School Principal Threatened by Boy’s Haircut

Statists are rarely correct. Even when one statist rightfully disagrees with another, they do it for the wrong reason. It can be “idiocy galore” when statists tangle.

A young school boy (does it matter where?) was suspended from school by the principal because his “high and tight” haircut was deemed inappropriate.

It seems that this style of haircut is popular among The Emperor’s hired killers and the impressionable youth got such a haircut to honor a close relative enlisted within that group.

Obviously, the mother was upset but not for the reason that you would expect. Instead of claiming her son’s right to self ownership (by the fact that he is human), allowing him whatever method he decides to cut his hair, she distorted the principal’s objection as an insult to the military, simply because such a haircut is popular within those ranks!

"All I really want is for the school and the school district to do a public apology: Not just for my son, but for the fallen war heroes ... and the veterans, and the active military personnel that are in the Army now," Stinnett said. "Considering the military haircut as a distraction is basically saying that our Army is a distraction."

The criticism of the principal’s actions by loyalists is further intensified by the fact that the school is named to exalt a late war criminal.

So somehow, the principal’s objection to such a haircut in his school due to its appearance is distorted as an insult against the military, just because such a style of haircut is popularly associated with some members of that group.

I would ask the mother these questions, using her own method of warped logic:

Pornography is popular in the military. Should the principal allow pornography in his school so as not to insult the military? Should such material be offered in the school library to accompany all the texts that glorify the empire’s wars of conquest?

Prostitution is popular in the military. Should the principal allow students to have hookers for guests for show and tell. Should he sanction prostitutes serving boys in the restrooms during potty breaks?

Rape and sexual harassment is unfortunately popular within the military. Should the principal tolerate such activity in his school? Should he look the other way when witnessing a gang rape rather than risk offending heroic soldier boys?

Such questions, of course, sound ridiculous only because they follow the same illogic suggested by Ms. Stinnett.

So let’s summarize this “idiocy galore” by confused and equally guilty statists:

1) We have a school principal unnaturally concerned with the length and design of a child’s head hair, seeing it as some threat or “distraction” to other children and somehow negatively affecting the success of their education.

2) We have a mother upset, not because this tyrant commands her child what to do with his body, but by taking offense that the principal’s rejection of such a haircut is a slap in the face to military members sporting that same haircut.

3) A community “very proud of the name of our school” see the principal’s action particularly egregious as an attack against the “hero” for whom the school is named.

4) All parties involved in this childish squabbling are completely unaware that the institution and its members they honor to the extreme and irrationally defend, are the greatest threat to their safety and liberty- not the arrangement of hairs on a head and certainly not those who dislike such arrangements.

Statist quarrelling can certainly be perversely entertaining, an example of “Nero fiddling while Rome burns.” Except it can more accurately be described as “clueless slaves quarreling while liberty dies.”

　Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT

 

This is What Ignorance Looks Like

Look to your immediate left. This is the face of ignorance.

Read the quote below. These are words of the ignorant:

"Two guys break into an atheist's home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot 'em. And they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don't have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now is it dude?"

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, 'Wouldn't it be something if this was something wrong with this? But you're the one who says there is no God, there's no right, there's no wrong, so we're just having fun. We're sick in the head. Have a nice day.' If it happened to them, they probably would say, 'Something about this just ain't right."

This is what happens when you only read one book in your life.

So, according to the babble typed above, only theists can possibly know the difference between right and wrong. And no theists would ever commit such egregious acts against his fellow man.

According to Mr. Robertson, only by believing that a God will judge you after threatening eternal damnation if you disobey, can you be motivated to do what is right and avoid what is wrong.

Mr. Robertson’s choice of theistic direction is Christianity. The sole written doctrine of that religious choice is The Bible. Though the Bible may offer some useful wisdom, numerous other sources of philosophy and guidance offer equally and even complimentary insight on how best to live your life. Some of these sources come from other religions Mr. Robertson’s flock might even consider abominations. Though such sources may not include the risk of everlasting sorrow created by a vengeful, judgmental God if ignored, they may offer inspiration and direction to those less responsive to being motivated by threats.

There are, believe it or not, people in this world who have learned the difference between right and wrong by what serves their best interests. And that interest is best served by treating others respectfully and honestly. Violent, repulsive, behavior described by Mr. Robertson will fail at serving those best interests. How? Such behavior results in undesirable earthly consequences long before God can get a shot at the offender. Individuals witnessing such consequences are moved to avoid such behavior to avoid the inevitable earthly consequences.

Only the mentally deranged ignore what is in their best interest. Only the hopelessly sick perform acts contrary to strong, time tested social mores. This includes atheists. I've encountered many atheists and I have yet to meet one that didn't have a sense of right and wrong. Only the sick, unreachable ones ignore that best interest, just as sick, unreachable theists are equally blinded.

People don’t grow and develop in a moral vacuum. The value of ethics and proper behavior are broadcast from a variety of sources. Only the spiritually sick ignore such advice. Even the belief in a judgmental God will not stop such damaged souls from engaging in abhorrent, murderous behavior.

Mr. Robertson and any other like minded individuals should take advantage of such diverse sources of information. It might even strengthen or even expand their views of right and wrong.

To quote a wonderful line in a great movie:

“The Bible is a book. It is a very good book. But it is not the only book.”

Many Christians claim that The Bible was written by man but inspired by God. But couldn’t other written works by man be equally inspired by God throughout history? I would argue that any artistic creation (including the use of the written word) is spiritually inspired. What not take advantage of what they have to offer?

If Robertson is one of those Christians who believes Old Testament content is relevant and descriptive of his loving God, he can find multiple accounts there of violent acts of torture and murder far more heinous than the imaginary thugs he describes.

And such acts are being ordered and approved by the Almighty, himself.

People in the entertainment business seem to receive a permanent soapbox as part of their compensation. This platform inevitably produces multiple opportunities for such individuals to make fools of themselves. Whatever entertainment related talent they may have is worthless when they step off into unfamiliar territory where quite different tools and talents are necessary.

Their ill advised attempt at intelligent discourse is doomed when such individuals have limited their education and ignored their creator’s gift of reason and logic. The result is often embarrassment and lasting humiliation. A result certainly not in their best interest.

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT

Time to Replace the Boy Scouts?

Are the Boy Scouts still an institution worthy of involvement in the development of young boys? Do they still teach the foundational values of individual responsibility and self-reliance?

Texas Blogger, Kent McManigal recently encountered some modern day Boy Scouts while out camping. After talking to some of these Scouts, he relates his disappointment at how few useful skills these Scouts had been taught. He offers an alternative organization to be formed- The “Browncoat Scouts.”

 Reading this post inspired me to relate my own experiences as a scout, decades ago, and how over that time, my opinion of the Boy Scouts has changed.

I was an Eagle Scout back in the 1960’s. Leaving aside the God and country nonsense (serving two religions, with opposing philosophies, at once?), I have a lot of fond memories of camping experiences. Back then, we were taught some survival skills. I can even remember times where we genuinely suffered, but all for our betterment. We learned and we were toughened.

I was a scrawny, little 11-12 year old and being constantly challenged. Some of those challenges were quite scary for a kid that age:

Sleep in a tent in the middle of winter, get up out of a (sometimes) warm sleeping bag on a 20 degree morning, walk out into two feet of snow, start a fire and cook a breakfast. Challenge met.

Hike 20 miles in one day. Challenge met.

Swim a mile in a lake. Challenge met.

Ride a bike 50 miles in one day. Challenge met.

Jump into the water and “rescue” a “drowning” kid 6 years year older than me and 40 lbs. heavier. Challenge met (after several attempts and being nearly drowned for real).

Hike and climb mountains for a week with a 50lb pack on my back through heat, rain, and hail. Challenge met.

Get up before dawn, be given a breakfast of nothing more that one raw egg and a single slice of bread, then work until midday performing tough, chain gang-like, manual labor in the hot summer sun. Then, after an equally puny lunch, still more tough work remains until sundown. Complain, or even speak at all, and you are sent back to your unit in shame.

Challenge met.

The reward? A strong sense of accomplishment, a constantly renewed vigor for life, increased confidence in my abilities and judgment, and wonderful camaraderie with fellow Scouts who met those same challenges.

Nowadays, those kind of actions would be considered, by some, as “abuse,” and if experienced by a black kid- “racism.”

Today, I see kids that age (and even several years older) that can barely walk up a flight of stairs. They probably don’t even know how to start an electric stove, let alone a fire to cook on. They think food comes out of a vending machine.

Schools are useless. Their “development” goal appears to be “extended adolescence.” They teach the young only obedience to “authority” and keep them just ignorant enough to be functionally helpless, always in need of assistance and “counseling” by the state parasites posing as that “authority.” These “counselors,” of course, are nothing more than gatekeepers, charging a toll to misinform and mislead a young individual on their road to adult servitude.

Dependency is praised as “good citizenship” and “patriotic” and independence smeared as radical rebelliousness, characteristic of the mentally unstable. Those who accept dependence are showered with accolades and awards. Those who choose independence are reprimanded and have dangerous pharmaceuticals shoved down their throats to soothe the savage sovereign.

I work a lot with teenagers and many seem virtually helpless, as if they were five year olds in a teenage body. They seem disinterested in learning or acquiring knowledge but merely seek to be entertained and satisfying their sweet tooth. A significant number cannot even write down the street address they live at.

 

They…don’t…even…know…where… they…live!

 

This helplessness seems particularly acute in urban/inner city areas where such vulnerability may threaten a young person’s outright survival.

Some of this can be blamed on their parents who baby them, coddle them, and refuse to stress the importance of being responsible for yourself. Some parents, of course, outright neglect their children. But I can also see the state's part in keeping them clueless in their state of extended childhood, making them easier to control and manipulate in the future. What perfect, young candidates to willfully accept bloody nationalism, conformity, and collectivism. Young minds are easier to mold when they are as gooey and malleable as clay.

It’s a shame that the Boy Scouts organization contributes to this brainwashing. It seems that any useful skills a Scout may learn is not for the benefit of that Scout as an individual in pursuit of his dreams, but is instead expected to be practiced for the benefit of the state collective, particularly by way of the military or politics- commonly referred to as “serving your country.”

Having always treasured these Scouting memories and their contribution to my personal development, there was a time when the Boy Scouts were in my will. But I had to drop them when their militarist and fascist political indoctrinations increased to levels even more intense than what I experienced.

Maybe Kent’s “Browncoat” Scouts can be what the Boy Scouts used to be, but without the poisonous nationalism, without the unquestioned allegiance to an illegitimate authority, and without the reverence for the civic religion.

No only would it make Scouting a healthier and more enlightening experience but it would make it even more fun.

 

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT

 

The State Doesn't Exist

I highly recommend watching the video embedded below. Don’t let the length of the video intimidate you. Don’t let the still image of people sitting at a table facing an individual at another table prejudice you into thinking this is a boring video. On the contrary, it is fascinating and an excellent example of how to expose the fraud of state “authority.”

I love how these state operatives can never define "the state" when asked to.

Not that they refuse to answer.

They.....simply.......can't......do.......it.

Why? Because the state doesn't exist. It's an abstraction that only exists in the minds of those who accept that abstraction as "real."

The state only becomes tangible or manifests itself when believers commit an act of observable
violence against those who don’t believe that abstraction and therefore, refuse to obey.

The exchange here between the bureaucrats and the accused is a microcosm of the relationship of the state to the sovereign individual. Try as they may, the state operatives cannot justify their institution’s authority with evidence but can only offer “points of law” which are, of course, merely words on paper. And words written by………them.

If I write rules on paper and claim they apply to everyone, is my authority legitimate? Of course not!

The only “evidence” that the state’s authority applies to a particular individual would be a signed contract by the accused, agreeing to be ruled by such an authority.

The state will, of course, falsely claim that the fact the accused stands or sleeps on a particular patch of dirt (“residence”) is such an “agreement.” Which is, of course, another offer of point of law, not evidence.

Enjoy the state’s bewilderment and agitation as it desperately tries to justify its existence. Imagine the wonderful chaos that would ensue if millions of sovereigns asked the same questions of their self-appointed rulers. And the higher up this false, authoritarian hierarchy that those questions are asked, the better.

Resistance is Mandatory

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT