Welcome to Patriot's Lament. We strive here to educate ourselves on Liberty. We will not worry ourselves so much with the daily antics of American politics, and drown ourselves in the murky waters of the political right or left.
Instead, we will look to the Intellectuals and Champions of Liberty, and draw on their wisdom of what it is to be a truly free people. We will learn from where our Providential Liberties are derived, and put the proper perspective of a Free Individual and the State.
Please join us!
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Saturday, April 7, 2018
By: Michael Anderson for Patriot's Lament
With the new calls for gun control and gun bans and gun seizures, we should ask: Is there a civil discourse that can be had over gun control? Let's answer that question here. Those who follow along without much thought of causation, erroneously believe that reducing or eliminating gun ownership will reduce violence in a society. Of course, this is disproved everywhere it is tried, including Australia. In Australia, they experienced a peak right after their gun ban and then a drop back to pre-ban levels, with a rise in homicide rates in 2017, both by gun and knife attacks. Third world populations who have been disarmed end up being genocided, such as China, Russia, Ukraine, Cambodia and Armenia. In the third world, confiscation prevents them from saving themselves or fighting back, while farmland and existing industry is stolen.
In first world countries, such as the US, Australia, England and the rest of Europe, disarmament gives them a false sense of security and a greater willingness to call upon their masters for greater "protection", while unquestioningly paying higher and higher taxes for nothing. They are trained to acquiesce and accept their master's conditions and definition of freedom. In the first world, resources are devoted to propaganda to convince the population to disarm itself, because as low as their homicide rate might be, it could be even lower, if they just disarmed themselves. This conclusion is baseless, since there actually is no correlation between murder rates and gun ownership. As shown in the chart, below.
This can be summarized by stating that in third world countries, where economies are poor or undeveloped, power must be expressed through raw killing and theft, while, in first world countries, power is expressed by manipulative expropriation of the subject's productive capacity. In the first world country, it makes more sense to keep them alive and producing, while fooling them into thinking they are free, rather than killing off half their family and forcing them to operate purely out of debilitating fear, which would cause an economic catastrophe and destroy the tax base. It's more profitable to steal their minds, than their bodies.
Gun Ownership Rates compared to Homicide Rates [McKaken, 2015]
Clearly murder rates have nothing to do with gun ownership, as we are led to believe by first world propaganda efforts. In fact, the correlation for gun ownership rates vs. homicide rates is less that 0.1 (no correlation). As a side note, it turns out that population density does not correlate with murder rates, either. One last point to be made is that although some like to make claims about high rates of gun deaths in the US, 63% of those cases are suicides.
With all of that in mind, the argument is not even really about guns. It is about individuals being able to posses a weapon of any kind. While tyrants and the mentally handicapped in America call for the banning of guns, their counterparts in England are actually calling for a ban on kitchen knives. Their brain dead chant goes like this: "Save lives, surrender your knives". In fact it is illegal to defend one's self, at all, in London. In France, three soldiers are now being prosecuted for chasing down a purse thief, beating the hell out of him and returning the stolen purse to the owner. In another example, from the 19th century Japan, Martial Arts were discouraged and outlawed in 1871 when power was restored to the emperor and the importance of the individual gave way to the power of the state. In fact, the only reason we still have the art of Jujitsu, is because of a few brave Japanese who continued to practice and teach it in underground schools. The Americans also banned martial arts in japan, during the occupation. In every situation, governments engage in weapons bans for the purpose of subjugating the population. There is no exception. They are either turned into cowards who have lost the will and ability to defend themselves, or they are just turned into dead bodies. Any government that attempts to ban or seize your weapon is telling you that you are disposable trash as far as it is concerned.
A common theme among gun control advocates is the line "you don't need that type of gun to defend yourself". Such a statement embodies exactly what they are. Before any dictator publicly decided on what food or what farm or what business or what belief system a subject didn't need, they always decided upon what weapon they they didn't need, first. In fact a good definition of a tyrant is "Any entity that takes it upon himself/herself/itself to decide what others do not need and enforces that opinion". Any person who attempts to base an argument on their decision of what you don't need has already lost the argument and can be placed in the same intellectual category as Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot.
In studies of battles from WWII, it was discovered that firing rates of soldiers dropped 80% when a commander was not present It was only when a commanding officer was present, threatening them if they did not kill their assigned enemy, that they would carry out the bidding of the state and kill. It turns out that the human psyche is very much averse to killing or even harming others, with the exception of a small minority with strong sociopathic tendencies. But the great fallacy of the human condition is its unfortunate habit of obedience to "authority", which always presents itself in fancier and fancier dress, depending on the level of "authority". The fancy dress, and shiny things hanging from it bypass rational thought, while also appealing to a person's primitive sense of fear (the reptilian brain, or R-complex). The truth is, most people have no desire to harm anyone else, even for personal gain, despite what the state tries to convince you of. The few who do, don't care what laws there are and will seek out whatever weapon they can to carry out the act, whether it's a gun, knife, club, hammer, rock, acid, etc. The real limiting factor to those few psychopaths who would carry out such an act is fear of death, by the person they choose to attack. This is all redundant and should be quite obvious.
So, let's look into the issue a bit deeper. What is a gun? To those who do care about others- those who are not sociopaths, it is simply a means of repelling an attack. At most, only about 4% of the population is sociopathic, and of those, only about a quarter of them (1% of society) reach the levels of psychopath and many of those are or have been in prison. We do not need to worry about the normal people. In a society that had no state and thus, no gun control, the normal people would outnumber the potential killers by 24 times, in a worst case scenario. The psychos would be weeded out pretty quickly if they didn't watch themselves. Unfortunately we have a system that claims to protect us, by housing, feeding and protecting the sociopaths, while allowing them to interact and influence the normal people who have been jailed, often for political crimes, like marijuana possession.
So, now let's get down to the question we originally asked. I cannot imagine that anyone would actually believe that protecting one's self or family is not the most sacred of responsibilities or "rights". Is it wrong to fight back against a rapist? What feminist would argue that? Is it wrong to fight off a kidnapper? How about a killer? The right to defend one's self is as sacred as one's own body is. It must be, because if defense of one's own mind, body or property is not important, than one's mind, body or property is not important, either. I include "mind" in this list, because the mind is severely affected by criminal acts such as robbery or rape. It leaves the victim feeling vulnerable, fearful and devoid of value.
Anyone who claims that you should not have a gun and, especially, anyone who advocates "seizure" of your weapon of choice, is also stating that your right to self defense shall be dictated by them and therefore, the sanctity, value and ownership of yourself, shall be dictated by them. By interfering with your ability to defend yourself, they commit an aggressive act against you, which leaves you in a defenseless state against someone who would further harm you. Their act of attempting to remove your chosen ability to defend yourself from the few natural predators in society, classes them as the protector of the predator, and thus, a predator, themselves.
Of all the inanimate possessions that you have in your home, your weapon is the most important, because it is your means of defending your most important possession of all- yourself. A gun control advocate is, therefore, no better than a rapist or a thief, and, in fact, is his friend and comrade. Any person, be it a politician, a sheriff, an activist or some dumb-ass down the street, who advocates your disarmament, in any way, is no different than the rapist or murderer, as he/she has no regard for your chosen means of defense from the rapist or murderer. Therefore, it is quite imperative that they be outed as such. It is not something that should be a "civil" political discussion. If someone discussed raping your wife, would you have a civil discussion about it, or rip them apart and let them know that if they ever come to your property with their stated intent, that you will blow their brains out? Civil discussion has no place when such a threat of personal harm is being advocated.
What is the appropriate response to actual gun control and attempted seizure of weapons. I think it is quite obvious. When the colonists at Lexington and Concord shot the British troops to stop them from taking their armory, they clearly understood that the means of defense is equally as important as that which is to be defended. The colonists did not want war. They spent decades putting up with abuses from their own government, refusing to fight them, because they were not foreign invaders to the colonists. The soldiers were their misguided English brothers from across the pond. But the colonists knew that to take their defense was to take their bodies and their minds and they had to, finally, break that bond. None of this has changed. The only appropriate response to active seizure of your weapons is precisely the same as your response to someone trying to rape your wife.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
Friday, January 26, 2018
Political correctness was a tactic of the communist party of the Soviet Union, to shut up critics, and to take out opposition, and it has found it's way here to the States, to great effect.
When debating, make sure you are right, and don't back down. Watch for word games, and be vigilant in your responses. But, as I said, don't back down.
Also, I highly recommend the Target Liberty website, Robert Wenzel has been a guest on Patriot's Lament radio several times, and he is absolutely a great Private Property advocate.
Jordan Peterson debate.
It shows the true colors of the war State, they don't want and never have wanted peace with the Korea's, it's just not good for business. The Empire needs boogy men, and the Kim's have provided that for years. Almost 70 years actually.
You have to wonder about people who have no concern about the possibility of a nuclear war starting, and millions of people being killed. As long as it fills their pockets.
Oh yeah, this is from the "Christian" party, the Republicans.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
I personally think political law, or legislative law, is crap. But, you can make up your own mind.
Check out all of Stephan's work HERE . His site is full of great work for the Libertarian cause.
Thanks again Stephan
Today, we will explore democracy. Instead of looking at it from a moral standpoint by discussing the legitimacy of mob rule, I'd like to discuss it in a value free way. In other words, regardless of what you think about individual rights vs group rights (if they can even exist), let's simply ask the question: has it worked? Does the institution of democracy allow people to be more free or more prosperous relative to the alternatives?
In the video below, Hans Hoppe outlines the logical line of thought that answers this question with a resounding "no." He also notes that historians simply look at empirical data points and assume correlation is causation. 20th century rich, 19th century poor. 20th century democracy, 19th century monarchy. Monarchy bad. Democracy good. But of course, if we are intellectually honest we have to admit that correlation is not causation, we have to admit that by every economic metric taxation was lower in the 19th century than the 20th century, we have to admit that freedom of mobility was significantly greater in the 19th century (tho the means of travel were not as convenient), we have to admit that war was waged on a profoundly lesser scale in the 19th century ... continental Europe's first "peaceful century" since its emergence after the decline of Rome. And on and on and on.
Hoppe provides more insights here:
But, you might say, the American colonies were better off without the King! We waged a war for freedom (???) and this is why America was so prosperous! Could it be that America was prosperous only to the extent that colonists could head west into the "anarchy" of the wilderness and escape the new American State? Could it be that this is why this prosperity has been in decline since the last frontiers became absorbed by the Kingless tyranny of American Democracy (which retained all of the power of the king, but simply placed it in the hands of temporary caretakers)?
If you are interested in challenging the mythology of the American Revolution "freeing the colonies" read on here: Tricked on the Fourth of July, by Gary North
What about when Jesus, er, Ronald Reagan was President? Republicans praise him for his tax cuts (and ignore the fact that he raised the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years). Democrats deride him for his tax cuts (and ignore the fact that he saved all their favorite social programs by raising the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years). Harry Browne on the other hand was literate. Using this dangerous skill of reading and combining it with some simple analytics and critical thinking, he found that under Reagan, the national tax burden increased by 65%.
Reagan is known as a tax-cutter, and the term "Reaganomics" implies dramatic cuts in tax rates. But after pushing through a tax cut to be implemented over three years, he cooperated during the second year in the largest tax increase in American history up to that time. The nation's annual tax load increased by 65% during his time in office.
See also: Gary North's analysis of Reagan
So this would mean that Republican praise and Democrat derision are both misplaced. But I think paying attention to the man is a waste of time and energy. How about the institution itself? What if there are fundamental structural problems with the state itself and specifically the democratic state? If these problems are structural and/or institutional, what does this say about the ability to change outcomes simply by putting the "right people" in office?
Think about it. I will offer some of my thoughts on that tomorrow.
Monday, November 13, 2017
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Check out his article on the interview, and listen to the interview as well.
Adam Dick joins Patriot's Lament
Monday, October 2, 2017
This started with Colin Kaepernick, who, in 2016, took a knee during the national anthem to protest police violence against blacks.
Kaepernick made it clear what his motives were, he wasn't protesting the military's involvement in the world, the unjust U.S. wars that have killed a few million people the last 16 years.
He wasn't protesting the U.S. Empire.
He was protesting what he saw as injustice.
This to me, seems to be the most noble of protests that an individual could make. Keeping true to one's conscience. Which, according to the Founding Fathers of America, said was key to American Liberty, the Freedom of Conscience.
There are many quotes and writings about the Freedom of Conscience. It is where the 1st amendment stems from, while today it is talked about freedom of religion or speech, it boiled down to one person's conscience.
The Founders held that a man's conscience was the one thing that he must be free to pursue, as he would be and is accountable to God for his actions in regards to his conscience.
Obviously, the Donald Trump's comments disregarding the NFL players freedom to pursue their conscience, or at least suggesting, (I would say demanding) that a player be punished for expressing their conscience, stirred up a huge national debate towards this subject.
It turned into "they don't respect the military, or the flag the "brought them freedom".
It's odd to even say this, if the military, supposedly, fights for the freedom of Americans to express themselves, then the NFL players should be heralded as hero's of the cause.
I personally think, since when does the American flag belong strictly to the military? I thought it represented 'Merica? Since when does a piece of cloth demand so much loyalty?
Most soldiers I know, will tell you, they didn't fight for the ol red, white and blue, they fought for their comrades next to them who just wanted to get home alive.
This stigma towards the flag and anthem, is just nationalism at it's best. Don't you dare question the flag, for to do so, you question the State.
And that is the one thing the State cannot allow.
The State needs, even if it must compel, total loyalty, and consent.
I know it's hard for some dad or uncle who told his son or nephew how proud he was that he was going to war for Uncle Sam, (only to have his son obliterated, or mangled, just to find out the very State he was fighting for had anything in mind but the agenda it sold the young lad,) to admit he was wrong and maybe holds some fault for the outcome of his child, but sometimes the truth sucks.
So, instead of being a dolt and blindly following the State no matter what it tells you, and rather the opposite, support the ones who the State calls enemy, especially when it is your own countrymen.
Here is a link to the good men who stood against the State, even if it was a meager stance, and not totally with all the right intentions.
Stand with these folks, and BUY THEIR JERSY'S. Or any other trinkets that have their jersey numbers on it.
As Jefferson said so well, " the spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not be exercised at all".
NFL Players who took a stand by taking a knee
I am happy to say, my favorite team, the New England Patriots, had 20 of the 53 man roster kneel.
Saturday, July 22, 2017
Some of the commenters really make me wonder about humanity in general.
Suburban primitives in action
Right now they are getting together once a month. Anyone who needs to work on their shooting, and who doesn't, should look into participating if they can.
A 3 gun shoot includes shooting 3 different firearm types, a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle, walking, jogging, or running through a course with various targets to shoot.
Semi-automatics are preferred. Josh also tells me he will let folks borrow his guns for the shoot, but asks that they bring their own ammo.
After a brief but important talk on firearm safety, he goes through the basics of the course with the group, and the fun begins!!
Their next meetup is going to be on the 6th of August, as of now.
So, if you want to sharpen your skills in a firearms, meet some new folks, and just have a good ol fun time, contact Josh at email@example.com
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
I say "who cares"? in the comment section.
The Tom Woods Show
The question I am asking, do we Hate The State?
Do we really?
If so, are we living it?
Friday, May 5, 2017
If you heard the last time he was with us, you know you don't want to miss his time with us again.
He will also take calls from listeners, so, think of a good question and call in.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Also, don't forget our Facebook account, check us out there too, and most important, tell your friends! And also, participate, email us, and comment too.
One last things, I am going to start a weekly email, hopefully this week, so just send me an email if you want to be on that list.
Grab a cup of coffee, grab a seat by the fire, and join us.