Quotes of the Week

Enlightened insights taken from the past week’s reading:

“A freer society is only possible through the efforts of those who try to do new things even if that comes with the risk of failing and being wrong. The act of trying to innovate around systems of oppression is always a better alternative to doing nothing other than complaining about corrupt politicians."
T.K. Coleman

“In practice, if we favor free choice, free movement, and the opportunity to escape from overbearing regimes, the answer lies in the creation of more borders and more states. While borders can often work to inhibit the movement of goods and human beings, they can also offer opportunities for greater freedom by limiting the power and reach of existing states.” [Secession, anyone?]
Ryan McMaken

“If all people who claim the ‘libertarian’ label insist on dogmatically clinging to their own familiar definitions of words they'll just keep talking past rather than to each other. While individualist and collectivist oriented people may continue to deeply dislike and distrust one another the acceptance of the voluntaryism inherent in the non-aggression principle should bring them together in the common cause of rejecting statism.”
Garry Reed

“Terrorists don’t obey laws or conform to regulations. If they did, they wouldn’t be terrorists. Making those laws and regulations more restrictive fails as a counter to – in fact it actively incentivizes – terrorism. The goal of terrorists is to terrorize. Mass acceptance of repressive legal responses says they’re succeeding.”
Thomas Knapp

“There is no place in our nation for the kind of armed revolution our forefathers mounted against a tyrannical Great Britain. Such an act would be futile and tragic. We are no longer dealing with a distant, imperial king but with a tyrant of our own making: a militarized, technologized, heavily-financed bureaucratic machine that operates beyond the reach of the law.”
John Whitehead

“If people en masse really and truly want to secede, legal arguments would be irrelevant. If Texans or Pacificans or Vermonters or New Englanders, if enough of them wake up one morning saying, ‘This system is not conducive to their happiness, we want to get out,’ all the lawyers in the world saying you can’t do that will be irrelevant. The first great secessionist movement in American history was what we call the American Revolution.”
Sanford Levinson

“Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out a concrete assignment which demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone's task is as unique as is his specific opportunity to implement it.”
Viktor Frankl

“Calling things by their true names is important. In fact, if we persist well enough and long enough in this, the world will change as a result. The coercive systems of our time couldn’t survive with light shining clearly upon them. Their continued operation requires a confused populace.”
Paul Rosenberg

“It is a poor mind that will think with the multitude because it is a multitude: truth is not altered by the opinions of the vulgar or the confirmation of the many. It is more blessed to be wise in truth in face of opinion than to be wise in opinion in face of truth.”
Giordano Bruno

“Liberty is a state of mind that does not require the indulgence of others.”
Louis E. Carabini 

United We Fall, Divided We Stand

Secession is often dismissed as a back door way for The US Regime or the stealth, controlling powers-that-be to “divide and conquer.” Secession is seen an unwise action because it weakens a potential united front against an all controlling power.

 

However, the “divide” already exists, independent of the controlling powers. There are those inclined to liberty (or at least more liberty than they presently have) and those inclined to mastery or submission. There are those inclined to live as much of their lives as possible as free individuals, and there are those who prefer to rule over and control those same individuals; or be one of the subjects under such a ruler.

Secession allows a political separation of these differing camps so their contrasting beliefs no longer create constant conflict. If the division in ideology becomes intolerable for all sides, the only rational response for both groups is separation.

Being “conquered” only occurs when any side submits to the others (and suffers accordingly) or a tyrannical dictatorship forcibly unites all camps into one political collective- a forced integration of ideological opposites. Only the dictatorial class and its cronies benefits from such an arrangement. Meanwhile, the opposing sides constantly fight over who is favored by the dictatorial class. This is where the “conquering” occurs. A group is conquered when it deems it necessary to submit to a ruling power for survival while battling other groups for control of that ruling power. Only one group wins.

Separation avoids such an unending, non-productive waste of time and resources.

Secession creates a decentralization of power which weakens, not strengthens the central controlling power. After all, it now has fewer subjects under its command. It has fewer groups willing to submit. The seceding groups no longer have to battle each other for power. Their previous central controlling power is no longer viewed as legitimate or relevant.

United we fall, divided we stand. The opposite view offers nothing but continued enslavement and discord.

Secession, anyone? Or are you terrified of freedom?

 

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

 

No masters

NO CONSENT  　　

More Nonsense from the US Regime

According to the Texas Tribune, “The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed previous rulings that the 2011 voter ID law — which stipulates the types of photo identification election officials can and cannot accept at the polls — does not comply with the Voting Rights Act.”

Texas appears to be viewed throughout the US Collective as the state with the strictest voter ID law. Many appear to view such a reality as a bad thing, hence the lawsuit. Though I see voting for rulers as senseless and even dangerous, I’ll review this case from the present reality of an existing state collective that allows its subjects to vote for their rulers, with the majority vote winning.

“Under the law, most citizens (some, like people with disabilities, can be exempt) must show one of a handful of types of identification before their ballots can be counted: a state driver's license or ID card, a concealed handgun license, a U.S. passport, a military ID card, or a U.S citizenship certificate with a photo.”

The Texas Attorney General rightfully argues that, “It is imperative that the State government safeguards our elections and ensures the integrity of our democratic process. Preventing voter fraud is essential to accurately reflecting the will of Texas voters during elections.”

So called “experts” claim that more than 600,000 Texans lack such identification. Whether those 600,000 are too apathetic or too lazy to secure just one of those documents is apparently irrelevant. Why is it automatically assumed that some nefarious force is preventing individuals to be responsible for themselves, including showing eligibility to vote?

The ID on the above list easiest to obtain would appear to be a Texas ID card which can be obtained at any driver’s license office for $16 ($6 if you’re over 60) and the usual slave documents showing you are a subject of the US Regime. Quite easily done if you are truly documented as such a subject and a responsible individual who maintains such documents because you value the power to be politically active.

An equally easy alternative not mentioned on the above list is an Election Identity Certificate (EIC) that is free, requiring only proof of US citizenship and being registered to vote, as well as verification of identity.

To the plaintiffs, this list of identification methods is just not long enough. They claim the restrictions are “burdensome for certain voters- particularly minorities.” “Burdensome” only to those too lazy to obtain or maintain such documentation or are not US subjects to begin with. “Minorities?” Please remember the term “minority” is politi-speak for “non-white.” But to be honest and say “non-white” would reveal the user as a racist bigot. Knowing that, why do non-white individuals find it burdensome to do what white individuals seem to have very little trouble doing? Are they less intelligent, lazier or just maybe…not qualified?

Is this just another example of white leftists treating non-white leftists as their dumb, helpless pets?

Elections, whether within private groups or political collectives, must be decided only by members of those particular groups or collectives. If outsiders (unqualified voters) are allowed to interfere, the sovereignty of that group has been nullified and destroyed.

Stockholders of private companies vote for board of directors and on certain issues relevant to the company. Of course, you have to prove you are a stockholder in that company to qualify to vote. Is such a restriction “burdensome” for “minorities?”

Leftists think of political voting as some kind of bodily function necessary for life; that any restriction or necessary interference in this bodily function is an assault on one’s existence. They have the absurd notion that anyone who happens to walk into a polling place should be able to vote just as anyone who has a full bladder should be allowed use of a restroom to relieve themselves.

Some critics view the Texas law as “discriminatory.” I certainly hope it is! The law is designed to “discriminate” against those not qualified to vote!

A US controlled court has once again meddled in affairs exclusively the business of Texas. It has essentially nullified Texas state law created by Texans. It’s priority is not maintaining integrity in the state’s election process using reasonable restrictions. It’s priority, as in all The Regime’s doings, is domination and control. In this case, domination by allowing destruction of the integrity of the state’s election process.

Secession, anyone?

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT  　

Quotes of the Week

Enlightened insights taken from the past week’s reading:
 “The officers risk life and limb not to keep citizens safe, or protect their lives, liberty or property. Officers risk their lives to enforce the law.
They do what they have to enforce the law. Because most police officers, it seems, are led to believe that blindly enforcing the law is the same as maintaining peace and order.
The law, then, is where we begin to strike at the root of the problem. Just behind your friendly neighborhood jackboot, there it is. The law. A code of conduct backed by the barrel of a gun. Mostly arbitrary guidelines of how a society should function made visible by barbaric iron-fisted tactics unfit for a truly civilized society.”
Chris Campbell

“Positive and progressive change will not come from passively consenting at the ballot box or raucously marching to the sound of demagogues' marching orders and laments. Change must come from within, person to person, day by day, helping to build the beautiful mosaic of community piece by piece."
So let’s remove the burden from the police and the impositions on the populace at the same time by repealing all laws that do not explicitly defend life and property. After that, there will still be many problems to solve, but at least we will then know most, if not all, societal failures are for us as individuals to solve and not the province of the state.”
Joey Clark

“The human elite is characterized by hubris, not omniscience; intelligence, not wisdom.”
Bionic Mosquito

“As long as the US supports corrupt despotic dictators and governments around the world that fail to gain the popular support of their people, leaders will continue to be bought by imperialistic interests and allow their citizens and nations to be raped and pillaged. Rival groups vying for power will invariably emerge from the leadership vacuum to challenge the status quo authority and often enough through coercion and intimidation, by default generate support. And if they succeed in toppling one oppressive government, it automatically becomes same as the old boss. As America moves from one election to the next within its own corrupt two-party Democrat-Republican system, it’s also ‘same as the old boss.’”
Joachim Hagopian

“In the absence of police some people might get away with violating life, liberty, and property of others. The existence of police guarantees it.”
Ken McManigal

“The history of the welfare state is the history
of the state’s savage war of aggrandizement and seizure of authority against civil
society. The dire effects of this calculated collectivism is malevolence not
benevolence, aggression not altruism, genocide not generosity.”
Charles Burris

“Vast numbers of people can be tied together by an ideal that resonates with them, which is the only purpose for nations to form (to protect that ideal), but that is as far as the voluntary association goes. Globalist collectivism is simply unnatural. People know it unconsciously, they know it is an act of force and oppression, and will invariably move to sabotage its false tribalism as they begin to see its true colors.”
Brandon Smith

“All modern governments are organized crime legitimized by the police power of the state. There is illegal crime and there is legal crime. We tend to accept government crime because it has made itself politically legal and politically palatable with such propaganda myths as ‘democracy.’”
Bob Livingston

“The central feature of the state that distinguishes it from all non-political institutions is its enjoyment of a legally enforceable monopoly on the exercise of violence within a given geographic territory. The difference between marketplace systems and political agencies is that, in the former cases, relationships between and among individuals are peaceful, voluntary, and grounded in respect for the inviolability of property interests, while political systems are just the opposite.”
Butler Shaffer

“Jesus once asked, ‘Who among you will cast the first stone?’ With one question, he dismantled the crowd’s possession of anonymous violence. He personalized the responsibility and thereby destroyed the power of group violence. And he asks it of every one of us now, Who among you will carry out the next act of violence against your nonviolent neighbor? We cannot hide behind the veil of the voting or jury booth. Face to face, we must make our choice.”
David Gornoski

“Fascism can triumph today [1927] because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses.　 For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them.　 If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas.　 There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.”
Ludwig von Mises

“Liberty is a state of mind that does not require the indulgence of others."
Louis E. Carabini

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT  

 

Quotes of the Week

Enlightened insights taken from the past week’s reading

“Again, when you justify the killing of other people based on the ‘They Are Not Us’ philosophy, that is exactly the belief system people will take home and manifest into your society later. See, the only justifiable reason for killing another human being is immediate self-defense. Not ‘pre-emptive’ hogwash or ‘regime change’ or ‘liberating’ people. Because when you say that killing people is getting people to do things you tell them to do by other means, then you should not be at all surprised when this blows up in your face. Literally.
Having this government is like having a Water Moccasin in the yard, under the porch. Sooner or later, it bites the people in whose yard it lives. Tired of the violence? Then stop teaching it and celebrating it.”
Jack Perry



“I won’t demand you not vote; I’m saying if you vote, please don’t stop there. Learn, think, and reason — no matter where it leads. I hope you do this because I believe the more you know, the more you’ll practice rightful liberty and the more you’ll ignore politicians and their arbitrary opinions called laws.”
Kent McManigal

“If you consider other people’s wish to secede as a ‘threat,’ aren’t you then saying that you have a greater ‘right’ to them than they do?”
Per Bylund

“No wonder voting fraud is the tool-du-jour of the Corporatocracy's political toadies in the U.S. It's far too dangerous to actually let the Great Unwashed taxpayers make political decisions. They might oust the central bankers, and if they did that, the Corporatocracy and their political toadies would suffer an inevitable decline as their free-money spigots were turned off.”
Michael Covel

“Right now government doesn't prevent any problem that statist scaremongers imagine will happen in a free society. Under government, pollution happens, infrastructures collapse, education fails, employers pay low wages and violate safety laws, the elderly and sick fall through the cracks, Wall Street, public voting and other institutions become corrupt. Yet everyone is supposed to ignore these government failings and give up their freedoms because statists say so.”
Garry Reed

“Governments are only machines, created by the individuals of a nation for their own convenience; they are only delegated bodies, delegated by the individuals, and therefore they cannot possibly have larger moral rights of using force, or, indeed, larger moral rights of any kind, than the individuals who delegated them.”
Auberon Herbert

“The two greatest threats to the world are American and Israeli exceptionalism. It is the success of the indoctrination of this Nazi doctrine of exceptionalism that is the source of the violence in the world today.
The problem of American police violence is that the police are now defined as exceptional and unaccountable. They can kill the rest of us without accountability, just as Washington slaughters untold numbers of peoples in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Unexceptional peoples are dispensable.”
Paul Craig Roberts

“The upcoming Cleveland production isn’t about Bernie or the BLM or pro-immigration or Trump or the Republicans. It’s about orchestration.
It’s about planned theater. It’s about rigging conflict and rigging a formula which will appear to demand greater clamp-down on everyone living in America.”
John Rappoport

“Whether democratic or socialist, political organizations cannot live up to the standards set by the competitive market. An “I voted” sticker is no substitute for a simple receipt.”
Matthew McCaffrey

“Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.”
Ayn Rand

“If government couldn’t hit or steal, how could they rule? If cops couldn’t hit or steal, cui bono? Their job is to fine or kidnap & respond with deadly force to resistance to their demands.
The cops are not your friends nor are they heroes, they are the bloody spear-point of all political will. Nothing else no matter what you adorn the pig with.”
Bill Buppert

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT  

　

Cop Cradlers

Three armed men decided to stand outside their local police department in a show of support. I’m assuming they felt their “protectors” needed protection, seeing they showed their “support” by being heavily armed, rather than merely waving colored rags and displaying crude, jingoistic signs.

If I asked these three gentlemen why they think their revered cops are necessary, I’m sure “protection” would be at or near the top of their list. But what kind of protection can cops offer these three men when these three men themselves believe their “protectors” need protection? How useful are “protectors” who can’t even protect themselves?

Seeing the weaponry these men are displaying, I would suggest that they alone are far better equipped and certainly, far better motivated to successfully defend themselves than any member of The Regime-controlled enforcement class.

And let’s not forget the ultimate irony- The payment of coerced tax revenue used to compensate these “protectors” is ultimately enforced by these same “police officers” (revenue collectors) these same three men (victims of coercion) value! Not to mention their possible future caging after violating just one of the thousands of illegitimate laws that exist. Guess whose guns will be pointed at their heads while being marched to their incarceration?

“Pay up, serf!” demands the cop to his three supporters,” I got a boat payment to make!”

Stockholm Syndrome, Texas style.

    

 Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT  

Opponents of Guns on Texas Campuses Are Poorly Armed

The Dallas Morning News and TexasTribune (along with other publications) have provided fifteen minutes of fame to three University of Texas at Austin professors. They have brought suit against the university to halt Texas’ new campus carry gun law that returns the student’s right to defend themselves- albeit with state restrictions. The suit asks a federal judge to grant an injunction to block the law before becoming effective Aug. 1.

 I won’t name the three professors here (to save them embarrassment) but will list the faculty departments for The Three Hoplophobes: Two of them work in the Department of English and the third serves in the Department of Sociology. It’s a surprise to few that such a specious effort would emanate from disciplines offering discussions frequently driven by prescribed agendas rather than reason and facts.

The attorney’s lawsuit brief laughably refers to the law taking effect on the 50th anniversary of the day CharlesWhitman stood atop the school's tower and shot 16 people dead:

"In a cruel irony, the Texas Legislature has mandated that fifty years to the day after one of the worst gun-related massacres ever on a college campus ... UT-Austin must begin allowing the concealed carrying of handguns on campus and in classrooms."

Apparently, the plaintiffs don’t seem to realize what ended this murderous 1966 rampage was another individual with a gun. As it turns out, there were multiple individuals with rifles engaging the shooter before the police arrived and neutralized him (sound familiar?). I was unable to determine what Texas laws existed in 1966 disallowing guns on campus, but whatever restrictions existed obviously failed.

It must also be mentioned that the new law only allows handguns carried by licensed individuals, not rifles.

The suit lists a number of Constitutional Amendments The Three Hoplophobes claim are being violated. Let’s examine them in numerical order:

First Amendment

This is being violated because “the possibility of guns on campus could stifle class discussion.”

According to the lawsuit, "Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom"

The “possibility” of guns on campus already exists! Anyone can now carry a gun onto campus, despite what any “law” may declare. Apparently, the "possibility" of guns carried by licensed gun owners is believed more a danger than the present reality of illegal guns!

The “possibility” of knives or any other potentially deadly (but legal) tools on campus does not seem to threaten their “academic freedom.”

“Without limitation or restriction?” As mentioned earlier, for anyone to legally carry a handgun into a classroom, they must be concealed permit holders. How is that requirement not a “limitation” or “restriction?”

When The Three Hoplophobes are off campus in a public area, there are obviously (though not to them) individuals nearby packing concealed weapons. Do they feel threatened in that scenario? Is their academic freedom “chilled?”

Second Amendment

I don’t think I can remember this amendment being cited to defend an anti-gun legal complaint.

According to the plaintiffs:

"The Second Amendment is not a one-way street. It starts with the proposition that a 'well-regulated militia,' (emphasis added), is necessary to the security of a free state. The Supreme Court has explained that 'well-regulated' means 'imposition of proper discipline and training.'"

"If the state is to force them to admit guns into their classrooms, then the officials responsible for the compulsory policy must establish that there is a substantial reason for the policy and that their regulation of the concealed carrying of handguns on college campuses is 'well-regulated.' Current facts indicate that they cannot do so."

Using the above definition of “well regulated,” how can state certification not be proper “discipline and training?” Please examine the linked eligibility and training requirements for a Texas CHL. They are not exactly lenient or effortless.

A “substantial reason for the policy” has not been established?  How about the slaughter of college students over recent years whom had no way to defend themselves? Is that not a “legitimate” reason. Every single one of those shooters violated laws against gun possession on campus. Wouldn’t it just be common sense to allow properly “disciplined and trained,” CHL holding students to counteract any attack?

How do “current facts indicate that they cannot do so,” as it pertains to achieving the plaintiff’s standard of “well regulated?” The current facts indicate just the opposite!

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, between 1996 and 2011, the number of murder and manslaughter convictions for CHL holders totaled 30 over sixteen years. The percentage of CHL holders committing such crimes over that same time is .7 per 100,000. The rate of murder and manslaughter for the general population (many armed with “illegal” guns) is 6.0 per 100,000. Obviously, CHL holders have a much better safety record than the general public. It therefore seems these plaintiffs should have a far greater fear of the general public than the CHL holders attending their classrooms.

Presently, there are eight states that allow concealed carry on campus, totaling about 150 campuses. According to ConcealedCarry.org, “Not one of these campuses has seen a single resulting act of violence (including threats) or a single resulting suicide attempt.” The Three Hoplophobes appear unaware of these “current facts.”

Fourteenth Amendment

The plaintiffs seem to be referring to the Equal Protection Clause of that amendment:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

I was unable to locate the plaintiff’s reasoning to offer this amendment as a defense, so I’ll just examine the clause and attempt a guess. I see no reason how this campus carry law “abridges” any “privileges or immunities” of the aggrieved, nor see evidence of a lack of due process depriving them of their “life, liberty, or property.” This may refer to their claim that Texas' new campus carry law is forcing the school to impose what the plaintiffs describe as "overly-solicitous, dangerously-experimental gun policies."

Objecting to a law with which you disagree hardly deprives one of any state granted privileges, let alone their life. Only criminals committing active aggression against other individuals offer such a threat- not speculative concern one may have about the potential of such aggression.  And any anxiety over perceived “dangerously-experimental gun policies" has been proven unnecessary. The "experiment" has been proven a success, while previous, outdated policies (such as onerous restrictions and Gun Free Zones) have been proven deadly failures!

The only party that would seem to be denied “equal protection of the laws” are those Texas CHL holders who obeyed such laws in order to legally carry their concealed handgun.

"We are armed with reason. We are armed with data. We are armed with passion. We are armed with longevity," claims one of The Three Hoplophobes. They appear to lack the necessary ammunition (facts) to support any "reason" and their magazine is empty as regards any "data." I have no doubt that (typical of most leftists) "passion" exists in abundance, as leftism is an emotionally driven ideology.

Any “longevity” can be credited to their  future work performance and tenure from their employer. And, of course, the protection freely offered by well trained, armed students in their classrooms.

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT 

 

How Government Works

Open a lemonade stand for personal profit and you risk arrest and being caged:

 

Open a lemonade stand and turn over 100% of your revenue to the enforcement class and you are recognized and applauded:

 

 

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT 





 



 

Useless Symbolic Displays

How appropriate- One useless, symbolic display….

 

Followed by another useless, symbolic display….

 

 

Symbolic displays accomplish nothing. They only fool participants into believing that they have accomplished something.

Collective, symbolic displays don’t create change.

Screaming at and begging your political master and chanting towards the sky for supernatural intervention does not create change.

Only individually initiated action creates change. Be the change you want to see by how you live your life.

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT 





 



Quotes of the Week

Enlightened insights taken from the past week’s reading:

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. For enlightenment of this kind, all that is needed is freedom. And the freedom in questions is the most innocuous form of all: freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters.”
Immanuel Kant

“There is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS.”
Thomas Paine
 
“Those who claim to be a better master of life not theirs forfeit a part of their own lives, along with a portion of the lives of those who, wittingly or unwittingly, accept such claims as true. He who believes in a master over his life- be it king, queen, prophet, or statesman- has already forfeited part of the value of living that life. Often, those who accept a master demand that others accept the same master. The value of being a libertarian is that liberty cannot fall prey to those who claim superiority and authority over your life.”
Louis E. Carabini
 
“The highest manifestation of life consists of this: that a being governs its own actions. A thing which is always subject to the direction of another is somewhat of a dead thing.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas

“Like so many bad ideas, people have come to assume [the state] is part of the cosmic firmament, when it’s really just a monstrous scam. It’s a fraud, like your belief that you have a right to free speech because of the First Amendment, or a right to be armed because of the Second Amendment. No, you don’t. The U.S. Constitution is just an arbitrary piece of paper…entirely apart from the fact the whole thing is now just a dead letter. You have a right to free speech and to be armed because they’re necessary parts of being a free person, not because of what a political document says.”
Doug Casey
 
"The right to secede is thus a necessary condition of all worthwhile human bonds, whether professional or personal, be they between individuals or groups. Smaller units maximize the opportunity for and potential impact of this kind of secession. For freedom to prevail, governments must remain both small and close to those whom they govern, accountable and responsive rather than distant and opaque. Decisions that affect the citizen ought to be made in close proximity to the citizen—within reach, as it were.”
David S. D’Amato
 
“You will never become a creative force or an agent of change if you buy into the idea that politicians and political events have complete control over your fate and potential.”
T.K. Coleman

“Uniformity is stressed in all leftist utopias, paradises in which everybody is the same, envy is dead, and the enemy is either dead, lives outside the gates, or is utterly humiliated. Leftism loathes differences, deviations, stratifications…. The word ‘one’ is its symbol: one language, one race, one class, one ideology, one ritual, one type of school, one law for everybody, one flag, one coat of arms, one centralized world state.”
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn


“The principles of peaceful secession (or threats thereof) and nullification are the essence of self -determination.　 They are the ultimate expressions of ‘the consent of the governed’ from which all just powers of government are derived, as Jefferson eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence.　 The original American union was a voluntary union, not a coerced union held together by threats of mass murder and the destruction of entire cities.　 That was the Soviet Union.　 That was Nazi Germany.　 It was also the British empire from which the American colonists seceded.”
Thomas, DiLorenzo

“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.”
Ernest Hemingway

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT

 

The Ultimate Statist Meme

 

Yes, a humorous phrase at first sight and a sentiment with which one can empathize. But it also exposes an underlying disorder common to believers. Whatever psychopath claims to be your ruler is irrelevant. Realize the irrationality of becoming so emotionally involved in such claims that you allow it to define your existence. Allowing yourself to be subject to this disorder grants psychopaths the necessary power to control your spirit, motivation, and even your self-worth and self-identity.

If you feel a need to “vote” to express yourself, do so with your feet and your money, rather than ballots backed by bullets, electing tyrants chosen by majority mobs. Do it with the choices you make, not with the limited choices offered by such a ruler.

Don’t allow the existence of such tyrants to discourage your life’s purpose- to explore, to create, and to self-actualize. And most certainly, don’t permit yourself to care which of the cast of tyrants (differing in name only) occupies that seat of illegitimate power.

“We have become so conditioned to looking beyond ourselves – whether to gods, philosopher-kings, political leaders, or state systems – that we ignore our personal responsibility for what we, as a species, have become. Those who manage the political machinery have encouraged – even insisted upon – our entwining ourselves with mutually exclusive, clashing abstractions with such fervor as to render it difficult to become disentangled from their seductive imagery. Whether the abstraction with which we identify ourselves is endangered or benefited; experienced as an embarrassment or an achievement, becomes a reflection upon our sense of being. To illustrate just how inseparable these personal and institutional identities can be, try describing yourself without making reference to ‘ego boundary’ abstractions. You begin to experience the difficulties provided by the caterpillar’s persistent question in Alice in Wonderland: ‘who are you?’”
Butler Shaffer

Statist slaves prefer "Giant Meteor 2016.".

Liberty Lovers prefer NOBODY! 2016."

Remember, the problem is not who occupies the office, it's the existence of the office, itself, that is the problem.

And the choice of despot who occupies such an autocratic position is certainly not worth killing yourself over.

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT

Declare Your Sovereignty

If a collective of 65 million people can do it, why not a collective of two?

 

 

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT

Questions Answered for a Skeptic of Texas Independence

This a response to an editorial by Harry Harelik at WacoTrib.com. Mr. Harelik deems the idea of Texas independence as “crazy,” incapable of fathoming such an event as Texas Independence, and believes there are “more pressing topics” for Texans to consider.

To his credit, Mr. Harelik offers a number of questions with which to offer his healthy skepticism. I attempt to address those questions:

“Would we Texans need passports to visit Disney World, Mount Rushmore, the Grand Canyon or the Redwoods National Park?”

You might very well need them (that’s up to the USG), but if you fly to Disney World now, you need to show your ID at least once along the way (unfortunately). What difference does it make if it’s a Texas driver’s license (like now) or a Texas passport?

“Would Americans living out of Texas be required to have passports to get into Texas to visit the Magnolia Silos, the Alamo or the Waco Mammoth Site, which might not be a national monument anymore?”

Again, the same reasoning is offered, but that is up to Texas. Since tourism is a significant part of the Texas economy, ease of travel into the state would be beneficial, to say the least.

“What happens to Texas’ national parks? Would U.S. support and funding be denied?”

The parks become Texas state parks through some mutually beneficial transaction with the USG. Presently, Texas state parks return about three times their operating cost, yearly. That surplus would be a good place to start for funding. As regards “US support,” please remember that nearly every “federal dollar” sent from DC to Austin originated within Texas! Individuals send their federal tax dollars to DC which takes its cut than sends back the remaining with ideological strings attached. With independence, those dollars will not forcibly leave Texas at all! In 2014, total taxes collected from the IRS from Texas residents was $265 billion. With independence, that’s $265 billion that will remain in the wallets of individuals for private investment, contributions (as to supporting parks, etc.) and possibly some small portion of it to be taxed by the Texas government.

“Would Texas have to come up with financing to patrol our northern, southern, eastern and western borders? How could we do that?”

Look to the comment above as far as funding. Unlike the US, an independent Texas would not operate as an empire, sending legions of troops rampaging around the world in acts of conquest. A reasonably sized security force is all that is necessary, strictly for defense, not offense. Costa Rica and Iceland are good examples. Worried about invasion? Two large oceans to the east and west are still the best defense against that. And not meddling in other country’s affairs.

“The federal government can’t do it now. Maybe Oklahoma and Mexico would help?”

Of course, the USG can’t do it. They’re a financially bankrupt, incompetent, inefficient behemoth that has no interest in maintaining such security. Sure, Oklahoma and Mexico could help. Why not? It would certainly be in their best interests. Neighboring states often create mutually beneficial security alliances, just as do neighboring individuals in their communities.

“Would Texas students have to pay international tuition rates at U.S. colleges located beyond Texas’ borders?”

That’s possible, but such a situation would encourage the development of new universities within Texas, both state and private. The present university model, itself is becoming an anachronism with the rise of internet based education. Who knows what more effective and efficient educational models might be offered when such opportunity exists?

“Would students from other states decline invitations to study at Texas colleges because they would be considered international students and be required to pay international student rates?”

They would if they didn’t think it was worth the price, just like any other individual financial decision. Texas colleges may just decide that some students from outside Texas are worth having attend their schools and adjust their rates accordingly.

“Would out-of-state students in Texas need a green card to get a job?”

Not from Texas. Such a requirement only discourages employment. Why would Texas do that, particularly to a young student? As I envision it, any US citizen is welcome to live and work in Texas. They would pay applicable user fees and consumption taxes (to prevent a “free ride”) but would pay no Texas income tax, because there wouldn’t be one! Unfortunately, such a US citizen would still be stuck paying income tax to the USG- making being a Texas citizen all the more attractive.

“What of military service? Would Texas have to charge the U.S. government for having military installations on Texas soil?”

This would be a key point in negotiations. Texas could charge rent for such installations, or allow them to remain in return for some security arrangement, or a combination of the two. If having them leave was best, such a move and transfer of assets would occur over a prescribed amount of time.

“Could Texans interested in military service even join U.S. armed forces if they weren’t Americans?”

Who the US military recruits is up to them. I see no reason why Texas should prevent a Texas citizen from joining. I would certainly guess that the US would require such an individual to be a US citizen. My question is why would a Texas citizen want to join the US military?

“If the United States had to send the National Guard into Texas to help with a hurricane, would that be a form of foreign aid?”

The US National Guard wouldn’t “be sent” to Texas unless invited by Texas. Is that “foreign aid?” Who cares? That just looks like people helping other people, to me.

“And what of the Texas Legislature? Would it become a national parliament? Would the Texas Constitution need to be rewritten? (That project has been underway for years, by the way, and that is just for state purposes!)”

I see no reason why the Texas Legislature would not just remain….the Texas Legislature. Why would it change? It’s responsibility is to govern the geographic region within the presently defined borders of Texas. Independence wouldn’t change that responsibility. The legislature would probably adjust some present programs and spending priorities, but that would now occur without the constraints and interference of the USG.

Why would the Texas Constitution need to be rewritten? It may need to be amended somewhat to cover the new state responsibility of providing its own security. “State purposes?” What other purpose is there for the Texas state Constitution?

“Would Texas have to establish its own post office system? Would we pay higher international postal rates to get something from Waco to Oklahoma City? Would the mail get there faster?”

I see no reason why the US Mail couldn’t or wouldn’t continue to operate within Texas. If Texas is smart with its new found independence, it would ignore the present US monopoly on mail delivery and open up the service to private competitors. Everyone agrees the service literally forced upon us now is an inefficient dinosaur awaiting extinction. The inevitable success of private delivery firms within Texas would inspire the same action be taken in the US. I don’t know why the USPS would charge international rates when the mail is not traveling any farther than it has up to now. Rates are determined in part by distance traveled, correct?

“Could Texas A&M be in the Southeastern Conference? Could Western Virginia be in the Big 12?”

Why not? Why would anyone object? If the Big 10 decided to add a school in Canada, can you think of a rational reason why they shouldn’t? There are numerous institutions that claim members from around the world. Why not sports teams?

“What would the Texas monetary system be without the U.S. dollar and presidential coins? Might we need new printed paper money? Would Texas governors’ and Alamo heroes’ silhouettes’ adorn our quarters and pennies? What would the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate be with Texas’ dollar?”

According to the Texas Nationalist Movement, Giovanni Capriglione, a Texas state representative, has laid the groundwork for a metals-based debit system that could easily fill all the voids left in the absence of the Federal Reserve. The State of Texas and the University of Texas System Endowment are both repatriating metals from the Federal Reserve over a 5 to 7 year span. The first repository is supposed to be built this year. I would think that any Texas originated currency would be backed, at least in part, by gold, silver, and possibly other precious metals. Any “paper” currency would be “certificates” redeemable for such precious metals, not like the inherently worthless, fiat currency the US Federal Reserve prints.

I would think US dollars would continue to be accepted, at least as long as it remains the world’s reserve currency. If Texas is smart, they will allow any currency used within Texas (creating competition) and allow individuals to decide what is best for them. The exchange rate for any Texas originated currency would be determined by the currency markets, as all other currencies are.

“And what happens to restaurant franchises based in the United States? Can they continue franchise operations in Texas?”

Why not? McDonalds operates in 119 countries. Why not Texas? Why would the Texas government restrict any business in demand by Texans from operating within Texas?

“Would Texas-based companies have to continue their U.S. businesses as international businesses?”

That’s up to the USG. I assume you’re considering the tax implications here. This is something that could be worked out in negotiations. Meanwhile it is imperative that Texas remain a business friendly state/country with minimal taxation. The most successful and financially healthy political collectives in the world have the most economic freedom and the lowest taxation.

“Would Texas finally need a state income tax to finance national operations to support a military, postal system, treasury and park system? Ouch!”

Absolutely not! The issues of a military, postal system, and park system were addressed earlier. A treasury merely receives and deposits state monies, manages investments, and keeps track of budget surpluses and deficits. Why would it take a ghastly income tax to fund that? Heck, if the US actually operated within the confines of its constitution, it wouldn’t need an income tax either!

Of course, the true purpose of an income tax is income redistribution and social engineering. But I’ll leave that for another discussion.

“All this makes my head hurt. Especially when there are no answers.”

Please remember that the finality of Texas independence will not occur overnight. The solutions to such perceived problems would be discussed and negotiated over a considerable period of time- I would estimate over a period of two to five years.

Most of these questions offered by Mr. Harelik are quite relevant and welcomed. However, most can be answered with just a little bit of research and common sense. An additional value to his questions is they illustrate just how heavily involved the state (particularly at the federal level) is in the lives of individuals. Something to consider and not to repeat in an independent Texas.

Mr. Harelik’s head shouldn’t hurt. It should be activated and kicked into gear! Thinking is what it was created for!

“No answers?” I just offered many, all offered on my own time and at no charge. Think of it as payment for the opportunity to read Mr. Harelik’s piece for free. He and everyone else can find many more answers if minimal effort is made.

The perspective of these questions is from a viewpoint locked in the command and control, from-the-top-down method of problem solving. Absent such a restrictive viewpoint, one can then see that when individuals are given the necessary individual freedom to solve problems (and not ordered how to do so at the point of a gun) that there is no limit to their propensity to do so.

Texas independence will offer a less centralized, more bottom-up approach to problem solving necessary for effective, efficient, and cost saving solutions

I realize that many folks will read these questions and immediately surrender to the idea that answering them through problem solving is just too tough a task- that the comfortable status quo is preferable after all, despite its shortcomings.

But for each individual like that there are many more who see such questions as challenges to be met and an opportunity to build a better, freer world using their individual skills, creativity and imagination.

Please remember, Texas suffers no lack of problem solvers. And for every question asked, there is an answer.

Texit, now!

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT



Why is an Anti-Liberty Flag Flown on ‘Independence Day?’

Reading the story about this sadly confused individual brought a couple issues to mind.

The obvious one of course, is this “patriot’s” complete lack of respect for property rights and keeping your agreements. The property owner makes the rules and a renter signs a lease agreement declaring he will obey those rules. End of discussion.

And no selfish, cloth worshipping, jingoistic rant will change those realities.

The second thought is that all this ruckus is over a flag that is not even historically accurate as regards the historical event it is being flown to celebrate.

Independence Day for the North American colonies was July 4, 1776. The flag that was flying over the colonies at that time was not the modern version our flag yokel defends but was the Grand Union Flag.

The Articles of Confederation were ratified in1781 (U.S. 1.0). This created a loose confederation of the original thirteen colonies (now sovereign states) creating a weak national government with the intention of protecting that state sovereignty. “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated," states Article Two.

Certainly, this was also a positive step toward protecting individual liberty, -at least in the context of a sovereign individual living within a “state.” There was no president, no executive agencies, no judiciary and no tax base created for U.S. 1.0, no unnecessary institutions to promote mischief among those who desired political power.

The flag flying at the time of the Articles was the original (13) stars and stripes. This would seem to be an appropriate flag to fly as well on July 4, not the present 50 star monstrosity.

The ratification of the enslaving US Con-stitution in 1789 created U.S. 2.0, and individual liberty on the North American continent has been in decline ever since. The Constitution created a much stronger federal government with a president (soon to be a de facto emperor), courts (hired exclusively by the ruling regime), and taxing powers (to fund whatever foolish escapades that come to mind and to control individual behavior).

The abomination created and nourished by that Constitution is now represented by the 50 star/stars and stripes configuration seen everywhere since 1960. It most certainly does not represent the courageous, inspiring message documented on July 4, 1776. And it did not even exist at the time.

Some will argue that the modern U.S. flag represents the country that evolved, thanks to the events that occurred in 1776. But how can that be when the modern U.S. exhibits none of the virtuous traits expressed and none of the sovereignty protections designed in 1776 and 1781?

Our previously mentioned flag yokel is not only confused about flag history, but is disoriented as to what the flag he cherishes (to the point of forcing it upon property owners) represents. Viewing the comments at the end of the article, it is obvious many others share his delusion of just what should be celebrated on July 4 and the appropriate symbols to display, if any. “Independence” implies self-governance, self-reliance, and personal freedom. How are those virtues represented in the flag he embraces?

And as regards his actions, how are those virtues represented by using fascist inspired, coercive tactics to harass a property owner in the name of “Independence Day?” Such conduct is not only despicable, but nonsensical.

Resistance is Mandatory

 

No rulers

No masters

NO CONSENT