Ebola and Libertarianism

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Deadly viruses are horrible, but natural at least. It’s silly to get angry at nature. Government is horrible and deadly – and entirely unnatural. The harm it causes is animated, created by other people – the sicko control freaks who operate the apparatus of the government, who think nothing of disposing of other people’s lives, their bromides assuring us of their “good intentions” notwithstanding. It is entirely reasonable to get angry at other people who cause harm. Who choose to cause harm. ebola virus pic

As you ponder the Ebola Thing, consider the way government – the sicko control freaks just described – toy with our lives. The way they blithely decide the degree of “acceptable” risk, Ebola-wise and otherwise. The glib, from-the-mountaintop way they force others to assume risks – potentially lethal  – against their own better judgment.

A privately owned airline, for example, is not allowed to suspend flights to – well, anywhere. Government will “step in” and tell the airline where it may (and may not) fly. Similarly, the airline may not adopt protocols its owners deem prudent to assure the health and safety of its customers. These protocols are dictated to the airline by the government. The airlines have no real choice – and neither do you.

Did you read about the Honda air bag recall? Defective air bags are exploding – and sending shrapnel into the faces of victims – who were forced to buy the air bags. Because other people – those in government – decided the risk was “acceptable.”

It’s the damnedest thing.

The facade of “private” property. The actuality of government ownership. Of everything. Literally. Can you name a single thing that the government does not control? Is it your own body? Your car? Your business? Your interactions with other people – however non-violent?

No. There is nothing – not even your naked body – that the government hasn’t asserted ownership rights over. To control and dispose of as it sees fit.government disease

Which is what owners get to do.

We “the people” are merely convenient servants. Stewards. House niggers (and field niggers, too). We get to work the land, but do not own it. We are allowed in the house. But it’s not really ours.

We do as we are told and – for a while, under certain conditions – we may perhaps use the item in question.

The people do not see this because they are allowed various petty choices within the context of absolute government control. For example, a Chevy rather than a Ford. But they are not allowed to go and build a car of their own design and offer it for sale to others who are free to buy it. Look at any thing you can imagine on the stage of human events and ask yourself: Am I free to do as I please?

The answer, of course, is no.government pic

This matrix is hard to see precisely because it is so all-encompassing and because we all grow up within its confines and are conditioned to accept its assumptions. It is taken as a subconsciously ingrained reflex that this secular deity called “government” (as opposed to “just other people,” which would be a much harder sell) has the right to order us about. Where this right came from – and what precisely is meant by “government” – are questions deliberately obfuscated by doing everything to assure they’re rarely, if ever, asked. This is the source of the power of the red-blue/left-right paradigm. Each side implicitly agrees on the essential thing – the right of some to control others, using violence or its threat. The arguments are only about (per Lenin) who will do what to whom.

The moment those questions are asked, however, is a moment of revelation for the asker – and a moment of tremendous danger for these diseased others who would have us believe (and never question) their natural right to lord it over us. Who purvey the outrageous effrontery that we have consented to be lorded over by them.

Which is why these others do anything and everything conceivable to fracture their victims’ minds, to prevent them from ever beginning to think systematically – conceptually. To keep them in state of infantile paralysis, in terms of the development of their minds. Functional – in the German Shepard sense that they can be trained and are able to master various skills, which they (those in power) require in order to keep their machine humming along. But to never become truly conscious, aware of themselves as sovereign individuals – and by dint of that, respectful of the equal rights of other human beings as sovereign individuals.  mind control pic

Once that realization dawns, the psychologically normal individual can never again entertain the idea of controlling other people. The thought becomes as loathsome as cannibalism.

Which is appropriate, given it amounts to the same thing.

Most people are simply “asleep at the wheel” and have never thought along these lines – because they have not been trained in the habit of thinking.

It is the task of those who are awake to awaken our fellows. To alert them to the deadly threat. Which is not Ebola – or any other natural thing.

Thinking minds can cope with such things.

Which is why government – the creatures hiding behind its cloak – will do whatever is necessary to keep people asleep, from ever asking such dangerous questions.

 If you’ve enjoyed what you’ve found here, please support EPautos.com. We depend on you, the readers, to keep the wheels turning.

Our donate button is here.

If you prefer to avoid PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079


  1. Your Gravatar is an image that follows you from site to site appearing beside your name when you do things like comment or post on a blog. Avatars help identify your posts on blogs and web forums, so why not on any site?

    A Globally Recognized Avatar

    How to Sign Up for an Account

    Getting started with Gravatar is easy; you’ll need to have a WordPress.com account[which you probably do if you’re a registered user here] and then authorize that account to connect to Gravatar.

    On the Gravatar home page, click on the Sign In button at the top-right of your browser window.

    If you need to sign up for a new account, please enter your email address (use the same one you’ve used here; make sure this is correct), and select a username and a password. The system will tell you if any of the information you are entering is invalid. Click Sign Up to submit your registration.

  2. moleman, I think you need to head over to gravatar and create your icon there. at least I did. also it appears the source code for bevin’s icon is from gravatar. [I had to remove the first “greater than” symbol so the coding would show up here]

    Bevin’s avatar code:
    [greater than symbol goes here]img alt=”” src=”http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/758686d9f08c702e18b781952c639007?s=32&d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D32&r=X” class=”avatar avatar-32 photo” height=”32″ width=”32″>

      • Moleman,
        Just go to gravatar.com and register a pic with the same email you’ve used here, that should do it. I did.
        I should have a pic now.

        • I probably acquired that gravatar when I added a pic to my WordPress blog.

          Apparently it automatically tags along with you elsewhere. It shows up on my YT and FB posts too.

  3. OK, Clover –
    You claim that speed limits, seatbelt/safety-seat/helmet laws, e.g., are necessary for saaaaaaaaafety. And that enforcing, or just checking on, these ‘laws’ does not involve violence. Eric has tried to explain to you – numerous times – that these stops involve at least the threat of violence.
    So answer me this – what principle of safety is involved in HOV lanes? How is anyone endangered if I drive in one of these sacred lanes w/o a passenger with me? Yet if a LEO spots me, he will stop me, write a $500 ticket, and put points on my driving record that will increase the cost of my legally mandated insurance.
    And if I refuse to stop, said LEO WILL initiate violence against me.
    You really are ‘Clueless.’

    • @Moleman – I think it is even worse then that. A clover called the Cal Highway Patrol today and they put out a call that there was a Chevy Subrban getting gas and that it had snow on its roof. Clover thought that was unsafe for others on the road and wanted the CHP to do something about it.

    • Hi Mole,

      We use that external/download it yourself deal. Dom knows how… I’ll drop him a line. (FYI: I’ve had to scale back on asking for Dom’s technical support here because I can’t afford to pay him much anymore.)

      • Hey, Eric!

        Thanks- but don’t bother anyone for such a trivial thing…I’ll figger it out! (Maybe Bevin can clue me in- he seems to have one). I just HAVE to use a pic of the Simpsons character “Hans Moleman” [my namesake!]

    • So what country does that coach live in? I’d love to live in a free country too! (Sports people are not usually very bright- unless they’re Jews, like the late Howard Cosell or Bill Mazer….)

  4. Here’s a Constitution Club that includes a Larken Rose section.

    If there’s really a way to beat them at their own game… I prefer the type that throw Larken in the mix.

    How do I opt out of Obamacare for example. What common law pleadings do I use. I am interested.

    Even if some number of people are winning battles in court or using common law to their advantage.

    The problem is, government is engulfing everything. They’ve nationalized the Internet. Health Care.

    There’s nothing really that they’re not sticking there nose in further and deeper with greater effect.

    They’re all around you, you need to have an immune system, and develop immunity to each and every instance of statist infections. No different than the countless competitive micro-organisms we all must endure.

    The only way I see of beating them, is to totally ignore them. Muslims do it. Fundamentalist Christians do it. Amish do it. The Jews do it, and even got funding for 6 million of them in their own nation. The 8 million here are all thriving also, and they could care less about “meriKuh” god love ’em.

    Rather than try to refute statists, why not just give them a blank look and say, I have no idea what you’re talking about. From my perspective, sometimes a guy in a uniform does things to me against my will, but I have no idea why it’s being done. No more than I know what’s in the mind of any other predatory mammal.

    I pay money to my Statist Compliance Service and that’s the end of it. I know nothing about them.

    I’m actually interested in Alien Law, History, Economy, and Technology. Anything you try to communicate about state religion, institutional religion, institutions, is completely lost on me.

    Now bugger off you collectivists, It’s the high holidays on Tau Ceti E, and I need to finish constructing my celebrational wormhole. http://www.hpcf.upr.edu/~abel/phl/HEC_All_Distance.jpg

    • Yeah, that common-law crap is a joke. They spend a lot of time in jail and court, pleading for their rights before unjust judges. Meanwhile, the state does not even abide by their own constitution and written law codes…they certainly don’t abide by common law.

      Sure, one of ’em will win once in blue moon, by fluke or coincidence or because they get the rare sympathetic/moral judge- but they seem to spend most of their time explaining why they DIDN’T win- “Oh, if I would have just not capitalized that “T” and would have said abracadabra while holding a wet thumb in the air…”.

      The first step in procuring liberty/your rights, is remain free- i.e. not in jail or court. And the best way to do that, is to avoid their system as much as possible, and to know the things that attract there enforcers (like having home-made license plates), and avoid them.

      Illegal aliens seem to fare much better than us citizens. We might be better off go9ing somewhere and renouncing US citizenship, and then coming back illegally! (But if I left, I just wouldn’t come back).

      Back in NY, I sold a car to these Mexicans. They just hopped in and were going to drive it away- no plates or nothing [They’d crucify ya in NY for that) I told them “:Go that way [to the right] as the fuzz was to the left, making sure people “complied” with the new stop signs. If they see a car with no plates…dum-DEE-dum-dum”.

      What do they do? They go left- had to drive right past the fuzz.

      I drove through the assembly of donut-eaters 15 minutes later, expecting to see the car i had just sold on the side of the road, waiting for a PD tow-truck for impound….but there was no sight of it or them- they sailed right through…but sure enough, they had a soccer mom and a 70-something year-old in a Cadillac pulled over…..

      • Moleman, depending on the state a person typically has 10 days to 6 months to get plates after purchasing a car. If the cops had stopped them it would have been quickly proven they had just purchased the car and would be on their way.

        California is six months. The story is that Steve Jobs would go to the Mercedes dealer every 6 months and trade in his car for an identical one. This how he drove without having plates.

        The system has holes in it where we can be ‘free’ at great cost. I often think they exist for the sake of argument because they cannot be exploited unless a person is willing to live in complete poverty or has a lot of money to burn. This way when ordinary people complain they can be shut down with a form of the love it or leave it argument. And since these are requirements, it’s not really freedom at all, should we chose it.

        • Yeah, that’s true, Brent. You see how the uber-police-state gets ingrained in our minds?!

          In NY though, you don’t dare drive a car with no plates; and no registration sticker and inspection sticker on the windshield….first cop that sees ya, will pull you over and impound the car. [Not to mention, no insurance!] -You or I would lose our car, and get so many tickets…and probably be put in jail…..only the illegals can get away with something like that.

          But you’re right- when I bought my first KY. vehicle after moving here, I called the county clerk to learn the proper goose-steps, and she said drive it on over. I said “It doesn’t have any plates”. She said “That’s O-K, if you get stopped, just tell them you’re on the way here, and it’ll be O-K”.

          Guarantee you, if I were to drive my truck to NY (KY: Only one plate- on the rear; no stickers for the windshield) I’d get stopped in NY by every cop that saw me! [Luckily, ever setting foot in NY is not something I’ll be doing!]

        • PS., Brent,

          You’re absolutely right about the 2nd part, too.

          I’ve managed to remain very free throughout my life [Thankfully, I never got entangled in their system, because I saw it for what it was at a very young age- so they never got their hooks in me- I’ve always lived on the periphery]

          And luckily, the cost isn’t that great to me- as I’d likely live this way, anyway- but the thing is, if even we had the limited government which is constitutionally mandated, I would have done many more ontramanurial [entrepreneurial] …..I would have been providing jobs for lots of people; and providing things of quality that the market wants; and having a lot more myself- but in retrospect, it’s probably good that I was prevented from doing everything that I wanted, as it would have consumed so much of my time and energy- and really, just having more things and more stuff to worry about could not make me any happier than I am now- I just wish that the choice would have been mine to make, as opposed to an illicit government forcing me to make the choices that i have, in order to remain free.

          I think this is why they want to herd everyone into cities and suburbs, too. Now that I have land, I can be SO self-sufficient- I mean, other than to take bicycle rides, I only leave my property maybe 2 or 3 times a month, to run errands and do some shopping. In the city, you basically sleep in your house or apartment- and everything else you are forced to get from the outside world on an almost daily basis, because you are totally dependent.

          I really love the life I live- I’m living my dream! Only thing is, it gets harder and harder every year, as they keep tightening the noose; and seeing how all the young peoiple are demanding even more socialism, I know it won’t be long until one is totally crippled here, just as was the case in NY, because I’m watching what ruined NY being replayed here and nationally, now, all over again. Won’t be long now before the property taxes start doubling every year, like they did in NY in the 80’s.

          We’re slaves, with no power. Which is why I know, the only way I’ll remain free for the rest of my life, is to flee to freer pastures. (And I come from a family of long-livers- so I have a while to go!)

          • RE: “I really love the life I live- I’m living my dream! ”

            Lucky you.

            Hats off.

            I talk to a guy every now and then that says the same thing.

            I know I shouldn’t, but I envy you both.

            Also, where would you go? …I may be ten steps behind you? Eventhough we’ve signed up for the, “Under a pile of Brass” crowd, I’m not seeing much good of that. Especially how we’re surrounded by these Uber-goobermint-loving -unquestioning-shit-for-brains.

      • Dear mm,

        Agree. The problem of course is that the PTB don’t even give a shit about their own statutory law, let alone common law.

        They “interpret” their own statutory law any damn way they please. So why would they give a rat’s ass about respecting common law distinctions about capitalizations?

        Too many sheeple go along with them. This leaves individuals who know what real freedom trapped within the system.

        • What kills me about many of these common-law people, is that they will often cite the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]- which is totally retarded, because private citizens are not subject to the UCC- but [and there’s a legal term for this, but it’s name escapes me at the moment] if you cite a law that you are not subject and/or act in accordance with it, then you are presumed to be voluntarily coming under it’s jurisdiction, and can be judged by that law. [i.e. if you sell a used car as a privater individual, it is “as is”- but if you were to start citing stuff from the UCC, then you are presumerd to be voluntarily coming under the more strenuous requirements of the UCC, which would normally only apply to licensed businesses/corps/car dealers; and thus you will be judged by the higher standard imposed on them].

          I can’t help but to think that the majority of the common law movement is just another arm of gov’t-disseminated propaganda.

          If Alfred The Great ever gets in the WH, then they may have a case…. until then, they’d do better to accept the fact that the traitors and creeps who comprise our current gov’t rule by force- and are ultimately unconcerned with any laws- which they view as a mere technicality that can be invoked to control us- but which can be ignored or “interpreted” how ever they darn well feel like interpreting them, if such laws would favor us and procure our liberties.

  5. INFINUS and the State
    14/02/2014 – A comparative study.
    by Ferdinand A. Hoischen .


    The waves in the so-called. INFINUS scandal still go high. In the media there is, the INFINUS conglomerate with a total of 15 individual companies have more than 25,000 investors harmed by approximately € 400 million.

  6. This article is worth reading and re-reading. Lots of important info to digest.

    As is The State, a Singularity In violent criminality by Ferdinand Hoischen.

    Many believe the State`s existence and actions are justified by a social contract with its subjects, articled in the constitution.

    This opinion is nothing but crude nonsense, circulated by the usual state-funded state apologists.

    I know of not one single state having come into existence by voluntary agreement between all individuals concerned.

    The State did neither arise out of the need for association (Plato) nor is it a natural construct (Aristotle) nor did it develop to end the war of all against all (Hobbes) nor did it emerge by virtue of a social contract (Grotius, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau), but by violence and conquest (Oppenheimer).


    Ferdinand A. Hoischen was born in West Germany in 1949 and practiced in Duesseldorf as an attorney-at-law, before moving to Sweden in 1997 to work as a legal adviser on German civil and economic law.

    It is well worth reading even a few pages of The State Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically – F Oppenheimer.


    Franz Oppenheimer (1864 – 1943) was a German-Jewish sociologist and political economist

    Franz Oppenheimer, was one of a fairly large number
    of British, French and German physicians who abandoned their medical pursuits···and rose to fame as
    political economists.

    He was born in Berlin. He studied and practiced medicine, became a private Lecturer of Economics at the Berlin University in 1909, and Professor of Sociology at the frankfort University in 1919.

    His libertarian views made him, for many years,the target of academic persecutions, until the growing fame of his masterpiece, The State, effectively silenced his detractors.

    (1908): The organic history of the State is a long and exciting adventure, usually rendered dull in learned

    Not so in Oppenheimer’s The State which
    extracts that history, in a, highly stimulating manner,
    from the sharp necessities and homicidal conflicts of
    all sorts and conditions of men, from the Stone Age
    to the Age of Henry Ford.

    The easy flow of important information derivable from this German volume
    has rendered it highly acceptable to American readers

    Oppenheimers work was the prototype for Nock’s writing, for Chodorov’s work, and even the theoretical edifice that later became Rothbardianism.

  7. “everything a cop does relies on violence.” Yep, the very existence of his job depends on violence. Try not paying your taxes, from which his income is derived and see what happens.

  8. From the Telegraph – “Two hundred years ago today, a 15-foot-high tidal wave of one hundred litres of beer swept through London. A three-storey-high vat of beer ruptured, flooding the streets and destroying homes, and eight people died in one of the strangest alcohol-related accidents in history.”

  9. I’m beginning to think that Claven…err..uhh…Clover, is a fictional character being portrayed by someone here, because NO ONE could seriouisly be THAT stupid, or make such LUDICROUS comments!

  10. Yes Clover, thousands of people a year die in auto accidents. But even more die in hospitals due to the failure of staff members to follow instructions. Should we close the hospitals?
    Actually that might not be a bad idea until Ebola goes away.

    • Phillip, Last time they did that- when there was a doctor’s strike in L.A. in the 70’s, the death rate dropped by 50%!

      Sheesh…you’ll give those who want to reduce the population by 95% a heart attack with talk of closing the hospitals!

  11. Clover – you say “You are willing to give another person the chance to live a lifetime being handicapped or even dead.”
    Just how do you spend a lifetime being dead? Or did you mean between the ears, like you?

  12. Re: “the kid now has no nose or eye. He has scars all over his face and is missing an arm. I hope you libertarians are proud.”

    That’s my new favorite. I can’t believe a grown adult would type such a thing, and I would be here to read it. In the real world, you Clovers are murdering Twisty the Clowns in the American Horror Story, but here on EPautos, they’re just vehicles for side-splitting amusement and endless derision.

    I’d love it, Clover, if you could find a show us a single crippled person that was created at the hands of a libertarian.

    I know on my end, I can find plenty of State Soldiers so crippled by Clover’s Holy American Horror Story Government and its endless wars of the Middle Eastasia.

    And also plenty of Muslims who became crippled during Suicide Bombing Runs as part of their blessed servitude to the all knowing Sky Stalin and his Vast and Well-Ordered Shining Soviet Universe.

    • Even if they weren’t physically crippled, they have been mentally (and spiritually) crippled by PTSD.
      Someone I know and otherwise respect has bought the BS about “We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” They wouldn’t be trying to come over here if ‘we’ hadn’t been over there since the end of WWI.

    • Clover equates possible with certain risk. With actual, and inevitable, harm. Even worse, she equates personal risk with actionable offense. I harm none (except possibly myself) by not wearing a seat belt. Yet Clover believes the possibility that I might hurt myself entitles her to use force against me.

      And she refuses to even address the sheer arbitrariness of her interpositions. It’s ok to “bust” people for not buckling up on the theory that it’s not “safe” to operate a motor vehicle unless you’re strapped in. But Clover would chafe if someone forced her to buy special gear before she was allowed to ski (a favorite activity of hers). Or checked her waistline – forcibly, at gunpoint – to see whether her BMI was in the “risky” range.

      Then again, perhaps not.

      Clover might actually favor exactly that. Limitless interference with other people’s life choices in the name of “safety” and “reduced risk.”

      The awful thing is she’s not looked upon by the average person as a freak, an obnoxious busybody. Because her control freakism is how most Americans think nowadays.

      Guys like me – and most of you – are anachronisms. Americans like they used to make ’em.

      But not for much longer.

      • Eric, sadly the Clovers of this world keep reproducing themselves, because they don’t care if they bring kids into a world that isn’t free and in which others have more say over those kids than their parents….while our ranks dwindle, because we do the responsible and right thing.

      • What is the purpose of ‘government’? According to the Declaration of Independence, it is to preserve our rights. It then goes on to say that said government “derive[s] its just powers from the consent of the governed.”
        Note, that it did not say “from the consent of a majority of the governed.”
        Note also, no one can consent, i.e., give the government the right, to do something he has no right to do himself.

  13. “Clover, tell me: Are you in favor of out-lawing motorcycles?”
    Oh MoleMan, why do you even ask such a silly question? Does he own one? Hell, no! So of course they should be done away with, along with everything else of which he disapproves.

    • Clover’s logic is the same as that of a cop, who will engage someone in a 100MPH+ car chase through residential streets in-town, endangering the lives and property of innocent people , because the guy had a roach in his ashtray. (Seems to happen a lot around here- in once case, they went through 2 counties)

      Their safety cult of force and violence to dictate the risks others may or may not take, truly knows no bounds.

      Youi’re “endangering the welfare of your child” if you smoke a doobie within 100′ of him; but not if you get blotto on vodka. You’re being a monstrous negligent parent if you leave the kid in the car for 5 minutes on a 65* day….but it’s perfectly O-K to put literally hundreds of people at risk of immanent death or serious injury if someone merely has the leaves of a plant in their possession.

      It makes absolutely no sense.

  14. MoleMan – forget ‘what gives them the legal right?’ ANYTHING can be declared legal – or not, as we see every day. The real question is “What gives you the MORAL right?”

    • Oh, I agree completely, PtB…..but we’ll never convince them of the immorality of force and domination and usurpation- but meanwhile, what gives them the legal right for what they advocate- be it moral or immoral? Our Founding Fathers here in the US were more libertarian than anything else; and if our Constitution were obeyed, we’d still be living in a largely libertarian land- so what gives them the right to trample that Constitution. The law of the land should be on our side. The only thing that gives them the legal right to do any of this BS, is that malfeasant miscreants have usurped the power of the people, and have dictated what the Constitution “really means” according to their heretical evolving ideas of a “living document”. They try and completely remove morality from the mix, by substituting “obeying the law” for morality- and of course “the law” can be anything they say it is; anything they decree. Their morality comes at the stroke of a pen. If it was “moral” yesterday, but they enact a law against it today, then it is “immoral” tomorrow. I guess true morality has no meaning to relativists. I mean, robbery or rape or murder was immoral 3000 years ago, and is and always will be- but to these relativists, letting your kid sit in the car was fine in 1979 because it wasn’t “illegal”, but you’re a “criminal” if you do it today.

      • Agreed. If the Framers had wanted a ‘living document,’ why bother to write it down? They made provision to amend it, but they also made the amendment process difficult enough that it would not be resorted to frivolously. And they stated so.
        The problem goes back at least to Marbury v. Madison (1803?) when the Nazgul arrogated to themselves the right to determine the constitutionality of laws. Some state should have challenged it then, before it became entrenched.
        Of course the biggest problem with a living document is the same as a living bra – what do you feed it?

      • BTW – there is a sign at one of the gates of the local County Fairgrounds. It says, “Heat kills animals in locked cars. It’s the law.”
        If ever there was a law that should be repealed, it’s that one.

          • Interesting!!!! Caused me to do a goggle of what products of that sort exist. Didn’t really like any of them. I expect I can do better at design and maybe even be able to stick a bit of rent seeker premium on the sale price.

      • My wife and I breed and show rabbits. A rabbit that exhibits 1 or 2 colors of fur in conjunction with white is referred to as broken. I often ask if it needs to be fixed.

        • So what do you do with extra rabbits? Stew? I ask since I used to raise some animals for show and they always ended up in somebody’s plate.

  15. Studying Ancient Babylon literature impressed into clay tablets with a stylus, will show you how to count Base 60 on your fingers.

    1 Use thumb to count the three knuckles on each finger which total 12.
    2 Use other hand to count to 5 on each finger, thus you become a human supercomputer, light years ahead of a single finger Base 10 mouth breather.

    Studying New Testament Scripture Will Inform[sic] You About the Whore of Babylon

    Revelation 17 King James Version (KJV)

    17 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

    2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

    3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

    4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

    5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

    6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

    7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

    8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

    9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

    10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

    11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

    12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

    13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

    14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

    15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

    16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

    17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

    18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

    – Seriously, mother of harlots? Fuck you Lambykin Jews, a Babylonian might rightly say. And fuck you, derivative plagiarist Christian and Muslim Reform Jews while you’re at it as well.

    That Book of Revelations is Some Janky Ghetto Fabulous Boujy Shit. No wonder Western “Christian” Civilization is in such dire straits. If you’re reading your kids that claptrap, and not teaching them to count in Base 60 in their earliest childhood, as the elite Babylonian Children once did.

  16. 43. And what you saw, iron mixed with clay, [connotes] that they will mingle with the seed of men, but they will not cleave one to the other, as iron does not mix with clay. מג. וְדִי חֲזַיְתָ פַּרְזְלָא מְעָרַב בַּחֲסַף טִינָא מִתְעָרְבִין לֶהֱו‍ֹן בִּזְרַע אֲנָשָׁא וְלָא לֶהֱו‍ֹן דָּבְקִין דְּנָה עִם דְּנָה הֵא כְדִי פַרְזְלָא לָא מִתְעָרַב עִם חַסְפָּא:

    Rashi’s Commentary:

    that they will mingle with the seed of men: They will intermarry with the other nations but they will not be at peace and truly cleave to them wholeheartedly, and their laws will differ from the laws of the other nations.

    as iron does not mix with clay: Is it not just as iron does not stick well to clay?

    44. And in the days of these kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom forever, it will not be destroyed, and the kingdom will not be left to another people; it will crumble and destroy all these kingdoms, and it will stand forever. מד. וּבְיוֹמֵיהוֹן דִּי מַלְכַיָּא אִנּוּן יְקִים אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא מַלְכוּ דִּי לְעָלְמִין לָא תִתְחַבַּל וּמַלְכוּתָה לְעַם אָחֳרָן לָא תִשְׁתְּבִק תַּדִּק וְתָסֵף כָּל אִלֵּין מַלְכְּוָתָא וְהִיא תְּקוּם לְעָלְמַיָּא:

    Rashi’s Commentary:
    And in the days of these kings: in the days of these kings, when the kingdom of Rome is still in existence.

    the God Of heaven will set up a kingdom: The kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which will never be destroyed, is the kingdom of the Messiah.

    it will crumble and destroy: It will crumble and destroy all these kingdoms.

    45. Just as you saw that from the mountain a stone was hewn without hands, and it crumbled the iron, the copper, the clay, the silver, and the gold. The great God has let the king know what will be after this, and the dream is true, and its interpretation is reliable.” מה. כָּל קֳבֵל דִּי חֲזַיְתָ דִּי מִטּוּרָא אִתְגְּזֶרֶת אֶבֶן דִּי לָא בִידַיִן וְהַדֶּקֶת פַּרְזְלָא נְחָשָׁא חַסְפָּא כַּסְפָּא וְדַהֲבָא אֱלָהּ רַב הוֹדַע לְמַלְכָּא מָה דִּי לֶהֱוֵא אַחֲרֵי דְנָה וְיַצִּיב חֶלְמָא וּמְהֵימַן פִּשְׁרֵהּ:

    Rashi’s Commentary:
    Just as you saw: just as you saw that a stone was broken off the mountain, which crumbled the entire image. This is the interpretation that the fifth kingdom will destroy and shatter them all.

    what will be after this: what will be after this, after this kingdom of yours.

    and its interpretation is reliable: for the Eternal of Israel neither lies nor repents.

    46. Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and prostrated himself before Daniel, and he ordered to offer up a meal-offering and libations to bring him satisfaction. מו. בֵּאדַיִן מַלְכָּא נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר נְפַל עַל אַנְפּוֹהִי וּלְדָנִיֵּאל סְגִד וּמִנְחָה וְנִיחֹחִין אֲמַר לְנַסָּכָה לֵהּ:

    Rashi’s Commentary:
    ordered to offer up… libations: He wished to deify him.

    47. The king replied to Daniel and said, “Truly, your God is the God of the gods and the Master of the kings, and He reveals secrets, being that you were able to reveal this secret. מז. עָנֵה מַלְכָּא לְדָנִיֵּאל וְאָמַר מִן קְשֹׁט דִּי אֱלָהֲכוֹן הוּא אֱלָהּ אֱלָהִין וּמָרֵא מַלְכִין וְגָלֵה רָזִין דִּי יְכֵלְתָּ לְמִגְלֵא רָזָא דְנָה:
    truly: [as translated,] in truth.

    and the Master of the kings: The Lord of lords.

    this secret: [as translated,] this secret.

    48. Then the king elevated Daniel and gave him many great gifts and gave him dominion over all the capital cities of Babylon, and he was the chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. מח. אֱדַיִן מַלְכָּא לְדָנִיֵּאל רַבִּי וּמַתְּנָן רַבְרְבָן שַׂגִּיאָן יְהַב לֵהּ וְהַשְׁלְטֵהּ עַל כָּל מְדִינַת בָּבֶל וְרַב סִגְנִין עַל כָּל חַכִּימֵי בָבֶל:
    elevated Daniel: He elevated Daniel over all the princes.

    49. And Daniel requested of the king, and he appointed, over the affairs of the capital cities of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; and Daniel was in the king’s gate. מט. וְדָנִיֵּאל בְּעָא מִן מַלְכָּא וּמַנִּי עַל עֲבִידְתָּא דִּי מְדִינַת בָּבֶל לְשַׁדְרַךְ מֵישַׁךְ וַעֲבֵד נְגוֹ וְדָנִיֵּאל בִּתְרַע מַלְכָּא:

    Rashi’s Commentary:
    and he appointed, over the affairs of the capital cities of Babylon: He appointed, over all the necessities of the kingdom, Hananiah Mishael, and Azariah.

    From Chabad Lubavitch Jewish Scripture Commentary

    Rashi – Medieval Torah Tanakh & Talmud Commentator

    • A Modern Guide to Demons and Fallen Angels

      Daniel 2:43: If “They” are Assumed to be Fallen Angels
      In Christian circles, there is a debate between different interpretations of Genesis 6:1-4, as to whether the “sons of God” references to the Godly sons of Seth, or if it references to fallen angels.

      The offspring of these unions between the sons of God and the daughters of men are termed by the Bible as “Nephilim”. They are described as “mighty men of old, men of renown”.

      Many of those in the camp who believe that the “Nephilim” were fathered by fallen angels, also believe that the Nephilim were not human, but something more akin to demon-people, or demons souls in mortal bodies.

      And many put forth the idea that when the mortal bodies of the Nephilim died, that their spirits lived on as the demons that are mentioned throughout the rest of the Bible. And of those in this camp, some Christians believe that Nephilim/hybrids may be being born today, believe they are being born today, or may be in the near future.

      And of them, some use Dan 2:43 to attempt to support this modern Nephilim/hybridization view.

      This article’s purpose is to address such an interpretation of Dan 2:43, as this passage of scripture is often used by people in certain circles, to support the idea that modern Nephilim/hybridization is taking place, or will take place, in the last days before Jesus’ return.

      Here are 3 different translations of Dan 2:43, two from the Hebrew, and one from the Greek Septuagint, with Strong’s numbers referenced in. Let’s take a close look at Daniel 2:43

      “And whereas thou sawest iron mixed(6151) with miry clay, they shall mingle(6151) themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave(1693) one to another, even as iron is not mixed(6151) with clay.” Hebrew, KJV
      “And in that you saw the iron mixed(6151) with common clay, they will combine(6151) with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere(1693) to one another, even as iron does not combine(6151) with pottery.” Hebrew, NASB

      “Whereas thou sawest the iron mixed(4874) with earthenware, they shall be mingled(4874) with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave(4347) together, as the iron does not mix itself with earthenware.” Greek, Septuagint
      In the Hebrew “arab” (6151) “mingle, mix, combine” is only used here in the OT and in Dan 2:41 as “iron mixed with clay” again. The word “arab” is most closely related to another word, “arab” (6148) which means “to traffic as in barter, to give or be security as a kind of exchange”. (Strong’s) It also means “have fellowship with or share in”. (BDB)

      In the Greek, “mixed” and “mingled” are the same word (4874) which means to “associate with or have company with”.

      These words do not refer to sexual interaction.
      In the Hebrew “debaq” (1693) “cleave, adhere” is used only here, but is related to the more usual word “dabaq” (1692) which is very similar, and is used in Genesis as “cleave unto his wife”.

      In the Greek “cleave” is (4347) “pros-kollao”, and is used several times in the New Testament. It means “to glue upon, stick to, join oneself to closely”.

      In Eph 5:31, Matt 19:5, and Mk 10:7, the term “pros-kollao” is used as “join” or “cleave” in the phrase, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.”

      Because this “cleaving” of man and wife might seem ambiguous as to whether sex is implied, or some more purely spiritual joining or marriage, I want to point out that the root and usual form of “pros-kollao” is (2853) “kollao”, which like “pros-kollao”, also means “to glue, join, or fasten firmly together, to cleave”.

      Here is a clear Greek usage for (2853) “kollao” in the NT:
      1 Cor 6:15-16 “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined(2853) to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”
      The word “pros” (4314) in composition means “direction or motion to a goal”. So (4347) “pros-kollao” literally can mean “towards sex” and can be referencing to sex as much as (2853) “kollao” which contextually means to join sexually. “Cleaving” and “joining” can therefore mean sexual interaction.

      Now that these terms in Dan 2:43 have been defined in the Hebrew and Greek, lets just clarify and re-examine this verse in the Hebrew and the Greek, based on these words more detailed meanings.

      “And whereas thou sawest iron mixed(6151) with miry clay, they shall “traffic as in barter, give or be security as a kind of exchange, have fellowship with or share in”(6151) themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not “cleave or join sexually” (1693) one to another, even as iron is not mixed(6151) with clay.” Hebrew, KJV

      “Whereas thou sawest the iron mixed(4874) with earthenware, they shall “associate with or have company”(4874) with the seed of men: but they shall not “cleave or join sexually”(4347) together, as the iron does not mix itself with earthenware.” Greek, Septuagint
      While I do not believe it is the case (see my accompanying article), let’s just assume for the sake or argument that the “they” and “them” in Dan 2:43 really is talking about fallen angels in the first place, as other Christians have proposed…

      What Daniel could be saying by “mingling” is that there will be traffic, association, bartering, and exchange of the “seed of men” by fallen angels. The scripture would allow for this, if “they” are fallen angels. And the terms traffic, exchange, security, arguably have the implication of mistreatment, and a violation of rights like people are objects to be trafficked in.

      In this proposed case, the fallen angels are bartering in “the seed of men”, but don’t join sexually with the “seed of men”. But what is meant by the phrase “seed of men”?
      One meaning of the phrase “seed of men” is the children of men, generations, or just plainly, humans.

      I’ve heard of many “alien abduction” accounts in which people describe they had sex with “aliens”, and usually they are cases of rape, besides all the accounts of sexual molestation. I have also heard cases of incubus and succubus attacks that are similar in the sexual violation, by often invisible spiritual entities. Along with these accounts, are those accounts of people who have stopped these experiences in the name and authority of Jesus Christ, which demonstrates these experiences are caused by evil spiritual beings, or fallen angels.

      That being the case, if these modern days are the last days, then how can Dan 2:43 mean that fallen angels will mingle with humans, but not join sexually? As cleaving here means a sexual joining, then the scripture would contradict reality if the scripture was claiming that fallen angels won’t have sexual interactions with people- because they do. Multiple alien abduction, incubus and succubus accounts confirm this. As sexual interaction is taking place, if the “seed of men” refers to humans in general, then Dan 2:43 would blatantly contradict reality if “they” are fallen angels that would not sexually interact with humans in the last days. So an interpretation like this is out.

      But I don’t think that is what the verse is saying. I think the verse is referring not to fallen angels mingling/trafficking with humans themselves, but rather, that the fallen angels are mingling/trafficking with the reproductive “seed” of men. Let’s look at the verse again:

      “And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed (2234) of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.” –KJV

      If “they” are assumed to be fallen angels, then “seed” here must have an unusual meaning, and cannot just mean “humans”. The word for “seed” (2234) above in Hebrew is only used here in the entire Old Testament. This word “seed” (2234) is most closely related to the word “seed” (2233) which many times is used to refer simply to plant seeds, the actual reproductive genetic material of the plant. It is also used to refer to descendents. However, I think the plant seed definition fits closer to the prophetic meaning which God meant here. In this sense, I think that “seed of men” could refer not to people, but to the genetic reproductive material of men and women, namely eggs and sperm.

      That the word “seed” (2233) can having this meaning is confirmed in Lev 15:16, 19:20
      “And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.”

      “`And when a man lieth with a woman with seed of copulation, and she a maid-servant, betrothed to a man, and not really ransomed, or freedom hath not been given to her, an investigation there is; they are not put to death, for she [is] not free.”

      And arguably also in Gen 38:9,
      “And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.”

      As such, what Dan 2:43 really would say – is that fallen angels will traffic/mingle with the “seed of men” in a more “reproductive component” sense (eggs/sperm), but that the fallen angels will NOT sexually join themselves to the “seed of men” (eggs/sperm).

      “Seed of men” must be defined as “genetic material” and not as “humans”, in order for this verse to not contradict reality. In many modern cases fallen angels are reported to be sexually joining with humans: if “seed of men” is defined as “humans” then this is the exact thing that the verse says will not happen. The verse says “they will not cleave one to another”.

      Therefore, the only other meaning for the word (2234) is “seed” of men as in genetic material (eggs/sperm) of humans. As such, if “they” are assumed to be fallen angels, then the fallen angels will not cleave (join sexually) with the reproductive material of humans. This interpretation makes the scripture to not completely contradict reality, and prophetically shows there are no modern day hybrids, nor will there be.

      So as ironic as it is, the main verse that some Christians have been using to show that there would be hybrids in the end times, I think actually would prove that there will be no hybrids, and that is assuming this verse is even applicable. (I do not actually believe it is applicable.) The meaning becomes clear when this verse is actually studied in the Hebrew and Greek with more than a cursory glance.

      If “they” are assumed to be fallen angels, then the interpretation of the verse needs to be applied consistently. Fallen angels have sex with people – the modern accounts of supernatural sexual attacks are firm and consistent – so this verse cannot be saying otherwise. The only other explanation is that fallen angels are trafficking in, but themselves not sexually joining with, the reproductive material of humans.

      This interpretation fits both modern abductions accounts, and the Hebrew and Greek of Dan 2:43. In conclusion, there is no actual joining of the fallen angels with human eggs/sperm and therefore no interbreeding or hybridization. As a prophecy, if “they” are assumed to be fallen angels, then this prophecy must state that fallen angels will not join themselves with the reproductive material of humans in the last days, as it cannot state that fallen angels will not be engaged in sexual attacks on humans, and therefore the prophecy is that there will not be hybrids or Nephilim in the last days.

      tl;dr. Humans and Aliens had sex and produced offspring. Some of the descendants of these unions live among us, and in a very real sense, they are not entirely human.

      • Long story short: The image in Daniel 2 was a representation of the gentile kingdoms of the world, starting with babylon, and going right down to the modern remnants of the Jew/Roman alliance.

        Babylon is refered to in several other places in the Bible as containing “mingled people” (Intermixing of different cultures/races).

        I believe the iron and clay is merely a reference to the modern-day “melting pot”- the “diversity” of people from different cultures all “mingling” [as the communists say “Forget your past”!] producing the weak society we see today, in which the tendency is to abandon one’s traditions/religion and meld into a “universal” religion/value-system.

        Notice, in the book of Revelation, the Lord refers to Jerusalem as “Sodom and Egypt”(Rev. 11:8). It is interesting, that Jerusalem is now controlled by the Jews [and they are “AntiChrist”] and is also coveted by the Catholics; and Jerusalem and surrounding areas are the hot spots in world politics right now, and pretty much ever since the UN created the modern nation of “israel”, and Jews returned to that place whence God banished them. [Not all Jews, of course- Many Orthodox Jews are opposed to the establishment of the nation of Is-ra-Hell].

        But there you have it- Daniel- written over 2500 years ago; Rev written almost 2000 years ago- and suddenly, just as it said, the long-banished people and the obscure place, are suddenly back on the world stage.

        [I’ll try and refrain from debating this, as I don’t think Eric would appreciate a long debate on the subject on this blog]

      • Tor – just because the ‘sons of God’ may refer to angels, does not necessarily mean that they are FALLEN angels.

  17. The troof about the Jewish literature the Christians appropriated around 70 A.D. is they were heavily plagiarized from the extant literature of other ancient cultures. What you are referencing is from the Ketuvim.

    In many cases, the Jew’s altered and didacted versions are all that remains of ancient wisdom and accounts. The old testament is a sampling of a great many timeless texts, regardless of whether it is of pedestrian or divine origin.

    The letters of the New Testament were created first. The final versions of the four gospels were created a few years subsequent.

    The Koran and Hadith literature of Islam often has the same parables found in the Christian New Testament, and many times they contain a twist or a significant change.

    The parable of the wicked servants to many Christians means, Christians have taken over for the Jews. In the Islam texts, the Muslims re-reinterpret the parable to mean the wicked servants who were once the Jews, then the Christians, – are now are the Muslims and will always be so, no more changes will occur per Allah’s messenger they claim.

    Being that all things spring from the Creator: Why not append a chapter on the moon landing to the New Testament and call it the Book of Neil? [Armstrong].

    Book of Neil Chapter 2. Verse 1. ‘And in the reign of Nixon the Quaker, it was proclaimed – ‘That’s one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.’

    Daniel Chapter 2

    43 And whereas thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves by the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron doth not mingle with clay.

    As many here on the blog have pointed out, this sentence might be interpreted to mean all manner of things. How can it be proven, who, if any, is right?

    • Why wouldn’t the Koran “borrow” much of the same stuff- be it from OT or NT, since they came on the scene 600 years after Christ? Just as the Mor(m)ons and Catholics adopted Christian literature and call it their own.

      • I don’t know why they wouldn’t. It’s the ones who come later, after the fact, and not only bite the hand that once fed its fathers, but also banish them and throw them in concentration camps. [The hand that feeds was the Jews. They got the ball rolling by biting the Babylonian hand that fed them generously during their “captivity.” A captivity not initiated by the Babylonians themselves, I might add.

        Jews publishing screeds about Babylon, is like Hitler’s screeds against the Jews.(Who himself was once fed by Jewish shopkeepers long ago.)]

        I’ve worked for Mormons, and read their books. A good question is who is borrowing from whom?

        Sorry, I seem to be permanently cantankerous, please bear with me. I thought it was going to pass, but here it still remains.

        Maybe THE oldest religious texts that survive… http://www.pyramidtextsonline.com/translation.html

        Utterance 213
        134: O Unas, you have not gone dead, you have gone alive to sit on the throne of Osiris. Your scepter is in your hand that you may give orders to the living, the handle of your lotus-shaped scepter in your hand. Give orders to those of the Mysterious Sites (the dead)!

        135: Your arm is that of Atum, your shoulders are those of Atum, your belly is that of Atum, your back is that of Atum, your bottom is that of Atum, your two legs are those of Atum, your face is that of Anubis. The sites of Horus serve you, the sites of Seth serve you.

        Utterance 214
        136: O Unas, beware of the Lake!
        To say four times:
        The messengers of your ka have come to you, the messengers of your father have come to you, the messengers of Re have come to you.

        137: Go after your sun! You are to purify yourself. Your bones are those of female hawks, the goddesses who are in heaven, so that you may be by the side of the god and leave your house to your son, your procreation. Everyone who shall speak evil against the name of Unas,

        138: when you go up, is predestined by Geb to be a despised one of his city, he shall flee and falter. You are to purify yourself with the cool water of the stars, and you will climb down upon ropes of brass, on the arms of Horus, in his name He-of-the-Henu-barge.

        139: The (glorified) humanity bewail you after the Imperishable Stars have carried you. Enter then into the place where your father is, where Geb is! He gives you that which was on the brow of Horus, so that you become powerful and full of glory through it, so that you become the One-at-the-Head-of-the-Westerners through it.

        Utterance 215
        140: O Unas! Your messengers go, your heralds hurry to your father, to Atum.
        “Atum, let him rise to you, fold him in your arms!

        141: There is no god, who has become a star, without a companion.”
        “Shall I be your companion?”
        “Look at me! you have seen the forms of the children of their fathers, who know their spell, who are now Imperishable Stars”.
        May you see the two inhabitants of the Palace: this is Horus and Seth!

        142: May you bespit the face of Horus and remove his injury! May you catch the testicles of Seth and remove his mutilation! That one is born for you, this one is conceived for you.

        143: You are born, o Horus, as the one whose name is He-before-whom-the-earth-quakes;
        (you are conceived, Seth, as the one whose name is ) He before-whom-the-sky-shakes.
        Such a one has no mutilation (Horus),
        such a one has no injury (Seth),
        such a one has no injury, such a one has no mutilation,
        (so) you have no injury, you have no mutilation!

        144: You are born for Osiris, o Horus!
        You have become more glorious than he,
        You have become more powerful than he.

        – Godspell Utterance 12OCT2014 of Tor… Is not the voice of God potentially in the head of all men? If this be true, then how dare they say the voices heard in their heads are the one true voice to be listened to the exclusion of all others. Testify, yes, always. But attempt to create a scarcity of belief through intimidation or the force of arms, never!

        Long live the memory of Unas, Atum, Re, Anubis, Osiris, Seth, and Horus, perhaps they were of comfort and joy and tidings to men back in their days.

        • One of my favorite religious utterances:

          “He who farts in church, sits in own pew.” -Confucius (Or maybe it was a confused 12 year-old?….) 😀

    • “The parable of the wicked servants to many Christians means, Christians have taken over for the Jews.”
      You are correct that that is what many Christians believe. My understanding is somewhat different. When the New Covenant scriptures refer to “the Jews,” it may be referring to the Israelis as a whole, but more often it is referring to the Jewish leadership, who had sold out to the Romans in order to maintain their position. THEY were being dispossessed as the heads of the Jewish religion.

  18. President Ellen, dear leader of Liberia (pop 4 million) discusses her “rogue citizen” who brought Ebola to Dallas.

    Founding of Liberia in 1847

    In 1816, a group of white Americans founded the American Colonization Society (ACS) to deal with the “problem” of the growing number of free blacks in the United States by resettling them in Africa. The resulting state of Liberia would become the second (after Haiti) black republic in the world at that time.

    Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Randolph were among the best known members of ACS. Former President Thomas Jefferson publicly supported the organization’s goals, and President James Madison arranged public funding for the Society.

    Africans removed from slave ships by the U.S. Navy after the abolition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade were put ashore in Liberia. In 1838 most of these settlements, with up to 20,000 people, combined into one organization.

    The darkly pigmented early settlers attempted to retain the culture they had brought from the United States and for the most part did not integrate with the native societies. Today, about 5 percent of the population of Liberia is descended from these settlers.

    Liberian Suspension of Elections & Censorship Would Happen in an American Pandemic – TheAlexJonesChannel

  19. Immediately after the Civil War ended in 1865, Susan B. Anthony, a strong and outspoken advocate of women’s rights, demanded that the 14th Amendment include a guarantee of the vote for women as well as for African-American males.

    In 1869, Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton founded the National Woman Suffrage Association. Later that year, Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe, and others also formed the American Woman Suffrage Association. However, not until the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1919 did women throughout the nation gain the right to vote.

    During the late 1800s and early 1900s, women and women’s organizations not only worked to gain the right to vote, they also worked for broad-based economic and political equality and for social reforms.

    Between 1880 and 1910, the number of women employed in the United States increased from 2.6 million to 7.8 million. Although women began to be employed in business and industry, the majority of better paying positions continued to go to men.

    In 1900, 60 percent of all working women were employed as domestic servants. In the area of politics, women gained the right to control their earnings, own property, and, in the case of divorce, take custody of their children.

    By 1896, women had gained the right to vote in four states (Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah). Women and women’s organizations also worked on behalf of many social and reform issues.

    Beginning in 1900, women’s clubs in towns and cities across the nation were working to promote suffrage, better schools, the regulation of child labor, women in unions, and liquor prohibition.

    [those broads sure did a lousy job of it, I’d say]

    Not all women believed in equality for the sexes. Women who upheld traditional gender roles argued that politics were improper for women. Some even insisted that voting might cause some women to “grow beards.” The challenge to traditional roles represented by the struggle for political, economic, and social equality was as threatening to some women as it was to most men.

    – the trouble with women, Africans, and soon, everyone in the world, being able to vote in American Elections, is that it is no longer the productive and capable class that is making decisions, but rather it is become a mobocracy.

    Americans are dumbed down and herded into cities so they can be harnessed for their vote. For their political power. For their willingness and socially engineered fitness to be a cog in the great Demopublican Machinery of State.

    It’s not blacks and Ebonics that’s the root problem. It’s city dwellers and Urbonics.

    Urbonics is this gutter creole language of city raised ignorant brutes. They can’t tell time with an analog clock. Or add and subtract fractions. Or make change without a calculator. Or tell direction by sight. Or understand weather and seasons without watching the TV newz.

    Go ahead and ask an Urbonic speaker something about cattle. A good laugh awaits you, as they tell you the major details of cattle gender and reproduction as they understand it. They know nothing of birds, bees, or bulls, cows, steers and heifers, that’s for sure. Try to keep a straight face so they’ll tell you EVERYTHING.

    [I didn’t vet this explanatory resource, it might have been compiled by an Urbanic Netizen, so proceed cautiously]

      • BTW, there’s a Gumpian hierarchy of stupid, and I’m far from the top. I might laugh at those I see as less bright, but there are plenty above me able to do likewise at me.

        It’s a good thing really, better if you humbly understand your place. You know you’re really on your game, when you walk into an establishment, and you hear comments and laughter just out of earshot, that may have something to do with you.

        People are funny. I’m no exception. I put all kinds of comments out there, perhaps as inscrutable as clover, maybe it’ll be good for a laugh at least. And that’s all I got to say about that.

  20. Astronavigation via current pole star: “Polaris” the “North Star”

    Observing the Sky: Constellations – Finding Polaris

    Navy Science Tech: You will also be able to figure out at what latitude you are on Earth, because Polaris’ altitude, or height above the horizon, is equal to an observer’s latitude.

    If you measure up to Polaris with your fists and find that it is 45′ above the horizon, you now know that your latitude is 45′ north of the equator”

    good ol’ military “fistology.” it really is the best science.

    How To Locate Polaris (Pole Star / North Star)
    First step – Look in the northern sky to find the constellation Ursa Major which is otherwise known as the Great Bear.


    Second step – find the Big Dipper (marked in red) which consists of the seven brightest stars of the constellation Ursa Major. The alternative name for the Big Dipper is the Plough

    Third step – In the diagram below, follow the imaginary arrow from the Big Dipper and you will find that it points to the brightest star in the group of stars known as Ursa Minor which is alternatively known as the Little Dipper or the Little Bear. The star to which the arrow points is known as Polaris or the Pole Star.


    Using Polaris to Determine Latitude

  21. How to win arguments that are worth arguing and hold positions worth holding:

    Secret To Winning An Argument Is Ridiculously Simple

    If you want to change someone’s opinion, ask them how they would do something instead of why.

    The opinions that are held with passion are always
    those for which no good ground exists.
    —Bertrand Russell

    Extremism is so easy. You’ve got your position and
    that’s it. It doesn’t take much thought.
    —Clint Eastwood

    When statists claim the state does a good job solving a problem, they should be made to explain exactly how it is providing a solution. And at what cost.

    The insight comes from University of Colorado psychologist Philip M. Fernbach in his paper titled “Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding.”

    His theory: Political extremists will tend to be less extreme if made to explain just how their favored policy would create the changes they sought, as opposed to listing off the reasons that they’re right.

    For the experiment, Fernbach asked two groups of online participants to give their opinions on a variety of controversial and complex policy issues, such as healthcare and Iran.

    Mind Hacks detailed the experiment:

    1 One group was asked to give their opinion and then provide reasons for why they held that view. This group got the opportunity to put their side of the issue, in the same way anyone in an argument or debate has a chance to argue their case.

    2 Those in the second group did something subtly different. Rather than provide reasons, they were asked to explain how the policy they were advocating would work. They were asked to trace, step by step, from start to finish, the causal path from the policy to the effects it was supposed to have.

    The results were striking.

    1 In line with Fernbach’s hypothesis, folks who gave their reasons for being right were just as convinced of their convictions after the experiment as they were beforehand.

    2 But the people who had to explain the mechanics of implementation had suddenly softer views. Not only that — they also gave themselves a lower rating on their understanding of the subject.

    The two takeaways:

    If you want to win an argument, ask your friend/colleague/partner/nemesis to explain how their perspective can be brought into reality.

    If you want to continue to be fully convinced of your position, besides bringing your reasons for why you’re right to the debate — make sure to also bring along detailed implementations as well.

    This kind of rhetorical humility will sharpen your own mind and make sure the beliefs you hold are well supported with concrete examples.

  22. So you didn’t answer the question of whether the government had the right to do anything about Ebola. So apparently you want Ebola victims to have their freedom of movement and association and “let the free market sort it out”?Clover

      • Indeed, I thought the title implied the article was going about the rights of those with diseases and whether they can be quarantined. Instead you just rant about government is bad.
        Nonetheless Libertarians defended that fellow who was a latter day Typhoid Mary. Then again Mary’s services were apparently highly regarded in her day such that she found work easily enough instead being shunned despite people knowing she was a carrier.

        • It’s fascinating the way you Clovers habitually use misdirection – or simply outright lie.

          I never once “defended that fellow who was a latter day Typhoid Mary.”

          I criticized government forcing people to deal with him, or otherwise deciding for them – against their will.

          Maybe try arguing over what I actually argued next time?

          • Well, its hard to going about refuting Gil’s argument: “the title implied the article was going about the rights of those with diseases.”

            Mary Mallon, now known as Typhoid Mary, seemed a healthy woman when a health inspector knocked on her door in 1907. She was a New York cook and said to be the cause of 27 typhoid infections. Mary was the first “healthy carrier” of typhoid fever in the United States, and did not understand how someone not sick could spread disease – so she tried to fight back.

            The Libertarian Party of the United States was formed in Colorado Springs in the home of Luke Zell by David Nolan on December 11, 1971, after several months of debate among members of the Committee to Form a Libertarian Party, founded July 17, 1971.

            The formation was prompted by price controls and the end of the Gold Standard implemented by President Richard Nixon.

            The Libertarian Party viewed the dominant Republican and Democratic parties as having diverged from what they viewed as the libertarian principles of the American Founding Fathers. This group included John Hospers, Edward Crane, Manuel Klausner, Murray Rothbard, Roy Childs, and Jim Dean.

            But who needs facts when everything is the fault of pesky typhoid-loving libertarians!

            • Clovers have to resort to demagoguery because they know they dare not openly deal with the principles we bring to the table.

              It is a confession of intellectual impotence.

              • I think I’m an anti-clover. Rather than impede and stop others. I want to enable and make things go.

                I like to see everyone take more risks and be less cautious and intolerant. As the flip side of the clover, I get agitated at anyone who advocates restrictions, temperance, and safety.

                I am for all kinds of things. Not just the ones that everyone says are the right and proper things. Nearly all things.

                I believe in live and let live dialed up to 11. And right this instant. No time to wait. Get busy living, or get busy dying. Just get busy and take a bunch of chances already.

                Everything except initiatory violent things. You make all kinds of mistakes and harm all manner of people in minor and sometimes significant ways, but that is the only way to thrive and to really live.

                Just surviving? That seem irrelevant. What is the point of that?

                • I’d rather see people exercise caution and conserve life and property- but not because they are forced to do so by tyranny (which doesn’t, anyway) but rather because they live in a world where they will have to deal with/foot the bill for their own choices and actions. i.e. not because some machine says they’re a criminal if they deign to drive after two drinks when the machine reads .08 instead of .07.

            • It always amazes me how statists who are always using philanthropy/altruism/beneficence as excuses to support tyranny, abhor the idea of letting people make their own choices or of dealing with circumstances in their own lives and circumstances as they see fit and in a manner compatible with the level of risk they are willing to assume.

              I guess that is how we ended up with big government; welfare states; and the safety cult.

              You’d think, if nothing else, after seeing the results of big government in it’s mature stages as we do today; and the dysfunctional world such has created, that they would take heed- but NOooooo! They want even more of the same!

              They somehow believe that delegating authority and wealth to a small band of criminals and incompetents, will somehow create a utopia.

              Of course, their utopia contains vast prisons; armed goons; Orwellian surveillance; special classes of protected people; housing projects; and confiscatory taxation.

              In reality, I believe all of these people are power-hungry sadists, who fancy themselves members of a ruling class and/or want to use the power of the state to punish; oppress; and control people whom they don’t like.

              Me? I’m perfectly willing to leave people whom I don’t like (such as queers) alone, as long as they don’t harm me.

              Want to have an abortion? Fine! Just don’t use my money to do it. Want to make love to another man’s asshole? Go to it! Just don’t seek to criminalize or restrict my criticism/abhorrence of such! Want to have 12 kids when you can’t afford to support a goldfish? Fine….just deal with the consequences yourself and figure out how to feed and shelter them yourself, or seek voluntary charity, etc. [Lets see just how generous those liberals are, who are always advocating welfare programs- when it comes to THEM giving out of their own resources, instead of confiscating the resources of others to be redistributed!]

              I think what the statists are afraid of, is that their favorite groups of people, if left to themselves, would actually have to deal with the consequences of their own actions/choices. (And the more so if one of those groups includes them!)

              • You nailed it, mostly, with this:
                Of course, their utopia contains vast prisons; armed goons; Orwellian surveillance; special classes of protected people; housing projects; and confiscatory taxation.

                In reality, I believe all of these people are power-hungry sadists, who fancy themselves members of a ruling class and/or want to use the power of the state to punish; oppress; and control people whom they don’t like.

                I bolded the MOST IMPORTANT solipsism they engage in, though.
                They view the ruling class as a protected class, and then imagine they will be in the ruling class….

          • CloverSo that’s tantamount to letting the guy have free rein to spread the disease. So is disease an Act of God/Nature? Tough luck if you get one but you have no rights in dealing with the carrier.

            • No, Clover.

              It is “tantamount” to leaving people (and businesses) free to decide on appropriate measures themselves, without other people forcing their solutions upon them.

              Do you not see the absurdity of your position?

              People – you believe – are too dumb to do the appropriate/sensible thing themselves. So, government will “help” them see the way.

              But what is government?

              It is not an artificial intelligence. It is not a deity.

              It is other people, having the same imperfect knowledge and flawed judgment. Except these arrogant – and violent – motherfuckers want to force their views down other people’s throats.

            • Clover, you are the “What if” guy!

              “What if citizens who have done nothing to warrant the suspicion of having committed a crime were left alone?”

              • Clover would no doubt applaud having a bureau of pre-crime established which would go after people before they actually do anything wrong, a la “Minority Report.” Just think how much safer we would all be!

                • Clover must read books like 1984; This Perfect Day; and Brave New World, and wish that they would come true. [He doesn’t realize that they already have]

    • OOh a tangent!

      Notice how government is not protecting us nor is it shutting down flights. It probably won’t even allow the airlines to do so. Why? government power springs from such crisis.

      So what’s the net result? Something worse than doing nothing.

      How would a libertarian system handle it? Spreading disease would violate the NAP I would think. But that’s an intellectual debate that’s probably already occurred and could be looked up if desired. But we do know the worst a libertarian system would offer is doing nothing which is better than what the statist system offers, which is doing something that benefits the state.

      • I’d be fine with doing nothing. Let the free market and the individual handle it- but in reality, I think if we didn’t have big Orwellian government, we likely wouldn’t have to worry about being here- as without foreign occupations; free/subsidized healthcare, and unbridled immigration (made largely possible by all the freebies and subsidies) we wouldn’t be very likely to see such things.

        Plus, the hospitals/businesses/landlords/etc. would be able to refuse services to whomever they wanted, for whatever reasons they wanted, I’d say we’d be much better off if we were free and the gov’t did nothing….than we are now, not being free, and having to rely on gov’t to “protect” us while they take away our ability to protect ourselves and create the conditions which enable people with such diseases to come here.

        Same with other diseases. Under this tyranny, you can’t refuse to hire someone with AIDS or other diseases from working in your restaurant; you can’t refuse to rent to them; you can’t refuse to treat them in your medical facility, etc. How is that protecting us? That is precisely what is harming us, and why we see a proliferation of such diseases. The gov’t establishes special protected classes of people, and then we all suffer because the gov’t will trample our rights to ensure any real or imagined rights of their pet groups.

        Free market/individual autonomy doesn’t have any such constraints.

        • And the privately owned airlines, who put a few hundred people in a sealed metal tube for hours, could walk the fine line between customers who don’t want to be hassled and those who WANT to be screened for their own protection. Probably end up being some of each, so the customers could choose. What a concept!

        • Non sequitur.

          The question is whether some people (this entity called government) has the right to tell other people what to do – and to force them to do it.

          • CloverNope it’s a sequitor. Presumably from your non-response you view disease as an Act of God/Nature and if someone dies from ebola it’s death by misadventure. If someone shoots dead someone you love then they have committed a vile crime but if they spread a fatal disease then that’s okay because the disease killed the person not the carrier him or herself.

            • It’s a non sequitur, Clover, because what’s being debated is whether you or I or anyone ought to have our decisions made for us by others (government). Not whether “disease as an Act of God/Nature and if someone dies from ebola it’s death by misadventure.”

              Can you read?

              Or are you just being deliberately evasive?

              • CloverYou’re the one being evasive. You’re making it clear people can freely bring deadly diseases into communities because doing anything about it would infringe on their freedoms and that’s unacceptable.

                You remind of a scene where Chief Wiggum couldn’t understand the concept of a potential attempted murder because until the person actually starts committing the act then they’re simply exercising their 1A or 2A.

                • Clover… can you read?

                  I stated my opposition to government choosing for people; to it dictating to them what they may and may not do. You twist this into: “You’re making it clear people can freely bring deadly diseases into communities because doing anything about it would infringe on their freedoms and that’s unacceptable.”


                  I never said anything like that. I certainly never argued “do nothing.” And you you either know it – and deliberately lie about it. Or you’re incapable of comprehending a simple statement.

                  You Clovers are not merely authoritarian control freaks.

                  You’re despicable liars, too.

                • Hey Gil, you do not understand libertarianism at all. All Eric is saying is that it is not the gunvermin’s place to make these decisions for all of us.
                  If someone spreads a deadly disease, he is liable for the damage. If he does it deliberately, he could be guilty of premeditated murder.
                  However your analysis of Chief Wiggum is accurate. Until a person acts, he has done nothing deserving of punishment/retaliation. Speech, unless it is a threat of violence, is not aggression. Much less thought.

                  • Hi Phillip,

                    Clover’s method is to deliberately sidestep a principled argument, to distract using straw man arguments and non sequiturs – and failing that, he will try frustrating people into silence by endless repetition of the same canards over and over and over again….

                    I’ve tried civility – and attempted to engage this person in a reasoned debate. It’s hopeless. He ignores – purposefully – the point made, replying with a critique of something I never advocated!

                    So, why do I bother to respond?

                    For the benefit of new people here, who may need an object lesson in the way Clovers operate.

                    • And just with attempted murder it’s too little too late. You won’t know if the other person has ebola until you get sick and find yourself dying.
                      By the same reasoning it ought then not be a criminal offence for someone with HIV or AIDS to infect someone. That person just want sex but the disease transmission was an ancillary act of nature.

                    • Again, Clover, you refuse to debate what I actually wrote – that it is not government’s place (that is, other people’s place) to dictate to others their course of action. That people – all people – have a right to decide for themselves what action to take.

                      Having carefully explained this to you several times now, it is certain you’re not dumb – just dishonest. You can’t or won’t debate the principle at issue – so you “debate” one of your own choosing.


                    • Let me try – oh god – one more time, Clover.

                      If we had free association (and freedom, generally), I – as a restaurant owner, say – could decide to temporarily close my doors; or require that patrons wear masks. Or deny service to any person I felt looked sketchy. It’s my restaurant, after all – and it’s my life. Conversely, I could not force anyone to enter my restaurant, nor interact with me or my staff. They would be free to decide for themselves whether my restaurant and the people in it seemed ok to them. Any risks assumed would be assumed freely.

                      Contrast this with your approach. Some guy – just another person, not am omniscient god – but wielding the coercive power of the state – simply dictates to me that I will close my doors. Or that I will keep them open. That I must serve anyone who enters my establishment, whether they appear to be ill to me or not.

                      Now, in the first case, if someone gets sick, it is sad – but they have the comfort of knowing it did not occur as the result of coercion; of some other person (a complete stranger) forcibly playing the odds with their life. Whereas in the case of the latter, if a person becomes ill, they are not only sick – they know it happened because some arrogant, know-it-all control freak did play dice with their lives.

                      That’s the difference between people like you and me, Clover.

                      I accept that there are risks in life. But I do not presume to manage other people’s lives.

                      You do.

                    • Well-said, Eric!

                      Imagine if we were free, and thus did not have to hire or serve those with various diseases; or those who belong to high-risk groups!

                      Clover is in favor of trading liberty for security; but even if such a trade could indeed provide that security, it would not be worth it- much less, when (as it is now) liberty is traded for a false security, which in reality actually hinders one’s ability to protect themselves, while dictating policies which force people to engage in behavior which is actually detrimental to their security and that of their neighbor.

                    • CloverSo apparently you believe if you go to a restaurant and get sick you can’t do a thing about it? Your lost time from work and lost pay amount to nothing because you paid for a service, a service was provided and your only recourse is not to go back there as well as to warn others. Likewise someone you care about is gravely because someone else was carrying a deadly disease. You have no recourse because disease is an act of nature and you can’t charge them with a crime. Had the other person gravely injured your loved one via a physical weapon even accidently then you would have a recourse but that’s totally different.

            • The assumption being made is that the actions of government can somehow prevent the spread of disease [A ludicrous proposition, since gov’t itself IS a disease!].

              People like Skunkwe..err..uh…Clover turn everything into a black & white mythical hypothetical scenario where there are only 2 choices:

              a)You let gov’t have free-reign to do what it thinks best, and everyone lives.


              b)You let the people act in their own best interest and half the population dies.

              Realistic people know that in the real world, during an epidemic, people are going to die regardless of what course of action is taken.

              More often than not, all government does is redistribute- whether it be wealth; or freedom; or risk. Gov’t seems to be especially proficient at enriching those whose actions do not warrant such, but rather have led them to poverty; and they do so at the expense of those whose actions lead to the creation of wealth.

              They protect those whose actions and choices have exposed them to greater risk; often at the expense of harming those who would protect themselves- etc.

              They give rights to those who have no concern for their own rights or the right of their neighbor; while hindering the rights of those who diligently seek to maintain the rights of themselves and their neighbors.

              So too with epidemics- you can expect gov’t to protect some, while exposing others to greater risk, and forcing them to bear the cost (financially and otherwise). The AIDS epidemic is perfect illustration of that.

              The gov’t by artificially exalting the “rights” of the AIDS-infected, at the same time makes it harder for the average citizen to protect themselves from contact with infected people.

              What makes them think it will be any different with Ebola?

              Have the actions of gov’t thus far prevented the spread of a disease from another continent, or have they not rather hastened it?

              But of course, to the clover, the almighty god-like state will solve all problems and never make them worse, and it is just us pesky people whose brains actually work, and who take responsibility for our own lives and actions, who are the problem.

              It’s always A or B, black or white, to the simpletons.

        • Please do explain how the US government and its allies are handling the Ebola crisis in detail.

          Perhaps your extreme statist position has merit, but I’d like to hear the full details of how large the crisis actually is, the actions they are taking, and what their costs are, before I adopt your belief system.

          My guess is they’re spending 100 of millions per actual ebola sufferer. And that what they’re doing is making things worse, not better. What they’re doing is spending money to gain increased power.

          If there are any statists, or others who have answers, please let me know why I should be even remotely interested in any of it.

        • A country of 300 million people, and businesses should shut down because there’s some epidemic on another continent? Anytime there’s some epidemic anywhere in the world, we should just shutter everything here? We’d be in perpetual quarantine!

          And how could the free market “do anything”, when there currently is no free market here? Centralized government controls everything, from economics, to healthcare…..

          Want an idea of how the ebola thing will go? Lets see how this gov’t has handled other problems from which it is “protecting” us- Let’s see: They have a “war on drugs”; a war on “terror”; a war on “poverty”; a war on teen pregnancy; a scheme to ensure “health insurance for all” schemes to eliminate crime….etc, ad infinitum. Funny, since Americans have traded away their rights/freedom for all these wonderful “protections” and “solutions”, I guess this country must be a utopian paradise. Yeah [waves flag] it’s just getting better and better, isn’t it? How wonderful! Weeee!!! I’m sure that their “war on Ebola” will be just as successful as all of their other solutions!

          • Hell Moleman, you know…..that free market, the one that the airlines dreamed up to denigrate everyone who now flies, that free market that’s driven countless businesses into the ground with bureaucratic costs. You know, That free market. Gil can’t even understand the concept.

            We still have a small free market of outlaw vegetable growers here and there in Tx. I look for new legislation to shut them down soon. After all, they sell the same products(except their products are better)the big chain stores sell and right on the side of the road sometimes. I allow that selling anything on “state” owned property is about to be a thing of the past. The market isn’t big enough to get the attention of the politicians “yet” but let somebody like HEB or Brookshire’s think it’s cutting into their veggie sales and wait for the new laws. SWAT teams on ancient old men and their trailer of melons. Does you heart good to think about it….don’t it Gil?

          • Oh, and one more thing. Since I’m the crass and uncouth rep on this site I meant to include one point eric and others won’t. Gil, clover, you gutless cunts. There, I feel better.

            • AHhh! Thank you! I now feel better, too.

              Wait…you mean, someone in TX is actually growing something AND offering it for sale to the public, without it going through a trucking company; a warehouse; Monsanto; a wholesale market; a distributor; and several goobermint inspections? 😮

              Oh what folly! Surely, everyone will die!

              Sounds like you need more big-city liberals down there! The kind like they got in IL. You know, the place where the cops shut down a little girl’s lemonade stand.

              Why, thank goodness the good people of IL have the sense not let children labor and dispense beverages without a license (or 2 or 3), and in a driveway of a RESIDENCE that isn’t even zoned for it!

              Now that’s the kind of goobermint ya need down thar! Just hand in your guns, and before ya know it, they’ll be there!

              • The only reason I stay here is because it’s so hard for liberals to make inroads although the pubic schools try like hell. Gun control here makes people get a bit more color and the hair stand up on their arms. It’s dang sure not a way to get elected to anything.

                • Thank goodness I now live in a place like that, too! Well, at least out here in the country. Get into even a small town, and ya got all the younger people pushing for socialism and gun control (I think that’s the real reason TPTB want to heard all the people into cities and off the land. Once you’re off the land, and thus no longer have your own means of sustenance and the ability to appreciate the freedom and tools necessary to sustain the same, you just come to rely on the state for everything).

                  Made me sick, all the years I lived in NY- where everyone equated guns with crime. It was just a constant scenario of the people losing more and more power, and the state gaining it- until now, in such places, where just to go to their kid’s school on parent-teacher night, they have to walk through a metal detector; show a driver’s license; and consent to an instant background check!

                  You know when millions of people are willing to tolerate that, we’ve LOST and tyhere is no going back- just time to move to greener/freer pastures.

                  • I – reluctantly – agree.

                    The remnant – and the people who can be “turned” – may be able to start over, here or somewhere else. But the remainder – the two-thirds (or more) of the masses out there who are hopeless authoritarians (wanting either to control or not minding being controlled) are our implacable enemy.

                    I see the following scenarios playing out:

                    * They gradually but systematically overwhelm us; a version of Huxley’s Brave New World becomes reality. The notion of the free – and sovereign – individual dies out.

                    * We manage to escape and start over. Either by leaving this earth for another one, or via technological checkmate here; i.e., a real-life Galt’s Gulch protected by a force field or some other means that keeps them out and us in.

                    * A mass die-off on the scale of the black death that preceded the Renaissance. Europe had been mired in stasis for centuries; arguably, because there were too got-damned many people – and, specifically, too got-damned-many Clovers. Passive sheep – and their control freak overlords. The reduction of Europe’s population by half or so pushed individualism back to the fore. Such a thing may have to happen again. I was born into a country with a population of about 160 million – most of them at least civilized, a majority valuing education. A comparatively tiny underclass of trash. Today, the population is twice that – and perhaps 100 million of these are beyond helping. It is a sad – and daunting – prospect to contemplate

                    • Yeah, Eric, I don’t think we’ll ever have a true libertarian society or Galt’s Gulch anywhere on this earth, as long as there exists even a few power-hungry people and a bunch of others who are willing to take up arms to carry out their orders.

                      But in practical terms, for the remainder of our lifetimes, there are still places where one can be essentially left alone.

                      I think we are to the point now, where even in some of the socialist countries to which I would never go, one can now actually live freer and be less interfered with than here in the US. -only because it has gotten so over-the-top here.

                      I mean, it’s gotten to the point where even many Europeans are lambasting the behavior of our pigs, and the level of gov’t interference that we are suffering.

                      For instance: A guy from It-Lee(Italy) was once telling me that you’ll virtually never get a traffic ticket there, unless you are in an accident. Of course, I wouldn’t recommend living in It-Lee….but I think that is illustrative of the way things are in many other places- even in rather Orwellian EU countries. It seems that the people in the English-speaking countries are willing to tolerate a total police-state, but in many other countries, other than in economics, one can be a good deal freer these days than we.

                      I’ve heard of some Americans actually taking up residence in RUSSIA so they can homeschool their children, without the hassles and persecutions they often experience here.

                      By-the-way, didja get the MO? (Sure hope so- it’d been so long since i used one, I think I forgottedid to tear off the receipt!)

                • Yup.

                  So what do they do?

                  Import a pliant class of Turd Worlders already conditioned to accept civilian disarmament. What was it Longshanks said in Braveheart?

                  If we can’t get them out, we’ll breed them out…

                  • [Of the end-time Babylon]:

                    Daniel 2:43 “….And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. ”

                    -being fulfilled before our eyes!

                  • eric, Longshanks wasn’t correct though. Look at the vote on Independence and you’ll see the Scots are a damned long ways from accepting England dominance.

                    If you wonder why I’m such a curmudgeonly, independent old fart there’s good reason, genetics. My mother’s side was Turnbull, a name given to our family by Robert the Bruce around 1308 because my many times removed great grandfather saved him by turning and killing a rogue bull intent on killing Robert. He knew without my grandfather’s actions he’d be a dead man so he awarded him(hey, it ain’t what you know, it’s who you know, back then and now)land and wealth for that deed. Up to that point the family was a bunch of rogue’s themselves living in the highlands near the border and paying tribute to no king nor anyone else, true, free capitalists, whiskey making and selling Scots(and no telling what else). My father’s side was Irish leaning to Scot, so stubborn to do no other man’s bidding they sat in Alabama and said the evil rail-splitters(I’d bet he didn’t do shit all his life as far as honest work….Lincoln, that is)war was none of his concern since he was a wealthy businessman and refused to participate. Things went from bad to worse forcing him to take sides. Because he had to take sides, the choice was easy and he eventually was buried in his Confederate officers uniform well after the holocaust.

                    My dad despised cops. From the time I was old enough to understand the words and intent, I knew he hated them since he’d had it out with every one that ever stopped him. He fairly much walked away from every encounter I ever saw with smoke boiling out his ears and the cop looking for a different, more compliant victim. He wasn’t a big man and was so nice he had virtually no enemies and a huge amount of friends but to accuse him of something he wasn’t guilty of went over the top for him. I’ve heard him dress down cops like they were bad children and have seen them walk away probably re-thinking their job.

                    It ain’t just happenstance I’m a stubborn SOB. If you know the trash to talk about me, I’ll take it, admit it and don’t hesitate to say I was wrong or it is true. If it’s untrue, things can get dicey.

                    I have put my life on the line for true friends and have not been disappointed when I needed help. I have known since I was young that real friends are rare.

                    And now I’ll take my Aleve and go load a truck or two. I ask one thing of my friends here and nothing of clovers, figure out where to go and we’ll go singly to later be a force. Most of you can probably leave legally. I’ll get there my own way…..but get there I will.

                    BTW, as McArthur said “I shall return”.

                    • Good stuff, Eight!

                      My ancestors came from Switzerland – another instinctively independent country and people. Maybe Cloverism is in the genes also?

  23. Paul of Tarsus

    What if this Jew murderer was a wannabe Stalin and a criminal mastermind?

    Wouldn’t Stalin’s power had been even greater if he’d pretended to see visions? Then he would have not only the power of the Russian state behind him. But also the Russian Orthodox Church.

    IMO Paul was a big creep. It is only “his doctrine” that being celibate is preferable to being in a sexual relationship.

    I don’t think the words in Thessalonians 3:10 mean what you think they mean

    A fabricated apostle

    Faux apostle Paul – Roman undercover agent and snitch

  24. Lately I’ve been wondering what the difference is between the US government and other countries’ governments, such as the Scandinavian countries, where it seems a majority of the people feel their (mostly socialist) government is effective and the people support most of the programs (or at least that’s what we’re told). Is it because of the small population? The monoculture nature? The fact that everyone’s related? Or is it just a bunch of BS and I’m just being suckered in by the media?

    Here in the US, it seems like the government is much more parasitic in nature, which is why they are so obsessed with employment and GDP. They know if the wealth of the nation decreases they’re the first things on the chopping block. We have one of the most expensive governments in the world, yet it continues to grow as the nation’s wealth remains stagnant or even begins to shrink. This is completely unsustainable and the powers that be know it. Their swanky lifestyles and bureaucratic empires depend on an ever-growing economy they can skim from. The outrageous stories we hear of police confiscation and money sucks like speeding tickets and DUI checkpoints are a symptom of a much larger problem.

    OT: it’s a shame you had to turn on moderation.

    • There is, I think, a greater degree of alienation here because of the fractiousness and diverging wants/needs of so many different ethnic/racial groups.

      I’ve been to Europe (including Sweden) and there’s more consensus because it’s like America was circa 1960 (overwhelmingly) European white.

      Mind, I’m not trying to make an argument for racial-ethnic homogeneity. Just making an observation.

      People (of all ethnic-racial backgrounds) resent forced assimilation. That’s one of the big problems plaguing the U.S.

      Race/ethnicity is an issue chiefly because government force makes it an issue.

    • PS: Moderation should not affect registered users!

      I hope it’s not too much to ask to request that people do so (register). I am not going to sell the lists or do anything with the info other than approve you so that you can post without your posts going into the “moderation” queue to await approval!

    • When dealing with left-statists they’ll bring up Scandinavia and other countries in Europe as if that’s a wonderful world that could be copied here. There are a couple fundamental problems with that. The USA is a welfare-warfare state, not just a welfare state. The other is the predatory and parasitic nature of the US slave/serf debt state.

      Scandinavian socialism is this high taxed collectivist way of life. But more or less it’s controlled and people live decently. There is not some armed occupation force in your face demanding obedience for the sake of obedience and such. Or at least it so appears. The population is dependent on the state, those running the state aren’t paranoid and don’t seem to desire ever greater wealth in power. They got what they want and that’s that. The poor live better but motivation is dampened. The state seems satisfied with the status-quo being preserved. Perhaps that’s due to not having internal groups. In the USA it’s not like that.

      The power structure in the USA wants everything. It will not stop until the country is open air prison or hog farm. People are livestock to their ends. It uses every new socialist program not to better people’s lives but to dumb them down, hurt them, diminish the possibilities for them and their children, grand children, and so forth. It’s self-fulfilling social darwinism. Social programs are weaponized against the population. The state wants just enough creativity and motivation to get newer better weapons to use against other countries and the home population.

      Everything is about control. Those running the state are paranoid, power hungry, and never have enough of anything. They use everything and anything they can to get the people into a state of fear and then expand their power. They exploit people’s emotions. I could go on and on about it in every facet of life here.

      Thus Scandinavian welfare, Dutch roads, etc and so forth can’t work here because they’ll always be modified into weapons to achieve some other goal. It’s winner take all in the USA. The problem with a collective is someone has to run it so it appeals to control freaks. This is now collectivism is used in the USA. Someone has to run it and the winner is going to run it. Everyone’s labor funnels up to the winner and then everyone lives at his whim. We are livestock to better their lives.

      I know this isn’t a particularly clear post, but I hope I am getting across my theme.

      • BrentP, I believe I understand and agree with you. I see the dumbing down every day because I work with all ages, sexes(wonder how many there are these days)and the common theme amount the 20’s and 30’s crowd seems to be a distinct lack of education. I certainly don’t mean history either since that’s not even taught any longer.

        Maybe the only good thing they have going is very little race animosity. But basic understanding of just our physical world is frighteningly lacking. My generation would be lost, in more than one way without basic understanding of directions. Not so for the new bunch.

        I was recently weighing a truck and this young, early 20’s girl was operating the scalehouse. You can tell her understanding of it relates only to the computer and readouts she has and not much else. I mentioned we might be getting a break from the heat since the wind had just changed to the N. She gave me a blank look. Then she said “I don’t know my directions”. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this from younger people, even people in their forties.

        I tried to briefly explain it to her. Your window faces N, the sun comes up over there(I point to the east with my right hand and stand in the same orientation as she)and it goes down over there(left hand pointing) so if that’s E and That’s W then straight ahead is N and behind you is S.

        Well, you can’t win em all and she simply repeated she didn’t understand it. When I was her age I instinctively headed in general directions on roads I knew I wouldn’t get checked on by the DOT so I could avoid their “tax”. The only time I’ve been truly lost was in a forest at night, unable to see the sky. I started carrying a compass(mounted one on my truck and got a pocket job too), something I’d bet is a lost word to most “under 50” crowd.

        Now I see the new crowd is using GPS but in my part of the world it often just shows it’s not capable. I’ve had a Garmin Street Pilot for over a decade and it’s mostly entertainment as “Post” street is often perceived as “Post” road or boulevard or Lane. I’m not above asking someone who appears to be local if they know where CR 2600 is. It can save a lot of time since detailed maps aren’t any longer made. I still use maps made by Gulf and Exxon via the 60’s that show roads you won’t see anywhere else except those state produced detailed county maps and they’re getting difficult to find.

        • Of the primary functions of government schools is to make people hate learning. They want people just good enough to push the buttons and do the work, no better. As time goes on less and less is taught and people learn less and less on their own in general.

          There must be a dumbing down with regards to direction as you say. I’ve mentioned it before, there’s an 11’9″ railroad viaduct near where I grew up. It’s been there since the 19th century or very early 20th when the railroads started bringing rich folks out there for the gulf course. The road it’s on is now a decent arterial road west of it. East of there it was never expanded. Anyway there are more and more warnings about it being 11’9″ every year. Now from miles away there are warning signs. Occasionally a light up gas powered construction message sign is pulled out to warn truckers of the height limit. The thing is there is a major US highway 1 mile south. 6 lanes, full interstate height underpass for the railroad, etc. It’s not even worth risking for a small rental box truck. The risk/reward ratio sucks, but people are doing it more and more and it has to be GPS. This didn’t happen much in the age of maps.

          I usually can figure out my compass directions from knowing if it is afternoon or morning, if it is winter or summer. If summer the sun is biased north, if winter, south, if afternoon west, if morning east. If it’s noonish spring or fall I’m screwed 😉

          The population has become ever more less thinking, more emotional, more easy to manipulate. I see it. I see state scientists and other intellectuals right out lying, being dishonest with their presentations, it’s sick. It’s a society of not raising others up but pushing others down for one’s own success. Makes me just want to stay home and wall off the rest of the world.

          • BrentP, I forgot. The last thing this girl said was “All I know is it’s noon when the sun’s straight up”. I said the sun is never straight up in the northern hemisphere. She had no idea of what I was speaking of.

            Like you, I can tell how far north I am by the noon day sun. When I was in the lower part of Mexico I could tell just by the sun I wasn’t in Texas anymore.

            Another thing I’ve noticed is the way people refer to going somewhere. I grew up “knowing” and it’s only because people used maps, that from where I lived you went “up” to Oklahoma or Lubbock, you went down to San Antonio or Mexico(same thing now) and you went “out” to Orange or El Paso. Now I hear people say going “down” to somewhere when they’re actually headed north. That wouldn’t be the case if they could read a map….and I know plenty women who actually can’t read a map. I probably know men who can’t either but won’t admit to it.

            BTW, there was a major overpass taken out last week on I-20. I was headed to the same road it passed over the interstate but took the loop around Midland and never knew it was damaged. Here is another point I make about govt. agencies. This bridge was taken out by an eighteen wheeler that plowed into the support columns. If built correctly, it would be nearly impossible to take out a guardrail protecting the support columns.

            • A guard rail capable of protecting a support column from a semi truck would kill a driver of a passenger car.

              If it only saves one life…. oh the bridge fell and killed 10? Seen and the unseen.

              The proper design would be a conventional guard rail backed up by something that would stop a semi.

              Maybe the cost of bridge replacement now and the is less than doing so on all the overpasses? Don’t know.

            • Meh, the “up” and “down” thing gets me all the time. Yes, I can read a map, the problem is, Jersey – you go “down the shore” even if it’s going East.
              Then, we went from North Jersey to Central: The woman couldn’t even recall we were in the same state, but I’d keep saying “down there” when I meant back in Morristown – North Jersey. (asking people, “How’s it going down there?”)
              Now I’m in Masshole-ville, I guess “down” works… But i’ll still say “down there” when I mean to drive to New Hampshire… And then if I check in, I’ll say I’ll be “up there” (home) soon… Though I’m headed south!

              Ever feel like a bobble-head doll?

          • One of the best illustrations of dumbed-down illogical, non-thinking, drink-the-Kool-aid mentality I’ve ever experienced:

            I was talking to a neighbor woman back when they first invaded Iraq- and she was saying how she “just knew that Saddam was hiding those WMDs” 😀

            I asked her: “If that guy is such a menace, and we are so worried about him “attacking us”, then how is it that when his own country is being attacked, instead of using those weapons to defend his country, he would “hide” them?”

            I then heard the longest most complete silence I had ever experienced in a conversation with a human being. She couldn’t answer that; she couldn’t admit that she was wrong and that our actions were a sham- but of course that didn’t change her mind.

            I guess most people these days aren’t interested in truth and facts; they just want fairy-tales that they can use to justify the actions of the political machinery which they support and believe in.

            And apparently, I think that conversation with my neighbor is illustrative of about 90% of the population of the US. And I suspect that their willing ignorance and justifications for the evils of the society which they support are no different than that of the Germans in Hitler’s day. Be it the US Navy or German SS; SWAT teams or concentration camps, their husbands and children are always “heroes” for “fighting the good fight” and following orders; and those whom they fight for provide the fictions to justify their actions- and no one dares look too closely at those fictions, because if they did, they might not be able to maintain the charade, and they might have to admit that they and their loved ones are the real forces of evil/bad guys.

            • “I asked her: “If that guy is such a menace, and we are so worried about him “attacking us”, then how is it that when his own country is being attacked, instead of using those weapons to defend his country, he would “hide” them?””
              I can see why he would hide them (assuming they existed). He was a narcissist who believed his own BS, and thought his forces could win, or at least make us leave. Outlast us, rebuild later.
              Why he wouldn’t pull out all the stops towards the end, I dunno; maybe he’d hidden everything where it was now inaccessbile? Say, Syria? OOPS! 😛 didn’t see that working out that way….
              Maybe Baghdad Bob, was it, the propaganda guy, was so concerned about NOT getting killed, that he was reporting bad info to his psycho boss? wouldn’t be the first time…

              I don’t recall Saddam being labelled as an immediate threat to us, though. More like a possible source for others who WERE a possible threat to us. (That we created that threat never was discussed…. ) That people seemed to have lied about what was actually happening, that was a concern. (Yellow cake)
              The number of red ehrrings (Including Plame, who supposedly wasn’t an agent, but a data analyst; OTOH, of COURSE the “agent” was a data analyst! Like you REALLY have a title of, “Foreign Operations Spy”! 😛 And if the person IS a spy, you’re REALLY going to leave a paper trail, right? All the way to the Director’s desk, right? In hard copy and digital format, JUST to make sure it can be found…?
              You know, it’s like a “proof of the conspiracy is, there’s no proof” situation.

              Reality still is, we want to have our endless wars, so we can always be “the good guy” fighting “the bad guy.” It’s a racket, and it’s what we were warned about (“Chesty” puller and Dwight D. Eisenhower.)
              Like you said, the fictions are all important. Bread and circuses.
              Ultimately, the problem is the puppet masters. They’re just so damn well insulated from US…. We need a barbarian invasion to wake up Rome…

              I don’t understand how “the elites” can be so vain as to think they’re above and beyond the rest of us. They are STILL part and parcel of this world, and STILL face the same issues. If Junior is edjumicated to such a level that he’s an idiot…. Well, we stand together, or fall together. Can’t have a useful factory without workers, can’t have a society with no citizens…. And an army of useful idiots, is still an army of idiots, who will balk at orders, undermine authority, disobey orders, execute orders poorly, or even make honest mistakes and totally cluster-luck the situation….
              If that clusterluck happens to be building a neutron bomb, you might never find out what went wrong… That “int” should’ve been a “float”, and the 1/32″ tolerance…. Well, the complementary part was designed, built, and modelled on a metric scale, and only allowed for a tolerance of 0.001 mm…. Or the torque requirement for the bolt was in pico-Nm, and you used a torque wrench in ft-lbs…. Or even, someone’s notation didn’t indicate it was in INCH-lbs, not FOOT-pounds…

              Humans being what they are? NONE of us is a dumb as ALL of us… (Demotivators.com, BTW.)

        • Dear goodness, now maps are becoming extinct?! I never even thought of that- but it fits-in with what I’ve long been saying: When the electricity becomes scarce/the satelites go down, the majority of people will be totally helpless- unable to function/do the simplest things.

          Even in ’90’s, I encountered a Postal worker (a grown woman!) who couldn’t figure change for A DOLLAR when the electricity went out. A few years ago, I encountered a store clerk who couldn’t figure 10% of a round number!

          And now I hear that in the government schools, they’re not even teaching cursive writing anymore?!

          I’ll tell ya, when people get to the point where they can no longer produce or sustain all the technology, society will fall to a level of utter destruction never seen before- i.e. not just a regression to the past- because in the past, people knew how to do things- but rather, a level of utter helplessness never seen among human beings before- and there will probably be mass extinction.

          Oh, wait…maybe that is the plan! After all, isn’t that what they want- to reduce the world population by 95%? What better way to achieve it, than to get everyone dependent upon technology, so that they no longer can do anything in the real world to sustain their own lives…and then just turn off the power/take away the technology? Viola[sic]! Instantly, a world full of huddled masses just clawing at each other until the supplies run out- and then everyone’s dead.

          • Cursive writing isnt’ too big a deal…
            But basic math without a calculator (or Common Crapshoot) IS essential. As is reading, and reading a map, and a compass.

            As for removign 95% of the population, isn’t that sort of going to work the WRONG way? the “educated” (reliant on Tech) will be unable to do – but those who CAN do, and MAKE do – will be beyond the elite’s control, and evolve in new and interesting ways…
            And likely hold a grudge, too. 🙂

            • Dunno about that, Jean- the average blue-collar types seem to be the most easily controlled. And they really can’t even do for themselves anymore- they’ve become totally reliant on the calculators and computers and automated processes- The gov’t is essentially making “useful idiots”.

              The only ones who can really do for themselves, are farmers and such- and thanks to everyone worshipping at the altar of gov’t schools, the younger generation of them are even losing their independence.

              It seems the only ones who “they” have to worry about not being able to control, are those of us who still value the ideals of freedom and independence AND who can do for ourselves- but such are not much of a concern to them, as, ultimately, they have FORCE- and the vast resources (both human and machine and quantity) to exercise it.

              Interesting: In Matt 24:22 it says “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened. ” (That’s not talking about spiritual “salvation”, because “flesh and blood can not inherit the Kingdom of God; and the “elect” are already “saved”…)- but I’d say that based on “their” plans, we are living on the brink of that prophecy- and that if those days weren’t shortened, mankind would go virtually extinct.

              • Sorry, Moleman, I was unclear. “Educated” referred to those who went to skuul. Not to collar color.

                I was referring more to the “wrong type” as the “might is right” approach favored by those who would tend to survive by killing or enslaving anyone they could.

                I recall on vignette from the “Batman: Contagion” storyline, to sum it up nicely. Gotham has been sealed, the contagion will burn itself out, everyone is on their own.
                Gangs control territory. The GCPD is one of the gangs here.
                On one street, someone walks up to a gang house, seeking some sort of help, tells them he’s got skills he can trade.
                They ask him what the skills are; he states he facilitated communication between people, and they say go ahead inside…. (More to it, he was a corporate communications type, like PR.)
                Next frame, he’s helping them communicate alright – his body’s impaled on the wrought-iron fence out front.
                Two frames, sort of stuck with me (I didn’t even buy the comic.)

                I believe the “elites” see themselves as the “Saved” (Their virtue is proven by the fact they have money.)
                Problem is, if they don’t have robotic servants or gene-engineered flunkies, these “Elites are worthless, as they have no value in their money (or even real estate) without the “hero worship” or envy of us “little people.”

                Automated systems don’t provide ego-gratification, which the vapid upper-classes need DESPERATELY…. If you never make anything with your own two hands; never write, nor sculpt, nor weave, nor farm, nor build…. You KNOW in your heart you’re worthless. No one needs to tell you that.
                You need admirers to push the pain deep away; no admirers, you find your life empty.
                Robo-Pool-Boy <a href="http://sybian.com&quot; Sybian just isn’t up to the task….

                • I’m sorry too, Jean- I’m in the midst of stuff here, and really didn’t take the time to read your comment thoroughly; nor really formulate a proper response.

                  We do think along similar lines though!

                  One thing that has always bothered me, is WHY- when they now have virtually the whole world as a colony of serfs, and are thus able to confiscate the fruit of the labor of hundreds of millions of people, as virtual slave-owners, would they seek to drastically reduce the number of slaves they hold, from whence comes their wealth?

                  I mean, if you had 100 people who were toiling and you extorted 50% of the earnings of those 100 people, what sense would it make for you to kill 95 of them?

                  Some have postulated that ultimately, it is not so much about the wealth the overlords have, but more about their Satanic religion.

                  But I agree- without the labor force of the vast hoards of slaves, who will be extorted for the unfathomable wealth, and who will clean their terlits and build their mansions and cars and TVs?

                  But then again, I guess to those who have no qualms about exterminating practically all of mankind (effectively the human race entirely- because with only 5% of the population left….one epidemic could effectively render the human race extinct), self-destruction is also no big deal. They have to be psychos to begin with.

                  • No worries, Moleman.
                    Now, one thing that comes to mind is: how many people from the Lower 48 want to stop the Keystone Pipeline.
                    Their objective? To “preserve the pristine wilderness.”

                    A wilderness they have never been to, do not wish to go to, will not support through charity, will not assist by creating jobs – to protect reindeer who care not one whit WTF humans do, and to “assist” the Innuit – who WANT the pipeline for JOBS. They’ve ahd enough of this BS “Noble Savage” crap, it’s effing cold and they’d like more than an igloo these days.

                    (OK, I’m exaggerating a little to make the point, but the locals want the jobs the pipeline would bring; instead they get more regulations, and live a poorer life than they should.)

                    These people are small-minded, caught on an ideal (Nature! Beauty! Noble Savage! Big Country! Evil Oil! Save the deer!)
                    Somehoe they forget that there are people who LIVE THERE NOW, and want to make a BETTER living. NOW. NOWNOWNOW!!!!!
                    Not in 500 years when the earth magically becomes Utopia and the glacers no longer melt from Global Warming! And yet, the Innuit should stay in their ice-homes, according to these nitwits, and be Noble Savages…. Or come live like a HUMAN BEING in San Fracisco, complete with free anal probing on the street corners…

                    Now, if TPTB wished to kill off all the canon fodder, I’d be far less against them.
                    They wish to kill off the THINKERS and the DOERS.

                    So I will oppose them, and kill them if I have a chance…
                    Self-defense to me. Proactive, but still only self-defense.
                    These people allow gang members and terrorists and plague ships into our country – THEIR country, too, technically, though they can go to Elisium and live indefinitely…

                    Nah, better to start population reduction with THEM. Get rid of that 5%, see what happens to the remaining 95% who might look upwards, and see stars; downwards, and see the deep sea or earth’s caverns, and be inspired to be better.
                    Instead we’re drugged into compliance, and pegged into a cubicle or a rousing “Service job” and chained in with golden fetters….

                    Seriously, for those who’ve never worked in Cubeville: I have to sign a contract which allows the company to claim EVERYTHING I make, every thoght, every idea, even if it is edited and produced on my time, on my computers, and never comes to work, and I take on all the development expense and testing expense….
                    The company owns it, even if it is OUTSIDE MY HIRED ROLES. So, if I make a new Virtual Machine? E.G., a JVM? The company owns it.
                    They don’t even have to PAY me for it – they OWN IT OUTRIGHT. And I’m here as a contractor.
                    If I come up with a new steel alloy? THIS COMPANY will own that formulation.

                    Fish Heads are too good for them.
                    They can drown in their own blood. I’ll push ’em back under!

                    Because the alternative to that sort of contract is, I don’t work. I’ve been down that route before; it’s not fun being broke, literally, and I have no one to fall back on. Not like the 2-year-old in a 51-year-old’s body can get stable employment….

                    (Speaking of which, time to get rid of some more baggage… But that’s neither here nor there.)

            • The main advantage of cursive is the speed, compared with block printing. And it CAN be a beautiful sight. (mine is definitely not!)
              When you have a keyboard (and typing skills) the speed may not be a big deal. But, like you said, heaven help when the juice goes out.

    • Eric_G, I think part of what we’re seeing here in the US is due to the fact that the covert revolution to destroy our Constitution & freedom is still being waged- i.e. the powers that be are still gaining control of every aspect of life, and making a show of force to quell resistance.

      In many of the already-socialist countries, the revolution is already over; the people lost; the rulers won. Now that the rulers have that power and the people are subjugated, they can let them be, in the smaller things. They have control of the people’s finances; children; transportation; etc. so they’re not as concerned with some of the smaller things; nor with the show of force. So, it seems, that in many of the socialist countries, people actually seem less harassed and a little freer these days, because the war is over- they’ve long been disarmed and subjugated. The dissenters are gone.

  25. I began seeing the cracks at a very young age.

    When I was 10, I wanted to work in my friend’s parent’s luncheonette- but couldn’t. “Because you need working papers, and you can’t get them till you’re 16”. Hmmmm, says little me, what was all this stuff i was told about this being a “free country”?

    Shortly thereafter I convinced my mother that school was a waste of time, and that I should be studying things that had relevance to MY life, and at my own speed, instead of having to sit there for hours doodling, while the class went at the pace of the lowest common dumb-nominator. She couldn’t deny the truth of what I was saying, but made me continue going, because she was afraid of “what the authorities would do to her”.

    That was when I started realizing just how big a charade they were perpetrating on us. Yes, it’s “free” because you get to vote. That is all!

    Big freaking deal!

    Just like the teacher catering to the LCD, so the politicians cater to the most self-serving, least responsible; least capable; dumbest of our citizenry. In turn, those people keep the two major parties enshrined, because those parties say things that make every listener think that they are playing their tune, as they throw them a few bones from our pockets.

    BTW, Eric, I’ll be mailing out your “get well card” tomorrow 😉 Hope your case of Google-itis gets better soon! 😀

    • I walked a similar road, Mole.

      I can vividly recall moments in my childhood when I was struck by the absurdity of authoritah. One such – and here I imagine I am far from alone – was being told to do something, asking why I should, and being told “just because.” That got the wheels in my little head turning…

      I also had an interesting experience, school-wise. My parents initially sent me to a private school – all the way up to 5th grade. Then, my family moved – and I was put into a government school. I was literally years ahead of my peers in most subjects – e.g., reading/writing at what they considered high school level in elementary school. Result? I was bored almost to death. To salve this, I read on my own – adult books – and kept to myself. But I felt imprisoned – and the mindlessness of their system wore on me. In private school, the bright kids were encouraged. The disruptive kids were removed. The opposite was the case in government school. Everything catered to the LCD. And disruptive kids were allowed to dominate the class. Even worse, though, the teachers were often obviously incompetent. In most private schools, the instructors had degrees in the subjects they taught – often, graduate-level degrees. A math teacher knew math; a history teacher, history – and so on. You respected them. But in government schools, the typical “teacher” had an undergrad degree in “education” and a “certificate” to teach. They had no specific expertise in any academic subject. This became obvious to the brighter/better read students. I discovered, for example, that I knew more about American history than the woman who taught history. What effect do you suppose this has on a 14-year-old?

      Today, of course, they’d have put you and me both on Ritalin.

      • HAhaha, so true, Eric! I still remember my 2nd-grade teacher- not because I liked her or because she was a good teacher- but rather, because she was a 23 year-old dingbat straight out of college- and not only didn’t I learn anything new that whole year, I actually LOST stuff that I already knew!

        I really enjoy hearing of stories such as yours.

        We’re among the lucky ones, because we managed to escape the brainwashing which seems to work so effectively on about 99.5% of those who are exposed to it. -And we are doubly fortunate in that we started figuring this stuff out at a young age- vs. someone like a friend of mine, who jumped through all the hoops, and wound-up in her 40’s with 4 degrees, including a Ph.D (Piled Higher & Deeper); a lifetime of debt from student loan…..living from paycheck to paycheck on a 6-figure salary, with nothing to show for it, in a field where the poilitics and people were driving her nuts.

        Only recently she “woke up”- and she’s literally back to square-one now- having literally nothing to show for all the time and money expended, except debt and the heartache of having worked for years i9n an environment she despised (academia). She managed to quit her 6-figure job finally, and now is working for little more than room and board, taking care of an acquaintence’s disabled wife- but she is MUCH happier. (and healthier)

        I consider myself very fortunate, in that since I saw the cracks so early-on, I never got entangled in “the system”- and have thus managed to live a very free life, always doing what I enjoyed, and not having to transgress my conscience. Sounds like you’ve managed to do the same. Kudos!

        I keep thinking of my friend- imagine the horror of not seeing these things until your middle-aged, and having to either continue with a life which you hate, or throw everything you ever worked for away and start all over from scratch!

        I literally thank God every day for the experiences which kept me from that world.

        • A thought about teachers: I remember one or two teachers from goverment- older ones (I went to school in the late 60’s & 70’s) who were from “the old world”. I know we’d NEVER see treachers like them today.

          I remember my 7th-grade math teacher, Martin Hart- He was (like your private school teachers) truly educated and intelligent. He not only knew math, but he’d give you little history lessons as he taught it (“The ancient Babbi-LONE-in-ans used to…”) which made it interesting AND informative- and I am now impressed by the fact that this older man, instead of taking a 2.5 month vacation every summer, used to actually work at construction during the summers!

          Somehow, I don’t see any of the union-monkey well over $100K-a-year teachers back on Long Island working at construction, or clamming or anything else during the summer, other than maybe taking a long vacation to Europe or Alcapulco……

          And the irony is, teachers like Mr. Hart didn’t make anywhere near $100K. But now the schools are supposed to be “better” because they keep throwing so much money at them (Which is why one pays $10K a year in property taxes in places like Long Island today!). Sick.

      • I too went to private school up through 5th grade. Then we moved from south Jersey to Little Rock, where of course they had to test us (my sister was a year younger) to be sure we could handle being in 6th & 5th grades. My dad told us later that his only fear is that we would be skipped, but not be mature enough to handle the higher grades.
        I also remember taking Psych 101 as a college freshman. Instructor with the ink not yet dry on her Masters. And I had taken Psych in high school. 2nd multiple choice test of the semester, she marked one of the answers incorrectly – claimed that there were 23 PAIRS of chromosomes in a human reproductive cell – and would not budge when I appealed. Guess who paid no attention the rest of the semester?

      • Eric, my daughter’s 6’th grade math teacher was fired by the principal/ district for doing just that sort of segregation.
        The loser-disruptors in the back with a teachers aide and a math workbook. Those willing to learn in the front. She was one of the few teachers my daughter liked, respected and learned from. That was 12 years ago.

        • If we’d had children, they’d have been schooled at home or sent to a private school. I cannot imagine sending one’s child to a government school under any circumstances. They were awful 30 years ago. Today, they must be – they are – beyond belief. Prisons, whose purpose is to kill the spark within every child; to turn them into (as George Carlin aptly put it) obedient workers.

          • I made up my mind when I was in my teens, that I would never have children in a world where we are not free, and where the state has more say over them than the parent- and that was 35 years ago….

            In such a society, children are a liability rather than an asset- used by the state as another means to meddle and control us.

            My 16 year-old dog passed away back in Feb. -I won’t even get another one now, in this tumultuous time. How could one even fathom procreating?! (When my 12 year old dog and 89 year old mother are gone, I am OUT OF HERE!)

            • I hear you, Mole…

              Just the sight of parents – always looking miserable – going through the process of “buckling in” their kid before even the shortest trip down the road… makes me remember why I decided to opt out of child-rearing. Because you – the parent – do not rear the child.

              The state does. Using you as its marionette.

                • It’s so sad.

                  Anyone over 40 will prolly agree with me.

                  Remember being 8 or 10 and spending the whole day running around the neighborhood unsupervised? Riding your chopper bike without a got-damned helmet? Rolling around in the cargo area of your parents’ (or friends’ parents’) station wagon?

                  All gone.

                  • I used to ride on the back of Grandpa’s flat bed with the milk cans on the way to the station. Yea, there were stake rack sides, but they weren’t all that sturdy. But we were trusted not to be ‘stoopid.’

                    • Dear David, RE: “Most people over 40 that I know wouldn’t agree with you, Eric.”

                      Those people are known to us over 40 folks as: Dweebs, suck ups, and ass kissers. You know, the teacher’s Pet.

                      They make good narks, snitches, and tattle-tales. It’s most likely they were doing so since the third grade or before.

                      The majority of us back in the Day, or so it seems, looked down upon those poor lost souls. The funny thing is, today they occupy positions of power like the head of Uber-Homeland Security.

                      Hmph, suddenly I think know how Humpty Dumpty made it onto The Wall. …The people got old and forgot. ?

                    • Hi David,

                      It appears that in each demographic, there is a small cohort of awake/liberty-minded folk. It is encouraging that there are any people in your age group who aren’t utter Clovers.

                    • CloverYes Eric you are awake/liberty-minded also. I do have to laugh at you. You say it is a stupid clover that says it is OK to strap in a child in a car. Back in the days when people did not strap in the child we did not have the news access that we have today. If we did, we would hear about all the kids flying through the front windshields in those days. It did happen way to often . I remember back in those days where a guy said if he got into an accident he would hold his arm out to stop his kid from flying through the windshield. Yes there were stupid people even in those days and thousands of dead kids to show for it. I know Eric if you were to strap a kid of yours in if you had one it would probably be to your front bumper.

                    • Clover, the issue is not the merits (or lack thereof) of child “safety” seats. It is whether you – or anyone else – has the right to force others to use them.

                      It’s the same thing, over and over.

                      My personal safety (or the safety of someone else’s child) is none of your business.

                      And you just don’t get it. Or, rather, refuse to discuss the matter openly. That is – your desire to threaten others with violence to keep them “safe” (or to “help”) them.

                      You are a violent control freak who hates the idea of liberty, of a free society.

                      Which makes you un-American.

                      Why don’t you move to Europe, Clover? Or better yet, North Korea?

                      Instead of working to turn America into North Korea?

                    • You know, Mr. 2 & 1/2 Leaf Clover, even if it weren’t “the law”, you (and everyone else) would still be free to restrain your brats; and to use your own discretion and determine the level of risk under varying circumstances, that you are willing to accept for your self and your fambly. And without mandatory insurance or the prospect of free “healthcare”, I have a feeling that even a relatively unconcerned parent would choose to exercise caution and do what they feel best to ensure their kid’s safety- probably more so than they would today.

                      If it’s mere safety that you’re after, then why not ban children from riding in cars at all? Better yet, you could prevent 40,000 deaths a year if you banned driving entirely. Would you like to see that? Oh, no, because you are willing to accept a certain level of risk in order to have fast convenient transportation- just as those who ride motorcicles are willing to accept a higher risk for the enjoyment of such. But you seem to think that it is O-K for others to use economic raps on the knuckles and violence to dictate the level of risk that strangers can take or not take.

                      Now we are to the point where it is a “crime” to leave your kid sitting in your parked car alone for 5 minutes, while you run into the store. In one case in NJ, (a state which now has a $1000 fine for not “buckling up your cat or dog) a woman was ARRESTED for leaving her kid unattended in a stroller for a few minutes outside of a store that she zipped into.

                      If you think that having an Orwellian Naziistic state usurping all of our rights and the very ability to live our own lives and make our own decisions is somehow a good trade-off for “safety” I ask what gives YOU the right to impose such tactics on others via your “elected representatives”?

                    • CloverYou are right Eric. I do not get your right to endanger others including children. Enough said because that says it all.

                    • Clover, I feel you might be endangering children. It is entirely possible you have one locked up in your basement. Anyone might be endangering children. Someone certainly is. It could be you.

                      So, let’s conduct random stops at people’s houses. Cops will knock at your door, just to ask a few quick questions, maybe have a peek inside. Whenever they like, at random.

                      Because someone might be in danger….

                    • Yes Eric you say it is your right as a parent to declare a possible death sentence or permanent injury to a child if you get into a minor accident just because of your stubborn stupidity to not easily prevent it. Like I said before Eric that you are stupid and have a mental problem. Clover

                      Like I said Eric, I do not understand why a person has the right to endanger others. Why is that Eric? I thought the libertarian theme was to do whatever the hell you felt like if it did not harm others. You are willing to harm others.

                    • Clover,

                      There is a difference – a huge one – between overt/deliberate reckless endangerment (example: giving a six-year-old a bag of heroin) and a minor/marginal and entirely theoretical “risk” (such as driving a six-year-old in a car without a saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety seat).

                      In any case, it is not your place to decide for others – to micromanage their lives – because their lives are not yours.

                      Are you the parent of your next door neighbor’s children? Who gave you the right to parent them?

                      What you are, Clover, is a pushy, obnoxious busybody.

                      And – as I have pointed out before – a coward.

                      Why don’t you go around tapping people on the back, demanding that they do this (or not do that) yourself?

                      If your ideas are so wholesome and commonsensical and right?

                      You know why.

                      Because people would tell you to fuck off and MYOB.

                      And you can’t stand that.

                      So you use government to do your dirty work – like the whiny little kid at school who runs to teacher.

                    • Hey Clover,

                      Does your kid sleep in a fireproof room?
                      Does he use a safety harness when using the stairs?
                      Does he ever eat out of those dangerous ceramic dishes or drink out of glass glasses, which could mutilate him/sever his jugular vein if broken?
                      Are the edges of your pillow cases thoroughly secured, so as to prevent them from becoming a suffocation hazard?
                      Has he ever ridden one of those two-wheeled human-powered vehicles, in which one is precariously balanced on two thin wheels, just looking for a reduced-traction situation to send them hurtling to the hard concrete?

                      If not, what gives you the right to determine the level of risk that the offspring of your reproductive system should be exposed to?

                      Oh…because the state hasn’t mandated those things yet? But when they do, I’m sure you’ll be fine with it.

                    • Clover

                      Darn it Clover – don’t you how Libertarians view children? They believe children are their own private property until a child is old to choose to leave their parents to seek other guardians or hit the streets and live on their own.

                    • No, Clover. Libertarians do not consider other people’s kids the property of the state. That is, of other people not their parents.

                    • Moleman it is all about risk based changes. Thousands of kids each year used to fly through windshields and slam against dashboards and hit the car roof with even minor accidents. There are now easy solutions to prevent it. It all comes down to a libertarian is willing to endanger others. If you tell me that thousands of kids are killed by certain types of glasses that are designed for kids then yes they are taken off the market. Yes the government can not control everything. They are not in your home to tell the idiot not to give a 2 year old an easily breakable glass. Toys are removed from sale when found to kill innocent children by poor design. Tell me why a libertarian is willing to change the oil in their car as a preventive solution when they are not even willing to do something simple to save a child? Is that libertarian priorities? Clover
                      Eric some of the brightest people in our country went to public school. Then there are people like you. It is obvious that you learned nothing in public school. You are willing to change the oil in a vehicle to save an engine but unwilling to do a simple thing to save a child. That fact tells me that you learned nothing in public school. That fact goes against everything I thought that libertarians believed in. Eric if you want to drive a hundred miles per hour on a winding mountain roadway then I have no problem with it if you can guarantee me there will be no other cars or bikers or walkers around that you very well might hit.

                    • Clover, what gives you the right to risk-manage other people’s lives? I have pointed out before the fact that air bags can and have injured and killed people. Don’t people have a right to weigh risks for themselves?

                      Your oil change argument doesn’t fly. Here’s why:

                      If you do not change the oil and filter, you will have mechanical problems. It is certain.

                      If I do not wear a seat belt, it is possible I may be more injured if I have an accident.

                      Can you understand the difference?

                      And more to the point: If I don’t change the oil in my car, well… it’s my car. It’s not your car.

                      Similarly, it’s my life. If I choose to “risk” it (as you see it) by not wearing a seat belt, that’s my right – because it’s my life, not yours. You are not my parent, nor my owner.

                      Child “safety” seats are no different. As Mole pointed out, there are innumerable things that could result in harm to a child. That does not give you the right to forcibly intervene.

                      Only when a child is actually harmed – or when it is obvious that imminent harm will result – does one have any right to forcibly intervene.

                      Letting a six-year old ride in a car unbuckled does not rise to that standard, Clover.

                      And if you disagree – if you insist that because they might be harmed, it’s right to forcibly intervene – then there is no limit to the forcible interference that could be justified. Not in principle. And so, ultimately, in practice.

                      This is what I object to, Clover. Your busybody control freak society. In which no aspect of your life is sacrosanct. No limit set down to the potential of others intruding into your life.

                      For whatever reason, you cannot or will not understand this. You believe some “balance” is possible, even as the scales obviously tilt in the direction of an absolute authoritarian state.

                      It is astonishing.

                    • Exactly, Libertarians parents see their children not others’ property but their own property until the child has formed an individual conscious in which they can choose to live with their parents, seek other guardians who might raise them into adulthood or leave outright and seek child employment.Clover

                      Back in the old days children were expected to earn their keep from around four or five years of age. Back then if a parent didn’t want to raise a child, esp. an lazy ingrate, then they were free to abandon them even if the child might die fro non-care without facing legal repercussions. And, of course, children would enter adulthood (as in had their own job and took care of themselves) at a much earlier age than today (usually around 13 to 15 years old).

                    • No, Clover. Jesus! How many times…?

                      Libertarians do not consider other people’s kids their property – or the property of the state.

                      Can you get that through your head?

                    • Clover,

                      So what is wrong with people who are concerned about their child’s safety being free to strap them in or do whatever they want/think they should to ensure their safety?

                      Or maybe someone is driving in bayou country or similar, and feels that under their circumstances, being unbelted would be safer, as going off the road and ending up in the drink is a more present danger than crashing into a fixed object [Does the fixed object then become broken?] and they feel that the ability to get free and not be trapped in a submerged car is more important/relevant?

                      I don’t know many people, but I know 3 different people who survived accidents [none involving water; all involving extreme intrusion of the passenger compartment] only because they weren’t belted, and were thrown free!

                      You’re always mentioning kids flying through windshields in MINOR accidents- but what about major accidents? I was sitting on my mother’s lap who was a passenger in a 1950’s car when I was 5- and we got into an accident. Guess what? I didn’t fly through the windshield! I banged my mouth on the metal dashboard; cried a little; and we all went home.

                      So you want some strangers whom I’ve never even met, to rule my life based on statistics, rather than allowing me to make my own decisions based on actual circumstances and the present risks?

                      And guess what? Most people are convinced of the benefits of seatbelts, and would have their kids wear them. Those who don’t care, likely expose themselves and their famblies to other risks in many areas of life anyway, so what is the point? You can’t make them good parents and see that their kids are well-cared for by enacting legislation- although that is what you try to do.

                      It’s like drugs: Even if you manage to deprive a drug user of access to drugs of any type, guess what? The person who would injest a substance that may cause them serious harm, just to get high, is a person who is willing to take a much higher level of risk than I. Merely curtailing his access to drugs is not in any way shape or form going to prevent him from taking bad risks in other areas of life- be it smoking in bad, or crossing the street without looking; and thus, curtailing his access to drugs will not somehow make him a better parent and suddenly make every other aspect of his kids life safer.

                      But the biggest thing is, in order to ensure the freedom and basic human rights of the good and innocent, you have to be willing to tolerate things that you may not agree with/may perceive as bad- and let everyone run their own lives and have dominion over that which is their own- which should be easy to do, since those things do not affect/involve you in any way.

                    • Funny, Gil: You all worry about the safety of 3 year-olds and 13 year-olds so much, oh, God-forbid that a person whom you’ve never met should expose their child to real life….and yet the very mechanism which you count on to legislate “the safety of all” is the same entity which enables, propagates and funds the killing of babies in the womb.

                      Hmmm…little contradiction there? So, somehow, after the kid is born, it is a ward of the state, and must be strapped into car seats and not left alone in the car for 2 minutes or smoked in front of….but while he is in the womb, it is perfectly fine to kill him; and the Orwellian Safety Organization will even pay for it, with money they extorted from me.

                      It belongs to the parent when it’s in the womb; but somehow becomes the property of the state once it is sprung….

                      I am a libertarian. Although I believe that abortion is murder, and therefore wrong…..I would ENCOURAGE all who want one to have one! I think it’s GREAT that such people would destroy their children, rather than filling the world with more dysfunctional delinquents; it’s not my concern! It’s their life; their child; their property. I have no say in the matter- nor should I.

                      Why does it suddenly become my concern once the child is sprung? [It doesn’t. People like you just think it does]

                    • CloverHow are the parents not the owners of the child? Everything the child has and is came from the parents. Until the child attains self-awareness and can make his or her own choices then that child has to belong to someone. A baby is not a self-capable being thus has to be reliant on people until he or she grows old enough. Whoever the baby’s guardians are have the say on how the baby is raised and for that time are effectively the owners of that baby.

                    • There is a big difference, Clover, between being a parent or guardian and an owner.

                      And the state (that is, other people – merely other people invested with special titles and costumes and, of course, organized violence) has no (legitimate) ownership claim over anyone.

                    • What I keep asking the Clovers of the world, but they can never seem to answer, is WHAT GIVES THEM THE LEGAL RIGHT to interfere with MY life; MY children; MY property; MY money; etc.?

                      Legally speaking, this country was established under a Constitution which gives gov’t very limited specific powers- mainly to operate over itself and some physical aspects of the nation as hole[sic :D]; and to secure and uphold our rights, as defined in that Constitution.

                      NOWHERE is it authorized to interfere in the minute details of everyone’s lives, in order to force them to practice “safety” nor any other artificially-imposed standard.

                      These same Clovers would be incensed if some church or religion were authoring legislation that dictated the conduct of individuals and how they maintained what was their own; but yet, they will fully support and even demand legislation which effects and amounts to the very same thing, as long as it is not done in the name of a deity.

                      What difference does it make, if someone is forcing you to do something against your wishes, because they think that is wah tGod wants you to do; or whether they are doing the same thing because it is what THEY want you to do? The machinations; purposes; outcopme and consequences are identical- the only difference is in semantics.

                      These people reject religious tyranny- as they should- but then they hypocritically and enthusiastically accept humanistic tyranny.

                      They are too stupid to realize that there is no difference! They both amount to the exact same thing!

                    • Moleman I guess the government should include an IQ test to the parents of a newborn and take the kid away from them if they are as dumb as you are. Tell me how many Gs would there be if a mother is holding a small child and hits another car or solid object at even 45 mph? When you go from 45 mph to 0 mph in less than a second there would be a dead kid. Clover
                      Eric a new car MAY be able to go the lifetime of the vehicle without the engine failing because of no oil changes. Why change the oil?
                      Eric you say that some people were killed by air bags but Eric 100s of thousands were killed without them. Drinking too much water can kill you. Why would you drink any? Eric you may be able to write but it is all garbage.

                    • Clover, you’ve demonstrated once more your inability to comprehend a principle and apply that to a particular. The principle in this case being: If “risk” – however slight – is sufficient justification to endow you or any other stranger with rightful power to impose controls and punishments on other people and their kids, then there is effectively nothing beyond your reach.

                      And: Air bags have not saved hundreds of thousands of lives – or anything close to it. And even if they had Clover, you have no right to decide life or death questions for other people.

                      Arrogant control freak prick.

                    • Clover, you’ve already failed the IQ test. It doesn’t matter how many G’s there are at 45MPH- I’m not trying to prevent you from using seatbelts. We are not arguing about the effectiveness of seatbelts, but rather the morality; legality; and practicality of FORCING people to use them.

                      Of course, I expect this from you, because your position is otherwise indefensible.

                      YOU are the one seeking to restrict the freedom of others.
                      YOU are the one advocating that a committee/statistics should determine what people do, rather than their own judgment under the specific circumstances they are in at any given monent.

                      And of course, you could not answer the questions I posed/refute the things which I said.

                      FORCE is all you have on your side.

                      People of low intelligence who like to exert force on others, and who are not ashamed to keep coming back for more, even after their premises have been thoroughly rebuffed, are usually donut-eating swine.

                      So are you a porker?

                    • Ya gotta love it, Eric! These turds gladly advocate having heavily armed goons interfere with and molest us; and steal our money, because we won’t exercise what THEY consider to be the proper level of “safety” in our own lives.
                      If one is concerned about their neighbor’s safety, then I’d suggest that they not randomly toss lawn darts over their neighbors yard while the kids are out playing; Not drive down the street while they’re blotto; not shoot off a Roman candle indiscriminately pointed…. in short, our responsibility/obligation to protect our neighbors extends only as far as OUR OWN CONDUCT.
                      Once we cross the line and decide to dictate how anyone else must conduct themselves in their own affairs; or what level of risk they may and may not accept; and even decree punishments for transgressing the bounds that someone else has set for them (because of what “might happen” in a hypothetical situation) WE become a far greater menace to our neighbors than anything we might be seeking to “protect” them from.

                    • CloverMoleman there need be no force. You either treat others with a safe travel either it be in your car or outside you car or never get on the road. It is pretty simple. If you get on the road and I see that you have in effect handed a child a revolver with one or two bullets in it then yes force to take that loaded gun from the child is in my view and millions of others the correct thing to do. That is pretty much what you are doing if you let a child ride in your car without any restraints. What is it that libertarians are fighting to give a young child a loaded gun pointed at their head?
                      If you say it is your right to endanger others then as Eric says what is next the right to kill others? Do libertarians feel they are justified to kill others when they did nothing to you?

                    • Clover:

                      When people are forced to use (and pay) for roads, they have every right to use them. More deeply, there is a fundamental right to travel.

                      And you have no right to forcibly interpose yourself over a perceived “risk” that is in no way analogous to giving a child a loaded weapon to play with.

                      Virtually everyone drives – or rides. Yet the vast majority will never be involved in a major accident. Whether they are wearing a seat belt or strapped into a “safety” seat is therefore irrelevant. It is certainly none of your business.

                      Or rather, it is no more your business than whether I am 20 pounds overweight and don’t exercise “enough” to sufficiently reduce my “risk” of an early death from a heart attack.

                      Who appointed you everyone else’s Mom?

                    • Clover, I know someone, who as a kid in the 1950’s used to carry a .22 rifle around on his bicycle while on his paper route, and shoot at crows- in California, no less! This was perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. So I have absoloutely no problem with a child being given a loaded gun- he has not endangered anyone until and if such time as shoots someone. Just being in possession of the gun does not somehow mean that a shooting is inevitable. If he does shoot someone/something, then his parents must bear the cost.

                      By contrast, in the world that people like yourself have created, people are insulated from their own/their children’s actions by various schemes which limit liability; while other innocent people are deprived of their rights in order to potentially “prevent crime”.

                      Laws can be punitive or preventative. The USA was founded on PUNITIVE laws- in which you are only guilty of having committed a crime when you actually commit one; and then must bear the cost of the crime if you commit one.

                      By contrast, preventative laws just seek to limit and control everyone in order to prevent them from ever having the opportunity to commit a crime.

                      The difference between the two philosophies is the difference between freedom and a police state; Individual liberty and unlimited liability vs. deprivation of rights in exchange for limited liability, in which all are forced to pay for potential crimes even if they never commit them; and those who actually do commit crimes are protected from the full brunt of the consequences of their actions.

                      But your analogy holds no water, anyway, because a child or anyone else not wearing a seatbelt, poses no risk to others whatsoever. Again, it comes down to the individual’s right to determine their own (and their children’s) acceptable level of risk; and their right to choose what they feel is the best course of action under any given circumstance; and a matter of who “owns” one’s children- the parents from whose bodies they sprang; or some group of criminals and pedophiles whom you voted for.

                      Back to your child with a loaded gun analogy: So you think it is endangering others for a child to merely possess a loaded gun; but you don’t see it as a danger when armed goons pursue a vehicle and interfere with the flow of traffic and detain and interact with a person and extort money from them in the name of the state, merely because they are not practicing the acceptable level of risk in their own life that the state deems they should?

                      Talk about bass ackwards…..

                    • Moleman and Eric, I can see it now, the libertarian has his small kid in the car and has a minor accident. Years later the older kid and his father are in the car speeding and are stopped by the police. The older kid says to the cop, look at me, my father showed you didn’t he. The kid now has no nose or eye, he has scars all over his face and is missing an arm. Clover
                      That says it all about your libertarian ideals. I hope your are proud.

                    • Clover,

                      Try to understand: A possible – and very slight – risk that someone might be injured if he doesn’t wear a seatbelt or sit in a child safety seat does not give you the right to threaten that person with violence to force him to wear a seat belt or sit in a child safety seat.

                      Just as you have no right to demand that other people exercise, or “get out” more. Or eat a certain diet you approve of because it’s “healthy” and will “lower risk.” It may do just that. But it’s not your place to dictate such things to other people.

                      Electing to not wear a seat belt (or use a child safety seat) is not the same thing – not even remotely – as you witnessing (as an example) a parent beating his kid to a pulp and stepping in to stop the beating.

                      Do you see?

                      No, of course not.

                      You see yourself as a good person, no doubt. The great risk-mitigator. The practical problem with that is you’re not omniscient. You can’t say that (as an example) in every case, seat belts save lives. Because it’s a fact that in some cases, wearing a seat belt means death – or a serious injury that might not have occurred. Yes, the risk is less. But that is beside the point. Who are you to make those decisions for other people?

                      That’s the moral argument.

                      You don’t own other people, Clover. They have a right to weigh risks and take action – or not – according to their own judgment.

                      You only have the right to raise your paw when someone else’s actions directly threaten to cause you harm.

                      Otherwise, mind your own business.

                    • CloverYou are right Eric I do not understand. I do not understand your right to add risk to others. Eric I could care less if you endanger yourself but endangering others I do not understand. Thousands of kids were needlessly injured or killed each year without any child restraints decades ago. We have cut that back significantly. The last figure I heard was that there are 2 million accidents a year. Do you think it is your right to endanger 100s of thousands of kids? I know Eric, you want more people to die so that you have an open road in front of you.

                    • Clearly, Clover, you do not understand. Because it’s not a question of ” I do not understand your right to add risk to others.” The question is whether you have any right to decide for others what an appropriate level of “risk” is.

                      Life is risk, Clover. There is potential danger almost everywhere. It’s my right – and your right – to decide for ourselves whether a given “risk” is significant enough to warrant preventative action. You believe the risk of being injured in a crash is great enough that wearing a seatbelt is important. I believe that hitting the gym every day is important to avoid the risks associated with being sedentary and out of shape. Neither of us has the right to decide for the other whether the “risk” at issue is serious enough to warrant countermeasures. Because your life is yours – and mine is mine.

                      You do have the right to act in self defense when I am directly threatening you with harm. It should be obvious – even to you – that my decision to not wear a seatbelt poses no danger to anyone except myself, so it’s my business and not anyone else’s.

                      And child “safety” seats? Yes, it’s possible that a kid not strapped into one of these might be hurt if there is an accident. Notice the mights and ifs? And, moreover, the kid might still be hurt even if in a seat.

                      Just as a kid might be at greater risk of developing diabetes if he’s overweight. Do you want to regulate that, too?

                      How many kids are injured while playing sports? Should sports be banned? Because you – or some other “concerned mom” are “concerned”? Don’t the people directly involved have a greater right to determine how to live their lives than you?

                      I know I’ll never get through. I respond only to make the point for the benefit of others who might be reading.

                      You are a “Little Stalin.” You believe you know best how others should live – and in your right to force them to live that way. You cannot abide free choices made by others that do not comport with your views. You want uniformity – in accordance with your beliefs.

                      You may not even appreciate this. May believe you’re simply a common sense gal, advocating the greater good. Too dim to see where this inevitably leads. What will happen, eventually, when the principle that individuals do not own themselves but rather are “community property” is accepted by a majority.

                      I’d pity you, if you weren’t so contemptible.

                    • CloverEric I know you do not understand because you have never been a parent. Most every animal on earth protects their young to the best of their ability but not you Eric. You are willing to give other people additional risk. You are willing to give another person the chance to live a lifetime being handicapped or even dead. Eric you say that I do not have the right to say how much risk another person has but why do you have the right to give someone more risk? Tell me why a libertarian has more rights than anyone else?

                    • Sheesh, Clover! Really?

                      I am not “giving risk” to anyone. I am merely disputing your right to decide whether a given thing is “risky” for others.

                      Notice that there’s no coercion underlying my position. I am not “giving” anyone anything. I am respecting their right to decide for themselves. You want to wear a seat belt? Do so. I will not interfere.

                      You, on the other hand, want to tell me – force me – to wear a seat belt.

                      Maybe I ought to force you to do a couple hundred crunches every day. After all, it’s “risky” to not have a strong core….

                    • I just love the oft-repeated “1000’s of kids were needlessly injured or killed”! -As if no one would ever use a seatbelt again if not forced to!

                      It also presumes that everyone who doesn’t use a seatbelt is going to be involved in an accident.

                      It also presumes a right for someone else to determine what level of risk you must take, and what is the best course of action in a given situation.

                      Guess what Clover? If we were free, people would have to more realistically foot the bill for the consequences of their own actions. No Medicaid; no mandatory insurance; and those who would choose to carry insurance would pay a more realistic premium without the goobermint skewing the market- so those with a good record of safety would pay very little; and those with a history of higher risk would pay much more- which means that people would have even more reason to be safety-conscious- ‘cuz if little Billy goes sailing through the windshield, Mommy & daddy might have to sell their house to pay the $40K hospi’l bill…or be refused treatment; or have to beg from a private charity; or see their insurance go sky-high if they carry such.

                      Funny thing, back in the 80’s I used to live near this single mama with 5 kids from 4 different men- and they were on the dole, of course. Miss Baby-Mama got a job at one point (got kicked off the dole for cheating)- and guess what? Suddenly, this family who never gave a thought to their own safety, and who used to call an amblinse[sic] for a trip to the ER for every little bump and bruise….suddenly had the mother [I actually heard her say this on several occasions] saying “Don’t do that!.;..Be careful! I gotta pay now when you go to the doctor!!!”.

                      Funny, how this woman who would never even discipline her kids; smoked 4 packs of unfiltered cigs a day; drove a $200 filthy car with bald tires and trash 6 inches deep on the entire floor….suddenly started becoming safety-conscious, not because she cared about her and her kid’s health; not because every aspect of her life was being monitored for some potential violation….but merely from realizing the possibility of having to actually foot the bill for any potential consequences and/or not having anyone else who would be forced to “make it better” if and when something happened.

                      So tell me, Clover, are you working on a campaign to out-law access to McDonald’s for those under 18? I mean, C’mon! What right do you have as a parent to “expose others [your children] to the potential risks of diabetes; obesity; clogged arteries; etc.? [I could see your objection to such a law though- McD’s business would seriously decline, and they might reduce the royalties you get for letting them use your image].

                      So buckle-up those kids when ya drive ’em to Mickey D’s! Gotta keep ’em safe, ya know! And remember to ask for ID from every 40 year-old who wants to buy a pack of cigarettes, because we all know that it’s the store clerk who is responsible for your kid if he smokes; after all, the poor parent can’t actually be expected to keep tabs on his kid’s whereabouts and actions!

                      You know, transferring liability and responsibility, and redistributing wealth….that’s what America is all about*!

                      [*=according to Barracks Obammer]

                    • You are right about one thing Eric. The world would be better off if you never wore a seat belt. Anyone who does not have a clue what a no passing zone is for does not need to be making the decision on how much risk another person or child should have. Clover
                      Eric I think you need to go our and drive your motorcycle as fast as you can this afternoon and see what happens.

                    • But Clover – Jesus! – I am not looking to be the one “making the decision on how much risk another person or child should have. ”

                      That’s what you advocate.

                      Reading comprehension is not one of your strengths, is it?

                    • CloverEric every day you are on the road you make the decision for someone else how much they are endangered and how much risk they are given. You want other persons to do the same. Eric if no one else is no the road I could care less if you drive 150 mph. If you try to do the same in traffic or where there could be another person then you are making the decision for others how much danger and risk you want them to be in. If you think a parent has the right to put their child in a known risky position that could EASILY kill or injure their child then they would be making the decision to possibly injure the child for life or kill them. Our country says that parents should be smart enough not to do that but if they are not then police should stop them.

                    • Unless one is forced to assume a risk, Clover, one is not “given” anything. One assumes the risk (assuming there is one) or not, according to one’s judgment. Not your judgment.

                      Where does your busybody-ism end?

                    • Clover, I hit 150 MPH a couple times a month (except during the winter) and have done so for years. No “risk” was “given” to anyone.

                      But yesterday, in my area, an old coot – driving the speed limit (55 MPH) wandered across the double yellow and struck another car head-on, killing both its occupants.

                      The old coot was not “speeding” yet imposed all kinds of “risk” on others.

                    • I hereby propose that all children and any mentally-deficient adults shall have to be leashed. After all, we can’t have them possibly running out into traffic and endangering others and themselves! If their parents/guardians aren’t *smart* enough to do this voluntarily, we will have to use the police to see that they do.

                      The only question that remains, is whether Clover wants a leather, nylon, or studded collar.

                    • CloverI think we have covered the subject. To sum it up, I said there are around 2 million accidents a year. That means there are a lot of cars with kids in them that have accidents each year. Eric you are willing to take the chance or should I say you are willing to sacrifice the kid in the name of your libertarian ideals. It is really too bad that all kids are not old enough to make their own decision not to be injured or killed needlessly.

                    • Clover – you have it upside down and backwards. I’m not imposing my beliefs on anyone. That’s your department. If you want to be a neurotic ninny as regards your life – frantically attempting to avoid (or limit) the “risks” you see and fear – I will not presume to interfere. But do not presume to interfere with other people’s lives.

                      Your argument is as defective as your argument that because some people get into accidents driving “x” speed “x” speed must be made illegal across the board – even when no harm has been caused to anyone.

                      Again: It is immoral to threaten others with aggressive violence. That’s what you advocate. You can wheeze and prattle and sputter all you like, but that’s the bottom line. You believe your presumptive, busybody notions of “safety” entitle you to defile the safety of others by threatening them with violence. That, on the basis of some hypothetical/generalized “what if?” you’re entitled to actually harm people – or threaten to harm them. All of them, in every case. (As opposed to the mere possibility that some people might get hurt if “x.”)

                      Who gave you that right?

                      Are you the Great Law Giver? The Massa on the Plantation? By what right, Clover?

                      The only right you have, you foul creature, is the right to not be attacked or threatened with attack by other people, provided you are peaceful and do not aggress against others. This is the universal right that all human beings enjoy.

                      A child sitting beside his Dad in the front seat of the family car is not being attacked or threatened with attack. His dad is not beating him up.

                      That you are fearful for the child’s “safety” because he’s not buckled up or strapped into a “safety” seat is no more justification for doing violence to the child’s parent than it would be for some other neurotic busybody to demand (per Moleman) that all children be required by law to be on leash when outside their homes. Countless thousands of kids are injured and killed “off leash” in America every year. Why not require they be leashed at all times, Clover?

                      The sick and sad thing is your mind’s so crippled you can’t even begin to see the logic of my position – and the illogic of yours.

                      You are purely a stimulus-response sort of animal, trained effectively to respond predictably.

                    • CloverEric you say that “Again: It is immoral to threaten others with aggressive violence.”

                      Eric a person that does not take any safety measure in their car when they are taking their kids with them then they are in effect threatening the kid with aggressive violence. Your driving in an aggressive way that increases the chance of an accident is threatening others with aggressive violence. So the government requires you to drive safely around others and you say you have the right to threaten others with injury or death. Tell me which is worse? I would say that you are. I would very much prefer the government position on this than your position because you can kill others and it happens every day that people that drive like you do kills others and injures hundreds of thousands each year. It also delays my travels by hours each year.

                    • Ok, Clover. Perhaps then you can explain why a parent who allows their child off-leash is not also “in effect” threatening the kid with aggressive violence since it is just as possible said kid could get hurt/killed as a result of not being “safely” tethered to mom and dad.

                      Sure – for “safety” – all kids should be required to wear leashes. And any parent who does not leash their child, or lets them “run around” off leash ought to be punished.


                      Is it not also – using your standard “in effect” aggressive violence to allow a kid to drink soda? After all, drinking soda/sugary drinks is definitely correlated with a higher risk of obesity and diabetes and cancer.

                      How many kids are “at risk” because they’re overweight and sedentary, Clover?

                    • I can understand your not understanding such things Eric. Anyone with a zero sense of business I am sure would not understand anything so simple. In business you spend your time and money on things with the best return on investment. Using child restraints in vehicles is the easiest bang for the buck at reducing injury and death to young kids. Your little mental abilities can not figure out something so simple.Clover

                    • When one can’t argue, one insults… right, Clover?

                      “Bang for the buck” is not the issue. It’s whether you have the right to control others using violence in the name of lowering what you perceive to be their “risk”.

                      And if “bang for the buck” was the deciding factor, Clover, a leash is a lot less expensive than a “safety” seat. And it’s a fact that ordinary childhood injuries (such as falling down) are far more common – and hence the “risk” is greater” – than the “risk” of a child (someone else’s child) being hurt because they were not strapped in to a “safety” seat.

                      As to the rest:

                      Your “business” is collecting a government check.

                    • Clover, why the F are you so worried about other people’s kids? Huh?

                      If you want to worry about them, then worry- but that does not give you or anyone else the right to enforce your standards of acceptable and non-acceptable risk management on them; any more so than it entitles you to declare that they must wear a helmet when walking down a city street, because something may fall out of a window and hit them on the head!

                      If you have kids, then do whatever you feel is best concerning their safety; or nothing at all. You’re the parent; they’re your kids; do what you want; but do not impose your beliefs on child-rearing/safety/risk management on anyone else!

                      Other people’s children do not belong to you, nor the state. They belong to their parents; their safety is their parents concern, and no one else’s!

                      Personally, I think it is foolhardy when I see a parent riding their kid as a passenger on a motorcycle. I would never do it. I, however, would not presume to prevent others for doing it or punish them for doing it!

                      Your concern about others should be how YOUR actions may affect them. People like you are the reason that tens of thousands of kids are ripped from their parents each year, and put into the hands of people who are often of dubious character, including pedophiles in the “foster care system”.

                      So you think you’re saving a few kids from going through the windshield? And for everyone you “save” 10 more are torn from their families and suffering, or seeing their family torn apart by the state and their punitive actions by the Orwellian boondoggle that you and your kind have created!

                      Whether your motives are good and just ignorant; or merely a disguise for power over the lives of others, either way it is the same- you have created a monster!

                    • ‘Business’ Clover? Some of us are motivated more to do things that we love; or things which provide us independence; and/or things which are beneficial to others, rather than the things which would merely make us the most money.

                      I suspect that many here, including Eric and myself, could easily be doing things that would earn us scads of money [and tax obligations] if mere money was our motive.

                      Sounds to me like Eric has a fine understanding of business, and merely hopes for a little compensation to keep one of his endeavors sustainable, from those who appreciate it’s existence, with the benefit that people like you can have a free ride.

                    • CloverEric you say that police threaten you with violence if you do not have a kid in a safety seat in a car? Do they beat the parent? Maybe you should bring that parent on and ask them what happened? While you are at it bring on the thousands of parents that lost kids because they were following your values.
                      If a parent can do anything they please with their kid then is slavery OK? Is selling them for sex OK? Tell me where the libertarian limit is?
                      Moleman and Eric if you feel you have the right to treat others worse than an animal then go for it. You show me how sick libertarians really are.

                    • What is violence, Clover?

                      Define it.

                      If a man with a gun orders me to stop – and I am not free to ignore him because if I do ignore him, he will use force to make me stop, make me obey him… what would you call that?

                      This has been explained to you before. Or rather, pointed out. Your grotesque assertion is that the government isn’t violent. Just obey its orders and no harm will come to you!

                      Next, you lie – grotesquely.

                      Did I argue that parents could “do anything they please” to their kids? No. I specifically noted, in fact, that parents do not have the right to beat their kids. And so on.

                      But those things – physical assaults – are not the same or even remotely similar to not “buckling up.”

                      Only a Clover would assert otherwise.

                    • CloverSo Eric you are saying the police are threatening violence because they carry a gun? But you say that all people should be carrying guns. Are all people threatening violence then? Eric name me one person that has had violence placed on them when they failed to strap in a kid and what violence was that? If you are stopped and you run, it is not the lack of strapping in that will get you your violence. Eric if you go down the what if road then the ultimate in your mind would be that if you get on the road then you WILL be shot by the police.

                      So Eric you say that doing harm to a kid is bad but if you do nothing to help a kid that is OK? It is OK to not feed them? It is OK to keep them outside all winter with a bale of straw to keep them warm? It is OK to not strap them in and cause them permanent disabilities. Eric every day you show me how stupid libertarians are.

                    • Cops do threaten people, Clover. It is not a possibility. It is policy. Their “job.” They have legal sanction to threaten people with aggressive violence, to make them “comply.”

                      An ordinary citizen carrying a gun might use that gun to commit a violent act – but he has no legal authority to point it at you. No legal authority to act as an enforcer. He may use his gun for self defense only.

                      You can’t legally ignore a cop. And if you defend yourself against his aggressive violence, it’s a “crime.”

                      Is it possible you’re this stupid?

                    • Really, Clover?

                      Are you actually incapable of appreciating that there is a difference between an action that will absolutely cause harm and which, moreover, is intended to cause harm (e.g., “not feeding” a child) and something that – at most – entails a slight possibility of risk and which has no malice behind it?


                    • CloverOK Eric. If you say that police use violence on people I would guess that is a good thing. They do not use violence on me or anyone that I know or have ever met. I guess if they do it on the bad guys I do not have a problem with it. Eric if you take a swing at them or try to run them over with your car then I have no problem with them using violence on you.
                      Tell me Eric why I should be afraid of something that will never happen to me? Eric you are a thousand times more likely to commit a serious accident before I would have to worry about police using violence on me. Do police use violence on all of your friends? If they do then that shows me what kind of friends you hang around with.

                    • Clover, everything a cop does relies on violence. Because everyone is well-aware what will happen if they ignore the cop or disobey his orders. If a person cannot say, “no thanks” (or “leave me alone”) and go about his business (his peaceful, minding his own business business) without being assaulted, he is being coerced by the threat of violence. The “safety” checks you love are a case in point. What happens, Clover, if one refuses to roll down the window and speak with the armed man in the special outfit? You know perfectly well. But since you obey – and don’t object to obeying – you feel no violence has been done.

                      There were many Aryan Germans who also felt secure, were happy that “law and order” had been restored to the fatherland.

                      You might read Martin Niemoller sometime.

                    • Yeah, Clover, the Nazis never used violence either! Just don’t hide any Jews in your house, and do what they say, and you were fine!


                    • CloverYou are right Eric. I have no problem rolling my window down and saying hi. Guess what Eric? I lived through your so called violent encounter. I have seen Dom at a stop point. Yes he did act like a jerk and tried his very best to get violence pointed at him so he could get it on video. Eric if you have a problem talking to a cop, act like a jerk and take a swing at a cop then Eric I could care less what happens to you. I just hope the cop gets it all on video so he has it when you go to court.

              • Eric, I always think of an incident that happened when I was 5- and the contrast between then (1967) and now:

                New neighbors had moved into the downstairs apartment where we lived, and they had a dog. I went out to play in the yard, and ran in front of the dog- and he bit me right in the gluteous maximus.

                My mother took me upstairs and patched me up; I went back out to play. The new neighbor (An “Annie Oakley” type straight from Brooklyn- a real character!) lectured me on how I should never run past a dog, because if one does so, the dog will give chase- and likely catch you!

                I ended up becoming great friends with that dog (I was one of the few people he would tolerate) and we also became great friends with the neighbors. Case closed.

                Imagine that scenario today: It would involve cop; an ambulance; doctors; medical bills; social services/CPS; animal control; law suits; The dog may well have been euthanized; and I’d likely be afraid of dogs all of my life. (Like so many pepper-spray carrying cyclists who act like little girls whenever they see so much as a lab or terrier! Me? I carry dog biscuits- only because I like to stop and befriend and visit with dogs I pass while riding).

                It’s a sick, sick world. Anyone can make a baby; but it takes a real man to refrain and say “I’d never bring a child into this mess”.

                • I can so relate to this, Moleman!

                  When I was kid, our house had this long driveway I had to walk to get to the main street. The neighbors next door had a pair of sheepdogs who would chase me. At first, they terrified me (being small while they were very large). But no cops were called; no CPS involved. I got to know the dogs – and all was cool.

                  That world still lingers in my memories; yours also.

                  When we’re gone, so those memories of a better state of affairs will be, too.

                  • CloverEric I live a better life than any of my ancestors. It is your choice to always be looking for a fight and acting like a jerk. If you want to live a miserable life then keep doing what you are doing.

                    • Who’s the one seeking to impose his views on others using violence, Clover? Whatever I believe – or do – I keep it to myself. I don’t want your money; I don’t seek to control your life.

                      You, on the other hand…

                    • Eric you do seek to control others. Eric we live in a society. When you live in a society you life by those rules in that society. The same way that any animal that lives in a pack does. If you do not want to follow the will and rules of the society then you have the option to leave or have violence placed on you by someone talking to you. That is the same as in your own household. If your wife does not want to live with your ignorance then she has the right to leave . Clover
                      Just because you want to pass in blind areas on the road, act like a jerk, take swings at police etc. does not mean it is acceptable in our society. Why don’t you leave because your way of life will kill and injure millions of people.

                    • I had the TV on this morning. They were talking about Ebola. They mentioned that they tried it your way and let guys like the doctor from New York to self monitor and at the same time the doctor was traveling around the city. As they said on TV if a doctor is not responsible enough to do the right thing they said is the government then responsible to quarantine people who travel?Clover

                      That all sound familiar. Drunks are not responsible to not drive. Drivers are not responsible to not drive fast and endanger others, drivers are not responsible to not tailgate and weave through traffic. If people are not responsible, and it has been shown that they are not, then shouldn’t our government try to make them responsible?

                    • > I live a better life than any of my ancestors.”<

                      Only because the zoo rejected you for being a substandard representative of your species (whatever that is).

                    • Government doesn’t make people responsible. The government you love has killed more innocent people than all of the individual irresponsible actors in history combined.

                    • Clover, your government failed you.

                      All the things that people like you fear in a libertarian system exist in the statist system. The idea that government protects you from anything is an illusion.

                      Government protection is like mafia protection. If you pay them so maybe they won’t harm you. And maybe if some other criminal harms you they’ll punish that criminal. Not because it benefits you or anyone else but because they can’t have competition or someone disrespecting their territory.

                    • Well-said Ancap!

                      If anything, the gov’t limits the liability of some [Have 5 kids when you’re not even married? No problemo- the gov’t will play husband/daddy/provider….], while shifting liabilities to others who whose actions have not incurred such liabilities [Work hard; save money; have a kid when you have a spouse and some money in the bank…and your own kid can not fully benefit from the fruits of your labor, because your money is stolen and given to the welfare queen]

                      Same thing with AIDS (hah! That is more appropriate to this topic!)- Wanna take it up the poopchute? No problemo- the gov’t will enact laws to prevent others from “discriminating” against you; and pay for your treatment and support you for life on disability, at the expense of monogamous heterosexuals……

                      They redistribute liability like they redistribute wealth.

                    • Ah Moleman. Now your’e discriminating against the gay race. People who do things to themselves and are rejected by their peers have no choice but to force hateful people like yourself to provide them sustenance.

                      It’s called society. The definition of society being: a group of slackers, losers, unproductives and other such “disabled” people who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives and actions who have carte blanche to steal shit from those who aren’t like them, via government.

                      We have to pay the price for civilized society, Moleman…… We have to. If you don’t like it then move to Somalia. Bwahahahaha

                    • ancap, that’s what I do to statists now when they complain about some tax or some government program or the other. I tell them ‘it’s the social contract’ or ‘the price of living in society’ and so on. They don’t like it much.

                      And it’s useful because there is always something they don’t like that’s forced upon them, they just lack principles and consistency not to to do the same to others.

                    • Here is to the idiots: Yes our country is not perfect but with your world it would be unlivable.
                      Drunks on the road, no problem you say. Clover
                      Airbags and seat-belts, we do not need those things because there is room in our hospitals for thousands more and the undertakers can probably keep up?
                      Fuel usage restrictions? I am sure that I will do fine without it. I plan on opening a bar next to all the people waiting in gas lines.
                      Terrorists on planes? I am sure a few planes will survive. It will cut down on road congestion also since thousands will no longer be alive to drive.
                      Reckless drivers? I guess I will just buy a tank to drive around in.
                      Slow clover drivers in front of you? Just blow them away with your 50 caliber mounted in front of your car or tank.
                      Roads? We do not need those because there will be no money for them. You are not putting a road on my property!
                      Electricity? That will be gone because you are not putting up electric towers on my property.
                      Cell phones? They will be unusable because multiple companies will be using the same spectrum.
                      That is just a start. There are hundreds of others. Libertarian world a utopia? I think not. Rather, I know not.

                    • Clover,

                      “Drunks on the road” is not the issue – and Libertarians do not defend “drunk” driving. Never have – and you know it, because it’s been carefully explained literally dozens of times. You choose to ignore this – and argue about something no Libertarian I know (certainly not me) has ever defended (i.e., “drunk” driving).

                      So, one more time – not for your benefit, but for the benefit of new people here, who may not yet have caught on to your deliberate, egregious lies:

                      Libertarians oppose treating drivers as presumptive drunks. For the same reason we’d oppose treating people at random as presumptive rapists or murderers. I assume you’re opposed to that? You’d object to being randomly interviewed by cops and forced to demonstrate that you hadn’t been raping or murdering anyone recently?

                      No Libertarian argues roads are not “needed.” Just that it’s not necessary to force people to pay for them, for the same reason it is not necessary to force people to pay for any other thing they actually do need – which people will pay for freely.

                      It’s sad that you think in such limited, rote authoritarian terms.

                      And your outright lying is despicable.

                    • I didn’t know it was possible for humans– if Clover is such–to be pooped out when they are born. I guess I have learned something new.

                      His last post is so ridiculous, there is no point in responding point by point. After writing his latest bullshit, it’s obvious any response is a fruitless endeavor……..but all of us are “idiots”.

                    • Clóver,

                      You are more ignorant than a wet mop and as subtle as a bull in a china shop.

                      Your straw-man positions are vacuous.

                      When you come back from de Nial try to make a better reasoned argument.

                    • I don’t know Mith. Clover makes an excellent point about having no power, no roads and people killing those they don’t like driving on the non-roads with tanks.

                      I recall a certain tyrant, James J. Hill who illegitimately traded peacefully with and purchased property and easements from the plains Indians. Everyone knows that it was a lot better to operate like Union and Central Pacific and send government troops out to murder the Indians in the way of the rail lines. Omnipotent government at its finest. God bless their hearts.

                    • I think that is why they TRY so hard to justify the evils of the tyrannical state. To admit that it was wrong at any time, would be to admit the illegitimacy of the present system which they enjoy so much (Because it absolves them of most responsibility and liability) and would also mean they’d have to admit that daddy wasn’t fighting for “democracy” in Vietnam; and that grandpappy wasn’t making the world safe for democracy in WWII. So they maintain the illusion (to themselves) of the legitimacy of all that was done in the past (Except for slavery- but it’s O-K to disavow that, since it has been officially deprecated), because they will not face the fact that our empirical system is wrong, just like all the other world empires throughout history. They can’t face the fact that all they believe in is wrong; they can’t face the fact that daddy and grandpappy were just tools of bankers and politicians; and most of all, they can’t face the prospect of a world in which they would be fully responsible for themselves and their families- and might have to actually do something for which others would voluntarily pay; and cooperate with their neighbors and barter and work as a commuinity, instead of just letting the gov’t handle it all, in return for half of their wages……

                    • Good point, Moleman.

                      It’s a die.

                      Everything gets stamped according to the die.

                      What’s an android to do if the die is wrong?

                      “Let all the poisons, which lurk in the mud, hatch out.”

                    • Yes Eric your way of dealing with drunk drivers is punish them when they kill someone. Eric you do more to changing the oil in your car than to discourage drunk drivers. Clover
                      Eric you are talking about rapists now. Yes Eric if it was easy as talking to someone for 10 seconds to see if they are a rapist then I would be all for it. The last I heard though it was not possible.
                      If it stops the killing of thousands and the injuries of 100s of thousands and the property damage of billions of dollars then I am willing to talk to someone for 10 seconds. Not you Eric. The more dead and injured there are then the roads are less crowded for you.
                      Eric police to not treat you as a drunk unless you are drunk. I have been stopped a couple of times. I was not treated as a drunk.
                      Eric if you say it is not OK to stop you to see if you are a safe driver then I guess you do not believe in getting a drivers license. Why not let 10 year old kids drive the interstate until they kill someone and then tell them they should not be driving.

                    • Clover writes that my “way of dealing with drunk drivers is punish them when they kill someone. ”

                      Well, Clover – and leaving aside your hysteria – we do wait until someone has actually killed someone to pursue a murder investigation. And people do not have to prove they’re not thieves. Or rapists.

                      Not yet.

                      But you think it’s ok to require that people prove they’re not “drunks.”

                      It’s an interesting intellectual disconnect – and a moral abomination.

                    • CloverEric I have no problem having the police talk to me to see that I am fit to be on a PUBLIC road with hundreds or thousands of other people. If you want to drive under the influence of something in your own back yard then go for it. My right to be on a safe road overrides your right to not speak to someone for 10 seconds.
                      The supreme court agreed with me. You keep talking about your rights but what about mine and millions of others?

                    • Clover,

                      One’s rights are not vitiated by dint of screeching “public” (that is, government-owned) property. Your rights – and mine – are immutable.

                      One such right is the right to travel freely – without having to submit to violent arrests (whatever their duration) and probable cause-free searches (however politely attempted).

                      Do you understand what a principle is, Clover? That if it is not unreasonable to stop and search drivers at random, without even the assertion of individualized suspicion, it is also not unreasonable to randomly stop and search people who are merely walking down the street, or watching TV in their own homes (in their private property). Can your Gamma machine-minder mind grasp that a principle, once accepted, necessarily entails broader application because there is no longer any reason to object?

                      No, of course you do not.

                      Because you have no principles.

                      Or rather, your principle is: If Clover believes it will enhance “safety” – as defined by Clover – then people must accept the rescinding of their rights. In particular, their right to not be hassled by cops until they give said cop a better reason than “someone” might be “drunk.”

                      Well, Clover, “someone” might be sexually abusing a child right now. It might be happening in anyone’s basement. Therefore – to “save thousands and thousands of kids” – we must accept having cops show up for random inspections of our basements at any time. Everyone must be presumed a child molester – until proven otherwise.


                      Why – in principle – not?

                    • Clover writes:

                      “Eric I have no problem having the police talk to me to see that I am fit to be on a PUBLIC road with hundreds or thousands of other people. ”

                      Clover just doesn’t get it. At any level. Eric has already covered the “pre-crime” aspect. I’ll cover another.

                      Clover, don’t you realize that the creation of “PUBLIC” roadways already involved human rights violations? That brute force coercion was required to fund them.

                      You really don’t have the mental faculties to connect all the dots do you?

                    • Yes Eric I believe in principles. I believe it is not violent as you say to talk to someone in a nice manner. Your definition of violence and mine is drastically different. I believe it is violence to allow people under the influence is to be on the road with me or my family. You say you think they should not be on the road either but your solution of kissing their asses until they kill someone is in no way a deterrent. Clover
                      Then you come up with your what ifs as usual. Eric how about the what if that the police will kill you tonight in your bed. If that is something you believe as very possible then why worry about anything as minor as talking to you?

                    • ” I believe it is not violent as you say to talk to someone in a nice manner. ”

                      You’re either incredibly dishonest – or incredibly stupid. Which is it, Clover?

                      It’s not some “nice” man walking up to you in public and politely asking you a quick question – one you’re free to not answer (and asked by a man you’re free to ignore and walk away from).

                      Your “nice man” is an armed enforcer of the state. No matter how superficially friendly his tone may be, the fact is you’re forced to interact with him. To stop your vehicle, roll down your window and submit to an interrogation and search. It is conducted “nicely” – as long as you comply.

                      This is violence, Clover.

                      No different than if I “nicely” “ask” you to let me in your house… you knowing full well I am armed, and will use force to make you let me in no matter what.

                    • Clover,

                      Regardless of the amount of tyranny or liberty in a society, there are going to be those who don’t care about how the consequences of their actions impact others. Even in Soviet-era Russia and communist Red China, there are drunk drivers- so no matter what one does, it is not going to stop all drunk driving. The question is: How much do we molest the innocent to *try* and stop the guilty? (Just like the “war on drugs” which has had far more impact on all of society, and yet has not done a thing to stop those who desire to use drugs).

                      In a Libertarian society, where you are only molested and punished for harm that you actually cause; and then bear the full brunt of what you did, because there would be no limitation of liability, there would be MORE of a deterent to drunk driving, because without free medical treatment; without schemes that make one essentially judgment-proof; without the state protecting the causers of harm from the consequences of their actions in exchange for $$$, and with REAL punishment for those who actually cause harm (Instead of free room and board for a few months in the barred hotel), causing serious harm (serious property damage; injury; death…) would ruin the life of the perpetrator- and THAT would be far more of a deterrent to others, than the mere consequence of a fine/lawyers fees/a brief stay in the can; and yet those who do not cause any harm would not have to be molested or treated the same as those who actually cause harm.

                      Either way, there are going to be drunks. The question is, do we make those who cause harm pay for the consequences of their actions, or do we spread the liability around, and make the innocent pay; and relieve them of their rights to privacy and to be left alone, just so we can make people like you feel better, even though it does nothing to allieviate the real problem?

                    • Hi Mole,

                      Clover will never grok that – because Clover is damaged goods; he (based on all his posts) is incapable of reasoning, of conceptual thinking. He reacts in an almost-animal fashion – stimulus/response conditioning.

                      He’s hopeless. But it’s worth dissecting his “thoughts” for the benefit of those who are not beyond hope.

                    • UHHGGggg, I know, Eric. Why do I let myself be drawn in?! I’d say “For the benefit of others in Cloverland”- but they’re all the same as Clover; had all the conditioned responses beat into them since they were three. If they can’t see that all their cloverism isn’t working; and is in-fact destroying Western civilization, just by looking around them- I guess they are hopeless- and no argument is going to help them.

                    • Eric if you believe it is violence to be stopped then I guess you have never stopped at a stop sign or stop light. Eric 100s of thousands of drivers have been stopped by police with no violence placed on them. We have seen Dom stopped and the only jerk in the film was Dom. The only one talking in a threatening manner was Dom. The only one asking for a fight was Dom.Clover
                      Then there are those that worship “Larken Rose”. Hitler was a nice guy compared to him. Larken is the one asking for a bloodbath. I will no longer respond to people who worship Larken. Those people are absolute idiots.

                    • Yes, Clover – I do “believe” it is violence to be forced to stop by armed men, then forced to roll down my window and forced to submit to an interrogation and search.

                      Because it’s a fact that when a person is forced to do something – either directly forced or compelled by the threat of force if one fails to obey – then violence has been used to compel submission and obedience.

                      Do you deny that force is involved in all the above? Do you seriously claim that I am free to not stop? To decline to roll down my window? To elect not to speak with the armed men? What will happen to me, Clover, if I peacefully turn around and attempt to drive away? Or even decline to answer their questions? Having done nothing, I hasten to add, to indicate I am “drunk”?

                      Can you at least once be honest and admit that what you advocate involves threatening people with force in order to compel their submission?

                      And are you really so obtuse as to deny that force – its actuality or its threat – is violence?

                      If so, then I suppose you won’t mind if I show up at your house and – very nicely – “ask” you to do something… while fingering a pistol.

                    • “I will no longer respond to people who worship Larken. ”

                      First of all clover, nobody “worships” Larken. Most of us here RESPECT him. The distinction is probably one that eludes you.

                      Second of all clover, the link was not for you. You don’t have the intellectual capacity to discern what he is saying. The link was for others who do.

                    • Moleman are you really that stupid to believe everything that you say? Libertarians are incapable to look at the truth.
                      Yes police actions are a deterrent. If it is announced in the media that there will be safety stops on the road a certain night there are far far fewer people that drink and drive. If a person knows that the consequences of getting stopped after they have been drinking will cost them thousands of dollars and lose their license there are fewer drunk drivers. I personally know people that drink and have said those things. Facts are the facts and seeing it first hand backs it up. Clover
                      Then there came the change where police started doing more checks on the holidays and checks for speeding. The death rate in those states dropped significantly on holidays. You can lie all you want to but the facts are the facts. People like Eric along with people that drink think they are incapable of getting into an accident but 100s of thousands do and kill people. They are not thinking about if they have medical insurance when they are driving. People that drink are like Eric in thinking they are too good even when drunk to get into an accident but when they know there will be police stops they know that it is out of their so called superior abilities and control so they change their behavior. That change of behavior has saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars in savings.Clover

                    • Yes, Clover. Just as it would be a deterrent to accept random cop sweeps of people’s homes. And “your papers, please” checkpoints for pedestrians at every major intersection. Mandatory ankle bracelets for everyone – or “chips” embedded in their bodies. So much easier to monitor and track law breakers… along with everyone else.

                      The point being, Clover, that in a free society, it should be harder for cops to hassle people – even if it means it’s harder to catch “dangerous drunks.”

                      You prefer to make it easier (and ever easier) for cops to catch “dangerous drunks” – by catching everyone. Including people who’ve done absolutely nothing to indicate they’ve been drinking.

                      Why not apply your awful totalitarian premise of presumptive guilt across the board? We’d catch so many more criminals that way. We’d be so much “safer.”

                      If, of course, you don’t object to being treated as a presumptive criminal at every turn by armed men who will do you violence if you evince the slightest disapproval, much less resist their encroachments.

                      You seem unable to comprehend the principle that if you may treat an innocent person who’s done nothing to even warrant suspicion as an “offender” until he proves otherwise, then others may apply precisely the same principle to treat you as an “offender” for some arbitrary, random, probable cause-free reason.

                      You see, Clover, when anyone’s rights are violated all our rights are threatened. Not just in the one isolated instance, either.

                      But generally.

                      Because principles matter.

                      But you’re not bright enough – or thoughtful enough – to understand this.

                      Which is terribly sad.

                    • So Clover, by your logic, why not have cops pull people over at random and check their cell phones to make sure they weren’t texting while driving? Why not have cops randomly stop people who are on their way into banks and frisk them to make sure they can not rob the bank? Why not randomly interview kids to make sure they are not being abused????

                      You fail to comprehend that one of the principles this country was founded upon- and a principle which is fundamental to any free society, is that unless there is a factual reason to suspect that one has committed a crime, one is supposed to be unmolested/unhindered by the state.

                      Even if your way could prevent ALL drunk driving [which, obviously it does not] it should still be rejected, because it is the classic recipe for tyranny.

                      It’s bad enough that people like you will gladly trade liberty for perceived safety- but it’s not a very good trade, because in reality, we know that that so-called “safety” is just a small percentile reduction in the number of “drunks”- and the ones whom they catch, are virtually always those who have not caused any actual harm; nor even those who are likely to- but rather just those who may’ve had a beer or two and who are declared “drunk” by some arbitrary standard.

                      And lets face it- any reduction in drunk driving has been more than eclipsed by the number of distracted drivers. How would you propose that the nanny state stop that? What new tyranny would you like to see imposed, to see that people pay attention and keep their eyes on the road?

                      Again, even in the most tyrannical societies, there are crimes and drunks (usually more so than in a free society!)- so you can make this country into 1984 (I think it’s presently 1983) and all you will accomplish is to destroy our freedom; but you will never eliminate the crimes whose existence you use to justify the tyranny. -just as in Norway, where all innocents are deprived of arms; yet they still had that guy who shot 20-something school kids!

                      Free society with some drunks and criminals; or tyranny with drunks and criminals? I’ll take the former- and the only real difference between the two is freedom or tyranny.

                      I don’t condone drunk driving. I don’t drink. As a kid, I had an alcoholic step-father for a while. I would not get into a car with him unless I knew he had not been drinking. Punish those who actually cause harm- not everybody; and not those who *may* cause harm.

                      I wouldn’t complain if somebody who was swerving all over the road was pulled over- but i do complain when they start erecting checkpoints which affect every person- and the facetious Supreme Court reasoning that stopping every nth person does not constitute “random” shows just how ignorant/malicious they are!

                    • Dear mm,

                      He wants “safety.” He leaps to the conclusion that if costumed thugs are authorized to coercively check out everyone in advance, then he will be protected from danger.

                      He just can’t seem to get it through his thick skull that granting costumed thugs such powers itself constitutes a vastly greater danger, one that is all too real and far from imaginary.

                      To wit, the increasingly frequent outrages reported by Pro Libertate, Cop Block, and Police State USA.

                      In short, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

                    • Well-said, Bevin!

                      I could see someone 50 years ago holding Clover’s position- but TODAY? Now that we have been seeing the results of tyranny, all around us?

                      They really grasp at the mythical “protection” they think they are getting from the police-state, with everything they’ve got, till the bitter end, don’t they?

                      Funny also, how they say they have a “right” to guaranteed safety on public roads [as if there should even be such things]- but yet, the written, codified, constitutional legitimate right to privacy, and no interference from the goobermint, which is supposed to be guaranteed to all citizens, they overlook/could care less about.

                      People like him/her/it have the mentality of 5 year-olds….”The policeman is your friend!” 😀 (Yeah, maybe he’s your friend if you’re queer, and bend over in front of him….)

                    • CloverWhat a bunch of idiots. I argued one point and one point only and it has been occurring for many years if not decades and a single of your stupid what ifs has ever happened. Not a single person argued that I was wrong on my point but they are capable of coming up with hundreds of what ifs. If police do a single instance of your other what ifs then we can argue that. Until it happens stay on the subject. Idiots

                    • Clover, you argued that random “safety” and “sobriety” stops do not involve violence. Your argument.

                      My argument, in reply, was to point out the fatuity of yours.

                      No “what ifs.” Just facts. The fact that the threat of violence is used to force people to stop and submit to an interrogation and search; the fact that actual violence will be used against anyone who does not comply. The fact that the people stopped/interrogated/searched have done nothing to even warrant individual suspicion of having committed any crime.


                      Which you wish to evade and not discuss – I suspect because you know at some level your position is despicable. Ergo, you must use euphemisms and lies. It’s only a “nice” policeman “asking” a couple of “polite” questions… no big deal. No violence, certainly. That’s your ridiculous position, Clover.

                      It’s of a piece with claiming that one is a “customer” of the DMV’s, or that one “contributes” to Social Security.

                      The debate here is simply this: Whether it’s right to use violence against innocent people who’ve done absolutely nothing to warrant individualized suspicion. I argue it is not. You argue that it is – for the sake of “getting dangerous drunks” off the road.

                      Ok, let’s discuss that.

                      I argued that if it is acceptable to subject innocent people to random and arbitrary “dragnet” style police investigation for this “good reason” (as you see it) then there is no principled reason why they may not be subjected to it for various other “good reasons.”

                      For no reason at all, in fact.

                      Or rather, none having to do with any specific allegation based on supportable individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.

                      There is no longer, in other words, anything to stop further encroachments – because the “good reasons” are practically limitless.

                      This is why, Clover, we know live in a country where the government brazenly intercepts and collects our telephone conversations, our e-mails, our web surfing records. In which old ladies, cripples and little kids are forced to endure humiliating personal searches in order to board airplanes and obey the barked orders of cretinous low-lifes who would otherwise be working as Wal Mart “associates.” In which people who’ve not even been formally charged with a crime may be snatched off the street and – literally – tortured. Or murdered, by order of the executive.

                      All facts, Clover. Can you factually rebut a single thing I have stated?

                      This is the country you and your kind are building.

                    • Again Eric I have been stopped and no violence was placed on me. Dom showed us a video of him being stopped and no violence was placed on him. Eric if you take a swing at them or try to run them over then I hope they use violence on you because you would then not be an innocent person then would you?Clover
                      If they do not use violence on me or anyone that I know and only use it on libertarians then what does that say about libertarians? It shows that libertarians use first force because they do not touch innocent people like me.

                    • That’s right, Clover – because you obeyed.

                      Your position is: Obey – and no violence is necessary.

                      Except for the violence that compels obedience. You are under compulsion. You must do as ordered. Whether you like it – or not.

                      Are you truly this dense?

                      That you don’t mind stopping and are happy to answer the cops’ questions does not change the fact that the interaction is not voluntary.

                      And the fact that you don’t object does not mean others haven’t got a right to object.

                      Or do you believe that if I don’t object to cops randomly conducting “checks” of my home (after all, a child might be in danger; there could be elder abuse…) then no violence is used and you also ought not to object to random “checks” of your home?

                      The issue here, Clover, is rights.

                      Is it right to subject people who – by the government’s own admission – have done nothing whatsoever to give any reason to suspect they might be “drunk” – to a compulsory investigatory process? To forcibly interrupt their peaceful travel, subject them to an inspection/interrogation (however “nicely” conducted) not on account of anything they’ve done or given reason to suspect they might have done… but because a hypothetical “someone” might have?

                      If your answer is yes, then there is no rational/principled basis for objecting to any random/arbitrary search/interrogation. Because there is always the chance that “someone” might be guilty of (put “x” here).

                      Is this really so difficult to understand?

                      You want to talk “safety,” Clover? There is nothing less “safe” than granting to government random/arbitrary power over people. In your childlike little mind, you see government as this benevolent entity that is wise and trustworthy and which would never abuse such power. And yet, it does. Because idiots such as yourself have signed away not just your rights. But all of our rights.

                      God have mercy on you, if such a being exists.

                    • Eric wrote to clover:

                      “Are you truly this dense?”

                      The scary thing is, clover apparently really is this dense!

                    • CloverEric you are the one that do not understand. Your house is your property as you say. Police can not randomly come into your house without your permission unless there is some kind of proof that you are doing something wrong. Eric show me where police are randomly searching homes other than looking for a known killer in the area. On a public highway you are governed by those rules. Yes Eric if those rules may injure you in some way then those rules are wrong. Asking you to stop and talk for 10 seconds is in no way injurious to you. It is no worse than stopping at a stop light. You do not have the right to do whatever the hell you feel like on public roads. You say you have the freedom to travel. Yes you do but not the freedom to travel in an automobile and do whatever the hell you feel like. You have the option to walk like they did when the country was formed. If you use an automobile on public roads then you either live by those rules or get them changed if they are injuring you. It is not injuring you by talking to you for 10 seconds. Like I said before if you act like a jerk and use first force as you say you have that option then I could care less if they use violence on you.

                    • Re: clover’s latest “rebuttal.”

                      Clover really is that dense. He’s not pretending.

                      The primary key is his inability to assess the reality of his situation.

                      “Asking you to stop and talk for 10 seconds is in no way injurious to you. ”

                      Asking??? talk??? 10 seconds???

                      The secondary key is his illiteracy, evidence of gubmint skool indoctrination.

                      “Eric you are the one that do [sic!] not understand. ”

                      “I could care less [sic!] if they use violence on you.”


    • Moleman, I can go one better on the “working papers” front. When I turned 16, I was hired by a local mom and pop grocery store but couldn’t start working until I got a work permit from city hall. To get the permit, I had to pay an “occupational privilege tax”. It was actually necessary to pay a tax for the got-damn privilege of working! The tax was $15, and I made 50 cents an hour (before the other got-damn taxes were deducted): 30+ hours of working for absolutely nothing.

      • I got a job at one of the two big local grocery store chains. I had to join the union. Start-up fees plus monthly dues. I avoided it as long as possible, but eventually my luck ran out.

        • I remember when Safeway folded up shop in TX, (early ’80s) because they had a national union contract, but TX was a right to work state. When they were paying cash register girls w/1 yr. experience $10/hr. (I was making 5 in a machine shop) they could not compete with the other chains or the locals.

          • Yup.

            These kinds of jobs used to be mainly part-time jobs/first jobs for the very young (teenagers). Now teenager labor has been effectively priced out of the market.

            And instead of working, the teens play on their iPads….

          • Philip, we used to buy the Safeway brand black pekoe orange tea in bulk. It was the best damned tea you could find. Never had any as good as it since. Furr’s suffered a similar fate. I don’t know how HEB has avoided this, being based in Texas I suppose.

      • WOW!, Mike!

        A “privilege” to work- yet apparently, it is a “right” to not work; have babies, and have one’s “fambly” supported by the pilfered proceeds of redistributed wealth- ’cause there ain’t no fee to join THAT “occupation”.

        Talk about a society with ass-backwards ideas!

        I mean, think about it: It is a “crime” to earn your own living and keep all the fruit of your labor, but to make babies and not do a thing to support one’s self or fambly, earns one a reward of free money; a place to live; free food; free medical care; free edumacation; subsidized “public” transportation, etc.- It’s a crime to keep what is rightfully yours; and a privilege to practice an occupation; but a right to goldbrick. No wonder half the country is on the dole!

        • I know some of you don’t think much of ‘religion.’ But the Apostle Paul said, “He who will not work, let him not eat.” And, “He who does not provide for his own [household] is worse than an infidel.”
          Notice, he did not say “He who cannot work.” Such a person is the worthy subject of charity. But charity, as I have mentioned before, is voluntary. It does not involve the threat of force.

          • The only half-quote from the Bible that statists seem to be able to see, is “Do not judge…” (They quote it incessantly; incompletely and out-of-context)- and yet they “judge” us worthy of having half of the fruit of our labor pilfered.

            In a totalitarian welfare-state, private charity is verboten, because it reduces dependence on the state and reduces their opportunities to control the bottom-feeders.

            Sure, we can have “charities”, but they’re essentially just “non-profit” businesses- and lobbying groups who lobby for more socialism; if they actually do anything, it’s just things to enable drug addicts and other dysfunctional types and the protected classes that the gov’t has established.

            And to think, all the great hospitals and institutions in this country, were founded by private charity. Today, all those institutions are state-funded with our money, and we have no choice in the matter; and their clients are now “entitled” to their services.

            How truly screwed-up everything is- because we have the state trying to usurp the position of God- which is why all totalitarian states end up persecuting Christians- because it is a competing religion, under the authority of a different King. But when society somewhat as a whole regarded the precepts of the True King, we had liberty and prosperity and strong families. Now look what we have!

            • Right, MM – the verse does not end at “Do not judge” but goes on to explain that whatever standard you use will be used against you.
              It’s worse than leaving “The love of” off the beginning of “money is the root of all evil.”

          • Phillip, it would seem we’re the same age. I grew up in a very tiny town(on the edge)although half the town was planted in one thing or another and had livestock of one sort or another so that at least half the blocks comprising it were essentially agriculture. There were no rich people, bankers excluded of course. No one showed any money for sure and very few had any extra but I don’t recall anyone going hungry. They might have lived a very poor life and the kids might have mainly worn hand me downs but hunger was rare.

            Something else I think of regarding this is segregation. Hispanics lived and worked side by side with Caucasians and inter-married but there was a marked segregation with blacks. When I was a child, I’m sure it was mainly by design although a few blacks lived in the country. It’s still this way for the most part in this entire section of the country but not by design nor any action by banks or others, just purely the way humans are.

            On a purely personal note, I don’t care what color my neighbors are. I simply think good neighbors should live about a day’s drive from each other. Unfortunately I don’t own that much land but I would if I could. The old saying of ‘good fences make good neighbors’ is right on the money. The unsaid saying of “no” neighbors make the best neighbors is on the money too.

            • I’d prefer no neighbors too- problem in finding that, is everywhere I move to, shortly after I get there, someone comes and builds nearby…and then another…. I guess people are the opposite of me- instead of picking a spot away from others, they see someone occupying a place, and choose to then move nearby.

              But man, 8Sman- small town, or big city, the world was just so different years ago. Cities changed sooner(for the worse) and those detrimental changes took longer to get to the smaller, more far-flung places.

              My mother grew up in the 1930’s in the heart of New York City- 47th St. Manhattan. She (the daughter of Eye-talian immigrants) freely played with blacks and hsipanics. Everyone on the block knew aech other- like a small town; all the families sat out on the stoops in front of the apartment buildings, and all the kids played in the street. Vendors in horse-drawn carts would come by, selling fresh produce from nearby farms, etc.

              I hate cities…but man! They weren’t so bad in those days. Boy, what we have LOST! -And oh yeah…my grandpa raised 7 kids and a stay-at-home wife driving a cab- during the Great Depression- and the kids pitched-in, selling newspapers and banking the coal furnace, etc and no one went hungry- and there was no welfare or food stamps on universal healthcare. Doctors made housecalls, and personally knew your family for generations! All of my grandparents kids grew up to be happy adults- no divorces or criminals; and half of them are still alive today, in their late 80’s and early 90’s. My 89 year old mother is STILL in touch with some of the people she grew up with on 47th St.!

              We somehow traded all of that for supposed “security” provided by the state- and now look at the mess we have (Half the kids I grew up with in the 1970’s are dead already!)

            • 8 – I moved quite a bit as a kid, but graduated HS in a small town in KS in ’68. There was still an ordinance on the books that no blacks were allowed inside the village limits after sundown. But no one ever tried to enforce it. There was only one black man within 15 miles.

  26. Dear Eric,

    Thanks for another great essay.

    My journey to anarchism began by seriously considering this simple question:

    “By what right do men exercise power over each other?”
    ― Auberon Herbert

    This question should, of course, be the starting point of political philosophy. It is telling that this question is either completely ignored, or dismissed with a banal platitude, by virtually all political theorists. Most pundits simply assume that government is legitimate, and then argue about what government should do. The few writers (anarchists excepted) who even deign to address the question, dismiss it by insisting that “democracy” or “the consent of the governed” solves the issue.

    However, one need only revise the question by asking, “by what right do two men exercise power over one?”, to understand why “democracy” cannot be a sufficient answer. Likewise, the supposed “consent of the governed” fails because we cannot give meaningful consent. All governments claim the right to exercise a monopoly of force within a given area, and the rulers of this monopoly do not allow one to withdraw consent. It should be obvious that, if one cannot withdraw consent, one cannot give it either. Now, the clovers of the world will object and claim that one can withdraw consent by leaving the country (love it or leave it). However, this claim is both factually false (the Federal tax thugs claim the “right” to pursue people who leave the country, even if they renounce their citizenship), and logically absurd. The claim rests on a circular argument. If some person or entity possesses a legitimate title or stewardship over a given community, then that person or entity is entitled to assert a “love it or leave it” provision. However, the question is whether the government can legitimately possess such a claim. Proponents of the “love it or leave it” doctrine simply assert that the government possesses such title, and then invokes such title to support the doctrine. This is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning.

    Now, even the most hardened Statists recognize that the mafia is not exercising legitimate authority when it forces local businesses to pay for “protection”. But, just as with the mafia, the supposed legitimacy of the government’s claim rests
    entirely on the threat and use of force. The Statist apologists insist that the situation is different because the government is legitimate. However, they cannot provide any logically or morally coherent reason why the government’s threat of force is OK, while the mafia’s is not. Again, their claim is merely an unsupported circular argument.

    The simple fact is that force is the only logical answer to Mr. Herbert’s question. Those of us who do not accept that greater force confers a “right” to those who possess it, must reject the claim that government possesses a “right” to “exercise power over others”.

    Kind Regards,

      • Hi Phillip,

        Thankfully, most people at EPautos understand the fundamentally illegitimate nature of the State. However, it seems that most of us still desire to “preach to the choir” in the (perhaps vain) hope, that others may think more deeply about their political beliefs.

        I am amazed that otherwise intelligent people swallow the “love it or leave it” argument so readily. I must admit that most of the discussions that I have with my Statist friends goes something like this:

        Me: I object to the State stealing money from me to fund activities that I find morally abhorrent.
        Them: Well, if you don’t like it you can leave.
        Me: But that presupposes that the State has legitimate authority over me and how I choose to use my property. I can find no justification for this belief.
        Them: But they do, which is why they can force you to “love it or leave it”.
        Me: But why does the State possess such authority?
        Them: Because it is obvious, we have voted for it and, without it, we would descend into anarchy.
        Me: That’s not an argument, but merely an assertion.
        Them: No it’s not. (cue Monty Python)
        Me: aarghh.

        Still, I have had some success in getting my Statist friends to admit that the “legitimacy” of government rests on force. While most of them still can’t make the leap to anarchy, at least it helps to strip them of the delusion that “we” are the government.

        Kind Regards,

  27. When the Gunvermin, like Jack Nicholson’s character in “A Few Good Men,” says “You can’t handle the truth,” what they really mean is “We can’t handle what would happen to us if you knew the truth.”
    The purpose of education is to help one learn to think, so he can then educate himself as he sees fit. The Gunvermin Indoctrination Centers have nothing to do with education, only indoctrination.

    • Exactly so, PtB…

      Unfortunately, it takes a combination of luck, timing, personality and intelligence for one to awaken.

      Most don’t.

    • There is some evidence, not necessarily strong, that AIDS was an artificial development, aimed primarily at humans of African descent. There is strong evidence that it has nothing to do with HIV.

    • Good point, Mike.

      You’re right. I put nothing – absolutely nothing – beyond the pale as far as these cretins are concerned. They are capable of anything.

      • Interesting how the buffets and gates plead for population reduction, but have yet to take any steps to remove THEIR selves and families from the planet. So they front the money to hire “scientists” to create artificial germs to do their dirty work. These germ creators are giving science a really bad name, and it will come back to haunt the ptb one day when renegade cannibals come to chop their heads off.

        • I don’t think they’re creating renegade “germs” in reality, just the threat of them, like global warming.

          They adjust the measurements upward to “prove” it and ensure fearless leader gets the proof he wants to launch carbon taxes, when the real evidence points the other way.

          All the warmists have been prognosticating doom and gloom lately, blaming everything on global warming. The problem is, there hasn’t been any for 18 years. This is why they changed it to “Climate Change ©®™” so they can blame every weather event on it.

          Nature evolves its own diseases and the birds spread them around. I don’t think they need any help since there’s plenty of threat out there already.

          If anything, all these “scientologists” need to do is declare one particularly virulent and out of control, then they magically “find” a cure, making money for drug companies via mass immunisation programs.

        • Science lost any good name it had decades ago when they became a clerisy class. They are state intellectuals and their purpose is to justify what the state wants to do and supports the state’s efforts. In earlier ages the priests of the state religion performed the intellectual function scientists do now.

      • Link to the actual patent:


        Also ask yourself why we sent SO many troops to the “ground zero” area. It’s fairly well known that the military will line up men and women and shoot them full of who-knows-what and they cannot, by law, resist. Just putting my conspiracy cap on, but who’s to say they aren’t guinea pigs for testing vaccines?

    • Dear Mike,

      Entirely possible that Ebola, or at least the strains that currently pose a threat, came out of USAMRIID, the CDC, or some other goonvermin agency.

      It certainly wouldn’t be the first time.

      To wit, the Tuskeegee Syphillis Experiment, the Guatemala Syphillis Experiment, among others.

      Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois, College of Law questions the Obama administration’s actions in West Africa. RIA Novosti recently interviewed Boyle and he said the following:

      US government agencies have a long history of carrying out allegedly defensive biological warfare research at labs in Liberia and Sierra Leone. This includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is now the point agency for managing the Ebola spill-over into the US,” Prof. Francis Boyle said.

      Why has the Obama administration dispatched troops to Liberia when they have no training to provide medical treatment to dying Africans? How did Zaire/Ebola get to West Africa from about 3,500km away from where it was first identified in 1976?”

  28. “Once that realization dawns, the psychologically normal individual can never again entertain the idea of controlling other people. The thought becomes as loathsome as cannibalism.”

    Problem 1: Most of the “religious” who SHOULD be on our side (based on their very morality!) are, in fact, defective in reasoning BECAUSE their religion engages in RITUALISTIC CANNIBALISM….
    And take great offense at the concept, too! It’s SACRILIGIOUS to suggest they might be doing something “wrong” (not immoral, but meaning, they’ve diverged from the actual teachings – and don’t even QUESTION what was (a) intended, (b) meant, (c) the author’s intent in writing, or (d) that the languages are long-dead, and (e) the stories were spoken for gnerations before being written down, been translated into other languages, then vetted, then disassembled and re-translated, turned into the sacred purview of priests as a “sacred” order focused on building God’s Kingdom on Earth (which put them in positions of power…) nad lastly, vetted for “divine inspiration” in the author’s work, which also means – from the Pope’s own office – the Pope is infallible, even when two different Popes interpret things differently. (And I understand that not everyone recognizes the Pope, but before the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-reformation, there was only one catholic church, lower-case intentional, and all dictates came from Rome…)

    I’ve been upset to learn how far the Catholics are from being Christian. I was raised one, after all! But the dictates fo Paul himself contradict the teachings of the various Popes… And the vows of the clergy! Unbelievable. They are heretics by their own words… And yet, like hypocritical politicians, we are to blindly follow them? We use earthenware plates and bowls; the Bishops and Pope (and even some priests) eat off silver and gold plates! WTF?

    Same rot, different branch of the same poisonous tree.
    Politics, religion, even science has been infected, with the Corporate mindset: No responsiblity, it’s “their fault,” “Just Policy,” “Routine procedures,” … Etc.

  29. Yet again, Eric, you’ve hit the nail on the head. I discovered your blog about two weeks ago, and you’re my new hero. Your observations are beautifully expressed and spot-on accurate (not to mention side-splittingly hilarious). Keep up the excellent work. I will be making a small donation sometime this week. Your sanity is refreshing (your contempt for “heroes,” clovers and fuhtballl won me over immediately).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here