Where to Start?

77
10390
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

If you’re opposed to the Left, you have probably wondered – how to stop its seemingly inexorable advance?

There’s a simple answer: Stop agreeing with it.

The same goes for the Right, by the way – which regularly agrees with the Left. That’s why the Left progresses, while the Right conserves next-to-nothing.

For example, the Right – conservatives – will readily abandon any pretense of desiring a smaller, less expensive, less intrusive government when the government tells them it’s time to go to war. Even when the war is not America’s war – and when the government is under the control of the Left. Viz, the embarrassing (and depressing) “standing” with Ukraine – and now, Israel – by many conservatives. Who aren’t conserving anything thereby.

Just wait if the war metastasizes and Joe Biden becomes a “war president.” The Right will fall into line behind the Left. There will be no more talk of the Left’s crimes – because “we’re all in this together.”

The Left has used “the schools” to indoctrinate at least the past two generations of young people – Millennials and Gen Z – with the doctrines of the Left. And the Right has helped to finance it – by steadfastly raising (and defending) the property taxes used to finance “the schools,” which many conservatives support as avidly as they do the military and its “civilian” adjunct, law enforcement. Many conservatives love the law – as such – and those who enforce it. They “back the blue” – even though it’s generally black (like the Gestapo) nowadays and far more like the Gestapo in fact as well as appearance.

The Left uses the Right’s love of the law to further Leftism. For example, the use of law-enforcers to enforce the Left’s “mandates” and “guidance” during the “pandemic.” It was not Leftists who closed down non-corporate small businesses such as my friend’s little restaurant; it was the enforcers of the law – no matter that no laws had actually been passed. The enforcers – beloved by conservatives – were sicced on conservatives, who still love them.

Thank you, sir! May I have another?

The Right supports the “war” on some drugs. The Left supports forcing people to take drugs. The Left says it supports “choice,” but only in certain cases. It does not support the right to choose whether to wear a seatbelt – or buy an air bag.

The Right says “buckle up for safety.” Both the Right and the Left say it’s ok to stop people who just happen to be driving and require them to prove they are not “drunk.”

The Right turned America into a “Homeland.” The Left now has control of it.

This is what comes of the Right’s not understanding the danger of agreeing with the Left. And of emulating it.

There is also the matter of being afraid of offending the Left. This is a fatal weakness because the Left is always offended. Grievance is the essence of Leftism. It is the philosophy of the angry child who wants – and if he does not get, he gets mad. To palliate his percolating anger, the parent mollifies him by giving in to him.

The result is a spoiled brat.

The Right has succeeded in creating a nation of them, by fearing the tantrums of the Left. And by losing any standing to say No to the Left, having agreed with it.

It is both absurd and cynical to make a fuss about the Left using the tax-power of the state to pay for “benefits” given to people who do not work while at the same time supporting the state’s taxing of people who work, to pay for the “benefits” of those no longer working. The fact that they were made to pay for the “benefits” of people who were not working when they were working was just as wrong, but that wrong is not made into a right by using the government to force people who are working now to finance “benefits” for those currently not working.

If you would not take someone else’s money yourself, then don’t support it being taken for your benefit by the state.

If you want to be left in peace, leave others in peace. Even if you do not like them. Even if you do not like what they’re doing. So long as whatever they’re doing isn’t causing you harm.

If you don’t want to be held responsible for what other people do – that you didn’t do –  don’t hold other people responsible for what they haven’t done – even if you worry they might do it. Let them be until they actually do – and when they do, only hold them (and not others) responsible.

If you want to help someone else, help them. Do not support forcing anyone else to “help.” If only because if you do, then you, in turn, will inevitably be forced to “help,” too.

If you want a service, pay for it. Don’t force others to pay for services they don’t want.

If you think there’s a “need” for something – a new library or some other such thing – find others who agree and pool your resources to pay for it. Don’t force others to pay for what they don’t need and perhaps cannot afford to pay for.

Think for yourself. Weigh risk – and assume responsibility – for yourself. Respect the right of everyone else to do the same.

That’s how you stymie the Left.

And the Right.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you like items like the Keeeeeeev T shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!

 

77 COMMENTS

  1. ‘The Right turned America into a “Homeland.” The Left now has control of it.’ — eric

    And both of them fatally wrecked it during the covid kerfuffle, which started during Trump’s term and played out under ‘Biden’:

    ‘New data from real estate brokerage Redfin indicates home buyers now need a whopping $114,000 salary to afford a median-priced home of $412,000 in September – assuming a 30-year fixed mortgage rate of 7.2% with 20% down.’

    ‘In 2012, the salary Americans needed to afford the average home was about $38,000.

    This chart should be titled Death of the American Dream, courtesy of the Uniparty:

    https://tinyurl.com/yckctpth

    Last week, the national average mortgage rate blew past 8 percent. So you can hike the needed income to $126,000, to afford a median house.

    This is the end game of the welfare-warfare state: what used to be a staple of middle class life now slides hopelessly out of reach. So we get videos of twenty-somethings, showing how to stealth-camp in your cramped Camaro on city streets, cookin’ shrimp on a freaking hot plate.

    Mama’s in the factory
    She ain’t got no shoes
    Daddy’s in the alley
    He’s lookin’ for food
    I’m in the kitchen
    With the tombstone blues

    — Bob Dylan, Tombstone Blues

    • Hi Jim,

      The skyrocketing cost of a home is both sad and alarming. Sad, because it means owning a home is becoming something many under-30s may never achieve. Alarming – because that is dangerous. The young are angry – understandably. But the focus of their anger is the free market – rather than the ruin of of it, caused by socialist and vulture capitalism.

    • Hmmm… prices still very “unaffordable.” What, raising rates to 8% or more hasn’t/doesn’t pop the “housing bubble”? Ya mean the Fed’s entire rationale for it’s “fight” against inflation is BS? Volker was a one time thing under wildly different circumstances? It’s not 2008 again? It’s different this time? Huh.

      • ‘The Equity That I’ve Worked So Hard For Has Vanished In A Day’

        ‘Once Hot Commodities Now Sit Quietly, Their For-Sale Signs Rustling In The Wind’

        ‘If You’re An Investor Holding Multiple Properties, You Can Only Sit There So Long And Wait’

        ‘No One Wants To Be The Fool Catching Falling Knives’

        ‘Agents Are Showing A Lot Of Price Reductions And Offers Below The Asking Price Are Becoming More Common’

        http://housingbubble.blog/

        • Still very unaffordable. The whole point of Jim H’s comment. A frozen market doesn’t equal collapsing prices nor does it necessarily portend that. None of the headlines you list reflect realized material lower prices, just some sketchy unattributed anecdotal goings on that might or might not suggest something. The Redfin data is realized. Big distinction.

    • Why should you pay property tax?…..the council is actually a corporation…..the corporation has to have a signed contract with you, making you liable to paying the tax…….they don’t have one….

      the sold called governments are all for profit corporations….

      • You pay property tax because they have the authority to seize your home to pay the tax, and they don’t even have to return the excess value to you once they sell it for tax purposes.

        You can’t make an argument about having rights when the men with guns, and the backing of the state, show up to evict you. You’ll get arrested or killed if you assert your rights.

        • Taking back control from a corrupt government…

          Life for many is getting increasingly intolerable – the media is untrustworthy, the legal system is rogue and our leaders are only interested in serving themsleves and their paymasters…

          Is it time to act? Passive, Peaceful and Lawful Rebellion…

          http://pompeyhood.info/index.html/

        • One on one you are definitely correct. We do collectively vastly outnumber and outgunned them, but we of course abhor anynfirm of collectivism.
          An annoying paradox. I wish I knew a solution that doesn’t include martyrdom.
          Sadly the bulk of the people are compliant sheep with the “conservatives” being the most sheep like.

          • Hi Alex,

            Indeed. One of the core problems, as I see it, is that many “conservatives” confuse patriotism with love of government; they equate the flag with the country. They are misty and doe-eyed toward the military, which is the ne plus ultra of government. They venerate the (huge) standing army the Founders knew was anathema to a free society. They practically fellate “law enforcement.”

            This arises, in my view, from the origins of “conservatism” – i.e., the rise of the Republican Party. The party of Lincoln and of obedience to federal authority. Of militarism and empire-seeking. All wrapped up in the star-spangled banner.

  2. Great article. Its so ironic that in real life on the smaller scale of individual lives most people live by these rules. But somehow the rules change when they become governments. The bureaucrats who work in government act as dictators even going around and trying to manipulate and control the elected policy makers. We live in a world of Karens and Kens.
    I went to my high school reunion recently. No charge to attendees because a few well heeled classmates anonymously paid for it all. No talk of politics the entire evening and this was in the raging liberal bay area. Have we all learned something now that we have become older?

  3. There is no left, only progressive socialists.
    There is no right, only authoritarians.

    Obviously, most don’t subscribe to these extremes, but the extremists are the ones with all the power. Those who want to live by natural law have the least power of all, for there is no money to be made in that.

    It is a genius game they play. The progressives moves the needle in favor of govt, the right cements those moves and tries to use them for their gain. But they are outplayed with the moving needle constantly.

    It’s the two step of authoritarianism.

  4. NY Slimes:

    Laphonza Butler Will Not Run for Senate in 2024, Setting Up an Open Race

    ‘Ms. Butler, who was appointed to fill Dianne Feinstein’s seat in California, said she had realized that it was “not the greatest use of my voice.”’

    I salute Ms Butler. It’s actually rather disgraceful to accept an appointment based not on your individual competency, but rather for the demeaning reason that your race, gender and sexual orientation tick some boxes on a quota form.

    Laphonza ain’t gonna be no field hand on Gavin’s progressive plantation, where the whippings are administered with a holier-than-thou smile.

    Quite possibly, Ms Butler finds most of the other ninety-nine Senators obnoxious. Life is too short to hang out for endless hours with gasbags, phonies and blowhards like Chuck the Schmuck and Dirty Old Turtle. Indeed, it would hard to suppress the urge to hit them.

  5. Ever since the New Deal, the “left” and the “right” have been in full agreement about the welfare state, the warfare state, the police state, the military industrial complex, the police state, and the Leviathan Deep State.

    There are minor differences, but they are mostly window-dressing. The left tended to oppose the Iraq War but support the Afghanistan war and the Ukraine war and is now sending arms to Israel.

    There are some substantive differences on the state level, such as gun control and taxes, but even then there is agreement on major issues — no Republicans have ever tried to repeal the NFA of 1934 or the Clinton background check system.

    Remember, the most prominent “conservative” Republican president ever, Ronald Reagan, had previously been a Democrat union man. His Supreme Court appointments Sandra O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy discovered that the Constitution allows affirmative action and mandates gay marriage. The second most prominent conservative Republican president, Trump, was also a former Democrat. For all the brouhaha that went on about Roe v. Wade for fifty years, people tend to forget that that terrible decision was written by Republican Harry Blackmun, appointed by Republican Richard Nixon. Republican Dwight Eisenhower sent armed active-duty troops into Little Rock High in 1957 to enforce desegregation, mandated by fellow Republican Earl Warren.

    The fact is that if you want to be a “conservative” today who follows the actual Constitution as written and adheres to the founding principle that government should have strictly limited and enumerated powers, you are a radical.

    • I would argue, as did Murray Rothbard in his history book “Progressivism,” that those two parties have been identical since the election of 1896 (or 94 or 98, whatever year it actually was.) Basically, the Democrat party went from being a pretty decently libertarian party to a centrist party kind of over night. And we still have two corporate parties – one who craves power (democrats) and one who loves fundraising (republicans.)

      • Good point, although I would say the similarity was particularly apparent in 1912, when Wilson and TR tried to outdo each other with the progressive agenda and the Taft wing of the Republican Party finished a distant third.

  6. It’s too bad that libertarians in the US are more vicious towards each other than to the two major parties that both prefer statism. I’m quite far down the libertarian path; after reading Lysander Spooner, Mises, Rothbard, while also having lived my formative years under communism, gives me no choice but to hold anarcho-capitalist, or voluntarist views.

    Libertarians aren’t of one mind; they’ve decided not to follow a main camp, engaged their own brains, and hold many disparate views. For some strange reason, however, they viciously attack anyone with even a slightly different set of beliefs. You can be as libertarian as they come, but if you hold the “wrong” view on borders, or abortion, or whatever, then the libertarian you’re talking with, who may be almost entirely aligned with you, becomes enraged, because his libertarianism is the right view, and yours isn’t.

    It’s a bummer. If libertarians quit fighting each other, maybe they could do something effective on the political stage, together.

    • Some people equate any disagreement or admonishment as “vicious.” Libertarianism is a doctrine. For the most part very simple and consistent. The idea that there are many “disparate views” within it is false. Of course, you mentioned the two biggies. I doubt you could name many more. Debating esoterica isn’t fighting.

      Much of the real problem is summed up by the following quote and you could easily substitute libertarianism for Ron Paul at the end:

      A lot of people, possibly even the majority, don’t want their worldviews challenged. They want endless goodies. They want checks with their names on them. They want to be flattered. They want: “You are the awesomest of the awesome, and that’s why your government is hated around the world. Because of your awesomeness.” Someone at this level of moral and intellectual development is not going to understand Ron Paul, much less support him. – – Tom Woods, “Ron Paul’s Task” 6/22/12

      • I used the word “vicious” because it seemed to fit. For example, I don’t believe in the doctrine of the best defense being a strong offense. This came up in discussion with some libertarian friends in the context of the terror attacks on Israel. I don’t believe that Israel should be leveling Gaza to wipe out potential future attackers. So, one of these libertarians said, “So, you want Israel to be destroyed? You want babies to be beheaded?”

        When the discussion goes like this, yeah, that’s kinda stupid and also vicious. If you’re not on my side, you want babies to die… right.

    • There is no political solution Opposite Lock. Especially now, the demographic of people who work vs. people who don’t has been upended. The only way this changes is massive die off/collapse of exorbitant privilege.

      The biggest problem facing this country is our broken border. Nothing else matters until this is fixed. Everything done without addressing this one fact is like putting a band aid on a severed limb.

      If a libertarian disagreed with me on this, it wouldn’t enrage me. I would hope however, we could agree, to end ALL freebies to those showing up with their hands out. I cant go to any of the many countries south of me and get free shit, why should they?

      • The problem with so many libertarians is they want what is more liberty with single subject blinders on. Nothing is more like that than immigration. Open borders is liberty they say so they are for it ignoring the welfare state and government services reality. This is why I argue open borders is a product of achieving liberty not a way to get there.

        • Open borders could be looked at as the ultimate product of liberty, I see where that works, in theory. With the state of our borders, I’d say we reached ‘peak liberty’ some time ago. Its a real problem down here, (has been for 30 years) people who think its not a problem live in Hew Hampshire or Maine, or…Dims/rhinos who want to destroy civilization

        • The problem is not open borders, per se. the problem is open borders, coupled with the welfare state.

          Were it not for that, we would most likely not see people attempting to enter en masse. There would be little incentive to make the journey, save perhaps for the very entrepreneurial or for particularly persecuted peoples. The expectations of the emigrants would be quite different than they are now.

      • Hi Norman,

        I know that many libertarians believe that “open” borders is the only policy consistent with the philosophy, they are wrong. An “open” border policy is incoherent from a libertarian perspective, either minarchist or anarchist. Minarchists believe that the State, if properly limited, is necessary and legitimate. Anarchists believe that the State is neither necessary nor legitimate. Both believe that the State exists.

        Minarchists believe that the State may properly exercise force for defense, the protection of property and conflict resolution. Minarchists also believe that borders define the geographical area where the State has jurisdiction. Thus the State, in order to provide the few limited functions that minarchists desire, must control the borders. Defense of life and property requires that the State manage the borders. An “open” border policy conflicts directly with the mandate to provide defense and the protection of property.

        As long as States exist, the proper libertarian position is “managed” borders, not closed or open. If the State is legitimate, it has a responsibility to protect the lives and property of the citizens. This means it has a duty to manage the borders, to weed out those who pose a significant risk of harming the lives and property of citizens.

        In an anarcho-capitalist society, all borders would be managed by the legitimate property owners, “open” borders would be an absurdity in such a society.

        “Open” borders is not the “ultimate product of liberty”, it is a State imposition on the natural rights of the citizens that the State is required to protect.

        I do not believe that the State is necessary or legitimate, but as long as it exists, as long as it imposes burdens upon us for the supposed protection it provides, the proper libertarian position on borders is that the State manage those borders for our protection.

        Cheers,
        Jeremy

        • Hey Jeremy

          Thats really all I need a government to do, manage the borders. The key is vetting those wishing to enter. Its becoming pretty clear ours is incapable of the simplest of tasks.

          Don’t know how that would work, with every property owner on an international border managing their own. You’d soon get the Soros, Gates NGO types buying large tracks of land. From there it would devolve to what we have now.

          All those Libertarian principles you outline, seem to me like they can only work with a homogenous, autonomous society, on a smaller scale. You need capable people, which we are lacking in. At this point it seems the majority has been beaten down with fear, afraid to try something outside the R/D prison cell.

          People I talk to in person, most cant imagine a life without the current level of government. When you get to what is important they always draw the line with the war state. We need that ‘strong national defense’ to protect us from the enemies of our own making. Its pathetic really. If we stoped our wanting to fight everyone, coddling such a huge victim class, and wanting every outcome equalized, it might become apparent to people how little we really need out of a government.

          • Hey Norman,

            In this post I wasn’t trying to advocate for a particular approach to social organization, though I do have thoughts on it. I tried to show that the strongly held belief among many libertarians, and critics of libertarianism, that “open” borders is the only policy consistent with it, is false.

            Many criticize libertarianism because they believe that “open” borders are a necessary consequence of the philosophy. I brought up the minarchist and anarchist wings of libertarian thought to show that neither compels an “open” borders view. A minarchist who demands “open” borders is claiming that the State should ignore its’ duty, on their terms, to provide for the few legitimate functions of government, defense, protection of life and property and conflict resolution. An anarchist who demands “open” borders is advocating for a thing that they would never accept for themselves.

            Cheers,
            Jeremy

            • Why is it that, “An “open” border policy conflicts directly with the mandate to provide defense and the protection of property.”?

              For hundreds of years people have been free to move back and forth across the U.S. Mex. border and there’s been very little trouble with that and, “the mandate to provide defense and the protection of property” has been intact up until recently.

              Why is that?

              Also, how exactly, does The State, “weed out those who pose a significant risk of harming the lives and property of citizens.”?

              And, when has that occurred?

              Does The State give everyone lie detector tests? Or, what?

              • Hi Helot,

                I was trying to point out the incoherence of the minarchist position on open borders. They believe that a legitimate function of the State is to provide protection, but claim it does not extend to border management. I did not claim that the State can competently provide this protection.

                “For hundreds of years people have been free to move back and forth across the U.S. Mex. border and there’s been very little trouble with that and, “the mandate to provide defense and the protection of property” has been intact up until recently.

                Why is that?”

                Perhaps because until recently movement back and forth across the US. Mex. border was done between people of a similar culture, for trade, opportunity, entertainment, friendship, etc… As you imply, that is not dominant right now.

                What do you mean by an open border? The logical consequence of truly open borders is that there are no borders. I hope that humans eventually realize that the Nation State has served them poorly, arrogated power to sociopaths who exploit our decency to attain their own ends. But, most are not there yet.

                In the voluntary society I desire, borders would still exist; your property line for instance.

                Cheers,
                Jeremy

  7. Where to start? I think it’s much more effective and impactful to focus locally than nationally. I think Washington truly is a swamp that is too far gone. For example, here in NC, the state house and senate have overridden quite a few of liberal Governor Cooper’s vetoes.

  8. Excellent article Eric,
    Too many just go along to get along. We need to channel Nancy Reagan and “just say NO!” to all the made up “emergencies” d’jour and tell them all to pound sand, we will not comply.

  9. Corruption is a vice shared by the Left and Right wings of the Uniparty. After illegally draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (the law says it’s for physical shortages, not for manipulating elections), here’s what ‘Biden’ did next:

    ‘On Wednesday the White House suspended sanctions on Venezuelan oil, gas and gold production. But since it would be too corrupt even for Biden to drop sanctions on Maduro in exchange for just a few barrels of oil and nothing else, the White House pretended that the deal was in exchange for “promoting democracy.”

    ‘In return, the Nicolas Maduro dictatorship promised a deal with the opposition that could see elections held next year. Which likely means 100% mail-in ballots and Dominion machines to “count” them.

    “The United States welcomes the signing of an electoral roadmap agreement between the Unitary Platform and Maduro representatives,” Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian Nelson said in a news release.’

    https://tinyurl.com/3ph72r7y

    Is anyone surprised that the Treasury has an Undersecretary for Terrorism? The US jackal gov feeds on a steady blood diet of slaughter: the Ukie war; now the Gaza war. Vax the wounded! /sarc

  10. I left the starting line a long time ago. At this point, it’s clear to me that liberty oriented folks, myself included, are going to have to somehow get beyond anonymity and atomization. Those are the things that turn libertarianism into a self limiting philosophy. It was Ben Franklin who said “we must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

    One thing I’ve been doing the past year or two is marking certain items, like my bicycle for instance, with the black and yellow ancap flag. It’s a very small thing and I’ve only had one or two instances where someone noticed and we talked about it. If they have no idea, I say it’s the nautical sign for freedom. Some people have curiously and studiously not noticed on purpose, which is interesting, as well. It’s an experiment, for sure, similar to what early Christians did with the crude fish drawing.

    • You’re absolutely right, Funk –

      And – dig – it is why I have approached some friends of mine who are influential in county politics about me running for school board. My campaign slogan will be: Elect Eric and he’ll leave you alone and won’t steal your money.

      I’m serious. We’ll see whether it goes anywhere.

      • Eric, that reminds of the time I tried get my father to run for county board of supervisors when he was living. I said his campaign slogan would be “I’m so frugal, I would not spend your money”. Needless to say, he wanted nothing to do with that psycho-circus.

      • Though I like your slogan, entering politics is a conundrum. Ron Paul did a lot of good work but he seems to be the exception that proves the rule. I am reminded of the CSN song Long Time Gone.

        Speak out, you got to speak out against the madness
        You got to speak your mind, if you dare
        But don’t—no, don’t no—try to get yourself elected
        If you do you had better cut your hair

        Crosby was talking about hippies and hair, which is retarded, and the Laurel Canyon scene that spawned him and his groups is a suspected 3 letter agency psyop. That being said, if we truly accept that the monopolies on violence and money that define “ government” are wrong and that limited government is the actual utopian idea in light of these facts, should you choose to enter politics as currently construed, you better cut your libertarian (defined here as an-cap) hair.

        BTW, along those lines, there is something oxymoronic about that guy in Argentina who says he’s an an-cap and wants to close the central bank only to “dollarize”, make US dollars the currency.

      • Hi Eric,

        Years ago a friend of mine ran for Mayor of Santa Fe. His slogan was “A troubled man for troubled times”. His campaign buttons had a picture of his face with googly eyes (the little black ball that moves around). I think he got about 4% of the vote.

        Cheers,
        Jeremy

      • Then you will be vigorously opposed by the teacher union.

        Without taxing people’s stuff, how will they afford their teaching palaces, swimming pools, football stadiums, and yearly raises?

        You must hate the children. Especially the ones who need a place to affirm their gender fluidity.

        • I know, Dan!

          I’m doubtful it will go anywhere, but it might be fun to rile some feathers, if I can. I can hear it now . . . He wants people to keep their money? He wants people to raise and educate their own kids? What a selfish, awful person he must be!

  11. The article is basically stating that the right has a huge blindspot on issues like the “wonderful people of law enforcement,” and the schools. It’s a joke. I never understood it.

    When I was in high school, I remember being outraged that the school administration in conjunction with police were searching lockers. There was an alleged bomb threat but it was also something to do with drugs. In any case, my spider sense at teh time told me that the threat was overblown. Although I had nothing to hide, I was incensed that they had us leave the building so the police could come and search. It was the first time I saw a forth amendment violation. I’m not sure that warrants were issued.

    Most people’s encounters with police are through traffic stops. The average american is stopped and ticketed every 5 years or so, so the affrontery is not remembered by the next time Lee Greenwood sings “God Bless the USA” at a “republican” presidential rally. “Where at least I know I’m free…” yeah, sure pal.

    It is time to stop these people cold. Say that I just don’t give a fuck about car pollution, safety or global warming. Or any of your contrived fake issues. It’s nonsense, you’re nonsense, and get the fuck out of my g-d way.

    • Amen, Swamp –

      The reason why the Right serially loses ground to the Left is – paradoxically – because the Right shares the same affirmation of authoritarian collectivism espoused by the Left. But the Right isn’t honest enough (with itself) to acknowledge this.

      • Yes and it’s time to hold the right accountable as well. It’s only in the last 5 years that we have seen senators like JD Vance, MTG and Lauren Bimbo make intelligent arguments for getting the government off our backs. The battle of teh schools needs to be fought at the local level. Don’t you find it interesting that that the “schools” operate as a separate, untouchable unit of government, yet uses the taxing “authority” of states, counties or whoever is collecting the taxes. The school boards are accountable to no one. It’s time to go extreme and call for their complete and total defunding.

        Public schools as they are today are a complete drain on the treasury. Our state and federal deficits would be completely eliminated if we stopped funding that garbage.

        The right should seize on this as all the schools do is promote LGBT and climate crap.

        This isn’t 1990 anymore.

        • RE: “It’s time to go extreme and call for their complete and total defunding.”

          Sounds good on paper, …it’s just that, such a message would Not go over well with the Left, or the Right, at least none that I’ve ever met.

          Imho, complete & total defunding is something which will, just happen. As a result of ,…

          “So whether we call it a Fourth Turning like Neil Howe or a debt and currency collapse like von Mises, the end result is the same and devastating.”…

          https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/von-greyerz-what-bloody-mess

          • Whether or not the left or right accepts it or not, the idea needs to be out there. I don’t care if some moron calls it “extreme” or not. It isn’t really extreme. It’s a practical idea to get rid of the biggest economic and social drag in the United States.

            With this idea, I’m not trying to win friends and influence people. The time for that crap is done. That ship sailed 40 years ago.

            • What are you saying here, trying to win friends and influence people. The time for that crap is done.”

              …So, you’re going to try ordering people?

              Seems to me, the winning friends & influencing people is ever ongoing.

              The idea of defunding schools is already out there.

              • Yes, well, they’re ordering me, aren’t they?

                The same ilk were ordering me to wear masks two years ago. They tried to order me to take a jab to keep a job.

                They barred you from seeing loved ones in the hospital. And they made your kids wear masks in school. They knew the damage that it would cause.

                So I don’t know who’s ordering who.

                See what happens when you stop paying “schooool tax”.

                Slam it in the seat. They can take their got damned schools and shove it. I don’t want to pay for their shit anymore. Whos ordering who around?

                Unless you are in a state with a lenient home school program or can afford a private school, try keeping your kid from the public school.

                Slam the whole damned thing shut.

              • Helot,

                I think there’s a fine line.

                On the one hand, I hope to persuade anyone who is willing to at least listen (although I am not sure I am able to make the case as persuasively as I would like).

                On the other hand, there are plenty of people who are so deaf and so blind it is pointless to even try to have a conversation with them. They will come up with any excuse to justify the current system. Why cast pearls before swine? Better to move on.

            • Hi Swamp,

              I see nothing extreme in the idea of parents being primarily responsible for the education of their children. Just the same as parents are (still) expected to be the ones primarily responsible for housing and feeding them. Yes, I know there are orphans and kids who have irresponsible/indigent parents who cannot provide for their kids. But they are the exception, not the rule – and the few who genuinely need external assistance can be provided for via charities and so on.

              My point is the government – in a free society – has no legitimate business involving itself in the forced education of anyone. Nor forcing others to finance it.

              The fact that kids exist is not (morally speaking) a claim enforceable upon others, who aren’t their parents.

              And the fact is that a child can be taught to think – to reason – by the age of 8, by parents willing to exert the modest effort this requires. Once a child can reason, his education can proceed without the formality of wasting years sitting in a government school. And far more effectively.

              • That’s 100 percent correct.

                I think that for parents interested in their kids education, there would be ways to get it done. At far less of a cost. Than what we are paying.

                High school is only 12 years. Property tax is for life.

                • And it doesn’t take 12 years of home schooling, because parents don’t spend half their schooling time indoctrinating their kids.
                  They should stop calling it property tax and just call it school tax. Over 80% of my property tax is earmarked for a public school that I don’t even use.

                • I don’t have kids, why should I be forced to pay for someone else’s brats to be indoctrinated with views I don’t approve of?

                  I consider public schooling to be a form of child abuse, and an unconstitutional establishment of religion to boot.

                  • Ditto, Publius –

                    Also, it follows that if other people have an obligation enforceable at gunpoint to provide money to “educate” other people’s kids, then they have a similar obligation to house and feed them. Heck, to provide them with whatever they need. But it is “selfish” for those who did not choose to produce these kids to object.

      • Vivek is a dangerous candidate. He’s far more intelligent and well spoken than Trump and the GOP field which is all a joke imo. And he has youth. I don’t know a ton about him but seems to be an on-point populist so far.

        • Mark3,

          I don’t trust him. I agree that he is smart and dangerous, but I think he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I hope that I am wrong.

    • It depends on who you’re talking about. I don’t mind boinking a lefty chick as long as I don’t have to deal with her shit the next day. That’s about all I want to do do. I yield nothing otherwise.

  12. Left vs Right…a good way to keep the slaves fighting with each other….if the slaves all co operated maybe they could get rid of the .00001% aristocracy and the corporation they own, the one they have all the slaves believing is “the government” …it is actually another corporation just like microsoft…

    Re: the .00001% aristocracy owned corporation, the the so called “government”…..why do slaves pay tax to this thing….they have no contract with that corporation to pay tax…..where is the contract?…….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chavBmmYqRE

    Property tax….where is the contract?

    Under the Clearfield Doctrine, the courts are no longer government entities in that they are demanding private monies and must have a contract with you to compel performance.

    CONTRACTS. The Law of Contracts requires signed written agreements and complete transparency

    • Left vs Right…a good way to keep the slaves fighting with each other…over which of the two choices the .00001% aristocracy candidates they get to vote for…nobody bothered to tell the slaves that both candidates are .0001% aristocracy control group owned freemasons…..freemasons are the control group’s political arm….

  13. The right in this country reminds me of an old joke. A man walks up to a woman in a bar and asks if she’d sleep with him for a million dollars. She replies in the affirmative. He then asks if she’d sleep with him for $50. “I’m not a whore” she replies. The man answers “We’ve already established what you are, now we’re just agreeing on a price.”

    The debate is always set by the left, by definition. The true conservative view would be to keep the law in a static state. The progressive left feels compelled to meddle, so they propose changing the law to suit the current status of the world. The right is supposed to push back or prevent this change, but because of the nature of the federal government ends up taking the bait and debating the minutia of the proposal. Instead of just rejecting it outright. So now that they’ve established themselves as “other progressives” it’s just a matter of agreeing on how much progress gets through. This has been ongoing since at least the reign of FDR, and after several generations (although not as many as there should be, given the old fossils running the show these days) it’s now the default.

  14. Excellent article Eric! You have a gift for being concise.

    Too many people have an inner tyrant that they dutifully obey. Most do not value liberty enough to use it as a lamp to guide them.

    • Thanks, Gray!

      It helps to have a few cups of Turbo Coffee. My special recipe as follows: Brew a pot of your favorite dark/strong coffee. Pour a cup. Add a spoonful of dehydrated Espresso. Nuke until it’s boiling hot. Enjoy!

      • Speaking of coffee. This couple is giving away small $1,000.00 bags of “the best coffee in the world” on their go-to-48 States in 48 days, trip.

        It’s a scavenger hunt, of sorts. Perhaps one of you all might get one? I don’t think they made it to VA. yet.

        But, ya gotta be quick on the draw, people find that coffee fast. I missed my shot, “by this much”.

        Here’s their Youtube page where they show their daily videos on where to find the coffee, currently they’re around Yellowstone:

        ‘The Nomadic Movement’

        https://www.youtube.com/@NomadicMovement

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here