Great Britain Succeeds and Secedes From EU

Brexit is a victory for freedom. The people of Great Britain have stood up for their independence by casting their votes in a historic Brexit Referendum which has resulted in Great Britain leaving the European Union. The results were close with 48 percent of voters choosing to stay as members of The EU and 52 percent choosing to leave. This is a fantastic day and a fresh new start for the people of Great Britain. The time has come for them to take back their independence and sovereignty away from faceless bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the people they rule over.

The European Union has been a disaster for many years now. It was founded on November 1st 1993, but it’s history goes back much further to the late 1950s when in 1957, the Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community (EEC), also referred to as the ‘Common Market’. The European Union is a political body that is highly centralized and which has failed, and continues to fail, the over 500 million people that are under the control of The EU. The Euro has created economic difficulty in many countries like Greece and Italy. There is extremely high unemployment in Southern Europe hovering close to 50 percent in some areas. The European Union is run from Brussels by a bunch of elitists and anonymous and characterless bureaucrats. It truly is a disgrace. There is also the migrant invasion. There have been throngs in the millions coming from third world cesspools all over the Arab Middle East, and they are planting themselves in Europe. These migrants are coming from terrorist hot beds, and many of them are throwbacks from the 7th century who hold beliefs and values which are not compatible with western societies. These migrants bring a deep animosity and intolerance for other cultures, they are bringing diseases like scabies, and many of them believe that the death penalty is a just punishment for homosexuals and for people who draw cartoons of a certain religious prophet. There are other crimes under Sharia Law that call for very harsh punishments and death. So people are sick of being invaded by barbarians from the Dark Ages and paying for their stay in the form of public housing and welfare programs in the process while they are called xenophobes and islamophobes. People are fed up. They want their national identity back, they want to preserve their culture without being called bigots, and they want to control their own destiny without pencil pushers in Brussels getting in the way.

This is a very historic day. There is a real possibility that other countries will leave the EU in the near future and rid themselves of the corruption and malfeasance perpetrated by the EU leaders and public officials. Great Britain has quite a bit of work to do and the people are split in that country. Many support centralized government and political correctness and multiculturalism and central planning. There are others, and they seem to be in the majority, who support culturally conservatives ideas and economic freedom. It’s funny, the BBC which is a media mouthpiece and propaganda outlet for The EU and Great Britain’s political class, incessantly discussed how leaving the EU would create a disaster. Well it’s a good thing the people did not listen and heed this ridiculous and untruthful advice. Decentralization, and voluntary trade, and private property rights, and individual sovereignty are always better ways to form a society than to have an oligarchy ruling over everyone.

It would be a delight to know that other people are supporting Brexit all around the world and that they are supporting secession for their own sovereignty and identity. Why do we need The EU, The World Bank, The IMF, horrible trade deals like NAFTA, monopolized fiat currency, and centralized governments that rule over hundreds of millions of people with no checks and balances? It’s time to put One World Government in reverse. We should not live in 195 countries, people should have the choice to live in 10,000 sovereign countries. We should not have a handful of political bodies controlling the world. We should have private businesses that compete and tens of thousands of sovereign communities that trade with each other without the initiation of force from The State interfering with voluntary relationships that people form with one another. It all comes down to secession. Secession and decentralization is the best way to be free and tohave complete control over your life.

 

 

Advertisements

Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) Are Ultra Intolerant Cowards

Safe spaces, destroying private property, throwing temper tantrums, occupying public areas, blocking students from going to class, spitting in people’s faces who hold opposing views, wearing bandannas and masks to cover their angry faces at protests, screaming incoherent sentences and calling people names who hold opposing views, rape hoaxes, “hate crime” hoaxes, pouring urine on people’s heads who hold opposing views, violent rhetoric, violent behavior, a sense of entitlement, totalitarianism, fascism, defecating in the streets, throwing eggs and punching people who hold opposing views. These are just a few things associated with the vile and intolerant social justice warriors (SJWs). They should not even be called warriors. A more suitable and accurate name to describe these malcontents and misfits of society would be cowards, snowflakes, gutter rats, and ultra intolerant mindless thugs. These social justice movement are made up of vulgarians who make irrational statements based on their religion of regressive leftism and egalitarianism.

Black Lives Matter, militant feminists, anti-capitalists, egalitarians, socialists, The Socialist Alternative, Bernie Sanders supporters, The Occupy Wall Street Movement, The Environmental Fascists, The Eco-Fascists, The Climate Change Alarmists, The Go Green Tyrants, PETA, LGBT activists, La Raza, Open Borders Activists, and many other violent, intolerant, movements based on leftist propaganda and the omission of facts and evidence,belong on the fringes of civilized society. These groups of people hate humanity. They hate freedom. They hate economic choice. They hate opposing views. They will use extreme violence as a means to achieve egalitarian ends. They will make violent threats, assault you, destroy private property, call you names and leftist buzzwords like “racist”, and take aggressive actions to achieve a society that is politically correct and where there is equality of outcome. Then they have the nerve to call themselves tolerant and compassionate. These are the dregs  of humanity. These are not people with dignity. These people have no integrity or honor. The word warrior is usually used to describe people with courage. These violent leftists who want safe spaces are ultra intolerant cowards. What a joke!

 

Libertarians Against Open Borders

The freedom to travel is a human right and using force to stop the free movement of people would be against Libertarian principles. This is what many Libertarians believe. Unfortunately, open borders, and unrestricted immigration are not in line with Libertarian principles when it comes down to one very important factor. That factor is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Private Property Rights, along with the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), are the cornerstones of libertarian philosophy. The idea that someone has free speech goes away once the person speaking has violated the rights of someone’s private property. Free speech does not mean you can walk into someone’s house and start giving a speech about going vegan in their living room. Free speech does not mean you can go into a crowded theater and scream “Fire!” since this would be a violation of property right of both the owner of the theater and the patrons who purchased tickets to see the show, or performance, or movie. So the same applies to immigration and open borders.

We have to look at immigration under two different scenarios,or paradigms. Immigration in a free society and immigration under the statist paradigm. Let’s take a look at the free society theory as it relates to immigration. This is pretty straightforward. If all of the private property is owned and titled to someone or a group of people, or a community, they those property owners get to decide who enter their communities. They get to decide who they will sell property to and who is permitted to enter into their communities. These communities may be defined communities that stress living by a certain code of ethics and a set of values. You might have catholic communities, mormon communities, gay communities, traditional marriage communities, black communities, white communities, communist communities, anarcho-capitalist communities, so on and so forth. These communities,or enclaves, are free to trade with other communities from afar, and even welcome visitors from other enclaves, but they will most likely restrict who lives in their community based on race, religion, values, cultural norms, and a whole list of other reasons, so that the communities can maintain their character and cultural values that will be preserved by the property owners and inhabitants that make up that community. If there are people who want an all inclusive, non discriminating community, then they can go establish this type of community as long as they acquire private property through legitimate means. No one has the right to force someone to associate with someone and that’s what open borders leads to in a society where all of the private property is owned by people. Forced integration is not libertarian. What if someone wants to invite an immigrant into their community? Forced segregation is wrong too, right? Well, if someone wants to invite an immigrant to stay with them for an indefinite amount of time then that person will be responsible for the immigrant’s actions to some degree. If the immigrant commits a crime then the immigrant is responsible and the person who invited the immigrant will be held responsible to a lesser degree. It’s the same thing if a child hits a baseball through a neighbor’s window. The parent will hold some of the responsibility,maybe the child mows lawns to pay for the damage. So people will think twice about who they invite into their communities. Property titles may also stipulate who owners are allowed to sell to so that the community retains it’s culture and values.

Under the statist paradigm it’s a bit different. The State has no right to do anything. It has no right to run healthcare, or a welfare-warfare state, expropriate income from people to pay for monopolized services, it has no right to be the ultimate decision maker through the courts, and it has no right to draw arbitrary borders. How should immigration work under the statist paradigm? Well, immigrants come across borders and the become welfare parasites, so is the answer to abolish welfare and then we can have open borders. Welfare should be abolished, but that does not mean we should have open borders? The taxpayers are the owners of all goods and services. Who but the taxpayers should be the rightful owners of ALL public goods and services. Someone from a third world country who just plops themselves in a country and uses public resources without paying taxes is essentially stealing from the taxpayers and rightful owners of public property. What if they do pay taxes and there is no welfare state? Well then it comes down to the type of people entering the country. If a King owns all of the land in the country, it is his job to make sure the value of that land does not depreciate. So what kind of people would increase the value of a country?  Let’s see, doctors, entrepreneurs, people with IQs above 100 (preferably people with IQs above 110), innovators, and scientists. It would be unwise and irresponsible to allow vagabonds, marauders, rapists, murderers, vandals, terrorists, panhandlers, and low IQ people into your society.

So no matter what we must have a system of restricted immigration and closed borders. Private property borders in a free society to preserve cultural values and freedom of association and to prevent forced integration. Statist borders are not ideal, they are not even legitimate, but if there is a welfare state immigration must be restricted, and if there is no welfare state, the value of the country should appreciate not plummet by inviting the dregs of humanity into the country.

Supreme Court Justice Andrew Napolitano Sounds Nice

There is a raging debate going on right now on who president Obama should nominate as the next Supreme Court Justice to take the late Antonin Scalia’s seat. Should the seat remain vacant until the next president is elected and takes office in 2017? This would effectively leave the decision in the hands of the people. That’s if you believe in a rigged political process and a democratic system of mob rule. Should Obama choose a justice immediately so the court can continue to render decisions on important cases? Well, Obama is definitely going to nominate someone, it’s just a matter of who will he nominate. The chances of the president nominating an orginalist or a moderate judge share the same probability that there are talking hippopotamuses on Pluto. So what should happen?

If the Republicans had any testicular fortitude they would delay the process and wait until after the presidential election to confirm the next Justice of The Supreme Court. If Obama nominates someone or if Hillary or Bernie Sanders nominate a justice, then you can be sure you will be living in a country where you will have no freedom left to speak about. It’s bad enough we can count our natural rights that have not been encroached upon with about four or five fingers. Can you imagine what would happen if someone like Loretta Lynch becomes a Supreme Court Justice? Say goodbye to gun rights, they would be ban the sale of most guns, and attempt to confiscate guns, although that would be a very difficult task for The Feds since their would be so much resistance. There would be abortion on demand, partial birth, and maybe the government will eventually mandate The States to enforce infanticide laws. Maybe they will coerce people against their consciences to pay for infanticide. That is what partial birth abortion is right now. So who knows how far The SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) will go if they have a majority of progressive judicial activists serving in this branch.

The  SCOTUS is tyrannical to begin with and nothing will change that. When you have a branch of government interpreting their own Constitutional document, that paves they way for immense power grabs and a road to an unstoppable tyrannical government. There have been so many cases that have stole liberty from the people and which have transferred more power to the political class. The federal government was supposed to be an agent of The States,but now it has turned into an oligarchy. There is no decentralization just centralization and power in the hands of the few. Read about Marbury V Madison, McCulloch V. Maryland, Wickard V. Fillburn, Korematsu V. The United States, Plessy V. Ferguson, and many others Supreme Court Cases that have destroyed liberty. Then you will begin to understand the tyranny of the judicial branch. The executive and legislative branches are no better. Executive orders that give the president dictatorial powers and a Congress made up of 535 members representing the interests of 320 million people. This is tyranny in a nutshell.

So the only way to stop the hemorrhage that is the despotism of The Federal Government. A government that uses judicial activism and judicial tyranny, combined with countless executive orders issued in the overnight hours when everyone is sleeping and will never notice. The people of this country are sleeping when they are awake so it does not really matter. The way to stop this continuous trespass on liberty is to come out of this stupor and snap out of this brainwashing that has infected the minds and sensibilities of otherwise rational people. If people stopped giving their consent and talked about peaceful secession, which is the biggest check on government, you would see how the government would change.

The other option is to make sure that if a Republican gets elected president in 2016 that this new president nominates Judge Andrew Napolitano to replace Antonin Scalia. This is the best choice and the only choice if the last vestiges of a free society are to remain in tact. He is extremely experienced and a constitutional orginalist. He always reads the constitution and it explains it with the original intent of the founders in mind. He has handled thousands of sentencings and hearings. He also taught constitutional law and jurisprudence at Seton Hall Law School for eleven years. He is now a judicial analyst and gives his opinions on a wide range of legal and constitutional issues that are in the news. This man has proven to be a textualist and he has made an unwavering commitment throughout his impressive career as a judge and constitutional scholar not to be a judicial activist but a defender of the original meaning of this founding document. Any other choice would be a mistake since Napolitano and Scalia are cut from the same judicial cloth. I guess we will wait to see what happens. I am not saying The Supreme Court is a legitimate way to decide the constitutionality of laws. The system of checks and balances is extremely flawed and the federal government has grown to an immense size since 1787 when the Constitution was ratified. This is of course inevitable. There can never be governments that remain minimal. They will always grow. Limited Government is an oxymoron. So the only hope is peaceful secession or Judge Napolitano. The latter is more realistic for now.

Atheism and Libertarianism

Atheism, simply defined is the lack of belief in God or Gods. It’s the negation of theism which is the belief in God. There is also a type of atheism called strong atheism, or antitheism, which is the assertion that Gods can not exist and do not exist. Antitheists also find religion to be contemptuous since it is irrational and has given rise to many of the problems humanity has faced and continues to deal with in the modern day. The Inquisition, religious wars, hatred of homosexuals, mistreatment of women, the death penalty for apostasy, stonings, witch trials, suicide bombers, genital mutilation, brainwashing children,and many other horrible precepts. So religion can be a way of life, whereas atheism is not a lifestyle. It’s just an absence of belief in the supernatural and Gods. Essentially everyone is an atheist. There are thousands and thousands of religions and Gods. If you are a monotheist, (Jew, Muslim, Christian), you reject all of the other Gods. You reject The Hindu Gods, The Greek Gods, The Norse Gods, so on and so forth. The difference between an atheist and a monotheist is that the atheist takes one more step, and does not believe in any Gods. So as I said, atheism is not a lifestyle. It does not say you must live a certain way. But what about political beliefs. Is atheism more compatible with one over another? Is it more compatible with Communism, or is it more compatible with Libertarianism? I think it is obvious to see why the latter is a better choice when it comes to reconcilability. So let me make the argument.

First, I think it is better to discuss this topic by using strong atheism, rather than weak atheism to discuss the compatibility between politics and the lack of belief in Gods. Strong atheism, or antitheism, is an assertion and can be looked at as a philosophical position. A person who is against religion can discuss the reasons why and make compelling arguments against religion. The atheist, who just lacks belief in Gods, is just that, and it does not go much deeper than that. The same way we do not call people non alchemists, or non coin collectors, or non Catholics, they just do not believe. I think Libertarianism and Atheism go hand in hand. Libertarainsim is based on the non aggression principle (NAP) and it says that no one is allowed to initiate force against your physical person or private property. Self defense and punishments for criminals are permissible, however, aggressive actions like murder, rape, theft, assault, fraud, trespass, vandalism, etc. are all violations of the NAP. Libertarians believe that The State is illegitimate since it is an institution with a monopoly on force and ultimate decision making power in a geographical region. The State is coercive and it murders, kidnaps, and steals. It is perhaps the greatest plunderer and threat to human rights and freedom man has ever seen. What does this have to do with antithesim. Well, organized religion is hierarchical and coercive.  So if you take one of the monotheistic religions, more specifically Christianity or Islam, let’s say Christianity for argument’s sake. There are certian rules and guidleines you must follow in order to be rewarded with eternal life after death. There are many things you can do in life that are victimless crimes here on earth, or not even a crime anywhere in the universe, however, the celestial overseer, the dictator in the sky, will punish you with a hard handed and excruciating punishment if you break these rules and do not ask for forgiveness. The Ten Commandments, sacred scripture, and religious precepts govern the kingdom of God, and religion says you are bound by them here on earth, and breaking them could mean a fiery and tortuous afterlife in a place called Hell. If you break God’s rules you could land a one way ticket to a place a thousand times hotter than the Sun, where all the dregs of humanity reside, the serial killers, the murderers, the thieves, the rapists, the torturers, unless of course they asked for forgiveness then they are with God and Jesus. I find this to be a ridiculous proposition. Especially since . If a person committed atrocious acts of violence for 3/4 of their life and then on their death bed, that person asks for forgiveness, God has a place for them in heaven. I find this a repulsive idea, that someone like Ted Bundy, or Heinrich Himmler, could be forgiven for their crimes by the all loving God by merely asking for forgiveness and salvation. After all, a so called benevolent God who created these horrible people and who permitted them to inflict suffering and pain to people sounds rather sinister. But if you show disrespect to God, or you do not believe in God, or you criticize the idea of God, or you are disrespect your parents, or you covet things, or if you are a homosexual, or eat certain food, you may very well find yourself in a burning dungeon, with the sound of wretched moaning and blood curdling screams for eternity. This is absurd and perhaps even more sinister and evil. But many people believe in this nonsense. They believe if you are gay, or you are an atheist, or if you admire your stamp collection more than God, this will send you straight to Hell. So dogmatic religion and libertarianism would no mix well philosophically since libertarians oppose coercion. They oppose The State. So religion and God are very similar to The State. The geographical area that that is monopolized with the threat of eternal damnation is the earth, Heaven, Hell, and the whole universe. The monopolizer of this coercion and threat of violent punishment for not believing is this celestial overseer we call God. Sort of a despotic dictator of the transcendent realm. If you eat the wrong thing or have sex with the wrong person, you will very likely be punished here and in the afterlife according to scripture. This is like living in a perpetual 1984 times a trillion!

Many atheists identify with Communism or political and social collectivism. This seems logical since Karl Marx, the author of The Communist Manifesto, was a staunch atheist. I do not think Communism and atheism go together though. Communism replaces God and supernatural power and judgement with statist power and force. The Communists and Progressive Leftists want people to worship The State and Big Government. If you are an anarcho-communist, and you oppose The State and capitalism, you are still in favor of using force to seize private property. Anarcho-communists are still in favor of mob rule and central governmental panels who have been elected by a system of mob rule (democracy) making the ultimate decisions on how resources are allocated among the people living in the commune of city, or wherever this political system exists. I think Ayn Rand’s rejection of faith is more realistic. She rejects mainly because it is irrational. She talked about how a lack of knowledge was not a license to invent fantasies. Instead, humanity should strive to expand its knowledge.

So in conclusion, I think a person who is consistent in their beliefs and who calls themselves a libertarian, should also reject the dogma of religion. There are many wonderful people who are devout theists. There are people in my family who I love dearly who are religious and believe in God. They have a right to believe what they want. People have an inalienable right to practice a religion as long as they do not violate the rights of others in the process. Unfortunately, there are religions which exist today, which are extremely violent. I do not have to name them. You know which ones they are and one in particular which has been responsible for human rights violations and ultra violence for 1400 years. So the problem is that religion has many coercive elements and ideas ingrained in the holy books and if people are just going to pick the good parts and do away with the bad, then why do we need religion at all? Libertarians who are against The State and support the NAP, would be much more consistent if they were antitheists. I do not see how religious dogma that is very coercive and is used to condition young susceptible children into believing in God is an acceptable practice and in line with the objectives of freedom. I find it unsettling for a person who is a supporter of freedom to submit to a supernatural morality monitor who they have never met and in which there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of this God. the only evidence, if you call it that, is a holy book or books that were written eons ago by extremely fallible men living in the desert way before The Age of Enlightenment, The Theory of Evolution, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Immanuel Kant, David Hume and other world changing contributions and discoveries. If you support freedom and the NAP, I think it would also be logically consistent to reject organized religion and celestial dictatorships.

Republican Fear and War Mongers

I don’t tune in to Republican debates,or any political debate for that matter, with the expectation of walking away with a sense of enlightenment or an intellectually stimulating experience. I will watch these debates only for the entertainment value and because I think it’s important to be up to date with what the plunderers, crooks, thieves, propagandists, and murderers, better known as the presidential candidates, are saying and plotting for the mostly unsuspecting masses. Once you understand how the political class operates it is so easy to see how pernicious these people really are once they start speaking about various issues. The Democrats pander to third world law breakers who they will put on welfare and forcibly integrate into our communities. They are champions of unrestricted immigration programs and refugee programs, not because they care about these people. They only support the idea that it’s American to welcome and support throngs of invaders, many who are diseased, poor, and have the propensity to commit violent crimes, so they can build up their base. The goal is to create a voting bloc so big that future elections will be in the bag. The Republicans like unfettered immigration too since their wealthy campaign donors will benefit from all the cheap labor. One of the main pet projects and visions of The Republican Party is to have the most powerful military in the world, an interventionist foreign policy, and of course, be “strong” on national security. This is what one can expect from this group and it was a non stop back and forth on the debate stage last night with respect to who is the strongest on foreign policy and national security. The amount of fear that the Republicans use to rile up their constituents and loyal supporters has only gotten worse post 9/11. And in the wake of the San Bernardino attacks, the Republican fear mongers and war hawks, have put the issue of national security and U.S. military prowess front and center. The war drums are beating and the war rhetoric has reached full throttle.

The only country has slid into paranoia and hysteria after the Paris Attacks in November, and just a couple of weeks ago the San Bernardino attacks. People are afraid to fly on airplanes, they don’t want to do shopping, and many are willing to sacrifice their privacy and civil liberties for a false sense of security. The media has played a major role in this psychosis that has enveloped the country. Sensibility and rationality has gone out the window and when that happens it opens the door for a warmonger to step up and gain support from the terrified electorate. The media reports every threat. Someone can look at someone the wrong way and it’s breaking news on every channel. An entire school district in L.A. was shut down yesterday as a result of a unreliable threat. The threat had no credibility, and yet school officials closed 900 schools and thousands of students stayed home. This is becoming outrageous. Of course we want children and people to be safe, but over reacting every time someone writes a threatening email from a cafe in Brussels is going to turn this society upside down. Islamic terrorism is a very dangerous and imminent threat to Western Civilization. It threatens Muslims and Non-Muslims alike, and the ideology espoused by these savages is a violent political and religious ideology that has been intertwined to achieve worldwide dominance. However, we must behave rationally and realize that you have a better chance of dying from food poisoning, from a brain parasite, in a car accident, being struck by lightning, or by drowning in a bathtub than you from terrorism. The chance of dying in a terror related attack is one in the tens of millions. Maybe the Republicans should fight a war on the public road system since 30,000-40,000 people a year die on public roads and highways. Better yet, let the private sector handle the roads and highways. The Republicans are hell bent are ending terrorism. How ironic, since it was U.S. Foreign Policy along with backing from some allies which has created the chaos and destabilization in The Middle East.

The U.S. government has transformed The Middle East into a snake pit. It is an area of the world which has been in a state of disorder for centuries. When foreign governments meddle in these affairs, arm rebels who they think are freedom fighters but are actually barbarians who chop people’s heads off and burn people alive and want to bring us back to the 7th century, and when foreign governments topple dictators and provide support to brutal dictators all over this region, it is now wonder there is blowback from these ill advised policies. George W. Bush invades Iraq in 2003, kills hundreds of thousands of civilians. The country spends over a trillion dollars fighting this war and training the Iraqi military. When the U.S. leaves the Iraqi military runs away from ISIS. Then you have the Arab Spring, more like The Arab Fall, where the U.S. gets involved and plays a major role in toppling dictators. Then you have the U.S. arming Syrian rebels are actually Sunni jihadists and savages who want to bring a thousand years of darkness and tyranny to the planet. So this is why you have these terrorist groups like ISIS running around. Part of it is because of the ideology which fuels jihadism but it also has to do with U.S. and Western Foreign Policy of incessant entanglements in matters that should not concern these intervening states. But the answer we got from the fear mongers and war mongers that make up The Republican Party and the neocons that contribute and work for Fox News, is more war and interventionism and an Orwellian police state that would make Orwell’s 1984 look like Candy Land.

The Democrat Party has been the party of war throughout American History. I mean you have Woodrow Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII), Harry Truman (Korean War), LBJ (Vietnam War). It has not been until recently that The Republicans have taken over that role. The Old Right and The Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan, Russell Kirk, Frank Chodorov did not support an interventionist foreign policy. Nevertheless, since Reagan and Bush I and Bush III, hopefully not a Bush III, it has been a integral part of the Republican Platform to embrace and support a massive military with an out of control budget, along with, a desire to go to war if one of “our” so called interests are threatened anywhere in the world. The problem is the U.S. has a military prsence and these made up American interests in over 150 countries. So any concocted violation of these interests could be a pretext for war. This is insane and is what really puts American citizens in danger. All I heard from these blood thirsty jingoists last night, with the exception of Rand Paul, who is a statist by the way, just more Libertarian leaning, is that we must defeat ISIS, we must remove Assad, we must control the internet, we must collect metadata and spy on the American people to prevent a threat which is less likely dying in a building fire. Blowhards like Christie and Trump want to spy and collect date. Trump wants to regulate the internet. Rubio wants to collect massive amounts of data as he champions the rights of Syrian refugees to infiltrate our cities and towns. Cruz wants to wage another long war which will kill innocent civilians and cost another trillion dollars, maybe more. Bush, like Cruz, and pretty much all the others want to travel four thousand and five thousand miles away, to the corners of the earth to hunt people down. The U.S. government flipped the switch that delivered the electricity into the Arab Middle Eastern Problem. Now they want to fight and defeat this Frankenstein with fear tactics and trillion dollar military campaigns. All that will do is create more Frankenstein’s and then you are just playing a giant game of whack-a-mole.

The solution is to let the Arab countries resolve their own problems. The coalition of these 65 countries should not include the United States. This country has a mountain of domestic and economic issues that are being made worse by the political elite and crony capitalists. The taxpaying American citizen should not be on the hook for another expensive and unjust war. Rand Paul made a smidgen of sense in this last debate. It’s just too bad he is a libertarian leaning constitutional conservative and not a principled and consistent libertarian. The way to fix these problems is to close the borders, or at least restrict immigration to a minimum with a policy of discrimination in place. The welfare state must be completely abolished, there should be no gun laws that restrict or infringe upon the inalienable right to self defense and to bear arms, and all U.S. military bases and foreign embassies should by closed with all military personnel returning the American bases immediately. The military budget should be cut drastically and political incorrectness should be protected and encouraged everywhere in America. I would go much further than this, peacefully and as a law abiding citizen of course, but the ideal solution would be an anarcho-capitalist society. Anyway, The Republicans, and the media, and the neocons are preying on people’s fear and concerns to build a gigantic police state and increase their hegemonic power in The Middle East. The State needs war, and fear, and dependency, and helplessness from the exploitable and dewy eyed masses to survive and grow strong. I hope if you are reading this you are not that gullible and naive.

 

What Halloween Means for Society

Once a year many people around the world dress up in costumes, throw parties, carve jack-o-lanterns, bob for apples, and of course go trick or treating. These traditions are associated with the well known holiday called Halloween which takes place on October 31st every year. The holiday dates back centuries and the traditions and practices associated with the occasion have changed quite few times over the years. But what is the meaning of Halloween? Does it have any purpose besides dressing up in scary masks and ringing door bells looking for homeowners to plop copious amounts of candy into pillow cases or baskets that look like a witch’s cauldron or carved pumpkin? What are the underlying ramifications for society as a whole? Does Halloween teach us any good lessons?

Halloween has it roots in the Celtic festival of Samhain when people would light large bonfires and where costumers to keep away spirits. This goes back approximately 2,000 years and the festival marked the end of summertime and the start of darkness in winter. Christianity had a major influence on Halloween too. The holiday eventually became known as All Saints Day, or All-Hallows. Many of the same rituals,like lighting bonfires, remained apart of the festivities. Halloween was not a mainstream holiday in early America. It was celebrated sparsely throughout the colonies in through the 17th to 18th centuries but did not really gain any traction until the late 19th century when more Europeans came to the country. Finally, we have the modern day version of Halloween which has evolved into trick or treating, horror movies, and costume parties. So what are the benefits of Halloween, if any? I would say none. Let me explain.

I was a kid once and I remember going trick or treating for a few hours with my mother and some friends. As I got older I would go alone with my friends and carry a pillowcase since that could hold way more candy than a plastic container in the shape of a pumpkin. I used to come home with mounds of candy. And then when I was a teenager and in my twenties I would go to Halloween parties and party the night away. So I did enjoy Halloween for many years. I have not celebrated the holiday in years. I now have time to reflect and look back on the years I did partake in the festivities. I can now analyse the dark custom from a much more mature perspective. I am able to see the many defects and shortcomings of this day from a rational angle and not from the lens of an indulgent child or immature teenager. Although, I must point out that many adults behave like toddlers and sorority/fraternity members on Halloween too.

This idea of sending children out to go door to door and beg for candy is not a virtue. What kinds of ethics is one instilling in their offspring when they send them to their neighbors’ homes and neighboring communities to ring bells and beg for candy? It teaches them to be vagabonds and panhandlers. Some even dress the part. I know it is only one day out of the year, but I am merely pointing out the side effects this one day might have on susceptible minds. Then you have the candy aspect of the holiday. We already live in a society where parents think a doughnut is a wholesome breakfast and that a TV  dinner or frozen fish sticks in a nutritious dinner. And that is on the nights when they aren’t at the drive through window ordering greasy hamburgers and fries to feed their children. So it’s no wonder children are obese and there is an epidemic of health issues in young kids, like diabetes, that never existed in the past. Now we want to encourage them to beg for poison? The insane amounts of sugar in these treats along with the chemical compounds that make up this junk food that are impossible to pronounce because the chemical name is 24 letters long with 9 syllables. This garbage is something you would not want a barnyard animal to ingest, let alone your own kids. If you monitor their intake that’s fantastic. But some kids come home with enough candy to last until next Halloween.

Then you have the hooligans who cause property damage. These menaces spray shaving cream, throw eggs, spray paint, break windows, and deface the neighborhood on Halloween night. Now, of course it’s not every kid,but it’s enough to make property owners vigilant and keep a watchful eye on their property. It becomes a major nuisance and property damage should be punished to the fullest extant of the law. It should not be encouraged on certain days of the year. Then you have Satanic rituals, devil worship, and slasher movies. People are free to believe and watch what they want. Some people find a thrill in being terrified and that’s fine. I would just say that the moral fabric of a society is stretched when you have people who engage in dark fantasies and portray themselves as evil and monstrous killers even if it’s only done once a year and non violently. I support the right of people to dress up anyway they want, as whoever they want. If people want to use the holiday as a way to release their darker inhibitions, that should be permissible.As long as people are peaceful and do not hurt anyone or damage anyone’s property they should be free to do what they want on Halloween. I can only give my modest opinion about the habits of the day and comment on the practices that I think bring negative consequences to communities.

On Halloween, I’ll probably lock my door and not answer it when it rings. I’ll make it look like I am home so maybe the costumed thugs who do not get any candy from me will think twice about egging my car. But I guess that’s the chance I take for not giving in to ass backwards societal norms that teach kids to be leeches and permit adolescents to be vandals. I know, people will say I am a grump. I was once a kid and participated in this silly tradition. But now I see how ridiculous it is. Anyway, I know most of the people out there are innocent parents, children, and teenagers, who just want to have fun. I hope the people who celebrate Halloween today take into consideration a few things I said and use common sense. They should take precautions and try to be safe. I support people’s freedom to beg, eat toxic junk food, dress up like ghastly monsters, and throw wild Halloween parties. But that does not mean I am not allowed to have a boisterous opinion on these matters. I will condemn any traditions that I think are ruinous to civilized society. Finally, property damage and the initiation of violence towards people is never acceptable. That rule does not change on October 31st.