Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Native American Writer Refers to "Redskins"

I came across this book by Emily Pauline Johnson (1861-1913) of First Nations Heritage back in 1913 who refers to her race as "We redskins." I thought this was interesting considering the supposed racism controversy surrounding the Redskins name recently.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Paul Krugman and the Urban Dictionary

Paul Krugman is listed as one of the 100 Most Trusted People in America. I found this out at the same time I discovered that "Dumbite" is listed as an actual word in the Urban Dictionary. It means: _an idiot with no drive but to fit in with what commonly passes as "cool._" Coincidence...I don't think so.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Bastiat on Socialism

"Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the State — then we are against education altogether. We object to a State religion — then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the State — then we are against equality etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State."

Get this book and 300 others on Disk at www.tinyurl.com/liberty300 or http://tinyurl.com/9h29pqp 

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Learn Chinese and Other Asian Languages - 100 Books on DVDrom

Asia is today's dominant economy, and America and Europe are on the decline. It was recently reported that there are now more millionaires in Asia than there are in the United States. Hong Kong and Singapore have the freest economies in the world. You need to give yourself an edge and learn their languages...this will increase your human capital. You will be much more employable with knowledge of these Asian languages, and this is why I thought it important to collect 100 books and placed them on DVDrom, and, they are very inexpensive. Don't get left behind!

Sunday, July 1, 2012

My Response to: Why I am NOT a Libertarian by the Jimi Freidenker

My Response to: Why I am NOT a Libertarian by the Jimi Freidenker

Freidenker's link is at http://www.freewebs.com/pansexualppp/ppppblog.htm

Jimi: The ideal of laissez-faire is very seductive, especially to ambitious entepreneurs, but it ignores the plain fact that private institutions like corporations can be just as tyrannical as governments. Moreover, our government in the U.S. is, at least in principle, constrained by the constitution and the voters.

Reply: Government is not constrained by the constitution, it snubs the constitution all the time. The constitution is a useless document because almost all presidents have sidestepped it. The government is also not constrained by voters. Take a look at Obama. People voted for him because he promised to close Quantanamo Bay, end the wars, reduce the debt, fix the economy, create transparency...none of which was actually done. In fact, he did the opposite. Obama is just Bush 2.0. You can't constrain government because both the Democrats and the Republicans like reducing our freedoms, they both like killing people overseas, they both destroy the economy and they both put us in a higher debt situation.

Jimi: Corporations in the absence of government regulation would be unbounded authoritarian structures.

Reply: I have a "mail" rule to determine whom I fear most. Am I more afraid of getting mail from the Government, or a Corporation (like Starbucks or Walmart for instance)? I think most people would say they are more afraid of getting mail from the Government, I certainly am. I fear my government, I don't fear Burger King. I go to a Government office because I am forced to, I go to Starbucks because I choose to.

Jimi: They [Corporations] are already, in my humble opinion, far more oppressive to our citizens than any government entity.

Reply: What an idiotic statement. The leading cause of non-natural death in the past 100 years have been governments. Hewlett-Packard has no incentive to kill its customers. Look, what is a corporation? It is a business organization which is chartered by the Government and given legal rights by the Government. Everything you despise about corporations was made possible by Government. Let's say you believe Company A is killing people. How then is it getting away with it, for as we all know, murder is illegal? If Company A is getting away with murder, it is allowed to do so by the Government. We don't have a laissez-faire Capitalist economy, we have a Corporatist economy. In other words, a Fascist economy.

To get a disk with 300 Books for Libertarians, Objectivists, Anarchists & Voluntaryists go to

Monday, May 21, 2012

Stop Shipping to Brazil

I am an online seller and I ship all over the world, but I had to change that recently and block anyone from Brazil from buying any of my items. They simply are not getting there and I keep having to give refunds. I strongly encourage any seller NOT to do business with Brazil as their government there is not interested in allowing trade. 

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

North Carolina Gay Marriage Law

Using Religion and the power of the State to deny rights and privileges to certain minorities. They do this in Iran also, except there it's called Sharia Law.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Certain Political Images not Allowed on Facebook

I posted an image with message of a certain German ruler (1933-45) that shall go unnamed, but it was removed because I violated certain "standards." I just now did a search for Karl Marx, Stalin and Lenin and their images are all over FB. These men after all are responsible for many millions more deaths. Why do we hold certain tyrants by different standards? I've had the same problem selling books on this same person on Ebay.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Jason Segel's Muppet Brother

In the new Muppet movie Jason Segel's brother is a Muppet. How did that happen!? Did his mother sleep with a muppet? Is this a new evolutionary strain? Is this a mutation, and if so, do we classify this as a beneficial or neutral strain? WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THIS!~ Heinz Schmitz

Friday, March 9, 2012

Defending Amanda Clayton, the Millionaire Food Stamp user

Everyone is upset that she is still getting food stamps at $200 a month, yet no one is upset that the Government forcibly took $500,000.00 away from this woman. How did we get to the point where the greater theft is seen as normal?

Others have responded to me thusly: "You are equating taxes to theft?? Do you think roads and other civic services just magic themselves into existence?"

My reply: I want choice in roads and other services. I don't want to be forced into paying a government monopoly for such things. The free market can handle all those more efficiently and at far better costs. Additionally, tax theft also goes towards many things I deem immoral but am forced to pay for anyways.

Other response: "'Choice of roads'? What the hell does that? mean?"

My reply: I think it's sad that people think that only a violent government monopoly can build roads. All kinds of services assumed by this monopoly can be handled much more efficiently in the private sector. A private company also cannot run deficits that threaten? our very livelihood. Wikipedia has a great article on Free-market roads.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

The Clear Advantage of Printed Books over Ereaders

I like my kindle, but there is a clear advantage in printed books. Youactually get to OWN a printed book. You can buy a book for yourkindle, but you don't get to own it. Don't believe me? Try resellingyour kindle book after you've read it. You're not allowed. But, youcan resell your hardcopy book.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

The Altruism of Auguste Comte

From: Duty and Faith: an Essay on the Relation of Moral Philosophy to Christian Doctrine by Julius Lloyd 1884
"...Comte's Altruism advances beyond the limits of Christian doctrine. He teaches that, instead of loving our neighbour as ourselves, we should endeavour not to love ourselves at all. And this, which is the most original feature in Comte's doctrine, is claimed by his followers as an improvement on Christianity.
A fair comparison of the two will show that this fancied superiority is a dream of the study, and betrays a want of acquaintance with human nature. To exclude self-love is to take away the natural provision for self
Preservation and self-culture, which are necessary conditions of the welfare of society. On the other hand, to make self-love a standard of brotherly love, as in the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," is to supply the most effective means by which brotherly love can promote its own object. Altruism without Egoism would be a vague yearning for the happiness of others, without any clear idea of happiness, what it is, or how it is to be obtained. If we suppose a company of pedestrians, each troubled in mind to be sure that his companions' boots fit them comfortably, and indifferent to his own, we should have a picture of a state of society in which Egoism was extinguished and Altruism remained. It would be necessary to find some kind of substitute for Egoism, in order to keep alive the sensibility to pleasure and pain, which is as necessary for the happiness of others as for our own. A man who wishes to make others happy has more power to do so in proportion as he feels sympathy in their pleasure; and thus Egoism has a function preparatory to Altruism. On strictly Altruist principles arts and sciences would languish. That which impelled Columbus to the discovery of America, and led on the inventors of the printing press and the steam engine, was not a prevision of the social benefits to follow, but rather an unsatisfied desire of the mind to accomplish a noble object."

To buy a DVDrom with 300 Books for Libertarians, Objectivists and Anarcho-Capitalists for only $1.59 go to Ebay at http://tinyurl.com/liberty300 or Ioffer at Click Here

Friday, January 20, 2012

The Nature of the State by Clarence Darrow

In this heroic age, given to war andconquest and violence, the precepts ofpeace and good will seem to have beenalmost submerged. The pulpit, the press,and the school unite in teaching patriotism and in proclaiming the glory andbeneficence of war; and one may searchliterature almost in vain for one note of that "Peace on earth, and good will toward men" in which the world still professes to believe; and yet these benign precepts are supposed to be the basis of all the civilization of the western world. The doctrine of non-resistance if ever referred to is treated with derision and scorn. At its best the doctrine can onlybe held by dreamers and theorists, and can have no place in daily life. Every government on earth furnishes proof that there is nothing practical or vital in its teachings. Every government on earth is the personification of violence and force, and yet the doctrine of non-resist-ance is as old as human thought — even more than this, the instinct is as old as life upon the earth. The doctrine of non-resistance to evil does not rest upon the words of Christ alone. Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Socrates, show the evil and destruction of war, of conquest, of violence, and of hatred, and have taught the beneficence of peace, of forgiveness, of non-resistance to evil. But modern thought is not content to rest the conduct of life upon thetheories of moralists. The rules of lifethat govern men and states must to-daybe in keeping with science and conform to the highest reason and judgment of man. It is here that non-resistance seems to have failed to make any practical progress in the world. That men should "turn the other cheek," should "love their ene-mies," should "resist not evil," has ever seemed fine to teach to children, to preach on Sundays, to round a period in a sense-less oratorical flight; but it has been taken for granted that these sentiments cannot furnish the real foundation for strong characters or great states. It is idle to discuss "non-resistance" in its effect upon life and the world without adopting some standard of excellence by which to judge results. Here, as elsewhere in human conduct, after all is said and done, men must come back to the fundamental principle that the conduct which makes for life is wise and right. Nature in her tireless labor has ever been developing a higher order and a completer life. Sometimes for long periods it seems as if the world were on the backward course, but even this would prove that lifereally is the highest end to be attained. Whatever tends to happiness tends tolife, — joy is life and misery is death.I n his long and toilsome pilgrimage,man has come to his present estate through endless struggle, through brutal violence administered and received. And the question of the correctness of non-resistance as a theory, like any other theory, does not depend upon whether it can be enforced and lived now or tomorrow, but whether it is the highest ideal of life that is given us to conceive. In one sense nothing is practical excepting what is; everything must have been developed out of all the conditions of life that now exist or have existed on the earth. But to state this means little in the settlement of ethical questions, for man's future condition depends quite as much upon his mental attitude as upon any other fact that shapes his course. Everywhere it seems to have been taken for granted that force and violence are necessary to man's welfare upon the earth. Endless volumes have been written, and countless lives been sacrificed in an effort to prove that one form of government is better than another; but few seem seriously to have considered the proposition that all government rests on violence and force, is sustained by soldiers, policemen and courts, and is contrary to the ideal peace and order which make for the happiness and progress ofthe human race. Now and then it is even admitted that in the far distant ages yet to come men may so far develop toward the angelic that political governments will have no need to be. This admission, like the common concept, presumes that governments are good; that their duties undertaken and performed consist in repressing the evil and the lawless, and protecting and caring for the helpless and the weak. If the history of the state proved that governing bodies were ever formed for this purpose or filled this function, there might be some basis for the assumption that government is necessary to preserve order and to defend the weak. But the origin and evolution of the political states how quite another thing — it shows that the state was born in aggression, and thatin all the various stages through which ithas passed its essential characteristics have been preserved. The beginnings of the state can be traced back to the early history of the human race when the strongest savage seized the largest club and with this weapon enforced his rule upon the other members of the tribe. By means of strength and cunning he became the chief and exercised this power, not to protect the weak but to take the good things of the earth for himself and his. One man by his unaided strength could not long keep the tribe in subjection to his will, so he chose lieutenants and aids, and these too were taken for their strength and prowess, and were given a goodly portion of the fruits of power for the loyalty and help they lent their chief. No plans for the general good ever formed a portion of the scheme of government evolved by these barbarous chiefs. The great mass were slaves, and their lives and liberty held at the absolute disposal of the strong. Ages of evolution have only modified the rigors of the first rude states. The divine right to rule, the absolute characterof official power, is practically the same to-day in most of the nations of the world as with the early chiefs who executed their mandates with a club. The ancient knight who, with battle-ax and coat of mail, enforced his rule upon the weak, was only the forerunner of the tax-gatherer and tax-devourer of to-day. Even in democratic countries, where the people are supposed to choose their rulers, the nature of government is the same. Growing from the old ideas of absolute power, these democracies have assumed that some sort of government was indispensable to the mass, and no sooner had they thrown off one form of bondage than another yoke was placed upon their necks, only to prove in time that this new burden was no less galling than the old. Neither do the people govern in democracies more than in any other lands. They do not even choose their rulers. These rulers choose themselves and by force and cunning and intrigue arrive at the same results that their primitive ancestor reached with the aid of a club. And who are these rulers without whose aid the evil and corrupt would destroy and subvert the defenceless and the weak? From the earliest time these self-appointed rulers have been conspicuous for all those vices that they so persistently charge to the common people whose rapacity, cruelty and lawlessness they so bravely curb. The history of the past and the present alike proves beyond adoubt that if there is, or ever was any large class, from whom society needed to be saved, it is those same rulers who have been placed in absolute charge of the lives and destinies of their fellow men. From the early kings who, with blood-redhands, forbade their subjects to kill their fellow men, to the modern legislator, who, with the bribe money in his pocket, still makes bribery a crime, these rulers have ever made laws not to govern themselves but to enforce obedience on their serfs. The purpose of this autocratic power has ever been the same. In the early tribe the chief took the land and the fruits of the earth, and parceled them amongst his retainers who helped preserve his strength. Every government since then has used its power to dividethe earth amongst the favored few and by force and violence to keep the toiling, patient, suffering millions from any portion of the common bounties of the world. In many of the nations of the earth the real governing power has stood behind the throne, has suffered their creatures and their puppets to be the nominal rulers of nations and states, but in every case the real rulers are the strong, and thestate is used by them to perpetuate theirpower and serve their avarice and greed. To buy a DVDrom with 300 Books for Libertarians, Objectivists and Anarcho-Capitalists for only $1.59 go to Ebay at http://tinyurl.com/liberty300 or Ioffer at Click Here

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Arianna Huffington's Ignorance of Capitalism

"It's time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is." ~ Arianna Huffington

My Reply: It is stupid articles like this that demonstrate a horrific ignorance of economics. You cannot call for the end of something (laissez-faire markets) that never existed in the first place. We have had government intrusion in the markets from day one in the form of tarriffs and subsidies, and State involvement in the marketplace is so rampant that what we have now can better be called a Fascist Economy.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

The "Giving Back" Fallacy

I don't like the term "Giving Back." It is based on the biggest economic fallacy there is: The Zero Sum Fallacy. This fallacy states that there is a fixed pie and one can only gain at the expense of another. If this was the case we would still have a 17th century size economy. Anyone who does business, sets up shop, sells online, actually INCREASES the size of the pie.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

All Governments Are Socialistic

“Believing that certain forms of the state or certain forms of governing are socialist and certain forms are ‘free’ is erroneous and a bit ridiculous. All governing states are socialist by nature. The state by definition derives its control and power to enforce its monopoly by confiscating and redistributing the resources of its populace. It cannot survive without acting in this manner. While it may not directly control the ‘means of production’, to ensure its survival and growth it will control the necessary proportion of the product of those same productive means.
Attempting to try to ‘unsocialize’ the state is futile. One political party referring to the other as ‘socialist’ is hysterical. All politics that exist within the state monopoly are only variations on the question of who the wealth will come from and where it will go. This has always been the nature of the state.” ~Gene DeNardo

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Occupy Wall Street, Socialism, and Hitler

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927)

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Elizabeth Warren’s Social Contract

At every stage of building your business you had to pay off the mafia (taxes, licenses) for monopolistic services you had no choice over, and if your business succeeds, it is not because of anything you did, no, it is because of the government (mafia), and you need to keep on paying or else.
The people that educate, pave roads, or put out fires are compensated for their work by their customers, they have no further claim on anyone’s wealth.
I even hate the use of the words "social contract." Rousseau invented the idea and it ties everyone to a burdensome contract devised before they're even born. It's like Original Sin. Anything that is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality.