Recent comments

  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 day 20 hours ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "...Now think about envy, covetousness, jealousy – and its sociopolitical end-product, socialism, and whatever we can possibly do to oust it and its influences from our lives forever..." It was important that I learn early-on that there is not a lot I can do about YOUR "...envy, covetousness, jealousy..." (and the end-product of socialism). But there is something I can do about MINE. Well, in a sense, Alex, since both you and I are here on STR I can have some influence upon you and perhaps a few others, and you're certainly having an influence upon me -- and many others. But keep in mind -- probably 99.5% (more or less) of folks who engage in envy, covetousness and jealousy (and who root for socialism) are not here and will never read your article or my comments. And I don't have time to go out and attempt to recruit a sizable dent in that 99.5%. So I've got to find a way to be free. Here. Now. Today. Where I'm "at". Freedom starts between my ears. The challenge of anarchy is learning to circumnavigate and sidestep the socialistic trip-hazards. I may not eliminate them all, but I can learn to avoid allowing them to constantly trip me up. It's eerie, the number of people who appear to crave central political authority -- and ensuing socialism. And it appears that my primary defense against those throngs is to abstain from beans. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 days 7 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    The parties both get taxpayer money for these spectacles too. 
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 days 9 hours ago Web link A. Magnus
    Here's Simon Black's version: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/new-legislation-proposes-to-bail-in-... (Aw, shucks! After going back and reading the posted article I note GovtSlaves has printed Black's version also, so this link is redundant. As you were). Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 days 21 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    I'm raising Whitehead's grade up to "almost". https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/john-w-whitehead/stop-drinking-kool-... At least he's getting pissed. Never will he urge us to abstain from beans, but he does say, at the end, "...Stop playing the game. Stop supporting the system. Stop defending the insanity. Just stop..." Almost sounds like he's suggesting that I "opt out" -- but not quite. "...It takes a citizenry** willing to do more than grouse and complain. We must act—and act responsibly—keeping in mind that the duties of citizenship extend beyond the act of voting..." **He doesn't explain what he means by the brainless abstraction, "citizenry". Would that be thee? Or me???? I'll stick with our old friend, Mark Davis' take of 11+ years ago: "...Working within the system means to become a part of the system. When you go into the voting booth, the only meaningful significance that your action will have is to show that one more person supports the state..." ~Mark Davis From Be Free, by Mark Davis July 10, 2005. http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davis_m/davis1.html Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 days 9 hours ago Web link strike
    Were I a voter I'd vote for Trump. If for no other reason than Trump is a trader and investor, not a career war monger. In fact, I would vote for Trump for the very reason all governmentalists and most mini-libertarian types insist that nobody should vote for him: he has never "held" ..."public office"...(translation: Trump has been a producer in lieu of having been a robber and a thief). Murray Rothbard, in a footnote to "Anatomy of the State", quoted Franz Oppenheimer, who said it best: [4] Franz Oppenheimer, The State (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926) pp. 24-27: There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. . . . I propose in the following discussion to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the "economic means" for the satisfaction of need while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means". . . . The State is an organization of the political means. No State, therefore, can come into being until the economic means has created a definite number of objects for the satisfaction of needs, which objects may be taken away or appropriated by warlike robbery. Of course, once one has gained comprehension of this, s/he could never participate in one of those bread-and-circus events ever again. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 days 1 hour ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Shills with newsletter subscriptions to sell and blogs to flog  predict economic armedgeddon just about every issue. And the only solution to save yourself and your family from ruin is just what they happen to be selling too! Lucky us! 
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 days 4 hours ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Good article by Raimondo.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 days 4 hours ago Web link strike
    Why is this a problem? Friendly ties are preferable to no ties and hostility.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 days 11 hours ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    As your subject article outlines, "...some government people - rulers - are less vicious than others. There are degrees of evil..." No argument here. And, there's certainly "...not much wrong with encouraging peace..." Had Dr Block published some of his work here or other discussion forums in which I had participated at the time, I would have been remiss not to make favorable comments (certainly regarding "Defending the Undefendable", which I used as an "anarchist maintenance manual" for many years prior to my showing up here). I would agree with you regarding his take on abortion. Also I applaud his work with respect to private roadways. No argument with any of this. Block has done excellent work towards liberty and freedom for us all sofar as I'm concerned. When Harry Browne ran for grand wizard of the klan, I was disenchanted to say the least. I remember a letter by Jack Pugsley that expressed my sentiments succinctly regarding what I considered at the time to be "Harry's feet of clay". And, as I continue on this ride there will be other head-jarrings I'll need to contend with -- and keep my peace. After all, I can't be right all the time. I thought I was wrong once. Then discovered my error. :-[ . Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 days 12 hours ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    Good morning, Sam. I agree with you that Block has been too generous in his support for Trump. The referenced article is just his latest.   Two years ago I reviewed his book "Towards a Libertarian Society" here, and found it fell short. More recently here, I suggested that his foundation of "Libertarians for Trump", as a group, was a very bad idea. His current article extends that, suggesting that he's foolishly paid my reasoning no heed.   At the same time, Block has done outstanding work to advance libertarian thought, and his "Defending the Undefendable" is a classic. A few years ago he came up with an unique and creative proposal to resolve the thorny old problem of abortion, incidentally getting booed when he presented it to an audience of Ron Paulians; see my STRticle about that.   So, he's a mixed bag. As for supporting Trump, he goes too far; but we can consider these candidates on two levels. First, they are all repugnant to good ethics (as above) and should be shunned by decent people; as you often say, abstain from beans. None of them will bring about a free society; that can only be done this way. The other level, however, is to speak or write in their favor when they propose something that will help that process, or make life less disagreeable while it is taking place; and there, I reckon that Trump scores quite well. Specifically, he intends to protect gun rights, and to make realistic deals with foreign governments whose effect is likely to reduce the risk of major war.   Not much wrong with encouraging peace. There's no liberty in a nuclear winter.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 days 22 hours ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    From "Rule vs Morality": "...The first thing to derive from that axiom is that government in all its manifestations is wholly immoral. Consequently it is impossible for a governor (ruler) to be moral, any more than a rapist or thief could be moral; each would be a perfect example of an oxymoron..." Your essay consists of your typical good perspective. One thing I find disturbingly puzzling is when former "libertarian" icons (at least those I once thought of as "icons") succor prospective governors (rulers) such as Ron Paul and/or Donald Trump. Read this: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/no_author/scholars-trump/ There is often the temptation on my part to write rebuttal(s) to Walter Block. Then I have to stop and understand: no matter what I might have to say to Dr Block, he will steadfastly garner his armor about himself and defend his "position". I am no match to Block in the art of verbal swordplay. Nor would I wish to be. 'Though I can only speak for myself, I suppose many of us possess undergirding with feet of clay. Sam
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 1 week 21 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    I say "any military commander" because that's the sort of person who would command the State forces. . . and yes, in the context of a clash of armies, that's how it works. In the context of a standing army fighting guerilla forces. . . no army has ever won. With armed Americans having a 3,200% (to 3,600%) numerical advantage, the possibility of the standing forces achieving victory is closer to zero than at any time in history. It will take a systemic realization of this if the State is to do what has never been done before . . having a change of heart. Where John Whitehead's writings could convince the average person to give up hope, to believe that "Resistance is Futile," I counter with information that could shore up courage.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 1 day ago Web link Westernerd
    Something in me caused me to stop short in my allusion to the religion phenomenon. Perhaps it's because I want y'all to like me, and I know there is a mindset surrounding the venue here that discounts anything of a religious nature. The human mind, or spirit, is a puzzler. The only libertarian writer I've encountered who seemed willing to tackle the human mind has been the late Delmar England, whom I never met either on-line or in person. And who gained little recognition or credibility in the "libertarian" world (quotes intended). Yet, unless one broaches and tries to understand the human mind, she will make little headway in promulgating "libertarianism" -- or liberty. In my humble opinion (which ain't so humble). Enough about England. I give certain credence to the Hebrew Bible. Not because I believe in an omni-god who's sitting up there somewhere "...making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty or nice..." That has nothing to do with the methods I use to refrain from discounting the centerpiece apparently used by virtually all religious leaders we know of in this "bible-belt" part of the world. Even the Muslims use bits and parts of the Book to substantiate their ideals. To say nothing of, for, or against "the Jews" (most who use that term know nothing about to what or to whom they refer -- another topic for another thread, perhaps on another forum altogether). I use four scientific observations to substantiate my claim (that the Book has certain reliance): 1) It's about the most popular book in town. I suspect you have at least one version, interpretation, rendition, translation and/or "exposition" somewhere. 2) It is utilized by and considered to provide the substance of almost all religion that we know of by their leaders and their promulgators. 3) Most who claim to preach from it drift so far afield from it's central theme that it's humorous -- if it were not so deadly tragic. 4) It's a book of anarchy from stem to stern. I'll deal with the last (4th) observation as it pertains to STR and most of our discussions here. I look at this chapter to be the fulcrum, or central theme, that underpins the book -- and that ties it to anarchy, and to STR, and to most of the other forums to which many of us visit and subscribe. It appears that there is an eerie, almost electromagnetic "pull" (I call it "spirit" for lack of less religious-sounding descriptor) in the human mind toward subservience -- the desire to be ruled, to be "protected", to be "secured" -- from "them" (the bad guys, whomever they might be). And, even though the evidence is right out in front of everybody, it only seems to occur to the .001% (that would be me, and, hopefully, thee) that the real, genuine threat comes from the "Protector" -- the "Securer" -- The King. So, Ken, I have hope. Some might call it hope against hope. I have hope that somebody will read this and will seek to become free of that "pull", or "spirit", that lands them right back into belief in partisan politics, and rulership. I have faith, I guess you could say, in the Internet Reformation. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 1 day ago Web link Westernerd
    The only thing I'll disagree with, Ken, is your final "...there is none..." (hope). I believe there is. But it may not take place in the way most of us posting here at STR expect. However, I'm a believer in the internet reformation. I'm not a religious man. In my past I've dabbled with this and some other organized "church" -- mainly as a youthful father, attempting sincerely (but somewhat futilely) to find answers for successful parenting among the religious. I had not been in the same room with a newborn infant until after I returned from murderous conscription (slavery) in a far-off land. Suddenly (9 months and 12 seconds :-] after landing back on "US soil") I became a father. Mama had warned me about good Jewish boys marrying good Catholic girls. A few years after my return I discovered that I had become a national distributor of young Catholics. Mama was right. It appeared to me at the time that the religious had solutions that I desperately needed in order to become a successful parent with no training whatsoever -- zilch. And, as grandpa of many, I find myself tippy-toing around family members who are doing the same thing: subscribing to this and some other church or religion to provide "example" for the grand- and great-grandkids. My hope is that I've instilled in them a penchant for thinking as individuals in lieu of following as collectivists, and that the proclivity for individual liberty will win-out in time. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 1 day ago Web link KenK
    Keep in mind this was a collectivist operating in a collectivist world. It is easy for an individual to procure an AR-15. Don't submit. The black market is the only truly free (well, mostly free 'long as you don't get caught by the white man) market. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 1 week 1 day ago Web link Westernerd
    The real tragedy of our age isn't the approaching apocalypse. It's that it never comes. The powers-that-be just muddle through it all and we have to endure our slow strangulation as best we're able. The truth: Abstain from hope. There is none.  Ken.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 1 day ago Web link Westernerd
    '..."it will require a change of heart among the American people, a reawakening of the American spirit, and a citizenry that cares more about their freedoms than [the State's] fantasy games" and while I'd prefer "mind" to "heart" and "people" to "a citizenry"...' Thanks for catching and pasting this caveat by Dr Whitehead. Perhaps I might well take back my diatribe (some of it). And, your "...Power of One..." is important. I'm in agreement -- I'll always lean toward the individualist, away from the collectivist, mindset. Collectivism is what the idea of war, even "guerilla war", is about. I had such traumatic experience as a snot-nose kid in Korea (too many arms, too much ammo, too much idle time on the hands of too many snot-nose kids -- too many stupid "accidents" leaving too many friends dead and permanently wounded) that I've shied away from firearms while raising a large group of kids in relative peace. I've learned to live a life of freedom and liberty without leaning on the idea of gun-ownership for myself -- not that I'm on the collectivists' "gun control" side of things by any means. 'Nuff said about that. There are things one can do. Here are some videos (I think they're free, but you might discover they won't work for you, because we might be paying for Black's "Sovereign Man" newsletters): https://secure.sovereignman.com/plf_planb/b/training/video01_planb/?utm_... I've said for years that it is not necessary for me to "make" anybody else free in order for me to be free. Yes, I can write and talk about freedom, and I can encourage my neighbors, friends and family by personal example (by the way I live my life); but when the final bell tolls it will be up to the individual as to whether she will be free or slave. It has to start between the ears. Individually. Sam (Oh -- by the way. Please abstain from beans -- although I'm aware, Jim, that it is not necessary to admonish you in that regard :-] )
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 1 week 1 day ago Web link KenK
    Like Groucho Marx's famous quip here: "Nobody should be able to have a gun that I could buy." 
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 1 week 1 day ago Web link Westernerd
    Your comparison begins with "Any military commander..." and within the context of armies facing each other which have similar degrees of command, control and discipline, you may well be right.   But that doesn't apply here. The government forces have that structure; we their victims do not. Only a guerilla war might succeed in putting that 3200:1 advantage to good use.   There's a much better way than that long, arduous and bloody course. John Whitehead wrote "it will require a change of heart among the American people, a reawakening of the American spirit, and a citizenry that cares more about their freedoms than [the State's] fantasy games" and while I'd prefer "mind" to "heart" and "people" to "a citizenry", I reckon he's about right. Once that understanding of and desire for freedom is widespread, the government's goose is cooked - regardless of its military capability.   Here's how.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 1 week 1 day ago Web link Westernerd
    Remember. . . Any military commander worth the name knows he needs a 25% greater force than his opponent - minimum - to achieve victory. A 50% greater force is better, a 100% greater force is a virtual guarantee. Lawful gun owners in the US enjoy - minimum - a 3,200% numerical advantage over the military. . . possibly 3,600% or even greater. . . not to mention, not all of the military (or the police) are going to side with the State. Granted, some of those gun owners will side with the State. . . but not enough I think, to make a difference in the outcome Don't sell Americans short. . . aside from the fact that no standing army has ever defeated a guerilla force. Especially a guerilla force that outnumbers them 32-to-1. Go whine up a rope.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 2 days ago
    The Elastic Standard
    Page Paul Hein
    Forgot to include the story of Robert and Danille Kahre, who's story feeds neatly into Paul's essay: http://freedomshenanigans.blogspot.com/2009/08/robert-kahre-who-paid-in-...
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 2 days ago
    The Elastic Standard
    Page Paul Hein
    The issue, of course, is religion. Not just religion, but the most dangerous of superstitions. But "we" all know that. Right? Yet how often I hear or read -- even on "libertarian" sites, with almost tears in their eyes, individuals lamenting about how far "we" have strayed from "our" constitution. And, of course, that agreement, or however you describe it, referred to coinage produced with "precious metals" (there was actually no other kind at the time, I think). It was a matter of time until someone chanced to submit "script", or "promises" that could be exchanged for precious metal coinage (specie) -- with the idea that a relatively small percentage of depositors would want to exchange "dollars" for gold or silver at any given time. And a matter of additional time before a "federal reserve act" could bedazzle a faithful serfdom. And an additional matter of time until the Roosevelts and the Nixons would discover that the hoi polloi would docilely submit to mere sheets of exotic and difficult (for amateur printers) to reproduce pieces of paper with images of dead Caesars. No promise of anything other than debt. But "we-the-people" (not including me -- at least after I began to embrace anarchy) accepted that mentality as with the idea of an omni-god, with a home in a district of collectivism. It would be enforced to be circulated and accepted for payment ("fiat"). Under threat of imprisonment -- and/or ultimate death for non-repentant resistors. Read this: http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/anthony-wile-the-dilemma-of-false.... The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    It's my hope to live to see 7,500,000,000 (plus or minus a billion here or there) sovereign states. Feel free to come out to my state if you want to blow a reefer. But beware: I live on the border, and just across that fictitious line the narcs will incarcerate you for not only lighting up, but even possessing a joint or a bag. The late Carl Sagan had it in perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=23&v=jYtXoUZbUCQ He understood borders to be meaningless excuses to murder and kill. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    The first step to achieving personal anarchy, as I see it, is to change my mentality -- my mode of thought. I have not "...empowered 'the police' to protect my rights..." Any police. Anywhere. I do not expect dangerously armed bureaucrats claiming possession of a phenomenon called "jurisdiction" to do anything other than attempt to interfere with what "natural rights" I might think I have. I prefer use of the term "choices under natural law" to keep my head clear from that inevitable swim back into the comfort of collectivist boilerplate -- but you suit yourself. Radley Balko writes some good stuff. But he is no anarchist. He believes police should be nice, good folks. Not. There is no way they could be. There is a natural degradation present in all monopolies. Monopolies can only come about by psychopathic interference in what should be a free marketplace. As I commented in a recent post: When all participants of a "system" are psychopathic, feeding from the same nose-bag, free from competition -- and are allowed (by your neighbors and friends -- hopefully not you) to • Make the laws, • Enforce the laws, • Prosecute the laws, • Hire the prosecutors, • License the “defense” attorneys, • Pay the “judges”, • Build the jails, • Contract jails out to private entities, • Employ and pay the wardens, • Employ and pay the guards, • Employ and pay the parole officers, One can't honestly call it a "justice" system. It's a system of abject tyranny. Abstain from beans, my dear friends. For the sake of justice. Don't empower the bastards by voting. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    John Whitehead is persistent about whining and whimpering over the machinations of collectivism and "the-state". I've never seen him suggest to his readers that they abstain from beans -- the first step in the alleviation of the condition about which he complains. Never trust a writer who habitually and incessantly uses the dangerous "we" word: "...Unfortunately, we waited too long to wake up to the government’s schemes...We did not anticipate that “we the people” would become the enemy..." I can't speak for "we". I began the awakening process well over 50 years ago, last time I voted or participated in a bread-and-circus presentation called "election". Liberty for me began to arise the day I-the-individual divorced we-the-people between my ears. "...We are fast becoming an anemic, weak, pathetically diluted offspring of our revolutionary forebears incapable of mounting a national uprising against a tyrannical regime..." Whitehead might be "...anemic, weak, pathetically diluted offspring of forebears..." So might you. I can't speak for John Whitehead -- or you. But I am not anemic, weak (well, at 81 I'm perhaps not as strong as I was at 40), or diluted "offspring of forebears..." I have no forebears that I know of. His final two paragraphs disclose him as a strong proponent of state. He just believes "we" must elect the right people. John Whitehead is not a friend of freedom or liberty. Sam
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 1 week 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Pharma has been fighting against the legalization of cannabis, perhaps the most medicinal plant on planet earth. It is also opposed to the legalization of psychedelics, which were once considered wonder drugs for psychiatry, and can be highly beneficial medically when used under the correct circumstances. Pharma is also working hard to remove exemptions for vaccines and expand the CDC schedule. Pharma is also working 24/7 to reduce access to other non-pharmaceutical treatments. Bottom line: Pharma is one of the great enemies of the free society.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 1 week 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Tell that to the BLM inspired mass murderers and the lone wolf jihadist assassins that have been plaguing us the last few weeks Mr. Whitehead. Clearly they didn't read your inspiring essay.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 1 week 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Small intentional communities built around a freely chosen belief system or life style is as close to liberty as we can accomplish at this point in history, says the author and I agree.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 1 week 3 days ago Web link strike
    If Hiltlery Clinton wins, I expect more or less the same response as Erdogen's. Not kidding fam.
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 1 week 4 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    Aaaaand there it is - the thieves can't keep their hands off of anything that moves. "Elizabeth Warren urges probe of Airbnb-type rentals" http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-warren-housing-idUSKCN0ZT2WI
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 2 weeks 3 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    "FBI Director Comey is a board member of Clinton Foundation connected bank HSBC." Says it all! https://investmentwatchblog.com/fbi-director-comey-is-a-board-member-of-...
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 weeks 5 days ago
    The Big Con
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    '...It was true (in 1776 as today) that governments exist - "are instituted" - but not one of them anywhere had as its raison d'être the task of securing those rights of the people they ruled - absolutely the contrary, in fact....' As is normal for you, Jim, this is an exceptionally insightful essay. I've ceased for many years the practice of the many political ("Independence Day", or "Cinco de Mayo") type propaganda events. As I posted a couple days ago, I see them as no more than reinforcements for the legitimacy of government -- their wars and and other egregious political actions -- including what was likely (how will any of us ever know for certain?) another of the ever-increasing false-flag events up in Dallas this week. I've felt (and so commented) for years that many of us neglect to take the Omni-propagandized idea of the "legitimacy of central political power" (a religion, in my opinion -- as well as the opinions of Wendy McElroy, Larkin Rose, and a number of others) back to its inception. Murray Rothbard alluded to it in his "Anatomy Of the State", his inspiration of which perhaps stemmed from his studies of our old friend, Lysander Spooner. What we perceive as "government" no doubt began back and long prior to the likes of Genghis Khan and even Attila the Hun. Early conquerors might encircle and besiege a peaceful city. In time they would breach the walls of the city. Once the struggle ended, the conquerors would proceed to rape the women. They would then slaughter all the men, women and children; leaving their carcasses to rot in the desert sand -- perhaps keeping as slaves those they felt would not impede their progress or exhaust their resources. After plundering the city, it would be left in burning ruins. The Huns and the Khans, and later the Washingtons and the Jeffersons and the Obamas, easily came to see this as wasteful of their greatest acquisitions -- human beings. Human beings, they readily perceived, were inflicted with what was only centuries later labeled "Stockholm Syndrome". They could easily be made to believe that their conquerors were also their protectors -- that they (the "protectors") were necessary and deserving of their support. Open any encyclopedia or history text and a major index page will be "flags" of various nations augmenting that mentality. Heads of state might be psychopathic, but they ain't stupid. Keep them cards and letters comin' in. The activities of voting and participating in political rolls as more-or-less "overseers", such as"senators", "congressmen", et al.; are symptoms of that debility, or religious practice. Most reading this have somehow been inspired to come out from under. Let's hope our numbers will grow to "critical mass" before our grandkids (25 of mine are on the ground, one due in August gregorian) and great-grandkids (just delivered my 6th) all grow to adulthood. The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 weeks 6 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    It's pretty normal for the ruling class to sneer at the peons. That helps them convince themselves that they are needed by the peons to survive - ignoring for the moment that the enstupidization of the peons has always been an important ruling class project.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 3 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Insanity is indeed the social norm, it seems...especially in light of recent events, Sam.  England was spot-on.   I have contemplated the idea that "X" is a total phantom; a fiction created in the interest of stirring the Beltway hornet's nest while at the same time further rousing the public's ire.  Who knows?  We live in a time, as "X" himself alludes to, of nearly universal deceit (apologies to Orwell).
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Excellent review, intriguing book. Who, who is Congressman X?   If (s)he is truly a sitting Dem, does he plan to get re-elected? - if so, he is seriously conflicted. If not, he's on a short list and his ID should not be too hard to spot. In any case, without re-election ambitions, why hide his identity?   Or if not, then who?  Pretty well anyone can call himself Congressman X, as a nom de plume. For example, Ron Paul. For example, any of dozens of talented libertarian authors including scores of Root Strikers. For example, Alex Knight...
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    '...“It’s far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification.”...' Governmentalists always write with the mindset that this thing has really gotten out of hand; but that the state will be okay and serve a socially useful purpose if the people will just get honest and forthright people elected to man the ship. But a state is necessary -- "we've" just gotta elect the right people. The hardware department at Wal Mart is my part-time "job" a few evenings per week. I work, not because I need employment, but because it forces me out of the house and on the bicycle in order to remain healthy, responsible, and mentally alert. 14 miles round-trip, hot, cold, rain, ice, sleet or snow. I've been car-free since my Dad died in 2008. Last Monday, July 4th, much of the evening was devoted to moving shoppers out of the south section of the parking lot (adjacent to a city park) to other sections in order to make way for a big fireworks display at 10pm, to be conducted for the hoi polloi -- launched from our parking lot. I got on my bike to ride home at around 10:10; biked alongside the ear-splitting rockets and through a crowd of the "self-absorbed sheep" described above, lined up on a hillside along the route I take home. I thought while I watched this crazy-making: how can sane individuals be convinced to go out, sit in chigger-infested grass, "ooohh" and "aaahh" over the aggrandizement of previous murderous wars, terminated (I presume) by a playing of a star-finangled banner of some sort. Sane people can't. Which is eerie when you give it just a little thought. Here I was, an 81 year-old veteran of the enslavement by murderous lunatics (draftee), biking AWAY from the traumatization -- a derangement the hordes were celebrating. Some of you old-timers will understand -- it never goes away. Even after well over 60 years I can't tolerate sudden explosions. Yet the self-absorbed sheep are trained to cheer them on. The late Delmar England had it absolutely right: insanity is the social norm. Sam
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 3 weeks 3 days ago
    Trump in Anaheim
    Page Kevin M. Patten
    Yeah, I do see his factories in Mexico as a bit hypocritical, seeing as he wants to "punish" any corporation that wishes to move their operations across the border. I think it was a 15% import tax or something like that. Have to check, but he's been pretty clear about it in his books. I guess it's because he's taken such a hardline approach on this front -- American corporations that have manufacturing elsewhere, and then endlessly criticizing the Chinese who are scheming against Americans -- that calling him out on anything seems like a reasonable thing to do. As for hiring undocumented workers (I didn't say "illegal" there, although I was using the words interchangably throughout the article) -- not conjecture, there's evidence. I didn't say they were Mexican though. Admittedly, this is a weaker point, as a business with a large work force can't possibly know where everyone comes from.  I likely wont vote either. But come on.....I've heard this theory about Hillary before...."she's so bad that she'll set something off." I think we can do that with Trump actually. And for right now, it's nice seeing the Democratic and Republican parties -- along with their media lapdogs -- shit themselves. I've enjoyed that.  I just finished reading Ilana Mercer's newly released book, "The Trump Revolution." I'm gonna type up a review and try to get it up here.  Thanks for commenting Paul. 
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 weeks 4 days ago
    Trump in Anaheim
    Page Kevin M. Patten
    "he has factories in Mexico" Not to defend Trump, but I fail to see how this is even close to hypocrisy. Owning a factory in Mexico, if anything, could be seen as one way to reduce the pressure of "illegal" immigration. As to his hiring "illegals" here, that is just conjecture, right? Your article is entertaining, and that is one function of politics if you ask me. I might vote for Hitlery, just because she is most likely to kick off a revolution or secession, something this country desperately needs. I might vote for The Donald, because he seems less likely to touch off a nuclear holocaust. But probably I won't vote, and maintain my habit of years now, to not support any scum who wants power over me.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 4 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I didn't expend the minute to watch the video. Didn't need to. When all participants of a "system" are psychopathic, feeding from the same nose-bag, free from competition -- and are allowed (by your neighbors and friends -- hopefully not you) to • Make the laws, • Enforce the laws, • Prosecute the laws, • Hire the prosecutors, • License the “defense” attorneys, • Pay the “judges”, • Build the jails, • Contract jails out to private entities, • Employ and pay the wardens, • Employ and pay the guards, • Employ and pay the parole officers, One can't honestly call it a "justice" system. It's a system of abject tyranny. Abstain from beans, my dear friends. For the sake of justice. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 weeks 5 days ago Web link KenK
    I for one would like to hear the backstory on this bit of info.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 weeks 1 day ago Web link KenK
    Yes indeed. The article sez the Austin PD is running stings against ride offerings on social media sites  cuz you know public safety.
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 4 weeks 1 day ago Web link KenK
    The headline doesn't explain the half of it. Never mind peaceful people agreeing on service and exchange. As always, the gummymint has driven business underground, increasing danger to drivers and riders. Now they'll start sending undercover cops to bust drivers giving rides to people privately. To hell with government.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Both your above comments regarding John Whitehead's commentary meet soundly with my agreement. 1) People, especially "anarchists", need to "...quit referring to it like it was a real thing...", like "it" was a living, breathing entity. I believe "libertarian" writers (quotes intended and necessary) need to spend a few hours reading the late Delmar England's "Mind and Matters" to learn how devastating to liberty the inclination toward reification amounts to. "Mind and Matters" is long, it's arduous -- difficult to comprehend. But, once I began (and learned to read between the lines to grasp the concepts) I could not put it down. I began to see why "libertarians" so often whine and moan and lament over lack of adherents to our "philosophy". 2) The concept of "rights" has generated much bickering and squabbling among us. To me, its use implies "jurisdiction" of some type that I do not believe exists. Therefore, I don't use the term. I could be wrong about that. I thought I was wrong once, then discovered my error. :-). But I agree with you -- "rights" are only what we agree to -- and can "enforce". The man with the loaded gun indeed has "rights" (or woman, L-rd have mercy). Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    I'll go ya one better, Ken: Since I am a sovereign state, of course, I'm prejudiced. I believe this pale blue dot upon which we all reside should consist of somewhere close to 7.5 billion sovereign states. That's billion, with a "b". You vote for you. I'll vote for me. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    The only rights a person has are what counter parties agree to or what they can enforce themselves.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    People need to quit referring to it like it was a real thing.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    That hoary old parchement doesn't mean a fucking thing since about the time of the Whiskey Rebellion (1792).
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    tl:dr  No, America should have 10,000+ local city-states with governance that suits their inhabitants wishes (whatever that may be) and no federal overlords to mandate a fucking thing.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 weeks 5 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Good thing Brother Hugo banned private gun ownership in 2013 isn't it? All those starving people being armed would be a real problem for the government otherwise.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 weeks 6 days ago
    Self Interest
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Your article smacks of my belly-button thesis: the world revolves around my belly-button, not yours. My world. The advantage of adhering to that premise is in the understanding that your world revolves around your belly-button -- whether you admit it or not. Therefore I can know that, if and when you and I disagree on a thing, it's not because you consider me a bad person -- or even a wrong person. It's just that the experiences, strengths and hopes you have experienced in your world have given you a different slant on the thing than those in my world. Each morning when I step out of my sovereign state and cross the border into the coercive state that surrounds me I encounter potential threats to my serenity. Police patrols, religious, political and altruism evangelists -- all soliciting my vote (or my "voluntary compliance"). The challenge of anarchy is learning to sidestep and circumnavigate those threats. And not getting bent out of shape each time I realize those folks are -- in their own eyes anyhow -- acting in their own self interest. As to reputation, I like the way Margaret Mitchel (who wrote "Gone With the Wind", then got herself hit by a car and died long before her time) phrased it through her character of Rhett Butler: "...Until you've lost your reputation, you never realize what a burden it was or what freedom really is..." ~Margaret Mitchell Gone With The Wind Sam