Recent comments

Well, that's actually pretty swell Sam. I hope you continue reading up. Gollaher's book is a good read. Ronald Goldman, a Jewish born doctor, also has a great essay (and book ive yet to pick up) on the psychological damage.  About anti-semitism and other assaults on religion. I think its important to stress how utterly, totally, completely messed up it is that individuals coming from a religious background - no matter which it is - can not speak out against practices without the fear of being called a traitor to their people. For example, I know of a young Jewish intactivist who HATES Jews as a group, as mainly because of his own circumcision but also because he's not happy about what goes on inside those Brooklyn suburbs (you know about this, right). To be reflexively deemed a "self-hating" something or other is terrible, and also a really clever smokescreen. The reason I dont feel myself as part of that campaign is because I'm hostile to every religion. However, and here's my point, when I say something about Islam I only get called an evil Islamophobic by the Critical Theorists and the Post-Left, Social Justice Warrior types, who again, with drool coming out of their mouths, deem me an angry, unthoughtful racist. Certainly not said by Conservatives. If I say anything about Judaism, then it comes from both Conservatives and then again by many CT-SJW people. But, if I say something bad about Catholism, like their policy of restricting condoms to Africa, or their vast pedophile networks, then I hear virtually nothing from anybody. After all, we've already had a Catholic president, thank you JFK. I simply dont like how some groups manage to create a forcefield around themselves: "You cant criticise, you're no better than a racist-bigot-white supremacist." And yet as a white male I have to hear criticism about my alleged godhood all the time. A lot of that is BS, but a level of white privilege is unavoidably true. I dont then ask for hate speech laws to be erected to protect my feelings, though ive heard plenty of Commies who would quickly do away with the First Amendment in favor of legislation intended to curtail those "hateful", white-male-spoken words.  One last thing: I agree that the family is - should be - the only legitimate governing unit, which is why the responsibility is so important to consider. Thanks for rating up and for your comments Sam. Enjoy a cold one on me. Cheers. 

"With the help of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle, Chaos theory proves that the universe is not based on the old Newtonian physics of order and precision" Well, Quantum Mechanics disproved Newtonian Physics, not Chaos theory - although a better way to put it was to say Newtonian Physics was shown to be an approximation. "But despite this obvious uncertainty, politicians routinely chisel into stone thousands of new laws each year on countless promises that they can improve societal conditions." Well, the promise to improve social conditions is just the propaganda supporting government action. It's a mistake to take it too seriously. Laws are passed to make a payoff. Legislators are in office to enjoy the exercise of power and to reward their friends.

It's nice to see sociology, one of the "soft sciences", tied to complexity theory (admittedly a bit slippery itself). I can see the parallels that Mr. Samuels is drawing here; I've had similar thoughts, but nothing as well defined as this.

Douglas Herman: "...it takes a lot more quiet courage to make a real hero..." Your observation regarding Santa Anna and the episode in history of the attack on The Alamo substantiates my ongoing mantra that all borders are fictitious lines in the sand. All came about about by psychopaths' forcing of "citizens" to murder and to encroach upon others' deranged claims to "jurisdiction". Keep up the good work. Sam http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1950-bitter-laugh.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU

Thanks Trav,  Very good stuff but your humor / wisdom is wasted on the sheep. I heard about the Texas holiday and know some Texans. Governor Abbott seems like a complete maroone, as Bugs Bunny would say.

Thanks Kevin,    Eddie seems like a James Holmes type. Not sure what to make of him. Kyle? Too many of them, sadly.

You're Not Winston Churchill nor are you Ernest Hemingway....you say that your son is the victim in all of this but you mention his name only once. The rest is a bunch of "I, me, my" as if you're the victim and making your son the "martyr". How often do you do that?

The Alamo is a great analogy and you weave a wonderful narrative around it.  Hope you are well, Douglas. 

Terrific column, Lawrence. I love seeing the underlying science behind a subject -- especially this one -- explained engagingly and in plain language. You've done a nice job demystifying the voodoo of coercive government.

I wonder how the Hebrews knew that vitamin K was at it's peak on the eighth day after birth? Rhetorical Question as it was a covenant with God. God's promise with Abram (2018AM) is a witness to the wisdom that could not have been of an earthly source at that time. Circumcision would tend toward a type of health law. Penile cancer among Jews is so rare as to be almost non-existent. I happened to be saved from that type of infant assault upon my family JEWels. Which is good for me because back at that time the witch-doctors believed infants could undergo surgery with no anesthetic. These days, they can't wait to inject the new-born with a 'vitamin k' shot and mangle there junk with a scalpel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI_QXvN33Ow

Nice article Douglas. Right - no big Hollywood movies will ever be made about Ridenhour or Smedley Butler or Edward Snowden or any other high profile anti-warrior. But a mass slaughterer like Kyle? No problem. Who cares that he LOVED killing those despicable savages, as he callled them in his book? Total psychopath - but then what else to expect from America..... As far as im concerned, Eddie Routh did us all a favor. How many others signing up for the Empire were getting trained and counseled by that guy? 

He's an alcoholic who suffers openly with his addiction everywhere else but here it seems.

Thank you Paul.  I also love Santa as an example of purposeful collective deception of a large group of people (children).  This quasi rite of passage prepares the young mind for later indoctrination.  This will go on because it also provides much joy from the spectacle of it all; and it does promote giving.  So intertwining some bacon around that pill helps people to swallow it.  Further, people like being in a show, to make-believe, pretending and what not.  The state provides a convienient outlet for those desires to be accepted by the collective in adulthood.

Paul, thanks for the feedback.   I agree that these are utilitarian arguments. What is interesting is that I normally emphasize moral arguments over utilitarian ones. In this case, I thought it was necessary to focus on these objective issues because I believe that a great many people are so consumed by fear when this topic comes up that they cannot really rationally consider whether or not it is right to force others to be medicated without informed consent. When people are really afraid, they will reflexively support measures that appear to provide safety. So I think that in order to get through to people who think that deadly infectious diseases would spread like wildfire without widespread vaccination, it is necessary to provide some perspective on the topic for them, to help them see why it is extremely unlikely that this would be the case.   It is hard to say for sure what kind of utilization of vaccines we might see in a free world. It seems to me that if we were not exposed to incessant government propaganda, phony research, legal privileges for suppliers, and mandates (many people already believe that they need to vaccinate their kids in order for them to go to school, even though there are exemptions currently), the support for vaccination might be much lower than it is today. Of course, if it were to turn out that in a free society with informed consent vaccination remained very popular, I would fully respect the decisions of those who go that route. Let the free market decide.

Santa Claus is arguably one of our better allies. After all, how many grownups believe in him? Who has not had some faith in magic shaken by the discovery he was just a fraud perpetrated on kids too young to know better? I wish all state fairy tales were as transparent as Santa Claus. I think one great tool for fighting magic is the single word, "Why"? Asking this question of rituals exposes immediately the nonsense. Trying to justify rituals is actually quite difficult, because rituals depend so strongly on never being questioned at all, and because they are so ridiculous. I often wondered what would happen if I were called to testify in court and when I was supposed to swear to tell the truth, I said, "I'm not a Christian, and I try to avoid having religious opinions of any stripe. Why should I swear to anything?" "If we do overcome our childhood indoctrination, we will likely be branded as a heretic and cast out of polite society, becoming an outcast or outlaw." I think that itself is a bit of magic. The rulers like to perpetuate this story but the reality is mostly different. One is less and less likely, over the years, to be cast out merely due to having different opinions. In fact it could be said that having a different opinion is a way to become popular because people get bored over the same old pablum time after time, and want to hear something different - even if they may not agree with it. We are not living in Puritan Boston any more. Of course I could be wrong due to my living in Portlandia, where odd opinions are routine. Anyway, good article! I think you are right about the direction things are going.

Social networking can be a highly useful tool, but facebook is evil. Join tsu, a rapidly growing social network that shares ad revenue with users. Lots of social networks have attempted to compete with facebook's near-monopoly on social media, but they've all failed to gain traction in terms of having enough people on there to be really useful as a social networking tool. What else can possibly overcome facebook's social inertia other than a positive feedback loop that pays people to join, invite their friends, create and share content? It's pseudo-invite-only right now, so basically you need to pick an existing user and input their name when tsu asks who invited you. Whoever you input gets credit for inviting you, which adds up, so if you don't know me and so don't want to give me credit you can pick among any number of alternative users to join up. Here's mine (but if I seem unethical or untrustworthy, don't participate in indirectly funding me by using me as your invite): tsu.co/evanlpierce Here's who invited me (I support paul's goals of world domination gardening and so don't mind helping to indirectly fund him): tsu.co/paulwheaton Here's a charity (I don't know much about this charity but they seem nice and I think it's an option): tsu.co/charitywater Tarrin Lupo, fellow liberty lover, agorist, and natural doc, is also on tsu, and you can use his link: tsu.co/drlupo I bet you could probably google some other users who you liked more and use them as your invites. It's growing pretty fast. Invite all your friends and together we can obsoletize facebook. Today facebook, tomorrow the state. :)

Sam, Delmar England's essay you referred is a rather dynamic piece until he comes to utilizing the terms of conscious and sub-conscious, terms he had to have been taught (coming form Freud who has been debunked a long time back). It is clearly an article to not be read once but must be analysed for what the content is actually saying. Simply to me it is everything we have been taught from birth onward is nothing more than lies running the course of life. A casual reading leaves my head swirling,wow, stop the merry-go-round and let me off. My mind is not as functional as it once was. Supposedly as we age we are to become more wise and filled with experiences vital to everyone. The longer I live the less I seem to know. Thank you for the reference. It is deeply appreciated as it adds ammunition to my battle with the Morons. Again. Thanks.

Perhaps the issue is not with people's general receptivity towards the legalization of all drugs, but the way it's worded? Methamphetamine would be my last choice if I were to pick a model illegal drug to be the base of an argument because almost no one has any reasons for getting it legalized. Why should people fight to legalize a drug that they know they're never going to use? The risks obviously outweigh the benefits in their minds. If the title were "Legalize LSD" or "Legalize Psilocybin", people would have an incentive to actually vouch for all-drug legalization because these are drugs with reported therapeutic benefits in psychiatry and the world would gain a lot from their decriminalization - the US would allow scientists to test these substances in clinical trials, which is currently not allowed except in rare, uncomprehensive studies. Psychedelics such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline have also been reported to increase creativity, spirituality, and empathy, but it's impossible to go around saying so because there's no science to back it up. Methamphetamine, on the other hand, has little to no medical or psychotherapeutic benefits and the chemical is pretty much completely understood now. It's not needed for further testing or anything. If the argument has to be centered on a drug with no benefits just to validate the freedom argument, I understand, but it'd be far easier to win people's hearts with the possible benefits of psychedelics and marijuana than a drug that is only associated with violence and self-destruction. Regardless, it's an enlightening article and the best argument for the legalization of drugs that I've seen. Thank you.

Thank you, Sam.  The term "governing unit" implies the use of force to "govern", if so, then I would agree with you.  As you note parents have the only legitimate assumption of power to govern without consent.  However, I believe that voluntary associations which include rules for behavior and mutual aid are legitimate as long as they maintain their voluntary status.  One could argue that these association result in voluntary "governing"; though that may also be considered an oxymoron.

Let me start out with an admission: I don't understand sex. I mean, here I am, father of 7, grandpa of 25, great-grandpa of more than I'd like to admit (they make me look old :-[). As an anarchist I'm not certain I can explain dogmatically why it might be considered "aggression" if I were to attempt to seduce your wife, your girl friend, or your daughter. Are there "rules" governing that? And, worse-come-to-worse, if she should acquiesce to my advances, and you were to "catch" us -- would you have just cause (under the non aggression principle "NAP") to shoot me (and/or her) and/or whip our asses? You can rest easy. I'm 80, no longer of a mindset to encroach on anybody else's space in that manner. Even in the event your wife should try to seduce ME (not likely after she took one look) -- I'd have to turn 'er down. Not because of waning libido or lack of interest. It's because, although I might be crazy, I ain't stupid. And it does make for reasonable discussion. Does the husband “own” his wife and/or his children? Does the wife "own" her husband? Should "fidelity" be a condition of marriage for libertarians and anarchists who eschew state-licensed and regulated "marriage"? I'm aware of more than one prominent libertarian who has engaged in and apparently espoused polyamorous "marriages". This particular essay has the aroma of acute personal emotion on the part of the author. Circumcision -- like abortion, homosexual "marriage", unwanted newborns, enforced contraception, etc. -- is a peripheral sex issue. And those issues baffle "libertarians" and "anarchists" (I use quotes to illustrate my opinion that many if not most of us are postulants -- hoping to become the real McCoy by our essays and our comments on anarchist forums). From the standpoint of anarchy, I'm convinced the family is the only legitimate governing unit. I can see it no other way. The human newborn, unlike animals, comes into life without "instinct" -- totally dependent upon adult caregivers for her survival. I find it amusing that "science" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and mainstream media feel duty-bound to include "humans" in their description of mammals to small children. But that's a different topic for a different thread -- on a totally different forum. I wish that all newborns could come into life with loving Moms and Dads, committed to the child's survival, upbringing and welfare throughout their lives. Parents (of both sexes) who will -- with love and care -- restrain and preclude the baby from rolling off the bath table or bed or stairway; prevent access to harmful objects that can (and will) be placed in mouths, ears, noses -- and other embarrassing yet risky areas. Parents who will -- with love -- provide nourishment and sanitary environment; who will -- with love -- teach them right from wrong, good from bad. Until the parents become elderly and the child finds herself caring for Mom and/or Dad -- the rolls reversed. And circumcision. Yea, or nay. Four of my seven kids are boys. All were circumcised. On the eighth day. Not necessarily because that was "...our religious rule..." (or the "rule" of some rabbi) -- but because it makes sense for health reasons. If you're going to circumcise, that is. I'm not your judge. You are your judge. And your child's guardian. You do what you see proper and healthy for your son. Don't let me -- or Kevin -- dissuade you from doing what you see to be in your sons' best interest(s). Also know that once the foreskin is off it can't be replaced. Forget the scams saying differently. Let that also be your guide. There are valid arguments on both sides of this circumcision controversy -- and I'm not referring to the "religious" arguments. You can find as many physicians who soundly believe in circumcision -- that it inhibits many infections and prevents disease -- as you can physicians who are avidly opposed for a number of sound reasons. Read this. Remember: just because you're a physician does not make you an expert on whether the circumcised (or the intact) are going to have better sex lives or better emotional health or better hygiene practices. Some day I might ask my boys (one nearing 60) if they wish I had left them intact -- if they're lives might have been enhanced had they not "...suffered the brutality and violence..." of circumcision. I'd really like to know. And, although we're an open family (they think I'm pretty screwy) we've never discussed penises -- adult penises, that is. Not due to modesty issues -- the topic just hasn't come up, and I'll need to bring it up if there's to be a discussion. I think each of my sons may have counseled with me regarding the decisions pertaining to their sons' circumcisions (15 of the 25 grandchildren are boys, all but one of them sons of my sons). In each case I'm certain I urged the procedure to be on the eighth day -- primarily due to clotting issues. Libertarians who inwardly want to impose their opinions and their wills on others find all facets of sexuality to be no-man's (or woman's) land. Yay or nay -- I won't say. Sam

Delightful piece Sam, simply delightful.

From "Protection/Submission": Want protection? Protect yourself and your own, or join vigilance committees to do the same thing, or submit. Those are your only choices. I tend to steer clear of vigilance "committees" -- generally all "committees" for that matter. I ain't about to "submit" (voluntarily). I agree totally with your two essays -- and Joe Sobran's "Reluctant Anarchist". It's sad that Sobran's life was cut short before he could totally assimilate anarchy. He was on his way. I am a sovereign state. And yes, those psychopaths hiding under the guise of "government" merely engage in protection rackets, held together by obfuscation. They rely solely upon a phenomenon well known to psychopaths, but only recently labelled "Stockholm syndrome". "Voluntary Compliance". The khans, forerunners to "Our-Founding-Fathers", understood well the terror and fear villagers had of the Huns and nomadic hordes. So it was relatively easy for them to begin the process of setting up what we later called the "family of nations". A major stroke of genius was "democracy" -- the ruse that the masses could actually be above the overseers "elected" (appointed, for those of us who understand the reality of the political process) from among them. That those senators and legislators and ministers and presidents would become subservient to "We-The-People". The jive of "terrorism" is particularly humorous to those of us who see through all the dots. How "9-1-1" was actually pulled off is something none of us will ever really know. But, as you infer, "uneasy rides the head that wears the crown". Even totally disarmed (complete "gun control"), the hoi polloi present an ever-present risk. What if all of us become non-compliant at the same time? So, from that point of view, my use of the phrase "monopoly upon violence" fails. Because those presumably "in charge" must constantly keep the critical mass happy -- even those in max-lockup. The majority must always be persuaded to "pledge allegiance to the flag", to be "law-abiding-citizens". Most of our contentions here and at other anarchist forums are disagreements over definition. I've observed for many years that the only legitimate governing unit is the family unit. All others are interlopers. There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" that I don't voluntarily hand to those proclaiming such. Of course I always believe a man with a loaded gun. Sam

This is a funny "plant" to appear here at STR: "...since non-vaccinated people can make other people sick in a way that kids who have rejected their government-mandated veggies cannot, it’s a bit trickier sorting out whose rights should trump whose, what level of state authority gets to make that call if any, whether dissenters should be ticketed, arrested, or merely denied public services, and so on. Reason’s Ronald Bailey, for instance, favors “shunning and shaming” those who refuse vaccination..." No comment. Don't shun me, Bro! Sam

Reminiscent of the old ploy by psychopaths acting under the guise of "Internal Revenue" offering "amnesty" to tax protesters (er..."tax resisters") so some might bite the bullet and submit confessions (euphemism: "file returns"). Under penalty of perjury no less. Voluntary compliance is a marvelous slogan of genius. Sam