Incrementalism has proved depressingly effective as a tool for getting most people to quietly surrender their rights piecemeal. For gradually habituating them to an ever-diminishing circle of liberty. When the circle finally closes and their rights no longer exist at all, they hardly notice – because by that time, most of their rights have already been taken.
The final surrender is met with a shrug rather than a scream of outrage.
Think how Americans have been habituated to arbitrary search and seizure. Something like the TSA would simply not have been tolerated if it came out of the blue sky circa 1980. And no, the terrr attacks of nineleven did not “change everything.” Getting people to accept “sobriety checkpoints” beginning around 1980 changed everything. Accept that – and something like Gate Rape is inevitable.
The same process works just as well when it comes to dismantling due process – and removing limits on what the government may not do to us. We didn’t get to legal strip searches for jaywalking or littering in one fell swoop. Nor rendition, torture as policy – and presidential kill lists. It is a matter of getting them – getting us – to tolerate “A” so that “B” will be accepted in turn.
This is how the citizens of the United States will be disarmed.
No sudden, mass ban or attempt at confiscation – because that would probably lead to open violence on a large scale and they – people like Dear Leader Obama and his Vyshinsky, AG Eric Holder, know this.
So, instead, they will first pass “reasonable” restrictions.
They will target not guns – just dangerous guns. So easy to demagogue anything with, say, a high-capacity magazine. Or which looks “military.” Think how the ground has already been ceded by mainstream “gun rights” groups like the NRA – which invariably talk about “sportsmen” and “hunting.” Who needs an AR-15 (or Sig 220) to hunt?
Open carry will be next. How many millions of Clovers would support a ban?
Next, they’ll lobby for a new law (or just issue a fatwa) that makes it much harder to get a CC permit. Such as at a judge’s discretion. And only if you have a “legitimate” purpose. Self-defense will not be considered a legitimate purpose.
But the big one – tied to Obamacare – will be the transformation of gun ownership into a public health issue.
The assault on smoking (and lately, soft drinks) should have alerted people – but as with “sobriety checkpoints,” most people readily supported the imposition of massive taxes on smokers because, after all, it is unhealthy to smoke. And of course, they didn’t smoke. So their rights were not on the table (foolish them). They – most people – never see that an attack on anyone’s rights is an attack on their rights.They are easily gulled by their moralistic fetishes – their disapproval of some concrete thing other people do which they don’t like. Not seeing that if the government can ban (or control or regulate) this than it certainly can ban, control or regulate that. The particulars don’t matter. The principle is everything.
Thus, smoking has been anathematized – and rendered exorbitantly expensive to partake of. Not an outright ban – not yet. But ever closer, every year.
And guns? It will be argued it is unhealthy to have a gun in the house. There will be talk of all the suicides and domestic violence (red herrings, these – but exceptionally effective tools of emotional manipulation).
Inevitably, the children will come into play.
It will be argued that anyone who possesses a gun must also possess insurance. Just as car owners are required to buy insurance; just as we are soon to be forced to buy health insurance. The same arguments will be used – because they’ve already been accepted. Thus, just as it is not illegal to have a car – so long as you buy insurance for it – it will not be illegal (yet) to own a gun. So long as you are “properly insured.”
That will be the first step.
The second step ought to be obvious. Legal gun ownership will rendered increasingly unaffordable.
As with collectivized car and health insurance, the insurance you will be forced to buy in order to keep a gun will be based on the costs imposed by the collective. It will not matter that you handle your gun safely. Getting the top deals from Target Ad must feel good. Because others have not, you will be made to pay.
People can afford to buy a $500 rifle or pistol. How many will be able to afford paying $500 a year to lawfully keep that rifle or pistol? How many will be able to afford keeping more than one rifle or pistol? Can you see where this is headed? Is it not brilliant in its subtlety?
Insurance costs have already proved their effectiveness at limiting the number of vehicles the average person can afford to keep. I’ve written before about the effect mandatory insurance has had on hobbyists. It used to be easy (and legal) to keep a “parts car” or “project car” because other than the costs of buying it and fixing it up, there were no other costs. So long as you didn’t put it on the road, you didn’t have to insure it. In numerous areas around the country, you must now keep valid tags – and insurance – on every single vehicle, even those kept in a garage or in your back yard. If not, the vehicle is subject to confiscation.
Exactly the same tactics will be deployed against firearms. And it will be impossible to fight – because the fight over the principle was lost long ago. How will anyone argue against mandatory gun insurance when they have already accepted mandatory car insurance and now mandatory health insurance?
In a very short time, the government will have effectively disarmed most people without ever having had to push for an outright ban. The small handful of people who still possess arms will only be able to possess a few types and be very limited in what they can (legally) do with them.
Dealing with them will easy. Because there will be so few.
And because they will have already conceded the point anyhow.
Throw it in the Woods?
7-year-late reply, but:
“Next, they’ll lobby for a new law (or just issue a fatwa) that makes it much harder to get a CC permit. Such as at a judge’s discretion. And only if you have a “legitimate” purpose. Self-defense will not be considered a legitimate purpose.”
This is already how it’s done in much of Europe. It’s not technically illegal to own a firearm, but you have to jump through so many stupid hoops that it’s the same thing, and no, self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have or do ANYTHING over there.
I LOVE this site, and I’ve been spending hours reading everything you have to say. You’re a man after my heart…
I wanted to comment on the matter of background checks, which I think effectively render the Second Amendment NULL & VOID. How so? What happens if you purchase a gun legally at a gun shop? You fill out the ATF form 4473, and the salesman makes a phone call. That phone call is to a distant, anonymous gov’t bureaucrat who looks up your info in a database, and decrees yes or no WRT buying the gun. I don’t know what anyone else calls that, but I call it SEEKING PERMISSION. If you have to ask permission to do something, then you do not have a RIGHT to do that something!
Normally, at this point, since I’m often writing for audiences who don’t understand this, I’ll proceed to show what DMV says about driving being PRIVILEGE, not a right; give the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of a license (I quote it and furnish a link); and how it (the driver’s license) is a fancy form of permission. I then finish up by saying that, since you also have to seek permission when buying a gun legally, that we no longer have the Second Amendment RIGHT we used to have.
Now, I would like to add my own thoughts about how they’ll get the guns. Other commenters have touched on this.
In addition to outlawing scary guns and requiring insurance, the gov’t will make it so legally ONEROUS to own a gun as to render it a burden. In many liberal jurisdictions, if you shoot an intruder breaking into your home YOU will go to jail! That’s right; you, defending your property, will go to jail rather than the one who INVADED it! That’s one thing they’ll do.
Something else they’ll do is make gun owners the new pariahs, much like they did with smokers before them. Since shooting guns isn’t something done by a majority of kids anymore, they’ll have no problem banning them as adults. These younger snowflakes are now coming of age to assume power-and control-over us.
Another thing that’s gone under the radar is that, if you get a domestic violence restraining order against you, then it’s illegal to buy and own a gun or ammo. Keep in mind that the order does not say you’ve committed a crime; it only means you have to stay away from someone-that’s it. Ah, but having one makes one a de facto criminal, given what happens after
If you get caught with a gun or ammo and you have a DV court order against you, it’s 10 years in jail with a $250k fine. So yeah, you may have a gun, but would you dare USE it if you had a court order against you? Would you use it knowing that the cops will come to your house investigating the shooting? Would you use a gun for self defense knowing that, when the cops come, they’ll arrest YOU? Would you use your gun knowing that it’ll cost you everything, that it’ll ruin your life? It puts quite a chilling effect on gun ownership.
Thanks to the feminist/statist propaganda campaign post OJ, DV restraining orders are frighteningly EASY to get. All your ex has to do is go to court, shed some crocodile tears, and no judge in the land will refuse her request to slap a court order on you. It doesn’t matter if she lies her ass off, either; all that matters is that she convince a judge, who’ll gladly rubber stamp the order. When she gets the order, and you’ll lose all your rights-not just your gun rights, either; if you were married or living together, you’ll lose your house too-even if you PAID for it! Ah, but don’t try to tell this to any blue pill ‘Murican citizen; they’ll think you’re crazy.
Those are my thoughts for now. I shall continue to read and enjoy this site, an oasis in the desert… 🙂
I read this article many years ago. How did this serious article get practically obliterated into a mess of ads and confusion in trying to read this? This proves how the sinister element will try to obfuscate truth by taking a truthful and insightful piece of information and turn it upside down.
Eric originally posted a brilliant article and should be taken seriously as to how America will be disarmed.
Thanks for the kind words, first of all!
On the ads – this one’s a mystery to me; it’s done on “autopilot,” to speak- by Gooo-guhl.
I wish I knew…
“Hitler was misunderstood” – now that’s funny.
That’s like saying the guys that beat Rodney King were misunderstood. It depends on how you look at it. If you look at the video in reverse you see them helping Mr. King up.
“…f you look at the video in reverse you see them helping Mr. King up”
Don, dammit, you almost just made me piss myself!
The author is leaving out one very important point. Some 300 million firearms are privately owned in the US, quite possibly more. Whether the federal government imposes insurance costs or anything else, how will they be enforced on gun owners? In short, if I refuse to insure my 20-30 weapons, who will be tasked with the very unpleasant duty of coming to confiscate them? I know I would certainly not want the job of stealing guns from gun owners across the nation.
And how many will dutifully “turn in” their weapons at the local police station should they be unable to afford gun insurance?
Laws may be easy to pass but enforcing them is another matter. Certainly we hear stories of the feds confiscating a piece of property improperly, even illegally. But how will guns be confiscated from 100 million people? If only 10% resist, the powers that be will be faced with an armed force of 10 million!
The left has been “incrementally” working to outlaw the private, individual ownership of guns for decades. But a wall has been met and politicians know it.
Well, it looks like we now have a racist Clover in our midst.
Steve is an American Nazi. Nazis, Commies, blacks, Mexicans, ducks, hens, crows, Jews. Are all going to fail or succeed depending on their use of fiat or sound money. On whether looters or producers prosper. Racial and ideological beliefs are largely irrelevant.
GREATER china & India will conquer America because they build and produce tangible goods
Jews fell to Germans because they relied on German infrastructure and industry. Iran builds cars, Israel still hasn’t learned how.
Mexicans thrive because they do the work and shut their mouths.
The human race is still a race to prosperity. Being more moral or civilized will get you killed if you don’t outrun the other contestants.
Steve has been flushed.
Rants about “the Jews” and “homos” and so on have no place here.
You gave it the college try, Eric. Hat’s off to you. I would have been horrendously hostile to that descendant of rats early on.
I try to give new people the benefit of the doubt, to engage them with ideas – to try to get them to debate rationally, at least.
Steve’s a lost cause, though. I part ways with anyone who insists Hitler wasn’t really such a bad guy….
Amen to that! We don’t people posting craziness and hatred here.
I responded once; then I read the bulk of his other totally incoherent posts; he’s either an idiot, off his rocker, or a paid agent provocateur.
I suspect the latter; they (the FBI) got a lot of good play off the white supremacists–of whom they owned the majority–and his rants sounded awfully close to the Hal Turner Dialogs/COINTELPRO talking points.
Here’s a fun InfoWars article on the topic.
Yeah – it was an interesting day!
I tried reasoning with him. Then I warned him about the provocative (and insulting and downright dumb) nature of his posts. He kept on posting more of the same: Hitler was misunderstood… gays and Jews and blacks (oh my!)… enough, already.
It’s correct to say copper makes better pipes than say gold. It’s a matter of physics. It’s not correct to say Aryans make better citizens than Semites. You enter a non-metric world with people as Menger has proven.
Until Western governments concede the futility of sociallylly engineering people, we will continue towards complete social impoverishment and collapse while socially agnostic societies rise.
“Racial and ideological beliefs are largely irrelevant”
Unless you are a Porn producer….
I’m assuming that “flipped” is serious, although it’s hard to imagine. First, guns don’t slaughter innocent people, criminals and criminal states DO. A “needless tragedy” assumes or presumes that prudent action (such as bans on firearms – more laws for criminals to ignore) is “needed” to avoid said tragedy, again a logical fallacy. Finally, when legal open and concealed carry becomes more the norm, criminality of all kinds is suppressed very effectively.
I suppose these sorts of provable and factual truths carry no weight with the hoplophobe, though.
These countries with the least amount of guns crimes have the fewest blacks and there are no mexicans in Europe. We got them both here. That is your problem. It’s not guns. Everyone in Switzerland has guns. Even in poor Russia they have few gun crimes. You watch you let Communism come here and you won’t see drugs on the street, because they only want drugs to destroy your country, but once they control it they don’t want you walking around drugged or drunk. They will eliminate the problem. The Commies won’t play with the black and mexican gangs. They’ll take care of them and you druggies just see how scarce drugs become. Right now the CIA is probably responsible for a third of all the drug sin the country.
Murders per 100K
Europe, Asia, Oceania 3
No one has mentioned how we can stop the slaughter of innocent Americans in this country by guns. Has anyone considered the forced lifetime effects that these needless tragedies have on the victims and their families? Or has the “need” to own and shoot guns caused indifference to these tragedies to be the norm? I’m definitely not against gun ownership but what do we do about continued mass shootings in this country? Will indifference continue until it happens to you or someone very close to you? It is a fact that anyone who carries legally will not be in the area of these tragedies to stop the perpetrator…percentages don’t even support that claim unless we go back to the days of the Wild, Wild West. What is your solution? With ownership and legal carry comes a HUGE responsibility and also input into this problem.
I noticed you didn’t offer a solution.
For myself I would start with legalizing all drugs. You talk about the few cases of mass shooting as if that is statistically a large factor. It isn’t in fact it pales in comparison to drug crimes. Domestic violence is also much higher than the mass shooting that the media loves to talk about. As for domestic violence I don’t think that it can be stopped. I certainly don’t believe that ending gun ownership would stop it.
I have known one couple that their domestic abuse led to a death. In this case my unit had just gotten back from a field problem. (He thought she was cheating they fought all the time and he was physical with her) The day we got back they had another fight. This time she wanted to leave him, he ripped the phone out of the wall and blocked the door so she couldn’t leave. She had bruises on her face and neck. She managed to get into their bedroom where he kept his pistol and she shot and killed him. (this all came out at the trial)
Now how would removing the gun from this situation helped? After this the Army gave us all counseling and blah blah blah it went in one ear and out the other. The couples who fought continued to fight.
What about instead of legalizing drugs we sent our troops to Bolivia and Colombia and destroyed their drug trade? The drugs themselves are the problem not the fact they are high in cost. People on drugs is the problem. If legal cocaine might be $10 a gram. I would say people should be allowed to smoke marijuana. It is not a gateway drug. I think if more people could smoke marijuana you would have less trouble.
They can’t tax illegal drugs, they can’t tax moonshine, and that is the problem. They allow people to make certain amount of beer and wine and I don’t know why they do that. What they should do is allow people to grow a few pot plants. I’m sure there are plants out there you could smoke and make you high. What if burning pine needles and standing in the smoke made you high? If people want to smoke marijuana let them. Maybe to give them some money they could charge people a yearly fee to grow some plants.
If you legalize drugs does that mean you can manufacture them? You think for a second they are going to legalize drugs and then barge loads of cocaine are going to come in? Anyone who argue to legalize anything other than marijuana is nuts.
I think they would be better off closing the bars and let people sit home and drink, because drinking isn’t so much the problem as drinking and driving. If they closed the bars 50,000 fewer people might be killed in auto accidents. But they dare not close them for a week to see the affects bars have on society. If they closed them and saw the fewer accidents and few domestic violence calls, then people would have an argument bars needs to close.
Troops to Central and South America–been there, done that, we’ve tried it and it doesn’t work…mostly because it’s the government importing the drugs in the first place!
The drugs themselves are not the problem, Steve, c’mon–you of all people should know this! Until the 1914 Harris Act, you could walk to the corner drug store and buy opium, morphine, cocaine, and heroin–hell you could order a heroin fix kit with a 100 gram vial of heroin for $2.50 from the Sears Roebuck catalog, mail-order!
And yet–they had 1/7 of the drug addiction problem we have today.
Why? Because it’s not a criminal problem. You admit cannabis “should be legal”–of course it should be legal, there’s not question.
Why? Because Steve–who owns your body? The correct answer is YOU. And if YOU own your body, not the State, how can they tell you what you can and can’t put in it? If you or I want to sit at home peacefully with a needle in our arms, whose business is that but ours? Is it a good idea? Is it the best thing to do? No, and no–but it’s nobody’s business but ours.
So yes, absolutely, ALL drugs must be legal. Everything. LSD, crack, heroin, psilocybin, mescaline, ketamine, PCP…cannabis, alcohol, nicotine. Valium, phenobarbital.
Because it’s YOUR BODY.
Will some people go crazy, abuse them, and behave like assholes, perhaps even hurting someone else?
Yes. But does that stop them today? No.
We have the worst of all worlds; high-potency drugs available everywhere, even inside super-max prisons…and a police state that does over 50,000 SWAT raids a year to try to stop it.
It can’t stop it. It just destroys freedom.
This is a cornerstone of being truly liberty-minded; you have to accept a few crazies doing bad things and say “well, that’s the price of freedom. I’d rather have a few high drivers causing deaths…than SWAT teams kicking in doors, burning kids with flash-bangs, and killing dogs.”
Alcohol is not a problem if people drink 3 or 4 drinks, either, but the alcohol affects your thought process and people say come on drink another round and you look and you got six free drinks in front of you and you can’t just leave.
You mean we can go to Vietnam, Korea and blow up Germany and Japan, but we can’t sent troops to South America and force those governments to stop making drugs? Sure they might have sent a few thousand troops down there and acted like they were working with the government, but we sent millions to Vietnam and millions to Europe. To think we have tried and real effort to not just stop the flow of drugs, but saturate their countries with troops. We got 1.8 million. Send them all down there. I know if I was in charge drugs would not be found in this country. A gram of cocaine would go to $1,000.
The main problem in the USA is Crips, Bloods and motorcycle gangs that sell most of the drugs. They only crack down on the motorcycle gangs and don’t both with the black gangs or the mexican gangs.
Look at the Commmunist controlled countries in Eastern Europe do you think those Commies would have tolerated Crips, bloods, mexicans and motorcycle gangs roaming around by the hundreds doing what they wanted? For one thing how come motorcycle gangs are allowed to have open pipes when cares have to be quiet? How come motorcycle gangs can drive down the high in groups of 100 with to side by side? They should pass a law that no more than a dozen morotcycles can drive together, because they ipede the free flow of traffic.
I know for a fact if they infiltrated those bloods and crips with black FBI agents and we’ve seen them do it for a couple years to take down the motorcycle drug dealers. I think they could inside of a six months they could take down almost the whole black network of crime, but then you would have 100,000 blacks arrested and then whitey might wake up and say, we got hundreds of thousands of them on the street?
One thing most of you don’t know and you can call the FBI on this, but in order for those blacks to get in those gangs they have to kill a white person. So that means they are killing literally killing thousands of white people, but just like the Zebra killings the FBI warns nobody.
One such case you can search is the Fayetteville Murders. IF you knew the amount of crime and drugs that could be taken off the street if these sorry god damn useless Israeli coddling, drug selling, lying not good bastard FBI agents would just do there job you would march on Washington, because Capitol Hill contains the enemy.
Out only chance and it’s coming soon is wait until they come to take your guns and you give them all the bullets first. These goons go after people at Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, Waco and then sit back and let the Mossad commit 9/11 and do nothing, but they infiltrated some trailer trash drinking Pabst beer talking smack about the president.
I know what would solve our problems. Let’s take the militia and march into each separate city and force all mexicans out and the crips and bloods just shoot every single one of them. Not until the people have had enough will the politiicians do anything and you wuold have thought 9/11 would have been enough. But the cheap beer still flows and the tv works, so fat couch potato whites just won’t wake up.
But you let them change the formula of coke or that tv goes off and beer goes to $10 a six pack and whitey wakes up. You notice food in some cases has quadrupled in price, but beer is little change. They want beer cheap. Whitey might not want to part with $10 for six beers.
Well, Steve – we have “troops” (lots of them) in Afghanistan… and the poppy (opium) crop is bigger than ever.
As far as Mexicans and blacks, et al:
I live in a very rural county with almost none of either. But we have an abundance of white control-freaks and redistributionists who pose a real (direct, imminent) threat to my physical safety. They may not come at me in the way a black street thug in Chicago would. Instead, they’ll pass a law – and send costumed goons with guns my way to achieve the same result.
I’d actually prefer the black street thug – because I can still physically resist and defend myself against him.
I used to have a guy live with me he was a good friend and went to jail for drugs and when he got out he needed a place to stay and stayed with me and for five years he spent every dime on crack each week. He could easily get crack.
I mean why not just sell all kinds of drugs and if people use them just say screw it it’s your problem? You can go to Mexico and buy drugs over the counter and I’m sure if you walk out if you have more than a certain amount you would be arrested. I know you can buy a switchblade right off a stand in the streets. But as soon as you walk away you can be arrested. How much sense does that make? I bet you in many countries it works that way.
Personally, I think if we handled it differently we could stop drugs and if you get it to a trickle then you can stop them. I think you do it in the schools.
I know a lot more than most people becaue I know FBI agents, cops and I’ve been to a lot of places.
In a school near my home there was a lot of drugs. Some complaints from the white parents. So the State police announced they were going to come into school that weekend with drug sniffing dogs and search the lockers. Guess how many drugs they found? That’s right zero. So a month later they did the same thing. Guess how many drugs they found? That’s right zero. So the state police just basically did nothing. It’s why you got so many problems. They won’t do anything. Why couldn’t they on school property come in search the lockers without notifying the people? You know why? Because if they searched the lockers and found 50 blacks with drugs then whitey would say get the blacks out of the schools. It’s why nothing ever gets done, because of shite like this a bunch of nonsense.
This is why your country is full of drugs. They won’t do what needds to be done. What needs to be done is we go to the third world South America and send in a million troops and they stay there and occupy them like we have occupied Germany and Korea ever since the conflicts ended there and the bogus crap in Serbia we got involved with and framed the Milsovic guy and then what did we have to do? We had to occupy them and it’s a nice place to put a few hundred thousand troops. Because unless troops actually look like they are doing something, then what do they do just sit around America or maybe they might put them on the border with Mexico. The whole thing is a joke. Why do we have troops in Germany? I would say because 150,000 of them are black and they are screwing those black women and going to strip joints and no doubt the German genome will be screwed in a couple hundred years. For the first time there was light skin black skater representing Germany in the last Winter Olympics.
Why are we in Serbia and Korea, but not Vietnam? I believe we left men in Vietnam. Bascially we just put troops in those countries, because you got to put them somewhere. It would be so much cheaper you have troops that stay in their own country and when they are called upon they suit up.
I hate this country so much because the people have no control of it. If you think the people control this ocuntry you are lost. I wish I lived in Switzerland or Austria or Argentina I wouldn’t even care if they only allowed guns for hunting.
Our ocuntry is almost half black, Asian and Mexican and hundreds of Mossad agents running around and all the drugs and the kosher meida prmoting drugs and porn and all the crap on tv there is no hope for this country.
This revolution they talk about will do no more than totally destroy this country. The cities would erupt into war and they would be burned down.
My suggestion is if you don’t have to live here, then don’t? The smart ones left after 9/11, because they saw 9/11 for what it was worth. It was the beginning of the end. I mean towers turning to dust?
One way we could eliminate the problem is if there was no law and the people were the law and you asked someone if they thought the towers just turn to dust and fell down all the way to the ground like match sticks, because of a smoldering fire and they said, oh yes it melted the steel, then you should legally be allowed to pull out a .357 and smoke them right there.
If the law came to your home and they were to kill your children like they did in Oklahoma City and Waco. You would hope the people would start the revolution. When those thugs come to your door you will lose. Unless you turn the tables on them.
I haven’t touched arbitrarily illegal drugs in almost 20 years. But when I was in college, I touched a lot of them. So did all my friends. None of us – not one of us – failed to graduate and go on to productive (crime-free) lives. We never harmed anyone.
Yet, had we been “caught,” we would have been dealt with harshly. Thrown out of school. Possibly sent to prison. Our lives ruined. Why? For what?
Because some asshole (or assholes) with political authority and the backing of armed goons “decided” such personal activities to be illegal. Nothing more.
If you accept that as the basis of law – and of punishment – you’ve sided with them. Not with us.
There is no compromise, no middle ground. You don’t get to pick and choose the excuses for aggressing against other people. There is only one justification for the use of force: Self defense against aggression.
Put another way, for their to be a crime – properly speaking – there must be a victim. Someone – an actual person – who has suffered a specific, provable harm as a result of your actions.
You either accept this – or you don’t.
If you do, you have accepted that anything may be done to you as well as to others – provided enough others “decide” to do it and have the votes or the costumed ass-clowns to enforce their edicts.
Naw to this:
“Because if they searched the lockers and found 50 blacks with drugs then whitey would say get the blacks out of the schools.”
I believe they don’t want the problems fixed. If the issues were fixed many people would be out of jobs. This is how EVERY industry works. Like any living organism “self preservation” is most important. I’ve also come to believe the whole white, black, tan, yellow skin color business, as well as arbitrary laws and reality tv are only there to monopolize our brain waves to mask true reality.
Sounds as if Steve “There’s a lizard man under every rock” Bigot needs to get his lithium scrip refilled.
Steve, given the documentary evidence available at present it looks like the CIA controls much of the illegal drug trade in the USA and that shapes the enforcement.
methylamine and Eric
Yes, the troops were sent to Afghanistan I believe for the purpose of growing and guarding the opiun. I beliieve it’s why we went to Vietnam.
So I suggest I control the troops and I would send them to Colombia and Bolivia and I would burn all the coooa plants and you offer people a few thousand and they would tell you where they manufacture the stuff. Plus we got planes now and we can spot the stuff. IF we were to do this there would never be another Pablo Escobar. You know everything is just fine the cartels sell their drugs when the economy was doing good, but now you got fewer customers and the cartels are vying for them and you got problems. Why have we not sent troops into Meixoc to help them?
Why didn’t drugs become a problem here 200 years ago? They’ve been smoking opium in China for a thousand years. The truth be known those Asians have always used drugs. White people when they were in the service went to these countries, but would never use drugs. But you allow the kosher boys to take control of the tv and then society starts to crumble. Young school kids are drinking more than ever. They get away from the paretns and become druken whores. The BS they must go to college. Why not just go to a local college? There was a time the majority of people worked on farms and you were with your kids. Now they move away at 18 and they aren’t ready to go on their own at that age. You start using alcohol and you’ll get involved with the dumbest crap. Colleges do more harm than good. They get you to spend $100,000 and waste four more years trying to get papers and then you are till 30 paying them off and then you get the 30 year mortgage further stripping you of money. I think people should homeschool their kids and if they go to school make them quit at 16 and get busy. College is a farce. If you can’t do it by 18 forget aobut it just go to McDonald’s and flip burgers and maybe in 10 years you might buy a franchise.
eric, how many white girls spread their legs and take negro cock on drugs and how many are in gangbangs which strips them of their dignity. Eric why don’t you use drugs now? You would be more responsible and you could afford them now. You used them when you were young and dumb. I got completely plastered falling down passed out drunk twice in my life. Once when I was 16 and then when I was 18 and it was on straight whiskey and vodka. WOuld I do it now? NOw way I would never touch them now.
Your kids go to college and you can never convince me that it’s just harmless play using drugs and binge drinking like they have to do it. It’s awful funny, but all the girls I know that never wlaked into a bar all have things now and all the girls in school who were fucking and using drugs and going to bars have nothing and I know a few. They party till they are forty and then think oh shit! I got nothing and I should have a home paid for with a vacation home and a nice boat and nice vehicle and should be able to take trips, but all I’ve done is stayed drunk and now I am forty and it’s time to get to work.
How many of those kids if they worked on the farm or family business would have never used drugs and stayed drunk? I bet most of them. I think colleges you should have to attend college no more than 50 miles from home and must go home and live. If you are going to college for to be a doctor, lawyer, dentist or scientist, then it makes sense, but if you’re going to college for something to do, then you need to look at your choices. I can open a sandwich shop and make $100,000 and attend no college. College is a waste of four more years. Plus the big colleges half the faculty is Jewish and they spread their liberal garbage to the students where you don’t dare say anything they label anti-semtiic or racists.
Steve, I don’t even know where to begin.
You’re all over the map; you have no consistent principles or philosophy.
Two things: first, the government has no desire or intention to stop drugs–it’s the largest dealer. Second, even if it DID want to stop them, it couldn’t.
They can’t even keep drugs out of supermax prisons! Do you want the US to become a supermax prison? It’s already minimum-security; but the drugs keep coming.
Oh! Stop them at the source, you say?
Do you have any idea how many different drugs there are? Or how easy most of them are to synthesize? An unnamed person who’s definitely not me used to synthesize MDMA–that’s ecstasy–in a makeshift lab in an empty basement in college. Good quality, too; most of the supplies were off-the-shelf stuff. Stop the cocaine and opium, and you’d have a rash of methamphetamine, pyrovalerones, and phenethylamines flooding the market. Who needs opium when you can make fentanyl, demerol, and methadone right here?
It’s a fantasy, Steve; drugs can’t be “stopped”. It’s a basic human drive–people LIKE being intoxicated from time to time.
And it’s not using drugs that’s immoral; what’s immoral is forcing people to NOT use them!
After all–who does your body belong to? If it belongs to you, isn’t it yours to do with as you please? And if it doesn’t–well then yes, it’s the state’s right to tell you what you can and can’t put into it.
Today it’s certain drugs; tomorrow, it’s Coca-Cola. In fact in New York, it’s already illegal to sell sodas larger than 16oz; how do you like living like that?
Actually flipped, the “Wild Wild West” is a Hollywood myth. Things were much more civilized than we’re led to believe because stealing a man’s horse (i.e. his livelihood) got you “dancing on air” lessons. Robbing the town’s bank, was stealing the people’s money and that generally got you shot down in the street or as soon as the posse caught you. And just making a comment about someone’s wife, sister, mother, etc., got you punched in the mouth. As usual there were noteworthy events that evoke deep emotional responses, but often the motivation behind the actual “crimes” is left out. For instance the way the railroads and bankers were screwing the common folk leading to the James’ Gang’s activities.
Be that as it may, the way you limit violent crime is a by arming as many people as possible. You do that through education and enforcing the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution; no restrictions, no compromise, NO INFRINGEMENTS. There are no “reasonable” infringements. An armed society is a polite society. If the freak that shot up the theatre in Aurora, CO thought for one minute he’d have been shot down as soon as he opened fire, he wouldn’t have done it. Instead he picked a gun free crime zone. If you can’t put that together logically, I can’t help you.
Excellent points, Boothe. Most of what most of us “know” about the Wild West is Hollywood b.s. I saw an eye opening Louis L’Amour interview many years ago. He did a tremendous amount of research in order to make his books realistic. Two things that he said that stand out in my mind:
(1) There is not a single recorded instance of two men facing each other out in the street for a quick-draw showdown. Most shootings took place in bars, where presumably alcohol consumption shortened tempers and reduced the combatants’ sense of danger.
(2) The Hollywood plot of some bad guys riding into town and taking over while the shopkeepers cower behind their counters is absurd. The townsfolk in the West were well armed, and many were veterans of the Civil War. After being at Shiloh, Cold Harbor, or the Bloody Angle, those guys just weren’t going to be intimidated by some punks with guns.
What about Clint Eastwood and that guy who met in the street at night and one of them kept shooting the hat and the hat would go up in the air about forty feet and each bullet has the same echo? Are you telling me that is fake? It’s like the two bullies at school. The gun fighers would avoid each other. I heard if they heard one was coming to town the other would leave. Gunfighters I would think weren’t all that honest and would have shot someone drunk in the bar. Even though I believe on Gunsmoke didn’t they take their guns or was that on Bonanza?
Laissez Faire capitalism is the only answer. Dial LIB-:ERTY in any area code. And we’ll have a CCW on the scene. You don’t wait until shooting starts. Call us for any reason. Any violation of NAP. We work independently of any other private or government police and protection agencies.
See fee schedule in advance, many calls require payment upon completion of service call. Credit is automatically granted, collection process is carried out according to local law and charity organizations.
Full reports of every public domain LIB-ERTY call is available on our website or low cost DVD.
No one is happy about the mass shootings (or any unjustified shooting). The issue is: Will disarming everyone – in theory; in actuality, just the people who are not the problem – reduce such events? I draw your attention to the fact that all the mass shootings that have occurred recently took place in “gun free” zones – that is, areas that forbid the carrying of firearms. The effect of these “gun free” zones is to create a target rich environment for the people (you know, criminals, psychos) who don’t obey laws. Meanwhile, note that there is less (and often, virtually no) “gun crime” in areas where there are no laws against ordinary civilians possessing/carrying firearms. It is a very telling correlation.
Correct observation. But don’t let facts get in the way of Progressives stripping away our rights.
All these mass shootings were mind control people. You walk into a room and spray with full auto and you might kill four or five and injure fifteen, but in all these shootings it’s just the reverse. But in the case of the movie theater shooter the guy they arrested is not the same person that showed up in court. Only here cuold a different person show up in court and the guy said in court he wondered why he was there. The guy is drugged. How can they get away with this? I mean the guy goes to jail and dyes his hair. How do you dye your hair in jail?
Here’s how: you accept it. There will always be some small percentage of people who either flip out–pun on your name–or who are natively psychopaths…and they kill people. It’s what they do. You can’t stop all of them.
But there’s a corollary; you are morally bound to try to stop them. You cannot do it via disarmament, because self-evidently disarmament disarms victims more effectively than killers. Hence you must arm the victims.
Here’s another factoid: mass killings are an infinitessimal percentage of deaths, a rounding error, a statistical fluke. But their drama makes them media darlings.
So I always question the motives of those who bring them up in the same breath as guns, because I suspect they’re shilling for victim disarmament.
Guns are just inanimate tools, like chainsaws. Both when misused can injure or kill. Used properly, both are useful.
It’s just that guns are used to kill people; and some people need killin’
Why deprive good people of the tools they need?
By the most conservative statistics available, guns avert 500,000 crimes per year! And yet, people idiotically cry for their restriction to stop a handful of murders a year due to mass shootings?
It’s innumerate. And it’s immoral.
Whoops. Sorry about the all-bold, forgot to close the <b> tag.
“you are morally bound to try to stop them” – I would disagree. I have done nothing wrong if I choose not to help someone. I do not need anyone’s permission to not help someone, it is therefore my right not to help someone.
Now, an intelligent person would understand the mutual advantages of helping others like I might need help one day, but there is no moral obligation.
Everyone has a right to be an asshole. Just look at me!
I think the blacks and mexicans cause many problems with the guns. If you take drugs off the street you solve a lot of problems. I think maybe we should just stop the manufacture of whiskey. That alcohol is harsh and you get drunk so fast. Some say we couldn’t do it, but we can do anything we want.
Most white people use guns for hunting, sporting and protection. Most blacks and Mexicans use them for crimes. Very few mexicans and blacks hunt anything.
I tell you what. We send troops to South Anerica and go after the gangs selling drugs in this country and I feel we need to close the bars. I mean alcohol is a drug and if you want to drink a couple beers with your meal fine, but no more sitting at the bar sucking down suds. I know some would think that is too radical, but we got problems in this country and people on drugs and alcohol commit most of the crap. So why not close the bars down? I would like to see the bars closed for one week and compare accidents and domestic violence calls to the previous week. What if the accidents were cut in half and the domestic violence calls were cut in half? I mean maybe if people wanted to drink at least they would drink at home with the family. I sat home and drank a few glasses of wine with the family. I think only the citizens can solve our problems. The government can’t and they won’t do it. They haven’t even tried. They should send troops to South America and they should close the bars. How many people might not drink and miss work if the bars were closed? I know as well as everyone knows after midnight they will not play any slow songs, because people will go home to bed. I think we can solve our problems and only us. The government won’t allow someone grow a couple pot plants to smoke marijuana, but they allow them to go to the bar and get drunk.
I would like to conduct a survey how many people feel we shold close the bars. Sure the drunks would complain, but just like smoking cigarettes indoors is banned they would just drink at home and on boats and in the duck blinds. We got 500 bars within a fifty mile radius around us and you wonder how many drunks they put on the road each night?
“We” got problems in this country, Steve?
And your solution is to impose authoritarian controls on everyone?
Some people abuse drugs (and guns), so – according to your logic – everyone should be punished for using drugs (and possessing guns) even if they cause no one any harm?
That’s about as collectivist – and Cloveritic – as it gets.
I think he’s joking.
“And your solution is to impose authoritarian controls on everyone?”
No. It appears that according to Steve Bigot, authoritarian controls should be imposed only on blacks, mexicans, and commies.
If I lived in Greenland and Greenland decided no blacks were allowed and no Jews and why would I get involved in what they wanted. If I were to say oh come one let them in. Then you need to read the Fable about the Ducks and the Hens. I mean we got lots of problems some people in here say let everyone, the queers get married. Let’s have drugs everywhere and people blowing smoke in your face and don’t exclude anyone. That’s why we got problems. I think Eric needs to state whether he smokes and why he supports homos? I’ve discussed things with liberals and the coversation always leads to why can queers teach sex to your children as they babysit them? Why can’t the Jews run the finances after all they are so good with money and the whites can’t count for shit. Then you wonder what were we talking about? I mean action is where we hope this will lead to.
I don’t smoke (never have) but acknowledge the right of others to do so, provided it’s not on my land or on private property against the wishes of the owner.
I neither “support” nor “defend” “homos” (as you put it). I support the right of each individual to associate with whomever he (or she) wishes, provided it is consensual and no one else is forced to participate or pay for it.
Methylamine, I think “Chicken Little” would be just as valid a description of Doug as a “seagull” (i.e. “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”) Doug is a “Churchian.” His is the Supreme and Reformed Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change. It used to be the Supreme and Unreconstructed Church of Global Warming before axial tilt, solar activity and aerosols put a potential kink in the funding..err…I mean faith…oops, no…“science.” Doug’s memory is pretty much as he describes others: “notoriously inaccurate.” Acid rain was going to denude the planet, hence low sulfur coal and scrubbers were the order of the day for power production and industry in response. Once that was in place, huge organizations like the Sierra Club, siphoning of tons of public and litigiously extorted money, and private donations had to find other windmills to tilt at. Why? Because the aerosols that could have potentially counteracted “global warming” had now been removed from the mix. Now, OMG, we’ve fixed one problem and created another because the “greenhouse gases” are coming! Send more money so we can study this! Shit, it’s worse than we thought! Send more money!
You see Doug probably didn’t have the experience or social circle I had growing up around Williamsburg and more particularly on the campus of William & Mary. So Doug probably didn’t have the good fortune of being friends with Dr. John T. “J.T.” Baldwin Jr. Dr. Baldwin was a professor of biology at William & Mary from 1946 to 1974 (when he passed away). He would bring me college text books (which I still have) when he came to visit and I was expected to be able answer questions from them the next time he came. Dr. Baldwin was instrumental in my not having to even participate in, much less study, high school biology and still pass all the tests with an A+. In no small part he was the reason I was able to graduate from a private school at age 16. Having the opportunity to talk with Dr. Baldwin on numerous occasions gives me the ability to say with confidence that a “mini ice age” was considered “settled science” in academia in the early 70’s. He specifically told me that he wouldn’t live to see it, but I would definitely see a mini ice age in my lifetime. That was in 1972 when I was 12 years old and no Doug, I have not forgotten that or “mis-remembered.” It stuck in my mind at the time, because I knew what an ice age meant and knew it wouldn’t be pretty: food shortages, mass migration, war, disease, and privation. I loved Dr. Baldwin and his cohort Dr. Speese, so I believed them. But as high as both their IQ’s were, they were probably wrong (I can’t be sure because my “lifetime” isn’t over yet).
Do I believe that man affects the environment? Certainly. I just don’t believe it’s to the degree you and your fellow zealots want us to believe it is. You people keep ignoring that giant fusion reactor one astronomical unit from dear old Terra. It’s the sun Doug. That’s what warms the planet. How about Dr. Gerhard Lobert’s simple four page document from back in ’08: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf Oh, that’s right he’d be a “denier.” Never mind the science behind it. No Doug, you and your ilk are the deniers. You deny that you can’t even accurately model one cubic meter of atmosphere, so much less the entire environment. Do you deny that there have been times in the past when global CO2 levels were considerably higher than they are now (pre-human times) by a factor of five? Or is that a conspiracy of right-wing-denier-Koch-brothers-corporatist conspirators? Try this doug: http://paleolands.com/pdf/cenozoicCO2.pdf Or here if you prefer, where scientists claim atmospheric CO2 has been up to ten times current levels: http://smu.edu/earthsciences/people/faculty/tabor/10.1999.01Ekart.pdf Hell Doug, Mel Frank advised pot growers clear back in 1978 in his Marijuana Growers Guide – Deluxe Edition to increase CO2 levels in their greenhouses to increase plant yield. Even the pot heads know CO2 is a “green” gas, not a pollutant. Were you asleep in eighth grade science class when they taught about photo-synthesis? Or were smoking something? I’ve heard that affects young minds…
Am I a climate change denier Doug? No; the climate changes. It always has and the fossil record proves it. I guess it was all those dinosaurs joy riding in their SUV’s and plankton jetting off to Paris on the Airbuses that caused it, right? We, even 6.5+ billion of us, flatter ourselves to think that our impact on the earth’s climate is so significant. Doug the planet is not a “greenhouse.” That term is a lie. The planet reradiates energy back into space every night. The climate is affected by the sun, cosmic rays, volcanic activity, atmospheric gas composition, gamma radiation, oceanic thermal cycles, oceanic acidity and out-gassing and on and on and on. Neither you nor any of your high priests down at the Church of Green with their modern versions of Stonehenge or the Great Pyramid can accurately predict what global temperatures will be one hundred years from now. What you can do is limit access to inexpensive energy sources and demand more money from the rest of us for our alleged collective environmental sins. Barring some major breakthrough in longevity technology none of us that are directly and, most notably, financially affected by you and your compadres’ environmental shenanigans will be around when nature settles the argument. How convenient.
I perused ol Doug’s Unabomber Manifesto-esque “Orwell’s Boot”
See, he says abolish boots by force of law. Then the state will step on our face with a bare foot, and we’ll all have a softer carbon footprint to wipe off. He gets the mass stupidity and authoritarian dilemmas, but being an altruist, he’s more worried about polar bear husbandry and gender engineering.
Odd duck, Doug is. Not renounced state theft or violence he has.
I’m not sure what Doug’s agenda is. He claimed in one post to be a Libertarian but his posts evince a collectivist bent (e.g., his notion that a private business is a “public” space). And his statements endorsing the certainty of AGW are strongly indicative of his being anything but Libertarian in outlook.
Boothe, Boothe, Boothe.
Repeat after me: if I (Boothe) do not pay carbon taxes to Al Gore Man-Bear-Pig and his master Lord Rothschild, the snake god will swallow the sun god and the earth will burn up! (or freeze we’re not sure which!!!one!1!)
There. Your apostasy is cured.
Go forth now and sin no more. Carbon is bad, see, and causes the Earth to warm…or cool. Either way, just pay your goddamned carbon taxes and stop asking so many questions.
It irritates those of us with high IQ’s who believe the computer models. And scientists. Especially those with financial and political stakes in it.
“Acid rain was going to denude the planet, hence low sulfur coal and scrubbers were the order of the day for power production and industry in response. ”
Not Was going to, but was doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History_of_acid_rain_in_the_United_States. Be sure to look at the pictures
And if you do not like this article, feel free to find your own.
Let us move on: Having the opportunity to talk with Dr. Baldwin on numerous occasions gives me the ability to say with confidence that a “mini ice age” was considered “settled science” in academia in the early 70’s. He specifically told me that he wouldn’t live to see it, but I would definitely see a mini ice age in my lifetime. That was in 1972 when I was 12 years old and no Doug, I have not forgotten that or “mis-remembered.
I have no idea what form of recording or documentation that Booth uses as evidence that he did not misremember. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. That is not the point. Like almost everyone on this site Booth seems to not understand the most basic concepts of science. Almost every experiment done by almost ever person in the field supplies evidence that human memories, especially over the long term, are not accurate. By definition a person is not capable of judging the accuracy of their own memory. Clearly this concept is to abstract for Mr. Booth to understand, and I have no idea how to make it more clear. But, let us assume that it is true.
Clearly, they were both wrong in their statements about the future of climate. Hey, Einstein was wrong on Quantum Mechanics, a field in which he received a Nobel Prize. Just because you are smart, that does not mean you are always accurate in your predictions. More than likely, Dr. Baldwin simply read the popular press and was, like most people, gullible, not familiar with the science outside of the field, and believed what he read. Booth has offered no actual papers published by actual climate scientists from that period on the subject. Testimony from someone outside of the field is not evidence. Seriously, if Mr. Booth were on trial for murder, would he want the worlds most brilliant thoracic surgeon testifying about gunshot wounds to the head? Well, perhaps if he were a personal friend, he would.
As to Dr. Loberts paper. He is a physicist. See argument above.
I do not know the source of his information, but given the choice between him, and 97% of the scientists who actual have training in Climate, I will go with the climatologists. Just as I would prefer a neurosurgeon to work on my brain, as opposed to a heart surgeon. Not Loberts was kind enough to make a prediction. See 5. of his paper. He was WRONG!!! I am sure that Booth will offer a lot of verbiage as to why wrong is not wrong.
His statement 6. is also flat out wrong. In fact 2010 was the second warmest, and I believe that 2011 was the sixth over land. For the planet, 2010 was the second, and according to this, 2012 will set a new record: http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/2012-likely-to-reach-record-hi-1/38255
Of course, there is his Super-Einsteinian wave being connected to global warming for which in some alternate universe, he may receive an ignobel prize. Seriously. This is really being offered as some kind of evidence? How about unicorn farts?
Lets move on the how CO2 makes plants grow better. Yep. We see that. Just ask all those farmers growing their plants. But here is what is really important. CO2 is not the only factor in how well a plant grows. Other factors are temperature and rain. Now Forests know something about temperature and rain. In fact, forests know more than mr. Boot and people who think like him. That is right forests, not trees which are sort of anchored, but forests, which can actually move, have more knowledge, and probably more brains than Mr. Booth. This assertion is supported by the following evidence. AT this point there are two kinds of forests on the planets. Those as stupid as Mr. Booth, and thus are falling to Heinlines observation that natures universal punnishement for excessive stupidity is death, and those forests that are moving towards the poles or up mountain slopes to the extent that oxygen allows. That is right. Forests are smarter than Mr. Booth and all those others who refuse to learn from direct evidence, or failed predictions (Lobert)
One could write an entier thesis on the other falacies in Mr. Booths string of wrong ideas. They will not change his mind. A forest can adjust, Mr. Booth can not, and I have no idea how to address a person less responsive than plants to new information from the physical world.
I do like his position on guns however. An armed society is a polite society.
” Like almost everyone on this site Booth seems to not understand the most basic concepts of science.”
“By definition a person is not capable of judging the accuracy of their own memory. ”
LOL. You are the exception?
It’s been my experience that extremely bright people are loathe to call others stupid; and conversely, those insecure in their intellects use the term liberally.
In a nutshell his objections were mainly to entanglement which he termed “spooky action at a distance”, and to the uncertainty principle–“God does not play dice with the universe” in his words.
Despite the Bell theorem, the jury’s not fully in on the EPR paradox criticizing entanglement’s apparently instant action…and the implications of possible “hidden variables”. Sure–we can “demonstrate” entanglement. But you still can’t transmit information faster than c–the state may change remotely but it’s useless for communication.
As for the uncertainty principle, good old late and now-lamented Hugh Everett’s multiverse theories are now clawing back the ground they lost to the Copenhagen interpretation.
If we accept the full implications of Everett’s multiverse, the uncertainty principle becomes moot–and we return to Einstein’s objections with humility.
Don’t be so quick to dismiss Einstein. He may not have mastered grand unification but the old bugger had “the Knack”.
Also for Christ’s sake use a spellchecker, it’s built into Firefox. Wait–are you using IE? I’m sorry, you are automatically disqualified from any further geek/nerd/techie conversation, having lost all credibility.
Methyl defeats Doug on a TKO. lmao. In Doug’s defense, he is unwittingly going up against an intellect that neither I nor any other informed party would dare tangle with. Fortunately for me, I have not disagreed with anything you have posted.
Speaking of Einstein, are you aware that there exists a significant body of physicists who think that relativity theory is flawed? It leads to a fascinating discussion that I’ve had with a science geek friend of mine. The basic premise of the “relativity deniers” is that the ether that Michelson and Morley supposedly disproved really does exist, and that it actually consists of the gravitational field. If that is correct, the expected deviation in the speed of light in the Michelson-Morley experiments would be only about 1/10,000 of what they expected, far too small for them to have measured. As an aside, I went to college at Case Institute of Technology, where those experiments were conducted.
Oooops. Sorry to bring up a scientific subject. Doug thinks we are all too stupid. My bad.
I believe there is probably quite a bit about physics that is just wrong once more is learned about the fundamentals but it works. It works on a functional level, like empirical engineering methods. It can accurately describe what happens to an extent, but then when pushed further breaks down.
My feeling is that the real physics does something more like the way UFOs are seen to fly. The Hutchesen(sp?) effect type stuff. I think it’s relatively simple, requires high voltage and is related to magnetism. But it requires un-learning or self teaching from grade school to grasp even on a functional level. It’s a different technological and scientific path.
It may have been used in the very ancient world. (the civilizations we aren’t supposed to believe existed because it was greater than 6K years ago)
I think a few people stumbled upon it over the last century plus. All suffering for it or hiding it.
It’s just my ‘gut feel’ about physics.
Brent, I’ve always had that gut feeling too that things aren’t as complicated as we’ve made them out to be. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised that when the truth is out that we’ll practically shout out loud, “Oh! That’s so simple! Why didn’t I see that before? It’s obvious.” For some this is a very bitter pill and they’re not about to admit defeat if it means a loss in stolen research monies.
Aw shucks…thanks Mike 🙂
I hadn’t heard about the revisiting of the ether–that’ll turn some careers upside down!
I’ve read a tiny bit about this idea of the ‘electrostatic universe’ positing the primacy of EM forces…have you caught wind of that?
Man, we’re really living through a revolutionary era. Old ideas are dropping like flies; it seems no orthodoxy is safe any more…and it’s wonderful!
@Brent re: it’s gotta be simpler than that…
Totally agreed. When you look at Maxwell’s four equations, and their sheer simplicity and beauty; then compare that, to the baroque zoo of particles and weirdness in the “Standard Model” or worse yet string theory and m-theory…it just feels wrong.
I’m NOT a physicist by any stretch and the esoteric math used in string and “m” are beyond me; so my opinion is just that.
Still–isn’t it almost a rule that the simplest, most elegant solutions in physics are usually the right ones?
Well Doug, “Boothe” is my middle name so not only did you fail to spell it correctly you misidentified as a surname with assumption. And we all know what “assume” does, don’t we Dougy-boy. In a court of law, I wouldn’t even need to respond to you because the charges would obviously be leveled against someone else named Mr. Booth, not me. In light of the fact that you can’t even get my name right, I can’t put much stock in any of your other “facts.” Having experimentally challenged your “Warmist” religious convictions, I can say with confidence that you have responded as well or better expected: hollow emoting and insults. Impressive.
But be that as it may, Dr. Baldwin was a noted botanist at William & Mary, very well read at the time and had you read what I wrote with comprehension, I as much as said he (along with a whole lot of other people back then) was very probably wrong. He did qualify it with “in your lifetime”, so I will have to wait and see. My point was that very intelligent, highly educated people are just people, hence often wrong. Just like you Dougy-boy.
The truth in any debate can often be found somewhere in the middle of two extremes. As I pointed out before, I’m relatively confident that man affects his environment. Just not to the degree that you, as a principled disciple of the Church of Anthropogenic Fear Mongering Global Catastrophe Melting Ice Caps Will Flood Algore’s Montecito Mansion, believe is happening. I grew up with the air in Hopewell, Virginia so bad you couldn’t stand the smell and Allied Chemical, et al, littering the shoreline of the James River with dead catfish. I watched a school chum die of a rare form of bone cancer (and the shakes) from Kepone (insecticide) poisoning. Kepone was invented because people like you saw to the ban on DDT. Guess what? Kepone was helluva lot worse. So don’t try to tell me about or b.s. me on pollution. I grew up with real pollution; in the air I breathed and rivers I swam in.
Here you go Dougy-boy, read this and weep: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html That’s what your brand of fear mongering has done for the environment. But you’ve got your damned “clean” energy from windmills, so screw those Chinese farmers, huh? It’s the law of unintended consequences. Much like the over zealous war on drugs has brought us some really nasty “legal” analogues like “Plant Food” and “Bath Salts”, your sect has brought us Solyndra, energy negative ethanol and acres of inefficient giant bird choppers. And you don’t even begin to address the paleo-CO2 record, because you can’t.
The fact is Doug you’re a zealot, not a skeptic. So you, like any other religious fanatic, are being used as a tool. You’re just too proud and stubborn to accept that. So enjoy your delusion Dougy and enjoy the net increase in your electric bill, because it’s coming thanks to your ilk. I think I’m going to go gut the catalytic converter on one of my automobiles just in your honor. 😉 But I don’t think I’ll give you much more attention. It’s like trying to teach a pig to sing; you waste your time and annoy the pig.
The goof at sippy street trashed you,
so I figure you must be doing something right.
Not disappointed. Excellent perspective.
I suppose that, once were sufficiently subdued, the feds will employ a more aggressive stance.
“The goof at sippy street trashed you,”
I’ve thought about the gun confiscation thing for some time and how it could be dealt with. It seems to me that gun owners should organize ahead of any movement toward confiscation in such a way that certain “trigger” events on the confiscation front become “trigger” events on the 2nd Amendment front with pre-defined actions already agreed and understood by the resistance. In that way we could anticipate possible events like controls on ammunition and counteract those with pre-defined activities.
That’s right. That sends a message out loud that people are aware of what they’re doing.
Shouldn’t be time to go after the lawmakers and apply the same tactic by just saying NO EVERYTIME????
When will people be wise to this????
Man so true. Just start ignoring them! We already do it in so many ways: on the interstates we ignore the speed limits; on the streets we ignore the crosswalks; hell the majority of the people ignore the drug laws.
We just need to extend that to all other contexts and do it together and voila`, we’re free again.
I completelly agree.
“Just say NO.”
Everyone on planet Earth, including “the head of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech”, speaks from a 3rd dimensional perspective. And yet many of the top scientists in the field of quantum physics admit probability to the existence of up to 12 dimensions. Although there is no definitive proof of 4 thru 12 I have to leave that door open and say that it’s possible, and even explore that possibility myself. To pooh, pooh that possibility could be closing the door to human evolution, which plays into the hands of those intent on complete human domination.
Saying that something is impossible may be true today but may be possible or even probable “tomorrow”. I think when we start experiencing higher levels of existence the science fiction of today will become the reality of tomorrow.
Also, humans as a specie, are in a global sea of shit created by our ruling classes. So if humans from across the planet joined into an agreement toward the common goal of creating a new paradigm experience, without destroying the uniqueness or property rights of each individual, it seems that that would be a benevolent undertaking, even though it’s collectivist in nature.
No different that someone pooh poohing the “supernatural”. It doesn’t mean it’s UNnatural simply something beyond our knowledge of the natural. It may all be bogus but you have to be open to the possibility. Since I haven’t “all knowledge” I can’t claim otherwise and if I did I’d be GOD.
“The supernatural” covers a lot of territory. I don’t hold out much hope for existence of ghosts. But things like controling the movement of objects with mind control have possibilities.
There you go. You see that’s called having an “open mind”. You’re exhibiting its symptoms. Careful though… it’s been found to be harmful, fatal even, to health, wealth, and most of all your relationships.
Sounds like NEW WORLD ORDER baloney. Which is the surrender and destruction of the sovereign rights of the idividual.
Make way for the ruling bureaurcratic elitists?
You think(as you have put it) the so called “ruling classees” have screwed things up now? Well who let them? You? Wait for the new bureaucratic pseudo itellects to grab hold of what little left you have of your liberty and freedom. I’d rather be respocible for myself, thank you.
I advocate self-responsibility, and practice it. But self-responsibility is not enough to solve the larger problems we face. That requires cooperation of like minded individuals working together toward a common goal. The effectiveness of the group is much greater than that of an individual.
As to who let the ruling class in, I personally haven’t particated in the voting ritual since Reagan’s first term.
Don, people like Doug have serious issues with their own “confirmation bias.” Most notably, if it appears in the pages of Scientific American or National Geographic, it must be true. After all publications like those only hire totally scientific and politically unbiased authors to fill their pages, right? And by god if it appears on Wikipedia it’s the gospel truth! (choke, gag) Doug makes some valid points, but apparently hasn’t heard that the Met Office has now announced that we haven’t had any global warming since 1997; but that’s not a trend according to the warm-ists.
As I recall one of the East Anglia fiction writers referred to it in one of his emails as “a travesty.” Yessiree, using cherry picked tree ring data and averaging in surface temperatures around Lake Michigan over 400 deg. F “by mistake” , just to mention a couple of the glaring and plethoric examples of “confirmation bias” by “the experts”, are damned sure good scientific practices in my book. Never mind all that grant money being “helicoptered” into the hands of “scientists” willing to push Agenda 21, the Kyoto protocol and a whole host of socialistic wealth transfer schemes cooked up by the “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside) at the UN on us.
Doug obviously doesn’t get the fact that if a business is privately funded and privately operated (i.e. not receiving gratuitous money from the public coffers) it’s none of his damned business if the owner allows smoking on premises. If Doug and his spiritual kindred don’t like it, then they don’t need go there or spend their money there. If enough people do that, the smoking policy will change at that establishment. If a lot of smokers congregate there and Doug feels some overwhelming attraction to the establishment (because there are girls, boys or small farm animals there, whatever it is he’s into) it’s not up to him to decide what the owner and the other patrons need to do to accommodate him. He could go start his own bar, restaurant, bath house or petting zoo and do with it as he pleases. But it’s far easier to butt in and tell the rest of what to do, than it is to get in the game, isn’t Doug?
The “commons” would be the town square, the sidewalks, the park and the courthouse, etc., FYI Doug. You seem unable to differentiate between these places and Virgil’s Bar and Self-Storage. In fact old Virgil, who’s outside the city limits of Springfield (and exempt from their smoking ban) has a big sign up: “Smokers Welcome.” Now I don’t how he’s doing on the self storage end of things, but he’s been doing a brisk business since the Tobacco Gestapo took power down south of him. I’d like to see old Doug saunter in past the Harleys and pick up trucks and tell the group of bikers and rednecks that frequent the place, that since they’re enjoying the use of the “commons,” they and Virgil should confine their tobacco consumption to the privacy of their own homes (but only if they have no children). Doug would probably have a new experience, like getting that beer bottle surgically extracted…
Doug and collectivists like him that are so concerned with smoking, the environment, “the commons” are nothing more than nosey busybodies that should spend more time living their own lives instead trying to tell the rest of us how to live ours. If that doesn’t suit you Doug, you have my permission to leave the planet.
Excellent reply to an obvious Clover!
On the issue of man-made climate change. I interviewed the head of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech on this subject once. She had worked with the IPCC team that got caught forging data. She wasn’t involved in that scandal but knew everyone who was.
She said unequivocably that the science is still way, way out on this issue. That the worlds environment is far too big and complex a system for anyone to claim to be able to model it and describe it or control it and anyone claiming otherwise is being professionally and intellectually disingenuous. She went on to say that, given that, any policy discussion on the issue would be inappropriate much less implementing them.
But maybe Doug knows more than a leading scientist in the field. Collectivists usually believe they do.
“That the worlds environment is far too big and complex a system for anyone to claim to be able to model it and describe it or control it and anyone claiming otherwise is being professionally and intellectually disingenuous.”
The above statement is inaccurate on its face. No one has claimed to be able to control the global climate. AS to modeling it, the value of a model is based on how accurate its predictions are. The models predict increasing extremes of weather, melting glaciers and polar ice, and generally warmer temperatures. The numbers produced by these models generally understate what is actually happening.
As to my “collectivist” mentality. I joined the Libertarian party in 1978, voted for ron paul in 1988, ran for office as a libertarian, was on the IRS hate list, and attended both republican state conventions as a delegate in 2008. But as Feynman said, Nature can not be fooled. That statement remains true despite the inability of religious conservatives refusal to deal with the physical world.
As to the accuracy of the models. Those collectivist socialists known as insurance companies (does the name Warren Buffett come to mind??) are, almost without exception, relying on those models to adjust their insurance rates so that they do not loose their individualist shirts and end up bankrupt.
So, I have no idea if I know more about ” a leading scientist — who is conveniently unidentified — in the field.
Even trees agree that the planet is warming. Do a search on tree migration and climate. So if you do not think that the climate is warming than you are dumber than the average forest. I say forest since, obviously, individual trees can not migrate, but the horrible collective of the forest can. As to the cause. Well, do a search on percent climatologists AGW warming
and every article that comes back says the same thing. Not most, the overwhelming majority -75 to 95% —of those who make a living on climate (not weather, but actual climate — there is a difference — weather “scientists” are those guys with big hair and nice teeth that you see on TV) agree that it is not GW, but ACGW. This is but one example of dozens
Of course, if you knew basic physics, as I do, you would realize that dumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere would have that affect as was first postulated over 100 years ago.
Now, let us refer to “the IPCC team that got caught forging data. ” Sorry — never happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy has no string of letters forg. The word fake occurs in the phrase, “science not fake” The problem here is that almost without exception (I know of none) the people using this are ignorant of science, or lie, or do both.
Sometimes such a person will point to the use of “trick” to get the correct results. There is nothing nefarious about this. Scientists use tricks all the time. The most common trick is called renormalization of data, often used in physics. For example, if a theory works well, but under some circumstances makes a prediction that, for example, the mass of a proton is infinite, or the size of the universe is zero, than someone will find a “trick” to make appropriate adjustments to the math to get the numbers to work out and make the relevant infinities go away. If the reader of these papers had a basic understanding of science they would understand that this is not part of a global plot of scientists.
But that is not how the mind of a conservative works. They think that all minds work like their. Nope … Scientists really are different, and really are dedicated to understanding the physical world, which is, by the way, NOT faith based.
As Feynman said. Nature can not be fooled.
ONE AGAIN. SCIENTISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN TRUTH IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD!!!! See Hawking in his book the Grand Design. Scientists are always willing to toss a theory that has been falsified.
This “trick” meaning, “figures don’t lie. liars figure?”
I think there’s a lot of hot air eminating from you sir.
You could be cause of the now called “climate change,” NOT “global warming,” anymore.
In the 80’s was it not called “global cooling?”
I don’t understand, help me out here. huh
I remember it well. Ohhhhhh how we were headed towards a hell of ice and snow. So what happened? It didn’t sell so well so the watermelon socialists (green on the outside and red on the inside) tried once more, went 180 degrees in the other direction, and coopted the global warming argument. They’re all HOT air, we know, but deserve a cold wake up call.
Doug are you a seagull?
Because you came in, flapped your wings, squawked a lot and shat all over the blog then flew away.
Come back and debate! That is, if you’re confident in your facts.
No. Trick meaning what I stated it to be. The fact that you do not have the IQ to understand how scientists do math to get the results that are used to power the computer you used to enter this result (general relativity and quantum mechanics being just the two most obvious) does not mean that scientists are liars. It means that you are not willing to accept your limitations when it comes to science.
As to global cooling in the 80’s That myth emenated from a few publications aimed at the scientifically ignorant masses based on some off the cuff speculations by a few people with science degrees. I do not think that you can come up with more than one or two, if that many, actual publications in actual science journals that were positiong global cooling.
So, at this point, your writing demonstrates you to be ignorant, a rumour monger, and having no understanding of science. I suggest you stay with the self delusional republican party — You know that group that was actually shocked when they lost a few weeks ago despite almost every bit of math and poling telling them that they would loose. Yes, sometimes liars figure, but the fact that you do not understand the math does not make a mathematician a liar. It makes you arrogant.
I am not a seagull. It just gets boring repeating myself. I am the ONLY person offering actual evidence. For example we have
“MoT on December 1, 2012 at 4:54 pm
I remember it well. Ohhhhhh how we were headed towards a hell of ice and snow. ”
who thus demonstrates the well known fact that humans memories are notoriously innacurate. Like almost every person here except me he offers no evidence. Why does he offer no evidence? Because there is no evidence to offer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PeerReviewedPapersComparingGlobalWarmingAndCoolingIn1970s.jpg
You folks do not learn, because you refuse to actually do any research. I am getting bored because you believe that if you repeat something often enough that it will somehow become a fact. Sort of like republicans claiming that all those polls were wrong
You cast insults around – let’s look at some facts. Such as the CV of one of the authors of the “study” you reference:
“William Michael Connolley (born 12 April 1964) is a British software engineer, writer, and blogger on climatology. Until December 2007 he was Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project at the British Antarctic Survey, where he worked as a climate modeller. After this he became a software engineer for Cambridge Silicon Radio.
Connolley received national press attention over several years for his involvement in editing Wikipedia articles relating to climate change. Connolley was a member of the RealClimate website until 2007 and now operates a website and blog that discuss climate issues. He has also been active in local politics as a member of the Green Party.
Connolley holds an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a DPhil from St Edmund Hall at the University of Oxford for his work on numerical analysis. He works as a software engineer for Cambridge Silicon Radio, designing embedded firmware.”
So, we have a software engineer and leftist political activist telling us the Earth is warming! Because of man’s actions! How convenient… .
This is an example of my point about political science.
Doug, I do have the IQ required. I do simulations (finite element analysis to be exact). I understand how they work. When someone uses a computer simulation as the basis of their argument without discussing their inputs, their scenarios, and so forth, just saying the output says we have to do what these people say. I know they are full of shit. The computer is a tool. If you program it with an incorrect assumption you still get results consistent with that assumption.
The fact you rely on insult tells me you have absolutely no clue about computational fluid dynamics or anything else that would be incorporated into a climate model. You once again take it on authority and just parrot what the authorities tell you, insulting those who don’t agree.
As to global cooling, I have somewhere in the closet, a hard copy of an issue of foreign affairs (a publication of the CFR) from the late 1970s that discusses global cooling, the threat to national security from it, etc and so forth. All the global warming believers tell me this didn’t happen. They try to memory hole it. Unfortunately I have a hard copy that shows that not only was it no myth but got the attention of one of the leading policy groups on the planet. Just like global warming does now.
I think Doug hit the nail on the head; what the enviro-whores at IPCC, East Anglia, NOAA, et alia are doing certainly involves “tricks.” Similar to when real a whore “turns a trick”; there’s a screwing going on and someone comes away from it with more money than they started with. The difference is when a John engages the services of a prostitute, it is voluntary; a quid pro quo transaction. Both parties generally come away from it satisfied. But in Doug’s “trick” all of us get involuntarily screwed out of viable sources of energy and our money at the point of a U.N. sanctioned gun. Hardly what someone with Doug’s self proclaimed superior intellect should see as a mutually beneficial free market transaction. No, what Doug supports are transnational thieves, thugs, charlatans, con-men and political hacks skimming our productivity to maintain their own wealth and power. Doug apparently thinks it’s a good idea to continue to “knee-cap” American industry to the point that we have reliable electricity 3 hours a day and an average annual income on par with Kenya or Zimbabwe. That would be the level playing field we keep hearing about; all of the “small people” in a state of equal poverty and oppression. The few of us that are allowed to live to serve the likes of Algore (gag) that is. Keep up the good work Doug; the regime’s counting on you.
More insults. Fabulous debate technique Douggy, you’re just full of tricks.
What do YOU do? I’m trained as a scientist, and I actually practice software engineering. I’ve actually written simulations using those mathematical techniques you accuse me of ignorance in…Monte Carlo, Bayesian, linear, genetic, and ant-pile.
So keep quoting the bought-and-paid-for alarmist pseudo-scientists of the IPCC. Meanwhile, I will rely on logic, the word of actual climatologists…and my healthy and personally gained knowledge of the unreliability of computer simulations.
Remember–petaflops are not intelligence.
Bored? Likewise. Rarely on this board do I suffer personal insults bereft of swaying logic.
And you’ve never answered the question–IF it’s anthropogenic, and IF you’re a libertarian, what’s the solution you deign to mention?
When I think of seagulls I’m always reminded of those in ‘Finding Nemo’… “Mine!…Mine!, Mine!”
Nemo? Found him in a Mendecino Marijuano County sushi restaurant a few weeks back. Seemed wrong to eat him, so I flushed him down the loo with a few verses about the loaves and fishes from cool hand luke 5:7.
When I returned to the bar, everyone had morphed into seagulls wearing red or blue falcon hoods. They were all squawking mine! Mine! And then vote! Vote! And the blue hooded seagulls were the loudest buy! Buy! Take! Take! Get off the beach! Get off the beach! Tide is rising! Tide is rising! Grab the gun! Grab the guns! Seagulls equal eagles! Seagulls equal eagles.! Hunting abolished! Hunting abolished! Smash your eggs! Save the whales!
And the. Red hooded seagulls cried war! War! Guard your nest! Guard your nest! Cage the bad birds! Cage the bad birds!
Then the scene from The Birds ended. My early onset glaucoma meds wore off. Back to the animated pseudolife matrix. Just keep swimming. Just keep serfing…
“I would call a privately owned restaurant or bar … a business taking place in the public space or commons.”
Yep! That’s a collectivist. Now that is funny. He actually says that something private is public. lmao! In his world on the other side of the looking glass wrong is right, women are men, and your money is my money ’cause we’re all in this together.
It takes a certain kind of psychopathy to create and maintain such an alternative reality and yet millions in our society do. That should scare the begeezus out of anyone.
As long as gov’t controls education most of the children will be taught that gov is great, socialism is utopia, etc. It takes the smart ones about twenty years to discover the lies – the dumb ones never will. Another ten years will be needed to learn the truth about rights and freedoms. The gov’t schools must go; education must be separated from gov’t just as religion is. If you’re asking how the poor will afford school, just put your money where your mouth is.
Absolutely correct. Also, it’s imperative that we call them just that – government schools. Not “public” schools. It is etymologically correct to do so. They are controlled by the state, including who teaches and what is taught.
Personally I dont even care any more. I have decided that I am going to expatriate within two years….as soon as I can sell everything and get my affairs in order. This country has not represented anything near what I though was right and just for as long as I can remember and I refuse to give a DIME to the scum we call leaders any more to enable them to push their communist agenda down my throat. Im DONE! Im going somewhere whee there is minimal and weak government….just about anywhere but here
But – where to go?
I’ve asked this of several people who’ve posted as you have. I love the idea of it – but then, I come up against the fact (correct me if I am wrong) that there is no place left on this earth where rights are de jure protected and not many where they are even de facto respected to any significant extent.
I think an expat destination has to simply be based on where you get to keep the most of your money. Beliz, Morroco, Romania are my top three.
Singapore has mild taxation but you can be arrested for spitting on the street. I woudn’t last a day. But they have great scuba diving.
Singapore – we’re not North Korea, but we try. Low tax. Legal to buy organs. Has office building with 4 floors of whores: http:\\www.youtu.be/Ja5-RTBic and its legal. Accidental firearms discharge can get you hung. As can 30g (same weight as 6 nickels) of Heroin. Larger Legal gambling industry than Las Vegas. Most state murders (hangings) per capita in the world. Nudie mags banned, but internet is uncensored. Failing to flush a toilet gets you a ticket and posted on the internet. English, proper impeccable, is required. Lee Kuan Kew – minister mentor – poster child of why state violence and theft always fails.
Ask that John McAfee (of McAfee anti-virus software) how Belize is working for him!
It’s an abandoned English colony; they learned all the dirty tricks of gov’t from the English. It’s a thuggishly corrupt police force in league with the usual criminal class–politicians.
Look, I like some corruption among police; it makes dealing with them easier.
But they’re over the top in Belize.
How about a nice Chile?
There was a time I contemplated Belize but then they started to get “greedy” really greedy. Fees etc. to live there started to skyrocket, mandatory conversion of foreign capital into worthless Belizean scrip, and then word filtered out about the rampant corruption, etc. No thanks.
I have a buddy who swears by Monaco.
“The Economist” recently published an article and listed “The Best Places To Be Born” based on a quality-of-life index. I didn’t agree with many of their selections, or the order of 1-80 countries, but here’s the link as food for thought: http://www.economist.com/news/21566430-where-be-born-2013-lottery-life?inf_contact_key=779030aaecaa8517c4b20225dd051c7e6b040a377136b260e09997919c149888
This is the nearest place to respond to:
methylamine on November 29, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Ok. My site sucks. So, how many of your postings are number 1 on Google or any search engine Enter the two words orwells boot and what comes back at the top of every search engine is mine. Maybe I am number 1 of suck 🙂
As to your other statements. They are also all wrong. Here is a detailed explanation of how and why they are wrong: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
And from what web site did you get information that the global temperature has been cooling for the past 16 years. ClimateDeniersOFfrozenDickNorthDakota. Try this. Record temperatures. Notice how many more highs there are than lows.
You know, just because you say something does not make it true. Even Karl of the origin of faith based reality has painfully found that to be true. Nature is what she is. Your saying different does not make it different
Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
notice occasional dips. See how it differs from the general trend. Really, only an idiot would claim that from, say the high of 1996 to 2011 that the global temperatures went down.
I must concede, I have no #1 two-word search-engine phrases; so I will upgrade the site from “sucks” to “sparse” 🙂
However I take exception to your liberal use of words like “idiot” and general disparagement; it’s undeserved, as you have no idea of the level of discourse here being a newcomer. I withhold judgment of a site’s patrons until I’ve been around a while.
You’ll find an astonishing variety of intellects here, with equally surprising depths in multiple fields of study.
Let’s start again then:
1) are climate models accurate? Are they accurate to five days for local weather? Are they accurate to a month for regional weather? How much do you trust a computer climate model out to a century? Careful…I’m a professional software engineer who’s done modeling. Computers can do bad math fantastically fast–the result’s still bullshit no matter how many teraflops you throw at it.
2) *if* in fact the trend is toward warming–which it’s still not at all clear–then is it anthropogenic?
3) *if* it’s anthropogenic–what do you propose to do about it?
(3) is the crux of the matter; and, I believe, the fulcrum on which despicable control-freak statists of every misshapen variety have hung their hopes for global control…and taxation.
Because thus far their “solutions” amount to drastic de-industrialization of the West in a manner stunningly similar to the dreams of the worst Marxist utopians. Not to mention, a concomitant bankrupting…you’ve no doubt heard the term “watermelon” used to describe these neo-environmentalists, whose aim is NOT to preserve the environment but rather to deprive man of its use. “Green on the outside, red on the inside”–watermelons.
On the other side are the true environmentalists who, like me, believe man is a part of nature–and should both preserve and use it.
As a self-professed libertarian, surely you see the primacy of property rights as a panacea to preserving nature? For through true private property ownership, we seek to preserve what is ours. Did a neighbor’s drug factory befoul your river? Sue the bastard!
Thank you. Actual coherent questions.
1. Climate questions can not be accurate to weather since you are speaking of two different things. By way of a poor analogy, it would be like questioning the accuracy of predictions of smoking causing cancer because it can not predict who will get cancer or when they will get it.
As to the trend. The only people who do not accept the trend are less intelligent than forests, most of which are slowly either moving vertically up, or closer to poles. Or, since death is natures way of addressing stupidity (Heinline), are dying.
Which leaves the human caused part. That is very well explained by the physics of radiation absorbtion and re-emission by the gasses in question. Are you familiar with how that works. The entire theory was first postulated about 100 years ago.
The solutions do not require de-industrialization. You may wish to do some basic research on the progress being made in solar, wind, geothermal, efficiency, energy storage and related fields. What the solution will mean is that energy will cost more for a while.
It sort of reminds me of a discussion that someone had with a person from Holland. The Danes spent tens of billions on their sea wall protection system. The reporter asked, wasn’t that a lot of money, and the response was, well how much did New Orleans cost?
The US and europe constitute the largest economies on the planet. It they set the standards, those standards can be enforced by sufficiently high taraffs on countries that insist on raising global temperatures.
If you do not think that rising sea levels, a record low Mississippi river (barge traffic may be halted), damaging storms, of which Sandy is just the most recent, and droughts will somehow cost less than non carbon energy, I do not know what to say, other than you appear to be blind to all available information.
As to a neighbors drug factory befouling the river. It is hard to sue the bastard when the neighbor owns the courts. But more to the point, is that the neighbor uses technology to force toxins, under pressure, deep down into the earth, so that what is befouled is many miles away. Thus it is hard to prove that he is the cause. A much better way is that in any manufacturing process, what comes out must be non toxic, or toxic at a level that is less than what went in.
I can’t even begin to parse this:
“Which leaves the human caused part. That is very well explained by the physics of radiation absorbtion and re-emission by the gasses in question. Are you familiar with how that works. The entire theory was first postulated about 100 years ago.”
This is supposed to mean (or prove) what, exactly?
Where are the facts demonstrating that human activity is causing an abnormal – and dangerous – warming trend?
You can hurl as many insults as you wish; they’re not much in the way of factual support for your assertions. There has indeed been a warming trend. I don’t dispute this, because one cannot dispute the meteorological data. But AGW takes that data – and runs off the reservation with it by asserting that human action is the cause. Well, that’s a hypothesis. One that’s suspicious because it serves a certain agenda – an agenda peddled by they very people most stridently insisting that AGW is fact. Many of whom may be scientists, or academics – but not in the relevant field. This fact is one of the most notorious problems with the whole AGW agenda. To dismiss it only makes you look foolish – or disingenuous.
Re smoking: Apparently the author is unfamiliar with the physical world and things like science which have producde abundant evidence that smoking not only harms the smoker, but also everyone around them, including their children. And I would not care, if any smoker were inelligable for any kind of state paid medical care. The same applies to people being fed toxic food by the food/industrial/government complex. If you are obese AND out of shape, then you can pay for all of your insurance or pay for all of your medical care. Do not stick me with the bill.
As to having insurance for a gun… Why not? You have insurance for a car right? Frankly, I am in favor of doing away with all regulations, and replacing them with responsibility — ie bonds or insurance. Which is a private thing, even if it is a kind of requirement. There are ways of doing responsibility with almost zero government involvement.
Just for grins — enter the two words orwells boot into any search engine. The first article that comes back is mine, usually under the name of factotum666. You will probably like it and the associated links
You’ve nicely laid out the collectivist argument for prior restraint; i.e., if someone might do something that could cause harm then everyone must accept restrictions based on that, even if they personally have caused no harm.
The only reason you are “stuck with the bill” is because of your collectivist premises. The thing to do is reject the premises – not insist on more collectivism!
I believe each of us should assume the responsibilities for our own actions – and also enjoy the liberty to act as we see fit (provided we harm no one else in the process). So, for example, I have every right not to be forced to purchase insurance (excepting a not-yet-paid-for home or car, for the obvious reason). And you have no right to force me to. But if I cause you harm, then you have every right to seek compensation – and I (and only I) am responsible to provide it.
PS: You’re right that smoking is unhealthy (even though the science, as you put it, in re “secondhand smoke” is much more dubious). But you skirt the real issue – which is not smoking in public. Rather, the idea of punishing people for smoking, period. Including in their own homes – and by taxing cigarettes at confiscatory rates. Here, you become a moralizer at gunpoint. Perhaps there are personal activities you enjoy that may not “be good for you.” Should you be punished for such?
As I type this I’m loading my well-broken in briar with a bowl full of black cavendish. There’s an ice cube melting in a glass that previously contained a jigger of Jack Daniels. My dog is asleep at my feet. Somewhere my cat is doing whatever it is he does when not demanding attention. A Christmas carol is playing on my radio.
OK…But there is also a loaded .45 within arms reach.
“smoking in public” – this is the problem. Public (gov’t) ownership of property.
If I own a bar and I permit smoking and you know that then don’t come to my bar or my house. Only when there is a lack of private property rights do these problems arise since everyone owns it and nobody owns it so the gov’t mandates our behaviour.
Bottom line is if you don’t like cigarette smoke then don’t hang out around people in public or in private who are smoking.
I agree, Don – and should have been more careful with my choice of words. When I said “public” I meant to convey areas such as government offices and so on. You’re absolutely correct that a restaurant or bar owner (and so on) has every right to set policy for his property. People are free to come – or not.
This is a good argument from a smoker I presume? The thing is if I had gas and kept passing it in a bar they would ask me to leave. Your cigarette smoke does enter my body and gets on my clothes. If you go to a bar with a winter coat it’s something you don’t want to have to wash everytime you go to a bar, but you will have no choice.
The government nows want to stop people from smoking outside. I think it’s more of conditioning people being told what to do than about your health.
Of course if someone has a bar and they have a couple tables with a hood that draws the smoke out immediately and they had to smoke there I would have no problem with it, but the government does. They say you can’t smoke in some states with a child in the car. My father smoked 4 packs a day. I was with him when he smoked, but you crack the window a couple inches and the smoke is no problem. If they want to talk about smoke what about all the smog in some cities, when you spend one day in the smog it’s like smoking two packs of cigarettes.
I bet if they pass a law you can’t smoke in the car with a child it will mean even with the top down.
But I bet you it won’t mean people can’t have their radios blarring with children in the car.
I would like to see them close the cigarette factories and if you want to smoke you got to roll your own.
The biggest problem with smoking IMO is that smokers inflict their preference on other people.
For instance before the smoking bans I would be somewhere and I would intentionally find a place where there weren’t any smokers. Seeing this some smoker would come over and hold the damn thing or even blow the smoke at me. Just rude behavior even if not intentional. Because socially it is considered unacceptable to confront these assholes I would simply move somewhere else only to have the cycle repeat.
Same thing in cars. Smokers have to dangle their cig outside the car… great now at the traffic light I have to close my windows and close the HVAC system to the outside air. Or worse they throw their lit cig butts out the window… on two occasions they landed on the cowl of my car so now the smoke is being sucked in. Once I had to park to remove the damn thing. Then there is the litter of the butts. Of course it’s socially unacceptable to confront this poor behavior too. So what happens? Laws.
If we had a property rights based system where it was socially acceptable to confront the asshole smokers then everyone could live in peace.
One thing I never did that I thought of, was create a used motor oil burning cigarette. So when a smoker started irritating me I would just light it up and sent the noxious fumes of burning motor oil into the air and see how they liked it.
I was unaware that smoking in private had been outlawed anywhere. Hey, if you want to injure yourself, then by all means feel free to do so. But how about your kids? I would agree that you could impose the cost of asthma and other chronic health problems on your children as long as they are free to come after your assets when they reach majority. Feel better now?
As to the dubious nature of the problems of second hand smoke. I would venture to say that that science is dubious to the same group of people who think that the earth is not getting warmer, or that it was created 6000 years ago. Or best of all those who think that the earth was created 6000 years ago AND we have had documented warm periods over the past several hundreds of thousands of years. Those who have no understanding of the nature of science, also tend to be weak on arithmetic.
I would like to see a study done in the past 10 years that casts any doubt on the nature of second hand smoke that was not bought and paid for by tobacco companies. You know, the same outfits that said that smoking has no causal relation with cancer and other diseases.
And, as a side bet, I would suppose that while you believe that inhaling carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, HCN and other poisons is harmless, you also think that mercury in vaccinations causes autism.
Have you ever taken an actual science class?
“I was unaware that smoking in private had been outlawed anywhere.” Really? What would you call a privately owned restaurant or bar? Or do you – like other collectivists – take the position that such places are “public spaces”?
The whole second-hand smoke thing is of extremely dubious validity. It is political science – or rather, politicized science. Just like the “science” that claims human caused global warming is real. Has there been a warming trend? Certainly. Is it caused by human action? That is by no means proved. Yet the two tings are package-dealt for the political purpose of justifying more control over us by creatures such as Al Gore. The man whose “carbon footprint” is bigger than my town. Who lectures about “global warming” . . . from behind the wheel of his Cadillac Escalade.
You will find most of the posters here are anything but “weak on arithmetic,” incidentally. Be prepared.
If second-hand smoke is so dangerous, perhaps you can explain why there is no higher incidence of cancers and other health problems associated with smoking among the generations of non-smokers who grew up around smokers when smoking was ubiquitous – and before the hysteria about “second hand smoke” erupted? How do you account for the fact that the incidence of childhood respiratory ailments is higher today – with fewer people smoking (and all the proscriptions associated with “second hand smoke”) than 30 years ago?
While being around a smoker may not be the most enjoyable thing, the risk associated with it is negligible with the exception of those who already have respiratory problems, such as asthmatics.
I would call a privately owned restaurant or bar (on the assumption that it is not a corporation which would make it a creation of the state, with state protections — and that is a whole other issue) a business taking place in the public space or commons.
Do I think that there should be a place for actual private people (not corporations) to have food serving enterprises that allow smoking? Why yes I do. But I also think that queers should be allowed to marry, and that we should not have any laws regarding the use of drugs. In fact, I think that we should remove all regulations except for requiring any person doing business to be fully responsible, which means that someone with a power drill could make themselves for brain surgery, but they might find themselves liable for serious damages that could not be discharged via bankruptcy. No “tort reform” here.
Your statements about science do nothing but show your ignorance on the subject.
Or are you prepared to show that any of these studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking are invalid?
I suspect that many people are happy about rules against smoking, as they have about the same feeling about “smokers rights” as smoker had about the discomfort that they caused to others. Exactly zero. Jesus man. Someone is poisoning themselves, how much sympathy could one expect them to have for the comfort of others nearby? In my history they took pleasure in making others uncomfortable. Perhaps if the vast majority of them had not acted like pigs all these years, the laws would not now be so draconian.
Getting back to science. Again, you are ignorant even of what science is as demonstrated by your use of the phrase:
” That is by no means proved.” Science never proves anything, unless you meant it in the sense of test, which I am sure you did not, since sciencetists (not science, but scientists) continually test their theories. And all theories do is make predictions, and the predictions about global warming have turned out to be, if anything, understating the consequences of increasing greenhouse gasses.
As to your questions about todays health problems vs smoking. 1. You offered no evidence. 2. The first question was poorly formed, so I will pass on that until you re-structure it, or offer some evidence. As to the second one about childhood respiratory illnesses today.
I am sure that you are aware that a more accurate comparison would be, not between earlier times, to what happens today, but between in the current time between households where there are smokers, and where there are non-smokers.
But to address even your faulty question. There are two very good explanations for the increase of respiratory diseases, assuming, of course, that you did not just make it up — again, you offered no evidence.
1. A lot more premature infants are surviving today, and one of the main problems with such children is poor lung development.
2. A very common theory of asthma, and one that is gained a lot of acceptance, is the theory that our super clean environments do not train our immune systems, and that one result is much more asthma and related problems. Among other evidence of this is that children raised on farms or around a lot of animals have fewer respiratory problems than children raised in ultra clean suburban homes by OCD mothers.
Trends in asthma prevalence vary between countries. For the past 40 years,
the prevalence of asthma has increased in all countries in parallel with that
of allergy. Asthma is still increasing worldwide as communities adopt modern
CHRONIC RESPIRATORY DISEASES
lifestyles and become urbanized
I am just curious. Do you actually do any research, or do you just repeat what someone else tells you when it agrees with your mental preset. IE to you have an acute case of confirmation bias?
Another reason for increased respiratory diseases is our poor diet and obesity. Perhaps you have noticed that people are getting fatter, and are less active. They also eat fewer fruits and vegetables. People spend much less time outdoors, and so are exposed to a lot more indoor air pollution, which, thanks to that nasty government coercing business into not farting into the air, means that outdoor city air is now cleaner than indoor office and home air. (oops that is three reasons. I suspect that I could find more, but I will stop here)
By the way, until you get promoted to god, please do not assume that simply making a statement makes it true (In the beginning was the word, and the word was god …) but offer some evidence to support your views.
You write: “a privately owned restaurant or bar … is a business taking place in the public space or commons.”
This must be dissected. First, it is indeed a business. As to the “public space” or “commons” – that’s where you lose me. Because the owner of the business purchased the physical property. It’s therefore his – and no more “public space” or “commons” than my home (or yours). The fact that this privately owned property is used for purposes of offering people food or drink does not obviate the owner’s ownership rights. Which means, his right to allow (or disallow) things like smoking, as he sees fit. If you don’t like smoking, you are free to eat somewhere else. Just as I am free to do the same.
In a free society, that is.
In unfree societies (such as this one) Clovers have assumed the power to dictate terms and conditions to property owners – whose ownership rights are thereby destroyed. If you can tell me whom I may serve, how I serve them – indeed, how I must serve them – then I am no longer the owner. You are. Because you control the place – not me.
Bottom line: No one’s rights are trampled when a restaurant or bar owner permits smoking in his restaurant or bar. Because no one is forced to eat (or drink there). They are free to take their business elsewhere – or to open a bar/restaurant of their own. But rights are trampled when you tell the owner of a bar or restaurant he cannot allow smoking in his bar or restaurant. That he must cater to the demands of other people against his will, on (or in) his privately owned property.
You write: “But I also think that queers should be allowed to marry, and that we should not have any laws regarding the use of drugs.” Amen. Me, too. Only I do not disparage people as you do.
On the rest:
Quoting Wikipedia doesn’t make you right; nor does it make me ignorant. The fact is the earth has experienced extremes of “climate change” (including wildly varying concentrations of atmospheric gasses such as C02 and O2) as well as periods of relative stability. At various points in Earth’s history, C02 levels have been 20 percent (and more) higher than they are now. Mind: This was long before the first IC engine chuffed to life. Earth has been much warmer – and much cooler – than it is now.
The statistics pointed to by the AGW crowd do not substantiate the claim than human activity has caused the described temperature changes – or even that the changes are abnormal in the sense of earth’s not-static environment. “The way things were” 50 years ago (or 10 years ago or 10,000 years ago) doesn’t mean that it’s abnormal (let alone apocalyptic) if things are different now. Things change.
You’re probably old enough to recall when these same folks were insisting that an ice age – “global cooling” – was imminent. C02 is only one of several “greenhouse gasses” (and far from the most potent of them) and mankind’s contribution is literally negligible relative to naturally occurring sources such as volcanic eruptions (see, for example the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo).
AGW is political science. It furthers a political agenda. That the same people pushing AGW also push for worldwide collectivism ought to arouse suspicion in any thinking person’s mind.
As far as secondhand smoke: You go off tangent, bringing up childhood obesity and other non sequiturs. You didn’t address my main point: That people who grew up around smokers (but who never smoked themselves) during the era before smoking was anathematized (i.e, the Gen X generation, Baby Boomers, etc.) do not suffer from higher rates of smoking-related illnesses such as lung cancer. This fact – not my opinion – flies directly in the face of the assertion that exposure to secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard.
Catching the occasional whiff of smoke – or even sitting in a smoky bar once in awhile – is not going to hurt you anymore than eating a greasy burger every now and then is going to give you heart disease.
I’m reminded of something by your tediously pedantic and self-contradictory post…
And your website sucks too, by the way.
The IPCC-istas laid a line in the sand sixteen years ago; they said that if the temperature didn’t rise as much as expected by their favorite model in fifteen years, it was invalid.
The temperature didn’t rise at all, in fact it’s cooling. It’s been sixteen years.
Anthropogenic global warming is completely discredited by every objective measure, and its logic was ridiculous in the first place–nature generates 150 gigatons of carbon per year, we generate 5. Do math much?
Global warming is a rehashing of the ancient high priests’ fear scam–“The snake god will eat the sun god unless you sacrifice your children!”
As I recall the IPCC’s report said that the human contribution if any is very small. But that wasn’t in the conclusions or summaries which of course didn’t match the data and analysis sections. The conclusions and summaries were of course very politically proper.
Somebody could sit there and blow smoke in my face all night long and I can’t say anything, but let me eat a big old bowl of beans and get some gas going and they would raise hell when I cut loose some bombs. What I hate about the second hand thing is your clothes smell like smoke within five minutes. I feel if they had tables and had a vent hood right over their heads and drew the smoke out I would not mind at all. The thing is the smoking ban is just taking away your freedoms. when there is something they could do. Now if they wanted to impress me close down the cigarette factories.
The issue isn’t smoking – per se. It’s whether anyone has the right to compel another person to accommodate his preferences on private property. If I own a bar or restaurant, I am the owner. I paid for the place. If I wish to permit smoking (or farting or breast-feeding or naked dancing) in my establishment, on my property – that is my right. No one else has any right to dictate otherwise. They may request. But I am entitled to refuse. And if they don’t like it, they are free to take their business elsewhere.
That’s liberty. “…closing down the cigarette factories” is tyranny.
Doug, I find people who parrot mainstream media and then say or write things like: “Have you ever taken an actual science class?” to be people who have no idea about scientific methods but rather those who worship science as a religion. That is that they believe authority to be a compelling argument and do not look at evidence or weigh it themselves.
Furthermore such people often drag things in like the ‘6000 year old earth’ to ridicule those people who don’t share their religious belief in “science”. They also drag in various other topics that they believe in but really haven’t looked at critically.
The problem is that the politically motivated side of science isn’t really science at all. It’s always defended emotionally and politically and with ridicule because once someone starts digging into the real work it turns out be really lacking from a scientific or engineering point of view.
For instance, did you know that nobody has ever done a study for the schedule of vaccines and how that schedule, that combination, of vaccines effects children? Never done. They just jack around with the immune systems of children having no real clue what might happen. Science, engineering at least, studies things like combinations of inputs to a system. But religious “science” doesn’t. They believe that because each one seemed harmless for most people that they could combine them any which way they want and that it would be impossible for a harmful effect to result. Never mind that people aren’t exactly all built the same too. There wasn’t even a proper FEMA done with what everyone’s (well everyone not in the club) children are to be subjected to.
Such is the mentality of politically and socially driven “science” vs. science driven by logic and root cause analysis.
Yes, I expect you to lash out at me with ridicule. I don’t really care. I only advise you to look deeper into things. You might find you’ve been bullshitted by people who use “authority” instead of logic.
BTW: I dislike secondhand smoke. I know it’s not good for -me-. The laws against smoking have opened up more businesses for me to go to. However I do not support the smoking bans. Why? Because I can see if they can do that to a business owner’s property the next thing they can come up could have an adverse effect on me.
Wouldn’t it make more sense they regulate the fast food restaurants and force them to make nutritious foods with limited fat, and salt content? When they don’t allow people to smoke outdoors, then it’s not about the second hand smoke it’s about coditioning your mind.
They don’t allow anyone to drink alcohol in the car. What does it hurt if the passenger wants to sip on some wine?
I know people who smoke with the kids in the house. Is this illegal? I’m sure it would be an argument for child abuse. One thing for sure I thing the government isn’t doing their job, because I can easily get crack cocaine anytime I want. It’s here and you can get it. I say they are failing in the department.
My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day. We were with him in the truck, but he would have the window cracked and the air moving about the cigarette smoke was no problem. If you have air moving it’s not a problem, but you got 20 people smoking in a closed bar and you got problems. You are breathing in that nasty air and there is nothing you can do. I wish the people would just decide to close the cigarette factories and if people want to smoke let them grow the tobacco and roll their own outside but not inside. But if they could have an exhaust hood over certain area and the smoke didn’t enter the premises I would have no problem with that.
“…but you got 20 people smoking in a closed bar and you got problems. You are breathing in that nasty air and there is nothing you can do.”
Is the place locked down? Armed guards at the door?
Why not just… leave?
And go to a place that’s more to your liking?
Nobody has the right to stink up your air. Nobody. They got electronic cigarettes now so the problem is solved. I mean I could eat food loaded with the hottest peppers in the world and you would be crying tears. I just say close the cigarette companies and would do just that if I could. Of course I would close the bars for a period and then when I presented the facts the fewer accidents and domestic cases the people might decide they should be closed or I would at least close the bars at midnight. So people could get some decent sleep. I’ve been in Louisiana and they’ll drink till the sun comes up if you let them
It’s not your air, Steve! Not if it’s within the confines of a privately owned restaurant or bar.
If it’s your place, you have the right to set “terms and conditions.” If I don’t like those terms and conditions, I am free to leave.
Why is it any of your business what people do with their bodies, on private property? Do you assert an ownership interest in my body? And if you have the “right” to force me (for the sake of discussion) to not smoke – or to not permit smoking in my privately owned business – then you have conceded my “right” to threaten you with violence to force you to abide by whatever restriction I feel is appropriate … on your private property, or with regard to your own person (your body, your life).
Maybe I don’t like what you eat, Steve. Maybe I think you’re “too heavy.” Maybe you should be forced to eat other things – or forbidden from eating certain things. God knows what you do in the bedroom. Maybe it’s “perverted” – according to my standards. Maybe you should be stopped.
Do you see?
You’re endorsing authoritarianism. The version you like.
Isn’t live – and let live – better?
Wouldn’t it be nice to know that so long as you’ve not caused anyone harm, you cannot be accused of a crime?
We got too many chiefs and not enough indians. Chiefs posting words in forums and indians out doing the dirty work. The dissidents that have web sites are not accomplishing anything. It’s not like the government hasn’t lied for decades. They not only lied, but were involved in Oklahoma City. The BATF planted bombs on the main columns to kill babies and try to tie McVeigh to the militia and it worked. He was never in the militia, but they said he spoke with a member and that made the people quit the militia. So if the government is that afraid of a few hundred thousand militia, then maybe the government are nothing, but pussies who are just more organized with more money.
I bet you if the jack booted thugs had real shootouts with the populace and their ranks started to get thin. Then they would have to think is it worth it? We know the government lies to the people and it was fine when we could take a dozen and confront one homeowner and shoot the dogs, but now they are firing back and now we are paying.
They murdered children in Oklahoma City. How angry would you be if it was your cildren? You learn the BATF planted bombs in the building. Would you have the right to be angry? You know most countries don’t kill their citizens and most countries don’t police the world. This isn’t about policing the world and the citizens get to play. It’s about policing all of you.
The government murdered small children in Waco and the truth be known they wanted to kill them so they wouldn’t be able to tell the truth about what went on there. The BATF murdered children to silence them. When they come to your home to take your guns and you have children there remember this. They say children are so precious until the need them for cannon fodder. All we can do for those children is make the bastards pay.
You know it’s almost like the military they got to keep making more and more enemies and they have now. Their enemies are all the citizens of the USA. They can not defeat us. The people who elect for office and those agencies that govern us are the enemy. Not the Arabs, not the other races. The ABC boys are your enemy and people who have had their kids taken and have had their rights violated know this.
This government knew there were tens of millions of people being killed in Eastern Europe, but chose to do nothing. In fact they let the ones who did the killing to come to America and set up a Communist party right here. Three million people controlled and murdered tens of millions in a country of 100 million. There are 9 million of them in this country. If the ABC boys want to stand between us and them, then they just become something that is a problem and must be dealt with.
The Great Depression was orchestrated by the same ones orchestrating this recession right now. depressions don’ty just happen they are created. The purpose is to dry up all the money from the poor. The rich can pay $50 for a loaf of bread. With Communism you have rulers and peasants. There is no middle class in America any longer.
Too many smart folk here! US Citizens, 14th Amend slaves, the Americans have done this to themselves by not minding the henhouse. We the People is no longer a reality. It is De Facto rule, so get used to it…ya did’nt protest so you have acquiesced by your silence… Read Ron Paul’s final exit speech from congress…
Time to saddle up the Palomino & head out of Dodge…
America has been transcended into a 3rd world country status & all them illegals, immigrants, etc will obey their master who has bestowed all the freebees & benefits on them…
I have read a great deal of heartbroken words on this chat alongside mine as well…
Remember Soviet Georgia.
Just finished reading ALL the comments to date(time)and am inpressed by the quality of thought found here. I find many of the arguments exremely persuasive in challenging some of my thoughts on the problem of not merely the erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights, but also the rest of those we would live and die for. The issue of parental (fathers’ rights) is even more threatening than gun right, IMO. The comments on the state of gun rights in Nevada struck close to home: I was born and raised in Las Vegas 80 yrs ago and my first gun was an old Stevens rolling block .22 that had been in the family for years and was the instrument of accidental death of my step-grandfather’s friend at grandad’s hands. We all used the gun and knew its sad history. Yet I and friends started using it by the time I was 10 yrs. old — alone, unsupervised, and extremely cautious! In those days of yore guns were part of daily living without dreaming of the possibility of govt. confiscation.
But, those 80 yrs have brought many changes, indeed, and I now live my closing days in a world utterly foreign to the one into which I was born — and there is no going back for me or my heirs.
It has, indeed, been a case of incrementalism and of good men doing nothing in the face of incremental abuse. Good men have great difficulty believing that their momentary neglect is a brick in the wall of abuse by the wicked. Picking a fight over small things seems utterly unreasonable, so the energy is “saved” for big ones that seldom emerged from the noise. As both a gun owner with a CC and his share of guns, I struggle with the oppressive encroachment here in MA.
I am a Christian who believes that evil must be resisted when it enters the door — literally and figuratively. I also believe that governments that violate their divine mandate to hold evil in check and go further to promote it are vulnerable to resistance and “regime change”. The issue is when that resistance must take place, and how. violence is not out of the question, but not the first resort, but the last.
Like the founding fathers of this country, who were a divided coalition between Christians and humanist Libertarians, those opposed to the tyranny that has stalked our country the last 100 years have this in common: “All men are intrinsicly valuable; they must be responsible; and, to be responsible they must be free.”
Human value, responsibility, and freedom are, as then, the battle ground today. I am not an anarchist, nor do I endorse license that flows from raw freedom to do what I will. The “Liberty” our fathers fought for was “responsible freedom” that recognized that there are bounds and metes on our freedom of action deriving from the rights of others and the integrity expected of us by God. Sadly, the primacy of the self acknowledges no breach of such bounds and metes that are objectively binding.
We all stand to be and have been blind-sided. We correctly inveigh against tyrannical impositions with indignation from the depths of our being. Yet, we commonly do not see our own violations of the standards by which we judge! We Americans, not someone else, are responsible for our daily private and public decisions that have led to this parlous state not merely of our country but of our own personal irresponsibility. That truth stings in its clear and sudden recognition.
The discussion on this thread, for all its admirable and elevated level of contribution, has not yet come to terms with that truth. Indeed, there seems a near concensus that the days ahead for us are rather like the dismal destiny of a leaf on a mill pond. No solution to our dilemma is forthcoming, in spite of our optimism of some about our ability to save ourselves. The statement, “American’s cannot save America” seems clear to most of us.
Prudent men will make lemonade from lemons. We cannot make that lemonade until we recognize the human perversity in ourselves that we easily attribute to the “clovers” and “Lisas” who seem to be in overwhelming abundance about us — it is their fault, not ours. Really?
The glorious experiment that once was our Republic has come to an end — just as have cultures and civilizations before us. God willing we will take our licks and, perhaps, stand again with a disciplined view of who we truly are and what liberty and responsibility at least are NOT, if we cannot fully grasp what they are. Perhaps, out of the ashes we may rise as a different more responsible Phoenix than before, pending its own destiny or the end of history itself.
The alternative — radical judgment on a national and global scale — is terrible to contemplate. Modernity built on the primacy of the self has run its course. As a Christian, I have hope in either case since I live and die in the hope of the Resurrection. I would that all could share that hope and that we might yet find a better way. Someone said, above, “Don’t be a Dick!” Jesus agreed and put it thus: “Do unto others as you would have done to you!” There is our starting point for tomorrow and the day after.
Meanwhile, I’ll take it a day at a time doing what is within the reach of my hand — gun or handshake — and hoping for His approval.
My best wishes to all, especially those who love and purse truth.
Thank you for your thoughtful post, especially this:
“All men are intrinsicly valuable; they must be responsible; and, to be responsible they must be free.”
Exactly. This is, in a way, the Cliff’s Notes version of the Declaration of Independence. When men are controlled, they become less than human because their potential is thwarted. And those who do the controlling have lost their humanity entirely.
You say that we already have mandatory insurance (Obamacare) and we have accepted it? I don’t think so, it was never popular and people will rejuect it more and more because it can’t deliver what it says it will. also with the internet, alternative media, people are waking up to this B.S. it will be resisted, or people will just not comply, the way to fight these evil pieces of trash is to file lawsuits, sue them personally, set precedence keep them in court every spare minute they have, that’s how we repel this repugnant bunch of psychopaths!
I hope there is mass non-compliance, but so far (as regards the edicts of the government) there has been general acceptance.
What I and others (including you, based on your post) have to figure out is how to get large numbers of people to act in common cause. It will do no good – and much harm – if disparate individuals resist. They will simply be caged or killed – and dismissed as “domestic extremists,” “kooks” and so on.
Any ideas/thoughts would be most welcome.
all valid points, but I fear it is too late. We now have in our country over 50% of the population that feeds off the rest of the working class who actually pay taxes. They now have the necessary votes to support their candidates and their programs and there is nothing we can do about it. The progressives, the liberals, the communists, have been very, very patient, and have learned to accept small victories spread out over many years. They have now convinced over half the voters to accept their policy, and it’s only a matter of time before the health care bill does exactly what the author has described, plus many other acts no one has even thought of yet. You can thank Justice Roberts for selling out, for whatever reason, but the president must have had something on him to get his vote, I’m convinced of this. We have over 40 states in this country that don’t want this health care plan, but the remaining states, due to their large population, are able to get what they want. Our ONLY hope is the republicans in the House. They must not give in, they are the last line of defense against the communists taking over our country. So write to these representatives, even if they are not from your district, and plead with them to stand up to the tyranny being inflicted on all of us. If we don’t, the next election may never be, the ones in power may declare themselves rulers for life. Think it can’t happen, as the others have said, look what they have done for the last twenty years, and then just imagine what they might do next. Sometime towards the end of 2015, if Obama talks about running for a third term, for any reason, all hope is lost.
Taxes are paid by the middle class to keep them poor. If the middle class could put some money away they could say screw the government and they might be able to move away, but they tax them to the point nobody working at a factory or construction job can ever get ahead, because they are taxed so heavily if they want to work 80 hours that they don’t make any extra money. Why can’t people who work overtime get to keep their overtime pay, because then they could get ahead and many would have money and be able to enter the system of big businesss. Why would the government care about collecting taxes. All they have to do is tax the corporations and eliminate the FICA tax and tens of millions of people might have $30 or $40 more in their paycheck each week.
Agreed, Steve –
The PTB cannot abide independence. And absent heavy taxation – in particular, taxes on real estate – many millions of middle and working class people could be completely free of the need to work “on grid” (and pay taxes).
I could have retired from paid work 10 years ago…. if it weren’t for the necessity to pay “rent” on my land/house (property taxes) as well as all the other taxes. The money stolen from me in FICA alone over the past 20 years would be sufficient – if I still had it – to generate a decent yearly income from investments, such as the income from a rental property.
Instead, the government has it.
So, I have to keep on working…..
And it has to be this way because some people don’t have the discipline to accumulate capital.
Help for the hapless at the expense of the responsible. And then there are more irresponsible and hapless people and of course the solution is to punish prudence and responsibility and productivity even more.
I think Tom is right – you are off your rocker a bit. You take the worst case scenario and try to scare people.
The point is that “the worst case scenario” doesn’t just descend upon us. It is imposed upon us gradually – by the systematic evisceration of our rights. I explained how it has been done – with factual examples. For example, the habituation of people to the idea of random, arbitrary searches – starting with “sobriety” checkpoints. Which established the principle – and normalized it. This, in turn, led to the TSA and Gate Rape – not being able to board an airplane without either assuming the “I surrender” pose and being scanned or submitting to a degrading physical search exactly like that done to incoming prisoners/arrestees.
And for this, you claim I am “try(ing) to scare people.” Indeed. People ought to be scared.
ALso the seatbelt thing is another way, because it’s there for you to use if you want to use it. You can if you want disengage your airbag. I would rather have airbag as a seatbelt. Once they implement something it never changes. They still have checkpoints in Russia and late at night the cops stop every car and you better have your papers. Also, Russians can’t just get on a plane and fly here. They have to apply and get approved for a student or work visa. How much has changed there. They just quit shooting them by the thousands each night. Every country we went to war with we have occupied, except Vietnam. But we are still in Korea. 30,000 soldiers just sitting in Korea doing nothing. Hundreds of thousands in Germany doing nothing. Hundreds of thousands in Serbia, Iceland, Italy and many other weak countries. All those confrontations are nothing more than to be able to occupy those countries.
There is one place we should have troops and that is in Palestine where all the trouble is, but since the Israelis don’t want us there we aren’t there. Because we would really get in the way of them killing the Palestinians and running them out.
If the blacks as the kosher boys and government tell us are the same, then why aren’t any troops in Africa, because it’s all BS.
What speaks volumes more than the fact the government is doing these checkpoints and TSA groping is the fact nobody has gotten out with a full auto and cleared out the whole mess. I mean we are so weak we won’t even quit flying. I quit flying in 2002 and won’t fly again. I took a trip to Europe in 2005 and took a ship and it took longer, but it was so relaxing. I won’t board another plane unless it’s an emergency.
If we can’t do that it means bad times are ahead. When has anyone ever boarded a plane with weapons? When has any luggage going on a plane ever contained bombs. Other than when Israehell companies who provide security for the airport puts the luggage on planes to take out someone they want to get with no concern for other passengers. The Mossad is the one who has planted all the bombs on the planes and blamed the Arabs everytime. The FBI knows this. So that is one agency that needs to be overhauled.
I understand your frustration – your anger – and share it. But we cannot advocate violence, or even give the impression that we do. Because doing so plays rights into the hands of those who are responsible for all that we are angry about. Our best weapon is persuasion by reason. ok?
WHat happens is people move to the front and awaken other people. These people pay dearly when things don’t go their way. We could sit in these forums for another 20 years and keep talking and talking. If everyone said enough is enough they could not stop us.
If we are waiting for martial law, then you should right now move to another country. At least see beautiful countries and pay into their system. This country is done. Tens of thousands saw 9/11 for what is was and move to other countries. They have banned these GM foods in other countries. Some for a decade to see the results. Our government is guilty of premeditated murder. GM food will kill you. Where is the outrage?
They murdered our people in Oklahoma City. They murdered our people at Waco. 9/11 they destroyed billions and murdered tousands. I can’t believe all the people who are dying from the asbestos from the dust on 9/11 haven’t decided on some revenge who will be dead in a year.
The government solves all it’s problems with violence. In wars during protests. They use violence. They are organized with 2 million members and they have our money to work with and they have Israhell leadsing the way.
In Israehell and because of the Communist party in the USA there are millions of Commies that murdered tens of millions of people that are directing the events in Israhell and in this country. You don’t want to be like the Russians with no guns and the knock at the door and the U.N. soldiers telling you to go with them.
THINK!THINK!THINK! There are tens of millios lying in mass graves all over Europe who did nothing, but said something that a Commie heard and they were taken from their families in the middle of the night and shot and buried in mass graves and nobody knew what happened. What if someone said that is going to happen to you inside of a year? If you planned something and someone said hey we don’t need violence. You would pull out your pistol and silence that moron.
You say it’s not time for violence? Was it time for violence when they lied about all the wars? Was it time for violence when they slaughteed the people in this country? How about all the dissidents they have put in prison who did nothing, but tried to warn the people? What if it were millions of them including you? Frustration is when a populace is disarmed and they are being liquidated and they should have been educated by what happened to Russia.
The Germans allowed the Commies safe passage into Russia, because they knew they were going to start a revolution, but look how that cost them just 22 years later. The governments don’t allow criminals to roam the world. But we have allowed Commies to roam and they are why we are here today. Commies will kill you and your whole family and even a whole building they bomb. The Italian mafia had some code of ethics. You better wake up! Sure when this stuff starts people will be scared, but when reports come in that their families and friends are being murdered they will have no choice. Just remember the BATF was working with all the terrorists the past twenty years. Maybe you aren’t as angry as peope who lost family on 9/11.
Do something even if it’s wrong. Move to another country. Prior to tax time move denounce your citizenship. Or prepare to lock and load.
I think when you have a problem you have a solution. Queers or should I say gay? Anyhow queers promote their perversion. Go to any queer parade and they hump each other and fondle each other and they are like in your face. Queers are all about sex. They are not about love. I mean how many people were queer 100 years ago when you better not let anyone know? You might notice a boy down the road and you might meet secretly and have sex in a tree house you built in the woods, but you didn’t do it openly. Today it’s all in the open. I don’t think you boys should have to take showers with other young boys. I mean people are different and taking a shower is something you should be able to do in private the same as taking a shit in private. If you go to some European countries you will see holes in the floor and you bend over the hole and shit as people walk by. No doors just a hole and then someone comes along and washed it down the hole. I could not believe it at first.
Anyhow, in the queer parades they act like they are humping each other and groping and this kind of behavior would not be tolerated in regular parades. But we tolerate it from them for what reason?
You have to understand what all this is about is controlling society ahd creating lesbians and queers means people will not only convince others to join in the same kind of debauchery, but if nothing else they do this kind of behavior and then maybe by the mid thirties they decide to wake up and have a family.
But as for the Jew thing we can forget they own so much. I mean we can forget about their vast wealth. We can forget they are the richest and we can say we are jealous of their money and success, but someone has to pump the septic tanks. Someone has to dig the ditches and clean the horse stalls and work the boats and cut the trees and build the homes and everything that we need to operate. What we need is fewer lawyers and bankers and this is where they prosper.
I mean somewhere there is someone creating the problem. Hundreds of years ago these people went to the Europeans. They should ahve built a wall like the Chinese. I mean the Chinese are basically Chinese because of this.
I mean we could just keep talking about the problems and never get to a solution. I know all our presidents and great men prior to the 20th century had nothing good to say about them. I mean you can argue about the problems and the solutions to solve them and you can argue about who causes the problem and you can go on and on.
I mean if Jews owned every single company and every politician were Jewish and every judge and lawyer and doctor were Jewish, then it’s easy to see. In Europe the people could see easier, because in Germany you had Germans and Jews. IN Russia you had Russians and JEws and so forth. So it was a lot easier to see where the problem was coming from.
Now some people blame the Chinese, Mexicans, blacks, Jews and Muslims. I just got to believe in all our westen countries are being overrun with other races. I just can’t believe that the French and English and Germans decided we need more blacks, Muslims and Asians in our countries. It has to be an outside source just like in the USA.
If you defend Hitler – a psychopath who believed his will trumped the rights of every other human being – you’re off the reservation.
I don’t get the gay hate, either. The last thing I’m worried about is who happens to be giving it to whom (or how) so long as they are consenting adults and I’m not forced to pay for it.
I get all the comments and perspectives but the obvious to me seems left out of these observations.
It’s not the money, it’s the greed. It’s not the ever tightening noose around the neck of freemen, it’s the growing greedy complacency of the sheeple.
How else could a small group of people, elected by the general population, get away with passing laws, levying taxes, and strangling our freedoms while at the same time protecting their own elitist interests.
How come no one comments on how the government passes laws to force the people to pay for minimal health coverage while at the same time requireing those same people to pay for lifetime first class medical treatment for politicians.
The government raids our pension funds that we are forced to contribute into over our lifetimes, yet force us also to pay for their own first class lifetime pensions and benefits even should they only serve (and I usse the term serve loosely) one 4 year term. I for one would love to have a permanent lifetoime pension, with perks and medical benefits after “working” only 4 years.
How come nobody mentions that the government “makes” NO money. All the money the government so graciously provides as stimulus bonuses and rebates are our own dollars forcibly collected via taxes… past and future.
It is not americans spending us into the poor house. It is not average joe citizen spending far in excess of any possible future income. It is not the american soccer mom who has stolen our savings and paid out billions and billions of bonuses to fat cat elitist banksters and “too big to fail” business buddies.
It is our government “representatives” voting themselves loopholes and privilege while paying for it with the sweat of their constituent’s labors.
It is our government representatives who are protecting their “right” to trade on inside information while making the same action illegal for their constituents. For those unaware, lawmakers can make very lucrative, no risk investment returns based on the future impact of laws or rulings they are going to make.
What, or rather who is destrying this country is not the “average” citizen. It is the small group of elitist greedy politicians who have figured out how to game the system and buy votes from the ignorant majority.
I don’t have an answer to what can we do about it… but I wish more people would focus on the REAL issues instead of the smoke and mirror entertainment and pyrotechnics created by the true perpetrators to keep the attention off themselves.
They are truly creating bread and circuses for the masses who will surely return them to office again and again.
one more point. Isn’t it odd that this administration, who promoted Fast & Furious, delivering guns to known drug cartels, now wants to find ways to keep honest Americans from owning them? I live in a democrat stronghold and can tell you first hand, the people here have swallowed these lies, hook line and sinker. They truly believe the government has a responsiblity to provide for them and for others unable to provide for themselves, which includes, cell phones, cable tv, eating out every day,(mcdonalds accepts the debit cards from the food stamp program)free health care, the list goes on and on. When asked how the government is supposed to pay for all of this, the standard answer, increase the taxes on the rich, but 95% of them don’t know the rates anyone pays. And in return for these “favors” they will vote to keep the same people in office.
Amen. But, to clarify: They (Obama/Holder, et al) ran “Fast and Furious” precisely to further their agenda of civilian disarmament. The purpose was to egg on “gun crime”- which could then be demagogued as the reason why “we need ‘sensible’ gun controls.”
When the Jews took control of the tv from it’s inception they started brainwashing from the get go. They made an anti-German movie. It was clear they were goign to use it for that purpose.
If they could they would have had the trash on tv inn the siuxites they do now, but your relatives would not have put up with it. They feel the sting of the people when they cross the line.
Not long ago a Marine was arrested for posting negative stuff on facebook, but the was such outrage from the sheeple they had to let him go. The government could not take us on. If we stood side by side. They have been screwing us for over a century with their federal reserve, wars, and testing nuclear fallout and other tests they have run on the citizens.
What do you think your grand parents would have done if they were to have queers kisisng on tv back in the sixites? You know the people would have jammed the phone lines. That’s the only reason they didn’t do it then. Now they got people on sitcoms talking about two guys having sex. On the King od Queens one night the father-in-law asked his son-in-law about having sex and the son-in-law just casually said no. Like he asked him if he wanted to go fishing. So they do it suttle. If he said, hey let’s go bang, then the sheeple would wake up.
Throw your tv away. If you are so lame you think that $1,500 tv, $50 cable bill makes your life better you need to get a life. Now you have a small percentage of people who have had enough of this, but it might be 10% of the population and falling fast.
If you have no influence when you leave your house. If your whole world is so dangerous outisde your door, then it’s a world that got away from the ones who made it.
In Oklahoma City the BATF put bombs on the main columns and they decided who would die that day. At Waco they could have gotten the children out, before they went in with tanks. The people should hav ebeen outraged and 20,000 very angry people should have converged on that property and tore those agents from limb to limb. If they do that to little children. Now we’ve looked 9/11 over from top to bottom and we know for a fact it was an inside job.
When they go to other countries and blow them up you are so far away you don’t care. They can blow up whole cities killing thousands of little children. Then they tell us children are so precious.
But just like any criminal now they have turned their weapons on the people to keep them in place. We were attacked by a criminal organization the Israhell Mossad on 9/11/01 and our president and many politicians, CIA and FBI agents knew in advance and they made millions shorting stocks. This means these people are murderers and you know what should be done with murderers.
The people guilty for 9/11 the ones in power who sat back and let it happen are guilty for treason and murder and should be hunted down like the vermin they are. These people plotted and or worked with the Mossad. These agencies that are supposed to protect the people failed.
The enemy is not the other races. The enemy is your own government and the second amendment gies you the right to hunt them down and throw the rest out. The 2nd amendment was the only thing the founding fathers put in place to give you the right to protect yourself.
They could have worded it like if the government comes to take your guns, then you must kill them. They could have said if the government allows an outside criminal empire to come into your country and kill citizens for whatever reason, then you must build gallows on the White HHouse lawn.
Imagine seeing Bill “rapist” Clinton, George Bush, Cheney, Congo Rice, Andy Card, and all the ones guilty for lying about 9/11 were marched up the gallows steps, then justice would be done.
You are being governed by people who don’t care for you or the country and you only have one option and that is to execute the criminals and write another constitution. The founding fathers could never have taken something so important as the constitution and written it over 200 years ago and the same words still apply today.
I mean now we got weapons that can vaporize a whole city. We got media that feeds lies to the people which is controlled by evil people. The conditions have changed. They didn’t know the government would someday use nuclear weapons, viruses, and force people to get vaccines. They didn’t think the government would allow different races into the country for the soul purpose of causing racial tension and giving them third world garbage that would vote for a certain party.
You had me – and then you lost me.
Criticizing the machinations of the elite – the vacuity and perniciousness of TV? I’m with you.
But then you segue into talk of “the jews” – and gay-bashing.
The first is a stumbling block that causes many liberty minded people to make a grievous error. Dig deep, you’ll find “the jews” are just a catspaw of certain interests – interests that have used “the jews” to advance their agenda. Don’t fall into the trap of group-guilting. Or guilting the wrong party.
On gays: If you believe in individual liberty you cannot endorse limiting the liberty of anyone. This doesn’t mean you must give your approval – or subsidize/accommodate anything you disapprove of. It does mean you must refrain from interfering in the free choices made by others, if you wish to have any moral right to insist they not interfere with your right to choose freely.
Eric, You see some people to avoid conflicts and maybe being called anti-semitic they will say elite, illuminati and liberals. But they really mean Jews. Sure our politicians make the laws, but it’s the Jews who tell the politicians what to do. The Jews killed four of our presidents. I mean Booth was Jewish, but the reason I say they killed the presidents was because each president they killed was getting involved with the money. Andrews Jackson I believed they killed. Wasn’t he the one who said he would expose or something to that affect? I could take each one and explain the whole story, but we know JFK was getting tough on Israel about nukes and he was having money printed and bypassing the International bankers and of course he was going to put a stop to Vietnam and so he had many enemies.
So I could just say other names, but then you get no response, but if I say Jews and if anyone thinks they are just ordinary people and don’t deserve the scorn, then let’s look at them. For one thing Jews have financed every war the past at least since the late 1700’s. So cancel all those wars if they didn’t finance them. Then if you look at the companies they own. They own all meat packing. All casinos even the indian casinos. They own half of all professional sports teams. They own Seagrams, Snapple, Home Depot, Sears, and if you took the stock market which they created you would see they control so many companies, because they control 12% to 15% of the stock. So they might not control 51% of the stock, but they control the biggest block.
The Jews own all major tv stations, HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Universal , Walt Disney, and they own all major radio stations and all major newspapers.
So how could such a small minority own all this if they were just like everyone else? The richest people on earth are Jewish. The International Bankers the Rothschilds are Jewish. It’s been said they have 100 trillion along with the Warburgs. I would say if you have 100 trillion then you control the world wouldn’t you? Have you seen the Rothschilds listed on the world’s richest people’s list? No and that is power.
You can check all this out. You can see who owns the companies. They own Circuit City, Staples, Boscovs and on and on. They only respresent 3% of our population, but they represent about 11 senators and about 33 congressmen. Percentages way out of whack. In the 2000 elections four Jews were running for president and the other four were married to Jewish women.
In Russia the Jews took something they created Communism and pulled an Iron Curtain around Eastern Europe and set about murdering tens of millions of people and not one Commie has had to answer for any of their crimes. But you see all the Germans and UKranians who might have painted a gate at a camp or was a cook at a camp they deport them.
The Jews started the NAACP and ran it clean up till the early 90’s. So how much do they have to control and do before you say YEAH, I guess you can say Jews when you talk of problems we have. If the International Jewish bankers don’t want it it won’t happen. There is no doubt about it.
While millions of stupid, dumbass, ignorant, moronic whites pay hundreds to watch pro sports and get drunk at the games and watch tv all night long the Jews control our world.
Our politicians all of them should be hanged for not going after the Mossad for committing 9/11. We citizens shold march on Washington build gallows on the White House lawn and hang them all. Maybe we could just lower them slowly like they hanged the Germans at Nuremburg.
Our politiicians their only purpose is to do what the people want. Each state has districts and that representative is suppose to do what the people want. You tell me does anyone in this country want anything to do with wars? Do they want mexicans running around? Do they want to be lied to and instead of growing hemp and solve our wood and power plant pollution problems they just keep burning oil and coal polluting and putting mercury into the atmosphere? Do we want high taxes and the corporations paying no taxes? Do we want the government going after citizens like at Ruby Ridge? Do we want the BATF planting bombs in the Murrah building blowing it up to frame McVeigh and try to tie him to militias so to weaken them? Do we want them telling lies about people like the Branch Davidians and then going in and using tanks and burning small children alive? Do we want the Mossad running around in our country which they are agents of another country and committing crimes like 9/11, so our politiicians can lie and blame it on Arabs and then attack them based on other lies of WMD.
The CIA whick Kennedy wanted to ban they only conduct clandestine operations and lie and create wars and they also sell drugs in this country. I am accusing the Mossad of all the plane bombings the past 40 years blaming it on Arabs each time. The FBI knows this and does nothing.
When they come for our guns and they are, when a dozen thugs arrive none of them go back to their headquarters. We drop them all right there. When they write the history books your ancestors can read you killed hundreds of thousands of the thugs.
You might not know this but a Jew heads the CIA, OSI the agency that deports these old Europeans and Freeh who used to head the FBI was Jewish. So the Jews control this country far more than did Russia and Germany. In fact with the media, banks, education and government control there is no compare and when they gained contrrol of Russia they murdered Eastern Europeasns for 70 years. When they gained control of Germany we had world wars.
The American people should declare war on the federal government and head to Washington, because they are the enemy. The Jews tells our politiicians what to do.
As for gays. If you promote something you get more people doing it. If you go to sex sites you will see in the western countries something like 65% of women looking for women and each time you create a lesbian you create a queer. This is one reason people can’t find partners. Queers if they want a civil union give them that, but marriage means man and woman. What people should do is just quit getting married. Because they save the marriage license fee and if they divorce they got to walk into court and air their dirty laundry in front of a court room full of people.
So I tell people just don’t get married and if it doesn’t work just walk away. Because only civil people that love each other should get married. All these women marrying drunks and men marrying whores means we need a mediator to talk to these people, before they get married. I think if they had to sit down and talk to a marriage counselor and really go over their problems like ask the guy how many sex partners has this woman had? Does she use drugs or drink heavily? They could ask both of them do you want to commit to this person forever? Do you think this is the best you can do? I think if we forced people to sit down with a counselor We might cut divorce rates in half. To every problem there are solutions, but we just aren’t using them
Oy vey – where to even begin to reply?
“The Jews” –
This one trips up so many people. In fact, “the Jews” are a foil – a catspaw. The true power brokers have been using “the Jews” for decades (longer, actually) to divert attention from themselves. Their machinations are such that they were willing to facilitate the mass murder of millions of Jews in order to further their long-term agenda.
Then you proceed to gay-bashing: “If you go to sex sites you will see in the western countries something like 65% of women looking for women and each time you create a lesbian you create a queer.”
Leaving aside the merit of this, er, claim… who cares?
How is what you do in the bedroom a threat to me? And vice versa?
You’ve already made clear that you think your arbitrary, personal views about how much people should be allowed to drink (and what they should be allowed to put into their bodies) should be imposed at gunpoint. Now you’re – apparently – declaring open season on those who private lives don’t pass muster with your personal views.
All of which is fine – if you want to be an authoritarian collectivist. If you want to defend using force and violence against people who haven’t done anything to you. And if you wish to concede the principle that others have the same “right” to do unto you, too.
But if you believe in liberty and freedom for yourself, then you cannot defend denying other people their liberty just because they’re doing something you personally don’t like.
People should serve on year and paid a decent wage and after the year they are replaced and they get no perks. They get so much that it creates the atmosphere riff for cheating and lying and bribery.
It’s much simpler: No one has any right to the property of another for any reason except as compensation for harm or damage.
Liberty means you (and me and everyone else) is free to live their own life as they see fit, to keep the fruit of their labor, industry and creativity. To not be told what to do – and not to do – by other people. To live – and let live.
It’s such a simple concept – but so hard for all too many to understand.
Can’t believe this wacko still gets press. Part of the DAILY CRUX agenda I guess.
I’m curious, Tom –
Exactly why do you accuse me of being a “wacko”?
Just another “hit and run” poster. Better than a lingering troll clover though! Eric you ARE a wacko for writing about the truth and what is really happening. Close your eyes and ears like the rest of the good little sheep.
Once you take the red pill…
you are supporting homos and Jews and smokers and why not just let them sell drugs and you are starting to take the conversation toward support for the left. In a minute Eric will slip and reveal his real agenda.
Steve, you’re about to get the Clover… c’mon now. I hope you’re smarter than your posts thus far have suggested.
That’s right, Steve. I’m a tool of “the homos and Jews and smokers.”
The slow erosion of freedom has been going on since the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence – do you really believe that the monarchy of Great Britain simply allowed their serfs to rebel and stop paying their tribute? The Declaration’s main tenet that “all men are created equal” means that there could be no federal government regulatory agency, since if “all men are created equal”, no person or group of people, including government, could ever legally initiate force against any other person or group of people and, therefore, no way to steal the tribute that the monarchy demands. The Constitution acknowledges this tenet by only granting the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. The Constitution could not grant the government any intrastate jurisdiction since “all men are created equal”.
We have been slaves to the government for a long time – it was planned from the beginning. The Founding Fathers were infiltrated by Great Britain’s bankers – Alexander Hamilton is the most notorious.
Although Great Britain may have lost the American Revolution on the battlefield, it immediately sent in its bankers to slowly bankrupt America (the center of the world’s banking is in London and note that while Europe is using the “Euro”, Great Britain continues to use the Pound) and then move forward under the foreign commerce clause where the government is sovereign. This bankruptcy was accomplished in 1933 and the laws evidence this: title 11 United States Code (USC), “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “Federal Elections” – America just elected a bankruptcy “administration”.
However, since “all men are created equal”, simply bankrupting the government was not enough to exact the tribute that the monarchy of Great Britain demands. In order to allow Great Britain to continue to enforce its “Stamp Act” (note that all internal duties were originally paid by stamp) it was necessary to slowly indoctrinate Americans that they must do two main things – have a birth certificate and apply for a Social Security #.
The birth certificate is registering as a subject to the federal government. The birth certificate is issued by the Department of Commerce. Title 15 United States Code (USC), “Commerce”, is implemented by title 15 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “Commerce and Foreign Trade”. As noted above the only jurisdiction that the government has is foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. The legal term that the birth certificate signifies is the “U.S. citizen”. This term is defined at 26 USC section 2501(b) and exemplified at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c) as a citizen born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession (Puerto Rico is used in the example) and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship. Now who would ever relinquish sovereignty by acquiring U.S. possession citizenship? No one would of course, but that is what the birth certificate signifies. This is the 14th Amendment citizen – a person born in one of the States who is subject to its jurisdiction. An American born in one of the States is sovereign and not subject to the very limited jurisdiction of the government, but by being considered a U.S. possession citizen one becomes subject to the government (Constitution grants the government control of its possessions – Article IV, Section 3). The U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries in the Internal Revenue Code, therefore, a “U.S. citizen” living in the States is considered a foreigner.
Now as a foreigner one may apply for a Social Security # – FICA is a U.S. possession tax (26 USC section 7655) – again, the government has no jurisdiction in the States since “all men are created equal” and whoever in whatever federal agency is simply another American with no jurisdiction over any other American. The “Form SS-5” that you used to apply for a Social Security number is actually a federal employment form. You joined the Merchant Marine and the S.S.# is your partnership number – you became a “taxpayer”.
The definition of “taxpayer” is at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5): “Taxpayer means a citizen who has established or seeks to establish a construction reserve fund under the provisions of section 511 of the Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1936) and the regulations under this part, and may include a partnership.”. Further in this regulation at 26 CFR 2.1-1(b): “Insofar as the computation and collection of taxes are concerned, other terms used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise provided, have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder.”
The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land (see the beginning of title 1 USC) and this country was founded on the principle that “all men are created equal”. There was no such thing as a “taxpayer”. During the bankruptcy implementation of the 1930’s the bankers created Social Security, the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and the integrated Internal Revenue Code of 1939. That’s also when the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was created in order to show the underlying jurisdiction now being used in the bankruptcy of America – it all comes down to foreign commerce.
What about the income tax and the 16th Amendment? The Supreme Court decisions all stated that the government always had this power and no new jurisdiction was created by the 16th Amendment. Once again, it is foreign commerce – no new jurisdiction and a power that the government always had.
During the War of 1812 Great Britain was impressing our Merchant Marine into service. Now, through the great Social Security Scam, we Americans are being impressed into service for Great Britain’s banks. Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-7h to read “The Bankers’ Blueprint to Destroy American Sovereignty” where all the actual statutes and regulations are in evidence directly from the government printing office.
Should be dot org not otg, sorry.
Hereis How It Is Being Done
Having trouble viewing this site? Did you get a notice that further viewing of Women’s Prison Guards Gone Wild or Benghazi Boobs & Badonkadonks will result in throttling or temporary suspension of your interet connection.
If you have Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, or another major ISP you, or your kids, or your wife may get that letter or email any day now. Or the next computer user will see the warning box: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS A SERIOUS CRIME, YoU HaVE 5 MORE WARNINGS LEFT for the next 6 months.
Slaps on the wrists, inconvenient escalating punishments. You must live in fear, you must cower under their command. Now the internet is infected, terminally.
If you post pictures, videos, news stories,excerpts, without their express consent, they can and will shut you down. They took 14% of the internet down with Megavideo raid.
Soon, the internet will be a stale version of Public Access TV, or expanded cable. All content under their control. Only huge websites able to survive. Big fish cannibalizing the small fish.
See for yourself: http://copyrightinformation.otg/node/709. Or read the article at arstechnica dot com.
Movie studios and music companies are behind this at the behest of Obama and EU and UN and all the rest. Stop buying media, stop buying lotto tickets, don’t buy Any Christmas gifts at any retailer. File but don’t pay fed taxes. Stop ss med and fed wh taxes. Go 1099 or go even deeper.
There’s not much time before the Internet goes out with a whimper and not even an an email of a bang will remain.
No doubt they will try.
They will, for example, make it an “offense” for a writer to reference (or link to) some other work (or image or video) without, as you say, explicit written permission. This will make it all but impossible to write a news story or commentary piece in a timely manner, or even at all.
And it goes far deeper than substantive political discourse. For example, the car companies could require me to submit my reviews to them prior to publication for their review – if I wish to publish any pictures of their product to accompany the text. If they are able to impose this across the board, all automotive journalism will become what most of it already is: Press kit recycling blow jobs for the car companies (and dealers and advertisers).
I hope you continue to be successful. Fred Reed loves the military industrial complex. James Altucher calls the cops on his neighbors. Gary North treats ancient scripture as equivalent to scientifically obtained findings of fact. Lewrockell and mises.org are libertarian titans, and you are of the best of their Parthenon. Plus you have an easily navigateable comment system so I can kibbitz. Until the last tree is clearcut, the woods remain, the woods abide, the woods contemplate the hour of their reforestation and triumphant return: Semper Arborealis.
Eric, I know you will continue to be successful. You’re are hitting a stride, and have a powerful message both simple and subtil.
Fred Reed loves the military industrial complex. James Altucher calls the cops on his neighbors. Gary North treats ancient scripture as equivalent to scientifically obtained findings of fact. Lewrockell and mises.org are libertarian titans, and you are of the best of their Parthenon. Plus you have an easily navigateable comment system so I can kibbitz. Until the last tree is clearcut, the woods remain, the woods abide, the woods contemplate the hour of their reforestation and triumphant return: Semper Arborealis.
Thanks, Tor –
And, in return: I draw inspiration from the thoughtfulness and humanity of the people posting here, some of whom (this includes you) are also masterful wordsmiths. In my lifetime, I cannot recall such an outpouring of liberty-mindedness. Even as we seem to be descending into an apocalypse of collectivist small-mindedness (Cloverism) the “points of light” grow more numerous. I have hope. I no longer believe we’re pissing into the wind.
They muddy and and bloody the waters, to make them seem deep. But they are shallow and friendless. A friend being one who sees what is lacking, in both himself and in those he calls friends. It is a pleasure to read a writer who speaks with his own spirit as well as the spirit of his friends.
Based on comments in the linked page, it appears that this copyright organization is wholly concerned with illegal file sharing of music, movies, TV shows, etc., online. That kind of enforcement of intellectual property is okay by me, just as if you wrote a book you wouldn’t want people making photocopies of it and selling them or giving them away en masse with no credit or payment to you.
Just as we dislike the idea of government or thugs stealing or appropriating your physical property, so we should be just as willing to protect intellectual property.
I have seen a pattern among some in our kinds of communities of misrepresenting information in a legitimate website (as in this case) or of referencing horrific anti-freedom items in kook/fringe websites as gospel. Avoid both. Such stuff discredits us. Some things are too good to be true; so are some things too bad to be true. No one (outside of a few nuts) is seriously suggesting that placing a link to another site within your writings is some sort of “infringement”, let alone trying to enforce anything of the sort.
Good point, EK –
Still, I think it’s legitimate to be concerned about Internet free speech. We have, for example, the open statements of people with the ear of the Dear Leader such as Van Jones and (his name escapes me as I type this) who have “suggested” that, for example, a political site such as this be required to post “opposing viewpoints” a la the Fairness Doctrine.
actually, I’ve had some DNS issues connecting to ericpetersautos from two of the three locations I access it from. Because epautos still resolved and I had one location that worked I simply edited my local host files and all was well. But it had me wondering if perhaps things were broken intentionally. In all probability I believe it was likely some sort of propagation issue as the one location that worked I have my machines set up to look at an alternate DNS server in another region from the ISP I use if a look up fails.
From my reading how they plan on censoring the internet is by simply yanking the DNS records so hosts do not resolve.
I’ve been having problems connecting to EPA for about a week now, ever since the TSA article. Funny that. Probably just a coincidence. ?
However; it is The Only website I cannot connect to as I surf the net.
When I do manage to get here, one minute I can post a comment, the next minute turns into a day wait to get back to the site.
Mileage varies. ?
There’s a tipping point, blow back, cognitive dissonance resolution – alternate protocol.
1 I get a $500 fine because a tenant moved his fridge across the kitchen and plugged it in with an extension cord so it still worked where he thought it belonged.
2 Have a dead cousin and a best friend who were both bled dry for >$50,000 that didn’t even come near their dumbitch wives who called in a domestic for raising their voices in arguments. Not a penny of these tickets, classes, family experts goes in Ms. Clover’s pockets.
In both cases exwife/widow went from +half million net worth husbands who were admittedly a-holes to being on section 8 and foodstamps and having virtually nothing from this for a foolish phonecall to 24 hour Keystone Kleptos on Kall.
3 watched millionaire bosses flee in terror from their own gated and patolled offices when Feddy Kruger anounces his presence at the guard shack. What chance do I have, unless I go semi-invisible and navigate under a Sovereign Citizen internet and LLC name?
Spot on. The thin end of the wedge alright.. Look to Australian gun law reform rolled out in the mid 90s after the Port arthur massacre to see where your headed…
I agree, and so do most American gun owners. As a former licensed firearms dealer years ago, I was aware of a huge black market in “unpapered” guns. That is, ones the gummint doesn’t know about. In the intervening 25 years, it’s a safe bet there are a hell of a lot more.
And to the gent worried about CCWs being used to track gun owners, don’t. They already know who you are anyway if you bought your guns from a dealer in most states. That CCW eliminates, or reduces, the hassle if you are stopped by the Gestapo with a loaded .45 in your possession.
After years in the business, I have yet to find a gun law that is anything near constitutional. All gun laws, and most of the garbage pouring forth from DC has no merit in natural law and is used to control us commoners. Period.
That makes us all criminals of some sort. My cars can get me arrested just as easily as my rifles or my diet or my reading list or my choice of intoxicants or…………..
Screw them, Uncle Bill.
Go find the papers; hunt me down for my CHL. I’m thoroughly sick of Mordor-on-the-Potomac and the evil eye of Sauron peering down at us. Come get me, if you dare.
What a dinosaur institution, the federal government; and what a bunch of diseased, gluttonous psychopaths who inhabit it. They’re done; they look powerful now, but they’re broke, philosophically exhausted, mentally ill, logically confused, and past their prime. Well past, as in rigor-mortis-past.
They’re at that moment when a huge tree has just had the final cut at its base. There’s no wind and it stands straight up–but give gravity a moment, let that one degree tilt work on the CG dot product sin(), and the fucker will fall.
I’m not a criminal. Nothing they say, none of their “laws” can make me one…because I keep my word and harm no-one. That is the real law and, barring anything that will imminently put me in jail, I ignore their edicts-from-on-high.
2 thumbs up for you. 1 finger up for them.
My daddy taught me that there are two kinds of gun stashes…the kind you use daily and know will be taken some day, and the kind that you keep stashed for when that day comes.
” Getting people to accept “sobriety checkpoints” beginning around 1980 changed everything.”
Absolutely correct! I went nuts when I heard about. No one else gave a crap. Where were the pro bono lawyers who cared about the Constitution?
Where are they now?
There is a guy Brett Darrow who filmed what went on at the sobriety checkpoints. The cops would ask to see his paperwork and then would ask him where he was going. He said I don’t feel like discussing my personal business with you. That would piss the cop off and he would say oh, just pull over here and then they would say they would charge him with this and that. I mean they’re doing something that’s violates your rights anyway and you don’t have to answer their questions, but their attitude is if you are polite and answer our questions, then you can be on your way, but if you resist, then we can hold you up and maybe search your car and make it harder on you.
I mean a cop can pull out his gun and basically shoot you and just say you reached under your seat, but they want to be able to ask you personal questions. What business is it of theirs where you are going?
They have sobriety checkpoints, but in order to know you have been drinking they have to talk to you and conduct a sobriety test. Why not just make every driver get out and conduct the test? Why are dogs there and why do they need all your paperwork if it’s just a sobriety checkpoint?
I hear you! Seems everyone I talk to thinks this is a good idea and acceptable if it’s for “SAFETY.” I don’t talk about this sort of stuff much with people in my daily life anymore.
This past summer I took my family down to the river to canoe (middle of the day). There was a state trooper road block there and I turned in before it to avoid it (have trailer and canoe in tow). The cop walked up to my truck and hassled me for my license. I told him NO. We went back and forth for 5 minutes… Just so I could canoe with my wife, kid, and dog less than 2 miles from my house! My seven year old daughter just brought up the event again last night. “Papa that was funny when that cop kept following you around while you were putting the canoe in the water! Why was he doing that papa?” So I told her, “because we are slaves.”
Cops have devolved into lower forms of existence and try to drag everyone else down to their level.
They think they can force people to respect them through intimidation.
“You don’t mind if we have a look in your trunk, do you? They presume that you’ll want to prove you’re “clean”. Never, ever give those cretin low lifes permission to do anything. Just say “permission denied”. If they ask you “why”? Just say “it’s my right”.
Cops are always looking for ways to use what you say and possess against you. That’s their game and the way they get promoted is by making arrests that stick.
Cops have lost sight of right and wrong they are willing to act immorally to get ahead. And, their superiors brainwash them into believing that they are the good guys because they have the power of the law on their side. In fact, what they have on their side is a group of corrupt and immoral government attorneys and judges, who have their back.
Have you seen the movie EndCiv by Derrick Jensen? He addresses this exact point in a very eloquent way, one which you would appreciate, Eric.
All nuclear isn’t dangerous in the same way. Canadian and Japanese plants can not create any weaponable fission substances. You can take their radioactive soup and use it in a dirty bomb[sic] manner only, which is not even as deadly as detonating a bunch of bottles of industrial concrete cleaner even.
Peak Oil has been postponed for a century or more due to fracking tech.
The water has rose 1 foot in Manhattan financial district in a century, but that is because if was built up by Dutch, and no American thug has their land creation knowhow.
The weakness of the law is it applies to guns and ammo.
Never ever saw the logic of defense by guns. Unless of course you belong to a gang. Gangs don’t seem to have to worry about laws.
If you kill someone you are in the wrong regardless of whether or not you are right. You are then in the hands of the parasites. Specifically the lawyers, judges, court systems.
The ironic thing is the court system arrests people like druggies, prostitutes, etc. Do these people pay taxes on their illegal income. Don’t think so. More likely they have zero income according to the books. They are probably receiving food stamps, medicaid, welfare. The list goes on and on.
Or how about all those illegals from Mexico. Deport them? So what about paying taxes? Probably not even considered a worth while endeavor by the parasites.
If I were on a battlefield, the most likely way to make myself a target is to fire a rifle. Why? because it makes a sound, a big sound that locates you for the enemy. The average lifespan of a machine gunner was 15 minutes on a battlefield! It became a center of enemy attention.
I would rather have a crossbow. I can get off six shots with a crossbow before anyone even realizes I am there on a battlefield. Load it with special bolts that explode on impact and it is almost as effective as a bazooka. A typical crossbow has the impact of an elephant gun. No there is no known armor it cannot penetrate with the proper ammunition(explosive bolts). The point is no one actually knows I am there. I have not drawn any attention to myself. With the proper bolt I might even take down a tank.
The trick is to go down the muzzle on the gun installed at the top. If you alter the muzzle when they fire it the gun backfires into the tank. If you hit the treads the track might come apart.
The only real problem is loading it. Hydraulics solves that problem easily.
Modern programs on hand-held palm pilots can calculate exactly where a bolt will go. It is possible to angle a bolt so it lands at the bottom of a fox hole at over 100 yards. The effective range is 600 feet or 200 yards.
Unlike a bullet, the ammunition is easily made anywhere anytime. It involves putting feathers on the bolt. Bolts can be made from anything including ice.
Crossbows come in pistol sizes too. A typical crossbow with a 75 pound pull is easily obtained without a license at any sports store. Same goes for archery equipment.
For all their laws, there are always holes in the laws.
That is my point. The bureaucrats are so fearful of guns,because everyone is programmed to think of guns as the only effective weapon out there. Any American Indian can tell you that is not so.
With scopes even! I was looking at some crossbows this weekend while watching the crowds milling around the gun sales desk. Saw the folks filling out forms. Casually strolled over to the archery department where there wasn’t a single solitary soul. Hmmmm? Nature, like in Jurrasic Park, seems to find a way.
I thought it was ‘Life finds a way’, LOL
LOL… Well, I haven’t seen it in many years so I’m going by what’s left of the little gray cells.
Cross bows and bows are silent. You might want to use guns you can silence than high powered rifles. You might be able to do more with a pellet rifle than you think.
those that propose such Unconstitutional ideas..will be at ground zero….do not infringe is very plain.and simple to understand…no spin needed or accepted…
Jeff,good point on personal responsibility,is a cornerstone of freedom.I can sum it up easily,don’t be a dick!
Great article. I especially like the points about insurance “collectives” for healthcare, cars and guns.
As someone who actually gets sick from second-hand smoke and hates smelling like an ashtray because of other peoples’ bad choices and addictions, I don’t want to be around smokers especially when I’m eating. However, I don’t support the legal banning of smokers or legally forcing private business owners from succeeding or failing based on their own decisions.
One key point that needs to be made, though, is that law makers are strengthened in their resolve and ability to make more and more laws because people do not self regulate their own behavior. As long as people have no regard for how their behavior affects others, gubment folks will have all the reason they need to enslave us more and more.
When I got involved in the Free State Project a couple of years ago, I was dismayed to find people so willing to lecture cops, judges, and other statists about their “aggression” and “violence” and yet so UNwilling to regulate their own behavior, INCLUDING VIOLENCE, not respecting people’s privacy, and more! That’s why the FSP is a failure.
If you want to be free, respect your neighbors’ rights.
An American, or possibly global financial reset is coming – and all of us here know that (except for the occasional clover that pops in and comments). And hopefully we are all preparing as best we can.
Unfortunately when that reset occurs, the millions of clovers who are unprepared will demand that their nanny gov’t take care of them. Then they’ll find out just exactly how little their gov’t does care about them.
And they’ll be rioting. And many of them will be armed.
As Gerald Celente has stated many time, when people have lost everything and have nothing left to lose – they lose it. So there will be millions of armed Americans who have lost everything (like food on the supermarket shelves everytime they go). . .
Hopefully when that societal breakdown occurs they will train their weapons (if they still have any) on all those who oppose liberty, freedom, and rights – those in gov’t and the central bankers who created the mess in the first place.
That is of course assuming we have not all been disarmed in the first place.
History tells me along with the propaganda that the masses will turn their weapons on the productive people who prepared. Not those who caused the mess in their beloved institutions.
The government will point them at those who threaten the state, the independent productive people as it always has. The mob will be used to destroy the wealth outside of the club.
Folks,this obviously leads one to buy as much ammunition as possible now before new taxes/regulations come into play.On a side note it is at the moment still completely legal to build your own firearms(not fully automatic)though you can never sell/or give them away.Many companies at the moment sell 80% complete receivers which are not considered a firearm,you finish the rest and must legally do the work yourself,perhaps go in with like minded friends on a mini mill.These firearms are not on a national registry ect. though of course that could change at any time but as the saying goes what they don’t know.On a side note you get the satisfaction of building the pistol/rifle to your specs.as many companies nationwide sell barrels/trigger kits ect.Anyhow,just a thought beyond private sales to own firearms under the radar,best of luck to us all and the country,keep up the fight for personal liberty and keep spreading the word.
Sadly you are correct. This is precisely the method that has been used to disarm the British.
It began in earnest with the 1920 Firearms Act, which created a “reasonable” system of licensing for guns; inevitably, these licenses became harder and harder to obtain and cost more and more, with periodic revisions to the law banning various types of weapon as the authorities gained in confidence. The first to go were those that would now be called “assault weapons”.
Along the way, shooting incidents that cast civilian gun ownership in a bad light were duly publicised and used to promote hostility to shooting.
Now in 2012 it is effectively impossible to own a firearm for personal defence, and licenses for permitted sporting weapons are very difficult to obtain, with onerous security requirements and great expense involved.
After 90 odd years of UK gun control, the vast majority of British people now believe that +only+ the police and military can be trusted with firearms.
This brings something to mind. The good statist will tell us that the slippery slope does not exits. Yet examples of it abound.
Well, of course, because the “slippery slope” has already been slid.
Until about thirty years ago, the vast majority of British people believed that not even the police could be trusted with firearms. Few knew it, but that custom rested on a constitutional principle: don’t have a body that can be used to impose rule by force (other tricks, now lapsed, kept the military from being able to do that either).
Incrementialism is cool… by the time it occurs I’ll be dead and metrosexuals will rule the Earth- what’s left of it.
Strike at the root. They want to control us so we can be farmed to support their parasitic lives. Their FIAT money underpins all of that and their banksterism is how they milk us. We need to co-ordinate rolling strikes against all the usual suspect banks. If you bank with BofA, JPMC etc, then let’s ORGANIZE on a single day to withdraw all your money from said bank. Fractional reserve banking will do the rest. Use the cash to expatriate, buy land, guns, prepper supplies or deposit the remainder in a local bank that isn’t in on the globalist gravy train. A few crashing banks should bring on the financial reset that will starve the beast.
The Move your Money Project is a good starting point in finding a local bank or credit union that would be a safe harbor for your funds. We ditched BofA nearly 4 years ago and love our credit union.
Payback is years overdue. Spare none.
I forgot to add a point:
The “Elites” have masterfully exploited a phenomenon called The Overton Window.
It’s the “boiling frogs” idea in academese.
But the last ten years it’s shifted so far, so fast, that even idiots are starting to ask questions.
It’s coming to a boil and the frogs are hopping. They made a mistake putting Obama back in place; Romney might have bought them four years of “there there, back to sleep, sleepy-time!”…Obama will keep the hornets’ nest buzzing.
It won’t go slowly from here on out.
But the government knows if people have jobs and beer and tv they won’t do anything. I mean anyone with a job might do some stuff on the weekend, but come Monday they are going back to work. We need to get the coloreds on our side they got 50% unemployment and they can keep going through the week until the weekend and then we can take over.
Stupid damn touchscreens… that’s twice it posted before I finished typing! Dammit….
…helpless victim of aggression and crime at the hands of traditional criminals, or the ones with costumes and State protection. I won’t start a family in this country. The US is no longer any place for a rational, free thinking person to exist. It certainly isn’t a culture or society I would want my children to grow up with. If I can get my shit together in time to get out, I will. If they go into lockdown before I get out, well, not only does the family name die with me, but a whole bunch of the fuckers that caused it are coming with.
ecliptix if you have the opportunity to get before the lockdown, keep your fellow freedom lovers in mind. zero paper trail weapons are the best and we are still allowed to trade privately. so, what im saying is whatever you do dont let your arms go to waste
Oh, I won’t let them go to waste. My centerfire tool collection can’t come with, so those will have to be redistributed as necessary, but the potential escape location does allow rimfire rifles and shotguns for agricultural and sporting purposes… Not to worry though, I can make quite a statement out to about 200m with my .22Mag against unarmoured targets and shotguns are always useful toys to keep handy.
But what if nothing happens? We’ll still be occupying all those countries. We’ll still be going to war. They have already attacked us at Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, Waco and 9/11. So if the next attack they level a football stadium or a town will we decide that’s the last straw?
*posted before I finished…*
Anyway, I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the country I’m planning to move to. They have what we would consider a ban on guns for the most part. The simple truth is, I’m fine with that as a condition for residency since in all my time and travels in that place, I’ve not once felt the need to have the same sort of weapons I currently possess. I’ve never felt threatened when in the vicinity of their police officers. I’ve never felt nervous about walking around town at night. Here in the US though, I’ll go miles out of the way to avoid the armed goon squads of government sanctioned murderers known as police. There are very, very few cities in the US that I’d go wandering around after dark without some serious hardware tucked under my jacket. I NEVER leave the house without at least my Benchmade in my pocket and a .380 in the glove box.
I suppose this could be rightfully considered fear. I don,t think of myself as a coward, but I also don,t intend to be a helpless victim – of
It’s not cowardice in my book to carry a weapon for just-in-case. Even if one is a trained martial artist, that won’t do you much good in the event one finds oneself facing an armed attacker. Moreover, most of us are not skilled hand to hand fighters. Is it cowardly to keep a weapon so that one doesn’t have to defend oneself by hand against a probably more experienced and possibly stronger/younger/physically tougher adversary? This isn’t a boxing match between relative equals with rules. The only rule here is survival – by whatever means necessary. None of this “fair fight” BS. If someone comes at you, eliminate them by any means – ideally, the means most likely to cause maximum damage to them at minimal cost to you.
That’s my take on this.
Excellent point Eric, but it goes beyond that. If you are facing multiple opponents — even if they’re unarmed — they represent a deadly threat because of Lanchester’s Square Law, which basically states that the fighting power of a combat unit, all other thing equal, is the square of the number members of that unit. If you’re alone facing two opponents, they have four times your fighting ability, and it goes up exponentially from there. I’ve been in martial arts for more than four decades now, and I can tell you that taking on multiple attackers mano-a-mano is Hollywood fiction. I don’t carry because I’m scared — I carry because it’s the smart thing to do. As the saying goes: more than one, use a gun.
You mean when Billy Jack could beat up on a whole motorcycle gang is was nonsense? Shoot Rambo took on a whole country. I have a friend who takes Karate and that mess of spinning back kicks and jumping up and kicking in the head is also nonsense.
Think of Indy. Why fight a man with a sword, a much better swordsman, when you’ve got the great equalizer at your hip!
Here’s the way I see it, for what it’s worth… My family immigrated here in the late 1860’s from Scotland in order to take their shot at a new opportunity to make a life that was worth living. 150 years later, I am now the last living male with the family name and I have absolutely no intention of starting a family in this country. I would rather see the family cease to exist than inflict the cruelty of having a child that is immediately burdened with a Social Security number and a US passport. Talk about harsh limits on one’s potential to live a good quality life… As such, I am well into the planning stages of my own emigration and hopefully the dissolution of my chains to this government and its debts and deficits – both monetary and spiritual. As it turns out, I’ll be rejoining the Commonwealth of other former English colonies
We haven’t had kids – and it looks like we won’t have them – for similar reasons. Having a kid in this country exposes the parents as well as the kids to ever-increasing Cloveritic hassles – from the idiotic child restraint rigmarole to Ritalin for Jr. if Jr. acts like a normal small boy. Refuse – and in come the stretchpants-wearing fraus of the PTA and CPS. Homeschooling is all but essential if one cannot afford a decent private school – and who can these days?
There is every disincentive for a rational, responsible and liberty-minded couple not to reproduce. And every incentive for the irrational, irresponsible FSA to reproduce.
Unfortunately, yours is probably a pretty good choice. As one who has been through the meat-grinder kangaroo family kourts I can tell you first hand that fathers are disposable. Having kids in this country exposes men to exploitation by the state beyond their imagination for those who haven’t been there.
Eric I’d counter that argument, as appealing as it is on a rational basis.
Having kids has made me much, much more dangerous to the Elites than had I been childless.
Paradoxically having so much to lose seems to have awakened a poppa-bear within me I never knew existed.
And resisting tyranny now has so much more meaning, because it’s not just I who’ll benefit from liberty–it’s my kids.
There’s a reason the idiotic “for the chiiiiiiildren” argument works so well; one’s first instincts in order of priority are protect your children, protect yourself. I have 10x the passion for liberty I had pre-children.
Is it cruel to them? No, because through a combination of home and private schooling they’ll never be victims or slaves. They’ll know the Matrix, and I’ll give them the choice of fighting or fleeing…and the mental and psychological tools to do both.
I do agree that the average Clover’s kids are in for absolute hell.
The best I can do is use the “chiiiildren” argument against the PTB in the cause of liberty–“don’t you want your kids to be FREE? Do you want them enslaved to pay YOUR socialist security?” The moral argument against initiation of force is even more powerful when coupled with the emotional impact of using force to steal from your own children!
I gave considerable thought as to whether I should post a reply to your comment. I agree with you in principle, as children add greatly to our lives.
What you don’t see though is the labyrinth of laws that will use your children against you just because you have external genitalia. If it is any consolation, I didn’t see it either – but I have learned from the experience and I share it at every opportunity.
I realize this isn’t a men’s/father’s rights forum, but rights are rights, so indulge me a few bullet points that all men should consider:
* 70%+ of all divorces are initiated by women, women who are given considerable incentive in ‘the law’.
* the number one factor influencing women’s decision is that they will get the kids, house, half of the assets and a check every month (90% of custodial parents are women)
* any accusation of abuse (child/spousal) against a man creates a situation where he is considered guilty until proven innocent (I think MoT will concur on this point)
* false accusations of abuse by women are routine in the kangaroo family kourts to gain advantage
* Title IV-D of the social security act provides financial incentives to states based on Child $upport collections – e.g. your local gov’t profits in the $M from dissolution of families.
I could go on, but I will stop there. I will say though that I routinely advise my son’s to never get married (it is a three way contract with the you, her and the state and the state will side with her) and to never have children (they can be the state’s most useful pawns to exploit you).
Papa bear, I understand that. Don’t think it can happen to you – neither did I . . . You will never feel more helpless if it ever happens to you.
For anyone interested in men’s/father’s rights I recommend http://fathersandfamilies.org and htttp://the-spearhead.com.
Back to auto’s and libertarian thought, it easier to deal with . . .
I sympathize with you…and I hope I’m never in your situation.
I’m certain I’d lose my mind; the threat of losing my children is one of those “good day to die” moments.
And agreed–the State has interposed itself thoroughly in the family, replacing the father in a vast number of cases. It’s completely expected in its Machiavellian maze of laws; emasculate and displace the male, true specimens of which are the greatest threat to the State.
Hence the encouragement of homosexuality, the myriad trends feminizing men like “metro”, the man-as-a-hapless-boob meme in almost all sitcoms. Emasculate, displace, ridicule, and finally, destroy.
I wonder how many of the bitches who’ve married the State will recognize their error when it inevitably leaves them destitute and alone?
This one is easy. Don’t invite the state to be a third party in a marriage “contract.” The so called marriage “license.” Why do you suppose you need the state’s permission to marry? Once you “apply” for that “license” you give the state, as a third party, trustee, if you will, the power to arbitrate and decide the fate of those party to the contract, including all property acquired during said “marriage.” Through the legal mechanism of the marriage license and birth certificate the state makes claim of ownership of your children as well. That is why the CPS can come and grab your children for whatever reason they can conjure. Your children are property of the state. And so are you. After all, you “applied” for it.
Well, it’s not that easy unfortunately. If you get married, then the father has atleast some rights. If you do not get a marriage license, a father will have no rights whatsoever.
Government does not give you rights. The answer is a private marriage contract.
@ Rog: Why do you suppose you need the state’s permission to marry?
Until the progressive movement in the early 1900s, marriage was a matter of the church or the common law. But the progressives were intensely racist, and got states to pass licensing laws as a way to prevent interracial marriage.
It is certainly possible for two people who love each other to live together without the state’s blessing, but there are so many laws that make that difficult. As with anything the state gets involved in, it’s a lose-lose proposition for us mundanes.
“Paradoxically having so much to lose seems to have awakened a poppa-bear within me I never knew existed.”
My feelings, exactly. To me, deciding not to “bring a child into a world like this” is more like just admitting total powerlessness. TJ Jackson expressed the idea that personal courage comes from the knowledge that one’s soul is worth more than his body.
That resonates with me.
Interesting. I’m at a real crossroads philosophically, because I absolutely reject all organized religion and the fables they teach.
And yet, I refuse to believe–and behave as though–humans are merely sophisticated animals.
There’s more to us. It might be as simple as the preciousness of sentience; as far as we know, we’re the only ones in this universe. It might be there’s really a “soul”; my rational side wants to reduce it to a quantum-based energy field that occupies the brain but can exist apart from it.
But whatever “it” is, the point stands: principle, righteousness, stands above one’s own fragile mortality.
It really is better to die free than live a slave.
I’m raising little anarchists who will grow up to be big anarchists 🙂
I feed the kids my anti-state anarchist views daily. In the past they didn’t know how to take it with the way the world talks to them but now they know right off where I’m coming from. My only hope is that through wisdom, and that should come from others already experiencing things and not having to reinvent the wheel, they’ll understand their “old man” wasn’t so kooky after all. Heck… when I think back on some of the stuff my depression era dad told me I realize that at the time I thought I knew everything and he was just some cranky idiot. Boy was I ever wrong and I’ve told my kids these facts.
Right on, Eric. When my wife was alive that was our exact reasoning. Kids are no longer kids, now they’re hostages used to insure compliance.
It’s bleak – and suffocating.
I was lucky enough to have grown up in the pre “safety” era. When a kid could just jump in the car when it was time to go for a ride. Many families had station wagons and the kids either rode in the rear-facing jumpseats or rolled around on the cargo deck, enjoying the view of the tree tops through the vista roof. Now, kids are buckled in like Hannibal Lecter and given “juice boxes” and addled by idiot Pixar DVDs…
Kids didn’t used to be a 24/7 thing, either. By six or seven – in my generation – we were left free to roam the neighborhood, explore the woods, play with our friends. We came home for lunch and dinner. Today, the kids are shuttled by parents from one scripted, organized, group activity to the next. I cannot remember the last time I saw kids riding bikes down the road, or walking over to a friend’s house. The adults are turned into kids – watching Pixar movies, talking baby talk – while the kids are suffocatingly over-protected and micro-managed. Preparing them for a lifetime of being treated like children by the state when they become adults.
A little while back, I was sitting out in the garage in between maniacal fits of detailing the car, enjoying a beer and a smoke, and I saw the most amazing thing I’ve seen in many years – a couple of kids riding bikes down my street WITHOUT HELMETS!! Oh the horror! Guess what my next thought was: A) Somebody needs to go arrest their parents immediately for child endangerment. Or B) Maybe, just maybe, there’s hope yet…
I’ll give you three tries to guess the answer…
Not mine, Eric! And it seems to be spreading. On my street, it started with us–no bicycle helmets for my girl. It’s been two years since she started riding, and I’m seeing two other kids from our street riding without now, too.
She and three of our neighbors do the spontaneous roaming thing; they’ll wander over to our house or vice versa and play in the yards.
There’s a great site–FreeRangeKids.com–that, seen from fifty years ago, would seem completely normal. It’s fun to read comments from freaked-out uselessly domesticated Northwestern moms…
…whose children are no doubt on at least Prozac and probably Zyprexa.
I prefer my children’s skull damage on the outside where I can see it than on the inside, pharmacologically induced!
It’s little things such as this that give me some hope. Not much – but some. Thanks for spreading a little sunshine!
Sorry meant to say northEastern moms!
I’m all for giving kids the freedom to be just that… kids. Still, I’m reminded that not everyone should be cut loose at the same age. Just days after being molested by cops in my house there was a five year old boy who drowned in a pond ,no deeper than a few feet, in our neighborhood not fifty yards from my front door. His parents didn’t even know where he’d been for fortyfive minutes before running around knocking on doors. I’m sorry but how in the fuck would you not KNOW where in the hell your kid was for nearly an hour? I keep my spidey senses active at all times and I admit it can be hard. And these ass-hats were “visiting” friends and didn’t even live there so you’d ass-u-me they’d keep a tighter rein. So now a little boy rests in heaven for his parents and those they were visiting group stupidity. I’m not for the nanny-state to “care” for everything but they sure as hell have done a good job of turning responsible people into irresponsible dolts.
@MoT, re: drowned five-year-old.
Not only were they derelict in their duty to know where he was–five is too young to fully free-range–but why the hell hadn’t they taught him how to swim?
So yes–discretion is the better part of valor, as always.
`When I was eight I would ride my bike three miles into town to play baseball. The only problems I had were these two black brothers who would try to gang up on me. One day I was riding my bike in town and a big rock struck me upside my head and I got real dizzy and I saw these blacks running who threw the rock. I had never said anything to them and didn’t even know them and I was only eight years old. WHen we were 9 and 10 we might ride ten miles down the road and go to other towns. Today you would be nuts to let your kids ride bikes like that that far away. We would go back in the gravel pits and play in the dump trucks and in the mud that was like quick sand. Kids today they just don’t have the freedom we did. There were times blacks might ride by and throw a bottle out the window and today I just imagine what could happen. One day a black guy rode by and threw a rock and hit my dogs foot and me and my brother and cousin loaded up in the car with grandmom driving and we cursed that black bastard till he never came back.
Today so many people worship those blacks as the protocols of zion see to it we are so screwed forever. Grown men making 20 million a year playing a child’s game who would have ever thought.
You’re right about all the hassles about raising a child now, but I think even with all that evil coming from the govt, you would still be happy to have a child. For me, that’s pretty much my goal in life, to have a few children and be a good father. That’s all I’m living for.
You got to go back to the old days. The wife stays home and homeschools the kids and grows a garden and takes care of the home and splits the wood and fix supper. In places you have mostly whites you got nice places to live. We’re right in an area full of coloreds and mexicans and it’s a mess. Only so the chicken plants, trucks crops and pickling plants have plenty of cheap labor, but how does that benefit us?
I was a stay at home mom. I have raised 3 well rounded “awake” children. They tried to have me put my active son on Ritalin, I refused. I can attest to the Merry Go Round involved. They tried to take my kids because I let my 10 year old son ride 3 blocks to spend his allowance without adult supervision. CPS appeared at my home, I said you can check them for bruises, make sure they have food and ask them what you will but if you are going to tell me I have to take away a privelage my son earned then leave now!! I won in court ( barely)!! I did homeschool my kids for several years and loved it! I have been married to their father ( yes, the father of all 3 of them) for 23 years which is not representative of my generation. My husband worked off the radar for all of our marriage, he broke his back recently. It has devastated my family financially. I however would rather live in a box with my husband than act like some of the woman mentioned in this blog. I am a prepper and a gun owner. The govt. has made my life hell on alot of occasions. They took my kids from me for 60 days because my house burned down and I couldnt provide them their own home for a few weeks. Horror stories happen all the time and people need to wakeup! I also think alimony, marriage licenses and ss cards are ridiculous!! Just some thoughts from one mom and wife about the state of my gender, and my govt. They both really piss me off sometimes! must be why I don’t have any friends, only family!! Just sayin!
Social security number is a way to track you. I think Europe is alot better. Of course lower Ukraine or Lower Russia. It gets cold as a mofo in St. Petersburg. That is no fun when you get older. Of course Argentina would be nice.
Just came across this: Ala. Lawmaker Pushing For Allowing Guns At Work
Mentioned this on other threads in the past, but it seems reasonable to do so again.
Those of you who fell for the glib CCW nonsense and signed up for a permit are fools. You played right into their hands. Didn’t it occur to anyone that the rush to pass concealed-carry laws in most states went just a little too well?
By getting a CCW permit, you placed your name on a government list. When the gummint is ready, to disarm a big portion of present gun owners, all it has to do is use those lists. Many if not most CCW permit holders have more than just the gun they typically carry.
So the government will go after the low-hanging fruit first: CCW permit holders. Watch for this as what Eric discusses here ramps up. However, I personally don’t believe they’ll even try the insurance angle: it would take too long to disarm everyone that way. They’re cocky and will want to strike while the iron is hot.
Action will come using the argument “think about the children“, and using consumer-safety laws. After all, sales of new sets of lawn darts ended after just one death from their misuse, and numerous gun grabbers have long proposed using consumer safety as the means to ban firearms.
Taxes on ammo have been another favorite. The late senator (D-Mass., of course) Daniel Patrick Moynihan once proposed a 10,000% tax on certain types of ammo most commonly used in handguns, which would have made a single bullet cost hundreds of dollars—for the law-abiding, that is.
We’ll see a lot of tactics as the feds start the gun grab juggernaut. In the meantime, don’t get that tempting CCW permit if you didn’t already fall for getting one!
If we the people could tax our so-called “leaders” for their stupidity and evil we’d have a balanced budget and no doubt a surplus.
With the Paper Trail that is available in 2012 the Nuremberg Precedent Court should be able to lawfully do much more than tax the sons-of-bitches. The office holding criminals have wrought much suffering, so, no mere “Bailiff, whack his pee pee!” for these lowlifes.
What pisses me off is they only fear the Jews. Not one politicians fears 100 million gun owners. They don’t fear the ones they screw. I mean 9’11 was committed by the Israeli Mossad and not one politician has even spoke about this. So how powerful is our government? There is something more powerful they are afraid of and so they will do their bidding and not in our best interests. Because I don’t know about you, but 9/11 attacks we didn’t benefit. Larry SIlverstein made 3.5 billion. George Bush got his Patriot Act that was already written up signed by politicians who weren’t even allowed to read it. Has George Bush read stories with children since? I can see someone calling him up hey MR. President. We got some colored children down in Florida and day is some reading mofos. Will you come on down on AIrforce 1 with a hundreds SS agents and all your staff and spend about a couple million to watch this colored kids, Bush, ” I’ll be down first thing in the morning”
This is another good follow-up article written by Eric. I will have to comment again, and I would like to commend Eric for his writing. He is a very good writer.
Anyway, there have also been some good comments to Eric’s article, especially the one about the CCW scam. Yes, the state governments use them to register gun owners. I know this is true because I have friends that live in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The CCW law in Nevada monitors not just the gun owner, but also the quantity and types of guns in the household. Also, notice how the CCW forms demand a ‘permanent residential’ address, more fees to the cops and fingerprints. You just can’t write a p.o. box address down and leave the application for approval. The whole application process runs its course in the local sheriff’s office!
Also, in the county of Vegas, Clark Country, every gun owner, despite having or not having a CCW permit, has to register his/her guns. There are other outrageous gun laws in that city too. Ask any gun owning resident there. And please remember, this is in the ‘gun belt’ in the US. We all know what the gun repression is like in those corrupt megalopolis cities: NYC, Philly, Chicago, Detroit, L.A., San Francisco, etc.
I would further like to give a historian’s perspective to Eric’s timely article. Yes, all tyrannies use the gradual approach to dictatorship. Machiavelli explained how this sinister method was done in his book, ‘The Discourses.’ What Machiavelli and other state scoundrels have known is that the vast majority of any urbanized populations suffer from both ignorance, (of history mostly), and cowardice, (due to not working for their food on their own land, nor having any relation to the land whatsoever). Maintaining a productive garden on one’s land for personal consumption, and all year round, is a lot of hard work.
The current dictatorship, (and yes, it is here already), is ingenious in its use of propaganda and social control, whether through the TV media charades or through its use of fear by using the militarized police state, which is even found in small towns around the US; however, the powers and elites in DC and NY are quite scared these days, and are actually scrambling for some type of quick band aid system in order to avoid the extreme violence prepared for the American Empire.
The Liberal-Conservative elites want to ban guns, (just to be like Europe), and if you don’t believe me read the op-ed pages of their rag paper, NY Times. That paper is their voice. However, they are currently stuck because the US military recruits most of its military personnel from the white skin privileged populations in the regions of the South, Midwest and West. I know this because I served in the military for four years.
A lot of those young men have grown up with shotguns in the home, shooting and plinking with friends out in the woods or deserts, and hunting with dad. Look what happened in Congress when a bunch of hacks tried to ban gun ownership for returning veterans from the recent imperial wars. You don’t want to piss off returning veterans. That bill was shot down quickly and died a sweet death.
The US govt. is scared hard core because some of those returning veterans are quite angry for have done the dirty imperial work of Uncle Sam overseas, just like the returning vets from Korean and Vietnam got real pissed. The methods that brought down the Vietnam War were not the hippie peace marches and their smoking of cannabis joints. It was the outright rebellions in the US military ranks, both in the States and overseas, which made that imperial war unwinnable.
Unlike the overweight militia members or Internet tough guys that tend to rant on line about fighting with their guns against tyranny, the returning veterans know how to engage in combat and use weapons. They are quite dangerous when pissed off. The US govt. does not want that scenario to happen again, so they are doing everything to mitigate such a scenario. The elites need the military cannon fodder.
There is also the lesson of Weimar Germany. Hitler was able to successfully first recruit for his Nazi gang because he was a real angry WW I vet – and there were millions like him, not just in Bavaria, but all over Europe. And there are other examples from the annals of history.
The current crop of US political-economic-military elites are sociopaths, but they are also severely anxious about their empire. The American empire just has too many internal and glaring contradictions within it to withstand a major catastrophe. Look at how the economy tanked after the planes flew into the two twin towers in NY.
Like Eric stated in a previous comment, our enemies in DC are using every conceivable plot to gradually corral us into pens. They are good at what they do because they have had over 200 years of practice, but they are not immune to stupidity. One day in the future, they are going to overstep a little, push a little too fast and just get over-anxious in their power. Sparks will fly, and the thugs in power will try to contain it like in the past. But as a historian, I also know that there are times in the future when the fire just doesn’t want to go out. None of us can predict when that will happen – but when it does, then it becomes real time history gentlemen.
I think you have made some very correct observations regarding the employment of incrementalism and the general mood of the powers that be.
I don’t know what the mood of returning vets is, but my father was a Korean war vet. He never would talk about it and took it to his grave. But as Vietnam was winding down he told me flat out that he wouldn’t have me in the military and would send me to Canada to avoid it if need be. So I suspect that many of those returning today share the same sentiment.
The very same thing my dad, a WW2 vet, told me as well back in the 70’s.
Well-written and even better-reasoned, Refco…fine words.
I hear Eric’s point–but the “Elites” have run out of time for further incrementalism.
The Internet Reformation (to borrow The Daily Bell’s term) has run much faster and further than they anticipated or desired; it’s the modern Gutenberg Press and it’s killing them.
I don’t think they have time for the incremental approach Eric proposes. They’ve rushed their plans tremendously over the last ten years, and the frogs are hopping mad.
For example: the Aurora shooting. I heard a brief clamoring for victim disarmament…then silence, followed by the thundering of hooves headed for gun stores. Gun sales in the month following that shooting set new records.
People are aware of the “price ammo off the market” strategy; I don’t think it will work either.
They–the “Elites”–have reason to panic now, and panic they are; otherwise why would they so unwisely accelerate their plans and thus tip their hands?
No, I think this will be a quick grab, possibly after another BIG false-flag.
Be watching for it. And remember–if you’re near the false flag event, run TO it, not away from it! Document, shoot video–especially eyewitness accounts. Ask questions. Post them everywhere.
Make it impossible to cover up the evidence again.
I think we’re close to a tipping point with 9/11; make the next one work against them in a month, not a decade.
No, actually, it isn’t, not by itself under ordinary circumstances. It typically averages about 20 hours per week, with seasonal peaks like harvests. The people with that lifestyle who did more than that had other burdens, like pioneers who had to clear land as well as work it or oppressed peasants who had to pay taxes in cash, tribute in kind or rents in either form. Think about it: if basic subsistence were that hard, it would never have been possible to carry any added burdens of that sort. One possible exception is those Irish who were driven onto land so marginal that they continually had to gather seaweed and rot it down as crop bedding material – the analogue of pioneering land preparation, only without end.
As for issues of the difficulty of disarming veterans, see my earlier comment about achieving control by co-opting and privileging an insider group; that could easily be built around those very veterans. There are more ways to kill this cat than just acting directly.
My wife picked up a tiny bit of gardening this year and the tomatoes were awesome! We also had some squash, melons, zucchini etc. We’re going to increase production this next year. It was a hoot and a hell of a lot better tasting and looking than store bought.
“The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Inherent in that right is to keep and bear arms AND to sell or dispose of those arms as one sees fit. A right can not be taxed or regulated. For those of you holding an FFL you have been conned into admitting you are engaged in foreign commerce. Because the only jurisdiction the UNITED STATES INC. has,according to their own corporate policy, is over foreign trade.
How did US INC. turn domestic trade into foreign trade? They incorporated the several states party to the constitution and brought them under the umbrella of US INC. All De joure government offices are vacant. http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/rod-class-gets-fourth-administrative-ruling-govt-offices-are-vacant-all-govt-officials-are-private-contractors/23602/
It is through this mechanism they have hijacked the courts, the various municipal “governments,” the “police,” everything. It is a fiction. We’ve been hoodwinked. When you “apply” for a CCW permit you are giving up your right to keep and bear arms and admitting you are an employee of the corporation, which, under its corporate policy has made carrying a firearm without a “license” “illegal.” You are begging for permission to exercise a right! When you “apply” for an FFL you are admitting the corporation has jurisdiction over you and can regulate your “foreign” commerce. The sovereign states are foreign to US INC.
Is the picture becoming clear? Americans have been deceived into believing rights come from government through legal chicanery. Since most people don’t speak “legalese,” they think they are hearing English. Not true. They are hearing the language of deception. Stop listening to “them” and start listening to yourself.
I hear you, and mostly believe the arguments. I certainly believe the income tax is illegal, immoral, and invalid—but I still pay it.
Because we’ve been hijacked by a deadly-serious criminal cabal, and they’ll kill you with prejudice if you threaten their income stream. Mint gold and silver coins like Bernard von Nothaus of Liberty Dollar? Go to jail. Argue, correctly and legally, that no regular citizen is liable for the income tax? Nor is he required to even file, like Irwin Schiff, Rose Larken, and many others? Go to jail. Or die.
As tempting as it would be to martyr oneself–and make the enforcers’ jobs a little more deadly in the process–it’s not time. There’s insufficient mass of like-minded people to cause the revolution in thinking that will change the system.
The sovereign citizen/UCC/strawman arguments fall in the same container, doubly so. Do I believe the US declared bankruptcy in 1933, and sold itself into corporate receivership to the globalist banksters? Yes. Have we been in a “state of emergency” ever since, renewed by every president since 1934? Yes.
But only 1% of the population knows this as fact; and only about 10% understand we’re supposed to be free, we’re not, and some reasons why.
It’s our job to increase those numbers peacefully–for now.
These arguments are presented as food for thought, seeding the ground, if you will. These methods HAVE been deployed. There is simply too much evidence supporting these arguments to dismiss them out of hand. If you’re a lawyer and don’t know this stuff your education is incomplete, shame on you. If you’re a lawyer and you do know this stuff, shame on you.
That being said, if you don’t know the problem, how can you go about fixing it? If your ICM is faulty it will do you no good to replace the AC compressor.
People ARE winning using these arguments. Do you hear about that? Of course not. In the end TPTB will use force, true. Wouldn’t it be better to know the cause of the disaster so as not to repeat it in the future?
I agree, and I know there are successes from time to time.
Right now I’m making the bet that being out of court and/or prison is the more productive avenue for me. I can promulgate my ideas–and most importantly, inculcate them in my children–better if I’m present.
I applaud those who make those stands–like Irwin and Rose–and support them financially when I can. There’s another reason to be out of prison–I can earn more to support them out here than in there with them!
Have you had successes with these arguments? I ask because I’m always thrilled when they work. There was a man commenting on here about a year ago who refused to have plates, registration, or a driver’s license.
I simply opt out of contracting with certain departments of US INC. No contract no obligation, if you know what I mean. As for the car registration stuff, they are commercial contracts and if I’m not engaged in commerce on the roads they are of no consequence to me. Yes, I do all that is imposed on me by DMV only because I do not wish to fight that battle with every dumbed down cop on the road. I will deal with it through affidavits and writs if the occasion arises. One must choose one’s battles at this point.
We’re in agreement then! I too avoid any entanglements, where I can slip under the radar.
But as you say–I also don’t feel like explaining 10 years of research to every asshole cop whose feathers are ruffled when he senses someone “seeing” the Matrix.
From “They Live”–“We’ve got one that can see!”
From Bill and Ted’s…..
“Be excellent to one another.”
From some Clover deep in the heart of Cloverland “I’ve lost my glasses and can’t look for them until I find them.”
Methylamine, you wrote what I was going to and then some.
I’ve learned that practically everything government is a scam. Legal scams. So when I read a comment like that by Rog I know what he is getting at. Now there’s some bad info out there but at the root of even the bad info there are government scams. The problem is that the people around us all have bought into the scam. They enforce it, socially.
Force doesn’t hold the system together. Belief does. Force is used against the government’s criminal competition and against the minority that sees the scam and then decides to openly resist. The weakness is that force doesn’t scale well. The world’s greatest militaries have failed against a mass of people that stop believing. Once people stop believing above a threshold masses start to openly resist and force doesn’t work. It starts working backwards.
Look at the ‘war on terror’. What is force doing? It’s creating more enemy than it destroys.
Win the minds and the system falls apart under its own weight.
All we got to do is grow gardens and don’t go to restaurants, bowling alleys or bars and the whole thing falls apart. We got to eat their processed crap and take their vaccines or they can’t make us sick. Then just go about your business.
The other lazy and envious half got the income tax passed through the Parasite Act of 1913.
Thus, inevitably creating a house divided will fall scenario. It’s taken them about a 100 years and the house of cards will fall.
A 100 years is just a few minutes historically speaking.
Yeah, that was sneaky voting for the federal reserve when most of the members went home and the ones who were going to vote it in stayed behind. That was a con job and the other members should have raised hell. That was when the Jews took oontrol of this country and right after that WWI.
I always viewed CCW as just another link in the federal chains to bind any gun holder. Why in the hell would anyone voluntarily submit to it is a mystery.
I went ahead and did it – got the CC permit – understanding full well that doing so put me on their radar (and on their list). So – why?
Because I weighed the theoretical risk of future gun-grabbing against the very real possibility of a felony arrest for being caught in possession. I carry everywhere. If I get stopped in a car (a press car, a car owned by an automaker) and they find me with a gun, not only will I get charged with felony, when the car companies find out I was arrested for having a gun in the car, it’s over for me professionally.
So, I have the permit.
If they do try to come for my guns, then I will have to accept the consequences. And so will they.
Eric, I’ve heard that before from others so it’s more of a rhetorical question. You have to admit that it’s “sick” that you must beg to bear a weapon that purportedly you have a right to bear without question. Oh the irony!
And if they do try to take my guns – or ban me from carrying – then I will have no choice but to respond appropriately.
They take you guns and you’ll say I have a permit and I have rights and they’ll say shut up and let me see your gun and they’ll say damn you aren’t very smart. You just handed over your gun and boy now squeal like a hog boy as I ride your ass.
Great post. One small correction: Daniel Patrick Moynihan was from New York state.
You are perfectly correct. My bad. But from where I sit, in attitudes there isn’t a lot of difference between New York and Massachusetts… 😉
I live in the same state as Eric, and open carry is generally legal here with some restrictions. If I felt the need to be armed, I would do that. CCW permits are a huge trap.
Extra thought for free: a bad guy looking to rob or hurt you probably will not bother you if he sees that you carry a weapon openly. Since most people don’t have CCW permits, he’ll take a chance if he doesn’t see a weapon. And remember this, concealed weapon holders: when you get surprised by a thug pointing a gun in your face at point-blank range, you don’t have a gun any more for all intents. Try to go for your concealed weapon and he’ll simply squeeze his trigger… No, you won’t be able to get the drop on him with fancy maneuvering; that’s TV nonsense.
The key is situational awareness. If you are constantly scanning your environment, sizing people up, etc., there is a good chance you will never have to be surprised by a thug pointing a gun in your face at point-blank range. If my spider sense tingles at all, bet your bippie I have my hand on my piece and have already put myself in an advantageous position to react, if need be.
Being aware and scanning the environment generally means not being chosen by criminal in the first place. They’ll find someone who is an easier target.
Avoidance is the best form of self-defense, as I see it.
Here’s the thing though.. if the criminal believes his victim to be unarmed that could be used to one’s advantage in a number of ways. For the criminal to drop the victim with a concealed weapon the criminal has to react like a cop and assume that his victim is reaching for a weapon and open fire. A weapon the criminal believes the victim doesn’t have.
I was at an ATM in Hampton back in the early nineties getting some cash out for a gun show at the Coliseum. A couple of young gnomesayins’ pulled up in a car behind me, got out and crowded up a bit too close to me as I was about to enter my PIN. I had a bad feeling, so I turned around displaying the Colt Officer’s ACP in a high ride holster on my belt and inquired, “Can I help you fellows with something?” They both backed up and Tweedle-dee asked “You some kinda cop or sumpin?” I responded “Yeah, something like that.” Tweedle-dum stated “He ain’ no cop.” So I replied “That’s right. Do you know what that means?” So Tweedle-dee took the bait asking, “What dat mean?” I explained “That means if I shoot you, I don’t have to do any paperwork.” Oddly, their business there was finished and they got in their car and left. Sometimes the mere presence of the firearm…
Eric, I’d put another spin on your insurance angle with regards to weapons. With insurance being forced upon everyone, and I’ve yet to see it stopped, why not simply put a “rider” or clause into the sovietized policy that requires you to simply pay more once your insurance records are cross referenced to the gun registry? Ah! Now here they’ve got ya by the balls because all they have to do is slip in a question into the forms and if you DENY having any, in order to save bucks, then it sets off flags so that “officer friendly” pays you a house call. And if you’re stupid enough to admit to having any on the insurance and not being on the registry? Well well well…. use your imagination.
Myself, I don’t see the insurance play as the one that will be used. That requires the passage of laws and complicity of individual states, which takes time. The mechanism I recently read about that seems a more plausible route, as it bypasses the legislative, is to simply expand the statutes on Title II Any Other Weapons and impose a prohibitive tax. Initial targets will likely be hi-cap magazines and the scary features that cause clovers to fill their panties with gerbil droppings.
By the way MoT – ya still owe me a dark beer 🙂
LOL… Dark beer, eh? Only a “friend” would suggest as much. Now that’s a libation I can get lost in: a good Alt bier!
I love dark beer. Enjoying some Loonie Kuhnies Kriek brewed by these guys:
Kuhnhenn Brewing Co. – http://www.kbrewery.com/index.html
Have you tried Chimay? Those monks know what they’re doing!
No, I haven’t. Not sure if I can find it locally. I’ll give it a try if I do.
Here’s their web site:
We can get it locally at Kroger….
Ah! I have a Kroger down the street. I’ll look next time I go there.
Any company that produces an Alt beer is one I have to investigate at some point. My aunt worked for a brewery in Dusseldorf and she’d as a matter of compensation get beer. Must have been something they do there as a side benefit. That was good stuff! It was later taken over by Schlossel and they have their own. With around a thousand breweries every little town had a different flavor but I lean towards the dark far more than the light. All good regardless.
Dark beer? What at 45 degrees? Damn I’d rather drink ditch water. Maybe I’m a wuss, but I like ice cold beer that is rather weak I have to drink a dozen to get a buzz. Sitting in the AC with beautiful women listening to good music. Of course, I don’t understand someone drinking pure straight whiskey like it icetea. I used to mix vodka and cramberry juice and would be stone drunk in an hour. I like to just feel a little buzz. So you have two choices. You sip like a little bird or you guzzle weak beer.
That tax trick is how the U.S.A. banned marijuana without needing the sort of constitutional machinery used for Prohibition. It’s actually perfectly legal to sell, buy, or smoke it, provided it has the right tax stamp – but somehow the only stamps made are the proof copies held on file and no others were ever released, so no legal uses can ever take place.
But as I have told people around here before, none of these are the methods traditionally used to implement gun restriction in a viable way. There are such methods, and they have indeed been used, e.g. in Japan under the Shoguns and by the French when they went into Indochina in the 19th century: you don’t take the guns away from the people who’ve got them, not as such, but instead you co-opt them and turn them into a privileged class of poachers turned gamekeepers who are actually assisted to have guns, so squeezing out anybody else, and then you gradually shrink that group. For more specifics, see Noel Perrin’s “Giving up the Gun” or find a detailed account of General Gallieni’s career.
Beyond the capture and accumulation of more powerful weapons, will the relatively puny weapons now privately owned be instrumental in a successful destruction of an unlawful government?
Death by a thousand tiny cuts. Besides, you simply “trade up” on the bodies of those fallen in “defense” of the system. Imagine back in the colonial days… your garden variety militia man didn’t own a cannon and powder for just in case. And like the Bible admonishes you not to despise the day of small beginnings.
My great fear is that so many individuals will count on the Second Amendment to the extent that they will ignore the rest. I’ve known too many rabid gun shakers to think otherwise.
Remember the little guy with the big mouth in the movie SHANE? He boasted about his .44 one time too many and Jack Palance cooly gunned him down in the muddy street.
Unless they are part of the nation’s general mindset the Patriot Wolverines ain’t going to get very far.
“Unless they are part of the nation’s general mindset the Patriot Wolverines ain’t going to get very far.”
Spoken like a true republican.
If someone is silent and they want to get someone they can. Let’s say a politician is going duck hunting and he knows the blind and has a gun he can reach out and touch someone from 1,000 yards. Or say a politician has a home in the mountain resorts. Or a politician drives a certain road. As for cops they would be easy to get, but you couldn’t have a beef with a cop and shoot him a week later.
It can. But it takes great numbers. It’s the great numbers that will be lacking. It will even work in a head on confrontation if people are willing to die in large numbers.
“They drained four of our phasers and kept coming”
(it’s not in this clip, but closest I could find)
But realistically the US government will continue to use psychological manipulation and incrementalism. People will be picked off one by one. Any mass awakening means the federal government and those who control it, lose. At that point the people could be armed with nothing more than pointy sticks and the government still loses.
Pointed sticks? You first have to graduate from being assaulted by a banana.
Do “puny weapons” work? Ask the Taliban. Granted, they are made of stouter stuff than Americans.
Don’t take this wrong, but, in our colonial times, the militia men fought from behind tress, bushes, and rocks, against the neat ranks of redcoated targets. Also remember the words of caution spoken by Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, (who planned the Pearl Harbor attack at the orders of his superiors),”to invade the united states would be a great mistake, as you would find a gun behind every blade of grass”.
Pearl Harbor was how FDR lured the Japs into attacking by putting all the aircraft carriers in Hawaii and when they had broken their codes they knew they were gong to attack they took out all the carriers, because they sink the carriers it takes too long to build them. SO all they left at Pearl Harbor was rusing hulking junk. So the attack was a mistake even though they were enticed. You think they got thee fleet in Pearl Harbor they don’t have lookouts and radar and planes flying around that were probably pulled on that day? You think the whole Japanese fleet could come across that ocean and fishermen wouldn’t signale that something is coming down? I mean it’s a long way across there. They knew there was spies on the island that would warn them if the people were ready for an attack, but they should have noticed the aircrafts carriers and the newer ships were not there.
I don’t believe the idea was to defeat the goat herders. It might have been only for drugs. I mean they could bomb them with 20,000 bombers and soften them up. I believe the Afghanistan wars with the USA and Russia are for opium. How can we be in Vietnam for ten years and then leave? The prpose was not to win any war.
Look what they did to Germany and Japan. They firebombed their cities. We were in Iraq for ten years and for what? I am telling you the smart people left this country after 9/11. If they are hitting the slopes in the Alps and enjoying the saunas and the two hour lunches and all the culture, then they win and when we are sitting in FEMA camps we lose. The revolution is like a train. Just forget about taking it headon. Just move out of the way and let it pass.
I would rather be wrong and what is going to occur here will not be as violent as I think, but I’d rather be living in Switzerland and be wrong than here and be wrong. I mean fondue with beautiful people listening to coocoo clocks and talking about the skiing and ice skating on the frozen lakes seems just like the way it’s suppose to be.
It’s amazing we keep falling for it time and time again. The KKK they claim are so powerful we need to stop them, then a month later they claim they can’t get 20 at a rally. Well, which is it? Afghanistan do they even have fighter jets, helicopters, tanks or power ful bombs? If not seems like the best thing is to leave them alone and maybe they’ll stay home.
Seems appropriate to post this again:
When Should You Shoot a Cop –
If you decide to shoot and kill a political errand boy (aka cop) you’d better have that SOB on video showing clearly that he acted improperly, or have several witnesses of good character to attest to the impropriety. And, if you use witnesses, make sure your idea of impropriety agrees with Big Brother’s definition. Failing proof, putting your word against the reputation of a dead cop is risky business.
The voice in the video seems more than willing to volunteer everyone else to shoot errant cops, but I wonder if he’s willing to practice what he preaches?
Feel free to post you comment/question to the youtube vid. Larken has no problem answering.
YOu’re better off if you got a beef with a cop is say nothing and a few months down the road sit on a corner and blast him as he goes by and the car goes into a river or into a field with scrub pine and tall grass and go home. Use double 0 buck shot and say nothing. Open confrontation will mayne get you many days in court and they make the rules. I say some of them should be shot, but there are easy ways to do it.
Your dark side is showing, Steve. Great idea.
Jaesun IF anyone thinks this is going to end with us on the winning side might be a little too optimistic, but if they think it’s going to be settled in the voting booth, protesting, marching, then they are sadly mistaken. When Vietnam was going on they protested and marched big time, but it didn’t shorten the war unless the plan was a 20 year war. All the protestors ever do is get arrested, charged and fined.
Look at the Civil War or the Revolutionary War and the Civil Rights riots of the sixties and then look at what happened to the Russians. This will end bloody and really our only hope is the police join the citizens and then it’s going to be bad, because right now in this country in several places they already have German and Russian soldiers already for Civil unrest. Look what they did to us they got all the National Guard weapons out of here and even sent the National Guardsmen to fight. So when they go to war there will be no National Guard. Someone needs to tell me what people can do against the most advanced weapons being outnumbered when confronted by a dozen people. The first brave joker that takes out the whole bunch will be a hero. People could rig all kinds of porch clearing devices. That’s up to them. Because I would say when everything falls apart you could go to jail and might be sitting there for a long time, when they got millions to deal with. They’ll have you charged with so much crap you won’t know which way is up. So many will take the shootout route.
When the shooting starts, it won’t last long.
There are several factors in our favor:
1) we vastly outnumber them–and by “them”, I mean the psychopaths who are running the show…AND the goons who enforce their will.
2) weapon superiority doesn’t overcome numerical advantage; look at Iraq and Afghanistan…where a bunch of illiterate goat herders with old Kalashnikovs have defeated the two mightiest empires on earth (Russia, US)
3) the old “dinner-vs-life”, predator-prey dynamic. The cheetah is running for dinner; the antelope is running for its life. The Hessians–the UN troops they’re training to subjugate us–are a bunch of lackluster mercenaries. If things get heavy, they’ll lose their enthusiasm real quick. Dinner, or life?
frog meet pot.
As for guns what I have noticed is the effects of the war on some drugs and the belief that guns should be made illegal.
This is how it’s been spread at least it’s how it seems to me.
In most major cities you have a relatively unarmed population. The armed population are gangbangers. They run around and terrorize everyone. The cops look the other way because, well who cares it’s just niggers or spics shooting each other. And like the drone attacks in Pakistan, who cares about the innocents who get caught in the crossfire, they deserve it for being there in the first place.
Once in a while the shootings sneak over into the suburbs and that scares the shit out of soccer mom Lisa. So what does she think? Well her IQ is all of about 86 so her answer is that if they didn’t have guns she would be safe. That is as deep as soccer mom Lisa can think.
I wish I could say you’re wrong Brad. A couple of years ago we were at a yard sale in a “nice” neighborhood (i.e. all the houses were cookie-cutter, manicured lawn clones in varying shades). We got to talking to soccer mom Lisa about the local publik skule situation. She explained how they had tried to fight what was going on, but found out if she did this, then she’d “have no friends” if she continued. So she gave up the fight and fed her kids to the beast. So she’ll go with “dangerous guns.”
Ah!… The “I’ll have no friends so I’ll go along to get along” line of defense, eh? This is when you have to hang your head in shame of the modern American woman. Has it always been thus? I don’t believe so but with enough television, romance novels, and pubelick skrewls, this is what we’ve got.
MoT wrote, “The “I’ll have no friends so I’ll go along to get along” line of defense, eh? This is when you have to hang your head in shame”
I wouldn’t go that far. It seems like what you’re actually talking about is osterization. It’s obviously quite effective, just as was done in the old West – only – in a bad way this time.
I’m not even certain I would say television, romance novels, and pubelick skrewls are roots for what is Lisa’s condition.
There’s plenty of People who have viewed lots of TV, read lots of romance novels, and survived coed-prison pubelick skrewls, and yet still became Freedomistas.
It’s deeper than that.
I’d say the locust is fiat money and how that came about.
[And don’t forget the TV and novels women/People see and read which propel them to walk away thinking pro-self defense thoughts.]
Without the easy money it seems certain very few of the systems controlling People/herding them and such would exist. Other systems would be there, likely better ones.
Bad systems supported by bad money drive out good ones.
Lisa is just parroting what she’s been conditioned to think, er I mean respond, by multiple fiat money supported systems.
A possible solution is to create and maintain alternative systems. ? Prepper networks being an example. Homeschooling networks too.
Also, I don’t see how the insurance process operates without a registration system i.e. tags and plates.
Isn’t the foundational problem a combination of people either looking to the state in faith to take care of them and those who also vote for the state to be the omniscient one who do care for themselves but because of their twisted thinking think it’s okay to steal from some to give to others. If so, it’s a transference of the rightful place God demands in people’s lives to the state. Think of it this way: God says he’ll take care of those who trust in Him. He also cares for those who don’t. It’s called common grace: sunshine, food, water for example. God says don’t steal; He says work six days a week; He says sex in marriage is a good thing; He says don’t murder people because He placed His
image in them when He made them. He gives the state the authority to put to death those who violate the no murder commandment. All this and more is His pervue so the only solution to the problem of our fellow citizens’idiocy is to tell people about God and pray that they’ll believe in Him, commit their lives to Him which includes their thinking. That’s the only way to transform and renew the minds of people so they will think and behave in a rational manner.
That’s how it works.
I don’t know how many of the regulars here bring up our shared basic views in hostile company, but I do it regularly online. I would say for every substantive response where someone can actually express their views I get many many many more where it is just insult, ridicule, belittling, etc and so on. All social techniques to get a person to go along to get along. Do as we do or be socially punished.
I’ve gotten it at the workplace too when I tried to do things a better way, but not the way they had been doing it for 30 years or whatever. It doesn’t seem to matter what the subject is. The powers that be use it to advance their agenda in every area.
Being different means being left out socially and few people who know better can actually take that. This is why there is a threshold point where when enough people do take it that all these people who went along to get along despite agreeing with the “kooks” socially flip. It becomes relatively safe for them to express the views they had all along.
That’s a good way of putting it. I’ve had people who disagreed with me and years later “agreed” that I was right all along. Not that I wasn’t thought the “kook” in the beginning. You’ll also find those who’ll vehemently disagree, even seek to destroy you, who’ll then fall on your side but they’ll be damned to acknowledge you ever had anything to do with that decision.
You can do much better than that company. I can tell you are high IQ and I’ll bet you do a majority of the work too. I’d chuck that dump in the garbage and start your own company. I did it a few years ago and am starting to laugh all the way to the bank. Though like any entrepeneur I had lean times in the beginning and sometimes thought I had shot myself in the foot during those beginning years. I tell you what I think when you go out of a company you should burn all the bridges. Tell your boss what you really think, that way you can never go back. Most likely they will tell their friends and black list you too. Getting blacklisted is the greatest thing that can happen to an entrepeneuring engineer long run. It will scare the shit out of you to get something going in a way that working a fulltime job and doing a starter business on the side would never.
Starting your own fulltime company will be quality life as you do what you want and when you want. I can tell you are too smart to work for others, it should be the other way around. Other people’s corporations are too communal like little miniature governments. Always punishing the producer to reward the slacker. Sure there are exceptions, but you should be top boss and liberatarian of your own company. Because you’d help create more if you were independent and greater creation wants maximum return of fruit and will reward handsomely to those that want to maximum create in the future at all present tense costs of now.
My wife fortunately is smart enough to not be a Lisa, in fact she’s actually smarter than me. It helps she understands debt sucks and is conservative enough to have helped me start my company on shoe string capital, ie not borrowed from other people.
Which brings me to the Lisa and others who go along with their rights getting squashed. Most Lisa types spend more of their husbands money than he earns. Puts him in the hole for a lifetime and then both have to go along to get along. I just love seeing these princess types have their father and future husband pay a $100G wedding in their early 20’s. Then add on a debty house loan? The banks and their employers own them and that is why Lisa and Joe are just going to sit there and take it forever. Sometimes Lisa and Joe get lucky and work for a libertarian who cares, which means they actually have a chance to survive but most times not. Not to mention they are not inventive types. Always looking for someone else to solve their problems instead of the other way around which is costly with money they don’t have (more debt).
Finally, Eric is right on the mark. This is how rights die. Slow and methodically. On the other hand at some point when you have nothing more to lose is when a man becomes dangerous and most free. Often times a reset button will be hit at this time, the problem is what replaces it. Without Eric Peters and Lew Rockwells, and Ron Pauls out there priming the future then nothing but worse will replace it. I have faith though that the message of freedom will resonate and win. Just because liberty has lost 99% of the times in the past doesn’t mean its going to keep going like it did in the past. Something is much different this time, as you might have noticed people are broke. Like Bernanke I see lots of green shoots, but with liberty instead. True things don’t change without a change of consciousness but that is what real education is all about. Besides, even if the rest of society perishes into a black hole pit of hell that doesn’t mean we have to. I’m simply not going to live in a prison, no matter how elaborate I will escape. Nobody gave me my rights (except God) and nobody has or will fight for them except me and my God. And I’m not talking about guns and bullets here either when I say fight for them. The best way to win this is doing what you are all doing and that is changing hearts and minds one person at a time. Be the kook now that everyone agrees with in the future. That is exactly what Ron Paul did and he won.
Cheer up friends as the time of freedom is nigh and at hand. Things that have happened too long in one direction generally don’t continue past breaking point without and equal and opposite force of restoration. Its been long overdue and its time is near.
I can “amen” the numerous benefits that attend going freelance/self-employed. I’ve been out from under (the man, the system) since the late 1990s. I earned more money (though I did work harder) working freelance than when I had a salaried job. But money is just a small part of it. You get to do things your way – not be told by someone else how to do them. This is both liberating and rewarding. Your creative energies find an outlet – and when something you created results in a payday, there’s no better feeling.
I work more than eight hours a day – and I’m not off weekends. I am often working at night – and very early in the morning. But if I feel like taking off a few hours to ride my bike, or work outside, I can. I decide what I write about – and no one gets to tell me I (as an example) shouldn’t mention that Car X has horrible blind spots because it might annoy the dealer who just bought a big ad.
So, to quote Ahhhhhnuuuld. Do it! Do it now!
On money/wives: Another amen. We eloped, because we both thought it foolish to spend what would have been thousands of dollars to provide a gaudy party (and free liquor) when that money could be used for something of tangible value such as (in our case) savings in the bank. We had a fine time – and here we are, 11 years later, in a paid-for house with paid-for vehicles.
We both work – but we work because we enjoy it. Either one of us could quit. This, too, is liberating. It takes so much pressure off to know you’re not living paycheck to paycheck – and utterly dependent on your job. On both your jobs. It’s bad enough to be in that position in your 20s and 30s…. but think of the people who are still on the debt-dependency treadmill in their 50s and 60s!
Powerful stuff, Hot Rod! And Brent, I agree–start your own company, even if it’s just you under an LLC doing contract gigs.
That’s what I’m doing now; not as much money as if I had four or five guys under me, but no hassles with payroll and being an involuntary helper for the IRS either.
Contracting/freelancing is freeing in a way you can’t imagine. I actually work harder, but it’s much more rewarding; every invoice that gets paid is a testimony that I’m doing good work. Every meeting is a sales opportunity.
I’m not just a “programmer” anymore; I have to be a business as well.
It puts hair on your chest…and pays better than being a corporate schlub.
And I agree–there’s an awakening, a shift in consciousness that’s almost mystical…like something from a CS Lewis book. It makes me wonder if Jung was right about a collective consciousness.
Hot Rod, thanks for the kind words, I’ve thought of it, but I am not sure what to do. I think consulting isn’t going to work out well for me. I’ve seen how it’s done for mechanical and its usually friends and close contacts getting people the jobs.
Companies seem to like not listening to me, hiring a consultant to tell them the same thing and then listening, but not following through with it either. 🙂
What I’d like is just one of my simple ideas I can tool up with my own money not having been done already! 🙂