Recent comments

Absolutely agree Paul. The beauty of Dr. DiLorenzo's piece is IMO the timing with Avatar. So many young people especially connected to this movie as it is this generation's Star Warz IMO. The conflict between free native peoples going up against a ruthless corp. entity with a covert (subliminal) connection to the State will natural ring a bell with anyone who loved the Navi story of Avatar who also happens to read this piece by DiLorenzo. If I also understand correctly, it is Dr. DiLorenzo's intent to make this subject matter into a book that hopefully will come out ASAP. In the movie JFK, the Mr. X character told the Garrison character that in an executive order lay the Vietnam war. I think DiLorenzo will clearly show that in the war to relocate and/or exterminate the American Native Indian, lay all wars, global conflicts, millions dead and the utter despotism and tyranny this planet has been assaulted with. What we Americans did to the native peoples, our Europeans cousins did to the native peoples of Africa and Asia. It's sadly a very old story that we failed to correct but Dr. DiLorenzo appears to be taking a wrecking ball to that system and I for one plan on helping him swing it!

Portugal doesn't prosecute for prostitution, either. Their rape and homicide rates are quite low. Now, if we could just get all the hysterical soccer moms in this country who don't want to see or hear about drugs and prostitutes to shut the f*ck up...

This is a very important article. A great way to see through the propaganda you have been fed all your life!

It should be noted that ALL drugs, not just marijuana, are now legal in Portugal, which, by the way, has never billed itself as the "Land of the Free."

George W. Obama. Any questions?

I got a letter like that too. More than one, I think. Not sure what happened to it, but I'm guessing the circular file. Or maybe my wife, ever the practical person, got her hands on it and answered the questions. I do remember telling an old census taker at the door that I don't believe in censuses. He was very polite and left me alone. Just look at it as yet another opportunity to learn, to impress into your being, what your true relationship to the state is. If they keep it up (and you know they will), they will alienate everybody. Seems a bit counterproductive from the state's point of view; but what the hey! I think it is important to "just say no" as much as one has a stomach for. Slow down the gears, make them grind on sand. Oh, and I've about given up on doctors.

Yes, it would be best to slap an asterisk on the statement and note the exceptions to the rule. I'm glad you take strong exception to being considered a government participant. My editor has been sacked. :>

"little erogenous zones"???

Did you ever notice that 'Citizen Kane' is considered one of the greatest movies of all time yet gets only a fraction of the television broadcast time that say, "Smokey and the Bandit" receives? Most media moguls, not unlike the fictitious Charles Foster Kane, would hate for us to be onto their myopic little secret. Bathed in narcissism, recall the conversation between Charles and Emily Kane when she tries to argue, "...people will think-", only to be interrupted by Charles, "-what I tell them to think." Even more so than the utterance of 'Rosebud', that quote has been melted into my brain.

Good point (in reply to Merrick's comment), and it's not just the parents: government action, directly and indirectly, creates huge amounts of emotional damage (from war, environmental damage [cancer and horrifying birth defects from DU, Agent Orange, and other military and pollutants], unjust imprisonment, needless poverty, etc). What creates emotional HEALTH, and the conditions for smoothly-functioning and sustainable freedom, is -- according to new studies by Notre Dame Psychology Professor Darcia Narvaez -- • Lots of positive touch - as in no spanking - but nearly constant carrying, cuddling and holding; • Prompt response to baby’s fusses and cries. You can’t “spoil” a baby. This means meeting a child’s needs before they get upset and the brain is flooded with toxic chemicals. “Warm, responsive caregiving like this keeps the infant’s brain calm in the years it is forming its personality and response to the world,” Narvaez says. • Breastfeeding, ideally 2 to 5 years. A child’s immune system isn’t fully formed until age 6 and breast milk provides its building blocks. • Multiple adult caregivers - people beyond mom and dad who also love the child. • Free play with multi-age playmates. Studies show that kids who don’t play enough are more likely to have ADHD and other mental health issues. • Natural childbirth, which provides mothers with the hormone boosts that give the energy to care for a newborn. The article that's from, which includes a brief video, is at http://www.physorg.com/news204201579.html.

“...insurance agencies...have acquired this position [of power] because of their reputation as effective, reliable, and HONEST BUSINESSES.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe [Emphasis added] You have got to be kidding me, Hans! Insurance agencies are “HONEST BUSINESSES”??? Prudential Insurance CEO, Robert C. Winters, chaired the Health, Welfare and Retirement Income Task Force, an arm of the BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE, which is believed to be the most powerful lobby in the United States; it lobbied for N.A.F.T.A. and it had a very heavy hand in Barrack Hussein's current “health care reform”. (http://skeptically.org/gov/id1.html)

So this article is by Strike and not Paul Bonneau? Either way, this stuck out from the rest for me: "Ordinary people, on their own, decided it would be prudent to arm themselves with AR-15s, AK-47s and pistols. This is one point that makes this event anarchic--the movement was leaderless." I like to read that. It makes me think of one of the three criteria for freedom to be successful: 1. It must be peaceful 2. IT MUST BE INDIVIDUAL. THERE MUST BE NO MASS MOVEMENT TO JOIN. 3. It must have the distinct lack of a charismatic leader. A leaderless, individual decision, happening spontaneously for numerous individuals all at once. Beautiful.

"...it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution." ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe “Steeped in the doctrine of natural rights...the American colonists rose up to free themselves of British rule.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe

“Ius Naturale” [natural law] does not derive from the customs of civilized peoples. Instead it provides [us] with a ground on which to judge which peoples are civilized. ~ James A. Donald http://jim.com/rights.html

I expected the total breakdown of the "system" about 35 years ago (after it was predicted in Harry Browne's Book). I bought gold & silver to survive. I am still waiting. I talked a friend into doing the same. He died last year with 95% of his wealth tied up in gold. Had he not listened to me he would have been better off. So I stopped buying gold. I still have about 90% in gold but I will not hesitate to sell some if I want something. I am done buying insurance against a disaster that is happening so slowly that I may not live to see a "crash". If it takes another 20 years it will be as if I bought "insurance" for nothing. Have I had peace of mind? Perhaps. Have I made a profit? No. I have preserved my wealth. The irony of all this is that I could have made much more money by playing gold futures. I would have had to pay taxes on my profit and I will not do that. I have lived underground as much as possible since 1972 out of moral conviction. I refuse to participate in gov. I am a one man resistance force. My wife keeps asking: "What about taxes when we sell our gold?". (She pays taxes.) I will not. Anyone care to guess at the possibility of what year a crash might occur?

Error fixed: I had Bastiat living 450 years ago, not 150. Had de la Boetie on the brain, I guess. Oops.

"It should come as no great surprise, then, that government can best be understood as an enormous act of mass self-delusionary justification. We must act in an unethical manner in order to be ethical. Therefore we are ethical." That sums it up as well as I've seen. Excellent article.

"...they actually happened"...in the stacking and processing, that is.

Probably too much sarcasm in this article for some. As for me, turn on both sarcastic faucets full blast, fill the tub, and let me soak for a good hour with "Daphnis et Chloé" blasting in the background. Every idiot progressive and statist should read it, and be forced to swallow the delicious sarcasm. Perfecto.

What if you woke up one morning, no longer believing you had a "right to life" - whatever you mean by that? It is meant by that, that you have a “just claim” to your own life. How would your life change? Then you would believe that someone or something else had a “just claim” to your life. Some have contended that one would immediately commit suicide! Then they are confusing the “right to life” with a “will to live, a very common error. Or they somehow imagine that people would no longer defend their lives from killers, passively awaiting their fate. If a man doesn't have a “just claim” to his life then he does not have "the right to defend it". This is what happens when someone chooses to be a murderer, he loses, by forfeiture, his "right to defend his life", notwithstanding he may still try to do so. Of course neither of these stand up to a second's examination; humans, like any animals, fought for survival long before they got the notion into their heads that there is any such thing as a "right to life." The desire to live is programmed into us about as deeply as any tendency can be. Here we see the “right to life” is being confused with the “desire to live”. I have seen someone contend that this will to live is itself the "right to life." Here again we are confusing the “right to life” with the “will to live”. Of course, since all animals have the same drive, then they all must have a "right to life," just like the PETA folks claim. Would anyone here say, it is “wrong” for an animal to try to defend its life? I wonder if the people who make this claim are all vegans? Probably, but so what? Anyway, conflating ["mixing together two DIFFERENT elements"] the "right to life" with the will to live serves no purpose. Finally, it is admitted, the “right to life” and the “will to live” are two DIFFERENT elements!! We might as well just call it a will to live, which is less confusing to observers, if nothing else. As you just admitted, they are two DIFFERENT elements, so they cannot logically be called by the same name. Saying the "right to life" is the same as the will to live is saying there is no point in talking about any such "right." No, saying the “right to life” is the same as the “will to live” is calling an apple an orange. A murderer forfeits his “right to [defend his] life”, but he may still have the “will to live”. Some might think that if the "right to life" goes away, then the "right to bear arms" (which depends on it) also disappears, and that we will be disarmed immediately. That is legalistic, statist reasoning. We can only ever be disarmed if we agree to be. It's not for the state to decide. The “right to bear arms” DOES NOT depend on the “right to life”; that is totally illogical. The “right to LAWFULLY defend one's life” depends on the “right to life”. It is because one has a “just claim” to his own life, that he may rightfully defend it. If you woke up one morning no longer believing the "right to life" meme, [meme noun: a cultural unit (an idea or value or pattern of behavior) The “right to life” is not a “cultural” right, it is a "natural" right] your life would not change at all in the broad strokes, as an artist might say, or in the first approximation, as a physicist might say. You'd still go about your business as before. Your religion, i.e. your “beliefs”, have no real bearing on whether you have a “right to life”. Nope, no suicide. This, again, confuses the “right to life” with the “will to live”; and as you have already pointed out, they are not the same element. However, around the edges, things might well change. For example, no longer believing this phantasm "right to life" is out there somehow protecting you, you might take a little more responsibility to defend your life on your own. What do you mean “your life”, if you don't believe you have a “just claim” to your own life, then it is not “your” life to defend. DEFEND, v.t. 1. To drive from; to thrust back; hence, to deny; to repel a demand, charge, or accusation; to oppose; to resist; the effect of which is to maintain ones own claims ["rights"]. You might actually go out and buy that gun, rather than just thinking about it. “This is my weapon, this is my gun, this if for shooting, this is for fun.” Or if you have a gun already, you might practice with it more, and ensure your family members know how to use their guns as well. You might be a little more careful about the people with whom you associate (since most murder victims know their murderers); or live in a safer part of town. You might try to be nicer to those with whom you do choose to associate, to reduce their possible anger with you--polite society might make a comeback. You might stay away from things like drug deals, which in our Prohibition era have a higher likelihood of going bad and resulting in murder. There can be no such thing as “murder” if there is no “right to life”. Can we not see that? You might take more effort to get the hell out of a country that is turning on you (e.g. Jews in Nazi Germany). If you examine the previous list, it looks like these effects, by and large, are positive things. Thus, giving up on the "right to life" meme [the “right to life” is not a “cultural” right, it is a "natural" right] has a positive result on one's life! It is because you have a “right to life", that is to say, it is because you have a “just claim” to your life that makes defending it “right”. The less credit people give to this notion of rights, the less credibility there will be for memes that mimic the supposed "real" rights (negative rights)--the positive ones. That is, if the expression of a "right to life" draws guffaws, then how far will other people get expressing a "right to health care" or a "right to free schooling"? Confusion reigns – “health care” and “free schooling” are NOT “natural rights”, they are “entitlements”. Positive rights are clearly supported by the notion of rights in general. Withdraw that support, and they fall also. How wonderful could our world be if the majority of people doubted there was any right at all to rob their neighbor for some supposed social good? If it was considered robbery, plain and simple, with no justification? Again, “religion” has nothing to do with “rights”. In other words, just because someone “believes” they have the right to steal does not make it true. There can be no such thing a "robbery" without the "natural right to justly acquired property". When you dig into this, you begin to realize that the meme of "rights" [civil, political and religious rights are “memes”, natural rights are not “cultural”] is much beloved by the state and its minions. The “state and its minions" love “civil and political rights” and “entitlements”, or so-called “right to benefits”, which they use to buy votes with. The “state and its minions” hate, with a vengeance, the “natural rights”, because "natural law" forbids anyone, even "the servile fawning dependents" (minions) of government, from taking your life, liberty and justly acquired property without your consent. That should give pause to anarchists, I would think. That should "give pause" those who "consent" [to be "citizens"], I should think. Fighting for rights is doing battle on the enemy's favored ground. Only if one is confused as to what “rights” he is fighting for. Jeff Snyder has commented on this: "...to fight for the establishment of rights or for recognition of rights by one's government involves tacit subordination to the state." Jeff's first mistake is calling it his government. His second mistake is thinking that he has “to fight for the establishment of rights”, since our natural rights are innate. innate, adjective: present at birth but not necessarily hereditary; acquired during fetal development. And, his third error is believing that demanding “recognition” of his “natural rights” somehow involves “subordination to the state” – it does not. Now, I can understand there might be some fear that, if people generally gave up the meme of a "right to life," The “right to life” is not a “cultural” right, it is a “natural” right. that life might become cheap, and murders much more frequent. Again, there can be no such thing as “murder” without a “right to life”. We can examine that possibility and see. Assume for a moment that the per-capita murder rate is described by an equation something like this: M = m / (p + q + r + s + …) where "M" is the murder rate in society, "m" the murder rate in a "state of nature," and all the other factors are the things that restrain murder. They include such factors as social disapproval of murderers, an inculcated or acculturated rejection of murder, a worry that if one murders then one might be caught by the state or by another gang, a worry one might be murdered back by the victim's family, worry that the victim may defend himself and kill the murderer, and so forth. All the possible factors that might restrain murder. Among them is a general belief that people have a "right to life." And, again, there can be no such thing as “murder” without a “right to life”, and virtually all those "factors" the author listed are based on this "right". "The Philosophy of Liberty is based on the principal of Self-Ownership", i.e. the "right", or "just claim", to one's own life. http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf We don't know the exact equation, but it should resemble this one. So, removal of this meme of a "right to life" The “right to life” is not "cultural", it is "natural"! This author seems to be addicted to this word “meme”. would seem to increase the murder rate some. Again, and again, and again, there can be no such thing as “murder” without a “right to life”. But notice, these are not independent variables. I alluded to it earlier; if someone stops believing in a right to life, one naturally compensates by buying a gun. Oh, for crying out loud! The removal of a "right to life" may in fact decrease the overall murder rate due to these other compensating factors. THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS “MURDER” IF THERE IS NO “RIGHT TO LIFE” -- END OF STORY! What if the gun ownership rate doubled in this country, and everybody carried? Would not this make crime untenable? Would government, the most murderous agency in history, be even less inclined to impose on us or kill us? It was the Jews' belief in a "right to life" that got them killed in Nazi Germany, as much as anything, because they worked under the delusion they were protected when they really weren't. They would not have permitted themselves to be disarmed, absent this belief; and not being disarmed, would not have been victimized to near the extent they were. This is getting tiresome! This author is once again confusing the “right to life” with a “right to live”. (To expand this point, they would not have registered their guns in the first place, thus allowing easy subsequent disarmament.) I have to laugh at libertarians and anarchists depending on the murderous state to defend their life via the "right to life," and even more so depending on the "right to property" as they dutifully pay their taxes (surrender their property). If they are depending on the state to defend their lives and property then they are members of the body politic and ought to pay their taxes. I guess that means there is only a "right to a state-determined amount of property," eh? If you are a “citizen”, i.e. a subject of the state, then the state owns all your property. Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum. He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage. Quicpuid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino. Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. 15 Bin. Ab. 327. ″The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.″ ~ Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session. (Brown v. Welch supra) The real reason to stop believing, is that "there is no there, there" (as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland). There is nothing protecting you. The only way the “right to life” protects you is that it gives you the “right to defend your life”. Ever hear of the “right of self-defense” or “justifiable homocide"? justifiable homocide n. a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another... It is a phantasm, just a meme There's that damn word again! in our heads "Natural rights" are NOT "cultural".--not a very useful one at that--which the state violates with astounding regularity. How can you say that the state "violates" something which you say does not exist? Stop believing in this statist propaganda, folks. Please, show us all some “statist propaganda” promoting “natural rights”. If you want protection, then protect yourself, or join with others in a voluntary association to do it. If you want property, have enough that can be protected with your gun, or by your friends with guns. Understanding your “natural rights” does not magically negate protecting your life, liberty and justly acquired property, they are what make it “right” [lawful] for you to do so, and it is precisely because you have the "natural right" to try to protect your life, liberty and justly acquired property that your "friends" may choose to help you. That's not to say that you can't ever use the state to help you in this protection, but keep in mind that doing so is exactly like employing the Mafia to protect you. Yeah, sometimes it will come out your way, but the cost will be high. And they are not the most reliable folks to depend on, and will turn on you when it suits them. Oh, and never forget that protection implies submission. Finally, this author gets something right, (although, unfortunately, I can't say the same for the attached article). Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio projectionem. Protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection. Co. Litt. 65.

The Police: No Duty To Protect Individuals (Warren v. D.C.) http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals by Peter Kasler http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states: Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. ~ Guns, Murders, and the Constitution (Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990) "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army." ~ Thomas Jefferson (1803)

Of course it is a success! For the ruling class cronies... just think of all the juicy contracts.

Unfortunately, tragically, in fact, this kind of thing goes on every day, all across the nation. Police officers are a power unto themselves; they terrorize and Taser our children, murder our husbands and wives, kill our family pets and their own canine "partners," and they do it with impunity. Even when their reckless stupidity kills other officers, some civilian takes the fall. Oh, the families of the victims might eventually get a settlement, which the rest of us victims pay for, but individual officers are rarely held accountable for the atrocities they commit. The most important duties of police officers are protecting the public and upholding the law, preferably in that order. "Enforcing" the law should take a way-distant third place. Any bully with a badge and a gun can enforce; it takes a certain amount of honor and courage to "protect." And you can't "uphold" anything by holding yourself above it.

Right on target, George. http://www.strike-the-root.com/life-without-rights