Emasculation as Policy

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It’s not so much that they want your guns. It’s your manhood they’re really after. I mean this in a generic way, mind. It applies equally to men and women. They want to take away your self-respect – which naturally follows once they’ve defrocked you of your ability to take care of yourself.Fearful man picture

This should be obvious by now – to anyone who has watched the pathetic spectacle of disarmed (and thus, helpless) men and women being cattle-chuted out of a building with their hands over their heads in the “I surrender” pose following a mass shooting – almost invariably perpetrated in a “gun free” zone.

Or by the way Obamacare will decide for you whether you need to buy health insurance – what kind of health insurance – and how much you’ll pay for it. The way your doctor will become another government agent, making decisions for you, controlling you – and your family’s private affairs – at the behest of the government.Fearful turtle

The way the government dictates the type of car you’re allowed to buy – or build (if you wanted to).

The way they tell you what you may – and may not – do with your own physical body.

They way they affront your personal space – including your family’s personal space – at every turn.

It is relentless, systematic, synergistic – and absolutely deliberate. Part of a comprehensive plan that’s been carefully constructed and nurtured and advanced over decades to emasculate the populace so as to render it not only amenable to being led and controlled, but begging to be led and controlled.

Example: Successfully attack the principle that a man (or a woman) has the right to defend himself by taking away the means of self-defense and you’ve made him helpless, which makes him fearful … which renders him dependent.

Including that person’s family – because they cannot depend on him. And so they look to government – their “leaders” – for succor. To be kept “safe.”  Please, help us!  Do something!

Never – what can I do? I’ll handle it.

This is exactly what those who seek to control and lead are after.Cringer picture

A man with a gun in his home stands a good chance of successfully defending his home – his kids, his wife – against a violent intruder. The mere fact that a homeowner might have a gun is by itself a very strong deterrent – ask any thug.

This is hugely empowering. And it is why the right to keep and bear arms is under such concerted and vicious attack. Strip a man of the ability to defend himself and his family and you emasculate him. You diminish him as a man in his own eyes and in the eyes of his family. You make him something less than a man. Check Big Lots Ad and Bilo Ad.Because after all, what else can you call a person unable to defend himself, his wife and kids? Who must cringe in a locked bathroom with them while he desperately calls on other men to come and save him. Such a man is something less than a man.

Again, exactly what’s wanted.woman with gun picture

And of course, the same is true for women – perhaps even more so, because the object here is also to cause her to despise her man. Men, in general – except those designated as enforcers for the state. These, she is taught to reverence as “heroes.”

But never her own husband or boyfriend.

A woman who carries a gun knows she stands a chance against a man intent upon assaulting her. That she can do more than scream. That she is safe in her home – or walking to her car. That she is not utterly at the mercy of others, at any rate – because she can fight back. This imparts self-respect, confidence – and most alarming of all (to those intent upon leading and controlling) it renders them irrelevant. They’re not needed – literally – and thus, psychologically.

What, above all else, defines an adult human being? Is it not the ability to take care of oneself? Physically as well as financially? To be in control. To decide for oneself. To not have to always defer to others.man in diapers picture

If that is taken away, what have you got?

A biological adult with the mental state of a child. A creature aware that childhood is long gone but for whom the status of grownup never arrived. The nagging feeling of insecurity, of being out of control.

And under the control of others.

It engenders self-loathing and – above all – a loathing for those who still have their self-respect. Who have not knuckled under; who say, Piss off! Who resist. Who refuse to comply and Do As Ordered. Observe the sneering contempt – the spittle-spewing fury – directed at those who insist upon their right to possess guns, or who denounce “safety” checkpoints, Obamacare and all the rest of it. It is more than merely disagreement. It is the keening wail of a child infuriated at the sight of another child (as he sees them) being allowed to get away with it.

The same thread runs through virtually everything the government – that is, those who insist they have the right to dictate the terms and conditions of our lives – does to us.crybaby pictures

“Gun control,” Obamacare, seat belt laws, the TSA folderol – all touted as being  about “protecting” us and necessary to “keep us safe” – exactly the sort of things a parent tells a child. In fact they are all about demeaning grown human beings by empowering other human beings to treat them like idiot children – most especially in full view of their own families. To scold and threaten them – as at “seatbelt checkpoints.” Is it conceivable, really, to break down the self-respect of a grown man more completely than by having an authority figure – often one his junior in age as well as intelligence – order him to “buckle up”? In front of his wife and kids? It is not even necessary to do so at a checkpoint. A child learns that his father – this supposed man he sprang from – must  obey his parents (the government, its enforcers) just as he must obey his. It’s an embarrassment, a shaming.seatbelt check picture

And that’s exactly the point. The object, rather.

Just like it’s the point of Obamacare, which will not only force you to buy something you may very reasonably and rationally think you’ve got no real need for but which will also become the means by which government – those with guns and funny costumes who believe they have the right to dictate how we live our lives – will interject themselves into the few remaining slivers of freedom-of-action we’ve still got left. Nothing will be your own to decide anymore. Not how you live your life, not how you raise your kids. Not what you eat, nor how you recreate. The very concept of yours will be abolished. Nothing will be left up to youObamacare picture

Adult parenting will become all-encompassing.

Just as onerous taxes – especially the inescapable ones on homes and land and other forms of property –  are designed specifically to prevent anyone from ever achieving any semblance of true independence via self-sufficiency at least as much they are to generate revenue for the state. The whole object is to reduce the population to a state of perpetual, low-grade gnawing fear and dependence. To keep them working – and paying and never, above all else, given time for thinking.resist picture

Deny them their self-respect. Their adulthood. Humble them, most particularly the men. Encourage women – and the kids – to look to specially chosen men (the state and its enforcers) for their “safety.”

The rest will naturally follow.

If we allow it.

The good news is a small but growing number of Americans have decided they won’t allow it. That they have had enough. That they will resist. Intellectually, by rejecting the idea that anyone has the right to dictate to anyone else how they will live their lives. Physically, if need be – If they refuse to leave us be and continue to force themselves upon us.

Count me among them.

How about you?

Throw it in the Woods?

PS:This site is almost entirely reader supported now. No Google. (They blacklisted us – so we dumped them. See here for the full story about that.)

So, we need your support to make a go of it and keep EPautos rolling. If you like what you see, please consider supporting this site. The link to our “donate” button is here.

Thanks in advance!


  1. Eric,

    This is an old post, but I have a thought: even in jurisdictions where one CAN have a gun, one is oftentimes SEVERELY PENALIZED for using it! Look at what’s happening to that couple in St. Louis. The mob broke down the gate to their neighborhood and made threats against the McCloskeys. The McCloskeys got their guns out (she a pistol and he an AR-15). Guess what? The George Soros bought & paid for DA is going after THEM! So, even if you have a gun and use it for self defense, YOU’LL be the one arrested! That emasculates people the same as taking their guns from them. Oh, and BTW, the cops took away Mr. McCloskey’s AR…

    • Hi Mark,

      Indeed. In my state, the bar for self-defensive display of a gun is extremely high. If you use a gun for self-defense, you had better be able to prove it was in fact self-defense, defined as an imminent threat of great bodily harm from which you were unable to retreat. Still, having is better than not. And – given the times – it’s imperative to have.

      • The McCloskeys WERE threatened; that’s just it! One, you had a mob of people. Two, they broke through the gate to the neighborhood. Three, they marched by the McCloskey’s home, shouting threats as they went. If that’s not justifiable fear of one’s life, I don’t know what is! Even so, they’re the ones being charged. When things like that happen, it makes a gun owner hesitate and think…

        • Hi Mark,

          I’m not disagreeing. My point was that in some states – like mine – the threat has to be almost literally a person coming at you with a knife or gun. It’s absurd, of course. But it is the way the law works in VA.

          • That’s what I was trying to say too. In much of the northeast, it’s even worse than VA. If you actually SHOOT someone who’s a real threat, you’re going to jail! Since the Socialists are now in total control in VA, I’d expect gun owners to be facing the same thing that people in the northeast have faced for decades. Just look at what’s happened since the commies took over VA a few months ago…

  2. I don’t have the link, but there was an item posted on the Internet the other day, as follows: War is when the government tells you who the enemy is. Revolution is when you figure it out for yourself.

    A few people, anyway, are beginning to figure it out.

  3. Stuart Smalley Saves His Family

    “This sweater was knit for me by Melissa D, a sex addict, she said it gave her something to do with her hands.”

  4. Jean, I didn’t try to dodge diddly squat.

    I was completely straight with you. I didn’t answer your question because I didn’t have enough information.

    I would have reacted the same way if I was asked a question about the intricacies of the Mormon Bible. I’ve never actually read it, so any opinion I might have about it isn’t informed.

    Give me the benefit of the doubt if you don’t actually know my motives. Maybe I’m not evil.

    • I know abortion is morally wrong. But I still don’t have a verdict for whether abortion is wrong when applied to say rape. The whole idea that a woman that was taken by rape should have to birth the seed and have their genetic material intertwined caused by an evil act (rape) is rather repulsive to me. I’m not exactly a believer that all babies are innocent like the bulk of the populace or Christians, because even the bible alludes to evil seed and sins being paid by sons. Though the new testament also mends this very well with forgiveness administered by the Lord to even the worst of sinners which we all are. But still I find it repulsive to believe that say a fictitious female cousin of mine would be raped that she would have to bear the cost financially, emotionally, and physically to birth a baby conceived from pure evil. I mean its repulsive to most men actually that anyone would be so dogmatic (not meaning you Jean) that they would impress such a young lady to sacrifice 9 mos of her health (possibly permanent stretch marks/osteoperosis) and be in a prison of her own body to have to birth such a thing. So I guess I can’t go along with laws written to prevent all abortion, though I certainly can’t say I’m pro choice either.
      I believe Ron Paul was righteous on his stance on abortion as a expedient birth control procedure though. And if I were a doctor I’d personally do no abortion cause I personally don’t think its right.

      I believe that murder is murder actually, even for the case I stated above and thus probably immoral. But then what if the mother were at danger in giving birth to such a baby. Baby birthing isn’t a low risk sport (especially in medieval times), so I mean the idea of forcing a young woman to deliver a baby for say adoption could be like convicting her to a death penalty all because say a rape where she was a victim. Then it would be like the rapist was the first perpetrator, and government that prohibited abortion would be the second perpetrator in preventing an abortion. To me I don’t really understand why anarchist or libertarians who don’t believe in government force argue the abortion issue except out of personal preference and peacefully trying to convince others not to participate in abortion. Me, I’d try to talk anyone out of an abortion, but I can’t go any farther than that as even I have a grey area on it.

      Fortunately I don’t really need to have a verdict except in my own personal ethics and morality of what pertains to me and my God in my own actions. As I see it that we are accountable to this God and only it knows right from wrong in these shades of gray. And I do believe that abortion is not always black and white. The idea that this is an anarchist minded site should say that its ok for us to fathom a personable opinion on the matter, but the idea that we should conscript the use of force on those who don’t see to our judgment is rather hypocritical light in view of anarchy. For me it was never about being unruled (anarchy) but about being ruled by the master creator, I do believe in accountability but only individual accountability to such a God where morality and judgment is ultimately judged.

      • Mary MacGregor: Robert, there is more. I am carrying a child and I do not know who is the father.”

        Robert Roy MacGregor: Ach, Mary…

        Mary MacGregor: I could not kill it, husband.

        Robert Roy MacGregor: It’s not the child that needs killing.

        Robert Roy MacGregor: If it’s a boy, call him Robert. If a lass, name her after my love, Mary McGregor.

        “sins of the father” is a rationalization – doesn’t matter whose book it’s written in as otherwise. kill ’em all, & let god sort ’em out(?)…seen that on a t-shirt once…..

        • I hear you oxy and it is a rationalization, but then again what isn’t? I mean is it rational for say the pro-life people to force others by the force of the guns of the state to make a rape victim carry a child even to risk her own health and possibly life? God sorting things out doesn’t seem quite a bad thing, but the context you put it certainly sounds like something a invading soldier would say to his foreign and innocent victim. Fair game I suppose on the innocent baby if there is such a thing. But I will rationalize once again that genetics having some expression in personality isn’t something too unrealistic to me. It seems I look like my father’s family, I have similar vocal patterns, eye color and stature. Is it too far a jump to ask that maybe personality is somehow connected to seed? And even if genetics isn’t everything to determing who we are (and it isn’t) that it means that children aren’t a byproduct of their fathers seed at all is probably the biggest lie to be told. So lets make young mothers be abused in say rape to be abused again in stretching and ruining their bodies because a state mandate would be righteous at protecting the innocent seed. It doesn’t take much to see that for the same reason I don’t interrupt how families deal with other issues like say parental discipline, I can’t go out and drive by government force the outcome I like when it comes to abortion (I’m not saying you believe this or making a straw man out of you oxy). Its just not limited government like to believe in government force on abortion eithr way, but then someone will call me on stepping out of external parental manners like when some asshole beats his kids. And that is really the problem here isn’t it? And its a rabbit hole of why people use government to try to fix every possible moral issue out there. The world is full of two sides to every story, but most people hypocritical choose the narrative that makes them feel good or profits them the most. Religious people are some of the worst at simply ignoring the other narrative and so seem callous on some very pertinent victims rights issues.

          I on the other hand feel that to state the obvious about using the force of government to make a woman carry a rapist child is about as horrible a thing as government forcing abortion or dictacting children being aborted or having taxpayers foot the bill. In the end then it will be in God who does sort it all out, and its our own personal judgments that we will be held accountable. But for the same reason I don’t believe in judging people in foreign lands (because I don’t believe I am any more righteous) then I can’t believe I can truly judge a woman that chooses abortion. I certainly understand rape and I certainly understand the risk of child birth to a woman giving birth. I don’t take that kind of thing lightly when I start throwing out catch statements like all abortion should be prohibited. And no I don’t believe in abortion as a post birth control, but again I’m not about to force others to believe what I believe even on that issue. And here is where I would probably try to sway everyone and anybody to the choice of pro life, but not force them by government dictate. The more inspiring way to address the abortion issue is to present all the arguments (even the gray issues), get it out on the table and acknowledge that things aren’t always simple straight forward answers. It certainly is something that should be very individual choice between a doctor and mother and on the larger extent with God, not an issue for outsiders to impose by their beliefs. Further people like Ron Paul have every right to personally not perform any abortion by freedom of choice. His greatest victory is simply stating that and setting an example for not performing abortion. And nor should American taxpayers be accomplices in paying for abortions. The whole abortion thing literally makes me sick, its a messed up world and getting more screwed up by the moment. Yes unfortunately God will have to sort it all out, but discussing the issue as we are doing isn’t bad for morality. Only making issues into straw man agruments without acknowledging both sides of any “innocent” is really a necessary in my humble opinion. Its not all one sided easy, and most men I know feel the same exact way I do. Though religious people would almost always see what I’m saying as truly being black and white because they simply can’t put the shoe on the foot of say a rape victim.

          • Hot Rod, you mentioned something earlier about how the rapists’ side was bad, that’s why some may choose to abort.
            What about the half that was of the mother?
            It’s like killing the good, to try and stomp out the bad.
            And never mind the individual whole trying to be born.

            I’d digress into something about a wasp and a fig, but….

            That’s just a thought I had.
            I have no intention of going deep into this discussion other than to say that maybe we should settle for just not having to be forced to pay for such procedures and let the individuals involved decide and pay, both out of pocket and spiritually. If there is a price.
            Imho, it should be a family matter. And none other.

            Of course king overlord and his minions have set things up otherwise,via Obamacare.

            The shit never stops with that crowd.

          • @DS – Don’t feel bad. You could be this lady.

            From Breitbart:

            A single mother of two said she is in school and working full-time while living “75% below the poverty level.” She said she was shocked to learn she did not qualify for a healthcare subsidy. “Are you F’ing kidding me????” she wrote on the government’s Obamacare Facebook page. “Where the HELL am I supposed to get $3,000 more a year to pay for this ‘bronze’ health insurance plan!?!??? And I DO NOT EVEN WANT INSURANCE to begin with!! This is frightening,” she wrote.

          • Well, Garysco. I don’t know about that lady, but I’ve already decided I’m Not getting Obamacare if I have anything to say about it.

            As it says in The Good Book: God takes care of the birds, am I any less than them?

            Which reminds me, RE: this whole issue.
            It’s my position, the rape is man’s will (One of force against the N.A.P.) while the conception is God’s will.

            I won’t fight God’s will, but I imagine every woman would fight the rapist. And I support those women who fight the rapist.

            Others can fight God if they want, that’s on them.

            ..No, really, I don’t want to go deeper into this subject. …Obamatrons quit dragging me!! Damnit!

            {I don’t mean you’re an a Obamatron Garysco, if you might take it that way.]

          • @DS – You might be SOL even if you tried. This is a financial train wreck that should have every politician who voted for it thrown out yesterday. But I digress.

            HaHaHa – Obamacare Prop Got Screwed

            Now this is rich….

            Nancy Jean Beigel, one of those who appeared in the Rose Garden with President Obama recently as an example of someone who would benefit from ObamaCare, immediately encountered problems when she tried to enroll.

            Beigel told the Washington Post she tried for two days to sign up before giving up for now. “It’s a little confusing,” she said.

            Oh that’s nice. So Obama used a prop on his stage, waving at her as one of the people who couldn’t get health insurance but now can, but she was unable to actually get through and sign up despite trying for two days.


          • @Down
            “I have no intention of going deep into this discussion other than to say that maybe we should settle for just not having to be forced to pay for such procedures and let the individuals involved decide and pay, both out of pocket and spiritually. ”

            Yes exactly. And you are also correct that the other half seed is of the mother. Again I’m not dictating that all rape children should be aborted. The reason I spent so much time talking about the rapist half seed is simply to impinge some kind of real rationalization that the baby isn’t the only “innocent” victim in say rape. The whole thing is a tragedy when we use case examples of rape and abortion, but like you I’m also willing to step back from a religious scholar viewpoint and not make a judgement on something I’m not involved in great detail. I like to balance the shoe a bit simply because people to get a bit dogmatic in their preferences on issues without exploring valid reasons to oppose those preferences. Morality is so important when it comes to freedom, but not all of us are going to see eye to eye who is the real victim always. But again when we don’t agree on what is moral we should let freedom take its course. Judgement by something more is guaranteed so there is really no fear in letting individuals involved be the deciders. And basically I hate blanket statements like all abortion is wrong and the next thing is to make all abortion illegal. Even for a mother that might die giving birth? Even for rape victims? I just don’t think unipolar like that really, I trust others like parents to freely choose the rigteous action.

          • Garysco, something tells me this whole Obamacare thing is a John Gault writ large moment.

            I wonder if Nancy Jean Beigel is roughly the same as Chad Henderson?

            Obamacare’s First Enrollee is Bogus


            Yeah, I may go down in flames alone, so be it.
            Fuck ’em. I ain’t joining their chain gang willingly.

            …Is that how the Morlocks were created? They were dragged down? If so, I’m sure not all of them were ‘converted’.

          • Hot Rod wrote, “Even for a mother that might die giving birth?”

            The same as any other birth.

            I like a lot of what you wrote, Hot Rod. However; when you say, “I hate blanket statements like all abortion is wrong”

            Mang, I don’t know, it’s like you’re saying, it’s ok if someone stabs me in the head. How’s a blanket statement not appropriate then?

            Whew, I’m going to try and not respond, as I do not want to get into this.

            It *is* up to the families.

            God help them. …Just don’t demand I pay for it.

          • Also, dang, Hot Rod. phalease use more paragraph breaks.
            Even if it’s not grammera-talogicoly acceptable.

            It’s easy on the eyes.

          • @DS

            “Mang, I don’t know, it’s like you’re saying, it’s ok if someone stabs me in the head.”

            Its a pretty bad day to be stabbed in the head and die. I can think of two worse things. Being stabbed in the head and living. And being stabbed in the head and deserving it thereby inheriting the world of hell eternal. With that said being stabbed in the head and dying seem rather easy, though I’d rather die in my own soft bed away from society and its hospitals. Heck I’d prefer to lie down in a green pasture and die looking up at the blue sky, sometimes its not our choice. I like philosophy and Shakespeare…sometimes.

          • I find it funny that things worked out this way – everyone’s off discussing abortion & “What if.. ” Rape.

            The question was: When does a human begin? As this predicates when property rights begin.

            We can always find cases that make bad law – rape, for example, or incest. And that’s allowing the camel’s nose into the tent.
            It’s right or wrong: Either someone CAN tell you what to do, or they CAN’T.

            The rest is just a distraction. And statistically irrelevant anyway. (Unless one is in that statistic, which is unfortunate – but I’d suggest is none of OUR business, IF we want that same courtesy extended to us: What to eat, drink, or otherwise imbibe.)

          • for my funny bone (tho not ha-ha), jean, it’s this:

            the “myth of authority” devotees (presumably) deferring to that old deus ex machina “higher authority”. “that’s” (infanticide) your world boss; i just live in it.

            dealing death & destruction is “between them & god”, or “it’s the family’s decision”. like catholic dispensations (for sale), nap exemptions, here, for some, prevail.

            lifeboat scenarios. “women & children first”. which is to say life-bearers & innocence, first. unless the boat is the womb. then its ok to dehumanize & dispose. innocence? doesn’t apply to cletus the fetus. chuck ‘im to the sharks in white coats (in league with the black robes).

            n.i.m.b.y.-ism, too. once the relativist has arrived, arbitrarily defined, the cutoff that would have prevented his arrival is imposed. how convenient.

            the purpose of sex is reproduction. that humans have all sorts of other motivations for engaging in the activity is well known. but none of that trumps purpose. & even less does it trump manifestation of that purpose, new human life, when it happens.

            back in the real world, 56,693,541 thrown to the sharks, in amerika, since rvw (’73), according to these counters


          • Jean asked, “IF they are human, they have rights. So the next step is, WHEN do they become human?

            The question was: When does a human begin? As this predicates when property rights begin.”

            I’ve thought about that question for awhile now.

            I have no answer, only a thought.

            Working backwards from when property rights begin, might be a start?

            Emancipation usually does not occur until a person is 18yrs.(14?) old. Until that time, the child is often considered more than the property of the parent,… more like a parents extra thumb? Before emancipation the child does not really own property, the child has to seek emancipation before the child can truly own property.

            When I reach for a snack I shouldn’t have, like a GMO laced piece of chocolate cake, I smack my hand to stop myself.
            How is that different from spanking a child to correct them?

            ..I’m starting to see how Walter Block came up with his idea of evictionism. On the other hand, I don’t understand that position at all.

            I keep thinking of the word, co-ownership. 51:49. With a default of, do no lasting harm.

          • And maybe, ‘do no lasting harm’ wasn’t the best phrase to use?
            I mean, if a parent beats a child/teenager because the child attempted to climb a telephone pole (electrical pole) and grab onto the two wires so as to shimmy over to the neighbors daughter’s welcoming bedroom window. Well, did the child really get ‘harmed’ by the beating?

            It’s not a double-plus ungood thing, is it? Ya know what I mean?

          • @Jean

            I certainly appreciate you and others valuing human life. And for that I give you all an A++ on morality. And the value of a human life whether fetus, newborn, young soldier, or 80 year old is immeasurable. We should all as individuals remember this when we are in war like rampages of getting even with the ‘evil’ of this world. We are not the judge to decide life and death over others.

            Again the idea of morality as God dictactes to us to treat all life as sacred is a good thing. But its not our job to come up with political policy of abortion as Godly anarchists. For one there are clearly two souls and two bodies in abortion, neither of which I am personally involved. God obviously appointed that unborn fetus to the mother (maybe father if not rape) of the unborn child, not to me as a bystander. Therefore for matter of abortion we should let God and mother and unborn child decide for themselves without state intervention.

            And the last statement is where I think where we all agree? I mean is there any anarchist that would conjecture beyond the argument of morality to using their guns to prohibit others from getting abortion? Should we appoint ourselves to dictacting policy of abortion to others, when God clearly didn’t appoint us parent of that unborn child? If so I’d like to say such anarchist or even limited government type is a laughing stock to all other peoples, and why shouldn’t they be?

            If people think that we can stop immoral acts simply by denying medical doctors to the task of abortion, let me make you all aware that the fist pounded hard on the outside of the womb/stomach is a 3rd world and ancient way of aborting a child. Nobody and I mean nobody is going to force morality on others by laws. Its no different argument than what we use as statements of not writing laws to stop drug abuse. Sure it would be nice if people didn’t use them out of recreation for their own destruction. But its not going to solve a damn thing other than simply asking others to nicely not use drugs.

            Further, we can make all our arguments against abortion, but simply put the arguments are biased if you can’t see some legitamate cases where abortion is valid even in a medical scene. To not acknowledge that is kind being deaf to reasonability and morality of two parties, the one growing inside and the other that is hosting it.

            “The question was: When does a human begin? As this predicates when property rights begin.”

            As far as I’m concerned these two aruments are both unprovable, and the proof they are one in the same is even a further proclamation without substance. First:

            When does human begin? Does he begin before conception as God knew us before? Does it happen when the egg and sperm unite, because if that is the case then most human life ends up in the toilet naturally and without human aid simply because it sometimes misses attaching to the womb? Is life when it attaches to the womb after fertilization? Yeah its sounds convenient to summarize it as conception, and I’m there with you for the most part. But don’t expect an easy ride from the pro-abortion people. And again you’d be foolish to think you are going to convince them just because you said so.

            property rights:

            Here again you make all kind of assertions that are unprovable. From an anarchist and individualist viewpoint, what makes something property is because you can defend it from interlopers without (government). But the second condition is that you can utilize said property. This is why dead men can’t own property BTW because they can’t do either. But, such as John Locke would argue that property is when you add value to raw form. Is a fetus at the combination of sperm and egg therefore other than raw form? And further how is it that said fetus can defend itself from the very appointed owner of the body it resides in? How can any anarchist even suggest without state intervention that abortion be prevented? It cannot happen. Therefore the only accountability is between God and those two participants.

            Further you make a statement that the body is property, but what you don’t explicity say is that the body is owner of the soul that resides in it? Nevertheless you mean to say that. But that too is two statements that are quite unprovable. I mean if the body is property then why can’t it be sold like all other property to other bidders? And if you mean to state that the soul inhabits the body from the time of conception? How do you prove that? You can’t prove any of these but by a moral call or hunch, but quite frankly none of us are smart enough to prove it.

            I’m going to say therefore I don’t believe in abortion to others and that I wash my hands clean of such things as a third person help in deciding by outside intervention. I have faith God will judge fairly those that resort to abortion. And for those so inclined to force a young lady to carry a muggers baby, if it were so true then why would God say that the sins of the father must be paid by the son? Believe me one way or another that child is going to pay the price if he is a sinners son. Nobody is innocent on this earth, and nobody is smart enough to condemn or make use of force to fix immorality of others.

          • hotrod….

            gadfly anarchist here.

            no such oxymorons as “godly anarchists” exist. (i’m leaving out schizophrenics…& even then, it’s only one, or the other, at a time.)

            despite any efforts at increasing absolute numbers, as larken rose (recent vid posted in here), or other opposing force builders may have embarked upon, christian anarchy is double mynth gumminess….

            1530s, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia “lack of a leader,” noun of state from anarkhos “rulerless,” from an- “without” + arkhos “leader” (see archon). Anarch (n.) “leader of leaderlessness,” a deliciously paradoxical word, was used by Milton, Pope, Byron. Anarcho-syndicalism

            now, if the jesus (rose vid, again) in question is the one of the jefferson bible, maybe. but tj’s rewrite/edit of “the book” takes it out of the christian/godly orb…cuz in that cut/paste of the original cut/paste, god has left the building.


            try a substitution. doc hitler rounding up fetuses, partial birth fetuses, full birth fetuses/infants (carry the one, change the noun), toddlers, etc… instead of heil hitler’s jews & other scapegoats. what’s that do to your equation?

            rulerless. not rudderless.

          • @Oxy

            “no such oxymorons as “godly anarchists” exist. (i’m leaving out schizophrenics…& even then, it’s only one, or the other, at a time.)”

            Well that is because you see people and God as the same kind of ruler over people. I unfortunately disagree then as my definition is the same as the prophet Samuel, no government but God:


            ‘But it gets even more clear! Eventually, after a period under this Mosaic “anarchy,” the Israelites ask the prophet Samuel for a king.’

            So let me be clear that biblical anarchist believe in no government of men, wheareas you believe the true anarchy is no ruler even in God. I decline to call myself the latter anarchist, and if you are the only definer of such a definition anarchy (which I seriously doubt) then I’m most certain that you’ll be hearing the crickets chirp. As almost every non lunatic anarchist, believes in a “natural law” and thus that there is wisdom and judgement in the world to keep things from getting too far out of balance. Otherwise anarchy of course would then be disorder and moral relativism kind of anarchy, that the statist so promote. So I decline your invitation that anarchist means no ruler including God.

            Best Regards,

          • ozymandias,

            Biblical Anarchism

            “By clarifying what precisely we mean (and don’t mean!) by anarchy as a political system and what the Scriptures teach I hope to answer these objections and explain how I both hold the Bible to be the revealed Word of G-d and also desire society without the State. […]

            [With] Mosaic Law […] Civil order is kept by adherence to this legal code, private justice in the case of infractions of the code and private courts in the case of disagreements. In modern political terminology, this political system is called “anarchy.”


            Anarchism: What Is This Word Our Rulers Hate?

            “Webster’s 1847 edition, which I had the pleasure to see a while back, gave the etymology as private rule.

            Webster’s Unabridged again: Anarchy: [Gr. anarchia, lack of ruler or government, from anarchos, without chief or ruler, an private; and archos ruler.]

            Private rule. Formal government is uneccessary. That is, we rule ourselves. Each and every one of us, as adults, are capable of doing so. This is, after all, what we mean by adult. Without direction or laws from any outside source, except our Creator.” …


          • @Oxy

            BTW my definition of anarchy is no government. That is no rule by fellow man. Not that there will be no ruler at all:

            From wiki:

            “Anarchy is said to have more than one definition. Some use the term “anarchy” to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government”

            That would be me sir.

          • i think i just sprained my scroll finger, getting to the top of this babel tower / beanstalk of a thread☻

            hotrod, you’re dodging my substitution/thought exercise, & using god to (try to) get away with it. if doc hitler is god’s problem, not yours to condemn, here on earth, where it’s all happening, then anything else has to go, too, doesn’t it?

            RAH (rhah was a cool character, in “platoon”, anthony quinn’s son…)…

            ““By clarifying what precisely we mean (and don’t mean!) by anarchy as a political system…”

            franz oppenheimer clarified/explicated what is meant by political, & economic, systems. my only interest in the former is minimizing its impact on me & mine (local). my life isn’t political, & i don’t rule it – i don’t have that much control, nor attachment to the illusion of control (anymore…tho I did when I was younger) – i just live it. the anarchic ideal is apolitical. and it’s something like not having your life lived for you, or despite you, by others.

          • @Oxy
            “hotrod, you’re dodging my substitution/thought exercise, & using god to (try to) get away with it. if doc hitler is god’s problem, not yours to condemn, here on earth, where it’s all happening, then anything else has to go, too, doesn’t it?”

            I said I believe in God not necessarily would I advocate being Gandhi in every situation. When a person is personally involved in hitler breaking into your house, or hauling off your relatives to the gas chamber, then by all means resistance as in defensive is totally permissible even by God’s standards. If it means that you find it contradictive that I say to buy a sword (for defense) but not live by it? That sword would be used exclusively for defense from tyrants, but not using it to become just like the tyrant you must defend yourselves from. But interestingly enough the two guys I admire the most were in fact Jesus and Gandhi because they were able to do exactly the opposite what I recommend and still win.

            But I understand what you are taking issue is my poor reflection of words about killing say a soldier. If said soldier is busting down your door and planning on looting your house, killing your wife and raping your daughter then by all means please feel free to kill him. On the other hand if there were a way to pacify a totalitarian government without killing a soul or using a bullet prior to the 12th hour than of course that would be the preferred method. I’d much rather sway a tyrant with the threat of retaliation, or even reasoning morals then actually retaliating. And killing should be solely a defensive tactic and not to solve every possible tyranny even if it is used to repel and invasion.

            The most plausible way of dealing with Hitler’s is by withdrawing consent before it got bloody. You can do this as a group or as an individual. But once the looting, raping and murdering began then of course I would think God would be fine with a man defending his family and friends as that would in essence being loving your neigbor literally. The problem is that some people advocate death, war, revolution, and militia for every possible form of tyranny, which just isn’t practical, realistic, or productive. And basically most tyranny is is self imposed. For every Hitler most of history is plagued with basically a low threshold pain that people have always peacefully worked around.

            Tyrants are bullies and 90% of bullies are cowards, if you simply say no most will go away with their tails between their legs. For the 10% of bullies that don’t get it then it would be obvious that you’d be righteous to defend and protect what is Godly including neighbors, friends, family, and property. Again I think you are probably confusing my ideal of not using violence as a means for political change as meaning I don’t believe in self defense. I see self defense as Godly and I find murdering for idealogies such as “freedom” and “liberty” basically pointless.

            If you haven’t figured it out when I say not kill say a soldier. Its because I see the soldier as being a misinformed youthfull misled idealist that most likely can be reached with Godly reasoning and a connecting with his conscience. Further I hate to see destruction of any sort, even my enemy. Though I’d condemn nobody for using morals to protect themselves from the immoral either. And Dr. God also has something to do with this as even outside of “us” he certainly can stop evil such as Hitler by and in itself. Though I won’t go to great details how or why because its obvious you are an athiest.

          • Hey Roth,

            I believe we are on the same page. I’m not really a panarchist though it would probably be as Doug Casey says alot more sense to have a 1000 governments so they were local adminstered and could be freely chosen by walking 10 feet or changing nations without moving at all by succession. Of course to me panarchy would come down to the lowest common denominator anyway which is everyone would eventually choose themselves as the lowest denominator of government and that would be anarchy.

            What I believe will happen in the future is that freedom will result over time with an awakening of people. These people will promote technologies such as bitcoin and free market peer to peer solutions, that will literally starve out the pyramid controllers. Then people will find government cut back to either sustainable and limited form or totally no government at all as the free market both regulates and creates peaceful order. The other solution for a kind of panarchy (but would require floating to a new island colony) would be to have floating man made private islands in the ocean, where they form a community or cluster of islands out of free will thus forming a free nation. Such a nation state would be chartered on free will of succession of the individual islands to leave the cluster, thus leaving individuals to charter new nation states if deemed necessary because say taxes were unreasonable. The idea wouldn’t be panarchy because of course you would probably have to float to a new relative cluster location to elect a new government. I suppose in this scheme those who wanted higher taxes for more defense and police spending could have their wish, and those that didn’t want to support it could leave.

            However for those that think that a type of revolutionary war will save us from tyranny, I have serious doubts. Yes its true that certain peoples could “liberate” men from short term tyranny with force, especially if its the 12th hour or later, but what would these men then establish would most likely be worse or the same. As military and war usually bring the worst to the surface including leaders, I don’t espect bloody revolution to change anything long term. So again I seriously doubt it when people think that a bloody revolution will be the only way to resolve this eternal conflict between good and evil.

          • Hot Rod wrote, “Its because I see the soldier as being a misinformed youthfull misled idealist that most likely can be reached with Godly reasoning and a connecting with his conscience.”

            Isn’t that the core of just about every other popular war film throughout the history of making films? If not just about all of them?

          • RE: Bitcoin. It’s a nice idea, but it’s not getting off the ground, so long as the empire stands, I doubt it ever will:

            Why The Black Market in Online Drugs is Dead


            See also:

            Were the Edward Snowden Leaks the First Step in Busting Silk Road?


            And this too:

            “Any Large Sellers on Silk Road Should Be Very Nervous”


            One last thing, your “island colony” deal, I think it’s obtainable on land. Nullification and secession will produce it, very non-violently. It’s already happening now.

            I imagine those guys with nationalism in their eyes will make bloody revolution a part of the equation though. It just won’t be the whole story. That’s my take, anyway.

            Opt Out. …And, Long Live the Black-market!

          • OK, I’m unable to kieep up as I have work to do – sorry, I owe a LOT of replies.

            This caught my attention, though: Hot rod said:
            “If you haven’t figured it out when I say not kill say a soldier. Its because I see the soldier as being a misinformed youthfull misled idealist that most likely can be reached with Godly reasoning and a connecting with his conscience. ”

            Hot rod,
            The point of Basic Training is to REMOVE the conscience.
            The heirarchy is (Varies by who you talk to) God, Country, Corps. (God, Corps, Country, according to some, and I recall it that way from “A few good men,” which obviously isn’t Marine’s canon.)

            Point being: Soldiers aren’t recruited for their conscience, but their ability to follow orders and make dead all those who oppose them.
            “Critical thinking” and “Reasoning” and “Morality” don’t really enter into the decision-making process of, “Inhale. Kill. Exhale.”

            And reasoning with a gun in your face doesn’t sound like a winning proposition, especially with a young, stupid, idealogue hopped up on adrenalin and “HOO YAH!!!!” bravado.

            Kill first. Mourn when safe. Because the alternative is, die.

          • hot rod…..

            “…because its obvious you are an athiest.”

            here’s oppenheimer:

            “There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! These words convey to us ideas of crime and the penitentiary, since we are the contemporaries of a developed civilization, specifically based on the inviolability of property.

            And this tang is not lost when we are convinced that land and sea robbery is the primitive relation of life, just as the warrior’s trade – which also for a long time is only organized mass robbery – constitutes the most respected of occupations. Both because of this, and also on account of the need of having, in the further development of this study, terse, clear, sharply opposing terms for these very important contrasts, I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means” for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the “political means.” (pp. 24-25)

            usually, oppenheimer is used by “our enemy, the state” (nock) types. it true enough fits that application. but political machination is not limited to states & govs. political operators & operations, not to mention hordes of thank you sir may I please-pleaseplease have another operants, abound, always have (what type do you think came up with states & govs, in the first place?).

            as I wrote, “apolitical”. there isn’t anything more political than religion. so “atheism”, an antiquated species of attempted political assassination (which has often enough been followed by physical assassination of the most psychotically gruesome kind), ad hominem by political operators, has always been superfluous. an embroidered doily (circular). a distraction. an exclamation point concluding “debate” (which is something religionists float high above, out of sheer necessity, since metaphor-is-literal types are not capable of debate). apolitical subsumes atheism.

            watched a flick last night that exemplifies a tiny sliver of this particular pie. “oranges & sunshine”. gov/religion (authoritarian/authoritarian) symbiosis. large scale deportation of children. forced labor. sodomy. carnage, as usual.


  5. Jean, once again, I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth.

    I didn’t say I supported abortion. I said I didn’t have a position either way, because I didn’t have enough information to have an informed opinion.

    So thank you for providing me with more information.

    • I called you on BS, and I’m cranky today, so not polite.

      But it goes to the root of your discussion on whether or not children have rights. And ultimately, IF they are human, they have rights. So the next step is, WHEN do they become human?

      You tried to dodge the question – so I elaborated.

      I now a shuck-and-jive when I see one.
      And the rest of the people here? Better than I am…

    • female’s cells, her property. male’s cells, his property. zygote is not mother, or father. is some of both. is not property of either. conception is birth, & you’re always conception + exit older than your “official” birth certificated day….

      its a wee bit of basic biology & does not entail nearly as much effort to acquire as the intricacies of the mormon bible apparently do…but complexifying does assist in rationalizing the revolt against nature (no straight lines anywhere). not to mention that ol’ platonic (straightest of straight lines) natural law.

  6. From the “you can’t make this s*it up department” now comes the Obamacare funnies:

    Presented with a stunned level of WTFness… the Obamacare Help-Line – available 24/7 is 1-800-318-2596 as we have been told a number of times by the President… it seems someone did not do their due diligence on what that telephone number’s mnemomic is…

    1-800-F U-CKYO

    Indeed, Mr. President, 1-800-318-2596 to you too.


  7. Ed, fair enough, it looks like you’re my counter-example.

    I withdraw my argument. I was mistaken, and out of line. I apologize, and I take it back.

    I would, however, like to make a second argument:

    How would the ideal libertarian society handle the person who doesn’t actually realize that he’s harmed someone? According to you, you want a society where no one messes with you if you aren’t hurting anyone.

    But what if you sincerely believe you aren’t causing pain?

    What if a scenario did arise where you classified an entire group of people as biologically aggressive, as a pretext to dominate them? Would you argue that because you say you’re not hurting anyone, that means you’re not? What if you couldn’t accurate perceive what you were doing for some reason?

    Let me use myself as an example. When my brother and I used to wrestle when we were little, I used to accidentally hit him too hard, causing him to cry. Then, because I somehow didn’t realize that I had caused pain, I would try to convince myself and my parents that my brother was faking it, pretending to cry so that I would get in trouble. My parents tried to persuade me otherwise, but I simply did not see the pain I used to cause.

    How would libertarians handle my childhood self, if I could just argue that if you restrain me, then you’re the evil controlling people?

    • “How would the ideal libertarian society handle the person who doesn’t actually realize that he’s harmed someone? According to you, you want a society where no one messes with you if you aren’t hurting anyone.

      But what if you sincerely believe you aren’t causing pain?”

      I can’t conceive of an ideal society of any sort, and if I could that would only be my conception. The libertarian principle you’re referring to is the principle regarding criminal law that maintains the standard that for there to be a crimnal offense, there must be a victim. Any law that criminalizes behavior for which there is no harm done to any person or their property is not a valid criminal law.

      A law which provides penalties for possession or use of any drug would be an example of an invalid law. Laws which amount to prior restraint, such as a law against driving faster than an arbitrarily established maximum speed limit is another example.

      The example you provide of hitting your brother and claiming that he wasn’t harmed isn’t convincing. Determining whether harm has been done has to be accomplished by application of objective standards involving evidence of injury, not on the subjective standard established by the person accused of doing harm.

      In your case, libertarian priciple would suggest that what happens in your family is the business of your family, and no government agents have any authority to interfere. Surely you aren’t suggesting that the police should have come into your house and used force against your parents in order to resolve the situation.

      • No, Ed, I won’t make that argument, because in my case it wasn’t necessary. My parents knew what really happened.

        What if I had been successful in persuading them otherwise, however? My family is reasonable. Many families are not.

        There’s lots of cases where “de facto” if not “in name”, a child is being harmed against his will day in and day out. Heck, even the fictional Harry Potter is a good example; his aunt and uncle beat him, starved him, and locked him in a cupboard because he committed the heinous crime of just having magic. What about the child’s right not to be harmed if he’s doing nothing wrong? If you don’t think the government should use force against his parents, you are “de facto” arguing that the parents have the right to use unjust force against the child (and suffer no consequences for their aggression), even if the child is doing no wrong.

        That doesn’t make sense to me. Is unjust force only unacceptable if the government is doing it? Parents can be tyrants too. And priests. Heck, even the village shaman if he’s arguing for something like cutting off a girl’s clitoris. Teachers, as well (and not just the government kind, either). There’s lots of ways to be an “unaccountable authority figure” even without government sanction. Does the fact that they don’t wear the label of “government” make their tyranny any less befitting of the label of “tyranny?”

        Is there a variable in this equation that I’m missing, sir? Or two variables? Or three? Thank you for your time, sir.

        • No, I didn’t suggest that aggression is acceptable within families. It was your scenario, and you described yourself as the aggressor.

          Libertarian principle on aggression is simple: I won’t initiate force or commit fraud against someone else. In response to aggression, I have the right to defend myself or retaliate against the aggressor. Whether it’s an agent of government intitiating force or not, the initiation of force is aggression, and it can be met with retaliatory force without my being guilty of any wrongdoing, by my own standards of behavior.

          Your own standards of behavior may be different and there could be variables that I don’t see.

          • My apologies, Jean, but I don’t have enough information to answer that question.

            If a fetus is a human, then the pro-life advocates have a point.

            If a fetus is a cell, then the pro-choice advocates have a point.

            I have not studied the science behind fetuses, and thus am not qualified to give an opinion on this subject.

          • Then you have no standing to question what anyone else does to a child – because the ONLY standard we have for “what makes someone human” is when they are conceived.

            Otherwise? Passage down a vaginal canal? What of abortion itself, then? the parts travel out that way… Is that not then makign it murder, anyway? And what of C-sections? Are humans not produced when taken out of the mother’s mody, whether by medical necessity, or because she died before giving birth?

            Correct number of chromosomes? Well, what of the 45-, 47-, 48-, 49- chromosome humans? (They go by such nomenclature as “Kleinfelter’s”, noted as 46 (XXY) or similar – note it’s actually 47 chromosomes, hence the two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome. F*cks with sexual development and body morphology.)

            Correct number of gametes? Same as above, there are transcription errors, alterations, changes.

            Appearance? Well, no alteration of appearance, pre- or post-birth, will make a Chimpanzee or Silverback “human.”

            Further, your denial of the rights of others, IE, an unborn child, allow some totally vile things to be discussed – PUBLICALLY, mind.
            Like infanticide. If the mother doesn’t want that BORN foetus, the argument goes, she should be allowed to – with a doctor’s help – post-birth abort it. IE, murder, to any sane person. (And even to me, whom some might question sanity.)

            If you agree with that, you violate MULTIPLE principles of religions around the world, forget the NAP. Forget any and all concepts of self-ownership, too. You’ve conceded the whole field.

            If, OTOH, you can determine that none of my criteria apply – well, are clones also human? Are they property? Is it “waking up” that constitutes humanity? (Meaning, what if the clone is awakened?) A certain IQ? (how to test in utero?) First breath? (What if you aren’t born breathing – as most people aren’t?) Cutting the umbilical cord? (What if it separates from the uterus during birth?)

            Kind of hard to defend “the rights of children” when you can’t even define if that child is human or proerty, wouldn’t you agree?
            And if it is porperty – an essential claim, should you support abortion – why SHOULDN’T we allow infanticide? Or, voluntary slavery? (Illegal in the US, at least on paper.) And what of the concept of Majority? At what point does the child cease to be property and start being a human being, if ever?

            Sorry to be blunt- you’ve vacated the field.

            Oh, and – I don’t LIKE weasels… Unless deep-fried. 😀

          • In my first sentence, Then you have no standing to question what anyone else does to a child – because the ONLY standard we have for “what makes someone human” is when they are conceived.

            I meant “we” as humans – I’m not speaking for anyone else, though. I just mean there’s no other rational way to differentiate.

            Someone here will (rightly) call me on being too broad in my language. 😉

  8. Yes, ozymandias, I do wish to emulate that generalization for all here, because all here have, so far, endorsed it.

    Generalizations are bad because they don’t make distinctions within the group…but in the group I’m reading so far, there hasn’t BEEN a distinction. Every time somebody starts deciding that women are the source of all evil, every single post is confirming this person, and that makes me worried, because once you start believing that women are evil, you soon stop believing THEIR freedom matters to you (as you wish your freedom would matter to everyone else in this country). Then, protective force would become justified, against you.

    Show me a counterexample of a single poster in Eric’s comments section who doesn’t believe that women are “biologically pre-disposed to domination” (and thus, justify your domination of them out of self-defense), and I’ll gladly apologize, take it back, and admit that I was out of line. Otherwise, I stand by what I said.

    • my posts. mama liberty. downshift. phillip the bruce. bevin. maybe more. you’re also roping in all present who’ve posted nothing, & libertarians beyond this site.

      you don’t want to be a strawmanizer, do you? ☻

    • “Show me a counterexample of a single poster”

      I’m a counter example, and I’m a regular poster here. Since you’re the one making the sweeping generalization, the onus is on you to present a few examples of the rather strange stance you have ascribed to everyone here.

      Do a short, simple cut&paste of the comments you’re referring to, and note the screen names of the people making the comments so that it’s clear what views you’re talking about. It should be easy, since you’re implying that you read these comments from everyone here rather recently.

      Go ahead, and I’ll respond if I can, given the limitations of the siteware here.

    • Actually, I believe you’re pointing primarily at me – which isn’t wrong, either, except you’re not getting my meaning.
      Women aren’t the SOURCE of evil, by any means.
      But encoding their prejudices into law – IS evil. It hamstrings the entire society, because “she” is never wrong. It’s about where we are now…

      How about we use a parallel example: Jim Crow laws.
      We’ll set aside the whole “deciding who is black” part, just use an “appearance” standard. If you look dark-skinned, you fall under the “black” rules. [Side note: that would likely include my mother, who is Italian – and has been mistaken for an India, BY INDIANS… 😉 ]

      So: We started off with Whites and Blacks. Most whites were free; most blacks were not. Among various restrictions – solely on blacks, not even including white slaves / indentured – they (Negro slaves) could not own weapons; were not taught to read or write; WERE forced to work; were sold, and the threat of selling was used as discipline as well – breaking up families being a consequence of “wrong” actions. Of course, slaves could not vote or hold public office. Slaves were not permitted to HAVE weapons, including bringing their master’s weapon to their master. (Different from own.)
      Civil War ends; slaves still exist.
      Enter Carpetbaggers and Reparations and the intent to PUNISH the South for “what they did.”
      Enter also: Poll tax, literacy tests, White only / Black only facilities. Segregation, effectively. (And I’d wager more I don’t know about, too – which formed the basis of Brown V. Board of Ed, and “separate is inherently unequal.”)

      So, there’s a BIG PUSH for integration, to ensure blacks and whites have the same opportunity. [GOOD].
      Only, Blacks don’t do as well as Whites. (Do note, I skipped a while ahead there. There was also enforcement, KKK, smaller “wars”, and a LOT of illegal and semi-legal activity, on both sides.)
      Yet, some blacks achieved ANYWAY. IN SPITE of the restrictions. Just – Not enough.
      So, the tests were changed. Things were dumbed down. The “Bias” removed.
      Fast forward a little again – Civil Rights movement. MLK, Jr, who arguably plagiarized his thesis, and is known as a womanizer – is held up as the Gold Standard for Blacks, with Malcolm X [Little] being “the Bad Guy.” Very similar men, overall, merely employing different types of rabble-rousing [propaganda]. Both asassinated; MLK, likely by the government; Malcolm X by enemies in the [racist / black supremacist] Nation of Islam, as he had denounced NoI leader [forget the name].
      Look at the men, though: Disciplined, honest, honorable, driven, eloquent speakers, educated, orderly.

      Tests are still “racis’,” so the standards are revised down again.
      Fast forward again: Bacchi decision, Racial Quotas to public universities, racial quotas in hiring, preferential treatment lawsuits (alleging whites are being treated better, given preferential treatment – in private firms, mind – though some have merit).

      Blacks STILL arent’ doing as well as whites – but whites are doing less well, now, too. But no one gives a f*ck.

      Tests and objective criteria are revised (downwards) again – and there is still a racial bias in who does what, and who achieves what. Whites still are lesser discipline problems; whites still outscore blacks. But the discipline problems ARE more widespread… and scores are Closer than they used to be.

      So, the equality is obviously NOT present: Revisions are made.
      Bacchi defines that a racial system meant to benefit blacks, CANNOT be used to benefit whites. (oversimplified, but close enough.)
      Also, hiring quotas are now FORCED, with “Minorities” receiving benefits for – being minorities.
      Other “Minority” groups are noticing, too, and starting their own process of “Ekwalitee” challenges.

      So, we now have PREFERENTIAL treatment for blacks – de facto, even if not de jure. De Jure in some cases, too – blacks are winning discrimination suits purely to force political change. Inept and incapable blacks are treated like aggrieved victims, to PROVE we are being “impartial.”
      Whites’ standards of behavior are also degrading. Religious affilitations, long the cap on bad behaviour in this life, are down – and morality across the board with it.

      Blacks STILL do not achieve – and are told, over and over and over, it’s Whitey’s fault…

      So they don’t even try. Have we achieved anything worth achieving?


      It’s not dissimlar with women, except the rules weren’t (normally) laws.

      Women were Chattel, like slaves. We think of that as meaning “property,” but it’s not really a correct synonym. It’s a general concept. Your dog doesn’t have the right to conduct business on your behalf. Not even a signing chimp or ape – arguably capable, based on how articulate they can be – has that legal ability. But there WERE laws about how to treat women, and also rules (Q.V. Chivalry), and women – though accorded “lesser status” – were also accorded fewer responsibilities. They didn’t have to take up arms; they were (somewhat) protected from predations of war (More BY LAW than in reality); though property passed from woman to husband, it was still HERS prior to marriage, and in some cases, after as well. She could run a business, too, it wasn’t forbidden – but the idea was, SOMEONE has to be head of household – that was the man, because HE could manage the weapons, or manage the farm (physically).

      Fast forward a few hundred years – women are still accorded great status (pedestalized and given social benefits as holdovers from true chivalry), but the women don’t need to do as much, and are now protected by a growing State as well. Sherriffs are evolving to Police. Weapons are getting lighter and more manageable. Nutrition starts to get better. Physical activity levels are still high. Women still want to get married and have a family, and see that as their goal in life – to build a family.
      Man’s goal is ALSO to have a family. He wants to provide for his wife and children, in a lasting bond.

      Now, a fair number of issues existed – people are poor, people are starving, people are dying every day.
      What changes? Well, women move up and move out, for one: Better education, and women become more educated as a matter of course. (Note that public education didn’t START as a communist assault, it started from private individuals who wanted to better the “common man.” Best of intentions. I hope.)
      Women started to have NORMAL jobs, as the necessary physical prowess faded. They were not just bar wenches, serving maids, governesses, house maids. They worked in the burgeoning factories. In the cities as cooks, and in the shops as sales staff, and as nurses. (Arguably lousy nurses. Medically, they may have transmitted much disease… Nightingale comes to mind, though I can’t place her in history.)

      But they became more involved in the public sphere. I’d guess this is sometime in the 1800s, google “Gibson Girls.” Most by now knew how to read, write, do arithmetic.

      Let’s look a little more, as unlike the black “problem” (Don’t have a better word), women could interact quite well, even across color lines. What did they read? Shakespeare, Paine, Franklin, the Bible… the writers who had shaped civilization. Possibly Thoreau, or other enlightenment authors. Point being, there WERE no bodice-rippers, and I’d wager not even penny-dreadfuls at that time. Couldn’t afford the sort of effort at the time.

      Movign towards the flappers of the 1920s… Women either had, or were getting the vote; depends on exactly when you look. Women were working quite frequently now. Sure, most still “retired” when they got married (negative incentive to hiring them in full-time capacities; still a certain preference given to men, who had to take care of a full family.) But they could work “outside the home” freely, and had more protections still, from our last snapshot. Guns were common, and some women knew how to shoot. Concealed weapons were common. Police forces were common (in “civilized” areas, not that it helped in some cases.) Farms and cities existed sort of “side by side.” But that was changing…

      Step a few steps forward, you see the start of the infrastructure projects: Gas, internal plumbing, electricity. Now becoming COMMON, not just for the rich. And then – the assembly line. The automobile, in the form of the model T. This is the growth of a consumer-based economy. Horses are expensive, but for a while, more economical than cars. Model T and the associated insutries change that. People start to both LEAVE the city, and commute. And it’s not like “Hitch up the wagon” “commute” into town once a week – it’s DAILY. Mass Transit starts to appear in cities, too – government-run and private-run trolleys and street cars. Police departments are approaching “Officer Friendly” condition, and weapons – though common – aren’t concealed any more. You might have a pistol in a pocket, true – but it wasn’t in your cane, with a backup blade concealed up a sleeve.

      Through this all, women’s political influence is growing, and they are voting for those who promise more social benefits for “widows and orphans.” Seriously! Look at government expenditures since about 1900, and compare even JUST BEFORE with JUST AFTER women got the vote.
      But there are court cases, too, which are granting them more rights and privileges at the same time.
      And we advance with those trends… Until probably 1930 or so. THAT was the primary “social safety net” event, the stock market crash of 1929, and the dustbowl in the 30s that followed it. Suddenly, the wealthy were poor, and the poor? They were displaced, removed, starved… Don’t like Steinbeck, but his Grapes of Wrath will give you something to think about. Now everyone’s in bad straights, and the Fed really gains ascendancy, even more than after the Civil War. Welfare, New Deal alphabet agencies, public assistance – AND TAXES TO FUND IT ALL, Extracted at gunpoint, effectively – but everyone wanted to help, so no one stopped to think about where all this was going. It was Widows and Orphans… And jobs were scarce, anyone who could work, would work. Anything to feed their family. And so, women worked more, and longer. Cities were more hospitable to the frail (women), farming still favored men, but that was changing, too. Mechanization of farming started in this general period, with tractors showing up now and again, on the farms that could afford them, and didn’t have tons of Okies (etc) looking for work.

      By 1950s, women are part of the workforce, and some are NOT retiring when they marry. The disposable income, especially if they delayed marriage, was VERY nice – they were able to live a MUCH higher standard of living than if JUST the husband worked. And there’s still BARELY a mass media, telling them what to buy, and why. Women still want a family, too. Still see having children as a – note again, A, SINGULAR – primary goal in life. It’s not their ONLY goal any more, but Senecca Falls was a long time ago! And they are LIBERATED!
      Into the 1960s, and the racial tensions and riots – but still somewhat hopeful. Blacks were taking a good position in society, though the asassinations of the leaders puts a damper on celebrations. Women still hold positions of honor int he family, and are accorded respects and privileges from the chivalry of old, but it’s mostly courtesies – holding her chair, holding the door (sometimes still fairly heavy.) Taking her coat. Bear in mind: THESE ARE ACTIONS OF SERVANTS… But it’s the MAN’S DUTY to provide for her wants and needs, still. She might not care much about whether he takes her coat; he might not care if she takes HIS when comes home. It’s become a bit more egalitarian. But he’s commuting, now – the roads have been built, and the suburbs are becoming the new “Avenue” (referencing NYC, IIRC that’s Broadway.) Mass transit is starting to recede, outside the cities – small towns don’t have or can’t afford public transit – but everyone has a CAR, so the revenues are down. THAT causes the closure of most public transit operations. No customers = no business. A side effect is, there’s a lot of racism, and a lot of ghettoization. You don’t interact with people from THAT SIDE of the tracks… And most people that side of the tracks have a different skin color – and therefore, different religion, different buying habits, different needs and wants – they are OTHER. (Classic Us::Them mentality.) But even then, WE are still Americans.

      Then, WE go in slow motion, but TIME – it speeds up. In no particular order, you have RadFems, MORE race cr@p, mass media, telephone, no-fault divorce, lessening of learning, lowering of social mores and standards, plastics, birth control, psychology, “Better living through chemistry,” more social programs, more “safety” concerns, and changes in the overall society, as well. Men are still generally chivalrous – but women feel less and less obligation to acknowledge, let alone appreciate, the deference.

      We’re talking probably 1970s, 1980s. Mass media indoctrination and public schools (with lowered currculum) is the norm. Two incomes has become NECESSARY in many places – it’s not just keeping up with the Joneses, but the Carnegies, too. And the usband, working long hours in a remote place, is certainly not key to the family, or its well-being – his primary contribution is financial, and then he does (fairly easy) yardwork on weekends – and this is what our “American Dream” is based on. The 1950s to 1980s. Mom and Dad work, to provide a high-status lifestyle, for the betterment of their children. The cancers have set in and are metastisizing.
      Men are being raped in divorce courts. HIS children are now HER children. SHE controls the purse-strings – because he’s never home, he’s earning and commuting – and SHE had to “give up her career” (etc.) That he isnt’ home, means he doesn’t care. Doesn’t matter what he does, they’re not rich enough / high-status enough / IN with the right people… She’s NOT HAAAAAAPPPPYYYY….

      1990s through the 00s, this pendulum swings ALL the way across – men are declared deadbeats if they can’t afford the State Court’s egregious (frequently, not always) child support – yet, these same men are unable to see the children, even when they pay. And the supposition by the parasite classes is, “They HAVE the money – so we’ll just FORCE them to pay it” – by taking professional licenses and passports and such. So, you strip a taxi cab driver of his driver’s license, to force him to pay the money he MUST have – for the back payments, which exceed HIS TAKE-HOME PAY… And this sort of lunacy isn’t even uncommon.
      Meantime, the ex-wife is “searching” for fulfillment. The children are getting damaged (in some cases, PHYSICALLY) by those she brings home to Fill her.
      As girls of this era grow up, they start to taunt and tease boys more – clothing shrinks, hemlines rise, sexual mores drop to the side – as she is usually on the pill, and “men can sleep around, why can’t I?” [raunch culture], and women are drinking harder, partying harder, and caring less – the police can make other men toe the line if she can’t, and there are plenty of second-string men around anyway… All willing to jump in and defend her “honor,” which was last seen kneeling in an alley behind the bar with her latest “hunk.”

      It’s like is mentioned with the police, especially with the campaigns against, “Domestic Violence.”

      If he leaves? It’s abandonment.
      If she leaves? It’s abuse (by him).
      If he stays:
      If he talks to her too loud, it’s abuse. She has no such restriction.
      If he refuses to talk to her, it’s abuse. Again, converse is not true.
      He controls the money: He’s controlling her. She controls the money? Empowered, and wise woman.
      She can yell, throw things, even attack him – and most recently, commit murder, Q.V. Mary Winkler – and she gets nothing. No sentence, we “understand her pain.” Even when she kills her children.
      If he even RAISES HIS HAND – let alone strikes her – it’s abuse, and he can be carted off to prison.

      Add in other effects, too – like, single-parent households (usually a mom – unable to control boys well); female educators replacing male educators (also unable – even, sexually hard-wired to respond to the bullying antics of aggressive “Alpha Male” types – meaning, they turn a blind eye even if they see the events); sexually and racially integrated dumbed-down schools, which teach all sorts of essential subjects like sex education, but don’t teach reading or comprehension, or how to balance a checkbook; mass media learns to market to children and women (which pushes male influence out – men aren’t the target market, they stop watching); “No Child Left Behind,” and other assorted badly intentioned “feel good” pap laws and requirements – which sabotage the entire CONCEPT of education…

      See how woman’s perrogative is enshrined in law? And how men’s disposability is also enshrined in law? He is paycheck for her, nothing more – and a decade of that, and the crap on TV – it’s a wonder there hasn’t been mass murder already.


      Women aren’t any more or less evil than men. It merely expresses itself differently. Same selfish behaviors: Selfishness always returns the same lousy outcomes.
      But dammit, I’m TIRED of being “good” and getting shit on.

      Someone gotta look out for me, so it’ll be ME.
      And since I _HAVE_ been the Good Christian for 30+ years – I figure the world owes me a few decades.
      Some monsters are born; my generation MANUFACTURED them. Even the best of us is scarred.


      Humiliation, fear, intimidation, humiliation, fear, eighteen year,
      staggering in the shadow of intimidation, I take my fear, my humiliation,
      I crush with my fist, I open my hand, I’ve got a diamond, my diamond is rage,
      I’ve got diamonds in my eyes.

      (Rollins Band)

      Point being, step to me – I’m not going to be kind. And it’s a continuing event, so – damn right, “THEIR” freedom doesn’t matter to ME – until MY freedom matters to them, too.
      Same as with the politicos, they can only push so far before people give up, and either “do something” or – more likely – self-destruct. Joe Stack, for example, or Klebold and ??? at Columbine.

      Which is “Their” intent.

      It’s no longer something we can attribute to stupidity – too frequent, too common, too definite. Laws are intentionally vague, so that people can be hurt – except for those who are politically connected, or “preferred” status people (So far, niggers, wetbacks, bitches and hos, faggots, lezbos, genderqueer, … Who else can I insult in this part? Basically, anyone who is NOT White/Straight/Male is preferred.)

      We get tired of being marginalized.
      And we know we’ve been lied to.
      And a lifetime of watching the vile ones win, repeatedly, while we try to play the game “fair” and by the rules?


      So… My question is, WHY are so few people seeing this?
      the colonists didn’t have our tschnology for communications; yet, they revolted over LESS than our government does to us every day. And they were united, male and female, mostly – whether Tories/Loyalists, or Rebels. but it was two fronts, united, in opposition. Now? Man against woman; child against adult against oldster; man against nature; man against man. EVERY man is an island.

      No wonder we’re losing. those who love freedom are atomic; those who despise freedom, despise individuality – they are clans, races, societies.

      I’m not sure we lose anything anymore, and that is a shame: we had a REALLY good run, but all empires break apart from within. Rome and China are good examples.
      USSA, which is the new USSR, is just following the course of history.

      • low whistle…..

        “THEIR” freedom doesn’t matter to ME – until MY freedom matters to them, too.

        your freedom doesn’t matter to anyone, if it doesn’t matter to you first. doesn’t sound like it does (matter to you first).

        and just how does this christianity credit system differ from any other “the world owes me” entitlement program?

        “Now? Man against woman; child against adult against oldster; man against nature; man against man.” this part is hobbes (thomas). “EVERY man is an island.” this part is hobbes (roy) ~ “the natural”. ok. maybe not. but it is wolfe (thomas), & is 180 degrees away from the nature/natural law displacing hobbesian “social contract” theory, & “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. -1+1=aught, pow, right in the kisser. ought naught draught yer kisser, jean. ☻

  9. Oh boy, this is what I was afraid of.

    Let me begin this conversation with something I didn’t clarify last time I commented on this website:

    I’m a liberal Democrat. However, there’s lots of stuff I wish my fellow liberals could learn from you libertarians, and frankly I wish you guys were my opponents instead of the Republicans, who kill innocent people in the name of freedom. You guys, at least, take freedom seriously, so I can always learn a lot by going to your website, especially about how government rules restrain you in your daily lives.

    But you can be very restraining too, if what I’m reading here is any judge. You start by talking about winning freedom for yourselves, but since you think women are all oppressors, the only way you see to be free is to put women under the boot instead.

    You know, this kind of stuff makes me think sometimes the “elitists”, as you call them, might actually have a point.

    You see a society that is rapidly becoming more controlling, but instead of recognizing that as just “control”, you arbitrarily associate freedom with manhood, and oppression with femininity. From that premise, you then conclude that it is your manhood that is under attack, rather than your freedom in general.

    Because of this, I think the elitists are actually right about one thing:

    You CAN’T clearly make some kinds of decisions for yourselves, if what I’m reading in the comments section is correct (although I recognize that Eric does not always share the views of everyone in the comments section). You start by saying you believe in the non-aggression principle…but then you start defining people you don’t like as violent by default, so you’re justified in “defending yourself” by attacking them instead.

    Which means there’s at least one major problem in your theory:

    You say that the people can identify for themselves what constitutes freedom and what doesn’t…but, in the comments section of Eric’s article (although I realize Eric does not share this flaw), you make very clear “errors of identification” that, de facto, would result in you being aggressive against lots of people (either women or “feminized males”) that have done nothing to earn your ire.

    You do the same thing when you talk about people who live on the coasts, or in Illinois. You basically say “everyone there is violent and aggressive, so we’ll only be free if we kill them all!” The problem is, as an east coast resident myself, I have committed no wrongs against you.

    Would you violate the non-aggression principle by slaughtering me too, ALONG WITH all the guys who actually hurt you? Because if you would, I actually have legitimate reason to hate and fear you, since I too am innocent and I don’t want you messing with me.

    You say you want a society where the many are not ruled by the few. I think this is a laudable goal…but it’s a one-sided one, for in my own case, I fear something else: rule by the many over the few, and thus the same sort of mob that was willing to execute Socrates for his “arrogance”.

    So Eric, how do you plan to preserve freedom if we sometimes cannot correctly identify when our freedom is or isn’t under attack? Do you have any thoughts? Thanks for listening.

    • anon….some few here here have generalized, might even say are pathological, re this feminine (str)angle. you want to emulate that generalization & conclude all here, & even beyond here, are thus & so? or is it something more like preconception projecting “confirmation”?

      as for socrates, i saw an angle recently that was new to me. he was done away with for deconstructing peoples’ illusions – & not offering up any replacements. the former he might have been able to get away with. but not the latter. and not much has changed, since then, either.

      to the ‘at large’: is site hinkeyness about again? she ain’t acting her normal self today….

  10. as i understand it, there are a whole lot more of us than of them. the fact they’ve built their underground facilities speaks volumes as to how they think they will fare when we start kicking their butts.

    • Who fears who and what is the question?

      Last October, the US House of Representatives introduced HR 6566 which is an amendment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that imbues the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.”

      In the anticipated event of a “mass fatality”, coordination and planning must be forefront of FEMA with the assistance of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as referred by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (CTI). In the event that the Executive Branch or Congress declares a mass disaster caused by nature, a domestic terrorist attack, or any other man-made catastrophe, there must be a national plan to prepare for and respond to the incident.

      Elected officials assume that in such an event, funeral homes, cemeteries and mortuaries would be overwhelmed should millions of Americans suddenly die in a tragic event. There must also be allowances for survivors of such an event.

      Representatives from local and state governments must coordinate with federal agencies, private sector businesses, non-profit organizations and appropriate individuals to prepare and respond to an incident wherein mass casualties occur.

      I really like the “must prepare” and “or any other man-made catastrophe” parts.


      • Gary, it’s funny FEMA would get funding for this work. Seven King, in his signature novel “The Stand”, pretty much laid out the plan for dealing with Mass Casualties quite well; the survivors bury the dead in large open pits to prevent contagion.

        That’s it. The whole plan. You can buy a copy on eBay for 95 cents.

        • @Scott – See, you are reading the rules as though they were printed in english. 🙂 “Or any other man-made catastrophe” is govenment speak for “we grant ourselves authority to buy millions of rounds of ammo, bombproof vehicles, and whatever the hell we want because we are flat scared shitless of the cows stampeding.” If it were otherwise they would just purchase some $15,000.00 John Deere tractors & some bags of lime. Like we have done for 100 years.

          Have you forgotten you Orwell training so soon?

  11. as long as the ‘people’ follow the mindless politicians that want to rule over them we as a nation will continue to enter the third world….as is the plan of the ‘elites’…..remember as I have been taught through the life lesson of experience…when you ask a bully to stop bothering you….he may refuse and continue the abuse….when you TELL the bully to stop and if he does not..YOU will defend yourself as you start your attack….we are be abused by a bully and so far have asked them to stop,and so far they have refused…….soon many of you here will TELL them to stop and refuse to give anymore ground…..Semper Fi

    • Dan, it’s important to communicate first. We need to do “due diligence” and we need to speak to power with a voice they can understand. It’s an ethical obligation, a “moral imperative”.

      We really do need to exhaust all avenues of negotiation because generally we’re more intelligent than Clover and history will condemn us if we don’t.

      • scott….

        but…communication overflows, constantly, doesn’t it?

        James Borg states that human communication consists of 93 percent body language and paralinguistic clues, while only 7% of communication consists of words themselves;[8] however, Albert Mehrabian, the researcher whose 1960s work is the source of these statistics, has stated that this is a misunderstanding of the findings[9] (see Misinterpretation of Mehrabian’s rule). Albert Mehrabian found “that the verbal component of a face-to-face conversation is less than 35% and that over 65% of communication is done non-verbally”.[10]

        what voice does power understand? what negotiation does it respect/honor? have voices not already been raised & negotiations attempted, both in fine form & substance, many times, already? how is once more into that breach an ethical/moral imperative; how is no more into that breach not?

        saw your post to me. response coming. meantime, if you’d care to comment (at some point) re an issue of concern to me re the expatriation maneuver, i’d appreciate:

        what’s your take on xenophobic backlash in the event shtf contagion becomes an equal difficulty employer around the world?

      • We ARE more intelligent, which is why I wonder about your comment regarding History.
        History will be written long after we are dead. Even Ted Bundy is barely a footnote these days…
        History will forget us, too. Hitler’s almost been forgotten (no one alive to remember any more).
        If we look on the positive side… Well, Chruchill? Franklin? Jefferson? John Adams? (John Quincy being little more than a footnote already.)

        Let’s turn it around:
        MLK, Jr.: Philanderer, possible plagiarist (of final thesis) – yet hailed as a hero.
        Malcolm X: Well, many choice words, but not Nice, Kind, genteel, honorable, or Honest. (Pre Prison) Afterwards, still a firebrand, but at least disciplined, if militant.
        Franklin? Well, he was a womanizer. I don’t know if he had a single legitimate child, but he had a LOT of bastards.
        Ghandi: Well, lot has been written – most of it is a profitable lie. He wasn’t the martyr he’s been made out to be, a womanizer, philanderer, don’t know what else…

        Do we hear about ANY of this? Nope – these “movers and shakers” are little more than footnotes themselves. Sad, isn’t it?

        But ultimately – who gives a F*ck about history? We’ll be dust anyway, history will be written by the victors, and we’ll be “heroes of the revolution” or “traitors and cowards” depending on who won.
        Just imagine the history of the Civil Rights Movement if written by the KKK?
        “Violent white-woman rapist Malcolm X was killed today, ensuring the peace and tranquility of our great nation…” “This violent felon, who pursued the idiotic notion of Black political power, was finally executed by the God-fearing citizens of New York City at Manhattan’s Audubon Ballroom, in an act of self-defense by Thomas Johnson and two other men…”

        Change the words, but leave the facts the same – whole different story. (BTW, the men who killed Malcolm X were members of the Nation of Islam; and they’d been ordered to kill him because of a falling-out he had with Elijah Muhammad, who, “taught that white society actively worked to keep African-Americans from empowering themselves and achieving political, economic and social success.” See http://www.malcolmx.com/about/bio.html for a quick overview.)

        History is written by the winners, regardless of what’s right.

        “Science confirms, Jews related to pigs!” (Nazis won WW2; BTW, is mostly true, and not just for Jews, but all humans. Pigs have very similar DNA, and are close WRT teeth and multiple organs.)
        {As opposed to our history of concentration camps and diaspora.}

        “British Rebels were hanged today, then drawn and quartered as a warning to all who would defy the British Crown. The rebel scum talked of separation from the blessed rule of His Majesty George III, and proved quite resolute in waging improper warfare* on His Majesty’s troops and colonists in the New World.”
        *: Think: British knack for understatement. Could be anything from targeting officers (The Elite) to burning men alive to … Well, savagery, enough said.

        What if the Crown won the Revolutionary War? Would we venerate the names of the Founders? Or spit on their graves? We might remember Franklin for other achievements, but we’d STILL hold him in special contempt for giving up being English.

        We’ve tried negotiation for well over 50 years. It goes nowhere. One side pretends to resist; the other side “pressures” them; a “compromise” is reached, which enriches or empowers them, at our expense. And we are told times are tough, and WE need to tighten our belts…
        While THEY rupture their seams just moving around…

        And Clovers? Infinitely expendable. They grow back, as foolish, useless, and worthless as before the disruption. christ even said, “You will always have the Clovers among you.” [John 12:8]

    • @DS – I beat him to it (gone Galt) by at least 2 years. But he knows how to play the market and is wealthier then me, so what do I know. Good to see he has had enough of the matrix and wants to bring his readers along too.

      • Ya, it was cool. Wish I had the money to join you all.
        And hats off to you for being able.

        Also, I don’t see a good spot to pose these two questions, so I’ll do it here:

        Are internet trolls essential or non-essential personnel?

        One can only hope it’s the latter, eh?

        And, I saw a headline which said many FedGov coppers have to work without pay, does this mean the unitedstate (for some) now has the old Soviet motto, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us”?

        If so, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.

  12. @Scott – there are no ethics taught in the gunverment schools, because ethics are based in morality and morality is based in religion and the Supremes have ruled that we can have no religion in the gunverment schools.
    Actually we do have religion being taught there, Secular Humanism, but that is a different subject.

    • Phillip I think I agree that ethics aren’t taught in public school,instead they’ve been replaced by something I can hardly even name, maybe “respect for authority” is as close as you can get. Use of force in that context is prohibited without consent of an authority who’s ultimately responsible for deciding if it was just. That’s nothing like teaching ethics in my book.

      I also agree ethics have been traditionally taught in a religious context and that removing religion from state schools was the beginning of the slow but inevitable slide into darkness our society has experienced. I’m not traditionally religious myself, but I brought my children up with an emphasis on the martial arts and any good martial arts school also teaches ethics. In my case the ethic was Buddhist, but other disciplines have other philosophical bases they work from.

      The important part I believe is to simultaneously empower the student and teach him the ethical use of that power. A good teacher won’t progress a student who hasn’t attained the ethical standing to warrant increased skill. It’s a process I believe to be lacking in contemporary western education.

      • @Scott – I think the current school indoctrination words you are searching for are communitarism (group-think socialism lite) and relativism (there are no rights and wrongs only relative to the moment and circumstance).

  13. This is going to get me in all sorts of trouble, but Clover’s mind is a feminine mind.

    I wouldn’t worry about this statement “getting you into trouble,” Eric. It’s an absolutely obvious truth; whether it upsets anyone or not is irrelevant. There is a direct and obvious correlation between the ascendency of feminism within the socioeconomic and political realm over the last five decades and the encroachment of petty totalitarianism that is clearly based on “feeeeeeeeelings” rather than logic or respect for the rule of law. Until a majority learns to reject this, it’s only going to get MUCH worse.

    • “the ascendency…”

      the feminine has been scapegoated for far longer than your “correlation”. it’s not the start, but “eve”, to pick a spot on the timeline, is behind you by quite a bit, right?

      why not take this virile knowmonia bs all the way to perfection: stay away from the gals & be-all-you-can-be spartan/greek homos? i’ve known some good women who say that its practically the case, anyway & that good men are so hard to find they’re willing to share one between them….

      • Ozy:
        Please be aware, they are LYING. To themselves as well as you, most likely.
        Each and every one wants THE ALPHA MALE. And she then tries to lay claim to him and get all he could bring to her bed: Money, status, security, etc.
        They are willing to share while they think they can land someone better; when they hit the wall, they settle for a Beta provider.

        Their greed knows no limits. They don’t even perceive it as greed – it’s only when you’ve passed through the looking glass (seen the many faces of eve, met up with Lillith, take your pick of cliche.)
        Only after YOU have had the lids ripped from your eyes do you come to really loathe them.
        Like murder or first sexual experience, it goes one way – you’ll never look at them the same way again. Ever grab a burning branch? You might forget the pain and the scar may heal – but you’ll never forget the smell of your flesh burning.

        A “Good Man” is what she says she wants. What she REALLY wants is a man who has options, IS better than her, IS wealthy, ALWAYS makes it look effortless, and treats her like a child – which, in many cases, means she’s not looking for a GOOD ma at all – she’s looking for a man who makes her THINK he’s good, and as long as he doesn’t make her see he’s less than good, she’ll imagine he’s a great man, taking care of her, faithful to her, providing for her, etc, etc, etc.
        For pop culture references: Lord of War (Nicholas Cage) is excellent. Or, check any of the tabloids. Movie stars, rich-and-famous (FFS, Bob Barker was banging the girls on The Price is Right while he was married, and 50+, and they were 18-20 year olds.) David Letterman come to mind? Who was the best example, Pataki? I forget which governor recently (5 years or so) had call girls or such on speed-dial, plus a mistress, I think it was… His wife wasn’t happy. Trump? Clinton?

        And just to make sure: Please define “good women.” I’ve known one I’d consider such… Only one. Long as they are young and have their looks, they’ll abuse them (didn’t have to WORK for the power, it comes by nature.) And there’s no offset any more – they’re told they can be anything, and they don’t need men – and, financially speaking, they DON’T.

        Everything a man has – he EARNS or TAKES(Earns by a different direction.)

        • Secretary: How do you write women so well?

          Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
          ~ “as good as it gets”

          how do i define good women? same way i define good men. and contrary melvin, there’s no shortage of men who meet his definition of women.

          • Yeah, cute. (Not sarcasm)

            And the last bit is true, too, especially these days.
            One would almost think there was something in the water that’s turning men into women… Besides the known ADD, ADHD, contaminants, prozac, birth control, and estrogens…


            women are great at projecting, BTW – they think men have no accountability, for instance.

            Do you notice many women over 40? I mean, you SEE them, sure – do you NOTICE them?
            That’s how women view men. They see Tiger Woods, Bill Clinton, Ben Bernanke, Donald Trump, Bill Gates.
            They don’t see the IT department. Or the bank tellers. Or the guy who runs the gas station. Or the miner. Or the garbageman. Or the nurse or orderly or taxi cab driver or air traffic controller or HVAC technician or diesel mechanic or bus driver or even Secret Service agent or…
            Only the luminaries get them wet. THOSE are the only men who exist to a large portion (90%+) of women.
            In the remaining 10% are the desperate, the deluded (ie, cougars, those who think they’re a 10 – but bathe once a month, necessary or not, and the morbidly obese who think at 387 lbs. they’re “Pleasantly Plump”), the feminazi/lesbian/ball busters/shrews, women who are, “just one of the guys,” and those few women who are worth knowing. So, how many are feminine, young, want to be with a man, and still have realistic standards and expectations? I’ve known ONE (in retrospect – maybe two, lost contact with both, both got married, I only dated one) who was flawed but decent. I’ve known thousands of women.

            Anyway.. Irrelevant, we go to war with the penis we have, not the one we want… 😉 [and in retrospect, that sounds REALLY Gay, but whatever. 😉 ]

            Lots of American men leaving just to get feminine women.
            Ever seen those Latvian/Ukrainian/Georgian/Thai/Brazilian/Peruvian/Etc. women?

          • Pardon the interruption, but I must say, I’ve seen and known about many women who notice, “the IT department. Or the bank tellers. Or the guy who runs the gas station. Or the miner” etc.

            I think your percentage is more like 45% or less.

            Also, thanks for the laugh, yes, that was gay.

            And, I agree with a lot of what you wrote, just not all of it.

            Anyway, there’s this:

          • I didn’t mean to post the link as if it were a chauvinistic tune, ozymandias.

            It was simply the, ‘American woman, get away from me’, part.

            I shouldn’t comment any further, this is as deep as I wanna go into this creek. That way be monsters!

          • ok, ds. thought you meant the standard sort of interpretation. great tune. i like lenny’s cover even better than the original.

            a good candidate for the true “monster” is this ‘war of the sexes’ being just one more divide & conquer distraction. one of hydra’s heads.

          • “‘war of the sexes’ being just one more divide & conquer distraction. one of hydra’s heads.” – Good point, ozymandias.

            It’s All Too Easy to be duped into rushing headlong down this false avenue.

      • “why not take this virile knowmonia bs all the way to perfection: stay away from the gals & be-all-you-can-be spartan/greek homos?”

        So, ozzy, you’re saying like Tom Nuttall in “Deadwood”: “All who doubt me suck cock by choice”

        That’s certainly a compelling argument. It’s almost as good as what you usually manage.

        • i think what i wrote is clear enough that even you, ed, in fact, understand the argument. a bit of reductio ad absurdum.

          also clear that the grudge you bear me for my “mr. ed” & “ed bailey” posts to you, way back, has festered to the point of you breaking your oath never to “talk” to me again (which, evidently, did not mean you’d stop reading what i “usually manage”…). or, are you a different “ed”? either way, tho, happy to turn your attempted misdirection around for you:

          all (virile knowmonias) who don’t doubt jean’s perspective should, perhaps, consider sucking cock. better?

          “Why, Ed Bailey, you like just ‘bout ready to burst…well, I ‘spose I’m deranged, but I guess I’ll just have to call…Why, Ed Bailey…we cross? Ed, what an ugly thing to say…abhor ugliness…does this mean we’re not friends anymore? You know, Ed, if I thought you weren’t my friend, I just don’t think I could bear it.”


          • Ozzy, you may need to add a little more glue to the bag you’re huffing. You still imagine that you’re needling me. I hold no grudge against you, really, it’s just that your rambling, semi-coherent style of attempting to needle those who get your knickers in a twist gives me an opening.

            It’s funny to see you riled. You don’t become more articulate as your ire rises, and it’s funny to watch. Keep up the silly name-calling, ozzie. I know it makes you feel better.

            BTW, if you ever really had anything to say, you’d still be unable to express it in a way that anyone besides you could understand. That must really suck.

          • eddie…

            the unwritten first rule of fight club is, “enjoy yourself”. that i do. if your comprehension isn’t up to it, that’s fun, too. not riling. take all the openings you see, or think you do, because it’s a pleasure to read your telegraphs back to you. this could be the start of a beautiful relationship.☻

            p.s. i drink. a bit. (the only glue I might encounter is at your seams….) which could have something to do with why you seem interesting, at this moment. but, fair warning, I’ll be sober again, in the morning….

          • Ozy,
            The White Knight/Beta male/Male Orbiter phenomenon is common across cultures, across time. It is the CORE of the Arthurian literature (EX: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight). It is the core of Romantic literature, too.

            Woman is worshipped; Man is discarded / expendable.
            Woman is coddled; Men are told to “man up.”

            And it is getting worse…

          • jean….female sexual selection is not only common across cultures, but across species as well. gaudy males, guppies to pheasants, to-to-to are selected by the females, get the most sex, pass on the most genes. so? from that does not flow a support for misogyny.

            rothbard has a piece titled “egalitarianism as a revolt against nature”. can you see that you seem to be arguing that nature is not fair? fair has nothing to do with it. nature’s the terrarium that contains all – and females did not create it or invent it. females are just in it. just like the males.

            but i’m glad you brought up mythology & archetypes. because that opens the oversold free will vs the naysayed determinism dichotomy. if you want to argue (more) for determinism, i’m with you. if you want to argue (more) for luck, i’m with you. not complete luck or determinism, but much more heavily contributory to events & outcomes than a lot of egos are comfortable admitting, which really means just not honest enough to admit.

            but that’s all macro. general. there is (some) wiggle room down at the level of the particular, which is where we all live, the contact patch. and you’re choosing to argue the tread off your tires. choosing to drive in that condition. choosing to slam into things. choosing to blame the things you slam into. i think you’d do well to invest in some better tires…unless determinism is more controlling than i think, in which case, your supposed to be driving bumper cars, figure-eighting in demolition derbies. ☻

    • Maybe we could make 1 small edit and say, “Clover’s mind is a feminist mind.” Though if we made our own decisions about what is masculine and feminine vs. what the ‘awthoritays’ declare it to be, it wouldn’t be such a big deal.

    • There is a direct and obvious correlation between the ascendency of feminism within the socioeconomic and political realm over the last five decades and the encroachment of petty totalitarianism that is clearly based on “feeeeeeeeelings” rather than logic or respect for the rule of law.

      You can see this in something quoted at Stately McDaniel Manor:-

      The main thing you guys need to know about us girls is that we have feelings and we’re not afraid to use them!

  14. The only thing wrong is a good portion of the United States does not obey the laws set down by the bureaucrats. Take a good look at any Interstate. Do you see people obeying the speed limits? I don’t.
    There is an underground cash society in this country. It depends on not going through a bank. It depends on people trading with people for what they want. And earning money without going through any government agencies. It is so huge the government is attempting to stop it by making all transactions moneyless and through bank accounts. Direct Deposit for instance. This government will recall the entire currency one of these days.
    Gangs in major cities are out of control. People are forming their own governments beneath the existing structure. Mafia type operations control billions of dollars in all kinds of illegal activities. They also control a lot more than anyone wants to admit.
    The victims are those that are innocent everyday citizens caught in the works.
    You ever wonder why so many people live together without benefit of marriage?
    It happens that the main extortionists are lawyers in divorce cases. So a lot of men won’t marry their spouses. The government tried to declare them married after a certain number of years. It didn’t work.
    After a man goes through a divorce with alimony and kids involved, he has no life, no money, and possibly no house to live in. The laws favor the spouse that is taking care of the kids without a job!
    We have a Socialist society. When a huge part of the population is on welfare that is the case. They also vote themselves benefits.
    We have a problem with rewarding people not to work. That is part of the real problem of government interceding in all our lives.
    One major illness and you are on Medicaid and broke permanently. That is the game rules we are playing by. SO working 60 hours a week if that was even possible nowadays is just plain stupid.
    Our TV entertainment is strictly brain washing taken to an extreme. An advertisement aimed at a 5 year old mentality plays over and over again in an hour. Why? SO these people can access your subconscious mind to influence your decision making in the marketplace. That is called Post Hypnotic suggestions. Not everyone is vulnerable to this. Just 80% of the population!
    Men are emasculated by the rules of society by which we play. It is not so all over the world. Other societies have other rules.

    • No, governments don’t recall entire currencies these days, they use a different trick that’s far more convenient for them once they’re already on a fiat currency: simply release a new fiat currency, allowing a limited transition period for limited exchanges of the old one for the new one (only a certain amount per person, and only when it has supporting documentation proving it was earned in approved ways, so no grey or black market cash or overseas caches), then pull the rug out from under supporting the old fiat currency by no longer accepting it in exchange for the new one or to pay taxes etc. It took more time, effort and ingenuity for governments to get people off bullion based money and onto fiat currency in the first place, of course, but by now that ship has sailed.

  15. Sam Kinison Rants About 7-11s, Wives, World Hunger, & More

    Sam Kinison & Olivia Newton John

    Sam Kinison Reveals the Homonecropheliacs of the PTB

  16. Existentially, blogs sometimes=houses.

    Our House – Madness

    Father wears his Sunday best. Mother’s tired she needs a rest. The kids are playing up downstairs. Sister’s sighing in her sleep. Brother’s got a date to keep. He can’t hang around.

    Our house, in the middle of our street.

    Our house it has a crowd. There’s always something happening. And it’s usually quite loud. Our mum she’s so house-proud. Nothing ever slows her down. And a mess is not allowed. Something tells you that you’ve got to get away from it.

    Father gets up late for work. Mother has to iron his shirt. Then she sends the kids to school. Sees them off with a small kiss. She’s the one they’re going to miss. In lots of ways.

    I remember way back then when everything was true and when. We would have such a very good time such a fine time. Such a happy time. And I remember how we’d play simply waste the day away. Then we’d say nothing would come between us two dreamers.

    Our house, was our castle and our keep. Our house, in the middle of our street.
    Our house, that was where we used to sleep. Our house, in the middle of our street.

  17. couple or three times now, again last night, site has been hijacked, intruder/prankster changes screen elements in the announcing of his presence. each time, i’ve shut down, run utilities, no infections. minor annoyance so far, but what is likelihood of these forays becoming something more than annoyance?

    • This shit is fucking annoying! I just don’t have the hours it takes to right it every damn day. We’re running in limp mode today because I have to take care of things around here for a bit. Been on this for two hours already this morning. We’re going to be using a backup from the 23 of September. Have no choice. They got us good this time!

  18. Dear Eric,

    This was an important part of the self-appointed “ruling classes'” methods that I’m very glad you mentioned.

    … the same is true for women… the object here is also to cause her to despise her man. Men, in general – except those designated as enforcers for the state. These, she is taught to reverence as “heroes.”

    But never her own husband or boyfriend.

    A woman who carries a gun knows she stands a chance against a man intent upon assaulting her. That she can do more than scream. That she is safe in her home – or walking to her car. That she is not utterly at the mercy of others, at any rate – because she can fight back. This imparts self-respect, confidence – and most alarming of all (to those intent upon leading and controlling) it renders them irrelevant. They’re not needed – literally – and thus, psychologically.

    As Colonel Hans Landa would exclaim, “That’s a bingo!”

    That’s why 911 operators tell women NOT to blow away intruders who have broken into their homes, but instead to cower passively until the “qualified professionals” arrive.

    Libertarians must not see either “males” or “females” as “the enemy.” That only plays into the hands of the self-appointed “ruling class,” which includes both genders. Just look at the roster of attendees at Bilderberg.

    The “ruling class,” not “men” or “women” is the enemy. But it can only rule if we buy into the Myth of Authority.

    Shatter the Myth of Authority for a critical mass of the human race, and the millennia old “ruling class” long con is over and done with, forever.

    • I just don’t understand the statist Hans Landa mentality. Perhaps it is uniquely American that I don’t feel part of a whole?

      Canadians always seem fond of Canada. Mexicans concern themselves with the progress of Mexico. Jews love Israel. Europeans are allegiant to their nations. Arabic speaking country residents see everything through an Arabic lens.

      Perhaps the odd Chinese and Republic of Chinese rebel are my only kindred spirits in this regard?

      There are many German speaking peoples and English speaking peoples, of superior intelligence to Americans, yet they chain their brains to serve their existing social orders.
      In their mind there is obedience and working inside the system for incremental change, or their is violent revolution. They seem paralyzed by this false dialectic and unable to see all the other possibilities.

      Col Hans Landa Finds Some Jews

      Col Hans Landa Interrogates The Joker

      Col Hans Landa At the Restaurant

  19. Seems like there’s some class tension in here. Allow me to throw some wildcats into the discussion:

    Asian Girlz – Day Above Ground

    Do You Speak Chinglish?

    Learning Chinglish Word Order – 1Subject2When3Where4How5Action

    • Tor, I resemble that remark. I ain’t got no class and don’t accuse me of it. So who’s up for a cold one? Tor? Mama? Jean?(drink a couple more) Ozy? As the old songs goes “If I Just Knew What to Say”.

    • Dear Tor,

      What follows has nothing to do with Merkel12. He is a schafenmenschen.

      This is about the videos.

      Interestingly enough, the “correct word order for Chinglish” appears to be largely correct according to Chinese rules of grammar. Basically it’s a case of misapplication of one culture’s rules to another.

      Different rules of grammar and syntax create unexpected effects. One deliberate application was Yoda in “Star Wars.”

      Yoda Language Study: New Research Shows Human Ancestors Spoke Like Star Wars Character (VIDEO)

      Most modern languages use a subject-verb-object (SVO) structure. For example, “I like ‘Star Wars.'” Many dead languages, however, use a subject-object-verb (SOV) structure, meaning the sentence comes out as “I ‘Star Wars’ like.”

      Everyone screws up when it comes to foreign languages. Yes, even ‘Murcans!

      Example: sauna

      The Finns, who invented the sauna, reportedly cringe every time they hear ‘Murcans refer to them as “saw-nas,” instead of “sow-nas,” (sow as in sow’s ear).

      Example: karaoke

      The Japanese, who are usually the butt of “Engrish” jokes, invented the karaoke machine. The correct pronunciation is “kara-okay,” NOT “carry-okey.”

      • Careful there, Bevin, with the karaoke deconstruction. Even as you have it typed it WILL be mispronounced! Something like “kah-rah oh-kay” would be closer. I can’t count the times I’ve had to repeat it correctly to help people out. I can’t blame them for not knowing but it would be criminal to let them say it incorrectly and leave them in ignorance. It also helps to have a Japanese wife as Dom would agree.

  20. Feminism and anti-male propaganda is a significant part of the elitist social control agenda. They realize that breaking men psychologically is the key to a compliant population. There is no real need to break women psychologically, as women will always submit to those who hold power in any society.

    That is why we are bombarded with endless propaganda about how men have all kinds of undeserved privilege, men are paid more than women for doing the same work, men get more opportunities due to societal sexism, the incidence of domestic violence and sexual assault are inflated etc., male sexuality is pathologized etc.

    It is a kind of psychological warfare designed to break down the male population through endless shaming and guilt-tripping. It is sometimes subtle but is relentless and endlessly reinforced.

    • Nick, I don’t know what socialist hell you live in, but you absolutely cannot speak for any women, let alone ALL women. Get over yourself. I’m a woman, but would never presume to speak for all women, much less pontificate nonsense about what men would “always” do.

      Men AND women, all human beings who want to live their lives as self owners, must work together without these stupid sexist and separatist barriers. All individuals have been “pathologized” in the minds of those who would consume our very flesh if they could.

      The men are absolutely as much to blame as the women for this sorry state of affairs, and nothing is gained by anyone trying to place blame only on another. Let’s get rid of the blame game, and do something rational about the problems instead.

      • Mama Lib,
        I’d guess he’s in the Socialist Hell of the US – same as me – and likely on the coast. (odds are…)
        Just so you understand – there are NO women here, so far as I can tell.
        FEMALES, yes – WOMEN, no. There’s a four-letter word for the females here, too.
        I am 37 – the BEST I have known was STILL a manipulative creature. And still responded to the same “dark triad” techniques, in the same way. Pick-Up Artists are on to something, REGARDLESS of what Woman (Eve OR Lillith) wants to think.

        It’s a LOUSY state – but it is what it is. And woman, even more than man, is good at lying to herself.
        For example, more than one “professional” PUA has dropped off the grid, effectively. Basic concept: He could walk into ANY bar, party, venue – and walk out with ANY girl he chose to. It was predictable, no challenge at all. So – why bother? What’s the point?

        The reason I only said, “The coast,” is that it doesn’t matter WHICH coast: East or West, same difference. I’ve been as far out as Erie, PA, and on the west coast; been to three universities; from a solid, two-parent, SAHM (Stay-At-Home Mom), Catholic, parochial school upbringing. Sheltered, too. Irish-Italian family, religious, been Confirmed, too. Knew most of my family – mom had a falling-out with her sister, though.

        So, given all these “Positive Social Indicators”, and a good education, and adult-level socialization?
        I’m transgeder, irrascible, anti-social (on a good day), and have little or no use for humans, overall. My family has effectively disowned me and we’ve become estranged; my sister won’t even talk to me (she picked a fight with the woman when living in our house, and she AND HER BOYFRIEND, who wasn’t supposed to be living with us per Mom and Dad, left – because I didn’t just “Leash my bitch” (paraphrasing), and it’s now 5 years – YEARS – later. Bankruptcy, foreclosure, lost my savings, Roth IRA, 401(k), and the credit cards (about a $90K limit, all told), plus the inheritance I’d been using to pay for my Master’s degree. ALL GONE – ALL IN THE SPACE OF 2 YEARS. I hate myself for being SO STUPID – but I was still a Nice Guy back then. She was only the third woman I’ve dated.

        I’m not sure there would be a fourth. I don’t think most women make the grade, though I DO have to hide that from the current girlfriend. Whereas I’m (usually) smarter than the average bear – she’s usually a bit denser. (I sent her the geek jokes Tor posted a little while back – she didn’t get them. I explained them, and she was upset, ’cause now not only were they not funny, she felt dumb.)

        I wish I could shake my adoration of women – I was programmed but good. Taught to pedestalize women, treat them chivalrously, treat them like people, not address their feminine aspects…
        And now, I see how women manipulate at will, respond with emotion (and never logic), and do what they FEEL, and MAN is there a double-standard: If she has ANY problems, it’s sexism, Old Boys Club, discrimination… And when she comes out on top? It’s because she’s BETTER. The old saw about how she earns 75c or less oper 1$ a man earns is trotted out routinely, as is the “glass Ceiling” myth… But she wants that REGARDLESS of maternity leave, or caring for the children, or family concerns – and works the hours to meet those other concerns, too. And from PERSONAL experience, with Mom, Grandma, Sister, Girlfriends, even just Girl Friends – no matter WHAT you do, REGARDLESS of personal cost – it’s NEVER enough, she’s NEVER treated well enough, she’s ALWAYS killing herself, ALWAYS giving, ALWAYS ovrworked, the “Second Shift” (Yeah, I have that too – it’s called BABYSITTING the bitch who cannot be alone for 5 seconds. Need to help cook dinner, need to help cleanup, need to walk the dog, need to entertain her, need to tuck her into bed… Guess which of is the breadwinner, too, BTW? And who carried who, and for how long? She busted ass when Iw as out of work, kept food on the table – can’t fault her for being a complete parasite, not saying that she is – but I went though an obscene amount of money meeting her needs and wants, and finally went bankrupt. Cost me my Harley as well – 2006 V-ROD, only Harley I’ve ever liked – MY bioke, if you will. Set her finances straight with a “loan.” Financed her custody battle for her daughter. paid for her auto loan. bought a house “with” her – she’s on the title, but has paid… NOTHING towards it. And to top it off? I touch her – i’m either tickling her, or it’s the wrong time. But if I don’t “put out” on demand, she gets her nose out of joint. And let me tell you, it’s hard to “put out” when you’re being assaulted…)

        So for women? Yeah, cry me a f*ckin’ river. SAME creature – Mother, Sister, Grandmothers, Cousins, friends, WHATEVER – they share the same brain.
        REAL useful. For sex.
        And childbearing.
        And NOTHING else.

        And I wish I WERE one – what does that say about MY (lack of) character? THAT is disgusting to me.
        Like my “racism” – it’s been WELL EARNED.
        And I’d guess Nick’s seen the same stuff.

        Look up Roissy in DC / Chateau Heartiste. I think it’s on WordPress. From there, there are a BILLION points to get mroe information. You want, feel free to contact me off-list, I’ll send a selection. For now, Hooking up Smart: Red Pill Wife; Married Man Sex Life.
        It all boils down to:
        Make her feel emotions; make her feel safe; compress the time frame; she puts out.
        EVERY woman is like that. It’s ALWAYS the right time – just maybe not for HIM.

        It is enough to make one VOMIT, once that red pill leaves its mark; but the door swings one way.
        And even the nurse I dated, who was a good woman – was JUST a woman, ruled by emotions, and disinterested in most of the KEY things in life.
        Politics. Money. Religion. War. Mechanics.Physics, Chemistry, even to some extent BIOLOGY. AS A NURSE.
        SHE at least had femininity. The current one, as I’ve learned too late? Is a man with fmeale organs. SO self-assured, SO certain of things – but get the best of her, and there’s that, “You’re cheating / it’s discrimination / ” WHATEVER bullshit. So VERY self-centered. If it weren’t for the fact she’s been unemployed, and had a daughter to care for, and had my name on the title/mortgage, too – Yeah, lots of stupid on my part, Devil is good at hiding in plain sight – She would’ve been out on the street, and I’d still have my motorcycle, my family, and my wealth.

        WOMEN have been freed of ALL obligations and social censure; all restrictions lifted. She wants to get drunk, hook up with a loser, get an STD, get pregnant, have an abortion, keep the kid, WHATEVER – ALL GOOD!
        HE… Can keep it in his pants, or pay – no say in what she does or how. He can be named the father – and it’s ILLEGAL to check paternity. (Or nearly so – I know of cases where it was too late to challlenge, and I know there was an attempt to make it illegal, but don’t know how that one worked out.) Men are paying child support for children that AREN’T THEIRS. And it’s COURT ENFORCED – and can cost him professional licenses, passport,even his LIFE if the cops get involved. but her? She’s just a POOR WOMAN…. VICTIM of all the evils of the world.
        UNTIL she wants that corenr office…

        I could go on for DAYS, dammit. I’m a professional – I deal with women in all walks, all the time, living in major cities around the nation. Washington, D.C.; NYC; Seatle WA; Tampa, FL; Boston, MA; Nashua, NH; Erie, PA; Virginia Beach; Williamsburg; \THEIR worst behavior is CELEBRATED – while ANY man’s bad behavior is held up as the STANDARD for abusing ALL men.

        MEN have responsibility; WOMEN have license, usually paid for via wealth transfers from MEN.

        It’s enough to make one a might peeved, Miss Liberty.
        The fact it’s enshrined in law makes me want to damage the machine even more. If I’m going to be the horse in tackle (Harness), I damn well want to be appreciated for it. Seems I’m a slave in my own “castle”, and I’ve got NOTHING to show for it – but she “loves me.”

        Typhoid Mary loved New York, too.

        TL;DR: Women have been freed of all social norms and niceties, and have an innate fear and vulnerability – which they have exploited, with men’s protective urges, to MANUFACTURE our current situation.
        You don’t pay the whore for her services (she’d give it away); you pay her to leave.

        • Jean, I enjoyed that novelette. Shuck it all, cancel phones, credit cards, disappear, live in a little house you can rent for cash…way out somewhere. Find an old knuckle-head, a frame like you want(cheap stuff here), spend a few months putting it together, hang out with the guys at the shop or independent women. If you think of women, let it only be the woman in front of you cause she wants to be. There are plenty capable, honest women but it takes a bit more time to find one, not that they’re rare, they just don’t fall at your feet and grovel for your time and money. Make friends. Enjoy life, You’re young.

        • Such utter bullshit, Jean. Cry me a river. If any man allows a woman to treat him that way, that’s his problem. Unless she’s holding a gun on him, that’s HIS choice.

          You CANNOT speak for any woman, and especially not for all of us.

          I’m sure there are more of the predatory type women on the coasts (just as the government is more predatory there). If you don’t like it, LEAVE. I can guarantee you there are not too many of that kind out here in rural Wyoming. They can’t stand the weather or the wide open spaces. Or the fact that they have to pull their own weight and be responsible for themselves. We don’t have welfare ghettos here.

          But then again, if the bar scene and prostitutes are your bag… you probably wouldn’t like it either.

          • “then again, if the bar scene and prostitutes are your bag… you probably wouldn’t like it either.”

            Nope. We don’t have prostitutes in Wyoming. But we also have a saying about losing your girlfriend; just wait a while, she’ll come ’round again. We learned to share in kindergarten 🙂

            Sometimes it only takes a few minutes and you don’t even have to leave the room.

          • Never been in the bar scene.
            But the prostitutes… I mean, WOMEN – have thrown themselves at me for ages.

            fortunately (for me), I believe in quality, not quantity.
            this “dalliance” was supposed to be temporary.

            7 years later… I’m a fool. 🙁

        • “I could go on for DAYS, dammit. I’m a professional…”

          professional doormat, too. and its all the grimy footwear’s fault for gunking me up…(or if you want the softer-gentler therapy-speak, caretaker, co-dependent, boundary issues, rage, etc).

          jean, i’ve seen your posts in this area before. you are definitely eaten up with your perspective to misconstrue my post as you have.

          quotes from luminaries (mencken, voltaire, goethe, etc) because i’m just anonymous ozy, not because i learned the “wise way” (& in mencken’s case, because others here quote him so often…).

          so you’ve been set up. from an early age. who hasn’t in some significant way or another or several? maybe something can be done about it. maybe nothing can be done about it, except celibacy. but as long as you remain locked in with your “explanation”, you’re freakin’ doomed (seriously). you can’t fake it & every woman will be the same, because your particular type, that you like to generalize to all women, is your opposite number. you’re made for each other.

          “i’m a patsy”, oswald said. if he’d escaped that jackpot, do you think he’d have ever been anywhere near a presidential motorcade ever again? live & (try to) learn. twirling in place, cursing your own fixity, & trying to gin up validation from fellow misogynists cannot be, & obviously, by the pain you exude, is not, a very satisfying life.

          • looks like that ever popular thee-we thing. is there a borg in here? or a walrus?

            “I am he as you are he as you are me
            And we are all together
            See how they run like pigs from a gun
            See how they fly, I’m crying”

            ♪ ♫ ♪

            maybe its just the cabernet talking…..

          • Could care less.

            You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it put on a swimsuit… 😉

            People are good at lying to themselves. (Me included, natch.)
            Especially when they benefit from the lie: “Rose Colored glasses.”

      • MamaLiberty,

        sometimes it helps to actually read what others have to say, instead of going off on a half-cocked tangent and knocking over a whole lot of straw men.

        As I made clear in my first post, feminism is largely an elitist manipulation and social control mechanism designed to break men. Most ordinary women are not particularly driving the bus on this issue. Women are also pawns in the same elitist manipulation game. I only attribute any blame to individual women to the extent that they choose to perpetuate the feminist lies. Hold individuals responsible for their actions and whether they choose to do the right thing or not.

        I may have overgeneralized somewhat about the differences between the sexes. These differences are true on average, although they are not necessarily true of every individual. Women are generally more conformist, collectivist and submissive to authority than men, and there are sound evolutionary psychology reasons that that is the case. To say that is not to blame women for everything, it is simply to recognize the limitations biology imposes on their natures. Men have a somewhat different set of natural disadvantages imposed on them through natural selection. Of course men and women have contributed to our current problems, sometimes in different ways and sometimes in similar ways.

        Might I suggest madam, that you are the one who needs to get over yourself. Please try not to take everything so damn personally, and try to tone down the strong, independent, woman posturing just a dial.

        • Well, in her defense, I WAS talking to her personally… 😛

          But I have yet to met a woman who “gets” how being an arrogant, cock-sure, independent person is a turn-off to men.
          There are those that CHOOSE to be feminine, but thry don’t able to articulate a “why.”

          • Hi Jean,

            Speaking just for me:

            Independent is cool – in fact, dependent/clingy women are a real turn-off for me.

            Bitchy, on the other hand, is the ultimate turn-off. Superficial – and/or stupid – even more so.

            I don’t care how hot she is.

            Here’s my test (and this goes both ways):

            If you want them to leave after sex, you’ve got your answer.

          • Eric,
            I was referencing the “doublespeak” form of Independent.

            “Clingy” – I HAVE THAT, with my “INDEPENDENT”, “I AM WOMAN, HEAR ME SCREAM” creature.
            I don’t want someone who is needy, either. Someone who CAN stnad on their own two feet? BIG plus. Someone who can be TAUGHT to stand on her own two feet, acceptable.
            Someone who wants me to stay joined at the hip? THAT is the ultimate turn-OFF at this point. Can’t breath, can’t go lift, can’t take the bike out… WTF is the point of life, under that aegis?

            What I had intended to articulate above, was that the “Independent” woman seems to want someone to take are of her – someone to blame when things go wrong, someone who will take care of her (financially, physically, emotionally; need not all be the same man).

            I’ve seen both sides, I don’t want to dig in – I’m trying to avoid ranting until at LEAST after noon on Monday. 😉

        • @ Mama – I think you are on to something there. What if the intention (GMO’s, hormone filled foods, sissified public education and media) is to make men ” generally more conformist, collectivist and submissive to authority”. Would make managing the heard a lot easier.

          • @ Eric,
            “if you want them to leave after sex, you’ve got your answer” Ha! reminds me of the one: What’s the definition of eternity?
            A: The time from when you come to when she goes.

  21. I keep wondering when, and how, Government will start the control of procreation of the masses. This just seems to be the next step in the plan.

    • Started a long time ago, actually. Remember that the tyrants have been sneaky… It started with the feminazis, the emasculation of the men, government “school,” the destruction of the nuclear family, and wide open, government sponsored and financed abortion. Add to that many of the side effects of the “war on” drugs, guns, entrepreneurship and the rest. The war on FREEDOM and the individual. Add in the government push to normalize every kind of sexual excess, while at the same time seeming to combat it…

      All of this was far more effective and long lasting than any sort of prohibition or direct involvement in procreation itself. The Chinese approach would never have worked in the US, and what the US government has done is far more destructive in the long run.

      • Mama, I cannot find a link for an article I read several months ago but it had to do with feminism being foisted on the public by the CIA. This was leaked info from a former CIA person. They spent vast amounts of money to restructure our society and emasculate the American male since the men coming of age in the 60’s were still men. Even Gloria Allred weighed in and said feminists had been duped along with institutions of supposed higher learning. I’ll continue to search for that article. There’s a great deal more there than what I’ve listed here.

        • Doesn’t really matter which of the alphabet soup gang was used. Both men and women ALLOWED themselves to be used and confused, to indulge in every kind of theft, aggression and fraud – while thinking themselves so good and right.

          The feminazis were no more to blame than anyone else. And no less. Casting about for some one or some group to blame solves nothing, and only prolongs the problems.

          This isn’t something that government did to people against their will. The whole mess is the result of far too many buying the silly notions of the socialists – that they could live lives of comfort and indulgence, free of responsibility and never have to pay the cost… either in wealth or spirit. And that has gone on all this time in spite of the painful and horrible proof all around them that it is not actually possible to live long and prosper by theft and violence.

          The chickens are coming home to roost now, and people are horrified to find that all the chickens are actually vultures… Unfortunately, now we all have to pay one way or another.

        • It and more is very true 8. Follow the money, and the agenda. It is hidden in plain sight, but most are blind to it and can’t see the picture because it is in jigsaw puzzle pieces. People have their opinions and attitudes given to them, and the vast majority will never question or really think about it. Dumb-it-down, Divide and conquer. Working pretty well from where I sit.

      • Actually started at least back in the 1920’s with the Eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger was very big in this, then started “Planned (non)Parenthood” when Hitler gave eugenics a bad name. Have you noticed the majority of PP clinics are in low income neighborhoods? The “upper crust” are voluntarily limiting their procreation

      • @Mama- I know I read it somewhere, it just took a while for me to recover it.

        The Next Million Years by Charles Galton Darwin (1952)


        So there we have the real agenda behind what we have been trained to believe are grassroots movements. They are about culling the human ‘herd’ so that ‘superior’ breeds can take up their rightful place in the survival-of-the-fittest pecking order, having attained their ‘godhood’. There we have the real meaning of ‘sustainability’. It is human farming. Should the herd be not viable economically or be resistant or problematic to mandated change that animal herd should be collectively culled so the population can be managed neatly and sustainably in the New Darwinian World Order.

        What are these counterfeit grassroots movements?

        They are not all counterfeit from the outset. Some are genuinely good-willed, caring and compassionate initially but they are quietly pounced upon and infiltrated by two-faced Darwinian predatory shills and psychopathic agent-provocateurs which are secretly promoting a global eugenics agenda. They are Trojan Horse movements that dupe people into campaigning for their own demise.

        Examples are the feminist movement, the environmental movement (environment simply means surroundings, or… everything) the homosexual / lesbian / transexual / paedophilia / liberation movements, the global ‘warming’ movement, the animal liberation movement, the pro-choice movement and most of the occupy movement.

        When we dig deeper and look outside the box we have been put into we can often see the bigger picture as regards these movements, we often find that we are being trained as animals to acquiesce to our own downfall. The movements are promoting a post-democratic, post-industrial, anti-human agenda deceptively orchestrated by a ruling elite to further their posthuman plans.

        • Dear Gary,

          Excellent expose of the real agenda behind nominally “grassroots” movements actually headed by the NWO mega-statists.

          Basically, the HG Wellsian “Time Machine” scenario of Morlocks domesticating the Eloi is coming to pass.

          Wells was a “scientific socialist” so he cannot be accepted in toto. But he was right about this.

          • @Bevin – I have come to learn that there is a unifying agenda that becomes clear when you see it (the real matrix). Hiding in plain sight if you will. But it won’t be found from the usual pedestrian sources. It is buried in words, writings, elite membership groups and family trees of those who truly control money and world events.

            We know the names of the well paid stooges, but not those only rarely spoken of, if ever. Who really develops and pays for and ties together the Googles’, Facebooks’, Twitters’, Microsofts’, Oracles, IBM smart systems worldwide, unrestricted government spying and cataloging of the heard together? We like our cell phones, internet, and credit cards, never thinking it is all one project with a purpose. Who trains the young culture world-wide to willingly put their complete lives out there, with constant GPS, tweets, texts, and facial recognition pictures no less. Yet it is all there, and will never be lost to those who want it. Front writers like Charles G. Darwin, H.G. Wells, Carroll Quigley, Orwell and the like present the concepts from those groups for us to see, but who reads that dry boring crap? And who ties the timelines together? We want the Cliffs Notes or the movie.

            I know, there he goes again. 🙂

          • @bevin = Wells was given and had inside knowledge. His stories were written with that information in mind. If you dig out his meetings and associations it will wow you.

          • The Morlocks didn’t domesticate the Eloi, they broke free of their own earlier domestication by the Eloi and started preying on them after the Eloi became decadent and domesticated themselves. (In Wells’s novella – the story line of the Rod Taylor film was altered to fit your scenario more, though.)

          • Dear Gary,

            I used to dismiss the very stuff you refer to. No longer.

            Conspiracy is just another word for plan. Who doesn’t plan?

            You can be sure the Bilderberg attendees are making all sorts of plans.

            By the way, did you happen to read that info on “Eyes Wide Shut?” I had no idea that was an expose of the global elites’ perversions.

          • Dear PM,

            You might be right about that. I’d have to check.

            I read The Time Machine 50 years ago, when I was a teenager. I’ve forgotten the details.

            But regardless of where they started out, the Morlocks wound up domesticating the Eloi and feeding on them.

            Either way, not good.

            • Wells saw… but he lost hope.

              Rather than work toward the goal – however distant – of a human society not based on a few with spurs and boots, the rest saddled – he decided to mount up and ride.

              It’s a shame, because Wells was a brilliant man and a superb writer.

          • @Bevin – said – By the way, did you happen to read that info on “Eyes Wide Shut?” I had no idea that was an expose of the global elites’ perversions.

            Ever heard of Bohemian Grove? Skull & Bones? The movie Absolute Power? Absolutely no one gets into the higher levels of political power until she/he participates in things like the movie you mention, or worse. After you are chosen that is the price of entry into the rare air. Like those politicians that get free 737’s to fly around on with their friends. I hear you can have a great time once you get connected. Never ever reported on. Unless they want that one gone. That is when you and I hear about the scandal.

            Blackwater Security was caught running women and children for them internationally. Nothing really bad happened to them, just some fines paid.

            Have you heard of Jimmy Saville the big BBC star?
            British legend accused of abusing children
            For 20 years, Jimmy Savile’s children’s show was a highlight of Saturday night family TV on the BBC. But now, British police say 300 people have come forward with claims that Savile abused them during his 60-year broadcasting career. NBC’s Annabel Roberts reports.

            The investigation was held short because way too many big shots and household names would be outed if it continued. Scotland Yard buried it after a show of a few people questioned and such.

          • Dear Gary,

            Stuff like Monarch Programming and Bohemian Grove are relatively new to me.

            They blow my mind.

            I used to be pretty skeptical of conspiracy theories, before I learned that they were actually conspiracy facts.

            I used to assume it was mainly shared premises leading to the same paths. I grossly underestimated the extent of active, global planning aforethought, i.e., “conspiracy.”

            9/11 was what did it for me. The impossibility of the WTC tower “building collapses” forced me to dig deeper and deeper.

            It led to Project Northwoods, MK Ultra, and all sorts of stuff that was “hiding in plain sight” as you noted.

            • When I discover that someone has stolen a little bit of money, I conclude that, given the opportunity, they would likely steal a lot.

              Once I learned that people in government planned and planned and executed such things as MK-Ultra, Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin (non) incident – and many more such things – I made the logical deduction that such people are capable of almost anything.

              Including nahhnlevven.

    • Hi Frank,

      In a way – a reverse way – they’ve been doing just that for years. There are strong negative inducements for responsible, intelligent couples not to have kids – or to have very few. Meanwhile, there are numerous incentives for the least intelligent/responsible in the population to breed profligately.

      This works to the advantage of power lusters because they need a dumbed-down, irresponsible – an animalistic – mass. This mass is not only receptive to being controlled, it helps keep the small but potentially problematic cohort of intelligent/responsible people under control, too.

      A two-fer.

      • Dear Eric,

        It’s interesting.

        As libertarians, we are all aware of thousands of highly negative unintended consequences of Big Government.

        But ya know, the perverse incentive to debase mankind’s gene pool has got to be the worst of the worst!

        The other consequences are bad enough. But at least they are reversible.

        • Bevin, I don’t think these consequences are unintended. It’s why the minarchist will fail, because they wish to “fix” the current system.

          Problem is, the current system isn’t broken. If you are one of it’s owners, it works very well.

          • Dear KB,

            I agree. For those who benefit from it, they are not unintended. I’m referring only to the victims, who got fleeced.

            For example, unexpected opportunities for corruption on public works programs. Unexpected only by the sheeple. Not unexpected by career pols.

        • Morning, Bevin!

          The eugenics program of modern authoritarianism is subtle and extremely effective. Instead of forcible sterilization (or “lebensborn” facilities) simply adjust the economic-social incentives to reproduce. Viola – you achieve your aim without any obvious coercion or even obvious policy as such.

          In the West at least, the birth rate among educated/intelligent people is at historic lows, well below replacement. No wonder, that. With their future-time orientation and sense of obligation, such people are effectively deterred (as a class) from having more than 1 or 2 kids – if they have that many – via the numerous and severe economic disincentives that attend large families…. in their case. Because they will have to provide the resources necessary to raise them into adulthood – after having been taxed severely in order to “help” provide for the offspring of an endless (literally) conga line of other people’s children. The children produced by the non-educated* and non-future-time oriented, who on the one hand have numerous and profitable incentives to reproduce profligately and on the other, a mindset that regards this as their entitlement.

          If there is no limit placed upon the “needs” of the non-future-time-oriented and irresponsible; on their claims to the life-work of others, then it is only a matter of time before they simply outbreed and so replace the hosts upon which they feed.

          This process is well under way.

          The only question – from the standpoint of the elites who set it in motion – is whether it can be stopped before it consumes them, too.

          * In re “educated” – I do not mean “government schooled.” I mean people who possess knowledge/skill, however acquired.

          • @Eric – You left out chemical agents like BpA, GMO and others introduced (forced) into the environment. As well as promotion of the gay agenda. The USA is at historical lows for male and female fertility as well. How could that have happened? I wonder.

          • Dear Eric,

            “The only question – from the standpoint of the elites who set it in motion – is whether it can be stopped before it consumes them, too.”


            The self-appointed “global elites” have benefited from their master plans so far.

            But will the debasement of society and even homo sapiens as a biological species descend to depths even they failed to imagine? Will it undermine even their futures in the long run?

            One of the key insights about laissez-faire capitalism is that a rising tide lifts all boats.

            But global elites apparently prefer a lower tide, as long as they have yachts while others have only rafts.

            They prefer corrupt mercantilism that preserves their Rockefeller and Rothchild style privileged status relative to the Mere Mundanes.

            Never mind that they would have been even wealthier in absolute terms than they are under a just system of genuine capitalism.

            But will they wind up outsmarting even themselves? Will cynical miscalculation keep them at the “top of the heap,” but turn the heap into a dung heap not worth remaining at the top of?

            How happy will they really be as “elites” in a dystopian Idiocracy?

            Interesting questions to speculate about.

          • @Bevin – Now that you have joined us in the Eloy swimming pool, think of this. Timeline 50 -100 years, in 5 year “updated programming” intervals. Remember we think short term (as described by Ayn Rand). Advancements in genetic engineering, robotics, and nano technology. The sloppy Eloy’s are a burden to bear for a time, until the rest can be put into place. Brave New World after 1984.

          • It is not just economic conditions set from on high but the social beliefs, trends, etc they set in motion through the schools and media. It appears to me that intelligence has become something to hide for social reasons. It’s become a liability, something that may socially isolate a person.

  22. What a great thread! Keep it up (as long as you can), Eric!

    Point – it’s the PRINCIPLE. That’s just what Clover doesn’t get.

    Clover doesn’t find very applicable to his world view.

    You are right, they will never “get it.”

  23. My insurance premiums have gone up 40% since passage of obamacare. If this continues at the same pace, I won’t be able to afford insurance. The alternatives: go without insurance altogether, something I am seriously considering, or buying into the Obummer’s alternative (if it ever becomes available). The scam is that obamacare has forced up private premiums which in turn forces people into the state’s loving arms. At this point things have gotten so bad that I think we would have been better off if the state had gone ahead and outlawed private insurance altogether. At least that way everyone would know exactly who was to blame when the entire system collapsed.

    • @mikehell – Recall the statement “We have to pass it so we can know what’s in it”? Last estimate I saw was over $7,000.00 / year/ family when fully implemented. I can only hope enough people start taking the red pill Morpheus offered in time.

    • Indeed, Mike –

      And let’s not forget: They are forcing us to buy insurance. That is not the same thing as getting medical care (much less getting it paid for by insurance).

      Most people who support this – leaving aside the ethical objections – are too got-damned stupid to see that paying out say $400 a month for insurance does not mean they will get “free” care. In fact, most of these policies still have very high deductibles, as well as co-pays.

      It still seems to be beyond the ken of millions of people that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch – and that anyone who believes or says otherwise is either a fool or a rogue.

    • Unfortunately, the “insurance” deal is only one part of the overall disaster coming. What almost everyone seems to forget (or do not want to consider) is that having “insurance” doesn’t guarantee any actual health care in the long run. There is a very great deal more to health and medicine than who pays for it.

      I was an advanced practice RN, and I retired early because I could no longer stomach having government dictate every detail of my professional practice, or watch the continued destruction of patient rights and privacy, let alone their choice of treatments, etc. The number of well educated, dedicated professionals in medicine (as in many other fields) continues to thin, and more will find something else to do as this monstrosity is implemented. Eventually, there won’t be many competent “care givers” available – unless you are willing and able to find what you need in the underground economy. That, and alternative health care/wellness strategies are blooming and spreading fast. But they require each person to take personal responsibility for both the cost and the outcome, something too many people can’t accept.

      Obummercare is merely a stepping stone to the communist ideal of total control of the individual, including ALL nutritional and health details. And yes, Obummercare will collapse, as it was always intended to, so the clovers will all whine and beg for “universal” state medicine. Those who continue to depend on government for their lives and health will get exactly what they pay for…. and everyone else will have plenty of incentive to find a rational alternative.

      • The kids filed into class Monday morning. They were all very excited. Their weekend assignment was to sell something, then give a talk on salesmanship.

        Little Sally led off. “I sold Girl Scout cookies and I made $30,” she said proudly. “My sales approach was to appeal to the customer’s civil spirit and I credit that approach for my obvious success.”

        “Very good”, said the teacher.

        Little Debbie was next. “I sold magazines” she said, “I made $45 and I explained to everyone that magazines would keep them up on current events.”

        “Very good, Debbie”, said the teacher.

        Eventually, it was Little Johnny’s turn. The teacher held her breath. Little Johnny walked to the front of the classroom and dumped a box full of cash on the teacher’s desk. “$2,467”, he said.

        “$2,467!” cried the teacher, “What in the world were you selling?”

        “Mouthwash”, said Little Johnny.

        “Mouthwash?”, echoed the teacher. “How could you possibly sell enough mouthwash to make that much money?”

        “I found the busiest corner in town”, said Little Johnny, “I set up a Dip & Chip stand and I gave everybody who walked by a free sample.”

        “They all said the same thing: ‘Hey, this tastes like dog poop!’ Then I would say, ‘It is dog poop. Wanna buy a bottle of mouthwash?’ I used the President Obama method of giving you some crap, dressing it up so it looks good, telling you it’s free and then making you pay to get the bad taste out of your mouth.”

        Little Johnny got five stars for his assignment. Bless his heart.

      • MamaLiberty – My wife also handed in her nursing license. She felt they were turning her into little more than a paper pusher and worse yet a pill pusher. Care giver wasn’t really part of the job description anymore. What was a real eye opener for me was when she received a solicitation from the Virginia nursing board for volunteers to read the nursing test out loud to applicants. How can you practice nursing if you can’t read the test (or at least read it in English)?

        The other point you make about individual responsibility for your own health is indeed valid. From eliminating GMO products (especially wheat) and processed foods from our diets, to proper exercise and nutrition our health, barring accidents, is pretty much in our own hands. The problem is the fine folks in the allopathic (allo-pathetic?) medical cartel are working diligently to eliminate alternative healthcare and dietary supplements. They’ve apparently done a good job of limiting choices in Europe already and want to bring Amerika into the fold desperately.

        Taking their cue from the Codex Alimentarius, the FTC is apparently trying to make an end run around the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 to limit our alternative healthcare choices and send us groveling back to conventional medicine. Here’s an article covering just that: http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/codex-alimentarius.html. These devils never give up, so we have to be constantly on our guard. Pretty soon the only way you may be able to get dietary supplements and herbs of sufficient potency to actually provide any benefit to you will be to grow or produce them yourself. And if the cartel has their way and are left unchecked, it may be as big a crime to grow Black Cohosh, Saw Palmetto and Elderberries as it is to grow poppies and cannabis right now. We can’t have a bunch of these “individualists” thwarting the PTB’s efforts to decide who lives, who dies and when they do it, now can we?

        • Boothe – only if we allow it.

          I repeat:
          Neither the feds, nor any other “law enforcement” outfit, even begins to
          have the manpower necessary to do much about it, once the SHTF. The deer
          hunters in the US ALONE outnumber the regular armies of most countries
          in the world.

          We have to get over this fear of “THEM.” We outnumber THEM, seriously,
          every single day and hour. And they know it.

          Withdraw, resist, find alternatives and don’t be cowed by the illegitimate “laws.” When people stop fearing, complying, cringing and giving in… when people no longer accept these dictates and truly resist, there’s nothing “they” can do about it.

          • Withdraw, Resist, and Eliminate.

            Because not everyone is willing to take out the trash.

            If you’re using other than Microsoft IE, I found what MIGHT be a good site – http://www.rangerup.com/
            I liked the mug (Shirt was sold out)
            Shirt was, “I get by on HATRED and Caffeine.” The mug adds Whiskey – I can deal with that. 😀
            But there are some Yahoo scripts that run on those pages that hogged my machine until I had to hard-boot it. YMMV.

          • MamaLiberty – I preach the same sermon. Resist at every level, politely question authority, gum up the bureaucratic works any way you can. Buy everything possible from other private individuals and pay cash. For example, farm eggs and raw milk are better for you and buying them cuts the publicans out of the transaction. Need a firearm? Buy it locally at a gun show or off Armslist; log no purchase with the Gov Thugs. Grow your own vegetables and herbs, raise your own livestock, make your own wine (or “shine”) and cut your own firewood as passive ways to help starve the beast. When the uninitiated question your beliefs and express skepticism about the Internet point them to books like The Creature From Jekyll Island, Lincoln Unmasked and Political Ponerology. Spread podcasts that speak the Liberty message to the computer savvy. Learn as many new skills as you can and teach others to be self-sufficient. Be a positive example for those around you.

            I have pointed out the same thing that you state here about the surveillance state on many occasions; there are too many of us for the PTB to monitor constantly. Who knows how many billions of phone calls, IM’s, texts, E-mails, pictures and faxes flow between approximately 316 million “Murikans” a day? You can bet that 99.9% of them get lost in the mix right now. When the SHTF, all bets are off. You just don’t want to be at ground zero when it happens, which will typically be in large metropolitan areas. For all their technology, the PTB are really little more than the Great and Powerful Oz: little men and women behind the curtain making a lot noise and blowing smoke. Sure, they trot out high profile, false flag incidents and focus on the chosen few for special treatment for public “Shock and Awe.” The Tsarnev brothers come to mind, along with McVeigh, the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver, et al. But overall if you’re careful about your actions and associations, as well as maintaining some level of day to day Zombie-flage, you are about as likely to run seriously afoul of the system as you are to be the victim of a terrorist attack. And from what I can tell, those odds are right up there with being struck by lightning or winning the lottery.

            The biggest potential problem at our level seems to be with rank and file LEO’s. However, one common thread I’ve seen running through most of the videos of police abuse is that the victim gets mouthy with the cop; all too often dropping the f-bomb or some other expletive. Now I realize that in a free country, Officer Doughnut should just have to stand there and take it. But this isn’t a free country and it never really has been. When I was a kid growing up in the Communistwealth of Virginia we were taught that “cussing” (i.e. cursing) someone was considered verbal assault. I realize that this is not always the case, but too many videos of police brutality do show the victim escalating the situation by failing to exercise their right to remain silent. I’ve seen some obviously tight LEO’s get even more adamant and incensed when questions such as “Why am I being detained?”, “Am I free to go?” and “What crime am I suspected of?” are asked. But the cop or his supervisor usually ends up backing down if you’re in the right, polite and knowledgeable. You can be curt, professional and firm while getting your point across without groveling and absent the use of profanity. Profanity, unless used to punctuate a specific point or to evoke an emotional response, merely displays a lack of imagination.

            This brings me to the most important “prep” any of us can make: mental preparation. Knowledge, wisdom and imagination will go a long way to ensure not only surviving but thriving under any circumstances. Know your rights, know the law, know your environment, know your enemy and especially know your own limitations. Based on what I’ve seen when dealing with bureaucrats in any organization, be they gun-vernment, corporate or even “non-profit”, they usually aren’t too bright. There’s no reason at all that most of us that congregate here can’t outsmart them unless we’re just sloppy and lazy. The good news is that when the SHTF, many if not most of the weak and ill prepared (e.g. low level gun-vernment functionaries) will die off. When the smoke finally clears, there will probably be a whole lot less of them to deal with… at least for a while.

          • ” When the uninitiated question your beliefs and express skepticism about the Internet point them to books like The Creature From Jekyll Island, Lincoln Unmasked and Political Ponerology. ”

            Booth, If this isn’t trying to convert Clover I’m a Walrus.

            • Hey Scott,

              Part of the issue in re Clover (speaking generically) is that – in my opinion – a goodly number of them suffer from what is arguably the source of all human evil: The desire to control others. It’s not so much that they insist on obedience to their laws, their edicts (and so on) because – as they see it – some overall greater good is being served. If that were the case, facts that demonstrate the greater good is not being served would penetrate. I therefore conclude that at some level they simply enjoy forcing others to submit and obey. To do what they want them to do.

              There are plenty of examples to make the point. For example, the Clover in my most recent video who attempted to prevent me from passing him by increasing his speed to nearly 70 MPH – in a 45 zone. Clearly, “safety” was not his concern. Exerting his control was.

              We see this phenom on the political left and right. The conservative Republican who delights (you can see it in their eyes) in punishing people for their private vices (and vices are not crimes). The liberal Democrat who seethes with obvious hatred at the very thought of a responsible citizen owning a gun. Etc.

              These people are not right int he head. They are acting from malicious motives. It’s much more – and much worse – than mere political disagreement… .

          • Eric, I hope I’m replying at the right level here 🙂

            I think you accurately sum up the problem with Clover; he has a sociopathic desire to control others. I don’t know how it happens but some of my ex-friends exhibited the same characteristics and so have several coworkers. On the upside I’ve met several that have a demonstrated and *respected* talent to give good advice who absolutely refuse to “take the lead”. I would be honored to be among them and I’ve made it a life goal.

            If I were to reflect on the subject (and I have) I’d argue there’s a certain level of intelligence required to give truly free advice; advice that doesn’t come with an expectation the giver will he honored, revered and idolized in return. I think the best examples are folks who are very careful about giving any kind of advice or direction at all. I haven’t quite attained that level of wisdom myself.

            I’ve heard of “leading by example”. I’ve heard of “role models”. How can we “not lead” “by example”? The idea of a serious disagreement with Clover is repugnant; being drawn down to his level is a real threat to my self-mage. There must be a way to reach him?

            • Hi Scott,

              Clover deals, ultimately, in aggressive violence. The fist, the gun. Rarely the mind. Never simple persuasive reason, to be accepted or not on the soundness of the facts and logic.

              He is, at core, a bully. He is more often a cowardly one – in that he hides behind “the law” (and the ballot box) to get what he wants, to make others do as he wishes. But a bully nonetheless.

              I’ve found no viable way to deal with such except by making it clear you will not tolerate them attempting to dominate you (or take your things, etc.). That – if need be – you will defend yourself physically against their assaults.

              Unfortunately, it is the only language these people – and I use that term loosely – understand.

              One cannot reach a civil accommodation with people who are fundamentally violent. Who proceed on every level from a violent premise – that it is acceptable for some people to exert authority over others, not because they’ve caused harm to anyone – but just to control them.

              There’s an excellent layman’s psychological primer called “The Sociopath Next Door” (Stout). It points out that the Ted Bundy type is not typical, but that his mindset is far from atypical.

              This is merely my own opinion, but I believe that the small cohort who have intellectually (as well as ethically) embraced the NAP and self-ownership constitute a leading edge of human evolution; the tip of the proverbial spear. Unfortunately, the mass of humanity is still mired in the Ape Age (Chimp, rather than Bonobo) and while some are capable of “awakening,” or being “turned on,” the vast majority probably are not.

              It will take time to for the species to evolve.

          • “There must be a way to reach him?”

            I wonder if there’s a saying about sociopathic clover control freaks, sort of along these lines:

            You can’t fix stupid.
            You can lead a horse to water…

            Maybe: They have to learn the hard way?

          • Eric & DSF – I think then the fundamental difficulty is intelligence perhaps. Clover the cowardly lion isn’t confused, he’s just stupid? I could agree except for the fact I’ve met stupid people who are kind and considerate of others.

            Perhaps there’s a “band” of intelligence that’s particularly susceptible to Cloverism, say somewhere between 100 and 120 on the Stanford-Binet scale, smart enough to cause trouble but to stupid not to. This would suggest an ethical failure that could be reachable.

          • You’re traveling through another dimension — a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!

            You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You’ve just crossed over into… the Twilight Zone.

            There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call “The Twilight Zone”.

            scott, tongue in cheek concluded, at least for the moment, i favor this dimension. the daylight zone. though its true, that is also the one rod serling concerned himself with. “twilight” is just snappier.

            the distilled mash, that i’ve mentioned before, is that impressive intelligence quotient is less important than defective integrity quotient. hi-lo iq is very dangerous & lo-lo iq is very numerous/dangerous. let them have the see-saw (you have no choice, anyway).

            the iq that “matters” has to go into quotes because it is obviously closer to one of those platonic ideals. nature doesn’t select for it, except as something to be consumed by the teeter-totter gang. maybe picture it as the triangular fulcrum that the teeters & totters get their rides from.

          • Oz, let’s suppose what we have here is an education problem? Where are ethics taught in today’s educational environment? Certainly not in public schools, where defending yourself against a bully is cause for suspension and making a breakfast pastry sculpture that resembles a “gun” in the eyes of the administration is grounds for expulsion.

            I could theorize the entire concept of ethical behavior has been written out of public school education. The concept of just use of force is not taught, instead the idea there *is* no just use of force is imposed on children by authority, while the unjust use of force goes unpunished. Through intention or perhaps due to unrecognized unintended consequence submission without protest has been promoted in favor of ethical behavior.

            To understand the ethics of force, a person must first master the use of force. If a person is never capable of using force, he cannot be taught to use it ethically. This is the situation that’s been created by our public school system. Instead of teaching children the correct use of force, they are instead taught there *is no* correct use of force. I’ll argue that is the failure, and that is how we create the repressed untrained and unethical violence we find in Clover.

            It takes many years and much effort to learn to kill someone with your bare hands. By the time you posses the expertise needed to do it, you know longer have a desire to. Contrast this with the use of a gun; anyone with money can buy a gun. This is not an argument against guns, it’s an argument against training people in a way that leaves them completely incapable of using a gun ethically.

          • Dom, if you’d be kind enough to replace the word “know” with “no” in the sentence that reads “know longer have a desire to” I’d appreciate it.

    • @Mike – Mine have gone up over 100% in the past two years and I think you’re right about forcing people to Mama Government. California and Wyoming have published their “Bronze, Silver and Gold” plan premiums and they’re about half what I pay to Anthem Blue Cross right now, but just about the same as what I paid the year Congress passed the “Affordable Health Care” bill. So it’s one step forward, two steps back from a price perspective, the only difference being I can now enroll in Government Medical Insurance even though I have a “preexisting condition” (I’m old). Wow. You could bowl me over with a spoon.

      And will I get the same choices if I sign up for the “Gold” coverage they offer? No. Will I get to see the same doctors I saw before? No.

      So what happens? If I want to keep the same plan I had two years ago I’ll pay twice as much as I used to an my deductible will double. What a great deal this is! I’m so happy I can’t sit down strait.

  24. BTW. When I start seeing airbags in F1 cars I’ll seriously consider putting one in mine. Same goes for 5 mph bumpers and backup cameras.

    I think we can get away with complaining bitterly about junk they put on cars for “safety” that we can’t find on race cars.

    • “When I start seeing airbags in F1 cars I’ll seriously consider putting one in mine.”

      There ya go again, letting the technocrats take the lead.

      If they started putting zombie jaws of sharp teeth on the steering wheels and rattlesnakes on the brake pads of F1 cars – and showed studies saying it improved safety – would you do that too?

      • Letting technocrats take the lead? No, I was describing critera *I* would use when deciding to put an airbag in *my* car. You use whatever criteria you want to. I won’t make you do it and I’d like it if you didn’t make *me* do it. Capiche?

        Read what I wrote again. I don’t have an airbag in my 1985 928 (either one of them). I got one in my ’98 Audi A4, my 2000 Durango and my ’05 K3500 Silverado. As far as *I’m* concerned they’re all useless.

        Like I said, when they start putting them in track cars I’ll think about it.

        • Amen, Scott.

          That’s my position also.

          I put modern tires on my antique bikes. Not because I am required to. It’s a choice I freely made based on my own consideration of cost-benefit.

          That’s how it ought to be across the board.

          The idea that someone else – some other person – has the right to “instruct” me at gunpoint, to force me to do “x” – or else – is obnoxious in the extreme.

          And that’s what we’re talking about when “government” issues regulations, laws, mandates.

        • Scott wrote, “Like I said, when they start putting them in track cars I’ll think about it.”

          That’s exactly what I mean, you’re following what are proclaimed as “experts”. You’re letting – them – lead you. In clover’s situation, that’s the first step prior to when clover says, “Make everyone do it!”

          You wanted to know how to reach clover (something many think is impossible) well, perhaps the point to focus on is that step before clover says, “Make everyone do it!”

          What makes clover say that?

          He’s following the technocrats, the so-called experts. Just as you are.

          That’s why I asked if you would wear a rattlesnake necktie if the F1 drivers did too.
          If you wouldn’t, why not?
          They call people like clover ‘lemmings’ because they’d All rush out and get two colors of rattlesnakes for a tie if their favored technocrat told them it was for their own good. THEN (those that were still alive) they’d demand it became law for everyone else to wear one.

          You see? The hick-up isn’t so much at the point clover demands people do this, or that, it all begins when clover lets the technocrats lead the line of thought.

          What’s that old saying?
          I can’t recall it exactly, something like: let me get them to asking the right questions and we don’t have to worry about making them picking the wrong answers.

          It’s all also a bit like Garysco wrote down below, it’s as if we’re becoming a Designer Society created by a swarm of experts.
          The experts say get a flu shot.
          The experts say GMO’s are safe.
          The experts say a drone strike is limited.
          The experts say the cop was justified.
          The experts in F1 say to wear a seatbelt.

          This whole notion of doing things -and wanting to do them – because “the experts” do it too, is a big assed hangup, imho.
          It’s an example we should not be emulating. Again, jmho.

          I know some guys who race Toyota’s. They’ve been doing it since 1979 or so. Oftentimes the official Toyota “experts” have one way of doing things, the racers have a contrary way totally at odds with the Toyota “experts”. Do those racer guys let the Toyota “experts” lead their thinking? No.
          The racer guys could likely write their own manual on how to do things.

          Will the clovers of the world ever listen to the racers over that of the dictates of the Toyota “experts”? Imho, no, not ever.
          Put Coke in a motor? Are you crazy?

          That’s why people like that Russian Gulag guy said (I’m paraphrasing) “They’ll not learn until they are before the gates and the military boot is kicking them in their big fat bottom to get them into the camps.”

          …If even then?

          [Note: ya, seems like there’s some inconsistencies there, but that’s the best I can hash out on the fly. Make of it what you will. Expert this, expert that? Yeesh. Where do we go from here?]

          Also, please pardon my long windedness. I hope that was constructive. Good luck with swaying a clover to the Freedomista side. I’m done.

      • And on a similar note, I happen to think anyone who drives a British made car and *doesn’t* have a fire extinguisher close at hand is a fool.

        But that’s just me.

    • Hi Scott,

      For me – as a Libertarian trying to be intellectually and philosophically consistent – the issue isn’t the objective merit of a given thing (seatbelts, for example; or air bags). The issue is whether “Smith” has the right to force “Jones” to buy it and use it – or incorporate the item in the product he sells.

      I have no issue with seat belts or air bags, per se. They should be available (assuming enough people want them to make it economically viable in a free market) and people ought to be free to use them – or not – as they individually decide. Government – force – has no legitimate role.

      • Eric, after reading your columns for the past 4 years I’m pretty conversant on what you’re trying to do. My point was the seat belt argument isn’t the best way to recruit converts from the other side. I hope I explained why. It really was meant as constructive tactical criticism.

        • I get it, Scott.

          Just discussing…

          My point is that petty tyrannies are the worst because they set the precedent for not-so-petty ones.

          Put another way: Not-so-petty tyrannies are almost inconceivable without the ground having been laid via getting people acclimated to petty tyranny first.

          Can you imagine the average American of circa 1960 being told he must “buckle up” – at gunpoint?

          America has become a police state precisely because the police are now used to micromanage almost every last thing we do.

          The way to end it is to attack the idea that it’s ever proper for force to be used against a peaceful/harming no one else person in the name of his “safety” or “for his own good.”

          • Well I suppose if you’re trying to demonstrate the totality of control being sought by the Power Elite, seat belt laws are a good enough example for a car magazine but I’d pick the mandate to outlaw incandescent light bulbs myself; there’s a real piece of work.

            I just can’t wait for the Federal SWAT Team to show up on my doorstep to check my light bulbs. That will be a happy day.

            You never welcomed me back from South America. I’m sad 🙂

            • Yeah, but the key difference (incandescent bulbs. vs. seat belts) is precisely that – so far – they don’t actually enforce the former at gunpoint. Hence, it’s not a visceral example of run-amok authoritarianism.

          • America has become a police state precisely because the police are now used to micromanage almost every last thing we do.

            Exactly like the company town utopias the industrialists, robber barons, and bankers wanted a century plus ago. The difference is, today, because it is government, people accept it without seeing the tyranny it is. When it was the company and it was about keeping one’s job, people apparently resented it. Resented it so much the system collapsed, likely because it still depended on voluntary action. A person could decide the job wasn’t worth it and leave. But those who tried to impose their will on others didn’t give up. They changed how they would accomplish their goal.

          • Scott, Eric, re: Incandescent bulbs:
            You dropped the ball here.
            Because the gun is being pointed at the manufacturing company doesn’t mean there is no gun – nor that there is no enforcement.

            It is a back-door route to control same as gun registration is a backdoor to confiscation and onerous gun laws.

            See, you pass Obamacare – and now socialized medicine.
            then, with outlawing incandescent bulbs – you make it a public health question as to how MUCH light someone needs.
            Because these toxic POS bulbs, which you are supposed to call a HazMat team to cleanup from a breakage – they cause cataracts.
            So in the interest of “public health”, these people now need to limit their exposure –> limit after-dark (hard to observe) activities.
            And they’re “saving the planet” to boot.

            See that net? Same as the Liberals have been doing for ages, promise everyone what they want (free shit, gay marriage, “equal” rights, preferential treatment, lower taxes, better safety net – all of which play on the 7 Deadlies, BTW), deliver on enough to keep the scam going, and that Big Tent won’t collapse until they run out of other people’s money.

            They get the environmentalists (lower power use), the Clovers (it’s law, lower bills, whatever else), they get the manufacturers (incandescent bulbs have almost ZERO profit margin and are cheap and easy to make) who want a barrier to entry in “THEIR” field, they have the medical community on-board (more pain drugs, more prescriptiongs, more eye surgerys, all subsidized costs), AND, they strip us of resources (Health and wealth, in addition to “after hours” activities when THESE measures aren’t enough to feed the Power Usage [Enter smart meters to turn off your electricity when it’s “time for bed”]) – You’re inducing Prison USA, with no one seeing those links of the “web of fate,” if you will.


            Ever get the feeling you’re too smart for your own good?

            Scott – what is paranoid delusion today, is historic fact tomorrow – whether NSA spying, internment of Americans, US civil war, FEMA camps , Megacities – it’s HAPPENED, or IS HAPPENING. NOTHING is impossible if they “do it right.” It just requires pointing the gun at “someone else” – Don’t worry, we’re not after YOUR guns/cars/children, just the ones misused / UNSAFE / Abused by the crazies over there.

            Stop thinking direct linear progression – that’s not the game. It’s NOT A –> B –> C –> D …

            It’s a “random walk” model that gets you to an end game of total submission to the State. The State is Mother, the State is Father, All you Are, All you Have,, is gifted to you by the State.

            Domino Rally: Up the bridges, down the ramp, turn right, turn left, erect a building of dominoes with a single toggle, and the whole thing comes down, all to launch a toy rocket that in turn spreads out three NEW directions of dominoes…

            It’s a Rube Goldberg machine. BY DESIGN. With Redundant mechanisms, too.

            The ONLY real option is to RESIST, ETERNALLY. BE Lucifer: I WILL NOT SERVE. Otherwise, you’ve vacated the field of battle. Which means you’re really just a useful idiot… Sorry to say.

            (And I’m realizing, that includes ME, too. I’ve ignored SO MUCH, just since I’ve been able to vote, that it’s already a horror. Politically, we’re in Auschwitz.)

  25. Eric, I applaud the article but honestly think the seat belt story is a loser, not because I think seat belt laws are OK, they aren’t, but because its a weak example. Sure, they’re onerous. Sure, no one should tell me to wear one. But, frankly, I wear one all the time and tell my kids to, not because some moron in a blue suit tells me to, but because I race cars and I wouldn’t drive one without a seat belt. Before GM started putting seat belts in cars, I put them in myself. I don’t feel comfortable driving anything that doesn’t have a five point harness in it.

    I use oxygen in unpressurized aircraft over 12,000 feet because it’s a good idea, not because the FAA says so. Above 42,000 I wear an oxygen mask in pressurized cabins for the same reason. When I dive below 130 feet, I wear two tanks with completely independent primary regulators and an isolation manifold, not because someone makes me do it, but because it’s damned good way to stay alive.

    There are *engineering* arguments for doing these things. No, they shouldn’t be laws, but because there are good reasons to do them, using them as examples of abuse by government makes us look foolish and reckless; even irresponsible. We need to stick to complaining about stuff that’s actually stupid if we’re going to convince Clover we aren’t flat out loons.

    • Well fuck that take on things, Scott.

      By that reasoning, “I wear one all the time” do you use oxygen in unpressurized aircraft while sitting on the runway?

      Do you wear two tanks with completely independent primary regulators and an isolation manifold when you’re snorkeling in four feet of water?

      The last seatbelt ticket I got I was for driving under twenty miles an hour going from one parking lot to the next.

      Hey, if you wanna wear your four point harness at that speed, that’s fine. But to say the law has good reason here, and it’s an example of being foolish and reckless and irresponsible for not wearing a seatbelt at 1 M.P.H. is down right silly.

      You say, “There are *engineering* arguments for doing these things.”

      Ya, and there’s real world examples of people being decapitated because they were wearing their seatbelt too.

      In the end, you’re arguing the technocrat “experts” are to be obeyed and we should just let them run things, and principles be damned.
      Pardon me, that’s flat out stupid.

      And Good Day to you too.

      • DSF, I don’t switch to O2 until I get to about 10K but I put on my seat belt while I’m still on the runway. Its my choice. I don’t wear doubles in the bathtub, I think I mentioned the 130′ barrier? I actually use doubles for anything more than a casual stay below 90′, I get narced easily and I hate getting bent because I don’t have enough gas to get back to the surface safely when things get strange.

        I think I did say something about not making laws. The point was the weakness of the argument. I’m sorry you got busted for not wearing a seat belt, I think that’s wrong.

        The point is there are irritating abuses in the name of safety and there are down right *stupid* ones. Seat belts are in the former category, which takes them off the menu when you’re trying to convince anyone other than the enlightened that there’s a problem. If we want to harp at each other in an echo chamber we can talk seat belts; we all agree on that. Clover needs a bit more help.

        • You’re totally missing the point if you’re taking about, “O2 until I get to about 10K” . By your reasoning, you should be using it on the runway and you should have your seatbelt on when you’re sitting in the hanger at idle while going nowhere.

          There is no weakness in the argument.
          Only weakness in understanding. ..Or a desire for submission.

          I’ve known plenty of fellas who’ve died while wearing their seat belts.
          Some pretty ladies too.
          One even had on that fancy four point harness.
          It didn’t make a bit of difference they were wearing theirs.
          But some technocrat is going to come along and shove some statistics in people’s faces and say wearing a seat belt will make you safer and they’re going to make laws and force you wear one, even if the enforcement is dangerous to you, or even kills you.

          Never mind the fact that you don’t die of the bends if you don’t wear a seatbelt while driving at 100 M.P.H.

          Just never mind the fact that many people feel overly confident while wearing their seatbelts (especially young new drivers) and commit driving mistakes they wouldn’t do otherwise, some technocrat gave them statistics which said they were safer! So what better reason is there to give up your choice? Your liberty.

          I mean, certain factors and considerations never make their way into the statistics.
          Maybe that’s partly why there’s a saying, “There’s lies. There’s damn lies. Then there’s statistics.”?

          Ya, so maybe some people would be ok if the technocrats decided flying was just too dangerous and it should be outlawed?
          Maybe diving is too risky, so it’s outlawed too?
          And why the heck are people risking their lives in a Sport call racing? Maybe the technocrats outlaw that too?

          I mean, if it’s too dangerous to do these things without certain safety procedures, then maybe they’re just too dangerous for anybody to be doing and we can all just sit at home wrapped in bubble wrap while wearing a foam helmet.

          Yeesh, don’t you know more people die in bathtubs than from shark attacks?

          Got-damn, put on that foam helmet when you take a bath!

          …Oh wait, bathing should be outlawed too?
          Just a sponge for you!

          And down the slippery slope we go…

          a : the power to do as one pleases
          b : freedom from physical restraint
          c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
          d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
          e : the power of choice

          It doesn’t get any more basic than the above.
          A person doesn’t have to be enlightened to understand the basics.
          If the clovers of the world refuse to grasp those ideals,…

          “If ye love wealth better than liberty,
          the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
          We ask not your counsels or your arms.
          Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
          May your chains set lightly upon you,
          and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

          • @DownShift a question. Where does the concept of liability come in if someone’s actions, or failure to act, results in some form of harm or loss to another?

          • Dude, are you trying to bring people into your club or piss them off so you can feel good about shooting them?

            You need to make up your mind.

            • Speaking for myself here:

              The goal is to get as many people as possible to reject the notion that it’s ever ok – ethically acceptable – to do violence (or threaten to do it) except in self-defense against violence or its imminent threatened use.

              At some point, everyone must decide which side they are on.

              I have no issue with what any other person decides to do in and with his own life, provided he does no violence to others (or their property). I believe strongly in live – and let live. Whatever floats one’s boat, etc.

              But the moment someone starts telling me I must do “x” or that I “owe” them “help” or that it is “for my own good” or because “society’s needs” require it, they are my sworn enemy.

          • Gary, if a person, through direct action, harms another, they’re generally liable. You aren’t supposed to harm people, in fact defense is pretty much the only reason the use of lethal force is permitted. There are always circumstances that need to be considered (was it intentional, etc.) but you can’t really make a set of absolute laws about it. Courts are needed to sort out all the special circumstances. Societies that have tried to write them all down so the whole thing is automatic have always failed, look at the “three strikes your out” program California came up with; didn’t work well at all. Same thing happened centuries ago with Justinian’s Codex; failed miserably. I don’t think anyone’s come up with a way to replace a court.

            I’ll argue that failure to act, as a person with no contractual obligations, doesn’t produce liability. I may try to save your sorry butt if I can and I feel like it, but if I don’t, oh well.

            Negligence is a bit different. If I have a contract with you to protect your sorry butt, and I fail to perform, I’m liable to the extent described by the contract. Negligence arises from contract.

      • Copy that then the firearms regulation is equally “reasonable” then, right?????

        Let the camel get his nose under the tent and very soon the whole damned thing in in there with you.

        “The price of liberty is eternal vigilence”. Franklin

        I am soory if you can’t ge this. Some things may be a good idea and I would thank someone for pointing it out and probably use it, but I’ll be damned if I am going to let some brain dead goon force it on me because a small group of perople are so fixated upon controlling me they can’t begin to fix the things they are supposed to be doing. WTF!!!

        My point and example is the Rep. from Alabama Hank “Turn Over Guam” Johnson. This silly SOB thinks that you can build a Naval Base on Guam and the island will tip over and capsize. NFS!!! Check it out on YouTube.

        He and the rest of these dumb shits can just go piss up a rope. You need to see the Admiral’s face when he finally gets it out, sounds like he is zoned out on Smack and he has the junkie itch to be sure, watch this fool…. the Admiral almost looses it his face lights up and you can see him stifle himself, as Archie Bunker would say. The Admiral is a better man than me I would have been on the floor. What a real dunb ass and this is the kind of people who are telling me how I have to live my life… Hell No! O’l Hank is the poster child for every so called liberal out there, dumb as a box of hammers.

    • Hi Scott,

      I disagree. Mandatory buckle up laws are an excellent example because of their pettiness. If petty tyrannies are acceptable, people will accommodate themselves to not-so-petty ones. This is in fact exactly what’s happened.

      If the government can invade your personal space for this reason, there is no reason it cannot invade your personal space.

      Do you suppose it’s a coincidence that seat belt laws preceded things like probable cause-free “checkpoints” and TSA gropes?

      The principle in play is absolutely critical:

      My “safety” is no else’s got-damned business!

      The only legitimate reason for prior restraint – force applied against me – is when my actions entail harm to others. I threaten no one else by not wearing a seat belt. (And please, no arguments about how I can’t control the car if I’m knocked around the cabin in a wreck. I could also have a heart attack and lose control of the car. But the plain fact is not one out of 1,000 drivers has the skill to execute high-performance/evasive driving maneuvers, so this argument is specious. It’s also utilitarian – and I am arguing ethics.)

      • Eric, I understand the ideology, it’s the communication I’m talking about.

        Of course the seat belt law is a perfect example of petty tyranny, no argument. From an ideological perspective it stinks to high heaven. The problem is we’re (sorry, included you without permission) trying to recruit Clover, and Clover thinks seat belts are OK. I’m not Clover and even *I* think seat belts are OK.

        Real arguments can be made for wearing seat belts. Race drivers wear seat belts and there aren’t any federal laws that require them. We wear seat belts because it makes sense. They’ve become basic equipment. Arguing against them is pissing in the wind. Arguing against *forcing* people to use them is not, but the two issues are easily confused in the Clover mind.

        If we’re trying to convert Clover (and I sure hope we are) I suggest sticking to stuff that isn’t considered acceptable. Airbags are right up there; they’re relatively new, race drivers don’t use them and they kill people. I’m sure there are other good examples of State mandated Bullshit we can come up with. I just don’t think seat belts make a good platform anymore. That horse left the barn 30 years ago.

        • Clover’s hopeless, Scott.

          Beyond reaching. He doesn’t care about principles. Or rather, ours. His principles are at odds with ours.

          The people we can reach are precisely the people who can be shown that if it’s ok to point guns at people over their not wearing a seatbelt, there is no limit to what they can order us to do at gunpoint.

          The justification given is wearing a seatbelt is “safe” and “for your own good.” Well, so is eating a balanced diet. So is not getting fat. So is exercising at least three times a week. Shall we start pointing guns in people’s faces over those things, too? If not, why not?

          What’s the line in the sand? How do we define legitimate – vs. not-legitimate – interference in our lives?

          There are “real arguments” for exercising regularly; for not eating certain foods in excessive amounts; for countless things that can and do affect one’s “safety” – etc. I exercise fanatically. I can produce numerous “real arguments” – factual, objective ones – supporting my exercise regimen. Should I be able to force you to go for 5 mile runs every other day? To hit the gym 5 days a week? It would be good for you, after all.

          A person capable of being reasoned with will understand the logical argument. Clovers cannot be reasoned with; they are incapable of using logic.

          • Just try to make me run 5 miles a day, I dare you 🙂 (if I could, I would BTW).

            I’m sorry I misunderstood your intent, you have my apologies. Baring the educational purpose, seat belt laws are a great example, in fact I think the exposition above would (perhaps did) make a great argument for using it.

            I truly am disappointed you’ve given up on Clover. I think education and assimilation are our best strategies. If we can’t convince Clover, will we fight with him? That would not be my favored approach.

            You’re a man possessing an amazing ability with words. You can be very compelling, it’s a gift. I hope you use it wisely.

            • I won’t! (Remember, I’m a Libertarian… so it’s ok with me if you want to eat potato chips and watch fuuuhhhhtttttball all day long! Or do something else – so long as whatever you’re doing isn’t hurting anyone else.)

              Clover is damaged goods. We’ve (that’s me and others here) spent years patiently, reasonably, laying out factual, logical arguments – which he simply ignores.

              There are millions of such. Ayn Rand called them “anti-conceptual” mentalities. They seem unable – or are unwilling – to discuss anything in terms of principles, will not concede (or cannot see that) “A” implies “B.” For Clover – for his type – everything is subjective and particular. He feels. He does not think. If he does think, it is always in an ends-justifies-the-means manner. Hence his receptivity to “real reason” arguments – as opposed to principled ones. This is going to get me in all sorts of trouble, but Clover’s mind is a feminine mind.

              Because there are millions of such people, American society has become one in which “safety” (and other “real reasons”) trump everything; justify anything. In which the concept of self-ownership and all it implies (and requires) is not even discussed. The premise – for Clover – is always: Does it make him feel safe? Does it “help” people (as he defines help)? Is it “for their own good” (as he defines “good”). And so on.

              One can get easily lost – and lose ground, lose the argument – debating utilitarian points with a Clover.

              Therefore, one must always challenge him on principles. If he can point a gun at me (or have his proxies do so) in order to force me to “buckle up” in order to increase my “safety” then – by the same reasoning – I can force him to maintain an ideal body mass number by regular mandatory exercise and regular body-fat-at-gunpoint checks, too.

              The course of human events is determined – for good or ill – by perhaps 20 percent of the population. The remainder are merely along for the ride.

          • Eric, I’ll reiterate; I know who Clover is.

            My letter had to do with reaching the Clover mind. You’ve given up on that I assume. I’m sorry about that because that leaves violence as your only alternative and I cannot support that.

            I wish you peace.

            • Scott,

              Do you have a problem with self-defense? I don’t.

              I am probably one of the least aggressive, most retiring and laconic people you’d ever come across. I have zero/flat-lined/nada interest in controlling anyone else. But I am vociferous in my refusal to tolerate anyone attempting to control me.

              The last thing I want is violence. I hate violence. But if someone acts violently toward me, then what option is there but self-defense?

              I’ve told Clover repeatedly that I want nothing from him – except for him to leave me be (provided I’m causing neither him nor anyone else a provable, tangible injury).

              Is that asking too much?

            • There is no mind to reach, Scott. I truly wish there were.

              For more than four years now, I have tried to reach Clover. I have concluded it is hopeless – because not once has he acknowledged a factual point or accepted an irrefutable logical argument (viz, if it is acceptable to force people to wear seatbelts because it improves “safety” then why is it not also ok to force them to wear helmets? To outlaw motorcycles entirely? To require that people submit to regular body-mass-index checks? And so on. These are logically of a piece with mandatory buckle-up laws. If one is acceptable, so then are the others…. Clover will not directly answer the question. He ignores it and regurgitates over and over and over the same “good reason” arguments we’ve discussed previously…)

          • damaged goods + femininity, eric!?

            that’s the oldest bs, most heavily subsidized, spoonful-of-sugar easy to swallow copout in the book (all three of monotheism’s books, in the west, & who knows how many in the rest of the world). you hang onto this one (assuming its even a matter of choice), you are definitely caught-22. virile knowmonia is probably just as incurable as cloveritis…& i’m flashing on little buckyballs of malevolent symbiosis now “for some reason”….

            the eternal feminine attracts us higher. ~ goethe

            all the reasons of man cannot outweigh a single feeling of a woman. ~ voltaire

            even the wisest men make fools of themselves about women, and even the most foolish women are wise about men. ~ theodore reik

            a man’s womenfolk, whatever their outward show of respect for his merit & authority, always regard him secretly as an ass, & with something akin to pity. his most gaudy sayings & doings seldom deceive them; they see the actual man within, & know him for a shallow & pathetic fellow. in this fact, perhaps, lies one of the best proofs of feminine intelligence, or, as the common phrase makes it, feminine intuition. the mark of that so-called intuition is simply a sharp & accurate perception of reality, an habitual immunity to emotional enchantment, a relentless capacity for distinguishing clearly between the appearance & the substance. the appearance, in the normal family circle, is a hero, magnifico, a demigod. the substance is a poor mountebank.

            the proverb that no man is a hero to his valet is obviously of masculine manufacture. it is both insincere & untrue: insincere because it merely masks the egotistic doctrine that he is potentially a hero to everyone else, & untrue because a valet, being a fourth-rate man himself, is likely to be the last person in the world to penetrate his master’s charlatanry. who ever heard of a valet who didn’t envy his master wholeheartedly? who wouldn’t willingly change places with his master? who didn’t secretly wish that he was his master? a man’s wife labors under no such naive folly. she may envy her husband, true enough, certain of his more soothing prerogatives & sentimentalities. she may envy him his masculine liberty of movement & occupation, his impenetrable complacency, his peasant-like delight in petty vices, his capacity for hiding the harsh face of reality behind the cloak of romanticism, his general innocence & childishness. but she never envies him his puerile ego; she never envies him his shoddy & preposterous soul.

            this shrewd perception of masculine bombast & make-believe, this acute understanding of man as the eternal tragic comedian, is at the bottom of that compassionate irony which paces under the name of the maternal instinct. a woman wishes to mother a man simply because she sees into his helplessness, his need of an amiable environment, his touching self-delusion. that ironical note is not only daily apparent in real life; it sets the whole tone in feminine fiction. the woman novelist, if she be skillful enough to arise out of mere imitation into genuine self-expression, never takes her heroes quite seriously. from the day of george sand to the day of selma lagerlof she has always got into her character study a touch of superior aloofness, of ill-concealed derision. i can’t recall a single masculine figure created by a woman who is not, at bottom, a booby.

            ~ h.l. mencken, “in defense of women”, chapter 1, “the feminine mind”, page 1

          • @Gary – Why save Clover or change his mind? In a likely fruitless attempt to avoid war.

            Clover won’t leave us alone and I’m to old to go someplace else. I’ve spent the past two years searching for an island and I haven’t found one. There are places that are nice, I liked Buenos Aires for example. As a city it does pretty well, but I don’t like cities. Montevideo is beautiful and the people look happy, but it’s also a city. The town of Mendoza Argentina is culturally rich (translation; they make a damned fine bottle of wine) and you don’t see much in the way of a police presence. That’s a place I might be able to live.

            East of Santiago de Chile is nice country, not a lot of “social infrastructure” breathing down your neck. That could be a good place. There’s a great little town in Baja California Sur called Pescaderro, just south of Todos Santos that I could live if they just had water there 🙂

            But I’m old and a little tired. I’ve built my life here in the US and I’m proud of it. I figure my only hope now is to try converting Clover. I might have 15 years of life left, so I’ll try to keep him from screwing with me as best I can. So far I’m pretty sure I’m losing, but I keep hoping that I can find a lever long enough and a fulcrum strong enough to move the world.

          • @Scott said ” Why save Clover or change his mind? In a likely fruitless attempt to avoid war. ”

            Clover has no power to start or stop anything. His mission in life is to take his mom’s trash out and play on the computer in the basement. Makes him feel relevant. He contributes nothing constructive, but he can be pure entertainment value for the rest of us. 🙂

            That island you are looking for is in your mind. Or as the Alcoholics Anonymous group puts it “you can’t do a geographic and expect different results.”

      • @Eric – I am not my brother’s keeper, and neither are you. I can live with that. Jefferson and the boys missed one that should have been in there.

        • Amen, Gary!

          It’s cool (as I see it) to be “concerned” about other people’s actions/choices when they seem ill-advised, potentially harmful (to them). Provided that concern does not translate into force. Giving advice (even if not asked for; it might be taken as “none of your damn business!” – and very well might not be – but so long as no force is involved) acting via example – and so on – that’s all fine.

          The issue here is forcing others to do “x” because you think they should, for whatever reason. The utilitarian arguments are beside the point.

          Leave people alone unless they’ve harmed someone else.

    • It’s pushing it not to use oxygen until you have reached an altitude of 12,000 feet. For many people, trouble can set in very insidiously above 10,000 feet, which is the height you mention elsewhere, and if you put off using oxygen at that height you might not notice the warning signs of needing it.

  26. Well said, Eric, as long as the sheeple remain convinced that it matters who wins a football game or “American Idol” they’ll never unplug from the Matrix. I hope the slowly dawning realization of how we’ve been screwed reaches critical mass in my lifetime but I’m not optimistic, the brainwashing is just too pervasive.

    • PERVASIVE : existing in or spreading through every part of something.

      Ya know, Missouri doesn’t have the same gun laws as say, Massachusetts does.

      That indicates to me that even though we all live under the empire, the brainwashing is not exactly uniformly pervasive.

      …Maybe that’s something to be optimistic about?
      Depending on where you are?

      Especially if you look at this lovely map (add a dash of knowing about The-Crack-Up-Boom) and consider a variation there of:


    • @Mike in Boston – Lots of people are waking up and beginning to understand something is wrong. It is what they choose next that will determine our collective national future. The same elites have prepared a place for them to go, and it is full of more blue pills.

    • Thanks, Mike –

      My sense of things is that the pace of events is picking up. Technology is a factor. What took 70 years to take place in Soviet Russia is happening much more quickly here. Both the transformation into an authoritarian state and the likely – in my opinion – collapse due to its own grotesque and obvious corruption (as well as its economic bankruptcy) will also, I believe, occur in fast-forward time.

      I believe that the world will be profoundly different within 10 years. It may get extremely bad first. But afterward, we will have a chance to rebuild a sane society.

  27. We live in a world where the masses are the tools of the elite, the controls are taxes, debt, consumerism, marketing, leveraged jealously, class warfare and false political dichotomy. Once you see this, it is over, you can’t ever go back, just like Neo in the Matrix movie, take the red pill and you have made a permanent choice. Then you are besieged by the Sentinels sent by “The Machine”.

    Then you have something interesting to contend with, the people around you are popping blue pills daily. Most people hear blue pill and think of viagra, though it wasn’t popular when the story was created. The most famous blue pill at the time the matrix was written, was, Valium. Think about that!

    • I overheard some old ladies joking with one another today.
      One said to another in an affectionate way, “Oh, you’re such a pill.”
      …Or something like that.
      They laughed.
      That phrase once had a meaning to that generation which I didn’t fully understand.
      I’ve heard references to it before, but it’s meaning wasn’t clear to me.
      Were they talking about a drug pill, or was there something called a pil on cloth?
      I wondered, how did they visualize it, or what meaning did they assign to the term?
      It was just vague to me.
      Were they just calling each other, ‘dorks’ or ‘clueless’?

      When people today take Valium or Viagra, or the blue pill of The Matrix, those people become The Pill.

      Yeah, what you wrote is something to think about, Garysco.

  28. Personally, I believe we’re screwed. Good chance that once WW3 gets kicked off, I will be scheduled for pickup and extermination. Should that happen, I’ll take as many of them with me as I can. I don’t expect family, friends, or neighbors to help.

    • z, it’s that very attitude–“I’ll take as many of them with me as I can”–that will prevent them from coming in the first place.

      That, and your HK91/AR-15/M1 Garand.

      I think, almost daily, about how and why I will resist in the most extreme case…to mentally prepare myself. I talk to my kid’s godparents–my very dear friends–about what to do if that time comes. My kids will be OK…and if it happens, they’ll have the proud memory that their father stood against tyranny.

      It sounds hollow when I’m still paying into the very system trying to kill them; but it’s a practical balance. The money I pay in taxes is largely wasted; but the excess I earn I can plow back into Ron Paul’s campaign, Eric Peter’s site, LewRockwell.com, Gun Owners of America, Alex Jones, etc etc.

      And those organizations take my pittance and use it 1,000 times as effectively as the tyrants.

      They might launch WW3. But with your attitude–you’ll survive.

  29. @Eric – How were you able to define the last 50+ years of the Great American Lemming Culture is just 1,344 words? Well done bro.

    How to have a young male population spend over a billion dollars of after tax income in three days, and untold hours of their lives in a dark room, on a computer generated virtual world of gross and complete violence, death, mayhem and female rape, but are afraid to go outdoors and touch a wet toad, put a knife to a dead animal carcass, or master a drain plug and five quarts of oil. (yes I know, run-on sentence)

    It is in instilled fear from early childhood or disbelief, or simply does not matter to them, that a “government” is not a divine entity, but simply a group of humans that can be fired and their past work undone.

    • Here’s a look into the “computer generated virtual world of gross and complete violence, death, mayhem and female rape”

      Grand Theft Autistic Walkthru and Commentary

    • Hey now I have a computer game… I use a PS3 with a move module so I can set up the controlers in the skeleton weapons frames and do point shooting practice. It is cheaper than ammo right now. The recticle moves with the controlers and you have to be on target to get a score as well as avoid the Tangos hitting you.

      Very good weapons drill, of course i only play un connected from the net. I am not a moron, just a good shot.

    • Whining someone took away your “man card”? It sounds as though you’re instead of waiting the mailbox forever waiting for your “special l’il snowflake card”.Clover

      • Gil – Good to see you’re still trolling from your mama’s basement. Where you been? Out looking to score a little ditch weed were you? I guess one thing’s self evident: You don’t have to worry about losing your “man card” or your manhood do you?. One cannot lose that which one never had, now can they? By the way Gil, what is it that you do for a living again? Still don’t have a job? Tch-tch.

        • Oh, be nice to Gillyweed. 😉
          Half the population doesn’t have a job right now.

          And there’s only so much granny-pron to be sold online…


  30. At least one l’il Georgia Peach ain’t let ’em emo-sculate her yet.

    Schooling and ruling’s about getting a man sitting on his can, cutting the mojo flow, indoctrinating, pontificating, detooling, fooling, and keeping you drooling.

    Roar – Riley Biederer

    National Anthem At Turner Field – Riley Biederer

    Stay – Riley Biederer

      • Sure can Ed. Just a li’l liberty potlucking to sustenance ya thru the endless emaskschoolization!

        2013 Dos Mares 500 – Poca Madre

        2013 San Felipe 250 – Chingon Ese

        • Oh mang, Tor. I bet those Baja videos are cool as all get out, just from seeing the opening screenshot.

          It’s tempting to just go there.
          Especially after reading something like this, from, Court Invisibility To Subvert The Ruling Class:

          “You can’t fight the state using the methods of the state.

          Your goal should be the exact opposite. Not to gain prominence. But to abjure it.

          To vanish. To disappear. And to take the handful who can still see you, along with you, when you disappear. First, imaginatively. Then, literally.

          Your goal is to join the invisibility that clings to the dark underbelly of the public realm… join it and keep joining it…so that it increases, drop by drop – a pool of inchoate truth seeping out from under the steel girders of bureaucracy and ideology.” …


          …Or, even though it’s not quite the same, I could just go hang out at the mud racing field up the road a ways?

    • Dear Tor,

      Your info about Monarch Programming was so persuasive I now check every female vocalist for butterfly tattoos!

      Ms. Biederer had none that I could discern.

      Hopefully she does not have a “666” birthmark on her scalp, hidden by her hair.


      • The programming will eventually be just another thing that “everybody knows.”

        Everybody Knows – Leonard Cohen

        Leonard Cohen – Here it is

        Leonard Cohen – The Gypsy’s Wife

  31. A lot of what’s going on in our country…..if not the world…..is just human stupidity. Add in a dose of a few government sociopaths and you get our new Amurrica. EVERY study on firearms (recently Harvard) proves the same thing……”GUNS SAVES LIVES”. Guns are a direct threat to a sociopath or tyrant and nothing more. This is why they hate personal firearm ownership and freedom of speech.

    These same Bolsheviks types mass murdered 20-80 million with these same slogans and they’re trying it all over again. You only need to change the century….1913 to 2013.

    • JoePA – Isn’t it interesting how social / political cycles run at about 80 – 100 years. As Strass & Howe point out, these Fourth Turnings occur on about the same frequency as long human lives. As Mark Twain allegedly pointed out, “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” The actors, their uniforms and geographic locations will be slightly different this time around. Technology will provide new and innovative ways for them to snoop, torture and murder. The players will call their groups by different names, but the end results will probably be the same; bloodshed, destruction and chaos in various places around the world until those that remain extant get disgusted and quit. Within a generation, they will have forgotten the horrors of war, the lies of the powers that be and grind of the boot of tyranny. They’ll be ready to march off “for God and country” and make it rhyme all over again I fear.

      • Boothe–

        I’ve said before but I’m a man of limited thoughts so I’ll repeat it for lack of a new thought 🙂

        It’s not a pendulum. It’s more like a bouncing ball; the ground state is human freedom. It’s our natural right, our natural state, and we yearn for it consciously, subconsciously, unconsciously. The ball bounces off freedom and arcs upward into tyranny; but each time it bounces, the arcs of tyranny are shorter.

        Eventually, it will settle to ground–liberty.

        I sense a metaphysical, a spiritual, change in the air. It’s a Jungian feeling, a gestalt; a giant shift with a growing awakening that seems to be transmitted by osmosis or telepathy.

        I’m hoping that THIS ONE is the cycle that completes what we started in the Reformation/Renaissance, partially realized in the American Revolution, and will fully materialize in this round. The realization that humanity has been dominated by a sub-species–the sociopath.

        No more. We’re done, we’re finished being dominated by a diseased minority that retard, predate, and parasitize the productive and cooperative.

        It’s a strange dichotomy that, while formalized collectivism is the greatest evil for mankind, voluntary cooperation is our greatest strength.

        But it doesn’t mean we can be complacent–now is the time to exert ourselves most! We’ve talked about “tipping point” theory here before. We’re at the tipping point; Stage 3, “they they fight you”. If we all push in our own little ways, “they you win” will come.

        I will not pay for Obamacare; I will not submit for “approval” of my coverage, and I will not pay the IRS fines. If it looks like they’ll come for me, we’ll leave. I have several absolute lines in the sand–can’t have my kids, can’t have my guns, can’t force me to vaccinate or medicate my kids…and can’t force me to sign on to an illegitimate medical system.

        I urge all of you to read a blogger I discovered yesterday–his message of hope, and his defamation of the parasites-in-power, is awesome!


  32. Great one, Eric. And right on. I am seeing more and more people coming to understand this. We can only hope there are enough to form a remnant that can survive and grow into truly independent people, living in voluntary association.

    Did you ever ask a politician, a gun grabber, a public school teacher, a bureaucrat… “By what legitimate authority do you demand, order, enforce, do these things?”

    I have. Most, of course, cite the “constitution” and/or “the rule of law.” I then ask them how those things can confer LEGITIMATE authority. Where does legitimate authority over people’s lives and property originate?

    So far, NONE of them can answer that, and most become extremely angry when questioned at all. Yet I would think that is the most important question we can ask.

    And it’s the most important question we can ask ourselves. Do we own our lives, or have we given our sovereign and natural authority over ourselves to the rulers and politicians?

    Those who have freely consented to be controlled by the constitution and the layers of ruling class and bureaucracy it created do not need my permission or my blessing. They are free to do so. The problem is that they feel equally or even especially free to impose that on me, even though I have NOT consented to be so ruled. By their own words, they must have the “consent of the governed,” but not one of them is willing to entertain the fact that not consenting -simply opting out – is possible.

    Ask the question. Ask yourself first. Act accordingly.

    • Dear ML,

      This is exactly the level at which the questioning of the Myth of Authority must take place.

      It is primarily an internal process for each individual — a “reality check” to confirm for oneself that:

      No, I am under no obligation whatsoever to obey those who have formed a gang, named their gang “The Government,” and started barking out orders, calling them “laws,” and demanding money, calling it “taxes.”

      When a critical mass of people in any geographical region come to realize this, the long con known as “government” has been exposed, and the game is over.

      There are no “additional” steps that need to be taken. No “revolution” to be waged. No Bastille to be stormed. This is essentially the entire process.

      • I like the critical mass concept. Revelations says that there are locust that are sent out upon the earth and are commanded no to hurt any green thing. They have the faces of men, the hair of women and the sting of scorpions in their tails. Their power is to torement men for five months. On a bit deeper research I find the 666 The Mark, is the amount of oppressive tribute that the king of Israel demande from the people. When his successor demanded even more, “I will make my little finger thicker than my fathe’s thigh. My father scourged you with ehips but I shall scourge you with sorpions”. He sent out his tax collector and the people stoned him to death. Israel, the northern 10 tribes brole away and formed their own country. Thus Judea and Israel were seperate and Israel has been in rebellion to Judah to this day, I Kings 10-12.

        My point here is the story repeats itself. And it takes 5 months of work for a man to pay his collective tax bill. That is when the insanity becomes apparent and people begin to question why. David’s sin which he was never forgiven for was “numbering Israel”. Not the death of Uriah, taking of his wife, it was assigning a number to the people to keep track of them. Soloman turned the temple tax to a yearly mandate and used the tribute to build his empire. His son thought to increase his power and wealth and the rebellion was on. 666 is “his number, his numbe or the number of his name”. It si not the number of the Boogeyman, it is the mark that the government places on your name. The Beast which thou sawest are kingdoms…” Daniel.

        So can you tell me what the number of your name is???? If you guessed the SSN you’d be right. Did you know participation is voluntary??? You do not have to have one but if you want one you must request one. This is from a letter from HHS to me from the Secratary of Health and Human Services. I was refused work because I would not give them one. I won the action that I began myself. The attorney tried every thing he could to counter this and he could not find it. he was the president of the state bar association and I a lowly Pro se litigant. I tried to get this out in 1985 no one cared. It hadn’t reached critical mass yet…..

    • Thanks, Mama!

      Per Meth, I believe we are getting traction. The pace of events is picking up. It’s either going to go one way – or the other. I see no maintenance of the status quo – because it’s gone beyond that now. We’re either going to be living under an absolute tyranny within ten years – perhaps two, perhaps less than that – or we are going to see a major shift back toward sanity and freedom. It may be the first will be necessary – a cleansing, if you like – before we can get to the second.

      If so, so be it.

      • Absolutely… so be it.

        But I can assure you there will be no consensus on it, no mass movements of any kind, really. Whatever happens will be done by individuals, and their voluntary associations and communities. One of the saddest things over the last few years is seeing so many people waiting for another messiah, a “leader,” something or someone central to emulate, rather than just BEING a self owning, self responsible person in the here and now, regardless of what anyone else is doing or thinks.

        The total tyranny may well strike NYC or Chicago, but isn’t going to influence the little towns in the back woods much. So. California may finally drop off into the Pacific, but the good folks in northern Nevada and NE Wyoming won’t be swimming with them. There will be parts of most states involved, probably, and vast areas where the chaos in the big cities will simply be bad news. There will never be a “one size fits all” situation or answer.

        The worst part is that those communities will probably find themselves on their own, cut off from much they depend to be brought in from other places. They’ll be unable to ship out their own products, and probably have to deal with electric outages and so forth. But that won’t last forever. With the least incentive, and some time, human beings will find a way to live, trade and learn. We’ve been doing that for all of recorded history, regardless of the insanity of a few – and the roadblocks they throw up.

        Those who have provided alternatives for themselves and their communities, who have a store of food, etc… and the means to defend them… those people will have a good chance to be the remnant I was talking about.

        Neither the feds, nor any other “law enforcement” outfit, even begins to have the manpower necessary to do much about it, once the SHTF. The deer hunters in the US ALONE outnumber the regular armies of most countries in the world.

        We have to get over this fear of “THEM.” We outnumber THEM, seriously, every single day and hour. And they know it.

        I believe in humanity. I believe in myself. I believe in YOU as well, and our ultimate ability to survive and even thrive.

        • Quite right MamaLiberty, I believe in YOU as well. It comes down to faith, belief, creating your own reality and associating with like minder people to edify our beliefs. In my reality I don’t need enforcers, bureaucrats or any other gun-vernment agents eating out my substance or controlling me. So I studiously avoid them and when I am forced to deal with one of them I politely raise points of truth that make them think, and question their own beliefs and therefore take them out of their comfort zone. I do the same thing with clergy and lay members of the organized church. Yes, they get angry. But you never know when or where the seeds of truth and Liberty may germinate. It only takes a few and the remnant is no majority by any means and never has been.

          • Here in Australia, those bureaucrats you actually encounter are mostly aware that the system is broken and do try to help you find ways to work around it if you don’t antagonise them; they aren’t the mindlessly rote oriented “babus” that emerged in India. The police more often start with the idea that it is their job to force you to fit rules that they can sidestep themselves, but even some of them are helpful like that. The problems mostly come from the bureaucrats and politicians who are further up and out of touch and keep making constantly changing rules that it is hard to keep up with even if you try – they have Canberraitis.

          • “bureaucrats you actually encounter are mostly aware that the system is broken and do try to help you find ways to work around it if you don’t antagonise them”

            Yeah. That’s a very foreign notion. I almost can’t comprehend it.

            And this part too, more-so:

            “The police more often start with the idea that it is their job to force you to fit rules that they can sidestep themselves, but even some of them are helpful like that. ”

            Here’s an American version:

            It Won’t Stay in Vegas: The Metro PD’s Homeland Security Theater


  33. At the end of the day, the jackals (enforcers) will take that attitude. But the attitude of the representatives sent to Washington as “leaders” take a different and even more disturbing tack: “We know more than you, and we’ll make sure things work smoothly.” Of course they require you to bow down before them. If you won’t, maybe you just need a little “encouragement.”

    Of course no where in the Constitution does it say anything about government running smoothly. In fact, Jefferson’s genius was intentionally putting hard coded roadblocks into place in order to force deliberation. The founders had seen what happened when political mobs ran the show and only had to convince the “king” (likely just a few underlings) to get things done.

    PS: Eric I love the Al Franken baby picture. The Internet can’t get over the fact that it’s a fake, but that’s not the point. Photoshop is just another tool for political cartoons.

    • As much as I respect what the Constitution WAS the fact remains that it’s merely a piece of paper and no government will let a long dead tree get in the way of what it wants. It’ll interpret it as it wishes when it wishes for whatever reason. You? You’re to believe this fantasy instilled from an early age that this sad charade is true and noble while forking over your blood and treasure. I used to believe but like the Bible says I put away childish things and so am no longer a child.

      • MoT, it’s not a dead tree.

        I’ve read that the Constitution of the United Stated of America was written on hemp paper.

        One MORE reason to legalize it, to honor our history.

        God bless Anerica!

        Please pray for me, a sinner, and for our republic. Amen


      • Well if you reference the Bible here you should know that the people chose a King once to be over them. Samuel 8 tells us what happens when you allow that sort of thing. Eventually I Kings 10-12 tells what happens when the people filally realize their mistake and right the wrongs, 666 is just oppressive tribute. God relented to the people’s demands, they had rejected Him. He equally accepted them back when they corrected their mistake. “Israel was justified because Judah had created an abomination”. The point here Lincoln made:

        “The people are the rightful masters of the courts and the legislature, not to overthrow the Constitution but those men who pervert it.”

        It is the people’s duty to do this, not some idiot congressman, not some governor ortheFBI it is the people. If you cannnot see this you have given up and given your power away like so many other. After all, “Who can make war with the beast”. It is the defeatist mindset that destroys a people. The defeat of their mental presance to see their way out of a situation and that is what we are fighting, not flesh and blood by “spiritual wickedness in high places”. SO you want to use your Bible as an excuse to cringe and give up with but I tell you it was given so that a people who find the inner strenght to face adversity will never be defeated even if they die. Isn’t this the message of Jesus eternal life???

        Win loose or draw, I will not bow myself to another man. God is my friend, my hope, my salvation and my rock. He is my shiled and teaches my hand to war. He is the sharp spear of the assault and the sword by which my enemies perish. “Cursed is he who doith the work of the Lord deceitfully and cursed is he who withholds his sword from blood.” Jerimiah 48:10


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here