Used Face Condoms

89
4295
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Coming out of the gym today, I had to walk around a disgusting Used Face Condom tossed on the ground. One sees these things everywhere; one used to only see such things in back alleys where $20 whores plied their trade. This is what America has come to. This is what America looks like on account of weaponized hypochondria and the pathology of Sickness Psychosis.

The video is here –  on Rumble – because I cannot post it on YouTube.

 

 

Share Button

89 COMMENTS

  1. By saying face masks are “filthy face condoms”, you’re implying that faces/mouths are even filthier raw diggin’ dings, and that’s way worse. Cover that nasty shit up! Honestly, how degenerate are you lot? Obviously, (and I mean obvious to the rest of the world) very.Clover

    • Naomi,

      We exhale through our mouths; this is how we get rid of waste products like C02 and also how we keep our pipes clean. If I’m a degenerate for preferring to keep my lungs and mouth clean, then it’s a title I proudly wear.

  2. About this time last year, the most dangerous threat to our existence (other than the Orange Man) was plastic straws.

    Yet the same greens who warned us of the dire threat of plastic straws are deafeningly silent on the environmental impact of all these used masks on the ground and in the ocean.

    It’s also noteworthy that the same greens who pushed reusable shopping bags no longer do so. In fact, my local Trader Joe and other stores don’t even let you use them.

    But logical consistency has never been a hallmark of the fear-monger greens…

    • Drama addicted hollow people.

      1 – They need a fix and find one in a cause. Then they become bored and move on to the next exciting issue. Goto 1.

      The issues don’t matter, the brief moment of feeling empowered and relevant, delusional but real to them, gives them the fix they crave. But like a drug, they need bigger and bigger hits to get the same high, so they become more extreme.

      If you know any social warrior types, take a minute to list the causes they have championed in the past. Now cross off all the ones they no longer seem to care about. There will likely only be one left, the last one they heard about.

      • I like comments like these, that break down to the simplest true form what we’re dealing with here. I’ve been trying to break down the opposition into simpler terms for a while now. The more simple a problem is broken down into, the easier it is to understand. And I think I’m getting very good at understanding them. Especially in recent times.

        The simplest I’ve gotten to is categorizing them into two groups, stupid or evil. I don’t think there is any that don’t fit one of those two categories.

        Evil is predictable with basically 100% certainty. They will do/their position will be whichever is more evil.

        Stupidity is not always predictable, but their thought process is likely like a computer running a function based on an input. If X does Y to Z, then good. But if Z does Y to X, then bad. While hypocrisy can rightfully be categorized as evil, I’m thinking that many are just programmed. And just because they are inferior does not necessarily make them evil.

        I think it can be made simpler though. If something is their goal, maybe it is power, money, our slavery, our death, or just something as simple as a brief moment of feeling empowered and relevant, etc, what immediate action/position/decision would bring them closer to that goal at this very second? I think that is the parameters on which their decisions are based, both the evil and the stupid.

        Took a long time to see these patterns. You can only be exposed to so many contradictions and double standards before you start to finally get it. Finally understand what we’re dealing with here. And by filtering any new or potential event though this understanding, I’ve been able to understand what the stupid ones will think, based on what the evil ones will tell them, before such an event even happens. I’m sure this isn’t exactly a revelation to most here, but I think I’ve finally figured this shit out. And I guess the little bit of sanity that comes from understanding that is a good enough reward.

        • Also, I once made (and/or read) a comment that information is so easily available now, that anyone desiring the truth would seek it out, and find it. But if they didn’t because it is easier to be told what to think, this is laziness/sloth. So is laziness/sloth a form of evil or just inferiority? Maybe you all can help me categorize further.

  3. I don’t know what’s worse; the used ‘disposable’ makes all over the place or seeing all the automatons with their fancy ‘cloth’ masks, knowing they’re not washing them immediately and constantly, they hang around mirrors, in pockets, and all that exhaust filth is all over their hands/face/clothing.
    I think you called this before, but if this was all so deadly, there would be big red barrels everywhere, manned by someone in full Tyvex, taking these in and them being treated like infectious waste. I don’t question that this kills people (like the Common Cold and Flu do), but it’s past insanity.

    • Exactly. Correct use of actual PPE involves proper selection, use, and disposal, as well as decontamination of the user when exiting the contaminated zone. Proper decontamination is an arduous process, which may involve one or more helpers, and would be beyond the capability of untrained individuals.

  4. Perhaps the mask litter is because people who otherwise would hang onto trash for later disposal, simply can’t stand to keep them around. Being a constant reminder of insanity they imply and of the in your face tyranny they represent.

  5. I’m a maintenance guy for a private high school (I am a grad too). I find those damn things all long the roads (about a mile) bordering the campus (our students are actually far better about not throwing trash around than the general public). This in addition to the drink containers of all kinds, rubber gloves, fast food containers and other trash that people throw on the property along the road. People are pigs.

    Though my diesel powered six foot wide Kubota mower shreds the ones I miss into tiny little bits, so it’s not all bad!

    • Lori, must have looked at the city’s income statement and noticed there was a huge loss down at the bottom of the page next to that line that says “Net Profit” or it could be Old Joe is about to take office and we no longer wish to cripple the economy (it was okay to do so while Trump was in office) under a Democrat Administration.

      They are all freaking conniving liars and most of the American public believes the babble.

      Yes, American citizens, it is now safe to open with higher than positive numbers of COVID cases than ever before, but we couldn’t do this last July when most of the positive cases were in the single digits, but now that we have a liberal in office we need to get this economy roaring! (Insert emoji puking face).

      Personally, I have become an equal opportunity hater. If you are a politician and have an R or a D next to your name, I don’t like you.

      • Their problem is revenue. They aren’t collecting any taxes on businesses that aren’t in business. Which was fine as long as they weren’t in charge of everything. Now that they are, time to get that armed robbery racket going again.

        • Hi John,

          I believe it is a revenue problem, but also quite politicized. The issue is government can’t get blood from a turnip. When someone’s earnings are zero how do you tax them? They have destroyed so many industries that an additional 965k people filed for unemployment this week.

          Of course, Joe will bail them out with his new 1.9 trillion plan. How many businesses will be standing when they enact their new $15 minimum wage that is part of said plan? Many businesses are barely standing and thousands are out of business. What restaurant is able to pay $15 per hour right now? What retail store is able to pay $15 per hour. I know I won’t be hiring. I pay more than $15 per hour, but the people that make $20 or $25 per hour will want $30 and $35 instead. Forget it. I will do it myself.

          We have some ugly economic years ahead of us. I am not looking forward to it.

          • “What restaurant is able to pay $15 per hour right now?”

            IIRC restaurants are exempt because of ‘tips’.

            Minimum wage is just vote buying. And $15 is a joke. Once the TRILLONS in zero value printed money work through the system, inflation is going to cut that $15 purchasing power by at least half.

            Like Bitcoin and Gold, the price is going up but the purchasing power is going down. Inflation is always overlooked by the proles.

            • Hi Anon,

              You are correct in regards to tips, but I was thinking more along the lines of Wendy’s or McDonalds or a deli, I should have said fast food. A Ma and Pa sub shop is not going to pay $15 an hour for a $7 steak n cheese.

  6. Eric, this was your best article and video yet, very funny.

    Also, Google Adsense thinks I want diapers. Not because of something I’ve searched, but because of the use of the term so frequently on this site. Based on the keywords used so often now on this site, they probably think this is some sick diaper fetish porn site.

  7. embedding rumble videos. Look right under your rumble video, there’s an EMBED code. You should be able to copy/paste that into your post when you author it and you should see it come up. There are 3 different options but “javascript player” should work. You may have to test a bit. If it doesn’t embed the issue is likely with your blog software. Lemme know what you use…wordpress?

  8. LBRY is a good place to post videos as it is decentralized. I am not sure if you can post a video directly on your website using it, but may be worth a shot. Love your stuff!

  9. As least the ACTUAL condom is a sign that someone enjoyed themselves, whereas the face condom is just a sign of universal suffering…

  10. As an avid cyclist, I can attest that road shoulders, gutters, and storm drains are chock full of these. Tossed out car windows like an empty beer bottle or the remnants of a McDonalds meal. Smushed into the road surface among the gravel, black tire marks impressed upon them. So yes, diaper freaks are litterbugs too.

    How long til reports of ear loops snagging dolphin snouts? Or the clogging of whale blow holes? Or enmeshed in the shells of sea turtles? Guess none of that matters now. That stuff only applies to drinking straws and six pack plastic rings.

    Or the lumber harvested to make billions of paper face diapers? Or the melt-blown fabrics used to make polyester Hello Kitty masks?

          • Penguins are smart; they use Linux! Plus, I wouldn’t mind having a penguin in my home….but who the hell’d want to have a leftist in their house? They don’t believe in the sanctity of private property? Get off’a mine!

            • Nunz, I have a question.

              Is it more important to be principally/morally correct on property rights, or to preserve liberty in the real world?

              I believe your position is a business can impose any conditions on a potential customer/guest. The potential customer/guest has the moral right only to accept these conditions or to not do business. I cannot think of a moral objection to this a totally free market.

              In the real world, in this world, the one we live in, property rights for businesses ONLY exist when they enable/promote a greater restriction of liberty. A business is not allowed (in most areas) to use their property rights to mandate no masks/vaxxinated, on their premises. They can of course (in most areas) discriminate based on the opposite. They can not discriminate based on race or religion. But they can for the mask/vax religion. They can’t use their property rights to not pay taxes, and in fact must collect sales taxes as a condition of being in business. Etc etc.

              Because of these real world conditions, naturally, the argument/advocacy for the business’s absolute property rights will only result, in net, less liberty. Because they have no property rights as it is. They can only have property rights in one direction, but not the other (yes, they still have property rights in this system, but they are subservient to the system, and must satisfy the system’s wants first before they apply). As long as it is assisting in the construction of the passport/Beast system, they have property rights.

              Is this acceptable or desirable? From the perspective of consistency with property rights, it is the morally superior position, even though the effect is less liberty. Which is better? What are we trying to do here? Increase property rights? Or increase liberty? This argument is essentially that it is okay that liberty is reduced, as long as a private company is doing it.

              Again, I am not talking about AnCapistan, I am talking about here, today, which is more important? Liberty, or property rights?

              Because the world is taking the property rights position, your position, and YOU KNOW that it is not because it is about increasing liberty or the principle of property rights supremacy… It is because and ONLY because the effect of these property rights reduce liberty. If they increased liberty, the property rights would not be allowed (as the past 13 or so months have clearly demonstrated).

              Side note:

              How are we different from a gay customer demanding a christian baker to bake a gay cake?
              The difference lies in which party is creating the obligation upon the other. The gay customer wanted not just a cake, but a gay cake. The christian baker did not tell the gay customer he would not be served because he was gay. He did not tell the gay customer to get baptized as a condition of doing business. He just refused to provide a specific product.

              Today, we are being obligated by property/business owners to do something, an action, an obligation, or leave. We are not asking for a specific product or service, just the same product or service they provided to us 2 years ago, or the same product/service they provide now to their vaxxed customers.

              • Hey Brandon!
                **”Is it more important to be principally/morally correct on property rights, or to preserve liberty in the real world? “**

                Brandon, property rights are the foundation of liberty and all other rights. Whether it be our bodies, our children, our home and property, our possessions, the fruit of our labor, etc. That they are uniquely ours, and that we alone have say as to how they are used or disposed of; and that we have the right to defend that which is ours, THAT is what all liberty comes down to.

                Your question quoted above is premised on the idea that there is a conflict between principle and practicality, but in reality there is no such conflict- it just seems as though there is, because conditions of use are being imposed on us which we are unwilling to abide by. Remember, we have no right to use someone else’s property except we abide by the terms of use they demand for it’s use.

                Much like a fancy restaurant requiring that one wear a jacket and tie. Do you have a right to eat there in flip-flops and a wife-beater?

                You might say “Well, the government doesn’t impose that dress code, but rather the restaurant owner does”.

                How is that different than Walmart requiring filthy masks in their stores long before there was any decree to require such in most places?

                And if such a dress code were decreed by Uncle, and McDonald’s abided by it rather than fighting it, how is it our right to demand that McDonald’s must resist it and allow us to use their property to do so too, when they well may be in agreement with the imposed dress code, not care either way as long as they still have customers, or maybe do care but don’t want to face the consequences of resisting?

                We are not going to change the world. We can procure a good measure of liberty by practicing liberty and upholding the principles of liberty in our own lives, and not compromising with government or others who would force us to do things that we are unwilling to do.

                In a world where few care about liberty, often our only option is to not avail ourselves of the conveniences which the statist system has accustomed us to.

                And speaking of practicalities: In practical terms, you and I are really in the same position. Either of us, when faced with the prospect of having to don a filthy rag, either try to convince the offending party to exempt us, or we leave, right?

                So why should there be a problem upholding both principle and practicality? -especially when the principle is the very core foundation of that practicality which we practice? Just because we don’t like what someone else does, does not grant us the right to nullify the conditions of use of their property.

                And really, in practical terms, although most businesses do at least make a show of compliance with the evil decrees- such as by posting signs and such- the fact is, I have only been refused service at 3 places in the last year.

                To be continued in next post (Shortly)
                (You long-winded guy! Where do you get habits like that? Huh? HUH?)

                • There is no need yet to address the differences in the Walmart, McDonalds, or Restaurant examples, because your position is that property owners can impose ANY condition upon guests/potential customers, if they can choose to leave. Correct me if my understanding of your position in this matter is inaccurate.

                  Indeed Nunz, everything you have laid out is how it is in the real world (in one direction only of course), which is the problem. We agree, in AnCapistan, but for where we actually live I need more elaboration from you.*

                  I am not speaking of conveniences, I am speaking of necessities, the logical conclusion of where this goes. Banks, grocery stores, utility companies, payment processors, anyone/anything else, can do whatever they want to us. And they have the moral standing to do so, apparently. And my only morally correct option, if no alternatives/free market exist, is to produce literally every single thing I need myself. How can I do this? I cannot do this. It is either abide the conditions, whatever they are, or die. This increases liberty? You make a principled defense of the property rights of institutions that will impoverish/kill me and you, through exclusion, the moment it is in their interest to do so. Oligarchs will not reciprocate defense for your property rights.

                  There is no difference in principle to one, three, or all places refusing to serve you for not abiding the cult. Just because most haven’t yet doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t. There is no difference in principle to one, three, or all places refusing to serve you for not abiding any conceivable condition. And if my understanding of your position is correct, they are morally correct in implementing whatever conditions upon guests/potential customers that they want, so the number that do so is irrelevant to this exercise. If all businesses say, under duress or not, you must drink poison until death in order to be allowed to transact with (banks, grocery stores, utility companies, payment processors, anything), or leave, how is this an increase of or beneficial to liberty? *

                  Thanks for taking the time to respond.

                  * I suppose this scenario could happen in AnCapistan too. Potential risk is worth it though.

                  • Hi Brandon,

                    I meant to reply earlier but got bogged down in something else; anyhow: I think you raise an excellent point in support of the “duress” argument, which I maintain obviates the “private property” argument – i.e., our supposed obligation to respect Diaper (and soon, Needle) “terms of service.”

                    As you wrote, these “private” businesses are not free to assert “terms of service” that enhance liberty but only to detract from it. If they assert their (legitimate) right to not do business with the Diapered (or Needled) you can bet they’ll be Hut! Hut! Hutted! by government. But if they comply with Diaper/Needle edicts and tout them as “terms of service” then it’s no problem. And we’re supposed to respect that?

                    Not I.

                    The real problem – as you’ve observed – is that ou there in the real world, we don’t have anything close to a free market, in which private property is respected, especially as regards businesses that are open to the public. More finely put, these businesses are functional adjuncts of the government, used by the government to impose the things the government wants imposed. It is absurd to speak of “private property” given that. Even more so as regards corporations, which are literally created by the government.

                    Moreover, we’re faced with a life and death struggle now – or something not far away from that. To play by our rules against an enemy that respects no rules is suicidally foolish. It’s not a fair fight – and those who fight fair are going to lose the fight.

                    • Sorry, Eric, but I disagree. Corporations are not created by government, but control government.

                      From JP Morgan and Rockefeller in the early 1900s to the health insurance companies and big tech today, government hasn’t been in charge for 200 years.

                    • Hi RG,

                      I think it’s accurate to say they’re functionally interchangeable. Corporations have economic power – which is used to control government power. Which is used to enhance corporate power (as via regulatory capture).

                      And the people who “staff” both entities are often the same people. Literally.

                      The point, I think, is that neither of them are “private” and so don’t have the same or even any of the rights that individuals have – except perhaps in a legal sense.

                    • Still censoring Eric….

                      I wonder if people realize just how many posts you block. I have a good idea and man, you must be seriously insecure.Clover

                      Fun to know that you are a puppet on a string, still dancing on command. Just think of all the things you could be doing instead of guarding against a comment getting through.

                      PTB

                    • Clover –

                      In the first case, you don’t seem to understand the difference between censorship – which is something done by the government, using its power to wholesale forbid and punish the publication/propagation of ideas it finds objectionable – and my declining to provide a forum for you to to propagate abuse. You aren’t being censored. You are free to post your abuse elsewhere.

                      Just not here.

                      For the record: Almost no posts are blocked; just yours and a handful of other disruptive posters. If you ever have anything to say that isn’t just abuse, it will not be blocked. Focus on the issues – not on me and others you just don’t like.

                      I am “insecure”? Well, I do at least use my real name when I publish things publicly. I don’t hide who I am, nor where I live.

                      I am a “puppet on a string”? That’s interesting given I run the show here and no one pulls my strings except me.

              • **”Today, we are being obligated by property/business owners to do something, an action, an obligation, or leave. We are not asking for a specific product or service, just the same product or service they provided to us 2 years ago, or the same product/service they provide now to their vaxxed customers.”**

                This is strange talk coming from Libertarians; It presumes that we have some inherent right to the property of others due to our need, or that we are entitled to use someone else’s property or services under certain conditions due to the fact that we were allowed by the property owner to do so under such conditions in the past.

                That is why I equate such a mentality with that of leftists or the Occupy Movement, who appropriate that same arguments- including the idea that “no property is truly private property because it is all essentially ultimately owned and controlled by government. But that argument is essentially a acknowledgement of the legitimacy of government to supersede property rights and all other rights, and in-fact relies upon such to legitimize the property and rights of some to demand the accommodation and advancement of others who have no right to the property in question.

                As Libertarians, we should reject such, even under the current system, otherwise we find ourselves legitimizing that system and siding with it against the very foundation of that which we seek to uphold, while at the same time claiming that we are fighting that system by refusing it’s mandates. And of course, I fully advocate refusing their mandates- but not by battling property owners who who do not wish to join our fight- but rather by simply exercising our option to not do business with those who make demands on us which we do not care to abide by.

                As I’ve asked before, but no one has seen fit to respond top, why should it make a difference if a property owner is imposing a condition upon us by their own will, or at the behest of the tyrants whom they may or may not be in agreement with, or if they simply don’t wish to fight such mandates? The choice is theirs. How we behave and what we do with our property is up to us.

              • **”How are we different from a gay customer demanding a christian baker to bake a gay cake?
                The difference lies in which party is creating the obligation upon the other. The gay customer wanted not just a cake, but a gay cake. The christian baker did not tell the gay customer he would not be served because he was gay. He did not tell the gay customer to get baptized as a condition of doing business. He just refused to provide a specific product.”**

                I don’t suite get your reasoning here, Brandon, my friend.

                Do you not believe that a business/property owner should have the right to refuse to do business with anyone they so choose for any reason?

                Conversely, we have the right to refuse to do business with anyone we so choose for any reason.

                Under our present system, a business’s rights are squelched by the government, so they can not truly excercise their right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. That puts them at a disadvantage. We as Libertarians seek to negate that disadvantage, and to thus allow the business/property owner to do as he pleases with what is his. Let us not be on the side that seeks to squelch the property owner’s rights, for that is precisely what we oppose.

                Even in a Libertarian world (Which is never going to exist, unless someone accidentally comes up with a neutron bomb that takes everyone out except Libertarians…) there would no doubt be businesses which would prohibit smoking, or demand that you conform to some health Kabuki, etc. because they seek to cater to customers who approve of and want those things.

                But now we live in a world where illicit governments in some places impose conditions upon their enslaved business owners. Our beef is with those governments- not with those who are content to obey them for whatever reasons- just as in the example I brought up elsewhere about requiring a passenger to wear a seatbelt so that you will not be mulcted. Does the passenger have a right to demand that you accommodate him according to his terms because you are demanding he do something due to your being under duress? Does he have a right to insist that you fight for or become a victim for something which you do not choose to fight for in that way, or that you do not consider it worth becoming a victim for?

                Suppose YOU owned a store on which your livelihood depended in a place where the local tyrants declared that you must enforce masking, or limit capacity, or be an unpaid tax collector for the state? Would you risk everything you own, shut your doors, or defy the mandate for the limited number of customers who would care? I won’t mask….but neither would I coerce you to fight my fight against the tyrants, any more so than I would demand that you don’t charge me sales tax. I just wouldn’t patronize your store if you had a problem with me not masking. (Your prices are too darn high, anyway, you greedy li’l bastid, and I know that you don’t pay your cashier $250K a year and give her 2 months vacation!)

                • Nunz droppin a bastid in there 😂

                  Cheers me up a little after hearing how the supreme ruler says we are going to “pay the price”, whatever the fuck type of threat that’s meant to imply..

                    • Hahahah, indeed. Good ol Willy. It’s become so hard to enjoy all of the cartoon cultural appropriation with this heightened awareness of how the mob is determined to take it all out from under us at any given moment at their whim. But I guess that in itself should actually serve as all the incentive to enjoy it even more.

                    • All In The Family on DVD is about the only thing I’ve watched for years now. Ironically, the show was made by a bunch of asshole liberals, but it sorta backfired on them. Not only is it a joy to watch, but I feel like I’m giving the finger to all liberals while I’m basking in it’s glory.

                • Hi Nunz,

                  We keep bruiting this about so I doubt we’ll ever convince the other of the rightness of our respective positions. That said, I maintain – again – that it is both wrong, intellectually, as well as foolish, practically, to defend the “right” of what is styled (but is not) “private” businesses to serve as the enforcement division of government.

                  Brandon’s point is apt, regarding their “rights” – to enforce whatever the government decrees that is destructive of liberty – while having to be supine as regards anything that enhances it which the government decrees to be “illegal” – which is a function of every “private” business being under duress, which obviates their (supposed) freely made choice – as well our obligation to respect it.

                  It is suicidal to defend “private” property when it is being used to destroy liberty. We are in a fight for everything – and we’re fools if we don’t use every weapon at our disposal to win this fight. This is something the Left understands and acts upon. We’re doomed if we do not.

                  • Hi Eric!

                    Yes, but it is the government which is destroying liberty- both ours and that of business owners.

                    Some business owners comply willingly; Some comply because the cost of not complying is more than they want endure. Some play Kabuki even where/when there was no mandate to do so because they believe in it, or because they’d rather cater to those who do.

                    As mentioned earlier, it is no different than sales tax. We don’t protest sales tax by battling those who are forced at gunpoint to collect it.

                    You and Brandon keep insisting that private businesses are not really private because their right to absolute control of what is supposed to be theirs has been compromised by the tyrants.

                    But the above fact makes them victims of those tyrants. Similarly, our houses and our cars are not under our absolute control, but subject to taxation, much regulation and restrictions of use by those tyrants. They have in essence adulterated our property rights.

                    Does a passenger in your car, or a pedestrian have a say in how yoiu use your truck, because it has a government registration plate on it?

                    Your house may truly not be yours because the government tyrants have a superior claim on it as evidenced by the fact that they charge us a tax to “pwn” it, which if we don’t pay results in our forfeiture of it [sick!]….but can a guest in your home use the fact that since you are under such tyranny, your house is really not “yours” and therefore they are not required to abide by your terms of use when visiting? -And that to leave is not enough, because they are fighting the tyranny imposed by government, since your house is “really not yours”?

                    We must be logically consistent.

                    But in the end, though we may disagree somewhat on principle here, and may never fully agree, in practical terms I guess this argument is pointless, because in the end, our actions are exactly the same, namely that we remain steadfast in refusing to wear the filthy rag or perform any other liturgy of the Sickness Kabuki, and when it comes down to it, we simply leave the premises of those who demand that we do.

                    But I do think that in the name of logical consistency and the upholding of property rights (Which we should uphold and respect irrespective of the fact that the government is destroying such) that it is important to address these issues which we have been discussing, especially as seeing that property rights are the very foundation of liberty, and trumps every other right- for we can truly have no right without the right to property- and we should be seeking to uphold such rights- even when in disagreement with a property owner, lest we find ourselves colluding with the government in the trampling of that right.

                    As I posited to Brandon, have you thought about how you might feel if you were a brick-&-mortar business owner? I have, long ago- and I suspect you have too- and that is why we are not “in business”- because even before the Kabuki, we did not wish to comply with all of their other BS.. If more people cared enough to think as we do, this country would either be a very different (and better) place….or we’d have nowhere to shop. Such is life under tyranny.

                    We have no right to enlist the unwilling and their resources in our fight for liberty. Our right is to be left alone, and to choose who we will associate/do business with. We are presently exercising those rights- and that is really all we can do- so regardless of how we feel about the particulars of the underlying principles of what we are discussing, we essentially (and thankfully) end up in the same place.

                    • I mean, when you factor in the govt laws and stuff.. in the current system we’re basically slaves renting our existences. Another example, I live in a doodie-to-retreat state. So not only is my property theirs to tax.. I can’t even really defend it if someone were to show up and exercise that kinda thought experiment.

                    • Exactly, Moose!

                      No one is free, and there is no true “private property” in the real sense of the word- but hopefully, WE regard the right to property to the true Libertarian standard, even if the government does not, just as we respect the right of free association and the right to do with one’s property as they choose, to the point we would never sue someone for ‘discrimination’, even though Uncle says we could- and nor should we demand accommodation to someone else’s property even though Uncle infringes on the property owner’s right and says that they must accommodate.

                      We should practice what we preach.

                      Re doodie to retreat: Heh, yeah, I used to live in such a state. I now live in a state with the best “Castle laws”- where if someone is breaking into your home, it presumed that they intend to do you harm and you have the right to defend your person and property, and need not be so respectful of the scumbag crook as to have to limit yourself to merely countering his force with equal force- and where you can not be sued by crook or his fambly for ‘damages’/death he incurrs as a result of you having to defend yourself.

                      What a difference! Thus there is no crime to speak of here- except among those who associate with people of bad character. Every house here contains at least 5 guns…break in, and you’re leaving in a body bag…guaranteed.

                      Sure beats NY where certain people could be found rummaging through backyards every night. Do that here, you not only end up shot, but likely in a sinkhole with a generous helping of lime on top of your corpse, never to be seen again.

                      Gosh darn, the difference is astounding!

                • Hi Nunz, (Geez, you don’t quit do you gramps?)

                  If property owners are morally justified in imposing any conditions, including those which can cause death, and can exclude those who do not abide by these conditions, even if it causes their death, is this not a moral justification for the Beast system? And abortion?

                  Mother as the property owner is morally justified in imposing whatever conditions upon the fetus she likes, even those that cause death, while it is in/on her property. If it wants to stay, it must abide these conditions. If the fetus doesn’t like these conditions, its only moral choice is to do without the womb/be evicted from the property (economic system that sustains its life) causing death.

                  • Get off my lawn! (Young whipper-snapper! Cut me a switch, I’m gonna whoop you!).

                    Well let me axk joo this, Brandon. Let’s consider a…I think ya call ’em “mosh pits”? Ya know, where idjits go to get pummeled by strangers to music?

                    Are not mosh pit goers essentially consenting to assault by patronizing such a place? Is not the venue owner setting a condition of use which would be viewed as a crime to someone who is not consenting to it?

                    If you were to go to such a place, and thus by reason of your patronage accepted the terms of use, do you have a right to complain or seek redress when someone moshes[?] you? [Or is it ‘mushes’? Probably both}.

                    Can you say “But I want to hear the music, and I am only asking that I be able to do so in peace just I did in the past when the place was an opera house”? [Updated saying for mosh joints: “It ain’t over till the fat lady sits on you or farts in your face”{

                    And what of abortions? Would you prohibit people from getting them? Yes…they are evil- but therein lies the excuse which people use to justify government- to supposedly right all wrongs. Sometimes we must countenance evil which does not involve us, in the name of preventing tyranny, and to allow the right of all to do as they see fit with what is theirs, just as God Himself does [I think it’s even appropriate that the wicked would destroy their own children- There’d be a lot less crime!].

                    Once we establish that some outsider has a right to intervene in the affairs of others over what is theirs, we end up with exactly what we hasve now- a busybody tyrannical nanny-state.

                    Hell, I would have PAID for old Mrs. Biden to have had an abortion!

                    • The thing with abortion is, I would bet if we’d actually come up in a world with truly free markets and free ideas on living our lives without the indoctrination and influence of statism and all the propaganda that goes along with focusing on being a good yuppie and keeping up with the Joneses….stuff like the sanctity of life or sancity of marriage probably wouldn’t even really be up for debate.

                      People just can’t mind their own damn business and have to barf their feelings all over everything instead of dealing with their own emotions and having tolerace for other people maintaining their own damn bodily autonomy.

                      It really is as easy as removing themselves from anothers medical decisions that never involved them to begin with. I’ll never understand why libertarians are so obsessed with the unborn, aside from the God thing preoccupying them, not a person of faith myself.

                      The private business thing is still tricky, I don’t think there’s one right answer to the dilemma of the mentally ill epidemic leading people to demand we deprive ourselves oxygen. That silly piece of paper was supposed to protect rights like breathing, regardless.

                      I mean..there was a time where people would have called CPS on parents for demanding their kids wear masks, because it’s clearcut anti-human abuse, and the snitches would have been morally right to want to protect the kids–I wouldn’t have involved govt myself. But the govt says it’s ok to do that to them now, so the kids endure abuse and everyone turns the other cheek while the kids suffer through it.

                      So it wasnt right before and it isnt right now but its supposedly legal, but the rulebook to the game told us we had rights, but we don’t, so how the fuck does the business have any either? There’s just no good answer because it’s all rigged.

                  • Hi Nunz,

                    “Are not mosh pit goers essentially consenting to assault by patronizing such a place? Is not the venue owner setting a condition of use which would be viewed as a crime to someone who is not consenting to it?”

                    Yes! They are consenting to the condition! So there is no issue here. And if they don’t consent/are excluded, there is no grave repercussion, so I don’t see it as an applicable comparison.

                    There is no dilemma with mosh pits, as refusing to join one or being excluded from one would not result in death, as being excluded from an economic system would. The Mosh pit customers are agreeing to the conditions, so I don’t see the issue or how it compares with my main issue.

                    My main issue is the morality of a property owner(s) imposing death through the conditions they set or the property owner(s) imposing death through exclusion. I have difficulty with the concept of a property owner or group of property owners imposing the choice of: “death through conditions” or “death through exclusion” as being morally justifiable. Please help me with this.

                    If “you can choose death or death” is morally justifiable, this means the antichrist’s Beast system will be morally justified, and abortion, a sin, is also morally justified. How is that possible?

                    That doesn’t seem right, does it?

                    Nunz, if abortions are evil as you say, how can they be morally justified? Keep in mind, WE are in the position of the FETUS, not a hypothetical third party that could stop the abortion. We are the fetus facing a property owner that imposes conditions that would kill us, or if we refuse those conditions, eviction that would kill us. Is THAT morally justifiable? Are you are of the position that it is morally justifiable/acceptable for a property owner to impose the choice of “death or death” on someone? This is the one thing I really want to know from you. After that we can take a break or keep going 🙂

                    By the way, I have total respect for you and your absolutist position on this issue, it is very important, and I appreciate you working this out with me (us).

                    • Hey Brandon(s)

                      This is not complicated. You go to a mosh pit or get into a boxing ring or go skiing on someone’s mountain, you accept whatever risks and terms are proffered, or you don’t enter/participate.

                      You are saying that since a store is an “economic necessity” that we have some sort of right or claim that supercedes the owner’s right to set the terms of use of his property?

                      So what you are saying, is that economic need or necessity is a legitimate reason to have someone other than the property owner impose conditions of use on that property.

                      But that is the very reasoning that Uncle and the statists [Hey, that’d be a good name for a band!) use to impose their mandates on business owners and landlords,etc. -So if your argument is valid, then Uncle would have just as much of a right to mandate Kabuki or to forbid it- and it becomes just a matter of which one one isi in favor of, as to whether one supports or opposes the particular mandate, because one has already accepted that someone has a right to decree how anotrher’s property is used. See? :p

                      It’s no different than when the state decrees that a rental apartment must meet certain standards, or that a landlord can not “discriminate”- because “housing is a necessity or a ‘right’ “. Once we give in to the idear that someone else is lbliged to be even partially responsible for our necessities, we are trampling property rights, and becoming as bad as the statists {They only know three chords\

                      If we d on’t like the apartment, or the way the owner treats us, or the conditions in a store (They allow smokers! We die from ‘second-hand smoke!!!”)…..our option is not to deal with that entity.

                      A good way to think of these (any scenarios and to cultivate a Libertarian mindset, is to ask in any given situation: “IF this were a Libertarian world, who would enforce what I desire to be done ?” ot “What would my option/remedy be in this situation in a Libertarian world?”.

                      Hey, thank you for taking the time to work through this, and to examine my viewpoint. And thanks to Eric for this great site.

                      (I’m not gonna proof read, ’cause navigating on this laptop is too painful!)

                    • Morning, Nunz!

                      Accepting risk – of course. There is at least potential risk in literally any action taken. But that is not the same as ceding a “right” to abuse, “because private property.” Even on private property, people have rights. These include the right to not be abused by whomever owns the property.

                      Using your argument – in extremis – John Wayne Gacy was within his rights to bury the kids he murdered under his house. All of them winningly assumed the risk of entering the evil clown’s abode…

                      It’s not the “economic necessity” argument that’s probative. It is the fact the “private businesses” we are discussing are not truly “private.” They are de facto agents of government policy. Many also used government force to receive special treatment, or even to steal outright under color of law (i.e., eminent domain).

                      This does not give us a right to steal from them, of course. But this idea that we are honor bound to submit to whatever degradation they – acting under duress or in collusion with the government – choose to impose upon us as a condition of service is both silly and dangerous.

                      It is to defend what amounts, in practical terms, to fascist economics. The wedding of government and business, nominally “private” but we all know that’s a fiction.

                    • Hi Ya Eric!
                      ….But we DO cede rights while on domeone else’s property. If that were not the case, then private property would be meaningless, and in-fact not be private.

                      John Wayne Gacy is not really relevant -Did he invite people to his home after warning them that if they enter they will be murdered? Of course, that would not morally justify murder….but what of a boxing ring , where you are consneting to take a risk that may result in death- or what of two people who engage in consentual erotic asphyxiation? Your presence, after knowing the risks you are exposed to, is tacit acceptance of those risks/terms.

                      To go one step further and partially address Brandon’s question about morality (I’ll get to that separately in the near future): If one accepts terms which are immoral, are they then not willing participants in immorality, and thus complicit with it?

                      I am not advocating that we submit to anything- but just that property owners have the right to determine how their property is used, and that if we don’t agree with those terms and can’t convince them otherwise, we have no inherent right to insist, but only to opt out by removing ourselves.

                      “Private business is not truly private”? Neither is your truck, by the same standard, because it is subject to mny controls and programs of government- so because government has usurped some of your rights over your property, does that make it less yours and give me a say in what you do with it? I’ve raised this argument quite a few times here…but no one has attempted to refute it.

                      If busines, or your truck is not private, then is it an entity of government in which “all of us” have a stake in or a right to? And if so, than who gets to say how it is used?

                      You see, here is the REAL issue: Government should not have the right to impose conditions on anyone’s property (Or any right at all…even to exist!)- As Libertarians, we oppose all such government mandates, regardless of whether we may agree or disagree with a given practice being mandated.

                      We oppose the government usurpation over private property because we believe in the ultimacy of private property. The only other position is to be like Uncle and believe that property rights are conditional and subject to the control of someone other than the property owner. There is no middle ground.

                      Our beef is with uncle. To say that we can fight Uncle by fighting property owners, is like saying that can fight Roanoke, the DMV,DOT, etc. by interfering with the will of the average car owner.

                    • Ah, Nunz – but there’s a difference. I don’t use my truck to advance tyranny over others. This is a qualitative difference between my private property and the private property enforcing tyranny. Which – unlike my truck – is collusive with other “private” property owners, acting (out of duress) to advance a coordinated assault on liberty.

                      Our beef is no longer merely with Uncle. It is with those who have become Uncle’s helpers.

                      It is undeniable that all of the businesses we are talking about – stores, cafes, restaurants, etc. – are not “private” in both the legal sense and other senses. This does not mean I don’t respect private property – quite the contrary. It means I do not respect the corruption of it, by the government – such that it is becoming indistinguishable from it.

                      I share your uncompromising defense of the concept of private property. But that is not what we’re talking about, in reality.

                      And – with respect – I submit that defending these not-really-private businesses’ supposed “right” to be the unofficial but actual agents of the government we give aid and comfort to the enemy.

                      If these “private” businesses were asserting – as a for-instance – the principled right to free association, I’d be backing them all the way. But few if any are asserting that. Rather, they are asserting their “right” to be compliant. Which I feel no obligation to respect and a duty to undermine.

                    • Hey Eric,
                      Only addressing one point here, ’cause this damn laptop is getting on my nerves, and I have get going anyway…but…

                      The “imposing tyranny” argument is not relevant, because we have no right to demand our rights while on someone else’s property, and no right to be on that property except as the owner allows.

                      It is no more tyranny than if you restricted speech in your home or truck. I can’t say: “I can disregard your demands because I have a right to free speech, and you are impsoing tyranny by not allowing me to do so”. No…I have no right to your property, so if I disagree with your demands of how I conduct my self there, my option is to leave.

                      If the government demands that you implement a speech code in your house, that is tryanny- against you- but if you choose to comply with it, or agree with it, it is not my right to coerce you to do otherwise. It is my right to not enter your property and or to JOIN you to fight Uncle if you so care to.

                      As I’ve said in the past, regardless of our differences on this issue, our actions/options are still exactly the same- but we should uphold the supremacy of property rights, because once we believe that we have a right to be accommodated on someone else’s property, we are on a very slippery slope.

                      Now Eric, you do drive that truck on roads that have been built on land that has definitely been acquired through eminent domain and paved with extorted money; and you operate it in accordance with Uncle’s rules (or some of ’em, anyway)…so you…it’s not really private……

                    • Hi Nunz,

                      I’d argue that not only is it relevant, it defines the problem. Your premise rests on a false assumption – that of truly private property. Of individual businesses choosing to freely post whatever policies they wish. This is obviously not the case and it obviates the whole basis of the “private” business argument.

                      I realize you disagree – and I’ve presented this argument numerous times – so I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree at this point.

                    • Hey Nunz, I knew no broken computer would keep you away. This site is like an addictive drug, I know.

                      Your first reply to me, I understand the principle of your argument that I have no right to demand use of others’ property. I do however think context matters in this world. I think which party has the power in any given situation/interaction can have a bearing on what is moral or not. They suffer zero repercussions or consequences from not doing business with me, any losses will just be printed and given to them, at my expense anyway, but I suffer dire consequences from being excluded from doing business with them. I suppose you do not see them as having any moral blame here, but it is entirely my blame for wanting otherwise. I find there is a moral difference between a small business, or Eric doing something in his truck, vs a utility company, or all the grocery stores doing something. I see a difference between any one store and all entities that make up an economic system. I am not asking that government step in, I am asking if the property owners are morally justified, in a libertarian or Christian sense, in imposing death through conditions or death through exclusion. They apparently are. Which apparently morally justifies the beast system and abortion.

                      “John Wayne Gacy is not really relevant -Did he invite people to his home after warning them that if they enter they will be murdered? Of course, that would not morally justify murder….”

                      Wait, what if he said vaccinated (which leads to murder for the sake of argument)? He is NOT morally justified then? Even if that is a condition of entering his property? So we have two morally unjust options conflicting here? They cannot impose a condition of murder upon me, and I cannot force them to host me due to my economic need.

                      At what point does a condition become too onerous for a property owner to morally impose upon another?

                      Their imposition upon me would result in my death, my imposition upon them would result in them having me there against their will, and their exclusion of me would result in my death. Tell me how I am less morally justified than they are. How can my personal property rights be inferior to someone else’s land property rights (especially if they own all the property, like an economic system)? It seems to justify serfdom or slavery. Abide the land owner’s miserable and potentially lethal conditions, or leave (and starve or undergo severe punishment, or death in some way).

                      I understand me and Eric are coming at this from different angles, so I can’t address the points you made to him, but I agree with him that your position is suicidal to us in this non-free world.

                      I really do hope you elaborate further on my morality concern. Looks like if I’m wrong and you’re right they are morally justified in doing whatever they want with me (us), including killing me through conditions or exclusion, whereas if I just want to pay for food or utilities, I’m not morally justified in demanding such a transaction take place without conditions that’ll kill me. That certainly doesn’t seem moral or right to me, and it certainly won’t increase my, or your liberty.

                      “If one accepts terms which are immoral, are they then not willing participants in immorality, and thus complicit with it?” I don’t understand how this applies to my questions or scenarios, sorry. I guess I would say yes, but is one that accepts immoral conditions any worse than one who imposes immoral conditions?

                    • Ah-so, Mr. Jin!
                      I appreciate that you naturally consider morality. Imagine if more people did! Imagine if politicians did!(Well they do…but only to ensure that they are not complying with it….)

                      It’s simple: In the present world, or in a desired Libertarian world, can one choose not to be moral with their own property -be it their own body, or home or business or land as far as it affects them or those who consent to participate?

                      Who even gets to decide what is moral, and enforce it?

                      Theocracies ruled by men don’t work- and neither does anything else wherein men try and dictate a certain morality, based on whatever moral code.

                      I do think that requiring masks or ‘vaccines’ is immoral; I also think a store being open on Shabbat is immoral.

                      But unless I missed it, your premise is still “My need conveys a right to use someone’s property, and consequently obligates someone else to accommodate me, because I’ll starve/die of exposure/not be able to play tiddly-winks with the cools kids/etc. and that would be immoral, so since I’m more moral, I should have preeminence.”

                      On the flip side, this situation also illuminates the immorality of the average person. I’ve been hearing many stories just in the last few days (IRL) of people (including relatives) who are taking the jab “because it is required” to attend college/nursing school/work/etc. It isw evil indeed to ‘require’ the ‘jab’…but is it not just as evil to take it when you oppose it and or know it may[will!] harm you and seriously affect your future, but they take it anyway because they prioritize whatever carrot is being proffered on the stick more than anything else, even their own lives?

                      Basically, it’s like this, until the day God rules this earth, if we want the ability to be free to live our own consciences before God and just live freely, we should allow the freedoms which God allows all of us.

                      Now, when politicians impose these mandates, of course, it is evil and tyrannical- just as it is when they mandate the collection of sales tax, or that a business must have three varieties of bathrooms…or accommodate the handicapped or not “discriminate” etc.

                      But again, since we have no inherent right to use someone else’s property, our right is to boycott….or to fight the source of the tyranny, not to determine how others, -be they property/business owners, or students or employees, respond to the tyranny being imposed on them. We can choose how we respond to it….but when we try to dictate how others must respond, or that they are not allowed to comply when it comes to their property, then we essentially become the very thing we say we are trying to fight- at that point, we are like the Democrats and Republicans- not advocating freedom, but just wanting things to be our way.

                    • Morning, Nunz!

                      And “private property” (it isn’t as regards our discussion, as explained previously) has no right to abuse us – using “private” property – which it does when it acts in concert to force people to choose to submit to disgusting and evil things as the price of being able to buy food. Your argument holds water in a free market system, in which “Private businesses” are not agents of the state by dint of duress and cannot collude to impose universal “policies”on all, backed by the state.

                      But it leaks badly when applied to a fascist-collectivist system, in which “private” businesses such as stores and restaurants are no such thing.

                      Your position – in support of a principle – is admirable. Just not applicable in this case.

                    • Mornin’ Eric!

                      Aw, my friend, you keep making the assertion that “private property is not really private property”, to which I have offered several analogies to refute which no one here has addressed.

                      If you go to Monkey Wards and the roof caves in and causes you major injury [shudder!] who do you sue: Monkey Wards or Uncle?

                      As I have illustrated with my “car” analogies, just because a property owner is being coerced or forced to cede some of their rights of ownership, in no way gives us a right to further decree what they should do or how they should respond, or whether or not they are doing what they do because they agree with what is being imposed upon them, or simply don’t care to fight it, etc.

                      As I’ve also said, on a practical level, it doesn’t really make any difference that we disagree on this, because in either case, our response and actions end up being exactly the same….but the principle IS very important because once we start chipping away at property rights for any reason, we become just like Uncle, who uses various premises to deprive people of property rights- and we even go beyond that and become complicit in Uncle’s crimes if we maintain that Uncle’s usurpation of property rights renders private property “not private”.

                      If we believe that private property is rendered not-private because Uncle exercises tyranny over it, then let us seek to restore those rights which are being trampled- and if we can’t, as far as stopping Uncle from trampling them, we can, at least, in our upholding and respecting of those rights as far as we can practice as pertains to us- even if it means excluding ourselves because we disagree with the property owner or the fact that they care not to fight the tyranny imposed on them.
                      If WE don’t uphold these most basic and fundamental values of Libertarianism, who will?

                    • Hi Nunz,

                      I’ve refuted it – the assertion that public accommodations are “private property” – numerous times. We just disagree about the obligation to pretend that “privately owned” agents of the state are, in fact, private (and thus, independent) businesses. These “private” business are neither fish nor fowl – and they cannot have it both ways as regards “rights.”

                      On the one hand, they have accepted that they have no right to freedom of association; no right to set their own terms and conditions if the government says they may not, On the other, they have acted to enforce what the government says upon us – and collusively. What has been going on is not independent private stores and restaurants acting on their own, of their own free will, to set forth their individual, specific polices. Rather, these de facto agents of the government have imposed the same policies at the behest of government, in an organized and nearly universal way such as to participate actively in the denial of freedom of association – to further a vicious, evil agenda – while unctuously asserting “private property.”

                      It’s as offensive as it is risible.

                      The car analogies you’ve presented don’t work – for several reasons. The chief reason being a car owner is not acting as the agent of the state to undermine the liberties of others, using his car to do so.

                    • Hey Eric!

                      **”The car analogies you’ve presented don’t work – for several reasons. The chief reason being a car owner is not acting as the agent of the state to undermine the liberties of others,using his car to do so.”**

                      When the car owner requires you to wear a seatbelt because of the coercion imposed upon him and his property, then he is doing the same thing as Monkey Wards demanding you wear a mask- i.e. imposing tyranny on you if you wish to use their property.

                      So by the same standard, is the guy’s car no longer his property because he chooses, for whatever reason, to impose tyranny on a passenger, whether he does so willingly or due to duress/coercion, etc. and how is it our business, unless we we somehow believe that we have a right to ride in his car?

                    • Oy vey, Nunz!

                      The car owner is not acting in concert with other car owners such that anyone who wants to get somewhere by car cannot do so without acceding to the seatbelt must be worn requirement. His vehicle is private in a way that public accommodations are not. My truck does not actively assault your right to travel.

                      There is also the matter of seatbelt wearing being quite different from a degradation ritual such as the wearing of a Face Diaper, which also entails the enabling under duress of a disgusting lie.

                      A lie that could lead to something of almost unimaginable evil. And may already have.

                      Mind: I’m not saying I won’t leave a store if the dick who runs it tells me to. But he’s going to have to tell me to. I’m not meekly obeying a stupid sign that is the equivalent of – all patrons must Heil! the Fuhrer upon entry. Fuck the Fuhrer. Fuck Face Diaperers. I owe them not a scintilla of respect. I will do all I can to ignore/evade/mock this evil.

                      PS: I also lie to cops and feel fine about it.

                    • Hey Nunz, (Why can’t you just let me have this old man?)

                      Appreciate all your comments on this matter, especially this one. It most fully addresses my concerns and gives your perspective. And I understand it pretty well now. I am not completely satisfied, as I believe context matters. It will be difficult to convince me that I’m the bad guy for having less than full respect for the absolute property rights of the oligarchs, who completely own this system, and have siphoned the options/wealth from me, those like me, and our ancestors for centuries or more. All that said, I’m punching way above my weight here. You’re obviously funded by the oligarchs to argue a property rights justification for our slavery/death. So I think I’ll just call you a fascist and leave! (I’m still going to tell everyone I won this one though) 😀

                    • Sheesh, Eric, you keep adding conditions!

                      Do property rights not apply:
                      *If the property owner is under duress/coercion?
                      *Is acting in conjunction with other property owners?
                      *Is believing in/perpetrating a lie?
                      *If the property is owned by a large group of investors or some rich people?
                      *If there is any uncertainty as to whether any injustice was ever committed against a previous owner in the property’s chain of ownership, or if was used as a burial ground for Chinese Moslem witches…. 😀

                      C’mon man, it’s not that complicated! All of these oibjections to such a simple basic right sounds like when politicians try to construct convoluted justifications to justify the taking of such rights- which ultimately is exactly what they do to justify imposing these mandates.

                      Although we oppose the mandates, if we deny absolute property rights, we are doing essentially the same thing that the government is doing.

                    • Hi Nunz!

                      I’m not adding conditions, just stating the fact: These stores cannot claim “private property” when they are in fact agents of the state, serving to advance tyranny.

                      This is not “no shirt, no shoes – no service.” It is: Heil the Fuhrer! – applied not by an individual private business but by the no-longer-private public accommodations that have become a manifestation of government because they all obey the same government and advance the same evil decrees.

                      If you feel yourself bound to respect their “right” to enforce evil government decrees, that is your prerogative. Wear a Diaper. Show them your “vaccine” card. Allow yourself to be ghetto-ized and marginalized.

                      I feel no such obligation.

                      Just as I feel no obligation to fight fair against a mugger.

                    • Hey Ya Eric!
                      Well, I wouldn’t say that “I respect their right to enforce a government decree”- but rather their right to do as they choose with their own property.

                      I mean, do you not agree that whether they choose to play Kabuki because they actually believe in it, or because they are compelled to, or because they don’t care to fight it for whatever reason, it is their prerogative?

                      If a business’s property is not private property, then who’s property is it? And shouldn’t we advocate that it be their property, so that they can’t be forced to abide by government decrees or act as tax collectors for the state, etc.? Isn’t that the very point of Libertarianism?

                      The “It’s not really your private property” sentiment is the very sentiment which the government uses to insert itself in your car, your home, your business, etc. I thought we were supposed to reject and fight that idea; not adopt it as our own when we don’t like the choices others make over what is theirs…..

            • Hey Nunzio,

              As requested, responding in this post.

              “I’m afraid that I do not understand your criticism of what I said re legitimate title. Do you mean to tell me that yoiu examine the deed and trace back the lineage of every business you deal with, or everyone whose home you enter”.

              Of course not, but I can still make legitimate distinctions. For instance, I KNOW that Walmart and many other corporations solicit, and exploit, eminent domain to acquire property. This is theft, legitimate title cannot be acquired through theft.

              “Blackwater? Uh…no- They are being paid to enforce the edicts of government upon those who are not their patrons- They are government contractors”.

              So you admit that it does matter what “private” companies do, thanks.

              Cheers,
              Jeremy

              • Hey Jeremy,
                **” I KNOW that Walmart and many other corporations solicit, and exploit, eminent domain to acquire property. This is theft, legitimate title cannot be acquired through theft. “**

                So then you obviously wouldn’t shop there, and the issue of being subject to their terms of use while on *their property* would not be an issue.

                And if you were visiting someone’s home which was built by a developer who used eminent domain to acquire the land that the housing development is built on, you would not have to abide by the homeowner’s wishes while at his house, since he does not have legitimate title to his property- having purchased it from someone who in turn didn’t really have legitimate title to it?

                And what of the stores which aren’t built on land acquired by eminent domain- such as the two Walmarts near me, or many other businesses? Do you then concede that they then have the right to determine the conditions under which one may use their property?

                I have asked these questions before- I hope you will address them.’

                **”So you admit that it does matter what “private” companies do, thanks.”**

                It matters if one is not a willing customer who can choose whether or not to patronize a business. If Blackwater opens a convenience store and you decide to buy milk there, then that’s on you.

                If you have to use rhetoric to attempt to win your point, it might be an indication that you are not winning…..

                • Hey Nunz,

                  This is tedious I know your point, I think you’re very wrong and I don’t know if I’m winning or losing, but I don’t care.

                  Your position is incoherent (acquisition does and does not matter, what the “private” business does matters and doesn’t matter) and has the effect of defefrring to the State the ability to define “private”.

                  Jeremy

  11. Good video. You do see nasty used face diapers all over the place. Never once a complaint about how they might end up somewhere and choke a bird or turtle or something. Also, never a mention how in proper medical settings such an item is disposed of in special medical waste containers that are considered level 3 biohazards and great care is taken with removal.

    Lately, I’ve been seeing pronouncements in the MSM to the effect that, even if you get the quackcine, you will still be required to mask up and follow all of the “measures” because, get this, the quackcine only prevents you from getting “symptoms” but it doesn’t stop “transmission.” As such, only if 100% of people get the quackcine, can masks and the measures be rescinded. Never gonna end. Diabolical.

    • So, effectively, the vaccines are pointless at best and, at worse, may drive mutational escape and facilitate virus evolution into vaccine-resistant strains. But hey, go get your jab of RNA, and hope you that when you start growing a dick on your forehead a year from now, the new virus strain you helped create won’t get you anyhow.

      • Mostly true, BAC. But I wish you hadn’t planted that forehead organ image in my twisted brain- I’m now thinking of how much I could make in internet porn with such a tool…
        Peace, brother.

    • Last time I was in Lowe’s, when I came back out I discovered that the cart stanchion I had parked next to had a bucket hanging on it labeled “Used Masks.” Ewwww! I wanted to ask the manager whether he had a permit to store biohazard waste on his parking lot.
      And speaking of the jab, my wife played tennis today with a nurse friend of ours. She said she was sick as a dog for about a week after getting the second dose.

      • Hi Roland,

        Hope you are doing well.

        I have heard about some pretty terrible symptoms in regards to the second dose. Very little issues with the first dose other than a sore arm for a day or two, but the second seems to knock them off my feet. I think I will just take my chance with the real thing.

        • Hi RG!
          Ditto here. In 1976 Gerald Ford told us we were all going to die. Days after I obediently got the shot, people started croaking from the vaccine and they called the whole thing off.

      • Roland- Be careful around quackcine recipients. I’m not sure about the RNA manipulators like Moderna (other issues there) but a common term regarding traditional quackcine recipients, and this includes flu quackcines, is “shedders”. Shedders shed live virus in the areas around them and they are picked up and sicken other. Bathrooms are a serious issue.

        • Thanks H, I will. Anyone who runs right out and gets the shot is likely to be a faithful ragger, which is all the more reason to keep my distance. You don’t need a PhD in fluid dynamics to understand that these filthy things turn an infected person into a walking COVID mosquito fogger. The spit that builds up inside doesn’t magically vanish, so they’re aerosolizing it every time they exhale.

        • Recently vaccinated people spread disease. Recently vaccinated people should quarantine for about a month. The Cases! will skyrocket in the weeks and months ahead. The vaxxers and media will blame the unvaccinated. Interesting times.

          I tried to link to some studies about viral shedding and recently vaccinated people spreading disease, but Eric’s blog software thought my comment was spam. You can find links to those studies under my comment below.

          https://www.unz.com/chopkins/are-you-ready-for-total-ideological-war/#comment-4401696

  12. Yep. I’ve found three of them in my front yard in the last couple of months. I am hoping they’re not all just being tossed on the ground. They are light and blow away easily, so I could see someone opening their car door and it blows out or it falls out of a pocket as you’re exiting the car, etc. I hope my small faith in humanity is justified, but who knows?
    There was a story recently about how they’re already finding mass quantities of fearmasks in the ocean. No doubt a big portion of that comes from Asia, which seems to have no problem throwing trash in the rivers anyway. Asia is the reason from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. I guess now there will be plenty of masks there, too.
    BTW: I am not a big proponent of going after people for “victimless crimes,” i.e. drug dealing, prostitution, etc. But I would cheerfully shoot a litterbug in the groin. There’s a big difference between conducting illegal commerce between consenting adults and being a lazy, selfish SOB who can’t be bothered to find a trashcan.

LEAVE A REPLY