and outlays. Leave him unable to enjoy the ill-gotten fruits of his felonious labors.  Become obstreperous and intractable to all who forget themselves and so foolishly choose the path of the Despot and his oppressions.

Never forget that the Tyrant cannot succeed without the willing cooperation of those upon whom he directs his crimes. When enough of us stop obeying, turning our backs upon him and his petty tantrums, he will become an embarrassment to himself before the world, forcing him to that nexus where he must choose to step aside, tail tucked, or escalate to physical violence. Either way, we win. 

Either the Tyrant recedes into ignominy as he diminishes and disparages himself in the effective admission of his status as a self-mocking disgrace to Existence itself, or makes his ultimate error in escalating to open, physical violence. In the latter case, we then strike the life from the Felon and his lackeys, relegating them to the dustbin of history as just another coterie of anonymous scoundrels who met their condign ends at the hands of Freemen who would not be abused.

The only way we lose is by aiding and abetting the Tyrant's crimes against us, thereby defeating ourselves through our continued obedience.

That these artlessly ham-fisted examples of feckless humanity have succeeded so wildly, stands as glaring testament to what utter failures we have all of us been.  We should all burn with shame, that those boobs have managed such domnation over us, for without our effective cooperation, it never would have been possible.

All we see transpiring worldwide should give us cause to reflect and consider with great care that which we have become and to further consider and decide what it is that we wish to become, both individually (most important), and as societies.  Do you really want to be slave to a raft of petty, third-rate, vicious buffoons?  It is one thing to be subjugated by an indomitable adversary worthy of some respect for his capabilities, but to willingly place your head into the noose of an all-thumbs, blithering incompetent to your own destruction... that's just cause for endless, searing shame and embarrassment.

We should all endeavor to do better.  If we fail, Theye will have us for good before much longer.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

SCOTUS Offers Little Basis For Optimism In Second Amendment Case

I'm not seeing why anyone would be particularly impressed with the intermediate results in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case. Cautious optimism is about all I can muster, and only with supreme effort. I heard the oral arguments and can only say that I was singularly unimpressed with the performances of most of the justices. Roberts, for example, either fails to understand rights, the Constitution, or both. The Constitution does NOT "grant" rights, yet he asserted that it was so. The Constitution RECOGNIZES and PROTECTS them. Roberts showed himself insufficient to the task of hearing these arguments by that virtue alone, even if he appears to otherwise lean in favor of the 2A. I am tempted to put money on his not understanding that which constitutes (defines) a right, were I in a betting mood. Furthermore, I would almost bet money I do not have that Roberts, and perhaps several other members of the bench are unaware of the different sorts of rights that exist, much less that they would be able to describe them in a show of understanding.

Furthermore, the justices' tone bordered on the wishy-washy in several instances as they posed questions and responses to Underwood, counsel for the state of New York. I would have let her know in no uncertain terms that she was absolutely mistaken on her points of logic, which were embarrassingly failed. They did point out the failures, but I do not believe they did so with sufficient force, as they indulged in the brands of equivocation for which SCOTUS is so notorious.. Perhaps they feel clarity and sufficiency is not important. Regardless, where questions of fundamental rights are concerned, clarity, correctness, and completeness on one's knowledge, deliberations, and responses to flawed argument are absolutely paramount.

Another problem readily apparent is that the arguments made by plaintiff's counsel is based on a reliance on "text and tradition", which is a non-principled basis for justification of the right.  It is perhaps necessary to argue so weakly because the system only recognizes such things, but if this is the case, so much more damning is it of the train wreck that is American jurisprudence.

Rights are non-negotiable and may not be circumscribed in the ways that the Court has so erroneously asserted for many decades. Rights are absolute, but with those rights come the obligations of each man not to trespass upon the equally valid claims of his fellows. The assumption that rights may be regulated and through regulation, effectively attenuated is cancer to all freedom, immediately reducing a man to some degree of servitude, thereby rendering him as no longer properly free.

The correct view on this is as follows. Rights are absolute, PERIOD. So, too, are the obligations to bring no unjust harm to others. Therefore, exercise your rights as you may wish, bearing in mind that you will be held accountable for any unjust results of your choices. Carry your gun where, when, and how you deem fitting for yourself, but if your comportment brings another to unjust harm, be prepared to pay the price. The notion of prior restraint pursuant to the assumption that a right is not absolute and may therefore me circumscribed and thereby effectively circumvented for ostensibly noble reasons is yet another cancer upon free societies. It is a perfect case of ends justifying means, which is a principle that courts routinely reject with much hissing and stamping of feet for right and proper reasons. And yet, they hypocritically accept it in the cases of rights, doubtlessly because it suits the agenda of governmental power to do so. No doubt deciding that this case is one of those instances of "but this is different...", we get treated to the egregiously abusive vagaries of equivocation and the evasion of the most basic truths as embodied in the principles of human freedom and the rights that evolve therefrom. Such behavior is, at best, gross incompetence, but because they presume to wield the authority and men with guns will kill you if you protest too effectively, they get to dictate and we get to kowtow.

I will be glad if they strike down the NY permitting system, but feel inclined to bet money I don't have that they will leave doors wide open for disingenuous circumvention through the language of exceptions, much as Scalia did in Heller, which effectively nullified the decision in great measure.

There appears much left to be desired in this challenge to NY state's phony baloney restrictions on the sovereign rights of free men of that land. The fact that the justices are not quite right about rights and their nature leaves me with threadbare reasons for optimism here. I fully expect them to ruin this opportunity to make a clean, clear, and perfectly non-equivocating statement on the relevant issues by muddying the waters with the language of half-measures that will allow the corrupt governments of NYS to effectively continue as they have, at least in great majority, moving forward.

Lemons To Lemonade

Democrats have been pushing for a so-called "voting rights" bill, HR4.  Scanning the document, it is a nightmare of indirection such that anyone seeking the least hope of divining so much as a scrap of reliable meaning from it would have to engage in significant labor, going step-by-step, inserting and removing text from the extant statutes as the legislation proposes to amend.

I have discerned a few nuggets, none of them looking good for liberty, but cannot claim to have done so sufficiently to form an intelligent assessment of the bill.  Suffice to say that it is an act of Congress, which in itself should set anyone with an IQ into a state of deep suspicion and high alert.

My purpose here is to offer a raving mad idea about which to think in terms of possible future chicanery on the part of sitting Democrats and their political machinery.  I hope that by putting this idea out, perhaps it will aid in some small way to thwart any such notion on their parts, having been forestalled though exposure.  We must remain alert because where politics are concerned, nearly anything is possible.

Clearly, the Democrats are eager to see HR4 become statute, and though those prospects seem thin at this time, they have nothing to lose by maintaining the press.  It makes sense that the Democrats want this to happen prior to the 2022 midterm elections in order to stave off the loss of their current controlling majority in the House, and the possibility of losing their majority in the Senate.  Given the abominably low approval of the current president, not only are these outcomes a real possibility, at times they appear as likelihood.

Given these lemons, how might the Democrats attempt to make lemonade?  Glad you asked.

If we assume that the current president remains in office through 2024, loss of both houses may not be as disastrous as it seems at first blush.  It is doubtful they would lose by anything more than by a thin margin, which would allow the veto to hamstring Republicans at every turn.  Furthermore, given the turncoat character of far too many Republicans, there would remain some possibility that HR4 could pass during the second half if the current presidential term in any event.  But how to make it happen if you're in the minority in both houses?  How, indeed.

Were Democrats able to pass HR4 prior to the 2024 elections, they could possibly position themselves in a way we may have never before seen in American politics, effectively ending two-party rule.  Here, we are working on the reasonable assumption that HR4 is not what it appears and that it is in fact a means for affecting the theft of elections, moving forward.  Given the apparent chicanery of the 2020 election, a topic we shall ignore here, nothing should be dismissed as implausible.

Imagine the Democrats actually engaging in ballot stuffing/harvesting in order to rig the midterm results in favor of Republicans.  Seems utterly absurd, does it not?  And yet, were they to do so, they could themselves play the victims of evil Republican election fraud.  With a compliant and indeed eager media, nobody needs to guess how this would play out on the broadcast networks.  The barrage of accusations would be loud, massive, and unceasing.  Democrats would howl for a forensic investigation of polling data, etc.  Clear evidence of felonious tampering with the ballots would appear and the spotlight would immediately fall on the Republicans.  After all, why would the Democrats rig an election against themselves? 

Having been condemned by Democrats, tried by media, and a gullible and lazy public turning against them, Republicans would do what they do best: retreat like sissies into defensive positions.  They would turn out looking like stooges, cowards, and most importantly, GUILTY of massive election fraud.  In the wake of this, Democrats, once again greatly aided and abetted by media, would get on the campaign as to why HR4 must be passed and signed into effect immediately.  Think of the children!  I would bet that there would be just enough shivering and/or paid-for Republicans to get the job done, after which the enactment of the bill would allow Democrats to take the presidential election in 2024, establishing their positions of authority in such matters in teh context of the newly amended voting laws for decades to come, or longer.  Showing a landslide victory in the face of "public outrage" at Republicans, Democrats would then further capitalize on this turn of fortunes by citing it as a clear mandate by the American people for them do as they pleased.  

So positioned, Democrats would be able to hold on to carefully managed margins of victory - thin enough  to avoid suspicion by the average dullard - and keep the Republicans effectively shut out of power for a very long time.  All the while, media would be pounding home the "nothing to see here, move along" message, while simultaneously blowing every Republican's in-grown toenail as a looming, apocalyptic threat to our belovèd democracy.  The Republican party would be reduced to the status of window dressing for the purposes of maintaining the illusions of two-party rule, "democracy", and the ever devolving definition of "freedom".

Hopefully, such a grand conspiracy is not in the works, but given that this is big league politics, one should refrain from dismissing this seemingly wild possibility out of hand.  If you are inclined to do so, bear in mind that history has shown without equivocation that fortune favors the bold, and that the more wildly and ambitiously unlikely the plan, the less likely is the average man to believe it could ever happen.

Remain strong, God bless the good land of America, and until next time please accept my best wishes.

Superorganization Is A Trap That Cannot Be Avoided

Some while ago I opined the troubles with the notion of Lowest Denominators.  I also wrote briefly on the concept of Superorganization.  Today, I combine the two and reveal how these phenomena combine and conspire to create a trap that is likely impossible to escape, given our nature as humans.

In the first example, I pointed out that in the case of China, American manufacturers were presented with the choice of moving their operations to China's slave-labor economy, or be consumed by their competition.  I noted how sporting footwear, for example, saw top-end products fall precipitously in price, in many cases from several hundreds of dollars per pair, to under $100.  The near-zero labor costs drove this change and anyone who wished to remain in business, much less healthily so, was forced to go Chinese.  The short-term results were fabulous, while those of the longer term have proven far less appealing, especially since those manufacturers now find themselves in the bind of economic manacles.

In the second example, I noted the advantages of superorganization, where sufficiently large numbers of people cooperate with sufficiently adept management to accomplish what in many cases are truly monumental goals as a single organism, the Superorganism as I like to call them.  Corporations are prime examples of Superorganizations.  Could a single man have launched another into earth orbit?  No.

Armies may be the ultimate example of superorganization.

By now you may be putting two and two together, in case the deeper point still evades you, allow me to elucidate.

Superorganization tends to have large costs associated with it.  Running a mom and pop sandwich shop does not carry the same resource requirements as, say, operating a large standing army, or a government.  This in itself is not a particularly grave problem, save for the fact that the only way in which people have figured out how to finance such endeavors has been the forcible robbery of huge populations in the form of taxation.

The naive lover of freedom might render the knee-jerk response, saying "eliminate government!"  Would that it were so easily done.  The trap here is precisely the lowest denominator of establishing and creating a standing army.  Once nation A does so, nations B, C, D, etc. become faced with the choice of whether to follow suit.  If they don't, they stand the risk of being attacked and subdued by A.  That is a risk few in the modern world are willing to assume.  Therefore, they feel forced to establish and maintain armies of their own, which costs money and which in turn requires the further extorting of their populations for the funds to do so.

A great example of this came during the later nineteenth century as Great Britain foolishly undertool to build their first modern battleship, an economy-herniating endeavor whose net results were naught but trouble for everyone.  Once they built their first such vessel, which arguably loaned them some advantage over the other navies of the world, the Germans, Americans, Austro-Hungarians, Russians, French, Italians, Japanese , and perhaps a few others all threw in, wasting endless resources that, in my opinion, might have been devoted to more profitable endeavors.

Superorganizations are neither good nor bad in themselves.  When put to good purposes, they can accomplish magnificent things.  When otherwise put, we get "cultural" revolutions, replete with tens of millions of corpses.  Good or bad, in the context of an environment of hard adversarial competition such as that found between some nations, they become a trap away from which few see the possibility of a path that does not carry with it categorically unacceptable risks.  They now find themselves unable to extricate themselves from the life-destroying burdens of maintaining such organizations.

Take the Centers for Disease Control, for example.  As of recent times, their credibility has slipped precipitously in the wake of their blatant nonsense with regard to the so-called "pandemic" of the SARS Cov-2 virus.  My gut impulse is to call for their immediate dissolution, and all who can be proven to have knowingly peddled the lies tried, convicted, imprisoned, and in some cases executed for crimes against humanity, a charge that remains on the books.  But positive reality dictates I keep that notion in my pants, so to speak.  Why?  Because America's enemies, which include China among others, have created superorganizations such as the Wuhan bioweapons facility where bright but misguided people obediently continue exploring the possibilities of biological stoogery with viruses, bacteria, and other pathogenic agents.  Being our enemies, they cannot be trusted not to one day actively engage in operations that would see some terrible plague foisted upon the world.  In such an event, individuals sitting in their basements, hiding from the bugs with naught but hope and their prayers, seem unlikely candidates for coming up with cures against such assaults.

The only currently viable hope against such an attack would be our own superorganization with the resources to combat such an attack.  Yes, we could establish private organisms, and perhaps we have, but "government" being what it is, will not be likely to relinquish the sort of power represented by establishments such as CDC, FDA, and so forth.

While in principle it would be a simple matter to walk away from such foolishness, the chances of that actually happening in the face of the colluding counterincentives of fear and the determination to maintain power, rapidly and intimately approach zero.  The risks appear too great, and this is understandable.

This sort of circumstance applies to many cases, especially those where economic or political stakes are high and exist in adverse environments.  We trap ourselves such that extrication becomes nearly impossible and almost always entails risks worse than those perceived to be keeping us in.  How can one free himself from the burdens of structures that suck away his life so long as the threats they are intended to protect him from remain?  

Yup, a trap and we're all stuck in it because of our mutual suspicions, fears, greed, and other manifold and raving stupidities.

Verily do human beings tend to be their own worst enemies.

Be well, and until next time please accept our best wishes.

As The Official Covid Narrative Collapses...

Over the past week or so, I have noted that Theye are now engaging in what clearly appears as a damage control campaign, perhaps to forestall and mitigate the potential consequences to come in the wake of what currently appears to be the in-progress collapse of the official covid narrative.But what if there is something far more sinister at work here? How could it be more so than what we've enjoyed since 2019? 

 Glad you asked.

At the beginning of all of this I offered the obviously paranoid thought in other venues that this could all be a prelude to something far worse - that the objective of this covid deal is to fatigue the population to such a point that no longer do they trust an "official" word uttered, nor will they then obey orders. This appears to be coming to pass as I write these words, which I will address forthwith.

The fatigue bit is now long-established. People are just worn out by the endless bad news, the idiotic mandates, the fear mongering, the seemingly endless phalanx of new "variants", the guilt-shame campaigns and demonizing of those who are not quite buying the baloney, and so forth.  Entire populations are now openly protesting in Europe, Canada, and Australia, clearly fed-up to their eyeballs with the gross excesses of abuse and the threats now clearly presented to the people at large, not to mention to the young.

Scanning various outlets, the sentiments of this state of being fed-up can be well nutshelled by a single statement I saw posted just this morning which read, "I will never trust public health officials again", which brings me directly to the point I wish to make.

What if this fatigue was the precise strategy behind this two-year terror campaign against the unwashed human masses of the earth?  Imagine a deeper strategic objective being that once properly conditioned to ignore anything offocials might say regarding future outbreaks, the real pathogen is then released. As cases pop up initially, the relevant outlets issue their dire warnings, which are ignored by a distrusting populace.  This delay provides just enough obstruction of proper responses to result in a cull that provides Themme with the greatly reduced populations they seek, and a basis for saying "hey, it's not our fault, we warned you."

Some might think that this is too much fuss. Why not just let the fur fly, have your cull, and move on? Because there would presumably be a world left for moving on, and those people who survived but were not part of Theire cadre would become an immediate and dangerous threat to Theire continued existences. Theye cannot wipe us all out because they need us for the menial tasks, not to mention that they want people over whom to lord, which is perhaps the majority reason that Theye do what they do.

Therefore, wiping us out in toto would not only be undesirable, it would be potentially very dangerous for Themme. Theye need not just subjects over whom to rule, but also an ever-present potential threat to their position in order to maintain the necessary focus of purpose and cohesion, such that their hegemony may span endless generations into the blue future.  After all, our history is checkered with examples of how nations rise and fall, as well as the reasons for the cycles. I do not believe that Theye have not taken all that into study and ultimate account, now that global dominion stands within their reach.

And so Theye need a plausible explanation to the survivors that so ironically tells why Theye are not to blame for any of it and how Theye in fact endeavored so valiantly to save a reticent humanity from destruction and how so few heeded their instructions, etc. and so on ad nauseum. This serves the purposes of keeping Theire heads on their shoulders in the immediate timeframe, and to cement their positions as authority in the minds of the rabble for the long term, without notable challenge. The new mantra, tacit or expressed, might be something along the lines of "we've had quite enough of this dissent nonsense" or "we can no longer afford to have people going against our command - we see how it has resulted".

I am in no measure comforted by the apparent collapsing of the phony baloney covid narrative. I do in fact, find cause to be alarmed at it, given the possibility as I've outlined above. And for those who would dismiss this as yet another "conspiracy theory", I bid you take heed of the warning that no matter how unlikely it may seem, where politics are concerned there should be nothing placed outside the realm of plausibility, save that Theye have become decent human beings interested in your better interests.

These dangerous jackanapes have taken a huge risk in this latest and perhaps largest global perpetration. I do not for a moment believe that any of this has been done without some enormous payout in mind, the currency there always being power. One thing I can nearly guaRONtee is that this was not conducted for the sake of some token fortune of money, or similar. The stakes here are staggering, IMO, and since Theye have clearly failed in the endeavor at hand, it seems likely to me that the apparent end-goal was not the actual objective.

Bear further in mind that most likely nobody of import will be held accountable for the carnage. Talking heads, Anthony Fauci, a few administrators here and there are readily sacrificed to sate public outrage while Theye remain safe behind their anonymity. That, of course, means that they retain their powers and resources, which may be brought into play as deemed fitting. Therefore, the threat shall not have been removed in any sense whatsoever, save in the misled perceptions of the mean man, leaving humanity open for the next volley.

I will repeat what bears it: Theye are playing for keeps, and I hold no doubt that they would sacrifice billions of lives to gain that which they covet.

And just to keep you clear as to your place in all this, I offer George Carlin's quip:

"It's a great big club, and you ain't in it."

Neglect this at your peril, for if it comes all to naught, you've lost little in at least having given it due consideration.  But if it proves out, at least you may have some small opportunity to steel yourself against what is to come.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Freedom Begins With You

A good thing that has emerged during this time of festering tyranny is the awakening of growing numbers of people to the greater truths of freedom.  Hard times tend to make good men, but unlike in times past, we now have a global information network, the broader effects of which I suspect were something which Theye failed to take into account.  Of late Theye have been attempting to bring the public forum of information exchange under greater control through cancel culture and other measures.  The good news is that thus far Theye have been mostly failing, despite their ever more seemingly frantic efforts to silence dissent and defiance.

Opinions regarding the quality of humanity's future vary widely from the pollyanna to the apocalyptic.  Those on the more naively optimistic end speak often of their faith that liberty and good shall ultimately triumph.  I share the hope of it, but insofar as the faith bit...

I have no such faith, nor do I need it. 

All I require is my drive to defy Themme in all the ways I am able, which I do daily. I publish, opinionize, analyze, speak out against tyranny; I disseminate everything for which Theye hold dread apprehension at the possibility of those things taking hold in the minds of the vulgar masses, and for which they would see me and other clarions brought to silence.  I exercise my rights with conviction and frequency, doing so blatantly that all may see, regardless whether they understand or agree.

The ultimate outcome doesn't matter so much to me, as does the act of defying the evil that gallops roughshod and so freely across the planet.  I remain intolerant of the intolerable, the tautology being sufficient justification in itself for all I do pursuant the goal of thwarting Themme at every available turn.

I'm slowly getting old and will be short of this world soon enough. But so long as I remain, I will rise to face the tyrant and command him to beg off. 

The Tyrant cannot buy me, nor can he intimidate me.  He can only bring me to physical ruin via the violence he brings, which is perforce a temporary condition, thereby annulling its power over me. By these virtues am I more powerful than Themme, despite all their money, armies, economic might, and the deeply neurotic avarice that seems to drive every action they take. Theye pale weakly compared with myself and all like me whose hearts are true to what is right and good between men. 

Removing oneself from concern for the ultimate result of his endeavors leads him to a mental state which Theye fear, for such men cannot be overcome by any means. This is the warrior mind, and it is the direct path to freedom. 

I am, by virtue of my choices, invincible and free.  By the same means have all the great and defiant men acquitted themselves most nobly.  By the same means do people defeat themselves and relegate themselves to servitude as slave to others.  These choices are always ours to make, this way or that.

Anyone is capable of deciding for themselves to be free.  That means you.  All it takes is the determination to be indomitable, and an understanding of what it means to become so.  One key is to become unconcerned with victory or defeat, and to press on regardless of the perceived prospects.

Think on these words as to what you might aspire - invincible, indomitable, unconquerable, unbeatable, unassailable, invulnerable, impregnable, staunch, ruthless, indefatigable, intransigent,  uncompromising, inflexible, unbending, resolute, obdurate, unwavering, unyielding, unshakeable, insurmountable, unpersuadable, unaccommodating, uncooperative, stubborn, obstinate, single-minded, iron-willed, diehard, unrelenting, immutable, immovable, firm, steadfast, inveterate, adamant, determined, tenacious.

Unlike the qualities that are celebrated and ever increasingly demanded by lesser men, and which are indeed hallmarks of the Weakman, the Freeman exalts in the power of resting beyond the reach of the cancerous values that his inferiors hold so dear, and which they would force upon him, were they able.

Know that there resides within yourself great power such that the Tyrant cannot overcome you, if you choose to assert it with unbending intent.  It is a simple thing to choose, but that does not mean it is easy.  Courage is a cornerstone, and it is not a characteristic that one either has, or doesn't.  It cannot be bought or otherwise obtained, but is given rise as the result of individual choice.  The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand precisely because it is a choice that one makes, rather than being a goal to be chased.  One need only choose it, and it shall be.  Mind is the only obstacle standing between you and true freedom.  

Courage and understanding are the ways of the Freeman.  Choose one, gain the other, and be true to both.  

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

The Seemingly Absurd Common Response To The Ridiculous Pandemic Narrative

Today I am noting large numbers of people who wonder why so many others have bought into the transparently absurd narrative of this so-called "pandemic" of the SARS Cov-2 virus. I believe there is a very good and clear cause underpinning it.

The bottom line insofar as the reasons for participation in such absurdities is comfort. All people chase comfort, there being no exceptions. Comfort may be manifested in the particulars differently between individuals, at times widely so. But at the bottom of it all lies a state of being to which people strongly wish to attach themselves, which we may call "comfort". The alcoholic finds comfort in his bottles, the heroin addict in being dissociated from gruesome reality. There's the CEO who, having to navigate the stresses of responsibility for so many lives, escapes on Saturday nights when he gives himself over to the girl with the whip and rubber clothing.

There is not a single human being on this planet who does not chase comfort in some form. It is part and parcel of what we are as living beings. When the stresses of life overwhelm, people will accept almost any proposition that promises to relieve their individual burdens, which is the comfort they seek. And so here we are, two years into raving, transparent lunacy with people having been stupefyingly compliant to the most obviously idiotic governmental edicts, ostensibly aimed at protecting the "public health".

Perhaps the decades of ever mounting stresses of daily living turned out as the glad happenstance for the political class in that those conditions gradually reduced the general population to such a state of mental degradation that they became susceptible to tipping point conditions. The added element of an intentionally released pathogen was all that would be needed to induce such dread that the people would become readily pliable in terms of their will to obey any order issued, no matter how transparently senseless. Then again, in hindsight it seems even possible that these life-wracking stresses may not have been coincidence at all - who can say for certain? Regardless of intentions, once the tipping point is reached, a carrot can be presented - promising relief from those negative conditions in the form of a single, simple and common goal, which would constitute the comfort element to which people would naturally and eagerly flock. Even if all circumstances were "innocent", the astute political opportunist will quickly see the possibilities therein and adapt himself to take the fullest advantage of a chance to further cultivate his position and power. He detects the weakness of the people and employs their mounting desire for comfort against them.

Having been driven in many cases to near frenzy, the comforting elements are introduced in the most simplistic terms. Wear this mask; keep that distance; take this drug; have that booster. Do as you are told and all will be well. The great leaders, the experts, tell you what to do, absolving you of all responsibility to think for yourself and, perhaps most importantly, relieving you of the stresses of uncertainty... Only, it is all lies. But what does that matter when you have been offered the option of believing that which leads you to relative ease? Most people are going to grab it and hold on like grim death. And so we see it coming to pass daily before our eyes.

We see the tangent symptoms of this everywhere now, what with the deepening divisions that are developing between those who, for example, take the so-called "vaccines" and those who decline them. The propagandizing of "government", aided and abetted by the large broadcast news outlets is leading to ever intensifying hostilities of one group against another, leading huge subpopulations not only to come to agreement with "state" proposals to force the administration of unwanted drugs upon the rest, but to an ever growing demand by some that it be made so.

If this doesn't reek and smack of a Hegelian dialectic, what does?

The clever charlatan always plays on people's hunt for comfort. Hit the right nerve and success is all but guaranteed. That is how predictable the human animal is in such respects. Find their heart's desire, hold it out to them, and they will murder their own children for the sake of attaining it while offering all righteous rationalizations for having done so.

Beware of your own desires, the weaknesses to which they can give rise, and always be alert to the ways in which others might try to turn them against you.

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

People Of Color

The muck-rakers of the so-called "left "† are endlessly clever in contriving and using weaponized linguistic terms.   I have found it quite interesting to observe how they make up expressions, the intentions and objectives of which are to stir the emotions in the most negative ways, due in large part to the deeply negative connotations such terms carry (often tacitly), place them "out there" through various channels, and how such terms seem to so readily take root in the minds a great many people without having to bear so much as the least burden of scrutiny.

Terms such as "racism", "homophobia", "misogynist", "patriarchy", etc., are all good examples of how new terms were yanked from thin air, and old ones redefined through misapplication and consequent misuse.  The fact that these terms have so broadly succeeded in their goals as altering factors in the ways that people perceive and respond to specific conditions in the social aether is something at which one ought truly marvel, and be appalled.  The fact that human beings are so easily lead by their noses, in the relevant case here to their own effective destruction, should leave the hairs on us all reaching for the stars. 

Idioms of more recent vintages ("safe space", "gender fluid", etc.) connote notions deserving of naught but our backs, and yet have managed to stick.  This may testify to the innate corruptibility of the human animal, but it may also speak to the raw power of broadcast media, and perhaps a combination of the two.

But today's objective is to focus on a single term and the notion it conveys: "people of color".  

For many decades the terms issuing from the left have all carried the taint of bitterness, hatred, confrontation, envy, and a whole list of other negative connotations, one of the most useful among them being "victimhood".  "People of color" are, more than anything else, offered up in the perceiving mind as victims.  This is all very tacit, of course, but nonetheless set forth with great pressure.  People of color are victims first and foremost.  Somewhat paradoxically, they are also offered up as being so wonderful; as better than white people.  They are, in fact, the superior people who at the same time are victims of the white, which is tacitly implied with equal force to be not of color.  This is ironic when one realizes from a strictly scientific perspective that "white" is the presence of all color.  "White" people are the most colored of all humans, the "black" being absent of all color.  This alone should lend one a very strong hint at the patently ridiculous nature of the expression.  

But if we're going to play that tainted game, the results of which are naught but to cause ever deeper harm to human relations, then white people hold more claim to "people of color" than any other group.  

Naturally, that tidbit of truth is of no interest to the Weakman who, for whatever reason, has vested himself in the leftist world view.  For him, his truth is the only truth in spite of the utter absence of its demonstration.  Similarly, the views of all others are to him invalid and false, regardless of how perfectly proven.

Whether it was intended, and the likelihood is that it was, people of color have vested themselves in the negative, while at the same time voicing the more positive virtues of "love", "equality", "justice", and so forth.  When observing the average "man of color" in action, it becomes clear that their walk does not accord with their talk.  They make clear that their individual understandings of the various idealized terms that they so casually spew into the aether are either catastrophically lacking, or they intentionally misuse them pursuant to some unpublished agenda.

So-called "people of color" are not the only guilty/duped parties in all this.  There exists a large and vital contingent of lefties of the "white" vintage who actively aid, abet, and endeavor to foster the dangerous follies that these broken expressions are intended to work toward.  They do so in large part by their endless virtue-signaling, the subtext to it all being the wholly ego-absorbed message of "everybody look at me... I'm so special and evolved.  I'm so selfless... so much better than everyone else", the great irony there being that all this carrying on about themselves is the very antithesis of selflessness.  A more self-absorbed personality one would be hard pressed to identify.

The white regressive goes to extraordinary pains to gain the acceptance of his non-white compatriots, to the point of embarrassment.  And yet, when the thinking man stops to carefully consider the spew that issues from such people, we find that their words are rotten with implied racial bias and hatred, leaving one to wonder whether the white regressive is even aware of the truer nature of the things he utters.

For example, they go on endlessly about how the poor "man of color" suffers under the tyranny of systemic white racism (subtext there is that only white people can be racist).  Their argument extends from there to imply ever so tacitly that without the aid of the white man, those of color will continue to suffer economic and social failure.  The assumption that "people of color" are nearly universally failed seems a bit of a stretch.  That "people of color" are incapable of rising above squalor without the kind and able ministrations of whitey is about as disparaging an assumption as one can make.  It reflects the true inner state of the regressive mindset of those who identify as "left".  They rant endlessly that people of color are equal, yet their demands suggest nothing other than that they see such people are inferior, the only path to equal outcomes being accessible only through the white man's hand.  If we go with the assumption of equal potential, then the white regressive suite of views and the attendant demands become absurd on their faces, to the point of blatant idiocy.  Nobody who accepts that we as individual human beings hold broadly similar capacities for attaining prosperity can take seriously the thinly veiled racial bias of the regressive leftist, whose deeds contravene their claimed ideals and assumptions.  Their behavior represents the pinnacle of disingenuous hypocrisy, and a strong will to stupidity and outright evil.

"People of color" serves only to divide us.  There are evil whites over here, and over there are their victims, the poor, hapless, feckless, abused, and helpless people of color.  Oh, the humanity!  Once again we see just how nakedly ridiculous this all proves when one steps away from the emotional manipulation and examines the deeper implications.  That is the fly in the leftist ointment where this linguistic tactic is concerned: the moment a man decides to place all these slogans and other expressions under even the least scrutiny, the duplicitous nature becomes clear.  The man will right away become more curious and endeavor to dig more deeply.  Once that path is undertaken, there is no going back, and that is why the peddlers of leftist imbecility endeavor with such vigor to keep their people ginned up with raw emotions, that they have no time to relax, which might lead them to reflect.  Thinking is the one thing the Tyrant cannot tolerate in his useful idiots.  They must be constantly diverted from deeper thought by keeping their emotions wound up like watch springs about to come apart.

There is no aspect of the expression "people of color" that carries the least virtue.  It is a contrivance of pure evil, intended to destroy human relations such that they are reduced to a most rudely confrontational nature.  After all, were we to come together in natural friendship, the so-called "left" would have absolutely nothing left to peddle.  Their entire house is built upon the foundation of hate-ridden bitterness, envy, and confrontation.  They rarely, if ever, speak in positive terms, save their fog-bound references to the usual terms such as love, etc., but which never see any practical traction.  In practice, it is always the negative emotions based in hatred and fear that come to the measurable fore.  Lefties never swarm the streets to hug people, shake their hands, or share kind sentiments.  On the mean, those of the left, always move to hurt and destroy in fits of anger- and terror-ridden venting.  They are precisely those things against which they expend so much time and energy expelling their venom in projection. 

Its glaring absurdity notwithstanding, "people of color" has proven very effective in helping realize the intermediate goals of the left.  Today we stand more divided than perhaps at any other time in recent human history, demonstrating just how irrelevant logic, reason, truth, and honor really are to the average man.  Johnny Q. Public wants what he wants and does not much care how he comes to attain it, so long as he is not required to work, or think, and preferably with an appearance of propriety.  Given that, it is little wonder that he is so readily duped with the emotionally charged manipulations that are epitomized by expressions like "people of color", if they help him get what he wants...

The material solutions to this trouble are clear and quite simple.  However, the greatest problem of all is that of mind and the will to do what is needed to overcome the chicanery of those who intend to rule the world as a single despotic entity.  Unless enough of us choose the correct attitude, we are as good as lost.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes. 

† A common euphemism for "socialist", "communist", "progressive", "regressive", all of which are interchangeable terms for the same thing: forced authoritarian collectivist despotism.

More FAIL in the Rittenhouse Trial

It was pleasingly entertaining to watch judge Bruce Schroeder excoriate the prosecutor in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.  To witness a judge properly calling the prosecutor on the carpet for their misconduct before a jury seems the rarity these days.

That aside, one video clip shows prosecutor Binger asking Rittenhouse whether the defendant believed that terminal force in the defense of property was justified, asking the same question over and over several times with different examples of property in each separate case.  The tacit assumption underlying each of these questions, of course, was that it was not.  For example, and to wit:

"Is it justified to use deadly force to stop someone from lighting a dumpster fire?"

"No."

"Is it justified to use deadly force to stop someone from lighting an empty automobile on fire?"

"No."

And so it went for several more iterations.

There are at least three serious errors in all of this.  

Firstly, the prosecution should never have asked such questions, most especially given the tone that clearly  connoted with dishonest tacitness that it was never justified to use deadly force to defend "property".  I noted that Binger neglected to ask Rittenhouse whether it was ever OK to use deadly force to stop someone from setting fire to an empty house, or perhaps more illustratively, a large office building.

It is clear that there are cases where the use of deadly force is well justified in defense of inanimate property.  Would police just stand idly by as the city's fire-bug-du-jour lit ablaze an empty Empire State Building?  These days, who can say for certain, but there was at least a time not very long ago when police could be expected shoot a man stone dead in their tracks, were it clear to them that the suspect were about to set even a small house ablaze, were there no reasonable opportunity to stop them by non-terminal means.

It is also clear that killing someone in defense of a piece of chewing gun from being taken without permission may not be justifiable, making special note of "may".  I will avoid the overly strict philosophical discussion for the sake of mercy on readers.

These two extreme examples illustrate with good force and clarity that terminal defense of some property is in fact justifiable, while that of others might not be.  This perforce implies a border of some sort between the cases of acts justified and those that are not.  It is also intuitively clear that this border is no bright line in the sand, but rather a hazily-defined grey area where justifiability turns very much on context, this being a very critically important element of the issue.  Context is often king.  What is just in one context may not be in another.  This fact is also completely ignored by the prosecution, further bolstering my assertion of incompetence, vicious corruption, or possibly both.

It is also clear that defense of life and limb is also that of property, and is eminently justifiable at the lethal extreme.  As to the specificity of "limb", it cannot be credibly argued that one's arm, for example, is not their property.  The arm of a living being is integral to its living self.  It therefore follows perforce that such a limb is in fact the property of the being to which it is so intimately, naturally, and properly connected.

Would this prosecutor, or anyone else for that matter, assert that one may not use deadly force to prevent some third party from causing its destruction, removal, or other uninvited injury, regardless of how trivial it has been assumed to be?  Would they assert that one is obliged to allow another human being to so much as touch them, uninvited?  That is the direct and unavoidable implication of any claim that one is not justly entitled to employ deadly force in defense of limb, as well as of life itself, for defense of limb may very well prove itself to be defense of one's very life in certain cases.

If, for example, a stranger makes it clear that they intend on using the hatchet in their hand to remove your arm, but nothing more, the threat to limb nonetheless constitutes a reasonable threat to life.  Therefore, the use of lethal force in defense of limb is absolutely justifiable there.

It is further made clear in these simple examples that either prosecutor Binger is incompetent beyond all forgiveness, or he is dishonestly employing the tactical use of tacit partial-truths and outright lies to sway the jury's emotions pursuant to prosecutorial victory; truth, logic, facts, and justice be damned.

Secondly, the implicit assumption that "property" and "life" are separate issues was not, to my knowledge, established.  I've seen no hint of a reference to the prosecution's use of expert testimony to establish the veracity of the idea that one's life is not property, which I must assume should be a critical element of the fact patterns as part of the very basis of the prosecution's case.  And yet, Binger implicitly (and possibly explicitly in other instances of which I am not aware) asserts as fact that property and life are separate things, with the clear intention of disparaging any lethal act in defense of the former.  This strongly appears to be a desperation stab at trapping Rittenhouse into admitting that he believed that it is justifiable to take lethal action in defense of "mere" property, vis-à-vis infinitely precious life.  Binger's drama-queen act aside, his brand of lie is most dangerous not just to Kyle Rittenhouse, but to every soul living under the umbrella (some might say "pall") of American jurisprudence.  To allow this tacit assumption to stand on its own, and in this manner, is to place every decent man in America behind the cross-hairs of any and potentially every fool prosecutor seeking another notch in his quest for professional and perhaps even social advancement at the cost of the destruction of innocent lives, the preciousness and sanctity of which they otherwise sing praises like canaries on cocaine.

Perhaps this point is too subtle for some, but I would nevertheless ask where was the judge in all of that?  I like this judge, and I understand that being human he cannot be expected to see in real time that which I have the luxury of careful contemplation at whatever pace I may require to get things right.  But it stands nonetheless that allowing such poisoned barbs to pass unchallenged poses potentially serious threats to all, downrange.  Seeing only snippets, I cannot say that the judge missed this point, but neither do I know that he didn't.

One's life is in fact his "First Property".  In my opinion, both the judge and the defense should have called out the prosecution on this absurd, irrelevant, and dangerous line of questioning, if indeed they failed to do so.  I cannot tell because all I saw was an edited clip that did not provide all the details.  I nonetheless make this an issue precisely because it is so centrally important to the fabric of proper human relations, and if I do so redundantly, I say better that than to allow it to slip by, unnoticed and unchallenged.

Thirdly, Rittenhouse's responses of "no" to each query may not have been the correct ones to give, though I cannot assert this for certain in terms of the practicalities of testimony before a clearly and extremely hostile prosecutor who makes no secret of his attitude toward the truth v. winning.   I am, after all, not a lawyer.

In the luxury of my unthreatened liberty, I feel that Rittenhouse's responses of "no" to each of the prosecutor's queries about whether lethal force is justified, loaned validity to the grossly incorrect assumption that property is not justifiably defended with such non equivocation.  We have made it clear that in some cases it most certainly justified in using lethal force to defend property.

It may be that the philosophically more pure responses to the prosecutor's inappropriate questions might open the door to opportunities that one does not want to give his accuser, who is clearly on a fishing expedition in the desperate hope of hooking something, anything, that might save his clearly failing case.  I can see how defense counsel may have instructed Rittenhouse to respond to any such question with "no", keeping things as simple as possible.  But I also see a potential hazard there in that a jury may ask that if it is admittedly not justifiable to use lethal for in defense of property, why then was Rittenhouse entered into the fray with a rifle?  Was it not to defend property of others in Kenosha?  Was it only to defend the lives of people?

Perhaps these points have all been made clear - I do not as yet know.  But these are some of the pitfalls of allowing such issues to remain either unestablished with no clear answers, or even just partially so.  As long as any elements of such issues remain unanswered, the danger always lurks that people will fill in the blanks on their own with potentially disastrous outcomes.  Not everyone is competent to settle such issues on their own and without help and some direction.  Great injustice can be served most unintentionally.

Regardless of how this trial ultimately resolves, the questions raised here remain of central importance to the proper liberties of Freemen.  These questions should be asked and answered properly by the courts such that precedent is clearly set, that no prosecutor in the land is thenceforth able to claim ignorance when they improperly bring severe charges against someone on this basis.  Judges should be dismissing such cases with prejudice and should be holding in a cell without bail any prosecutor who would dare engage in such professional misconduct, pending the appropriate charges and trial.

These seemingly subtle and at times even trivial points of philosophy should never be improperly weighed as for their significance, especially in a land where the institutions of jurisprudence are as terribly broken as they are here in America such that absurdity tends to rule, leaving little to no room for actual justice.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Illogic Of Grosskreutz's Self-Disproven Claim Of Surrendering

The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people during rioting in Wisconsin in 2020, killing two, has been a disaster for the prosecution since day one.  What I am assuming had to be their star witness, Gaige Grosskreutz, effectively sent the prosecution's case to the bottom for brunch with Davey Jones.

Though now a moot point, given he was forced by defense counsel to admit he gave false testimony, it nonetheless pays to consider Grosskreutz's self-discredited central claim that he was shot while surrendering.

Grosskreutz initially claimed to have been raising his hands in surrender, his pistol admittedly still in his grasp. Let us examine that for sense, looking to the hypothetical case where the claim was not a lie. Would Rittenhouse have been wrong to shoot?

If one is surrendering, they do not have a weapon in their hands. So long as they remain armed, they are not in fact surrendering, but must be taken to be lying. Criminals, for example, lie all the time - it is one of their stocks in trade. When in a circumstance of effective warfare, a defender cannot afford the luxury of assuming that an armed opponent poses anything but a clear and present danger to life and limb, no matter the opponent's protests of "I surrender". Grosskreutz was armed, was not to my knowledge issuing a verbal surrender message, and claimed to have been raising his arms. This does not in any reasonable way convey surrender to outside parties.

The most basic midbrain sense tells us that when surrendering, one relinquishes all visible control of weaponry; that you will not so much as appear as a threat. If you do not wish to be targeted as an imminent danger to others, you empty your hands prior to making any other bodily gestures and hope for as much distance between yourself and anything that might be viewed as a weapon, as possible. It requires no feat of intellect to figure this out, first time, in situo.

Some will argue that if someone is sufficiently frightened or nervous, they might not come to that sense immediately. Let us assume it is so, doubtful as it may seem to anyone with a lick of sense. In that case, you have no business being in the situation in which you have voluntarily inserted yourself. I am confident in my assumption that nobody forced Grosskreutz to enter a riot zone, armed with a handgun, and to join in the felonious acts of his compatriot rioters. It also appears that nobody forced Grosskreutz to discharge his weapon in the midst of an active and ongoing riot, with no clear (or even claimed) defensive purpose. Grosskreutz's discharging of his weapon could not have been reasonably taken by Rittenhouse as anything less or other than an immediate threat to his own life, given that Rittenhouse was being actively hunted by several armed assailants across lines of battle that at that time were very clearly defined.

We therefore see with good reason that Grosskreutz was there in concert with the rest of the rioters, was armed with a handgun, and was at least willing to cause unjust harm to innocents. This much cannot be denied with any credibility.

We also see that if you voluntarily place yourself in such a situation, minus the wherewithal to handle adverse contingencies which arise, that you make yourself the victim of your own incapacity when things go awry. If you are thereby killed or maimed, the results can, at most, be chalked up to a tragic confluence of unfortunate choices. In the kindest case, Darwin will have harvested your deficient self and there is nobody to blame but sad circumstance. More likely, however, full onus rests with you for having made so poor a series of choices in the context of your inadequate nerves, and that you thereby effectively ended up committing suicide by stupidity, or being maimed by equal virtue.

That Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz was fully justified even if what the latter testified had been the truth. Raising your arms in surrender with a gun in your hand is tantamount to begging to be treated as a clear and present threat, the logical result belonging to the fool and nobody else.

There are those, apparently mostly of a "left" bent so to speak, who either cannot or will not see things from the standpoint of someone defending their life from imminent apparent destruction. I have observed that such people generally look at such situations only from the standpoint of the one they view as being the victim, in this case Grosskreutz. "He was surrendering!" will be their emotionally charged justification for improperly seeing Kyle Rittenhouse sent to prison. What they fail to acknowledge is a young man's position as being hunted down by a mob of wild rioters.  

Even if Grosskreutz was truthful in his initial claims, put yourself in the place of Rittenhouse, standing before someone who had been chasing him with a handgun, had discharged that handgun without just cause, and was now raising that weapon in concert with utterances of "I surrender" (the latter of which was not the case, but I am purposely trying to make the best case in Grosskreutz's favor). Which gesture is one to heed, the spoken word whose veracity cannot be verified in the tiny split of a second required to make a decision, or the act of raising a hand with a gun in it?  There is no question as to the correct answer here, which is the latter.  

It may be seen as an unfortunate feature of being human, that we are not capable of discerning intent in the ways that some people assume. In this case, those who think Rittenhouse should not have shot Grosskreutz are sadly mistaken and their goodly intentions toward him and their tilted ideas of justice hold no validity in the matter. Even if we assume surrender, Grosskreutz's actions would utterly belie that intention, indicating very much its opposite and thereby presenting Rittenhouse with the reasonably perceived and very immediate choice of shoot or stand idly to be shot, maimed, and likely killed.

That is the best case in favor of Grosskreutz and it fails with stern misery to bolster the prosecution's proceeding. It does, in fact, demolish it in utter totality.

There is a lesson in all of this, and it is an old one: if you do not want to become a victim of warfare, the first thing you decide is not to go willingly into the fray. It is no great stretch to assume that Grosskreutz holds sufficient intellect (it doesn't require much) to come to the reasonable presumption that there would be lively action that night. Taking a sidearm would seem to suggest his recognition of that fact. He willfully placed himself in a position from which he could have removed himself at any moment by simply walking away. He chose to do otherwise and then engaged in positive acts against another human being for which he was rightly taken to task. There is no possible argument, short of proof of brain lesions to the point, that could in any way excuse his behavior, and even then his having been shot by Rittenhouse could at most be chalked up as a sad tragedy.

Let Rittenhouse be acquitted, come what may. Let the truth, particularly as here exposed for all to see, serve as an object lesson to those whose stunted views on such matters stand in dire need of correction. If one does not wish to be injured, then threaten no injury. Better yet, remove yourself from dangerous situations. Stay home; have a beer; read a book; chase your girlfriend around the kitchen table. Do anything, but do not join a rioting mob because that is asking for trouble that nobody needs and nobody in their right mind wants.

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

Endlessly Minute Divisions Of Matter

Way back in the Stone Age called "the '70s", one of my engineering professors took some time to cover a topic that would today fall under what we call "nanotech". This was a few years before William Gibson wrote Neuromancer. It was the offshoot of a safety discussion where we were warned of the potential dangers of tiny particles floating about in the local air and getting into lungs and other mucous membranes of the body. As engineers, we would likely have to deal with such matters with ever increasing likelihood as time wore on. The man was something of prophetic.

Interestingly, my professor seemed to have been considerably better educated on the dangers than are most doctors today. Note how the feckless stooges who peddle the mask narrative concern themselves with only pulmonary exposure. Nobody appears to be addressing concerns of contact with skin, eyes, inner ears, open wounds, and so forth. Lungs are not the only path to the soul, as it were.

My professor went to some length to discuss the truer nature of the hazard potential posed by what he referred to as "endlessly minute divisions of matter" floating freely about. This, before "nano-" became a commonly misused word of the unwashed mass of first-world humanity. He emphasized that the trends in manufacturing stood to place ever greater emphasis on smaller and smaller particle technologies. This was not immediately obvious to the common man in 1976. But he went to pains to describe the nature of such particles and how they move and why casual protective measures such as masks (vis-a-vis full-face respirators, the two being VERY different instruments) were insufficient to the task of protecting one from these dangers.

So here I am, nearly fifty years later, witnessing a raft of apparent fools peddling bald-faced lies to the world about the virtues of the N95 mask. 

Whether the lies we are told are intentional, or the product of the feckless bumbling of fools makes no difference; the result is the same.

Those who think that even an N95 mask makes a difference sufficient to protection are fooling themselves.  Even space suits are of no matter if the protocols for effective use are not followed.

Given the long and very clear nature of human beings in the context of their political behaviors, there can be no doubt about what is going on here, which is the latest example of a huge power grab by Themme, the costs of which are paid by the rest of us.  Anyone taking all this handwaving as anything but political theater is thinking and behaving in a dangerously foolish manner.  Do yourselves a huge favor and throw off your misplaced confidence in anything that "government" tells you, for in all likelihood they are lies or, far worse, the admixture of lies with truth such that the discerning what what is to be believed becomes vanishingly close to impossible.

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

The False Logic Behind Covid Mandates

Evil gallops roughshod over the land.  It always has, but in times past the horsemen endeavored to hide the fact with some respectable effort.  That is no longer the case.  Fine examples of this are the various and manifold mandates that have been vomited forth by the several American governing bodies into the laps of those to whom these bodies' respective members have sworn oaths of good faith and competent service.

Fundamental human rights possess two clear and distinct aspects: the claims embodied therein, and the resultant obligations of one man to his fellows in the context of each man's validly demonstrable equal claims.  For example, if I hold my claim to Life and you hold equal claim to it, then I am bound by logic to respect your claim as I expect you to honor mine.  This is the Golden Rule made manifest.

As can be readily seen, the nature of our mutual obligations to one another is negative, meaning "thou shalt not"; a requirement to not act.  This means that one is to refrain from taking any positive action in violation of another's rights, i.e., a valid claim to something, such as one's life.  One's life, being their First Property, I may not commit murder.

The commandment is properly summarized by "thou shalt not trespass against thy fellows".

Though with us now a long time, false-authority requirements of positive action have, until recently, been relatively limited in their reach, most often couched in tacitly veiled double talk by corrupted political hacks of various sorts and stations.  A very fine example of this can be seen in the manifestly absurd and deeply violative mandates with respect to the so-called "pandemic" of the so-called "covid-19" virus.  

I have recently read that the state of Maine is now requiring everyone there to be vaccinated against covid-19 and that some court has upheld the fiat.  The underlying logic is the diametric opposite of provably proper obligations between men, requiring people not to refrain from action (negative), but rather to require them to take specific action (positive).  Unlike in times past, this mandate is in no way being soft-peddled to the public through subterfuge, but rather it is being rammed down our throats with no apologies.  This represents a fundamental philosophical shift away from the proper respect of basic human rights, toward a blatantly tyrannical position that forces compliance where there exists no authority to do so.

The reasoning here is that the individual is obliged to take positive action to protect the rights and other interests of his fellows.  While taking such action may be validly viewed as morally praiseworthy, it is in no way validly demonstrated as being morally obligatory.

For example, if one is walking the lonely streets of Chicago at 2 AM and witnesses a rape in progress, it cannot be validly demonstrated that he is in any way obliged to render aid and service to the victim.  By the logic in question, walking away from a crime in progress would itself constitute a crime due to the individual obligation to render aid to the victims of actual crime.  This, of course, is a can of worms the implications of which are far reaching, none of them good.

If the obligation to positive action were ever to be upheld as valid in Law, a very explicit door to bald-faced tyranny will have been opened, thereby lending false license to "government" at all levels to force obligations upon people that would constitute nothing less that naked, objective chattel slavery of the servant individual to the master state.

The message in these mandates pose a clear and present threat to every living individual on the planet, the precedent they would set comprising a rather large nail in the coffin for all human rights, planet-wide.  These unsupported and morally invalid mandates must be resisted and rejected utterly if there is to be any future hope for humanity.  It would be difficult to overstate the significance of the dangers posed by these recent developments that require forced positive-action on behalf of one's fellows.  This is the very essence of authoritarian collectivism, its central pillar.

Refuse, resist, defy.  Endeavor for non-compliance with that which disparages and trespasses upon your freedom.  Make Themme work ever more exhaustingly for every scrap of tyranny-stolen booty that they attempt to take from us.  Leave them feeling hollow and meaningless and irrelevant in everything they do and experience.  Invokke Theire rage against us.  Force Theire hands to go that extra mile in their evil work, petty or grand, such that they are ever more required to expose to those whom Theye violate their true faces.  Leave Themme no avenue by which to escape their condign shame and guilt, that the quality of their very lives are drive to the status of mere existences so miserable, they will find themselves at the nexus that forces their hands to make the decision to step down or contrive to destroy it all.  Remove from Themme the profit motive for their crimes.  Make the cost far outstrip the payoff.

Tyrants can yet be stopped, but time runs thin on that, for as technology advances by the hour, the leverage wielded by those who presume, grow longer and longer, their moral inhibitions ever closer to vanishing.  When single fingers can cause the deaths of millions, you then know that humankind has passed into a sphere of immense danger.  We have been in that sphere for the better part of a century, wherein the moral constitution and practical survival instincts of the wielders were the only things that kept us from going over the precipice.  The moral objections to universal annihilation of humanity have certainly attenuated greatly in the intervening years and, in my estimation, have effectively disappeared from reality as meaningful deterrents against imprudent action.  Far more worrisome, those practical survival instincts appear to have take an immense hit, as demonstrated by the openly absurd behaviors that Theye and their useful idiots now commonly and daily manifest before television cameras.

Do not make the grave error of assuming that such people with such fingers would not dare exercise such power.  If and when the Tyrant perceives a clear and present danger to himself, he will hesitate for no measurable interval to set you and your entire family to the sword.  If the Tyrant perceives the threat as immediately existential in nature, I hold small doubt that he would put the entire human race to extinction.  If he's going straight to hell, the rest of the world will follow him close by. Theye are precisely sufficient to the evil and insanity required to destroy all humanity in preference to giving up their power.  This attitude is made manifest ever single day with little effort to hide their truer intentions, not to mention their utter contempt for us all.

All hope is yet to be lost, but I suspect that the ever onward march of technology, when placed in the hands of those in whom we have so foolishly vested our trust, stands to close off every path to self-salvation.  Pray if you are so moved, but always bear in mind the old adage, "God helps those who help themselves."

Until next time, please accept my best wishes...