Category Archives: Philosophy

America’s Culture of Death, by Jacob G. Hornberger

The culture of death stems from America’s state-sanctioned death. From Jacob G. Hornberger at fff.org:

In the wake of another mass shooting, this one in Uvalde, Texas, there have been the standard, predictable calls for gun control. The idea is that if more stringent gun-control laws are enacted, there will be fewer mass shootings.

That’s simply ludicrous reasoning. When a person wants to kill a lot of people, he is going to be able to get his hands on a gun, even if he has to go into the black market to do so. After all, drug possession is illegal, and no one has any problem getting his hands on drugs in the black market.

Instead, what gun-control laws do is disarm the victims. The gun-control laws prevent them from defending themselves. Who wants to take the chance of a felony conviction for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon?

There are plenty of gun shows in Texas. Why didn’t that mass murderer choose a gun show to initiate his killing spree? Because he wasn’t stupid. Mass murderers traditionally look for gun-free zones to commit their mayhem. That’s because there is less chance of someone firing back in a gun-free zone.

But there is a more fundamental issue that I wish to address — the underlying causes of mass murders in America. Until we get a handle on that issue — why it is that there are so many such occurrences here in the United States — we will continue to experience them.

After all, there are lots of guns in Switzerland. In fact, most families are armed to the teeth. If widespread gun ownership was the cause of mass murders — as the gun-control crowd here in the United States claims — then we would naturally expect to see the same large number of mass murders in Switzerland that we do here. But we don’t. Unlike the United States, Switzerland is not besieged by a large number of mass killings.

Continue reading→

Peering Into the Crystal Ball, We See… Instability Leading to Collapse, by Charles Hugh Smith

Charles Hugh Smith is looking into the same crystal ball as SLL. From Smith at oftwominds.com:

We can only choose one: open, dynamic stability (evolution) or autocracy (instability and collapse).

When the fundamentals of life change, every organism must evolve or die. This is equally true of human organizations, societies and economies.

Evolution requires conserving what still works and experimenting until something comes along that works better. We call the fundamentals changing selective pressure and the process of experimenting with mutations / variations natural selection.

In genetic and epigenetics, this process is automatic. In human organizations, those in power influence the choice of what is conserved or replaced and what it’s replaced with. Those who benefit from the current arrangement will fight to conserve it as is, while those being weakened by selective pressure and those hoping to gain advantages with a new arrangement will fight for replacing the old with the new.

Longtime correspondent Ron G. recently shared an insightful economic characterization of this dynamic: wealth defense vs wealth creation. Those holding the system’s wealth have few incentives to risk changing the system, as those changes could undermine or erode their wealth. They have incentives to limit evolutionary forces that threaten their wealth as a means of defending their wealth.

Those who have lost wealth and those with little wealth have incentives to change the system to favor wealth creation.

We can describe the first as orthodoxy–evolution threatens the stability of the status quo, so limit evolution to the margins–and heretics being the second option that tosses out the status quo in favor of a more advantageous variation.

Continue reading→

Libertarianism and libertarians . . ., by Eric Peters

It may sound strange and hopelessly old fashioned, but there are people in this world who neither want to tell other people how to live their lives nor be told how to live their own. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Part of the problem – as regards libertarianism – is that it’s a philosophy or moral code rather than a political movement. Which it probably can never be – because the libertarian moral system is foundationally anti-political. It does not seek office anymore than a fish seeks the desert.

But that doesn’t mean – should not mean – that libertarians ought to retire from politics. That would be like a fish retiring from water.

We live in an imperfect – a political – world. People are going to vote. If libertarians abstain from voting on the moral principle that it is wrong to participate in a morally imperfect (even a deeply flawed) system, then the votes of people who are not libertarians will count more.

If libertarians abstain from putting themselves – and libertarian ideas – forward as alternatives to ideas (and people seeking office) who are not libertarians, they have helped to ensure that libertarian ideas will not be heard (and possibly listened to) and that people who are decidedly not libertarians – or even “small government conservatives” – will end up holding the political offices that will determine whose ideas guide and determine policy.

The libertarian’s moral dilemma is a thing of his own construction. It is the false dilemma presented in the form of refusing to have anything to do with the imperfect (politically) for the sake of the perfect (which will never be) and which necessarily results in the worse-than-imperfect.

Continue reading

Rage, Rebel, Replace, by Robert Gore

failure-quotes-1024x768-1

Let’s try something different.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

The Declaration of Independence, 1776

It is disheartening how many people are pinning their hopes on the next two elections. We still don’t know exactly how the last one was stolen—the thieves were never charged, evidence was never presented, there was no discovery, cross-examination, or verdict in a court of law—but stolen it was. Yet, many believe Lucy won’t pull the football away this time.

In 2020, no one showed up for Joe and Kamala’s appearances while Trump was pulling them in by the tens of thousands. Trump got more votes than any sitting president had ever received, but Biden supposedly beat him by 7 million votes. There were myriad inconsistencies and irregularities, many connected with procedures concocted to deal with the overhyped Covid threat. However, the election was pronounced free and fair, January 6 protestors were arrested and jailed, Trump relinquished the presidency, and that was that, a bipartisan-endorsed end of story.

Everything the Democrats have done since Biden halted the Keystone XL pipeline on inauguration day seems designed to lose votes, and the polls register fading support. Yet, the Democrats are acting as if they have this year’s elections in the bag, just as they did in 2020.

Politicians interested in winning legitimate elections don’t appropriate $80 billion three months before the election to hire 87,0000 new IRS agents, some of whom will be armed, to harass tax-paying voters. They don’t conduct a raid on the home of their hated opponent, handing him an issue which solidifies his support. They don’t engage in a Quixotic proxy war on the doorstep of a nuclear power. Their nominal leader doesn’t disparage half the population in a creepy, neo-Nazi setting and speech. Is it because the vote doesn’t matter, only, per Joseph Stalin, who counts the votes?

Amazon Paperback Link

Kindle Ebook Link

On that score not much has changed. The documentary 2000 Mules came and went; once in a while someone mumbles something about election integrity, and a few states have passed a few laws purportedly ensuring fairer votes (“restricting voter access” in Democratic parlance).

Continue reading

What’s the Difference?by Eric Peters

Live and let live has never been the operative philosophy of leftists. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

There is one enormous difference between Leftists and the rest of us –  and it is not a difference of opinion.

It is that Leftists will not abide differences of opinion, especially when those who hold different opinions dare to act on them. Even when they are in the right – in terms of the facts – and even when their actions do nothing to tangibly, negatively affect Leftists, except insofar as their feelings are affronted.

The whole “masking” (and “vaccinating”) business marked out these divisions. Also the “lockdowns” that Leftists either advocated or enforced.

Not wearing a “mask – or refusing the “vaccine” – causes no harm to others, including Leftists. This is established fact, though it took seemingly forever for it to be acknowledged.

Even more paradoxically – even more revealingly – if “masks” did “work” (in the sense that wearing prevented people from getting or spreading the various “variants”) and the same for the “vaccines” we know no do not stop the getting or the spreading, either – then Leftists ought to have been content to wear “masks” and take “vaccines” themselves and leave those who chose not to wear or take to suffer the consequences.

Continue reading→

The One World Government Is Communism 2.0, by 2nd Smartest Guy in the World

You either own your own life or a collective does. The “ism” at the end of the collectivist label is quite unimportant. From the 2nd Smartest Guy in the World at 2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com:

WEF founder and Cult puppet Klaus Schwab is a dyed-in-the-wool Communist 2.0, or more aptly put an inveterate Technocommunist.

The very same dark Cult forces that created the Marxist-Leninist single-party state in the CCP birthed the Bolshevik Revolution that resulted in the CCCP are directly responsible for the creation of the WEF, WHO, UN, Club of Rome, CFR, etc. These are today’s active nodes in this Technocommunism Great Reset agenda

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the low I.Q. puppet head of the WHO, is a bonafide communist war criminal.

And the newly appointed chair of the WHO is also a lifelong member of the communist party, and PSYOP-19 sociopath:

Twitter avatar for @disclosetvDisclose.tv @disclosetv

NEW – Susan Michie, a member of the Communist Party of Britain, has just been appointed Chair of a WHO technical advisory group.

UCL Psych & Lang Sci @UCLPALS

Many congratulations to Professor Susan Michie @SusanMichie for being appointed Chair of WHO’s Technical Advisory Group for Behavioural Insights and Science for Health! @WHO @UCLBehaveChange @UCLBrainScience https://t.co/y3oQP2jqJ4

These are NOT coincidences.

The WEF “penetrators” like Trudeau and Macron are also communists, even if they lead with “socialism” and “democracy.”

“The goal of socialism is communism.”

—Vladimir Lenin

From its duplicitous inception, the United Nations has been and continues to be a full-blown Technocommunist organization. Through their Agenda 21 they are slowly and then all at once attempting to steal away all property rights from every single human being. This also happens to be the very first plank of the Communist Manifesto; to wit:

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

“The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more “eminent domain” power than was originally intended, Under the rubric of “eminent domain” and various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Managementproperty taxes, and “environmental” excuses, private property rights have become very diluted and private property in landis, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the “forfeiture” provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs.” Source.

Continue reading→

The Tyranny of the Majority, by Andrew P. Napolitano

It’s a problem that’s puzzled political philosophers for centuries. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

“Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or three thousand tyrants one mile away?”
— Rev. Mather Blyes (1706-1788)

Does it really matter if the instrument curtailing liberty is a monarch or a popularly elected legislature? This conundrum, along with the witty version of it put to a Boston crowd in 1775 by the little-known colonial-era preacher with the famous uncle — Cotton Mather — addresses the age-old question of whether liberty can long survive in a democracy.

Blyes was a loyalist, who, along with about one-third of the American adult white male population in 1776, opposed the American Revolution and favored continued governance by Great Britain.

He didn’t fight for the king or agitate against George Washington’s troops; he merely warned of the dangers of too much democracy.

No liberty-minded thinker I know of seriously argues today in favor of a hereditary monarchy, but many of us are fearful of an out-of-control democracy, which is what we have in America today. I say “democracy” because there remain in our federal structure a few safeguards against runaway federal tyranny, such as the equal state representation in the Senate, the Electoral College, the state control of federal elections, and life-tenured federal judges and justices.

Continue reading→

Marxism: “You Will Own NOTHING and Be Happy”, by Robert W Malone, MD, MS

We say, you pay—the joys of being a Marxist. With history no longer being taught, they’re free to prey on widespread ignorance and gullibility. And after they’ve eaten the rich, whatever is left of the middle class, and anyone else who has a pittance more then they do, where does their next meal come from? From Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, at rwmalone.md.substack.com:

In response to Globalist Marxism, it is time to develop parallel economies

A friend just told me that Linked-in suspended him for posting my Monkeypox Substack article. Others have written to me that basically anything I write will get someone banned from Linked-in just for re-posting – including the cartoons. Now, I am sure that many others who have criticized the government are also on the censored list. I am not alone.  I am also sure that this list is being generated by the US Government/Administrative state. That the list is growing to include those that are critical of these mRNA vaccines, those who advocate off-label drug use to treat COVID, US policy regarding the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and even the Biden administration. Mal-information, that which may be true but hurts the government narrative is enough to be a domestic terrorist.  It is enough to be permanently censored by the state-sponsored media, and I strongly suspect it will soon be enough to impact on your personal social credit and ESG ranking. And that social credit and ESG score ranking will impact on your ability to get loans and purchase goods and services.

The WEF ESG scoring system

We have all heard by now that ESG scores are based on more than just environment/carbon, but also “social”  scoring. You know, like social scoring system of the the CCP.

The government of the People’s Republic of China has developed a Social Credit System, which is a national credit rating which is used to blacklist corporations and individuals who have transgressed against CCP mandates and guidelines. It is basically an extension of the existing financial credit rating system in China. Many believe that it “oversteps the rule of law and infringes the legal rights of residents and organizations, especially the right to reputation, the right to privacy as well as personal dignity, and that the system may be a tool for comprehensive government surveillance and for suppression of dissent from the Chinese Communist Party” (Wiki).

Continue reading→

False Hope in the Republican Party? Where Do We Go from Here?, by Boyd D. Cathey

Republicans can compromise any principle, smash defeat from the jaws of any victory, and lap up the crumbs from any Democratic banquet. From Boyd D. Cathey at lewrockwell.com:

It did not dawn on me until I walked out to my mailbox Monday, June 20…and there was no mail. “What’s up?” I thought. “It’s Monday, and I always get mail on Monday, since it piles up on Sunday when there is no delivery.” What had happened, I wondered.

Then, I witnessed one of those special delivery postal agents who work on holidays, and I flagged her down. And come to find out that Monday was “Juneteenth,” a new Federal holiday (actually it was Sunday, but the Feds, as is their wont, postponed the observance until June 20th). So, there was no regular mail delivery.

That explained it; I had forgotten the latest government concession in the name of “equity” and “liberal democracy,” and advancing the “ideals of America” as exemplified somehow in the Declaration of Independence.

As a national Federal holiday “Juneteenth,” this latest paean to political correctness and abject apology for our past sins as a nation, was enacted by the US senate unanimously on June 17, 2021, and by a vote in the House of Representative of 415 to 14. Literally no one stood forth to explain what actually was occurring: politically craven expediency and servile acquiescence to ideology.

Continue reading→

Covid Rivals All the Horrors of History, and Now “We Have a Nation to Rebuild and a World to Save.” By Peter and Ginger Breggin

To rebuilt a nation and save the world is going to require integrity, courage, and moral clarity, all of which the Covid travesty revealed to be in short supply. From Peter and Ginger Breggin at rescue.substack.com:

An investigative journalist-author weeps for the pandemic’s genocidal corruption by U.S. and world governments she exposed, but says, “Where there is life, there is hope.”

Statue of Liberty - Lady Liberty Painting by Patricia Awapara | Fine Art  America
Statue of Liberty – Lady Liberty is a painting by Patricia Awapara, a Peruvian-born American artist who paints by allowing herself to “let go and trust my intuition,” she says. “If all comes together, the result is an artwork that surprises me, filled with exciting and contrasting hues, saturated with joy and free-flowing essence that elevates my Spirit. My purpose is to ignite positive emotions, not only within me, but also in anyone who comes across my work.” 

Definition of cognitive dissonance: psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously.

When I walked our two dogs today, the sun was shining. There is a robin nesting on top of our porch light, right outside our front door. Half of a vivid turquoise eggshell lies below the nest, and I’ve seen a parent arrive with a fat green grub for a newly hatched baby. Fluffy white clouds—the products of our nearby Finger Lakes—float across the blue sky.

What is in front of my eyes is utterly normal. This glowing scene brings a surge of memories. Picnics and walking barefoot on the lawn. Fourth of July celebrations and the sun warming my head like a benediction. Children chasing bubbles with dogs running joyfully through the green grass.

Meanwhile, awareness of danger and the knowledge I carry are churning in my mind. I look at this gorgeous summer day, and tears spring to my eyes. I have spent the last two and a half years trying to look around the next corner by synthesizing and analyzing all the data I can gather, from the science, medicine, psychology, economics, human behavior, history, cultural norms, current events, and the crowdsourcing of social media and through consumption of the evaluations and analyses pouring forth from minds greater than mine, through books, reports, research, Substacks, interviews, presentations, and media events.

Continue reading→