Saturday, June 19, 2021

The word "Juneteenth" sounds ignorant and uneducated. I thought that the first time I heard it and I still do. Like you can't say "June 19th" for some reason? It would embarrass me. Not only that, it memorializes when a president of one country "freed" the slaves in a completely different country, but not in the country he ruled. But any excuse to shut government offices for a day is fine with me.

They had more than enough time

Time's Up for statism. Government-supremacists and other statists have had 5,000 to 10,000 years-- depending on who you talk to-- to get it right. That's plenty long enough if there were anything worthwhile there. But, perfection is always just over the next hill (of corpses). No thanks. Statism is a failure.

Time's Up. It's time to throw it out. That's not bathwater and that's no baby floating in it. Reject politics and embrace liberty.


Time's also running out for the Time's Up flags being for sale. I need to sell 2 flags in the next week-- by the 23rd-- to keep the site up where they are made and sold. I like having them available, but I can't lose money on it and 2 flags per month is my break-even point.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Friday, June 18, 2021

If your only objection to "public" schools is that they teach Critical Race Conspiracy Theory and other w0ke nonsense, you are too accepting of child abuse and indoctrination.

Random Acts of Anarchy Day 2021

It's Random Acts of Anarchy Day once again. Go do something free, voluntary, mutually consensual, and do it without permission. Do what you want, just don't archate. If you can think of a way to help others in the process, that's even better. If you have a Time's Up flag, wave it around or fly it over your activity for a little extra spice.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Thursday, June 17, 2021

It's just crazy to imagine the FBI (or other legislation enforcers) would encourage and push others to commit acts of terrorism. That's like thinking firefighters would ever have a reason to be arsonists.

An over-reaction, I think

Sometimes I just don't get people.

In response to my latest newspaper column, a reader wrote to call crypto "a disaster" and claimed it will cause people to lose all their money. He declares that "Bitcoin is not money it is a scam"; and goes on to say "it is not financial freedom". He says he would advise people to "stay away from it if you have any common sense".  Then he proclaims it's from China. 

That's a lot of information.

Where did he get his information? He must be an insider to be certain of all this. Maybe Illuminati. Otherwise, who gave him his opinion?

Anyway, I'm open to hearing other opinions and the reasons behind them. But I also think that when those opinions seem off-base, people might be happy to hear the other side. I'm usually wrong about that.

I responded to him, and if you'll notice I didn't say he was wrong about anything he claimed, I just put my own perspective on it: 

"I've used it to buy 2 guns, silver, and gold. Even if the price went to zero today, I've gained. And if it did get that low, I would buy more. It's more legitimate than US dollars because no matter who invented it, no one controls it-- that's the benefit of the blockchain. And others who don't like it claim the CIA invented it. At least no one (other than El Salvadorans) is forced to accept it.
What is money?"

He sent a terse reply. His final word? "Keep it out of the US"

Why? Just because he's scared of it because he doesn't have even a rudimentary understanding of it? Sounds more like a witch panic to me.

I don't get the hostility. I like Bitcoin; more so with the passage of time. I wish the price would only go up, but that's not how things work. As it is, I'm satisfied with how it works for me.

If YOU don't like it and don't trust it, don't use it. But how are you going to keep it out of the US? It's already here. Are you going to steal it from me and send it to someone in another country? Do you support using government violence to that end? (That approach is doomed to fail.)

I don't like or trust the Covid vaccines enough to put them in my own body, but I don't say to "keep them out" of America. You do what you want. If I die because I didn't get the vaccine, that's my fault. If you die from a reaction to the vaccine (or from the virus) I'll feel bad for your family, but I don't imagine I have any right to order you around* for what I imagine is your own good. Nor to use the violence of government to force you to do as I believe you should, even if I have a firm opinion of what I think you should do. 

Statists believe differently. That's a problem.


*Not allowing you to order me around isn't the same as me ordering you around-- I've seen this mistake several times over the years. "If you don't do what I tell you to do, you are controlling me!" No, I'm not. I'm simply not allowing you to control me. There's a difference.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Look toward cryptocurrency's future

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 16, 2021)

It seems nearly everyone is talking about Bitcoin and Dogecoin, as well as the thousands of other cryptocurrencies, these days. 

Cryptocurrency is seen as a tool for financial freedom and privacy, as a way to hide profits from crime, and as a way to gamble and get rich (or go broke) quick.

Depending on how it's used, it can be all those things and the rest...

Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

There are FOUR lights!

"Free will" is irrelevant

I recently listened to a bizarre debate between two sciency guys who don't believe there is any such thing as free will because the Universe is deterministic, but they interpret this in different ways, which is why they debated.

Yet, every point that each of them made was made with the assumption of free will. They were swimming in it the entire time and didn't notice. "She could have done differently" or "What kind of upbringing did he receive?", as if those ideas have any meaning outside free will.

The reason these free will skeptics kept assuming free will exists is that they were focused on how it relates to crime (and things government pretends are crimes). Free will has to exist for them to justify their belief that governments have rights which include allowing a government to punish people (often, Trump in their examples) for their actions. In other words, their statism-- their government-supremacism-- required them to be absurdly inconsistent to avoid exposing the fallacy. It required them to never notice their absurdity or inconsistency.

In my view of the world, if there is no such thing as free will, it doesn't matter.

Does the lightning have free will if it strikes a tree, causing the tree to fall and crash through your roof? It doesn't matter. The lightning did a thing, that thing set other things in motion and damaged your roof. The lightning (in fact, the laws of physics that made that particular lightning strike inevitable) owe restitution for the damage to your house, but the lightning can't and won't pay. Maybe you now believe you or your insurance company have the right to punish the lightning... good luck with that.

If a person commits an act which violates you, it doesn't matter whether the person had any free will to make that choice or not. Something was caused to happen and restitution is owed. A person can pay restitution, even if it is only symbolic and can't erase the whole debt. The person could have been as destined to commit the act as the bolt of lightning was to strike and it doesn't change the debt which was created.

Maybe you also believe that person should be punished.

I don't believe in punishment, which I see as nothing more than revenge with lipstick. It doesn't reduce the debt at all, and in the case of government "justice [sic] systems", it creates even more debt which requires restitution which will never be paid by the archator which owes it: government. I understand the desire for revenge/punishment. I have felt it many times. But I also understand why it is wrong; why it is beyond what I have the right to do.

I understand the arguments against free will. I am not entirely convinced by them, but since free will isn't necessary, I can live with not knowing for sure.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Monday, June 14, 2021

You don't have a right to not be exposed to free-range germs. No one has a right to spit in your face to expose you to their germs, but people have to breathe and this means germs are out in the real world. Otherwise, you would have no immune system. You can't have a right to enslave others because you're scared of germs. That includes using legislation to force them to mask or to vaccinate. You have the right to avoid others if you're worried.

Craft Holsters suede magazine holder

The guys at Craft Holsters were nice enough to send along this Leather OWB Magazine Pouch back when they sent the belly bands. There's not a lot to say about it, but here goes.

It is made of a nice thick suede leather and has the same strong steel clip as their in-the-waistband holsters, so it STAYS in place. Those clips are impressive.

Although they call this an OWB (outside the waistband) pouch, I chose to wear the magazine holder inside my waistband, on the side opposite the pistol. It worked just fine in that configuration, too.

It wasn't too noticeable; never uncomfortable. It never lost a magazine, nor did it ever threaten to do so. It works great. What more can be said? 

Thanks, again, Craft Holsters!


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Sunday, June 13, 2021

Glad I have as much choice as I do

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 12, 2021)

It's good to have choices.

The continuing Covid-19 overreactions of New Mexico's politicians mean I've spent much less time and money in New Mexico than I would have normally. Why would I go where businesses are either closed or operating with restricted capacity when I have other options? I prefer to go where businesses can decide whether they'll force customers to wear a mask, rather than where a one-size-fits-all mandate declares businesses aren't allowed to decide for themselves.

Yes, I have to drive a little farther to have similar shopportuities, but in many cases, it's worth it.

We are lucky. Most people don't have such a clear and easy way to express their choice. If you are trapped in the middle of an oppressive political regime's wide territory, you don't have the option to simply drive one direction instead of the other to express your choice. Here near the state line, we have this choice, and-- thanks to New Mexico politicians-- it's been good for Texas's economy.

It's also good for those who are still afraid of Covid-19 for the same reason. Choice.

If you are still scared of the virus after more than a year of hearing the propaganda surrounding it, you have the choice to stay on the more cautious side of the line.

On the other hand, and on other issues, Texas is more oppressive than New Mexico. Marijuana and open carry of firearms being two examples that spring to mind. Again, you get to choose where to go depending on which rights matter to you.

If you're going to allow politicians to run your life, which I don't recommend doing, this is a good compromise. Let people choose how much tyranny, in which areas, they are willing to tolerate.

Of course, your natural human rights don't change when you cross an arbitrary and mostly imaginary political line. The only thing that changes is which of your natural human rights the politicians ruling over each side of the line have decided to violate, and how badly you'll be violated.

Liberty-- real unobstructed liberty-- is never an option as long as politicians have this power. They don't like liberty and are scared of it. They know liberty would be the end of their sweet deal. I can't understand why anyone cares what politicians think.

I'm glad we have this much choice; I'd prefer more because I'll never fear your liberty.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

You aren't violating the mugger by refusing to allow yourself to be mugged. Not even by shooting him to stop the mugging. You have the right to keep from being violated, he has no right to mug you. You aren't being controlled just because you aren't allowed to control someone else.

Saturday, June 12, 2021

Standing in the middle of Congress or a group of cops and saying "They can't all be bad" is like standing in a junkyard of rusted wrecks and saying "Some of these must run fine".

On the effect of politics on a person

I am more and more convinced, with the passage of time, that politics makes people stupid.

What I mean is this: People will reject reality to stand by their "political team". They'll shoot themselves in the foot to avoid the appearance of disunity once they've committed to a political team. No matter how little sense it makes, they'll hate what/who their team tells them to hate and support what/who their team tells them to support. The "Trumpets" and TDS sufferers being a prime recent (and ongoing) example. It's like they do no independent thinking at all, but default to their team's mob-thinking instead.

By "politics" I mean the use of the political means as opposed to the economic means; force, fraud, theft, legislation, "democracy", and other types of coercion rather than voluntary, mutually consensual agreement. If it doesn't rely on the political means, it's not political even if some would mistake it for politics. Shooting an attacker in self defense, even if he dies, is not the same act as murder.

And, by "stupid" I mean against their own interests, against the interests of society, against objective reality (or the best estimation thereof), and against what their own mind could show them if they weren't determined to stay on the path they are on even if it requires self-imposed blindness.

It's not just "the right" and "the left", although those are the most obvious examples in modern America of where politics leads. Where "libertarianism" becomes political instead of being above politics, it is just as bad. Politics makes people stupid.

I get that some people enjoy politics. Maybe as a hobby or a diversion. Maybe those people can avoid the trap. Maybe they can't. It's a daredevil hobby, likely to result in damage sooner or later. But as long as they don't hurt anyone else (I don't see how that's possible) it's their business.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Friday, June 11, 2021

I just didn't see it

If it hadn't been for the news media, social media, or the mandates, shutdowns, and other things government did in response, would you have noticed the pandemic on your own? Would your observations have registered a big health threat?

I wouldn't have. I saw nothing unusual, healthwise, in my sphere. I saw some people catch colds-- some of them had a bad cold and others not any worse than normal-- but in a typical year, I would have seen that anyway. And I know plenty of people who didn't get sick with any sort of cold-like disease.

I heard that some old or unhealthy people died; friends told me of this happening to people they, or someone they knew, knew, although no one I knew personally died. In a typical year, this happens several times anyway. This past year or so wasn't unusually deadly for people in my sphere. In fact, it's unusual that no one I know personally died since the beginning of what was advertised as a deadly pandemic.

I'm not claiming there was no pandemic. I'm just saying if I hadn't been told it was there, I wouldn't have observed it on my own. Like an invisible unicorn that can't be touched; that you have to have described to you by priests to know it is there at all.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Thursday, June 10, 2021

Self and money

Some guy on Twitter was apparently angry that libertarians exist. So, in a response to a thread of libertarians discussing an issue, he posted:

A libertarian’s priorities:
1. Themself
2. Money
3. That’s it.

(Then why am I broke?)

Anyway, isn't it odd that the most selfless and truly generous of philosophies is characterized this way?

Libertarians recognize that no one has the right to violate the life, liberty, or property of another, and that everyone has the right to defend themselves and others from anyone who does so anyway. I describe this as the Zero Archation Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to archate, nor to advocate or delegate archation."

That is, at its heart, what makes a person libertarian. That is the opposite of selfishness, and money isn't even mentioned.

One time, when I couldn't afford to do so, I bought a set of tools for a guy I'd just met so that he could get a job that required him to bring his own tools. That act certainly didn't benefit me, nor did it say much about money being my priority. There are plenty of other examples of me putting others ahead of myself, and other things ahead of money, but that's one that came to mind because it was the most personally difficult example.

There are so many examples of libertarians I know being selfless and generous with their own money-- often with me as the beneficiary-- that the claim is completely ridiculous.

I think what this guy is really objecting to is that I don't think "taxation" is ethical, and he can't imagine a way to support the helpless without forcing people-- through "taxation"-- to do so. In fact, this is what he later claimed as he tried to make his point. He rejected every voluntary solution suggested as a way to help such people. That says much about his non-libertarian character.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Wednesday, June 09, 2021

Liberty is among self-evident truths

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 9, 2021)

Many times over the years people have demanded proof that liberty is better than the alternative. Sometimes the detail being questioned changes-- maybe it's the concept of human rights or ethics they are objecting to-- but the argument is the same.

They don't accept the superiority of liberty over whatever they'd prefer, so they demand the rest...

Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tuesday, June 08, 2021

Of all religions, w0keness is probably the most toxic-- and it is competing against some real monstrous ideologies, so that's quite an accomplishment.

Any time I see or hear the phrase "Critical Race Theory" my mind automatically inserts the word "Conspiracy" before "Theory": "Critical Race Conspiracy Theory". That makes the phrase a lot more honest.

Will it make any real difference?

I'm assuming the Texas governor is going to sign the "constitutional carry" bill like he said he will. Yes, I know taking a politician at his word is stupid.

I'm wondering whether this new legislation will make an actual difference in the legal ability to carry a weapon. 

Judging by the fact that almost every business in this region already has "We don't care if you die!" signs posted, I'll bet it won't.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Monday, June 07, 2021

Even though it doesn't really impact my life, I love seeing Cannabis advertised on billboards.

Sunday, June 06, 2021

Sometimes, but only a few times per day at most, I feel that the biggest mistake I ever made was not wandering off into the mountains when I was about 20.

Won't sacrifice liberty for worst of us

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for May 5, 2021)

There will always be some members of the population set on killing each other over petty squabbles and imagined slights. Nothing you and I can do will ever change this; nothing government can do will stop it. Some people are just determined to be uncivilized. They may even prefer living this way, and wouldn't change if given every chance. You will be more free once you realize this truth.

Maybe the best outcome is for them to do society a favor by culling their own herd. How can you prevent them from harming anyone outside their culture while killing each other?

One way to help guarantee this is to make sure everyone is adequately armed. Unfortunately, all legislation imposed under the excuse of disarming these people will only disarm those who have no intention to commit murder.

People who are willing to murder aren't going to stop short of violating firearms rules. Even if you somehow managed to magically remove all their guns, they'd stab, club, strangle, or drown each other. It's simply what they are determined to do. Making the rest of us vulnerable isn't hurting them a bit.

You shouldn't structure society around this type of person. This gives them the power to control society by their own rules; for their own benefit.

Instead, society is for those of us who respect the life, liberty, and property of all others. Those who refuse to live this way will be continually removed from society by their own actions if we let them. It's their choice. It's a service, not a tragedy.

You probably think I'm being harsh. Do you prefer the alternative: to give them the power to dictate how you will be allowed to live. I don't.

I used to feel bad for this sort of person. If there were a way to get through to them, I'd be for it. More legislation and harsher punishment haven't worked. Imprisonment has been a complete failure in changing their behavior. I wash my hands of them. My concern for their welfare and quality of life is used up.

I will not sacrifice my liberty because of how the worst among us choose to act. I don't accept blame for their behavior. I will try to avoid them, knowing they can't be trusted to act ethically; to respect the rights of others. Stay ready to deal with them when they won't let you avoid them.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two
The majority of my adult v*ting life, I v*ted for Republicans. And throughout that time I noticed I was only getting stabbed in the back when the Republican won. Now I'm seeing Republicans telling libertarians they'd better v*te for Republicans because libertarians will never win anyway. I didn't "win" when any Republican got elected. Yes, often Democrats are even worse, but even if I were going to v*te, it's not going to be for some (perhaps) lesser evil.

Saturday, June 05, 2021

Asking someone to "prove" that liberty is better than the alternative is like asking someone to "prove" that not being sawed into pieces while alive and conscious of what is happening is better than suffering that fate. If someone can't understand the "why" of it, you probably won't be able to prove it to them.

Sticking to the script

In every publicized and politicized shooting, both sides-- the gun owner rights side and the anti-gun bigot side-- just repeat the same things they always say in response. I include myself in this. There's nothing new to say.

The thing is, when the anti-gun side says the same thing over and over like a recording, what else can you say in response? Each lie is going to elicit the same response it always elicits. For each and every lie, there is a truthful response. I mean, how else can you respond to the claim that the Earth is flat other than by pointing out how you (and they) can know it isn't? You don't start talking about the kinds of cat food you recommend, because it is irrelevant to the topic.

The anti-gun bigots have their list of ways they want you violated. They whip out whichever "solution" they feel fits the situation the best (which sometimes leads to comedy when they pull out the wrong one because of their festering ignorance). 

The "solutions" they demand have always failed in the past. They are failing now. They'll continue to fail into the future each and every time they are tried. That's because they aren't really intended to stop shootings. They are intended to make sure you can't defend yourself from shooters by shooting back. They may even be intended to enslave you.

Their "solutions" certainly work to protect the evil losers who murder. Maybe this is because the shooters are a protected class-- it's probably no coincidence that aggressive monsters (who use weapons-- legislation and guns-- against the innocent) empathize with aggressive monsters (who use weapons-- guns, knives, etc.-- against the innocent). They are birds of a feather. Oh, sure, the murderers are demonized, but only in words. The actions taken in response-- to blame people who didn't do it and look for more ways to hurt them-- speak louder than the disingenuous words.

A "gun-free" zone will only be "gun-free" until some evil loser wants to take a gun in there to kill people. To allow (or require) him to face no opposition is evil.

Kids who have been intentionally kept ignorant of guns-- and the ethical imperative of zero archation-- will get ahold of guns and will likely harm someone. Demanding that kids, therefore, be kept even more ignorant of guns, under threat of punishment, will only make matters worse.

A ban on certain kinds of guns-- based on looks or even on functionality-- will only change the weapons used, not save lives. Do these people really imagine it's less bad to be killed with Gun B than with Gun A... or with Tool C? What kind of stupidity is that?

Background checks will not catch the actual bad guys, but will keep good people who want to obey illegitimate legislation from acquiring the proper tools to defend life, liberty, and property.

Whichever type of weapon is used, it will be presented as too dangerous to allow common people-- anyone who isn't an armed government employee-- to possess. If the weapons weren't dangerous, there would be no point to them. Bad guys respond to danger to their lives and bodily integrity, but not to appeals to their humanity.

You can ignore these anti-gun monsters if you want. Their bad opinions don't affect your rights even a little, but can affect how dangerous it is to exercise your rights. Responding to them probably won't change the course of society as it becomes less and less social and more political. But sometimes you just can't sit quietly while someone is telling lies that are going to hurt people. So, the same old things will be said in response to the same old lies they keep parroting.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Friday, June 04, 2021

If someone says "we" when talking about something the government or "country" did, or says "my" (or worse: "our" or "your") when referring to government or some government agency or agent, my opinion of their intelligence usually plunges-- unless I believe they are using those words sarcastically. If I'm feeling less generous, it may only affect my view of their ethics... by making me decide they have none.

Violence is ethically neutral because "violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Self-defensive violence is ethical; sometimes you've got to use physical force to "hurt, damage, or kill someone" to keep from being violated by them. Aggression-- initiated force-- is violence which is unethical.

Fauci's emails

I haven't bothered to read Fauci's supposedly incriminating emails, because I don't really care about his opinion and whether he lied.

I already knew he's a government-supremacist and as such can't be trusted. Did anyone not know this?

The government-supremacists who are right-statists are celebrating the emails, saying they show he was lying all along.
The government-supremacists who are left-statists are either ignoring the emails, or are saying they see nothing incriminating in them.
So, just more of the same from all those people who put politics over truth. They can be ignored since they can't think outside their box and add nothing to what is known.

Government-supremacists see nothing wrong with lying (or killing) to prop up the state-- at least the kind of state they want. To them, it's for the "greater good".

This hasn't changed in my lifetime and I doubt it ever will. 

Even if there were nothing in those emails I would disagree with, and no politics disguised as "science" for the gullible, I still don't trust Fauci. It's not about one thing he said or did, it's about his approach to life. His actions show he places the collective State above the good of individuals. Of course, he'll frame this as the collective State being good for individuals.

Instead of saying "There's a new cold virus, it seems to be slightly more dangerous than others, and here are some things you might consider doing to protect yourself, but we really don't know much for sure yet", he went all ... well, government-supremacist... on society. Advocating mandates and rules; encouraging using government violence against those who didn't do what he thought they should-- or at least giving rulers the excuses they needed to do those things without any pushback from him. 

Now some are saying the emails are new evidence he lied to get the response he wanted to the narrative he was selling, and that he did other wrong things, too.

Would it be surprising to find out he did? Not to me. He's political, and ALL politics-- all statism-- is based on lies and doing wrong. Why would this be the exception? 

Why would I read through lots of someone's emails-- or see someone else's biased (that's not a criticism, just reality) interpretation of them-- to find out that nothing in them is going to make a difference to me one way or the other?

But that's just me. Others may be more interested and might have good reasons to be. If you want to read through those emails and tell me your impression, go ahead. Maybe I'm just wrong. Maybe there's something in there that you'll find and think I should know because it might change my mind and how I live my life. Stranger things have happened.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Thursday, June 03, 2021

Government is paranoid

I doubt there's any group as paranoid as political government-- any political government. And, it's why other groups get infiltrated so easily by the kings of paranoia in government-- other groups just aren't paranoid enough.

But maybe government is.

Government employees have to know their power and position are illegitimate. They'll deny it, but this is where the paranoia comes from. If they weren't so paranoid I might think they actually believed their own lies.

It's why they spy on us so thoroughly. On our emails, our online activity, our snail-mail, our phone calls, our credit card purchases, our guns, our health status, our location, etc. It's why they infiltrate other groups.

It's not to keep us safe; it's to keep their unearned power safe. 

I'm not saying their paranoia is unjustified. If you're a criminal gang, you probably ought to be paranoid. Someone probably really is out to get you. The crown rests uneasy, and sometimes, the head that wears the crown rests uneasily on the neck, too. I just can't get too worked up when bad guys' paranoia turns out to have been justified. Death to tyrants.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Wednesday, June 02, 2021

Drug abuse stupid but prohibition evil

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 2, 2021)

It's normal to focus more on things which matter to us personally. It's harder to care about everything else. I'm most vocal about the liberty I see being attacked the hardest. This is why I mention gun-owner rights so often. These rights are currently attracting the most hate.

If you want me to defend a right, start a coordinated attack against the rest...


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two

Tuesday, June 01, 2021

I've never encountered a litterbug who didn't also have other serious problems with being responsible.
Also, I consider legislation to be litter.

That's one risk I'm not willing to take

I have no plans to get the Covid "jab". Not unless it looks necessary, and has been shown to be safe, in 20 years or so. Then we can discuss it.

I would rather not catch Covid and die-- or have lasting effects.
I would rather not get "the jab" and have a reaction and die-- or have lasting effects.

But, for some reason, and I know it's not rational, I would rather take my chances with the virus.

At this point, I would feel dumber for getting "the jab" and having a bad reaction (since I feel it's something I shouldn't do) than if I caught the virus naturally (assuming there's anything natural about this virus). 

I was exposed, intensely, several times during the first year of the virus. Now, I feel (and I could be wrong) that I either had some natural genetic immunity to it or caught Covid and didn't know and developed some immunity that way. I have seen nothing to convince me that immunity (if any) conferred by "the jab" is superior to natural immunity.

I'm not the slightest bit worried about catching Covid, and certainly not of catching it and having a serious problem from it. The only person I know personally with lingering ill-effects from Covid has never been what I would consider a healthy person. And I know others, personally, who caught it and recovered with no ill effects even though they were riddled with co-morbidities.

If I got "the jab" now and had a bad reaction it would feel like I took an unnecessary risk. A dumb risk. Almost like I was asking for trouble.

Why fiddle with what seems to have worked? If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.


A friend-of-a-friend in California (I'm making an educated guess that she's a radical left-statist) is still so terrified of Covid that she won't stop masking, has been fully "jabbed", still avoids people, and is skipping an important (to her) memorial service (a Covid-delayed funeral) due to her terror. 

If you ask me-- and you didn't-- this is evidence of psychological abuse. Who is to blame? Politicians, her politics, the media she consumes, society, or some combination? 

I wish someone had the guts to try to deprogram her and give her back her life. If I knew her, I would try. But sometimes you get what you v*te for.


Thank you for helping support
Get a Time's Up flag or two