Recent comments

  • NomNoms's picture
    NomNoms 22 weeks 3 days ago Page Mark Davis
    I have worked as a precinct officer (the person who looks up a person's name and issues them a ballot) for 11 years now. I have seen and heard it ALL - excuse after excuse after excuse. Believe me, I'm not one of those people who are going to shame you for writing this article. Shake a finger at you - call you UN-patriotic....because that would be un-American of me. You do have every right NOT to vote, NOT to disclose your political party - you have the right to free speech.... With that being said. When I work at every election (there are 2 every year if there isn't a presidential), I see mostly older or upper middle/working class, law abiding people come to vote. The rest are "new" American citizens who are proud to have the privilege to vote. I understand what you mean concerning the corruption of the government which is ruled by corporations and greed. In my opinion, I think "not voting" in a whole, is not the solution. I believe everyone has heard of the 'electoral college'. It's a secretive institution that chooses who we should vote for. Well, this obsolete 'program' was first constructed for the American people due to the fact that, in those days, it was common for the majority of voters to be illiterate. In China there have been protests against this same issue. They wanted to vote for whoever they want without any interference. The young generation took after such actions like the 'occupy movement' and held mass occupation in protest for their right to vote. My point is, telling people to stop voting isn't going to do anything because there will be people who are going STILL to vote. We have to tackle the problem at the root or it will never be fixed.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 22 weeks 4 days ago Web link KenK
    It might be important for those of us trying to be libertarians to remember certain basic facts: The power elite have their grubby fingers in all media: religion, entertainment, news, et al. Especially "science". Little, if anything, comes out of the entertainment industry that has not been sanitized. For the good of us all, of course. Them anarchists and sovereign citizens are everywhere. Sam
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 22 weeks 6 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    The other day I came across a French theologian's concurrance with me on Jesus' use of irony regarding the coin:   From “Anarchy and Christianity,” by Jacques Ellul, pp.59-60. Copyright 1988. We now come to texts which record Jesus’ own saying and which exegetes regard as in all probability authentic. We do not have here early Christian interpretation but the position of Jesus himself (which, evidently, was the source of this early Christian interpretation). There are five main sayings.   Naturally, the first is the famous saying: “Render to Caesar.” I will briefly recall the story (Mark 12:13ff.). The enemies of Jesus were trying to entrap him, and the Herodians put the question. Having complimented Jesus on his wisdom, they asked him whether taxes should be paid to the emperor: “Is it lawful to pay the taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay, or should we not pay?” The question itself is illuminating. As the text tells us, they were trying to use Jesus’ own words to trap him. If they put this question, then, it was because it was already being debated. Jesus had the reputation of being hostile to Caesar. If they could raise this question with a view to being able to accuse Jesus to the Romans, stories must have been circulating that he was telling people not to pay taxes. As he often does, Jesus avoids the trap by making an ironical reply: “Bring me a coin, and let me look at it.” When this is done, he himself puts a question: “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” It was evidently a Roman coin. One of the skillful means of integration used by the Romans was to circulate their own money throughout the empire. This became the basic coinage against which all other were measured. The Herodians replied to Jesus: ”Caesar’s.” Now we need to realize that in the Roman world an individual mark on an object denoted ownership, like cattle brands in the American West in the 19th century. The mark was the only way in which ownership could be recognized. In the composite structure of the Roman empire it applied to all goods. People all had their own marks, whether a seal, a stamp, or a painted sign. The head of Caesar on this coin was more than a decoration or a mark of honor. It signified that all the money in circulation in the empire belonged to Caesar. This was very important. Those who held the coins were very precarious owners. They never really owned the bronze or silver pieces. Whenever an emperor died, the likeness was changed. Caesar was the sole proprietor. Jesus, then, had a very simple answer: “Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” You find his likeness on the coin. The coin, then, belongs to him. Give it back to him when he demands it.   With this answer Jesus does not say that taxes are lawful. He does not counsel obedience to the Romans. He simply faces up to the evidence. But what really belongs to Caesar? The excellent example used by Jesus makes this plain: Whatever bears his mark! On coins, on public monuments, on certain altars. That is all. Render to Caesar. You can pay the tax. Doing so is without importance or significance, for all money belongs to Caesar, and if he wanted he could simply confiscate it. Paying or not paying taxes is not a basic question; it is not even a true political question.   On the other hand, whatever does not bear Caesar’s mark does not belong to him. It all belongs to God. This is where the real conscientious objection arises. Caesar has no right whatever to the rest. First we have life. Caesar has no right of life or death. Caesar has no right to plunge people into war. Caesar has no right to devastate and ruin a country. Caesar’s domain is limited. We may oppose most of his pretensions in the name of God. Jesus challenges the Herodians, then, for they can have no objections to what he says…      
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 22 weeks 6 days ago Web link TheMPP
    Pathetic.
  • helpfuljosh's picture
    helpfuljosh 23 weeks 23 hours ago Web link KenK
    Ha! Nice article! I have started growing last year in the Netherlands. When I visited Cali last year ran into somebody who was growing in the Forrest near Santa Cruz. It inspired me to start growing back home as well since 5 plants are legal here :-) I wound this website is very useful because they give away a free Growguide in pdf format. And they write a lot about growing for beginners as well. http://www.ilovegrowingmarijuana.com/grow-marijuana-washington-legal-way/
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 23 weeks 1 day ago Web link Government Deni...
    Excellent! Especially the links. One can spend days surfing this. Many thanks! Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 23 weeks 1 day ago
    Freedom Map
    Web link strike
    Thankfully, when I (finally) came to anarchy, I was not so naive as to think there was anything like a "freedom index" where predators were fewer, more far between, or more tame. If I were to move to a place with fictitious borders commonly referred to by the unwashed masses as "Florida", it would be because the weather is more amicable than say, a place also outlined by mythical lines and labeled by the uninformed as "New York". I prefer my old home location called "south central Texas", because I enjoy not only the weather, but also the sparsity of people. Interestingly, the folks over at that foundation (whatever that's supposed to mean) calling themselves "John Locke" have "found" Texas in its entirety to be rated "#12" (presuming that if I moved another 600 or so miles up to that cold and barren piece of earth labelled "Oklahoma" I would become more free by a factor of around 34% -- but would have to suffer the red dust and the dull traders :-]). My mantra is this: if I'm gonna be free, I gotta be free. Wherever I go there will be psychopaths, virtually all of whom will attempt to limit my freedom in one way or another. That is a factor built into that “social chaology" (thanks, Lawrence Samuels) that is so important to accept if one is to be truly free. My observation is that if "libertarians" would concentrate on encouraging their families and friends and neighbors to abstain from beans, freedom would become more entertaining for them. Sam
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 23 weeks 2 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    Paul - I would have said Iraqi patriots but didnt want Kid Rock tweeting me to death. Seriously, I fully expect  a bunch of Oscars for AS. And yeah, I agree, Clint has made some unexpected gems. Tried to get him interested in  cameo role in my movie, "Caution To The Wind" but he was too busy with a GranTorino. At least I had my actors actually drive my classic car.
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 23 weeks 2 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    Sam, thanks.  God made the spaces and gave them all for free. Man made the places and charged us all a fee. And back up their ownership with guns and armies and document checkers.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 23 weeks 2 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    "...If you cannot measure the present state precisely, how can anyone predict the future? ... You cannot control what you cannot predict..." You've described intellectually, Lawrence, what I ended up doing by the seat of my britches, since I could locate no "organized libertarian guidelines" -- just free human action. Put simply, I had to start being free. I was gettin' too old to wait for someone other than myself to make-it-happen. If freedom was to be, it was up to me. I recognized the absolute necessity of my being free. Here. Now. Where I'm "at". And to tolerate you as you are -- religious, atheistic, political -- good or bad. I can't be truly free if I can't tolerate your manifestation of what defines your "freedom". For you. I was faced with “social chaology", but could not have defined my frustration as eruditely as you have outlined it. I didn't have time to wait to read your essay. :-) I declared myself "a sovereign state". I think I might have had a couple of motives at the time for choosing that moniker: 1) I wanted to distance myself from collectivist "movements" (that give rise to the suspicion, ire and fear of dangerously armed psychopaths); and 2) recognizing the impracticability of "organizing freedom", I used the evil word "state" to subtly jab those in the eye who seemed to insist that "we" should be working to do so -- to "bring-about-freedom" (in others); to "bring-an-end-to-the-state". With me as one of The Founding Fathers. Sam
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 23 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Well, that's actually pretty swell Sam. I hope you continue reading up. Gollaher's book is a good read. Ronald Goldman, a Jewish born doctor, also has a great essay (and book ive yet to pick up) on the psychological damage.  About anti-semitism and other assaults on religion. I think its important to stress how utterly, totally, completely messed up it is that individuals coming from a religious background - no matter which it is - can not speak out against practices without the fear of being called a traitor to their people. For example, I know of a young Jewish intactivist who HATES Jews as a group, as mainly because of his own circumcision but also because he's not happy about what goes on inside those Brooklyn suburbs (you know about this, right). To be reflexively deemed a "self-hating" something or other is terrible, and also a really clever smokescreen. The reason I dont feel myself as part of that campaign is because I'm hostile to every religion. However, and here's my point, when I say something about Islam I only get called an evil Islamophobic by the Critical Theorists and the Post-Left, Social Justice Warrior types, who again, with drool coming out of their mouths, deem me an angry, unthoughtful racist. Certainly not said by Conservatives. If I say anything about Judaism, then it comes from both Conservatives and then again by many CT-SJW people. But, if I say something bad about Catholism, like their policy of restricting condoms to Africa, or their vast pedophile networks, then I hear virtually nothing from anybody. After all, we've already had a Catholic president, thank you JFK. I simply dont like how some groups manage to create a forcefield around themselves: "You cant criticise, you're no better than a racist-bigot-white supremacist." And yet as a white male I have to hear criticism about my alleged godhood all the time. A lot of that is BS, but a level of white privilege is unavoidably true. I dont then ask for hate speech laws to be erected to protect my feelings, though ive heard plenty of Commies who would quickly do away with the First Amendment in favor of legislation intended to curtail those "hateful", white-male-spoken words.  One last thing: I agree that the family is - should be - the only legitimate governing unit, which is why the responsibility is so important to consider. Thanks for rating up and for your comments Sam. Enjoy a cold one on me. Cheers. 
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 23 weeks 2 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    "When people like Chris Kyle are honored as a hero for killing 255 patriots..." There, I fixed it for you. Good article, right on target. But I have to admit that I like Eastwood. "Unforgiven", "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Gran Torino" are favorites of mine. There are a lot worse directors in Hollywood (maybe he is a bit schizophrenic, to have made a movie about Kyle).
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 23 weeks 2 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    "With the help of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle, Chaos theory proves that the universe is not based on the old Newtonian physics of order and precision" Well, Quantum Mechanics disproved Newtonian Physics, not Chaos theory - although a better way to put it was to say Newtonian Physics was shown to be an approximation. "But despite this obvious uncertainty, politicians routinely chisel into stone thousands of new laws each year on countless promises that they can improve societal conditions." Well, the promise to improve social conditions is just the propaganda supporting government action. It's a mistake to take it too seriously. Laws are passed to make a payoff. Legislators are in office to enjoy the exercise of power and to reward their friends.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 23 weeks 2 days ago Page Travis Irvine
    The folks over at lewrockwell.com have no use for Kyle either. It is possible to be a scumbag and an excellent sniper at the same time. From what I've read, Kyle fits this bill. This is not to say that the ability to place shots on a target at 800 yards is not a useful skill. I think everybody should give it a try.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 23 weeks 3 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    It's nice to see sociology, one of the "soft sciences", tied to complexity theory (admittedly a bit slippery itself). I can see the parallels that Mr. Samuels is drawing here; I've had similar thoughts, but nothing as well defined as this.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 23 weeks 4 days ago Web link KenK
    Ever now and again a low-level psychopath such as a "governor" must be sacked for "scandal". This serves to redirect the attention of the hoi polloi away from coming to understand that government IS scandal. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 23 weeks 4 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    Douglas Herman: "...it takes a lot more quiet courage to make a real hero..." Your observation regarding Santa Anna and the episode in history of the attack on The Alamo substantiates my ongoing mantra that all borders are fictitious lines in the sand. All came about about by psychopaths' forcing of "citizens" to murder and to encroach upon others' deranged claims to "jurisdiction". Keep up the good work. Sam http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1950-bitter-laugh.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 23 weeks 4 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Kevin, your essay elicited considerable comment much needed at this forum, so I'm glad you had the temerity to bring the circumcision issue to the fore. Too bad the last couple comments degenerated into personalities -- but that's not unusual for these kinds of subjects on any forum. I'd be wary of posting a topic such as this over at "facebook". Facebook, to me, appears to be a gigantic exercise in ignorant "one-liners" -- insults by people too dull to form two sentences in a row that make any sense. Another indicator of a good essay is that it inspired me to do additional research on the topic. I'm Israelite by genealogy (not to be confused with "Israeli" -- a separate topic for a different forum); so have had the indelible presumption that circumcision for the boys is the only grounded parenting. "...We have the truth. And that is that..." Well, as I've so often said, few of us were born with anarchist spoons in our mouths. We each had to come to anarchy by much expulsion of faulty indoctrination. And old doctrines often die hard. Ask me about it. So I happened upon this site -- which is openly intactivist, but which also presents data in a non-combative manner that clears up questions that linger: "... The penis and clitoris are analogous and homologous organs: they perform similar functions, share a common design, and biologically develop from the same tissues in utero ("in the womb" -- Sam). The glans (head) of the penis or clitoris is an internal organ. It is meant to remain covered for the majority of its livelihood, in similar nature to the way that the eyeballs are covered for a good portion of our lives (when we blink or sleep), and the way the ends of our fingers and toes are protected by our nails. "If we surgically amputate the eyelids or fingernails, we will face the repercussions of making an organ that was designed to be internal, external. In order to survive this damage, the organ must adapt. To do so, a variety of features will change (both immediately, and progressively over the years): pH will be altered, temperature will no longer remain stable in that organ, moisture and lubrication levels will not be maintained, leading to dryness and potential chapping, antibodies and healthy microflora that previously served to protect will cease to exist, and callusing (the build-up of multiple hardened layers of skin) will take place. Our body may attempt to heal itself by forming skin bridges or re-adhesions over the amputation site. Our eyeballs and fingertips would become thick, dry, discolored, and no longer function in the manner they were designed to. "So it is the same with the glans of the penis or clitoris. If we remove the very organ, the prepuce, which serves to cover, protect and regulate the health, pH, temperature, lubrication, antibodies, movement and functioning of the genitals, we've altered form so dramatically that the purposes it was created to fulfill can no longer be realized..." I ended up spending half a day clicking links that accompany the presentation, and even recovered a video that appears to have been deleted (I think this is the one): http://videosift.com/video/Foreskin-Explained-with-Computer-Animation Now, if my grandkids approach me with the question of "...should we circumcise?..." my response might be somewhat different than it might have been prior to reading your essay. I'm still not backing away from my mantra that it is definitely the parents' responsibility to decide -- or that the family is the only legitimate governing unit on earth. But I have upped my rating of your article from a "5" to an "8". Sam
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 23 weeks 5 days ago Page Travis Irvine
    Thanks Trav,  Very good stuff but your humor / wisdom is wasted on the sheep. I heard about the Texas holiday and know some Texans. Governor Abbott seems like a complete maroone, as Bugs Bunny would say.
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 23 weeks 5 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    Thanks Mark, And yes, I am pretty good these days. I served in San Anton for 4 years and got to see the Alamo. Was much smaller than I imagined. According to a Dahr Jamail post years ago, men aged 20-60 were refused exit Fallujah just before the US attack, when refugees started streaming out. By contrast, according to accounts of the attack on the Alamo, Santa Ana allowed people inside several days to get out. They did not. Hope life is good for you, Mark, my friend. Fight the good fight, with what few weapons we have. Ten Years Later, U.S. Has Left Iraq with Mass Displacement ... Fallujah during the Iraq War -   Doug
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 23 weeks 5 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    Thanks Kevin,    Eddie seems like a James Holmes type. Not sure what to make of him. Kyle? Too many of them, sadly.
  • NomNoms's picture
    NomNoms 23 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    You're Not Winston Churchill nor are you Ernest Hemingway....you say that your son is the victim in all of this but you mention his name only once. The rest is a bunch of "I, me, my" as if you're the victim and making your son the "martyr". How often do you do that?
  • NomNoms's picture
    NomNoms 23 weeks 5 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    You're Not Winston Churchill nor are you Ernest Hemingway....you say that your son is the victim in all of this but you mention his name only once. The rest is a bunch of "I, me, my" as if you're the victim and making your son the "martyr". How often do you do that?
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 23 weeks 5 days ago Web link strike
    "What if the whole notion of the myth is itself a myth, and you and Snopes fell for that?" BINGO
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 23 weeks 5 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    The Alamo is a great analogy and you weave a wonderful narrative around it.  Hope you are well, Douglas. 
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 23 weeks 5 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    Excellent!  What Glen said.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 23 weeks 6 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    Terrific column, Lawrence. I love seeing the underlying science behind a subject -- especially this one -- explained engagingly and in plain language. You've done a nice job demystifying the voodoo of coercive government.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 24 weeks 12 hours ago Web link TheMPP
    The idea of a guaranteed income is seductive, and it's not necessarily a bad idea.  The problem is implementing it via coercive government; implementing it without violating the non-aggression principle. Government is force, and so attracts and is ultimately run by people who like the idea of using force against others, which is why EVERY wonderful and warm/fuzzy idea government carries out turns to corruption and violence. Like all of those ideas (today's welfare, the War on Drugs, our World-Cop Foreign Policy, the FDA, and everything else), a guaranteed income WILL become a vehicle for corruption and control, lining the pockets of the rich (major banks make big bucks "administering" food stamps, or SNAP, for instance), empowering minor sociopaths in bureaucratic mazes, and ultimately keeping the poor in a state of poverty and ever-more under the thumb of the elite, just as today's welfare schemes do. Do a guranteed income without government -- via a church or some other voluntary group -- and it might work long-term, but even then I doubt it. Might be worth a try, though. But with government running things -- especially with the current American oligarchy / crime syndicate in place -- this will have all the Statist goodness of Obamacare. Government NEVER does things the way YOU think they will or should be done.  
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 24 weeks 14 hours ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    I wonder how the Hebrews knew that vitamin K was at it's peak on the eighth day after birth? Rhetorical Question as it was a covenant with God. God's promise with Abram (2018AM) is a witness to the wisdom that could not have been of an earthly source at that time. Circumcision would tend toward a type of health law. Penile cancer among Jews is so rare as to be almost non-existent. I happened to be saved from that type of infant assault upon my family JEWels. Which is good for me because back at that time the witch-doctors believed infants could undergo surgery with no anesthetic. These days, they can't wait to inject the new-born with a 'vitamin k' shot and mangle there junk with a scalpel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI_QXvN33Ow
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 24 weeks 16 hours ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Made a profile just to comment on MY column? I'm flattered.  Some people can't wake up in the morning all goddamned jovial, ya know what I mean.... "I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me." - Winston Churchill  Ah, but dont get your jimmies all rustled on my behalf, okay dear? Circumcision is genital mutilation and everyone has to deal with that revelation. Some have a harder time than others.  So unless you know me personally, the next time you comment on my drinking habits, you'll have to buy me a pint, fair?  Cheers.  ;)
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 24 weeks 16 hours ago Page Douglas Herman
    Nice article Douglas. Right - no big Hollywood movies will ever be made about Ridenhour or Smedley Butler or Edward Snowden or any other high profile anti-warrior. But a mass slaughterer like Kyle? No problem. Who cares that he LOVED killing those despicable savages, as he callled them in his book? Total psychopath - but then what else to expect from America..... As far as im concerned, Eddie Routh did us all a favor. How many others signing up for the Empire were getting trained and counseled by that guy? 
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 24 weeks 17 hours ago Web link TheMPP
    http://strike-the-root.com/72/knight/knight1.html    
  • NomNoms's picture
    NomNoms 24 weeks 1 day ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    He's an alcoholic who suffers openly with his addiction everywhere else but here it seems.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 24 weeks 2 days ago Page D. Saul Weiner
    Thanks you for your kind words.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 24 weeks 2 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Thank you Paul.  I also love Santa as an example of purposeful collective deception of a large group of people (children).  This quasi rite of passage prepares the young mind for later indoctrination.  This will go on because it also provides much joy from the spectacle of it all; and it does promote giving.  So intertwining some bacon around that pill helps people to swallow it.  Further, people like being in a show, to make-believe, pretending and what not.  The state provides a convienient outlet for those desires to be accepted by the collective in adulthood.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 24 weeks 2 days ago Page D. Saul Weiner
    Well done Saul!  You covered a complex and controversial topic in a broad yet succinct manner.  Thank you.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 24 weeks 4 days ago Page D. Saul Weiner
    Paul, thanks for the feedback.   I agree that these are utilitarian arguments. What is interesting is that I normally emphasize moral arguments over utilitarian ones. In this case, I thought it was necessary to focus on these objective issues because I believe that a great many people are so consumed by fear when this topic comes up that they cannot really rationally consider whether or not it is right to force others to be medicated without informed consent. When people are really afraid, they will reflexively support measures that appear to provide safety. So I think that in order to get through to people who think that deadly infectious diseases would spread like wildfire without widespread vaccination, it is necessary to provide some perspective on the topic for them, to help them see why it is extremely unlikely that this would be the case.   It is hard to say for sure what kind of utilization of vaccines we might see in a free world. It seems to me that if we were not exposed to incessant government propaganda, phony research, legal privileges for suppliers, and mandates (many people already believe that they need to vaccinate their kids in order for them to go to school, even though there are exemptions currently), the support for vaccination might be much lower than it is today. Of course, if it were to turn out that in a free society with informed consent vaccination remained very popular, I would fully respect the decisions of those who go that route. Let the free market decide.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 24 weeks 4 days ago Page D. Saul Weiner
    Thanks for collecting these links in one place. My take on all this is that these are (if I'm not mistaken) somewhat utilitarian arguments. I would add to your questions, "What if mandatory vaccinations reduces the percentage of parents who subjects their children to vaccines?" This question is somewhat similar to the homeschooling question; the more people are forced to do something with their children, the more they (or some of them, anyway) will resist. Forcing people is an instant admission of error, of illegitimacy. In a free world. I'm pretty sure there would still be vaccines, and probably pretty high usage of them, but I suspect they would typically be used later in life and not combined and not have included such things as mercury.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 24 weeks 4 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Santa Claus is arguably one of our better allies. After all, how many grownups believe in him? Who has not had some faith in magic shaken by the discovery he was just a fraud perpetrated on kids too young to know better? I wish all state fairy tales were as transparent as Santa Claus. I think one great tool for fighting magic is the single word, "Why"? Asking this question of rituals exposes immediately the nonsense. Trying to justify rituals is actually quite difficult, because rituals depend so strongly on never being questioned at all, and because they are so ridiculous. I often wondered what would happen if I were called to testify in court and when I was supposed to swear to tell the truth, I said, "I'm not a Christian, and I try to avoid having religious opinions of any stripe. Why should I swear to anything?" "If we do overcome our childhood indoctrination, we will likely be branded as a heretic and cast out of polite society, becoming an outcast or outlaw." I think that itself is a bit of magic. The rulers like to perpetuate this story but the reality is mostly different. One is less and less likely, over the years, to be cast out merely due to having different opinions. In fact it could be said that having a different opinion is a way to become popular because people get bored over the same old pablum time after time, and want to hear something different - even if they may not agree with it. We are not living in Puritan Boston any more. Of course I could be wrong due to my living in Portlandia, where odd opinions are routine. Anyway, good article! I think you are right about the direction things are going.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 24 weeks 5 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Glock, There is no one best method or plan to strike at the root of the state and we should all do what we think is best.  As to engaging politicians, which did much of in my younger years, I think you summed it up with the statement "All legislators have already made up their minds upon all issues."  This is a futile quest; much like getting a department store who hires Santas at X'mas time for promotional purposes to put up a sign reporting he is a fake.  But keep doing what you're doing because others (perhaps lackeys as you say) in earshot may get a clue because of it.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 24 weeks 5 days ago Web link strike
    Social networking can be a highly useful tool, but facebook is evil. Join tsu, a rapidly growing social network that shares ad revenue with users. Lots of social networks have attempted to compete with facebook's near-monopoly on social media, but they've all failed to gain traction in terms of having enough people on there to be really useful as a social networking tool. What else can possibly overcome facebook's social inertia other than a positive feedback loop that pays people to join, invite their friends, create and share content? It's pseudo-invite-only right now, so basically you need to pick an existing user and input their name when tsu asks who invited you. Whoever you input gets credit for inviting you, which adds up, so if you don't know me and so don't want to give me credit you can pick among any number of alternative users to join up. Here's mine (but if I seem unethical or untrustworthy, don't participate in indirectly funding me by using me as your invite): tsu.co/evanlpierce Here's who invited me (I support paul's goals of world domination gardening and so don't mind helping to indirectly fund him): tsu.co/paulwheaton Here's a charity (I don't know much about this charity but they seem nice and I think it's an option): tsu.co/charitywater Tarrin Lupo, fellow liberty lover, agorist, and natural doc, is also on tsu, and you can use his link: tsu.co/drlupo I bet you could probably google some other users who you liked more and use them as your invites. It's growing pretty fast. Invite all your friends and together we can obsoletize facebook. Today facebook, tomorrow the state. :)
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 24 weeks 6 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Mark, Paragraph 2: "....many feel as there is little we can do to change it..." This has been my frustration. Many on this site will disdain me for my daily attacks on State and Federal Legislators, but it is my tool to fight rather than to philosophize. I believe we must accept the current situation, like it or not, and gain the temerity to strike. From my perspective, Striking the Root is not a philosophy. Striking is an active verb, implying an action is being taken. The Root is the Noun existing as a metaphor for what needs to be struck, and Striking the Root means to me taking the tools they use against the population and use it back at them. This is exactly what is happening with Muslim terrorist, they are using the "Magic books" to implement their goals in this country. Strike the Root I believe means action and not lack of action. I recognize I can take a huge amount of flack for this. But so far I concede too what you are presenting. Paragraph 3: Fortunately for me I never told my kids about Santa. I expressed to them the actual, fundamental rational for Christmas. Yes. I forced them to church and bible school, and bible camps, but reached a point and told them. "You no longer have to participate. You must come up with your own responsible decision regarding the issue of Christmas, and church". None have returned to the fold, so I guess they made their decision. This topic aggravates me because far too many people accept the bible at word without any investigation. They fail to consider the time, the culture, the language, the metaphors and allusions in how they phrased conversation. The bible is mostly a political document. Is the bible a lie? I say no--its just that far too many people fail to honestly search the other sources which helps to clarify enormous amounts of misconception. Stop. Paragraph 4: Beautifully illustrated. Reminds me of the House Boy blaming Christians from centuries past for the current terrorist brutality. They are just now getting even with us. Ha! Paragraph 5: Like I said earlier the bible is first and foremost a political tool (the majority of it is) used by the patriarchs as well as a cultural history, linguistic text and etc. No more comments Mark. I think you present some excellent philosophical points. As for me I am probably a mix of black and white magic. Political events sicken me, but I cannot sit and not do anything more than pine over the tragedies which are occurring. There is probably no one on this site who would dare respond to legislators local, state, or federal, as I do. It would be beneath them to take up the hatchet and hack away and to me philosophizing accomplishes very little. I attempt to use their own magic against them and draw from sources as this site for select remarks to shoot at legislators. I guess I am beginning to like the idea of calling myself the "Verbal Sniper". Currently I suspect that I am under scrutiny regarding my remarks when I call them liars, cheats, thieves, robbers, illiterate, ignorant, and stupid. Most of my shots seem to be misses, but, if I am lucky some lackey will get turned. All legislators have already made up their minds upon all issues. If it helps to control the people and turn us into a third world country then good. If it involves us not paying taxes, having a successful business and etc. then no.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 24 weeks 6 days ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Sam, Delmar England's essay you referred is a rather dynamic piece until he comes to utilizing the terms of conscious and sub-conscious, terms he had to have been taught (coming form Freud who has been debunked a long time back). It is clearly an article to not be read once but must be analysed for what the content is actually saying. Simply to me it is everything we have been taught from birth onward is nothing more than lies running the course of life. A casual reading leaves my head swirling,wow, stop the merry-go-round and let me off. My mind is not as functional as it once was. Supposedly as we age we are to become more wise and filled with experiences vital to everyone. The longer I live the less I seem to know. Thank you for the reference. It is deeply appreciated as it adds ammunition to my battle with the Morons. Again. Thanks.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 25 weeks 17 hours ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    At the risk of overwriting some of the intention of your essay, Mark, I'd like to add the link you posted over at a facebook site. I believe this presenter does a lot to clarify the "magic" that is "rulership": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr0VWqilcGM José Barrera does in much better clarity what I've touted for the last two or three years by the late Delmar England: Insanity as the Social Norm. The comparison of the science of religion with the science of rulership is fascinating to say the least. Like Magic. Sam
  • Yules's picture
    Yules 25 weeks 18 hours ago Page Marc J. Victor
    Perhaps the issue is not with people's general receptivity towards the legalization of all drugs, but the way it's worded? Methamphetamine would be my last choice if I were to pick a model illegal drug to be the base of an argument because almost no one has any reasons for getting it legalized. Why should people fight to legalize a drug that they know they're never going to use? The risks obviously outweigh the benefits in their minds. If the title were "Legalize LSD" or "Legalize Psilocybin", people would have an incentive to actually vouch for all-drug legalization because these are drugs with reported therapeutic benefits in psychiatry and the world would gain a lot from their decriminalization - the US would allow scientists to test these substances in clinical trials, which is currently not allowed except in rare, uncomprehensive studies. Psychedelics such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline have also been reported to increase creativity, spirituality, and empathy, but it's impossible to go around saying so because there's no science to back it up. Methamphetamine, on the other hand, has little to no medical or psychotherapeutic benefits and the chemical is pretty much completely understood now. It's not needed for further testing or anything. If the argument has to be centered on a drug with no benefits just to validate the freedom argument, I understand, but it'd be far easier to win people's hearts with the possible benefits of psychedelics and marijuana than a drug that is only associated with violence and self-destruction. Regardless, it's an enlightening article and the best argument for the legalization of drugs that I've seen. Thank you.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 25 weeks 1 day ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Supervision by parental "authority" will naturally be from honest love. And genuine desire for their welfare. Hopefully. We know there are exceptions -- none of us likes to think of all the incapable and unfit parents out there who neglect and endanger their offspring. It is with care and love that we restrain baby from falls and stairways and dangerous things like household chemicals. And later, deny permission for high-risk activities. As time develops, the children will quite likely take more and more responsibility for our supervision and care. I took care of both Mom and Dad the last years of their lives. I well remember "coercing" Dad to allow me to shower and scrub and shave him every Friday, and trim finger and toenails. I threatened him with the "county-health nurse" (don't think I'd handle it that way nowadays) -- "Dad, all of us smell bad when we don't bathe, and if the county health nurse comes in here and detects you have no personal hygiene or clean clothes she will force you to go to a nursing home!..." No nurse ever came, but I used that as browbeating. He was retired post master -- highly statist and compliant by nature, always prepared for postal inspectors to show up unannounced. I try to refrain from expounding "anarchist theory", because I'm no more capable than the newest member of STR to know how unfit parents are going to be dealt with in a totally free marketplace. None of us has seen liberty -- freedom from state. We've been so saturated with statolatry from childhood, and the legacy handed down by our ancestors before us, that it is truly difficult to even fantasize how hooligan kids and other of these perplexing problems will be dealt with in a totally free community. But deal with them we will. Call that my "religious faith" if you must. As you've outlined, "...social institutions will crumble, elite influence will be exposed...the illusion of social control will eventually be seen by all for what it is: a magic spell..." Sam
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 25 weeks 1 day ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Thank you, Sam.  The term "governing unit" implies the use of force to "govern", if so, then I would agree with you.  As you note parents have the only legitimate assumption of power to govern without consent.  However, I believe that voluntary associations which include rules for behavior and mutual aid are legitimate as long as they maintain their voluntary status.  One could argue that these association result in voluntary "governing"; though that may also be considered an oxymoron.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 25 weeks 1 day ago
    Like Magic!
    Page Mark Davis
    Good, Mark! Your only "authority" is that which I grant you. Since I've read a number of your essays and communicated with you periodically, I've come to respect you and will generally follow your lead. To that extent I suppose we could agree that you have "authority" or "jurisdiction" -- as long as I do indeed follow the suggestions you present, which you have shown so far to be valid and valuable. Larken Rose has produced a number of good videos that better illustrate that point. "Jurisdiction" is between your ears. "Legitimacy" is an illusion. "Consent-Of-The-Goverened" is criminal mind control. And if 90% of individuals would abruptly come to see that, "jurisdiction" would disappear. There would be anarchy. And anarchy, to the contrary of everything we've been told about anarchy, will be true liberty, security and safety. We can burn all the Black's Law Dictionaries, and all the fairy tales and illusions they encompass. Bills of "rights" and "Constitutions" will be amusing memories of harder times. We've skirted this issue recently on the subject of "circumcision". Of course on that topic the tiny newborn is definitely under "jurisdiction" -- and, whether he likes it or not his foreskin is going to get whacked -- for better or for worse. Unless the parents are "intactivists". But it is up to the parents, and nobody else. I've insisted forever that the family is the only legitimate governing unit -- all else are criminal interlopers. Lots of controversy can be generated from that. Wendy McElroy recently posted a good essay on state as religion. Keep churning out good essays. STR needs them. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 25 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Let me start out with an admission: I don't understand sex. I mean, here I am, father of 7, grandpa of 25, great-grandpa of more than I'd like to admit (they make me look old :-[). As an anarchist I'm not certain I can explain dogmatically why it might be considered "aggression" if I were to attempt to seduce your wife, your girl friend, or your daughter. Are there "rules" governing that? And, worse-come-to-worse, if she should acquiesce to my advances, and you were to "catch" us -- would you have just cause (under the non aggression principle "NAP") to shoot me (and/or her) and/or whip our asses? You can rest easy. I'm 80, no longer of a mindset to encroach on anybody else's space in that manner. Even in the event your wife should try to seduce ME (not likely after she took one look) -- I'd have to turn 'er down. Not because of waning libido or lack of interest. It's because, although I might be crazy, I ain't stupid. And it does make for reasonable discussion. Does the husband “own” his wife and/or his children? Does the wife "own" her husband? Should "fidelity" be a condition of marriage for libertarians and anarchists who eschew state-licensed and regulated "marriage"? I'm aware of more than one prominent libertarian who has engaged in and apparently espoused polyamorous "marriages". This particular essay has the aroma of acute personal emotion on the part of the author. Circumcision -- like abortion, homosexual "marriage", unwanted newborns, enforced contraception, etc. -- is a peripheral sex issue. And those issues baffle "libertarians" and "anarchists" (I use quotes to illustrate my opinion that many if not most of us are postulants -- hoping to become the real McCoy by our essays and our comments on anarchist forums). From the standpoint of anarchy, I'm convinced the family is the only legitimate governing unit. I can see it no other way. The human newborn, unlike animals, comes into life without "instinct" -- totally dependent upon adult caregivers for her survival. I find it amusing that "science" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and mainstream media feel duty-bound to include "humans" in their description of mammals to small children. But that's a different topic for a different thread -- on a totally different forum. I wish that all newborns could come into life with loving Moms and Dads, committed to the child's survival, upbringing and welfare throughout their lives. Parents (of both sexes) who will -- with love and care -- restrain and preclude the baby from rolling off the bath table or bed or stairway; prevent access to harmful objects that can (and will) be placed in mouths, ears, noses -- and other embarrassing yet risky areas. Parents who will -- with love -- provide nourishment and sanitary environment; who will -- with love -- teach them right from wrong, good from bad. Until the parents become elderly and the child finds herself caring for Mom and/or Dad -- the rolls reversed. And circumcision. Yea, or nay. Four of my seven kids are boys. All were circumcised. On the eighth day. Not necessarily because that was "...our religious rule..." (or the "rule" of some rabbi) -- but because it makes sense for health reasons. If you're going to circumcise, that is. I'm not your judge. You are your judge. And your child's guardian. You do what you see proper and healthy for your son. Don't let me -- or Kevin -- dissuade you from doing what you see to be in your sons' best interest(s). Also know that once the foreskin is off it can't be replaced. Forget the scams saying differently. Let that also be your guide. There are valid arguments on both sides of this circumcision controversy -- and I'm not referring to the "religious" arguments. You can find as many physicians who soundly believe in circumcision -- that it inhibits many infections and prevents disease -- as you can physicians who are avidly opposed for a number of sound reasons. Read this. Remember: just because you're a physician does not make you an expert on whether the circumcised (or the intact) are going to have better sex lives or better emotional health or better hygiene practices. Some day I might ask my boys (one nearing 60) if they wish I had left them intact -- if they're lives might have been enhanced had they not "...suffered the brutality and violence..." of circumcision. I'd really like to know. And, although we're an open family (they think I'm pretty screwy) we've never discussed penises -- adult penises, that is. Not due to modesty issues -- the topic just hasn't come up, and I'll need to bring it up if there's to be a discussion. I think each of my sons may have counseled with me regarding the decisions pertaining to their sons' circumcisions (15 of the 25 grandchildren are boys, all but one of them sons of my sons). In each case I'm certain I urged the procedure to be on the eighth day -- primarily due to clotting issues. Libertarians who inwardly want to impose their opinions and their wills on others find all facets of sexuality to be no-man's (or woman's) land. Yay or nay -- I won't say. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 25 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Christianity gets such a bad name and most people get hooked into the wrong ideas regarding Christianity. The bible is a political text mostly, then a cultural text, and loaded with allusions, and stories in an attempt to get the idea across. The hard part is for modern humans to understand is the context. It all appears to be simple, but until the period, and cultural elements, language, ideologies, threats and etc. are understood then the whole truth is missed. To get at it other texts have to be read, history, archaeology, language and etc. Reading the bible alone will bring one to some very strange ideas and concepts. I raised one cognizant child, made him attend church, but in the end told him he had to figure it out for himself. I am still trying to figure it out (which he hasn't to date, like me.) It is far easier to not pursue the ideology than it is to invest time into understanding it; which takes more than the bible itself. I regret that there are so many versions of Christianity. This only compounds the problem of understanding it. By the way Hell is merely a political word used in the early centuries to gain control over the people, just like the other Gods, Zeus and etc. To me Hell is merely a separation of the human soul from the divine creator. I buy into evolution only to the point that I think it is a tool the divine creator used to bring this mess together. The Divine Creator puzzles me. Humans were grown on a violent planet, filled with violent critters from large to microscopic and man, the most violent of all because man kills, controls and manipulates simply for the pleasure of it, not to produce food, shelter, warmth and etc. Well. That's my piece to the story. Not a strong argument, but I just cannot accept that all of what is here and now came by accidental events.