There are some people, after all, who are a net negative.
8 February 2019
Yeah, I think that hyena ended up in the slammer, actually. Not sure if any charges stuck.
Sucks about your sister, Joya. I know it’s a cliché of suicidal, pseudo-suicidal, quasi-suicidal, and semi-suicidal people, but I kinda wish it’d been me whose valve gave out while I was asleep. So what does that do, anyway? Cause massive internal bleeding? Or does blood just stop flowing, or what?
Shitty what the prison system is doing to you. You have less than a year left. Can’t they just let you sit it out in peace? I guess they figure they gotta “send a message” to the short-timers that they can’t just do whatever they want, but this doesn’t even give you enough time to appeal your sanctions before they become moot, which maybe is part of the point.
So what happens if you go to a medium, and the other prisoners ask what you’re in prison for, and you say, “I’m here for CP” and they decide they’re not cool with that? Would they say, “You gotta check in” or would they kick your ass? I’ve usually seen them do the former, but I’ve heard of them doing the latter. They can also just decide to treat you like shit, without actually kicking your ass.
Well, sounds like they’re subjecting you to some psychological torture. Meanwhile, I see that the BOP moved your release date back to the 21st of February, 2020. With the First Step Act, you were supposed to be getting out in 2019; WTF, man. Wow, so you’re no longer a short-timer; how many times are they gonna yank that rug out from under you? And you haven’t even gone on supervised release yet, which amounts to yet more opportunities to yank that rug.
Anyway, what I see as a problem with trying to break up the U.S. into smaller states is, (1) people want to have free trade and freedom of movement throughout the U.S.; and (2) all these mind-viruses want to spread as widely, and infect as deeply, as possible. Having all the states be united into one country is conducive to that. For example, feminists will want to force their feminist ways upon regions that don’t want to be feminist; they’re already doing that with international legislation like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women).
(I think, by the way, one of the complaints feminists have had about CEDAW is that while it bans stuff like forced prostitution, it doesn’t explicitly say anywhere that women are allowed to be as slutty as they want. Women would prefer to collect taxes and other benefits from hardworking men while spreading their legs only for Chad; but some countries would dare to have laws saying they need to collect betabuxx only through marriage.)
Economically, if you want to have stuff like a single currency, you either need to have some transnational corporation issue the money, or you need to have a central bank. Either way, you may need some central government to help out by enforcing, e.g., anti-counterfeiting laws. Even the Soviets, who rejected capitalism, saw a benefit to having a huge bloc of countries under treaties calling for economic and military cooperation.
So, it may be hard to get away from having one central government for the whole country; in fact, we may even see in the future that there’s more regional integration than what we have now. E.g., maybe 100 years from now, Mexico and Canada will combine with the U.S. to form a North American union of some sort, with a single currency.
Normally, what happens when we ask Canada, “Do you want to turn your provinces into U.S. states,” they say, “No thanks, but if you want to turn your U.S. states into Canadian provinces, we’d be open to that idea.” Both proposals amount to pretty much the same idea, though. As for Mexico, adding their states to our union would not be that radical of an idea, given that California and Texas are rapidly becoming Latinized anyway. Like I say, in 100 years, it might be a possibility.
I think I’ve brought up this point before, but it’s something I keep wondering about, and that is, where are your peeps? Why is Jeremy Hammond elevated as being a hero, but you’re not? Didn’t you both do pretty much the same thing – disseminate forbidden information? Except in his case, it was government/corporate secrets, while in your case, it was CP. Well, CP is a state secret too, isn’t it? They keep those files locked away in their National Child Victim Identification Program.
So where are your anarchist peeps; why are we not seeing articles being published in the anarcho-syndicalist press where they say, “Drake did nothing wrong”? Why is Hammond himself putting a list of prisoners out there who deserve support, yet your name is not on that list? The attached article, by the way, got cut off; it said:
“Snowden is giving us a message of reform,” she said. “We can just tweak this one thing and everything will go back to being right as rain regarding corporate and government surveillance. Whereas Jeremy is saying this is egregious and it all has to go from start to finish.”
Journalists play a large role in controlling what information the public receives. It is safer, for business and editorial approval, to write about a whistleblower who leaked information from the federal government, the traditional opponent of influential investigative journalists, than about a whistleblower who hacked out information about local cops collaborating with corporate spies.
Well, what about you? Is it politically inconvenient for the left to get on your side? Yet, they’re supposed to be about upholding the rights of the marginalized. Who’s more marginalized than you are? You’re so marginalized, that even those say they uphold the rights of the marginalized, want to participate in your marginalization by ignoring you.
Or, if you were to become famous, maybe they would even disavow and/or denounce you. That was pretty much my fate — to be ignored, or disavowed, or denounced, at every turn, whenever my one supporter, Pete Eyre, tried to be publicly supportive of me, or whenever I tried to promote myself.
If your anarcho-syndicalist comrades are truly radicals, then they shouldn’t care what the normies think, any more than the Bolsheviks cared if the majority of Russians wanted revolution. (According to most ideological doctrines, the opinions of the masses are just manipulated by the powerful anyway, whether those be Jewish academics or corporate media.)
I could ask the same about my own peeps. Why didn’t the anarcho-capitalists get on my side? They had blogs and newsletters; why didn’t they publish stories about me? Well, all I can say is that movements tend to suck balls. As with Hammond, they tend to not be supportive of the true radicals; they tend to want to just support marginal reformers.
If you want to bang small children, that makes you a radical, and so therefore even those who call themselves radicals will want to just ignore you. They would be quicker to get on the side of someone like Hammond who’s less radical, because people want a goal that seems attainable, and it seems easier to beat the corporations than to beat the sex offender psychologists and others who want to keep in place our system of child porn prohibition.
This is the problem with trying to be part of a movement. I’ve never been able to fit into any movement, because I was too radical. They decided to instead just ignore me, or kick me out, so they could focus on their much more moderate goals, without having someone around who would point out the futility, or inadequacy, of trying to take one step forward while the opposition is pushing us two steps back.
Even when you’re dealing with people who call themselves “radicals,” it turns out that’s just hypocrisy, as soon as you test them. For example, the group that called themselves “LPRadicals” (Libertarian Party Radicals) didn’t really offer me a lot of support, after I threatened the President, and after I fought for custody of my daughter. They’re not even all that radical, it turns out, if you probe deeply into their views; and the way that usually happens is if you live your life in a radical way, and then ask them, “What do you think of that?”
That’s when you find out, they’re not even really sure what they think, when the question is put that concretely. They just have some vague notions like, “The market can figure it out.” But the market is just a bunch of people with opinions, who vote with their dollars. It would be the same way with anarcho-syndicalism; self-directed work teams could make any number of different decisions, based on what values they had, so supporting a certain structure is not enough to assure the system will work; those acting within the structure must have the right ideas about what to do. We’ve seen in the third world that trying to give people a certain structure to work within doesn’t automatically bring them to first world living standards.
Presumably, a self-directed work team could kick out people they don’t want working with them. So, what happens if they kick you out for being a pedophile? Or, what happens if you do get a job working as part of, say, a factory cooperative that manufactures, say, pencil erasers, and the factory that manufactures pencils doesn’t want to buy your erasers because their self-directed work team says, “We don’t do business with people who hire pedophiles”?
So, there can still be plenty of ideological clashes within a given system, but what it all comes down to is, what system is most in accord with human nature? We could ask the same about our methods of activism. Bottom line, though, is that if people aren’t willing to do what you do (e.g. go to prison for their beliefs), then in many cases they’re going to denigrate what you do, or ignore it, rather than praise it, since that would be to admit that they fall short of being willing to do what you do, even though they’re able to.
People don’t want to admit their shortcomings like that, and say, “Yes, I’m selfish” or “Yes, I’m a coward.” They have to instead say that the unselfish or brave man is in the wrong, and that they’re the ones who are smart and morally upright compared to you. Therefore, they will find a way to trash talk all the sacrifices you’ve made; and the more you’ve sacrificed, the more they’ll have to say that you’re a fool, or crazy, or whatever.
And/or, they’ll say that you’re evil for what you did that was against the law. It’s just easier for people to take the side of the state, because if they admitted what the state did was wrong, they might feel an obligation to fight against the state. Likewise, if they admitted that what you did was right, or at least harmless, they might feel an obligation to help you. If instead they say the state was right and you were wrong, then they can keep paying taxes to the state, and continuing ignoring or mistreating you, and not feel bad about that.
For these reasons, all movements pretty much suck. They all betray the members who are purest, and most logical, and most courageous in their ideology, intentions, and actions. They all get taken over by the timid, venal, and self-serving.
So what happens is, you start out in a movement, and then you outgrow the movement, and get kicked out, or resign on your own. But if you’re the kind of guy who carries ideas to their logical conclusions, you’re not going to stay in a movement; that much we know. You can’t even build a movement around your ideas, because it’ll get taken over by people who want to water those ideas down, or else outsiders will attack your movement and insiders will flee.
So why do some groups call themselves “radical” when they’re really not? I guess because it just makes them feel good to call themselves that. Maybe they’ve found a niche, where they feel proud being more radical than the mainstream (whom maybe they didn’t fit in with anyway), yet they also feel comfortable because there’s not really anyone to call them out for not being radical enough. Or if there is, they just ignore him and pretend he doesn’t exist; or they tell him his approach isn’t pragmatic; or whatever. One way or another, they find some excuse for why they shouldn’t be like him.
Of course, the moderates could make the same argument about these “radicals,” that they’re not being pragmatic either in their approach. The most “pragmatic” approach of all is to just be a centrist who has maybe a few minor, uncontroversial, “common sense” reforms he’s pushing. But that doesn’t have as much of a “coolness factor” as being a self-styled radical. Yet, to actually speak and behave as a radical attracts persecution, and people don’t want that; what they’d like to do instead is just role-play as radicals by pointing to the moderates and saying, “Look how unprincipled they are compared to me.”
If someone comes along who’s even more radical and tells the self-styled radicals, “Look how unprincipled YOU are compared to me,” they say, “We’re the arbiters of who belongs in this movement, and you don’t fit the criteria” and cast you out. Basically, if you don’t have a movement on your side, you don’t have anyone who will say, “Yes, we declare that you meet our admission criteria,” which means you’re on your own. But of course, the most radical guy of all will be one individual who doesn’t fit into any group, and therefore has no one who will accept him or recognize that his positions and actions legitimately fall under the ideology he’s claiming to represent and/or live by.
It sucks being a true radical, because you’re always alone. You’re always in a situation where no one wants to associate with you, because you’re too “out there” compared to them. Therefore, needs for companionship go unmet, which will lead to becoming more maladjusted and generally weirder and weirder-seeming. Frustration builds up, which often leads to lashing out, and/or suicidal ideation, both of which are taken as signs of mental illness. They have to discredit anyone who’s more principled.
As for city-states – I wonder sometimes how places like Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. are able to exist independently. But Hong Kong is probably going to eventually get taken over by China anyway, more than it already has, unless we’re going to end up with a situation like what we have with Taiwan, where there are constant threats by western governments to intervene militarily unless China allows some autonomy. Presumably all these other microstates, like Singapore, are also propped up by western governments’ guarantees of military support.
It’s been said that all great powers behave like gangsters and all small countries behave like prostitutes. Sometimes it’s not so bad being a prostitute, though; that’s why so many women like to be housewives rather than career women. They like to be taken care of. Well, we see the same in the international community. Puerto Rico, or Scotland, or any number of other places could choose to be independent if they really wanted to, but they prefer to be under the dominion of some great power that will take care of them. If they were to go off on their own, they’d probably be raped anyway, or have to suck some other great power’s dick; so they’d rather just suck the dick of the U.S. or the U.K., who will be relatively benevolent masters.
The Equal Rights Amendment is a proposed constitutional amendment that states, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Some say it’s close to getting ratified by the required number of states, but there are a lot of legal technicalities involved in that. With regard to federal cannabis legalization, I read just today:
Senator Ron Wyden has introduced legislation in the Senate S. 420 — The Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act — to permit states to establish their own marijuana regulatory policies free from federal interference. In addition to removing marijuana from the United States Controlled Substances Act, this legislation also removes enforcement power from the US Drug Enforcement Administration in matters concerning marijuana possession, production, and sales — thus permitting state governments to regulate these activities as they see fit.
I’ll probably write to my Senators asking them to vote for that. Oh, by the way, the legislation making it a crime in Virginia to touch a child on any part of her body with lascivious intent didn’t make it out of committee, although it’s already illegal to french kiss a child or touch her intimate parts (genitalia, anus, groin, breast, or buttocks) lasciviously.
(Specifically, the failed legislation said, sexual abuse includes an act committed with the intent to sexually molest, arouse, or gratify any person, where if the complaining witness is under the age of 13, the accused intentionally touches any part of the complaining witness’s body, either on the skin or the material covering the complaining witness’s body.)
You can try penpal’ing these chicks, but my only concern is that Big Brother Is Watching at both sides of these exchanges, so maybe these girls won’t feel free to write what’s really on their minds, I dunno. You know how they are; they want to seem like they learned their lessons. Go ahead and write some letters, though, if you want.
The son who gropes and sucks his mom’s tits must be at least a few years old by now. Let’s see, she’s been posting vids of her son sucking her tits since July 2016, so he’s gotta be at least a few years old now, and he’s still doing it. And he still wears a diaper and talks like a baby in these vids; she claims he’s developmentally challenged, but I think she’s just found a clever way to make him seem young so that she can more easily fly under the radar rather than getting shut down by YouTube. That chick’s name is Rose Kelly; her blog says:
R.M. Kelly is a writer, filmmaker and photographer for I Citizen living in the Pacific North West with her son and an assortment of cookie crumbs and building blocks. Rose began her career as a poet before founding NueVer publishing and is now lead editor and writer for our magazine’s travel and health articles. Her love of cheesecake and dirty jokes can often be detected throughout her articles. Follow Kelly on Twiiter. Check out her E-Books at amazon.com/author/rmkelly. Kelly’s popular parenting and lifestyle channels can be found on Youtube.
She’s pretty much just an aging thot who came up with a pretty good way to circumvent YouTube’s rules on showing her tits. She’s got the one channel (The Wholesome Feed) devoted to that, and then another channel (Rose Kelly), devoted to showing her ass as she’s bending over cleaning her house, etc.
This brings me to another topic I’ve been thinking about, which is, in this society that’s so degenerate, people still manage to somehow be moralistic prudes. For example, if you get out of prison and have to see a female counselor or psychologist, she’ll probably be some chick who used to be a raging slut (and maybe still is), but she’ll act like you’re the one who has a problem controlling his sexual impulses, and whose tendencies threaten individuals’ and society’s well-being. Or maybe she won’t be a raging slut; maybe she’ll be a spinster, but she’ll still condone women’s being raging sluts, while wanting to control men’s sexual behavior.
Most chicks who got into psychology are whackjobs. Chances are, if she’s devoting herself mostly to her career, she’s not fulfilling her role of having and raising enough children to keep the population from being depleted, so she’s actually causing more problems than you are. The evolutionary purpose of pedophilia has never really been fully explored; for the most part, people don’t even talk about it as having any such purpose; they just say that it’s a result of wiring getting crossed in your head, but that’s just a theory.
Guess that’s about it.
Dear Secret Service:
I am writing to inform you that in the near future, I will kill the President of the United States of America.
My primary motivation for doing so is that he is the leader of the largest and most dangerous criminal organization in the world – namely, the United States Government. Among the many unlawful activities it engages in is a nationwide protection racket, in which it extorts money from non-consenting citizens, in exchange for “protection” from aggression. If a citizen refuses to pay, then the government itself commits aggression against him, either by stealing his property; kidnapping and falsely imprisoning him; or killing him if he attempts to use weapons to resist.
The criminal organization justifies these shakedowns partly by saying that the majority of voters have indicated their support for the leaders implementing the extortion; and therefore, bearing the imprimatur of the democratic process, such theft is legitimate. This might be true, if all personal property (such as land and incomes) were held in common, with each member of the electorate being a joint owner having an equal right to decide how it shall be disposed of. But property is not held in common, unless the owner has consented to such an arrangement. If I make an agreement with my employer for a certain wage, and fulfill my obligations, then I have a right to the full amount, not just whatever is left after some criminal gang takes its cut. And if I own land, then I have a right to enjoy it without paying rent to the government in the form of “property taxes,” nonpayment of which will result in repossession. Stealing is a criminal act, whether it has the support of one person or a million people.
The government’s thefts are not only immoral, but unnecessary. In the absence of taxpayer-funded police, courts, and defense agencies, citizens and businesses would hire private police, arbitrators, and private defense agencies to provide protection and dispute resolution. These firms, being unburdened by the red tape and dysfunctional bureaucracies that accompany government, would be more efficient and effective than government agencies. Abolishing the government’s compulsory monopoly will allow a competitive marketplace for these services to emerge, resulting in lower prices and better quality. The same goes for other vital services, such as transportation, education, and health care. (If you want a good picture of what government-run universal health care will be like, by the way, check out the quality of the hospitals run by the Dept. of Veterans Affairs.)
Government regulation must also be ended, since it constitutes an infringement on our freedom. Laws supposedly intended to protect workers, such as the minimum wage, actually hurt the poor by pricing them out of the labor market. The government red tape required to operate a business also creates barriers to entrepreneurialism. Regulation of various professions (including mandatory licensures) reduces the number of available professionals, causing the price of important services (such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.) to rise. Immigration restrictions are violating the rights of employers to invite whomever they want onto their property; and in doing so, are hampering the ability of U.S. firms to compete against low-wage countries such as China in the global economy. Regulation accounts for much of the reason why we are entering a recession, and why millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Everyone should be allowed to negotiate whatever contracts they want for purchase or sale of goods and services, without government interference.
Perhaps most disturbing, the government is also steadily chipping away at the right of citizens to bear arms; the whole point of which is to enable them to fight back against an oppressive government. Once the people are disarmed, they will be able to offer no further meaningful resistance. Thus, this is the now-or-never tipping point at which it becomes essential to take up arms against the government.
People often say that it would be better to try to change the system through the political process, rather than resorting to assassination. Unfortunately, the prospects for peaceful reform are dim. The main reason is that most of the intellectuals, who might otherwise form a nucleus of dissent, have been bought off or indoctrinated. The lure of a lucrative, stable job in academia, government or government contracting draws many intellectuals to these fields. In those roles, they are hardly in a position to go around questioning the merits of government’s existence. That would be biting the hand that feeds them. Instead, they use their posts in the state bureaucracy (including the public education system) to help indoctrinate new generations of young people into the statist ideology. There are even government positions, such as the Drug Czar, that are specifically tasked with advocating the government’s current policies at taxpayer expense (see U.S. Code Title 21, Section 1703(b)(12), which requires the Drug Czar to “take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize” drugs). As one cannabis reform activist pointed out, legalizers are essentially paying to oppose themselves.
The statists also have the benefit of political donations from interest groups seeking to profit from feeding at the public trough. The Medicare drug benefit, farm subsidies, etc. are creating whole new classes of citizens who see themselves as financially dependent on the government’s continued largesse. It is almost impossible for even a well-funded libertarian movement to compete effectively against those who have taxpayer funds at their disposal to indoctrinate and/or buy off the electorate.
While it is immoral to kill someone over a small infraction, such as shoplifting a piece of gum, it is morally acceptable to kill someone who is committing armed robbery. As noted, the government is engaging in such robbery as we speak; therefore, the lives of the individuals responsible are forfeit. It makes sense to target those at the top of the organization, so as to decapitate it and thereby cause as much disruption to its activities as possible.
Accordingly, it would seem that the best solution is to use assassinations to overthrow the United States Government by force, so that an anarcho-capitalist system can take its place. I hope that this essay has convinced you of this merits of this idea. If not, I encourage you to read Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto; Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market; and The Ethics of Liberty, which lay out the philosophical, legal, economic and historical arguments for anarcho-capitalism in more detail; and also John Ross’ novel, Unintended Consequences, which describes how such an assassination campaign might take place.
The Secret Service has many agents who have physical access to the President and awareness of his schedule and travel routes, and therefore are in a good position to participate in an assassination. If you would like to collaborate on this, please let me know. I am pretty good with precision rifles, and have been practicing hitting prairie dogs at 1,000 yards in varying wind conditions. The President’s head is larger than the average rodent, so with prior knowledge of his route, I should be able to find a position that will enable me to take him out with one clean shot. However, sniping is always easier when you have a spotter. Therefore, if you are able to take off a day from work to help me, it will be much appreciated. Don’t worry, I can provide a spotter scope and ghillie suit, if you don’t have one.
Alternately, if after reading Rothbard’s books, you’re still not convinced this is a worthy cause, you may feel the need to take action against me. I acknowledge the possibility of this eventuality coming to pass; and if it does, I invite you to come down to my house where we can stage a reenactment of Ruby Ridge, with you playing the role of U.S. Deputy Marshal William Degan. It will be interesting to see how many of you die before you figure out where I’m shooting from. I have some pretty good night vision gear, so we can even give this a try at 3 AM if your busy schedule makes that the most convenient time. I’ll be waiting for you.
4825 Thunderbird Circle, #H
Boulder, CO 80303
In a Free Dixie, it would be prohibited for anyone to (1) legitimately, and in good faith, argue for the legalization of pedophilia, (2) create, maintain or possess child pornography and/or (3) engage in sexual acts with a child. Anyone caught violating any of these rules would be charged, arrested and tried in a court of law and decided upon by a jury of their peers (by peers, I mean citizens as the Founders intended). The verdict is either innocence or guilt, there are no mistrials and there are no appeals.
An innocent man or woman walks free.
A guilty pedophile get’s the rope in the town square.
Do it, bitch.
You don’t actually have the guts to do anything but come into my house and steal my hard drives, though.
This stuff my mom keeps bringing up about how Piper will want to know me, or us, is kinda speculative. We’re not even next in line to take care of her if anything should happen to the Misciagnas; she would probably go to foster care before she came to us. Like, we would probably have to be the last people left alive in the country after a nuclear holocaust before we could raise her.
I could write more on this topic, but I’m kinda tired. Anyway, this human housepet stuff, where I exist mostly to keep my mom company, is for the birds. Neither of us really have much of a purpose at this point.
The bottom line is, nobody wants to hang out with a dude who doesn’t have a mission in life. And I’m lacking a mission right now.
6 February 2019
Lieutenant Governor Fairfax:
With regard to the current “scandal” you’re going through, I wanted to say, I hope you stay strong and don’t cave in to the pressure to resign.
You’re not the only one who has had to deal with a situation like this. Many men have faced similar false accusations. But the reality is that anyone could come up with a story like the one that your accuser is telling about you. It’s not even all that realistic of a story. She wrote, “He then forced his penis into my mouth.” I don’t believe that happened, since if she didn’t want to give oral sex, she could have just kept her mouth closed. What is she saying, that you pried her mouth open? That’s ridiculous.
Men these days are in a no-win situation, where if they don’t have sex, they’re made fun of for being virgins, and if they do have sex, they’re accused of rape. It used to be that women would marry early and for the most part only have sex within marriage; and that the marital exception to the rape laws served as a protection by which men could avoid being falsely accused. Now, men are in a perilous situation, since a lot of casual sex is going on and it’s assumed that if a woman gives a “compelling narrative” of an alleged assault, she must be telling the truth about what happened behind closed doors.
If you resign, that just encourages women to make more false accusations against men, and it encourages organizations like the National Organization for Women to pretend to believe these claims, for political advantage. I think you should stick to your guns and refuse to quit, even if people give you a hard time.
I always hear people say, “I can’t pay for this website if it gets much bigger.”
Well guys, ~8 months online and I’m glad to say it’s been worth it.
But we’ve grown in that time. A lot.
Between the constant upgrades to the servers, the monthly costs are now almost too high to keep on my own (even with guest ads).
It never is that expensive. How do you eat? How do you have a roof over your head? That same income can be applied to running whatever website you have.
If you say, “Someone else pays my bills, and doesn’t give me an allowance,” the fact remains, whoever that is, you could ask them for money. If you don’t have an employer, you have some benefactor or another who presumably cares enough about you and what you do, to keep you alive, so why would they not mind chipping in a few bucks for your website?
I also agree that incels don’t have any money to donate. If they had money, they’d be betabuxxing their way into some pussy.