Recent comments

  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 1 day ago Web link Guest
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc&feature=player_embedded
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 1 day ago Web link Guest
    A real post collapse business opportunity would be to stockpile the means necessary to manufacture popular ammo calibers for sale or trade. And the odd or wildcat calibers on a custom basis. I know a few people that have offered to load ammo for friends on a cost plus basis in exchange for money or trades. It can't really be much of business opportunity (for now) because insurance costs and legal liabilities prevent it from being profitable except on an industrial scale. A 1000 rd. lot of 7.62 NATO ball ammo in trade for medical treatment, homemade whiskey, or bushels of corn is totally feasible. Or would be. Given that scenario it would really make you consider the true utility or value of a .44-40 or 7.65mm handgun even if it is a classic like a SA Colt revolver or a German-made Luger.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 1 day ago Web link Don Stacy
    The Hebrew Tanakh, (Christian Old Testament) was plagiarized from Ugaritic clay tablets,* excavated from 1929 to 1970 in Syria. The 'ol skygod Jehovallah = Ba'El (Baal.) Exodus 6:2-3 identifies the old god Ba'El Shaddai with Yahweh: And God said to Moses, "I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shadday, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them." This passage shows that Yahweh was unknown to the patriarchs. Rather, they are depicted as worshipers of El. In Israel El's characteristics and epithets became part of the repertoire of descriptions of Yahweh. Like El in the Ugaritic texts, Yahweh is described as an aged, patriarchal god ..., enthroned amidst the assembly of divine beings."** __________________________ * Were Parts of the Old Testament (the Torah) Plagiarized from Ugaritic Literature? Hebrews adopted the Syriac Civilization http://phoenicia.org/ugarbibl.html ** page 141 The Origins of Biblical Monotheism Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith, Skirball Professor of Bible and Near Eastern Studies, New York University Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/BiblicalS...
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 2 days ago Web link Don Stacy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0-8kI7NdOY&feature=channel_video_title A Good article on the Scriptures- CAN THE BIBLE BE TRUSTED? by Chris Pinto There are a great many reasons to trust that the Bible is God’s divinely inspired and inerrant Word. To those who question whether this is so, we say: “Good for you!” The Bible itself tells us to “prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and gives us the example of the Bereans who were counted “more noble” than others because they “searched the scriptures daily [to see] whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) We encourage every person to, with all sincerity and humility, search the teachings of the Bible until you are fully persuaded in your own mind concerning what is written there. Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” (Matt. 7:7-8) The Lord also said that the man who builds his house upon the Rock is the one who “dug deep” to do so (Luke 6:48). I have known a number of people in my walk with God who occupy their time reading every book and article that questions the validity of scripture; books that say “the Bible was written by men,” and therefore is subject to flaws, etc. Meanwhile, these same people never bother to read works which present arguments to the contrary – and there are many such works available, if one is truly searching for answers. Yes, there are a number of seeming contradictions in the Bible, which serious students will tell you are not contradictions at all. Many of the twists and turns are there quite intentionally. As it is written: “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.” (Proverbs 25:2) Some of my favorite Christians are those who do not at all shy away from arguments against the scriptures, but are all too happy to rush toward them with full confidence that God’s word will prevail. Real faith is not “blind” as some critics suppose, but tests and proves all things for the sake of the truth. Let us begin by examining a few key pieces of historical evidence. Dead Sea Scrolls When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, many scholars and skeptics believed that once the scrolls were revealed, it would expose that the Bible had been dramatically changed over the centuries. But as it turned out, the very reverse was the case. The scrolls discovered at Qumran are dated about 100 B.C. and turned out to be nearly identical to the writings of the Old Testament that we have today. While there are, admittedly, some variations in a few words and letters of the text, all scholars agree that none of these variations change the meaning of the words in question. As the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date the time of Christ and the apostles, it is very likely that our version of the Old Testament is exactly what they were reading in their day. The Jewish historian, Josephus, describes the dedication of the Jewish people to the precise, unchanging preservation of the scriptures: “We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew from the day of his birth to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them.” “Time and again ere now, the sight has been witnessed of prisoners enduring tortures and death in every form in the theaters, rather than utter a single word against the Laws and the allied documents.” (Source: Contender Ministries article: Archaeology & the Bible: The Dead Sea Scrolls). The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls certainly confirms Josephus’ description beyond a reasonable doubt. While modern science and archaeology seem to be working overtime to cast doubts on the Word of God, their efforts always backfire and give fuel to the fires of faith. If anything, the modern discoveries dug up out of the earth seem to be the fulfillment of God’s promise: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God … I will show wonders in the heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath …” (Acts 2:17,19) The fossils and ancient remains (i.e. “signs in the earth”) found by modern archaeologists, while often intended to disprove the Biblical record, only succeed in supporting it. Time and time again, the shadows of historical doubt are overcome by the light of discovery. A classic example is the ancient city of Nineveh, written of throughout the Bible, especially in the OT books of Jonah and Nahum. As one author writes: “It wasn't until 1850 that Nineveh was discovered by archaeologists. It is interesting to read liberal commentaries from before 1850 because they had problems with believing the books of Jonah and Nahum because there was no record of Nineveh.” (Source: bible.org article: ‘Nahum’ by Hampton Keathley IV Th.M.) Many arguments against the Bible are based on information that has not yet been found. One will say, “Well, we haven’t found a record of this city, or of that king, and so it (or he) probably didn’t exist!” Then in time a discovery is made, and the doubtful speculation is proven to be false. This has been the repeated history of archaeology and the Bible throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. As a result, the Bible continues to be the chief resource of the archaeological and scientific communities when researching the ancient world. The Four Gospels While skeptics have debated for years about which should be considered the true gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are consistently shown to be the only first century accounts – even according to early enemies of Christianity: “...Celsus, a bitter opponent of Christianity who was born early in the second century, referred to the four Gospels as part of the sacred books of Christians and already well-known in his day.” (Dave Hunt, In Defense of the Faith pg. 62) It is ironic that the writings of Celsus, intended to debunk Christianity, are among the leading examples that the four Gospels had already been written by the second century, and were not in contest with other accounts of the life of Christ. As researcher, William Paley puts it: “It is extremely material to remark, that Celsus not only perpetually referred to the accounts of Christ contained in the four Gospels, but that he referred to no other accounts; that he founded none of his objections to Christianity upon any thing delivered in spurious Gospels.” (Evidence of Christianity, by William Paley, section IX, Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College) Notice how Paley makes reference to “spurious” gospels which may well have existed by the middle of the second century, but were not looked upon as representative of true Christian belief. This argument was most ably defended by 18th century writer, Dr. Nathaniel Lardner in his Jewish and Heathen Testimonies to the Truth of the Christian Revelation, Volumes 1-4. Paley presents some of his arguments: “That the books to which Celsus refers were no other than our present Gospels, is made out by his allusions to various passages still found in these Gospels. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these Gospels; of the precepts, Resist not him that injures you, and if a man strike thee on the one cheek, offer to him the other also; of the woes denounced by Christ; of his predictions; of his saying, That it is impossibleto serve two masters; (Lardner, vol. ii. pp. 276-277.) Of the purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed in his hand; of the blood that flowed from the body of Jesus upon the cross, which circumstance is recorded by John alone; and … of the difference in the accounts given of the resurrection by the evangelists, some mentioning two angels at the sepulchre, others only one.” (Lardner, vol. ii. pp. 280, 281, & 283.) – taken from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College from an article titled Evidence of Christianity, by William Paley, Section IX. Paley continues, using the testimonies of the earliest known opponents of the Christian faith, each of whom made repeated references to the four gospels as the accepted testimony of all Christians. In the third century, Porphyry was a central critic of the Bible. Of him, Paley writes: “What was said of Celsus is true likewise of Porphyry, that it does not appear that he considered any history of Christ except these [four gospels] as having authority with Christians.” Then in the fourth century, the emperor Julian, while refuting the claims of Christians made continual reference to the four gospels in which they believed: “Julian shows that these were the historical books, and the only historical books, received by Christians as of authority, and as the authentic memoirs of Jesus Christ, of his apostles, and of the doctrines taught by them…. He himself expressly states the early date of these records; he calls them by the names which they now bear. He all along supposes, he nowhere attempts to question, their genuineness.” Paley sums up his argument showing clearly that, in the early centuries, the men who counted themselves as enemies of the Christian faith, and who had the most to gain by questioning the origins of the four gospels, never did so: “… neither Celsus in the second, Porphyry in the third, nor Julian in the fourth century, suspected the authenticity of these books, or ever insinuated that Christians were mistaken in the authors to whom they ascribed them. Not one of them expressed an opinion upon this subject different from that which was holden by Christians.” (Evidence of Christianity, by William Paley, Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College) The above paragraph is quite significant, especially as it pertains to Porphyry – because Porphyry specifically questioned the authorship and the date of writing of the Book of Daniel. While his objections are easily overthrown by history, it is important to note that he never attempted such a tactic with the four gospels. Despite such evidence, the neo-Gnostics have continually tried to shift the dating of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to the early or late second century -- in order to support their contention that there were “many gospels” written about Jesus and that the four gospels embraced by Christianity are no better than the others. The others, of course, are the Gnostic gospels whose teachings have always been rejected by Christians, since the apostle John openly denounced the Gnostic heresies in his epistles to the first century church. Eye-Witness Accounts In contrast to the latter-day scholars of the 20th century, who see fit to rewrite history based upon their imaginations, the apostles and early disciples of Jesus maintained that their testimony was based upon eyewitness accounts. As Luke tells us at the beginning of his Gospel: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us … who from the beginning were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:1-2) Jesus told His disciples concerning the gospel message: “… ye are witnesses of these things” (Luke 24:48) and would later tell them: “… ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) To this day, everywhere the Gospel is preached, it is preached by repeating the witness of the first disciples of Jesus Christ. In modern Christianity, the idea of being a “witness” for Christ carries a different meaning. Today’s Christian bears witness to what he or she has learned through faith in God’s word and personal experience trusting in Him. But in the days of the apostles, being a witness had a very direct application. They proclaimed to the world those things which they had seen and heard, and said this to all mankind again and again. When the apostles spoke to the Jewish leaders of their day, they said: “… we are witnesses …. For we cannot but speak of the things which we have seen and heard ….The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree …. And we are his witnesses of these things …” (Acts 3:15, 4:20, 5:30,32) In the opening of the Gospel of John we read how “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory” (John 1:14), while the apostle Peter declared to the church that he was “a witness to the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1). Peter seems to have some of the strongest and most repeated testimonies about being a literal witness. In his second epistle to the churches, he says: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16) And when Peter spoke at the house of Cornelius and opened the doors of salvation to the Gentiles, he told them: “… God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all these things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up on the third day, and showed him openly; not to all people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.” (Acts 10:38-41) When the apostle Paul reported the gospel account to the Corinthians, he deemed it important to communicate not only that Jesus was the Messiah according to the scriptures; but that the fulfillment of God’s promise through Him was seen by many witnesses. Most of these witnesses were still alive several decades after the crucifixion (about 56 A.D.). Paul wrote: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present …” (1 Corinthians 15:3-6) John, in his epistle, writes that he and the other disciples not only saw and heard Jesus, but touched Him with their own hands: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; for the life was manifested, and we have seen it …” (1 John 1:1-2) The apostles continually went out of their way to tell others that this man, Jesus, whom they knew, was the real and living Savior; One whom they saw, heard, and could touch. As Paul would write to Timothy, “God was manifest in the flesh …” (1Timothy 3:16) In fact, even after Jesus was raised from the dead, He appeared to the disciples and said to them: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39) It’s believed that one of the early Gnostic teachings was that Jesus was not really a man, but only a spirit. Some even said that when Jesus walked upon the earth, he left no footprints because he was not flesh and blood. To the apostles, such a teaching was not seen as “a matter of opinion” but a serious violation of the Gospel message. Scholars believe it was this heresy that John was combating when he wrote: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (1 John 4:2-3) While the Gnostics claimed to be the “true” Christians, it is forever important to remember that they were not eye-witnesses to the life and work of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were all written while those who had seen Jesus were still living. Had these writings contained errors there would surely have been an outcry from the apostles. They were not silent on other issues (i.e. circumcision of the Gentiles, the resurrection, etc.) and there is no reason to think they would have kept quiet if the first century gospels had been phonies or contained bad information. John was alive until at least 90 A.D. and would surely have warned the churches if Matthew, Mark & Luke (which were written beforehand) were flawed in some way. Yet no such warnings exist. In contrast, the Gnostic gospels, which have received so much recent attention, were written after the first century – and were refuted even as they appeared. The so-called gospels of Thomas, Judas, and Mary Magdalene were all written long after these individuals had died; and could not be records set down by the persons they are ascribed to. In other words, they are not eye-witness accounts. The Witness of Paul Modern scholars often accuse the apostle Paul of “changing” the Gospel message, while others suggest that Paul never intended the church to take his writings so seriously; yet these falsehoods are easily refuted by the Scriptures. Paul was very careful with his teachings, which any sincere student of the Bible can recognize. In his letter to the Romans he writes: “For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient …” (Romans 15:18) There may be modern evangelists who develop unbiblical teachings to compel people toward faith in Christ and in God, but Paul specifically maintained that he was not given to such things. Again and again, Paul testified that his teachings came directly from Christ Himself. After Saul of Tarsus (Paul) met Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-8) and was converted, Ananias said to him: “Brother Saul … The God of our fathers hath chosen thee … For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.” (Acts 22:13-15) Paul would later reveal what Jesus had said to him during their encounter. Jesus Himself made it clear that Paul was His appointed witness – not for Paul to give his opinion about who he thought God might be, but rather to testify as an eyewitness: “… I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee …” (Acts 26:16) In his letter to the Galatians, Paul said clearly that his gospel came not from man, but from God alone; that it was in fact revealed to him by the Lord Jesus Christ: “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12) Furthermore, Paul’s testimony was received by the original apostles as being from the Lord. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul writes: “… when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me … the right hands of fellowship …” (Galatians 2:9) Paul also appears at the first Jerusalem Council (Acts15:1-35) where he and Barnabas testify alongside Peter, James and the other apostles. Perhaps most importantly, Peter openly confirms Paul as a brother and equates his letters with “the other scriptures,” signifying their divine authority: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother, Paul, also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16) Peter’s words are prophetic, considering the manner in which neo-Gnostics and others dispute not only Paul’s letters, but the whole Bible. Yet, while critics of the Scriptures come and go, the word of God abides forever (1 Peter 1:23). “… yea, let God be true, but every man a liar …” (Romans 3:4) “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Luke 21:33) -- CJP http://www.adullamfilms.com/CanBibleBeTrusted.html
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Thanks Alex. I enjoyed that "As King" link, and passed it on... although I too admit to having some doubts about it. But I do like the mindset here. Better than meekly submitting.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 2 days ago Web link Guest
    This is old news, happened about a year ago according to my Montana friends.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 2 days ago Web link Guest
    He who needs the State to enforce his rights likely has an illegitimate claim. Claiming monopoly "rights" to Land for agriculture is illegitimate on its face. No other specie does it; humans don't need to do it; cultures who do are tangled in government, war, sacrifice religions (like Xianity) and layer after layer of violence and agricultural city-Statist enforcement. "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p. 73 "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." ~Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality "An abrupt increase in corn agriculture brought with it the rapid elaboration of hierarchy and militarization in large parts of both continents." ~ John Zerzan, The Origins of War http://www.scribd.com/doc/62268835/The-Origins-of-War-John-Zerzan
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 2 days ago Web link Guest
    G'day Paul, You knew I would weigh in on this one, didn't you? ;) To say that "there's no such thing as a just claim to anything, which is what one is saying if they say "there is no such things as rights", is completely irrational by any sane man's standards. And, for anyone to say that these are "protected by some words on a piece of parchment", is less than irrational. "Also that government can protect us against the depredations of government.", is not a complete sentence. "Also that government can protect us against the depredations of government", is what? Idiotic? If so, I agree. Any agent, whether it be private or public [governmental], that is strong enough to defend your "just claims" against all comers, is strong enough to also trample those claims, which is why a "well regulated militia", made up solely of those wishing to protect their natural rights, is the only logical answer, IMO. Happy holidays, my friend.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 2 days ago Web link Guest
    Now we see revealed what a fantasy it is, that there are such things as "rights", and that these are protected by some words on a piece of parchment. Also that government can protect us against the depredations of government. We'd better try to understand the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 2 days ago Web link Guest
    Guilt-by-Association is a fun game everybody can play. "I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative." ~Adolph Hitler, March 1942
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    I'll answer your specific question, but I want to preface it first. So scroll down if this bores you! :) I'm engaging libertarian types primarily because I am formerly libertarian/Austrian/an-cap. However, after studying the origins of the agricultural city-State (civilization) and the Original Affluent Society (Sahlins, 1974,) I've found that most of libertarian economic theory and premises just do not hold up to empirical data. Frankly, I see libertarian theory as mostly a fallacy now (as well as most other economics -- they're all predicated on the agricultural city-State being "progress.") Whether or not I want to live a Non-State society lifestyle doesn't really matter, the critique of civilization debunks libertarian economic theory as thoroughly as the Origin of the Species debunks Literalist Fundamentalism. To answer your question about a fast collapse of city-Statism (civilization): it'll go nuclear. You'll need a fallout shelter (or move to NZ or Patagonia) and re-wilding skills, and the temperament to ascend from city-Statism to an evolutionarily stable Non-State lifeway honoring your genetic heritage. Collapse of city-Statism will, eventually, increase quality of life. Kevin Flaherty, who has a small permaculture farmlet in NZ, parallels my analysis here: "Rather than attempting to bring down The Machine suddenly, in a manner that would, almost certainly, result in the use of strategic nuclear weapons, we should gradually destroy The Machine (and let it destroy itself), while learning the skills necessary to make living in a post collapse reality not only possible, but enjoyable." ~http://cryptogon.com/archives/2006_11_01_blogarchive_month.html Jeff Vail's "rhizome theory" is probably the most intelligent analysis of a Non-Statist future after City-Statism (civilization) collapses, including a hybrid hunter/gatherer/horticulture lifeway, much like the Eastern Woodland Indians living in The Great Peace enjoyed. http://www.jeffvail.net/2007/01/what-is-rhizome.html
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    Actually I wouldn't completely sneer at non-military calibers, if that's what you have. Just stock up on ammo for it. Also things like 6.5 Creedmoor can be made from .308. But if you are buying a new gun, and you have a choice, make sure you are heavy in military caliber guns before fooling with anything else. Buy lots of .22LR, 9mm, .40 S&W, .223 and .308. Buy in case lots (say 500 or 1000 rounds, or thereabouts) to save money. Try to get Boxer-primed ammo (as it is easily reloadable, unlike Berdan-primed which is impossible to reload for all practical purposes). Buy lots of reloading components, but concentrating especially on primers (small pistol, small rifle and large rifle). Pick up and save all your Boxer-primed brass when you go shooting (you can tell by looking into the bottom of the case with a good light - Boxer has one large hole, Berdan two smaller holes). Personally, I'd stay away from Russian made ammo like Wolf, although some like it. It's not a bad idea to buy ammo even if you don't yet have a gun for it. Ammoman.com, Wideners, etc... Store your ammo in a cool, dry place.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    Okay but that was then this is now. If industrial society breaks down hard and quick (like Hurricane Katrina) rather than slowly over decades (like the Anasazi die off) what do you recommend as a specific practice? Not baiting you here WI I'd just like to know.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    War clubs are for agriculturalists. "...it is now a tenet of mainstream scholarship that pre-civilization humans lived in the absence of violence—more specifically, of organized violence..." John Zerzan The Origins of War http://www.scribd.com/doc/62268835/The-Origins-of-War-John-Zerzan
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    I like Bob Black's writing. You can find quite a few of his articles at http://primitivism.com/author-index.htm My favorite article of his is The Abolition of Work. "No one should ever work. "Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you'd care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work..." :) Quoting this article turns most Libertarian/An-Cap/Capitalists into blithering Free Republic neo-Cons. Which is pretty much what they are anyway, with a thin veneer of "liberty" whitewash that sluices away so quickly.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    That is a great link White Indian.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    Sorry about the double post.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    Beware. Gun control would be impossible to implement as in say England (ie, "turn 'em all in folks or else!") here in America because so many would resist. But "ammo control" is quite possible and much easier to enforce. I saw on a gun control policy center website that [said] American households have about 1.5 years worth of ammo in their homes. If serious troubles ensued and the supply was cut off that time frame would likely be much shorter. Bottom Line: Expensive and heavily customized arms like ARs or AKs but without ammo are just expensive clubs. (Now my friend White Indian is okay with clubs presumably but the rest of us would be f*cked.) Paul Bonneau in his excellent STR gun articles is correct IMHO about one thing most of all: Stick to weapons in mil calibers so we can buy, trade, steal, capture, or otherwise obtain some from state arsenals. You can shoot a deer, antelope or pig with a box of 5.56mm and defend yourself as well. But an AR in 6.5mm Creedmore with no ammo is worth what? If you put your faith in gold, food, or other tradable commodities is well and fine, if you have a gun and ammo to defend it; but an unarmed man with gold, food, is just a victim waiting to be robbed. I know the Austrian economists, Randroids, and etc will denounce me for not being rational or understand supply curves and what all but that's how I see it. so there's my rant.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    Constitutionalists revere the Magna Carta, but if they were to read it, they'd be baffled. Expecting to find, as libertarian Constitutionalist Ken Krawchuk says, "many of the rights we still enjoy today," they'd find themselves adrift in an alien, feudal world of "aids," "wardship," "scutage," "knight service," "reliefs," "wainage," "castle guard," "socage," "burgage," and other arcana even medievalists toil to comprehend. Magna Carta -- extorted from King John by a few dozen rebellious barons in 1215, a dead letter within three months, voided by England's feudal overlord, the Pope -- did almost nothing for almost all of England's two million people. It confirmed or created privileges for churchmen and barons, occasionally for knights, and in only two instances for "free men." Most Englishmen were villeins, not freemen. And as historian Sidney Painter has written, "Whenever provisions of the Charter seem to benefit the ordinary man, a close examination will show that it is his lord's pocketbook that is the real cause of concern." It was only a question of who would do the fleecing. The Great Charter has nothing to say about free speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, self-incrimination, the right to bear arms, free exercise of religion, the obligation of contracts, ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, rights of petition and assembly, excessive bail, the right to counsel, cruel and unusual punishments, indictment by grand jury, etc., etc. Far from forbidding even involuntary servitude, it presupposes it (chs. 17, 20 and 23). Far from forbidding the establishment of religion, it confirms it in its very first provision (ch. 1). The real Magna Carta was not even remotely libertarian. above excerpt from: "CONSTITUTIONALISM": THE WHITE MAN'S GHOST DANCE by Robert C. Black http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/black/sp001650.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    Yes, because gold is too heavy to throw at attackers and mobile food sources.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 3 days ago Web link Guest
    "For more than six hundred years --- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 --- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws." ~ An Essay on the Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner* *"Lysander Spooner has many great distinctions in the history of political thought. For one thing, he was undoubtedly the only constitutional lawyer in history to evolve into an individualist anarchist; for another, he became steadily and inexorably more radical as he grew older."
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 4 days ago
    The Chain of Obedience
    Web link Mike Powers
    Ludwig von Mises said, "Man is born an asocial and antisocial being." This delusion parrots the monstrous myth that man is somehow "fallen," created with a "sin nature," or strangely evolved "wrong." Such dehumanization is the pretext for every cruel and wicked act seen on this world. He continues, "The newborn child is a savage. Egoism is his nature. Only the experience of life and the teachings of his parents, his brothers, sisters, playmates, and later of other people force him to acknowledge the advantages of social cooperation and accordingly to change his behavior." (Omnipotent Government, p. 241) The rule of agricultural city-Statism (civilization) "social cooperation" is that you follow the rules. The hierarchical CULTure of agricultural City-Statism (civilization) gets forced into kids early. The natural desire to gambol through the woods as a dweller of the forest (i.e., "silva"-dweller, or savage) gets brutally subdued. Just like Mises championed. And it works. Then he dares blame others for the consequences. So I dub thee unforgiven.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 4 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    "'Constitutionalism': The White Man's Ghost Dance," an essay by Bob Black, states: "Constitutionalists are certain that conniving judges, legislators and lawyers switched their own false law for the real law when the people weren't looking ... Constitutionalists look upon law as the word-magic of lawyer-necromancers who draw their wizardly powers from grimoires, from books of magic spells they have selfishly withheld from the people. Constitutionalists have extracted from these books -- from judicial opinions, from the Constitution, from legal dictionaries, from the Bible, from what-have-you -- white magic with which to confound the dark powers of legislation..." They all think that somehow, some way, agricultural city-Statism (civilization) will change its spots. __________________ "Constitutionalism": The White Man's Ghost Dance Robert Black http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/black/sp001650.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    For anyone who may be interested here's a bit more from the Online Etymology Dictionary. republican (adj.) 1712, "belonging to a republic," from republic + -an (see -ian). In noun sense of "one who favors a republic," it is recorded from 1690s; and in sense of a member of a specific U.S. political party (the Anti-Federalists) from 1782, though this was not the ancestor of the modern U.S. Republican Party, which dates from 1854. [Emphasis added] republic c.1600, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public" (see public).
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 4 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    "A true state is distinguished from nonstate societies by the presence of political leaders who maintain a socially approved monopoly on the legal use of legitimate force." (Service, 1975) Suverans2, you're subject to that monopoly of force, whether you consent or not, whether it's legitimate or not. If you don't think you're subject to the State's enforcement, grow a some pot and start openly advertising and selling it. You'll learn the effectiveness of your legalistic word-magic. There is no voluntary city-Statism (civilization,) which is what your Black's Law Dictionary spell-casting rituals assume. Only people in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology are observed to be free. "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders." (Service, 1975) __________________ Service, Elman (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton. NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    The master has the right to tell his servants, i.e. subjects, what they can and cannot ingest. Subject. ...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government. Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v Miller, 267 U.S. 42,45 S.Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504.~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1425 The latter is true, I believe, because a true "republican form of government" is restrained by the laws of nature, that is to say, the natural law of the human world. What you and I do not have the lawful authority to do, the government does not have the lawful authority to do. In other words, it is a government that "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed [its voluntary members]". This is why you now are "subject" to a "democratic form of government", and not republican. "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ~ James Madison, Federalist No. 10
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 4 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    Ivan Eland is ignorant of the facts about peak oil. He then proffers Cornucopian fallacies, as if "free" market economics can somehow negate the laws of thermodynamics. He writes, not to discover the truth, but to support his tottering libertarian ideology that city-Statism (civilization) isn't inherently aggressive and doesn't operate on the game theory of the Prisoner's Dilemma. The US empire expanded into the Middle East for one reason: the Prisoner's Dilemma, briefly explained as follows: "The Prisoner’s Dilemma provides the logical foundation of why civilization must always continue to grow. Each society faces a choice: do we continue to intensify production, adopt greater complexity, and increase the size or scale of our society, or do we happily accept the level we’re already at? If you choose not to intensify, you will be out-competed by those who do–and your lower level of intensity and complexity will become a resource they can absorb to fuel their further acceleration, whether by outright conquest or more subtle forms of economic or cultural exploitation. "This is the underlying logic of Joseph Tainter’s argument concerning collapse in peer polities in The Collapse of Complex Societies. If one peer polity does choose to collapse, that region becomes a resource that can be exploited by its neighbors. Whoever conquers it first will have an advantage over the others in the continuing race of escalation." Thesis #12: Civilization must always grow. by Jason Godesky | 23 October 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/index.html
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 4 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    Would a Non-State sociopolitical typology suit you? "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders." (Service, 1975) I'd guess a Non-State sociopolitical typology would not suit most libertarians, because they're like the monkey who has stuck his hand stuck in the monkey trap. They might express an aspiration for freedom, but they desire more the trinkets of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) There is no way to arrange city-Statism to be as free as you want. Conjuring a "voluntary city-State (civilization)" is as contradictory, and therefore as impossible, as conjuring an animated corpse. The "voluntary city" is make-believe, fantastical Zombie economics, useful as an excuse to keep your hand in the Monkey Trap of city-Statism (civilization.) ________________________ Service, Elman R. (1975) Origins ofthe State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton. NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 4 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    WYSIWYG! Observing Soviet communism, I call it communism, even though true-believer communists bellyache that what can be observed is not PURE® Communism, but "State Capitalism," or a "mixed economy," "cronyism" or whatever lame alibi they can conjure to excuse their ideology's failure. I apply the same principle to capitalism by which I judge communism; that is, WYSIWYG, or What You See Is What You Get, or simply A=A. Observing American capitalism, I call it capitalism, even though true-believer captialists bellyache that what can be observed is not TRUE® Capitalism, but "State Capitalism," or a "mixed economy," "cronyism," or whatever lame alibi they can conjure to excuse their ideology's failure. True believer dogma aside, both capitalism and communism, as we observe them, are agricultural city-Statist political schemes that are quite similar: They both concentrate power and wealth, and they both collapse when wealth and power are too concentrated in the hierarchical elite's hands. Both capitalism and communist true-believers are exactly alike in their disdain for the personal responsibility for living a Non-State society lifeway of gamboling about plain and forest, foraging and hunting for food. Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest? MARX: NO! MISES: NO! Thus we can see that capitalism and communism are actually quite similar political ideologies of totalitarian* agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) _________________ * "For its complete ruthlessness toward all other life-forms on this planet and for its unyielding determination to convert every square metre on this planet to the production of human food, I've called it totalitarian agriculture." ~THE BOILING FROG by Daniel Quinn Excerpt from the book, “The Story of B” http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/frog.htm
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 4 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    Although I wonder what right or obligation any government has to prevent drug use in the first place.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 5 days ago
    The Collectivist Mind
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Without agriculture, which was initiated 10,000 years ago by Bernie Madeoff-ish "Big Men" or "Emergent Elite" (those are scholarly anthropological terms you too can research yourself*,) then there wouldn't be a huge population to serve the elite Hierarchy as a "large pools of labor to provide for the nobility, and large populations that can be levied into large armies with which hierarchy can expand."** How to feed 7 billion. Wait, half of those are already starving or near starving, so how do we feed 3.5 billion human cattle -- or what Conucopian economist Julian Simon refers to as "The Ultimate Resource" -- bred to serve the hierarchy? Maybe there's a way out. I've got a few ideas, others do too. But first, we have to understand how we got to this. Mises, Rand, Rothbard, etal have it wrong. Completely wrong. As wrong as Biblical creationist got the origins of the species. ______________________ * (This is a short summary by an anthropologist) Thesis #10: Emergent elites led the Agricultural Revolution. by Jason Godesky | 11 October 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/index.html ** quoted from: Thesis #11: Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil. by Jason Godesky | 21 October 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/index.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 days ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    Has anyone else clicked on the Verl K. Speer link? BEWARE: I believe that there may be a virus attached to it.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 5 days ago
    The Collectivist Mind
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Not to start an argument here WI but without agriculture how are we going to feed ourselves? in my neighborhood in a semi-rural area if all of us had to hunt or forage for what we have to consume all the trees would be gone in a years time. Most of the wild the animals, fish, and birds too. Then what?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    I hear you Alex but word games in courts of law just don't work. Not only will you be found guilty but you will go on the cops, DAs and judges shit list of knuckleheads to be ticketed, fined, harassed, and screwed with at every opportunity. Believe it.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 5 days ago
    The Collectivist Mind
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Agriculture itself is collectivist. In fact, agriculture is the first-line reason why we have governmental functions in agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) Richard Manning sums up the evidence from archeology and anthropology well in his book Against the Grain, "Agriculture creates government," because big drainage and/or irrigation projects cover vast areas of land, roads, etc. Libertarians have a sophomoric, literalistic view of property rights. Their naivety was demonstrated this year when a few libertarian-type city-slickers, who moved to the rural area in which I live, made the news. See, a farmer had a drainage problem -- a large tile draining his farm was broken down. The farmer called up the county engineer, who is in charge of drainage. The farmer asserted his agricultural fields' property rights, which includes well drained soil. The farmer's property rights extend about 12 miles, all the way to the big river. All land owners pay yearly drainage assessments (digging ditches, clearing trees, installing drainage tile, etc.) All this work to maintain "individual" property values is done "collectively" via the county engineer and state crews. The tile that needed dug up and replaced ran through the yards of the newly built McMansions. Oh, how they belly-ached, and spouted various libertarian themes to the papers and eventually in court. But, of course, the state laws governing the abstract concept of property rights (including 12 miles worth of collectively maintained tile and ditches to preserve property "value" for agriculture) prevailed. The farmer's property rights were preserved in spite of Libertarian legalistic contrariness. Last time I talked to one of the libertarians, he still maintained the conceptual fiction that his property was basically an extension of his body, and he ("his" land) had been "raped," and blah, blah, blah.... I just asked him how a human body can extend 12 miles. I got a blank expression.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 5 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    In reply to such prior questions as "Question: do you [I] accept the theory of evolution?" I ask WhiteIndian--"what are you going to do to FREE YOURSELF?" as the relevant question. Making it personal--something directly controlled--does not mean I am interested in WhiteIndian's personal life per se. The following article addresses that. There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334 For instance: The truth is no one knows what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing. Any answer that is given to questions pertaining to the problems that individuals would face in such a society are purely speculation. I cannot tell you what we would do, I can only tell you what I would and do. I would/do honor my contracts; I would/do defend myself; I would/do choose to help others in need; I would/do expect no one to support me; and I would/do plan accordingly. This as as good as a time as any to point out that humans may desire to live together but certainly not with cheats and liars and those who break the Non-aggression principle. Some individuals will choose to live alone if they desire peaceful existence until they find others who are of like mind. To elaborate: Someone says that the State solution to such and such problem isn’t working, we are in real trouble, what are we going to do about it. The essay “Freedom Has No ‘System” very nicely answers with the equivalent of “What do you mean ‘WE’, Statist?” Such an approach puts the burden of freeing oneself onto the Statist. It UNDERSCORES the fact that the Statist has NOT bothered to think of solutions that do NOT involve enslaving other people. As pointed out in the article: “…[watch] my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free people…”.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 5 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Re: "humans evolved as egalitarian social band animals, and lived as such in a Non-State sociopolitical typology for millions of years demonstrating empathy and altruism -- and refutes your [my] dogmatic belief that there is no "we" or that "we" necessarily means a State society". You cannot answer a simple *I* question. Who is answering with you or for you? The point of the issue of this thread with me and you is try to stop asking "we" questions and making "we" assertions (they are assumptions). They are the ways of statists. You say you are not leftist nor a statist but you posted leftist links. You are speaking for others which is very statist like. *If you are not a leftist or statist stop using their ways*. Speak for yourself! Or continue to come across as a leftist or Statist with all your assumptions (speaking for others) hiding behind so called scientific data.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 5 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    It is nonsensical to "test" whether the interior angles of a triangle (in Euclidean geometry) add up to 180 degrees. But your data does not fall into this category. I choose to live with others or not. I am human. Your data is missing something. It can be refuted. I just did.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 5 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    You cannot speak for yourself let alone others. Where is the similarity between what I pointed out to you about a simple triangle and your data on humans?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 5 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    All you did was demonstrate your intellectual ignorance, which is on par with young-earth creationists.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 5 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Empirical data backs up my words -- and refutes your assertions. For example: humans evolved as egalitarian social band animals, and lived as such in a Non-State sociopolitical typology for millions of years demonstrating empathy and altruism -- and refutes your dogmatic belief that there is no "we" or that "we" necessarily means a State society.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 5 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    RE: AA: "The truth is no one knows what 'we' will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing." Wrong. Non-State sociopolitical typology has been studied to a fair-thee-well. Quit evading the empirical data. ~Apparently you are evading that you are a member of that empirical data and cannot speak to it other than third person. That seems pretty evasive to me RE: AA: "...cheats and liars and those who break the Non-aggression principle." That's you, and any other advocate of invasive and occupational agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) ~ I was not referring to you. I think you have attributed to me what is not here on these posts. get off your high horse and come down to earth. ~You are telling me nothing about what you are going to do to be free. Address that. This is not about your personal life but you refuse to back up your words with what you are going to do about the subject of this thread--freedom. So why can't you answer a simple question? Without the invectives and put downs and arch-types?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 5 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    AA: "The truth is no one knows what 'we' will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing." Wrong. Non-State sociopolitical typology has been studied to a fair-thee-well. Quit evading the empirical data. AA: "...cheats and liars and those who break the Non-aggression principle." That's you, and any other advocate of invasive and occupational agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Re: Still evading the evidence that humans are social animals? ~Your words not mine. Re: Your evasion hasn't changed any empirical evidence. ~Empirical evidence hmmm. You are social? You have exhibited Unsocial behavior. Re: And like I said before, "we" does not mean communism in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. Nothing is forced, humans are sovereign individuals in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. ~Like I said before "I" in an Unfree World does not mean I have not found Freedom. You apparently have to wait until you have convinced others that your world of unforced humans are sovereign individuals in your egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. Hopeless. You are not modeling freedom at least not in my book. Will others follow those who talk of freedom or those who model it? Re: It seems the dishonesty, and deliberate evasion of empirical data from archeology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology is all yours, AA. ~If you can't back up pour empirical data with the integrity in action of what you propose then of what use is your data? Re: And any property right that has to have government to defend it is Statist. ~Ii actually never brought up property rights till this last post. You have been and so I called you on it. And now you maintain that you have a property right to your account which is clearly not protected by the govt the state but the owners of this site. No one here says the State is upholding your rights. That's all you again. Re: You can try to whitewash the aggression required by repeating soothing "laissez-faire" words from your canon, but in the end, agriculture requires aggression and constant enforcement by threatened violence, and you're a city-Statist at heart. ~I am clearly not whitewashing your contradictions. If you have sovereign individual aspirations you have a strange second hander approach to it. What you model is not a sovereign individual but someone who is a "RanDroid". ~Like Ayn Rand herself, you're willing to commit genocide upon 90,000,000 native inhabitants, and then call it "freedom." I don't hold Rand responsible for uncritical zombies nor for helping the tobacco industry types nor those who will not help themselves and smoke because Rand smoked. They have been with us a long time. And they will even join up and perhaps assimilate the unwary with package deals. I am not Ayn Rand but thanks for the compliment. If you have a problem with initiated violence you should take that up with your drooling beast and if Rand is your red/bluecoat then perhaps you should grow a life. She is dead. You're alive as best as I can tell but these continued disconnects you make remind of what? Tom Woods Is Interviewed by a Zombie Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods145.html And It’s Ayn Rand Bashing Time, Once Again by Walter Block http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block172.html PS Where is your password for your "we" account on this site?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    I asked in a prior post as it relates to Living Freely in an Unfree World with other compatibles what problem/or not WhiteIndian had as it relates to an interpersonal contract that fulfilled individual freedom? I still have not received an answer to that although this is what WhiteIndian professes is his so-called banner. Which would appear to make Sovereign Individuals look and feel like his evidenced behavior here. A more honest Avatar would be ForkTongue-SovereignIndies. It is apparent to me that WhiteIndian did not Go Injun in the manner of Jim Walker and does not even rate as a Jed Smith who was very imprudent in his dealings with the Indians. I suspect that given the speed of WhiteIndians replies that he is other than his avatar professes. Calling himself WentIndjun would perhaps be too obvious a clue as his imprudent counterparts and as to what his actual covert purposes are. But I offer this as something to consider. He is no freedom lover or sovereign individual but the anti-thesis of such.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 6 days ago
    Owning an IRS Lawyer
    Web link Don Stacy
    Attorneys and Lieyers? http://ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bondservant/weekly16P.pdf
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    I'm not discussing my personal life with you. It's as relevant as discussing my personal life with a Fundamentalist believer in an argument over creationism vs. evolution. Empirical data from archeology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, and other sciences refute your belief system. You refuse to address it.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Still you evade the scientific, empirical evidence that humans evolved as egalitarian, social band animals. It's pretty much like talking to a young-earth creationist. Observed reality destroys their quite similar mythology too. No, I'm not socialist. Socialism is another political ideology of agricultural city-Statism. Ignorant of facts, you spew your worst pejorative, "socialist!," much like some fundamentalist church lady calling somebody who accepts the empirical data supporting evolution a "satanist!" It's really lame, and reveals the anti-intellectual nature of your belief system.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Still evading the evidence that humans are social animals? Your evasion hasn't changed any empirical evidence. And like I said before, "we" does not mean communism in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. Nothing is forced, humans are sovereign individuals in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. It seems the dishonesty, and deliberate evasion of empirical data from archeology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology is all yours, AA. And any property right that has to have government to defend it is Statist. You can try to whitewash the aggression required by repeating soothing "laissez-faire" words from your canon, but in the end, agriculture requires aggression and constant enforcement by threatened violence, and you're a city-Statist at heart. Like Ayn Rand herself, you're willing to commit genocide upon 90,000,000 native inhabitants, and then call it "freedom."
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 days ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Your tongue in my mouth is is about you speaking for others. Pointing out the simplest application of your position escapes you. Your tongue in my mouth is what you practice. And evidently it has the power to shame you. Laissez faire capitalism (remnant) and this site where your *property rights* are upheld--No one is breaking into your account and writing FOR you. And I and others are getting along here well enough without your Govt "We" drooling beast. "We" are frolicking in the forest. And you seem to be joining us here. Why don't you post your password so "We" can all share your account? From each according to the needs of the "WE". As for the rest dear reader, I can barely sum up the energy... WhiteIndian the Gamboling We is not a leftist says he and his we? which is it? Part of some amorphous we that is witnessed using leftist links and smear tactics to buttress evidenced Anti-capitalist views but NOT life style. Trolling here on the internet--a Capitalist tool not originated by--but grown by, just adds to the list of let me see now, dropping context, intellectual dishonesty, arguing strawmen, contradictrions...See above. But living in your world is evidently boring and uninteresting because you evidently live here more than the world you espouse...frolic away, I cannot blame you. Hanging with the anti-capitalist is so dreary and boring...