Tag Archive | police brutality

Footsoldiers of the State

Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable. However, the facts support everything I’ve said here.

Before we begin, I want to say:

Great. I’m glad that we got that out of the way.

There’s a lot of conversation in the United States right now about police brutality, and it’s been hijacked by a racially motivated crowd that distorts the facts and twists the reality–it is a tool of the state, whether intentionally or not, to keep us distracted from the real issue because we are focused instead on a byproduct of that problem.

The real issue is police brutality and unchallenged police authority.

The false issue is one of Black Lives Matter, turning the police brutality directed at all Americans into something that is racially motivated, when the numbers and facts simply don’t support that narrative. Here’s a map of the incredible 1,186 people who were killed by police last year, in 2015:

police1

It’s hard to look at that without my heart breaking.

And the false narrative put forward by upper and middle America is no more accurate, either, as they insist that the police are our friends and are here to protect us. They are not. There is no protection from the police–quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards?

No one.

When you are out there in the world, there is nothing that protects you from a random police stop, and you will learn very quickly that you have no protection from the police. “Checks and balances” become non-existent. You cannot argue with them. You cannot dispute them. You cannot challenge them. There are countless ways that the procession could go, but many of them result in a bullet square between your eyes. Even when they are being recorded and you’re a law-abiding citizen with a right to carry, as recently happened in a grotesque video that I will not link, the police are unaccountable.

As Llewellyn Rockwell wrote in Fascism Versus Capitalism:

The government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint on its powers. This is a very telling mark. It suggests that the US political system can be described as totalitarian. This is a shocking remark that most people would reject. But they can reject this characterization only so long as they happen not to be directly ensnared in the state’s web. If they become so, they will quickly discover that there are indeed no limits to what the state can do. This can happen boarding a flight, driving around your hometown, or having your business run afoul of some government agency. In the end, you must obey, or be caged like an animal or killed.

That’s something that we Americans should keep in mind. When that police officer pulls you over, if he has it in his mind to give you a hard time, then there is nothing that you can do about it. The officer can tell you to step out of the car while he does his work. Then a K-9 unit will show up. Why? Did you give the officer any reason to think that you were on drugs? No. But you were young, and you have tattoos, so they brought in backup–a K-9 unit. Then the dog sniffs around your vehicle and evidently signals to them that he smelled drugs. Did you see that happen? Do you know that’s what the dog really signaled? Who the hell knows? Only they know.

So they tell you to stand way back there, by their car, as they search your vehicle. You ask them to hand you your cell phone so that you can record the stuff that’s happening, and they say they’ll bring it to you in a moment. What do they really do? They find your phone and start reading your text messages. Are you gay? Do you have obviously gay stuff on your phone? Better hope the officer doesn’t dislike gay people. Or ensure that your phone is locked. At any rate, they go through your phone rather than bring it to you, as the other officer combs through your vehicle, desperately looking for drugs. They open up the fact and find an unlabeled pill bottle–they’re thrilled! They nod knowingly, and you can see it in their faces. We knew it, they are thinking. And we got ‘im! Great day for freedom!

Then they open up the pill bottle and learn that it’s just being used as a container for assorted screws. What the hell else is so perfectly suitable for holding random screws? Of course, you knew all along that there were screws in it, because it was your bottle, but that says nothing about whether it is actually illegal to carry around an unmarked pill bottle, regardless of what is in it. They spend a few more minutes searching, and then they ticket you–somewhere between one and three tickets. And you escape, thankful that it’s over, thankful that they didn’t plant drugs–because there would have been nothing that you could have done to stop it. Then your life would have been over.

This happened to me a number of years ago, when I was pulled over for having a tag that was expired by six days–totally reasonable that I simply hadn’t known the tag was expired. I ended up with a total of three tickets, was delayed to the client’s that I was going to by an hour, and humiliated in the middle of Memphis as a K-9 unit arrived, signaled for drugs, and the cops spent forty minutes tearing apart my vehicle. And never found anything because I’m not fucking on drugs. Yes, I have tattoos. I was also wearing loafers, khakis, and a button-up shirt with a tie when they pulled me over, and clearly on my way (from the tech stuff in the passenger seat) to work. And the Collierville police got an honest to fuck K-9 unit after me.

They also went through my phone. I saw them doing it, though they didn’t think I could see them. The second officer had the door opened at the perfect angle for me to watch the first officer through the sideview mirror as he picked up my phone and went through my text messages.

I would argue that my Constitutional rights were violated that day. After all, the dog was a police officer, in the eyes of the law. By what right did the dog search my vehicle? Oh, sure, he searched my vehicle with his nose, but that’s hardly even relevant. He searched me, one way or another, and the officers used it as an excuse to totally reject my Constitutional rights,  because this dog–my accuser who I could not face because he didn’t even speak English and they were the only conceivable translators–gave them probable cause. Firmly beneath the state’s heel, I could do nothing but watch and hope.

Not terribly long ago, I was pulled over by a curious state trooper. It’s a long story. I had a very unusual vehicle, though, and he wanted to be sure that my paperwork checked out. I had my insurance card in the console, so I opened it up to give it to him, as he had requested, and–

Holy shit! My loaded 38 Special is sitting right fucking there!

Now, this is in no way illegal. In the state of Mississippi, I can (and do) keep a loaded gun with me at almost all times.

I snapped the console shut and threw my hands into the air. When the officer looked at me quizically, I shouted over the roar of the Interstate traffic that I had a loaded 38 in the console, and that I had stupidly put it on top of my insurance card. He didn’t seem to even care. He just kind of shrugged and said “Go ahead and get it.” So I did.

But it occurred to me almost immediately that I would have probably been dead if my skin was black. That is true, and it’s hard to escape that reality.

However, this is not to say that police don’t have some foundation for that bias. It is similarly hard to escape the reality that it is true–most violent crimes in the United States are committed by black people, not white people. Does this justify their “Shoot first, ask questions later” mentality? Absolutely not. I’m not justifying or rationalizing anything. No one despises police and police brutality more than I do. However, it does make sense that they would be less likely to shoot a white person than they are to shoot a black person. Is this okay? Is this acceptable? These two questions are irrelevant. We live in a world of is, not a world of ought. How things ought to be is largely irrelevant to how things are actually are.

Of course, more than 50% of people killed by police in 2015 were white, while a little over 30% were black, according to http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/28/3735190/killed-by-police-2015/ . However, they also have doctored the numbers a bit, as they have clearly lumped people of “Unknown” race in with black Americans. The Washington Post actually reports the numbers more accurately, but I can’t find the link at the moment, as about 120 of the people killed by police in 2015 were of “Unknown” ethnicity. The only way Think Progress’s number of 30% makes sense, versus the 25% reported by the Washington Post, is if those of “Unknown” ethnicity were mixed in with the black numbers.

Not that it’s important–it’s not seriously important to quibble over 5%.

When black Americans make  up 13% of the American population, but 25-30% of the people killed by police, it’s hard to escape the idea that black people are disproportionately killed by police. Based off their population, excluding all other factors, we would think that 13% of people killed by police would be black. But notice my wording here: “…excluding all other factors.”

There are other factors. Let’s take a moment to remember NWA’s “Fuck Tha Police”, for example:

Beat a police out of shape
and when I’m finished, bring the yellow tape
To tape off the scene of the slaughter

Now, really? You can’t have a culture that venerates stuff like that, and then be surprised when the people you’re talking about are more inclined to regard you as a threat. Again, I’m not excusing or rationalizing anything, but we have to be rational and reasonable here. Certainly, not all black people are part of that culture anyway, and certainly not all black people endorse stuff like this:

C'mon. Seriously?

C’mon. Seriously?

Who sees this going well?

Do you see a future college graduate? Or even a future high school graduate? No, it’s not because he’s black that we don’t see a future college graduate. It’s not because he’s black that we don’t even see a high school graduate.

It’s because he’s like 8 years old and is pointing a gun at the camera while wearing a wife beater (Hey, I wear wife beaters, too… It’s my main male look, in fact, but they do give a bad image). We see a future criminal. Not because he’s black, but because he’s clearly walking that path. He clearly thinks he looks cool, and there’s no doubt that his father there in the orange jacket was the one who taught them that this is cool. This image is why police are more likely to shoot black men than white men. I’m sorry that makes people uncomfortable to hear, but this must be addressed before we can resolve the issue of racism in the country.

If you have a part of the culture that loves lyrics like:

Beat a police out of shape
and when I’m finished, bring the yellow tape
To tape off the scene of the slaughter

…while proceeding personally along the path like we see in the image, then we simply can’t be surprised when people are superficially and, perhaps, wrongfully assumed to be part of that culture when the determining characteristic of who takes part in that culture and who doesn’t appears to be skin color. This excuses and justifies nothing. If, however, we have police who “Shoot first and ask questions later,” then we simply cannot be surprised if they disproportionately shoot people who appear, by cultural weights, to likely belong to that part of the culture.

But this isn’t a war against black people by police.

It’s a war against people by police.

So far, in 2016, 505 people have been killed by police. 233 of them were white–nearly 50%–which is in-line with the numbers from 2015, when 50% of the people killed by police where white. It’s simply not a case of Black Lives Matter. It’s a case of Police Authority Is Out of Control. They are out of control because they were never supposed to have authority–our democracy was not designed to accommodate a police force with the authority to shoot first and ask questions later.

There once was a time when law enforcement consisted almost entirely of elected officials, and people who those elected officials personally selected as upstanding moral citizens. They were constables and sheriffs, a glorified neighborhood watch who went around and performed citizen arrests because we didn’t want to be bothered with it. There was a time when even these elected officials had no more authority to stop and harass someone than you or I do.

Now look.

We have city police departments that resembled militaries, SWAT teams with ridiculous degrees of weaponization and training.

Look at this. Look. At. This.

Look at this. Look. At. This.

This is the problem. This is a police vehicle. This armored behemoth is a police vehicle.

Is it any wonder that our police are totally out of control, that they shoot first and ask questions later, when we have stupidly allowed them access to killing machines like that? These are police! What the fuck are they going to be doing that requires a vehicle like that? The gap between police power and citizen power has become so great that few people even bat an eye at this monstrosity that the police have to “keep the peace” and to “serve and protect.” They now shoot first and ask questions later, and no one points out that… No. When you put on that badge, you are knowingly risking your life in an attempt to protect the innocent. That is what it means to be a police officer. If you would shoot first and ask questions later, thereby creating a real chance of directly harming someone who is innocent, then you have no right to wear that badge. That is what that badge means, that you are willing to give your life to protect the innocence. If you would shoot first and ask questions later, then you are clearly not willing to give your life to protect the innocent. In that case, you are demonstrably willing to kill the innocent to protect your life.

My heart truly breaks for all the people killed by police, and I want it to stop. But they aren’t being killed because of their skin color. Not really. They are being killed because our police no longer are willing to give their lives to protect the innocent; they are willing to kill the innocent to protect their lives. This is the inevitable result of having a branch of the state that is actually on the ground, the ones on the frontline in the war that humans have been fighting for thousands of years against the state. This was always going to happen, from the moment we turned over responsibility to a designated police force that was in the employ of the state. We are not their employers. The state is.

The police are the footsoldiers of the state. They are the ones on the frontlines, maintaining the state’s order at all costs. It should be no surprise that they are no longer willing to give their lives to protect the innocent; that is no longer their job. The job of the police is to protect the rule of the state. They do not ask questions. They do not question orders. They obey.

And they tell you to obey.

And if you don’t, then they put a bullet between your eyes.

Wake up, America. The problem is not racism. That is a problem, yes, but police killing a disproportionate amount of black men is a symptom of a larger problem, and is not an illness. Stop treating symptoms. Start treating the illness.

The illness is that the police even have the authority to do this. The underlying problem is that police even can shoot first and ask questions later. Get rid of their ability to do that, and you also completely nip in the bud the killing of a disproportionate amount of black men. Treat the symptom, and the disease will remain.

This is happening right before our eyes. And we are not questioning the underlying power of the police that allows them to do shit like this in the first place. That is the real problem; that is the real heart of the matter. We are fast allowing the state to use the police as its footsoldiers, not as a glorified neighborhood watch whose responsibility is keeping the peace and protecting the innocent.

American-Police-State-21

Look, if I happen to be in a situation where I believe the person is a violent criminal, no one expects me to Ask Questions First. I’m not expected to give the person the benefit of the doubt if they break into my home, are trespassing on my property, or any other number of crimes. But I’m not a police officer. I’m not wearing a badge that says I’m willing to give my life to protect the innocent. No one is going to blame me if I shoot first and ask questions later, and they shouldn’t. I never agreed with the public or with society that I would give intruders the benefit of the doubt and possibly risk my life protecting the innocent. My responsibility is to protect my life.

This is not true of police, though. Police are required by honor, by goodness, by virtue… to give the benefit of the doubt, to Ask First, and Shoot Later. That is what that badge entails. They are there to protect the innocent, and they know before becoming police officers that they may very well have to give their lives to protect the innocent.

So why does that change in practice?

Why do we just pretend like it’s not a blatant violation of their expressed values that they shoot first and ask questions later? Someone who is willing to give their life to protect the innocent will not shoot first and ask questions later, because there is too much potential there for the person shot to be innocent.

The police are not our friends. They are not on our side. They are not there to serve and protect us.

They serve the state.

Never forget that.

This in no way means they should be killed–for fuck’s sake, can we stop killing people for two goddamned days? Please? Can we please stop killing people? I’m so sick of death and murder–whether by police, by white men, by black men, by the few women who commit murder. I’m tired of it. Can we please just try to swear off violence? For a few days? Maybe?

Can we just stop being violent animals for a few days? Three days? Can I have three days where we, as thinking, rational, emotional, loving human beings, stop killing people? This includes war. This includes ISIS. DAESH. Whatever you want to call them.

We are stone age barbarians with nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong?

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.