Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

How to make the Anarcho-Patriot Class Apoplectic...

There is a disgustingly high percentage of people calling themselves 'Patriots' who are nothing more than anarchists, racists, mental midgets, Free Shit Army parasites, and Liberty-hating Statists-in-denial.

Want to see them stroke out?

Show them the above picture.  Watch as their wee brains try to simultaneously applaud the act of standing on the flag and recoil at the notion of having to support/respect the black people doing it...


Here's the story.


  1. Idiot FRACtards (TM) and their self-confounding ideology. They love to hate...but what about when someone they hate does something they love, to someone else they hate? Der... Ah dunno George

    FRACtards - no matter how many of them get together they're still just as dumb. It's the rule that binds them...

  2. Anarchists and communists. Same target acquisition time. ;-)

    1. Exactly, Alan. No ideology makes you bulletproof... but some make you a more enticing target than others.

  3. Those who cannot use critical thinking are subject to being controlled.
    They are easily manipulated by their emotions.
    They are dependent on others acceptance for their own self worth and identity.
    Why be an Individual when you can be a follower?

  4. You make a mistake in lumping all those people together. There are group who that picture would not affect. Racists well most would not like people walking on the flag and they don't like black people so it wouldn't do anything but encourage their views. Anarchists can't really be lumped into one group. There are so many variations. Anarcho-capitalists could be an ally since realistically the country returning to its initial state where the gov was not involved in everything is about as close as you can get to anarchy realistically since anarchy can't work if there are still other governments in existence that would take advantage of the situation.

  5. "Watch as their wee brains try to simultaneously applaud the act of standing on the flag and recoil at the notion of having to support/respect the black people doing it..."

    Cuts both ways. Some Patriots believe in Rightful Liberty..."except." Same contradiction, except the one quoted above doesn't exist. In reality it doesn't; that's why nobody could name one.

    It's not like the answer isn't simple and it's not like everyone doesn't know it. What a man applauds or recoils at, is that man's business and his alone. What he DOES, when it ahem "obstructs" someone else...well, that's just gotta be stopped. What else could there be to do about it?

    The fundamental decision is to go with the facts or not.

    1. Rightful Liberty is an absolute - there can be no 'except'. ;)

  6. "You make a mistake in lumping all those people together."

    Lol, I think there's a word for that. That was nice, Anonymous. Valiant even. Courage is a great virtue to be admired in itself, but sometimes just as useless as cowardice.

    1. Howdy JK. "Courage is a virtue"?

      You mean Fortitude, right? Because fortitude is more than just bravery, it also encompases Endurance of effort and Persevereance under hardship and affliction, as well as Constancy of mind and of heart.

      I assume you are cogent of the distinction, as you have been a good example of Fortitude, particularly the Perseverance and Constancy aspects - your position and message has been clear and consistent for as long as I can remember reading your comments, regardless of how many idiots and naysayers sling their mud at your well-reasoned position.

      You might be surprised to discover how much we agree on, at least the concepts and operands... but I am also a realist, and that is where the Devil likes to get each of us by the short hairs, isn't it.

      Now, about the 'lumping people into groups' thing, I agree to an extent - for a complete analysis you have to examine the individual themselves.

      However, I also understand that "a bit of leaven, leavens the whole loaf" [1Corinthians5:8]

      And with certain high contrast attitudes and behaviors I also adhere to the "If it quacks like a duck..." theorum, because it is impossible to disprove it, given those certain qualifiers.
      How else could I rationally declare [as I recently did] that "he who will steal from you today (under the current circumstances) will certainly murder you tomorrow (when things become far more dire).

      But you and I agree on a fundamental thing, which Paul also wrote to the Corinthians in that chapter -
      "Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. But we cannot do so, until the great hall is cleared of those bearing that malice and wickedness, can we?

      I am not an advocate of war in general; and certainly I do not advocate for a civil war here at home; but the existential nature of the conflict advocates for it, beyond all rational denial; and therefore I am obliged to agree in fact as well as in principle, that a great rain is once again needed... unless it is superceeded by the advent of the Greater Reign.


    2. Oh, we agree on a ton of stuff LT. Put a few bucks with that and we can have some coffee. It's only what a man DOES that counts, at least socially.

      My consistency derives from my absolute devotion to the facts of reality. Being immutable, reality doesn't change and I don't have to worry about changing the story. Meanwhile you gotta go from marking me an "Enemy of Liberty" on this very blog and an implied "enticing target" in this very thread...to this sweet-talking comment.

      See, I'm the realist between us; you're the pragmatist. I spent plenty of effort trying to explain the distinction to K, but my effort doesn't trump his choice. That would be because for any person P, nothing trumps P's choice. I'm a simpleton, so I begin at the beginning.

      No big deal. Alan might have me at a 300 yard single-shot duel, but that's never gonna happen. It's just some odd fantasy of his, like his preoccupation with men's dicks and asses. You may be the better Warrior than I--can't say that I know--but I doubt you'll ever get the drop on me, and you'd encounter great danger trying...I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be worth it to you.

      That's the reality of the matter; I'll leave the stories to you.

    3. Ok, I'm your huckleberry. There is a clear distinction, at least in my mind... between a (small a) anarchist such as yourself, and a (capital A) Anarchist such as those whose idea of "progress" goes no farther than "lets break the system, so we can get away with whatever we want".

      Yours is a pricipled anarchy, respectful of others, and loathsome of the accumulation of power in **any** particular person or group. Your "anarchy" is Jeffersons Rightful Liberty - which I usually contemplate as being a "strict libertarian".

      But you are in the minority for using the word anarchy in that way. The majority are the Anarchists who just love to break shit and hurt people, and believe that they have the unbounded right to do so - because that is *their* definition of Anarchy, as unprincipled as that is.

      And if you will accept that as my explanantion, then we have good faith in one another, because you are not the object of my derision, and I find good cause to apologize, since I gave you to misunderstand my meaning.

      We were simply employing the word anarchist as it is commonly construed, even though that isn't quite correct. I use the word "kids" also when referring to children, because it is commonly used thus, even though just as incorrect.

      Since the question bears directly upon you, what do you call those who practice or pursue the state to which I and many others refer as "Anarchy"?
      I don't want to split short hairs, here, but neither do I want to make enemies when I could rather keep friends.

      Like I said, we have a lot in common. I'm very firm on the fact of "that which governs least, governs best", and also the teaching that "everything is lawful unto me, but not everything is expedient. "

      Be well,

    4. Alright, I'll play but you gotta pay attention. First, I've never once in my life called myself an anarchist, capital A or small A. OTOH I've granted that Alan, for one, isn't entirely wrong for saying that's what I am anyway. I don't like labels since I've already got a name but if I must take one, I'll take "Consensualist."

      Your problem is this---"The majority are the Anarchists who just love to break shit and hurt people, and believe that they have the unbounded right to do so - because that is *their* definition of Anarchy, as unprincipled as that is."

      Bullshit. That's just false and you damn well know it. It's made up in your head. There may be somebody somewhere who believes that, especially in Europe, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with any anarchists/Anarchists that you've come across here. If you deny this, then name one. I can name hundreds, maybe thousands, who demonstrate otherwise.

      Live with it---as a principled or practical means to Rightful Liberty, the Constitution is out, period. Nobody can even make a case for it without lying through their teeth about its history and the history of this country. Again, see Alan.

      THINGS ARE WHAT THEY ARE, and the Constitution was designed and snookered in to create exactly this. This is not disputable and the Whiskey Rebellion was not a mere footnote...it's evidence that this was the point. It was less than two years after ratification, for crissakes.

      You ready to acknowledge the TRUTH of the matter, or do you just wanna keep dreaming how everyone left standing is going to go along with your stories? Face it, over the last few years the so-called Warrior faction of the so-called Patriot movement has gone backwards and not forwards, and every person left standing here has something to do with it. Hell, every person everywhere has something to do with it. You either 'fess up and change it, or expect more of the same. "The battle has ALWAYS been Individualism versus Collectivism."

      It's T-Time and anyone with half a wit knows it's going hot, hopefully for just a short time. I give Alan credit cuz at least he puts up his wire and stays within it. The commie-libs and SJWs and every other nutcase out there can do the same. But those who believe they're gonna impose their vision on others--whether they call themselves socialists or patriots--well, they've got another thing coming. It's obvious already, so either straighten yourself out and stand for Rightful Liberty, PERIOD, or don't.

      You either believe in consensual interaction or you believe in thuggery. There will be NO COMPROMISE, because there CAN be no compromise and win.

      Aw shit, I'm starting to bore even myself. Go ahead...tell me what I've got wrong.

    5. >>>I'm very firm on the fact of "that which governs least, governs best"<<<

      Yeah? Do you pride yourself on being honest? Then quantify "most best." Or ask a child what's the very least.

      There, now you're an anarchist and can be in Alan's sights. That's how it is with collectivists who seek to rule...you are whatever they call you.

      "An anarchist is a minarchist who ran out of excuses."

  7. OK, so you ask me what "most best" is. Here ya go -
    5 paid positions in the county; a Sheriff, a Judge, a Registrar of Deeds, a librarian, and a Fire Chief. Every other effingbody is a volunteer. Period.

    Including the "county commission" or whatever they call themselves. That's unchangeable. EVER.

    And for a county "code" to pass, it's gotta be unanimous within the council. Every time it's brought up for a vote.

    And it can be brought up for a vote anytime a council member, or a group of 3 or more citizens challenges it.

    And anything which levies funds has to go refferendum...if less than 50% agree then it dies; if less than 90% agree then its not a county project - it's a separate NotForProfit, and even if 100% agree, well the "tax" which funds it is absolutely voluntary even though the county administers it. No tax liens, or seizures, or anything which casts legitimacy on any type of theft...EVER.

    Permits and Inspections? That's between you and your insurance company (mortgage company, etc) - if they want to inspect it as condition of entering or maintaining a contractual agreement with you, and you let them, well then that's called doing business.

    And "Crime" is indellibly an inalterably defined as "an act which inflicts harm upon another person, and/or denies them of their rightful property". None of this malum prohibitum shit. No "infractions" at all. It's either a "Crime" or it's not.
    And if it's neither a crime nor a violation of a covenant/contract registered with the county, then the government has nothing to say about it. Ever. Period.

    And if someone doesn't pay their fire-service fees, then it's up to the volunteer firemen whether to save their selfish, stupid ass, and on what timetable.

    County Welfare? - go see one of the churches, or the Ruritans Club, etc.

    County/Pubic Schools? No. Such. Thing. EVER

    Municipal police? Sure, an incprporated city can have a paid police force, but they can neither add to nor remove from the county code. So, no funding their department with traffic tickets and asset seizures, meaning that department will STAY pretty damn small... so sad, too bad.

    The sheriff will maintain a running list of *volunteer* deputies who each take a shift or two a month. If they arrest someone, then they become the jailer for the rest of their shift (while they do the paperwork), and the next citizen on-call takes over in the patrol car.

    I could go on quite a ways, but I think I've made my point. I'm really a minimalist, and, as you say, a consensualist when I think in terms of societal ideals.
    But I'm also honest enough with myself to know that I'm *never* going to see that society in my lifetime, nor are any of my kids. Unless, of course, we see a 90% or greater die-off of the world's population, and what remains of humanity realizes that they're better to keep themselves spread out, and never ever again allow ouselves to stack up like rats in a Hindu temple.


  8. Part 2

    And that brings me back to what we have now, because you need cops and fireman and a certain amount of enforced "order" when people are stacked up like cordwood inside city limits. That's why I hate cities, and the bigger they are the more I despize them. But we're never going to be a society without cities... it's just beyond human nature to suggest such a thing, and has been ever since multiple families shared a cave, and thus became a "clan".

    Like I said, I agree with you that what we have sucks. And that it's "unfixable". But If we threw it all out tomorrow, told all the cops and fireman and jailers to just stay home, we'd instantly have that "unpricipled anarchy" which you said is such "imaginary bullshit."

    It's not what I would have, but that doesn't make it bullshit. Every city has gangs. Gangs full of (mostly) ignorant, angry, morally void young men who enjoy violence, and would love "anarchy" because then there'd be no 'Bubblegum machines' chasing them down when the did what they like to do. And I'm not talking about consensual transactions in drugs, I'm talking about the violent stuff.

    And no, the violent stuff would absolutely not stop if we disposed of the laws making drugs illegal. That's the most fatuous argument I've ever heard, so please don't go there.

    The predominance and character of the crime might shift a bit, but it definitely would not stop.

    And, there will always be a segment of society that will form gangs, and pursue a dangerous and violent lifestyle. It's part of human nature. So whatever we settle on, has to have the power to deal with that... effectively. And what we have certainly doesn't do that. "An eye for an eye" did much better than what we have now, but it's not ideal, either (IMHO).

    So, if what I'm saying makes me a "pragmatist", then maybe I am. And maybe I've just been working with a different mantissa in my social calculus than you, because I've had experiences which differ from yours (or is it the othere way around?)

    But regardless, I don't have to believe in thuggery. Because whether I belive in it or not, IT EXISTS.


    And that, sir, is fucking reality. So as much as I'd like to live in the imaginary world described above; it will never exist.

    And to to insist, beyond al rational defense, to continue believing in something that is not and can not be real, is to be self-deluded in the same way that the socialists are deluded; because you both believe in a world which can never be, can never function, because it is utterly contrary to the inimitable laws of nature and the character of humanity.

    Sorry, but that's where I get to with it, when I indulge it to it's final extent. The "principled anarchy" you advocate for has as much chance of existing in this world as unicorns and faeries do.

    If all men were like you and I, Jim, then maybe... but you and I are not nearly average specimens of Homo Sapien. And life would be rather boring if we were all alike to that extent, anyway, wouldnt it? It might even be a curse more offensive than the world we are immersed in today.

    Men with the mental capacity to wield a rational argument, argue - as much for the challenge as for getting to the truth. But men with small minds don't argue their points, can't engage in the verbal joust as you and I do... they just brood and hate, and brood and hate some more. And T-H-A-T is dangerous. And that is exactly what the ranks of socialists are full of - brooders and haters.

    So, until we've disposed of them, lets just agree to disagree in some small points, and fight on the same side? Because it sure as heck looks like we are about to be made combatants, whether we consent to it, or not.

  9. >>>But If we threw it all out tomorrow, told all the cops and fireman and jailers to just stay home, we'd instantly have that "unpricipled anarchy" which you said is such "imaginary bullshit."<<<

    That's your false premise and it is indeed imaginary bullshit. You fell for it, that's all; most of us did. And no, the argument isn't that most people aren't basically thugs, though that's true and relevant too.

    The argument is that thugs will only choose to be thugs if it works. When it doesn't work, the vast majority will stop being thugs. What would be the point? So the relevant questions are...

    1. Upon whom does the responsibility fall to see to it that thuggery doesn't work?

    2. What is stopping those people from fulfilling that responsibility?

    The answers to each of those are only too obvious. Never mind the even more obvious question and answer---"What are the most dangerous and powerful gangs of thugs now?"

    Maybe you'll say that there'll still be some tiny slice of sick-fucks who still choose to be thugs, just for their sadistic love of thuggery, even if it doesn't work. An extreme rarity to be sure, and so what anyway? Every once in a while, a dog gets rabies too.

    It's not that your thinking of plans is so evil or anything; it's that it's only your thinking. Stop looking at the stories and arguments so much and just look at reality. Then answer those two simple questions.

    You'll want to say, "not enough power to stop thuggery from working," but that's false too. After all, from where does that power that you're so afraid of losing, ultimately derive even now? You think you're offering efficient organization to stop thuggery, but you're not. You're offering the contradictory proposal that the way to defend against thuggery is to institutionalize it. No matter how efficiently you organize it, you'll always run up against that contradiction eventually. That's why we always have.

    "You cannot rid the world of cannibals by eating them."

    1. Nor can you rid the world of murders by killing them; nor can you rid the world of thieves by giving them free shit.

      In each instance, you're just making more of them, in the very same way that each dollar 'printed' by the FED just creates more debt.

      True "anarchy" is impossible, precisely because it refuses to suffer the existence of a framework (a.k.a. government) in which people have the ability to enforce their rights with a measurable and consistent level of equality.

      As a minimalist I believe in that framework, only to the extent that it consistently gives authority to the *people* to enforce their rights, both individually and as a community (yes, that means that some rights are expressed collectively).
      Because some of the ideals which we enshrine as "rights" can never be secured at the individual level, so we must either secure them as s community [society], or forgo them all together.
      I.E. without a Sheriff and a Judge, there can be no Justice, because without the objective examination of facts and circumstances, punishment (even for real crimes) would be nothing more than mob retaliation... because every case would be arbitrary and capricious in it's examination and prosecution = no Justice.

      You premise that everyone (or nearly everyone) is *mostly* good by nature. That's why your ideas work for you. But I do not take that as fact; thus, as I stated above [difference of social calculus], I'm starting at a different point, and come to different conclusions.

      I premise that the race called "man" has as many evil inclinations as good, and that the further we go from our own family, the more inclined we are to ignore evils inflicted upon others... even by ourselves or members of our household. I.E. we are neither predominantly GOOD, nor are we OBJECTIVE in regards to our family vs those beyond that closest of social circles.

      Those who propose that humanity is overwhelmingly good can believe in a stable and virtuous anarchic community.

      I propose that humanity is a neutral mix of good and evil, and that Justice relies upon the implementation of a neutral framework created of, by, and for equal parties; so that an objective Justice can at least be pursued by every individual who desires Justice; yet still accepting that not all will pursue justice, and holding to the premise that they must still be dealt with equitably, or there is no justice at all.

      Those who are themselves evil, propose that man is mostly an evil race, which requires regulation established by a force separate from and exclusive of the people, i.e. strong government - which is in itself an oxymoronic proposition, because if man is predominantly evil, then no assembly of men can ever be good, and therefore can never acomplish good.

      But you, JK, you straddle the middle - you use the premise that men are generally good, and thus require no government framework to be good to each other and to govern themselves well; but when you contemplate any form of government, you suddenly switch to the proposition that all government is evil...thus asserting the foundational proposition that all men are essentially evil; because any other foundation voids the prmise that ALL GOVERNMENT is and must ever be evil.

      If man is not fundamentally evil, then a good form of governanace MUST be possible, when enacted by good men, which possibility you deny - You're playing both sides against the middle, in this single proposition. Thus your argument is fundamentally invalid, whether from the dialectic perspective, or the scientific one, or the sociographic (morals and traditions) one.

      So, you've found my "flaw", and Ive found yours - I guess we're done here, as those following along wiil either agree with one of us, or neither - but they will have a clear view of what they are agreeing with, at the foundational level. which was my objective all along.



    2. You have found no flaw. It's easy to write a screed against something that nobody said. In this case, it approaches dishonesty because I explicitly stated that the argument is not what you say it is..."And no, the argument isn't that most people aren't basically thugs, though that's true and relevant too." Just scroll up.

      It's also easy to write a screed against something that's false to begin with---"True 'anarchy' is impossible, precisely because it refuses to suffer the existence of a framework..."

      Besides the silly category error--"it refuses to..."--it's also false about anarchists themselves. The relevant distinction for modern anarchists is NOT framework versus no framework, but rather consent versus thuggery. Y'know, the one almost everyone here SAYS they wish to abide. But then, as every adult ought to know, "We are what we do, not what we say we do."

      You're welcome. I hope you find what (you say) you're looking for--you won't IMO because it doesn't exist--but if you somehow do, keep it the fuck away from me.

      That's a deal we can both live with. Win-win; it's my specialty.


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.