Robin Morgan Is A Feminist Oppressor: Just Ask Her, Yourself!

So, I just saw something rather troubling on the internet that prompted me to serve up a rant for y’all if you care to hear me out on this.  The image that bothered me enough to immediately start stringing these thoughts together was a meme featuring a quote from activist/author Robin Morgan of the Feminist Majority Foundation and the American Women’s Movement, among other similarly-minded collectivist groups.

I’ll warn you in advance about its occasional profanity and subject matter.  I realize that this may very well offend some people, but I just needed to say it, and in just such a way.  First, though, here’s the image that sent me flying into such a tizzy, so you have an idea of the context:

robin morgan

Anyway, here goes!

First of all, I just have to say that this lady is as pathologically fucked-up as the anti-masturbation crusader John Harvey Kellogg.  For those who may not know, Dr. Kellogg was the guy who invented corn flakes in order to create a food so impossibly bland that it had the power to prevent sexual arousal.  This unfortunate psycho spent his entire adult life working to shame both himself and others for feeling sexual urges, and doing anything he could to curb such instincts.  Anyway, this was just a personal observation that I felt the need to make about Morgan’s glaringly obvious internal cognitive dissonance.  That’s not really the point of the statement I’m trying to make here, though.  There’s more.

So, I’m all for inter-cultural prosperity and freedom from oppression in all its forms (not to mention, gender equality on the basis of individual merit), but come on now. Shaming yourself for being who you are sounds pretty fucking oppressive to me, in and of itself. What kind of outlook is that for anyone to have, let alone an “activist” and ideological talking head like Robin Morgan?  From my perspective, Morgan’s outlook is hardly any different from girls who dress and act a certain way (or even starve themselves) in order to cater to male objectification, perpetually telling themselves that they are inadequate or downright worthless, altogether.

Maybe Robin Morgan should consider joining the military or finding a way to get herself into prison if she’s having personal troubles stemming from not feeling “oppressed enough.” There are plenty of state employees working for the U.S. government who would be more than happy to help her feel more oppressed.

Or better yet, why doesn’t she go live somewhere that is oppressed to the max–like Iraq or Afghanistan, for example. It sounds like maybe the level of oppression being brought to the people of those countries (courtesy of the weapons and armies of “priveleged” “white people”) might be good for her conscience–especially since she’s taken it upon herself to share in their personal responsibility for having blood on their hands.  At least if she did any of these things I’ve suggested, she’d sound less like such a bourgeois, intellectually-charlatan hyprocrite.

If you’re looking for oppression, Robin, the world is your oyster: believe me! Carpe diem, girlfriend! Just pick your personal favorite flavor of it and follow your dreams wherever they may take you!

However, if the truth of the matter is that you don’t actually want that kind of oppression for yourself or anyone else, then perhaps a good first step to take would be to stop propagating self-shaming and inverse class-ism, especially if in practice you’re not actually willing to sacrifice those “privileges” you say you hate! Talk about inconsistency. Man, oh man.

Anyway, long story short, the underlying message of this rant is really just, “love thyself, and cause harm to none.”

And if you can’t do that, then at least don’t encourage similarly unhealthy thought patterns in others–especially so hypocritically.  YOU as an individual are not responsible for the atrocities of any collective group (whether racial, cultural, economic, or otherwise) that anyone else might claim that you belong to.  Unless YOU personally choose to willingly participate in the crimes of any such collective and deliberately commit acts of oppression against others, you are an agent of world peace like the rest of us.

In reality, there is no “we” doing any oppressing; there is no collective responsibility or guilt.  Either you’re an oppressor, or you’re not, and that’s your choice to make based on your own moral code.  Stop encouraging people to hate themselves and share in your irrational sense of personal guilt over the actions of others.  It’s not healthy for you or anyone else, and at the end of the day, it’s just another form of oppression.  Actually, self-loathing and internalized shame might just be the most crippling of all of its forms.


Drug Cops and Bad Excuses: Could Weed Be Winning the War On Drugs?


Following U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement on Thursday, August 29th, 2013 that the Department of Justice will no longer seek federal prosecution of marijuana dispensaries operating in states where cannabis has been legalized as a medicinal and recreational substance, jackbooted high-ranking members of law enforcement have put their heads together and assembled a backlash statement regarding the decision.

Not even a full day after the Department’s announcement had been made, a letter of dissent concerning the decision was issued to the Department of Justice, signed by the presidents of law enforcement groups including the National Sheriffs’ Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major County Sheriffs’ Association, the National Narcotics Officers Associations’ Coalition, as well as by Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey (also the president of the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association), among several other important figures.  Complaining in rather blatant terms about the Department’s announcement that it will not seek federal prosecution of state-sanctioned dispensaries without prior suspicion of illegal marijuana trafficking, the parties involved in composing the angry statement argued that their motivation for doing so stems predominantly from the way that the recent decision will make enforcing laws and keeping communities safe, “infinitely harder for [our] front-line men and women.”

Going on further in an attempt to defend their stances on the matter, the report’s authors cite the alleged correlations between neighborhood marijuana use and, “community devastation,” “violent crime,” “drugged driving deaths,” “hospital admissions,” “depression,” and “stifled economic productivity,” as additional factors fueling the fires of their lust for the continuation of federally-enforced marijuana prohibition policies.  One such claim made within the text of the letter reads as follows:

“Marijuana use has had devastating effects in our communities, with over 8,000 drugged driving deaths a year, many of which involved marijuana use.  Data from Colorado demonstrate the consequences of relaxed marijuana policies that lead to increased use: fatalities involving drivers testing positive for marijuana increased 114 percent between 2006 and 2011.”

Please note that nowhere in the previous statement is any specific mention made regarding the exact location of “our communities,” and–given the relative formidability in size of the United States as a country–such a bold claim might seek to benefit from even the subtlest hint of factual credibility to back it up.  Similarly misleading is the second sentence of the aforementioned quotation: the statistic being cited makes mention of the fact that drivers had tested positive for marijuana following fatal car accidents, but neglects to address the fact that marijuana can be detectable in the human body for as long as thirty days following its initial consumption.  In other words, just because the drivers tested positive for THC, doesn’t make it safe to assume that they were in fact under the influence of marijuana at the time of the crash.  Vapid, factually-incomplete “statistics” such as these are what comprise both this particular letter as well as the body of arguments commonly used to support the illegitimate institution of marijuana prohibition altogether.  To read additional statements of an inconclusive (though incendiary) nature, I encourage you to read the letter for yourself at your leisure.  Here is a link for your convenience.

Of course, the real factors that are driving the disapproval over this announcement by narcotics and law enforcement officers are the economic incentives provided by keeping substances such as marijuana illegal and punishable by law.  It is a fact that the United States of America today holds more individuals behind bars than any other nation in the history of the world, the vast majority of which are incarcerated for non-violent crimes (most notably drug offenses).  The availability and popularity of marijuana on the black market, despite its status as an illicit substance, has managed to do more in terms of generating funding for law enforcement agencies and prisons than perhaps any other contributing factor in U.S. history.  Naturally, agents of the state would prefer to keep things going in such a corrupt direction: the revenue that is raised on an everyday basis in the form of fines and federal prosecution grants in order to combat the use of drugs (specifically marijuana) keeps many local police stations and court systems at a comfortable level of funding via the convenient money-making scheme of legal extortion.

Ending prohibition could result in potential pay cuts or even layoffs for police officers who (without the financial crutch of marijuana penalties to support their corrupt endeavors) may suddenly find themselves unable to steal enough money from taxpayers with drug offenses to cover their own salaries.  Those officers who might be perhaps lacking in the creativity department, unable to falsify traffic incidents in order to raise adequate revenue, for example, might suddenly find themselves back in the unemployment lines and unable to find work due to their lack of any truly valuable productive skills.

As the market for armed thugs ruining lives over a harmless plant begins to diminish, it is likely that so, too, will the financial resources necessary to pay the tremendous bills comprised of the salaries and pensions of men and women who are nothing more than a parasitical clique of roving marauders, preying upon each and every member of the general public.  And while I am no supporter of state regulation of marijuana whatsoever, I must say that it has brought me some level of satisfaction to see individuals like Charles Ramsey and his badge-wearing coterie of goons shaking in their standard-issue police boots, fearful for the pensions that they steal from others through a gigantic scam that has been conducted for nearly a century in this country under the guise of protecting society from a plant that was already harmless to begin with.

Same Gang, Different Thuggery: Why Weed Taxes Are A Continuation of the Drug War


As reported in a July 10, 2013 article by CBS, the taxes on recreational marijuana in Denver, Colorado could well reach a jaw-dropping rate of 35%.  Due to a proposed 25% state tax rate on the recently legalized plant, as well as an additional 10%-15% city tax being proposed by Michael Hancock (mayor of the city of Denver), the cost of recreational weed will very likely skyrocket in the coming year as a result of its recent legalization.  This increase in cost will then be handed over to the state’s budget and go on to fund all sorts of activities, offices, and bureaucratic engagements, the outcome of each of which will inevitably become some future manifestation of violence.  When money is obtained through violence (and taxation is, after all, violent extortion and theft through involuntary means), it is always unlikely that any cause towards which such funds are directed in the future might be peaceful.  Violence, especially that of the state, tends only to beget violence, regardless of whatever the motivating intentions of any such efforts are proclaimed to be.  Even if stolen money is used to feed the hungry, for example, it is still morally illegitimate to steal from anyone, because someone inevitably is made a victim in the process.  Even the noblest of causes being sought after by supporters and members of government are made wrongful and harmful simply because they rely on theft to obtain the resources that are necessary to their achievement.  Taxation is just a nicer term to use when referring to this sort of blatant, everyday method of robbery than the honest, more abrasive names one might call it: slavery, extortion, mass celebration of violence, etc.

I hope no one out there is naive enough to have been surprised by this sudden increase in cost for marijuana, however.  After all, such is the case with anything regulated by the government, although the case of marijuana is an extreme example, probably because the politicians know that people want pot decriminalized badly enough to potentially tolerate such an outrageous tax increase.  From their warped perspective, people will assuredly be so eager to end the costly and deadly drug war that they will gladly give up more of their money to buy their pot without risk of arrest, even if it means giving more money to the same corrupt system that prohibited marijuana in the first place.  Might I remind everyone, after all, that the war on drugs was in fact caused by the very same government that is now gradually monopolizing the sale of cannabis as a recreational intoxicant, medicine, and industrial product.  Until recently, marijuana and its sister plant hemp were illegal to even possess according to the laws of the same organization that in some states now holds the exclusive right to legally distribute it for profit.  In other words, the people that prohibited weed and ruined the lives of marijuana users are now the only people who are allowed to sell it at all.  Even more disturbing is that there are some fools out there in other states, especially those which have yet to legalize pot, who argue simultaneously that although the drug war is wrong, a pot tax could help “pay for schools.”

If this is true, I must then suppose that all of the property taxes, fines, cigarette taxes, federal taxes that go to the Department of Education, labor and income taxes just don’t cover enough of the government’s expenses right now.    Of course, that couldn’t possibly be because all of the money is going to bureaucrats, wars, prisons, and looters from the public school teachers’ union who demand/receive pensions and benefits which are outrageously distorted from whatever they might have been on the free market, could it?  No, of course not!  That could never be why all of those endless taxes never quite manage to cover the costs of adequate public education! The state just needs more money from pot taxes, and then public education will finally improve once and for all!   Such is the rhetoric of the hopelessly misinformed and ethically undiscerning supporters of any statist policies, marijuana “reform” laws being especially notable among them.

In reality, this additional tax revenue will probably just end up getting wasted on creating more education bureaucrats, policies, and programs that ultimately hinder education, or such a budget increase will spark a strike war with all of the greedy teachers who can use their union bullies to demand that the money go into their own pockets.  Nothing about this system is going to work in the long run, and weed is just going to get worse in quality and higher in price, and now with all of the extra money going to feed the same machine that has been responsible for the drug war in the first place. Wake up, people, and get with the program.

Support total decriminalization of marijuana and hemp, not legalization and government regulation.  The government has no more right to rule over plants than it does over humans, and in a moral and just society, natural law holds more dominion than a bunch of bureaucratic thieves who call themselves “the government” in order to make their acts of theft and violence appear socially acceptable.

***For an additional perspective on this issue, please take the time to watch this video, which features some excellent insight provided by activist James Babb: !***

Calling Some Bluffs: Firewalling 3D-Printed Gun Designs and The Influence of Deceptive Media


While I am by no means a fan of any major media news outlets, I must admit (almost reluctantly) that I do occasionally find some noteworthy bits of viable information hidden amongst the detritus of Fox News’ daily selection of articles.  Given that all of the mainstream news sources in the United States are politically slanted towards either the neo-conservative right (Fox News) or the collectivist, ultra-statist left (CNN, MSNBC, etc.), it can oftentimes be quite difficult to sift through the practically endless slew of erroneous fluff pieces and deceitful propaganda write-ups that masquerade as sources of relevant information.  However, despite the dismal modern landscape of back-handed intentions, subversive product advertisements, and halfheartedly disguised political party rhetoric that comprises 21st century American journalism, I can say without any intention of boasting that I am rather confident in my abilities to weed out any noteworthy “golden nuggets” of concrete, unadulterated information that occasionally turn up.  Enlightening though they are, such bits of unbiased, factual information that haven’t already been deliberately custom-edited by their news sources of origin in order to better suit the aims of a specific agenda (usually political in nature) are unfortunately rare.  For some stretches of time, it has seemed to me as though there was no real news being printed at all: not a single news story was able to check out as having been one hundred percent accurate or unaltered due to bias, especially regarding the soundness of the story’s core details.  After finding the process of trying to maintain a basic understanding of significant world affairs to be difficult as a result of an overabundance of media bias,  I find myself inclined nowadays to regularly revisit those few news sources, usually websites, from which I have previously managed to find useful information of generally-acceptable integrity.  It has been my experience that Fox News manages to provide some pretty significant news gems within its articles on a semi-frequent basis, and in my observation, tends to do so somewhat more consistently than any other of its equally-corrupt competition in the industry.  However, this argument is hardly intended to serve as a definitive statement about either the integrity or overall quality of news provided by Fox as a whole–it is simply a little insight into the general routine I use when combing through various news sources, and a little background about why I have appreciated certain instances of Fox’s reporting in the past.

With regards to a recent Fox News/Digital Trends article that I had the misfortune of discovering during the course of my daily reading routine, however, none of these relatively-praiseworthy observations were exhibited whatsoever.  Written by a certain Graeme McMillan, apparently for the tehno-savvy website Digital Trends before being picked up by the Fox network, the news story in question discusses an emerging new device called the 3D printer.  A cutting-edge technology that has only recently been made available to the public and which possesses the potential to physically replicate digital designs from an almost infinite catalog of possibilities, its appearance in the market has sent ripples of controversy throughout nearly every industry.  Nearly any item imaginable can be transferred from the realm of the imaginary to the tangibility of the physical using the innovation of 3D printing.  Such a wide range of production possibilities creates the potential for all sorts of manufacturing applications, some of which have naturally managed to generate significant controversy in recent times.  At the forefront of the debates surrounding 3D printing technology is the recent development of an open-sourced, downloadable blueprint for the creation of individual parts necessary for the assemblage of the world’s first-ever 3D-printed gun.  The model, entitled the “Liberator”, has been made available to the public for free download as an open-sourced design, and for the first time in history, the ability to create a gun from basically out of thin air may now be utilized by literally anyone.  As might be expected, the Liberator’s creation has caused quite a stir over whether or not the ability to manufacture and possess a working firearm from one’s own home is indeed a human right (as supporters of the technology claim), and what, if anything, can be done to suppress such an idea if it’s not.

I was disappointed to find that Fox’s and Digital Trends’ discussion about the issue was situated comfortably alongside the regularly-scheduled programming of what I have affectionately nicknamed the “Communist News Network” (formally known as CNN).  The reason I rechristened the network as such in the first place was due to the nature of its general content, which is consistently comprised of unabashed liberal psychobabble, generally in the form of news reports catered to reflect the opinions of the network (opinions which in reality are not actually grounded in sound economic theory).  To my disappointment, the entire work itself was comparable to any of CNN’s finest efforts to distort current events by means of utilizing a subversive journalistic style which passively conveys the doctrines of collectivism to readers while simultaneously providing them with essential daily news.  The outcome of such a method is that many of its readers often develop a carefully molded opinion about whatever information is being presented to them, almost as quickly as they learn the facts necessary for understanding the key details that had made the story significant enough to be deemed “newsworthy” at all.

McMillan’s article about a new software that blocks the ability to create guns with 3D printers utilizes a toolkit of similarly devious tactics and is, in my opinion, every bit as worthy of an outpouring of my most harshly-intended criticisms as any piece of writing I have ever read.  Taking into consideration that the article was intended to inform members of the general public about a promising new device, while bringing awareness to several solutions for dilemmas that have come about as a result of its recent market availability, it is disturbing to realize that the article’s writing appears to have a very specific agenda embedded within it.  It would appear as though–and these are strictly my own thoughts and perspectives–the write-up seeks to preemptively manipulate opinions about potential uses of 3D printers in order to draw public support for new software that would act as a firewall to block the printing of certain essential components required to construct a working firearm.  Worthy of more concern, it may be attempting to do so even to the extent of having been composed with the unstated aim of drawing support for potential legislation that would make anti-gun firewall software mandatory in the future.  However, the flagrancy and arrogance with which McMillan’s attempt at doing so has been carried out has served only to reduce his puff piece’s treacherous potential to succeed: rather than posing any tangible threat to the freedom of 3D printing technology, it serves predominantly as an embarrassment for anyone foolish enough to have regarded the article’s content with any measure of reverence.

The failure of Graeme McMillan to convince the public that software designed to limit the freedom of individuals to create whatever they choose is somehow necessary or desirable to society has been made all the more palpable due to certain aspects of his presentation that are unable to withstand even basic scrutiny. The very foundation of his persuasive arguments on the matter relies entirely upon the assumption that those who read the work know absolutely nothing about 3D printing technology whatsoever.  That being the case, I will follow in his stead, then, and make a personal assumption of my own: McMillan had most likely expected that those reading his article would, in doing so, be learning about 3D-printed gun technologies for the very first time.  In fact, it is presumable that McMillan himself had only just recently become aware of this innovation, which even now is so fresh and new to the market that word of its existence is still only just beginning to spread, and that he seized what little window of opportunity there was to misinform people before they could manage to learn the facts about the story from a more reliable source.  For anyone who has already been familiarized with both 3D printers and 3D-printed firearms, the most generous way of describing McMillan’s concerns about the matter (as well as his assertions) would be to say that they have been presented “without context”–a description which even still lends undeserved credit to the boldly misleading statements found in his article.

Still more provocative of speculation is the consistent undertone of support for this particular technology, which seems to have been subtly glorified by means of near-subliminal insinuation present throughout the writing.  The initial tone of the piece,  upon which I will further elaborate momentarily, is one of wariness towards the potential risks of a device that possesses the ability to create virtually anything, including weapons, from almost out of thin air.  The general prevalence of distrust that is rampant throughout the early half of McMillan’s “coverage” serves later to lend support for this new 3D printer firewall software.  This new firewall software is then specifically advertised, revealed to have been developed by a Danish company that calls itself Create It Real (an interesting company name for a firm that offers products intended to interrupt and prevent the creation of certain items).  In truth, the write-up may merely be some sort of public relations piece attempting to appeal to potential product buyers, ultimately representing nothing more than an advertisement disguised as valuable information.  However, more importantly, what may be little more than an insignificant ad might conversely be rendered dangerous by its strategy of communication with readers, and the possibility that such writing tactics might be persuasively-arranged enough to mold public opinion during the process of selling the firm’s software.  Even more unsettling to consider is the reality that there are countless other articles out there just like this one; some are more deliberate than others, but advertisements which masquerade as news content are by their very nature designed to generate some level of emotional response within the reader.  Formats such as the one I am about describe are not uncommon, scattered across the spectrum of today’s media current.  Some may end up being more successful than others at shifting opinions at least enough to sell a product, but there are an inevitable few who manage to achieve far more in terms of their social influence.  The particular piece in question represents merely one of the inconceivably numerous formats that may be used in the pursuit of such goals.  Hopefully, advertising detritus such as this that poses as non-fiction will prove transparent enough that readers will pick up on its ulterior motives and recognize it (along with any other article of similar character) for the cheap grab at wallets and consciences that it truly is.

From its very introductory sentence, McMillan’s creation immediately attempts to instill a sense of worry and permeable dread by playing upon the veritable “sitting duck” of humanity’s fears. Doubling as both a phobia and an instinctual trait held in common among all humans and shared throughout all generations, mankind’s fear of the unknown is a means through which our innate instincts help to protect us from getting into harm’s way.  Unfortunately, however, the universality of this human wariness of the unknown is common enough (and existentially powerful enough) to be preyed upon by media megaliths on virtually a daily basis.  After beginning the piece with such a likely hook for the audience to latch onto, the write-up next wastes no time before attempting to make use of the dull and ambition-stunting pangs of personal, shameful insecurity (an emotion that is equally as ubiquitous to everyone as the fear of the unknown).  Take, for example, this quote, which serves as the article’s transition from its introductory paragraph to the start of its general body and refers to an imbecile’s hypothetical attempt at 3D printing: “What if you make a mistake in your designs, and what you had intended to be a table ends up as some kind of arcane killing device?  Maybe you were trying to make something relatively innocuous like a shoe, but end up adding in a trigger, targeting scope, and place to insert bullets?”  With these statements, which he poses to readers in the form of questions, McMillan attempts to utilize punctuation as a tool for persuasion: nearly all of the most fear-invoking and deliberately misleading claims that are made throughout the piece are posed to the reader in the form of personally-directed rhetorical questions.

Adding to the text a sense of intimate immediacy, the use of interrogative sentence structure aids in creating the illusion of compassionate understanding.  The series of questions comprising the introduction and most of the body of the “article”  also seek to create a falsely-perceived commonality that has been fabricated in an attempt to create a sense of unity in the mind of the reader between himself, the author, and society as a whole.  The common bond to which McMillan alludes here through his use of inquisitive probing is at its core a sense of obligation to uphold one’s personal civic duty on behalf of the total well-being of society.  By phrasing his points as questions, he invites readers to reach this rather misleading conclusion simply by managing to simulate the thought processes inherent within one’s own common sense.   Readers who are fooled by this tactic will make the assumption that the answers to his questions must be obvious and unanimously-relevant for the sheer reason alone that his inquiries were delivered in such an overtly obvious manner to the general public.  Since the target audience is so obviously meant to include every single one of society’s minimally-literate members, each with their own varying degrees of intellect, those who are less prone to engage themselves in spats of analytical reasoning will jump to the conclusion that the answers to each question posed must naturally be common knowledge of an almost instinctual nature.  In short, the average idiot will assume that the questions were intended to be able to be answered by anyone, otherwise they wouldn’t have been asked of everyone.  By directing the reader toward questioning whether or not he or she is competent enough to handle such technologies without literally killing someone else, statements such as these are a means of making individuals feel afraid and, as a result, in need of protection.  Still more importantly, questions such as these infer to readers that it is even their civic duty to demand such protection.  Whether or not the idea of needing a preemptive defense against other people who might kill another person (intentionally or accidentally) with a 3D-printed gun had previously crossed the reader’s mind, the interrogative wording of the article demands that he or she personally address the issue, and then attempts to guide them into reaching a very specific conclusion.

Despite all of this, to someone with a good moral compass and the general ability to self-govern, and/or to someone who has already become knowledgeable about 3D printing technology, the concept of needing protection from whatever someone might do with their 3D printer naturally seems irrational, egregious, and utterly unnecessary.  For someone else, however, who may perhaps lack a moral compass strong enough to keep him or herself under control and who, as a result, feels the need for other individuals to provide both protection and guidance, these services might appear necessary or even desirable.  In terms of the target audience that the article was specifically written for (which is, again, primarily comprised of readers who are receiving their first exposure to 3D printing through McMillan’s article, and who could potentially find the story’s subject matter to reside within the previously-discussed realm of the terrifying unknown), members of this unenlightened bunch will almost certainly deem such protection technologies that block the ability to print gun components to be of absolute necessity.  Even more dangerously, many of these individuals will even demand that measures be taken to guarantee that public safety is not compromised by too much freedom in the hands of those with 3D printer technology, and create an outcry for the force of the state to be used to put a put a halt to such endeavors altogether.  Until such conclusions cease to be reached, and the aggression of the state and all other forms of violence are rejected altogether, the risk that laws which could be devastating to individual liberty, safety, and prosperity might be passed will continue to exist.  Without violence, laws are merely suggestions, and without the consent of the governed, government is nothing more than a gang of violent brutes with nothing to wield but their inarticulate, charmless fists.  For now, 3D printing technology remains both open-sourced and unhindered by the confines of legal restriction.  Hopefully this will continue to be the case, and enough individuals will begin to wise up to the devious tactics of spin pieces such as this one, as well as to the plethora of others like it, recognizing them for what they are and rejecting their manipulative insinuations.  Especially when such clarity may be coupled with the aforementioned rejection and unwavering intolerance for initiations of aggression (specifically those perpetrated on a mass, everyday basis by the state), individuals will be able to make fully-informed, unbiased decisions that will help them to shape their everyday lives into the peaceful, abundant, and above all else free legacies that every human being dreams of and deserves to leave behind.

First Post: Introduction

Hello, everyone!  This is my first of many posts to this site, which started initially as sort of an off-shoot from a former blog that I was keeping for some time chronicling my struggles in “legal-land” throughout the duration of 2012.  I wanted an outlet to discuss current events and everyday instances of oppression (and resistance) that result from the majority of individuals’ faithful adherence to the doctrines of statism and the existence of a centralized government.

It seems as though every day I am consistently bombarded with new scenarios, each overwhelming in their own way, and each serving to further illuminate the gravity of the consequences that come about as a result of a population that has chosen to perpetuate the illusion that mankind is in need of political rulers instead of embracing self-government.

The scenarios are endless, the examples are bold, and the implications are dire.  It’s time for people to begin to see the undeniable writing on the wall and wake up to the rapidly-dawning era of new ideology that is inevitably to come about: a mentality of self-government that is uncompromising in its devotion to unbridled personal liberty.

This blog is just another one of my contributions to the growing shift in the direction of humanity.  I hope you enjoy it, whoever you are.