Tag Archive | injustice

Rest in Peace, Sleeping Dogs & Mariner Durant

Libertarian mayoral candidate for Meridian has been shot to death in the woods outside of his home, according to Mississippi’s local paper The Clarion  Ledger, and there is a bit of confusion regarding the circumstances. See, not long ago, Mariner Durant withdrew from the mayoral race, citing law enforcement officials who had advised him to withdraw because of death threats–there is no evidence of this suggestion, or indication of what law enforcement officer or official he may be referring to. Meridian is about three hours southeast of where I live (I’m right at the Mississippi/Tennessee border, so generally am more a Memphisian than a Mississippian), but I supported his candidacy nonetheless. Even though he supported Johnson/Weld–at the local, mayoral level that isn’t a big enough deal for me to refuse to support a candidate. Only in the national spotlight would that be a point of concern for me. While it did bother me that he never liked, replied to, or shared anything I wrote to him, I understand why, and held no grudge against him for it–being a libertarian in Mississippi is hard enough without having an openly trans ally.

C’est la vie.

Photo courtesy of the Clarion Ledger.

But now he’s dead.

Here are the facts as we know them:

  • Mariner Durant withdrew from the mayoral race, citing threats to his safety and the advice of unknown law enforcement.
  • Mariner Durant was found shot to death in the woods outside of his home, shortly thereafter.
  • Local police are ruling it a suicide, though are bringing in the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation.

Most people seem to take the local police’s word for it that it’s a suicide, and that Mariner likely had some sort of psychosis or paranoia where these threats were imagined, and that this psychosis ultimately led to his suicide. That’s certainly a valid interpretation, and we’ll probably never know.

Now let me tell you some stuff about Mississippi.

Several years ago, we had a murder (on a street where one of my best friends lives) occur that was so barbaric and horrific that it made national news. This 18 year old girl was forced to imbibe lighter fluid (or gasoline), and was burned alive. All evidence suggests that she was with someone she knew and trusted, and the last visible sign of her was at a gas station where she bought gasoline and showed no signs of distress, and the other, unidentified person, was in the car. You may remember this, because it was truly a horrific crime.

Now let me tell you some other stuff that the national media missed.

The girl’s father is a police officer who served time in prison for cooking and selling methamphetamine before becoming a cop. Read that sentence again, because nothing shows how strongly filial attachments can pull the strings of people in Mississippi than the idea that a former meth dealer came out of prison and became a police officer.

Now let me tell you more stuff the national media missed.

The girl was a drug-addict and prostitute (when she needed the drugs or the money to buy the drugs), and had recently stolen $400 from a man by selling him fake pills. I used to be addicted to pain killers myself. I know that game well. One of the people I bought pills from was found several years ago in a ditch, with a bullet in his head, and neither I nor my father have any doubt: he screwed over the wrong person. It only takes once. And he screwed me over repeatedly*. Now, when you’re a drug addict, that won’t keep you from going back to them if you can’t find anyone else. My dad and I once took him to a trailer park around midnight, and he wanted us to give him $100 while he ran in to get the pills for us. We knew better than to do that. We’d give him the money, and we wouldn’t hear from him for months.

Yet there’s more to this “person who was robbed for $400” than most people know. For one, he’s a known arsonist, and helped burn down a building for its owner to collect the insurance money. Everyone around knows and knew it was arson, and knows exactly who did it–even the police. But this person… This person is above the law. This person has very high connections in politics extending at least to the governor of the state. This person has also been involved in at least one murder.

So let’s have a recap.

18 or 19 year old girl (I don’t remember her name) who is a drug addict and hooker and whose father is a cop who went to prison for cooking and selling meth before becoming a police officer was found murdered in one of the most awful ways imaginable shortly after stealing $400 from a known arsonist and person known to be “above the law.” Additionally, many, many people suspected that the girl was an informant–wouldn’t you?–and I know damned well that this accusation is often enough to get you killed. If you do heroin and your dealer thinks you’re an informant, he’ll lace your next batch, you’ll die, and no one will ever know it happened. There are few things as lethal as being accused of being an informant.

Oh, we need to also mention that the girl’s parents were racist and that she had a history of dating black men, often to the point that she’d been kicked out on several occasions and ended up living with her black boyfriends and their families. This isn’t a thing in and of itself, but it’s something to consider about the girl’s parents. Let’s see… What else…? There are so many Sleeping Dogs in this story that it’s hard to remember them all, and I followed it very closely–like I said, one of my best friends lives on the street that she was murdered on. This happened like fifteen minutes from where I live.

How does this story end? It doesn’t. Eventually, the murder was “solved!” rather innocuously last year–or the year before–when a seemingly random black guy who was already serving time in Louisiana was pinpointed as the murderer, despite his name never having been mentioned before or since in any context related to the girl. Because the Internet Detectives went to work, man. They dug up all her ex-boyfriends, harassed them on Facebook, and all kinds of shit. This dude’s name never got mentioned. No news article, no Internet Detective, no whisper among the community…

You know what the whispers around the community were?

Everyone knew who did it, but no one was going to say it. “They went too far,” was what people said. “They went too far with what they did.” Everyone knew who, and everyone knew why. But, if you knew, would you talk, knowing that everyone else knew already, and knowing what had happened to the girl?

No.

So the sleeping dog sleeps.

I know of a family who lives on the edge between two counties with a similar “above the law” status. No one touches them, no matter how horrific their actions have been. They’ve been known to openly torture and murder dogs and cats, tying them to trees and to four-wheelers, and quartering them in a more Modern American way. The sheriffs know about this. They know about the allegations of rape, of people going missing, of child abuse. They know the property extends back mile after mile of woods and empty tankers that contain God-knows-what, and they know there may very well be victims in those tankers screaming right now. But County A says they’re in County B, and County B says they’re in County A. So no one does anything about the crimes alleged, much less known.

I don’t know what happened to Mariner Durant. I have no idea if he has a history of paranoid or schizophrenic behavior, but, if he does, this is the first anyone will have heard about it (which wouldn’t really be the case, since they’d have used that against him in the mayoral race, but, hey, let’s forget that for the moment).

But I do know that Mississippi has lots and lots of sleeping dogs. And if he posed a threat of accidentally or purposely waking one of them, then it’s not at all beyond belief that he’d have been killed for it, whether he withdrew from the race or not. Once you threaten one of those dogs, that’s often all it takes, even if you back down.

Just ask the man who went to prison for cooking and selling meth and then became a cop.

Regardless, it sucks that this libertarian candidate is dead, and I wish that wasn’t the case. I wish he hadn’t withdrawn, and I wish he had won the election. I wish there weren’t so very many things wrong in Mississippi.

* That sounds freaking awful. My point is that he had a known history of screwing people over. He was found dead long after I got out of that game.

The Government is Driving Me Crazy

This isn’t finished–and it actually gets worse, due to what happened in court–but I’m posting it now because I don’t know when I’ll be able to get back to it.

As I sit in court this morning waiting on that judge to make his appearance, despite it being ten minutes after the time I was legally mandated to appear, I’ve got plenty of time to reflect on why I’m here. I’m here because the state has persistently screwed me over in the name of money.

In fact, my driving record would be impeccable if not for two things: the government, and other, careless drivers. I’ve been doing for 13 years, and I’ve had two accidents, neither of which was my fault. In one instance I was rear ended, in the other, more recent, someone attempted to turn out of a driveway in front of me, and didn’t see me coming. I’ve been ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt, not having insurance, for running stop signs that even the judge didn’t believe I ran, for not having insurance, and for not having insurance.

This entire thing is wrong. Why do we tolerate it?

It was only last year, or the year before, that Mississippi finally repealed the bill that forced drivers to buy inspection stickers. What was undoubtedly meant as a boon to the mechanics industry became a formality: Everyone knew at least one mechanic who would clear any vehicle. Yet the ticket for not having this sticker ran $500–one hundred times the cost of the sticker itself.

On the surface, the insurance regulation seems to make sense. Ignoring the overarching concerns about what right the state has to coerce me to buy something, if I’m in an accident then it’s not really fair to you if I can’t cover my responsibility. Never mind as well the fact that this is clearly a civil matter, and that, in the worst case scenario, you could sue me for damages. Yet after 13 years of driving, two of which were spent delivering pizzas in a city, I think the absence of any fault on my end serves as sufficient proof that I handle my end of the responsibility.

Strangely, no court will admit that I’ve never been at fault in a wreck as evidence that I’m responsible for the things I do on the road, even though they, better than anyone, have my driving record to look at.

Actually, insurance is obscenely expensive generally, but especially for me. Any driving ticket is considered a moving violation, including not having insurance and not wearing a seatbelt. These are tickets I obviously shouldn’t have in the first place. If I don’t want to wear a seatbelt in my vehicle, then that’s my business. If I solve my responsibility to other drivers by being cautious and careful, then I’ve solved my responsibility and insurance is a moot point. I don’t need liability insurance if I’m not a liability.

None of this matters, of course.

The episode of The Big Bang Theory  wherein Sheldon goes to traffic court struck home for exactly that reason: judges don’t want to hear it. They want to get you in and out. They don’t want to hear long winded, obvious arguments about how no one with any sense in their head would believe that you ran a third stop sign in two weeks when there was literally a cop right behind you. And even though the judge agrees, because you’re a respected businessperson in the small town and he knows you’re not an idiot, you’re still going to pay that $172 that some cop on a whim decided you were ultimately going to have to pay.

The Constitution has no place in American court rooms, especially traffic courts, where 13,000 page documents of legalese have been written explaining why it’s totally not a violation of our Fourth Amendment right to have paperwork demanded of us at roadblocks as we exercise our inherent animal right to move around the land. They assure us that it checks out, and we should totally trust them on that, but if we don’t then we can always read the enormous, confusing document ourselves. Because the founders who wrote a framework for our government that was less than thirty pages long totally intended for bills to become a thousand times longer than that. Certainly some part of the Bill of Rights should have mandated that all bills must be less in word count and page length than the Constitution itself.

I have no doubt that someone who has literally dedicated their life to understanding this minefield of complexities and jargon could decimate me in an argument about them. I’m not an attorney, and I don’t know or care about the gigantic documents they create in their efforts to convince us that this totally isn’t tyranny. For the most part, I don’t really care what they do in their world of make believe. It’s only when their world of make believe overlaps the real world, and I find myself losing an entire day just to be commanded to pay a fine, that it becomes an issue.

And it is a world of make believe that they’ve crafted. They aren’t the only ones; most Americans are fixated firmly on this world of make believe. Just recently, I got to listen to my father talk about Trump’s congressional speech, and how he’s looking forward to the perks brought on by President Trump.

What is he talking about?

Sugarcandy Mountain, really. Surely some part of him knows that nothing Trump does is going to have even the tiniest measurable effect on his life. In fact, this is true for most people. We’re in our second month of his presidency, and nothing has changed and nothing has happened. Everyone’s daily lives are exactly the same as they were a year ago, yet half the people are convinced things are about to get better and the other half are convinced things are about to become catastrophic.

Of course, “things” aren’t about to do anything or be anything. It’s all inconsequential. Whether the hope or fear that Trump would shake things up was well-founded or not, it should be obvious by now that the status quo reigns unchallenged. Shortly after his election victory, I said in a video that I think America just got played, and that nothing was going to change, which would piss off the people who voted for Trump, leaving them even angrier and less trusting of politicians than they were before.

Yet two months later, I’m beginning to remember that they honestly just lack the capacity to notice that, just as the average liberal lacks the capacity to recognize that Obama didn’t really do anything. Nor did Bush Jr., or Clinton. I’ve seen “Libertarians for Trump” continue praising the buffoon, despite his constant executive overreach, which, while it isn’t new, is certainly something they should be against–and were against when it was Obama.

I’d hoped that conservatives would seize the rare opportunity to actually begin embracing small government and states’ rights, but they have shown no sign of caring any longer. They just have a different set of pet issues they want the federal government to control than liberals have. I knew this, of course, and have said it as long as I’ve been writing, but I did hope that they wouldn’t be as stupid and hypocritical as allowing the federal government to usurp not just states’ rights but city and county rights as well.

It’s useless to point out the hypocrisy, though. No one has ever succeeded in getting a hypocrite to realize they were a hypocrite, and that’s only exacerbated in politics when the stakes and rewards are “OMG WE GET TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO!” Unable to resist that urge to tell everyone else what to do with their pet issues, they’ve stepped right back into the path of big government and have ensured that the best we can look forward to is another Democratic President in 4-8 years, and then, perhaps, another chance for conservatives to note that, since they didn’t like the liberal federal government telling them what to do, then maybe they shouldn’t use the conservative federal government to tell liberals what to do. But, of course, when it comes to issues conservatives care about, it totally doesn’t count as usurping states’ rights.

It’s now fifteen minutes after nine, 45 minutes after I was required to be here. The courtroom is still filled with the steady droning of thirty conversations happening at once, and neither the bailiff nor judge have made an appearance. The state and its puppets, of course, have no concern for my time. And why should they? They’re at work; this is what they get paid to do. If having a day in court meant that every judge, officer, and other associated person wasn’t getting paid for each moment they were in court, this shit wouldn’t devour our entire days.

One odd thing I noticed the last time I was here is that people with attorneys go first. I suspect this is true in every court across the country, but I’m not aware of any attorney who charges by the minute or hour in a courtroom, so the argument that the judge is trying to keep the people’s costs low doesn’t hold up. Several of my clients are attorneys, and none of them charge by the hour, while all of them include a presumed court appearance or two in their estimate.

It’s because, without exception, the judge used to be an attorney. If there’s any position I’ve ever thought about running for, it’s a judicial one. I would make a fantastic judge, if I do say so. Case after case would be dismissed unless the state provided evidence, and an officer’s word wouldn’t be enough. “Oh, you ticketed her for not having insurance? What proof do you have that she didn’t have proof of insurance?”

“Well, your honor, she didn’t…”

“Ma’am, did you have proof of insurance?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“Case dismissed.”

Most cops don’t even bother to show up. That’s how little our rights matter, and how little presumed non-guilt matters. Cops don’t even show up. I’m sorry, your honor, but where is the evidence that I didn’t have insurance? Where is the evidence that the officer didn’t take a lighter to my insurance card? No, your honor, I *don’t* have to prove that I had insurance; the officer has to prove that I didn’t.

Where is the evidence that I was driving on a suspended license? That the officer said so? In what vehicle was I driving? There’s no proof of this; the vehicle wasn’t impounded. Where’s the evidence that I wasn’t out walking when some cop arrested me and said I was driving? They didn’t impound the vehicle, so they wouldn’t be able to prove I was driving.

If I did attempt to dispute any of these charges, then it wouldn’t matter; the officer would be called in to testify. Of course, the judge would be happy to wait twenty minutes while the officer showed up. After then, it would be a simple question of the officer’s word against mine, since there doesn’t even exist evidence that this whole mess was caused by someone pulling out in front of me in the first place.

This whole thing is just ridiculous.

“Innocent until proven guilty.”

A statement so true that cops don’t even bother to show up to court, much less to provide evidence if they do appear.

A year or so ago, a friend’s son was arrested at 2 in the morning. He was pulled over in a city for having a headlight out. Before anyone comments that it’s dangerous to drive without headlights, I’ve had numerous military people inform me that drivers in Iraq don’t use headlights at all. Anyway, the kid was arrested because the father had left Xanax in the truck in an unlabeled pill bottle and couldn’t prove that he had a valid prescription.

With a discount because they’re a client, an attorney charged $1250 to take the case. The expected fines were $1000. In the end, the kid had to take three drug tests at a doctor’s office, and the charges were dropped, not appearing on his record.

If that had been me as an 18 year old, I’d have been fined. I’d have pled not guilty, explained the situation, and then would have been found guilty and fined. I’ve been there, found guilty for contributing to the delinquency of a minor when I was 18. It was that day that I learned how pointless it is to plea not guilty over a misdemeanor without an attorney. The judge doesn’t give a shit about your arguments. You’re guilty. It’s that simple.

The judge will listen to the attorney’s arguments, and, in my experience and observations, will just go with whatever the attorney says. The judge won’t fine you, because you’ve already been fined. You simply paid a private attorney instead of the state. Since the judge himself used to be a private attorney, it creates a cycle. Your attorney will be your kid’s judge. Your kid’s attorney will be your grandkid’s judge. They won’t fine you because they once made their money because judges didn’t fine people with attorneys. If they start treating people who have attorneys the same way they treat people who don’t, then their entire circle jerk falls apart.

Trying to put a vehicle on the road is an exercise of such obstruction that Stalin would be proud. First, you need a licence that you purchase from the state after buying two rubber stamps. This license, of course,

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.