Archive | May 2016

Legalizing Hate

In the 1920s, a bunch of conservative Christians got a wild hair up their asses and decided to outlaw alcohol across the country. The result was widespread disaster. What they learned was that–if people want to do something, then making it illegal for them to do it merely shoves them into the underground, to the Black Market, and away from the watchful, scrutinizing gaze of society. Al Capone and his kind were products of Prohibition, because people still wanted to drink, and sending them into the shadows–where the social constraints of decency, cooperation, and respect didn’t exist–turned them into vicious criminals. In the shadows below society, might equals right, and power is the only thing that matters. As Jack Sparrow said, “The only things that matter are these: what a man can do, and what a man can’t do.” That is the only rule of the underground.

Society rejects that. In fact, the distinction between society and the underground is that we have constraints in place that hold back that mindset: we have rules, written and unwritten, and we decided thousands of years ago that cooperation, mutual agreement, and consent were infinitely better ways of doing things than force, violence, and coercion. When cooperation, mutual agreement, and consent break down, you end up with “societies” identical to the American prison system internals–rule by the strong, where might equals right.

Nothing would win the Drug War against the Mexican Cartels and Colombian Cartels quite as effectively as would legalizing drugs. The Mexican druglords are simply the Al Capones of today. How did we get rid of the Al Capones last time? Did we throw more and more cops at them until they were finally defeated? No–the more cops we threw at them, the less effective the cops were. We got rid of them by repealing Prohibition, by bringing the manufacture and distribution of alcohol back out of the shadows, allowing it to happen beneath the scrutinizing gaze of a society that is built on cooperation, agreement, and consent.

Why am I getting into all of this?

Because we know… We know that outlawing Behavior X when people want to partake in that behavior will not prevent that behavior from happening. It merely shoves it into the underground, where the social constraints don’t exist. If the last 40 years have taught us anything, it should be that it’s impossible to send enough cops and armed forces in to put a stop to the behavior we’ve outlawed–it’s gonna happen. People are gonna do drugs, and it doesn’t matter how much military might we use or how many people we arrest. It’s simply going to happen. Outlawing the behavior does nothing to curb the desire to undertake that behavior.

I’m speaking of hate toward LGBT people. In the modern United States, it’s dangerously close to illegal for conservative Christians to express their hatred of LGBT people. A lot of people would say that this is a good thing, but we have to look beyond the surface, and we have to realize that: Outlawing the behavior does nothing to curb the desire to undertake that behavior.

Making it illegal for them to say that they hate LGBT people, and to act in accordance with that hate (as long as they don’t use force, violence, or coercion, obviously) isn’t going to help, because the hatred remains, and because the desire to express that hatred remains. All you’ve succeeded in doing, when you make it illegal for them to openly express their hatred, is shoved them into the underground, where social mores don’t exist. All you’ve accomplished is pushing them out of the light, where the best they can do is hate speech, and pushed them into the shadows, where the only thing that matters is what a person can do, and what a person can’t do.

These people are going to express their hatred. They can’t help it. Just as people couldn’t help it but drink alcohol, just as people can’t help it but do drugs, and just as people couldn’t help it but get back alley abortions when abortion was illegal, they can’t help it now. Have you learned nothing from human history? The hatred they feel goes nowhere when it is outlawed. Their desire to express it goes nowhere. The only difference is that they have to express it in the shadows, because they aren’t allowed to do so openly.

Instead of speaking out and saying that they hate gay people, instead you have five trucks filled with people pulling into the driveway of a transgender person’s yard. What are you going to do to protect me then, society? Your laws will not protect me when my yard is filled with a bunch of raucous, drunk people with guns, swept up in the mob mentality and desperate to express their hatred in the shadows of the underground–the only place they can express their behavior? Your laws will not save me then. Your words on the Internet will not help me then.

“Call the police” you say? Oh, I can imagine how helpful that would be in a place like this. It’s a pretty good chance that one of the people taking a hammer to my front door is related to the cop who would show up. Even if not, with the average police response time being so high, by the time the police arrive, I’ll already be scattered on the pavement, dragged by chains behind someone’s truck. Your cops won’t save me. Your cops can’t save me.

You can’t plant a cop in my driveway 24/7. And even if you could, what the fuck would that do to help me? When the mob of 50 stormed the jail in Alabama and pulled out those three black men, and then hanged them, there were cops present, and the cops tried to stop the mob. Face it, society. You CANNOT protect me. You couldn’t keep people from drinking alcohol when you made it illegal, you couldn’t keep people from doing drugs when it is illegal, you couldn’t keep people from getting abortions when they were illegal, you couldn’t keep people from being gay when it was illegal, and you can’t keep people from expressing hatred when it is illegal. One by one, you’ve been shown for thousands of years that you cannot eliminate outlawed behavior, and you cannot protect people from the underground forces of human nature. You’ve been shown how outlawing alcohol produced Al Capone, you’ve been shown how outlawing drugs produced the Mexican drug lords, you’ve been shown how outlawing abortions produced back alley abortions. Do I really have to die for you to realize that you can’t outlaw behavior to put a stop to it?

I live in Mississippi; I’m transgender in Mississippi. These people that you talk about–they are distant ideas to you. They are neighbors to me. I buy groceries from them, gas from them, and fix their computers. They surround me. You’re antagonizing these people and shoving them into the underground, away from the watchful eyes of society–an act that poses no risk to you. It won’t be you, in New York and California that these people drag from their home and beat to death with a tire iron.

It will be me.

So I’m not telling you. I’m ordering you:

Legalize hate.

If you continue pushing them into the underground, then my blood will be on your hands when they come for me. Because we’ve seen it for thousands of years: keep behavior in the open. Allow them to fulfill their desires in the open, and the consequences will be minimal. They won’t take part in violence, because society is watching them. Outlaw their ability to express their hatred, and you do nothing more than ensure that you won’t be there when they do express it.

Libertarians, You Fools

I can’t believe that you went Johnson/Weld, Libertarians. There’s nothing “libertarian” about either of these. Gary Johnson is exactly like Rand Paul, but he falls just slightly closer to liberty than does Rand; they are both statists. Gary Johnson abandons the principles of liberty when we’re talking about behavior that he really, really, really doesn’t like, and Weld–I honestly don’t know much about Weld, but I can tell you that he’s not a Libertarian, based on what I know of his past Second Amendment stances.

This is the second time that you’ve nominated Gary Johnson. Near the beginning of the election, I was a Johnson supporter, and I didn’t care that he’d tried and failed to rally people to his cause. But a lot has changed since then. For one, Johnson has revealed himself to be a statist and anti-liberty.

For fuck’s sake, Libertarians! There is no ambiguity here! The platform is clear. Gary Johnson is demonstrably a statist: 

Rejecting free market principles and rejecting the Libertarian mantra of “Let the free market sort this out” in favor of “No, we should make that illegal because I don’t approve of that behavior” is fucking Statist through and through. And that’s your presidential candidate. A statist.

But I’m not here to rail against Johnson again. Nor am I here to criticize the Libertarian Party for falling closer to Classical Liberalism than actual Libertarianism; nor am I going to criticize the LP for not falling as closely to liberty as do I. Seeing as I’m an honest-to-fuck Anarchist, of course I’m going to be a more extreme advocate of liberty than that. I’m not here to talk about any of that.

I’m here to talk about how foolish you are to have done this.

You nominated Gary Johnson in the hopes of appealing to conservatives who are disenfranchised with Donald Trump, and in the hopes of appealing to liberals who hate Hillary but will have nowhere to go when Sanders is inevitably defeated. To achieve this, you’ve selected the candidate most likely to appeal to those conservatives.

Libertarian Principles lie sacrificed on the altar of mass appeal.

Even if Johnson’s credibility as an actual Libertarian wasn’t questionable (and it is, because he isn’t one), he does not stand a chance against Donald Trump. Trump ran right over Rand Paul, and he’ll run right over Rand Paul 2.0, aka Gary Johnson. The only one of the main candidates who stood a chance against Trump was John McAfee. Even if Johnson does manage to not get steamrolled by Trump, he will never nail down and overcome Hillary.

I don’t even support McAfee any longer, but he was your only chance.

You’ve squandered this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. With huge masses of Republicans unhappy with their candidate, and a huge number of Democrats about to be unhappy with their candidate, you’ve chosen the most uninteresting, uninspiring, un-Libertarian candidate that you had. Johnson has been fighting for years to get into a mainstream debate with the main two parties, and he has routinely failed. You never had a better chance, and you’ve selected the guy who has proven consistently too weak to succeed. While the circumstances are different enough this year that I don’t deny he has a better chance than ever, he remains the least likely.

You’ve proven yourselves to be hopelessly attached to Gary Johnson. Even when he reveals himself to be a statist, you cling to him. Simply for the sake of tradition and mass appeal, you cling to this statist who neither understands liberty nor the free market.

I am glad that I gave up on the Libertarian Party months ago, when I realized that it had been conquered by classical liberals and conservatives. And it has. The very fact that a Libertarian Presidential candidate can stand there and say that he thinks the Non-Aggression Pact is stupid… and not be instantly rejected… is ipso facto proof that conservatives and classical liberals have conquered the part. The pledge to non-aggression is required to join the fucking party! And one of your biggest candidates rejects it! And your selected candidate clearly rejects it, as he’s more than willing to use the state to enforce his moral standards, rather than letting liberty and the free market take care of it.

Change. Your. Name.

You are the Classical Liberal party at best. At best, you are the Classical Liberal party. Realistically, you’re just Conservatives who fall a little closer to Liberty. I don’t mean this to apply to everyone. I’ve talked with Thomas Knapp and Raymond Agnew and other prominent grassroots libertarians enough to know that there are some among you who still hold true to the principles of libertarianism. But you wonderful, principled people are too few in number to outweigh the steady influx of conservatives.

I remember when Gary Johnson said that he wished the Republicans would try to usurp the Libertarian Party to curtail a Trump nomination. They didn’t have to, did they Gary? Because they’d already succeeded in doing so. You are the Republican. You governed New Mexico as a Republican Governor. If you want my support, Gary Johnson, then you and I are going to have to have a long conversation about liberty.

I know that you don’t listen to people when they tweet to you and comment to you. Austin Petersen does. And, in fact, I’ve come pretty close to being an Austin Petersen supporter. Because it takes courage and principles to get in the thick of it and discuss things with people, and Austin Petersen has twice stood up for himself against me. It doesn’t matter to me that he and I disagree on abortion and the NAP–I respect that. I don’t support him, but I’d support him before I supported you.

McAfee has routinely engaged me, especially when I was a McAfee supporter. You, Gary Johnson–you have consistently ignored me, even when I am clearly right. You have let your supporters be eviscerated trying to defend you, and my allegations and rebuttals of your positions continue to stand.

I invite you to join the Anarchist Shemale on a podcast, Governor Johnson. Let’s clear the air once and for all. Explain to me how you aren’t a statist. Prove to me that you understand the connection between the free market, economics, and liberty. Prove to me that you understand the value of the NAP and how the rest of libertarianism is built from it. The onus is on you. If you want my support, you know where to find me.

Don’t get me wrong–I know that you won’t. I’m too small of a fish for you to worry with. But I won’t support you any other way, because you’re focused on the Mainstream Media. You’re trying to reach the average American. You’re not spending any time trying to convince us that you’re a Libertarian; you’re focusing your efforts on trying to convince mainstream America that you’re their candidate.

You missed a step. We’re your core supporters. Before you move on to mainstream America, you have to convince us that you’re our candidate. And I don’t care how many people are willing to sacrifice Libertarian principles to nominate the candidate with the most mass appeal. I have a few simple questions for you.

  1. Why do you propose to outlaw the right of businesses to choose their clientele based on religious considerations? Why are you unwilling to allow the free market to act on such businesses?
  2. Why do you think a 20% cut to all government spending matters to me? We are libertarians and anarchists. We want these institutions abolished, not reduced.
  3. Why do you propose leaving distinctly statist methodologies to be enacted at the state level? Do you not realize that statism is statism at all levels of the state?

Death To Ads: Save the Internet

Ads are a problem on the Internet. And while I trust that all of my supporters have seen my frequent calls for them to use Ghostery, Adblock, and NoScript to restore their browsing experience to something that they control, ads aren’t going anywhere. Just because we aren’t seeing them doesn’t mean they aren’t there, so let’s clear the air now, in light of a mobile carrier working on a platform that will block ads from being delivered to mobile devices, something that this guy decided to spout ignorance about:

http://www.slashgear.com/threes-ad-blocking-initiative-could-kill-the-internet-27441972/

Don’t click that unless you’re using AdBlock. This guy makes it a point to make it known that he has the right to sell you as a commodity if you click his article, otherwise you’re stealing from him. I’ll provide you with the important bits so that you don’t have to be bought and sold by advertisers. I keep saying that. Let’s explain it.

Why Advertising Is Bullshit

There are these invisible things all over the Internet called “trackers.” When I say that they’re “all over the Internet,” that is precisely what I mean. Just about every website that you visit uses at least one tracker, and the average seems to be somewhere around a dozen. However, I’ve seen some go past one hundred:

Each one of those things in the purple box is a tracker.

Each one of those things in the purple box is a tracker.

What do these trackers do? Well… they track you. They pay attention to what you click on, what seems to interest you, and they store that information. You can see what an advantage this is. One such tracker is Google AdSense. Just think of the benefit this offers to advertisers! Every website that uses Google AdSense collects data on you. Did you click a football article there? Did you click a clothes shopping article there? Did you click an article asking how to remove stains from a football jersey? AdSense has logged all of that, and it is using that information to determine what kind of ads to serve you. So when you see that ad for a brand new football jersey (Stainproof!) you’ll know why.

These trackers are everywhere, and there are literally thousands of them. Some are more innocuous. Google Analytics is one such tracker. It’s used by webmasters such as myself to find out who is visiting their website. It’s all anonymous data, and it doesn’t buy or sell you. It just tells me that x% of people visiting my podcast are between 20 and 35, y% are female, z% are white, w% are from the United States. Analytics generally aren’t bad, and I’ll be the first to tell you that I use Analytics. Beyond that, I don’t have any control over WordPress Analytics, because it can’t be disabled on a WordPress blog hosted at WordPress.com.

Advertising trackers are a different thing, though. Google AdSense and the thousands of others are constantly looking over your shoulder and spying on you, keeping track of what you’re interested in. Why did you think Google was giving away Chrome for free? Chrome is probably their most profitable industry, and Google Search is damned useful. They want you logged into your Google account. They know everything you search, every website you go to, every interest you have, and they’re the ones running AdWords and AdSense.

AdWords is a Google Search feature, and I’ve used it in the past. It basically is one of the “paid ads” you see if you search for something on Google. It does not involve trackers. If you search for “anarchist blog,” for example, Google Adwords would have shown you the ad for my blog at the top. This is a very different thing from spying on you, storing that information, and selling it to advertisers.

The key thing to note is that the trackers and advertisers are not the same people, more often than not. Kelloggs wants to advertise, Spalding wants to advertise, Game of Thrones wants to advertise. These three products and manufacturers don’t run trackers. So what do they do? They turn to the trackers and say “We need to run ads.” The trackers reply, “Well, we’re in use on this percentage of websites, so we are able to refine the interests of the people we track very nicely.”

It’s all about how successfully the trackers can get the right ads to the right people. It doesn’t do Kelloggs any good at all to have their ads served to people who only eat organic, after all, and the trackers are there to prevent that from happening. It sounds great, but look more closely. What, exactly, are the trackers offering? What are they using as leverage? What are they selling?

You.

They are using you as leverage. They are buying and selling you. They are spying on you. It is as though Kelloggs has hired Private Investigators all over the country to go out and spy on everyone, that way they know exactly to whom to deliver their flyers. Does that sound like something you would approve of? Would you approve of having a P.I. staring in through your window with binoculars, jotting down in his notebook, “Oh, she likes Frosted Flakes, does she…? But not Cheerios…? Very interesting…”

But they’re invisible, and that’s what makes them a problem. The websites using these trackers–they’re not telling you about it, because they don’t have to. It’s completely invisible. They are server-side PHP scripts; they don’t use your bandwidth, and they don’t hog your system resources. They can be blocked, however, and no addon is better for that than Ghostery 5.4.x. Don’t get 6.0+; it sucks.

Stop these trackers from spying on you without your knowledge or consent. Did we ever consent to these trackers? No. We had no idea they were there. The average person still doesn’t. The average person has literally no idea that almost every webpage they visit is loaded with these things that are keeping track of their behavior and interests, storing that info in a server somewhere, and selling it.

And then use AdBlock Plus on top of it, so that you don’t have to see the ads, either. It’s a two-pronged attack. Ghostery stops the trackers. AdBlock Plus stops the ads themselves. I honestly don’t remember the last time that I saw an ad on the Internet. My browsing experience is phenomenal. No ads, no annoying popups. I also use NoScript, but it’s unrelated to this area of anonymity and privacy. There’s no need to get into every single addon and extension that I use.

Anyway, so the website decides to run ads to pay for its bandwidth and stuff, but why would an advertiser want to run ads there? Kelloggs doesn’t have time to visit every single website to check to see if it could serve its ads there and be fruitful. Ever wonder why you received a Chess.com ad on a tvtropes article? Now you know–the trackers determine what ad you see. Kellogs says “We want our ad to appear to interested people,” and the tracker uses its network of websites to make that happen.

So that’s why this entire system is bullshit. Let’s move on to the article, and look at some particularly wrong things.

Obviously, I write for a website that doesn’t charge people a fee to read each article.

I respectfully disagree. You charged them. You just did so invisibly. People absolutely paid to read your articles; they just didn’t pay you directly. They agreed (unknowingly) to allow you to sell them to advertisers. They absolutely paid.

They believe that it is the responsibility of the advertiser to shoulder the cost of transmitting the advertisement, and not the end-user that views it.

This is actually a fantastic point, and not something I’d ever considered before, because I use Sprint and have unlimited data, a plan that I will be grandfather’d with until the day I die, because there is no way they’re getting me to give it up. Honestly I typically use about 120 GB of mobile data each month. Anyway.

Considering that a great deal of ads are videos, they can use up quite a lot of bandwidth. Virtually all of them use some sort of scripting and images to catch people’s attention; if they didn’t, then “Allow non-intrusive advertising” would never have become a thing with Adblock Plus. Don’t pretend, dude. Ads are obnoxious. They’re somewhat less obnoxious today than they were a decade ago, but the reason for that is because the average bandwidth has increased, not because the ads are any less flashy.

Ads on Youtube default to 1080p and cannot be lowered. You have no choice but to watch the add in 1080p@60Hz. That takes up quite a lot of bandwidth. Of course, Adblock Plus blocks Youtube ads, as well, so it’s a non-issue for my readers (right? :D). While ads on other sites that take video form may not be so obnoxiously HD, they always Auto-Play, and they always download. Considering that mobile data is at a premium with most carriers, visiting 50 websites, all of which have a video ad, can easily consume 100+ megabytes of data.

Yet another way that the end-user is paying for the advertising and the website.

So Three states that the customer shouldn’t have to pay for the data used to download the ad, and this is one reason that they are blocking nearly all of them (the only exceptions are certain types of ads on social media). This makes absolutely no sense, when you understand how data is tracked and paid for by both ISPs and hosting providers, as explained above.

The author threw out his own explanation for how all this works, but trust me when I tell you that a) I have no vested interest in the matter and am impartial; b) I am correct; c) he is incorrect; and d) he somehow thinks that the data being downloaded to the end-user’s phone doesn’t constitute usage of the end-user’s mobile data, despite the fact that… you know… it obviously does. Everything that gets downloaded to a mobile phone uses up a portion of its mobile data, including the website itself, including all of the background stuff, and including the ads. The ad could not be served to the end-user if it did not download to their device. The very fact that the ad is served proves that it used the user’s data. And since users typically have mobile bandwidth caps and pay very high monthly charges for mobile data, these ads can be quite expensive for the end-user, especially those 1080@60 Youtube ads.

What really doesn’t make sense is that Three seems to think that ads and websites are two separate entities.

They are.

I suggest you look into how ads, trackers, and websites actually work.

If you choose to browse a website without the ads, you are quite literally taking money from the website’s owners. Site owners must pay for the bandwidth that you use to browse their sites, and if you’ve blocked their only source of income, they’re losing money every time you click on a page.

That’s the last of the things I’m going to quote, because it’s such utter bullshit that there’s no point in continuing. He’s blatantly wrong in several ways, and this is simply the most egregious. So let me explain to this dude how all of this came about.

In the early days of the Internet, websites were static webpages made by creative people who simply wanted to share their content. There were no ads. It was just a free exchange of ideas. Some portions of this early Internet remains: seanbaby.com is a terrific example. These were the days of Guestbooks, Geocities, and all that. It was literally just a place for people to go to share their stuff. No one was even thinking about getting paid for it. It was simply about sharing.

Youtube followed the same arc. When YouTube began, it was simply a place for creative people to go and share things that they made and wanted to share. No one was thinking about getting paid for it. It was solely about making and sharing content.

Then people realized that it could be monetized without end-users even noticing. This was done with advertising (and, later, trackers). Remember the early ads? It didn’t matter what your interests were. They were more like television ads–indiscriminate in who they appeared to. When I was 21 and watching Youtube, I was served ads for Bounty laundry detergent and shit. It was tremendously ineffective, and the monetization rate was very low–it simply wasn’t an effective way to advertise. Thus came in trackers.

However, some people who developed large followings because of their creativity and good videos suddenly had a lot of leverage–their subscribers–and quickly found that could be turned into revenue, especially with the new targeted advertising brought about by trackers. Again, this happened to the Internet as a whole, as well. Small channels and websites fell into obscurity as a few titans came forward. It didn’t matter that the large channels and websites didn’t intend to crush the small ones; it simply happened, because they couldn’t keep up. It’s the tendency of all things–growth was proportional. JonTron will never come close to PewDiePie, Angry Joe will never come close to the Angry Video Game Nerd. Just as Facebook, Yahoo, and Google dominated–

Speaking of Facebook and Google, you’ll notice they don’t run trackers. They don’t need to. First of all, most people willingly fill out their profile and tell Facebook’s hidden trackers everything about them that there is to know. Facebook’s trackers are built literally into the website itself, and the same is true for Google search.

Then something changed.

Suddenly the perspective had shifted.

It was no longer about making and sharing content and hopefully making enough money to thrive and prosper. It was about making money. Suddenly, we owed them this money. It was a classic bait and switch. “Here’s some free content,” they said. “Oh, but we’re going to do this so we can get paid,” they said a few years later. Then, a few years later, “You owe us this money! Or you’re stealing from us!”

Forgetting, it seems, that the entire reason all of this came about was that people simply wanted to make and share stuff. If SlashGear has a problem paying for their upkeep and bandwidth, then they should implement an optional Subscriber system, or turn to Patreon. Be upfront with your supporters, SlashGear. Don’t buy and sell them behind their back, saying, “But you’ve enjoyed all this free content! You didn’t realize it? When you read our article, you signed a contract in blood that you thereby owed us!

You don’t get to serve up free content and then accuse people of stealing it.

I want you to think about that, SlashGear. First, you said you give people free content. Then you accused people of stealing it. Now, I ask you, which is the case? Because they can’t both be true. It’s impossible to steal that which is free. You can’t have it both ways. You’re either providing free content, or you’re not; if it’s free, then it can’t be stolen.

But it was never free, not if it was supported by ads. The readers paid. They just weren’t aware of how much they were paying. In fact, you stole from them.

The death of ads will not be the death of the Internet. It wouldn’t be the death of Youtube, either, despite the content creators out there asking their subscribers to disable adblock and turn themselves into commodities. Quite the opposite: the Internet existed long before Internet users were bought and sold as commodities, and it will continue to exist long after they’ve taken back their right to privacy that you stole from them without so much as a warning.

 

A Study on Mob Behavior

The week has been interesting.

For those unaware, I posted a video heavily criticizing the Liberal Redneck Trae Crowder for being a disrespectful bigot and racist. Before you click Play, I’m gonna go ahead and warn you: if you’re okay with insulting Christians, or you’re okay with being racist against white people, then you’re not going to like what I have to say, and trust me when I tell you that you’ll be happier if you just don’t watch the video.

However, if your mind is truly open and not chained to one ideology or another, then you’ll probably like the video, because… well, everything I said is irrefutable. The only point of contention is that I was disrespectful of Trae, and that’s a valid point except for one consideration: Trae and like-minded people (liberals and “progressives”) have power and authority. I don’t, and neither do American conservatives. A member of a majority openly disrespecting and being bigoted of a minority is a very different thing from a member of a powerless minority being disrespectful and bigoted, and a very different thing from someone who is a minority of one being disrespectful. The balance of power is a supremely important consideration, and there is no doubt that the coalition of blacks, hispanics, LGBT, millennials, etc. that is the Democratic Party/Liberal union is tremendously more powerful than conservative Christians. Trae himself acknowledges it: “This is our world now, and you’re not getting it back.”

He’s not wrong. It is “our” world now, and conservatives are not going to get it back. And that’s my problem with his disrespect and bigotry against them. This is our world; i.e., we are the ones in power. It is absolutely, unequivocally, and indisputably our responsibility to protect the rights of the minority, no matter how much we disagree with them. No matter how disrespectful they are, we are the people in power, and thus the onus is upon us to respect them, because they lack the means to fight for respect.

It is well recognized throughout human history and Western Society that is the responsibility of a majority to care for and protect the rights of a minority. This is the year 2016–I should not have to explain this. I don’t care how disrespectful the minority is. They are a minority. They are outnumbered. They lack power. If we fail to respect them, then they are oppressed–by definition, because that’s what oppression is. What we are seeing is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and it is being done solely on the basis that these people have different beliefs.

I can’t believe I’m having to point out that this is wrong. It was wrong when they were the majority, and it’s wrong now that you are the majority. Oppression is always wrong. And if the majority group, if the group in power, is not respecting the rights of the minority, is not acknowledging the relevance of the minority’s dissenting opinions and beliefs, then the minority is, by the very definition, being oppressed, marginalized, and discriminated against. That this has to be said… is horrifying. Everyone should know this. It should be a given.

Have people simply not realized that conservative Christians are the new minority? The other night someone commented about how marginalized LGBT people are in the United States. What? Are you kidding me? Marginalized? Our issues take center stage. We get whatever we want, and conservatives get nothing. No one is allowed to stand against us. No one is allowed to stand against us. We, this group that represents only FOUR PERCENT OF THE POPULATION according to the latest data, have almost unfettered power to push our agenda. We have far, far more power than conservatives. We are Mike Tyson, and they are infants.

We have this power because we allied with women. This immediately severed their majority, which was once based on race. There’s no doubt about it–it once was based on race; it was a white majority. That died with the Feminist Movement, and women fled the Republican Party en masse to the Democrat Party. Black people vote with the Democrat Party somewhere between 80 and 95% of the time. That’s an extraordinary majority. Consider that at best 50% of white men are conservative, and it shouldn’t be hard for you to do the math.

There’s a reason no one is talking about it. And it’s because it shatters the idea that you’re oppressed, and the liberal agenda needs that. They did this shit consciously, and Republicans pointed it out decades ago. They pandered. They didn’t offer equality. They offered benefits. To all of us. And benefits are tempting, and we were tempted. We were systematically recruited and used by the liberal authoritarian agenda that is best represented by Bernie Sanders–let there be no doubt. His sudden appearance as a Democrat is not coincidence.

If even 50% of white men are conservatives, they are still vastly outnumbered by the women to whom Democrats promised benefits, disguising them as “equality.” The reason this distinction matters is because benefits don’t promote equality–they continue divisiveness, but shift the balance of power. One example: LGBT people wanted equality. Now you can receive a government grant to go to college just for being LGBT. This, by definition, means that being straight disqualifies you for that scholarship. It is inherently divisive. It continues the group-based division of benefits, and brings us no nearer to equality. It only shifts the balance of power. It only changes who benefits from the imbalance. The imbalance remains. The bigotry remains. The only thing that changes… is who is the victim.

Open your eyes.

The problem is that we divide the world into terms of Us and Them. As I wrote in the last article, “Them” isn’t really the problem. Identifying too strongly with Us is the problem, because it starts to demand our loyalty, our obedience, and our conformity. We can no longer think of individuals and break away from the group; we have to think like the group, go along with the group, and do as the group does. If we don’t…

Well, just see the comments I received on that video.

Belonging to that group shackles your mind. It forces you to conform at all cost, no matter how fucked up the group’s behavior is. You’re not allowed to think differently. And if you do think differently, you better keep it to yourself, because the mob will turn on you instantly, and if we have learned anything in these 7000 years of society, it is that the mob is vicious.

Please watch that video. “Conformity” by TheraminTrees. It is exceptional, and it is the reason that I see what I see now. And there can be very little doubt that what I see… is what is.

As I titled the post, I have been vindicated. I am speaking largely about this podcast:

http://ariadimezzo.podbean.com/e/fft-ep-08-square-peg-round-hole/

…wherein I discussed the mob mentality, and the motivations behind the comments that I was receiving. I discussed how they viewed the entire world as consisting of triangles and circles, and how they literally couldn’t understand that I’m neither a triangle nor a circle–I’m a square. Their minds are so shackled by the mob mentality, by the Us And Them bullshit, by the false dichotomies… that they are incapable of understanding the obvious fact that I am neither a circle nor a triangle.

Whose side are you on?

That’s the most recent comment to my video. It is an absolute vindication of everything that I have said. It is a thorough vindication of the video itself, and it is an absolute vindication of my assessment of the comments, the mob mentality, and their infantile, limited, and narrow worldview that shoved everyone into one of two groups: us… and them…, and fell into a group that demanded such loyalty, conformity, and obedience that they have become incapable of entertaining any idea that goes against the group.

They must break their minds free of those chains. They simply must.

Do not conform.

Think for yourself.

Question authority.

The Absurdity of Citizenship

It’s hard to find any ground on which one can stand in regard to the issue of immigration, illegal aliens, and citizenship. The first real snag that comes to mind in thinking about citizenship is that it’s probably the most asinine concept we human beings have ever come up with. If we place two houses along the Mexican/U.S. border, one house exactly one foot to the North of the border (and thus in the United States) and the other exactly one foot to the South of the border (and thus in Mexico), this difference of a mere two feet become a distance that might as well be two thousand miles.

A person born in the house one foot south of the border will be a citizen of Mexico and visiting his neighbor two feet to the north on a whim would be a crime. I have a hard time finding anything more inane than labeling people based on the geographic location of their birth, especially when the label is theoretically so clarified that a distance of one foot can be the difference between a Citizen and a Criminal.

I find it hard to believe that there is anyone who truly believes that the person born one foot to the south is any different from the person born one foot to the north. Even over a span of millions of years, natural selection and adaptation wouldn’t cause two human beings who were geographically separated by only two feet to show any real differences. Is there some difference between the two people that should label one as a criminal for not filling out mounds of paperwork just to travel to California? Of course there isn’t.

Since one’s geographic location at birth has no more impact on a person than the position of the constellation Aquarius at the time of birth, it follows that the only real difference between these two people would be the label that we stick on them: one is, by an arbitrary distance, a Citizen and the other is, by an arbitrary distance, not a citizen. These are simply labels, though, and we can choose to apply or not to apply them however we see fit.

We’ve chosen so far to apply them, despite the fact that a person’s birthplace has no impact on the person beyond that label that we apply. We can’t use the argument that the person’s parents weren’t citizens of the United States, either, because the same problem applies to their supposedly being non-citizens (I.e., we’d be judging their parents’ citizenship status based on the location of their birth).

All in all, there are only two differences between a “natural U.S. citizen” and a “non-U.S. citizen.” The first difference is that the latter’s parents were not U.S. citizens. The second difference is that the latter was born in a geographic location that is not part of the arbitrarily-defined borders of the United States. To the first, judging the individual’s parents as “non-U.S. citizens” is based exclusively upon their birthplaces and their parents’ birthplaces and their parents’ birthplaces, ad infinitum. Since this is asinine from the start—because a person’s birthplace is probably the most irrelevant detail we can use in judging a person—we have to look at the second reason the individual is a “non-U.S. citizen.” And… look at that! The second reason is exactly the same as the first reason: it is based entirely on a person’s birthplace and is completely inane and arbitrary!

Is a man born in California any different from a man born in New York? Is a woman born in Florida any different from a woman born in Washington? Of course not, to both questions. There will be cultural and manner differences, but these will be slight. They’ll also be insignificant, having no impact whatsoever in how society “values” that particular individual.

I am stricken with confusion when I think about the fact that the “Land of the Free” doesn’t grant citizenship to everyone who enters its borders. Why should we have requirements that must be met before a person can become a citizen of this country? The tests that must be passed are difficult enough that the vast majority of naturally-born U.S. citizens would fail them. Should we not give the Citizenship Test to everyone, even those who are born within the United States—if we are going to give it to anyone? Should we deport to somewhere else everyone who fails the test, even if they were born in the United States? If not, why should we deport to somewhere else anyone who fails the test? Why require a test at all?

Natural U.S. Citizens didn’t earn their Citizenship. I didn’t earn my citizenship. I was born within the United States, and that apparently gives me the right to live on the part of the Earth that is called the United States. I did nothing to earn my Citizenship. If I had been born as a Mexican, then it would be a crime for me to live on the part of the Earth that is called the United States. What madness is this? If anyone must “earn” their Citizenship, then everyone must earn their Citizenship. If not everyone has to earn it, then no one should have to earn it.

Why should my being born in the United States make it any easier for me to live and function in the United States? Is it because I pay taxes? Well, if we got rid of this asinine Citizenship concept, then anyone who wanted to could come to the United States and be equally qualified, because they’d have to find a job and with that job they’d be required, just like everyone else, to pay taxes.

We shouldn’t simply allow anyone who wants to come to the United States and be a Citizen. We should go further and treat everyone on the planet with the same rights, privileges, and respect that we would extend to other United States citizens. We shouldn’t place any significance in where a person was born or what the citizenship statuses of that person’s parents were, because this is the most irrelevant and meaningless factor that goes into defining “who” a person is.

Citizenship as a whole divides the world into “Us and Them,” which, if you pay attention to the things I write and say, is a gigantic problem and a mentality that must be abolished. That mindset is an abomination to our species; we are better than that. Citizenship and immigration divide the world into two groups: Us… and Them.

If you ask a conservative what their problem is with illegal immigration, they’ll rattle off some bullshit about how they don’t like it when immigrants break the law. You can easily reveal their underlying “Us and Them” mentality by following up with a simple question: “Okay, so what if we just made it legal for them to walk over here? What if we got rid of all the red tape, and let them just walk over here legally?” They’ll reject the idea. They’ll scream about how “them dang illegals, they done went and

jerbs

What are they really saying, though? They’re saying “No, we want to be able to control who allowed to be one of Us. We want to control who can be in our group. We want to keep them out. We want to keep Us doing better than them.” I mean… There’s no other way to slice it. That’s simply what they are saying.

Detour: Me and “They”

I say “they” a lot. It’s something I’ve known for a while, and I’ve just kinda ignored it. I criticize people all the time, though, for thinking in “Us and Them” ways. What’s the difference between them saying “they” about some people, and me saying it about all people? Well, it makes me a minority of one, first of all, and means that my only loyalty is to myself.

Groups demand loyalty. My god, do they demand loyalty. And if you do anything that suggests you aren’t loyal to the group, they will turn on your instantly and viciously. The “Progressive” group is tremendously guilty of this, and they do it brazenly and openly, justifying everything from religious bigotry to outright racism because their group is the one doing it, and they are loyal to their group.

But it’s not really that they see others as “them” that is the problem here, is it? As I said–the problem is that the group demands loyalty. The problem is the mob mindset of us. It’s okay to see everyone as they when you are a minority of one, not forced to go along with a mob. It’s the mob that creates the problem; it’s the Mob of US that causes the division, intolerance, and bigotry. After all, if you’re just a you, just an individual with no group membership, then you lack the mob that is necessary to enforce division.

They isn’t the problem.

Us is the problem.

New Video: Forgiving the Devil

This is my best Youtube work so far, by a wide margin, and I think it’s probably second only to The Anvil, in terms of everything I’ve done. The background music, combined with the story itself and how I tell the story… I don’t know. I think it’s pretty good. 🙂

Just do me this favor: watch the first five minutes. If you watch the first five minutes and don’t feel compelled to watch the rest of it, let me know, and I’ll apologize for wasting 5 minutes of your time. But I think, if you watch the first five minutes, you’ll have to finish it.

There are a few other things I’d like to change, but it’s really too late for that. C’est la vie, I guess. I’d love to be able to beep out a few things, and to edit out one other thing that I wasn’t sure about leaving in. I ended up leaving it in (the tangent about serial killers), but I really wish I hadn’t. There was no way to express what I was trying to say without it sounding kinda weird. And it came out sounding very weird.

The video is a brief summary of my upcoming novel Dancing in Hellfire, which is a 100% true story about my childhood, teenage, and adult life–everything except Vegas is included, really.

It’s decidedly less controversial than my last video–I just blocked one of the commenters on that video for irritating the shit out of me. I don’t mind when people say stupid shit and insult me. I really don’t. But when people pull out bullshit three times in a row, and all three times can be proven to be absolute bullshit pulled out of their ass, and all three attempts have clearly been designed to make me look like “the bad guy” (instead of just being an idiot, as most people have accused)… That’s when I block someone.

I think that’s why I blocked him: he was trying to make it out like I have a problem handling criticism, which is a common issue, but the reality of the comment chain is that he wasn’t offering criticism. He first pulled out total bullshit with a Punctuated. For. Emphasis. Statement of:

Produce. Your. Own. Content.

He commented this on a video that contained 16/18 minutes of indisputably original content, and with a Description field filled with links to about a dozen articles, 30~ podcasts, 20~ original songs, and some more stuff. Just absolutely absurd, and clearly bullshit pulled out of his ass rather than offer up valid criticism. He later said that he wasn’t entertained and that my voice was monotonous; the latter is an actual criticism, but the former is irrelevant on a video categorized under News & Politics…

Like I’m not here to entertain you, dude… If you want entertainment, watch my guitar videos. Read my novels. Read my poetry. Listen to my political rants…?

One of those is not like the others.

What an idiot. “I’m gonna comment on this video not tagged under Entertainment and not made with the intention of entertaining, and let the maker know that she sucks because I didn’t find the video entertaining, but only after I accuse her of not making her own content.”

Yep. My inability to handle criticism is clearly the problem here…

I’m going to have to train myself to ignore these people.

The How & Why of Anarchy, Part 5: Crime & Punishment

Included links won’t work, and I’m not up to fixing them at the moment… I’m sorry about that. I will fix them in the future, though.

In the previous installation of the series, we discussed war, its causes, its nature, and how a Society with no Government would protect itself against foreign Governments. There is little to add to that discussion, except that there may be some confusion about why we could expect corporations and businesses to come to our aid in the same manner with which Government provides for our national defense. To answer this question, we must first ask another question: Why do we expect our Government to come to our aid and provide for our national defense?

Corporations and businesses could, after all, be persuaded by foreign Governments into turning a blind eye to an invasion, into selling us out, and into allowing the foreign Government to conquer us. Suppose that a foreign Government promises to give the Corporation more power, a monopoly in their industries, and other benefits. Wouldn’t a corporation naturally want to take that offer, since it is the desire for profit that drives corporations in the first place, and since being promised a monopoly is guaranteed to yield a profit? Well, yes, it’s a possibility.

But the very same things could be said of our Government. Politicians within our Government could be made the very same offers. “We’ll install a new Government and give you the authority of Kings!” the foreign Government could say. What would keep our Government from selling us out to some foreign Government if that foreign Government made a tempting offer? “Turn a blind eye to our invasion, and we’ll give you…” What would keep anyone in our Government from accepting that offer?

Nothing, really, except that the American People wouldn’t stand by and let our Government do it. The only thing preventing our Government officials from selling us out to a foreign Government… is us. It’s we, the American People, who provide for our National Defense, as the Government and its members could always turn a blind eye to an invasion by a foreign Government, and the only thing preventing them from doing that is the fact that we wouldn’t allow it and we would fight it. We’d remove from power any Government and any Government official who attempted to turn a blind eye to an invasion.

The bottom line is that we’re currently “unprotected” from this possibility. If all of Congress and the White House suddenly decided to send all our soldiers to Afghanistan while the Russians invaded us, there would be no mechanism in place to protect us from this screw-over by our Government. There are no defense systems, no mechanisms, and no other systems with which we can ensure that our current Government doesn’t sell us out to a foreign Government. By abolishing our Government and switching to an Anarchy governed by Principles rather than people, we wouldn’t lose any ability to ensure that we weren’t sold out to foreign powers.

Our Government is as capable of selling us out to foreign Governments as the corporations and businesses would be in an Anarchy.

But our Government officials won’t sell us out to foreign Governments. Just as you have an intense love for your homeland and a patriotism to your land, so do the people in Government–and so do CEOs and small-business owners. The CEOs, Representatives, and Senators all have the same passionate love for our homeland as do you and I. Just as neither you nor I could imagine turning a blind eye to a foreign Government by allowing that Government to invade and conquer our homeland, neither can they. Bill Gates loves his homeland as much as you do; Donald Trump loves his homeland as much as you do; David Rockefeller loves his homeland as much as you do; the CEO of Wal-Mart loves his homeland as much as you do. Just as you would fight tooth and nail, devoting everything you had to fighting an invasion, so would they–just as our Government does.

Most CEOs recognize that they need us far more than we need them. They’re replaceable; we are not. Worse still, they can and will be replaced if they don’t treat us well and competition rises which will treat us well. As I demonstrated in Part Four, corporations and businesses, when there is proper and unrestricted competition, go out of their way to treat their employees and customers well, because competition means that if they don’t, then they will be brought down by the Free Market and consumer choices very, very quickly. When there is competition, corporations have to treat us well, they have to treat their employees well, and the better they treat consumers and their employees, the better consumers and their employees treat them. This is exactly why, in the Middle Ages, laws were passed preventing serfs from freely moving from one lord to another; the competition created by allowing the serfs to move to a lord who paid better or treated them better forced other lords to behave better and pay better, and the other lords did not appreciate this. Read Ken Follet’s “World Without End” if you’re curious about how a wage increase by one lord could make other lords furious. Now, of course, we’re not dealing with lords and serfs; we’re dealing with CEOs and employees, and it is understood that employees can freely move from one corporation to another and that they will go to whichever corporation treats them the best. This forces CEOs, whether they like it or not, to treat their consumers and employees better. The more competition there is, the better the CEOs must treat their employees and consumers. If, then, we lift all restraints on competition, the standards of consumers and employees will increase drastically. 

With a Free People fighting for their freedom, no force on Earth can defeat them. And when you apply the principle that these Free People are voluntarily contributing all that they can to the effort, instead of having it forced upon them, you end up with a Free People fighting tooth and nail with everything they have against invaders.

When a Free People fight for their freedom, no force on Earth can defeat them.

Corporations will have as much to lose as do the Individuals and would therefore contribute just as wholeheartedly to the cause. Sure, there may be some corporations who are willing to turn a blind eye to the invasion, and there may still be others who are actually willing to sabotage our efforts, but there are now Government officials who may be willing to turn a blind eye to an invasion, and there may still be other Government officials who are actually willing to sabotage our efforts. Our current system leaves us no recourse to reprimand or prevent the President of the United States, if he so chooses, to sell us out to a foreign power. With the President being wholly in charge of our military, we could be sold out to a foreign Government by a single person, and nothing really prevents him from doing this. However, in an Anarchy governed by Principles, no one person could singlehandedly sell us out to a foreign Government, and if any one person tried, they’d quickly find themselves boycotted, blockaded, and brought down by consumer choices, competition, and the rivalry of the Free Market. Only a love for his homeland and his People prevent the President (any President) from selling us out to a foreign Government. A love for the homeland and the People, and the Free Market consequences of trying (as outlined previously) prevent a corporation from trying to sell us out to a foreign Government. Since no force on Heaven or Earth can defeat a Free People who fight for their freedom, the Free People would inevitably win, and if the corporation which sold them out managed to survive to that point, it would not survive much longer. Betrayed and angry, the Free People would rally against that corporation like never before, and any corporation which rose in competition that was led by someone who had fought bravely in the war would overtake the treacherous one in a matter of days.

The Free Market and Free Market consequences save us from being sold out by any corporation. Moreover, the people in charge of these corporations, like you and I and like the people in Government, love their homeland, the principles of their homeland, and their People just as much as everyone else. They would fight for their homeland just as strongly and devotedly as you would.

Okay… I’ll Reluctantly Accept That… Just Move On. What About Murder?

Ah, for murder we must examine Laws. Governments pass laws, yes, but those laws are only reflections of what Society thinks is right and wrong. When Society accepted slavery, the Government allowed it. When Society turned against slavery, the Government outlawed it. When Society accepted drinking, the Government allowed it. When Society* turned against drinking, the Government enacted Prohibition. When Society turned against Prohibition, the Government allowed drinking again. When Society* turned against mairjuana, the Government outlawed it. Now that Society is turning around again to allow marijuana, the Government is following suit.

My point in all of this is that Society, and not Government, dictates what is and isn’t allowed. Society makes the decisions, and Government just writes them down. Government, however, is slow to change its mind and slow to modify existing law–hence the current marijuana situation. Though huge portions of the country want to see marijuana legalized for medical purposes and still more want to see it legalized for recreational purposes**, the Government is still very reluctant to do this and has instead simply said that it won’t try to overturn some State laws about it. Rather than actually being on the cutting edge of social progress, the Government always is a few steps behind. It follows that, with the Government always being a few steps behind, Government often gets in the way–as it is now doing with marijuana.

At any rate, even if Government timed its legislation to perfectly coincide with the decisions and values of Society, then Government still actually contributes nothing to the process. All the Government does is write down Society’s values and prescribe punishments for people who violate those values. Firstly, writing it down isn’t necessary and, as I pointed out in the preceding paragraph, does more harm than good: it causes Government to lag behind Society, often getting in the way of social progress. There is no reason, for example, to write down that murder is illegal, that rape is illegal, or that theft is illegal. Society decided these things a very long time ago, and writing them down contributes nothing to the function of Society.

Laws also do not protect anyone from having anything happen to them. A law making murder illegal doesn’t prevent anyone from committing murder. If it did, you’d be able to type in the comments, “The only thing keeping me from murdering people is the fact that it’s illegal.” The same is true of rape and theft. If laws against these crimes were actually preventing anyone from doing them, then people would be able to say, “The only thing that keeps me from stealing, raping, and killing is the fact that we’ve made it illegal! Thank God for these laws! Because if it wasn’t illegal, I’d rape, torture, and kill you, and then steal everything you owned!”

But no one thinks that way. The law isn’t deterring anyone from committing any crime. People don’t commit crimes because their Morality holds them back, and when that Moral Restraint breaks down, then they are capable of committing rape, theft, and murder. But as long as that Moral Restraint holds up, no amount of anger or desire can entice them into killing, raping, or stealing. And once that Moral Restraint breaks down, no law can stop someone from killing, raping, or stealing. Once their Morality breaks down, for whatever reason, then no Law will stop them from doing whatever they want. At that point, the Law will only provide a framework within which they can be punished. But since the Law isn’t actually deterring anyone and the Law is only a reflection of Society’s value (thus, a reflection of Individuals’ Moral Restraints) in the first place, why is the Law even necessary?

Violations against Society’s values, however, that have victims would still require some sort of punishment–though “victimless crimes” would not. And this is because there’s no such thing as a “victimless crime,” and a Free People understand that. A “victimless crime” isn’t a crime; it’s a choice. In modern America, smoking pot is a “victimless crime,” and it is one that can send someone to prison for several years. Not too long ago in most states, sodomy (and hence homosexuality) was a “victimless crime,” and it was also one that could send someone to prison for several years. Society has changed its mind about tolerating these things, but they should never have been crimes in the first place. Nothing that does not have a victim should be considered a crime. The idea is absurd, and a Free People find it abhorrent. “Victimless crimes” are choices, and just because one Individual or another does not approve of the action in question doesn’t give anyone the right to make it a crime which warrants punishment. Only crimes with victims are crimes; anything else is simply a choice and must be tolerated, no matter how much you disapprove of it.

Any action can be made into a crime if we allow this notion of “victimless crimes” to exist. Turning on a fan when it is Sunday could become a “victimless crime” which sends people to prison if we allow some religious sects to have power over legislation. The very same intolerance has allowed sodomy, gay marriage, and marijuana to all be made illegal–one religious group or another determined that the action was a sin and that, even though there was no victim, it needed to be punished with imprisonment. We can’t let this happen; the only way to prevent it is by abolishing this notion of victimless crimes. When we abolish victimless crimes, we are left only with crimes which have victims:

Murder, rape, and theft. We have the taking of life, we have the violation of rights and autonomy, and we have the violation of property rights. When we abolish victimless crimes, we are left with only three crimes, and those three crimes are:

  • Violating someone’s right to Life.
  • Violating someone’s right to Liberty.
  • Violating someone’s right to Pursue Happiness.

Those are the only crimes in a Free Society, and those are the only things we need to prevent any Individual from doing. As there is no greater violation of someone’s right to Life than killing them, murder would necessarily not be allowed. As there are few violations of someone’s right to Liberty (autonomy, self-governance, and choice) than forcing oneself upon them, rape would necessarily be not allowed. As there is no greater violation of someone’s right to Pursue Happiness than by stealing the property with which they would pursue that happiness (as Part Two demonstrated, the right to pursue happiness requires the right to private property), theft would necessarily not be allowed. Now that we’ve protected everyone’s Life, Liberty, and right to pursue happiness, what else is there left for Society to ensure?

Nothing. Everything’s taken care of at this point. We established in Part Two that the only things we must protect are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, because trying to protect anything beyond these three things require sacrifices of these three things. In regard to health care, I demonstrated that we can only protect someone’s “‘right’ to receive healthcare” by sacrificing the right to pursue happiness (by violating the right to private property of others). Every Individual does, however, have the right to pursue healthcare. But that is where their rights end when it comes to healthcare.

With Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness now protected by Social Agreement, we must only ask…

“Okay, Fine. But Not Everyone Follows the Law or These… ‘Social Agreements’…

No, that’s true. As I stated above, people break the law. People commit rape, theft, and murder every single day. And this is true, even though we have laws in place which have made these things illegal. What good are these laws doing? Would we have more rape, theft, and murder if these things weren’t illegal? If we would, then you think that the only thing stopping people from raping, stealing, and murdering is the fact that it’s illegal. There’s no justification for thinking this, especially since the only reason these things are illegal is because we have decided that they’re wrong.

In the process of Law, first the People decide that the act is wrong. Then the Government makes it illegal. So even if you remove the Government and even if you remove the whole concept of legal and illegal, the People still think it’s wrong, because they were the ones who decided in the first place that it was wrong, and this decision is what created the Law. The Law didn’t make Society think that rape, murder, and theft are wrong; Society decided these things are wrong, thus the Government passed a Law that said so. But whether the Law is there has no impact on whether or not Society thinks something is right or wrong–again, see the marijuana changes sweeping our nation.

What Society says is Moral, Immoral, and Amoral is completely independent of what the Government decrees. After all the Government had once decreed that slavery was okay. Society said slavery was not okay, even though the Government had already passed laws saying it was. The Government had once decreed that homosexuality was illegal. Society said that homosexuality was okay, even though the Government had already passed laws saying it wasn’t. Over and over again, we find that Society dictates what is right and wrong and Government only passes laws to reflect that. Over and over again, we also find that the Government’s laws make no difference to the Society and have no impact on the entire process. Over and over again, we find that the Laws aren’t necessary because they don’t do anything.

The only things the Law accomplishes which Society’s Values do not is that the Law provides a framework for punishing people who violate the acts. There is a rigid system for this which defines rigid punishments, and the further we go into bureaucracy, the more rigid this framework becomes. Already, trials are by the State and not by the Jury, as demonstrated in Part Two, and already Jurors are restricted only to delivering verdicts based on the law and the crime. This was not always the case. Jurors were once able to weigh the circumstances of the crime, whether or not the action was justified by the circumstances, the Constitutionality of the law, the rightness of the law, and all sorts of other factors that have since fallen to the homogenization of bureaucracy.

Just as we have Trials today, so would we have trials in an AnarchyThe Government doesn’t have a monopoly on Justice. Society does. When someone is accused of violating another’s Life, Liberty, or right to pursue happiness, Society can try this person by a jury of peers just as Government is supposed to today. Individual counties, cities, and neighborhoods can come up with their own methods for incarcerating people while trials are organized and can allow the jury to decide the consequences if found guilty, allowing the circumstances of the crime and the Individual’s history to guide their sentencing if the person is found to have done wrong.

Justice is not and can never be a one-size-fits-all thing.

Circumstances matter, and by not trying to homogenize the process and by not trying to make one-size-fits-all systems of sentences, we allow the impartial Jury to weigh the action, the effects of the action, the motive behind the action, and the circumstances of the action to determine a sentence that is fitting to the crime. Trial by jury has been a staple of Western Society for centuries. It’s not going anywhere, because Society dictated that crimes shall be handled by a jury of peers. Government didn’t decide this. Society did. All Government did was write it down. And Society will still have trials by jury, even without a Government making them do it, because we as Individuals figured out centuries ago that the only way to ensure Justice and not revenge was to allow an impartial jury of peers to deliberate–and to assign a sentence relative to the heinous nature of the crime.

Um…

It has been amply demonstrated here that Government is not necessary to the Criminal Justice process. It has been amply demonstrated that Laws do not have any actual utility and that they are only documents that provide a framework for punishing criminals–and then it was amply demonstrated that trying to have such a framework to punish criminals is a bad idea. So not only do laws fail to provide a deterrent for criminal behavior, but their only other function, to provide frameworks for sentencing, is flawed and should be abhorred by a Free People. Since Laws have only the purpose of acting as a deterrent and fail to do that (I dare you to type in the comments, “Only the fact that it’s illegal is keeping me from raping every woman I see and want.), and since their secondary purpose is to provide a framework for sentencing (which is abhorrent to a Free People, as a Free People recognize that motive and circumstances matter far more than the actual act itself), it is shown that Laws have no place in our Society. 

Furthermore, it has been shown that since there is a lag between Society’s Moral Restraints and Government’s laws, the Government’s Laws frequently get in the way of social progress and that, even if Government laws perfectly coincided with the changes in a Society’s Moral Restraints, the Law is still not desirable because it contributes nothing to the process–if it might as well not be done as be done, then it shouldn’t be done. If it has no effect, then there’s no reason it should be done. Doing things that have no discernible effect, even in theory, except to occasionally slow or halt Social Progress, and at best simply “don’t get in the way,” we’re creating waste and burning resources on irrelevant actions that have no impact and no bearing on reality. It requires time and resources to pass laws, to work out homogenized sentences, to defend the homogenized sentences against the ACLU and other organizations who argue that normalized sentencing is contrary to the principle of Liberty, and all of these resources could be better spent elsewhere, especially since burning them as we’re now doing on things that have no positive benefit, even in theory, is doing nothing but wasting resources.

Brief Summary

Since there are only three things which Society needs to protect and since those three things are Life, Liberty, and the right to pursue happiness, we only need, ultimately, one law:

Each Individual has the right and freedom to do whatever he or she desires and own whatever he or she may acquire, so long as he or she takes no action that impedes negatively, with malice or intention, the ability of another to do as he or she may desire or own whatever he or she may acquire.

That one law takes care of everything, and it wouldn’t even be a “law,” since there would be no Government which would pass it. It would be a Social Agreement, built on the principles which we all hold dear to our heart. It does not allow for any action to be labelled as a “victimless crime,” yet it adequately handles the Big Three: rape, murder, and theft, as well as other things such as torture, coercion, inhibitions of free speech, and violations of privacy (since privacy is an extention of the right to private property, including oneself). Nothing else needs to be addressed, and anyone found to have violated any part of the above Social Agreement can and would be apprehended by Society and given a trial by a jury of peers who weighted the evidence and delivered a verdict, and who then weighted the circumstances and the motive to deliver a sentence. Everything is handled. Everyone is free.

With national defense already protected as outlined previously and further elaborated here and with criminality and criminal behavior adequately handled by a Free People acting within their rights to protect the Life, Liberty, and right to pursue happiness of all Individuals, then there is nothing left for Government to even do. We’ve rendered Government pointless. We’ve taken the primary roles which our Government performs and we’ve demonstrated that all of these roles would be filled and served better by a Free People. What is our reason for surrendering our rights, powers, and responsibility to handle these things ourselves to a Government when the Government could never be as effective, as just, or as devoted?

* Well, when radical lobbyists within the Society turned against…

** Marijuana, after all, is thousands of times superior to alcohol… It’s non-habit forming, it doesn’t cause men to beat their wives, it doesn’t cause parties to erupt in violence, it doesn’t cause thousands of vehicular deaths each year, it’s natural…

The idea that we can have a Government which protects our Liberty runs contrary to common sense, logic, and reason. Government exists only to destroy Liberty–we are charging with protecting Liberty an institution whose primary function is to destroy Liberty.

I’m a Disgrace to the LGBT Community

Apparently.

But you know what? I was a disgrace to the LGBT community long before I went after the Liberal Redneck. I would spend some time talking about how this commenter had literally nothing to say but “You’re wrong,” insults, and blatantly inaccurate off-the-wall bullshit, but, honestly, that’s really not worth addressing. I would go into how it’s not my responsibility to look into the Liberal Redneck to see if there is context that justifies a video that he uploaded wherein he is demonstrably racist and intolerant, with the key distinction being that this is a video that he uploaded, thus one that he supports, and thus not taken out of context. I would point out that it’s not my responsibility to look to an external source to see if there is anything that justifies such bigotry and intolerance, and that we wouldn’t walk up to a group of white people about to lynch a black dude and say, “Well, maybe there’s some context where this is okay…” either.

But, more interestingly, I won’t to focus on the allegation that I am a disgrace to the trans community for going after this guy who is just trying to help bring awareness to transgender issues. First of all, I’ve addressed that conceit before: no one has the right to speak on my behalf. Here is a podcast about it. I would ask who the fuck the Liberal Redneck thinks he is to spew hate speech and bigotry on my behalf, to propagate intolerance and ignorance for my sake, but I think we already have the answer to that, don’t we?

I would discuss the accusation that the Liberal Redneck is “dumbing down” his statements and being crude (which is entirely unrelated to anything I had to say about the matter) because his audience is full of rednecks (aka, white southern people) and how they’re evidently (according to the commenter) rather stupid. I would point out that it doesn’t matter if he’s a comedian who is phrasing his message to be funny or not; the core of his message is still one that is demonstrably bigoted, disrespectful, and racist.

I would rather focus on how I am a disgrace to the “trans” community. And to that unusual insult, where this guy calls me an insult to a community that he’s literally not a part of but chooses to speak for anyway, I have this to say:

GOOD.

If calling out bigotry, intolerance, hatred, and racism, where I see it makes me a disgrace to a community, then I don’t want to be part of that community. But you know what? I’ve long not been a part of that community. Do you have any idea how many times just in this post I’ve talked about “the LGBT community” as something separate from me? It’s the way that I talk about all groups–white people, transgender people, atheists, whatever. I don’t consider myself to be a part of any of these groups, and I don’t speak on behalf of any of these groups. The only group that I speak for has one member:

I speak for the anarchist shemales.

If I was trying to be enshrined and idolized by the LGBT community, would I do or say any of the shit that I do or say? Would I call myself a shemale? Would I still do more than half of my podcasts in my male voice? Would I antagonize Caitlyn Jenner? Would I speak out against the racism of the Liberal Redneck? No, no, no, no, and no. I know exactly what I am, dude, and I champion one cause and one cause alone:

Liberty.

So why would I care if I’m a disgrace to this group that, as I’ve argued in the past, seeks to oppress? I know full well that I’ve been antagonizing the LGBT community for months, and I know damned well that the vast majority of people like the commenter will never hear what I have to say–his comments prove it. Just look at how his brain is literally closed to information.

“The Anarchist Shemale” is staring him straight in the face, but even that didn’t penetrate the walls of selective bias and cognitive dissonance. He comes from a place of agreement with the Liberal Redneck, of agreement with liberals of “fuck Christians” and “It’s okay to be racist against white people.” He will never hear what I have to say. His mind is closed to it.

He did everything in his power to completely ignore what I said. He ignored most of it, by his own admission and by skipping my commentary. So when I call him ignorant, you know that I mean it–I don’t mean “naive” as people so often do. I mean that he had the opportunity to learn something, and he willfully ignored, and that makes him ignorant. Contrary to popular belief, ignorance is not about lack of exposure; it’s about willingness to ignore information.

He also disregarded what he did hear, by throwing insults at me and offering my statements up as shallow and pedantic–a Family Guy quote, by the way. Rather than actually countering anything that I said, he simply, again, ignored it, and called me stupid, moronic, etc. I really don’t care about his insults–I’m more than used to it. And the irony of coming into a discussion where there have been actual arguments put forward, and actual counters and actual explanations, and saying “That’s shallow” is hilarious. However shallow my critique may have been, his statement that my critique is shallow is, by definition, infinitely more shallow than anything I said.

When all that failed, he turned to his last resort: a wild accusation of how I’m one of those crazy politically correct nutjobs. Yes, me, the Anarchist Shemale, as it said on the title of the freaking video, wherein I actually referred to Milo, the transtrender person, as “that THING.” That video wherein I accused a white guy of being racist arbitrarily against white people, which is itself politically incorrect to accuse someone of. Me, the person who made this:

milo

I’m a “politically correct moron.”

That, more than anything, should highlight how closed this guy’s mind is, and how he rejects all information that disputes what he already thinks. He called me one of those wacky politically correct people. It’s a truly shocking degree of close-mindedness. To accuse the anarchist shemale, on the video where she refers to a transgender person as “that thing,” of being a politically correct moron…

Just… wow.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

I’m probably transphobic, too, I guess. I imagine he would have thrown that one at me, and that’s probably a test I should run some time. In fact, I might rename the video “A White Christian Responds to the Liberal Redneck” just to see how it changes people’s responses.

But as I said in the podcast that I’m not going to post, have you seen the LGBT community? Have you seen the United States? Have you seen our society? I better be a fucking disgrace to that. You tell me I’m a disgrace to that, and you know what that says to me? It tells me that I am right on track.

George Washington was a disgrace to Benedict Arnold.

So let’s get this straight.

Some white dude made a disrespectful, intolerant, and bigoted video attacking a Christian family as fat, stupid racists hung up on white privilege because they spoke out against transgender people using restrooms of their choice, and for daring to speak out against the disrespectful, intolerant, bigoted, and demonstrably racist behavior… I’m a disgrace to the LGBT community.

No.

Disrespecting people, being intolerant, being bigots, and being racists… These are the things that should be disrespectful to the transgender community. Pointing out how FUCKED UP it is to be intolerant, racist, bigots should never, ever be a disgrace to a community, and if it is a disgrace to a community, then that is a community we do not need to be a part of.

I believe we–the LGBT community–can accomplish the goal of equality without disrespecting people, without being intolerant, without being bigots, without being hateful, and without being racists. And obviously, we can accomplish equality without those things. We do not need intolerance, bigotry, and disrespect in order to secure equality.

We only need those things to secure vengeance. We only need to disrespect people if our goal is to disrespect them. If our goal is to make them kneel, to make them subservient to us, to place ourselves above them, then disrespect, intolerance, and hatred are necessary. If the goal is to foster an “Us versus Them” mentality where Us wins, then yes, disrespect, intolerance, and bigotry are the way to go.

But if we want equality, then they have no place in our fight.

If speaking out against intolerance, hatred, and bigotry makes me a disgrace to the LGBT community, simply because the guy expressing intolerance, hatred, and bigotry was “Pro-LGBT,” then sign me the fuck up to be a disgrace, because any group that chastises and admonishes someone who stands against bigotry is a group I do not want idolizing me.

If I’m a disgrace to the LGBT community because I dared speak out against intolerance, bigotry, and racism, then the LGBT community is a disgrace to humanity.

Faux Progressivism

This is the script to the video Faux Progressivism that I’m working on, but I’m really surprised by how much time it really takes to make a video like this. One issue is that I’m doing the video in my female voice, which isn’t… isn’t working out. I don’t know what to do about that. Will my stamina increase with time? After just 5 minutes of talking, my voice is tired. So recording the script is taking some time, and then compiling everything will take even longer.

The video didn’t follow the script, btw.

I’ve been thinking a lot… about the ideological war that is being raged not only in the United States but throughout the world, because The Guardian brought to my attention that Austria recently elected a far-right president (and, it should be observed, Austria is not the first foreign nation to do this in recent years), and also added that this is being “praised as a victory by xenophobic groups” throughout Europe.

In some ways, it is encouraging to see that the war is still being fought throughout the world, and I should point out here that I am not a conservative. I am at war with the Faux Progressivism—or Regressivism, if you like, but I prefer the former term—and, typically, conservatives are currently the lesser of evils. I am not on conservatives’ sides, not really, which is something that I’ve talked about extensively. However, I’m going to fight authoritarianism and oppression wherever they appear.

Wherever you find authoritarianism, oppression, and injustice…

This is going to be part of Rage Against the Machine’s cover of “The Ghost of Tom Joad,” a song that my old band I Over E covered when we played at the New Daisy Theater. Toward the end of the song, the lyrics repeat “You’ll see me! You’ll see me! You’ll see me!” and it’s pretty awesome. Not quite as often as “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me!” but still pretty awesome.

I watched a pretty funny video earlier by the liberal redneck Trae Crowder. While the video was funny, it was marred by the white guilt, selflessness-to-the-point-of-self-destruction that we’ve come to expect of white people, particularly liberals; they’re not allowed to have a sense of self. The only sense of self they are allowed to have is one of self-deprecation; a white person isn’t allowed to say “White people test really well” or “white people invented the best form of government the world has ever seen” or “white people discovered general relativity” or anything like that. A white person is allowed to say only things like “White people are so fucked up” and “White people need to check their privilege.”

They propose a false dichotomy, probably without realizing it. And I’ve spoken frequently about the tendency of Americans to think only in absolutes, to rely entirely upon false dichotomies to establish their worldviews, and to basically try to turn reality into a world of Either-or. I’m not going to go into it too deeply again, but it’s worth pointing out to this guy…

That a family exercising their right to religious freedom, their right to free speech, and their right to protest is not forcing anyone else to live according to their views. It’s trying to convince people to conform to their views, and using some shitty tactics—and certainly, Target would have been within its rights to have this family arrested as I would have done if I had been the Manager On Duty—but my point is that the family he’s talking about… was unequivocally not trying to force their views onto anyone.

Pretty funny, right?

It is… until you think about it.

Because all this is… is yet another example… of a liberal crying “You hateful bigot, you just want to force your views onto others!” the very moment a conservative opens their mouth and expresses their beliefs. The only way this family could escape the label that the liberal redneck would put upon them… is to shut the fuck up and never speak at all. The moment that they do speak, the liberal redneck and all the other liberals immediately retaliate with “You racist, homophobic, islamophobic, book-hating, rock-throwing bigot!”

This…

This is the way ideological wars are won.

Throughout the world, we are seeing pushback from conservatives. In the United States, we have the Mississippi Religious Freedom law, an act that I, the transgender resident of Mississippi, stand wholeheartedly behind. We have Austria electing conservatives. We have Donald Trump, who, despite whatever else can be said of him, abhors political correctness, and political correctness is a key part of the liberal arsenal.

Liberals are inherently divisive and deceitful, and they’re playing the long game—they’ve been doing so for decades. And conservatives waited way too long to try to woo the non-white, non-Christian, non-male crowds. It’s not that they’re racists, Christian, misogynists. Some of them are, for sure, and many parts of the conservative platform are attempts to impose conservativism onto others—North Carolina’s restroom laws are a good example. Conservatives are not, and have never been, willing to live and let live. They are every bit as eager to force conservativism onto non-conservatives as liberals are to force liberalism onto non-liberals, and that’s not right, either. And, if conservatives were the ones with the power, I would speak against it, as well. But just because Conservatives did it in the past, and just because many would do it again, doesn’t mean that it’s okay to do the opposite to them. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Liberals consciously made the decision to recruit everyone who was not a straight, white, christian male, but it’s not because they believe in equality—we can prove they don’t. It’s because they were aware that straight, white, christian men will not always be the majority. If the only thing electing conservatives are straight, white, christian men, then it’s just a matter of time before that group is too outnumbered to ever put another political official in charge, and liberals effectively dominate the country from then on. Once we reach that tipping point—which is one that we would have reached already, if it wasn’t for the fact that, evidently, white people are more likely to vote than non-white people—there would be no going back. Conservatives would be slowly removed from power, a result that would last forever as the once-majority became more and more outnumbered by a coalition of once-minorities.

So I’ve accused liberals of being divisive and anti-equality. How can I say that? Well, look at what they’ve done. Just take the most recent example of Black Lives Matter. It doesn’t matter if you’re for Black Lives Matter, or against Black Lives Matter; in fact, it doesn’t really matter where you stand on it. The fact remains, and there is no other way to say, it’s divisive along racial lines—it is, by definition, racist.

Martin Luther King, Jr. would be absolutely disgusted by Black Lives Matter. King never said “I dream of a day where black people are treated better than they are being treated.” He never said that, because that wasn’t his goal. King said, “I dream of a day when ‘how people are treated’ isn’t based on such superficial characteristics.” King never said “I want black people to be treated better.” He said “I want treatment to be decided on things beyond skin color.”

In a society where people are being treated poorly based on their skin color, then changing society so that skin color is not a factor in how people are treated… necessarily has the result of causing black people to be treated better. It is a side effect of eliminating skin color as a factor; the goal is to eliminate skin color as a factor. King didn’t want to keep skin color as a factor and ensure that people of this skin color or that skin color are treated better than they presently were; he wanted it eliminated as a factor.

Black Lives Matter, by definition, keeps skin color as a factor. Instead of eliminating it as a factor, it enshrines skin color as a factor, and asserts that people with this skin color should be treated better than they are being treated. And it doesn’t matter if you agree with that sentiment or not—it doesn’t justify trying to achieve the right thing with the wrong way. What we have a problem with, in the United States, is police brutality. We have a problem with an authoritarian system that is designed to appeal to the types of people who want power over others so that they can abuse it. This isn’t to say that all cops are like that. It does say, however, that the kind of person who wants power to abuse is always inclined to take on a job that gives them power to abuse, and that job is, without a doubt, police officer.

We have forgotten that police officers were a glorified Neighborhood Watch that we set up so that we could go about our lives without worrying about doing it. They were never meant to have more power or authority than an average citizen—it can never work if they have more authority than an average citizen.

And let’s discuss for a moment this idea that cops are putting their lives on the line, and that we can’t expect them to give suspects the benefit of the doubt. “Maybe that gun is fake” and things like that. But yes. Yes, we can expect them to give suspects the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn’t expect you, an ordinary citizen, to give someone the benefit of the doubt. But a cop—a person who has sworn to serve and protect the innocent? A person who has willingly put on that badge and willingly put themselves in that situation? Absolutely.

Every single day, a cop has to weigh the option: do I sacrifice my life to protect the innocent? Obviously, the cop’s answer to that is “Yes.” That’s why they are cops, right? Because they are willing to risk their own lives doing that. So how come… when push comes to shove… it’s “shoot first, ask questions later”? Before a cop puts on that fucking badge, they should be aware that it means they are weighing the possibility of hurting the innocent against protecting the innocent, and their very lives are the weights on the scale. If they are not willing to give their lives to protect the innocent, then they should take off their fucking badges and find a different line of work.

The Non-Believer posted a video recently about the intimidation tactics in use by some advocates of Black Lives Matter. And, look, you’re not going to find someone who values life more highly than I do. But I will not let skin color factor into my assessment of the value of a life. And I will not stand with Black Lives Matter. I will gladly stand with Lives Matter—not the “All Lives Matter” stunt being pulled by the KKK. And it’s a sad day when something like “All Lives Matter” can be called racist. But the part of the problem is that we allow doublethink, combined with our inability to think in anything but the opposite ends of the spectra, to limit our ability to think. This is why political correctness is so dangerous; it literally prevents us from saying, “These are radical Muslims.” And that’s dangerous, because “radical extremists” aren’t necessarily violent, and there isn’t a correlation between “radical extremism” and violence.

Many people would call me a radical extremist.

I wonder how many government watch lists I just landed on.

Actually, that’s an idle question, because I am the Anarchist Shemale. I’m already on those government watchlists. Despite the fact that non-violence and the Non-Aggression Pact are core parts of my ideology—core parts, and they cannot be waived—I have no doubt whatsoever that the state is keeping tabs on me, because I have, in fact, been visited by goons.

It was one of the strangest experiences of my life. I was the office manager at a computer shop, and senior technician and director of operations—I mean, I was up there on the corporate totem pole. The only person higher than me was the actual fucking owner—and I was 25 years old.

Through various channels, I had ended up with… a few gigabytes… of classified information. This was the real deal. So I did what anyone would do. I spread the information far and wide. I burned DVDs of it and gave it to friends and friends of friends. I distributed it on the pirate bay. If anything happened to me, I wanted the information to survive.

Some time after that, the Chelsea Manning stuff happened, and it was a cloudy, gray morning when they came by the office. I was outside smoking. They pulled up in a very nice red truck, and after a few brief introductions, they asked me a number of very awkward questions that didn’t really hold up to scrutiny.

For example, they said at one point, “You look like you don’t care much for the government,” or something to that effect. Completely baseless—I didn’t even have tattoos then; I was just guy at an office. And then it got even more bizarre, as they told me they had a stolen government computer, and they wanted my help in pulling the contents off of it, even though they didn’t have a password. Piece of cake, really—that’s something I can do in thirty seconds. But I’m not going to have anything to do with this “stolen” computer. They asked if I would help them hack the email address of a government official. Again and again, I told them “No,” and that I wasn’t interested.

Eventually, they left, and I ended up seeing black SUVs with deeply tinted windows and Government plates everywhere I went. Whether I was followed by the government for a few years after that, I don’t know. But I have no doubt whatsoever, because of the awkwardness of the situation, the blunt questions, and the nature of the conversation… that those people who visited me were goons.

I’ve gotten way off track, and that’s okay, because I don’t want to focus too heavily on this subject or that subject. I want to make you think. And, really, the truth is that my worldview and my ideas are… pretty comprehensive. Years ago, I made a sort of flow-chart, starting with a few basic principles, and the end result was that I was able to show clearly, indisputable links between every idea that I hold, from Nihilism to anarchism to atheism to austrian economics.

So if you’re coming to my channel and hoping to hear some simple, standalone platitude like “lol conservatives r bad,” then you’re going to be disappointed. If you’re hoping to hear “I’m transgender, and I’m proud and demand <cough> equal rights, then you’re going to be disappointed.” The world… can’t be broken down into a few simple statements. We humans are complex creatures, and the universe is infinitely more complex; with the addition of every new human, the interactions between humans become ever more complicated, and there is only one ideology, one philosophy, that truly allows you to be you, allows me to be me, allows him to be him, and allows her to be her. That is what I value.

And it’s going to take us quite a lot of time to get through every single issue, if, indeed, I continue doing this. But I can tell you right now how you can figure out where I stand on a given issue. My principles are that:

 

  1. Any individual can do anything that individual wants, except use force, violence, or coercion (collectively: “aggression”)
  2. The group is an illusion. There’s no such thing as a group; there are only individuals. The “group” is a mental construct, and is not real.
  3. It is, therefore, never acceptable to harm individuals for the benefit of a group, because there is no real benefit for the group, because the group does not exist. In effect, you’re harming one individual to help another individual and that is, by definition, and act of aggression.

So I’m going to wrap it up here, since I have no idea how long a 2700 word thing takes in video form. Thanks for watching, and I hope you have a good day.