How Barack Obama Becomes The Greatest President In US History Without Killing 750,000 Americans

That figure was news to me. I’ve been winging it with ~650k American “Civil” War dead (don’t you just love that oxymoron?) for two decades of writings when I bring it up. Perhaps that’s what it takes to be the greatest president, in The Land of the Free. Kill lots of people that lots of other people don’t like. Simple equation. Little history lesson. Letter from President Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greely, editor of the New York Tribune, 1862.

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. [emphasis added]

Spoken like a master pragmatist.

Shorter Lincoln: ‘Don’t you fuckin’ get it, man? I’m a politician and as such, seek power over the lives of other people and the more, the better. We euphemistically call it a union; and the constitution and statutes it has enacted; I have sworn to uphold. and I will do so, no matter how many lives it costs.’

The “Civil War” was about secession of the southern states, tied to slavery economically, via unmechanized agriculture; but not about ending slavery in any sort of Enlightenment, moral ideal. Abolition of slavery had a long history, since The Enlightenment, and the first nation to enact laws abolishing slavery was Spain (Leyes Nuevas), in 1542, more than 300 years before the US “Civil War” to “end slavery in the ‘free’ world.” (The only thing that surpasses American hubris is American ignorance, to a degree that might make North Korea blush, some days.)

The root cause of slavery was agriculture. Logic flow:

  1. Agriculture creates many calories, relatively easily available and cheap vs. hunting and gathering.
  2. Relatively easy and cheap calories equals a boon to fecundity and survival of young.
  3. More people.
  4. Requiring more agriculture.
  5. Exponential growth.
  6. Eventually, people are no longer self sufficient.
  7. Vacuum.
  8. Protection racket, euphemistically called Politics.
  9. Non-industrail; so, let subjects starve, or arbitrarily create classes of slaves based on differences and natural antagonism?
  10. Slavery wins out. Gotta protect the political power of having the most influence over the most people.

It’s not morality or conscience that ended slavery. They just hitched a ride and have been milking it ever since. What ended slavery was the Industrial Revolution that got started in about 1760 and was in full swing…guess…20-40 years before our most civilized war. OK, so maybe Spain and a few others were acting on conscience in their Abolition. Don’t know, for sure.

America largely and officially, was not. It was not! America has no seat at the table over freeing slaves because it was morally abominable to hold slaves. And yet, Americans are like North Koreans on this point of history, and it has fucking irritated me for 2 decades.

I have plenty of hubris over a lot of things, but the American fantasy and hubris over being the shining light in terms of human slavery makes me blush.

…OK, shifting gears and connecting dots, suppose we forget all that and focus on the existing American enslavement of blacks and Latinos? They call it the War on Drugs. I call it the War on American Citizens, but it’s really just another “Civil War” that morally depraved Americans just seem to sadistically love—the most sadistic being the most religious; completely not ironic, if you understand their lust for people they don’t like being tortured in hell eternally. Let’s get started.

According to Sen. Robert Byrd, cosponsor of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the reason to attach five- and ten-year mandatory sentences to drug trafficking was to punish “the kingpins—the masterminds who are really running these operations”, and the mid-level dealers.

But, the logic of law enforcement is to always go with the least risk, least cost, and just plain easiest—all while showing off their fashion clothing. This is why if you’re paying attention, they are praying on peaceful citizens daily and shooting the family dog—probably a combination  of wanting something low-risk to do, combined with a pussy complex…but I’m just guessing.

Federal Judge Mark W. Bennett:

How Mandatory Minimums Forced Me to Send More Than 1,000 Nonviolent Drug Offenders to Federal Prison

Growing up in blue collar Circle Pines, Minnesota, in the 1950s, raised by parents from the “Greatest Generation,” I dreamed only of becoming a civil rights lawyer. My passion for justice was hard-wired into my DNA. Never could I have imagined that by the end of my 50s, after nineteen years as one of 678 federal district court judges in the nation, I would have sent 1,092 of my fellow citizens to federal prison for mandatory minimum sentences ranging from sixty months to life without the possibility of release. The majority of these women, men and young adults are nonviolent drug addicts. Methamphetamine is their drug of choice. Crack cocaine is a distant second. Drug kingpins? Oh yes, I’ve sentenced them, too. But I can count them on one hand. While I’m extremely proud of my father’s service in World War II, I am greatly conflicted about my role in the “war on drugs.”

I’d ask why his government retirement is more important than those lives and his conscience, but it’s not the point. It’s going to happen anyway. I get that, so I’ll give him a pass so long as he maintains a voice of conscience. And it has a certain power: “why are you torturing my conscience like this, for the sake of your politics and irrational fears?”

So, You da Judge. Keep at it, sir.

Keeping with Da Judge, Let’s take a look at the facts, just in terms of federal law and conviction, keeping in mind that in total, the Land of the Free incarcerates more citizens per capita than any other nation on earth.

Crack defendants are almost always poor African-Americans. Meth defendants are generally lower-income whites. More than 80 percent of the 4,546 meth defendants sentenced in federal courts in 2010 received a mandatory minimum sentence. These small-time addicts are apprehended not through high-tech wiretaps or sophisticated undercover stings but by common traffic stops for things like nonfunctioning taillights. Or they’re caught in a search of the logs at a local Walmart to see who is buying unusually large amounts of nonprescription cold medicine. They are the low-hanging fruit of the drug war. Other than their crippling meth addiction, they are very much like the folks I grew up with. Virtually all are charged with federal drug trafficking conspiracies—which sounds ominous but is based on something as simple as two people agreeing to purchase pseudoephedrine and cook it into meth. They don’t even have to succeed.

I’d suggest considering a different view. That America is morally depraved and its people—you, voters—directly culpable. I know. you don’t care. God & Country, Law & Order. Damnation, Hell, and eternal torture. Turn your Bibles to Chapter X. It all reads the same.

I’ll limit this to Federal incarceration and it goes to the post title as to why, which I’ll get to shortly. Drug offenders in the Fed system:

  • As of 2013, 99,426 were serving time for drug offenses, about 10% associated with violence. Call it 90K non violent. Interestingly, for all 50 states, “only” 55k are in for possession, while 167K are associated with violence. Since state law typically deals with the adjudication of violent acts, this makes sense. On the other hand, how much of the violence is associated with the presence of laws that make no rational sense to people? “Where there are laws, there will be crime.” – Solzhenitsyn
  • As of 2013, 985,000 people were on probation for federal drug offenses.
  • As of 2013, 280,000 people were on parole for federal drug offenses.
  • As of 2013, approximately 500,000 people are in federal and state prison over drug offenses, violent and non-violent combined.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants unilateral executive power to the president to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” 

So, all that to get to this. President Barack “Choom Master” Obama gets to be the greatest president in our history by the stroke of a pen during his last few days in office. See, he’s pretty famous for pleading his duty to “uphold the law” when admonished by common citizen surfs in town-hall publicity stunts, who harangue him for not holding up the Black end of things.

OK, so just enforce the law to convict them, then pardon them all. By my rough calculation, he could free 1,355,000 slaves in prison, on probation, or parole with a single signature—a hugely disproportionate population-based percentage of them black and Hispanic.

Would that fucking rock the world, or what? It would literally gut the whole Drug War and get poor, peaceful folk back to their families—or remove dark specters of federal conviction hanging over their heads—for good. As a bonus, as Presidents love to apologize for the past sins of the nation they execute power over, how about a public apology for the American Disgrace, since Nixon started it? Barack: just say that you were inhaling, when Clinton was in office. That outta do it.

How many state governors would then find the “political will” (one of the funniest fraud-concepts ever) to follow suit and open their prison doors to non-violent offenders and release parolees and those on probation?

It would be so awesome. That’s why it would and will never happen. It’s complicated, but it turns on the secret handshake between those who hold office, and those who proudly wear lapel stickers every 2-4 years.

Barack Obama is a politician and the Democrat party is far more important than all those lives. So is the Republican party.

Now, voters, go out and wave your party flags, you proud people, you.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Expendable Henchman on April 3, 2014 at 13:07

    You’ll note, however, that Horace Greely himself thought Lincoln was after freeing the slaves. Lincoln wasn’t fighting for the slaves, but the vast majority of those actually getting shot in the face were.

    So yes, this country did fight a civil war to free slaves, even if it’s president didn’t.

    And no, we’re not quite up to the Norks on our history rewrites. We don’t (yet) believe that on Obama’s birth, that the birds spontaneously sang the national anthem. And only about 10% of us actually believe he’s the Messiah (down from 52% a while ago).

    As to your insights on the drug war and the entire premise of your article: dead on.

    The old cycle is repeating:
    Take over a frontier
    The weak and cowards are all dead
    Build a thriving nation that conquers others
    get rich
    get decadent
    the masses vote themselves bread and circuses
    get toppled

    We’re voting ourselves bread and circuses now. The prison thing is going because prisons are a huge industry, fed by tax dollars. The prisons lobby for themselves and nobody wants the bad people out. The bad people spend a little time locked up and become unemployable for life. More gov’t dependants with total control by the gov’t (or your parole gets revoked).

    Yes, it’s all going to implode soon.

  2. Scott J Sterling on April 3, 2014 at 13:21

    Richard, I’m not sure how are you defining “nonviolent”. If by that you mean people whose only crime was possession of an illegal drug, then I am 100% in favor of your idea. This coming from a Christian, Republican- leaning guy.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 3, 2014 at 22:56

      Scott, yea, but cultivation, manufacture and distribution, too. So long as no force is involved.

  3. John on April 3, 2014 at 13:27

    Dammit Richard have you watched The Wire yet?

    • John on April 4, 2014 at 12:51

      Or $85 for the box set from amazon

    • Richard Nikoley on April 3, 2014 at 22:55


      No, I have not. Heard about it a million times, but know nothing about it. Took me like 4 seasons to see the first episode of Breaking Bad, though, and then i became a zombie for like 2 weeks, doing nothing but watching every episode.

      So what’s the connection?

    • John on April 4, 2014 at 06:46

      The whole show is about how shitty government is, how horrible drug law and enforcement is, etc. Baltimore is “the main character” and each season shows a different aspect of how badly things work. From Wikipedia, “Each season of The Wire introduces a different facet of the city of Baltimore. In chronological order they are: the illegal drug trade, the seaport system, the city government and bureaucracy, the school system, and the print news media. Simon has said that despite its presentation as a crime drama, the show is “really about the American city, and about how we live together. It’s about how institutions have an effect on individuals. Whether one is a cop, a longshoreman, a drug dealer, a politician, a judge or a lawyer, all are ultimately compromised and must contend with whatever institution to which they are committed.””

      So like, busting street level nothing dealers to make a big media spectacle but deliberately avoiding going after top players. “Good” cops getting punished for trying to do good, etc. I’m not doing the show justice, but after watching that show I still think about aspects of it all the time, and every time you publish a post like this it parallels The Wire to a degree I can’t believe you haven’t sat down to watch it. In fact, just reviewing the Wikipedia page should give a good idea as there’s so many aspects of the show well explained there. (But don’t read the “themes” section and below which details what happens).

      Also, has some of the most memorable characters I’ve ever seen on any show.

      In response to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asking for a 6th season, the creator said “The Attorney-General’s kind remarks are noted and appreciated. I’ve spoken to Ed Burns and we are prepared to go to work on season six of The Wire if the Department of Justice is equally ready to reconsider and address its continuing prosecution of our misguided, destructive and dehumanising drug prohibition.”

      I’m telling you, it is at the least worth watching this show, and I’d say as soon as possible if you can.

    • John on April 4, 2014 at 06:54

    • Richard Nikoley on April 4, 2014 at 08:08

      So, basically, a serious version of Parks & Recreation and Ron Swanson. Believe it or not, I had no idea of either until just recently and have been catching it from the beginning on Netflix. Fucking hilarious.

      Looks like The Wire is HBO, so only Netflix DVD, not stream. Looks like I’ll probably have to pop for iTunes at 20 bucks per season (they don’t even have a deal for purchasing the whole series like they did for Breaking Bad—which I did because video quality was WAY better than Netflix streaming which I think is 720p at best).

      Know of any other sources that won’t cost $100? And no, I don’t do BitTorrent or anything pirated.

    • John on April 4, 2014 at 12:46

      Yeah HBOGO, its like Netflix but for HBO and comes with your HBO subscription. I have comcast – $10/MO for HBO and HBOGO. Thats how I catch up on all HBO shows.

      You’ve just got to make sure that, unless you’re watching on a web browser, your service provider supports HBO go on the respective device. Like, I bought a Roku for HBOGO, but Comcast doesn’t let HBOGO work on Roku (even though HBOGO is on Roku). Same with my PS3. Comcast lets you use HBOGO on Xbox Live though.

    • John on April 4, 2014 at 12:49

    • Richard Nikoley on April 5, 2014 at 07:52

      Yea, I can’t wait until all these stupid contracts expire so that both premium TV and live sports can go direct to the consumer. I am very much looking to dump Cable. The cost is insanely ridiculous. Basically, the only reason left to have it is either if the SF Giants are in the playoffs, and football season. TV is literally on all day Sunday for football.

    • John on April 5, 2014 at 11:39

      No kidding. I’ve been considering dropping cable for a while. Last time I used it was for the Super Bowl, can’t remember the time before that. If I’m at home I’m reading, playing computer games, playing music, or watching netflix.

      Then again, playoff basketball…maybe I better keep it after all (damn the fear of letting go!).

  4. Richard Nikoley on April 3, 2014 at 13:38

    “Horace Greely himself thought Lincoln was after freeing the slaves.”

    It’s irrelevant. That quote was in no way to highlight the morality of Greely, but rather, the depravity of our President (same shit, different day).

    You can believe what you want, but I’m an Occam’s Razor kinda guy and when I see blacks being spurned even in the 1950s and 60s, can’t even sit at the same lunch counter, drink from the same water fountain, and have to go to the back of the bus, it’s simply far more plausible to me, not having been there, that nobody really gave a shit, really, that we were dealing with humans and lives and children and grandchildren and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters or anything like it.

    We were dealing with a president, euphemism for King, issuing orders, and people obeyed because they had become dependent upon the political order.

    Obeisance is what’s key here, and not stand up morality. Americans have zero to be proud of in in terms of ridding the abomination and Original Sin of America in terms of slavery, which had been collapsing already for 300 years. It got done. That’s a fact. Zero to be proud of. It was economic and ultimately power vs power. Not a bit of morality in it, which is my principle point in case you missed it. And BTW, I woul’d sooner believe that Lincoln himself consciously wanted to get rid of slavery on ethical grounds than average folks who benefited from them. Lincoln was in no “need” of them.

    Facts are inconvenient facts. And now, America holds more people in prison per capita than any other nation; and yet, its cloistered citizens, more prone to an RV tour of ‘Merica than getting on a plane and seeing how the rest of the world lives, just feel so wonderful with the lapel sticker and a vicarious gun on their hip, telling the world what to do because they’re so upstanding.

    Laughing stock. And it’s not because America isn’t great…it absolutely certainly is. It’s because it’s citizens rival North Korea in worshipful adulation and that is what I can not tolerate.

    I don’t believe you can truly appreciate the wonder of America, until you come full clean with every single wart and sin. To do anything less, tarnishes the idea. And if America can’t take an accounting, then it wasn’t and isn’t worth a shit anyway.

  5. Joshua on April 3, 2014 at 14:37

    I’ve never heard anybody say they were proud of America for ending slavery. But then again I keep strange company.

    For me, it’s kind of like national pride. I’m not “proud” to be an American. I’m damned happy to be one, but I don’t know what there is to take pride in. Likewise with ethnicity and similar things that are just an accident of birth. I’m happy the US ended slavery when it did, but sad that it didn’t happen sooner.

    To the rest of your article, I fear that there will never be a shortage of people excited and enthusiastic about telling other people what to do, and an even larger number of people happy to be told what to do.

    Somebody was recently talking about the castigation of that Mozilla CEO and that he didn’t deserve to be CEO because he tried to force his beliefs on other people with a $1000 donation. Everybody who has ever voted (I’m a guilty hypocrite) has tried to force their beliefs on other people. But in their case, it’s the “right” beliefs.

  6. Koanic on April 3, 2014 at 17:14

    Here is the causal chain.

    The black slaves imported from West Africa had high genetic resistance to tropical disease and labor under tropical heat.

    Cash crops such as tobacco, indigo and later cotton made the plantation system profitable in the American South. Combined with ~80 African IQ and resultant short time preferences that left them civilizationally backwards and happy to assist with the slave trade against other tribes of West Africans, this made the trans-Atlantic slave trade profitable.

    Scalable plantation profitability led to super-plantation owner dominance of state legislatures in the South. These protected their political power base by discouraging growth of manufacturing, which would dilute their wealth and influence.

    The Industrial Revolution and the War of 1812 heavily biased the American North towards high tariffs, while the South, which traded raw goods for manufactures with England, wanted the opposite. A sectional political war ensued over tariffs.

    As this war escalated, the temporary triumph of Southern political interests led to the passage of the fugitive slave acts etc, which made abolition popular for the first time in the South, by exposing Northerners with no real contact with the institution of slavery to its most pathetic images, while simultaneously offending their rights as Englishmen.

    An heretical mutation of Christianity led this abolition movement, despite that the Bible permits permanent chattel slavery for non-Israelites, and despite that the Southern predictions that Blacks are unequalk, incompetent to manage their own freedom, and would prey on whites have proven historically accurate.

    As Civil War casualties increased, it became necessary to create an apocalyptic moral crusade to motivate the North to send its soldiers walking into bullets. For the South, it became a struggle for independence. For the North, it became a Mosaic struggle to free the slaves, and also one to preserve the Union. Tariffs are simply not a strong enough motivation.

    In the aftermath, the South enjoyed an industrial boom that dwarfed the profits of slavery, proving that slavery was inefficient and that it would have ended peacefully as its political influence waned.

    The continual growth and centralization of the US federal government permitted the career of a politician and quasi-dictator such as Lincoln, and simultaneously represented a major step forward in that trend.

    Thus the Civil War as “about” freeing the slaves in an important but not an exclusive sense, and your thesis is wrong.

    Your thesis that slavery is agricultural is also wrong, since Native Americans practiced slavery against prisoners of war from neighboring tribes.

    The explosion in the US prison population is a result of the 60’s-70’s crime wave following the emancipation of blacks from racist police enforcement, and the growth of the welfare state subsidizing crime. Mass imprisonment for offenses became the only politically acceptable solution.

    • luc on April 5, 2014 at 13:30

      I would like to congratulate you to your incredible feat of determining the IQ of entire historic populations. In addition your are combining half-truths, conspiracy theories, and racist hogwash so eloquently – I am in awe. Following your glorious example I am assessing/confirming herewith your cultural and intellectual superiority from afar. While I do not have an exact measure for the former, you have shown us that your IQ is at least 81, if not a few points higher.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 5, 2014 at 13:44

      “Your thesis that slavery is agricultural is also wrong, since Native Americans practiced slavery against prisoners of war from neighboring tribes.”

      No, it’s right. Agriculture required slavery. Moreover, the Native American were hardly a state institution.

      “the only politically acceptable solution.”

      There’s a redundancy for you.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 5, 2014 at 13:57


      Try this out. How about Koanic get rousted from his bed at 3am, tied up, knocked around, put on a sailing vessel and bare starvation rations. A month later, he ends up in Tanzania as a slave of the Hadza, one of the last nearly pure African H-G’s.

      They want to test his intelligence, so they give him an “IQ Test” they designed and average Hadza score about 100 (standardized). But, rather than a bunch of straight lines and geometric shapes, trigonometric stuff to answer, it’s all curvy shit. Like, there’s this squiggly shape. Is it a tree branch, a tree root, or a snake? If the two former, edible or poisonous? If the latter, poisonous or benign, and regardless, edible but awful, edible and good eating?

      And so on. What’s his score? I’m guessing ~65. And yep, people will object that that’s a test of culture and experience, to which I say Duh! Welcome to the fraud of IQ testing and predictions as to any individual’s suitability to manage his or her human life in the milieu in which he or she grew up.

      See here:

      The Quality of Paleo Knowledge

      The Quality of Neolithic Knowledge

    • Richard Nikoley on April 6, 2014 at 09:41


      On the IQ testing thing, sometime back I did a post on it. Turns out commenter Marie (a PhD physical chemist) actually worked on test development for some Canadian government thing and was tested herself extensively when a youth, and even she says they’re a bunch of rubbish and primarily give an indication of adaptation to cultural norms, practices, practical experience and so on, not a true measure of intelligence, if there even is such a thing, because you have to ask, intelligence in WHAT?

      Who’s more intelligent, the outlier mathematician who would perish inside a day left by himself in the African dessert, or this guy who’d look at equations on a university blackboard and scratch his head?

      Well, it depends on what questions one is asking and to whom you’re asking, and in what context.

      Now, someone tell me again about the ~80 IQ of the bushmen in that video.

    • luc on April 5, 2014 at 21:59

      I hope that my score would be good enough for survival.

      Somewhat related and something which makes the tolerance of slavery by enlightened people, like the ones founding the US, a bit harder to accept is the fact that people traveling by ship at these times had a good chance of ending up as a slave themselves : “According to Robert Davis, between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries.[3]”

    • Richard Nikoley on April 6, 2014 at 09:23


      – Number of black African slaves brought to the Caribbean and Latin America: 11 MILLION.

      – Number of black African slaves brought to the shores of N America: 388 THOUSAND

      – Number of people enslaved by the Arab slave trade of all races, including European whites from 650 – 1900: 10-18 million

      – Number of Saqaliba (white Europeans) enslaved by the Arabs during the 8th & 9th century: 1-2 million

      – Number of british merchant ships and warships captured by the Barbary Corsairs with the sailors being tuned into slaves: 466 merchant ships, 160 naval ships.

    • gabriella kadar on April 7, 2014 at 15:45


      Koanic, GTR and Mycroft Jones are a racist, sexist bunch of loser wannabe Neanderthals. You should take a look sometimes at Koanic’s laughable blog. Scruffy 20 somethings living in their parents’ basements send in pictures of themselves asking the great Koanic if they look Neanderthal or Neanderthal enough. Apparently people with a percentage of Neanderthal genes are superior to everyone else, especially people from Subsaharan Africa.

      Richard, if you haven’t realized yet, your mother is a chimp. Okay, maybe not exactly a chimp but chimplike. Ask GTR. He’s an expert. Women are more chimplike than men. It’s supposed to be because women have 2 X chromosomes. They’ve not only inherited their mother’s X chromosome but her mitochondrial DNA as well. They should go upstairs and tell their mothers about how chimplike they are. That should go over real well.

      Just because no woman would give them the time of day, therefore women are chimplike. Nothing quite like justifying inadequacy, is there?

      There must be toxic mould in those basement lairs of theirs.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 7, 2014 at 21:21

      Well Gab, though I saw this in the other two, GTR has been pretty on point.

      Hope it continues.

      I recall back in the bay, (’95ish) people were up in arms about Neo Nazi sites with their 1 MILLION animated gifs. They were licking their chops, having only been able to print tracts on recycled paper for F&F up to then; finally, message gets out to the world.

      I said at the time: “link ’em up,” just like you shine light on cockroaches. When is the last time you heard of such a marginal site.

      It’s evolved. They have their little enclaves of sycophants. They’re back to printing tracts for F&F in bits and electrons

  7. Rick Negus on April 3, 2014 at 17:15

    An old guy, 69, looking in from the outside (western Canada) and watching the Decline and Fall or is it a three ring circus? I enjoy your outrage and I can see the injustice (Canada has it’s own), voices like yours and David Simon are important. Keep at it, keep yelling from the roof tops, don’t give up. I know that there are a lot of good caring people in America, unfortunately they do not get the press, the spotlight.

    I fear that your country will have to go through a lot of pain before it returns to the principles it was based on. Not only all of those fellow citizens in jail but according to a video I watched last night 3% of your population is homeless, that’s somewhere in the neighbourhood of 9,000,000 if figure.

    A trillion dollars a year on the stuff wars are made of, imagine what could be done with that money?

    Can you imagine what the world would be like if your leaders stayed home and minded their own business instead of wanting to rule the world (are leaders are there with them). It is like my kids are sick, getting into trouble, the house is falling apart and I am down the street trying to fix my neighbours?

    Go figure?

    Blessing and well being.

  8. MC on April 3, 2014 at 22:12

    People would have probably fallen into three groups on the segregation issue. Those that actively opposed it. Those who felt it wrong, but didn’t act on those feelings. And those who actively supported it.

    I think the majority were probably in the second group.

  9. LeonRover on April 4, 2014 at 04:44


    I suppose you could call it “Lincoln’s Dilemma” an extension of the “Cretan Liar Paradox”.

    This however

    was “news to me”.

    Had it been Russian women bathing would you describe it as sycogalaktic news ?


  10. JH on April 4, 2014 at 05:29

    The Spanish Leyes Nuevas are not how you’ve characterized them, they were a half-ass attempt by the Spanish King to respond to a Papal decree in the 1530s. They were targeted at limiting the exploitation of indigenous peoples in the New World , who had essentially been enslaved in many parts of Spain’s new colonies. It really didn’t have anything to do with the African Slave Trade. Don’t be too quick to give any credit to the Spaniards for being progressive about slavery. They imported slaves to the Spanish Americas until the late 18th century, and slavery continued in their Caribbean colonies long after it ended in the U.S. The international slave trade ended largely in the early 1800’s thanks to change of policy by the Brits and the establishment of West Africa Fleet to fight the slave trade. While it didn’t end until the much later in individual countries.

    The Spanish were much better than others at least, but they have no claim of moral superiority over slavery in the United States. The real villains in the slave trade from Africa were the Portuguese who controlled the network of forts and slave trading posts, and the Arab and West African Tribes that captured Africans and sold them into slavery.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 4, 2014 at 08:41

      “The Spanish Leyes Nuevas are not how you’ve characterized them”

      And how would that be? Generally, in conversation, one at minimum summarizes his understanding of what his interlocutor said, so as to avoid talking past each other at best, being taken as dishonestly manipulative at worst. Since I don’t know which it is in your case, I’ll withhold further comment for fear of wasting time.

    • Tim Starr on April 6, 2014 at 13:48

      Richard, you’re being obtuse here. You said those laws “abolished slavery,” without qualification. That’s clearly false as stated, since slavery continued in Spain’s New World colonies until they won their independence, centuries after the laws you cited. So, unless your claim is restated as “Abolished slavery for some people in some places, leaving the rest of Spain’s slaves in place for centuries afterwards,” it’s false.

      Also, Lincoln fought the Civil War to stop the SPREAD of slavery, both into the North and Latin America. To accomplish that, he was willing to accept slavery where it already existed.

      The connection between slavery & agriculture is also not that necessary, either. There have been plenty of agricultural societies without slavery, and slavery without agriculture. Slavery in the Americas was driven by crops whose primary purpose was export to either Europe or other foreign countries: Sugar, rice, tobacco, cotton, etc. What these crops all had in common is that they were both land-intensive and labor-intensive, requiring lots of unskilled manual labor, a high death rate for the workers, and a high price back in Europe, thus making them profitable.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 6, 2014 at 14:55


      “without qualification”

      Exactly. It was a _qualitative_ statement, not an absolute _quantitative_ statement, since I simply assumed people would take that to mean the beginning of something—i.e., qualitative, and “of low quality” still works. That was the context.

      In the context of the whole piece, my meaning ought to be taken that no, in fact, regardless of going up to the man on the street and asking “Which was the first country/president to stand up to slavery?” and he says “USA/Lincoln,” it’s not true. IOW, it’s the American hubris and ignorance I can’t stand (same with the ratio of African slaves to Latin America vs. to north America, as I believe we have touched on before).

      The simple point is that Abolition begins with the Enlightenment and there were a million incremental steps to get to complete Abolition in the West, and America was not the first to take the fist step. Now, if someone did it before Spain, institutionally, I’m all ears. It was the earliest ref I could find for a step in that direction.

      And I’ll add that the Abolition of slavery even in the US, under Lincoln, did nothing to end _institutional_ discrimination and segregation on the basis of race, something that would require about another 100 years or so. And that’s an interesting bugaboo and another thing that I can’t stand, because everyone is focussed on private discrimination and segregation, and of course you know what I think about that. It’s fine. Everyone gets to manage their own piggy bank as they see fit and face whatever social consequences come their way, naturally. But for the pooled piggy bank? Nope.

      “Also, Lincoln fought the Civil War to stop the SPREAD of slavery”

      Yea, we ought to love him for that, just like we ought to love GWB for invading Afghanistan and Iran under the pretense of stopping the spread of terrorism. I have a novel idea: just stop fucking in everyone’s in/eternal affairs and see what happens for a little while.

      …I’m reminded of pictures of young women in Kabul, galavanting around in modern Western wear in the early 1970s ( Who fucked that up? It’s debatable, as American culture is a blunt instrument that uses marketing to understand what people themselves really want—so I do get the social complexities that may have swarms of fucktards coming out of the mountains. But as interesting as geopolitics can be, you’re ultimately dealing with individuals, so while it’s captivating, chessboard-like, I’d just prefer America left people alone and hey, geopolitically? We ended up, looks like, working it out with the USSR, with weapons systems in quality and quantity—including intercontinental ballistic nukes—to rival our own.

      The middle east? One must be joking. What it really is is that people are afraid of suicide bombers in restaurants and malls. So turn the entire world upside down? Shit, I prefer a real threat. This whole contrived war against 14th Century Dirt Scratching Savages is a bit embarrassing. If you ask me.

      “The connection between slavery & agriculture is also not that necessary”

      You’re being obtuse, Tim. I did not state or imply that agriculture requires slavery. It is a mere convenience, for obvious reasons, and did not exist before agriculture.

      “Slavery in the Americas was driven by crops whose primary purpose was export to either Europe or other foreign countries”

      Nothing I wrote implies that slavery is not primarily motivated by profit. Why would I need to clarify and differentiate? It’s well known as _The Slave Trade_.

      Sorry to assume so many things that are to me, obvious, requiring no elaboration or insult of my readers for not understanding plain implications.

    • Tim Starr on April 6, 2014 at 16:15

      In which you double-down on obtuseness:

      1) Every Russian Tsar began his rule upon coronation by proclaiming the abolition of torture, then reneging upon that as soon as they caught anyone worth torturing. Spain’s laws “abolishing” slavery are of the same ilk, completely meaningless. Besides, the Irish banned the slave trade shortly after St. Patrick, so what? I’ve never even heard of anyone claiming America was the first to ban slavery. Such a woefully ignorant statement is a complete strawman until you come up with any quote to that effect. As for Spain, Spain INVENTED modern plantation chattel slavery in some islands off the coast of Spain, then spread that to the New World. Before that, there was no slavery in Christian Europe. The Vikings were slave-raiders, but the spread of Christianity to Scandinavia put an end to that. Europe had serfdom, but not everywhere, and serfdom is a big step up from slavery. If you’re going to credit Spain for being “anti-slavery,” then you might as well credit Islam for it, too, since shari’a bans enslavement of Muslims. Never mind the fact that the Islamic slave trade lasted longer and involved many more slaves than the European slave trade & slave empires. Oh, and Islam invented RACIAL slavery, which the Spanish got from the Moors after the Reconquista and, again, imported to the New World (along w/ the Portuguese).

      2) Denial of the threat of the Slave Power of the South by making analogous denial of the threat of Islamo-Fascism is rather unconvincing. As for who fucked up Afghanistan, that was clearly the Soviets and their murderous puppets Daoud, Taraki, & Karmal. Since Daoud & Taraki weren’t obedient enough, the Soviets sent in a Spetznaz team to whack Taraki & replace him w/ Karmal, who was willing to slaughter 25% of the Afghan population in the name of “building socialism,” w/ the help of the Soviet Army. But apparently you think that’s perfectly OK, because women in the capital city of the country could go to school and wear skirts in public at the time…

      3) Your exact words were that agriculture was the “root cause” of slavery. It wasn’t/isn’t. You were wrong, now you’re trying to pretend that somehow your meaning was something else and your readers are smart enough to understand it. Well, I’m plenty smart, and I’ve no idea what your meaning was if it wasn’t what you literally said.

    • gabriella kadar on April 6, 2014 at 17:02

      Tim, you know your stuff. I think I’ve found your writing in the past.

      Fogel and Engerman in ‘Time on the Cross’, ‘Without Consent or Contract’ and ‘The Slavery Debates’ put it to controversial rest that slavery boosted the economy of the south.

      The Brits abolished the slave trade because it put them at an economic disadvantage. All the holy roller crap was just a way to camouflage the reality.

      As you stated but to put it in precise dates, Brazil was the last place in the Americas to abolish slavery in 1889 which was a Portuguese colony originally, not Spanish.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 6, 2014 at 17:49

      “I’ve never even heard of anyone claiming America was the first to ban slavery.”

      And with that, I dismiss you in this. I deal with men on the street Tim and you well ought to know that by now.

      Do you know how many fucks I give for the likes of yours, Beck’s, Swann’s and so many other’s preaching to the choir?

      Nothing. I like you all, of course, but it’s only that. I prefer to speak to average folk.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 6, 2014 at 17:52

      …Which, Gabriella, has zero to do with my post, what it means, or anything.

      I’ve had the likes of Tim, et all, try to come in an masturbate on stuff. Oh, yea, former “friend” Kyle Bennett too, who never has one fucking thing to say unless it’s a nit pick in order to jerk off in front of everyone.

      Not interested.

      My post is pretty damn clear. Free the slaves.

    • Tim Starr on April 6, 2014 at 18:00

      I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. There was a power struggle within Britain first, then America later, between those who made their living via industry and those who did it via slavery. Since industry was more profitable than slavery, the industrialists were able to win out eventually, but it took a while.

      But thanks for the compliment!

    • Tim Starr on April 6, 2014 at 18:03

      IOW, you refuse to admit that you pulled your strawman out of your ass & that you based your piece upon egregious factual errors. You prefer to deal with those more ignorant than yourself, so they will not catch you in yours. You believe you can better advance your cause via falsehoods than truth.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 6, 2014 at 19:52


      People on the street get my message, designed for them.

      If you want to understand why good folk such as yourself never, ever resonate with them, while I do, in spite of taking metaphorical liberty, well, you need look no further than right up above. You think I’m being sloppy just to get a post out. Well, isn’t that what you always do? I never, ever see any of you around here unless you’ve found something to quibble with—masturbate in public, in my parlance.

      You guys have been throwing babies out with bathwater for as long as I’ve been watching and been deeply involved myself.

      I’m not interested, anymore.

      I’m interested in getting people to truly think for themselves, even if it’s imperfect.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 6, 2014 at 21:17

      Oh, and Tim, one question:

      What say you about modern slavery, the destruction of hundreds of thousands of families that has now been going on so long, along with the welfare state that to me is so amazingly awful that the money that comes out of taxpayer pockets is absolutely the least of it.

      Frankly, it really pisses me off, sir, a guy I’ve known since like 1995ish and met in person and had to my home wants to try and overshadow this message on just plain bullshit. Because the Spanish didn’t abolish slavery worldwide fucking duh.

      You really should be ashamed of yourself, and as I mentioned, you are never here unless it’s it’s to correct a liberation faux pas in your eyes. This is why I’m dumping libertarians for excess overhead right and left. I’m better off on my own and you only see them around when they want to tell you that you’ve made some very important error.

    • Tim Starr on April 6, 2014 at 23:41

      Perhaps you’d be less annoyed at having your egregious errors pointed out to you if you didn’t persist in making them and take it as an insult when they’re corrected by those who know better. An honest man admits when he’s wrong, accepts the correction, thanks the one who pointed out the error, and moves on. He doesn’t try to deflect it with tu quoque fallacies, etc.

      Someone who is “convinced” by an argument based on falsehoods will be unconvinced just as soon as those falsehoods are pointed out to them.” You undermine your own message by making these mistakes.

    • Tim Starr on April 6, 2014 at 23:45

      Much is wrong w/ the welfare state, but “modern slavery” it is not. Slaves could be killed by their masters at any time, for any reason, without having to provide any justification to anyone. They had less rights than convicts on death row in America today. They certainly didn’t have the right to criticize their masters in public. They were forbidden to learn how to read or to practice the religion of their choice. It’s precisely this sort of false moral equivalency you’re trying to draw that is so objectionable. You both under-rate the evils of slavery and exagerrate the badness of the welfare state by doing so, making your argument quite easy to reject by anyone who actually knows anything about the actual nature of slavery.

    • Woodchuck Pirate on April 7, 2014 at 00:00

      Your post reveals a dysfunctional grasp of freedom. I suspect a transparent disclosure of your cash-flow past and present would pin-point your guilt in diminishing freedom.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Ramond J Raupers Jr USA

    • Richard Nikoley on April 7, 2014 at 07:24

      We’re done here, Tim. An “honest man,” eh?

      Let me tell you what I think an honest man doesn’t do. He doesn’t purposefully miss an obvious point in a post that is not intended to be a scholarly work, refuse to address the point but instead pettifog nitpiks irrelevant stuff and then demands that the author cower to his idiosyncratic peculiarities.

      I noticed no one asked once for me to simply clarify anything. Nobody said: I get what you mean, but I think this xyz word usage would make it clearer or avoid this ambiguity. An honest man, first and foremost, attempts to help a fried, not jump on a dog pile.

      I think an honest man just comes out and says what _really_ bothers him about the post, not beats around the bush citing obscure technicalities that have nothing to do with the point or the message. I’ve watched you for almost 20 years, Tim, and it seems to me that you basically don’t take criticism of America very well, especially when it involves its foreign policy. And looking where I point blank ask you about decades of wanton destruction of poor families, making them poorer, more dysfunctional in an endless cycle that robs children of fathers and mothers and families, all you can come up with is that they have it better than the slaves who are no more, and man, we really have to solemnly protect the meaning of what slavery is, so that it never happens again—when the very point of my post is that it’s a meaningless distinction.

      So, there you have it. What my kinda honest man does.

  11. Woodchuck Pirate on April 4, 2014 at 05:38

    Anarcho-Capitalism Or Else

    February 12, 2014

    Woodchuck Pirate Productions
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

    Album: Anarcho-Capitalism Or Else

    Song: Anarcho-Capitalism Or Else


    A conscious person realizes anarchy is not a campaign.
    The conflict remains statism versus freedom.
    There is nothing innocent about socialism.
    Why lift a finger to impede the cannibalism,
    of socialist versus socialist?
    No innocence found.

    Reason is not weak.
    Pragmatism (aversion to principle) is defeat.
    No valid philosophy can’t be practiced to the nth degree.
    Anarcho-Capitalism or else.

    Choose your words carefully,
    lest you reveal capacity,
    for critical thinking,
    alarming your comrades,
    and raising suspicions,
    of your lack of committment,
    to fight and to die,
    ensuring your slavery.

    Anarcho-Capitalism or else.
    You fucking wolves.

    Collectivist suffering,
    cognitive dissonance,
    implementing socialism,
    while posturing as anarchists.
    Casting aspersions,
    at non-existent capitalists.
    No self respecting anarchist,
    will raise a finger,
    to impede extermination,
    of socialist wolves.

    Anarcho-Capitalism or else.
    You fucking wolves.

    Saving you from yourself,
    I have no volition,
    the architects of faith,
    have accepted your fate,
    unearned and unwanted,
    annoyed and rejecting,
    your pleas of entitlement,
    on your feet or your knees.
    You’re all fucking wolves.

    Anarcho-Capitalism or else.
    You fucking wolves.

    Bill Gates can’t stop smiling,
    Obama is drooling,
    GMO poison,
    paralyzing vaccines,
    testing the water,
    to gauge the obscene.
    Tyrants and dictators,
    have claims on your spleen.
    Pretend you don’t owe it,
    but don’t come to me.
    Remember you hate me.

    Anarcho-Capitalism or else,
    you fucking wolves.
    You’re all fucking wolves.

    Who’s first to use guillotines?

  12. Matthew on April 4, 2014 at 05:44

    Anyone who googles: “Dravet Syndrome and Charlottes Web Medical Marijuana” should be horrified at 1. the war on drugs, and 2. the Schedule 1 listing of marijuana.

    What a joke.

  13. Woodchuck Pirate on April 4, 2014 at 05:49

    Obama Out Of Ukraine

    March 08, 2014

    Woodchuck Pirate Productions
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

    Album: Anarcho-Capitalism Or Else

    Song: Obama Out Of Ukraine


    Anarcho-Capitalism can not be established,
    by any manner of collective action.

    It’s earned by individuals rejecting the norm.

    Collapsed civilization,
    pearls before swine,

    Each and every plague,
    pearls before swine.

    Civilized pride means hating your freedom.
    History proves it.
    What the fuck are you doing?

    Government facade socialist psychopathy.
    Central banks own every tyrant and fascist.
    You know fucking well, history proves it.

    Who should own you?
    What the fuck are you doing?

    Government don’t exist,
    neither should it.

    Government can’t be created,
    neither should it.

    You can’t force people,
    under one system,
    perpetual slavery,
    and yet they seek it.

    There you stand begging,
    for more weight in chains.
    Fuck your self loathing,
    fuck all your pain.
    Fuck all your hope.
    Fuck all your change.

    Fucking die already.
    I’m tired of your “change”.
    Your fucking “hope”,
    is fucking deranged.

    You’ve got what you needed,
    you’ve always been free.
    Truth is you don’t want it,
    you take more from me.

    Fucking die already.
    I’m tired of your “change”.
    Your fucking “hope”,
    is fucking deranged.

    Wise up or regret it,
    Obama out of Ukraine.
    By any means necessary.
    Obama out of Ukraine.
    Wise up…or regret it.

  14. Richard Nikoley on April 5, 2014 at 08:44

    “Are you having (or have had) a political awakening?”

    Ha, you could say that. From young “conservative republican” to libertarian in 1990, to anarchist shortly thereafter (though Agorist might be more descriptive.

  15. Todd on April 5, 2014 at 07:15

    Yes, watch The Wire, Richard. It’s depressingly good. The thing about drug dealers and those who are in “the game” is that they’re infinitely more honest with each other than law enforcement or politicians ever will be. There’s hardly any pretense in the drug game, but politicians and the boy’s in blue? Ha, more crooked than the criminals.

  16. James on April 5, 2014 at 08:01

    Welcome to the two party paradigm, where you get screwed either way! Two wings attached to the same beast, two sides of the same coin. Are you having (or have had) a political awakening? I ask because of this post and your IRS post. They were thoughtful and well written, and good demonstrations of critical thinking (fairly rare these days).

  17. Rick Negus on April 6, 2014 at 18:53

    So Richard I subscribed to your feed because I believe you have something meaningful to say and you are raising topics which engage people in “thoughtful” discussion wether agreed with or not. So I am old enough to remember yellow shag carpet, harvest gold appliances and royal blue kitchen cabinets, it was “our” dream home in 72. In my time I of course have heard all the words. I assume by having this blog you are hoping the those who read it will take what you says half ways seriously.

    So why is it that you must use “gutter language” to get your point across? “‘we’ve had the likes of Tim, et all, try to come in an masturbate on stuff. Oh, yea, former “friend” Kyle Bennett too, who never has one fucking thing to say unless it’s a nit pick in order to jerk off in front of everyone.” This is not the first time I have noticed this.

    Do you speak to your mother like this? I don’t know if you have children but if you do or did would you speak to them like this. I am definitely an “elder” so why do you speak to me like this? Because you are speaking to me this way, would you do that to my face?

    As you most likely know words are very powerful, all this does is lessen the power of yours. If you are hoping to be taken seriously I would suggest you might have a look at the language you use.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 6, 2014 at 20:56


      Sorry, sir. I hate it when this happens. it always happens that in an increasing rareER moment when I go to my base instinct, a good fellow comes along and is like “what the fuck?”

      “Do you speak to your mother like this? I don’t know if you have children but if you do or did would you speak to them like this. I am definitely an “elder” so why do you speak to me like this? Because you are speaking to me this way, would you do that to my face?”

      I can give you my mom’s email. She was an employee in my company, eventually being a mainstay manager, for 20 years. She has a different perspective on my potty mouth, but then again, she’s my mom and basically, I can do no wrong so that’s out.

      I do not have children, but I have nephews who put me to shame.

      I can understand why, as an elder, you tend to take me more personally and this is definitely a regret because I have always treasured my own elders and lots of other peoples’ It’s a young people thing and trust me, I’m not speaking at you, even though I try to use references that resonate with people so as to make a “depth connection.”

      Sir, in no way would I ever say that to your face. The writing is schtick & my style—10 years and going—and hubris and outrage all jumbled into one. I would like people to think for themselves, with little regard to what others think. That will make me happy.

      What else made me happy was the way in which you respectfully worded your comment to give me a rebuke, and you can trust that I will not soon forget it.

    • LeonRover on April 7, 2014 at 03:37

      With one bound Rich arrives ssheisse-frei between two stools.

  18. Woodchuck Pirate on April 6, 2014 at 23:15

    What percentage of “Americans” or any other collective ego mentioned so far “owned” slaves? As academia is hell-spawn from collectivist root, its hell-speak is characterized by arbitrary underlying premises plucked from invalid philosophy. Therefore egotism continues to accomplish nothing but expansion of collections of polished turds, which dysfunctional mouthpieces of collective egos seethe and pontificate over as if their very existence depended upon acceptance of illusion. Fuck academia, the mother of illusion.

    Anarcho-Capitalism Or Else.

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

  19. Rick Negus on April 7, 2014 at 06:54

    Some additional thoughts from an observer living a safe distance north of the 49th. parallel.

    There is something about the anonymity of the internet that leads people to say things that they would never say to another’s face, flaming I believe it is called and of course you would never use your real name. This leads to personal attacks on another’s metal abilities (I.Q.) and other attributes which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. I use my name when I post, I could hide behind “Yodarick” but I choose not to because I want to stand behind my words, do you? Are the words that you are typing in that moment of ego and need to be heard and right, words that you would choose to say if you were sitting across the table from the other person? Do you hit send immediately or do you take time to reread and digest what it is you are saying, I do this now because too many times in a fit of rage I have said things that I later regretted.

    There is an annoying trait among many in your country, especially your leaders, about having to be right no mater what. To have a meaningful and thoughtful exchange of ideas I need to give up my need to right so that I can truly hear what it is you are saying. Americans have this tendency to shout down anyone who disagrees with their line of thought which is clearly shown in the division within your political system. Because someone else does or thinks differently than you does not make them wrong, they are just different. I truth there is no right or wrong just different views. A healthy functioning society depends on the acceptance of the diversity of that society by all, racism is the result of I am better than and I am right and the total lack of any kind of acceptance.

    The bringing up of the past (history) and the constant effort to rewrite it to suit ones current views is another area of interest. I choose to live in today, the past is gone and it has never returned, no matter what it was I can not change it, I can only accept it. Everything in my life at this moment is exactly the way it is meant to be, that does not mean that I approve of it or like it or desire to change it, it just mean I accept it. Acceptance is the key to everything. So I would suggest that this thread about the lingering residue of slavery or it’s continuation in a different mode be a discussion about what is today, not a debate about who is right or wrong about what was (history). Does it really matter today about who abolished slavery first or for what reasons? What really matters is the inequality that exists today within your country and it’s justice system and the growth industry called prisons. Instead of debating the past why not talk about how you plan to create a new future?

    Why is it that you are the only nation on the planet the believes their leader should be a pure as the driven snow? So what if Obama smoke pot, one of Canada’s greatest Prime Ministers did, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. So what if Bill Clinton was getting it on with Monica, most European heads of state have always had mistresses. So what if George W. had an affinity for small farm animals. What matters is what kind of job they are doing and will do. Today you have a “black” President who is no different than any of those who proceeded him or dare I say will follow him except for the colour of his skin, it is the same old, same old policy of America’s need for world dominance and the support of the military/industrial complex. We have all done things in our past that we would not do today, it’s called learning, instead of judging their past take a close look at what they are doing right now, from my view point I see a lot of denial in your society, denial of what it, it is a river that runs from coast to coast.

    Your friend Tim seams to have a great desire to be right and a disparaging view of what he calls the “welfare system”. I live in a society where anyone has access to the heath care system, equal treatment for a homeless person brought to the hospital, I pay for that through my taxes and medical premium ($60 per mth) and I would not want it any other way. A society’s strength is shown in it’s ability to care for those with the least ability to care for themselves, something your society has forgotten how to do. When everyone is in it for themselves and to use your word “fuck” everyone else what have you got left?

    I encourage you and those who post to your form to engage in creating change and acceptance, it all starts with one person.

    Rick Negus aka Yodarick

    • Woodchuck Pirate on April 7, 2014 at 07:28

      Rick Negus aka Yodarick,

      Where there exists national debt, your parasitism exists not “paid for” with your taxes. Such is your lust for deliberate parasitism that you embrace faith and denial to facilitate endless rationalization of the slavery you demand for others. When reality eventually bites your face off perhaps it may pull out your inner ears intact so that you can’t even hear yourself scream.

      In response to your Obamaism, “I encourage you and those who post to your form to engage in creating change and acceptance, it all starts with one person”, please be advised I prefer you adhere to the non-aggression principle or die of the bone cancer you deserve. Fuck all you wolves.

      Anarcho-Capitalism Or Else.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

    • Joshua on April 7, 2014 at 13:47

      I think you’re making incorrect assumptions about some of the posters here when you say “When everyone is in it for themselves”.

      Libertarians and Anarchists and Agorists and Voluntaryists are NOT against the idea of helping other people. Many of them that I know are generous to others, even strangers. What they propose is a society based on voluntary action, not coerced or forced action. Instead of paying for poor people’s health care through taxes, they could be taken care of through voluntary charity.

      Many of the progressives I know advocate for taxes because of the notion that “you can’t trust other people” to do the right thing. I think you can trust others. The liberty oriented people I know are highly aware of how interdependent we are and are not “everyone is in it for themselves” adherents.

      Regarding past v present v future, if you don’t understand the past, you won’t understand what decisions have what effects in the future. There are exceptions, but in general the more freedom a society has, the less hunger/ poverty/ crime/ unhappiness there is. The default state of humanity over the last million years is “nasty, brutish, and short”. Only personal liberty has changed that.

  20. Rick Negus on April 7, 2014 at 07:45

    Awe Mr. Woodchuck, you are so kind, I wish to thank you for so clearly exemplifying exactly what I was stating in my post. It is encouraging to know that the river of denial is running so clear and strong in your part of the world. Be careful of what you ask for because one day you just might be that person who is in great need of assistance and it won’t be there for you or those you care about, that is if your belief system allows you to care for anyone outside of yourself.

    Can you just envision what a wonderful world it would be if everyone thought just like you, a whole bunch of Woodchuck clones all running around saying “fuck you” I’m OK.

    Blessing my friend.

    • Woodchuck Pirate on April 7, 2014 at 08:14

      Rick Negus,

      You have provided zero evidence of sustainability. Your stereotypical entitlement mentality suggests status quo embrace of fascist socialism. There remains zero evidence to suggest you and your ilk are destined to survival. You already fear accountability so much as to demand self-sacrifice of others to your collective ego while calling it charity, enlightenment, anything but immorality, theft and evil. Such is the nature of of 99.99% of the human race pure scum by choice. You have chosen the path of genocide and will surely have it on schedule. As your collectivist despotism turns even now looming over sheeple (you), the only sounds you make are in exercise of entitlement mentality to demand a final option of being “cloned”.

      I return the denial. No self respecting anarchist will ever lift a finger to impede the elimination of wolves like you. The architects of faith have accepted your fate. Every breath you take in the present moment says “fuck you I’m OK”.

      Fuck all you wolves. You will not survive. No innocence found.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

  21. Rick Negus on April 7, 2014 at 08:53

    Oh my we must of had an extra helping of venom on our frosted flakes this morning, you are the angry one aren’t you, ever considered a anger management course? Foolish of me to ask eh?

    It might surprise you to know that I do not nor have I ever “lived off the system”, I have for my working life being a contributor to the care and well being of my less fortunate fellows. If you really want to see what a “wolf” looks like take off all of you clothes, go stand in front of a full length mirror and have a very good look at yourself.

    Does the way of caring I refer to work? Based on current results I would say it does, if a person gets sick in most civilized countries in the world they do not stand to loose everything because of the cost, something that is unique to your way of thinking. But hey you’re OK, right? So who gives a …….

    “99.99% of the human race pure scum by choice” Wow! That makes you and the rest of the .01% very special. Why don’t you try surviving for awhile without deriving any benefit from what is produced by that other 99.99%, that includes all the food you eat, the electricity you use and every other thing that is required for your survival. Remember they are just “scum” you really don’t need them?

    Mr Woodchuck I hope you have an awesome day, and remember to be true to you words, no McDonalds fries for you anymore.

    • Woodchuck Pirate on April 8, 2014 at 01:56

      Rick Negus,

      There are always lies about the money trail, the money trail does not lie. Your rhetoric is stereotypical shitboomer parasite dogma. Yours is the legacy of betrayal, altruist philosophy of death. You were given everything and still resorted to fascist socialism, building the constructs of slavery through national debt, presently forging your useless eater mentality to prey on the unborn.

      Judge and prepare to be judged.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

  22. Rita Weasel on April 7, 2014 at 09:36

    I saw on the news last night how a man was beaten to within an inch of his life for accidentally hitting a child with his vehicle. The child had stepped into the street in front of this man’s car. The man stopped to check on the child, and that is when the man was beaten by 12 or so people. No one mentioned who was supposed to be watching the child – the people responsible for letting the kid step into the street. This news story seems analogous to what Richard wrote about, and to what is the general state of affairs in this sad country – no one wants to take responsibility for what’s broken, everybody is quick to beat the crap out of someone else, and in the lack of a moral compass, only entertainment becomes the True North.

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k