The State’s Knife

Please keep in mind that I am not a poet; I’m simply trying to expand my horizons. As with my first haiku, I appreciate any and all constructive criticism.



Freedom, freedom, oh sweet freedom

Missing from my sight, lost from my life

Escape this horrid pabulum

To avoid the sting of the State’s knife.

The South Was Right?

Revisionist history is always a problem. Regardless of the end you claim to want to manifest, there is the omnipresent danger that the Truth suffers injury as an innocent bystander by the contending parties during an infowar. Filling in the gaps in one’s formal education should not be taken lightly, for even the slightest misstep will incur the wrath of the guardians of the status quo. Examining the other side of the American Civil War, which I was never given the opportunity to study in the formal public fool system, might indeed indicate that The South Was Right!



The fact of the matter is that the Founders inherited the human slave trade from the British Empire, much like how we have inherited the spoils of corporatist imperialism. The primary problem laid in liberating the enslaved without totally tanking the economy (if events had transpired that way, I doubt the recently freed slaves would be thankful for it; from the frying pan of slavery into the fire of a hyperinflationary depression is, I think, the last thing they’d want). Interestingly, Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist who advocated for immediate emancipation regardless of any other consequences. This, coupled with the fact that Abraham Lincoln was a well-known racist, really starts to shed serious doubt on the claims promulgated from mainstream history textbooks concerning both the war and Reconstruction.

The Constitutional arguments for both Southerners and Yankees strike me as intriguing, since they echo the same dichotomous contest between the Anti-Federalists and Federalists of the revolutionary era, respectively. Claims about the necessity for “preserving the Union” might as well have been photocopied off of one of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers; this stands in contrast to the advocates of small, locally controlled government such as Patrick Henry. Of course, I being much too generous for implying that the Unionists even had a Constitutional argument, for they don’t have one. There is nothing at all in the federal Constitution that prohibits secession at any time by any of the current 50 state legislatures. If the Articles of Confederation proved anything, it showed that the Founders initially desired little centralized control, for they recognized the imperial temptations that an overreaching federal government can have on local areas, just as like what happened when the Mexican Constitution of 1824 was repeatedly violated by Santa Anna.

I did appreciate the examples of secession that the Kennedy brothers highlighted, which the mainstream media also promotes as good and wholesome while simultaneously demonizing the War for Southern Independence. Norway’s bloodless 1905 secession from Sweden, Ireland’s long-standing struggle for independence from Britain, the Texas Revolution of 1835, Panama’s successful United States backed secession from Colombia, and Portugal’s four civil wars with Spain (culminating in their independence as of 1139), all serve as good examples of kosher mainstream approved secessions. You’d think that as long as the secessionists weren’t Americans, then secession was always a good thing.

Richard Weaver’s book, The Southern Tradition at Bay, was referenced in regards to an intriguing observation he made about how the Reconstruction-era South made two grave mistakes. They failed to develop a basic nationalistic philosophy and they surrendered the initiative to their Northern political opponents. Had the South drew upon the classical liberal works of John Locke, John Milton, and the other great thinkers of the Enlightenment, they would have been in a position to formulate a truly comprehensive Southern political philosophy.

When the Kennedy brothers finally got down to brass tax about what people should do concerning how to fix the de facto serfdom condition of the South, they first state that people must either accept their findings as either substantially true or false. Of those who choose to think that their book is substantially accurate, then they have to make the additional choice of either apathetically doing nothing about it, or joining the ranks of what they deem “New Unreconstructed Southerners.”

So, what are these unreconstructed Southerners (or Southern Nationalists) supposed to do? The closest thing they have to a plan is that first they need to instill a sense of Southern pride by displaying the Stars & Bars at living history demonstrations, historical reenactments, and the like. Joining an organization dedicated to preserving Southern heritage is pivotal by doing such things as book reviews. Also included in this programme would be reaching out to Southern children in public schools by doing living history discussions. Other tasks would be to march in local parades carrying the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.

The next phase would be active counter-revolutionary political struggle. Obviously, it couldn’t come too soon because it would fall apart due to lack of popular support. What I thought was good of them to mention was that placing all your faith in a singular Messianic figure (such as Ron Paul or Charles Dyer) is a recipe for disaster before you even play the game, since one man cannot free a nation and it is a lot easier for the enemy to pop the balloon of such fragile political support rather than having such support being much more decentralized and dispersed by having belief in a cause, which does not rest on the shoulders of one man who is easily eliminated from the field of play.

All in all, I was fascinated by this book. My only real problems with it was that it had the tendency of being overly redundant, and had those redundancies been weeded out, this book would be pleasantly shorter and easier to finish reading. I also thought the space dedicated to slavery was unnecessary, as well as the fact that they neglected to mention the situation the Founders had (which I mentioned earlier in this review). Also, while it was good in their last chapter to finally getting around the problem solving stuff, I was disappointed that there was no plan, only suggestions on how to get started. After reading 300+ pages, an actual plan of action would have been nice, so noticing that “this summary is not intended to give full details of how to go about conducting a Southern political revolution” was really quite of a letdown. If you don’t mind reading some difficult material on Yankee atrocities as well as lots of redundancies with no real plan for how “the South will rise again,” then this might be the book for you. Otherwise, the best utility of this work is really nothing more than a basic “news & analysis” primer on the War for Southern Independence.

Writing Your Congressman Does Not Work

7/15/15 UPDATE: This article has been substantially changed since its original publication three years ago. Grammar has been heavily edited for clarity, and the material that has been added, if anything, only reinforces the proposed hypothesis.

 [Download a PDF of this article]

Most alternative media websites instruct their audiences on how to write to “their” Congressman, all the while pontificating the virtues of its alleged efficacy. Such fallacious advocacy permeates the remnants of the free press, most of whom actually know better, but for some inane reason, persist in recommending to others that they should waste their valuable time and effort on a technique that systematically fails to deliver measureable results in the cause for liberty. Believing in the civic fairy tale that politely requesting a legislator, who imagines himself to be your ruler, to abide by his oath of office through opposing unconstitutional legislation, is just as constructive as thinking that cancer can be inexplicably “reformed.”



Legislators are not constitutionally required to accept your mail, much less answer you, or otherwise perform whatever you wish them to do. Just because citizens have a constitutionally recognized ability to petition the government for a redress of grievances does not therefore mean legislators have a corresponding duty to respond back to you. Any responses you receive back from any of them should be considered within the bounds of polite etiquette.

Consider also the difficulty of proportionality experienced by these congresscritters. In 2013, the total United States population of voting age (that is, over 18-years-old), was approximately 243,703,099 people, and the total Texas population of voting age that same year was projected to be 19,518,666 individuals. If you know that the entire United States Congress has only 535 voting members, and that the entire Texas legislature has only 181 voting legislators, then what this means is that the ratios of “representation” can be calculated out to be 1 congresscritter for every 455,519 U.S. citizens, and 1 Texan legislator for every 107,837 Texans.

Obviously, in light of these ratios between legislators and citizens, it becomes literally impossible for every letter received to be answered; thus, an automated process was born. What happens is that the legislative staff categorizes letters into a dichotomous typology of “pro-whatever” and “anti-something,” types your name at the top of the pre-written standard form letter, and returns that to you. This is all based on the assumption that the congresscritter’s staff got not only the subject matter correct, but also accurately recorded which side of a political issue you were on in the first place. Yup, that’s right – it’s been well-known by those who have worked inside the legislative branch of government that such “mishaps” as these are all too common.

The truth of the matter is that writing to a politician is, in fact, a purposefully designed confidence trick. You are supposed to emotionally invest yourself in the notion that “your” congresscritter represents your interests, where, truth be told, they just don’t give a damn. Every minute spent on the working inside the system in order to change it from within (that is, the political means of making money), is every moment not being spent on doing something actually productive towards making humanity freer.

Contemplate also the implications to your privacy should you ever write a congresscritter. They’ll have your mailing address from the envelope, and quite possibly enough information from your letter with which to unjustly profile you as a political undesirable. As long as they don’t accuse you of “terrorism,” then perhaps writing congresscritters, although it incurs opportunity costs, shouldn’t land you in a government dungeon.

Being the good scientist I am, I decided to conduct my own experiment of sorts by writing some congresscritters on two different political issues. In 2013, I opposed both CISPA in the federal Congress and the grandparent access legislation in the Texas legislature. The postcards I sent to the applicable congresscritters, as pictured below, were much less time consuming than if I had written letters and then placed them into envelopes, as well as being much more privacy-friendly.

Thankfully, CISPA died in committee, as was the similar fate with the grandparent access statute, yet Fight for the Future has recently warned that CISPA is not dead. I think this shows exactly the problem with writing congresscritters at all – even if your letter is correlated to the fate of a bill, there is nothing preventing the same legislation to be packaged differently and passed into law at a later time. Unless you are willing to dedicate yourself into becoming a watchdog, there is absolutely no way for your average Joe to keep on top of the legislative branch for any American government.

There are, however, some slight exceptions to the historical observation that writing to a congresscritter does not work. They are:

  • If you’re a lobbyist
  • If you’re a celebrity
  • If you’re a massive campaign contributor, or
  • If the congresscritter does not possess the incumbency advantage for the next electoral cycle, which is rare.

For those who can’t bear to not write “their” congresscritter, the next best thing is to mimic my example by sending brightly-colored postcards, scrawled with pithy statements either in support of, or opposition to, a particular bill. Better yet would be to ask them stupidly polite questions wherein any real answer would betray the façade of their very “representation.” Such uncomfortable questions and any subsequent replies should be published in corporate media newspapers, as well as any alternative media outlets, that care to expose the opportunity costs and hypocritical futility of reformism itself.

Who Are the Terrorists?

Thanks to the complicit mainstream media, there is deliberately infused confusion about what terrorism actually is. Even Dr. Jeffrey Record’s study of the so-called “War on Terror” admitted the malleability of the concept. This irregular method of warfare suffers from verbicide, which is defined as “the use of words to effect change by means of covert subversion of intent.” Before supporting or condoning what certain parties or non-state actors do, it would behoove all of us to critically examine what exactly is meant by the idea of terrorism.



According to Title 22 United States Code subsection 2656f (paragraph d), “the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.” This is interesting, since Christopher Leibig simplified this further into 5 conditions that must be met for an action to be considered terrorism (as per the USC definition). These are:


1)      Premeditated,

2)      politically motivated,

3)      violence,

4)      against non-combatants, and

5)      by sub-national or clandestine agents.


Premeditated means to be “done deliberately; planned in advance.” Political motivation and the presences of physical violence I think are easy to discern, as is whether sub-national and/or clandestine agents are in play (as opposed to openly uniformed government agents, for instance).

Non-combatant is uniquely interesting. Generally speaking, it refers to the civilian population; however, Article 43 under Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention states that:


1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.


Obviously, most military personnel are considered combatants. The question to be answered, then, is whether American local, state, and federal police are accurately described as “combatants?” Considering the contemporary militarization of the police, especially in terms of both their training and gear, they do initially seem to be well-equipped to handle a full-scale ground invasion, at the very least. As a related side note, would other agents of the State (i.e. legislators, judges, & bureaucrats) count as combatants? What if, say, a particular Administrative Agency (such as the IRS) started training and maintaining their own SWAT units? Would they be considered combatants? Is the entire concept of SWAT a “paramilitary” entity, and if so, would that mean that any member of any SWAT unit of any government agency whatsoever is to be considered a combatant?

If “terrorism” is indeed the premeditated use of physical violence by sub-national actors or clandestine agents against non-governmental targets with the aim of achieving some political end, then so-called “domestic extremists” (or political dissidents of any kind) can’t ever be terrorists, since (at most) they’ve expressed the possibility of engaging only governmental targets!

People who physically attack government employees & property are guerrillas. Whether the cause of certain guerrillas is good or not is immaterial in regards to whether their behavior is terroristic or not. Even if a guerrilla’s cause is not a good one, technically speaking they can never be terrorists, due to fundamental dissimilarities in terms of methodology. Until such time that guerrillas of any political orientation target civilian populations, they too by definition cannot also be terrorists; therefore, the government’s “War on Terror” is just a self-serving excuse to ramp up the police state and clamp down on political dissent from the citizenry.

Upon examination of even recent history, the government constantly violates the Non-Aggression Principle with impunity. It’s very hard to recollect the last time a Patriot violated the NAP. It’s even harder to remember the last time any level or scope of government abided by the very “laws” that they themselves enacted.

If anything, it is the alphabet soup boys and their bosses who are the actual terrorists. The rebel US government uses the premeditated initiation of physical violence against non-governmental (i.e. civilian) targets with the intention of achieving some political goal; it is not uncommon for them to make use of informants, agent provocateurs, and undercover operatives in order to carry out successful operations.  State-sponsored false-flag terrorism is the more sneaky form of the more overt police state terrorism that the government uses to suppress the population. They have provably done it some many times it’s unbelievable they haven’t been stopped yet.

Evil In Itself, or Just Forbidden?

What was once permissible, is now forbidden. What was first allowed, is now punishable. What was initially tolerated, is now a crime against the State. This is what happens when the conception of what is illegal is confused with what is actually evil.



Mala in se is the idea that something is wrong or otherwise evil in and of itself. These are actions that are so abhorrent that they can never be reconciled with human liberty. Such conduct includes theftkidnapping, murder, and rape. The understanding of these behaviors were developed into Common Law offenses.

Mala prohibita is the legal notion that something is illegal only as a violation of some sort of statute, instead of being inherently immoral. While not necessarily wrong or even despicable, illegal conduct is as such because a code or rule of some kind (such as statute that is passed by a legislature and enforced by the police and various bureaucracies) has been technically broken. This can range everything from truancy & practicing without a license to tax evasion & copyright infringement. It is quite typical for most, if not all, mala prohibita to be exclusively offenses against the State, especially if they are considered victimless.

Gauging what actions are mala prohibita without being mala in se is a tricky, yet integral, proposition. Defending yourself from the initiation of violence by someone else is in accordance with the Non-Aggression Principle, but what if that initiation of violence was being done by a bureaucrat, a legislator, a judge, or (dare I say it?) … a police officer? Granted, physically defending yourself from any of these agents of the State is mala prohibita, but the question is, would it be mala in se? Or how about sabotaging government property? Instead of a SWAT team killing more innocent people (just like the militarized police have done with Vicki Weaver and Jose Guerena), what if by removing the firing pins in their guns you saved their lives? Would that really violate mala in se?

Just food for thought. As always, only you are ultimately responsible for what you decide to do. Your life is your own. Make it count.

Another “Neo-Nazi” Shooting?

Whenever there is an alleged connection between American militia units and domestic National Socialists, my bullshit detector goes through the roof. The corporate whore mainstream media loves to demonize those individuals and groups who seek to secure their Liberties. Race is a favorite ping-pong ball that the enemy prefers to use in order to discredit the good guys.



The tall tale of JT Ready is a real life predictive programming case study. On one hand, he was part of a “militia” unit (which, of course, has no discernable civil authority); on the other hand, he espoused certain racial views, the rhetoric of which earned him the assorted labels of “white supremacist,” “racist,” “domestic terrorist,” and “neo-Nazi.” Regardless of what anyone thinks about the subject of race (including its existentiality), what Mr. Ready did do was advocate racially based activities. When asked in an interview about whether he was a neo-Nazi, Mr. Ready explained that calling a National Socialist (which he admits to being) a Nazi is derogatory and thereby equivalent to calling someone of African ancestral lineage by a racial slur.

American National Socialism is an intriguing little side-show in the Carnival of Distractions. While a few things they mention are good (such as the abolition of interest and the restoration of Anglo-Saxon common law), most of their “25 Points” are just plain crap, especially considering that “only those of pure White blood,” who also aren’t Jews or homosexuals may enjoy citizenship (not to say anything of their rampant statism). So, I guess mulattos, mestizos, Tejanos, Eastern Europeans (i.e. Balkins), European mutts, and anyone else who is slightly mixed or otherwise not 100% Scandinavian suddenly become “guests and must be subject to laws for aliens;” apparently, they never bothered to study the benefits of hybrid vigor. I guess this would mean that the Third Reich were “race traitors” since the existence of Black Nazis has been conclusively proven.

Ironically, the National Socialist Movement has a webpage dedicated to the Bill of Rights. According to W. Cleon Skousen in his book, “The 5,000 Year Leap,” two of the 28 great ideas from the Revolutionary era are the 6th principle, which states that “All men are created equal,” and the 7th principle that says, “The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.” An ethnically based collectivist nationalism would appear to flatly contradict the individualist liberal nationalism that the Founders had advocated for during their struggle against British tyranny. Besides, it is well known that so-called neo-Nazis work with the criminal rebel government.

What I find humourous about the propaganda coverage of Mr. Ready is that all the right talking points are addressed. He was a “militia” member, he wanted to secure the southern border, he wore cammies, carried body armor, had gas masks, and bore semi-auto rifles. There were 55 gallon drums of “suspicious liquids” found in the backyard after the shooting. He held politically dissenting “extreme views,” which of course is one of the highest mortal sins against the Almighty American Imperial Establishment. He was a veteran. He attempted to get elected as the local county sheriff. And JT was a national socialist on top of it all. Notice also the legitimizing references to Establishment front organizations such as the SPLC, ADL, and the rest of the assorted alphabet soup boys. All of these factors suggest that Jason T. Ready is either controlled opposition or at least a useful idiot whose said usefulness had ceased to unwittingly serve the enemy.

At this time, it can’t be proven that JT Ready was controlled opposition since there is no evidence of payment (i.e. compensation of some kind) or whom his handlers were. What is provable is that he was so annoyingly focused on his ethnic nationalism that the corporate media couldn’t help themselves by belittling his ideology as well as using the propaganda confidence trick of guilt by association against those authentic individuals and organizations who are liberty minded. As such, Ready’s idiotic grandstanding was very useful to the rebel government in their goal of painting actual Patriots as xenophobic freaks. Such character assassinations via the association fallacy have been very instrumental to the imperial global governance structure in halting the restoration of the American Republic.