Category Archives: Freedom

Quote of the day—Charles C. Cooke

Posted on by

Franks is assuming that you are too stupid to see what she is doing. Summing up her proposal, she contends that Americans should abandon their traditional constitutional setup and “situate individual rights within the framework of ‘domestic tranquility’ and the ‘general welfare.’” This is a fancy way of saying that the natural rights Americans currently enjoy wouldn’t actually be legal rights anymore.

Next time, Franks could just say that—and spare us all the merry dance.

Charles C. Cooke
March 10, 2022
No, Professor, We Shouldn’t Cut Up Our Rights
[Franks, of course, is not going to take Cooke’s advice. She is smart enough to know that deception is required for her plan to succeed.

Last December, I had my thoughts on Franks’ suggestions for the First and Second Amendments. I prefer my approach to Cooke’s suggestion. It’s more direct, let’s her know her deception failed, and makes it clear we not going to acquiesce::

No. Your move Ms. Franks.

Prepare appropriately to back up those words.—Joe]

How Civil Wars Start

Posted on by

On a recent trip to Idaho I finished listening to How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them by Barbara F. Walter.

Although her observations and interpretation of current events in the U.S. differ significantly from mine her broader perspective of civil wars world wide and the causes resonated as quite plausible to me. I highly recommended reading it and skipping or pushing through the parts where you know she is oblivious to reality. For example, in her mind January 6th 2021 was an attempted coup. The attempted kidnapping of Gov. Whitmer of Michigan was something similar rather than an FBI entrapment operation.* And President Trump and the Republican party was/is authoritarian while Democrats are pro-freedom..

There are times when I just had to pause and try to recover from some of the crazy stuff she would say. Things like (paraphrasing) “California has a minority majority”. What? In a literal reading that is completely nonsensical. Or, (still paraphrasing) as she talks about the need for government to becoming less authoritarian, “Social media must be regulated and not allow extremists a safe haven.”

I finally managed to reconcile the schizophrenia by deciding she was too close an observer to the situation in the U.S. With this I could move on to accept her study of other countries as more objective and could be used as evidence for the claimed principles of civil war detection and prevention.

The following are my takeaways:

  • Governments exist on a scale of –10 (fully autocratic) to +10 (full democracies).
  • Countries at either end of the scale are stable and not subject to civil war.
  • Countries in the middle, anocracies, are at risk of civil war.
  • The US. is at it’s lowest point, +5, since the early 1800 (this doesn’t seem to account for the great unpleasantness of 1861 to 1865) after being a +10 for decades.
  • A political divide along racial and/or religious lines is a critical component of civil wars.
  • Long time abuse and lack of political influence of one group combined with losing hope for an end to their abuse is one of two possible triggers for violence.
  • Or a loss of power and/or status/prestige by a group is the second possible trigger for the use of violence.
  • Social media has played a huge role in the initiation of civil wars world wide. The rise of social media is highly correlated with the exponential increase in violent conflicts.

These principals were explained and supported by examples from conflicts all over the world.

* The trial may reveal things that change my mind on this.

Quote of the day—David S. Willis

Posted on by

Amid the technological chaos and Western culture wars of the 21st century, thinkpiece writers sporadically debate which of these novels more accurately foresaw our present predicament. Modern China most clearly embodies Orwell’s vision, and elements of both novels can be found in contemporary Western societies. However, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 offered perhaps a more accurate warning than either. Published in 1953, Bradbury’s novel is as gloomy and prescient as either Orwell’s or Huxley’s, but its explanation of how a dystopia is created comes closer to providing an understanding of our new reality.

David S. Willis
February 12, 2022
“A Pleasure to Burn”: We Are Closer to Bradbury’s Dystopia Than Orwell’s or Huxley’s
[I think he is right. Orwell’s vision could be on the horizon though.—Joe]

Up is down, truth is false

Posted on by

Nineteen Eighty-Four was a dystopian novel. It was not a how-to manual.

Yet we have an organization who advocates for the banning of firearms, a specific enumerated right, being called a civil rights organization:

image

Evil has become incredibly brazen.

Prepare appropriately.

Quote of the day—Victor Davis Hanson

Posted on by

This governmental freefall has been overseen by a tragically bewildered, petulant, and incompetent president. In his confusion, an increasingly unpopular Biden seems to believe that his divisive chaos is working, belittling his political opponents as racist Confederate rebels.

As we head into the 2022 midterm elections, who will stop our descent into collective poverty, division, and self-inflicted madness?

Victor Davis Hanson
January 19, 2022
Is America Heading for a Systems Collapse
[I’m nearly certain that is the wrong question to ask. It is my understanding that in chaotic times people give their support to “strong” (authoritarian) people who claim they can fix the broken system. Mussolini and Hitler come to mind…

Hence, I think the better questions are:

  • “How can we prevent the wrong person from coming to power?”
  • “How can we dramatically reduced government power and let the free market fix the mess we are in?”
  • “How can we survive the coming collapse?”
  • “Where is my underground bunker?”

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Forrest Cooper

Posted on by

In his book, Antifragile Nicholas Nassim Taleb describes his concept as something which gains from disorder or resistance. Having no word to accurately describe something that is the opposite of fragile, he argues that the term robust does not go far enough, and is neutral at best. Antifragility is a trait, whether it be in markets, military strategies, or bone mass, that grows off of the volatility of their environments.

…

The phenomenon that is American Gun Culture has responded to censorship in an antifragile way. This can be seen in the sudden spike in firearms purchasing whenever politicians push for banning certain firearms, as well as by continuing to grow despite political and cultural opposition. While social media platforms normalize censoring firearms-related content, the culture revolving around firearms shows that it doesn’t need their approval to continue thriving.

Forrest Cooper
February 7, 2022
Censorship and Antifragility: Aero Precision
[Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder is a good book. It is a novel, (but obvious in hindsight) way of looking at things. As an engineer it helped me think about the design of reliable systems. It can help the gun rights community think about better responses to attempts at infringements too.

Gab is a good example. They were deplatformed on multiple axis simultaneously and came back stronger than before.

One might also say Boomershoot was an antifragile response to a law introduced by Diane Feinstein. The word did not exist at the time, but it certainly fits the facts.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Vox Day@voxday

Posted on by

You can cling to all the Big Tech platforms as long as you like. It’s foolish, because they WILL deplatform you. And you can jump to all the “new” gatekeeping platforms run by the same people who run the Big Tech platforms all you like, but you’re not going to find what you’re looking for there either.

Consider this: there is a reason the media, the ADL, and all the other organizations that hate you have been deplatforming and discrediting people like me, Torba, Milo, Owen, Stefan, and Razor for the last 7 years.

And maybe it’s not because we are pure and unmitigated evil haters who hate. Maybe it’s because we actually stand for the Good, the Beautiful, and the True.

Vox Day@voxday
Gabbed on February 4, 2022
[Read that carefully. He didn’t say they were the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. He said maybe they actually stood for that.

I think that is the more likely hypothesis than they are all “pure and unmitigated evil haters who hate”.

There may be some other hypothesis that fits the available evidence better than either but doesn’t matter much. What matters is those Big Tech companies deplatforming people are clearly evil haters who hate.—Joe]

Of course is it California

Posted on by

This was in the package with a recent purchase I made:

image

One might be inclined to give someone a pass on this if it were a label on something like a household cleaner with a pleasant smell. Or maybe even your gun oil. But I don’t think you would arrive at the actual produce even with a game of twenty questions.

It is a cell phone holster:

image

How many trees will be cut down, how much electricity will be used in the creation of those paper inserts, how much landfill space will be used, to save zero people from consuming the cell phone holster and causing a birth defect or have other reproductive harm? Anyone stupid enough to eat that piece of plastic is going to be too stupid to read and remember what the warning was about.

Of course it is California. It is not about saving lives. It is about exerting control and demoralizing the populace.

Simplistic thinking

Posted on by

When I read stuff like this it is like I’m reading something written by an eight grader:

It’s Time for a Guaranteed Basic Income in Washington State

With basic incomes, more people are able to afford food and housing, pay off debt, get full-time jobs, save for emergencies, and get the physical and mental health support they need. Cash payments dramatically improve the lives of our neighbors and communities. That’s a source of hope. Unfortunately, the very need for GBI also reveals just how many of us are close to losing everything; even people working multiple jobs that offer little security for workers.

There is no hint of appreciation for the glaring problems of costs, fraud, and demotivation. I was reminded of what I posted about The Communist Manifesto:

Assumptions critical to the reasoning which followed were unsupported and, at least to my present day perspective, either blatantly wrong or highly suspect. Even conceding the authors their assumptions without contest the conclusions reached with such confidence were as unstable as any house of cards.

And yet, these people, with such simplistic thinking, are making progress.

No thank you

Posted on by

Via email from Gerald F.:

‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist

It seems that the U.S. is not currently equipped to cooperatively lower the risk confronting us. Many are instead pinning their hopes on the rapid development and distribution of an enhancement to the immune system – a vaccine.

But I believe society may be better off, both in the short term as well as the long, by boosting not the body’s ability to fight off disease but the brain’s ability to cooperate with others. What if researchers developed and delivered a moral enhancer rather than an immunity enhancer?

Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.

And what is the morality of forcing others to adhere to a version of morality different than their firmly held belief?

And of course some (most?) would refuse which the author suggests isn’t that big of an obstacle (apparently oblivious to the practical problems of dosage, secrecy, and costs with this sort of scale):

administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply

And if you follow the link you will discover the “moral reasoning” of the author is somewhat twisted (highlighting added):

My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

I find it very telling the author values “utility” and “equality”. And dares to suggest a covert program of forced “bioenhancement” is consistent with “liberty” and “autonomy”.

No thank you.

I want an underground bunker in Idaho.

Quote of the day—dittybopper

Posted on by

The only real difference between Communism and Naziism is that when you point out the millions who were killed by the Nazis, no one ever says “Well, real Naziism has never been tried”.

dittybopper
January 29, 2022
Comment to Quote of the day—The Socialist Party @OfficialSPGB
[There are many other differences of interest to historians, sociologists, and psychologists. But in terms of what you need to know to make appropriate decisions in response to them this is correct.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Socialist Party @OfficialSPGB

Posted on by

There have been no “failures”. To fail it must first exist. Which country’s population has managed to free themselves and create a class-free society where the PEOPLE collectively owned the natural resources, industries etc? Most people don’t know what socialism / communism is.

The Socialist Party @OfficialSPGB
Tweeted on January 21, 2022
[If it has never existed then all the millions of people who died in the failed attempts surely must be considered “a clue”. But that they persist tells us one, or both, of two things:

  1. They are totally without a clue.
  2. Killing tens or hundreds of millions of people is intentional.

Therefore, if they persist, we should just say, “No!” until we run out of ammo, then affix bayonets and continue with hand-to-hand.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Stilettos & Shotguns (@thereal_SnS)

Posted on by

I don’t know who needs to hear this, but there is no such thing as freedom with strict oversight.

Stilettos & Shotguns (@thereal_SnS)
Tweeted on January 21, 2022
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Isabel van Brugen

Posted on by

Almost half of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.

Isabel van Brugen
January 19, 2022
Nearly Half of Democrats Would Back Temporary Detention for Unvaccinated: Poll
[It looks to me like nearly half of Democrats are at risk of prosecution for violation of Federal law.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Anton

Posted on by

Blue America offers to Red nothing but scorn, contempt, hatred, insult, humiliation, calumny, outsourcing, open borders, layoffs, lower wages, opioids, losing wars, censorship, trumped-up treason accusations, surveillance, anarcho-tyranny, pre-trial detention, mask mandates, lockdowns, Critical Race Theory, and cancellation. And then not only gets enraged when Red America objects, but demands Red reverence and gratitude in return.

Michael Anton
Blue America’s Messaging Problem
January 4, 2022
[There is more than a little truth in this.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lyle

Posted on by

There have been many, many statements to the effect that gun owners, so-called “constitutionalists” (spoken as an epithet), libertarians, et al (any of a generally pro-liberty, anti-authoritarian mind) are essentially vermin, heretics who deserve no rights unless they recant. And so while they’re saying we MUST trust liars and power-hungry psychopaths in government, who hate us, to “keep us safe”, they’re simultaneously saying that we’re the problem the world needs to get rid of in order to be safe (“safe” meaning “free from opposition”).

History proves beyond all doubt that if you comply and turn in your guns they’ll not stop hating and accusing you. They’ll persecute you all the more. More because you’re not only an enemy of their beautiful alliance, you’ve now proven yourself to be weak, manipulated via lies, unable to stand on your own principles, a coward, and therefore all the more contemptible! Compliance with liars and criminal psychopaths is like chum in the water— It attracts a feeding frenzy among the sharks. It ONLY leads to more contempt and more violations!

Lyle
January 11, 2022
Comment to Quote of the day—JPFO @JPFO_2A
[This reminds me of something I learned (the hard way) from dealing with people with personality disorders. You must draw a line and provide consequences for misbehavior which transgress that line. If you do not you will end up in an abusive relationship.—Joe]

Quote of the day—JPFO @JPFO_2A

Posted on by

Can you spot the principled difference between these two statements?

  1. Citizens should turn their guns over to the U.S. government, they’ll keep us safe.
  2. The U.S. government should turn their guns over to China & Russia, they’ll keep us safe.

TurnInYourWeaponsGovWillCareForYou

JPFO @JPFO_2A
Tweeted on January 8, 2022
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Hannah Furfaro

Posted on by

Similar in nature to vaccines against disease, addiction vaccines stimulate the body to create antibodies that recognize a drug, and prevent or slow it from reaching the brain. A shot every few months, or once a year, has the potential to seriously ease a person’s path to recovery. 

Hannah Furfaro
January 5, 2022
To fight opioid crisis, UW researchers take new shot at developing vaccine against addictive drugs
[Interesting. I never who have guessed such a thing was possible. But now that the idea has been presented I can imagine “vaccines” for all kinds of things.

The first one that came to mind was one prevent Marxist beliefs. That was quickly followed by the concern that someone would probably develop, and the government would soon mandate, a vaccine to prevent individualism and/or suspicion of large government.

I soon returned to the present day and reality by reminding myself there has been a vaccine for the lethal variants of Marxism since before the mutations first started spreading over 100 years ago. Current prices vary from less than $0.10 to over $5.00 dollars a shot. And, if properly injected, they will cure as well as provide lifelong 100% immunity from infections. Even though the shots are widely available, inexpensive, and effective we still have rising Marxist infection rates. It seems to me there will have to be mandates to achieve herd immunity. This is because the voluntary inoculation rates are so very low..—Joe]

Quote of the day—Victoria Parker

Posted on by

Some policies—and some partisans—deserve forceful opposition, even contempt, from the other side. Vigorous disagreement, both within and between parties, is essential in a functioning democracy. But democracy also requires at least some level of mutual comprehension. No matter where people are on the political spectrum, they ought to know whom they’re fighting with and what they’re even fighting about.

Victoria Parker
December 27, 2021
Conservatives and Liberals Are Wrong About Each Other
[It is my belief that instead of treating people as belonging to one tribe or another people should treat each other as individuals. Individuals that have a much more nuanced set of beliefs and actions than the caricatures assigned to them by the leaders of their tribal opponents.

That may be too much to ask. The tribal behaviors are almost certainly deeply embedded in our psyche and difficult to override. As I have said many times before*, “It is irrational to expect people to be rational.”

The end result may be a tragedy of misunderstandings with a great mass of people “targeted” by each side when, if at all, it should only be that small fraction of extremists who are dragging the whole population into the fire.—Joe]

* For example:

A progressive getting a clue

Posted on by

Michelle Tandler starts out with this:

Here is what confuses me about San Francisco.

We have the most liberal, left-wing government & population in the country.

We have a $13B budget.

And we have 8,000 people sleeping in the rain this week.

Can someone please explain this to me?

Continues here:

I’ve been a registered democrat for 18 years.

I grew up in a Progressive family and went to a Progressive school, and have mostly Progressive friends.

Yet what I see in SF – if this what Progressive stands for – I want the opposite.

And here:

+ Why, after decades of Progressive rule in SF are 8,000 people in the streets?
+ Why do we have the highest overdose rate in the nation?
+ Why do we have the highest property crime rate?
+ Why do we have fewest children per capita?

And here:

Why have I never learned about the case for gun rights?

Or about the values of Islam?

What are the arguments against abortion?

Why do so many people not want to take the vaccine?

Why am I not allowed to ask these questions without being accused of “doing harm”?

There more. A lot more. The entire thread is interesting. But the bottom line is that reality has intruded into her progressive bubble and she finally noticed. It appears to have cause a crisis of faith.

I have hope for the future.