Now Open!

Metamorphosis occurs in nature, as well as in within human civilizations. During this evolutionary stage, older patterns cease so as to form new ones. Yet, as the old adage begins, “The more things change…”



Recently, there has been a noticeably voluminous amount of work being put into developing original quality literature for those of an anti-political sentiment, regardless of ideology. Last July, exclusively published an anthology version of my reformism series entitled, “An Illusive Phantom of Hope: A Critique of Reformism.” The following August, I wrote the foreword to Shane Radliff’s legal anthology, “Adventures in Illinois Law: Witnessing Tyranny Firsthand.”

Writing anthologies and recording their audiobook versions haven’t been my only activities, for due to my reputation (such as it stands), I have found myself becoming a “consulting blogger,” in much the same sense that the fictional Sherlock Holmes was a “consulting detective,” in that I located hyperlinkable sources and proofread article drafts for other bloggers within the alternative media. This has taken up some amount of my time, which I was happy to provide since I believe in the value of mutual aid, yet, this also caused me to incur opportunity costs, hence why there was a noticeable slowdown of content here.

However, becoming a consulting blogger was not the only reason for the slowdown, especially in the aftermath of publishing “Modeling Threats & Analyzing Risk: A Rebuttal Against ‘Doom Porn’.” Much to my surprise, I discovered than on behalf of the Freedom Phalanx Radio Network (FPRN), Ryan had purchased a web domain name as an improvement upon the admittedly clunky sounding URL I’ve been giving out verbally during live interviews thus far. In preparation for the transition, I refocused my efforts on article mirroring and record archival.

During this time, I still managed to fit in other side projects that were originally published at Inspired by a private conversation I had with another listener of LUA Radio, I proceeded to comprehensively develop a new method for exercising greater transparency, which culminated in “Political Fieldtrips: A Tutorial on How to Experience Government Directly.” Most recently, I wrote “A Day in the Life of the Average Joe Citizen,” as well as a collaborative article with Shane entitled, “Jumping the Minarchist Ship: Why & How America Came to Be.

From now on, all of my new content will be published at If you are one of my current subscribers, then I suggest you bookmark the new site, for that is where my future work will appear. This particular blog will remain here so as to maintain the stability of the custom shortlinks; it will not be updated with any new content, but only maintained as it is as of today.

I’d like to extend a heartfelt thanks to my readership, which has stuck by me for well over three years now; many of you followed me from back in my YouTube days. If you’d like to support my future blogging endeavors, the best way you can do that is to donate to FPRN, because like I already said, they are bearing the cost of the registered domain name. With any luck, between FPRN hosting new talent and my “behind the scenes” contributions as a consulting blogger, maybe, just maybe, the alternative media can be revived as the watchdog soapbox it was truly meant to be.

Posted in News & Analysis | Leave a comment

Modeling Threats & Analyzing Risk: A Rebuttal Against “Doom Porn”

[Download a PDF of this article]

Individual cognitive traits possess a high degree of variety amongst humans. Institutions, such as organized religion and corporate media, take advantage of the predilection some folks have for immersing themselves in speculative fantasy; consider the popularity of television shows like Jeremiah, Jericho, and even The Walking Dead franchise. The problem here, though, is that hypothetical lifeboat scenarios encourage people to reorient their entire lives around waiting (or “preparing”) for their calamity to occur, usually at the expense of everything and everyone else in their lives.



Bruce Schneier gave a lecture at TEDxPSU back on October 10th of 2010 entitled, “Reconceptualizing Security.” His thesis was that we should bring our intuitive feelings and rational models of security in line with the objective reality of security, because for the most part, the typical feelings and models are not consistent with reality. Humans make security tradeoffs all the time in order to survive, but there is a tendency to exaggerate infrequent, unknown, personified, or uncontrollable risks while downplaying common, known, anonymous, or manageable risks. In other words, risk analysis can be irrationally skewed by not only confirmation bias, but also by normalcy bias.

Rolf Dobelli that same year explained why the news cycle is detrimental to an individual’s sense of reality. Not only does the news feed confirmation bias, but it also skews risk analysis, mainly because it fails to explain the underlying processes at work. While I do appreciate the good faith effort in revitalizing the practice of citizen journalism, not everybody in the alternative media provides quality reporting, as evidenced by the opportunity costs, physiological addictions, and learned helplessness observed in some consumers of new media. Put another way, the news encourages incorrect threat modeling due to its pandering to the availability heuristic.

Eric English, a survivalist vlogger, has taken issue with the way most “preppers” rationalize their activities in terms of coping with their own pet visions of “doomsday.” His thesis appears to be that the only two categories of shit hit the fan (SHTF) scenarios that should be “prepped” for would those whose occurrence is least likely, yet very severe, and those that are most likely, yet not severe, or at least, mildly to moderately harmful. He elaborates on this by saying that due to the outlier fallacy, the focus of most preppers lies squarely upon the SHTF category of least likely, yet very severe, usually at the expense of prepping for the other category of most likely, yet not severe. Again, this would seem to reinforce what both Dobelli and Schneier have separately argued, in the sense that the existential risk of highly improbable events appears to have taken precedence over that of more likely threats.

So, the pertinent question then becomes, should probabilities dictate priorities? As I’ve mentioned before, the answer to security theater is security culture, and an indispensible element of security culture is threat modeling and risk analysis. Given that the news cycle skews risk analysis, threat modeling becomes just as vulnerable as well; since this is indeed the case, it would explain why facts, statistics, and data take a back seat to fanciful stories of Armageddon. Despite the various and often conflicting tales being spun regarding the apocalypse, there are individuals who believe probability should never dictate priority; my question to them, then, is what should dictate priorities, instead? Subjective nightmares? Non-falsifiable “precognitive” visions? Good old-fashioned bigotry and prejudice?

You might be wondering, at this point, what threat modeling and risk analysis even are, since they are rarely mentioned within the alternative media. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Surveillance Self-Defense project, threat models and risk analysis are defined, respectively, as:


“A way of narrowly thinking about the sorts of protection you want for your data. It’s impossible to protect against every kind of trick or attacker, so you should concentrate on which people might want your data, what they might want from it, and how they might get it. Coming up with a set of possible attacks you plan to protect against is called threat modeling. Once you have a threat model, you can conduct a risk analysis.”

“In computer security, risk analysis is calculating the chance that threats might succeed, so you know how much effort to spend defending against them. There may be many different ways that you might lose control or access to your data, but some of them are less likely than others. Assessing risk means deciding which threats you are going to take seriously, and which may be too rare or too harmless (or too difficult to combat) to worry about.”


Obviously, these concepts are borrowed from the field of computer security, however, I think they can be made directly applicable to all sorts of disaster scenarios in order to gauge the realistic probability of these worst case scenarios actually coming to pass. Applying the scientific method to SHTF scenarios, the worst of which might also be referred to as The End of the World As We Know It (TEOTWAWKI), is seldom done, for reasons that will become apparent later on.

Doom porn, for all intents and purposes, are sensationalized guesses about how TEOTWAWKI will eventually occur; it is defined by the Urban Dictonary as:


“Articles or videos online (prevalently in the blogosphere) that mainly talk about the collapse of either the financial world or the world in its entirety. People can develop a fascination/addiction reading this stuff (much like people who watch regular porn).”


In other words, doom porn is applied conspiracism. Once conspiracists lay off fretting about the details of, admittedly, violently suspicious events, such as the 9/11 attacks or Sandy Hook, then the most practical they ever seem to become is “preparing” for TEOTWAWKI, because they appear to have a deep seated, almost nihilistic wish for everything to just end. Conspiracism, and doom porn specifically, are greatly influenced by the news cycle, which, as a matter of course, throws intuitive feelings and rational models of security completely out of line with reality, while also increasing learned helplessness by encouraging its adherents to commit the outlier fallacy.

I would like to present, for your delectation, a handful of SHTF & TEOTWAWKI scenarios, whose very narratives strain credulity. They are presented here, not with the intention of ridiculing anyone who sincerely and genuinely believes that these scenarios could, or will, come to pass, but rather, with the intention of stressing the importance of homeschooling over that of speculation, gossip, and conjecture – even for adults.


Seattle’s “Overdue” Earthquake/Tsunami Combo Pack

Kathryn Schulz’s article in The New Yorker last July claimed that Seattle will slide into the Pacific Ocean because of a tsunami caused by an earthquake resulting from the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate colliding with the North American plate. Exacerbating this is the quoted statement by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region X director Kenneth Murphy, who said:


“Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.”


FEMA estimated that about a million buildings throughout the Northwest will either collapse or become compromised due to this earthquake, which is only considered “overdue” because of an estimated average that an earthquake in this region occurs in a 243 year cycle, and that considering it’s been 315 years since the last one, then therefore Seattle should be destroyed by a tsunami any day now. Add in the fact that the Pacific Northwest has no early detection system for tsunamis and earthquakes, mix it with the fanciful imagery of a 700 foot liquid wall containing a five-story assortment of “pickup trucks and doorframes and cinder blocks and fishing boats and utility poles” heading right towards the west coast in about 15 minutes from onset of the first shake, and you have a concoction for mindless panic and consumerist hysteria for prepackaged disaster kits.

Seismologist John Vidale was asked on Reddit about the realistic probability of this “overdue” earthquake actually demolishing part of the west coast, and Seattle in particular. Eric Holthaus’s article in Slate tackled the accuracy of this doomsday scenario by summarizing Vidale’s answers:


“Vidale said that the chances of the worst-case scenario happening in your lifetime, if you’re planning on living another 50 years or so, is about 15 percent. That’s probably a better way of looking at the recurrence statistics than on an annual basis. Historically, the frequency of major earthquakes in the region is about one every 300 years, which means we’re overdue for a megaquake if you average the past 10,000 years of Northwest geology. But the spacing between past magnitude-9 quakes was between 200 and 900 years. If the fault system maintains that pattern, the next big one could happen again tomorrow or in the year 2600. There’s no way to know.”


Obviously, this would suggest that the “overdue” earthquake/tsunami disaster would fit squarely into Eric English’s typology as being least likely, yet very severe. If Mr. English’s previously mentioned contention is true, then all of this concern about Seattle’s “overdue” earthquake suffers from the sin of misplaced emphasis. To add insult to injury, Holthaus reported that Schulz engaged in “poetic license” in describing the magnitude of the entire affair. Not only that, but Holthaus further mentioned that the risk to Seattle was insignificant because that city is protected by the Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound; Portland was similarly protected by both its 100 mile distance from the coast, but more importantly, the Columbia River as a natural barrier. Misleading statistics, much?

As a corollary example, the Geological Society of America published a scientific white paper this past August entitled, “Pleistocene Relative Sea Levels in the Chesapeake Bay Region and Their Implications for the Next Century,” which posits that Washington, D.C. might be deluged by rising sea levels due to global warming. Although I do have some empathy for those living right outside that den of inequity on the Potomac, would anybody with a conscience really miss the imperial city of the federal government? Ever since Adam Kokesh’s house was raided by government police for loading a shotgun at the (Orwellian titled) “Freedom Plaza,” it’s just sad for me to read about how these scientists are fretting about how to save and preserve the headquarters of Leviathan.

Needless to say, “natural” disasters, whether they be in the form of rising sea levels or earthquake/tsunami packages, are noticeably hyped up by the corporate media for their own sensationalistic reasons, besides the fact that it increases the opportunity costs for their respective audiences, at least in terms of restoring or securing their own liberty. Whipping people up into irrational hysterics virtually guarantees their unquestioning obedience to whatever “authority” tells them to do, thereby perpetuating the Hegelian Dialectic, regardless of whether the original “problem” was genuine or not.


The Interminable Economic Non-Collapse

Amongst all of the TEOTWAWKI scenarios, this one is, perhaps, the most convincing of the bunch. I must confess that over half a decade ago, I believed in what the doom-and gloom-peddlers were spewing about bank runs, empty grocery store shelves, and worst of all, no Internet! Unfortunately, acolytes of the socio-economic collapse disaster scenario, in my experience, have typically been economically illiterate, since whatever knowledge they’ve gleaned about economics has been limited to Zero Hedge, the Trends Journal, and worst of all, The Economic Collapse Blog.

Speaking of the Trends Journal, I remember when Gerald Celente said the following on the May 7th, 2010 broadcast of The Alex Jones Show:


“The top trend: ‘The Crash of 2010.’ We stick with our forecast. Before the New Year begins, no one will be able to deny that the great equity markets have crashed. The currencies are being devalued around the world. Gold prices are well over $1,500; we are still sticking with our forecast that the markets will crash before the year is out, and I also want to make this very clear: it’s not only going to be a financial crash, it’s going to come from a lot of different directions. Our greatest fear, and we said this when they began the great bailout bubble in March of 2009, is that when all else fails, they take you to war. So, our scenario is this, Alex – we’re going to see 9/11 magnitude terror strikes happen. When they happen…the last time they happened after 2001, they closed Wall Street down for several days. If you had CDs, you couldn’t cash them in (they are financial instruments). This time, they are going to close the banks, and when they reopen the banks, we forecast they will have devalued the dollar. So, they’ll say, ‘Don’t worry about it, you’ll be able to get your money out, it’s backed by the FDIC, but you can’t get it out all at once,’ [yet] when you do get it out, it’s not going to be worth a fraction of what it was before. So, these are the integrated systems that we are looking at, and I’m saying this so that people take proactive measures now. Don’t wait to wake up one day, as you did yesterday, and see the markets collapse around you! Take proactive measures now, it doesn’t cost anything, but if you don’t plan for the worst now, and the worst happens, then you’ll lose everything. If you take measures now, and things happen slowly, you haven’t lost anything, you’ve gained.”


Jones, of course, lapped this up like nothing else, as is his way, by nearly salivating over the possibility of an economic collapse deteriorating into a “Road Warrior” situation. Fast forward over five years later to August 8th of 2015, when Celente told Eric King the following:


“I got it wrong, when I believed, that following the panic of ’08 we’d have the big collapse in 2010. I had no idea that they would invent a thing called quantitative easing. I had no idea that they would keep 0% interest rates as a matter of policy that still exists today, and as your listeners well know, this free money that they’ve been pumping into this system, whether it’s in China, whether it’s in Japan, or the European Union, is what has kept the equity markets floating high, with the stock buybacks and the mergers and acquisitions, everyone knows the facts; however, I’m ready to forecast now, that between now and the end of this year, the end of 2015, we are going to have panic on Wall Street. There’s going to be panic on the streets, more than Wall Street: the bottom has fallen out. They’re only keeping Ponzi alive with this monetary methadone that’s no longer able to fix his habit. What’s going on in China is a global disgrace the way they are rigging the markets, and we heard from the IMF chief, Christine Lagarde, that she’s basically in favor of China rigging the markets, as she is, with the U.S., the European Union and what they’re going to it, and [unknown] in Japan, and all the rest, but it’s running out of steam…[t]his is global. It’s going to hit the equity markets, there’s going to be panic on the streets. Eric, you are going to see a global stock market crash by the end of the year. It’s not only going to be the Dow, it’s going to be the DAX, [unknown], the Shanghai, Nikkei, there’s going to be panic on the streets. From Wall Street to Shanghai, from the U.K. down to Brazil, you’re gonna see one market after another begin to collapse. ”


So, let me get this straight – Celente admitted to King that he was wrong about what he told Jones’ listeners five years earlier (and everybody else at the time), yet I find it rather telling that he didn’t know the Federal Reserve would coin the term “quantitative easing,” despite the fact that Stewart Dougherty mentioned quantitative easing by name in his article published on May 15th of 2010 at LRC, a mere week after Celente’s interview with Jones. Perhaps if Celente had familiarized himself with the Austrian school of economics, he would’ve understood that, according to Austrian business cycle theory, malinvestment is caused by an expansion of credit during the boom phase, which sows the seeds for the bust phase during the inevitable credit crunch.

Vloggers such as BrotherJohnF, SGTbull, and Chris Duane typically advocate silver stacking as the best hedge against inflation, despite the fact that JPMorganChase has attempted to corner the market on silver bullion over the past few years. Any doubts about the viability of silver stacking, not to be used as sound money, but rather as just a hedge to be converted back into Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) once the spot price is high enough, has been propagandized away by the production of “miniature documentaries” (aka, “mini-docs”) such as The Madness of a Lost Society trilogy, which spells apocalyptic disaster for all, but, for the “relatively low” investment of thousands, nay, tens or even hundreds of thousand of dollars, you too can join the ranks of those who have become the “awakened” by buying up all the disaster supplies you’d ever need to throw into a closet and forget about since you’d never intended to use them, anyway. The whole exercise was one of security theater to make you feel safer without actually improving your security in any real way.

Total economic collapse does not make any sense whatsoever, especially if you view it from the perspective of the central bankers. Remember, fractional reserve lending necessarily requires the federal government, as well as individual borrowers (such as those who take out a home mortgage from a commercial bank), to ceaselessly borrow FRNs into the money supply in order to perpetuate never ending “economic growth.” As such, there is interest attached to the principal being borrowed, but this burgeoning “national debt” can never be paid back, of course, and that’s the point. In this authoritarian nightmare, money is debt, and for the central bankers to deliberately tank the economy into societal collapse would be to kill the goose who laid the golden egg.

But wait! Wouldn’t it be possible for the central bankers to inadvertently kill the goose (that is the free market) just through sheer recklessness, especially considering Argentina and Zimbabwe last decade? You must keep in mind that the Fed, as a central bank, is older than most central banks (except the Bank of England). They know all the tricks, and they know how to play the angles with their asset purchases, simply because they’ve been doing it longer than most. I’m not saying the Fed is invincible or otherwise immune to the laws of economics, but rather, these central planners need “the economy” to operate in order for the State to parasitically feed off of the Market, and a hyperinflationary depression, or even “just” a currency war, interferes with that “business as usual.”

Downward class migration is likely to be the most accurate explanation of what the doom porn aficionados misleading describe as an economic collapse. Simply put, Jack Spirko’s thesis is that due to the government failure that is central banking, most of the population on the socio-economic scale moves down a notch; the upper middle class become the lower middle class, the lower middle class become the working poor, the working poor become totally destitute, and so forth. Considering that the banksters are magicians, nobody who is even slightly knowledgeable about the evils of central banking should be surprised with, for example, the Fed’s stubborn refusal to raise interest rates since 2008. In light of the fact that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has repeatedly stated that they intend to keep the interest rates artificially suppressed in order to “manage inflation” at a steady pace of 2% a year, in part to “stimulate” higher employment, is, quite frankly, laughably hysterical. The result of the FOMC’s actions does little else other than incentivize malinvestment, which repeats the business cycle once again.

Hyperinflationary depressions give us the best window as to how living conditions would deteriorate during a socio-economic collapse, but it would not become a TEOTWAWKI post-apocalyptic dystopia by any means. I say this because the total number of hyperinflationary depressions in recorded history took place over the course of two centuries. If the ratio of hyperinflationary events to the overall length of time from when the earliest began to when the latest one ended was measured, this could reveal something enlightening.

Therefore, in light of the fact that Wikipedia lists 12 hyperinflationary events occurring over a time span of 213 years, I calculate that the probability of hyperinflation occurring anywhere in the modern world to be a 1 in 18 chance; however, if I only calculate the probability of a hyperinflationary depression occurring here in America, then based on the hyperinflation from the Continentals during the Revolutionary War and the Confederate dollars during the War Between the States, then the probability of an “economic collapse” in America would be a 1 in 114 chance, based on the United States’ historical longevity. This latter result would fit more comfortably into the “not likely, but very severe,” category of Eric English’s typology.

What might be the result of all this centrally “planned” economic turmoil? The further centralization of power into the iron fists of the State, of course. Leviathan has no wealth, so any pretense of money it has it had to inflate, borrow, or tax from the productivity of the hapless democratic citizenry. Inflation destroys the capital saved from the past, taxation robs from the fruit of one’s labor in the present, and borrowing enables deficit spending whose bill is footed upon the backs of the unborn. Whenever the central planners hit a snag, they can just prod the executive branch of the federal government to launch an unconstitutional war, which serves two purposes, namely, to distract the public from the seriousness that is intergenerational theft, and more importantly, to steal from the resources of foreigners who have caused us no harm in order to prop up fledging equity markets.


Electromagnetic Pulse: Solar Flares or Thermonuclear Warfare?

Ever since the publication of novels such as One Second After and the airing of television shows like Revolution, there has been a growing popular concern about the electrical power grid becoming suddenly inoperable, especially by way of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Whether it be due to natural phenomena or human attacks, EMP occurrences would definitely count as a TEOTWAWKI scenario, simply due to the sheer severity that a forcible take-down of the power grid would affect the business of everyday American life. Scientific facts and government documents, however, reveal quite a bit of detail that undercuts the assumptions promulgated by mass media.

Solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CME) are natural phenomena emanating from the Sun. These flares are sudden bright flashes, which are often accompanied by massive bursts of gas and magnetized fields from the solar corona. The 1859 Carrington event directly hit the planet, causing telegraphs to fail, sometimes resulting in electric shocks to those operators. CMEs are a regularly occurring facet of nature, because they can happen anywhere between one CME every 5 days to three CMEs every single day, depending on the frequency of solar activity.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) released two reports that I think are demonstrative of the baseless hysteria that seeks to divorce one’s feelings and models of security from the objective reality of security. NERC’s 2012 Effects of Geomagnetic Disturbances on the Bulk Power System white paper reported in the executive summary that:


“The highly complex, interconnected North American power grid has provided a long record of reliable, secure delivery of electric power. However, solar storm or geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) events have demonstrated their ability to disrupt the normal operations of the power grid. The most recent example in North America occurred in March 1989, when a GMD led to the collapse of the Hydro-Québec system, leaving more than six million people without power for nine hours.”


Notice that in an admitted “collapse” of a specific power grid, those 6,000,000 people had to go without electricity for only 3/8ths of a single day. Referenced inside this white paper was an earlier NERC report that was co-authored with the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in 2010 entitled High-Impact, Low-Frequency Event Risk to the North American Bulk Power System, which stated in its introduction that:


“While some of these events have never occurred and the probability of future occurrence and impact is difficult to measure, government and industry are working to evaluate and, where necessary, enhance current planning and operating practices to address these risks in a systematic and comprehensive fashion.” [emphasis added]


Whoa, hold on there for a moment – did DOE just admit that the probability of rare events that could negatively affect the North American electric grid, including “extreme solar weather,” are, at best, tough to calculate? As if that wasn’t bad enough, consider this sentence from the joint DOE/NERC report:


“We will need the support of all of our readers to realize the vision of this effort: effective public/private partnership to address HILF [High-Impact, Low-Frequency] risks in a coordinated, systematic fashion.” [emphasis added]


Ah, there you have it – an abusive use of the precautionary principle by bureaucrats as an opportunity for a power grab. Why, may I ask, would these benevolent rulers want to encourage the development of even more fascism? In any case, I guess it’s refreshing to see the federal government and their “private partners” give an official sounding title to Eric English’s “not very likely, but very severe” category.

Speaking of fascism, I think it’s important to understand the nature of the relationship between NERC and the federal government. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an administrative agency ordered by the Congress to “remedy” the effects of the 2003 Northeast blackout through the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which “authorizes” FERC to designate a non-governmental organization who would be subcontracted out to enforce regulatory policy with FERC playing an oversight role. This corporatist relationship between NERC and FERC was established because in case anything went wrong, NERC would serve as, quite literally, the designated fall guy, while FERC could rush in and proclaim itself our savior. According to Dr. Peter Pry’s testimony before FERC regarding the previously mentioned 2012 NERC report:


“We urge the NERC Report’s authors to recognize that their report, unique among all others in its optimistic assertions, could contribute to a possible failure to harden the U.S. grid against a severe geomagnetic storm. The electric grid alone is not at risk. Everything in our modern society depends, directly or indirectly, upon electricity, including all the other critical infrastructures–communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water–that sustain modern civilization and the lives of 300 million Americans. If a great geomagnetic storm proves to be catastrophic, as all previous U.S. Government studies have warned would be the case, then NERC could be responsible for contributing to an unprecedented national catastrophe.”


Dr. Pry, as the executive director of the task force on national and homeland security, goes onto slyly suggest that the electric grid become nationalized in order to protect American electricity from either a natural or artificial EMP. This use of the Hegelian Dialectic, combined with horribly asinine fiction like One Second After, essentially promotes centrally planned socialism as the solution to the fascism they themselves legislated in the first place.

Pursuant to an act of Congress, the federal government established the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack (the EMP Commission), which found that there is “critical infrastructure” that presented a “national security vulnerability,” from the high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon. Dr. William Graham, chairman of the EMP Commission, said in his 2008 congressional testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that:


“Several potential adversaries have the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapon-generated electromagnetic pulse, and others appear to be pursuing efforts to obtain that capability. A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication. For example, an adversary would not have to have long-range ballistic missiles to conduct an EMP attack against the United States. Such an attack could be launched from a freighter off the U.S. coast using a short- or medium-range missile to loft a nuclear warhead to high-altitude. Terrorists sponsored by a rogue state could attempt to execute such an attack without revealing the identity of the perpetrators. Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism, has practiced launching a mobile ballistic missile from a vessel in the Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of the Shahab-III, a test mode consistent with EMP attack, and described the tests as successful. Iranian military writings explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States. While the Commission does not know the intention of Iran in conducting these activities, we are disturbed by the capability that emerges when we connect the dots.”


Besides the fact that Ed Snowden would probably like to take Dr. Graham to task for using misleading analogies for intelligence collection, what cannot be ignored is Dr. Graham’s not-so-subtle saber-rattling against the Ayatollah’s theocratic government. Might it be possible that all of the mainstream media’s interviews and simulated depictions of how an EMP attack could occur is thinly veiled neo-conservative propaganda, which advocates for preemptive thermonuclear warfare against the Iranians?

Of course, the real crisis is not a future EMP attack, but rather the monopolization of the electrical grid itself. Sure, one could point out that the Texas Interconnection is proof that there is no such monopoly, but what they fail to realize is that the Texas Interconnection fails under the auspices of NERC, and by extension, FERC’s “rulemaking” authority. Privatization, not corporatization, would have adverted this problem right out of the gate, but unfortunately, most people are economically illiterate, which would explain why central planning is so ubiquitous to the government’s own emergency preparations, especially considering they created the vulnerable “interdependent” infrastructure in the first place.

What is the probability of either a direct CME hit or a nuclear EMP attack disrupting the electrical grid and plunging Americans into a total blackout? According to a workshop report by the National Academies Press entitled, Severe Space Weather Events: Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts, it says:


“A widely accepted approach to risk analysis involves estimating event probabilities and then making estimates of event consequences. It was noted, though, that in complex systems characterized by strong interdependencies, it is very difficult to identify all impacts from a large-scale disruption, let alone to quantify their physical and financial consequences.” [emphasis added]


In other words, calculating the probability of these disruptive events is virtually impossible to do so accurately. Consider also, that a CME hit is more of a global concern, whereas a nuclear EMP attack is mainly limited to the North American continent. Keep in mind too that as I read the copious literature on both CMEs and nuclear EMPs, that these “experts” kept repeating that they have little in the way of “historical experience,” and that much of what they are postulating is based, at most, upon computer simulations, in much the same way the National Institute of Standards and Technology determined how the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 occurred without being hit by an airplane on 9/11.

Guessing as to the likelihood of a CME event produces wildly dissimilar results, as you can imagine. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is “predicting” that solar flares have a 80% chance of impacting Earth today, yet there is also a reference to a indie movie trilogy promoted by the same author; the only original source I was able to find was this NASA press release from May of 2013 that said they discovered three X-class flares within 24 hours. Probably a more realistic guess would be a 1 in 8 chance by 2020, which itself is based upon a 12% success rate by 2024, according to physicist Pete Riley.

Needless to say, I disagree with these guesses for at least two reasons. First, the Earth’s orbit keeps the planet a constantly moving target from the Sun’s CMEs, which are shooting blindly since they are not consciously being aimed; as Dr. Michio Kaku has explained, although there have been CMEs that have grazed Earth’s orbit, the chances of a direct hit are pretty slim, arguably lower than random chance. Second, even if Pete Riley’s estimates were objectively correct, the other side of the coin is that there would also be an 88% chance there wouldn’t be a direct CME hit by 2024, and by extension, a 7 in 8 chance a direct CME hit would be avoided by 2020.

Regarding the probability of a nuclear EMP attack, think about the fact that, aside from nuclear test explosions, atomic weapons have only be used in warfare exactly twice: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The horror of what the Japanese suffered greatly encouraged other nation-states to tread carefully on the use of their nuclear stockpiles, particularly with regards to nuclear proliferation, even accidently. Effective military strategies like mutually assured destruction incentivized even the most soulless, war-mongering politicians to avoid creating their own nuclear holocaust if for no other reason than for the sake of maintaining their grip on absolute power.

What lessons can be learned from these overly hyped CME/EMP TEOTWAWKI scenarios? Decentrally privatize the production of electricity so it would be unnecessary in the future to patchwork together Band-Aids if a security concern arises, stop fretting about things that probably won’t happen, and if they do, your earlier actions in hardening the infrastructure is the best you can do anyway. Most importantly, central planning never, ever, works when it comes to economics, and it will never work for emergency preparedness either; having plans by the many, and not by the few, will greatly aid in not only survival, but also increasing the quality of life right now. Manipulatively using the precautionary principle on the grounds that a CME or nuclear EMP will cause an electrical blackout since they are “existential threats” seems little different to me than when Henry Paulson demanded (or would that be threatened?) Congress to hand out bailouts for Wall Street bankers on the non-existent justification that the free market is an “existential threat” to stock-brokers and derivatives traders.

I doubt this will win me a ton of friends, but it needs to be said – what concerns me more than this nonsensical drivel about TEOTWAWKI being caused by a CME/EMP type event is this recurring diatribe about how the Iranian theocrats will, allegedly, be the ones most likely to launch such an EMP attack against America. This presumption that these Muslims will kick off the apocalypse seems to thinly justify the use of a pre-emptive nuclear strike, which if accomplished, would more likely kick off World War III instead. I don’t know about the rest of you, but the last thing Americans need is another unconstitutional war to embroil themselves in.


American Islamism: “Stealth Jihad” to Impose Sharia Jurisprudence

Over the past several years, the American patriot faction has expressed concern about what they consider to be a plot by naturalized and native-born Muslims to wage a “stealth jihad” in order to establish a caliphate within the United States that would impose Sharia law, thereby subverting and overthrowing the 1787 federal Constitution. According to proponents of this claim, like Brigitte Gabriel, this is why the violently suspicious events involving Muslim perpetrators, such as those in Garland, Tex. and Chattanooga, Tenn., happened at all – these Muslim jihadists decided to go hot, as it were, because “they hate us for our freedoms,” or so we are told. This belated attempt to revive the legitimacy of the terror war is patently ridiculous at best, and exceedingly dangerous at worst.

Right off the bat, I think it’s essential to remind everyone of the United States federal government’s foreign policy towards Islamism for the past several decades. Between 1979 – 1989, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) armed and financed the mujahideen as the primary mission of Operation Cyclone. Following the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, the surviving mujahideen were betrayed by the CIA once they had outlived their usefulness to them and were subsequently relabeled “Al-Qaeda,” a label that later served its purpose as the convenient boogeyman responsible for the 9/11 attacks, which itself was the result of blowback. Once the Iraqi “insurgency” had been greatly quelled, the surviving “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” Islamists regrouped by joining up with the so-called Syrian Free Army in 2011, which soon after coalesced into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Three months ago, Dan Sanchez wrote:


“Given all this, you would think right-wing nationalists would be alert to and aghast at abundant reports that their own government has knowingly supported Islamic extremists in Syria (and elsewhere), including al-Qaeda, the very group responsible for 9/11; especially since that support led to the rise of ISIS (formerly al-Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI) and that such a treasonous policy has long occurred under ‘crypto-Muslim’ Barack Hussein Obama. But, oddly enough, they’ve given Obama a pass on this. Why hasn’t Fox News been blasting alerts like ‘Obama Backs Muslim Terrorists, Helping to Create the Islamic State’ for years? Wouldn’t their xenophobic viewers gobble up such red meat with relish? Couldn’t the Republicans make stacks of political hay with such a talking point? But, no, apparently bigotry and scaremongering are only to be harnessed to support war, and never to oppose it.”


In much of the same way that serious martial arts disciplines have a traceable lineage from sensei to apprentice, ISIS is descended from the Afghan mujahideen, who might as well be disgruntled ex-employees of the federal government.

I remember how those of Arabic ancestry were treated after 9/11. They were frequently unjustly profiled at the airport, and commonly reviled by those who had been suckered in by the sophistry of the neo-conservatives like William Kristol. Much like those Americans of German ancestry during World War I, as well as those Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II, the Americans of Arabic ancestry during this “War on Terror” were targeted by the federal government, including the ones who weren’t even Muslims, such as the Coptic Christians. Equal opportunity oppression, much?

Semantics are very much in play here as well, especially in light of the so-called “moderate” versus “radical” Muslims. Gary Hunt has explained the difficulty in distinguishing between these two descriptors, based upon what Fahah Ullah Quereshi said to the Sunnis in Scandinavia last year. Might I suggest an alternative that’s a tad bit more accurate – perhaps Muslims versus Islamists? It’s one thing to worship in accordance with one’s faith, but once that faith has transgressed across the wall of separation between church and state, then it’s time to stamp out the emerging theocracy before it can entrench itself within the government, and that very constitutional guideline applies not only to political Islam (that is, Islamism), but also those who promote the erroneous notion that “America is a Christian nation,” despite Article 11 of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli:


“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from the religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” [emphasis added]


I’ll remind the American patriot faction that in order for them to be consistent with the original intent of the Founders in upholding constitutional republicanism, they ought to follow the tradition of religious toleration as set forth by Sir Thomas Browne if they truly value religious liberty, instead of pandering to special interests run by manipulative clergy who seek to use the monopoly power of the State as their own personal billy club. Back in 2011, Cathy Young wrote:


“The push for Shariah bans is puzzling, to say the least. Since Muslims make up about 1 percent of the U.S. population, and government establishment of religion is prohibited by the Constitution, a Shariah takeover in America is about as likely as a zombie apocalypse. Yet to proponents, this is a threat that must be stopped while there’s still time. A closer look at the purported evidence for ‘creeping Shariah,’ however, shows a lot of skewed and garbled facts—and issues by no means unique to Muslims or Islam.” [emphasis added]


The fact of the matter is that American Christians have more political clout with the enemy rebel government than American Muslims ever had, and I think they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future; that is the reason why I’ve said before that Islam is not the problem.

Who would stand to gain from demonizing religiously devout American Muslims as being equivalent to the Islamists (that is, political Islam) using the very same guilt by association technique that the Southern Poverty Law Center used against American patriots? The Clarion Project has released a number of hit pieces that were produced, funded, and even written by a Canadian-Israeli dual citizen, Rabbi Raphael Shore. In terms of answering the infamous Cui bono? question, it would seem to be the case that this hostile foreigner wants the American federal government to wage proxy wars against Muslim countries on behalf of Israel, which seems to coincide nicely with General Wesley Clark’s exposing of the “Defense” Department’s plan to topple seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, the Sudan, and “finishing off” Iran, thereby exponentially increasing the risk of thermonuclear warfare. Apocalyptic death-wish, much?

What frustrates me more than anything about this TEOTWAWKI scenario is that it completely ignores or misrepresents the anti-Islamist Muslims. Maryam Rajavi and the Iranian Resistance have steadfastly held that a separation of church and state is their answer to the Ayatollah’s theocracy, which debunks the entire notion of an Islamic “global jihad” by itself. “Madrasa” is just the Arabic term for school, and does not connote some sort of uniquely Islamist brainwashing propaganda mill, unlike American government schools. Ironically, the vast majority of terroristic related deaths are Muslims themselves, especially considering that Western wars have killed 4,000,000 Muslims since 1990. Where exactly is this “Islamization” happening in the United States, other than those cherry-picked locations like in Dearborn, Mich., in light of the fact that only 7 – 15% of the American population is Muslim, as opposed to 76.5% being Christian?

The history of empires automatically debunks a global caliphate, because once empires get too large, they lose control and collapse, every single time, without fail. I suspect part of the reason none of the American patriots have taken up my proposed business model for handling those Mexican nationals who trespass across the Rio Grande is because they’d rather guard military recruitment centers instead, despite the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878; why bother protecting private property for profit when it’s so much more acceptable to guard government property for free? Sensationalism, first and foremost, is what drives this virtually non-existent threat of an Islamist “takeover” of America, and notice also that this mindless fear is being driven primarily by the news cycle and the terror-industrial complex.

What is the probability of Islamists violently overthrowing the federal government and enforcing Sharia law, thereby subverting the U.S. Constitution? If the Islamists can survive a 24/7 rolling gun battle with the Chicago Police Department over the course of a week, then they might have a slim chance of victory; absent that, I’m going to go ahead and assume that their chances of establishing an American caliphate are about a successful as the Banzhaf power index for each Illinoisan voter actually determining the results of a government election. To paraphrase St. Paul, it is time to put away childish things.


Eschatology & the Intellectual Dishonesty of Lifeboat “Ethics”

Predications about when TEOTWAWKI will happen have always been incorrect, without exception, and the proof of this lies in the fact that you and I are still here and enjoy the quality of life that we do. Harold Camping’s proclamation that “the Rapture” would occur on May 21st of 2011 turned out to be the failure that the atheists correctly presumed it would become. Given the historical precedent for mass hysteria, even from admittedly fictional TEOTWAWKI scenarios, like Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds, when will people learn to become more skeptical of these outlandish speculations and unfounded conjectures about the so-called “end times?”

Eschatology is a theological sub-field that focuses on the study of how TEOTWAWKI might occur. Believe it or not, there are tales that have been spun in Abrahamic religious texts that describe TEOTWAWKI in excruciating detail, which interestingly enough, tend to mimic each other. Christian eschatologists believe in a 7 year long “tribulation” period ruled by an “antichrist” who will be eventually defeated by Jesus of Nazareth and who will then, ironically, rule here on Earth for a millennia; Muslim eschatologists similarly describe that Isa (Jesus) will assist the Mahdi to engage in a “final battle” against Mashi ad-Dajjal (the “antichrist”), which afterwards the General/Last Judgment will take place of all humanity by Allah/Yahweh.

My irreligious spirituality might be termed, “deistic apatheism,” by which I mean that I think the universe was created and then naturally evolved on its own without any supernatural interference from that point forward, but I don’t think whether other humans share this position will encourage them to fundamentally alter their behavior for either the better or worse, so it’s not worth mentioning publicly at any real length, quite frankly. I mention it here, though, to explain why I take a pretty dim view of theology, and eschatology specifically, because it’s all based on revealed religion, which itself relies on a trifecta of clergy, designated buildings, and “holy books” that are used to perpetuate confidence tricks against highly gullible people out of their hard earned wealth. In a somewhat similar vein, Montagraph’s vlog about the projected collision of Nibiru with Earth this upcoming September 23rd will certainly by October reveal that doom porn really does require quite of bit of blind religious devotion in order for its adherents to believe in it, despite whenever it proves to be blatantly in error once the predicated disaster falls to come to pass.

The pertinent question here, though, is whether eschatology is the source behind these wildly implausible and improbable TEOTWAWKI scenarios? I don’t think so, because all of this speculative conjecture about TEOTWAWKI gave rise to eschatology, not the other way around. If I had to make an educated guess, it would be the irrational application of our reptilian brains, which are hardwired for survival, to the real world that gave rise to doom porn.

An expression of this irrationality is the use of lifeboat dilemmas to either justify or delegitimize a range of beliefs, ideologies, and lifestyles. Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand both detested the use of these so-called “lifeboat ethics” to trash libertarianism and Objectivism (respectively), because they were usually used by authoritarians of various stripes and flavors to prop up the “authority” of the State. Unfortunately, “preppers” immensely enjoy positing lifeboat dilemmas as if it was going out of style; for instance, J.D. Dutra invented Conflicted: The Survival Card Game, which is a tabletop game whereby you are presented with a hypothetical scenario and then you have three minutes to describe to all the other players how you would handle the situation. Preppers have been seriously using this game as a vetting tool to weed out potential undesirables from their retreat groups, and Dutra even admitted that this was the original purpose behind his invention of the game. Needless to say, David Kobler should know better than to promote lifeboat hypothesizing as a form of gaming, especially considering not only that hard cases make bad law, but also because of the myth of the line in the sand.

Listen, even if it turned out that I was wrong about the previously mentioned TEOTWAWKI scenarios by having one of them actually occurring, that does not therefore mean doom porn would be proven correct or even legitimate, for that would be to succumb to the non sequitur fallacy. A systematically recurring problem with doom porn is that it regularly commits different types of fallacious reasoning, and the cure for doom porn is homeschooling, which usually teaches cogent reasoning at some point. The fact of the matter is lifeboat dilemmas are used to manipulate human emotions, thereby skewing one’s feelings about security, which result in a mental detachment away from the objective nature of security, as Schneier pointed out.


Common Signs of Actual Disasters

Outside the imaginations of doom porn enthusiasts, disasters that actually occur tend to share characteristics, regardless of the specific emergency. Generally speaking, the features of a genuine SHTF emergency include at least some, if not most or even all of the following:

  • No Internet and/or the phone lines are jammed or busy
  • Empty grocery store shelves
  • Bank runs and/or ATMs no longer work
  • Empty gas station tanks
  • Overrun hospitals
  • Gridlocked roads
  • No tap water
  • No AM/FM radio wave broadcasts
  • No electricity (aka, “grid down”)

Should any combination of these signs come to pass and either happen very quickly one right after another or pop up one at a time over the course of, say, a week, then it’s probably time to get out of Dodge. The cause of whatever happened is only significant initially if it will help you survive; otherwise, just make your decisions in order to keep living and then maybe you can begin figuring out what the hell happened, assuming you even care in the first place.

I’d like to address whether physical violence is a sign of a SHTF emergency. The survivalists I keep in touch with recommended to me, in preparation for this article, that I include things like frequent yelling, hysterical screaming, car crashes, road pileups, urban rioting, rampant killing, and gunfire and explosions as common features of actual disasters. I fail to see how physical violence of any kind is a key recurring feature of disasters in general, but rather, they seem to me to be more of a secondary set of features; for example, if there is no way to travel by car and buy food, then desperately scared people make careless mistakes and end up dead, or amorally opportunistic jackasses decide to rob and maybe even kill those who don’t possess or know how to wield liberty’s teeth in order to forcibly defend their own private property.

However, instead of dwelling on SHTF emergencies, I prefer to focus on self-sufficiency, because the only disaster worse than a sudden breakdown of the infrastructure is the continuation of our overall political situation. Self-sufficiency, including living off-grid in the here and now, is perhaps the strongest expression of a vote of no confidence in the established system as it stands. I, for one, do not “need” some ridiculous doom-and-gloom scenario by which to motivate me to separate myself from this decrepit cesspool that manifests itself as the raw power and lie of the moment, and I think I have amply demonstrated this already by canceling my voter registration. How many other people can honestly say the same?


Realistic SHTF Scenarios

If economic “collapse,” Islamist caliphates, “overdue” earthquakes, and CMEs or nuclear EMPs knocking out the power grid are notorious examples of doom porn, then what would be realistic emergencies instead? Generally speaking, most realistic emergencies are only dangerous as they are because of the State’s coercive monopolies on the provision of security and adjudication services, what constitutionalists refer to as the executive and judicial branches of government, respectively. Anytime you invite central planning into any human endeavor there is government failure, which is committed through a myriad of ways that has provided enough subject material to last the entire publishing careers of free market economists.

For the sake of brevity, it is the American police state that exacerbates or generates the conditions for realistic emergencies, aside from the weather and infrastructure breakdowns (such as trucker strikes). Consider the statistics of arrests made, the incarceration rate, civilly forfeited property, search warrants issued, wiretapping orders granted, home raids, traffic stops conducted, and democide, and then gauge the probability of whether you are going to spend a night in jail versus being killed by an Islamic jihadist, for example. Once you’ve done that, then come back and tell me that “America is not a police state” with a straight face, if you can.

Other realistic scenarios might involve computer difficulties or even betrayal. Any number of breakdowns or targeted hacking might compromise your data, and don’t forget that it is common for the government to nab people’s computers during raids. Fraudulent child support through false parentage as a result of infidelity, demonization, and particularly snitching have all been used to incur the wrath of the State through their police forces, especially in phony “domestic violence” or “kicked out of the house by an angry spouse” scenarios. According to Laura Southern, men are raped more often than women if you account for prison rape, men are almost half of all genuine domestic abuse victims, and men commit ~ 80% of all suicides. If these statistics are objectively true, then if those vile situations that Miss Southern mentioned don’t count as SHTF scenarios, then I don’t know what does, honestly.


The Necessity for Bugging Out & Alternative Shelters

Obviously, you can play the “what if-ing” game all day long, but what’s needed in order to just survive are realistic options for coming out the other side of a disaster at least half-way intact. If you already know how to reduce ratios, you are well on your way towards calculating for yourself the probability of certain types of events happening or not happening, presuming your measurement assumptions are correct, of course. Should you require a refresher on middle school arithmetic, then be sure to read my primer on homeschooling for your educational options.

Go ahead and pretend that you are suddenly broke, impoverished, deeply indebted, or otherwise homeless, for whatever reason. What are you going to do from that point onward? Try answering the following list of questions:

  • Would you have anyone to turn to for help?
  • Are you capable of living on the street, if only temporarily?
  • Could you survive the climate outside without electricity where you live for a week, or even for a weekend? If not, could you quickly travel to another part of the country where you can?
  • Have you got an alternate place to sleep, whether that be a travel-trailer, van, cave, tent, or anywhere at all?
  • How would you communicate if your computer had been seized? Could the government police easily read your data? Would you have your backup files in a secure place?
  • If you have children or elderly family living with you, how would you feed, clothe, and medically treat your dependents?

If you answered “no,” or worse, “I don’t know” to any of these questions, then consider those security vulnerabilities as guidelines to what you need to shore up on so you can have the confidence and peace of mind that no matter what situation may be foisted upon you, you have gotten your bases covered. As you can no doubt tell, I am encouraging you to formulate a bug out plan ahead of time for realistic SHTF scenarios, much like you ought to make an arrest plan. Freedom is all about making your own choices, and knowing what your choices are, or creating them ahead of time, is what responsible adults do.

Don’t run around like a chicken with its head cut off, though – take your time and do it right. Whether it be caring for your dependents, constructing alternate shelters, opening a foreign bank account, securing your archived records, or burying supply caches, your actions in the present might just make the difference as to the quality of life you’ll enjoy in the future, if not also quite possibly your very survival, depending on the nature and severity of the emergency. What I do suggest, before you begin exploring these and other options, is to first perform some threat modeling and risk analysis, so you can realistically figure out what you’re probably going to be dealing with in the first place.


The Grandiosity of Conspiracism

Security culture is the application of espionage techniques towards increasing and maintaining an individual’s personal privacy. Threat modeling and risk analysis inherently threaten the integrity of conspiracists, because it exposes and debunks their most fervently held misconceptions of the world they live in. Historical revisionism and detailed investigative exposés provides original material for institutional analysis, which is the antithesis, and the antidote, to conspiracism.

Conspiracism is, first and foremost, a hobby and a lifestyle simultaneously. Conspiracists derive their sense of self-worth from projecting their worst fears onto others. They are not interested in redressing their grievances, but rather, they believe that the very act of proselytizing their grievances IS the remedy itself. Most conspiracists are reformists, and since reformism is applied collectivism, this would imply that most conspiracists are, quite possibly, collectivists of some kind.

Doom porn is only possible because of conspiracism; doom porn is meant to reveled in forever, for without it, conspiracists would quickly become empty hollowed-out shells of their former selves. It is because of conspiracism and the mindless sensationalism it breeds, is a large part of the reason why liberty has not been restored here in America in any sort of noticeably broad way. The news cycle generates conspiracism much like how the sun causes the chlorophyll in plants to engage in photosynthesis. Mean world syndrome infects the minds of die-hard conspiracists, and can even transfer to their non-conspiracist allies.

Science and logic are the enemies of conspiracism. Doom porn reinforces the victim mentality, especially learned helplessness, primarily through information overload, which is usually delivered through such as rapid fire, emotionally charged hysteria that is difficult for the recipient to calmly evaluate and judge the information on its own merits in real time. Like the news cycle, doom porn reinforces confirmation bias.

More than quite a few people will likely feel greatly offended by this article, and my hope for their disillusionment from treating their survival as some sort of twisted live action role-playing game is exactly what I was aiming for. The probability of most TEOTWAWKI doom porn scenarios can’t be calculated anyway, and even when they can be, the success ratios are so incredibly low that the more typically mundane yet dangerous things are what should be “prepped” for instead, assuming that probability dictates priorities. Regardless of a particular scenario, the signs of a genuine SHTF emergency, as well as what you should be doing to survive it, are more similar than not.

Too much of an emphasis has been upon potential future emergencies, and not enough on self-sufficiency and independence for right now, despite whatever atrocities the State commits this week. At the risk of sounding like a pothead hippie, your actions should be motivated by your love of freedom, not by your dread of the apocalypse. Survivalism and security culture are firmly within the realm of direct action, yet, I simply disapprove of how they’ve been applied up until now; instead of acting upon libertarian principles, they have been used, thus far, to supplant them.

If there is anything I’d like you all to take away from this examination into conspiracism, doom porn, threat modeling, and risk analysis, it would be this – skepticism is healthy! It will always be the end of the world, as we know it. And you know what? I really do feel fine about it, because I am already free within my own mind. You can be too, provided that you commit yourself to rational discourse and scientific inquiry.

Posted in Dissident Methodology | 7 Comments

The History of the Freedom Phalanx Radio Network (FPRN)

[Download a PDF of this article]

Institutions govern modern American society; corporate media, as just one such institution, enjoys the undue influence it does only by way of government largesse. Any sort of genuine competition to the mainstream media’s stranglehold on providing the “official” narrative to current events is usually regarded as a threat to those who falsely imagine themselves to be “our” rulers. Despite this state of affairs, the rise of a truly independent and free press, over the past two decades, challenges not only the centralized flow of information, but also demonstrates that the soapbox is still worth fighting for!



The Freedom Phalanx Radio Network (FPRN) was founded by Ryan, who is affectionately referred to as “Mr. Producer,” back in August of 2012. As explained on their About page:


“We may all have our differences, our varying opinions, and we at FPRN think that our programs are evidence to how diverse all of us really are. However, there is one uniting factor with all of us at FPRN. We ALL are striving for more liberty. We are a family in that respect. Whether you are fighting big government, corporate media, militarized police, or ruthless oligarchs, you are fighting for the FREEDOM to choose how you will live your own life.”


Interestingly enough, the word “phalanx” means, essentially, a number of people united for a common purpose. Seeing that the common purpose of FPRN is more liberty, I think the intended focus is a lot more appropriate than most others I’ve seen over the years. For that alone, Ryan has my heartfelt respect.

Understanding the importance of FPRN necessarily requires traveling back to the summer of 2012 during the Bilderburg Group meeting at the Westfields Marriot in Chantilly, Virginia. Traveling alongside Anthony Antonello, Ryan and the rest of their crew noticed that since the parking lot was far away from the driveway to the Marriot, they had Kevin (the driver) pull alongside the curb in order to unload their camera equipment. Immediately, the uniformed government police harassed them, because they appear to enjoy intimidating non-sanctioned media, in much of the same way that Gary Hunt and Louis Beam were harassed during the 1993 Waco Siege. Not only that, but there was also an agent provocateur with a military haircut who repeatedly suggested to the citizen journalists on scene that “they” should “set off a bomb” inside the Marriot, to which the videographers quickly shined their cameras upon him, and not five minutes later this same provocateur disappeared and was never seen again.

Before the election of Barack Obama in 2008, Ryan had no interest in politics whatsoever, which, as the old adage goes, “I don’t care about politics until it affects me.” Prior to the Bilderburg meeting in 2012, Ryan became an avid radio listener, documentary film enthusiast, and Ron Paul supporter who handed out literature at polling stations. Following the events at Chantilly, Ryan conceived of the idea for FPRN, yet, he mulled it over until November, and soon aired FPRN’s maiden broadcast on November 14th of 2012, the content of which focused on local politics.

Motivating this truly entrepreneurial venture was Ryan’s desire to give a means by which to enable other people to get their voices out in the furtherance of liberty. He felt that his best contribution to increasing human liberty was to lend his technical expertise behind the scenes. Fortunately, Ryan already had the machines in his very unique studio, which is 100% computer driven, and thus decentralizes radio production by enabling both him and the hosts of FPRN to operate their broadcasts in separate physical locations.

Going “mainstream” under the auspices and regulatory control of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was never the intention. Although FPRN’s hosts don’t swear like sailors, expletives can be uttered without any worries of getting anyone in trouble, unlike Free Talk Live. The problem with having terrestrial stations carry one’s live-streaming material is that those stations would be heavily fined by the censors at the notorious administrative agency that is the FCC. Not only did the Internet enable the impressive expansion of the soapbox, but, as Ryan emphasized to me, without the Internet, the government would have likely become noticeably worse that much quicker than it already has.

Some people might think, why not just create a YouTube channel or a BlogTalkRadio account, instead? Well, the fact of the matter is that when you sign up with either (or both) of those corporations, you are subject to their terms and conditions; as such, they possess the ability to engage in soft censorship of your content (YouTube particularly, especially considering all the false DMCA claims). All of the FPRN technical support, including the purchased equipment and website maintenance, is done by Ryan.

FPRN is all about serving the individuality of each host’s broadcasts, so they can directly manage their own content, as opposed to the more traditional model of having the producer control the subject matter. All of the technical work, such as playing audio or video clips, handling live call-ins, and fading the intro and outro music for station breaks are all handled by Ryan. While the FPRN YouTube channel is monetized, Ryan told me that its primary purpose is as an advertising venue, of sorts, in order to attract potential listeners to the FPRN live streams and chat rooms.

In short, FPRN is the answer to soft censorship. I’m sure the implications of this truly unique business model as an end run around both the corporate media and government “regulators” are plain and obvious to you all. Why this hasn’t been replicated more often within the alternative media baffles not only me, but Ryan as well.

My experience with FPRN has been nothing less than phenomenal, truth be told. Considering both the fall of Truth Finders Network and my expulsion from New Colony Media three years ago, I’ve slowly become a pragmatic witness to the creative destruction within the alternative media over time, so I’d like to think my credibility has been reliably established with both patriots and libertarians alike. I can say, without hesitancy or reservation, that FPRN is head and shoulders the best outfit I have ever had the pleasure of coming across. It is the beacon of what the independent press should be: quick, reliable, and accessible. Perhaps if FPRN’s competitors had begun modeling themselves to what Ryan has built, we’d be further along the way toward solving this tyranny problem by now.

Ryan sincerely wants the alternative media to be able to compete with the mainstream media, without stumbling all over itself into a big bumbling mess. Defeating the corporate media’s official narrative of both events and ideas cannot be done if the prevailing attitude amongst videographers, podcasters, and even bloggers amount to little more than, “Go save my country for me while I sit here and do nothing.” Slick marketing ploys by “patriots-for-profit” are just as equally detrimental, albeit for different reasons.

Keep in mind, too, that FPRN is a labor of love, as Ryan is certainly not doing it “for the money,” as it were. His words to me about his passion for enabling others to voice themselves publicly was this:


“The only thing the hosts have to worry about is what they are going to say and how they are going to say it.”


I am optimistic about the future of FPRN as an entrepreneurial venture, yet, it requires support to keep on trucking along. As one of, what I believe to be, the truly unsung heroes of the modern American libertarian culture, Ryan also told me that it is unnecessary for any potential future hosts to be limited to America; this suggests to me that vloggers such as Syrian Girl could expand her capabilities without having to incur a steep technical learning curve.

Only once before, that I can remember, have I ever asked my audience to seriously consider getting behind and supporting what I think is a viable endeavor. FPRN has given me a chance to truly reach people I otherwise would never have been able to beyond my humble blog. Please support FPRN however you can, financially or otherwise, because not only are the services provided by FPRN truly fantastic, but they are uniquely important as well. If liberty is ever going to be securely restored, then the freedom umbrella must be used with vigor, and I think FPRN falls squarely within the realm of direct action.

In summation, consider begin listening live to FPRN’s broadcasts, and don’t neglect to check out their podcast archives. Share them, archive them onto your hard drives and memory sticks, and if you truly value the independent grassroots press, then please donate as you are able (don’t worry, they accept Bitcoin too!). If you are looking to advertise for your own product or service through FPRN, then follow these directions for doing so; I know Ryan would certainly appreciate it.

Simply put, it’s put up or shut up time. If you sincerely and genuinely care about American liberty, you ought to support FPRN with everything you’ve got. I know I am, and others are as well, yet, if we are to finally secure our common liberties, we have all got to pitch in, even if only through mutual aid, and do our part.

No more excuses. It’s time to get to work.

Posted in News & Analysis | Leave a comment

The Conscious Resistance?

Spirituality is an often vague and ill-defined idea, especially when contrasted with religion or science. People are looking for why there is tyranny in their own lives, and some find solace in exploring metaphysics or tinkering with their physiology. Although the latest cutting edge discoveries could increase your understanding of Nature, these emerging technologies might as well be just recreational, absent some practical use.



Questioning the nature of reality itself is an existential characteristic of sentient beings. Lessening curiosity becomes the death knell for free inquiry, which marks the beginning of the end for the human spirit. The authors justify the title for their book by saying:


Consciously resisting’ means being willing to engage in self-reflection. Without knowing our own doubts, hopes, fears, dreams, insecurities and strengths we cannot truly know what freedom means to us as individuals. Becoming conscious of your actions is one of the most important steps towards understanding and claiming your own freedom. From that clear state of mind one can lead by example and help others in their own pursuit of self-discovery and freedom.”


Know thyself, is what the Grecian philosophers of old taught their students regarding the significance of integrity. In other words, what Broze & Vibes are promoting here is to willfully and knowingly exercise your freedom.

Objectivists are likely to cringe at the notion of “spiritual agnosticism.” Defined somewhat loosely, spiritual agnosticism is a subjectively held of personal beliefs about the nature of reality beyond the five senses and that the existentiality of deities is unknowable. Right off the bat, spiritual agnosticism is an excuse to believe in any old superstition you damn well want without being required to make a good faith effort (pun-intended) in justifying it somehow.

For instance, deists bear the burden of proof for justifying their spiritual belief using only science and philosophy. It’s almost as if these spiritual agnostics want to have their cake and eat it too by making a mockery of Hitchens’ razor. Religious toleration is one thing, but trying to prevent rational critiques of your superstition by insisting it’s all subjectively unknowable embraces, perhaps inadvertently, the same tyranny that grinds us down under its heel, and does so by its very irrationality.

A good chuck of this book simply takes the concept of “spiritual agnosticism” and applies it to various traditional views on metaphysics. Whether it be Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, shamanism, or even Islam, Broze and Vibes appear to believe that in order to be free, you can just make up whatever ideas you may have, no matter how incorrect, about the nature of reality itself, and that will somehow shrink or abolish the State, at least, by implication. I have no reason to think that engaging in ritual, imbibing psychedelics, or embracing your inner child is going to prevent or stop a Bluecoat from having his way with you during a traffic stop at the side of the road. As the authors themselves said:


“Many indigenous communities belief that life exists in all forms: plant, stone, human, animal and inanimate. We believe the closer we move to respecting all life as equal to our own, the deeper our understanding of liberty becomes. It is not only about pursuing freedom in terms of our individual paths, but recognizing the importance of allowing others to operate under their own freedom of action. Many of us already speak to our pets as children or companions. Why not acknowledge the life in plants, animals, crystals and the earth that surrounds us?”


So, that does mean that if I freely choose to smash my chair into tiny bits, I have violated the non-aggression principle because my chair is alive and sentient? If anything, such a notion would be none other than animism, rather than spiritual agnosticism. According to the authors, it seems to me, they think that property rights necessarily enslaves all those poor inanimate objects…*ahem*… “beings,” as well as animals; therefore, property rights in owning plants, animals, crystals, and real estate violate the non-aggression principle, right? Perhaps if the authors had spent more time studying economics and less time on “muh feels,” then maybe this whole systematic problem of the State would’ve been solved by now in a realistically practical manner.

Speaking of government, the authors’ use of the term, “panarchy,” is notoriously incorrect. Panarchy refers to an acceptance of all forms of governance (including monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy), with the proviso that each individual citizen explicitly consents to a particular form of government, and is able to easily leave said jurisdiction without having to completely uproot his life in order to do so; polyarchy is similar, except that it usually tends to be more discriminating in that it rejects all forms of absolute government in favor of different flavors of the night-watchman State.

What I do think is valuable here is an exploration taken in chapter four about the various schools of anarchism. The authors state:


“Voluntaryism is the idea of mutual non-aggression. You may notice us refer to this term throughout this book. On the surface, voluntaryism is just another word for anarchism. However, it denotes some very specific philosophical principles that take the definition of anarchism a step further. A voluntaryist not only believes in a world without rulers and slaves, but also advocates for a society built on a culture of peace, non-aggression and a general ‘live and let live’ atmosphere.”


This is an accurate description of voluntaryism, according to its own literature, so the authors didn’t completely screw that up, thankfully. I also found this portrayal of agorism intriguing:


“Agorism is the philosophy of creating alternative institutions to directly compete with the state. Samuel Konkin III outlined this strategy with the concept of Counter-Economics, or participation in economic activity that is typically seen as illegal by the state. This includes competing currencies, community gardening schemes, tax resistance and operating a business without licenses. Agorism also extends to the creation of alternative education programs, Free Schools or SkillShares, and independent media ventures. Also essential to Agorism is support of entrepreneurs who actively do business outside of the state’s license and regulations.”


As far as I can tell, the general idea of agorism is presented here correctly, even if the specific examples are not the best. Agorism is all about trading in the black and grey markets, and although white market activity is certainly an option economically, it’s still not agoric because not only does it not challenge the power of the State as the black and grey markets do, but it actually reinforces it by way of submission to its edicts. For instance, it’s already legal to trade Bitcoins and grow community gardens; what would be agoric instead would be assassination markets and guerrilla gardening, simply because they are considered mala prohibita by the State.

Derrick Broze & John Vibes’ The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy & Spirituality is certainly a better philosophical book than FREEDOM!, yet, its defense of first principles was, well, rather lacking. Property rights were equally trivialized or ignored, the chapter on collectivism was muddled, and most significantly, there was nothing practical offered, even in terms of freeing yourself within your own head. Meditation was encouraged, but no tips on how to do it, yoga was only mentioned in passing, and lucid dreaming was totally absent. Considering the baggage thrown upon readers, tutorials on how to make their promoted “spiritual agnosticism” work for you, at least for beginners, would have made this book more palatable, but I made the mistake of expecting too much from sensationalistic celebritarians, it would seem.

Posted in Literature Reviews | 2 Comments

A Primer on Homeschooling: How to Resist Centrally Planned Indoctrination

[Download a PDF of this article]

“I liked Prof [Professor Bernardo de la Paz]. He would teach anything. Wouldn’t matter that he knew nothing about it; if pupil wanted it, he would smile and set a price, locate materials, stay a few lessons ahead. Or barely even if he found it tough – never pretended to know more than he did. Took algebra from him and by time we reached cubics I corrected his probs as often as he did mine – but he charged into each lesson gaily. I started electronics under him, soon was teaching him. So he stopped charging and we went along together until he dug up an engineer willing to daylight for extra money – whereupon we both paid new teacher and Prof tried to stick with me, thumb-fingered and slow, but happy to be stretching his mind.”

Manuel Garcia O’Kelly



Homeschooling, simply defined, is schooling at home; in other words, it is any form of education taught outside of an institution. Parents and children who engage in homeschooling are both referred to as “homeschoolers,” although this term could easily be applied to any individual who is an autodidactic polymath. Various styles of home education range from replicating a classroom setting at the kitchen table, to allowing one’s personal interests to guide the curriculum’s subject matter.

Statistically, how many homeschooled students are there in the United States? Under the auspices of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the federal government has been tracking the prevalence of homeschooling since Y2K; in 1999, there were estimated to be 850,000 homeschooled students. Four years later, there were 1,096,000 homeschoolers, and the latest NCES report said there were 1,508,000 of them; this means that the national homeschooled student population has grown by 658,000 children between 1999 – 2007.

Over the course of those 8 years, there are some other relationships amongst the statistics I think are worth mentioning. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the resident population of the United States in 1999 was ~ 273,000,000 Americans; for 2003, the Census Bureau estimated there to be 290,809,777 people, and in 2007, there were 301,621,157 folks. What this means is that American homeschooled students comprised 0.003% of the national population in 1999, 0.004% in 2003, and 0.005% in 2007.

So, while there was a 9% increase in the total American population, the body of homeschoolers increased by 44% over the same period. Put another way, there was 1 homeschooler for every 32 Americans in 1999, yet, by 2007, the ratio between homeschoolers to all Americans had increased to 1:200. This suggests that even though the number of homeschoolers comprises a measurable portion of the American body politic, they are being vastly outpaced by overall population growth; therefore, homeschoolers would qualify as a statistical minority.

Constitutionally, is there an enumerated power delegated to any American government to tax, ban, or regulate homeschooling? There is no such clause in the 1787 federal Constitution, so this means that the Tenth Amendment comes into play, which tells us that the next legal document to check would be one of the 50 state constitutions. According to Article VII § 1 of the 1876 Texas Constitution:


“A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.”


Most of the rest of Article VII details how these “free” schools are to be funded by taxpayers, yet, its purview is restricted to these public schools. Much like the federal Constitution, the Texas Constitution is equally silent about the government having an enumerated power to control homeschooling in any way.

Statutorily, have there been attempts by the Texas legislature in using its Article VII delegated powers to infringe upon homeschooling? According to the Texas Education Code, there are truancy laws; compulsory attendance is located at §§ 25.085(a), 25.086(a)(1), and 25.094(a) & (e), which say, respectively, that:


“A child who is required to attend school under this section shall attend school each school day for the entire period the program of instruction is provided.”

“A child is exempt from the requirements of compulsory school attendance if the child…attends a private or parochial school that includes in its course a study of good citizenship…”

“An individual commits an offense if the individual: is 12 years of age or older and younger than 18 years of age; is required to attend school under Section 25.085; and fails to attend school on 10 or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year or on three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period.”

“An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.”


According to Texas Penal Code § 12.23, a Class C misdemeanor is punishable up to a maximum fine of $500. Even though there has been no delegated power to the Texas legislature to infringe upon homeschooling, their statutory exemptions for compulsory attendance do not specifically mention homeschoolers, but only those students attending a private or parochial school as being particularly exempt from the compulsory attendance law.

Judicially, was homeschooling upheld as an exercise of parental rights? The Texas Education Agency (TEA) prosecuted many homeschoolers during the 1980s because they claimed that these children were truants. Gary Leeper and other homeschooling families retaliated with a class action lawsuit against the TEA, which they won; TEA’s two different appeals in the early 1990s were subsequently denied. Judge Nathan Hecht wrote the opinion of the Texas Supreme Court in the case of Texas Education Agency, et. al. v. Gary Leeper, et. al., No-D2022 (1994), where he said that:


“At the beginning of this century the public school system of Texas was not well developed. No more than ten percent of school-age children attended public schools, according to the uncontradicted evidence at trial, as there were few private and parochial schools in the State, many children were taught at home…[e]nactment of the compulsory attendance law in 1915 did not end home schooling; some children continued to be educated at home just as they had before…the State never attempted to prohibit or even restrict home schooling, or to allege a violation of the compulsory attendance law based solely on a child’s being taught at home, until 1981. ”


Right there, homeschooling is admitted to being the norm during the early 20th century in Texas. Not only that, but there was a 66 year gap between the enactment of the compulsory attendance law, and its enforcement by the TEA. The crux of the entire matter, it would seem, was when Judge Hecht mentioned that:


“Not every statement by an administrative agency is a rule for which the APA [Administrative Procedures Act] prescribes procedures for adoption and for judicial review. As noted above, the APA applies only to statements of general applicability that implement, interpret or prescribe law or policy. The 1986 resolution was not such a statement…[i]n these circumstances, defendants’ argument that the 1986 resolution constitutes a rule is plainly incorrect.”


In other words, the TEA’s assistant general counsel presumed wrongly that because the compulsory attendance law did not specifically exempt homeschoolers, or otherwise define them as attending a type of private or parochial school, then therefore homeschooling had been outlawed, by default.

Thankfully, the homeschoolers defeated TEA through civil litigation, but they shouldn’t have had to in the first place. Homeschooling was never outlawed in Texas, so for TEA to exploit a loophole due to poor grammar and ill-defined terms by the legislature is just unconscionable. As Murray Rothbard wrote back in 1971:


“Obviously, the worse injustice is the prevention of parental teaching of their own children. Parental instruction conforms to the ideal arrangement. It is, first of all, individualized instruction, the teacher dealing directly with the unique child, and addressing himself to his capabilities and interests. Second, what people can know the aptitudes and personality of the child better than his own parents? The parents’ daily familiarity with, and love for, their children, renders them uniquely qualified to give the child the formal instruction necessary. Here the child receives individual attention for his own personality. No one is as qualified as the parent to know how much or at what pace he should teach the child, what the child’s requirements are for freedom or guidance, etc…the State has been warring with parents for control over their children.” [emphasis added]


If Rothbard’s observation here is correct, then wouldn’t the TEA’s frivolously litigious behavior be a fait accompli of “public schooling” itself? Government monopolies hate competition, so why anyone assume that “public education” could be anything other than incessantly politicized, because the teachers’ unions feel systemically threatened by the privatization of education, especially through homeschooling?

As a result of the Leeper cases, as well as similar legal actions over the past two decades, organizations such as the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and the Texas Home School Coalition (THSC) have arisen in order to preserve the liberty of parents to teach their children at home. Although I am a firm opponent of reformism, even I will admit, that HSLDA and THSC both have done some good work in shrinking the power of government regarding this single-issue topic; at the very least, they have kept the State at bay thus far, primarily by keeping parents out of jail and their children out of foster care. HSLDA uniquely provided not only a legal memorandum on homeschooling in Texas, but also a national color-coded map that briefly describes the level of government regulation upon homeschooling by the several States of the Union.

Financially, how much does homeschooling cost, relative to the cost of government schooling? According to the Census Bureau, the national average for current public school spending per pupil was $10,705 for FY 2013, and Texas’ spending per pupil was $8,299 that same year. While there is certainly variability in how the cost might be calculated, private sector estimates range from an annual cost of $2,030$3,200 for all children within a family. Of course, the price of something is not just in terms of textbooks and supplies, but also the opportunity costs involved. Consider the time and effort spent on Parent-Teacher Association meetings, lobbying the school board, and fruitlessly debating with your publicly schooled child at the dinner table about whatever nonsense they were indoctrinated with that day.

Realistically, how does one get started in homeschooling? Ideally, you’d never sent your toddler to kindergarten in the first place, so you’d be able to gradually transition your child towards learning actual ideas; however, if your child is already in a government school, you’ll need to withdraw them from it. Much like cancelling your voter registration, at least in Texas, withdrawing from public school is as simple as writing a letter to the principal of the school where your child is enrolled, informing him of your intent to engage in homeschooling. Should you receive a letter back expressing concern about the withdrawal, then send the bureaucrat a letter of assurance that you are in compliance with the case precedent set in Leeper.

The next thing you’ll have to do is for you and your child to habituate to a new routine. While the initial benefits of being able to sleep in, remain in your pajamas into the afternoon, and eat whatever is in the kitchen are appealing, it is crucial to maintain good discipline for the long haul. How exactly to go about doing so is beyond the scope of this primer, but suffice it to say that in order to remain motivated and on task, a certain amount of give and take is to be expected, and to greater or lesser degrees, depending on whichever style of homeschooling you decide to use.

Choosing a curriculum is crucial, and unless you are pursuing unschooling, you must fulfill government requirements for educational content. Again, your homeschooling style will initially gauge how difficult this is going to be for you; generally speaking, traditional and classical styles are easier to select curriculum for, yet, the unit studies and Charlotte Mason styles are usually considered more enjoyable. In many ways, decisions about choosing a curriculum gets more into the realm of personal choice, rather than anything else.

Don’t underestimate the value of distance learning and public domain books. FreeWorldU, K12, edX, and the KHAN Academy are but just a few of the distance learning options available to homeschoolers. The National Academies Press has 5,638 books you can download for free, and Miss Maggie discovered that she was able to download and cheaply print nearly all of the books she needed to homeschool her children from Project Gutenberg.

After you’ve gotten your feet wet, it’s time to expand your options. If it turns out there are subjects you are not skilled at teaching or would prefer someone else to teach it, then consider hiring a freelance homeschooling tutor. Usually these entrepreneurs are sought for their specialization, typically in mathematics or a foreign language, and their going rates become more affordable if you can hire them in tandem with a homeschooling co-op. Even without these specialists, homeschooling co-ops are a form of mutual aid, where homeschooling parents can barter goods, services, and favors with each other for their own individual advantage.

There are also side benefits to homeschooling, which are seldom mentioned. Direct control over your child’s food is imperative for parents who are concerned about genetically modified organisms, or even just good ol’ fashioned nutrition. According to Texas Government Code § 62.106(a)(2), homeschooling parents enjoy a jury duty exemption, but for only as long as the child remains younger than 12 years old. Best of all, there is no opportunity for the government to incentivize your children to snitch on you through indoctrination programs, such as D.A.R.E.

Alternative media content about homeschooling can both inform and motivate you and your children in pursuing free market education. Newsletters and magazines such as Home Education Magazine, THSC Review, Practical Homeschooling Magazine, and the former Growing Without Schooling are but just some of the options for up to date information about homeschooling topics. Video tutorials and lessons from websites such as Free Econ Help, Learn Liberty, and the Mises Academy gives you an idea for how powerful the Internet, as an educational tool, can actually be.

Support work and advocacy on behalf of homeschoolers is the best way for both former and non-homeschoolers to push back against centrally planned indoctrination. Workshops, ad hoc scholarships, and just plain encouragement can make the difference between a child remaining homeschooled, or being returned to a government school. A freedom holiday celebrating a “Homeschooling Day” might provide an opportunity for neighbors to stage a local freedom festival. Advocating for the further deregulation of homeschooling, as well as the abolition of all truancy laws, are noticeable milestones towards the separation of school and state.

Whatever nexus might exist between homeschooling and “peaceful parenting” is rather moot, because homeschooling is already inherently peaceful. I suspect the adherents of “peaceful parenting,” because of inconclusive neurological studies, intrinsically view parents as villains who must be rehabilitated, through their anti-spanking diatribes. Unlike “peaceful parenting,” homeschooling has not only borne its burden of proof regarding its efficacy, but it also engenders a can-do, optimistic attitude that is the complete opposite of the victim mentality.

I would like to offer a word of warning here. Not everyone is suitable for homeschooling. There are children who already don’t respect their parents, there are parents who already treat their children worse than pets, and homeschooling, for those families, would only exacerbate such a disconcerting situation. Even if the working relationships are good, children, as they grow older, might benefit from a change in homeschooling style, such as less structure in the curriculum as they mature, or they may even opt to return to government schooling.

Despite Charlotte Iserbyt’s incoherent rambling, I do think apprenticeships are crucial, especially for homeschoolers. Besides directly contradicting John Gatto, Iserbyt thinks that homeschoolers who get apprenticeships are somehow falling for some conspiratorial Marxist plot. Not only do employers and clients care more about your work experience and competency in your chosen field over that of your coursework, but the skills learned on the job can seldom be replicated anywhere else. The apprenticeship system built this country from nothing; just ask Ben Franklin. Homeschoolers should be less focused on getting admitted into college, and more focused on getting some actual work experience.

Over the years, the political implications of homeschooling, beyond irritating the education bureaucrats, have been mentioned publicly from time to time. George Carlin remarked during his last HBO comedy special in 2008:


“But I’ll tell ya what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking; they don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that, that doesn’t help them, that’s against their interests, that’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table to figure out how badly they are getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that.”


People using critical thinking around the kitchen table and then discovering the authoritarians surrounding them; that doesn’t sound like homeschoolers at all, does it? If you’re still incredulous, then consider the fact that none other than Vicki Weaver homeschooled her children before she was murdered by Lon Horiuchi back in 1993. Claire Wolfe has written about not only the connection between homeschooling and individual liberty, but also the fact that homeschooling is one of the relatively few methods that has solidly proven its efficacy in terms of restoring liberty.

Education is not the answer to tyranny, yet, it is the critical starting point for discovering such answers. Homeschoolers, more so than even their private school counterparts, are already predisposed to homesteading and the true independence of spirit that comes along with it. Depoliticizing education requires privatization, and the most frugal and effective way to do just that, is through homeschooling.

Posted in Dissident Methodology | Leave a comment

Reformism Does Not Work: A Critique of Political Activism

[Download a PDF of this article]

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak – unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next weak, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the illusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”

Patrick Henry


reformist mist


As I’ve written before, sound strategy rests of the rational synergy between ends and means. Diminishing the possibility of resistance by way of movement and surprise is fundamentally good strategy. Perfect strategy would produce a victory that would be virtually bloodless. Conversely, bad strategy would entail using the direct approach.

Grand strategy, therefore, necessarily requires ends-means consistency in order to have a any probability of success, in accordance with just war theory, particularly jus ad bellum. If there are no strategic goals, then what milestones could possibly ever be used to measure incrementally progressive successes? The fact of the matter is that reformism has utterly failed to satisfy its burden of proof for demonstrating its very integrity, simply because it is strategically unsound for the cause of human liberty.

Reformism, simply defined, is any attempt at working inside of the system in order to change it from within; in brief, reformism is applied collectivism. It operates on the presumption that individuals do not matter, and therefore only what the collective wants is what matters, in the final equation. Ideologues believe in the sanctity of the centrally planned tragedy of the commons, and they falsely justify the precautionary principle to shun market options as any sort of viable response to tyranny, preferring instead the empty moral platitudes of democracy.

What this means, of course, is that reformists are not only anti-philosophic, but also anti-empirical. They ridicule the twin libertarian maxims of the non-aggression principle and the self-ownership axiom, while also willfully ignoring the regulatory capture inherent to central planning, or the tragedy of the commons as a negative externality itself. Reformists, truth be told, worship their superhuman deity called “government,” whenever they insist Americans are just one more law away from utopia. Worst of all, reformists have the unbelievable gall to insinuate that their critics should be dismissed out of hand because they are allegedly free riders.

For three years, I have periodically addressed some technique of reformism that promised the moon to desperate men and women seeking any remedy that might alleviate their grievances. Each and every single time, without fail, my examinations into these methods revealed the grotesque face of modern American democracy. A listed bibliography of the entire series is as follows:

Whether it be elections, juries, or the news cycle, I think it is more than fair to say that the efficacy of the ballot box and the jury box can be safely judged to be insufficient for restoring liberty. Although I still have some faith in the soap box as a vehicle primarily for education, I am not naïve enough to believe that the soap box alone will prevent democide, which, as the evitable end of statism, will force you, sooner or later, to choose between the immediate fate of the pine box or a chance at liberation through the ammo box.

For instance, the proliferation of alternative media websites has inadvertently promulgated a culture of gossiping and rumor-mongering. Counter-productive debates between libertarians and statists are hosted by outfits that should know better than to place these very different folks in the same room. Writing letters to congresscritters and editors of corporate newspapers not only disrespects individual privacy, but prolifically wastes the human labor invested in persuading those whom will never read such letters. Petitions for redressing grievances are systematically ignored, and no voter can rationally evaluate which candidate would become the best elected ruler.

Begging for the rulers to solve your problems while yelling like a hooligan on the streets just demonstrates (pun intended) that you don’t deserve to be free, and neither does begging the rulers more politely at their own headquarters. Much like the corporate newspaper editors, politicians establish barriers to entry so as to further entrench their thrones from being challenged by hapless Americans. Government agents cannot be held accountable at all, and no amount of filming or suing them is going to change that fact. Finally, should you find yourself in legal hot water, socializing your court costs onto strangers by begging or guilt-tripping them into doing so is utterly repugnant, especially if the money is ultimately funneled towards something else entirely.

An explication about jury nullification is warranted here. Out of all the reformist techniques, jury nullification is, by far, my favorite of the bunch; yet, unlike Larken Rose, I am not at all convinced of its efficacy in securing liberty, as well as the fact that unlike every other single method I’ve written about, it’s the only one that’s coercive, mainly because of what statists call “jury duty,” which uses initiatory force in fabricating a sense of legitimacy towards either condemning humans who have harmed no one, or in excessively punishing those who have committed an injury to another.

If Shane Radliff’s experience in being coerced by the Illinoisan McLean County government into serving as a juror, just so he could be forced to convict a woman of “felony scratching,” for which she is currently rotting away in a government dungeon for the next 4 years, tells us anything about the power of jury nullification, it would be that nullification was immaterial to her case, yet, it made Shane complicit in giving a sense of legitimacy to the State, above and beyond his objections to the whole freakshow. In light of this, what value does jury nullification have to offer us in terms of shrinking the power of the State? I’d say about as much as a habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, at this point.

Pragmatism is often touted by reformists as the sole justification for their failed methodology. Larken Rose already debunked this nearly two years ago:


“Most ‘activism’ is completely worthless; in fact, it’s worst than completely worthless [because] it accomplishes more harm than good…I speak from experience. Many, many years ago, when I still believed in statism, I was politically active, and I campaigned, and I played those games, and I wrote my congressman, and did all that stuff (I’m kinda embarrassed to admit it now), but, yeah, I did that too. At the time, I really and truly believed that I was ‘fighting the right fight,’ [that] I was fighting against the beast. It only occurred to me many years later that I was actually feeding the beast lots and lots of fuel.”


He’s absolutely correct, particularly when you consider that reformists never measure the efficacy of their own “solutions.” For all of their talk about the virtues of “playing the game,” consider then how many elections have been won, how many unjust laws have been repealed, and how many cops and bureaucrats have been personally impoverished (or even fired) for their abusive corruption? I believe the right adage here would be, the silence is deafening.

The vainglory permeating reformist sophistry grows the misconceptions they perpetuate. Legal remedies such as reclaiming unclaimed property, or expatriation, are not reformist, simply because their goal is to assist dissidents in avoiding or escaping the State, as opposed to “infiltrating” it in order to remake it in their own image. Special interests (like secret societies, various flavors on the demographic kaleidoscope, “the corporations,” etc.) are the convenient bogeymen touted by reformists to be the problem, instead of understanding that the real problem standing against human freedom is the idea of “authority” itself; perhaps this will make sense to you once you comprehend the fact that most conspiracists are reformists.

Contrarily, not all minarchists are reformists, yet, too many of the anarchic philosophical schools tolerate reformism. Direct action, that is, the economic means of making money, is lambasted by reformists as either impractical or dangerous. If anybody is to be accused of being limited hangouts, it would be the reformists themselves, as evidenced by Naomi Wolf’s proclamation to the Free Staters during the 2014 New Hampshire Liberty Forum that, “We need the State…we need to become the State.”

Everything I’ve done to free myself has either been done alone, or in concert with other individuals in fluid affinity groups. The best repudiation of reformism I can figure, at least in terms of a legalistic solution, would be to cancel your voter registration. I proved it worked it Texas, and Shane proved it worked in Illinois, so it is possible to revoke your individual consent to be governed, at least to that extent.

Reformism is a negative externality itself, mainly because it unduly increases opportunity costs by tricking people into thinking that the political means of making money is somehow inexplicably viable for securing individual liberty. This foundational basis for reformism ought to be met with public ridicule, open scorn, and widespread contempt by both patriots and libertarians. At this juncture, the term “activist” might as well mean reformist. Might I suggest that, in order to distinguish ourselves from reformists, patriots and libertarians henceforth describe themselves as freedom outlaws?

Posted in Dissident Philosophy | 5 Comments

Suing the Government Does Not Work: Lawsuits Are Not Useful For Securing Your Liberty

[Download a PDF of this article]

Lawsuits are the judicial equivalent of ballots. If ballots are a substitute for bullets, then wouldn’t that mean lawsuits are also a substitute for bullets? Reformists insist that if “we” Americans sue the government more often for their corrupt abuses of our common freedoms, then our liberty would become secured. I contend instead that reformists have not satisfied their burden of proof for demonstrating the efficacy of lawsuits in shrinking the power of the State.



Reformists incompletely praise any goal of lawsuits, because for them to do so would be to reveal some ugly truths about the nature of modern American democracy. Certainly, while it is true that lawsuits could (hypothetically) be used by patriots, libertarians, and other types of dissidents to hold the government (somewhat) accountable by constraining its power (somehow), revenge against “public sector” employees is also an equally probable reason for suing the government. Enrichment for the plaintiff’s own wallet is an less frequently admitted motive, especially considering the damage such a “money-grubbing” image would cast upon the reputations of various litigants.

Hypothesizing about the efficacy of anything is not very useful if your a priori reasoning is less than convincing. This is largely why I prefer, when dealing with my opponents, to rely more heavily on whatever empiricism I can muster on behalf of human liberty. To that end, I will be examining a little over half a dozen lawsuits in order to determine, within the parameters of the sample, whether lawsuits are conducive to the restoration of our common freedom.

Judge Alice Batchelder ruled in the American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, Nos. 06-2095/2140 (2007) case that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the NSA’s Stellar Wind surveillance program because they couldn’t prove they were directly targeted by it. In other words, the ACLU was unable to challenge the constitutionality of the wiretapping itself because, by its very nature, Stellar Wind was a dragnet. According to that line of judicial reasoning, then I suppose those mobile X-ray vans roaming neighborhood streets are just as equally “constitutional” in their warrantless searches, am I right?

Judge John Bates ruled in the Oberwetter v. Hilliard & Salazar, No. 09-0588 (2010) case that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was dismissed because “expressive dancing” was a “public demonstration,” and therefore it was categorically disruptive to the tranquil and contemplative mood enforced at the Jefferson Memorial by the National Park Service. This is not an attempt by the government at chilling free expression, to paraphrase the judge, since the government is being “viewpoint neutral” by prohibiting all demonstrations; apparently, it also turned out that the Jefferson Memorial is a “nonpublic forum,” which is why “public demonstrations” are banned. Needless to say, this didn’t stop Adam Kokesh from dancing at the Jefferson Memorial on both May 28th and June 4th of 2011.

Besides the property ownership issue, there is also an element here regarding the use of force, which is why I think this case uniquely angers philosophically consistent libertarians. Oberwetter was accosted by Hilliard who ripped out her earbud, violently twisted her arm, shoved her against a pillar, and subsequently arrested her for “disturbing the peace,” releasing her 5 hours later. A few days later, Hilliard issued her two citations, one for “demonstrating without a permit,” and another for “interfering with an agency function.” Hilliard failed to properly prepare the matter for a court hearing and he neglected to proceed further in prosecuting Oberwetter.

Why is this significant? Judge Bates ruled that Hilliard cannot be sued by Oberwetter because Oberwetter did not have the right to “expressively dance” within a “nonpublic forum.” Due to this, Hilliard did have probable cause to arrest Oberwetter, because she was violating the administrative regulation against demonstrating within a “nonpublic forum.” Furthermore, Hilliard, as an officer, had the “authority” to use coercion during the course of an arrest in order to successfully effect it; since there was no observable injury to Oberwetter after the fact, Hilliard’s use of force was, therefore, not excessive.

So, if a domestic abuser were to mimic the result of Hilliard’s violence with a sack of oranges, considering Judge Louie Brandeis’ warning in 1928 that the government teaches the whole people by its example, does that mean the battered spouse cannot seek financial recompense? Oh, wait, silly me…I assumed that the State existed within the ethical boundaries the rest of humanity commonly abides by. Yet, despite the spontaneous order of the free market, I tremble to contemplate that, without any government, who would violently slam dancing women against stone pillars?

Judge Sam Lindsay ordered that the Dobbs v. Farrell & Helleson, No. 3:12-CV-5141-L (2013) case be dismissed with prejudice, with all parties bearing their respective litigation costs. Farrell forced Dobbs into a traffic stop because he claimed she and her niece were littering on the highway. During the stop, Farrell believed he smelled the scent of cannabis within the car, and after questioning Dobbs, he called for backup. Helleson arrived on scene in order to execute warrantless cavity searches of both women, which included inserting her fingers inside both the anuses and vaginas of these woman; keep in mind too that Helleson used the same glove for the entirety of these searches. All of this was captured on Farrell’s dashcam.

The contesting parties entered into an agreed stipulation of dismissal with prejudice because they had reached an initially undisclosed settlement. Later that day after the close of the case, Scott Palmer, the Dobbs’ attorney, told a CBS affiliate in the Dallas-Fort Worth area that the settlement was in the amount of $185,000 from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). I guess the lesson to be learned here then, is, don’t litter while driving through Texas, because you just might get finger raped by DPS. Too bad Dobbs didn’t push for a jury trial, because it would have been more satisfying for me if the jury had convicted Helleson of sexual assault and Farrell of aiding and abetting, unless that would be more appropriate for a criminal case.

Speaking of settlements, such was also the result in Eckert v. Hidalgo & Deming, No. 1:13-CV-00727 (2014) case. Eckert was forced into a traffic stop, and during the course of it, the cops lied by claiming that Eckert was hiding illicit narcotics within his anus. Eckert was subsequently arrested, and then taken to Gila Regional Medical Center, where he was forcibly anally probed repeatedly; this entailed two X-rays, three enemas, and a surgical colonoscopy. Ultimately, Eckert settled for $1,600,000 from both Hidalgo County and the City of Deming.

Interestingly enough, the settlement mentioned that Eckert must bear the cost of his own legal counsel, and is also liable for paying federal income tax. This raises a rather interesting question – are settlements, or even damages, tax exempt from federal income tax liability? If not, then that would suggest the abused citizen gets raped twice: first, by the rape itself, and secondly, by way of taxation.

Judge Edward Lodge ordered in the Miller v. City of Post Falls, No. 2:13-cv-00517-EJL (2014) case that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice because the parties had reached an undisclosed settlement. According to the complaint, Miller was raided in the middle of the night by the Post Falls Police Department. Office Uhrig ran up to her home, bursted through the front door, and informed Miller he was going to search her house. Despite her objection, he grabbed her arm, twisted it up behind her back, kneed her in the middle of her back, and then handcuffed her while telling her to “stop resisting.” Next, Uhrig drew his gun and searched the house while repeatedly yelling, “POST FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT!,” and “GROW!,” despite the hysterical shrieking of children in the home.

Requests to the officers on scene to shut the door because of the 23 degree outside weather, or to be quieter because of the sleeping infant baby, went unheeded. Miller was placed under arrest for growing cannabis, and the rest of the household were either placed into “protective custody” or were otherwise evicted from the premises. Miller was released approximately 48 hours later; 6 months later, a court hearing was set, on the grounds that she was charged with simple possession of cannabis, yet, the court ended up suppressing all evidence because the government police had made an unlawful entry.

As part of her lawsuit, Miller was ordered by the court to submit to a Defense Psychological Exam. Following the undisclosed results of that exam, the parties reach a similarly undisclosed settlement. It’s awfully too bad that neither the corporate nor the alternative media were able to discover the settlement amount.

Uniquely, a jury found in the Genovese v. Town of Southampton, No. 10-CV-3470 (2014) case that malicious prosecution had occurred. Nancy Genovese was detained for over 5 hours at the side of the road because she was photographing a displayed helicopter shell at a National Guard base. Genovese’s legally stored rifle was seized from her car, and she was threatened with being charged as a terrorist in order to specifically intimidate other Tea Partiers; also, defamatory statements were made about her by the government police to the mainstream press.

According to the complaint, the cops also stole $5,300 from Genovese’s wallet, she was forced to disrobe in front of one of them while getting a medical examination, and they eventually put her on suicide watch, which required her to wear a suicide gown (this is essentially what mental patients in a padded room wear); despite her continued pleas for a clean gown once it had become soiled over the course of several days of being forcibly bound, these pleas went unheeded. Thankfully, the jury verdict found Deputy Robert Carlock guilty of malicious prosecution, yet, for whatever reason, they also thought that Genovese had failed to prove either battery or political oppression. The jury only awarded Genovese $1,112,000 for compensatory damages, but nothing for punitive damages against Carlock, simply because they could not reach a unanimous decision.

Judge Jeffrey White ruled in the Jewel v. NSA, No. 08-04373 (2015) case that plaintiffs had failed to establish “a sufficient factual basis…[that] they have standing to sue under the Fourth Amendment regarding the possible interception of their Internet communications.” Former AT&T technician Mark Klein’s testimony was useless, because he could not determine “the content, function, or purpose” of Room 641A as a black room within the SBC Communications building in San Francisco. Again, plaintiffs’ case was dismissed since they were unable to challenge the constitutionality of the wiretapping because it was a dragnet, just like 8 years previously.

Tabulating these cases briefly, I think, will concisely reveal some much needed truths regarding the effectiveness of suing the government. Assuming that settlements are draws, awarded damages are wins, and dismissals with prejudice are losses, then the results of the aforementioned data set are as follows:

  • ACLU: lost
  • Oberwetter: lost
  • Dobbs: draw
  • Eckert: draw
  • Miller: draw
  • Genovese: won
  • Jewel: lost

Out of this sample of 7 cases, in terms of percentages, this means that only 14% of these cases were clearly won, and that 42% of these cases ended equally in either a loss or a draw. Even if I inflate the success ratio by considering draws the same as wins, then still only 57% of these cases ended in some sort of monetary awards, which could be considered a viable goal for the plaintiffs if the goal was simply financial recompense, and not necessarily any serious attempt to reign in government power.

What does all of this actually mean, though? First, let’s take a look at the seldom mentioned Seventh Amendment:


“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”


Obviously, it’s a little hard for plaintiffs to exercise the 7th Amendment with the federal judiciary if they end up, quite literally, settling nearly all the time (pun intended), as Angel Dobbs, David Eckert, and Melissa Miller did. I fail to see how settling with the King’s guards reigns in the absolute power of the State. Secondly, consider the following YouTube comments by a user, dodgeman7909, who criticized Larken Rose for being a self-defense advocate:


“Now I am a police officer but I’ll be the first to tell you there are some bad cops out there but an overwhelming majority of us are good. I believe in the constitution and everybodys rights. I am against gun bans and very restricting laws. If you are too then state it and try to change it….not by saying shoot police, because that is the dumbest thing anyone could say. If you feel you are mistreated or denied your rights file a lawsuit or whatever but putting a video like this out there is ridiculous. If I had someone who tried to shoot me because they didn’t believe in government or whatever it will not end well for them because my main goal everyday I go to work is to go home when I get off and I’ll do anything to make that happen… And you [Larken Rose] are an extremist.” [emphasis added]


If indeed this “dodgeman” is part of the gendarmerie, and a “good” one to boot, then the only remaining question would be is that, is he the exception or the rule when it comes to “good” unconstitutional policing? Notice also the quick use of the term, “extremist;” doesn’t that mimic the political oppression of Nancy Genovese? Unjust profiling, much?

Let’s also consider some other factors that reformists, who advocate for suing the pants off of the government, frequently ignore. Policemen and judges enjoy qualified immunity and judicial immunity, respectively. Contrasting this with the statements of “dodgeman” suggests that you must rely on the government’s own rules to hold itself accountable, even if the judge ends up dismissing the case later, quite possibly with negative repercussions toward yourself if he deems the case “frivolous,” or worse, declares you to be a “vexatious litigant” for even taking your case to court in the first place.

If we are to learn from the government’s own example, then several more revelations present themselves for our remedial political education. Essentially, you have to wait around until the government hurts you, personally; should you receive a settlement or damages, the government will pay you using taxpayer money, or otherwise from some other source of wealth than it can easily replenish because of its taxing “authority.” At most, the State is only embarrassed by the notoriety caused by a lawsuit in the corporate media, not the substance of the lawsuit itself. If what happened to a plaintiff is horrendous enough, the government will be more than happy to offer a sacrifice in order to distance its legitimacy away from your case, usually under the auspices of “this is just an isolated incident,” as what happened in the Dobbs case with the firing of Helleson.

One reason to maintain as good health as possible is that once you are arrested as a political prisoner, then you are denied medical attention you ask for, and whatever medical attention they force upon you, is always used against you somehow (as in the Eckert and Genovese cases). The repeated theme in these lawsuits of narcotics prohibition, especially of cannabis (as in the Dobbs and Miller lawsuits), wouldn’t be tolerated for a moment in a truly free society.

The efficacy of lawsuits is approaching that of jury nullification, quite frankly, and not just in the sense of uselessly waiting around, but also the fact that you are still reliant upon the bar attorneys to make the opportunity for these techniques to manifest themselves in the first place! There is absolutely no semblance of trying to escape from the system here, but rather, an attempt to “change the system from within” by not only embarrassing it, but also “making it pay” using other people’s money, namely the taxpayers. I have not seen ONE civil case where a government cop was forced to perform restitution to his victim from his own pockets. Socializing losses, much?

Opportunity costs abound in lawsuits against the government. Civil lawsuits usually take months or even years (the Genovese case took 4 and ½ years!); imagine the emotional stress involved while the case is being adjudicated over that period of time. Should you win, consider also the opportunity costs incurred when you are doing things like reading law, talking to your lawyer, and waiting around in courtrooms. These occur even if you do “win” and receive money from the government, because that’s time and effort you can’t ever get back.

Worst of all, suing the government reinforces the legitimacy of the State itself. Lawsuits legitimize the coercive monopoly that is the judiciary. Reformists prefer other people to incur opportunity costs by learning all the rules of civil procedure, instead of focusing on developing free market alternatives to replace the judiciary.

To add insult to injury, nearly all the cases I’ve presented (except for the ACLU, Oberwetter, and Jewel cases), inherently rely on the 14th Amendment’s nefarious incorporation doctrine! Every single time a reformist suggests that a Title 42 civil lawsuit should be filed against an entity from one of the several state governments, they are invoking the forceful application of the United States Constitution against the several state constitutions, by way of the 14th Amendment. Title 42 United States Code § 1983 says, in part, that:


“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” [emphasis added]


To be “within the jurisdiction thereof” might as well be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” as far as I can figure it, unless there’s a legalistic distinction between the word “within” and the words “subject to.” You can never tell with lawyers how they are going to mangle the plain English language this week. In other words, reformists are morons who willfully neglect to read law.

The only real exception to my hypothesis that suing the government does not work is that, if what the government did to you was particularly egregious, and they impoverished you in the process, then a civil lawsuit might be your only plausible recourse towards getting your life back on track, but again, this is, at best, just a rearguard action (much like jury nullification) where the goal is to simply recoup your losses so you are not completely destitute, but it is certainly not a method you want to rely on as part of some overall strategy to secure your liberty.

Again, the best case scenario I can perceive is that the settlement or damages awarded to you make you potentially liable for paying federal income taxes, presumably because the IRS assumes the monies are the equivalent of “windfall profits,” and in that sense, are much like a capital gains tax. In other words, the government still wins, thereby making “successful” grassroots lawsuits more of a Pyrrhic victory, than anything else. Sometimes when you “win,” you still end up losing, simply because it’s not a tactical victory, since at the end of the day, you don’t come out ahead of the government in any real way, much less any sort of decisive or even strategic victories, that is, real victories.

Once you comprehend the truth that the law is a racket, then you begin to understand why really any sort of legalistic solution, unless it helps you escape or avoid the State, is truly little else other than a notorious reformist project of some kind. If the most successful result I can find from lawsuits against the government for committing explicit political oppression resulted in only compensatory damages after over 4 years in litigation, then I think any hope of “suing for freedom,” much like the freedom suits of old, should be given up entirely. The fact of the matter is that America is a police state, and anybody wasting time in a government monopoly courtroom attempting to hold statists “accountable,” is just as naïve or delusional as “copblockers,” at this point.

If for whatever reason anyone wants to bother with suing government agents, might I suggest exploring “your” state governments laws for doing so, such as the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code? At least that way, you won’t be invoking the 14th Amendment, and therefore it would be consistent with the legal concept of state citizenship. And for goodness’ sake, fund your own legal (mis)adventures, instead of trying to socialize it onto others through activist legal defense fund scams.

When it comes to the efficacy of suing the government, I think what I have discovered here just reinforces to me that Gustave de Molinari really was correct about the privatization of security services, especially considering that these rampant abuses committed by government police would never be tolerated by the customers of privately produced security, because they would be able to boycott those corrupt producers right into bankruptcy, and rightfully so.

In summation, when a reformist is grandstanding that you aren’t being patriotic enough or in accordance with libertarian principles if you fail to file a lawsuit, tell them, politely, to just bugger off. These nincompoops have failed to bear their burden of proof that lawsuits systematically work to restore or otherwise secure one’s liberty. Maybe if they spent half of their advocacy time on using the economic means of making money, then perhaps they would realize that the political means of making money only leads us down to the road to perdition.


Postscript: I’d like to thank Tennessee Rose for her invaluable assistance in getting the court documents that are now currently hosted and available for free download on Liberty Under Attack, for without her, this article would have been impossible.

Posted in Dissident Methodology | Leave a comment

Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook

Reformists have always implied, over the years, that their attempts at shrinking the raw exercise of power by the State is, in effect, a bloodlessly legal coup d’état. Naomi Wolf once warned that George W. Bush had staged a coup d’état on October 1st of 2008 in order to prevent the elections that year from occurring; not only that, but she also told the Free Staters during last year’s New Hampshire Liberty Forum, an idea to the effect of, “We need the State, we need to become the State.” The time has come to address the substance of what a coup d’état requires, and more importantly, whether it meshes with the twin libertarian maxims of the non-aggression principle and the self-ownership axiom, for the sake of ends-means consistency.



Strategic goals must be elucidated in order to understand conceptually what a coup d’état means. Luttwak first distinguishes between revolutions, civil wars, pronunciamentos, and putschs, and then he provides an actual definition:


“A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.”


Ah, what a unique choice of words, isn’t it? So, a facet of the government seizes control over other elements of the State by centralizing power unto itself; isn’t this what the United States Congress did back in 1946 with their creation of the Administrative Agencies as the fourth branch of government? Luttwak elaborates:


“If a coup does not make use of the masses, or of warfare, what instrument of power will enable it to seize control of the state? The short answer is that the power will come from the state itself. The long answer makes up the bulk of this book.”


Okay, I fail to see how reformists of any stripe could expect anyone to take them seriously with their claim that, somehow, by working inside the system in order to change it from within, is in any way a bloodless coup d’état! Not only that, but if Luttwak is correct, then the fact that the State is the only actor that can pull off a coup d’état, I think, settles the question in my mind as to whether reformism is an expression of a coup d’état, particularly considering whom the “liberty activists” are, in this context.

Constitutionally, both the federal and Texas governments appear to have outlawed coups. The clauses and their citations are as follows:

  • “The Congress shall have Power…To provide calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” – Insurrection Clause (Art. I § 8 cl. 15)
  • “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.” – Treason Clause (Art. III § 3)
  • “Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.” (Art. I § 22)
  • “He [the Governor] shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States. He shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions.” (Art. IV § 7)

Other than the difference between whom has the constitutionally delegated power to call forth the militia, both constitutions take a firm stand against insurrections, and I would assume that coup d’états would be included. Whenever reformist polemics loudly declare that they are “openly conspiring” to perform a bloodless coup, not only are such actions illegal, they’re outright unconstitutional! If these reformists advocate for a restoration of constitutional government, then what exactly are they restoring if they are intent on committing treason and insurrection against these United States?

Luttwak analyzes different political factions, and their importance to the conspirators of a coup d’état. One such analysis, I think, is worth mentioning, simply because it reinforces what I wrote three years ago about how Muslims are being scapegoated in order to justify the never-ending “terror war.” As Luttwak describes Islam:


“The political sterility of Islam in recent times has meant that, though, it has been used by governments to propagate their political initiatives, Islam per se has acted only when a direct attack has been made on religious orthodoxy. Consequently, unless our coup has a definite anti-Islamic coloring, religious leaders in Muslim countries will not initiate any action against us. We must therefore prevent our opponents’ imposing such a coloring on our coup.”


Perhaps the constitutionalist patriot faction could learn a thing or two from Luttwak here, instead of trying to counter-productively antagonize the Muslims every damn chance they get. Luttwak goes on to say that:


“Islam, which as the comprehensive nature of a religion, a political system, and a civilization, is still (though much decayed) a major political force and its leaders play a recognized political role…[t]he structures of Islam as an organized religion are fossilized; the fluid and dynamic aspect of the movement in its early days has been replaced by a dogmatic and extremely conservative set of beliefs, whose inflexibility is one of the causes of the present travail of the Arab world.”


Maybe if the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services chose to specifically exclude Islamists for this reason alone, then the backlash against them by American patriots wouldn’t have occurred, but hey, without government, who would forcibly balkanize the domestic population against itself?

Coup d’états require allegiance from the military. By contrast, guerrilla warfare literature has variously stressed the importance of popular nationalist support, as well as the political training of irregular combatants, besides the desirability for guerrillas to become ascetic social reformers. Similarly, underground resistance is about as antithetical to a coup d’état as you can get, mainly because it’s a reactionary pushback against the State by decentralized elements of the country.

During the execution of a coup, Luttwak stresses that the most important tasks the conspirators must do thoroughly is to sabotage the means of communication and transportation for loyalist forces. This could entail removing a few sections of rail lines or dunking radio equipment into buckets of water. Luttwak says about communication that:


“Our objective is not merely to control but also to monopolize the flow of information, and we must therefore deal with every single facility. This would be difficult (and would also lead to a dispersal of our forces) if we tried to seize and hold every single facility. Our strategy will therefore be to seize and hold just one facility, the one most closely associated with the voice of authority, while neutralizing the others.”


Notice the use of the words “monopolize” and “authority” in this quoted paragraph. This is an example of where a violent takeover of government by government is inherently authoritarian. Nothing good could ever come from this folly.

Let me take a moment or so to debunk some misconceptions. A coup d’état is not monkey-wrenching, precisely because the latter is a war of attrition, whereas the former is an immediate sudden change. Despite their polemic rhetoric, the unfree “Free State” Project and the anti-libertarian “Libertarian” Party have portrayed themselves over the years as legally acceptable coups, yet, as I hope I’ve already demonstrated, these reformist organizations are anything but coups; if anything, actual coups must be conducted in utmost secrecy in light their very unconstitutionality as well as the severe punishments for the conspirators in case of failure or if they are captured.

Edward Luttwak’s Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook is an enlightening look into an artificial contrivance by the State in destabilizing civilization as we know it. Coup d’états are an inherently statist phenomenon, and therefore, are intrinsically at odds with both libertarian principles and the economic means of making money. In other words, the military would be used to seize control of the civil government, so in that sense Naomi Wolf appeared initially plausible in her assertion back in 2008 that Bush, Jr. staged a coup d’état, yet, where she erred was in overestimating the threat, mainly because she, like most of the patriots, do not know how to do any sort of risk analysis or threat assessments rationally.

Sound strategy rests on the rational synergy between ends and means, and perfect strategy would produce a victory that would be virtually bloodless; however, does this mean that executing a coup d’état is primed as perfect strategy? Not if you are a libertarian, so, if anything, this would encourage us to use the indirect approach. Never forget that strength and training without discipline is useless, and I can say for certain that reformists have no discipline whatsoever.

Posted in Literature Reviews | 2 Comments

Running for Public Office Does Not Work: Why “Infiltrating the State” is Foolish

[Download a PDF of this article]

People feel indescribably trapped by this horrendous system that grinds us down, and it does so primarily by its very irrationality. Despite all the rhetoric you may hear about the practicality of elections, this is little else than badly constructed sophistry whose purpose is to suck American dissidents right back into the coercive government structure by increasing their opportunity costs. Failure to objectively judge the dangers inherent within the political means of making money reinforces the hapless citizenry’s Stockholm Syndrome with the State.



All anyone has to do, in order to determine the efficacy of trying to “infiltrate the State” with the explicit goal of either shrinking or abolishing it, is to discover how many elections have been won and how many laws have been repealed by those who claim to value individual liberty. Remember, all Hitchens’ razor demands is that the claim maker substantiate their claims with evidence; it is not incumbent on any critics, logically, to provide evidence debunking the claims in question (which would be attempting to prove a negative). Unfortunately for those who advocate running for public office as a viable technique for securing liberty, I have seen no evidence supporting their baseless assertions.

History is valuable because it reminds the future about the mistakes of the past, in the hope that they can learn a lesson or two from them. The 2004 “Libertarian” Party (LP) presidential debate between Gary Nolan, Michael Badnarick (the author of Good to be King), and Aaron Russo, while certainly entertaining, did not result in any electoral wins. Despite having ballot access in 49 of the several states, Badnarick, as the LP’s presidential nominee, still failed to win the U.S. Presidency, ultimately receiving 0.32% of the popular vote, and more importantly, none from the Electoral College (whose votes are required by the 1787 federal Constitution for the presidency).

Christopher Cantwell ran against Tim Bishop for his seat in the House of Representatives for New York’s first congressional district, back in 2010. Cantwell was joined by his campaign manager, Gary Donoyan, for an interview with Joseph Dobrian for the December 10th, 2009 broadcast of Hardfire, which is the only time I’ve ever seen Cantwell wear a suit and tie. His first venture into standup comedy took place at the LibertyFest NYC on September 10th of 2011, where he was introduced as a former aspiring politician; needless to say, Cantwell failed to beat Bishop.

Ron Paul ran three presidential campaigns, first in 1988, then 2008, and finally in 2012. As the LP nominee in ’88, Dr. Paul had ballot access in 46 of the several states and he received 0.47% of the popular vote; twenty years later in ’08, Dr. Paul failed to gain the GOP nomination, mainly because he only managed to get 1 – 2% of the delegates to pledge to him, and due to the shenanigans of the GOP at Tampa three years ago, Dr. Paul only got 8.31% of the vote for the party’s nomination. The receipts for these campaigns came out thusly:

  • 1988: $2,000,000
  • 2008: $28,100,000
  • 2012: $40,947,039

Despite both the financial and opportunity costs incurred by Ron Paul’s supporters, academics like Walter Block stubbornly insist on the political means of making money as being somehow viable to the cause of liberty. As Dr. Block said on The Lew Rockwell Show, episode 296, broadcasted on July 27th of 2012:


“How do we expect to win? The only way we can expect to win and bring about a libertarian society is to have a lot of libertarians. And how do you get a lot of libertarians? Well, the vehicle of the political process. I think Ron Paul has empirically demonstrated this, so, I don’t want to jettison the political process because we can use it as a means, as a vehicle, as Ron Paul has shown, to promote liberty, even though the thing itself is rotten to the core, as you [Lew Rockwell] point out.”


If Dr. Block means that running for public office is useful as a vehicle for raising campaign contributions, then I most certainly agree with him on that one, for as Penny Freemen told Adam Kokesh a month earlier, Dr. Paul’s portfolio has definitely grown, because of his presidential campaigns. Interestingly enough, Dr. Paul himself had something to say about the efficacy of his time in public office during his farewell address to Congress:


“In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways — thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history… I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out ‘the plain truth of things.’ The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.” [emphasis added]


Right there, Dr. Paul is directly contradicting what Dr. Block had said just four months earlier. How can infiltrating the State by winning elections and repealing laws be effective in securing liberty if your top champion explicitly stated just how much of a failure he was doing just that over the course of 36 years?

Some people have asserted, time and again, that it doesn’t matter whether running for office actually works to promote the cause of liberty, because it’s their “right” to run such campaigns in the first place. Constitutionally speaking, the federal one is silent on this, although it does mention the eligibility for the presidency in Art. II § 1 cl. 5, as well as for representatives and senators in Art. I § 2 cl. 2 & Art. I § 3 cl. 3, respectively; therefore, the 10th Amendment takes effect. Similarly, the 1876 Texas Constitution appears equally silent on the alleged “right” to run for office, at most stating which public offices are constitutionally established, and at times mentioning the length a citizen may hold such offices. Honestly, the only constitution I am aware of that enumerates a “right” to run for office is, quite literally, the 1972 Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Article 66 says:


“All citizens who have reached the age of 17 have the right to elect and to be elected, irrespective of sex, race, occupation, length of residence, property status, education, party affiliation, political views or religion. Citizens serving in the armed forces also have the right to elect and to be elected. A person who has been disenfranchised by a Court decision and a person legally certified insane do not have the right to elect or to be elected.”


If that sounds good to you, you might want to first watch PBS’ Frontline broadcast on January 14th of 2014 in order to gain some perspective.

Given that running for public office might as well be just another government program, then what are the rules imposed by the State? Limiting ourselves to only Texas provides a wealth of information, courtesy of both the Texas Secretary of State’s Qualifications for Office webpage and the Texas Election Code, which I will overview briefly now. Texas Election Code § 141.001 says that a candidate must be a United States citizen, 18 years old or older, have resided in Texas for a year, to not have been legally determined to be either partially or totally mentally incapacitated, and to satisfy any other eligibility requirements prescribed by law for the office being sought.

But wait, there’s more! Election Code § 141.031 says that the candidate must apply for a place on the ballot, essentially making what appears to be an affidavit, and § 141.035 says that the application and “an accompanying petition” is public information immediately upon filing. Independent (that is, nonpartisan) candidates are required by § 142.002 to make a declaration of intent to run, § 142.004 says that in addition to the application from § 141.031, an independent candidate must also file a petition to satisfy § 141.062.

Probably the simplest location for discovering what is required of candidates is to look at the Independent Candidates and Write-In Candidates webpages, courtesy of the Texas Secretary of State. If you are running as an independent candidate for a district, county or precinct office, then for your petition you must collect 500 signatures or 5% of the total vote, whichever is lesser, pursuant to § 142.007. For write-in candidates, they must collect a somewhat similar proportion of signatures, unless they prefer to pay a filing fee in lieu of getting signatures, which could range anywhere from $375 – $3,750, depending upon office being sought and population of a given electorate, pursuant to §§ 146.023(b), 146.0232, & 172.025; of course, this is different for a candidate in a primary where the filing fee ranges from $300 – $1,500 depending on the office, pursuant to § 172.024.

American patriots, I suspect, are not going to seriously plow through all the legal jargon in order to understand how to get their militiamen elected as county sheriffs just in time for the 2016 elections next year. All that the Texas Constitution has to say about county sheriffs is that they are elected every 4 years (Art. V § 23), they double as tax collectors in counties under a population of 10,000 (Art. XVI § 61), they receive free medical services paid for by the Texas government (Art. III § 52e), and, like all other elected and appointed officials, sheriffs take an oath not only to the Texas Constitution, but also the federal one as well (Art. XVI § 1).

I guess that explains why the Texas government left KC Massey to rot in solitary, despite the conflict of laws. So much for “oath-keeping” and “constitutional sheriffs,” especially considering the fake drone attack retreat during last year’s Bundy Affair, despite the ridiculous excuses offered later. To paraphrase Matthew 6:24, you can’t serve two masters, but that didn’t bother the speakers none at the Come & Take It! rally in San Antonio, back on October 19th of 2013.

Should you feel baffled, at this point, as to the sheer irrational complexity of running for public office, you are certainly not alone. Naomi Wolf mentioned in her book, Give Me Liberty, about how her socially democratic populist expectations were just crushed by the sheer weight of bureaucracy:


“I had told the young woman in Wisconsin to run for city council. Now I needed to see if I knew how to run myself and if I could help other people run. But I found that not only was usable information about democracy disappearing, so were the entry points to citizen leadership. I accumulated a stack of research materials from all the main resources a citizen would plausibly turn to if he or she wanted to run for office: state and city government, governors’ offices, Congress, county sources, and so on. I kept having a bizarre intellectual experience… [t]here is no way to know how to get one of those seats for yourself if you are a citizen – no way to compete fairly with the donors, cronies, members of special interests, lovers, business colleagues, or other people filling the seats that an American citizen should have free and fair and equal access to.”


She went on to complain that there are no idiot-proof tutorials about how to become an elected ruler. Ironically, she discovered how enlisting in the federal U.S. Army was amazingly user-friendly:


“When I had knocked on the door to this avenue of my possible public service, I found that the entry point could not have been clearer, better guided, or better designed to help me through the process…[i]n parting, I received several gifts. I received a number of illustrated brochures… I received a free DVD… I also got a coffee mug.”


Wolf presumes that democractic governments should go out of their way to lower the barriers to entry for citizens to directly contest the seats of incumbents. She fails to understand that this is exactly how the system is designed to work. Because the State is intrinsically a violently (anti-propertarian) coercive monopoly, it establishes barriers to entry in order to entrench those who imagine themselves to be our rulers upon their hallucinatory thrones. To paraphrase John Rockefeller, competition is sinful.

What are the contemporary attitudes of running for public office? Free Keene’s Ian Bernard is very much in favor of other people running for local (that is, municipal or county) offices, such as when he praised Tim O’Flaherty’s electoral win in Manchester’s Ward 5 as an oxymoronic anarchist politician. By contrast, Liberate RVA, from what I can tell, has been staunchly against popular electoral voting, which implies seeking political office as well. In 2007, Stefan Molyneux argued why infiltrating the State is foolish:


“Why don’t you join the Mafia, and turn them around? Turn them into the United Way, turn them into a nice group, or at least, get them to give up significant portions of their business. Join the Mafia, get them to give up half their gambling control, half their control of the prostitution rings, get them to give up half of their shakedowns, and half of their drug trade. Or a third. Or 10%! You can do that, and you will learn enormously valuable lessons about how to actually go about changing an institution, which everybody still considers moral and which has a huge and massive army. [*chuckles*] Do you see why it looks a little funny, I mean seriously, do you see why it looks a little bit funny for people to say, as one guy did, ‘Oh no, you see, Ron Paul, he’s going to make the world better and safer by closing down all the army bases, ending the war in Iraq, and bringing the military home.’ If you know how to control and minimize the biggest army the world has ever seen, then surely, infiltrating the Mafia and turning it around should be nothing to you. It should be a weekend’s work.”


Molyneux described earlier in his vlog that the ability to infiltrate any organization and then turn it completely against its own membership has not been demonstrated to be feasible by reformists. If the LP’s aspiring politicians do not possess the ability to infiltrate the KKK and turn it into the NAACP, then why would anyone assume they can infiltrate the State in order to turn it against itself by abolishing, or at least, shrinking it? I think the empirical record, as well as Molyneux’s cogent reasoning debunking this nonsense, should put to rest this silly advocacy that says dissidents should run for office.

Reformists who advocate for “liberty-minded candidates” to run for office willfully ignore electoral history, and they know even less about the law. If Fred Rodell was correct in saying that the law is a racket, then that slogan automatically debunks the viability of infiltrating the State by running for office by itself, simply because the only good reason for dissidents to become politicians is to repeal as many laws as humanly possible. If nobody showed up to vote, would there still be an election? If so, then the problem here is that those running for office are inherently relying on voter turnout in order to infiltrate the State.

Political processes don’t matter in the final equation, despite the empty bleating from reformists like Naomi Wolf and Walter Block. What does matter is enforcement. If the legislature passed a bill into law, and the police don’t enforce it, then what relevance does it have to your life in any real practical way?

In terms of “getting the message out,” political parties and running for office are, in fact, terribly ineffective ways to go about do so. Much better alternatives are educational organizations, such as the International Society for Individual Liberty and the Foundation for Economic Education. Vloggers such as Stefan Molyneux and Eric English, both of whom started their respective channels in August of 2006, have gotten over 58 million and 5 million total videos views, respectively. Since reformists themselves frequently use the alternative media for their own publicity, all I’m asking for, from them, is to have a minimum degree of ends-means consistency, particularly in light of the fact that they are not totally adverse to the economic means of making money.

Truth be told, I wouldn’t be surprised if the advocates of running for public office only did so because they honestly don’t know what else to do that would be more effective in terms of securing their liberties. Maybe if they were to cultivate a sense of patience, they would begin to understand the wisdom inherent in role-playing police interrogations, celebrating freedom holidays, and reclaiming unclaimed property. Until such time they give up working within the system, reformists will simply spin around endlessly in circles with no solutions, no real options, and no foreseeable way off the carousel of carnivores.

Posted in Dissident Methodology | 4 Comments

Electoral Insanity, 1980 – 2012

Today’s meme, courtesy of, is a reminder to everyone that popular electoral voting is quite impractical, despite what its ideologues might spew.

Posted in Memetic Warfare | 1 Comment