Month: December 2013

Economic Philosophy: Where Do You Really Stand?

Posted on Updated on


I think many people find themselves too busy to worry about economic philosophy. What’s to think about? We work, buy things, sleep, and repeat. Right? Well, there may be a bit more to it. Economic philosophies reflect broad variance in the direction of markets. Public economic philosophy affects job availability, product availability, our wages, and our quality of life in general. And, it wouldn’t matter if people had no control over which economic philosophy dominates the marketplace, but we do.

This is not intended to be a comprehensive definition or comparison of economic philosophies; rather it stands as a vague description of a few predominant viewpoints in modern society. I hope you’ll research them further, but this should at least present a gauge of where you may currently stand.

The Classical economic approach to markets suggests that they regulate themselves. It states that people are intelligent enough to understand what products they value based on their own preferences (functionality, design, aesthetics, etc.), and they’ll determine demand in the marketplace. Classical Economics also says that competition between providers of products and services drives the costs within a market place, thereby making affordable all things necessary and otherwise in demand. In short, if people want something it will be provided within the marketplace, and competition between providers will ensure the price is reasonably adjusted.

Neoclassical Economics proposes that the Classical economic approach is correct. However, in times of extreme economic downturns and the subsequent shock, the Neoclassical attitude claims that the government must intervene and impose economic regulations on the markets by force. It also proposes that the government police the financial system through a central bank. Today this is done through Quantitative Easing in which over 80 billion fake dollars are injected into the markets to prop up our failing system every day. Which system you ask?

More and more we’re seeing our government leaning toward a more Keynesian style of economics. Keynesian Economics posits that government ought to regulate the markets regardless of current conditions. Whether the markets are up, down, or stagnant, Keynesian Economics pushes for government force in all facets of the marketplace from areas as directly effective to people as wage-control to areas of macro-scale significance such as interest-rates. The argument here is that people are excessively obtuse and, therefore, unable to comprehend their own needs and desires; they must have government involvement in their decisions.

So which category do you fall under: Classical, Neo, or Keynesian? Are you intelligent enough to determine what you want, or do you require assistance? Do you have confidence in your neighbors to determine their own needs most of the time with the exception of periods of economic recession? Or do you find that you, and those around you are so pitifully moronic in nature that you all need someone else far, far away to dictate the cost of goods, the availability of products, how much money you are allowed to work for, and your over-all quality of life? Let me know.

Again, this is far too concise a characterization of these philosophies, so you’d need to read a bit more on each to determine all of the market variables and exogenous factors that play a part in market behavior. However, philosophically, I think this is a fair assessment of these positions.


Mandela: The Beloved Brutal Terrorist

Posted on Updated on


While Nelson Mandela was the head of the terrorist organization, UmKhonto we Sizwe, he ordered the bombings of many public areas in South Africa, including churches, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocents. Upon his capture, the racist and corrupt government in place at that time offered to let him go free in return for his public denunciation of his past actions and those of his followers, but Mandela refused. In 1962, he admitted to committing 156 acts of public violence and subsequently spent 27 years, or so, in jail.

After his release in 1990, Mandela hid his connection to the South African Communist Party in an effort to politically distance himself from the likes of Russian communists whose country was crumbling at the time. He was successful in his deceit and became the first black President of South Africa. Once in office, Mandela made a point not to take retaliatory actions toward his captors for which he has received much praise. He began spreading a message of equality and forgiveness; oddly, though, he began aligning himself with communist dictators around the world. Meanwhile, South Africa’s crime rates soared.

Today, South Africa is the rape capital of the world. Every four minutes a woman is raped in South Africa (66,000 rapes per year). South Africa has been widely known for its incredibly brutal and corrupt police force, largely made of “volunteers”, who are known to regularly rape and torture women throughout the country. Rates of this violent behavior have soared since Mandela started his campaign to spread peace. However, he did make significant contributions toward shifting the public outlook away from racism in South Africa through the peaceful forgiveness of his Apartheid predecessors.

Unfortunately, police corruption increased astronomically as well under Mandela’s guidance and has continued since his resignation. Last July, an internal audit of the South African police force uncovered 1,448 police employees, to include Generals, Colonels, Lieutenants, Captains, and Warrant Officers, with undisclosed convictions for murder, attempted murder, homicide, rape, attempted rape, assault, aiding and abetting, theft, breaking and entering, drug trafficking, kidnapping, robbery, malicious damage to property, and more.

Also, it’s unclear whether Mr. Mandela’s efforts truly helped resolve racist conflict. In 2012, an international monitoring agency, Genocide Watch, warned that South Africa was in the fifth of eight stages of the genocide process called the “preparation stage”. Genocide Watch officials reported that the African National Congress was engaging in a “campaign of state-sponsored dehumanization of the white population as a whole”. White farmers, in particular, seem to be on the receiving end of the brunt of the violence.

Violence, today, against white farmers in South Africa is excruciating just to hear about. One native South African recently told a reporter, “The other day, when we were having lunch—I couldn’t tell you how bad it is, it would have made you sick. About 10 klicks just down the road where I used to live, three blacks broke into a house, tied up the husband, gang-raped and killed the wife, before stabbing him like 14 times and chopping him with a panga [machete] and spreading the parts all over the house. Then they took their young son and drowned him in boiling water.”

Instances like this one are not rare. In fact the end of Apartheid and beginning of Mandela’s reign marked the incline of this egregious violence. Since then, approximately 3,000 white farmers have been murdered and countless numbers of them have been tortured, raped, beaten and robbed. Under and since Mandela, laws were passed forbidding the hire of whites, welfare increased exponentially, affirmative action measures were set, black police forces were mandated, etc. You might say that Mandela reversed his anti-racist revolution after taking office and, instead, created a lawless, corrupt, more racist and more violent statist establishment than that of the atrocious Apartheid regime he’d successfully expelled.

So why isn’t the media reporting this? Why is our president attending Mr. Mandela’s funeral? Why are so many people singing Mandela’s praises? How much good does it take to outweigh the horrific actions of this person prior to his imprisonment in 1962, and how much good does it take to outweigh the results of his leadership in South Africa after 1990? I’m not saying that the responsibility for every corrupt police officer, every raped and gutted woman, every drowned child, and every terrorized church-going bomb-victim rests solely on the shoulders of poor little Nelson! I’m saying, “Stop praising this unethical, disgusting, ruthless terrorist – turned socio-cultural devastator!”

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. In the age of information it has never been easier to know the truth, nor more difficult to stay focused on it.

Below are some links to my sources:,_where_corruption_is_normal.pdf

Robber Barons: An Unnecessary Good (Part One)

Posted on


Everybody hates a robber baron! Well, at least virtually everyone (those who weren’t properly educated on the matter). The public school system and liberal college agendas teach that wealthy, white men are to be denigrated for their greed and lack of compassion for the common man. As usual, this instance of “education” is another attempt to indoctrinate children into the belief that everyone deserves equality regardless of effort.

What they don’t usually stress, although it may be mentioned here and there, is that Vanderbilt destroyed the partnership between a private company and the government which had monopolized the ferry industry in New York State, thereby challenging the corrupt force of government guns being exploited in private industries. This means that Vanderbilt drove up competition in the transportation industry allowing for better quality, cheaper transportation for people using the ferry system.

It’s also highly unlikely that educators have been emphasizing Rockefeller’s incredible accomplishment of introducing “greener” energy by vamping up the world’s Kerosene availability. Through his work in this area, Rockefeller provided a new source of energy which he offered at a cheaper price to the consumer than the prevalently used whale oil of the time. The whaling industry was on the verge of wiping out whales – Rockefeller saved them! By 1890 the whaling industry was so devastated that the estimated amount of whaling ships had decreased from over 700 to somewhere in the neighborhood of 200. Also, the increase in availability of cheap oil allowed for most to afford lamps; suddenly, everyone could afford to stay awake after dark. This improvement to the availability of light was immeasurable in its impact on people’s quality of life and their ability to be productive after sunset.

Carnegie donated millions of dollars back in his day to build public libraries in an initiative to spread literacy throughout the U.S. He privately paid for over 1600 libraries to be built in the U.S. alone and over 2500 libraries worldwide. But, in order to spread envy, and hate of wealth, the liberal movement regularly bypasses this fairly important information, and instead tells of the low wage employment his companies offered.

Carnegie, Leviston and Rockefeller all donated millions of dollars and in some cases thousands of acres of land to help increase the availability of National Parks to the public. Keep in mind that millions of dollars in the 1920’s went a bit further then it would today. In fact, Congress didn’t appropriate any significant funds for National Park development until 1930; prior to that almost every source of National Park funds was private philanthropy.

The so-called Robber Barons of the 18th and 19th centuries didn’t steal anything; they earned it through educated, shrewd business dealings. They weren’t as greedy as you might think; they spread the wealth as they saw fit leaving the public with the benefit of the National Parks, Libraries, whales, an affordable energy source (in its time), increased productivity and comfort (ability to turn on a light in the dark), affordable transportation along the New York waterways, and much more. To brand these people as greedy, evil, or corrupt misses the mark as a summary. Stereotyping these amazing achievers and contributors to society as a negative force is highly inaccurate. They robbed no one, they weren’t government nobility, they did more good than almost anyone in their time, and their works led to the advancement of our society as a whole.

When you hear someone earnestly labeling these leaders of industry as robber barons, you’re hearing the liberal entitlement mindset. It bears no integrity, nor rationality, and it isn’t true. But, these days the government fills children’s heads with these fraudulent thoughts every year. What kind of people do they want the children to be? What kind of adults does the government want to reign over? They want tax-cattle. The kinds of people that don’t get it, therefore don’t question it, and as a result keep their heads down and eat the grass.

Heaven: The Mother Of All Womb-Dreams

Posted on Updated on

Across all cultures religion has been an infectious concept and has flowed from generation to generation with seeming ease. Even more interesting is the common ends of a proverbial “heaven” – an enticing provision awarded to those who pledge allegiance to religious deities and live in satisfactory subordination to the hierarchy and regulations of their chosen cult. Being that all of these lifestyle-memberships are generally sold on the basis of providing a product such as heaven, which cannot exist in reality, and would therefore seem difficult to believe, I find heaven to be conceptually fascinating.

What is heaven?

While the particulars of heavens differ not only from cult to cult, but from individual to individual, particular themes are abundant. In my experience and research, heavens are conceptually described by the majority of cult-members (most commonly, and not in so many words) as existing within the bounds of these three fundamental codes:

– Destinations at which interdimensional, conscious versions of humans posthumously reside.
– Regions of respective utopian ideals subject to cultural values and relevant to individual preferences.
– Paradises in which all needs germane to reality are either removed from the equation or fulfilled to a degree of hyperbolic contentment.

Some aspects of religious heavens are described in great, varying detail within their corresponding religious texts; however, these three requirements are generally accomplished within the official written descriptions. When assembled, these theoretical codes provide a portentous look at the projections of humans’ first impressions of their environments onto the reality of natural life. This starts the generation of the utmost fantasy of nanny-statism and, if we look closely, allows us to understand the infantile thought process from which our consciousness evolves.

What’s more fascinating than the portrayals themselves is that these concepts were derived in common cross-culturally by humans living very much apart from one another geographically, socially and, in most cases, in time without much (if any) transcultural interaction. So how can this be? Is the concept of heavens’ existence innate?

How are “Heavens” Conceivable, and Why?

As I alluded to above, there are too many parallels between the concept of “heaven” and the infantile consciousness of newborns to ignore. Furthermore, there are too many parallels between the evolution of the human psyche throughout natural life and the evolution of “heaven’s” rewards to overlook, however in the interest of brevity, but without discounting the importance of these complementary developments, I’ll stick to those occurring near infancy. Also, for the record, the following is my response to the above prompt based on some light reading and thought on the matter.

From the moment a baby exits the womb it is for the first time uncomfortable; it needs. A newborn baby has no understanding of the world around it. It has no intelligible appreciation for its environment; therefore, a baby is filled with the most sensational instinct it will ever feel at birth – responses to inexplicable negative stimuli in its environment. At this point a baby has never had a need go unmet, it has never been cold or hot, and it’s never been hungry or full without sufficient pacification of these needs being addressed instantaneous to their onset. Once in the natural world, the baby doesn’t misunderstand anything presented before it; the baby has no knowledge of depth perception, texture, light, shade, functionality, nor does it have the ability to draw distinctions between itself and its surroundings, therefore it cannot understand, nor misunderstand. At the moment after birth a baby must feel completely altered in the most absolute, yet ambivalent, way. It is suddenly cooler than usual, hungrier than usual, in pain as its umbilical-cord is severed and its butt is given a solid “whack”. Its skin is in contact with dry air for the first time, and its lungs are sucking it into themselves – what a sensation it must be to so suddenly be awakened from initial sleep to the full array of life’s most challenging and awe-inspiring sensations.

It’s terrifically difficult to fathom the gravity of this terse and offensive delivery into the natural world. A baby so abruptly travels the spectrum from living in a heaven-like environment in which every need is satisfied before the baby even feels an insufficiency, where all is well, warm, and entirely comfortable mentally and physically… to experiencing pressure, cold, stinging pain (“whack”), slicing pain (cord), fresh air expanding inside unused lungs, smells, tastes, textures, a bewildering display of colors and lights and shadows – a visual representation of three dimensions, and the ability to stretch out largely unused muscles. I mean, this is the moment in which a baby first feels its own weight bearing down on whatever surface it is laid. I assert that human birth has evolved into the unforgiving ordeal we know, because this experience becomes the most fundamental, foundational learning process that we ever endure, and its impressions and lessons are the roots on which we stand to strive throughout our entire lives.

From infancy onward the human experience is one of curiosity and instigation. We are all searching to get back to the place from whence we came, probing to find the paradise we were torn from. We long for a situation in which our every need is met. Of course, throughout our lives we develop desires superfluous to our necessities as well; this is why heavens are often purported to consist of buildings and streets made of precious metals and polished rocks, and to house young women with unused vaginas.

I would assert that this function of birth was naturally selected as it provides a most basic, intuition within us that something better exists, thereby making us constantly, subconsciously aware of our uncomfortable circumstances relative to what once was. This serves to inspire us to incessantly endeavor to achieve better circumstances for ourselves. It would seem that a pleasant and comfortable birth spent gently weaning us off of our heavenly situations within the womb would serve to cause weaker-willed offspring. Whereas, the ruder the awakening – the more urgent our motivation to get back to paradise. This instinct provides an ideal mental state for surviving, planning for the future to survive, and creating a posh environment to aid in providing for and protecting offspring in the future…so they can survive.

Obviously you can see where every decision a person makes throughout their entire life is for the betterment of their situation (until they produce their own offspring). Unfortunately, the side-effect of this natural stimulus is that we are susceptible to delusions of grandeur. When modern Homo sapiens use language to communicate (language which was not in existence, hundreds of thousands of years ago, when this birth-process modification began producing stronger specimens outlasting their lazier counterparts) we are inclined to follow the information which leads us to the ultimate nanny-state. We long to be taken care of and made perfectly comfortable at all times. We want all of our wishes met, etc. Thus, when sociopaths developed in the modern age (geologically speaking), illusions of heavens in which poor people live like kings and everyone sucks down nectar and ambrosia like Zeus-squared sold like hot-cakes; humans became entirely moldable, willing to do whatever it took to make it back to the ignorant bliss of the womb.

This is how we are able to conceive of a place such as heaven when it is spoken of, why we believe it might truly exist; we’ve been there before, and we were divorced from it terribly. Today, people hate each other for chasing the wrong womb-dream or no womb-dream. They offend one another with extreme bigotry in the name of their gods. More unfortunately still, are the ill-fated attempts to be accepted into the heavens via explosive-ordnance-strapped-to-crotch-in-crowded-area. Indeed, modern humans will do pretty much anything to get back into the embryonic sack. Granted, many a malicious threat has been dealt to aid in the rookery of religion; after all, without a disgusting amount of violence the church would fall apart as people would go about seeking genuine solutions to their needs.

Are you living in reality or have you succumbed to the temptation of chasing a womb-dream?

Teaching Your Child Religion: An Illustration of “Why Not”

Posted on Updated on

A reader brought this Facebook post to my attention this evening. I’ve altered it slightly to adjust punctuation and tense for the sake of fluidity. Regardless of my changes, this line of thought is one I hope all parents consider at one time or another. Below the quoted post are my interpretations of the questions and my immediate responses to each.

“I’ve often questioned the merits of religion; in fact, I think about it daily. I wonder how [much] better a person I [would] be if I feared my eternal soul’s destiny [and chose] the path of righteousness compared to how much I love my fellow beings now. And, I also wonder what I should teach my own son – my son who already has so much compassion in him as a toddler that he [would] put his own needs aside to ask if you’re okay if you show the slightest bit of agony. Why would/should I add fear to [his world]?” – Facebook User

Here’s my stab at it:

Question: Would fear for eternal damnation of your soul motivate you to be a better person?

Response: This is an easy one. If you are easily motivated by intimidation, the answer may be yes. Look at your lifestyle now, and think about your behaviors and actions and the things that compel you to behave and act in those ways. If you only show up to work because you’re afraid of getting in trouble, than your motivated by fear; if you show up because you’re a part of a team and enjoy supporting the collective efforts of your peers and superiors then fear is not your primary motivator.

Likewise, if you pay your taxes on time out of fear for future financial hardship and imprisonment, then again motivation by fear may be for you; if you find yourself feeling compelled to pay your taxes for the betterment of your fellow man and your country, then, again, fear may not be your best motivator.

After analyzing a few of these sorts of lifestyle choices, it should be plain to see whether or not you’d benefit from being frightened of a cosmic bully in your day to day life.

Question: Should you lie to your child about the existence of a trio of celestial jewish zombies, each existing in parallel dimensions and in different, inexplicable forms? And, further, should you threaten your child with truly egregious and unimaginable torments and eternal injuries in order to destroy your child’s innate sense of rationality and logic as a means to control him/her?

Response: Well, this one seems rhetorical, doesn’t it? Let’s pretend it’s not.

When a child is in its most formative, most impressionable years, it would be absolutely devastating for the child to realize that their parent is liar. Therefore, children excuse parents’ lies without a second thought and justify those lies in their minds as a defense mechanism warding off insecurity in their uncontrollable life situations.

You see, a child is helpless. A child is at the most utter mercy of those who’ve had the fortune of deciding to produce one and raise it. The child cannot leave if its living conditions are poor, nor can a child fight back (physically, emotionally, verbally, etc). No, the child is stranded to the situation into which it is born. As such, it would seem that the most valuable information to share with a child would be truths and principled concepts.

To illustrate this point I submit this analogy:
Imagine one afternoon; you’re volunteering at a retirement home filled with really, really old people, most of whom have dementia. Now imagine you enter the room of an elderly woman with Alzheimer ’s disease. Her name is Hazel. She’s 5’2”, her short, curly hair is silver, and she looks perfectly content – perfectly comfortable as she rocks back and forth in her chair by the extra-tall window overlooking the courtyard between the retirement home and the building next door. Hazel smiles at you, and in a voice shockingly peppy she says, “Good morning!” and raises her cup of coffee as if to give you cheers.

Before you can respond, one of the hospice-workers brushes by you and confronts Hazel. He kneels down in front of her and says, “Hazel, are you allowed to drink coffee after Three O’clock?”

Hazel looks away from you, slowly making eye contact with the employee. She sheepishly responds to his question, “Uh…I think I can have some coffee.”

“No. You can’t!” the caregiver says raising his voice, “there’s an invisible, venomous snake on your head! You can’t see it, you can’t tough it, it has no smell, it doesn’t make a sound, but if you have even one sip of coffee after Three O’clock the invisible snake with bite you, and you’ll shrivel up into a little dried out ball and nothing will save you! You’ll live for only a few moments of excruciating pain throughout your entire body and then you’ll choke to death on your own blood and vomit!”

Hazel bursts into tears and mutters pathetically, “Alright! I’m sorry! Please, take it.” She moves the cup toward him in her quivering hand.

The caregiver gently takes the cup of coffee away from Hazel and pats her on the head. “Good girl,” he concludes. Then he walks past you and out of the room.
The End

This sounds like a ridiculous, ludicrous line of behavior. It’s nearly unimaginable to any sane person. One would have to be so incredibly irresponsible, grotesquely controlling, and insidiously egocentric to stoop to such a shameful level in order to control a person so helpless – a person so dependent. A person would have to be absolutely, unapologetically mentally sick. Yet, when it comes to children, it happens every day.

Babies are born with instincts, and those reactive behaviors need to be guided and shaped by parents throughout their childhood in order to produce a clear-thinking, strong-willed, upstanding member of society. To purposely stray from this responsibility as a parent, and purposefully exploit a child’s trust with the intention of frightening the child into behaving unnaturally is despicable.

I know that some people subject their children to the abuse of religious indoctrination coming from a place of warped reality, and supposed love. Those people usually have been abused themselves, and have been, quite literally, brainwashed by their family, and/or peers. They are not clear thinkers; they’re conformists who make their decisions based first on intimidation from the state and their gods. A sane parent wants nothing like this for their child.

I suggest parents spend large amounts of time in quality thought in order to realize a set of guiding principles that they believe will truly lead to success (but what is successsssss???). Yeah – that type of thought. And, once a parent has found their own set of guiding principles, their own philosophy, they ought to apply it to their own life and make sure it’s effective and reasonable. Only then should a parent consider teaching their child about depth in life. By doing so prior to figuring it out for themselves, parents are apt to do more damage than good. And, of course, to take the easy route and resort to teaching ancient, mistranslated (hundreds of times over), ooky-spooky, crazy-ass-invisible-terrorist-with-a-list-of-demands-and-sorcerer-powers principles is certainly about the worst thing a parent can do to their child’s fresh, sponge-like mind.

This is getting a bit lengthy for a Facebook response, so I’ll leave it here. Like you, Mr. [Smith], I do not wish to offend anyone; however, I, on the other hand, am not opposed to it.
– Pcoast

For a deeper look into the perils of religiosity I highly recommend you read my article, “Why Your Religion Matters To Me and Others” @

Raping the Innocent in a Fraudulent War

Posted on Updated on


It’s no secret that the War on Drugs has been an astronomical failure in every aspect. Since 1980 the population of drug-criminals in the U.S. prison system has increased from 40,000 to 500,000 according to CNN. CNN also reports five percent of our national debt ($1 trillion) has been spent funding the fraudulent war. A study at the Cato Institute indicates the U.S. would save approximately $41 billion per year were drug use to be decriminalized; and the tax revenue projections are stunning. I could list dozens of fairly shocking numerical stats pointing to the illegitimacy of the War on Drugs, but these bits of data are readily available on the web.

Instead, I’d rather focus on how far gone the enforcement of legislation related to the War on Drugs has become. In my article, The Government Isn’t Working for You and the Police Are NOT Your Friends, I wrote about a man suspected of being in possession of marijuana. Government thugs broke into the man’s home in the middle of the night. His dog was shot to death, and his wife and 7-year-old son were taken from their home as the man was shackled and kidnapped by the government’s hired-guns. When I wrote that article I was livid, because I’m a dog lover, a husband, and a man who values liberty more than his country’s government. I was boiling with hate for the pathetic bullies who invaded this man’s home and stripped him of his freedom in retaliation for his supposed possession of arbitrary vegetation. I thought this was the worst display of a Drug War atrocity I’d ever see in America, but I was wrong.

I just learned of an incident which occurred in the beginning of 2013. David Eckert, an average citizen, finished shopping at his local Walmart, hopped in his car and drove away. Unfortunately, Mr. Eckert didn’t come to a complete stop at a stop sign on his way home. He was routinely pulled over by law enforcement. Upon pulling over, Mr. Eckert was forced to exit his vehicle. As he stepped out of his car the police officer(s) decided Mr. Eckert was clenching his buttocks which they determined was a reasonable segue to search Mr. Eckert’s anal cavity for narcotics.

A judge quickly signed a warrant for the officers and, according to KOB4 Eyewitness News, over the next 14 hours Eckert was forced to be x-rayed, anally force-fingered, anally force-fingered again, forced to undergo an enema and defecate in front of doctors and police officers, forced to watch these people sift through his feces, forced to undergo a second enema and publicly defecate again, forced to undergo a THIRD enema, forced to defecate in front of his captors a THIRD time, forced to watch as his captors searched through his fecal matter a THIRD time, forced to undergo a second x-ray, forced to be sedated, and lastly forced to undergo a colonoscopy in which a camera penetrated his anus and was then shoved through his colon, and large intestines. Throughout the ordeal Eckert protested every procedure forced upon him. Eckert maintains he never gave permission for any of it.

No narcotics were found throughout the brutal 14 hour torment. Police reports, medical reports, and a lawsuit all document the government overreach in its entirety. It even turns out that Eckert had to be taken to two hospitals for the physical violations listed above, because the first hospital would not perform them, stating that to do so would be “unethical”.

Every time something is made illegal, Americans are sold on legislation that criminalizes an activity. But, in truth, activities cannot be criminalized; only people who take part in those activities can be criminalized.

So when a person says that drugs should be illegal, what are they really saying? They’re saying that people who use drugs are so unlike them, so different ideologically, that they think drug-users should be kidnapped, sexually violated, humiliated and degraded, and imprisoned in a rape-room. They’re further implying that these people should be shot to death if they resist this treatment. These people use soft words to describe their wicked desires like “arrest”, “search”, “serve time”, etc. Unfortunately, soft language doesn’t actually soften the literal reality brought on at the hands of the government’s enforcers.

The War on Drugs takes this grotesque attitude one step further and allows for innocent people who’re simply suspected of living their lives on a different ideological plane, to be kidnapped and raped with fingers and objects, to be forced into chemical-induced unconsciousness, to be subjected to x-ray radiation, etc. Don’t forget that police officers, a judge, doctors, and nurses alike all agreed to this line of behavior. We’ve surrendered our liberty to the government in hopes of being on the right side.

Everyone wants to stop a bad guy. They just don’t realize that only difference between themselves and the bad guys, in this instance at least, is a technicality scratched in ink onto a piece of processed tree bark by some guy they’ve never heard of and stored thousands of miles away in the basement of a building they’ve never seen. We’re all living under the threat of this aggression. We’re all a clenched butt-cheek away from this sort of peril. And why? Because someone somewhere decided that nobody should consume variable plants and chemicals? Because somebody was ideologically opposed to others’ lifestyle choices we all have to forfeit our liberty? I say no.

America is a nation of individuals. The men who designed America’s framework rooted our country’s foundation in the concept that the individual ought to be left alone. The War on Drugs is a heinous piece of criminalizing words. It’s a hellish bureaucratic wasteland inviting all frauds and abusers to its filthy grounds. Where do we draw the line between ourselves and our government? At what point do we fight back? The government truly isn’t working for us; it is attempting to steal our liberties as a means to control our productivity and property. And, the police are not our friends, though government schools, government-censored media, and propaganda has led us to believe this to be true; police are gangsters, armed thugs hired to protect the government’s interests.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be police. I’m saying that we should be aware of who they really work for, and reject the laws that allow innocents to be abducted and assaulted under the threat of murder for moral differences. When an adult makes a decision to do something that hurts no one other than them self, a crime has not been committed; rather, a moral difference has been exercised. And anyone who says differently is either regurgitating rhetoric, ignorant of the literal consequences they’re supporting, or a really sick mother fucker. I hate that the last line sounds like an appeal to acceptance, but it is reality; it’s harsh, true reality.