Runaway Slave

The “new plantation” is government dependency and a victim mentality, and 95% of the black community is on the plantation, but C. L. Bryant has made a documentary about how he and others had the strength to become “runaway slaves”. Now, they have formed a new underground railroad to help other black people escape from the plantation.

You can buy it at Amazon.

Government dependency is a fraud perpetrated on the black community by progressives … It is an atrocity … The most charitable analysis is that maybe some progressives had good intentions – in the past, but now, the evidence is overwhelming.

C. L. Bryant is a runaway slave.

The Future of Socialism by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (Partisan Review May-June 1947)

We Already Know The Solution

We’ve always had enough information to know what to do:

• Cut taxes at least .5%, and cut government spending four times as much as taxes.
• Letting people keep the fruits of their labor works way better than redistributing the fruits of their labor.
• End the Federal Reserve, and allow monetary competition. Never subsidize any money, and definitely never let any money have a monopoly. Money is a product.
• Cut government dependency.

We know what to do, so why aren’t we doing it? History has been consistent, so why does our “progressive” government keep doubling down on the failed policies of the past?

In a Free Market – Who Saves a Dying Child?

A progressive once asked me one of their most effective (and most dishonest) questions, which has thrown everyone off his game whenever I have seen it used,

In a free market, who would save a dying child from a poor family?

The most honest and most effective answer, in the context of the question, is …

In a free market … the child wouldn’t be dying …

How has our culture forgotten this wonderful truth … that in a free market, the family would be wealthier, the community would be wealthier, and the technology would be better and cheaper.

Government is not the solution.

Government is the problem.

Government dependency has failed.

The path forward is the free market.

In a free market, more people would be willing and able to help him.

In a free market, the child is not only more likely to survive … but is also more likely to thrive.

What you’re really asking is, “What can we expect for a dying child if we move towards more government dependency vs. moving forward to a free market?”

Under government healthcare, a bureaucrat, or a panel of bureaucrats, decides whether to save a dying child – depending on cost, race, politics, unions, cronyism, etc.

In a free market, competition without the burden of government maximizes quality, efficiency, and innovation – not just in the medical field, but in every field. In a free market, the people are thus safer and healthier, happier and wealthier, more productive and more empowered.

Those I’ve seen answer this question all failed because effective defenders of the free market are not allowed in the mainstream media. This is a self reinforcing strategy of the MSM. Consider that it is very difficult to become an effective supporter of the free market when we are inundated 24/7 with an inaccurate world view. The reality is that we do not live in a free market, big government has failed, and government is the tool by which elites manage innovation.

Only by thinking for ourselves, can we discover reality.

Freedom is the Promise of Reality.

Oklahoma City Bombing – A Noble Lie

The official story on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing is that the damage was caused entirely by a truck bomb made of fertilizer and diesel fuel and created by Timothy McVeigh.

The official story cannot be true.

After watching the documentary A Noble Lie, I have to agree with the conclusion of the Wright Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base, which tried to reproduce the Oklahoma City bombing based on the claims from McVeigh and the FBI about how the bomb was constructed. In a two minute segment, the documentary explained how the Air Force built a test bomb more powerful than the real bomb, and used it on a test building that was weaker than the real building, but the more powerful test bomb did less damage to the weaker test building than the real bomb did to the real building.

The conclusion of the Air Force was that the truck bomb could not have caused any of the damage beyond broken windows, and that, given that kind of truck bomb, charges must have been placed on the columns inside the building. The truck bomb would have to have been 10 times more powerful to cause the amount of damage done to the building, and even then, it would have been impossible for it to have caused the pattern of damage done to the building.

All of these conclusions by the air Force contradict the official story. The fact that this test was performed and published proves that there were still honest and competent people working for the government.

The documentary itself is far more interesting that it sounds. The Air force test was just a two minute segment. Many other experts come to a similar conclusion based on their different areas of expertise. It also exposes an unbelievable amount of heroism, corruption, and cover ups – including murder.

Just like 9/11, the official story cannot be true.

Just like 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing erased the current public opposition to legislation that would move us towards the kind of police state that our leaders claimed was necessary for the good of everyone.

Plato advocated the use of lies that maintain everyone’s acceptance of their place in life, and which generate support for the government. Plato’s concept is referred to as “The Noble Lie”.

The Myth of Obama – Busted

For more than four years, the Myth of Obama has been the biggest impediment to progress because it enables his believers to remain closed to reality. It is thus necessary to bust the Myth of Obama so that his believers can become open to reality.

If Obama believers became open to reality, then it would be a lot easier to move forward. It would be a lot easier to leave the world a better place than we found it.

The media have been selling us a false image of Obama while they suppress the facts. Let’s consider just a small percentage evidence about the real Obama, which should be more than enough to put his false image to rest.

• Four years later, the economy had never recovered.
• Obama incited racial violence.
• Obama’s DHS is violating our rights house to house.
• Obama’s DHS is targeting white kids.
• Obama has always wanted our guns.
• Obama resents a large segment of the American people.
• Michelle Obama resents just about all of America.
• Obama is delusionally self-righteous.
• Obama is not as smart as the media says.
• Obama’s poor followers are not as noble as the media says.
• Obama’s mainstream voters are not as smart as the media says.
• Read the words of Obama’s progressive fascist science czar.
• Obama is neither honest nor transparent.
• Obama is not keeping his promises.
• The media themselves are ludicrously biased.

Obama’s DHS Violates Rights House to House

Government soldiers forced their way into house after house in Boston because there was a chance that a 19 year old US citizen might be hiding in one of them. (He wasn’t.)

The people were not allowed to leave their homes – except for those who were forced to leave their homes at gun point and were then patted down. I have seen no evidence yet of a warrant, but of course, a Constitutional warrant must state a specific place to be searched, so there could be no Constitutional warrant in the instance of a house to house search.

As far as I know, this has never been done in America before.

House to house raids in unprecedented violation of US constitution.

I wonder if the soldiers in the video have thought about how when they are out violating our homes, there is no one guarding their own homes? Are they sociopaths who don’t even care about their own families?

Given the limited audio, some may claim that it is not what it appears, so let’s listen to some testimony from the citizens themselves.

Testimony from the citizens themselves.

These witnesses were ordinary people who thus have faith in government and who did not know that their rights were being violated. Now let’s here from a witness who understood what was happening.

Someone who understood he was under martial law.

Everything you saw in these videos was unconstitutional, but this is not what anyone saw in the mainstream media. Instead, the mainstream media showed us the nice soldier bringing milk to the children, or the man who said he felt safe because the government was searching his home.

This unprecedented violation of the Constitution by Obama’s DHS not only failed to find the 19 year old US citizen, but it actually prevented his discovery. It was only after the government allowed people to leave their homes again that a citizen found him hiding in his boat.

This unprecedented violation of the Constitution did not find the 19 year old US citizen, but it achieved its more important goal, which was to set the precedent that government soldiers can come into your home without a warrant whenever they want and the mainstream media will cover for them.

This unprecedented violation of the Constitution did not find the 19 year old US citizen, and it also failed to achieve its most important goal, which was to provoke armed conflict with the American people. The US Government was hoping that one (and preferably more than one) citizen in this all white neighborhood would defend the Constitution with AR-15s and high capacity magazines. The government’s goal to provoke armed conflict with the American people finally became 100% clear a few weeks earlier when Obama’s DHS began practicing shooting white children.

We know the DHS wanted to create this whole scenario because they called this man and his brother at home and told them they were coming. The brothers predictably fled in an unprepared manner, thus creating the opportunity for the government to react – like we saw in the videos.

If the Obama administration is capable of what we now know, then it is capable of anything.

Why Men and Women Do What They Do

Why do men and women seem to have such different goals, interests, and behaviors?

Both men and women often get mad or frustrated because they don't get what they want from the other. They also get mad or frustrated with themselves for making choices that do not get them what they want.

The anger, frustration, and stupid choices men and women make are the source of most of our comedy and drama because, after thousands of years of recorded history, we still don't seem to understand why men and women behave the way they do.

The reason men and women behave the way they do is really simple. It is evolution.

We are not the product of everyone before us. We are the product of only those before us who's reproductive strategy produced the most offspring, and the most successful reproductive strategy for men is different than for women because:

A woman can have about 10 kids, and a man can have about a hundred kids. The genetically programmed male strategy thus focuses on quantity, and the genetically programmed female strategy thus focuses on quality. Quality in this context means “most successful at reproduction”. This is the root all of the interesting differences between men and women.

The men who had the most kids in future generations were those who were able to impregnate as many women as possible – regardless of how or why they were able to impregnate more women. The women who had the most kids in future generations were therefore those who tried to reproduce with those men who were best at impregnating as many women as possible – regardless of how or why those women tried. We are thus the offspring of those men and women, and have the same impulses that got more of their genes into future generations.

It is true that a man’s offspring were more likely to survive and reproduce themselves if he stuck around and helped raise them, but some men also impregnated other women and thereby tricked other men into raising their offspring, so they had far more offspring in future generations than the men they had tricked. We are thus not only the offspring of those men who tricked (cuckolded) other men, but we are also the offspring of women who favored those men – regardless of their reasons – and thereby got more of their offspring into future generations too.

It gets even more interesting than that. A woman needed a man to provide food and protection for her and her kids, but not every woman could have the biggest, strongest, smartest man. So the best reproductive strategy for a woman was to be as loyal, helpful, and sexually available as possible for her husband, and then once per month, she would try to put herself into a situation where an alpha male could impregnate her. Therefore, we are the offspring of those women who loved their husbands but still tried to get impregnated by an alpha male. Therefore, women today have the same genetically programmed impulses as those women.

Just as the female reproductive strategy was shaped by the male strategy, the male strategy adapted to the female strategy by optimizing for both the husband role and the alpha male role.

Both the husband role and the alpha male role had reproductive advantages. We are thus the offspring of those women who tried to have some children by men who excel at the husband role as well as some children by men who excel at the alpha male role.

This is a self reinforcing cycle that would only get stronger as we evolved.

Let’s look at some specific consequences.

A husband who let his woman be impregnated by an alpha male or a better husband would get fewer of his genes into future generations than a man who took measures to prevent his woman from being impregnated by other men. Therefore, we are the offspring of those men who took measures to prevent their woman from being impregnated by other men. Therefore, men today have the same genetically programmed impulses as those men.

Being a husband might seem like a good strategy because a prehistoric husband had 24/7 access to his woman, but evolution can be pretty sneaky. For example, an anti-husband mutation caused women to be more likely to get pregnant if they have an orgasm, which obviously was an advantage for alpha males who got fewer opportunities to impregnate any given woman but whose one try was more likely to induce an orgasm than any of the husbands’ multiple tries.

Another anti-husband mutation has enabled men to produce sperm that would form a rear guard and thus block other men’s sperm from reaching the egg. Therefore, when a woman became fertile each month, if she let the alpha male try first, then his sperm might successfully block the husband’s sperm for the period in which the woman was fertile that month.

Although some men are alpha males and some are husbands, both have the same strategy. The difference is that alpha males are more successful at implementing the male strategy, which is why we are the offspring alpha males and of those women who were most successful at being impregnated by an alpha male instead of their husbands.

Clearly, a woman must be one heck of an actor to pull off the female strategy. Therefore, the descendants of those women are good actors, but the women before us were more than just great actors. The most successful women would have been those who really did love their husbands but who still tried to be impregnated by an alpha male. Therefore, the descendants of those women really do love their husbands – and – they are good actors.

The dual nature of the genetically programmed female strategy is one of the reasons men think that women send mixed signals and play games, and why women will often agree and not be able to explain their behavior, but it is not a game or mixed signals. It makes perfect sense once you understand it’s evolutionary underpinnings.

Another reason men think that women send mixed signals and play games is actually a real game.

Consider that in prehistoric times, if a man was able to chase a woman, catch her, and impregnate her without letting her injure him with her feeble blows, and without injuring her, then that man must have had good genes, and good genes was exactly what she wanted. It would have been a good reproductive strategy for women to put themselves into a situation where a man she was certain had good genes would attempt to prove himself in this manor. Obviously, when the game went as planned by both parties, it was quite mutual in spite of the woman running and fighting. Women today are thus the offspring of women who employed such a strategy and thus feel the impulse to engage in this strategy themselves.

Now the game would have been great fun for both the alpha male and the woman, but what if the woman was wrong and the man was weaker than she thought and he failed to block some of her feeble blows. The woman might then suddenly decide that the game was over because she could do better in this menstruation cycle, although she would have reserved the right to change her mind later that day – just in case there were no better males available.  Therefore, given that a woman can only have a few kids, and so every one must count, a mutation would thus have succeeded in pre-historic women so that when they were already trying to get pregnant by a given man, they might suddenly think that being impregnated by that man was horrible based on any one of many possible ques.

Hence, a woman today might really change her mind at the last minute for any one of many reasons that may be mostly subconscious, but which are real from a previously evolutionarily optimum perspective. Of course, this would seem really insulting to a man as well as making him think the woman was shallow and irrational, but if both parties understood the evolutionary forces at work, then they would be more likely to enjoy themselves as well as being more likely to part amicably if evolution throws them a curve ball at the last minute – and more likely to try again later.

The political elite use our genetic programming to manipulate us all the time. Just one of those manipulations relies on the fact that evolution has caused women to feel like they need a husband more than just about anything else. For many women, a priest has subconsciously served as a surrogate husband, and now politicians like Obama are also subconsciously seen as a surrogate husband by many women. Now that women are in the workforce, their boss and/or company can serve as a surrogate husband. Of course, government itself can serve as a surrogate husband too.

In addition to trying increase their own competitiveness with real husbands by playing a role or sometimes actually giving stuff to women, religious and political surrogates also try to reduce the competitiveness of real husbands. One way priests and politicians manipulate women is by raising women’s expectations for real husbands. Another way they manipulate women is by reducing the effectiveness of real husbands – consider how many black men are in jail.

Never forget that we each have a brain, which can override any genetic programming – especially if we are aware of that programming. Also, remember there is certainly no reason to get mad about our genetic programming.

Trayvon, Obama, NBC, Democrats

Let’s not speculate about Trayvon or Zimmerman themselves, instead, let’s discuss the national issue that we know.

NBC, the Democrats, and Obama used Trayvon Martin’s death to propagate the New Hate.

There was no evidence of racism in Zimmerman’s 911 call, so NBC doctored the 911 call in two ways to make the call sound like ironclad evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by racism. Then NBC used its power as a national mainstream news organization to turn the local Trayvon case into a national case. As you can imagine, this infuriated the black community across the nation.

Then Barack Obama, as the President of the United States and as the most beloved and trusted leader of the black community, spoke to the nation. To the black community, who were already incited to hatred and anger by the media, Obama said this, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”

The media and the Democrats thus incited hatred in the black community against white people, which did indeed result in violence against white people, and Obama basically gave the order. Of course, the media suppressed the evidence of their guilt, and viciously attacked anyone who questioned the politically correct narrative they had fabricated. The way the media and the Democrats worked together to incite hatred in the black community and in the politically correct community while suppressing dissent, not only resulted in violence against white people, but also resulted in more votes for the Democratic Party.

Obama’s DHS Targets White Children

Obama’s DHS ordered new targets featuring all white people and mostly kids and women with the theme “No Hesitation.”

If Obama had a son, he wouldn’t look like these kids. [1]

Note how these targets appear to be standing on their own property. Now why would Obama’s DHS need to practice shooting white people’s kids on their own property? If the people in Obama’s DHS find themselves in these situations, then the most likely reason is that they themselves are the bad guys, and thus they should hesitate.

Obama, The Democratic Party, and the Mainstream Media have taken Their Hate to a new level.

Clearly, the DHS has decided that too few DHS personnel are the kind of sociopaths who would blindly obey orders to kill ordinary innocent Americans, so DHS needs to manufacture more such sociopaths – hence the targets.

We now know why Obama’s DHS recently made an unprecedented purchase of 1.6 billion bullets. (Now it’s  2 billion.) This is nearly 20 times larger than a normal year for DHS. Why does this include 450 million rounds hollow point .40 caliber when .40 caliber is not used by the military, when hollow points are not used for practice, when hollow points will not penetrate Kevlar, and when hollow points have always been banned from warfare because they are too barbaric. Their only purpose is therefore to murder civilians wearing bathrobes and t-shirts – just like in the targets.

We now know why Obama has always wanted our guns.

How does DHS know who to target? I guess we now know why DHS listens to every call and reads every email in America.

How does DHS know its commanders will cooperate? I guess we now know why the Obama administration has instituted a litmus test to weed out any commanders who express reluctance to fire on Americans. Given that we know Obama worries about whether he can depend on the US military to fire on Americans without hesitation, we now know why Obama wants to create his own civilian security force just as strong as the US military.

Consider that drones experience “No Hesitation.” I guess we now know the reason for the massive drone build up.

Do we need the DHS? Consider that the DHS was created in response to 9/11, and that the official explanation of 9/11 cannot be true.

Unfortunately, I have found that many people feel that such overwhelming evidence simply could not be true given the image of Obama sold to us by the media. Therefore, I have busted the Myth of Obama so that we can move forward again.

We now have overwhelming evidence that the government is trying to provoke armed conflict with the American people, and we have overwhelming evidence that such plans have greatly accelerated under Obama, and of course, the only reason to provoke armed conflict is to justify a police state – beyond what we already have.

It is critical that the targets be white because ordinary innocent white people are the main source of resistance to a police state. White people are more numerous, more spread out, more wealthy, more educated, and more concerned about the Constitution; whereas, government has already neutralized black people by keeping them poor, distracted, and dependent on government. Blacks who resist are incarcerated, shot, or ridiculed and shunned. Law enforcement is already willing to shoot black people, so DHS needs to create more sociopaths with the same lack of respect for white people. Therefore, the targets are all white.

The next question is, “Other than front men like Clinton, Bush and Obama, who are the Elites that want to create a police state – and why?”

Who are Democrats and Republicans?

The newly formed Republican party wanted to abolish slavery; whereas, the already existing Democratic Party wanted to promote slavery. Therefore, we see that the rhetoric of both parties is consistent with their history. The Republicans have always claimed that no man has a right to the fruits of another man's labor; whereas, the Democrats have always promised the fruits of other men's labor to whoever would vote for them. A majority of those who want something for nothing will thus prefer the Democratic Party.

The mainstream media, academia, and the government actively promote the Democratic Party, and actively oppose the Republican Party. A majority of those who do not think for themselves will thus prefer the Democratic Party.

Of course, those who think for themselves and who take the time to investigate, know that, regardless of which party is in power, the overall trend of government is higher taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more corruption, more wealth redistribution, more violation of the Constitution, more propaganda, more political factions, more fear, more hate, and more regulation of your life and your business.

It is almost as if both parties were merely front men for the same elite interests, and for some issues one is the good cop and the other is the bad cop; whereas, for other issues, it is the reverse. It is almost as if most politics, news media, and academic studies were never intended to find or solve real problems, but were actually intended to incite fear of each other, fear of nature, and fear of the unknown, so that we will empower them to control others, control nature, and control the unknown.

What politicians really need is not just fear, but conflict, and fear leads to hate, and hate leads to anger, and anger leads to action, which is why politicians prefer to motivate us directly by inciting hate instead of fear. Of course, it is very difficult for politicians to sell themselves as the solution to the very hate that they themselves are fomenting, and some politicians, such as Bill Clinton, are almost that skilled, but even such a master politician must choose the faction that controls the media, so that the media will give him the cover he needs. Democrats are thus able to promote the New Hate because they have sufficient cover from the media.

Let’s look at a recent example.

NBC, the Democrats, and Obama used Trayvon Martin’s death to propagate the New Hate.

The media and the Democrats incited hatred in the black community and in the politically correct community while suppressing dissent, which resulted in more votes for the Democratic Party.

157,000 New Jobs in Jan 2013? Really?

Headlines today announce that 157,000 new jobs were created in January, but as usual, there is nothing real about this number. The reality, at a few alternative news sites like ZeroHedge, is that 115,000 jobs were LOST.

ZeroHedge also explained that, although 115,000 total jobs were lost, it was actually 221,000 real jobs that were lost, which was offset by a gain of 106,000 hamburger flipping (or equivalent) jobs – for 16-19 year olds.

If the employment numbers as reported by the government and the mainstream media are not real, then is the recovery real?

No! The recovery is not real. None of the lost jobs have been recovered.

the ratio of civilian employment to the total population

Not only is the recovery not real, but we knew before the election in 2012 that none of the lost jobs had been recovered. I am saying “we” knew, but obviously, only about 1% of us actually knew the reality; whereas, the 99% were deceived by the mainstream media, most alternative media, academia, the government, the unions, etc.

Predicting the Leaf

Is everything in the universe predetermined (predictable in theory) – like in a computer program?

Consider that all possible physical actions, whether atomic, subatomic, quantum, mechanical, electromagnetic, etc. are reactions. Let's emphasize that all physical actions are re-actions, and thus, hasn’t every physical reaction been predetermined?

Suppose the workings of the human brain were nothing but physical reactions. If your brain were nothing but physical reactions, then because they were re-actions, must your every choice have been predetermined?

Suppose you were born in 1950, and Starbucks were created in the 1970's, and you bought a particular coffee at a particular Starbucks at a particular time in 2010. Then, because your brain, every brain, and the universe, were nothing but physical reactions, would your purchase have been predetermined in 1950? Was your birth date a limitation on predicting your choice? Wouldn't your mother's and father's choices have predetermined your birth? Wouldn't all human decisions have been predetermined thousands of years before those humans were born?

Let's consider a parallel example.

If the universe were nothing but physical reactions, then hasn't every physical reaction been predetermined from the beginning of the universe? Wasn't it predetermined that a particular leaf would grow? Wasn't the leaf predetermined before the tree existed? Wasn't the leaf predetermined before that species of tree existed? Wasn't the leaf predetermined before that planet existed?

Instinctively, we feel certain that the particular leaf was not predetermined. Likewise, we feel certain that our choices were not predetermined.

However, we demand the concept of free will to explain why the physical reactions in human brains do not predetermine a particular choice. Whereas, we demand no concept to explain why the physical reactions of nature do not predetermine the particular leaf.

This thought experiment thus reveals a widespread cognitive dissonance in our thinking. Why must we project magical qualities into the physical reactions of our brains to explain why our choices are not predetermined? If physical reactions contained randomness, then randomness alone would make nothing truly predetermined.

A clever person would claim that maybe we can predict the leaf because we do think of the results of physical reactions, like a falling object, as being predetermined. However, predictable physical reactions are predictable only when two conditions are met: 1) we have isolated an event from all of the preceding reactions (the input) that led up to that instant in time, 2) it occurs on a scale that would overcome any effect of randomness, and 3) we are only predicting the next instant in time. For example, a 1000kg block of steel resting on top of an egg centered under it would definitely crush the egg when released. Even human choices can be pretty predictable when a large scale physical reaction is imminent – like stepping out of the way of a moving car. However, we don’t even know what will happen next. For example, which way would each egg molecule squirt?

A clever person would claim that maybe we can predict the leaf because we consider physical reactions such as the choices (the output) in a computer simulation, or even in any future artificial intelligence, to be predetermined when given known inputs. However, predictable physical reactions are predictable only when three conditions are met: 1) we have isolated an event from all of the preceding reactions (the input) that led up to that instant in time, 2) it occurs on a scale that would overcome any effect of randomness, and 3) we are only predicting the next instant in time. Considering randomness first, we have designed computers to have a very high probability of behaving predictably. We could have made the same computer circuit designs smaller, but then their behavior would be less predictable.

Considering the isolation of an AI choice is not as simple as it seems. While it is true that if we stopped an AI, took a snapshot of it’s data, and loaded that data onto identical hardware, then the two systems would perform the same next step; however, that next state (choice) would only be the next nanosecond, so we would have accomplished very little for our effort. To actually be able to predict the future choices of that AI, we would have had to load its data onto a faster (but otherwise identical) computer, and we would have had to guarantee that they both received exactly the same input (the same life experiences, saw the same things from the same angles, got the same reactions from other sentient beings, etc.), and that the faster one received that same input twice as fast (if the computer were twice as fast). We would thus need two planets starting in the same state, but with everything happening twice as fast on one.

The impossibility of predicting AI would be even more difficult with human brains because human brains are not identical hardware and because they are like a computer that has trillions of processors (instead of one) all processing at slightly different speeds and all changing their speed randomly. Also, human brains were not designed to eliminate randomness. Therefore, even if there were no such thing as randomness; the only way to predict human choices would be if our entire universe were an isolated simulation and another simulation started from the same state and were running on faster (but otherwise identical) hardware.

Note that software can emulate any physical process, so if we cannot yet model the workings of the human brain, then that is only because we do not yet understand the workings of the human brain.

Just as magic is not the reason that predicting the leaf is impossible, magic is also not the reason that predicting a human choice is impossible. The reality is that there is no magic. Once we understand reality, we are free from superstition, and once we are free from superstition, we have a greater incentive to start thinking for ourselves.

Freedom is the Promise of Reality.

Guns and Schools – Problem Solved

The solution to the problem of guns and schools is freedom of education.

After giving parents absolute control over any tax dollars spent on their children's education, they will naturally choose not just the best education – but the safest.

Ten million free market experiments in education can find ways to serve customers (parents and kids) better than a panel of 10 government experts with their corrupt, bureaucratic, obsolete, ineffective, one-size-fits-all, mandatory programs – of the unions, by the unions, for the unions.

Likewise, ten million free market experiments in safety can find ways to serve customers better than a panel of 10 government experts.

It is no secret that the Democratic Party is the side advocating a panel of 10 government experts. Therefore, parents should have been asking, "How is it that the party of equality is so obsessed with appeals to the authority of elite opinion?"

It is no secret that it is the Democratic party in bed with the unions. Therefore, parents should have been asking, "How is it that the party of choice is so anti-choice?"

Certainly many customers will choose solutions to school safety that involve guns used for the purpose of self defense, and it is no secret that the Democratic Party is the party that wants to disarm the people. Therefore, parents should have been asking, "How is it that the party that wants to empower the little guy is the party that wants to disarm the little guy."

Make no mistake. The Democratic Party is all about conformity, control, and government dependence. That is how they have played their role in destroying the Black community – and America.

Don’t get fooled into thinking that the Republican Party is the answer. They have a different role to play in destroying the Black community – and America. Together they are like The Prince who divides us against each other, as described by Machiavelli. For some issues one is the good cop while the other is the bad cop. On other issues it is the reverse.

Of course, any voter or low level politician who sincerely supports freedom of education will thus be drawn to the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and/or the Tea Party, but the Republican Party is controlled by the Neocons (Republican Progressives). Like the Democratic Party, the Neocons don’t want freedom of education. They too are obsessed with appeals to authority, and they too want to disarm the little guy. Like I said, the Neocons are Republican Progressives.

We are Americans. How is it that we have less freedom of education than just about any country in the world?

Any who would attempt a solution as big as freedom of education cannot succeed unless they understand that both parties, as well as the mainstream media,  are front men for the Global Money Masters. Any movement to implement freedom of education would thus precipitate very strong and sophisticated resistance backed with infinite money, infinite patience, and initially – infinite force … but that is the key. The force comes from us.

Once we understand the reality, we will choose to not cooperate.

Once we understand the reality, we will choose freedom.

Freedom is the Promise of Reality.

Freedom of Education is motivated by, and would strengthen, the Soul of Humanity; whereas, the conformity and hierarchy of our current system is motivated by, and strengthens, the Soul of Animals.

2012 Heat is Latest Politically Correct “science”

Everyone is supposed to know that 2012 was the hottest year ever. It was in all the news (as demonstrated by P. J. Gladnick):

So declared the New York Times in an article almost dripping with self-righteous jubilation. This sentiment was also echoed at the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, and many other media outlets.

The NYT knows its readers well, and the NYT is pretty confident that its readers won’t bother asking whether this was a regional phenomenon or a global one or whether the temperature data could have been fudged – again. Whereas, the independent thinker will have been immediately suspicious because most other politically correct “scientific” conclusions have proven to cherry pick the data and then fudge the remaining data – especially climate “science”.

First, this was the 9th hottest year in the last 34 according to satellite data. The discrepancy is because the alarmist data only considers the continental US.

Also, the data for the US was fudged.

Well, that was easy. The 2012 heat is just more politically correct junk science.

The 2012 heat reminds me of the hockey stick chart, whose falsification became know as Climategate. The hockey stick chart was never real science. It was created by only one “scientist” – Michael Mann, and it was accepted without being scientifically reproduced by real scientists. He created algorithms designed to produce a hockey stick chart. He created a single new data sample and ignored all the existing and contradictory data samples. When temperatures in his new data sample actually went down at end instead of up, Michael Mann decided to “hide the decline” by replacing that segment of his data with other data that went the direction he needed. When two non-scientists tried to reproduce his results, he not only refused to cooperate, but he and his accomplices decided to change the definition of peer review if necessary to stop them from getting published.

Regardless of degrees, titles, and authority, do the Climategate “scientists” sound like real scientists to you?

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Most politically correct “science” doesn’t even pass the smell test. For example:

• Would a 1.5 foot sea level rise over 100 years really be catastrophic?
• Are we really free and safe when only the government has guns?
• Regulation is more effective than reputation/competition/contracts?
• If you believe in evolution, wouldn’t a gay gene die out immediately?
• Are there really no differences between races except for skin color?
• Are men and women really the same except for how they’re raised?

So called “liberals” have moved forward and are no longer interested in freedom and tolerance. Instead, everyone must be the same, everyone must believe the same, and everyone must be controlled. Even your carbon footprint must be controlled – which requires a global government, of course. Some may call this liberalism, political correctness, progressivism, socialism, globalism, collectivism, or communism, but it is always – fascism.

Why We Elites Manage Innovation

Innovation must be managed. Innovation can empower the little guy and make him think he doesn't need those of us having superior genes to make decisions for him.

Innovation can make the serfs uppity – in the vernacular, as it were. For example, the Internet Reformation makes many serfs feel like they are just as smart as (or smarter than!) we are! Therefore, we can't have unbridled innovation, or else we might get another Internet Reformation before we can stop it. We have yet to complete our control of the Internet itself, so we certainly can’t allow another black swan event like that.

It is true that unbridled innovation would be necessary to support the exponential growth in serf population, but there were already too many serfs anyway. The earth has limited resources, and only those having superior genes deserve to inherit the earth. Slower innovation will thus reveal the urgent necessity of our final solution, which will thus become more acceptable to those elites and useful serfs who were previously reluctant about what must be done.

Slower innovation is thus a good thing.

We elites are right wing extremists, but we spend much of our resources promoting progressivism, fascism, socialism, communism, collectivism, unions, and political correctness – not just because they make the serfs more dependent – and not just because they help us divide the serfs against each other – but also because they slow down innovation. Our conscience is clear because a majority of serfs freely support us in our promotion of all flavors of collectivism.

The serfs have known that the free market works best for them for at least 400 years, and they still choose to sacrifice their children's future for the short term trinkets we give them. It is their choice.

The free market is an abomination that punishes our superior breeding and rewards that greedy lower class mentality. The free market is anarchy. The success of the common man in the free market is thus proof of his inferior genes. That is why – that government is best, which regulates most.

The serfs have all the information they need to know that we cannot compete in a free market, but they still vote for regulation. It is their choice

When we promise them other people's money, they have all the information they need in order to know that they are those other people. Therefore, if they are blinded by their greedy lower class collectivist mentality, then that is still their choice.

We promote equality. We support multiple factions because we cannot allow any one faction to be strong enough to unite the people against our good ideas. Likewise, we cannot allow any one person, company, or nation to be too strong, which is why we must take down America, or more specifically, the American people. Equality is thus a necessary evil towards the end goal of a healthy and natural hierarchy.

The American people overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic and Republican parties, and yet, Americans have all the information they need to know that both parties are controlled by our front men. Americans also have all the information they need to know that the Democratic Party moves our good ideas forward faster.

While it may seem like we already have enough control to implement our good ideas, we must also monitor every communication, every financial transaction, and every politically inclined meeting in order to detect and prevent the destabilizing effect of a potential black swan development know as Zero Squads. Zero Squads are terrorist cells of 3 serfs each, known only to each other. Each cell will have chosen one of the smartest and most superior elites, and because of their inferior breeding, they will not hesitate to die if necessary to take out their target. If you see something, say something – and thereby prove your usefulness.

We reveal our plans because everyone must freely choose, and thus our conscience is always clear. We simultaneously offer powerful temptations that will only deceive those who willfully ignore reality and who thus have inferior genes.

We thus respect: those who know that when we are all on the same page, we all benefit, and those who know that we have the right to implement any good idea, and those who know the end justifies the means, and those who accept their place.

Conformity and hierarchy are thus not a necessary evil. They are a necessary good.

Some elites claim that our principles of conformity and hierarchy make us no different than the serfs, who we manage by appealing to their desire for conformity and hierarchy. What these elites seem to forget is that the reason we are superior is  because we are smarter. Conformity among the serfs is only wrong because they are imitating those with inferior genes, and hierarchy among serfs is only wrong because they are following those with inferior genes.

Although we are the most highly evolved humans, a new theory posits that conformity and hierarchy are actually the Soul of Animals, and are thus the peak of animal evolution, and that the peak of human evolution is the Soul of Humanity.

Some elites accept these theories, but it does not change our plans because we are thus acting in self defense against the encroachment of the perverse evolutionary course referred to as  the Soul of Humanity. Without conformity and hierarchy, the Soul of Humanity is incomplete and would lead to anarchy! One could thus summarize our goal as a crusade to kill the Soul of Humanity, although most of us just see it as killing off reactionary genes.

Some elites claim that the Soul of Humanity is very much like our founding principles, and that we have lost our way. Such elites have obviously been deceived by our own propaganda intended to pacify the masses.

Race Exists

Does race exist? In other words, are there genetic differences between races?

Some scientists and most journalists say that race does not exist – except for skin color, but if one thinks for oneself, then the claim that there are no genetic differences between any groups of humans – except for skin color – just doesn’t pass the smell test – so one must investigate.

The common sense answer is that race exists because races look different and evolved in separate locations, but the politically correct answer is that there is no genetic difference between any groups of humans – other than skin color. Of course, independent thinkers quickly learn to be suspicious of politically correct answers because politically correct answers keep proving to be based on “science” that cherry picks, does not consider all the variables, and suppresses alternative thought.

Researcher Omri Tal has proven that, yet again, the common sense answer is superior to the politically correct answer.

For example, one of the questions he answers is:

Question: What is the probability that a random pair of individuals from the same local population is more genetically dissimilar than a random pair from two distinct populations?

Answer: The probability is shown to drop to zero with increasing number of genetic markers even for very closely-related populations and rare alleles.

In other words, when we consider all versions of all genes, then it is certain that an individual from a given local population will be more genetically similar to another individual from that same population than to an individual from another population – even when the two populations are closely related – let alone when they are distant.

Is it any surprise that the politically correct elite are just as wrong as when they insisted that there are no differences between men and women except for difference caused by how they were raised?

Is it any surprise that the politically correct elite are just as wrong as when they created the hockey stick chart?

Let’s continue thinking for ourselves.

If we accept the data from those who deny race, then there were only 10,000 humans 70,000 years ago because other humans were killed off by the Toba event, and thus these were somewhat closely related humans from one geographical location. This is somewhat speculative, but it is plausible. what is not plausible is the more speculative politically correct conclusion that race does not exist.

The politically correct conclusion is that we are all the same because the 10,000 Toba survivors were the same and because there has not been enough time for significant evolution since then. However, there can be a lot of genetic diversity in 10,000 people from the same region, and 70,000 years is a lot of time for significant evolution to occur.

For example, 700,000 years ago, 600 species of cichlids lived in Lake Tanganyika and only one species of cichlid from lake Tanganyika ever survived the journey to Lake Malawi, and possibly as few as one male and one female made it to Lake Malawi. Over the next 700,000 years, 500 species of cichlids evolved from just a few individuals of that one species. Therefore, anyone can estimate that in the first 70,000 years, anywhere from 5 to 100 new species evolved from just a few individuals of one species.

There are a couple of reasons why the range of 5 to 100 is so large. The number of species could potentially grow exponentially. For example, one species could have evolved into two, and then those could have evolved into 4, and then those could have evolved into 8.  However, there are limiting pressures that increase as the number of individuals and the number of species increase, which means that the evolution of new species could have tapered off during the last half of that 700,000 years because they were all in that one lake competing with each other to fill the limited space and limited niches. It is not as if they migrated all over the world while they were evolving – like humans did.

What we have actually proven is that there are many many human races, and thus there are many races within each skin color. Therefore, skin color is one determinant of race, but by itself is not the sole determinant of race; however, skin color does delineate one group of races from another group of races.

Still, we have not gotten to the heart of the issue. The real issue of race is whether there exists genetic differences that cause important differences in behavior and values. Given that differences in behavior and values could be caused by just one gene, then based on what we know, it is highly probable that different races within the same skin color have a few genes that cause different behavior and values. Likewise, it is highly probable that if there were 10 genes that varied among races within the same skin color, then there must be at least one variation of one gene that causes important differences in behavior or values that is unique to skin color, but as far as I know, no one has proven or disproven the existence of such genes – probably because the answer could be politically incorrect.

Although we have not gotten to the heart of the issue, I would say that based on what we can see for ourselves, the issue of race is largely irrelevant because differences between races just can’t be that big. For example, the difference between cultures is larger. The differences between men and women is larger. The differences between adults and children is larger, and the differences between religions is larger.

Therefore, progressives need to get over their obsession with race and their contradictory denial of race. Why do the politically correct want everyone to be the same anyway? I like diversity, and the politically correct also claim that they like diversity.

You may recall that politically correct “science”, fudged the data, and committed atrocities, like on David Reimer, to make the data conform to the preconceived notion that the the only difference between men and women was how they were raised. Then they used peer pressure to force everyone to conform to their beliefs – even after their science had been falsified.

You may recall that politically correct climate “science”, fudged the data and smoothed out the data to make it conform to the hockey stick chart they already had in their minds. Then they used unprecedented peer pressure to force everyone to conform to their beliefs – even after their science had been falsified.

The goal of politically correct “science” is thus  conformity.

Why Focus on Obama

Whenever an independent thinker presents a believer with incontrovertible evidence that explains how Obama has violated, or intends to violate, majority principles, the believer always makes the same evasive arguments:

1. The believer always claims that there is no reason to focus on Obama unless you are racist.
2. The believer always claims that Obama has no power to change anything because the Republicans won’t let him.
3. The believer always asks why the independent thinker didn't also focus on Bush, or Republicans, in the same analysis.

We independent thinkers do occasionally focus on Obama, and the reason, in a nutshell, is because:

The mass psychosis of the Obama cult is so unprecedented in the number and diversity of its believers, and in the sweeping scope of its issues – while also being so easily disproven – that it creates an unprecedented opportunity to shock many people into thinking for themselves. Therefore, the real subject of what seem like negative analyses about Obama, is actually about the unprecedented media bias, or the cognitive dissonance of the believers, or the systemic corruption.

Analyses from independent thinkers is never primarily about Obama because Obama is just a front man.

Let's answer the believers thoroughly, so that we can link to this answer many times.

1. Independent thinkers rarely focus on Obama. For example, the first Tea Party I attended (April 2009) had perhaps 100 signs, and about three of them referred to Obama in any way, which directly disproves the mainstream media analyses of the Tea Parties.
2. Obama is the current president.
3. Obama was the previous president.
4. Obama had a filibuster-proof majority. Bush did not.
5. The President appoints the Supreme Court. For example, replacing just one of the pro-Constitution Supreme Court justices would result in a court order to confiscate all guns owned by Americans.
6. The media bias in support of Obama is unprecedented, which thus creates an unprecedented opportunity to expose media bias.
7. The media bias in support of Obama is unprecedented, and thus gives him a 15-20% boost in polls and elections against equally inferior men like Mitt Romney, as well as against superior men like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul.
8. The media bias in support of Obama is unprecedented; therefore, 100 million people have a perception that is way out of sync with reality, which creates a huge opportunity to shock people out of their stupor induced by media bias and by our communist school system. The mass psychosis of the Obama cult is so unprecedented in the number and diversity of its believers, and in the sweeping scope of its issues – while also being so easily disproven – that it creates an unprecedented opportunity to shock many people into thinking for themselves.
9. Although Obama is just a front man, he is the front man for those oligarchs who want to disarm us, milk us, and make us dependent on government, and hence dependent on them. They promote systemic socialism in all its flavors, not only to weaken and control those who embrace their socialism, but also to weaken and control all of us, which thus includes those pesky independent thinkers – until they can implement their final solution.
10. Obama is incompetent. For example, it was obvious in 2008 that he did not understand the environment, the Constitution, national security, healthcare, history, energy, or economics; and his first term has proven this. There has been no recovery, and the federal deficit has tripled. His healthcare and financial regulations are disastrous. He believes in global warming!
11. Obama has bad intentions. For example, he dislikes rural white Americans because he says they are bitter racists who cling to their guns and religion. He has continued the Bush war policies. He wants to disarm the people. He signed the law that let's him indefinitely detain Americans. He signed the law that lets him assassinate Americans.
12. Obama is a reneger.
13. Bush too was an incompetent reneger, a front man for many of the same people, and had bad intentions, but the media bias against Bush was unprecedented. Therefore, few people have a perception of Bush that is too positive, which creates little opportunity to educate anyone's perspective. Trying to explain why Bush really is that bad, but not for the reasons they think, would be too subtle and too complex for people educated in our communist school system and bathed in media bias.
14. Our communist schools and media bias have created a public that can barely follow a single simple line of reasoning. Therefore, complicating every Obama analysis with a comparison to Bush would just add unnecessary complexity.
15. If one were an independent thinker, one would ask: How does the mainstream media (and all other Obama voters) reconcile their position during the Bush administration with their position during the Obama administration?
1. George Bush was a moron and everything that happened during his administration was his fault.
2. Obama is brilliant, and nothing that happens under his administration is his fault.
16. The mass psychosis of Obamatons is interesting! I have never seen anything like it before. Not only is it beyond the mass psychosis of Global Warming believers, but it incorporates the mass psychosis of Global Warming believers.
17. Therefore, the real subject of what seems like a negative analysis about Obama, is actually about the unprecedented media bias, or the cognitive dissonance of the believers, or the systemic corruption.

Why I am not a Christian

I am an atheist who sees American Christians as allies in many ways because I find them to be both more open minded than progressives and more open to individual freedom than progressives.

There are two big reasons why American Christians are more open to freedom and to ideas in general than are progressives. 1) American Christians are more open to American tradition, which is mostly about individual liberty. 2) The entire mainstream media is constantly bashing Christians; whereas, they are constantly reinforcing progressive fallacies, thus forcing Christians to constantly think about and defend their positions, while insulating progressives from having to think about and defend their positions.

Nevertheless, there are several reasons why I am not a Christian, and any one of them is sufficient by itself. 1) I was at one time as sincere of a Christian as anyone has been, but over time I grew to find it no longer convincing. 2) The Bible is pretty flawed. 3) The actions of Christians today and throughout history are questionable. 4) There is little reason to believe in magic when there is no evidence other than a claim and many believers in that claim. 5) There is no reason to believe something when doing so will add nothing to my quality of life. 6) Religion is unnecessary for ethics.

Let’s look at the necessity of the Bible or any other religious text for living ethically.

If you are able to determine that the content of a religious text prescribes ethical behavior, then you already know how to behave ethically, and thus you don’t need it.

Let’s look at how the content of the Bible is flawed.

It says there is only one God, and it says that God is all powerful, all knowing, 100% good, 100% just, 100% fair, 100% perfect, and that he created everything. Then it says that God claims he is jealous of other gods, which contradicts the general nature of God as explained in the Bible.

It was written by a people (Jews) who claim it is what God told them, and what God told them was that they are his chosen people. The Bible thus promotes racism. I wonder if God’s chosen people are racist today …

More specifically, God told a man that all of the descendants of one of his sons would be his chosen people, but that the descendants of his other son would not be. Being one of God’s chosen people thus depends solely on your family tree. The Bible thus promotes nepotism. I wonder if God’s chosen people engage in nepotism today …

God allowed his chosen people to be slaves in Egypt for 400 years. The Bible thus promotes slavery.

Then God threatened to send ten plagues on Egyptians if they didn’t free the Jews. The plagues included murdering Egyptian children if the Pharaoh did not agree. The Bible thus promotes genocide.

Then God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not agree.  The Bible thus promotes what can only be described as fraud perpetrated through mind rape.

It says God stopped the sun. Wouldn’t God want to gain a little credibility by claiming that he stopped the earth from turning, and thus be the first to claim that the sun does not go around the earth?

What about continents, stars, and galaxies. Why is there nothing?

What about atoms, germs, and evolution? Why is there nothing?

What about predicting the future? Why are there only vague predictions?

The Old Testament thus contains no advanced information at all, but it does contain a lot of material about how God demanded animal sacrifices – just like every other primitive culture. The Bible thus promotes primitive thinking and taxation.

Two of every species fit into one boat?

To one who reads the Bible and thinks for oneself, the the Bible is obviously self-contradictory and primitive, and it promotes fraud, taxation, rape, slavery, racism, superstition, and genocide.

Therefore, why would anyone believe the Old Testament, which is the source of all of my examples thus far? Why would anyone want to believe it?

Jesus says that God loves you, but the New Testament contradicts him when it goes on to say that non-believers will burn in a lake of sulfur for all eternity. Don’t forget who created everything and who is all powerful, so basically God is doing that to you. Would a just god do that? Would a God who loves you do that – just for not believing something so primitive, self-contradictory, and unethical as the Bible? The Bible thus promotes the logical fallacy that might makes right.

You could be the most ethical person in the world, but if you don’t conform, you will burn for all eternity? The bible thus promotes fascism.

The texts chosen for inclusion in the Bible were determined by Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century. The Bible thus encourages censorship.

The texts chosen just happened to be those most compatible with building and controlling an empire. The Bible thus promotes big government and big organized religion. Christianity was previously about a personal relationship with God, and there was little interest in a religious bureaucracy like the Catholic Church.

The entire Old Testament and some of the New Testament seems to have been inspired by the Soul of Animals; whereas, the teachings of Jesus seem to have been inspired by the Soul of Humanity, and thus Jesus may have been one of the first people to evolve with the Soul of Humanity. In fact, Jesus was a significant inspiration in the development of my theory of the Soul of Humanity. So, you could say I’m a fan, and thus a kind of Christian if you want.

Libertarianism Explained

The 2oth century saw the rise of collectivism, where progressive governments impoverished their people and killed or imprisoned hundreds of millions who failed to conform. Progressive government caused all of the biggest problems of the 20th century, such as The Great Depression, eugenics, total war, weapons of mass destruction, targeting civilians, reeducation camps, taxes, regulations, government dependency, entitlement mentality, identity politics, pollution, inflation, stagnation, authoritarianism, democide, and genocide.

Libertarianism was created (or rediscovered) in the late 20th century by men who wanted to create the most ethical, the most logical, and the most natural society, and thus, libertarianism is that system most compatible with the Soul of Humanity; whereas, those who oppose libertarianism are motivated by the Soul of Animals.

Libertarianism has many roots going back to non-conformist visionaries such as Friedrich Hayek, and to Lysander Spooner before him. In fact, Libertarianism is basically the founding principles of America, which have roots all the way back to Plymouth Rock and Jamestown.

Libertarianism is individualism.

The premises of Libertarianism, along with some exposition, are:

The universe and all non-sentient life exist for the use of sentient life.

All individuals have equal rights. The law must apply to everyone equally.

It is always wrong to initiate force or fraud for any reason. For example, fight words with words. It is always wrong to fight words with physical violence.

Every individual owns himself, and thus he owns the fruits of his labor. For example, slavery is wrong because no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor. Likewise, free healthcare is wrong because no man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor.

As an extreme example that would probably rarely happen in reality, an individual can sell himself. No one has a right to buy, sell, or own other individuals; however, an individual owns himself and thus has the right to sell himself to another individual according to whatever contractual mechanisms are mutually satisfactory.

No one can be trusted to work for the self interest of any individual better than that individual. All things being equal, no one knows the self interest of any individual better than that individual. No one has any right to determine the self interest of another individual.

A man is not an animal. To reach the full human potential, a man must use his brain, he must create, he must communicate, he must form agreements with others, and he must trade the fruits of his labor. Any interference in his effort to think, create, communicate, cooperate, and trade is thus immoral and unnatural.

Individuals have a right to cooperate with each other, and thus individuals have a right to form any kind of marriage, business, cooperative, union, etc. Likewise, an individual has a right to choose any willing individual as his representative.

Whether or not one is cooperating with other individuals, every action is an individual action. There are no collective actions. The actions of a group are always the individual actions of one or more individuals in that group.

For example, the corporation did not give your data to the government. It was someone inside the corporation who did that, and it was someone inside the corporation told him to do that. Likewise, if your were arrested for video taping a policeman, the government did not arrest you, it was the policeman who arrested you, and the government did not pass the law that authorized (gave immunity to) the policeman who arrested you, it was individual legislator who voted for it.

You have a right to cooperate with any individuals in any way that is mutually agreeable. For example, you can hire or fire whoever you want. Therefore, affirmative action, sexual harassment, and Title IX are an initiation of force by government. Such government promotion of any race or gender is also a violation of equality under the law.

No collection of individuals has any greater rights than an individual and thus no collection of individuals can initiate force or fraud for any reason. For example, neither a union, business, nor government can initiate force or fraud any more than can an individual. No collection of individuals can force anyone to join them or force anyone to support their organization.

If an individual voluntarily agrees to a contract that stipulates punishment for violating that agreement, then that punishment would not be an initiation of force.

An individual has a right to do anything to his property.

Although an individual can own a part of nature, land is different than all other property because it predates all buyers and sellers, and thus an individual has a right to do anything to his land – other than make it unusable.

The existence of a species also predates all buyers and sellers, and thus no one has the right to cause the extinction of a species.

Taxes are unethical. Only user fees are ethical. For example, a gasoline tax is actually a user fee for roads, National Parks have entrance fees, etc.

An individual can inherit unlimited money without taxation, not because he has the right to the money he will inherit, but because the owner has the right to give it.

Libertarian principles are superior to the opinion of a majority because it is a logical fallacy to claim that might makes right.

Libertarian principles are superior to the opinion of a ruler or an expert because appeals to authority are a logical fallacy.

Does libertarianism work, or is it just a noble theory?

Consider that government deserves no credit for everything that makes life worth living. Did government invent transistors, fire, and love? Even when government invents something specific, it always causes a net reduction in growth and innovation across the nation.

Consider that America was governed by the Articles of Confederation when it won its war of independence, and thus the world’s superpower at that time lost to the most libertarian nation that has ever existed.

What I Learned From Matt Damon

When you start watching Matt Damon in a movie about a global pandemic, like “Contagion”, you just KNOW he is going to save the world. Instead, he is just a boring and obedient citizen who accepts his helplessness, and who understands that the uber competent good guys, a.k.a. the federal bureaucracy, have his back. He is so obedient, and has so much faith, that he doesn’t even want a gun to protect his family from looters.

The whole point of this boring movie is that we should all have blind faith in government; whereas, we should see those who criticize the government on the Internet as the lowest of the low.

Then I saw the same message in another Matt Damon movie, “We Bought a Zoo.” In it, Matt Damon is blindly obedient when a government inspector tells him that he must make expensive changes to comply with new regulations. You see, the location of a barrier around the lion cage was just fine for years, but a new regulation says it must be 6 inches further back. The modification would bankrupt his Zoo, but does he show any sign of contempt for such a ludicrous demand by some government bureaucrat? No, he shows only respect and obedience.