Gorillas, Humans . . . and the NAP

Print Friendly

Sometimes I entertain the thought that those who have awakened to the NAP are the leading cohort of what might be called a fifth turning – or more profoundly, perhaps they are an evolutionary great leap forward, analogous to the transition from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens. The conscious – and reasoned – rejection of aggressive violence is arguably that epochal, that profound.ape pic 1

Aggressive violence is ape-like, primitive. It is un-reason. The negation of reason. It is an animalistic outpouring. Those who deal with others this way are not really much more evolved than gorillas, even though they wear pants and brush their teeth. Keep in mind that gorillas can be trained to wear pants and brush their teeth.

But they cannot be taught to reason. 

On the other hand, refusing on principle to physically assault others (or threaten to) even when one could do so, in terms of having the advantage or the capacity to do so, is arguably the apotheosis of what it means to be fully human.

To be repelled – sickened – by the idea of raising a hand against another person. In the same way – and for much the same reason – that most people already abjure cannibalism, human sacrifice and chattel slavery.

Connect the dots… where does it all lead?

To acceptance of the idea that other people own themselves – and that you do not own anyone else. That every other person is as sovereign over his life as you are over yours. What does it imply? What follows from this?ideas force pic

Is it not obvious?

That it is wrong to impose your will on another. That it is vile to bare your fangs in threat display, to behave like a silverback.

That simply taking things or lording it over others because you can is what beasts of prey do – not what men do.

Imagine!

And once you do, there is no turning back. Awareness of the NAP is not unlike having knowledge of good and evil, as per the Adam and Eve story. Indeed, it is exactly that. Knowledge of good – and of evil. And once you do know – once one comes face to face with the NAP – you must decide on which side of the fence you stand. There is no more ambiguity. No more gray area. Either you embrace aggressive violence – or reject it.Libertarian pic 1

There is no in-between. There can be no in-between.

Animals do not discuss and agree – much less agree to disagree. It is not self-awareness that distinguishes men from apes. It is the conscious, freely taken decision to interact with one’s fellows on the basis of discussion and persuasion – and no more. To tamp down one’s disappointment – one’s disgust, even – and to walk away. To live – and let live.

No mere animal is capable of this.

But man is.

Anthropologists tell us that a more primitive version of ourselves  – H. Neanderthalensis –  lived contemporaneously with H. Sapiens – and the two may even have interbred. Eventually, the Neanderthals died out, leaving Homo Sapiens as the tip of the proverbial spear. But the essential primitivism remained. The barbarous animal lust to tear flesh, to physically dominate, to control and crush the other. To enforce submission, impose hierarchy. To organize coercively rather than cooperatively. The fact that this two-legged animal had a bigger brain, opposable thumbs and was capable of making tools did not make him fundamentally different from other animals.NAP shirt

It merely meant that he was a more clever animal, nothing more.

There are other clever animals. Crows that have demonstrated the ability to use tools, for example. Primates who seem to have developed the capacity to communicate using symbols – and even words. Orcas that leap through hoops on cue. Wolves who hunt together in packs.

And there are animals who are more fully human than many humans seem to be. The Bonobo chimp is an early-adopter of the NAP. This species of chimpanzee is not violent. Bonobos resolve conflicts using others means (sex being one). His society is peaceful and cooperative. It is startling – and somewhat embarrassing – to reflect that this less-evolved simian who has yet to develop the capacity to speak has nonetheless already evolved past the violence that still defines humanity.demopublican pic

We have technology; we drive around in cars – and fly in airplanes. We can communicate with one another instantaneously, across immense distances. We can create magnificent art, beautiful music, awe-inspiring buildings, literature – and so on. But until we can unlearn aggressive violence, we are in a very important way less than the apes.

Because they are, after all, merely apes.

And we are capable of  becoming so much more.

Throw in in the Woods? 

Spread it via Twitter: LibertarianCarG (they would not let me have “guy”).

And:

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning.  If you value alternatives to the MSM, please support independent media. Our donate button is here.

For those not Pay Pal-inclined, you can mail us at the following:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

Share Button

  206 comments for “Gorillas, Humans . . . and the NAP

  1. helot
    July 24, 2014 at 10:03 am

    It’s interesting to notice that when a clover-type person says something like, “Tell me where your illegal search and violence comes into play when police stop you and talk to you?” they fail to consider that the very act of pulling someone over in traffic is a very dangerous thing. Dangerous for the driver being pulled over, dangerous for the cop doing it, and dangerous for everyone around them both.

    It’s so dangerous in fact that, strangely enough some clover-types noticed, in many states laws have been passed making it a “crime” not to slow down or move over when a driver encounters a state vehicle on the side of the road. Not surprisingly, those laws Only apply to state vehicles along the roadside, and not to mere mundanes who happen to find themselves on the side of the road due to a mechanical issue and whatnot.

    A cop pulled me over years ago for not wearing my seat-belt. It was on a busy four lane hyway. It seemed to me at the time I was actually placed in greater danger by being pulled over by this cop “who just wanted to talk to me” than I was from any possibility of danger from not wearing my seat-belt.

    I asked him why he just couldn’t give me a warning.
    He said, “I don’t give out warnings” then wrote the ticket and left.

    The takeaway from that is: It’s ok to put people in an actual dangerous position in order to inform them they are doing something which could potentially result in harm to themselves.

    The state is mad. Insane.

    In the beginning, in my state, a cop couldn’t “just pull you over” for not wearing a seat-belt. You had to have already been pulled over for something else. That’s how the clovers “sold” the seat-belt law to the other almost-fully-clover-types in order to get the law passed.

    Then the law got tweaked.

    Ha. It just occurred to me, ‘the state’ and clovers are tweakers.

    • Bob Robertson
      July 24, 2014 at 11:17 am

      One day I chose to cross the street, in a cross-walk, with the green light and no turning traffic, but NOT waiting for the blinking “Walk” symbol.

      A cop screamed at me, leaped out, assaulted me by grabbing my arm and preventing my walking, stopping the both of us DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the cars waiting for the stoplight.

      He did this in order to demand why I didn’t instantly stop (in the road) when he screamed at me the first time.

      The “officer” simply could not comprehend how anyone could choose not to instantly obey him. He had thought that the only reason I would do such a thing is deafness, so grabbing me in the middle of the road was supposedly his way of showing he cared about my safety. Hahahahahaha!

      • eric
        July 24, 2014 at 1:43 pm

        Hi Bob,

        I hear a story like that and am amazed that more cops haven’t been decked (or worse) by their victims. Not advocating it. But I absolutely understand it – and empathize with the people being harassed, not the cops doing the harassing.

  2. July 22, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    My Young Padawan Learner Jean,

    First off you’re smarter, younger and more error-correctable, and better mentally organized, so bear with me.

    If I see anything about homo bonobo, I’ll probably edit it out. It’s fits their agenda too well. I’ll stick with these stats: 1.6% of Americans identify as gay. 0.7% identify as bisexual.

    This alternate sexuality may need to be addressed in a voluntary society. But I don’t see a need to bring bonobos into the mix.

    Anything the PTB are already allowing. For example Veganism or Homosexuality wouldn’t seem to require our brainpower or time.

    If you want to be vegan or gay, go for it. The PTB don’t seem to care. You don’t need us, you can just do it.

    “Rape by female bonobos non-existent”
    http://sfsbiology.edublogs.org/2011/03/28/rape-amongst-animals/

    7 things bonobos can teach us
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201202/7-things-bonobos-can-teach-us-about-love-and-sex
    “Sisterhood is powerful. Although female bonobos are about 20% smaller than males—roughly the same ratio as in chimps and humans—they dominate males by sticking together. If a male gets out of line and harasses a female, ALL the other females will gang up on him. This sisterly solidarity, combined with lots of sex, tends to keep the males behaving politely”

    I think all human females already work in tandem, but in a haphazard, irrational, and often statist way. What if they were delegated the role of when is force appropriate, but held to a higher standard of forgoing group violent force.

    I would trust a woman in my family far more than myself to know when it is morally appropriate to do something. I’ve always perceived women in general as being less corrupted in this regard.

    Women are far inferior in creating things. And initiating new things. But maybe I should be comfortable letting good solid bonobo minded women(what makes a woman a chimp) make life and shunned for life and stripped of all property decisions(there is no group administered death in a bonobo society)

    Secrets of the Bonobo Sisterhood (MS Magazine)
    http://www.jessicaseigel.com/articles/bonobo.shtml

    Violent Chimps
    http://harvardmagazine.com/1997/01/right.chimp.html

    “Wrangham wrote with science writer Dale Peterson, he reveals how he found a glimmer of hope that humanity could reduce its violence and overcome its five-million-year rap sheet of murder and war. Wrangham bases his optimism on the discovery that bonobos create peaceful societies in which males and females share power–while the biologically similar chimpanzees live in patriarchal groups in which males regularly rape, beat, kill, and sometimes even drink the blood of their own kind.”

    “researchers had been startled to observe chimpanzee males organizing gangs of a half-dozen or so members and launching lethal raids into the territory of neighboring chimps. These were clearly not food-gathering expeditions. The chimps did not stop to eat, and they did not make any of their normal calls and shouts.

    Instead, they crept silently into the territory of a neighboring group and hid until they saw a lone chimp. Screaming with excitement, they would ambush the victim, hold him immobile and beat him to death, sometimes twisting the victim’s leg until the muscles ripped, or tearing off flaps of skin while he was still alive. In one well-documented case in Tanzania, a group of male chimpanzees used such ambushes to eliminate a whole band of neighbors.

    Further research found that such violence was not limited to chimpanzees. Male gorillas, for example, were observed ripping infants out of their mothers’ arms and smashing them to the ground in often-successful attempts to entice the mothers to mate with them. One theory is that the male gorillas do this to demonstrate their strength and to show how valuable they would be as protectors.”

    My theory of Gandhi, is he had a role to play. Just like the American founders. In each case, the Brits were altering the terms of their fleece, and Gandhi and George Washington were mere pawns in their games.

    There certainly was no shortage of former Brits in power in the US after 1789. Qui Bono, both new USA and new India racked up lots of debts.

    It’s always some subgroup of the dominant troop, in my mind that gets on top. Gandhi and the founders can teach us, but don’t count me in as agreeing that the myths invented around them are true.

    Lots more good stuff there I’m reading. Tell me where your crypto protocol is at, and I’ll learn it and converse with you in it.

    I’m willing to steal from the oppressors. To foment dischord and frustrate them. I would boobytrap an alternate location, and make it hard to attack, IF I were the only one there, or better still not even present.

    I would sound ridiculous trying to tell anyone here how to kill anyone else, I know less than nothing about it.

    I think you saw a vid and have made an incorrect mental substitution of a bonobo, where there never was one. These bonobo violence vids don’t seem to exist. Didn’t someone just post a violent monkey video here recently.

    As a freethinker, I’m okay with you articulating anything at all. Even centralized violence for genetic alphas. It isn’t clover-behavior if you understand what you’re doing. You pass that test, so make your case.

    My only question is why do you need to bring down the NAP or the emerging bonobo conduct axioms?

    You should be making your own case, not attacking new ideas that aren’t even being practiced yet. Attacking what others are working on, rather than building your own case IS INDEED THE VERY ESSENCE OF BEING A CLOVER. So just don’t do that, please, why would you?

  3. July 22, 2014 at 5:44 am

    Learning the Human Game: Alan Watts

    In music, one doesn’t make the end of the composition the point of the composition.

    If that were so, the best conductors would be those who played fastest; and there would be composers who only wrote finales.

    People go to concerts only to hear one crashing chord – because that’s the end.

    Same way in dancing—you don’t aim at a particular spot in the room; that’s where you should arrive.

    The whole point of the dancing is the dance.

    Now, but we don’t see that as something brought by our education into our everyday conduct.

    We’ve got a system of schooling which gives a completely different impression.

    It’s all graded—and what we do is we put the child into the corridor of this grade system, with a kind of “c’mon kitty kitty kitty…”.

    And yeah, you go to kindergarten, and that’s a great thing, because when you finish that, you’ll get into first grade.

    And then c’mon, first grade leads to second grade, and so on…

    And then you get out of grade school you go to high school—and it’s revving up, the thing is coming…

    Then you’re going to go to college, and by jove then you get into graduate school, and when you’re through with graduate school, you’ll go out to join the world.

    And then you get into some racket where you’re selling insurance. And they’ve got that quota to make. And you’re going to make that.

    And all the time, this thing is coming, it’s coming, it’s coming—that great thing, the success you’re working for.

    Then when you wake up one day about forty years old, you say “My God! I’ve arrived! I’m there!”

    And you don’t feel very different from what you always felt.

    And there’s a slight letdown, because you feel there’s a hoax.

    And there was a hoax.

    A dreadful hoax.

    They made you miss everything. By expectation.

    Look at the people who live to retire, and put those savings away.

    And then when they’re sixty-five, and they don’t have any energy left, they’re more or less impotent, they go and rot in an old people’s “senior citizens” community.

    Because we’ve simply cheated ourselves, the whole way down the line.

    We thought of life by analogy was a journey, was a pilgrimage, which had a serious purpose at the end.

    And the thing was to get to that end.

    Success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you’re dead.

    But we missed the point the whole way along.

    It was a musical thing, and you were supposed to sing, or to dance, while the music was being played.

  4. July 22, 2014 at 4:18 am

    I believe there are living entities of incredible dimensions. Rather than general phenomena such as zeitgeists, I belief we are members of living networks of conscious beings, and that our informational interactions are occurring at faster than the speed of light.

    Philip K Dick called them VALIS – Vast Active Living Intelligence System
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VALIS

    http://world-information.org/trd/70

    http://secretsun.blogspot.com/2011/12/ill-show-you-how-to-bring-me-to-your.html

    The exciting thing is that a VALIS is able to transform information at a far greater than the speed of light. I also believe we have this capability.
    http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html

    I can make assumptions and reasonably approximate what you are doing within a reasonable bounded space of possible realities 16 time zones ahead of me on your island in the midst of the Taiwan Strait, Luzon Strait, East China Sea, Philippine Sea, and South China Sea. You could do the same about me here in the Mojave Desert where last I checked it was still 107 degrees at 11pm local time.

    You know more things about me maybe than you wish. Perhaps to you, there is pitiable sameness in my posts, and as you read them, you know about what they are going to say, and roughly what they’ll fantastically claim, and that always the supernova point rapidly approaches in this post where it gradually disintegrates and its trains of thought all derail and fail to cohere in a vast mess right about here.

    Little else to do but inventory the scene of another accident. No real survivors. You click the links or more often you don’t, but either way it’s just some photons and IP packets that made yet another small explosive noise, and maybe startled a few here in attendance and turned a head, but yet again nothing ever comes of it.

    The vertice is, in these lines of imagination, within these polyhedra of supposition, this thought is happening faster than light. This isn’t surprising, since only 4% of the mass of the universe is the type of matter bound by any observable attributes, such as the speed of light. Most of the thought process is extra-sensory. And extra-material. The matter we now have at hand to build instruments to detect thoughts aren’t yet constructible of the right flavored quarks to observe our thoughts.

    Ziyi Zhang – crouching tigress – in Magic – by Coldplay
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtb11P1FWnc

    You know the tropes before this alt brit rock band video even beings. The information your mind possess and processes is faster than the speed of light. You exert energy and convert matter all the while. You’re in two worlds at once, that of greater China, and that of the greater Abrahamic European world. Far more than half the world per capita. Neither is much of challenge, but you make of them what you can.

    And if one were to ask after all that I’ve been through
    Do you still believe in magic? Well yes, of course I do.
    – Berryman, Buckland, Champion, Martin

  5. Bevin
    July 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm

    FYI:

    What looks to be an excellent article!

    The Bonobo Chimp And Their Intelligent Adoption Of The Non-Aggression Axiom
    07/21/2014 by hskiprob Leave a comment

    http://rsjexperiment.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/the-bonobo-chimp-and-their-intelligent-adoption-of-the-non-aggression-axiom/

    • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
      July 22, 2014 at 12:25 am

      “When a disgusted citizen tells an abusive police officer that he pays the officer’s salary, the victim is committing a category error. Those of us who constitute the productive sector don’t pay the police; they are paid by the people who plunder our property at gunpoint.”

      That’s exactly right. The police used to be called “Thief Getters”, hundreds of years ago, but that quickly swung around where the Getters were controlling the crime in order to get paid by the public that “employed” them. Not much has changed.

      • Bevin
        July 22, 2014 at 1:29 am

        Dear Rev,

        I think they’re still “thief getters.”

        They’re “getters for the thieves” i.e., the banksters who pull the strings of government from behind the scenes.

    • Jean
      July 22, 2014 at 8:07 am

      What is most interesting here is that bonobos are female-dominant socially, and vicious to boot. They have some of the highest levels of injury, missing ears, eyes, fingers, etc.

      I don’t think we really want to compare ourselves to bonobos… Another simian might work, such as a silverback – but I don’t know enough about silverbacks to be sure they don’t ALSO have negative social characteristics. :-)
      Who has time for research?

      • July 22, 2014 at 1:27 pm

        I don’t think WE really want to compare ourselves to bonobos. [Bonobos]are female-dominant socially, and vicious to boot. This is completely incorrect Jean. Unless your googul has stuff my googul isn’t privy to, there is nothing to support this odd inflammatory remark.

        But in your case, as you yourself say: “Who has time for research?”

        Who indeed. Let US all jump on your violence train and increase the killings a hundred-fold. Also make the killings more socially beneficial and conducive to herd hygiene.

        With no research at all, you have determined the trouble with Statists is they don’t commit murder at nearly a high enough rate. Their amateurish 1.6 million per year is not accomplishing what US LIBERTARYANS know needs to get done.

        The key to OUR unlocking OUR cage is not to unlock it at all. Just kill enough cell-mates so that we have adequate elbow room. The key is to retain only the best and brightest in our happy MONKEY HOUSE.

        To reinstate a Nazi Action T4 type of plan worldwide and see it all the way to completion. That your fondest dream. That way WE’LL finally have a NEW people. Screw you Bonobos, and Humans who want to live your own lives. US CHIMPS know what’s best for US.

        Action T4
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

        More Top Seemingly Cloveritic Quotes From Jean:
        (if they’re not, help me understand. I’ll make the time to not be an unthinking MURDEROUS CHIMPANZEE)

        “FTL isn’t on the table, EVER.” [yeah that's helpful. what author doesn't enjoy that kind of unsupported total negation]

        “EMPs would only HELP our society. And while I think there would be a “mad Max” or other post-apocalypse world, I think it would HELP us overall – weed out the weak and stupid and unfit (which includes ME) , make for evolutionary pressures to stick with “what works.” And only the strong survive? Far better they survive than the “rent seekers” rise to the top – the rent seekers ARE the barbarians from “Mad Max”, mind!”[Yes ye olde EMP. Mad Max is OUR greatest resource. Watch and learn.]

        “Jesus would not be seen as NAP-compliant – note the events in the temple, overturning the money-changer’s tables and whipping them.”[Right, he turned over a table and yelled at them. Slandering the NAP is easy. In it's place, I present the MAP. Maximum Aggression Principle. Do unto others. Ruthlessly. And frequently.]

        “Funny thing is, my parents think the problem is I wasn’t beaten enough”[you're a got damn adult now, address your parents in an adult fashion. don't sulk and pick at old wounds as if you're still powerless to defend yourself. gird your loins, look them in their eyes, and explain to them that violent ends will never achieve peaceful means, and here's why... and then stop throwing CHIMPANZEE MONKEY WRENCHES into everything you see here. Be an Ubermensch Nietzschean with his own vision, or socially cooperate with someone here who's vision is approximate enough for you to work with in tandem.]

        Or chive on. Bonobos don’t close ranks and engage against mere speech. Perhaps you hold in your mind some Grand Gorilla Ethos well worth consideration. There is a lot of good to be gleaned from your offerings.

        Why hold back. Go ahead and fling it into OUR cage for OUR enlightenment. Whether or not there even is a way out of OUR cage is indeed a question of fact. One neither of us is likely to find the answer to alone and individually.

        “I’m trying to keep it together. I’m really TRYING TO KEEP THIS SHIT TOGETHER” – Angry Grandpa

        • Jean
          July 22, 2014 at 5:19 pm

          Tor,
          This one is a misunderstanding:
          But in your case, as you yourself say: “Who has time for research?”
          Not, “who HAS TIME for research”, but “WHO has time for research” – the first being, “What difference does it make now”, the second meaning, “Who can actually take some time to dig in and get good answers?” And I didn’t googl it, true – Parroted something I’d read a little while ago, which referenced a female bonobo in essence raping a male. (Had video, man.)

          As to the rest, I do sound authoritarian many times – let em tick down the list, time permitting. (I need to work sometime. some ID10T here wants results – without letting us do the work – so now we’re in a re-work cycle which will involve about 90% of the infrastructure… Maybe the 10-year-old hardware and 15-year-old software is a problem… ? No, NEVER! That would be a capital cost, can’t INVEST in the COMPANY… but I digress.)


          With no research at all, you have determined the trouble with Statists is they don’t commit murder at nearly a high enough rate. Their amateurish 1.6 million per year is not accomplishing what US LIBERTARYANS know needs to get done.

          Not really accurate. The problem is, Statists kill FOR THE STATE. To “Make the world safe for Democracy”, when they mean profiteering and consumerism. Who cares if you want a king or even HAVE A QUEEN? (Hawaii?)
          We’re facing issues here, and the proposed solutions only work when everyone’s playing from the same book. (http://www.spectacle.org/995/gandhi.html)
          Key passage:
          It is a significant limitation of noncooperation that it can only succeed if one’s adversary, no matter how harsh, unjust and imperialist, is also somewhat honorable and is reluctant to use or endorse violence. Gandhi was successful with the British who (with a few exceptions such as Amritsar) did not commit massacres; but he would have died on the first day of opposition against the amoral, treacherous and violent Nazis, who would have executed him and all his followers and thrown them in a pit. In other words, there must be something about the adversary that makes it clear that the grounds for cooperation already exist. If the adversary will not stop short of any act of cruelty or murder, noncooperation is not an option and the only available responses are violence or silence.

          I believe we are either AT, or JUST ABOUT AT, the cusp here: We are facing people who would just as soon kill us and toss us in a mass grave, so long as they get to keep profiteering from others’ injuries. [Mental, Emotional, perceived injuries like "hurt feelings."]
          And we ARE being killed, murdered, by the very Law Enforcers sworn to uphold the law – who are also known to break the law when it’s (in)convenient. So… More “anarchism,” more “violence” against those that deserve it – more freedom. Or, more oppression to “enforce the law” – and more innocent people awoken to see where we are, and how bad it realy is.
          We win either way. Fewer enemies, or more allies. :-P

          “FTL isn’t on the table, EVER.” [yeah that's helpful. what author doesn't enjoy that kind of unsupported total negation]
          FTL, assuming it’s possible, is something TPTB don’t want the commoners to have. We’re a virus, haven’t you heard? A sickness to be controlled and pacified, and the Elites will live on Elysium (or where ever), while we work like good little Morlochs in the darkness below.
          The X prize didn’t get us anywhere.
          Shuttle didn’t go anywhere, finally.
          We don’t have a useful space station. No orbital elevator. Now we don’t even have Saturn V rockets, we need to hitch a ride from the Russians, as I understand it… Also highly unlikely for the foreseeable future.

          “EMPs would only HELP our society. And while I think there would be a “mad Max” or other post-apocalypse world, I think it would HELP us overall – weed out the weak and stupid and unfit (which includes ME) , make for evolutionary pressures to stick with “what works.” And only the strong survive? Far better they survive than the “rent seekers” rise to the top – the rent seekers ARE the barbarians from “Mad Max”, mind!” [Yes ye olde EMP. Mad Max is OUR greatest resource. Watch and learn.]
          Mad Max might not be a good choice, but ANY dystopia is bad for the non-elites – and even the Elites, though they rarely think in such terms. (Feminists and Democrats seem unable to understand this; multiple articles exist, where a feminist or even just liberal will tread on some tenet of “the party” and be ostracized. Will Farrel was one; Erin Pizzey was another, though she wasn’t a leftist.)

          We DO need to stop being QUITE so soft-hearted. It’s not worth much to keep those who can not contribute in our society. This doesn’t mean, for example, midgets or little people; or those who lose a limb (regardless of circumstances); or those who go blind; nor those who are “too old.” I admit it might sound that way – but there are those who are mentally deficient, who will never be more than a drag on society. They can’t control their body, cannot learn, cannot speak – and never will, lacking cybernetics or some sort of DNA retrovirus treatment. The hardest part is, is there a human mind even in there?
          Those who cannot speak; can they write? Sign? Do they respond to light and dark, to faces? I think this is setting the bar pretty low – it even allows infants to pass (they react to light, sound, faces; remove a sense or two, they still show other signs that they should exist, such as movement at will. They do more than breath and poop. )
          I view it as putting down a puppy born with lungs outside its rib cage. If they can be fixed, do it. If not…? It’s going to die anyway? Euthanize it.
          If that’s T4, well – Such is life. I think we can agree to disagree, since I’m not interested in CREATING the pogrom – I view it as a natural extension of an apocalyptic scenario. [At the same time, parents facing such a choice now should have the capacity to “opt out,” whether we’re talking abortion or euthanasia. Euthanasia comes in when tragic circumstances occur: For example, a child born after the cord is wrapped around the neck for a few hours…. Will never be more than a vegetable, what is the purpose to keeping this creature alive? If the parents want to, and can afford the treatment? Their choice. If they wish to NOT? Their choice. And if they wish to but cannot manage such a financial burden? Now it affects ME, and all of us. It means the rest of us have to pay or invest time and energy in caring for this non-productive creature. If we DONATE – fine. But if it will be extracted? By force? Because the entity is a “blue blood” or “divine right of kings” or whatever? ESAD. Nature can be cruel, but it has a purpose. Humans can be assinine in being TOO tender…. E.G., not walking on the grass, to ensure the grass doesn’t get hurt. )

          “Jesus would not be seen as NAP-compliant – note the events in the temple, overturning the money-changer’s tables and whipping them.” [Right, he turned over a table and yelled at them. Slandering the NAP is easy. In it's place, I present the MAP. Maximum Aggression Principle. Do unto others. Ruthlessly. And frequently.]

          How is it slandering? IIRC, I was making two points in this: 1, that many people consider Jesus to be essentially a pacifist, and 2, that others CAN aggress against you without overt force (IE, banking inside the temple). (Not sure how to state this part, might be abstruse.) Christ using a whip on people who had not actively raised a hand to him would be seen as a violation of the NAP by many. Iw as trying to point out I don’t see that as correct; that in fact, the Temple had been invaded – much like is happening at our southern border. These people aren’t agressing against us with weapons, causing injuries, etc. However, they are aggressing in that they are breaking the law, and KNOWINGLY breaking the law. (Breaking The Law, for the Jeswish moneychangers. Note please, they were all Jewish. Non-Jews weren’t allowed inside the Temple. They could enter the courtyard, IIRC, but not The Temple. )


          “Funny thing is, my parents think the problem is I wasn’t beaten enough” [you're a got damn adult now, address your parents in an adult fashion. don't sulk and pick at old wounds as if you're still powerless to defend yourself. gird your loins, look them in their eyes, and explain to them that violent ends will never achieve peaceful means, and here's why... and then stop throwing CHIMPANZEE MONKEY WRENCHES into everything you see here. Be an Ubermensch Nietzschean with his own vision, or socially cooperate with someone here who's vision is approximate enough for you to work with in tandem.]

          I have tried to address my parents as adults for ages now. It’s never worked well, regardless of my age, maturity, accomplishments. They will always see me as a child, always second-guess me, always think I could’ve and should’ve done better or different.
          And with Dad dead…. Not going to wrap up that loose end. It’s like trying to hit a moving target, too. Nail the commentary from last time, there is a new laundry list of issues. Everything goes ’round and ’round, nothign gets done. So I’ve mostly given up on that – it’s not going to work out. We talk past each other. I don’t understand it, except we all have some mental issues. :-P
          Trying to work with Mom a bit. We’ll see if anything happens before one of us dies…

          BTW, about bonobos… Per Wikipeia, they ARE female-dominant, engage in group-sex and homosexual encounters. Don’t know if it’s like dogs sniffing each other – after all, boy dogs sniff boy dogs and it’s not “gay.” I like shaking hands better, though. ;-) But Maori would eat their enemies… so everyone has their own “norms.”
          *******

          I think the big difference we face is, I’m more willing to respond to smaller actions with larger amounts of force. Believe it or not, I tend to be a liad-back, slow-fuse type – but you throw enough on a person, the perceived NEED for a response grows, festers, escalates, until the response is excessively harsh. (This IS Clover-like, I admit it.)
          I’ve tried the de-escalation path a lot, though. Hasn’t worked correctly in the past, so I’m fairly certain most of the offenders are just sociopaths – and they’re ahead of me. So I might as well be unkind and excessive when they address me, and they’ll leave me alone, or get damaged and leave. Piece by piece if necessary. But they had to come LOOKING for trouble, I didn’t go looking for them.
          So, someone spits in my face, I’ll be steamed; I’ll wipe it off and walk away.
          Someone walks up with a gun on his hip and starts issuing orders, I’m within my rights to take that gun away. But I’ll start off ignoring the orders.
          As soon as he reaches for the gun? If I “accidentally” remove his arms and legs, break his back, and kick his teeth in, that’s A-OK by my standards. He went for a gun to FORCE me to do what he wanted. If it was a good idea, I would’ve DONE it already. And if he were convinced it wa a good idea, he could appeal to my logic. We might disagree, but it could be discussed, even “violently,” without an issue. Reaching for the weapon changes the frame immediately. And note, it’s not the presence or absence of the gun that’s the issue – it’s FORCING me to do (X) “just because.”

          ***
          Isn’t the cage part of our problem? I’m reminded of the old phrase, “Two men looked out through the prison bars. One saw dirt, the other saw stars.” We can free our mind even in when our body is in chains. But if we cannot free our minds, iof the chains are on the brain – then chains on others’ bodies will soon follow. And the very act of being different, of being more willing to “live and let live,” will make us targets of the clover-types among us.
          There’s no place to go without facing curtailment of your rights these days. The words have been warped, the meanings changed. And the new bumper crop of child-clovers is being indoctrinated into ever-tighter mental chains, while being told they are free.

          If I could leave, escape the chains they wish to attach to my mind and body, I’d do so. No need to bother others – I like being a lone wolf. Go establish myself, maybe find some like-minded who want to form a pack.
          Instead, I’m locked down amongst those who, if they knew my thoughts, would probably try to kill me. Think of it like an undercover black man at a KKK Rally. :-P

          I want to drive like a lunatic, for example – on a track, where if I wipe out, no one gets hurt. Using MY car. See if it’ll hit 120 MPH. (Kia soul)
          Learn how to powerslide. (Might need a different car.) Practice manual shifting (Guaranteed different car, but up to ME to buy it.) Maybe race friends. Drink whatever I want, smoke whatever I want, shoot whenever, at whatever, I want (no one around to get hurt, so no worries.)
          Might need some “logical” limits. It is unwise to shoot straight up. If you have neighbors, it’s unwise to shoot at them. (Aggression, one the one hand, and they can shoot back on the other! This is foolish.) Might want to shoot a solid backdrop, like a stone quarry wall, rather than just let the bullets fly. These things don’t seem like a big concession to me, overall.
          But _I_ am still the one making the decision. Once I have neighbors, if I can’t move again, we need some basic “rules.” (Yes, Clover alert…) for example, don’t shoot at me. For both of us, I don’t shoot at him, he doesn’t shoot at me. (Which we could mutually amend, say as a duel, but overall, we’re just pointing the guns in other directions, unless we change this guideline.) He wants to race on his land, or on unowned property? Fine! Same for me.
          I could ramble on for ages, it seems unimportant to make each and every possible case. counterproductive, even.
          But basically, the old idea was good: Your freedom ends where my nose begins. If you hit my nose, I’m allowed to respond in kind, and if I get carried away? You went looking for trouble.

          I can see sticky spots, such as pollution of air or water. An enterprising individual might set up boycots or find a use for the pollutants. First is a free market, essentially; second, either innovation or free market. But getting a group of people together to force closure of the factory until they do what we want, that’s aggressive, I think (possible caveat, if people and animals exposed are dying immediately, there might be a reason to be more aggressive – but then you’re facing an aggression anyway. )

          So, you’ll need to decide if I’m too clvoerish for you. I think I’m just mroe willing to use force, and more aggressive in that force, than many would be – but I’m also not looking to fight with someone. You tell me how “bad” that makes me from your point of view.

  6. ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
    July 20, 2014 at 10:53 pm

    1. if you are asked if you are a “freeman”, ask what it means, then accuse them of profiling and discrimination, both of which are against their law.

    2. when you see someone stopped by cops (security guards), stop behind the cop car and ask him if you can assist; what’s going on?; who are you?; what’s the breach of the peace?; let’s see your DL. Yes, he will tell you to leave, but, a) We do not have to do as we are told by programmed drones; and, b) if there are enough of us, they’ll soon learn that theirs is a dangerous occupation. United we stand; divided we fall. No more standing around whilst one of ours gets abused.

    3. We must let them know: “I do not recognise you; you work for a corporation not unlike Sears and no Sears employee tells me what to do; I am NOT an employee of your corporation so your manual does not apply to me; there is NO de jure government and, thus, no government agents, no matter for what alphabet agency you pretend to work; you are de facto and the people want you OUT; you are frauds and thieves; you are on MY land so you are here illegally; get off my land and out of my life! You’re a public servant, right? Great! You work for me, then. You’re fired!

    “If the American people ever find out what we have done, they’ll chase us down the streets and lynch us. –G.H.W. Bush”

    Well, it’s time to start chasing.

    • Bevin
      July 20, 2014 at 11:57 pm

      Dear Rev,

      “We must let them know: “I do not recognise you; you work for a corporation not unlike Sears and no Sears employee tells me what to do; I am NOT an employee of your corporation so your manual does not apply to me… ”

      Absolutely fraking right!

      You nailed it perfectly.

      I’ve recently come to the conclusion that the whole “private sector vs. public sector” dichotomy is a Big Lie. There is no such thing as a “public sector.” There are only private sector thugs who unilaterally claim a monopoly then call themselves the “public sector.”

      The Myth of the Public Sector is a corollary of the Myth of Authority.

      I’m planning on doing an article on it.

      • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
        July 21, 2014 at 8:24 am

        Bevin; Eric; Tor; Dom et al – ya gotta check out this drek:

        http://archive.adl.org/mwd/trafstop.htmlFlashpoint America: Surviving a Traffic Stop Confrontation with an Anti-Government Extremist

        This is what they think of you. Careful out there.

        • Bevin
          July 21, 2014 at 9:01 am

          Dear Rev,

          Yup. The LEO websites lay it all out, plain as day.

          They don’t even bother with the pretense that they are there to “protect and serve.”

          Basically it’s just “Us versus Them.” Kill or be killed. Them of course being us!

          The comments section at this site is chock full of undisguised hatred for us mere mundanes.
          http://www.policeone.com/

          What’s noteworthy is that even the most willfully blind LEO cannot evade the realization that such a state of affairs between LEOs and ordinary citizens cannot possibly go on forever.

          Stein’s Law. Whatever cannot continue, must come to an end.

          • Brandonjin
            July 21, 2014 at 1:39 pm

            Bevin, I just went to policeone’s facebook. WOW. Never seen so many government shills and the state mentality in one place. Comments regarding the man choked to death in NY revolve around a few points:

            “Police: 1
            Criminal: 0″

            “Don’t fight with the police…don’t die! Simple logic.”

            “Don’t resist”

            Also, I’ve learned if you are anti-cop you are a domestic terrorist.

          • Bevin
            July 21, 2014 at 6:30 pm

            Dear Brandonjin,

            Pretty appalling isn’t it?

            Guys like Will Grigg weren’t exaggerating. As Grigg put it,

            No, Police Don’t Work for You

            When a disgusted citizen tells an abusive police officer that he pays the officer’s salary, the victim is committing a category error. Those of us who constitute the productive sector don’t pay the police; they are paid by the people who plunder our property at gunpoint.

            Once it is understood that police employed by the people who commit aggression against our property, we shouldn’t be surprised that police are of practically no value in terms of protecting property against criminal aggression. Police are properly seen as retail-level distributors of violence on behalf of the coercion cartel.

            Grigg is dead on! The LEOs work for the PTB. We are merely the PTB’s tax slaves, who have been duped into thinking that “democracy” means “the people are the bosses.” Therefore the LEOs do not work for us.

        • July 21, 2014 at 3:13 pm

          The immediate object of the Anti Defamation League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law,(CHIMPANZEE ALERT!!!) the defamation of the Jewish people.

          Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike(THRU RENT SEEKING AND THREATS OF STATE VIOLENCE) and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.

          To put an end forever to ridicule of any body of citizens. Well isn’t that just a fine piece of CHIMP UNREASONING right there? Can’t have ridicule. Ridicule must be outlawed. (Whatever % of Jews support ADL, is the percentage of JEWISH CHIMPS. It’s really that simple)

          The ADL is the driving force behind hate crime laws, a hate crime being whatever the PTB say it is of course. This is a moving line in the sand that will seek to outlaw more and more natural human behaviors.

          People claim to be anti-bigotry. Or against hate. Or against one group acting violently towards another group. But what they really are is VIOLENT CHIMPS who advocated unlimited centralized CHIMPANZEE VIOLENCE against anyone who disobeys one of these MORONIC CHIMP LAWS.

          The ADL has opposed: Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, Henry Ford, Father Charles Coughlin (leader of the Christian Front), the Christian Identity movement, the German-American Bund, neo-Nazis, the American militia movement and white power skinheads (although the ADL acknowledges that there are also non-racist skinheads).

          Here’s the top banana of the troop. Your humble holocaust survivor servant of the far flung feces. What a bunch of chimps.

          The ADL keeps track of the activities of various extremist groups and movements.

          ADL is an advocate for gun control legislation. The JPFO has accused the ADL of undermining the welfare of the Jewish people by promoting gun control.

          Imagine a world without hate. And without anything else those in power want the world to be without. Money. Sex. Secrets. Individuality. Independent Reason. Imagine CHIMPANZEES wearing boots STOMPING ON YOUR FACE FOR ETERNITY.
          http://www.adl.org/imagine/

  7. July 20, 2014 at 9:21 pm

    So are clover, gil, david, blakmir, merely advocating their life philosophies and inviting us to join them as self owners with free will? Are they rare benevolent bonobos?

    Or are they drowned in their slave moralities? Are they attacking and seeking to destroy all competing philosophies? Are they willing to use political power and violence to force us to live the way they think we should? Do they seek to drown us as they are drowned?

    Do they fail the turing test, of being humans endowed with free will. Are they instead mere bots, subservient to ideas and systems invented by their philosophical betters? Are they ubiquitous common chimps?

    You needn’t adhere to any common philosophy. Being bonobo is simply being a Mensch, and recognizing your fellow Mensch. Clover and Gil are not Mensch. They are unlikely to change. David and blakmir are the ones to reach out to and educate. There are likely thousands just like them lurking here as well. Your beliefs and philosophies are yours to hold and advocate. We wish you well. What is hoped, is that you will learn to do so using the means of the Bonobo.

    It is great that you choose to be christian, and vegan. But don’t become chimpanzee zealots for these belief systems. Don’t give yourself to unnatural men. You are not machines.

    We all want to help each other. We want to live by each others happiness. Not by each others misery. Human beings are like that. In this world there is room for everyone. The good earth is rich and can provide for everyone, the way of life can be free and beautiful. (Charlie Chaplin – Great Dictator – Called a Commie and Exiled to England For This)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr-MXw5UDCk

    Also Spoke Zarthustra – Nietzsche
    http://philosophy.eserver.org/nietzsche-zarathustra.txt

    Eric has posed THE question which someone MUST find a satisfactory answer to, if we wish to live in independence and dignity.

    The “chimps” are here and also everywhere. They will not allow us to go our own way. They will not relinquish their tactics and stratgems of control. Accordingly, we “bonobos” will have to DO SOMETHING. The question is, exactly what is THAT SOMETHING we must do?
    – – – –
    Thus Spoke Zarathustra Quotes:

    “The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly.”

    “I am a forest, and a night of dark trees: but he who is not afraid of my darkness, will find banks full of roses under my cypresses.”

    “Become who you are!”

    “There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.”

    “I want to have goblins about me, for I am courageous. The courage which scareth away ghosts, createth for itself goblins–it wanteth to laugh.”

    “But it is the same with man as with the tree. The more he seeks to rise into the height and light, the more vigorously do his roots struggle earthword, downword, into the dark, the deep – into evil.”

    “You look up when you wish to be exalted. And I look down because I am exalted.”

    “Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman–a rope over an abyss.

    I love him who desires not too many virtues. One virtue is more of a virtue than two, because it is more of a knot for one’s destiny to cling to.

    I love him whose soul is lavish, who wants no thanks and does not give back: for he always bestows, and desires not to keep for himself.

    “I change too quickly: my today refutes my yesterday. When I ascend I often jump over steps, and no step forgives me that.”

    “You know these things as thoughts, but your thoughts are not your experiences, they are an echo and after-effect of your experiences: as when your room trembles when a carriage goes past. I however am sitting in the carriage, and often I am the carriage itself. In a man who thinks like this, the dichotomy between thinking and feeling, intellect and passion, has really disappeared. He feels his thoughts. He can fall in love with an idea. An idea can make him ill.”

    “You say ‘I’ and you are proud of this word. But greater than this- although you will not believe in it – is your body and its great intelligence, which does not say ‘I’ but performs ‘I’.”

    “Blessed are the sleepy ones: for they shall soon fall off.”

    “The real man wants two different things: danger and play. Therefore he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.”

    “One must be a sea, to receive a polluted stream without becoming impure.”

    “Close beside my knowledge lies my black ignorance.”

    “Have you ever said Yes to a single joy? O my friends, then you have said Yes too to all woe. All things are entangled, ensnared, enamored; if ever you wanted one thing twice, if ever you said, “You please me, happiness! Abide moment!” then you wanted all back. All anew, all eternally, all entangled, ensnared, enamored–oh then you loved the world. Eternal ones, love it eternally and evermore; and to woe too, you say: go, but return! For all joy wants–eternity.”

    “But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!”

    “I would only believe in a god who could dance. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough, profound, and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity—through him all things fall. Not by wrath does one kill but by laughter. Come, let us kill the spirit of gravity!”

    “You tell me: ‘Life is hard to bear.’ But if it were otherwise why should you have your pride in the morning and your resignation in the evening? Life is hard to bear: but do not pretend to be so tender! We are all of us pretty fine asses burden!”

    “Weariness that wants to reach the ultimate with one leap, with one fatal leap, a poor ignorant weariness that does not want to want any more: this created all gods and afterworlds.”

    “It was the sick and decaying who despised the body and earth and invented the heavenly realm and the redemptive drops of blood: but they took even these sweet and gloomy poisons from body and earth. They wanted to escape their own misery, and the stars were too far for them.”

    “Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that has gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it from me. I wish to spread it and bestow it, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.”

    “Something unappeased, unappeasable, is within me.”

    “I want to speak to the despisers of the body. I would not have them learn and teach differently, but merely say farewell to their own bodies– and thus become silent.”

    “I hate you most because you attract, but are not strong enough to pull me to you.”

    “And if a friend does you wrong, then say: “I forgive you what you have done to me; that you have done it to YOURSELF, however–how could I forgive that!”

    “The happiness of man is: I will. The happiness of woman is: he wills. ‘Behold, just now the world became perfect!’—thus thinks every woman when she obeys out of entire love. And women must obey and find a depth for her surface. Surface is the disposition of woman: a mobile, stormy film over shallow water. Man’s disposition, however, is deep; his river roars in subterranean caves: woman feels his strength but does not comprehend it.”

    “How lovely it is that there are words and sounds. Are not words and sounds rainbows and illusive bridges between things which are eternally apart?”

    “I fear you close by; I love you far away.”

    “Disobedience- that is the nobility of slaves.”

    “You should seek your enemy, you should wage your war – a war for your opinions. And when your opinion is defeatedy our honesty should still cry triumph over that!”

    “The wisest man would be the one richest in contradictions, who has, as it were, antennae for all types of men—as well as his great moments of grand harmony—a rare accident even in us! A sort of planetary motion—”

    “What do you plan to do in the land of the sleepers? You have been floating in a sea of solitude, and the sea has borne you up. At long last, are you ready for dry land? Are you ready to drag yourself ashore?”

    “Here the spirit becomes a lion who would conquer his freedom and be master. Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and go? ‘Thou shalt’ is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, ‘I will.”

    “the inability to lie is far from being in love with the truth. Be on your guard! … He who cannot lie, doth not know what truth is.”

    “Dead are all gods: now we want the overman to live.”

    “And to me also, who appreciate life, the butterflies, and soap-bubbles, and whatever is like them amongst us, seem most to enjoy happiness.”

  8. July 19, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    It is significant that we are cut off from the reality of the meat we purchase.

    I would appreciate observing the entire life span of the animals that end up on my dinner table.

    I think it might definitely lessen my appetite for “meat”.

    Talk about the power of words and propaganda. That’s not a dead animal carcass you’re gnawing on. It’s “meat” which is supposed to be eaten.

    What is unseen in the market is often of great significance.

    Potential Market Solution – In Vitro Meat Cookbook – Fundraising Campaign
    https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-in-vitro-meat-cookbook

    Cultured Meat Production
    http://new-harvest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Invitro.pdf

    Not ready for widespread sale, but possibly of use for potential long term space missions

    Future food – in vitro meat
    http://www.futurefood.org/in-vitro-meat/index_en.php

  9. July 19, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    welcome blakmira,
    “Let me introduce some material sympathetic both pro and con” is what my team of 100 monkey commenters meant to type. Yet again, I’m made a monkey out of.

    The “Rights” of Animals – Murray Rothbard
    http://mises.org/daily/2581/

  10. July 19, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    welcome blakmira,
    Let me introduce some material sympathetic both pro and con to your line of “thick libertarian” inquiry. Here goes:

    A Libertarian Replies to Tibor Machan’s ‘Why Animal Rights Don’t Exist’

    The most compelling argument for animal rights goes as follows: There are people, such as very young kids, and those in a coma, who possess minimal mental powers, who cannot be blamed, held responsible, etc., yet they have rights. Doesn’t that show that animals other than human beings can also have rights?

    The ‘Rights’ of Animals – Murray Rothbard

    Individuals possess rights not because we “feel” that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man. Man has rights because they are natural rights grounded in the nature of man.

    The individual man’s capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor.

    In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.

    There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that “we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them.” The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their “rights” is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings.

    And if it be protested that babies can’t petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not.

  11. July 19, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    “The MC1R gene is responsible for pigmentation in all mammals, and a mutation in it serves to make pigs pink and red pandas red. There’s even reason to believe there were a few ginger-colored woolly mammoths in the world. So do orangutans, a great ape like us, possess a greater tolerance for pain, or a weaker one, and are they hot-headed sex-crazed nutjobs?” (from gingers article at bottom of this comment)

    Human red hair is a recessive genetic trait caused by a series of mutations in the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R), a gene located on chromosome 16
    http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml

    Some neandertals had red hair
    http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2007/10/25/neandertals-had-red-hair-ok-so/

    Why orangutans have reddish brown hair & grey-black skin
    http://animalsunlimited.co.uk/why-do-orang-utans-have-red-orange-hair/

    Orangutan taxonomy
    http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/orangutan/taxon

    Comparative and demographic analysis of orangutan genomes – (interesting and surprising info)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060778/

    Gingers – the Quantum Biologist
    http://quantumbiologist.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/gingers/

  12. July 19, 2014 at 8:46 am

    Dear Clover,
    So all this time you’ve been getting your “facts” from the advertorial site sheknows.com. Figures.

    As a women’s lifestyle media platform, SheKnows allows brands to distribute authentic content and integrated advertising at scale. We reveal unexpected insights on women and technology. Our editors and trendsetters influence brand preferences and build brand loyalty.

    What are the odds? 21 Statistics that will surprise you – by Heather Barnett
    http://www.sheknows.com/living/articles/1023453/what-are-the-odds-21-statistics-that-will-surprise-you

    I am posting this additional sheknows article, in the hopes that your significant other sees it on your computer and he/she realizes the best thing to do is get away from you as fast as possible.

    9 Not-so-noticeable signs you’re dating a psychopath
    http://www.sheknows.com/love-and-sex/articles/990127/9-not-so-noticeable-signs-youre-dating-a-psychopath

    Also from sheknows:

    Girls Rule – Empowering girls everywhere #Bossyis
    http://corporate.sheknows.com/causes

  13. July 18, 2014 at 10:09 pm

    The “Dee” is short for Democracy.

  14. July 18, 2014 at 6:37 pm

    clover means he ‘couldn’t care less’

    Joaquin Phoenix’s imaginary girlfriend “Her” seemingly appears as an apparition on his forehead
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b8_1405520192

    FHRITHP-ist demoralizes mainstream BBC statist anthroapologist
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=09f_1405540629

  15. July 18, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    Denial of scarcity (property, money).

    Denying scarcity is a favorite of utopian socialists. The purpose of property is to solve the scarcity problem – that man’s desires exceed available goods.

    This DOS myth simply assumes away scarcity, as if this human condition was merely an effect of a particular property system rather than a fact of reality and human nature.

    The socialist denial of the validity of property involves an internal contradiction and much resulting “double-think.” Proudhon writes that he’s against contract property, but for possession property; yet he refuses to acknowledge that his “possession” is a type of property.

    Another naive denial of scarcity is the claim of some socialists that a modern society can get along without money. AnCaps believe an economy needs the informational function of money to balance supply and demand.

    Without the amalgamation of the desires and preferences of the producers and consumers into price, chaos results. Shortages and surpluses abound when the communication of preferences is prevented or co-opted by rulers.

    Money is simply and ultimately the most liquid commodity in a market. There will always be a most liquid commodity in any market; ergo, there will be something used as money.

    Other liquid commodities might be
    gonadotropin releasing events (sex, driving really fast) . Recreational social gatherings (for cortisol normalizing and burden dispersal)

    AnCap FAQ
    http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

    Libertarian Capitlist Diamandis of Googuhl says Abundance Is Our Future
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRp3DfRI3bA

    How much scarcity is politically imposed, versus truly being systemic scarcity?

    Chimps become angry that Elon Musk has so much more wealth and power than they. The seek egalitarianism imposed by force.

    Bonobos are content if they have what they feel they need. If you have a car, house, family, you’re fairly happy with, why should you care about those who arguably have “more” and “better” than you.

    It is the Chimp mind that wants to smash, and equalize things through subtraction and division.

    Bonobos believe in addition. Multiplication. They understand that taking a moment to ensure nearby Chimps don’t feel they’re at a red threat level of scarcity, but rather feel the status is yellow or green, are less likely to attack and destroy.

    Modern Phenom of BS Jobs
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service/the-modern-phenomenon-of-nonsense-jobs-20130831-2sy3j.html

    EWAU Chapter 34
    http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap34.html

    Whatever may be the sociological value of the legal fiction that ‘all men are born free and equal,’ there can be no doubt that in its biological application, at any rate, this statement is one of the most stupendous falsehoods ever uttered by man through his misbegotten gift of articulate speech.”

    EWAU Chapter 36 – Morality: “Morality is man’s servant, not his master.” Technosocialists’ egalitarian altruism, taken to its logical conclusion, will mean the collapse of advanced society.

    Ayn Rand takes this implication the farthest, suggesting that it is a virtue to act in one’s own interests; she condemns altruism, sacrificing one’s own interests for the benefit of others, even if it is voluntary.

    This she does on the basis that people are not “things,” here to serve others, but autonomous beings who have the right to survive and live for themselves.

    http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap36.html

    The empathy that we feel for other creatures is a creation of nature, the mirror neurons in our brain. Empathy motivates us to help those who are around us, based on their genetic similarity to us, i.e., how many of our alleles they have. That is why we care deeply about our babies, some for our pet dog or cat, little for the mouse in the house, and not at all for the spider on the glider.

    Empathy arose long before television and instant worldwide communications, when the only people anyone knew lived in the same geographical vicinity and were closely related.

    Now, mal-adaptively, a person can feel more empathy for someone on the other side of the planet, who is suffering on television, but who shares few alleles and socialized behaviors with him, than he can for his own children sitting right beside him.

  16. Brad Smith
    July 18, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    There will always be scarcity. There is simply no two ways about it. Well I suppose if you could find a way for humans to stop wanting more than they absolutely need then maybe it could be done away with. But once again humans being what they are they will want something more all the time. Better coffee or better booze. A nicer house or prettier wife, etc etc etc.

    The communists and socialists thought they could tackle aggression by providing an equal amount of crap to everyone. Even if they could have done so it still wouldn’t have taken care of the problem of scarcity. Someone was going to have the nicest lot on the lake or the apartment with the nicest view. Someone was going to have the best seat in the theater or restaurant. Someone was going to have a newer car or bike, etc etc etc.

    Anarcho-capitalism relies on the fact that there will always be scarcity.

  17. July 18, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    The Bonobo ethny must find or create market solutions:

    1 that erect an equivalent of a force field among us
    2 protect us and our gulch from the Chimp ethny
    3 develop faster transportation and other technological advantages
    4 keep our secrets secret. find ways to communicate that exclude Chimps from sensitive proprietary info

    A: Chimps are loathe to let us go our own way. (This is so IMHO because we have things they need to make them go. Can we alter that belief? Make them think we have nothing for them? Make them believe we’d rather lose dominance struggles to them than give them any more things they need)

    Enter EWAU work is available online in easy access html form

    Erectus Walks Among Us
    http://erectuswalksamongst.us/

    excerpts from Richard Fuerle’s Erectus Walks Amongst Us.

    Excerpt Number 1, from Chapter 4:

    Nature has no soft feelings, no empathy for the weak and helpless, and is not trying to make any particular type of individual. The end product is whatever succeeded in reproducing, regardless of how despicable, degrading, or degenerate we find it to be. Reproduce more than others and you stay in the game; otherwise, you’re out. Permanently.

    When different ethny live in the same territory, their relationship will not for long be a mutually beneficial one. Instead, one ethny will be a predator and the other its prey, or one ethny will be a parasite and the other its host. In both cases, the prey or host does not consent and therefore neither relationship is stable.

    In a predator-prey relationship, the predator ethny uses open violence against the prey ethny, e.g., colonialism, slavery, war, local gangs.

    In a parasite-host relationship, however, open violence by the parasitic ethny is not possible as the host ethny is more numerous and is militarily dominant. Moreover, the host ethny regards the parasitic activities of the parasitic ethny as unfair, unethical, immoral, illegal, or criminal, making it necessary for the parasitic ethny to either
    conceal its parasitism so that the host ethny is not aware that it is being parasitized or
    incapacitate its host ethnye so that even though its host ethny is aware that it is being parasitized, it is unable to free itself.

    Both require controlling the media and the government — a “covert coup.” These tactics are major and expensive operations requiring years to put into place. They are therefore available only to a parasitic ethny that has access to a great deal of wealth.

    When the host ethny discovers that it is being parasitized, and it is able to free itself, the parasite-host relationship ends, perhaps not pleasantly for those in the parasitic ethny. Neither a predator-prey relationship nor a parasite-host relationship is likely to last indefinitely because conflict is inherent in both relationships.

    There are two possible resolutions of ethnyist conflict over territory:
    one ethnyv wins and destroys or expels the other or
    the ethnies interbreed and become a single ethny.

    Expelling the parasitic ethny preserves the genetic uniqueness of both ethnies; interbreeding destroys it.

    Individuals within the parasitic ethny develop a set of values, even a religion, that justifies their parasitism, simply because those individuals who feel their behavior is their right and feel no remorse, shame, or guilt are more effective parasites and are therefore reproductively more successful.

    Individuals in the parasitic ethny are therefore selected for a lack of empathy, i.e., for sociopathy; such individuals differ genetically from everyone else in that their mirror neurons, which enable people to empathize with the feelings of others, are absent or turned off. The parasitic ethny will rather quickly achieve a high percentage of sociopaths, people who are charismatic, charming, and often well-liked, but whose only goal in life is winning, i.e., defeating those outside their ethny.

    The parasitic ethny cannot become less virulent, as microbial parasites do, because they are too invested – genetically, socially, religiously, and culturally – in their parasitic lifestyle, and less parasitic individuals within their ethny are selected against even by others in their own ethny, i.e., they do not rise to positions of influence within their ethny.

    http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Preface.html

    Much of what people are told in schools and in the media today just isn’t so. There are knowledgeable people who know it isn’t so, but they dare not say anything.

    The rest of us live in this sea of misinformation. Since almost everyone believes the prevailing misinformation, we assume it must be true. So we act on it, making important decisions about our lives, decisions that all too often are disastrous.

        Now, in my waning years, I can see no contribution I could make to the next generation more important than to challenge what I believe to be at least some of these erroneous beliefs.

    To encourage the dissemination of this book, it is being published without royalties and may be copied, with attribution, without liability to the author. I hope to make it available on the internet without charge, as I have done with my other books.

        Very little is held back in this book. An effort was made to avoid unnecessary insensitivity, but shocking facts, even facts that some will find offensive, are displayed right out in the open where they cannot be missed.

    Technical language is avoided where possible and explained where used. Large amounts of additional material could have been included, but after working on this almost full time for about four years, I’ve decided it’s time to call it quits.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 20, 2014 at 10:11 am

      Tor, thanks. I will read this book when I have time. I expect to enjoy it.

      • July 20, 2014 at 1:23 pm

        This book’s flaw as Eric pointed out, is its materialist conception of races of people collectively accomplishing things. That people exist only as members of an involuntary social construct.

        Fortunately it sounds wrong to our modern ears to say white men put a man on the moon. But unfortunately saying Americans put a man on the moon still slips past us as being somehow coherent.

        What is correct is to say: some group of men forcibly extracted resources from the captive people labeled as Americans. These resources were used by a small group of conscripted technicians and businesses to put a man on the moon. This operation was part of a grandiose military strategy of the mafia powers who hold Americans hostage. To prove they are the greatest most benevolent national mafia of all.

        To say that some redneck in a mobile home put a man on the moon because he resided in the nation-state of America in the 60’s and 70’s is ridiculous. His drinking moonshine and sleeping with his cousins obviously contributed nothing whatsoever to this dubious military maneuver in space.

        Nietzsche for Liberals
        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/26/830540/-Nietzsche-for-Liberals#

        Untermensch(underman) – the bizarro version of Nietsche’s Ubermensch(superman)
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch

        Master vs. Slave Morality

        The Occam’s Razor Nietzsche uses to divide humanity into the useful and the useless is master and slave. Nietzsche calls the rare morality that originates with the inherent creativity of the person acting on it “master morality.”

        He calls the commonplace morality that merely rationalizes existing conditions “slave morality.” This distinction is intended as an analogy: “Master morality” is the product of people who own themselves. “Slave morality” is the product of people who can only parrot or attack others rather than discovering their own way.

        Those with Master Morality are the Ubermensch. For Nietzsche there is no “Untermensch.” Ultimately everyone who isn’t active in creating their world is just a product of their environment, and can no more be blamed for the particulars of their lives than they should deserve credit for randomly following someone else’s good ideas.

        For Nietzsche the collapse of civilization will be heralded by the “Last Man.” The “Last Man” is the final byproduct of an exhausted civilization that is no longer animated by creativity, whose sole concerns are comfort, security, and entertainment devoid of passion or yearning.

        The Last Man is the final outcome of Slave Morality, because it only applies itself to neutralizing fear, pain, and discomfort without stoking the imagination. For a while, a civilization on this path is focused on the past, because the past is safer and less challenging than the future: It becomes preoccupied with preserving “heritage” while neglecting new ideas, and with singing paeans to its own past glories while becoming increasingly timid or dismissive when confronted by new opportunities.

        People who don’t fit that mold – even when their projects are unimpeachably humanitarian – are initially ignored, and then increasingly seen as offensive, obnoxious, and dangerous.

        In earlier eras they would have been celebrated. For instance, a wealthy philanthropist who decides to set up a job training center and a factory with well-paying, high-benefit jobs in a poor area would be resented by his peers as some kind of demagogue for making them look bad in comparison.

        In a society of “Last Men” even the community he is helping to rebuild see him as “arrogant” and “culturally insensitive.” There’s nothing inherently wrong with a nice, pleasant, safe society that has neither great problems or great dreams.

        The catastrophe comes because any time civilization fails to advance, it instead begins to retreat. If even the highly educated, humane, and competent people have all become pallid creatures of habit who can’t wake up enough to respond creatively to their world, their society is doomed.

        No matter how effectively they’ve mitigated the banal problems, sooner or later they get smacked in the face by something out of the ordinary.

        We are just beginning to once again reside in a Last Man society. Blind, wanton destructiveness in lieu of any substantive program, and blind, dismissive surrender to one’s environment in lieu of the passion to shape it.

        There is no drive to revolutionize the world. Volkswagen and autobahn; could have immediately set to work on cutting-edge aviation and rocketry for economic, scientific, and other aspirational purposes; it could have plumbed the depths of the sea and the heights of the sky, and dreamed big dreams that made the world gasp in admiration. But it didn’t.

        France could have built on the dreams of Jules Verne and done likewise; it could have built things that made the Eiffel tower look petty; but it didn’t. Now that same exhaustion is evident in American civilization.

        For no discernible reason, the American frontier has been closed. The Last Man is not the endpoint of civilization, but the endpoint of decline. Our Last Man malaise is what precedes the coming Ubermensch.

        In other words, the social and psychological forces that once animated our culture have finally returned to the usual state of placid equilibrium. To a calm, featureless surface of sameness and passiveness.

        Soon, something from outside that surface, something independent of it, will spontaneously arise and acts upon it and disturbs the calm and placid surface yet again. All it takes is a single Ubermensch, and everything we’ve taken for granted will be abandoned, and something new will become the new awesome normal.

  18. July 18, 2014 at 9:10 am

    Silly Bonobo Song

    Some Chimpy People Say They’ve Had Enough Of Silly Love Songs. But I Look Around & See We Need More Bonobo.
    Bonobo People Wanna Make The World A Silly Love Song.
    And What’s Wrong With That?
    I’d Like To Know, ‘Cause Here I Go Again
    I Love You, I Love You, I Love You, I Love You.

    I Can’t Explain The Feeling’s Plain To Me; Say Can’t You See? Ah, She Gave Me More, She Gave It All To Me
    Now Can’t You See, What’s Wrong With That I Need To Know, ‘Cause Here I Go Again I Love You, I Love You.

    Bonobo Love Won’t Come In A Minute,
    Some Say It’ll Never Come At All
    I Only Know That When I’m In It
    It Isn’t Silly, No, It Isn’t Silly, Love Isn’t Silly At All.

    How Can I Tell You About My Bonobo Love?
    How Can I Tell You About My Bonobo Love?

    How Can I Tell You About My Bonobo Love?
    (I Love you)
    How Can I Tell You About My Bonobo Love?
    (I Love you)

  19. July 18, 2014 at 8:34 am

    Survival of the flirtiest?
    http://io9.com/5794988/are-humans-more-like-chimps-or-bonobos-the-correct-answer-is-changing

    Rather than go down the alleys of non-heterogeny, which the CDC will tell you entails 1.6% gay and 0.7% bi, an alternative method, would be to bird dog potential hookings up and gettings together for all.

    Maybe there’s a 1% female population, who would be comfortable being much more active than they now are, who could singlehandedly alleviate scarcity. Maybe 20% of men with plenty of options, could spread their wealth around, and in turn enjoy greater status and group esteem from the grateful men now filled with excess cortisol and raging from deprivations.

    Didn’t Vietnam win the war thru Bonobo strategies. They were always to be found in larger groups, than the isolated loner Americans. (fellow soldiers are a group in name only.) Wasn’t all of Vietnam considered one giant brothel.

    There was no shortage of sex. A villager with several daughters saw no shame in offering one daughter as (erectile)cannon fodder shall we say.

    A Bonobo thing to do, would be to jettison all negative talk of sexually active females PRONTO. Forget handicapped parking, and respecting one’s elders. They’re not scarce.

    What about top spots, best discounts, all red carpets all the time for the glue of Bonobo society, the socially sexual females, especially the more attractive ones.

    Forget Forbes dollar billionaires. What about sexual attractive and mating billionaire equivalents. High value Vulvas, are to be the new silver and gold standard.

    Forget war stories. Let’s create and regale with Joy Division and Comfort Women stories. Idealized ones of how they should have been. Not the scandalous crappy Chimp Rapes they may have often been.

    What about Kama Sutra Sunnie Tzu, wife of Sun, the Sex Goddess of War strategems.

    It’s probably gonna sound icky however I broach the subject. I was raised a Chimp in my formative years, it’s likely too late to change my tune.
    http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/21st-century-pacifist/2012/apr/27/soldiers-and-prostitution-what-shock/

    But it doesn’t have to be for the young, and the newborns, the seeds of a new world can be planted today. The Bonobo Generation can be begotten.

    MLNW make love not war. SPND spread pleasure not displeasure. These need work, and Bonobo creativeness, I may be to Chimpanic to pull off.

    E&E not I&E Excite and Engage not Incite and Enrage

    E=MC^2 isn’t the most important equation. Number of relations and pleasurable encounters is the monkey’s grease quantums to calculize that makes the NAP world go round.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Vietnam#Prostitution_and_the_Vietnam_War

    During the Vietnam War, a whole sex industry sprung up around American servicemembers.[8] Prostitutes would congregate at bars where service members would frequent, and offer their services. Sometimes, the prostitutes and women who had intercourse would get pregnant. The resulting Amerasian children, of whom there were estimated to be about 50,000, were ostracized and given the derisive name bui doi (“dirt of life”). Often, these children were themselves forced into prostitution.[9]

    During the war, hooch maids would often clean up after the soldiers in their dwellings. One soldier described the maids as being, “…good Catholics who might flirt with you but would never date an American soldier.” At the same time it was not unheard of for maids to “keep the plumbing clean” for soldiers in order to earn some extra income

    Hearts and Minds 1974
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d2ml82lc7s

    – there’s a right way to bring this up, that doesn’t feel pushy and Chimpy, I’m not the best one, I hope other sources can be found or others can chime in if there be any merit to this premise.

  20. July 18, 2014 at 7:41 am

    No, it won’t be easy, but like any puzzle, you start somewhere and try to solve. Use a pencil in this case, because most things suggested, will likely be erased, many times.

    Who is more Bonobo, than American Chimps? Maybe for the sake of argument, let’s say French. This text to be altered as needed.

    France – The People

    The French adhere to a strong and homogeneous set of values. They embrace novelty, new ideas and manners with enthusiasm as long as they are elegant.

    Meeting and Greeting
    At a business or social meeting, shake hands with everyone present when arriving and leaving. Usually when you arrive to post comments here, you say good morning BrentP, Bevin, etc.

    IRL never miss an opportunity to shake hands with a woman.

    When family and close friends greet one another, they often kiss both cheeks. Here do as much as you can stand and get away with.

    Names and Titles

    Use preferred names and acknowledge accomplishments when the chance arises. You are a mechanic. Brent is an engineer. Bevin is an architect and a son of a diplomat. Etc. Everyone is all about themselves, the Bonobo ways is to be about the others, and hopefully the other Bonobos will be about you.

    IRL I try to address people as chief captain, sweetheart hon, especially kids like young lady, young man, in a way that lets them know being YOUNG is a term implying the highest of labels, only where it fits of course, people respond to familiarity and simplistic labels of importance/affection.

    Body Language

    When others seem Bonobo, make them the center of your attention and star of your world. When they are going Chimp, ignore them, check your phone, stare out the window at the TV screen. Make them feel invisible and non-existent until the cease.

    In my case I am either highly professional or childishly playful as I feel is warranted needed by those around me.

    Always be highly skilled, knowledgeable. What you don’t know, know someone who knows it. Hard work is admired, but only insofar as there’s a human Bonobo beneficiary. Don’t slave away for a Chimp, regardless of who they are.

    Prepare in advance. Keep your mind running all the time. Sleep is an excellent time to figure things out. Try to dream about a new Bonobo world. Imagine those people in your life as they truly are, now how they could be, if they became more Bonobo.

    Learn others languages. Ignore their Chimp speak. Refuse to follow Chimp protocols, do what’s expected, if you feel it’s not Bonobo like to do it.

    Always encourage the other to discuss their personal life. Let people tell you their story. Just listen, if you have something useful to contribute to their lives and concerns, offer it, but don’t judge. Avoid comparing anyone to anyone else.

    Get down to business quickly, but make decisions slowly after much deliberation. Stay on task, get the important things handled right up front, whatever they are. Don’t worry about perfection, or other peoples approvals. Expect Chimpanzic criticisms, try not to really hear them, and DON’T respond, especially in a knee jerk way.

    Eschew all the usual niceties. Seek situations taht are highly centralized with a powerful chief. Bosses and people worth being with are often dictatorial and authoritative, just accept it, consider it the price of being with greatness.

    Try to find a place where you won’t be disturbed, forget the usual criteria. Find somewhere quiet with low traffic and conflict, where others who want you will come to you or not.

    Curb your proclivities to disagree and debating in general way in public, but enjoy a controlled debate, whereby an informed rebuttal is appreciated. Where there is an opportunity for acquiring answers and knowledge.

    The purpose of human meetings is to brief/coordinate and clarify issues. State your intentions directly and openly.
    Be well prepared, comprehensive, clear, well-written, informative and present in a formal, rational, professional manner — appealing always to the intellect.

    Don’t put others on the spot. Never try the hard sell approach. Things get done indirectly through a network of personal relationships and alliances.

    Dining and Entertainment
    Encourage others to engage in their preferred libations. Always be more sober than them. You want their inhibitions to lower, not yours.

    Never discuss business and grill people with questions if avoidable. Everything is most importantly a social occasion and a time to enjoy good food, drink, discussion, and company.

    When being private, be private. When being social go all out. Find loud places, with smoking, drinking, carousing, letting go, where cortisols are being released. Being a Bonobo is about being in balance, and being happy.

    If nothing else in life goes right, at least always take time to enjoy the comforts of social camaraderie. Don’t skimp here. Don’t allow any Chimps to take this away from you, no matter who they are.

    Leaving food or anything your host or friend makes for you is impolite. Find away to hide it, gulp it down and purge later.

    Always thank everyone for everything. And welcome them also.

    Gifts
    I am the worst gift giver, and don’t do this. But a small thoughtful gift can have an impact unlike almost anything else.

    A gift should be simple of high quality and wrapped beautifully.

    Lower your voice a little and behave graciously, let the others be louder and heard, watch people’s responses so that you will enjoy warm responses

    Never breach anyone’s privacy. Don’t ask personal questions related to occupation, salary, age, family or children unless you have a well-established friendship. Even then, let them bring these things up.

    Try to demonstrate some knowledge of conversational subjects. Have jokes ready. Become an engaging storyteller.

    Compliments are always appreciated, regardless of responses, use them liberally, try to be imaginative and offer compliments they haven’t heard before. Be intelligent and satirically witty. Let others know you are one of them. Tell stories of real life situations, especially ones where you are not at your best. Engage in negative bragging. Talk yourself down. Undersell yourself.

    Learn to pick up signals. Recognize when you’re being flirted with. Know when it’s appropriate to do some light hearted flirting. Don’t expect any kind of response. Expect others to be self centered, and take that as a sign of success that you aren’t burdening them in any way.

    Pay for others in small ways. Learn to accept others paying for you, no matter how hard it is at first. This is all out of my rectal cranium lobe, but one must start somewhere.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 20, 2014 at 1:13 am

      Tor, I really liked this post and actually, all the rest here(of yours….specifically). While my connection is so slow I won’t be able to access all the links you posted, I enjoyed everything I read. You’re prolific to say the least….and that is the least I can say. You’re much more than that and I appreciate it. Thank you. Here’s hoping your 10-20 will be very enjoyable.

  21. July 18, 2014 at 6:28 am

    Short version of article that would be easy to implement in a human phyle/prepper-community by choosing the right people: All Bonobo females are ready to put out, they lower tensions by sexual activities, often not resulting in orgasm.

    Bonobos always have unlimited food. They’re in an area of Africa with fewer predators than regular chimps. They eat a far wider variety of food.

    Lesson to learn: By forming a society without scarcity of sex and food, aggression is greatly reduced. Everyone’s happier, no one is traumatized, nothing is destroyed.

    That’s what governments need to exist. Coercion. Scarcity. They’re always increasing one or the other. Each one feeds the other.

    Anarchist Libertarians can’t fix the world, but they can become similar to a small troop of bonobos. Over a relatively short time, we can begin the long process of totally diverging from the mainstream chimpanzee type humans, and whatever happens, never look back.

    We need the right sort of people who can prevent scarcities of sex, food, and property. Who don’t resort to coercion and violence to solve problems or get what they want.

    We all can be scientists of bonoboism. Everywhere you look there is coercion. Consider the leisure activity of TV as one example. Every minute is 100% coerced. Everything is scripted, many levels of chimpanzees are watching these actor’s every move and word, no deviation is allowed. Nothing live and spontaneous is allowed. Everything is prerecorded, scheduled, controlled down to every detail.

    This is true nearly everywhere in our chimpanzee societies. We run our families using coercion. Going to the store, anyone at a job is under coercion. Driving the road is nonstop coercion. In our friendships. In our sexual relationships. Everywhere is coercion.

    This can stop with you. Don’t demand respect. Courtesy. Good service. Don’t expect anything. Boss, kids, wife threatens you. Give them strategy advice, tell them without emotion, what there best move is. Maybe they should fire you, divorce you, whatever. If you love something, only hold onto it using bonobo approved means.

    This can start with you. Flirt with everyone. The uglier the better. If there’s a plausible opportunity to put an arm on someone’s shoulder do so. You don’t have to go full bonobo, every little bit of affection and feeling of attractiveness and wantedness makes all the difference.

    – – – – article paraphrase begins – – – –
    The bonobo, in case you haven’t heard, carries a reputation as the “make love, not war” member of the ape lineage, far lustier and less bellicose than its close cousin, the chimpanzee.

    Studies of zoo populations have documented its easy, pervasive sexuality and its propensity for amicable bonding (especially among females), in contrast with chimpanzee dominance battles (especially among males) and intergroup warfare.

    Early one morning I followed a researcher into the forest. Promptly I saw things that, according to the popular image of the species, I might not have expected. Bonobos quarreled. They hunted for meat. They went hours at a stretch without having sex. This was the animal so renowned for its lubricious, pacific social life?

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/125-bonobos/quammen-text

    The major distinctions between bonobos and chimps are behavioral, and the most conspicuous do involve sex. Both in captivity and in the wild, bonobos practice a remarkable diversity of sexual interactions.

    “Whereas the chimpanzee shows little variation in the sexual act, bonobos behave as if they have read the Kama Sutra, performing every position and variation one can imagine.”

    For instance, they mate in the missionary position, something virtually unknown among chimpanzees. But their sexiness isn’t just about mating.

    Most of those variations are sociosexual, meaning that they don’t entail copulation between an adult male and an adult female during her fertile period.

    The range of partners includes an adult with a juvenile of either sex, and two juveniles together. The range of activities includes mouth-to-mouth kissing, oral sex, genital caressing by hand, and genito-genital rubbing (G-G rubbing is the shorthand term) by two estrous females, who moosh their swollen vulvas back and forth against each other in a spate of feverish sisterly cordiality.

    Usually there’s no orgasm culminating these activities. Their social purpose seems to be communication of various sorts: expression of goodwill, calming of excitement, greeting, tension relief, bonding, solicitation of food sharing, and reconciliation.

    To that list of benefits we might also add sheer pleasure and (for the juveniles) instructional play. Varied and frequent and often nonchalant, sex is a widely applied social lubricant that helps keep bonobo politics amiable. “The chimpanzee resolves sexual issues with power; the bonobo resolves power issues with sex.”

    Sexiness isn’t the only big difference between bonobos and chimps, though it’s probably linked to other differences, either as cause or as effect.

    Females, not males, hold the highest social rankings, which they seem to achieve by affable social networking (such as G-G rubbing) rather than by forming temporary alliances and fighting, as male chimpanzees do.

    Bonobo communities don’t wage violent wars against other bonobo communities adjacent to their territory. They forage during daytime in more stable and often larger parties, with sometimes as many as 15 or 20 individuals moving together from one source of food to another, and they cluster their nests at night, presumably for mutual security.

    Their diet, which is similar to the usual chimpanzee diet in most respects—fruit, leaves, a bit of animal protein when they can get it—differs in one signal way: Bonobos eat a lot of the herby vegetation that is abundant in all seasons—big reedy stuff like cornstalks and starchy tubers like arrowroot—which offers nutritious shoots and young leaves and pith inside the stems, rich in protein and sugars.

    Bonobos, then, have an almost inexhaustible supply of reliable munchies. So they don’t experience lean times, hunger, and competition for food as acutely as chimpanzees do. That fact may have had important evolutionary implications.

    Bonobos and chimps diverged from each other 900,000 years ago, and from us 7 million years ago.

    Analyzing samples, scientists found a surprising pattern: high levels of cortisol, a stress-related hormone, in some bonobo males.

    Cortisol levels have been especially elevated among high-ranking males in the presence of estrous females. What does it imply? That a high-ranking bonobo male, walking a fine line between not enough machismo (which could cost him his status among males) and too much machismo (which could cost him his mating opportunities with imperious females), feels stressed by his complex situation.

    Bonobos eschew crude aggression and violence, but they’re not carefree; they use sociosexual behaviors, diverse and relatively frequent, as a means of conflict management. “This is what makes them different,” [they have something to lose by chimping out] “not that everything is peaceful.”

    • eric
      July 18, 2014 at 6:34 am

      One factor to consider is that the “chimps” will not allow us to go our own way. Accordingly, we “bonobos” must develop something like the force field in the “Atlas Shrugged” movie that protects Galt’s Gulch.

      Either that, or FTL drive – and some means of keeping the secret secret.

  22. jml
    July 18, 2014 at 12:34 am

    Neanderthals, as I learned about them, were a species that took care of their own. They may have interbred with us, and given that we were around at the same time, it makes sense that they did. The idea that they would hunt and eat us is a new one to me. However, modern humans have been known to eat one another from archaeological digs and from history. (so even if they did, it is not like we are innocent in that regard as a species) I do not think it is fair to say that the species with the bigger brain must have been more primitive than us, given the evidence we have that shows that they did take care of each other. (The bones, that were at first used to make Neanderthals look like they had a bowlegged stance, were looked at a second time and discovered to have been warped such that the individual concerned could not have lived until the time of death without external aid.) I do not think it right to slander an extinct species to make a point… I am for the Non Aggression Principle as the best way for government to deal with the rest of us. Let us live without fear of aggression so long as we are not harming another.

    • eric
      July 18, 2014 at 5:13 am

      Hi JMl,

      I’ve read that all people of white European and asian descent have Neanderthal DNA; that red hair, specifically, is a Neanderthal trait (among others).

      Interesting stuff!

      • Dutch
        July 19, 2014 at 11:32 am

        “Specifically”? I’m pretty sure an Orangutan would beg to differ Eric.

        While this claim definitely helps reinforce what some like to believe about the Irish, I’m quite sure the genetic reality is not this cut and dry. But it would be interesting see a more thorough and scientific trace of the true origin and proliferation of this trait. It may exist but I’ve not found it.

      • jml
        July 20, 2014 at 12:11 am

        I had not heard of that eric. I will have to look into it. Where did you read this information?

        • eric
          July 20, 2014 at 5:29 am

          Hi jml,

          You mean the Neanderthal-modern human thing? I’ve read about it in several publications, including peer-reviewed journals. The evidence is probative that the two lived contemporaneously and interbed. The most compelling physical evidence being the fact that all people of European/caucasian descent and asians have neanderthal DNA.

          Interestingly, those of pure negroid descent do not have this genetic marker.

          • jml
            July 21, 2014 at 3:42 pm

            Thanks. It is interesting you have read in several different places.

      • Bevin
        July 20, 2014 at 12:23 am

        Dear Eric,

        I think your underlying point is valid regardless of whether we today have Neanderthal genetic components.

        The point, as you correctly noted, is that man’s biological evolution is not confined to his physique alone. It also includes mental evolution, emotional evolution, spiritual evolution, moral evolution.

        These latter phenomenon cannot of course be reduced to the material level, but that does not make them any the less real.

        Ayn Rand was very clear about how “the mind” cannot be reduced to “the brain.” They are NOT the same. But that does not make consciousness unreal or a non-objective phenomenon.

        • eric
          July 20, 2014 at 5:25 am

          Morning, Bevin!

          Yes, exactly.

          Children need to develop empathy; a sense of the “the other” as being as real as they themselves are. It is an awakening beyond physical growth/maturity.

          The NAP strikes me as being of a piece with that.

          And we have a potent ally in most people’s aversion to committing aggression on an individual-to-individual level. They know this is wrong.

          We must get them to see that it’s just as wrong to do the same thing via proxies – or because a group sanctifies it.

  23. Brad Smith
    July 17, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    Howdy guys, it’s been awhile.

    I have said for a long time that human being are not fully evolved at all. Not even close. We need an evolution of understanding when it comes to NAP.

    Most people agree that liberty is preferable to subjugation. Yet they can’t seem to understand that Liberty is the absence of force. They can’t begin to consider the slightest possibility that we could live together in a society with mutual cooperation. Whenever you bring up NAP with the average homoignoramus all you get are objections stating that it can’t be done. Who will build the roads, etc etc etc. Also it doesn’t matter how many ways that you answer this question they will continue to object. After all force is all they have ever know in their entire pathetic lives. Not only do they accept this use of force they embrace it with all their hearts. They can’t comprehend that they are always going to be the ones getting this force applied to themselves. They simply see it as a way of using that force against others. They are so shortsighted that it never once occurs to them that as soon as they accept the use of force as a legitimate means of getting what they want that it will inevitably come back to haunt them.

    Live by the sword and die by the sword.

    • eric
      July 18, 2014 at 5:21 am

      Hi Brad,

      Good to have you back!

      And, yes, ditto…

      The “blank out” regarding the violence they embrace is stunning. More accurately, the double think. I mean, almost every person understands that it’s wrong to take what’s not theirs – and that it’s not right to attack other people, or threaten to . . . on a person to person level. But they freely accept the identical violence if it’s done by proxy on their behalf, via the ballot box or euphemized insome way (e.g., “society,” the “public good,” “democracy”).

      Startling.

      It took humanity a long time to reject chattel slavery. But it was a great leap forward, ethically-philosophically speaking.

      We are now in the midst of another such great leap…. I hope.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 18, 2014 at 11:53 am

      Brad, it would seem as if humans were much evolved, much more than present, a hundred to a few hundred years ago. It took the last 200 years to change the people in the US to the sheeple they now are. Bought and paid for by tax dollars, the politicians did the work of TPTB and have lowered the bar till it’s below ground level. I give you tv as an example and all those horrifying bills passed by state and federal govt. to simply control us.

      I grew up in Tx. in the 50’s, a time of relative freedom although not nearly the freedom of the Tx. before the feds moved everyone to town during the 30’s. The spirit still exists although watered down for the most part since it would be difficult to survive without following some of the sheeple laws they’re so willing to kill you over. Go back another hundred years to 1850 and Tx was truly free……or as free as it would ever be.

      We had a discussion at the parts store(auto) last week about beer and other things such as prohibition. Revenooers were fain to come to Tx. since they either disappeared or became well to do bootleggers or alcohol producers. In a discussion of the Shiner brewery it was noted that prohibition saw it no only flourish but become a powerhouse in the industry while alcohol was illegal. There are still lots of places a person can disappear and never be found……and then there’s the equivalent of Wu’s hogpens……..

      • Jean
        July 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm

        Most likely, peopel were more intelligent (and thus, to my mind, more evolved). The “specialization” we have these days as antithetical to intelligence – you don’t figure out how to solve a problem, you read how SOMEONE ELSE solved the problem or talk to them directly. No learnign curve of note – you can reproduce the efforts just fine, or at least well enough.

        But no need to make the brain exert itself. Might as well be used for cooling (As Socrates supposed.)

        No need to rely on your ability to get food, or make something – someone else can be paid to do that. Etc.

        • Eightsouthman
          July 18, 2014 at 2:20 pm

          Jean, I wholeheartedly agree with you people were more intelligent. My parent’s generation knew so much more than we did about so many things it was mind-boggling. You might never know how versatile they were until you got to know someone well and found out not only had they graduated college but they were once very good musicians, and low and behold, still were, just ask them to play “their” music and you’re on. I had family members who would be 120 years old by now that could sing and play, often, several instruments. You’d find out one of them had been a leading innovator in some field already gone or changed too much to recognize.

          It was simply amazing how much education they had and how many things they could do well.

          I remember as a young teenager needing to time an engine we asked a friends dad. He said Sure, it’s easy. Take the distributor and turn it to #1. Turn the engine till #1 pushes air out the exhaust hole and quits. You’ll have TDC at this point so install the distributor and crank it. If it doesn’t fire immediately then slowly turn it clockwise until it fires or counterclockwise if that doesn’t work. Then he explained the advance and retardation and it was easy peasy after that. He never saw the engine and we never needed to ask again.

          What those people knew went from simple survival to increasing comfort by means no longer even thought of. The list goes on and on. I’m always humbled by what those people knew, had done and never ever bragged about but would explain to if you asked.

  24. Uncle Bill
    July 17, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    Nice article, Eric. Shows a right understanding of NAP. I never bought the man-ape connection myself, but whatever works to illustrate your point. Personally, I have lived my life trying, and not always succeeding, to follow the idea of “Do unto others….” The NAP works well among individuals, but falls apart collectively, at least so far in human history. Realistically, this generation nor any other will see the libertarian utopia we might dream of. Too bad.
    I like the philosophy of my Rottweiler, George. He will leave you alone and mind his own business, plays well with others, but if you mess with him in an unseemly or threatening way he’ll rip your throat out.
    In other words, if you want to be left alone to pursue your version of happiness, make it extremely painful for anyone who wishes you ill.
    Don’t be the aggressor, but don’t let aggression overwhelm you.

    Uncle Bill

    • eric
      July 18, 2014 at 5:36 am

      Thanks, Uncle Bill!

      I’ve been pondering this philosophical Rubik’s Cube for a long time. I have come the conclusion that the most logical and readily comprehensible way to get through to the average Joe is to use what he already knows against him – so to speak.

      As I wrote in a previous post, the average Joe knows (and usually lives by) the maxim that one ought not to steal, much less go around beating people up (or worse). Yet this same average Joe will glibly embrace theft and murder if it’s done on his behalf – via proxies. If it is sanctified by “majority vote” via the ballot box, or some other such shuck and jive.

      They key is forcing these people – who I am assuming are basically decent – to come face to face with the violence the euphemize. Use their conscience, their empathy.

      I strongly believe that while there are full-bred Clovers out there – and outright psychopaths who consciously embrace violence – there are also millions of basically decent people who can be awakened and these people could form the critical 20 percent or so necessary to transform society.

      And so I continue to plug away…

  25. InalienableWrights
    July 17, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    Keep up the great work Eric!

    You are making a difference. :-)

  26. Dutch
    July 17, 2014 at 11:58 am

    Lots of good points, though I daresay that the NAP hardly needs this much explanation. The fact is the problems of this world do not exist simply because people are unaware of the NAP, they exist because a lot of people are simply ignorant, self serving dicks. Before you call this assessment too simplistic, test it for yourself sometime.

    That fact notwithstanding, Eric’s choice to make the comparison between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal is more enlightening than most of you (Eric included) may know. The reason is the rise of a fantastic new theory called Neanderthal Predation Theory, which may be one of the finest scientific theories of the last half century, especially given that it was not borne of any agenda or any public or corporate sponsorship. NPT destroys the idea that Neanderthals were “just like us” or that we lived and mated together as brother species. Rather it draws on a solid set of established facts to show that, like gorillas, our next closest genetic sibling, Neanderthals looked and acted nothing like us, but rather were vicious and cunning apex predators (“wolves with knives”) that raped and killed and ate us almost into extinction, a fact also well supported by genetics. This heavy evolutionary pressure, and a distinct set of offshoots of it, is what made our physiology so different from our primate cousins while refining our critical and strategic thinking, toolmaking abilities, and communal mindset. It goes on to detail how Homo Sapiens ultimately drew on strategy, intelligence and a deep desire to protect their own to ultimately turn the tables on their much stronger, meaner and more violent foe. The theory ties together over 3000 peer reviewed studies across genetics, archaeology, zoology, geography, physiology and more. It is both fascinating and enlightening on many fronts. But what it ultimately reveals, which is exceedingly relevant to this article, is this: Even though there does come a time for defensive violence, we are ultimately the better, and evolutionarily superior species, precisely because of our capacity for thought, compassion and strategy, rather than any primitive, carnal desire to aggress, maim and kill.

    You can learn more about this fantastic theory here : http://www.themandus.org/
    Whether or not you care about how it relates to this topic, you will undoubtedly find it refreshing to see true, agenda-free scientific thinking, and the power it has to shape our minds and perspectives. A true rarity in this day and age.

  27. Phillip the Bruce
    July 17, 2014 at 11:06 am

    I agree with LRC’s link. There is aggression and there is non-aggression. If there is ANY aggression, it is NOT non-aggression. While there can be physical force used in the training of a child, especially in cases of immediate danger, a la Art above, since your purpose is the well-being of the child, is it still aggression?
    I had a similar ‘discussion’ with my (bleeding-heart, tree-hugging) boss about the free market. He was referring to the US economy as a free market and I replied that it was not. He then said something along the lines of “well it’s certainly freer than China or Russia.” And I said “Freer, or more nearly free, is not the same as free.” The free market is like the origin point on a graph, where there is NO interference in the marketplace. ANY deviation from that point, and the market is no longer free.

    • Boothe
      July 18, 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Phillip the Bruce – You’re quite correct. Having a free market is like pregnancy; there is no being “a little bit” pregnant, merely how far along you are. If the gun-vermin have any influence on the market, it ain’t free. It’s merely a matter of how far down the road to total oppression and collapse you are. Of course sometimes it takes the empire centuries to cave in…

  28. Wiskers
    July 17, 2014 at 11:03 am

    Gandhi,Tolstoy and many others believed that non aggression was the only way. For the religious Jesus was the ultimate NAP proponent and paid a high price for nonaggression but may have influenced population of the world. (a good thing even if it is a myth)
    As for the future, only through a completely open free enterprise (Market) that consists of rejecting any cartel of power that calls it’s self government coupled with commodity money(not fiat) mankind might make it. However, right NOW we must start with our selves and attempt to convince others that government aggression is the bane of world peace and peace and governments cannot coexist. Society does not need government. Government is a parasite on society.

    • Larry
      July 17, 2014 at 2:34 pm

      Gandhi believed in non-aggression because the Indian population was disarmed.

      “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi

      And again:

      “I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.” — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962

      • eric
        July 18, 2014 at 5:50 am

        Hi Larry,

        To be clear: I abjure aggressive violence. Defensive violence is another matter.

        There is no moral taint involved when one raises one’s hand to ward off a blow. Or when one shoots back.

    • Jean
      July 18, 2014 at 8:31 am

      Jesus would not be seen as NAP-compliant – note the events in the tmeple, overturning the money-changer’s tables and whipping them.

      The money-changers hadn’t OFFICIALLY aggressed against Jesus. They were just there, doing their jobs, and this lunatic came in and whipped them and scattered their work-wares….

      But they had turned the temple into a market. Christ considered this to be a trespass at the least, possibly rent-seeking – And I’m inclined to agree.

      The mroe I strip away the lies of Economic Man, the more I find out I’ve been a f*cknig doormat most of my life, and I can thank a “good, Catholic education” for that…
      Funny thing is, my parents think the problem is I wasn’t beaten enough….

  29. Art Thomas
    July 17, 2014 at 9:52 am

    The NAP applied to children is a bone of contention amongst libertarians. Some so called purists justify physical attacks on their children at the rare occasion when a child is too young to understand or refuses to listen to his parent’s command and has put or is putting himself in harm’s way.

    Here’s an interesting discussion of this subject especially the comments:http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/a-comment-on-libertarian-socialist-moyer.html

  30. Art Thomas
    July 17, 2014 at 9:21 am

    5023 Burnley Station Rd

  31. Reality_Seeker
    July 17, 2014 at 8:39 am

    Remember the scene with Father Matthew in the 1953 movie, “War of the Worlds”, when he attempted to bring religion to a “more advanced civilization”? — and how Father Matthew was vaporized? Remember that?

    What happened to Father Matthew is what’s going to happen to the preachers of “NAP” during the upcoming War of the Collectivists. I write this truth with the utmost respect. There shall come a time— perhaps in a decade or two, maybe sooner— whereupon anybody standing up and talking about “principles” shall be judged by Nature’s Laws, i.e., Nature’s Law of Eating, Nature’s Law of Breeding, Nature’s Law of Ownership, Nature’s Law of Survival and so on and so forth.

    The Law of Eating is the most basic of laws and it goes something like this: might eats right. And it also eats everything else that is unable to escape from its clutches, evade it altogether, repel and/or kill it.

    amerika (sic) is in the final stages of being fully transmogrified into a might-eats-everything-it-can country. Don’t ever forget that.

    Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! That’s the tribe singing about their law, and psyching themselves up for the kill. It’s open season on the producer. And the season shall remain open for 365 days per year after year.

    amerika is being populated with a yes-we-can majority. And the yes-we-can majority is receiving reinforcements—tens of millions of them. They shall outnumber NAP followers with their breeding habits alone. Fecund Aliens are invading, overrunning U.S. borders, overwhelming the systems, and being groomed so they can become part of the yes-we-can collective. By the way, as an aside, for those of you salivating for “open borders” you’re going to get them, but it shall be only a one-way opening for those seeking a Permiso Hotel. The collectivist version of open borders is upon you, now. Just try to get seen by a doctor in an emergency room anywhere the Fecund Aliens are present, and you’ll experience the direct result of open borders.

    Moreover and more importantly, yes-we-can kids are being produced by the millions in the body-snatching, public schools. The Cloward-Piven method has been perfected, and it won’t be too long, yet, before the yes-we-can amerikans have all others on the run. Another decade or two and the invasion shall be complete, the battles won, and then the war of each collectivist against the other shall begin. Who eats whom will be the focus right after all of the producers have mostly been chewed up and shitted out.

    What’s ahead is NAP ( Nature’s Aggression Principle) not “NAP”. The knuckle dragging goon-squads and the armed, government apes shall enforce the highly aggressive laws of nature. During such past-times men like H. L. Mencken kept a low profile. Men like Carl Menger ( who foresaw catastrophe and retired in obscurity for the final 30ys of his life) concealed themselves from the maw of the state. On the other hand, men like Christ became martyrs; and if that’s the way you want to go, fine. I might even join you; but, but, but, and a very big BUT, just realize what you’re getting yourself ( and maybe your family and friends) into for the rest of your shortened life.

    The only thing stopping the invasion now is nuclear war, and that’ll stop everything.

    • eric
      July 17, 2014 at 8:45 am

      Hi RS,

      You may be (and probably are) quite right. And – to be clear – I do not shy from defensive violence, should it come to that.

      But what I will never do is join a collective – become an ape.

      I’d rather live (and die) as a man.

    • Eric_G
      July 17, 2014 at 9:28 am

      There’s a theory that neanderthals were superior thinkers to early humans, yet for some reason they died off.

      http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-neanderthals-smarter-than-we-think-20140501-story.html

      How about this theory: The humans, almost as smart as the neanderthals, but more aggressive (and more fertile), figured out how to use the neanderthals’ tools and fire against the neanderthal population, becoming the dominant species. The few remaining traits of neanderthal thinking get passed down through some human DNA. The offspring that have both agressive and intellient become dominant, only intelligent or agressive become tools of the dominant, and niether agressive nor intelligent become the free stuff army and cannon folder.

    • Bob Robertson
      July 17, 2014 at 2:03 pm

      You seem to be forgetting that Libertarians also tend to be quite well armed.

    • DR
      July 17, 2014 at 2:14 pm

      Reality Seeker makes a great case here. Perhaps a better analogy than gorillas would be cattle, or sheep. People are just “herded” about by their masters, who appear to take pretty good care of them right up until the time they are loaded upon cattle cars. Might will indeed “eat” right; it’s already happening.
      I say try to remain small and well-networked with a few you really trust. That’s going to be the only way to survive, along with what’s worth preserving of our threatened culture of western civilization. Think medieval, that’s what’s coming. But with computers, drones, satellites, and unimaginable weaponry deployed against those who dare rise up.
      Look for small chinks between the grinding gears. Some will survive, most will not, or will be assimilated. Hell, most already have been. Don’t believe it? Take a random sample of those you encounter regularly – ask a few pointed questions having to do with understanding the NAP. See what answers you get. Hell, ask them if they still vote. There’s a litmus, right there.

    • Eightsouthman
      July 19, 2014 at 8:14 pm

      Reality, you’re preaching to the choir to some extent. I live life, and always have by NAP or ZAP as some call it(Zero Aggression Policy)but have seen times in a split second it was attack and dominate or get the shit beaten out of you or killed. I cannot tell anyone when this is going to happen or how to see it coming but it definitely exists. I applaud those who have never experienced it but it’s something that can and does happen. I suppose it has to do what sort of lifestyle or simply what you do for employment, really, what sort of employment you have cannot be overstated. Sitting at the computer or gathering with like-minded cohorts is probably where this WILL NOT happen. Then again, there are places and situations this might be eminent and woe if you don’t see it coming. In the words of Robert Heinlein: (Self defense must sometime take the form of ‘Do unto others what they would do unto you but do it first’. This is the difference between life and death sometimes. Anyone who would deny this hasn’t lived enough, hasn’t experienced enough situations. Sometimes there’s only that split second or maybe a second or two that determines if you die or someone else does. If you really think that being the aggressor(simply acting quickly before the other person can)is always wrong, you’ll be dead. I didn’t make these rules but I have survived by them. I have never been the party that the split second decision to need to attack ME was instigated by me but I’ve been on the other end. Just hope when you learn this lesson you’ve had the wherewithal to be the faster of the two. The NAP is only relevant when there is time to consider action for more than that split second. For the most part, the people at this forum are intelligent, non-aggressive and don’t engage in activities that could result in getting assaulted….or at least are not employed where situations could arise to be smote for no reason(in your own mind, not the aggressor). I don’t advise those who don’t believe this engage in any activity that might inherently be dangerous. Don’t get your Class A CDL and hit the road. Don’t be that person out there in no man’s land in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere. There are plenty of people who don’t adhere to the NAP.

      • Bevin
        July 19, 2014 at 9:21 pm

        Dear 8sm,

        Say you are driving down a street at night and pull up to a stoplight.

        A suspected carjacker pulls up next to you, rolls down his window, and raises a pistol.

        I consider any action you might take at this point to be consistent with the NAP.

        I don’t believe the NAP requires one to be actually shot at before responding.

        I could cite other examples, but the principle should be clear.

        In other words, I agree that what you would do is justified. I would also argue that it is consistent with the NAP. It is not an “exception.”

        • Eightsouthman
          July 19, 2014 at 11:32 pm

          Bevin, exactly as you stated. I knew a guy once who stopped at a 4 way stop going into a large grainery in Houston. Once stopped, he was immediately attacked by a person who jumped up on the steps of his cab and shot him point blank in the neck, no doubt aiming for the head. The guy hauled ass, not even stopping to rob him. The trucker behind him(this was before the feds disarmed all commercial drivers)was heading that way trying to get a shot at the attacker. This was in the territory of fairly much only blacks. Of course the attacker was never even caught, much less pursued since Houston cops then and now won’t even go to those places in the dark. Thankfully, the guy barely survived. So why the attack? I could only guess it was because of race since it was evident there were other truckers behind him and he had not been to that location before. Of course it makes no sense….logically…..but when has that made a difference? We can thank the feds for disarming truckers that immediately caused countless people to be attacked simply because it was announced in the newspapers at the time and everyone could see it was open season on truckers. Good old feds, they really protect you. Before that, I slept with my head on my hand that had a Browning Hi-Power clasped in it and anytime anyone touched your truck, they made sure they were well back from it when you reacted. It made for nice notices from loaders and nice responding from truckers, otherwise the lead might fly. Now, laying over on the docks is not an option. What a lovely government we have. Idiots, one and all.

          • Bevin
            July 19, 2014 at 11:48 pm

            Dear 8sm,

            I’ve had words with some LEOs at some police brutality whistleblower websites about that issue.

            They would say “Just wait til you need us you ungrateful SOB!”

            Yeah, right. As if. Knowing what happens to crime victims who call the cops, I would probably never call a cop. After all, many who do wind up victimized even worse by the criminals in blue costumes than by the criminals in hoodies.

            I truly would rather take my chances in a WROL situation. That’s no exaggeration. At least if I engage in self defense, the cops won’t show up and arrest me for the crime of wanting to live.

            Browning Hi-Power. I remember drooling over that pistol in the full color Browning catalogs.

            • eric
              July 20, 2014 at 5:42 am

              Ditto.

              The simple fact is the cops cannot protect me – even if they wanted to (and of course, they don’t want to; at best, they are doing a job. Whereas I am intensely interested in not being murdered, etc.).

              We live on 16 acres out in The Woods. The cop station is 20-30 minutes away – if you’re hauling ass. It will be a long 20-30 minute wait – best case – before a cop arrives to “protect” me. When seconds count, a cop is many minutes away.

              So, I rely on myself.

              Like most country people, I keep weapons at the ready wherever I am in the house. And I – like my neighbors – rely on the well-known (to potential thugs) fact that it is extremely likely every house in The Woods is bristling with firepower – and people inside who will not shy away from defending themselves.

              This isn’t easy target suburbia, with cringing Clovers waiting in “safe rooms,” their fingers frantically tapping 9-1-1 ….

          • Eightsouthman
            July 20, 2014 at 12:46 am

            Bevin, getting a mudhole stomped in my ass was the beginning of my problems in a situation where the cops(called by someone who saw me)were more of a problem than anything else….and this was 45 years ago. I’ve been badly hurt by hooligans, in a bad car wreck, stuck in the middle of nowhere in a dead truck during a bad N. Texas norther, freezing my butt off, but at no time did I ever need a cop. I once witnessed a really bad hiway accident and felt it was my duty(human, not state mandated) to render aid(even though I could have left without incident)so I called for help on the CB and stayed to help the victims till the DPS arrived. I was very upset by the condition of all involved and that’s probably the only thing that saved me from the highwaymen. I couldn’t wait to get away from them after an ambulance had arrived. The way they treated the victims was horrible but that’s another story I don’t care to share.

            PS. before my round with the BATFE, I had many versions of the Hi-Power and loved every one. I have asked many times in the last few years what’s so great about the new pistols. Why aren’t HP’s the best thing ever? Price, says everyone. So I’m still waiting for a better gun. Oh yeah, I’ve had some HK’s that were just as good or better in some ways and other German guns that were close but I’ll still take the HP thank you. I built a custom Combat Commander in .38 Super that I really liked, specifically because it was built for me but it had little to offer over the HP except a more powerful round. I had to do days of makeover to even equal the trigger pull or slickness of the slide or feeding reliability of the HP. Turn an HP into a .38 Super and it would be better right out of the box though. My expensive .45 HK Compact was nice but only because it was double and single action with no safety. I may have to go to the barn and think about how to make a DA/SA HP. Thinking back on the VP 70 HK and others I’ve had, I see a pattern forming.

            • eric
              July 20, 2014 at 5:22 am

              Morning, Eight!

              The Hi Power is a beautiful pistol. An elegant weapon (as Ben Kenobi said about his light saber). I don’t own one myself, but I have my eye on one – funds permitting, someday.

          • Bevin
            July 20, 2014 at 1:03 am

            Dear 8sm,

            I just hope enough sheeple are being awakened and change into peeple. It’s about time. I don’t know how much longer this Kafkaesque status quo can be allowed to persist.

            Re: handguns

            I’m pretty much a pistol guy rather than a revolver guy. My preference is

            1. single action semiautomatic pistols (1911s and variants)
            2. single action revolvers
            3. double action revolvers

            I like single action revolvers because of the Old West nostalgia factor, the rugged construction, and the light trigger pulls.

            Never been big on double action revolvers.

  32. Naked Ape
    July 17, 2014 at 7:44 am

    I would really like to take a NAP.
    But deep down I feel I’m StillaGorilla.

  33. Gil
    July 17, 2014 at 3:26 am

    Libertarians have the glee of the atheist child who declares “if God is all good and all powerful He would have not have created evil. However evil exists therefore God as we know Him cannot exist. Q.E.D.” You don’t think theologians have heard that problem before? There a field of theology dedicated to that problem: theodicy. Clover

    By the same token Libertarians come up with their little N.A.P. and pat themselves on the back that they found something no one else in history has thought of. In reality the problem and issues as to why humans organise into the structure and societies that they way do is a comprehensive field of study: sociology.

    People have noted the phrase that family wealth rarely last 3-4 generations or that civilisations rarely live past 3-4 centuries. There’s the same pattern: initially people are generally hard working and moral to build the wealth, the second wave consume a certain degree of wealth sensibly, the cosy third wave mindlessly spend the wealth and are self-entitled, lazy and/or violent and if there’s not enough decent folk in the fourth waves then the civilisation is extinct.Clover

    The fact that these waves were replicated again and again in the Mouse/Rat Utopia experiments doesn’t bode well for the future. I guess many Libertarians are bummed that were born in the degeneration phase as opposed to the wealth creation phase of the early 19th-century but that’s life.

    • eric
      July 17, 2014 at 5:23 am

      Sheesh, Clover . . . where to begin?

      Your series of non sequiturs begins with a ramble about the problem of evil vis-a-vis belief (or lack thereof) in god.

      What this has to do with Libertarianism and the NAP, I have no idea.

      Then, you deprecate the NAP – assert that it’s not a new idea – but (as usual) evade discussing the idea itself.

      You see, Clover, whether the NAP is a recent or very old idea is irrelevant. The relevant question is, simply: Is it acceptable to deal with others using aggressive violence? Or is the only legitimate violence defensive violence in response to aggression?

      It’s the point you and yours bend over backwards to avoid openly debating – because you know how you’ll look if you defend aggressive violence openly. So instead, you use misdirection and euphemism. You snicker and insult.

      Because that’s all you’ve got.

  34. helot
    July 17, 2014 at 1:18 am

    LRC links to this article saying,

    “The Non-Aggression Principle
    Embrace it, or reject it—there is no in-between”

    I -An Individual – says there is, “an in-between”!

    I’ve argued this point here at EPA many times.

    The head of a family decides that The State has no right to inject vaccines into the children of that family.

    … Only the head of that family has the right to decide what injections – if any – the child should receive. Because, as so many adamantly deny, the head of the family, de factO – Owns – that child, until emancipation.

    Otherwise, it seems to me, the idea of, ‘The Family” means nothing!

    I suggest that the NAP can observe the idea of, ‘The Family’ as an owner of every one within, “the family”,… and the idea of the NAP is still whole.

    Emancipation, is key.

    The family is the primary factor of production.

    …What’s that mean?

    Also – if someone insists – who Owns the woman’s body (?) and, when did she terminate her ownership of the production from her body?
    Is she not the owner of her own production?
    If she gives over herself, and her ownership of her own production, to another (her husband) does the head of the household – the husband – Not own the family?

    Is this Not elementary?

    If so, a husband has every right to decide if “aggression” is an appropriate punishment to .. for… and whatever reason.

    Eh?

    I guess I’m trying to show how the N.A.P. aligns with biblical Christianity?
    It seems to. Imho.

    Otherwise, when you smack your child for trying to touch the Very Hot Thing, you’re violating the N.A.P.
    That don’t hardly seem right.

  35. July 16, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    The highest significance of the NAP, as I understand it. Is it prohibits aggression against free trade and voluntary cooperation.

    The apes that would win in the competition to ensue after this Fifth Turning, wouldn’t necessarily be those of highest moral distinction. They would be those apes who engage in the most prolific trade and the most productive interaction.

    The important distinction between humans and gorillas isn’t that of morality. The distinction is that human dominance is achieved and maintained by means of superior productivity, not by way of superior physical or mental attributes. These means lead to superior wealth, and this wealth ensures more apes superior ability to determine one’s life own life on Earth.

    The Gov-zillas in Our Midst dominate through restraint of trade. If you for a moment consider any issue using Gov-zilla mentality, and not human mentality, you are a lost cause.
    http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1552939/thailand-warned-it-faces-international-sanctions-over-illegal-ivory-trade

    There is no place for Gov-zillas in the ivory market. Or in any market. Trade in ivory is market activity. No Gov-zilla aggression can be tolerated in any kind of trade.

    That is where your adherence to the NAP attains true significance. NAP enables you to accept Market Anarchy as a logical imperative. NAP commands you to purge any inner voices that tells you in some case it can every be otherwise.

  36. July 16, 2014 at 12:36 pm

    Excellent synopsis, definitely some food for thought.

    Does man, that marvel of the universe… That glorious paradox that sent me to the stars… Still make war against his brother? Keep his neighbor’s children starving? – Taylor – Planet of the Apes

    Man has no understanding. He can be taught a few simple tricks. Nothing more. Experimental brain surgery on these creatures is one thing, and I’m all in favor of it. But your behavior studies are another matter.

    To suggest that we can learn anything about the simian nature from a study of man is sheer nonsense. Why, man is a nuisance. He eats up his food supply in the forest, then migrates to our green belts and ravages our crops. The sooner he is exterminated, the better. It’s a question of simian survival.

    You humans are a menace. A walking pestilence. Have you forgotten your scripture, the thirteenth scroll? “And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.”

    I have always known about man. From the evidence, I believe his wisdom must walk hand and hand with his idiocy. His emotions must rule his brain. He must be a warlike creature who gives battle to everything around him, even himself. – Dr Zaius – Planet of the Apes

    Help Me Dr Zaius – Planet of the Apes the Musical

    Planet of the Apes – Modern Ending

  37. Roland
    July 16, 2014 at 10:54 am

    … sorry, this gorilla/ape metaphor doesn’t work at all in communicating the NAP.

    Also, history consistently informs us that aggressive violence works pretty well for many aggressors in looting/exploiting other people. Think of all the wars of conquest throughout history; for example, the Romans did very well for centuries violently subjugating all the neighbors. And government aggression is extremely lucrative for the rulers, even in modern America. The detailed cost/benefit analysis of violent exploitation is far from convincing as an automatic NAP endorsement.

    Of course, peaceful cooperation and production is the best method overall for human societal prosperity. But individual humans tend toward a very limited time & geographic perspective — their own life spans and perhaps that of their immediate descendants. Violence often works in the localized short term, in improving one’s standard of living at others’ expense.

    In the long run –we’re all dead. Long and Short time perspectives prompt different conclusions among humans. Violence, war, conquest, and exploitation are commonplace in all human history.

    • larry
      July 17, 2014 at 2:23 pm

      I agree with you, Roland – even though I affirm the NAP. To quote Robert Heinlein: “Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”

      • eric
        July 17, 2014 at 2:30 pm

        Hi Larry,

        Yes – and this will continue for as long as a majority of humanity refuses to abjure aggressive violence.

        Enough.

        When first-use of force is regarded in the same light as molesting children, humanity will finally transcend this cycle.

        • Blank Reg
          July 19, 2014 at 10:45 am

          And indeed, a “cycle” it is. This 8000 year cycle of “civilization” which always ends up in the hands of an all too-powerful self-styled “elitist” cabal in charge, sporting a huge monopoly of aggressive violence, who then, from their own insufferable hubris, hyperextend themselves and ultimately cause the whole thing to collapse in on itself. Then lather, rinse, repeat.

          If institutionalized monopolies of violence were indeed the best way to run a civilization, we’d all still be speaking Sumerian.

        • David
          July 20, 2014 at 3:51 pm

          To play devil’s advocate:

          Say I see a man about to jump off a bridge and commit suicide. Assume (obviously this is wrong, but nonetheless very realistic) that the bridge is “public”, so nobody is tresspassing. I have no idea why the man in question is about to commit suicide. I have no idea if he actually wants to do it or if he’s just temporarily overcome with grief. I prevent him from jumping, I sit him down for five minutes, and I try to convince him that what he’s doing is a mistake and I refer him to a counselor. I then walk away.

          Am I now a horrible person? After all, I initiated temporary force to prevent someone from throwing their life away.

          Or, to give another scenario, say a man has a son who is dying of a disease that will kill him if he doesn’t get a certain medicine right away, but it is 3AM and all pharmacies are closed. So the man breaks into one, steals the life-saving medicine, leaves enough money on the counter to pay for the medicine and the damage caused, and proceeds to save his son’s life. Is this man morally equivalent to a child molester?

          Mind you, I agree with the general message of what you are saying here. We live in a deeply immoral and disgusting society, and it isn’t just because of sexual perversions: our society praises aggression and condemns those who defend themselves against it harshly. Its a seriously messed up society, and a lot of depropagandizing is going to be needed to fix it. At the same point, I think a certain degree of understanding in extreme situations, as well as when its painfully clear that education is lacking, is warranted.

          I already gave an example of extreme situations (two actually), so I’ll just make up a conversation that’s very similar to one I had recently:

          Me: Drunk driving shouldn’t be a crime.

          Other person: Wait, you mean that if someone drives drunk and runs over a child, that’s OK?

          Me: No, of course not, running over a child violates that child’s right to life and is murder. What I’m against is preemptively pulling people over because they might cause harm at some point in the future.

          Other person: What about drugs? Should people be able to run around and use whatever drugs they want?

          Me: Why not?

          Other person” well, because then there would be chaos and looting and killing and nothing would ever be accomplished.

          This isn’t the exact conversation I had, and I overdramatized it, but the idea is here. This person is simply clueless, they don’t understand the kind of aggressive violence they’ve been indoctrinated into accepting. Our anger shouldn’t be directed at them (although we should be frustrated at them for not thinking things through), our anger should be directed at the educational establishment for indoctrinating them.

          Similarly, when a cop pulls someone over and hands them a speeding ticket, I don’t think of him in precisely the same light as I would any other armed robber. There is certainly similarity, and the actions are pretty much the same, but the cop has been indoctrinated into believing that his actions are legitimate and keeping people safe. This doesn’t excuse him, but it could be a mitigating factor.

          Just my two cents.

      • eric
        July 18, 2014 at 5:53 am

        Hi Larry,

        I admire Heinlein; brilliant writer and superb story teller. I have read pretty much everything he wrote, and there is a theme running through much of what he wrote: Defensive violence is not only ok, it is a moral imperative.

        It is critical to differentiate between the authoritarian collectivists’ aggressive violence and the individualist’s defensive violence, which is nothing less than an assertion of the individual’s absolute sovereignty over his own life and a rejection of the despicable notion that any person has any claim against another person’s life.

      • Bevin Chu
        July 18, 2014 at 8:23 pm

        Dear larry,

        The Heinlein quote is accurate, but it must not be misinterpreted.

        Heinlein was a libertarian. When he said violence solved problems, he was referring only to defensive violence, not aggressive violence.

        Defensive violence solves problems.

        Aggressive violence does not. It creates them. Aggressive violence creates the very problems that defensive violence must solve.

        • eric
          July 19, 2014 at 5:38 am

          Morning, Bevin!

          It happens that I am re-reading one of Heinlein’s “Lazarus Long” books. The main character – the effectively immortal Lazarus Long – in several cases uses defensive violence to deal with aggressors. But never once commits aggressive violence. The entire book is a paean to “live and -let live” … with the qualification: You’d better not try to tell me how to live.

          • Bevin
            July 20, 2014 at 8:05 pm

            Dear Eric,

            I need to go back and read the Lazarus Long stories!

            They’ve faded from my memory. I only remember some of his other novels, such as The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

            The good thing about it is that it will almost be like reading them for the first time.

    • Bevin
      July 18, 2014 at 10:30 pm

      Dear Roland,

      You wrote:

      “Of course, peaceful cooperation and production is the best method overall for human societal prosperity. ”

      What else did you think we meant?

      Of course in the short term aggressors get away with their conduct. Who doesn’t know that?

      What made you think we weren’t talking about the “best method overall?”

      • Roland
        July 19, 2014 at 4:13 pm

        > to Bevin:

        … my point was that aggressive violence is NOT simply “ape-like, primitive… un-reason” .

        Rational humans choose violence frequently for practical economic reasons — stealing stuff from others is generally much easier than producing it yourself; pre-emptively conquering/dominating all your neighbors is also a rational defensive strategy depending on circumstances. Group violence (at the tribal to nation-state levels) is much more efficient than individual aggression. Even modern, intelligent, well-educated, ostensibly kind & moral humans (e.g., Western political leaders) vigorously pursue aggression domestically and internationally — they are not apes or insane, but act rationally given their personal assumptions about the world both short and long term. All humans act in their own self-interest, as they perceive it.

        The problem of course is faulty assumptions/perceptions and permitting emotions to dominate thinking. Aggressive violence is a zero-sum game in the larger human society — and NAP is a much better strategy overall. But NAP remains just an ideal.
        Perhaps mankind will evolve to embrace NAP — but the odds don’t look good from a year 2014 perspective.

        I and others here like & understand the NAP ideal — but I see way too much optimism expressed here about its prospects. History and observed reality should prompt heavy skepticism.

        So NAP’s not here yet — what’s Bevin’s survival strategy while awaiting its arrival ?

        • Bevin
          July 19, 2014 at 9:13 pm

          Dear Roland,

          “Rational humans choose violence frequently for practical economic reasons — stealing stuff from others is generally much easier than producing it yourself… ”

          So you actually believe that:

          easier = rational

          There’s your problem — right there.

  38. BrentP
    July 16, 2014 at 10:43 am

    29th Scroll 6th Verse

    • Larry
      July 17, 2014 at 2:20 pm

      Planet of the Apes is so much tripe. Humans are not the only animal that kills for sport. Check out this link. It should have been entitled, “Seal Badminton”.

      • BrentP
        July 17, 2014 at 2:52 pm

        Beware the beast man.
        For he is the devil’s pawn.
        Alone among god’s primates he kills for sport, lust, and greed.

        I may be mistaken, but a whale isn’t a primate as far as I know.

        I offered the clip as a bit of humor, but like most all humor there is some but not absolute truth to it.

        • July 17, 2014 at 4:06 pm

          Humans quite frequently breed with odontoceti – toothed whales – though they are loathe to admit it.

          This interspecies breeding ritual is most frequently observed in bars late at night

          Drunk Dancing – The Heat

        • Swifty
          July 17, 2014 at 5:43 pm

          Gang of Chimps Torture and Kill a Lone Chimp

          “A new leader in the city monkey troupe is keen to mark his territory and rid all traces of the defeated leader from the troupe – including all the babies he fathered. Includes scenes some viewers may find disturbing. Taken from BBC wildlife documentary Monkey Warriors.”

          Have elephants begun raping rhinos in the wild?
          http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2775/are-elephants-in-the-wild-showing-newly-aggressive-behavior-including-rape

          A Murder Mystery: Why Were Elephants Slaughtering Rhinos? — Lack Of Adult Role Models Gets The Blame
          http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941023&slug=1937416

          • eric
            July 18, 2014 at 5:37 am

            Hi Swifty,

            Well, that was a rough way to start the day!

        • eric
          July 18, 2014 at 5:47 am

          I am fascinated by the chimp-Bonobo thing as it may relate to humans.

          These two are both chimpanzees – biologically the same species (they can interbreed). Yet they are profoundly different in significant ways, both behaviorally as well as physically (the Bonobos walk almost upright and are more gracile – i.e., less heavy boned).

          Perhaps there is an analog among humans?

          I think there might very well be.

          There is a most un-orthodox (and extremely un-PC) book titled, “Erectus Walks Amongst Us.” The book’s premise is that atavistic traits – in particular, impetuous violence and diminished future-time orientation – remain sprinkled among the human population, manifesting here and there, with the tangible result being the grotesque violence we see everyday on TV or read about in the news.

          Now, the book is extremely racial, but leaving that stuff aside, the author’s “atavism” argument is interesting.

          I am confident that humans could live in society under the auspices of the NAP. Just not all humans.

          The prerequisite is – separating the bonobos from the chimps….

          • Eightsouthman
            July 18, 2014 at 10:13 am

            eric, I got in late last night having been on the road for a week or more. Strange, the subject just taken up and your comments, in that I was just thinking yesterday about the truck driver in Ca. who got beaten so severely by people(sic)who could identify only a single cause for it, his race. Lincoln had much to say on this…..but those retards who beat his drum don’t even seem to be aware of it.

            As far as the chimps go, I see little difference to other species in that respect of killing anothers’ offspring. It’s a big deal with all types of cats also. And fish don’t really care whose offspring they eat for the most part.

            Many years ago my wife witnessed a pack of dogs that all belonged to various people cruising the country. One had a hitch in it’s gitalong, maybe had been alpha dog. She saw the entire pack turn on this dog and rip it to shreds. This also works well in the political system since the pack hates any deviant behavior. That alone tells you the people’s will is rarely addressed and only to the point to lie about it.

            BTW, I’ve been re-reading a bunch of old Harry Harrison books, many of them in the SS Rat series. Harry was a NAP Libertarian for the books(sic) in my book(sic,sick?) Well, I may write a book, a sociological study of Mennonites.

  39. ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
    July 16, 2014 at 9:58 am

    “H. Neanderthalensis – lived contemporaneously with H. Sapiens – and the two may even have interbred.”

    I know they interbred. I have seen 2 examples of it. The stoop, the eyebrow ridges, the low forehead. Everything denoting the recessive genes of the Neanderthal.

    Many anthropologists (heh.. apologists) say that the genes between both species were incompatible.

    Rubbish. I’ve seen the evidence.

    Anyhoo.. The only time it’s your duty to bare your teeth and rage is at someone who believes they have the authority to order you around.

    • Paabo
      July 17, 2014 at 8:35 am

      They (neanderthals&sapiens) interbred in the middle east. Certain semite populations have a much higher degree of neanderthal blood than most of other people on earth. Many Europeans and some Asians also carry some neanderthal admixture, of various degrees.

      “People of European or Asian ancestry have inherited between 1 and 4 percent of their nuclear DNA from Neanderthals, probably from matings that took place in the Middle East–in present-day Israel, in fact–before the forebears of Europeans and Asians dispersed to the West and East.”

  40. Inconsistencies
    July 16, 2014 at 9:47 am

    One of your best articles, Eric.

    • eric
      July 16, 2014 at 10:43 am

      Thanks, Inconsistencies!

    • Bevin
      July 16, 2014 at 11:58 pm

      I second that.

      I have long argued that neocon “champions of democracy” are full of s**t when they argue that “democracy” represents the end of political evolution, and that no more advanced form of governance is possible.

      Talk about an open admission of intellectual myopia and a lack of the “vision thang.” Talk about an inability to think outside the box.

      All these Rhodes Scholars and Fulbright Scholars, all these Ivy League grads are supposed to be the modern world’s “best and brightest.”

      And “Western liberal democracy” is all they can come up with???

      Pathetic!

      • helot
        July 17, 2014 at 12:34 am

        I’ve Never been as sure as I am now that I shouldn”t have Never been one of them as I am now. Ha!

        Fuck them, and their weasel ways.

        It’s far better to die poor than to have lived as they do now.

        Underachieving Never felt so great until now, Ozy. Write that down.

        Let the empire burn,… I won’t help it.

        Will you?

        I mean, is it not better to starve, than to serve empire?

        So far, the majority says, “No.”

        …Ain’t that gross?

        • clover (resident imbecile)
          July 18, 2014 at 7:27 am

          helot if you want want to starve to say that you are your own person then go right ahead. I would never vote or prefer starving but it seems that libertarians do. With the lack of any organization in our society then yes most people would be jobless and starving.
          Clover
          Just one thing, why is it that libertarians are against violence but are for creating bloodbaths and are stocking up on guns and ammunition? Why is it that if a libertarian is breaking multiple laws and the police try to take them in then libertarians say it is fine to kill them? Do you classify that as nonviolence? I don’t. I classify that as a thousand times worse than what our government is. If you do not like violence then you would definitely be against a libertarian society. If you had a libertarian society you would live by the gun and that is why libertarians are stocking up on guns.

          • eric
            July 18, 2014 at 7:45 am

            Clover, you make it so easy….

            Libertarians won’t starve. They simply object to being forced to feed you.

            It’s not organization we object to, either. Organization can be a very fine thing. Provided it is voluntary organization. What we object to is forcible organization.

            That’s what you and yours favor.

            Only you’re too much of a poltroon to do the forcing yourself… right, Clover?

            Why is that?

            If it’s right to take your neighbor’s things, to force him to pay for “roads” – or whatever – why not go to his door yourself and finger a pistol while you “ask” him to “help”?

            How about it, Clover?

          • eric
            July 18, 2014 at 8:12 am

            PS: Clover has it all backwards (big surprise!) . . .

            His position is that one ought to submit to aggressive violence, else be guilty of fomenting a “bloodbath.”

            Thus, the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw Ghetto in ’44 were guilty of “creating bloodbaths.” SS General Jurgen Stroop – who put down the uprising by razing the ghetto and killing pretty much everyone – should have cried, “look what you made me do!”

          • eric
            July 18, 2014 at 8:15 am

            One more, Clover:

            If I were to kick in the door to your house and come at you, would you consider it wrong to defend yourself?

            Who is the guilty party, in terms of ethics/morality?

            I’d like a direct, honest answer – if you’re capable of it.

            I very much doubt you are.

          • clover
            July 18, 2014 at 4:25 pm

            eric tell me how often someone gets their door knocked down without a search warrant or probable cause? My answer is very seldom. Eric we do not live in Germany in 44. If you believe we do then go shoot the Germans. Eric there is so slim of a chance that I or anyone I know will get their door bashed in and attacked by police that it is not even worth talking about. I am a million times more likely to be injured or killed by one of the drivers you defend. Why not go after them? Why not go after the group of people that are far more likely to kill or injure you?Clover

            Eric if you break a lot of our laws and also act like a total jerk at the same time then I could care less what happens to you. In my view you created first force in your NAP world.

            Yes Eric if you knocked down my door and started to attack me I have a right to defend myself. That is because you had no legal right to be there and as such could be classified as a dangerous robber. If a cop came in and had a legal right to be there then yes if I pulled a gun on him they have every right to shoot me down. It is not going to happen though Eric. I have far greater things to worry about. I do not plan on spending hours of my time worrying about lightening hitting me a dozen times in my lifetime which is about the odds of a policeman bashing my door in and attacking me.

          • BrentP
            July 18, 2014 at 4:49 pm

            Clover, I remember a time when it -never- happened in this country. When there weren’t no-knock raids. When there weren’t SWAT teams all over the place. When cops didn’t appear indistinguishable from other street gangs.

            I can remember the before time. You like some character out of “Animal Farm” or “1984” can’t remember what it was like before.

            About one of these raid the wrong house, raid gone bad stories comes across my path without me looking for them about once a week. This means there are far far more of them. That is they are SOP, part of the job, routine. But yes a tiny percentage of the population at large, for now. But for those of us that remember it at zero, it’s a lot.

          • clover
            July 18, 2014 at 5:22 pm

            CloverBrentP I could care less what you remember from the past. That is because the internet brings up a wrongful no-knock raid and spreads it over a thousand web sites. Tell me how you were going to hear about one 30 years ago? BrentP I would think that you would have more brains if you are supposed to be such a good engineer. It still comes down to what is the chances it is going to happen to me or someone I know and care about doesn’t it? There is a thousand times more chance that I will break my leg going down the steps in a few minutes. Should we spend hours talking about how evil steps are?

            • eric
              July 18, 2014 at 6:08 pm

              “It still comes down to what is the chances it is going to happen to me …”

              It speaks for itself.

          • BrentP
            July 18, 2014 at 9:39 pm

            ” Tell me how you were going to hear about one 30 years ago? “

            Because when they first occurred there was a case that went if I recall correctly, to the supreme court. These things used to not be acceptable. They were unthinkable. Then they started happening and then they were legitimized.

            “. It still comes down to what is the chances it is going to happen to me or someone I know and care about doesn’t it?”

            Only for sociopaths who lack empathy and for despicable people who like watching other people suffer.

            Now there’s a famous quote about how people ignored tyranny when it wasn’t coming for them, but one day it did. I think it’s over your head, so I’ll offer you something more on a child’s level:

            http://www.scaryforkids.com/slithery-dee/

          • Bevin
            July 18, 2014 at 9:53 pm

            Dear Brent,

            Clover wrote:

            “Tell me how you were going to hear about one 30 years ago?”

            and

            “It still comes down to what is [sic] the chances it is going to happen to me or someone I know and care about doesn’t it? ”

            Amazing how clover never bothers to think about the implications of what he says.

            Well, maybe not that amazing. After all, clover never thinks about the implications of his own actions. So why should he think about the implications of “mere words?”

          • clover
            July 18, 2014 at 11:28 pm

            Clover
            Odds of being diagnosed with cancer — 1 in 2
            Odds of being a victim of a serious crime — 1 in 20
            Odds of killing yourself with a gun – 1 in 250
            Odds of dying in a car accident — Between 1 in 4,000 and 1 in 8,000
            Odds of dying in an airplane crash — 1 in 354,319
            Odds of being struck by lightning — 1 in 700,000
            Odds of becoming President of the U.S. — 1 in 10,000,000
            Odds of becoming a victim of a mistaken police raid – 1 in 10,000,000

            Brent and Bevin with the statistics given would you worry about being a victim of a mistaken police raid or would you worry about being killed in a car accident? Eric says that he is not worried about car accidents because his chances are so slim but yet he is worried about a mistaken police raid? Does that make sense to an engineer?

            If you have a home budget do you worry about that 2 cent glass of water or do you worry about 100 bucks to fill up your gas tank? Yes there are stupid people in this world and I am not one of them.

            • eric
              July 19, 2014 at 5:19 am

              Well, Clover, you ought to have thought about it some more.

              Point one: The fact that it has happened to someone (many someones) means it can happen to anyone. Principles matter; they set precedents. Precedents become practice. The unacceptable becomes acceptable, becomes routine. For example, it is now a routine thing to be forced for absolutely no specific reason to halt and present your “papers” to a costumed goon. 30 years ago, this would have been inconceivable in America. That sort of thing was for East Germans, or Soviet proles…. but thanks to people like you mewling about “safety,” Americans are now just like East Germans or Soviet proles.

              Point two: It’s wrong. You always use utilitarian arguments (e.g., I have lots of stuff! What does Libertarianism offer me?). This is about right and wrong. It’s wrong to brutalize people – which includes any use of aggressive violence.

              Concepts you cannot comprehend – or which you refuse to discuss, because you know exactly how vulnerable you and yours are in that regard.

          • clover
            July 19, 2014 at 11:27 am

            CloverEric why if you as a libertarian are against violence but you condone the violence of libertarians? Why is it OK for them to kill people or hit others? Why if you are for safety but against it also? Eric I believe it is OK that a handful of people are injured or even killed to save thousands just like the use of seat belts and air bags. That is a reduction of violence not added violence. You are against safety that has saved 100s of thousands of lives because you then have to live with more people. That is your problem. You are incapable of living with others.

            • eric
              July 19, 2014 at 12:42 pm

              Clover “says” –

              “Eric why if you as a libertarian are against violence but you condone the violence of libertarians?”

              Oh. My. God.

              It literally cannot fathom the difference between defending against aggression – and aggression!

              I guess Clover is like that dinosaur that (reportedly) needed two brains. One to operate its head, the other to operate its tail…

          • BrentP
            July 19, 2014 at 12:11 pm

            numbers entirely pulled out of your behind.

            Anyway you confuse concern about one’s self personally to concern about the way things are going for this society. That’s your own selfish projection showing up again to assume I am concerned about it happening to me right now.

            The problem is that once accepted these things spread and it won’t be mistaken by the time it becomes a threat to someone like me.

          • clover
            July 19, 2014 at 4:32 pm

            Eric you say you are worried about the aggression by someone else. I do not know if you mean police or government. Eric I would say there is almost zero chance that I will have aggression demonstrated towards me by police or government. Are they coming after you? After your neighbor? After Brent? Eric are you also worried about an asteroid hitting the earth tomorrow and ending everything? Clover

            Brent you say there is not a major problem today but some day there will be. Explain when that day is coming? Will it be in the next 30 years?
            Clover
            Brent you know what I am worried about? It is the libertarian insurgents. The libertarians are acting very much like the insurgents in the Ukraine. If they keep expanding it will be libertarians shooting down planes. It is libertarians that our country should fear. I truly do not see an explosion of police aggression. I do see an explosion of libertarian aggression. You tell me what I should fear and why?

          • Bevin
            July 19, 2014 at 9:28 pm

            Clover writes,

            “Eric I would say there is almost zero chance that I will have aggression demonstrated towards me by police or government. ”

            Actually there is a 100% chance, clover.

            The “aggression demonstrated” [sic] is in the form of extortion, aka “taxes.”

            The guarantee of violence in the event one does not knuckle under already constitutes “aggression demonstrated.”

            But of course you will simply blank that out the way you do so many things.

          • clover
            July 19, 2014 at 9:40 pm

            CloverTell me Bevin, have you ever used anything that your taxes went towards? Have you used public roads? Did you use public schools? Do you use electricity that the government pushed through the power lines to go through? Do you use any city services? Are you covered under any fire protection? Bevin, I gladly pay my taxes because I have used all of the above. I have used all of the above and did not have to go to thousands of hours in meetings to get those things provided. Bevin if you refuse any taxes then you need to leave our country because we have had taxes since the start of our country.

            • eric
              July 20, 2014 at 6:20 am

              Clover, your repeating (over and over and over) the same old straw man arguments will not make them any more persuasive.

              The fact that someone was made to attend a government school as a minor child in no way obligates that person, as an adult, to “fund” government schools.

              The fact that roads were built using coercive means does not mean that roads could not exist without coercion. You “say” roads are valuable. That most people desire roads. I agree. So why do you believe it is necessary to force them to “fund” roads? Is it necessary to force people to “fund” McDonald’s?

              And, by the way: Roads are largely funded on a pay-as-you basis, via motor fuels excise taxes – which are not coercive, since one does not have to pay them.

              The bottom line here – as always – is your insistence on violent coercion – and your cretinous refusal to openly admit it.

              You’ll emulsify all day long about how “good” X is… how much it “improves” your life. But like the weasel-coward that you are, you will not deal with the violence that underlies everything you want. Everything you demand.

              You’re not content to merely want something, then pay for it yourself (or peacefully organize other willing people to pay for it). No. If people will not peacefully “help,” then you will force them to “help.”

              Scratch that.

              You will not force them to “help.” You’re too much of a despicable coward to do that yourself. You blank out the knowledge of what’s done – or revel in it being done for you, by proxies.

              How’s it feel to be a pussy, Clover? Why aren’t you man enough to do your wet work yourself?

          • BrentP
            July 19, 2014 at 10:56 pm

            Clover, all it will take is an ‘event’. Remember the Boston thing a while back? That’s just the beginning.

            Libertarian insurgents? LOL.

            http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/56/01/fc/5601fc08be2e5a8e2ff8e839d3275eeb.jpg

            As to the way you sound Clover:

            http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a7/29/61/a72961e1b759a08e443b7af87e1ef5f1.jpg

          • clover
            July 19, 2014 at 11:04 pm

            Yes Brent, libertarians are insurgents. Definition:a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.Clover

            Yes Brent libertarians are arming themselves to the hilt and with libertarians like Timothy McVeigh they have already started killing for their cause. Yes Brent, libertarians are insurgents.

            • eric
              July 20, 2014 at 1:36 pm

              Clover, your imbecility is epic.

              Let’s parse the definition of “insurgent” you posted:

              “…a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.”

              What constitutes “lawful authority,” Clover? Was not parliament – and the English king – “lawful authority” over the American colonies? Adolf Hitler was the lawfully elected chancellor of Germany… yes or no?

              Were those who rose “in forcible opposition” to such “lawful authority” in the wrong?

              I’d like you to define for me when – if ever – it is ok to oppose “lawful authority” . . . by what standard, Clover?

              Remember: Hitler achieved a lawful majority and was named chancellor according to the laws in effect; this is not debatable.

              Poor ol’ Clover.

              But then, poor us. We’re stuck having to deal with you.

          • BrentP
            July 20, 2014 at 1:57 am

            Remember the Maine Clover. Remember the Maine. Some day you might learn you are being manipulated.

            • eric
              July 20, 2014 at 5:19 am

              Clover remembers nothing, Brent.

              He’s like a goldfish – for whom the “world” has always been what it is right now.

          • Bevin
            July 20, 2014 at 7:00 am

            Clover writes,

            “Tell me Bevin, Tell me Bevin, have you ever used anything that your taxes went towards? anything that your taxes went towards… blah, blah, blah… ”

            Here’s a “thought experiment” that answers your question.

            You open a shop in a new neighborhood.

            The local mob boss sends a couple of his goons around to collect payment for “services rendered.”

            You ask them “What services?”

            They say, “Garbage collection.”

            You say, “The service was lousy. I’m changing service providers.”

            They say, “You can’t. We are the only service provider here. We have a monopoly. It’s us or nobody. Pay up if you know what’s good for you.”

            Now here comes the test question. What does this little story have to do with “taxation?”

            Answer correctly and I’ll give you “a million dollars.” Promise!

          • clover
            July 20, 2014 at 9:38 am

            CloverEric you say that “Roads are largely funded on a pay-as-you basis, via motor fuels excise taxes – which are not coercive,”. Yes Eric roads are in a large part paid for motor fuel excise taxes but there is still a large sum paid for by state and federal taxes. Motor fuel taxes have not increased with inflation and large sums come from state and federal taxes to pay for roads. You say that excise taxes are not coercive? Tell me how they are different than any other tax? Yes if you do not drive and use fuel you will not pay them directly but most people go to stores to get food or other things. The trucks that brought those goods paid for the tax and if you buy any of those goods that were delivered you paid for those taxes. Your other taxes you pay also helped to bring those goods to the store. Clover
            Eric you want everything to be voluntary but in effect you do not want to pay for roads, you do not want to pay for schools that you attended. That is why your voluntary donation society falls apart. There are too many people like you that would not pay for what they use.Clover

            • eric
              July 20, 2014 at 9:46 am

              Clover, what I want is for people to deal with one another (including organizing for cooperative ventures) on a non-violent basis. I want this, because it’s wrong to violently assault anyone (or threaten to).

              Period.

              There is no excuse – no “good” – that justifies it.

              And once you do justify violence in the name of one particular “good” then you have accepted the principle that it’s ok to do violence to people for pretty much any reason – provided you think it furthers some “good.” Dress it up however you like, that’s the bottom line truth of it.

              I’ve explained this simple concept to you scores of times.

              You are either too got-damned dumb to comprehend it. Or you endorse aggressive violence, provided it furthers something you consider to be “good.”

              In which case, you are fundamentally no different than Hitler or Stalin.

              And while you’ll squeal “it’s not the same!” – in fact, it is exactly the same. The ends you (and yours) favor trumps other people’s right to be left out of it, to be left in peace. You will use whatever violence it takes to force them to submit, comply – and pay. In time, guess where this leads….

              Have you ever stopped even for a moment to wonder why there is less and less real freedom in this country with each passing year? Why – despite all your paeans to the “things you have” – your money buys less and less each year, you are allowed to exercise your own judgment less and less each year, and the government is micromanaging and inserting itself into your life more and more with each passing year?

              It is because you – and those like you – have accepted the idea that it’s ok to do violence for some “good” you believe in. And now millions of you are squabbling and writhing and voting and politicking to do violence to each other – and to us – for the sake of the different (and often opposing) “goods” you each believe in.

              If there’s no line in the sand – no point beyond which other people (“democracy”) may not force you to give up your property and force you to do as ordered – how, pray, will you prevent the total eclipse of any personal/individual liberty, Clover?

              The answer is – you can’t.

              The only thing keeping the paws of the “gibs me dat” masses (this includes you) is inertia, nothing more. There is nothing – no principle – that will prevent them (and you) from consuming everything, like a swarm of locusts. You and yours will ultimately destroy everything – and then wonder what happened, as you sit in squalor and poverty.

              I often think perhaps the eugenicists of the ’30s were fundamentally on to something, only misdirected.

              There is an untermensch.

              But it’s not “the Jews” . . . .

          • clover
            July 20, 2014 at 11:58 am

            Eric I am as free now as my father was, my grandfather and his father. Eric there is no difference other than the expanded threat we have of terrorists. Eric Israel shows us how much tax money and safety are important. Thousands of people in Israel would now be dead without paying tax money for missile defense. Eric the government did that. Clover

            You say I am like Stalin and Hitler. No Eric there is a vast difference. I believe people should be punished for doing bad things. Hitler and Stalin believed in punishing or killing people for who they were. Libertarians are more like Hitler and Stalin. It does not matter that someone is doing something good for people all it matters to you is if they have a badge on or were elected by the people. Then you want to kill them. That is a Hitler type of action. It is not what I believe in.

            • eric
              July 20, 2014 at 1:45 pm

              Really, Clover?

              Did your father have to submit to random “your papers, please” stops? No, he did not.

              Were your father’s letters read and recorded without warrant or even probable cause? No, they were not.

              In your father’s time, did the president publicly assert the authority to have anyone he decreed to be a “terrorist” killed? No, he did not.

              Were people dragooned off the street, held in cages without being charged – denied access to lawyers? No, Clover, they were not.

              Were your father or grandfather forced to buy health insurance? No Clover, they were not.

              Were your father and grandfather able to board an airplane without being frisked? Yes. Did they have to worry they might be arrested for making an irreverent or joking comment about “security”? No, they did not.

              And no, Clover, there is no difference in principle between you and Hitler or Stalin. You are all thugs who live by aggressive violence, imposing your wishes and whims on others.

              You’re the ones who lusts to kill, Clover. Not I. Not Libertarians.

              All we want is for you to fuck off – and leave us be.

          • clover
            July 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm

            Editor’s Note:

              This government troll has apparently been tasked with “framing” the discussion such that Libertarians are seeking violence – when in fact, all they seek is to be left alone and not have violence visited upon them. I am beginning to question whether it’s wise to allow this creature to continue to post given how it seems to want to direct the conversation….

            Clover
            Brent you say I am being manipulated. Brent I really do not care if you think I am being manipulated. I have all the food Ii could ever want, I have a couple of nice houses, I have a few vehicles. I have had a couple of nice jobs in the private sector during my life. I am not being beaten. I am free to go where I like. I drive on pretty good roads and over bridges.
            Brent if that is being manipulated then bring me more of it because it is pretty good. What are you offering me? No taxes? No job? No roads? No bridges? No food? Guns in the streets? Gangs everywhere with lynch mobs? Tell me Brent what a person in their right mind would choose? Libertarians are insurgents wanting war. Brent I do not want what you are offering.Clover

          • Eightsouthman
            July 20, 2014 at 5:59 pm

            clover, if the founding fathers of this country had lost, they’d be vilified as insurgents, traitors, terrorists and any other denigrating words historians writing for the victorious English king wanted them to say.

            Saying no to authority is called freedom. No matter that some greasy politicians who take our money hire their own thugs to make sure we cough up whatever amount of funds they want.

            I build roads every day and no govt.(except to harass and tax everyone involved and those that aren’t) is involved. Well, there goes the road theory.

            I especially liked your using Israel as an example of poor persecuted people when just the opposite is true. If they stopped mass murdering Palestinians they’d not need so many weapons. But weapon making for govt. is big business so most govt.’s including the US, whole-heartedly support bombing, shooting and all other means of killing people who for the most part, don’t pay taxes in this country.

            No doubt that Vietnamese farmer was desperately trying to survive despite both the Soviet Union and the US wanting to “convert” him to their way of thinking so they could spend less to steal the resources of his country.

            The same thing is going on in nearly 100 places now worldwide by US mercenary forces. Ain’t govt. great? I’d bet you’d be singing out the other side of your face if you lived in any country unfortunate enough to be on the Neocon’s list of “gotta-haves”.

          • BrentP
            July 20, 2014 at 6:33 pm

            Clover,
            The system that has served you well is destroying other people. If you can’t see that, if you don’t care about that, it speaks volumes about you. The taxes, the fed, and all the rest are crushing just about everyone under 50 years old. But you go on in your merry way loving this system because it benefits you. but keep in mind it’s hurting other people, not that you care about that until the system needs to feed on you.

          • BrentP
            July 21, 2014 at 1:57 am

            Clover a system of wealth transfer is not sustainable. Eventually you run out of other people’s money, other people’s labor.

            • eric
              July 21, 2014 at 5:33 am

              Hi Brent,

              As you know, Clover is incapable of comprehending ” . . .it follows.” For him, everything is an isolated particular, unrelated to other particulars. Thus, there is no harm in randomly stopping motorists to “check” for “dangerous drunks.” It is good to get “dangerous drunks” off “our” roads!
              When one points out to Clover that – logically – if it is acceptable for the government to randomly stop/search people in order to “get” those “dangerous drunks,” then why not also randomly stop/search people just walking down the street? After all, any person walking down the street might be a “dangerous felon” (or whatever) and don’t “we” need to get them “off the street,” too? And how about random searches of people’s homes? There might be elder/child/spouse abusers! And so on, ad infinitum.

              It follows.

              But Clover cannot fathom it.

              Because he’s an imbecile. To the left, on the Bell Curve.

              And there are millions of him out there.

              Imagine a sea of braying donkeys in a vast field, as far as the eye can see.

              Now imagine trying to persuade the herd with a reasoned, rational explication of principle.

              That’s what we’re up against.

          • Bevin
            July 21, 2014 at 2:09 am

            Dear Eric,

            “You are either too got-damned dumb to comprehend it… ”

            I vote for this option.

            Clover’s manner of writing, replete with risible errors in spelling and grammar, suggest mind-boggling obtuseness and dullness of wit.

            Either that, or clover is a brilliant troll, amazingly adept at masquerading as a low grade moron. But I think we can safely rule that out.

            • eric
              July 21, 2014 at 5:25 am

              Morning, Bevin!

              I second too got-damned dumb.

              Clover strikes me as a retired government “worker” – probably collecting a generous pension (at our expense) which enables him to spend hours every day expressing his vitriol toward those who object to the system that has done right by him (regardless of the wrongs done to others).

              His inability to form and convey a coherent thought is the manifestation of a disordered and low-wattage mind. Almost an animal mind. People such as Clover are not truly conscious. They are stimulus-response, like a Labrador Retriever but without the endearing qualities.

              Nothing registers with him. A statement of fact? Drive on. “Say” something peripheral at best in response; a non sequitur being typical.

              I will concede it’s an effective tactic – in the same way that I seem unable to dissuade my banty rooster from getting in the flower beds, no matter what “arguments” I deploy.

          • helot
            July 21, 2014 at 4:51 am

            Dear eric,

            This little monster, The Clover. He is just ike the neigbor next door in,” “Every-town”, or down the street in, “Every-town”. He is “every-fascist-man” a,k,a, Mass-man.

            ” Brent you say I am being manipulated. Brent I really do not care if you think I am being manipulated.”

            He is, and he does Not Care.

            He Loves empire.

            He Loves Death.

            So long as he maintains his lifestyle, he does Not care.

            It Is dangerous as Hell to continue to allow him to post.

            He’ll do his Best to try to frame you, and set you Up, and everyone who responds to him.

            I think we all know that.

            It’s the same on many freedomista-leaning websites.

            Are the responses and conversations what “they” will use to try and take “us” all down or use to paint “us” in a Very bad light?

            Probably so.

            (But, who knows?)

            I think that’s the plan.

            …and has been all along.

            W.F.D.

            • eric
              July 21, 2014 at 5:10 am

              Thanks, Helot!

              I’ve entertained his posts solely for purposes of letting the other side speak for itself. But lately, Clover has deployed a new tactic – the one we’re discussing – of trying to frame Libertarians as “insurgents” (and “terrorists”) which is bizarre but also alarming given the parallel efforts of government officials toward the same end.

              Luckily, Clover is not very bright – nor very well-trained. He’s more a nuisance than a threat.

              But, still.

              Point taken.

          • clover
            July 21, 2014 at 7:31 pm

            Eric you are all about if someone does one thing they will do something 10 times worse soon. Eric I can say the same thing about libertarians. Libertarians are for paying for something when they feel like it. They seldom feel like it. So what if libertarians do not pay for roads? 90% of people eventually will not be able to get to work. Farmers will not be able to get their supplied to feed 100s of millions of people. Electricity will stop. People will be starving and robbing their neighbor for what they need. Eric if you want to play what if then your libertarian world would fall apart.Clover

            • eric
              July 22, 2014 at 6:36 am

              Clover,

              The bottom line is you’re incapable of conceptual thought; you paw blindly through life dealing with each particular thing as being unrelated to anything else. Thus, no principle is involved when the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that no unreasonable searches will be conducted absent specific probable cause is shredded by randomly stopping anyone who happens to be on a given road… in order to “get” those “dangerous drunks” you sweat.

              Clover claps his approval because he (she?) has a particular obsession with “dangerous drunks.”

              But his (her?) squirrel-sized brain cannot compute that if one unreasonable exception is made, then other unreasonable exception may also be made (and have in fact been made). The standard no longer is – is it “reasonable”? It becomes: Does a broader “good” (as defined by those who wield power) justify ignoring the Fourth – and violating people’s rights?

              Clover says – yes! – when it’s for some “good cause” or overriding objective he, personally, values. But what happens when other Clovers value other “good causes”? Want to make other exceptions?

              What happens then is that “the law” becomes whatever those who wield power say it is, constantly shifting, tied to no fixed standard.

              Which is no law at all.

              Nor can Clover computer that the exceptions he supports will inevitably become routine. Until there is no Fourth Amendment any longer. No more freedom from unreasonable searches, anywhere. This is in fact happening right before your glazed-over eyes, yet you’re too got-damned obtuse to notice it.

              As to the rest, allow me to kick the legs out from under your despicable premise:

              It doesn’t matter – morally – whether I or any other person never pays for a single ff’ing thing you consider valuable, Clover. Others are only obligated to pay for that which they freely consent to purchase. Period.

              You like to toss out the “selfish” thing a lot.

              Well, Clover, I can think of few things more profoundly selfish than demanding – at gunpoint – that other people cater to your needs. That what you want entitles you to violently assault others, in order to compel them to “help” provide it. That your “good life” justifies making other people’s lives miserable.

              It’s all about you, isn’t it Clover?

              My selfishness – as you style it – imposes no positive obligation on you. I’m not “asking” you for a got-damned thing, other than to be left in peace. I may be all about me – but it doesn’t come at your expense.

              That’s the difference between us, you cretinous, low-wattage, thug-by-proxies.

              The upside here, Clover, is that when society collapses as a result of your relentless parasitism – which must grow until it consumes the host – you will be naked before your victims. They will finally have the opportunity to deal with you on a fair-fight basis.

              I am looking forward to that day.

          • Bevin
            July 22, 2014 at 8:01 am

            Dear Eric,

            Yes. Clover is simply too convincing as a low grade moron.

            Nobody is that good at faking low grade moron.

            Clover has got to be the real deal.

          • clover
            July 22, 2014 at 8:06 pm

            Eric our supreme court, one of the things that our country was built on made a decision that stopping you and talking to you was not unreasonable to save thousands of lives. Eric if you say it is violent that someone talks to you then your NAP standard would be to kill the person. Eric that to me is violent but according to you libertarians have the right to be violent!Clover

            Tell me where your illegal search and violence comes into play when police stop you and talk to you? Dom posted a video of a time that he was stopped. There was no search, no violence, no beating. That is like all the stops and it was normal because Dom acted like a jerk. Dom tried as hard as he could to incite violence. That is a normal day for a lot of libertarians.Clover

            Eric you say that you are enraged with the violence we have in our society. Eric there is nothing more violent than the many drunks on our roadways. Luckily with the things that have been done which you disagree with have saved thousands of lives.

            • eric
              July 24, 2014 at 8:01 am

              First, Clover, it’s not “our” Supreme Court. It might be yours, but don’t presume to speak for others. And, regardless, the fact that nine robed ninnies issued a decree is neither here nor there with regard to the rightness or wrongness of said decree.

              Or do you also believe the German Volksgericht’s decrees were rightful simply by dint of having been decreed?

              Your small brain cannot compute this, I realize.

              It also cannot compute that it is unreasonable by definition for armed strangers to be endowed with the power to randomly accost people who’ve given no reason to suspect them of having committed a crime.

              Your ends justifies the means mentality notwithstanding.

              And yes, Clover, it is done using violence. Or are you going to claim people aren’t compelled to stop; that if they decline to submit to being stopped – or refuse to answer the cop’s interrogative questions – they will not experience physical coercion?

              You know what annoys me most about you, Clover? It’s not that you’re a collectivist and authoritarian. It’s that you deny your authoritarian collectivism.

              Why not just come out of the closet and admit openly that you believe the individual has no rights that the group may not limit or rescind? That it’s acceptable to violently assault people – or use the threat of violent assault – in order to compel their compliance to further what you consider to be the “greater good”?

              Why the evasion and dishonesty, Clover?

              Is it because at some level, even you know that your philosophy is loathsome?

          • clover
            July 24, 2014 at 7:56 pm

            CloverEric why are you in this country? You disagree with every thing it stands for, you disagree with our constitution, you disagree with how our founding fathers set up this nation. Eric I have more of a right here than you do because you disagree with our country on how it was formed, how it was set up and how it grew to over 300 million people. Eric yes if you do not follow how our constitution was set up and all the laws that came out of it then I could care less if you say it is by force. We have one of the greatest countries in the world and it was not due to libertarians. Just leave. Just leave.

          • Bevin
            July 24, 2014 at 8:59 pm

            Dear Eric,

            Clover writes:

            “Just leave. Just leave.”

            Gee. He’s really got you there. LOL.

          • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
            July 24, 2014 at 10:16 pm

            Jeez Clover, if blogging is little more than graffiti with punctuation, your inane swatting at the keyboard can’t even hope to arrive at that standard. Keep showing the world how entertaining you are.

          • BrentP
            July 24, 2014 at 10:52 pm

            Clover it is you and your kind that disagree with everything this country was supposed to stand for. The fact that your kind still has to pretend this country stands for those things says a lot.

            Your kind has changed this country into one like practically every other one that has ever existed. Why couldn’t have your kind just left? Really, if you threw a dart at a map odds are you’d find a country to your liking. For the rest of us there was only one that supposed to be, by the advertising, the way we wanted, this one.

            You leave. Take all those like you with you. Then we can fix things.

          • clover
            July 24, 2014 at 11:25 pm

            CloverSorry Brent but our country is exactly like it was formed. Our constitution is what our government was formed under. Our country was not formed under NAP where if you believe if someone brushed against you then you had the right to kill them. Brent that was not how our country was formed. Our country has had taxes from the beginning. It is not a recent thing. It is obvious to see that we did very well with taxes. Yes we used taxes for our safety since the 1700s. Benjamin Franklin helped to set up patrols through the city, the first police force. Brent explain why a person with a brain would say our country now is different and far worse than it was in the beginning? It is exactly the same and it has worked for a couple hundred years. How long has your libertarian society worked? If you join a group or country, do they have the responsibility to change to meet what Brent or Eric feel might be better or do they do things that are proven to be good for society? Give us some statistics that show us that doing whatever the hell you feel like as an individual is better for a large group of people? We do live in a large group. If you live on a small island with no contact to others then you can do whatever the hell you feel like and it will not hurt others. If you do whatever the hell you feel like in our country then it injures and even kills others. The last I heard that was against NAP.

            In 1798 Congress enacted the Federal Property Tax to pay for the expansion of the Army and Navy in the event of possible war with France.

            • eric
              July 25, 2014 at 6:36 am

              Really, Clover?

              Were you aware that the Bill of Rights is what “our country was formed under”?

              Why do you not object to the serial evisceration of the rights enumerated therein? The rights that are enshrined as the law of the land? How come those laws don’t light your fire, Clover?

              Why do you always speak in the plural – and assume the prerogative to speak for others? Do you have their proxies in hand?

              Has “our country” had taxes from the beginning? Yes. But not income taxes, not taxes on literally every single thing we buy and own, as today.

              Are you such an ignoramus that you’ll assert the people who rebelled against the English government over petty taxes on tea and stamps would have countenanced income taxes that steal a third to half of their earnings each year?

              All of which is beside the point.

              Whether “x” existed in the past has no bearing on the rightness of “x.” I realize you’re simply too simple to grasp this, of course.

              Clover writes (again, over and over and over):

              “If you join a group or country, do they have the responsibility to change to meet what Brent or Eric feel might be better or do they do things that are proven to be good for society?”

              Bold added for emphasis.

              You pull the usual con here – equating being born in a given area and living under the power of some government that asserts its authority over everyone with having “joined” and “consented” to being under its power. Nonsense. Every human being is equally free, Clover – and no individual owns another individual or is obligated to defer to him without having freely agreed to do so.

              “proven to be good,” Clover?

              Says who?

              Are you capable of comprehending what a value judgment is?

              I value not being coerced and threatened with assault to “help” fund the things you desire; I value being free to live my life as I see fit – not as you deem appropriate.

              Pray explain why your values trump mine?

              PS: You are either too got-damned stupid to understand the NAP (which has been explained to you in great detail too many times to count) or you are a despicable dissembling cretin who does know, but despises the concept, and does all he (she?) can to smear it.

              I rather prefer to think you’re in the former category as I try to think the best about people (even you) until evidence makes it impossible to maintain that view.

          • helot
            July 25, 2014 at 1:38 am

            This is Very typical of many: “I have more of a right here than you do because you disagree with our country on how it was formed, how it was set up and how it grew to” … to a police state?
            As if that was something to be proud of?

            Clovers typically believe they have “more of a right” to sit in judgment, as if they were Kings. It explains much. But, they don’t see the Forrest for the trees there.

            It’s no wonder they say they could care less if people say it is by force. They beat their chests and chant/yell out, “We have one of the greatest countries in the world … USA!, USA!, USA!”

            It all reminds me of Dorthy clicking her heels while saying, “There’s no place like home”.

          • helot
            July 25, 2014 at 1:50 am

            Oh, and I like this, to all those happy-go-lucky types that see no Evil and hear no evil while saying to others, “Like it, or leave it”,…”You leave. Take all those like you with you. Then we can fix things.”

          • clover
            July 25, 2014 at 9:35 am

            helot you say we have turned into a police state? Explain that? There are less police per 10,000 in population in my state and community then there was when I was born. Explain your police state? I have had no contact with police in years except for seeing them at ball games. a police state?Clover

            Yes Eric we do have different values. I value life, freedom from injury, freedom to go after a job, a quality way of life and yes safety. I believe that if talking to someone saves thousand of lives and billions in property damage then that is a good thing. From everything I have heard here, you value non of the above. You value no quality of life or freedom from injury? Eric I believe that I deserve some protection from injury when I drive down the road. You say that people should be able to drive drunk and 80 to 100 mph in our 45 mph zones. Eric that kills and injures people. I know, libertarians do not care about injury or death but if you talk to them then that is war.

          • BrentP
            July 25, 2014 at 10:06 am

            Clover,
            Your and your kind have indeed been trying to turn this country into being like every other country since the very beginning. But that doesn’t change the fact that this country was established, was advertised, is still advertised, as being of the sort we want, not the sort you want. That’s why your kind usually uses false advertising, appealing to individual rights but really acting to dismantle them.

            Instead of having spent over 200 years turning this country into one more to your liking why did your kind come here or not just leave? Could have left the the USA very libertarian while going to any number of collectivist and/or authoritarian countries. Why don’t you leave? libertarian minded people are in the one place advertised as being to their liking. If you want us gone, why do your republican and democrat parties spend so much time pandering to libertarian tendencies? (but of course doing the opposite once in power)

            You should leave. All you statist control freaks need to leave or at the very least keep to yourselves and not demand those who don’t want your sort of life be involved in it.

          • clover
            July 25, 2014 at 2:17 pm

            CloverI like your comment about my false advertisement Brent. I can say the same about you and your friends but multiply it by 10. You say that we do not need government or taxes. You say that roads and bridges and water systems etc will just somehow take care of themselves. You say that kids do not need public schools. If the parents can not afford to send them to private schools then just send them to the fields with the Mexicans at the age of 6. You say that we do not need an army. Bad guys like Putin will just turn into nice guys if you get rid of any defense. You say that people can drive drunk or however the hell they feel like. Safety is not a concern of libertarians. So what if thousands more are killed. Brent you say that I do not care about others but you have no plan on how to keep up on infrastructure and care less about kids going to the fields. You care less if the bad guys like Putin take over the world. You care less if thousands more are killed on our roads and the added hospital costs and damage to property.
            Brent if you want false advertisements to stop wouldn’t you start with libertarians?

            • eric
              July 25, 2014 at 5:31 pm

              Clover,

              If roads are valuable – if people want them – what makes you think they would not willingly and freely pay for them?

              Is it necessary to force people to buy iPhones or Quarter Pounders or 747s?

              Please, explain!

            • eric
              July 25, 2014 at 5:34 pm

              Clover,

              No one is forced to have unprotected sex – excepting rape, of course. Rape victims aside, people who chose to have unprotected sex are responsible for the consequences – including the cost of caring for and educating their kids. Why, pray, do you believe I am responsible for the consequences of some other person’s deliberate irresponsible actions?

              Isn’t producing kids you can’t take care of a lot like drunk driving?

              Why is that you favor controlling/punishing only some forms of irresponsible behavior – but not others?

            • eric
              July 25, 2014 at 5:38 pm

              It’s not that “safety” isn’t a concern, you despicable evader and purveyor of non sequiturs.

              It’s that my “safety” is none of your got-damned business.

              You want air bags? Buy them. But you have no right to force me to buy them – nor to subsidize your purchase.

              You believe it’s smart to wear a seat belt? Great. Wear your seat belt. But you have no right to tell me to wear one – because you are not my parent or custodian. I am a free man.

              Putin – the “bad guy”?

              How many countries has Putin (and Russia) invaded lately? How many people has Putin slaughtered?

              You, Clover, are the living exemplar of the ugly American. A caricature rendered real. An ignorant, blustering bully who is also a pussy.

          • clover
            July 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm

            I realize that you do not know the difference between roads and bridges and iphones and 747s. If I want to carry an iphone around every day I have to pay the total cost of that iphone one way or the other to the person that sold it to me. If a company wants to invest they might invest in a 747 to carry passengers. Each time you ride that plane you pay for part of that plane through your air fare. If you want to drive down a local roadway how would you pay? Who is going to schedule repairs? How much should you be charged since it is the only road you can use?Clover
            An iphone or a 747 both have limited pricing ability because of competition with other phones and planes and the use of these are mostly optional. If you have a local road that someone else owns then they can pretty much charge as much as they like because there would seldom be 2 roads past your property owned by 2 different groups of people. The cost is prohibitive. You either pay up or starve because most people need to leave their property almost every day to survive.
            Eric, it is just like a libertarian to compare an iphone to a road or bridge because libertarians seem to have a limited ability to add 2 +2 let alone figure out how to keep a road or bridge going.

            • eric
              July 25, 2014 at 7:08 pm

              As always, Clover, you miss the principle at issue.

              If “x” – whatever “x” happens to be – is regarded as valuable, people will freely pay for it and other people will figure out a way to provide it (and make a profit doing so).

              Your entire chigger-eaten premise – that only coercion and violence can provide roads – is so obviously ridiculous that merely to put it into words is by itself sufficient refutation.

              And you know what, Clover?

              Even if it were true that roads would not be what you prefer in a coercion-free society – it doesn’t justify coercion. The ends do not justify the means. Because individuals have rights – an equal right to not be physically threatened or attacked, ever, for any reason that isn’t objectively in response to an attack.

              You are a sociopath, Clover. You feel entitled to harm people in order to further whatever “goals” you regard as “worthy.”

              Exactly of a piece with a Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy.

              You use people, Clover. You have no capacity to empathize with others.

              They are merely things to be disposed of.

              But – I reiterate – you are yourself a coward. Dahmer and Bundy at least manned up and killed their victims themselves. You – pathetic worm that you are – cringe behind the curtain of your ballot box and vote to have proxies do your foul deeds for you.

          • clover
            July 25, 2014 at 8:35 pm

            Eric, you have said that you want a major change in how things are done or not done in your society. I asked some easy questions but instead of answering them you call me names. Eric anything that I want to change I create a plan on how things would be done. I can see that you are not capable of being in business because you are incapable of planning. The questions I asked were:

            If you want to drive down a local roadway how would you pay? Who is going to schedule repairs? How much should you be charged since it is the only road you can use?Clover

            I can ask a lot more but you can not even answer how things are done locally for you. How would you pay for a road and bridge if you went to visit someone in another state? I know you do not have a clue.

            Eric the reason our society has done so well is because we have taxes and government. It has increased the value of our entire country. Adding roads, bridges, water projects, electricity distribution, fuel pipelines, regulation of radio waves and more are all done with the help of government. It has made our country rich. Without roads and bridges there would be few jobs. You would not be able to pay taxes. Without water projects and electricity distribution and fuel pipelines major cities would not exist. Without government regulation my cell phone would not work because a dozen other companies would be trying to use the same frequencies. Eric our country is rich because of taxes and government.
            You have not even been capable of answering simple questions on how things would work in your society.

            • eric
              July 27, 2014 at 10:10 am

              The only change I seek, Clover, is the delegitimization of aggressive violence.

              That you happen to find something convenient or desirable does not entitle you to levy violence on others who do not find it convenient or desirable.

              It’s as simple as that.

              You can trot out your Benthamite “greater good” and “ends justify the means” claptrap all day long. At the end of the day, you are nothing more than a thug who takes the position that his views – his needs and wants – entitle him to levy violence in order to satisfy them.

              You’re a cackling hyena, Clover.

              No – not even that. Because at least hyenas steal their own stuff.

              You are a sneaky, shivery little coward who would never “in a million years” dare to come to my door on your own and attempt to force me to “help” further your schemes. Because you know what would happen. I’d smash your got-damned face in.

              So, instead, you run like the little pussy that you are to the ballot box. And vote to have others do your “asking” for you.

              How can you even stand to look at yourself in the mirror?

          • July 25, 2014 at 10:10 pm

            Eric you miss it completely but what else is new. Eric we live in a country. It was built around a government and laws and taxes. You think that everything would be better under a private business society and get rid of government. Eric a long time ago that is how it was in many areas. The workers became slaves to the companies. Even worse than what they have in China. Your private business for everything can be dozens of times worse than the government you so hate.
            We all live in a society and we have to live with others. Government was created to make things better for everyone. With a government it is possible to set up an infrastructure where everyone can benefit. In such a society everyone that is able to pay to help with such infrastructure is required to help. You use roads all the time and that is why I bring it up. In such a society everyone helps to pay for the infrastructure and not just a few that feel like it. Do you go to the store and walk out with your bread without paying because you do not feel like it? Is it coercion to make you pay for the bread? Do you use roads and do not feel like paying for them either? Clover

            Eric in our society everyone pays their fair share of the things that made our country great and if you are unwilling to do that you have the option of leaving.

            When you live around other people it is better to help everyone because the stronger an economy is the better it is for everyone. Even if Europe or China are having problems then it hurts our businesses and people are laid off. You do not want to pay for kids to go to school when their parents can not afford it. Eric that would hurt you. A country thrives for everyone when we all are doing well. I know you do not understand an economy and what makes it better. Maybe you should take some classes to understand it. Clover

            Again you say that having roads being paid by tax money is coercion and violence. Eric it does not matter what you think. You are wrong. You and I would not have jobs if it was left up to you to decide how roads and bridges would be built and maintained. Tell me about coercion and violence when most of the people in your society are jobless. Eric I do not have coercion and violence given to me by the government. I gladly pay my fair share, which is I am sure more than you pay, so that we can have a growing and great economy. With this growing economy I have a steady job and a very good standard of living. Under your society it would be a third world nation with a high number of people that are jobless and walking the streets for handouts.

          • BrentP
            July 26, 2014 at 1:45 am

            Clover, Your government takes from people to pay for that 747 regardless if they fly on it or not. Airports are generally built with tax monies, not by private companies. Private companies do not pay for the airports in full.

            Clover, your strawman views of libertarianism are not worth my time. You’ve already been corrected countless times. The fact remains that the USA was supposed to be the best country for people like Eric and myself and others here. It was until people like yourself spent a very long time changing it into being like countless other countries. You should leave, not us.

            You want to live somewhere that ‘good ideas’ and charity are done at threat of violence, imprisonment, and confiscation. So you turned this country into that. Don’t be surprised some day when your spare homes are confiscated to house the homeless. When your spare vehicles are taken for those who can’t afford cars. When your investments are taken to provide retirements for the people who didn’t save. It would be amusing to see your own ideas bite you in the ass.

          • Bevin
            July 26, 2014 at 2:17 am

            Dear Brent,

            You and Eric are right. We can win every argument, but it won’t do any good as far as clover himself is concerned. He has the proverbial memory of a goldfish in a bowl.

            Take for example, “what this country was supposed to be.” As the 2A clearly states, and as the founders’ private remarks clearly reveal, it was supposed to be a gun-toting nation.

            “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.”
            – James Madison

            But clover is one of those exasperating simpletons against whom one can never win an argument. Not because he knows how to win, but because he’s too obtuse to realize when he’s lost.

            The only point is debating clover is to ensure that third parties are witness to the exchange, and are given food for thought. Fortunately, with the Net, they are.

            • eric
              July 26, 2014 at 6:33 am

              Morning, Bevin!

              Exactly.

              Clover’s useful in the same way that a wrecked car in front of a high school school with a “don’t drive drunk” sign on it is useful.

          • Bevin
            July 26, 2014 at 9:24 am

            Dear Eric,

            Indeed!

            Also, clover has also served another purpose. By putting his “reasoning” in written form, on record, he has provided libertarians with explicit, first hand testimony regarding the clover “thought process,” assuming it deserves to be called that.

            We now have it on record. No one can accuse libertarians of “psychologizing.” Clover has confirmed that this is actually how they think.

          • cloooooooover
            July 26, 2014 at 10:07 am

            Yes Bevin you will win every discussion. How can you lose? Facts do not matter to you.Clover

            Tell me Bevin, if government were to stop today, what would you and others do tomorrow? What would you do over the next 5 years? What would you do in the next 20 years? How would normal services be handled. Your local roads are getting bad. Will you just let them go to dust? Yes Bevin when you say things like the bad guys will just become nice and roads and bridges will just take care of themselves then how can someone win against that? I have asked dozens of times how a libertarian society is going to work and all I hear is it will be utopia. It will just happen. You win Bevin because libertarians do not live with details or facts.

      • Phillip the Bruce
        July 17, 2014 at 11:43 am

        Democracy – 2 wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu.

        • Bevin
          July 18, 2014 at 8:04 pm

          Dear Phil,

          Indeed. It never ceases to amaze me how mainstream intellectual hacks can blank out the brute force coercion in democracy, merely because it is made indirect and given pseudo-legitimation through “voting.”

    • blakmira
      July 19, 2014 at 1:00 pm

      I consider myself a libertarian — but not to the exclusion of all other species.
      The same mindset that was once directed towards the owning of human slaves has now been conveniently and surreptitiously transferred to animals. In fact, we have so little regard for them that we eat their corpses, enslave them en masse in appalling conditions, offer them as bogus scientific sacrifices and slaughter them by the millions on both land and sea.

      All because of an arrogant mentality that we are entitled to use them as we see fit and they are inferior to us. They are, after all, “merely apes.” Reading the comments on here, I feel ashamed that the human race I belong to has the belief that they are the only species of any significance on this planet, unquestionably superior to the “lower” beasts, which is the mindset of this article.

      Until “most people” realize they aren’t the only species that matter, there will be wars, bigotry, hatred, depraved violence and senseless killing. You can’t pretend that being a libertarian will save us from any of that.

      • eric
        July 19, 2014 at 3:18 pm

        Hi Blamira,

        I agree with you.

        I find myself less and less comfortable eating meat. Actually, more and more grossed out by it.

        • blakmira
          July 20, 2014 at 3:03 pm

          Eric,
          That is great and I am very glad to hear… it sounds like your intuition is trying to tell you that something is wrong. That’s the first step towards changing — and believe me, you will change for the better. You’ll stop feeling guilt or repulsion. You can enjoy eating without conflicting emotions.

          You can start out taking baby steps as long as you keep moving forward. First I gave up cows and pigs, then moved on to giving up birds, then moved on to giving up fish, then after a long addiction to cheese, I gave that up (never liked milk or eggs). It’s been 30 years now but back in the 1980s there were none of these dozens of fun mock-meats as transitory alternatives except Morningstar Grillers — but I invented rice and pasta dishes. It wasn’t until I started eating a huge plate of dark leafy salad greens every night (with all the fun stuff of avocados, tomatoes, cucumbers, seeds, organic mushrooms

          Since then I’ve discovered many great products. Beyond Meat chicken-less strips tasted so real to me that I had to stop chewing. Smoked tempeh strips make great BLT sandwichs. Amy’s makes great frozen dinners, never had a bad one, & they’re still family owned.

          If you need motivation I can recommend some books, but I’d start off with Howard Lyman’s “Mad Cowboy” — a former rancher who became so disgusted and physically sick that he turned vegan. Let me know if you have any questions!
          -blakmira

        • David
          July 20, 2014 at 3:40 pm

          And if someone decides they don’t care and would like to eat meat… then what?

          I don’t know exactly where you’re going with this, but I think any movement that would apply the NAP to animals is a different movement and not a libertarian one.

          If you don’t want to eat meat, that’s fine, but I am more than happy to continue doing so:)

          • helot
            July 21, 2014 at 3:34 am

            RE: “any movement that would apply the NAP to animals is a different movement and not a libertarian one.”

            A man I thought was wise once told me about a group of people in (India?) who had this religion where they would live naked in the woods and spend most of their time on rocks for fear they’d step on a blade of grass or crush an ant.

            There weren’t very many of them … for a reason. An obvious one, imho.

            If anything, they were consistent, and for that reason, kind-of respectable compared to the vegan crowd. I mean, does the Vegan crowd wear leather shoes? Do they drive cars which smack bugs? Do they avoid sidewalks or grassy areas to avoid killing ants? Etc… Etc… I doubt they do.

            Is an ant lower than a fish?
            Is a grasshopper?
            And, the pointlessness of those insects deaths from not being eaten, but being killed and discarded, I’ll not go into. Except to say, I guess other bugs need to eat, too?

            Yeesh, I’d post a ton of articles about how unhealthy vegan-ism is, and how a person cannot truly get all the nutrients they need from plants (especially due to the lack of minerals in the soils as documented by this respected not-mainstream doctor guy whose name escapes me at the moment) , and how sickly most of them appear to be to many people – especially the waiters – but what’s the point? They done made up their minds. Consistency, be damned.

            If that’s what they want? Have at it.
            But, I think it’s the wrong path to take and I’m right there next to Eightsouthman. He took the words right out of my mind and put them to pen, er’ text.

          • blakmira
            July 25, 2014 at 1:04 pm

            Helot,
            Since you might accidentally step on an ant, then it’s okay to continue participating in completely unnecessary and horrific cruelty to other sentient beings?
            Really? That’s an excuse?
            And yes, vegans do whatever they can not to eat, wear, or support any type of animal products, including boycotting all pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines because they’re based on vivisection.

            I find it sad how people who are so addicted to eating blood and flesh and inner intestines (among other repulsive things) and are so terrified of how their life might change can come up with the most absurd excuses to defend why they eat corpses of animals… and all strawmen arguments.

            • eric
              July 25, 2014 at 5:22 pm

              Hi Blakmira,

              I’ve been wrestling with this issue for quite some time. I do still eat meat, but am less and less comfortable with my decision. And the meat I do eat is – for the most part – all locally raised, so I know the animals at least had a more decent life than feedlot cattle and battery hens, etc.

              Still, there is the uneasy reality that I am involved in the suffering and death of other creatures. This may be “natural” – but there is the question: Can humans rise above this?

              Is it necessary – and is it right – to use other living beings for our own needs? Check that – our wants. Is it actually necessary for humans to eat the flesh of other animals? Or is it a preference that can be indulged … or not?

              To be clear: I’m merely articulating my own personal views and in no way am I suggesting said views are binding on others. But perhaps as a result of my own close interaction with animals (we currently have 11 cats, a tortoise and chickens; used to have a dog, too) I am pretty certain they are aware (if not self-aware), definitely have unique, individual personalities, feel (as we do, including what sure seems to me to be affection for specific individuals) and so on… and thus, the thought has occurred to me: If we are appalled by the idea of eating a pet cat or dog, why is it we’re not appalled by eating “beef” or “poultry”?

              Just my 50…

          • Bevin
            July 25, 2014 at 10:37 pm

            David wrote:

            “… any movement that would apply the NAP to animals is a different movement and not a libertarian one.”

            He is dead on the money on this issue.

            The recent controversy between “thin” and “thick” libertarians is about just this.

            Libertarianism is a humanist ethical system. It was devised by human beings in response to the need for rules of conduct between human beings.

            Any attempt to concoct half-assed “animal rights,” to be enforced by misanthropic deep green fundamentalists (such as the Noah character in the recent film “Noah”) against individual human beings, bears no relation whatsoever to libertarianism and the NAP.

            It is in principle possible to be a libertarian and a vegan. But the current political reality is that veganism is a pretext for green on the outside, red on the inside ecofreak collectivism.

          • Bevin
            July 25, 2014 at 11:27 pm

            Algore alarmism mocked in South Park’s Manbearpig.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf69EEL3WBk

          • Bevin
            July 25, 2014 at 11:42 pm

            The MSM (WaPo) laments that the film “Noah” is so fanatical, it could be counterproductive.

            ‘Noah’ makes an incredibly terrible argument for environmentalism
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/04/02/noah-makes-an-incredibly-terrible-argument-for-environmentalism/

            But if “Noah” is supposed to be an environmental film, it is a truly awful messenger for the idea that God gave us a second chance so we could honor creation.

            If Noah’s grimness is meant to make environmental radicals like Earth First look mainstream, then the movie has succeeded. But on his own, Noah’s preference for animals and plants over people is the aggregation of every extreme environmental strawman.

            Notice the WaPo’s “strawman” allegation?

            In fact director Darren Aronofsky does not consider “Noah’s preference for animals and plants over people” to be a strawman concocted by champions of capitalism and industrialism. He considers it vegan gospel!

            The WaPo objected because Aronofsky let the deep green anti-humanist cat out of the bag.

      • Eightsouthman
        July 19, 2014 at 9:55 pm

        Blamira, I don’t get 4 from your 2+2. Eating is so much different from killing your fellow man. As an agronomist, agriculturalist or anything you want to attach to me, I have loved growing plants and animals my entire life. We all die and if it’s a .243 to the eye, include me since that’s the best way I can think of(sex in bed, in your dreams……and it might very well be much more painful). I don’t go for feeding animals in feedlot conditions too much but I can’t see any other way for the masses to be fed animal protein, something very necessary for a healthy body. Vegetarians do not get all the nutrients required for a healthy body so what does that tell you? I would be the last person to cause more pain to any animal than necessary but I’ll continue to kill them and butcher them and eat them just like they would to me if they could. Mother Nature doesn’t care, less even than I do. I have a great deal more problem filleting fish(as something that tortures)than I do with zapping an animal with electric current or sledgehammer or bullet. Eating animals and plants is as natural as living and breathing. Are we saying here that our ancestors had it all wrong? I love sausage so does that make me a monster when I grind pork, beef and venison?(don’t use chicken since I don’t grow them or find them in the wild). I don’t see the NAP as applying to harvesting animals. I also don’t think the corporate farm is fit for animals. I don’t have a problem with the way they’re killed, only the way they live, are raised. I don’t like to buy meat at the store but I do it anyway. The animals we raise and slaughter are much better to eat and for you. I would like to eat only the animals we raise since they have a pretty good life up to that point of ending it. ……but then, don’t we all? I have no idea how I’ll die but a bullet to the brain or a lightning strike would probably be much better than what I’ll die from. I almost experienced that a couple weeks back when a guy walked across the road in front of me, seemingly oblivious to the truck I was driving bearing down on him at 75mph with a big load(at least the maximum legal). I had to decide to go one way or the other immediately. He didn’t even look to the side. He was deaf I suppose or just old. I made a last split second decision to swerve(as much as you can with 42 tons)to the left since he was heading to my right. I passed him by a foot or so and he never turned his head. My point? Well, I had one hell of a time recovering that truck and getting it going back in a direction I felt fairly sure I wasn’t going to wreck. Half an hour later I was still shaking. I don’t know about you, but I fear killing someone else as much as killing myself. I was a coward though. I could have easily rolled that thing up way off(most likely, but not for sure)away from him and killed myself. I guess no one else here has to see their demise on a daily basis. Decisions are split second for many of us but most people don’t equate that with simply driving a car(and they’d be wrong, real wrong). It’s not a big thing for me to knock a catfish in the head and fillet it. It’s not a big thing for me to kill an animal to eat it but I always think about that and take nothing for granted. I’ve seen a video of plants supposedly screaming. I’d bet microbes experience pain of some sort but can’t prove it. You can go too far with the “taking a life” thing since that’s what we all rely on, admitted or not. I promise you though, I won’t come kill any of you for no reason. I don’t even kill the coons that kill my cats for no reason…..I kill them because they kill my cats….and I don’t even eat them. Cholley Jack doesn’t even kill without reason but he will to protect the rest of us. Don’t include me on the “not eating meat” list.

        • Bevin
          July 20, 2014 at 12:01 am

          Dear 8sm,

          I agree with you about meat.

          Even many Zen Masters have expressed doubts about the distinction between eating plants and eating animals.

          One famous Zen Master joked famously about how “Plants scream when we eat them. They just don’t scream as loud.”

          • eric
            July 20, 2014 at 5:35 am

            Hi Bevin!

            Living in the country – and having raised animals (chickens) – one comes to recognize that they are each individuals, certainly have emotions and can feel pain/fear. This is not mere anthropomorphism, either.

            I am very uneasy (because of my own guilt in this regard) about this business of using them for food. Of taking their lives for my benefit.

            It’s been said by others before, but:

            If all the city people who eat “meat” – the flesh of dead animals – had to kill and dress those animals themselves – there’d be a lot less “meat” eating.

            Also: It’s pretty damning, I think, that we use euphemisms such as “meat” (and “beef” and “poultry”) to describe what we eat.

            Why not be honest and call it what it is?

          • Bevin
            July 20, 2014 at 8:33 pm

            Dear Eric,

            I spent nearly 20 years immersed in the Southern California New Age psychology movement, so I know full well where blakmira is coming from.

            Been there, done that. And sorry. No sale.

            Many traditional human cultures that were close to nature — “Green” in today’s parlance — such as the American Indians and the Inuit, ate animals, and did so in a manner that respected nature.

            Here’s how the late, great Zen philosopher Alan Watts felt about vegetarianism. Many highly conscious, spiritually enlightened teachers and philosophers agree with him.

            One of Watts’ most surprising and refreshing positions is his critique of vegetarianism. For Watts, vegetarianism is simply an attempt to evade the fact that life feeds on life, that the universe is a vast web of creation and destruction. A vegetarian is just a person who spares his own feelings by killing creatures that can’t scream. Vegetarianism is an attempt to remove man from nature, rather than to embrace nature and plunge into it. As such, vegetarianism can be part of an ascetic retreat from life. But Watts will have none of that.

            Once we own up to the fact that we live by killing, we should make sure that we do not kill needlessly or cruelly. Beyond that, it is far more important to insure animals have good lives rather than merely good deaths.[1] This means no more factory farms and feedlots and milk-fed calves. Furthermore, an animal that is badly cooked has died in vain. Finally, the place where we properly honor the creatures upon which we feed is a well-appointed kitchen, a kitchen that expresses a full commitment to the refinement and perfection of material existence.

            http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/12/the-spiritual-materialism-of-alan-watts-a-review-of-does-it-matter/

            1. Watts anticipates Finnish Deep Ecologist Pentti Linkola’s critique of vegetarianism. See Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail? A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis (Aarhus, Denmark: Integral Tradition Publishing, 2009), especially chapter 3, “Animals.”

          • helot
            July 21, 2014 at 4:01 am

            RE: “I spent nearly 20 years immersed in the Southern California New Age psychology movement, so I know full well where blakmira is coming from.

            Been there, done that. And sorry. No sale. ”

            Awesome post, Bevin.

            I’ve only been touching on the fringes of that for twenty-five some-odd years, it seems to me you expressed it perfectly.

            It’s almost like “they” have got a guilty feeling about living. ?

            I can appreciate their remorse aspect, from the killing, to doing the eating. [Somewhat]…It’s just that so many people want to carry it over beyond that,… or something. ?

            Guilty living?

            [Some of my old friends might have said something like, "Don't be a freaking panzy!"]

            For some reason I think of this phrase, “The Uneasiness with living”

            I’m not sure I expressed my thoughts all that well, here.
            Maybe I should just go fishing and just think it – all – over?
            …Or, sit on a rock and starve? …Maybe eat some grass?

            [Ha! …What kind of grass? .. Depends up… Nevermind. eh.

            Some die.
            Some live.
            … it’s an open ended question.

          • Bevin
            July 21, 2014 at 4:35 am

            Dear helot,

            Thanks!

            Have you seen the movie “Noah?” I don’t want to raise the religion issue, and in fact I’m not. The writer/director of the film says he is an atheist.

            I believe him. Based on the “message” of the film, he is a “Deep Ecologist.” He is one of those hardline ecofreaks who thinks that “Man is a cancer on the face of the planet!” and that everything would be go on forever if only man didn’t fuck it all up. Never mind that no matter how “sustainable” we are, the earth is going to become a cinder when our sun goes supernova.

            The Noah family is explicitly vegan. Those who eat animals in the film are depicted as being from Sodom and Gomorrah.

            The writer/director basically used Noah as a platform to preach Algorean “We should be ashamed of what we are doing to the planet” rhetoric.

          • Jean
            July 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm

            @Bevin: Love the Zen Master quote above. Personally I always found it interesting that the vegan types essentially claimed plants LOVED to be killed (inverse of their position, and inverse is still true, IIRC.)

            @Eric, yes about euphemisms, and I’ve ALSO found it incredibly disturbing that the meat eaters didn’t understand something else DIED so you could LIVE. Like beef patties grow on trees? (Let alone quality meats like bison or buffalo.) But if we don’t eat them, then bacteria and worms will anyway… We will in turn become food for something else.

            @Bevin again, re: Noah – funny how Noah is supposedly the chosen, too – like Abel, from Cain and Abel. Cain is the farmer, recall. Abel the hunter (?) or herder. [in reference here, hunter - as in hunter/gatherer - would be more likely. Would there be a Neanderthal link as well? And if so, which of them has it? Hmmm.]
            Cain’s sacrifice to God, of his most tender plants, the youngest and best – were unacceptable and scorned, while the youngest and most tender animals, sacrificed by Abel, were accepted.
            So Cain killed Abel, as the story goes.
            Perhaps because Cain had held back on sacrificing what was most dear, his brother?
            Perhaps jealousy over the repeated sacrifice of all he [Cain] had, while Abel’s animals were so welcomed as sacrifices?
            Perhaps Agriculture simply displaced hunter/gatherer lifestyles?
            Perhaps Homo Sapiens killed Neaderthal at every opportunity? (One apocyphal work said Cain had red hair.)

            Interesting to ponder, but I don’t think we’ll dig up any old-timers with first-hand knowledge… ;-)

          • Bevin
            July 21, 2014 at 6:44 pm

            Dear Jean,

            Alan Watts was an amazingly colorful character. Glad you like him.

            He started out as an Anglican priest, but gradually came to realize the Abrahamic religious tradition was not his bag.

            Watts did not hide his dislike for religious outlooks that he decided were dour, guilt-ridden, or militantly proselytizing…

            Obviously Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were out of the question.

            Interesting about Cain and Abel.

            I’m not terribly well read about Christianity. I picked up a lot of information from the general culture itself, including the popular media. I know enough about it to know it’s not for me.

            But as I said, the Noah character wasn’t actually about Christianity per se. The biblical myth was merely a pretext for a misanthropic screed on deep ecology.

          • Bevin
            August 1, 2014 at 11:21 am

            Nice Try, Vegans: Plants Can Actually Hear Themselves Being Eaten
            Ashley Feinberg
            Thursday 12:40pm

            http://gizmodo.com/nice-try-vegans-plants-can-actually-hear-themselves-b-1599749162

            While it’s still unclear whether or not plants can actually feel us sinking our teeth in, one thing is for certain: You can be damn well sure they’re hearing it.

            Thanks to a new report from the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU), researchers have discovered that plants respond to the specific sounds caterpillars make when eating them, and what’s more, the noises even prompt the plants into putting up additional defenses. We already knew that plant growth could change in reaction to certain sounds, but this is the first instance we’ve seen of a plant actually protecting itself from a predator’s chomping, specifically.

            In the study, the researchers put caterpillars on Arabidopsis, a small, cabbage-like plant, and pointed a laser at a reflective section of the plant’s surface. That way, they were able to measure the different ways the plant moved in response to a chewing caterpillar. Then, the scientists removed the caterpillar from the equation entirely and only played back recordings they’d made of the crunching caterpillar’s vibrations. For another plant, they played back only silence.

            After placing live caterpillars back on both sets of plants, the researchers found that the set that had been exposed to the caterpillar’s feeding sounds produced more mustard oil, a chemical that’s meant to fend off hungry critters. According to Heidi Appel, senior research scientist in the Division of Plant Sciences in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources and the Bond Life Sciences Center at MU:

            Our work is the first example of how plants respond to an ecologically relevant vibration. We found that feeding vibrations signal changes in the plant cells’ metabolism, creating more defensive chemicals that can repel attacks from caterpillars.

            From here, researchers plan to find out how exactly these vibrations are able to be sensed by the plants as they’re being munched on. Either way, we do know one thing for sure: The world just got a little less smug for the vegan set.

        • blakmira
          July 20, 2014 at 3:26 pm

          I could see your comment was chock full of excuses why you need to keep eating meat. You can rationalize just about any behavior, especially one that involves addiction. But I am living proof that you are wrong. I haven’t eaten meat in 30 years and I quit eating dairy products 15 years ago too.

          No human requires animal protein. What they do need is living enzymes, vitamins and minerals. These aren’t found in any processed cooked food but in raw plant foods, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, salad greens, sprouted grains & beans, etc.

          The proof that I’m healthy is that I haven’t been to a doctor in almost three decades (last time was for a sprained ankle), as I believe in using food as medicine. I believe pharma drugs are poisonous synthetic chemicals and traditional doctors know nothing about nutrition and the immune system.

          I lift weights, run and swim, and maintain the same weight I had in high school. I’ve just finished writing a book (which requires a lot of concentration and memory, I can tell you, which I wouldn’t have been able to do if I wasn’t receiving proper nutrients).

          I don’t try to change people’s minds that aren’t open to change, so that’s all I have to say to you. I can’t change your attitude that your wants and desires are more important than any pain or suffering an animal goes through by no choice of their own.

          Eric, on the other hand, seems extremely open-minded and aware of his instincts. That’s an indication of a very wise individual.

          • Eightsouthman
            July 20, 2014 at 5:28 pm

            I appreciate your not trying to change my mind. Many health professionals disparage vegan diets and recommend eating meat of some sort.

            I’m not a fan of CAFO’s so I try to not buy grocery store meat, commercial meats. OTOH, that last goat sausage is some great stuff along with the pork sausage we got(raised it right here) at the same time. The goats grew up wild and free for the most part. The hogs were in a large pen and sometimes got to forage(not often since wild hogs that are extremely good eating, are replete here and we kill them every chance we get since it’s very low fat and keeps down the costs of fixing fences, torn up crops, etc. including that occasional one who decides you might be lunch….and BTW, hogs are as cannibalistic as fish). The cattle are literally up to their bellies(and higher)this year on natural grasses(Thanks El Nino). We don’t raise chickens because of the varmint factor and also wild hog factor. I keep threatening to build a super-duper chain link pen with steel hide so they have a safe haven. I like eggs and chicken both.

            I enjoy hunting and take nothing for granted. I’m sure I’d be better off financially to take the necessary supplements(amino acids for the most part as well as complex B vitamins) and be vegan although veggies have become very expensive in the last few years, not counting the drought.

            I don’t try to rationalize my desire to eat meat. It’s just who I am and I wont’ make excuses. I respect vegans also but if you really care about animals, esp. CAFO produced animals, then dairy should be on that list too.

            I hope I can concentrate also since my and your life both depend on it. I grew up raising animals for slaughter and have always known the bottom line but see it as what it is, one animal preying on another.

            As a youngster I got a good lesson on eat or be eaten when a sow ripped my shirt off and would have made me part of the shit pile if she could have. She knew about eat or be eaten too.

          • Bevin
            July 20, 2014 at 8:39 pm

            Dear blakmira,

            “I don’t try to change people’s minds that aren’t open to change, so that’s all I have to say to you. ”

            That is a very wise policy, one you might contemplate next time you’re standing in front of a mirror.

        • helot
          July 21, 2014 at 5:07 am

          I avoided that film, I heard it was lame-ass bullshit.

          RE: “”Man is a cancer on the face of the planet!” and that everything would be go on forever if only man didn’t fuck it all up. ”

          Isn’t that the other-half of the Southern California New Age psychology movement?

          It seems to me that’s why eric uses a Power Ranger in some of his articles about Clovers. ‘The Power Rangers can fix it!’ …Psft.

          Also, Re: “the Southern California New Age psychology movement”

          That shtuff swept from one end of the nation to the other. Like a Yoga Beach Boys tune, or something. It’s gross how The Power Elite manipulate the mass of people. …I’m lucky to have escaped its clutches. …I pity those who did not.

          • helot
            July 21, 2014 at 5:18 am

            Well, That comment got placed where i didn’t intend it to.

            Like a loose chicken? Or, hog? Or, spray paint on a car?

            Anyway, my parting thought for the night is: magnesium

          • Bevin
            July 21, 2014 at 5:44 am

            Dear helot,

            The SoCal New Age movement was a mixed bag.

            It definitely had an idiotic ecofreak component to it. But on the other hand, much of the self-introspection was dead on and desperately needed.

            I’ve found that nobody has all the answers. One has to be an eclectic if one is seeking the truth. One has to “cherry pick.” By that I don’t mean being inconsistent. I mean that one has to avoid the inconsistencies in each source one learns from, and take only the essence.

          • eric
            July 21, 2014 at 5:47 am

            I have to give credit where credit is due: Clover is self-named! But it’s such an appropriate handle.

            A single clover plant is seemingly harmless; but left unpruned, clover rapidly overtakes the worthwhile plants.

            Just so, a Clover on two legs is – by himself – seemingly (and actually) harmless. This one, for example, would never walk over to his neighbor’s house and – while fingering his pistol – “ask” that they “help” pay for (put X here). He’d never personally demand that you “buckle up” – or insist (at gunpoint) that you buy “health care.”

            Because, of course, he’s a physical coward. A thug in spirit – but one who must rely on other thugs to do his dirty work.

            But once there are enough of them – enough to sway elections – in a system where it’s legal to simply vote away other people’s rights…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *