Recent comments

Why not just buy the domain "promotingunjustifiablecoronaviruspanic.com" instead of polluting Strike The Root with this crap?

"You believe in God?" the Atheistic Rights Theist asks.  "I believe in God."  "Whose God?"  Uh-oh. Faith smashed!   "The same God Who is the Author of Natural Rights," I answer.  Ha! He thought I was going to ask, "Why do you hate God?"!  "Rights," the Atheistic Rights Theist solemnly intones, "are logical constructs governing the behavior of moral agents. How those moral agents came into existence is irrelevant."  Nothing faith-based in that statement!  "So you believe in Rights?" I ask.  "Of course."  "Whose version of Rights?"   "What are you talking about?" The Atheistic Rights Theist sounds annoyed. "I'm making a statement of fact. There are competing versions," I answer.   "Rights are objective, rational, discoverable."  "I agree. Whose version of 'objective, rational, discoverable'?"  "You're a mystic," the Atheistic Rights Theist parries. "Meaning what? I believe in God?" "Yes. Theism is irrational. It poisons your thinking."  "That may well be, but atheists subscribe to competing versions of Rights." Again, I'm stating the obvious. "They can't all be right." "I didn't say they could." "Why do you hate Rights?"

Tax the serfs to bomb the wogs. Tax the serfs to resettle the wogs. Tax the serfs to feed and house the wogs. Tax the serfs to compel association with the wogs. Tax the serfs to quell the inevitable serf-wog clashes that ensue. Tax the serfs to fund the police state necessitated by all that quelling. "OMG! You're against mass immigration? What kind of libertarian objects to voluntary interactions?!"

It is a sad indictment of the educational system today. Cultural Marxism has taken over all institutions. This younger generation looking to the state to solve problems, while simultaneously condemning it.

@ReverendDraco DEAD.NUTZ.ON! The author is another shill of The Narrative... "Frak that noise." Indeed

Excellent relevant piece here from Jason D. Hill:   https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/open-letter-greta-thunberg-jason-d-hill/    

Great article, Alex. The contrast between these two environmental activists perfectly juxtaposes both capitalist/socialist and freedom/authoritarian methods as well as their respective supporters. Powerful and concise. Well done.

Well said, Mr. K.

“I do not expect that many people will ever appreciate the full extent of the state’s destructiveness. The state has all the advantages, from public schooling to the statist news media to almost every major institution with real power and influence in society. Of course, it has vast funds at its disposal, too, looted from the productive members of the public. People are therefore exposed, from the cradle to the grave, to indoctrination and propaganda tilted in the state’s favor. Very few ever raise the pertinent questions about the state, much less answer them correctly.   “States sometimes fail, of course, but when they do, new states quickly replace them, as most people want. Modern people, for the most part, are unwilling to assume the same degree of personal responsibility that their ancestors assumed. They have therefore sold their souls to the state, looking to it for personal and economic security and relying on its general beneficence. In this regard, they evince the triumph of wishful thinking over realistic understanding.”  ~  Dr. Robert Higgs  

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/new-gallup-poll-finds-68-of-americans-believe-there-is-a-ufo-cover-up/    

Your final sentence nails it down, Mark, and I do think a lot of the fence-sitters are beginning to wake up to that fact.  But for the political class, admission of that reality brings with it no benefit since the sociological problems that have led to this (most of which have been of their own making to begin with) carry with them no capital they can cash in on career-wise.  They need to be able to promise quick and easy "solutions" (to the problems their policies created in the first place).  Hence, gun control -- and the increase in their overall power that comes with it.

They're already being abused, predictably, in every place they've been enacted.  But "red-flag" laws themselves are inherently abuse:  They presume guilt, rather than innocence, and provide a pretext for firearms to be seized at the whim of government bureaucrats.  Amendment 2 was supposed to forever bar and forbid such from ever occuring -- under any circumstances.  To say nothing of amendments 4, 5, and 6.  Proving, of course, that governments are unrestrainable institutions that always devolve into tyranny.  Hence, our advocacy of their summary abolition.   Absent that, the future is a very dark place indeed.

Re: ..."Indeed US Fascism is a most insidious mixture of the key ingredients while maintaining the necessary nuance to snooker the masses, the media, and the respectable folks across the spectrum. http://mises.org/daily/5634" Unbroken link: https://wayback.archive.org/web/20160704091604/https://mises.org/library...

Roman concrete is a good example of a material that gets stronger with age. The main difference from modern concrete is the use of volcanic ash instead of Portland cement, as well as larger aggregate materials. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete

I recently ordered Edward Peter Stringham's book, Private Governance.  I'm hoping it'll be pretty good; Carl Watner of The Voluntaryist calls it the perfect companion volume to his essay anthology, I Must Speak Out.  

I mentioned this to some extent in the piece, but Hitler was always pontificating about "social justice," and among the chief objects of his hatred were prostitutes. The lemon-pucker-faced social justice warrior scolds are always carrying on about how horrible it is that some people are enjoying life. They are closet prudes. Not that prostitution is the best choice or even desirable as a choice for many women, but the point is that the SJW/temperance-movement/equality-obsessed never celbrate any of the pleasure of life. Instead, they hate those with a capacity to enjoy it. See my essay on the Purgatorio of Dante at fff.org for more on this -- under the sin of envy.

I am conflicted. I want to believe in the fairy tale about America being all good that I was taught in grammar school, however, in the course of my life I have seen with my own eyes the truth of George Washington's admonition that government, like fire is a useful servant or a fearful master. Based on what I have learned in my life, governments are gangs of murderers, thieves, spies, and thugs. It is what they do. Welfare and "humanitarian" efforts are eyewash and vote buying via forcible taking of productive people's earnings. I have no answer for the madness that the demoncrats and repugnants have brought to this country. God help us.

Lazy man's method: Buy an OTIS gun cleaning kit, which is used to pull patches through the bore. I don't like cleaning rods as they often damage the rifling no matter how careful you are. At the range, right after you are done shooting, pull a bore snake through the bore, two or three times. Dry is fine. The object is to remove powder residue, which hardens up over time. Much better and easier to get it out before that happens. At home, get a patch on your otis "rod" and pull it through the bore using liberal amounts of Hoppe's #9. This is a very mild cleaner that will not harm the bore. Keep applying #9 until you get a drip out the muzzle end (gun should be tilted down so it doesn't run into the action). Stick the patch end of the Otis rod into a small ziplock bag to keep it wet, then walk away. Next day, pull that same patch with some new #9 on it, through the bore once. Put the patch in the bag and walk away. Next day, keep repeating the same step. And continue. Eventually the patch gets really gross but you don't care as you are just getting new #9 into the bore and letting the old drip out. Each day's effort takes about a minute, not much! You might pull a brush through now and then, or put a new patch on. Up to you. In a couple of weeks that bore is clean. Leave it wet in the safe, and BE SURE to pull a dry patch through to get the #9 out before shooting. Best to store rifles muzzle down if you can; or, if you can't, then pull a dry patch through so solvent won't run into the action or onto wood stocks. Of course, use CLP to wipe down the external surfaces, right after coming back from the range.

Thank you Alex, for putting out this information. I think the rest of us would be wise to share it at every opportunity.

Welcome to the max security panopticon. There is no escape. Growing up in the 60's and 70's was better for sure.

God NEVER endorses a Government over men. Fallen men reject God and desire, in rebellion to the ONLY authority, to be ruled by a creature of their own inventions. Just like slavery or divorce God regulated the man made institutions. God does endorse his first institution of Holy matrimony and family. God makes man. Man rejects God. Man creates a government. Governments rule over man. The creature(government) now rules over it's creator(man). What did Jesus teach about the governments of men? Let us examine three parallel Gospel accounts. He himself explained: Matthew 20:25, "...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. " Mark 10:42, "...they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them." Luke 22:25, "...The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors." By comparing these three parallel verses, Jesus stated the fact that the governing authorities (princes, rulers, kings) exercise authority over the Gentiles (those who do not believe in God). Note that the term "Gentiles" here cannot mean "Gentile Christians", because Jesus had not yet died to confirm the New Testament, and "Christianity" was not yet in existence. All the apostles were Jews, and Jesus commanded them not to preach to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). The Gentiles were the enemy of Christ at this point (Matthew 20:19; Mark 10:33, Luke 18:32). The Gospel was not preached to the Gentiles until at least 10 years after the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 9:15; 10:45; 11:1,18; 13:42,46-48). Notice what Jesus says next. Does he say that His people will have other men rule over them? Most definitely not! Matthew 20:26, "But it shall not be so among you:" Mark 10:43, "But so shall it not be among you:" Luke 22:26, "But ye shall not be so:" Jesus said we shall not have leaders exercise authority over us like they do over the gentiles. We shall not be subject to governing authorities unless those in "power" are servants of God and His people. Read what Jesus said after he told his disciples that earthly princes, rulers, and kings will not have authority over His chosen: Matthew 20:26-27, "…but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:" Mark 10:43-44, "…but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all." Luke 22:26, "...but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." As we see, Jesus does not want man to have authority over man! He commanded that whoever is the chiefest and greatest among men, will be the servant of all. Unlike human governments which make their chief ruler the dictator of all. Man was not created to rule other men, but was given dominion over the creatures of the earth. This is confirmed in the very first chapter of the Bible, when God created the earth. When our Father created the earth. When he first created man, He commanded, "...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:26,28). Only God has dominion over man. Man is not subject to any other man. Man is ruled by Law, not by the will of man. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/lawgiver.html

6yo resurrection Hmmmmm. Interesting how Atheist's attempt to hi jack as their own, the Positive active form of The golden rule and put their own stink on it. Plus the incongruous idea that "science" sprang whole cloth from superstitious pagans and neglect the fact that the foundation of science HAS to begin with the first science, PHILOSOPHY! Charles Darwin admitted: [W]ith me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? God thing we have a mo better foundation; 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. What was there before any of creation was started? Word is logos. logos/lexis is logic/reason. So,in the beginning was logic or a plan with God. Who starts a big project without a plan? Who starts to build a house without the blueprints? Some may start, but finish with a mess if at all. Paul Davies, winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards), writes: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature–the laws of physics–are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” You can gather all the parts of an orchestra,brass, strings,woods,percussion, vocal and even have the plan;sheet music. But nothing is going to happen without the conductor starting the show. The naturalistic perspective cannot account for reality the way the biblical christian view answers the tough questions. Naturalism,regards the natural,material,and physical universe as the only reality. The world of nature is viewed as the sum total of all that exists. All reality and beings are located within the exclusive domain of physical objects,events,processes and forces. The concepts of logic, mathematics and science are expected features of the universe built by a perfectly rational Creator. Naturalism posits that man evolve through blind,unguided,purely impersonal natural processes but also for those same undirected processes to develop a human brain and mind capable of grasping the very conceptual nature of the universe. How can a naturalist attempt to use logic ,when that logic had to spring from the illogical. This non-rational,cannot produce the rational. or the impersonal, the personal. Atheist would contend that, The source or foundation of man's logic and reason,was not itself rational. Nor personal(self-aware,intelligent). Rather it was a non-rational,impersonal process without purpose consisting of a combination of genetic mutations(Read this as MISTAKES) ,variations,and environmental factors,random chance and blind impersonal natural process produce humanity's rational faculties. How does the irrational atheist square that circle? Explain> A world created from no-thing Or world created by a Creator life from non-life Or Life from ultimate Life persons from the impersonal Or persons from the Super-personal minds from the mindless OR minds from the ultimate Mind order from the orderless OR order from an Orderer reason from the non-rational Or reason from a rational Being morality from the non-moral Or morality from a moral Person information without a sender Or information from a Sender code from a non-programmer Or code from a personal programmer truth from an accident Or truth from the ultimate Truth Without Christians, there would never be science. Science Flourished in those countries that embraced Christian philosophies. and was stillbirth in those that languished under pagan superstitions. http://godevidence.com/2017/09/atheist-beliefs/ Christianity furnishes the conceptual framework in which science can flourish. Science is not something that is natural to mankind. …Although glimmerings of science appeared among the ancient Greeks and Chinese, modern science is the child of European civilization. Why is this so? It is due to the unique contribution of the Christian faith to Western culture. As [science writer] Eiseley states, “it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself.” In contrast to pantheistic or animistic religions, Christianity does not view the world as divine or as indwelt by spirits, but rather as the natural product of a transcendent Creator who designed and brought it into being. Thus, the world is a rational place which is open to exploration and discovery. Furthermore, the whole scientific enterprise is based on certain assumptions which cannot be proved scientifically, but which are guaranteed by the Christian world view; for example: the laws of logic, the orderly nature of the external world, the reliability of our cognitive faculties in knowing the world, and the objectivity of the moral values used in science. I want to emphasize that science could not even exist without these assumptions, and yet these assumptions cannot be proved scientifically. They are philosophical assumptions which, interestingly, are part and parcel of a Christian world view. Thus, religion is relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. More than that, the Christian religion historically did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born and nurtured.

...

Update Broken link http://tinyurl.com/First-Cause-article-W AtlasAikido