RED NAIL’S END TIMES SCENARIO

dhsArticle by the Red Nail.

So.

Red here again, preaching the news that the end times are coming.  I’m certain that there are freaks, geeks, peeps, and the various breeds of pigs who I’m sure have sock accounts looking at this site dreaming of using their flexi-cuffs and batons. Keep dreaming, pigs. Keep dreaming.

How does Red see the end times coming?

Red thinks that there is some really shady stuff going on in the world finance industry. The government, the corporations, the banks, the security agencies, the think tanks; all of them are in it. Sooner or later, your saved money (in the banks) will somehow no longer become yours. As more and more (once middle-class) people are then thrust into poverty, they will put more strain on an already overburdened welfare system. Those that toe the line will keep their basic necessities and be left to scrounge like dogs for anything above that. This will lead to rioting, and most likely, a violent suppression of rights through (dun da da daaaaa….DHS, with their new vehicles and vast armories).

There will be longer lines at the soup kitchens. There will be longer lines for basic medical care. You will owe the government your allegiance for these pittances, and those arrogant heartless bastards will collect. Most of the population is asleep and here is where it becomes a numbers game. If enough awake people stand up, the government will back down, eventually (after numerous atrocities and much freedom lost). If not enough people wake up, those who are awake will be hunted like dogs.

The military has a set number of people (and not all of those will be willing participants in the police state). The law enforcement system has a set number of people. Private security (which is tied right in, nice and cozy, with the government) will be in on it; and numerically speaking, the largest branch of all is really the Department of Homeland Security.

Essentially, to overwhelm the government as they cross the lines of decency and right, we will need about 15% of the population to stand. They have better arms. We have better hearts. They are structured and ruthless. Screw guerrilla tactics. We need gorilla tactics: fast, hard hits of the peoples’ rage released where it needs to be released, in a last ditch scenario. Hopefully, we will never get there. This beast is large, and with many heads. To prevent the worst case scenarios, we need to disrupt the corrupt government and force it to change.

EGYPT-POLITICS-DEMO-TUNISIABlockades and disruptions of courts, law enforcement nests, ports, rigged elections, military bases, military supply production facilities, utility companies, coordinated with web hacks and communication system overloads for a day or two might and I mean might wake up the fed enough to let them know we have been pushed too far and that they are the ones that must change. Still a daunting feat which needs a vast number of people. But unless we stand, they will continue to roll right over us and expect us to be happy about it.

This is not advocating a revolution right now; just potentials, and maybe a way to deter.

Anyway, I hope this piece makes you all feel nice and cozy

THE RIGHTEOUS PREDATOR

I have insight into the heart of evil, because, although, by the grace of God, I have been spared from an upbringing that would immerse me into the culture which would feed into it, I am, to a large extent, cut from the same cloth.

When a predator sees a grass eater, its instinct is to sneak up on it, tear its jugular, rip it limb from limb and consume it.

Now, we, as human beings, were designed to be predators. We have eyes on the front of our heads. We have digestive systems that can process meat. We have brains that operate more efficiently when we eat flesh. We were meant to hunt things, and tear flesh from bone. This is what we are. People can subsist on vegetables and be perfectly healthy, but in order to do so, they must eat a very wide variety of vegetables to get all the same nutrients; nutrients that we can get wholesale by eating raw meat (cooking meat damages its nutritional value, although it does kill anything it may be infested with).

I don’t say this to attempt to refute vegetarianism, which can be made to work, but merely to point out that, biologically, that is not what we are designed (evolved and/or created) to be.

All of that having been said, over time, civilization has successfully bred out the predator instinct from a large portion (the majority, I would say) of the population. We have relinquished our predator instinct in favor of a herd mentality. Rather than focusing on developing a relationship with a few strong people and subsisting by consuming the weakness out of the herd, our nature has been inverted to seek validation, comfort, and protection in large groups — the psychology of the herd; the grass-eater.

For those of us that are left, who have not succumbed to this, who are still capable of thinking for ourselves (another attribute associated with the predator-individualist), there is a strong psychological tension at work.

We see our fellow human beings, and we experience, on the one hand, a human fellowship, yet, on the other hand, we perceive in them (in their attitudes, values, philosophy, and psychology) the nature of herd.

We experience desires that offend our conscientious natures.

But those that fall prey to their desire to eat their fellow human beings ultimately becoming something else, entirely — they lose the predatory nature, and become parasites.

The nature of the predator is to take out the weak. This strengthens the herd. In corporate America, the healthy predator will frequently be in a managerial/executive position. If they are not, then they frequently experience alienation and frustration, since their coworkers will tend to have more of a herd mentality, which will be completely foreign to them.

The nature of the parasite is to take out the strong. Why? Because they have become accustomed to people willfully feeding themselves to them via the various fraudulent systems they’ve designed, and the self-confident, and intellectually independent strong (i.e., the predators) pose a direct threat to that system, which enables them to continue to enjoy a position on the top of the human food chain without having to work for it, or be worthy of it.

The entire system is unnatural, twisted, and unjust, and it undermines the viability of the human race by promoting weakness and the herd mentality. It is disgusting to independent thinker — as well it should be — and it is enabled by the philosophy of the city; the system whereby we huddle together into vast population centers until we are piled on top of each other like sheep around a shepherd; instead of being the rural, land-owning entrepreneurs we are supposed to be.

Do you hate Wal-Mart, Monsanto, MTV, and all of these unnaturally huge corporations that are making us weak and stupid?

I blame the herd mentality.

DECLARATION OF NON-COMPLIANCE

meArticle by Tim Wikiriwhi.

Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.

Tim Wikiriwhi
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
0276630331

9-3-13

Dear Census Collector,

Because of my Christian Libertarian principles I refuse to fill out the Census Papers.  Because they are compulsory, I know they are a violation of my right to privacy and a demonstration of the fact that our government seeks to operate via a Master- Slave relationship.

I reject this conception of government.

The Government works for me.  I am not their servant.

Nor do I accept the utilitarian argument that the Census is «helpful» for the Government with respect to social planning and policy.

I utterly condemn their totalitarian manipulation as if we, the citizens of New Zealand, are merely a pawns in their game to be used and controlled as they please.  I reject their Social engineering for the tyrannical failure that it is!  Thus, I want my Taxes and my liberty back!  I have no intention of legitimizing their power-tripping madness!

I also know that the government already has all the information regarding how many people live at this address, how much each individual earns, etc., so this fact also makes a double travesty and lie of the so-called necessity to have a compulsory Census.

Furthermore this compulsory Census is estimated to cost me, my family, friends, and neighbors 70-90 million dollars!  It is a gross misappropriation and waste of our hard earned money which was rapaciously extorted from us via other unjust and tyrannical laws and powers!

I personally have stood for Parliament many times in the Hamilton West electorate, both as a member of the Libertarianz party, and as an Independent Libertarian with the intention of getting into parliament so as to bring such socialist despotisms to a end.  Thus, I cannot in good conscience fill out the census as it represents everything repugnant about oppressive government power which I have dedicated myself to overthrow.

Some people have suggested I fill it out with bogus answers like «Jedi» as my religion, as 56,000 people did in 2001, yet I can not do that in good conscience, either!  It is no secret that am a Christian, yet I reject the state’s assertion that they have a right to demand I disclose such information to them.  History has proven what evils such information can bring at the hands of diabolical governments.  Thus, my refusal to fill out the Census is a far more righteous protest to this intrusion than the thousands of people whom write in lies, yet never are they brought before the courts!

This fact proves the State chooses to persecute a tiny minority of principled conscientious objectors like myself, whose non-compliance has such a minuscule effect to the accuracy of the data collected in comparison to all the misinformation gathered from the thousands of kiwi whom also hate the violation of their privacy yet prefer to submit fraudulent papers rather than risk prosecution for absolute refusal.

That so many people fill out the census with lies just goes to prove what a farce the whole thing is! Compulsion does not increase the accuracy of collected data!  The compulsion touters are simply fanatical statisticians who want as large a data set as they can get their greedy hands upon.

I have no beef with the Census personnel.  They don’t write the rules, and most of them are simply trying to earn an honest dollar.  Yet I would ask them how it is that they, in good conscience, participate in such a nasty and intrusive Government program? I ask how, in good conscience, they can parrot the threats of Court action and fines against conscientious objectors like myself?  I can only assume they have not thought through the true oppressive nature of the job they are doing, or that somehow they are of the belief that this intrusion can be justified because of the imaginary «benefits» this compulsion is supposed to deliver.

I have no desire to appear before court, or to be convicted, or fined.  I have a Job to maintain and a family to provide for and the very last thing I need is to hand over more of my money to a state system which is already robbing me blind!  That this is the truth about the census; that it threatens my livelihood and wellbeing of my family is despicable!

With this in mind, I am prepared to make the following compromise: I will fill out my name and address and sign it. That is all.  This was acceptable for the Census people in 2001, and in 2006, and I hope this will be acceptable again in 2013.

That is my final offer.

I have not hassled my wife into refusing to fill out her forms.  She is free to follow her own conscience, and has filled them out as she has seen fit.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is currently running for mayor of the city of Hamilton, NZ, as the Libertarianz Party candidate.

THE TRANSIENCY OF LAWLESSNESS

Murray-RothbardArticle by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.

In the 1990s Russia experienced anarchy.  The Ruble experienced hyper-inflation, followed by the collapse of the Soviet super-state.  The country continued to have laws, yet they became completely unenforceable by virtue of their overabundance and massive corruption.  It became impossible to follow the rules and run a business or live a normal life, so the rules were simply universally ignored.  This was a time of legal ambiguity.  It was not long after the collapse of the Soviet state, that the «New Russians,» i.e. the Russian organized crime syndicates, took control of the streets and most businesses, large and small.  The people began to adapt to the power vacuum left behind by the Soviet government by engaging in direct barter and individual enterprises that simply ignored the absurd and unenforced laws of the land; yet not a year had gone by before gangs took control.  President Yeltsin tried, without success, to restore order while maintaining a free-market economy.  After three terms, he had managed to substantially slow the deterioration of the currency, and had established some order, yet the economy was still firmly in the hands of the Russian mob, and the government was powerless to stop them.  The man who finally was able to restore law and order was Vladimir Putin — a tyrant; yet, a moderate tyrant, by Russian standards.  You can now start a business in Russia — and I know some people who have.  You can run a business without fear of being shaken down by organized crime, and it is safe to walk the streets.  People have money, and people have some freedom of movement.  People are able to speak their minds — for the most part.  Yet, when it comes to big business, the largest companies are firmly under the control of the state, and media companies that criticize Putin frequently find themselves shut down or bought out.

This has been my personal experience with anarchy.

What is anarchy?

Anarchy is the absence of government.

What is government?

Government is the organized application of force.

Anarchy_Wallpapers__by_grazxNow, there are a number of ideas that go under the name, «anarchy,» such as anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism, but the only genuine form of anarchism is anarcho-capitalism, a la Murray Rothbard, et. al.  The reason for this is that anarcho-capitalism is the only anarchic ideology that genuinely advocates for the abolition of any kind of continuous organized force.  All other anarchic ideologies simply apply the organization of force either to the workers, or to the local governments, or some group other than what is currently perceived of as being government; which does not abolish government, but simply alters which hands are at the helm of government.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERANow, anarchy, throughout history, and as I’ve seen personally, tends to be de facto anarchy, and not genuine anarchy, because it typically develops when there are rules which are in place, but they are generally not followed.  They are not followed, because that institution which used to be the government is no longer able to enforce them.  A law is a general, categorical directive backed by force, with the threat of punitive action.  If it can no longer be backed by force, then it ceases to be law in any practical sense.  The government need not succeed in applying punitive action in all cases for it to be law, but it must succeed in doing so a certain percentage of the time; to the extent that it creates a measure of pause among at least some of the population when they consider the idea of violating the categorical directive in question.  If a small group forcibly applies directives to its members — then it is a government, however small.  Pushing the issue down to communities or workforces, therefore, does not abolish government; it merely changes the organizational structure of it.  Anarcho-capitalism is the only form of government which excludes any kind of sustained organized force designed to apply categorical directives, and is thus unique in that it describes a genuine anarchical system.

thA state of true anarchy is difficult to sustain, because what usually happens is that violent men realize that they may organize together to apply force to other individuals to get whatever it is they want (commodities, power, women, land, etc.).  If they succeed in doing this, then they establish a tyranny.  If, on the other hand, the people, in turn, organize to resist them and protect their persons and their homes, and then establish an order which keeps the individuals and their properties secure from the initiation of force, then what emerges is a republic.  It is very difficult to maintain a state of anarchy without going in one of these two directions.

31Russia was an anarchy that swiftly devolved into an organized criminal tyranny.  Yeltsin attempted to establish a Republic, but, ultimately, was unable to stop the tyrannical rule of the gangs on the street.  Finally, Putin was able to wrest control from the criminals, yet his own system is far from being a pure republic.  It is a limited tyranny, which allows for some republican activities, so long as they do not pose any kind of threat to the status quo.  Now, I think that the takeaway is that people can only be free to the extent that they are capable of taking responsibility for themselves, and are willing and able to take it upon themselves to destroy a man, or group of men, who pose a threat to their persons, properties, and families; which means that they have to independently establish strong bonds with their fellow men, and be able to organize themselves very quickly.  Russia was unable to achieve true freedom, because they spent 70 years under Communism, and many hundreds of years under monarchy before that, and so their society never had to learn how to start a business and be self-sufficient.  This is something they’ve had to learn on the fly — and they’ve come a long way very quickly, but the reason their anarchic state has settled on a tyrannical system (albeit, a tyranny limited in scope), is because they have been behind the power curve on the concepts of individual responsibility and entrepreneurship.

Islamic-Welfare-StateIs anarchy possible to sustain?  Yes.  The Israelites in the Old Testament were able to sustain anarchy for hundreds of years under the prophets, but they did frequently have to organize themselves to stop an invasion, and they enjoyed a culture which promoted individual responsibility and social cohesion.  Anarchy is possible, but only for a society which consists of powerful and tightly knit people.  Perhaps one day we will be up to it, but at present, in my opinion, we are not.  Our culture is increasingly one of irresponsibility, alienation, and cowardice.  If we can return to a republican state; one in which our livelihood and safety must come from our friends, our families, and ourselves, and not the state, then perhaps our childrens’ children will be fit for this, but at present we are not.

DRAWING THE LINE

Private_Property_No_Trespassing_WT74Editorial by Barbara Cornell.

Syndicated from Barbara Cornell’s personal blog.

I genuinely try to live in peace with all men, and I mostly refrain from judging the right or wrong of other peoples’ lives, even when religion tells me I must.

It is my opinion that, mostly, atheists are not as much unlike Christians as we seem to think (you could substitute «atheist» with «Buddhist,» or «Muslim,» or «gay,» or «pro-choice,» or whatever other group we tend to draw lines around).  Mostly they are people, with the same strengths and weaknesses inherent in all of us, who’ve examined the evidence available to them and come to a conclusion about what is most likely to be true, and mostly they just want to be allowed to live their lives the best way they can figure out. Maybe they would prefer that we understand their values, but they don’t require that.

But because there are enough who are not content to live-and-let-live, I’ve adopted a personal policy that can be described in two sentences:

The line is here. This far and no farther.

Specifically, the line is drawn at: my home, my children, my private institutions.

It isn’t a soft, flexible line. I won’t wander off into your territory (big asterisk here) to change how you do things, I won’t advocate open hatred or disrespect of you, but neither will I allow you to alter through any means other than logical persuasion what is done on this side of the line. Not even a little bit, not «all you have to do is,» not «well, as long as you don’t…,» not «I really don’t see why this is such a big deal, all we’re telling you to do is…» Nothing. I feel that I have been driven to this kind of inflexible demarcation. I wish it weren’t so, but…again, I feel that I have withdrawn as far as is possible and still be consistent with what I believe is right. There is no greater possibility of capitulation than «you can have it, do as you wish with it» short of abject surrender, and that you shall not have.

I gladly abdicate the rest of the world to you, do with it as you wish. You can have the government (big asterisk here), you can have the taxes, the public schools, the public places, the hospitals, you can do with the concept of «legal marriage» whatever you wish, but you may not in any way attempt to invade past this line. I will raise my child the way she needs to be raised, including paying premium to have her educated in zero-tax-funded Christian schools where she will learn the truth; you can keep the property taxes I’ve paid for the public schools that I will not use for her education. I will teach her what she needs to know about healthy sexuality, use of substances, her responsibilities, and the consequences of her choices. I will conduct my home in a Christian fashion. I will conduct my business in godly manner. You may not force your teachings in the schools I pay for, you may not force teachers on me who do not believe what I am paying to be taught. You may not control what we do in our places of worship. You may not attempt to force me to educate, medicate, train, or otherwise mold my child in any fashion other than what I deem to be best. You may not counsel her to obtain or perform on her an abortion and then hide it from me. You may not teach her that promiscuity is healthy for her. You may not provide contraception to her without my knowledge. I will gladly discuss my choices with you if you are interested, but I will neither accept nor seek your approval of why my choices are reasonable, right, or healthy. I will not attempt to explain why other people who claim to follow the laws of God but fail to lead godly lives do not reflect in any way on me.

The big asterisk: Do whatever you want with your government so long as it does not attempt to dictate what happens in my home, in my child, in my private institutions. Any laws that you pass regarding what we are to do with our bodies, how we are to treat each other or how we will use or dispose of our property do not apply to me or anyone in my home. I will attempt, at every possible point, to fight laws that I feel violate this principle. We follow the laws of God here, and I promise you, the laws He designed are better for us and everyone around us than anything the whole lot of you collectively could figure out. «As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.» I am in the world, but I am not of the world (I am here, but I do not belong to you.)

Live your life, and leave me to live mine. You’ve got the entire rest of the planet’s business to run, surely you will be busy enough with that not to bother with me.

Do this, and we will get along just fine.

This far and no farther.

FASCIST!!

People are very quick to throw this word around.

It really amounts to an ad hominem attack.  It is seen as inherently pejorative; and perhaps rightly so, and it is frequently thrown around quickly and (as in my case) inaccurately.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/introducing-transegoism-59732.html

This same guy later deleted one of my posts, which had been both polite and on subject in a different thread.

Retaliation much?