local minds blown

This past weekend, the sight of three men walking along the side of Route 30 was all it took to blow the minds of the people of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The townspeople stared, honked, swerved, honked again, and stared some more, flabbergasted that three healthy-looking, employed-looking, and respectable-looking individuals would dare to move their bodies by muscle-power six tenths of a mile down the road to a local eatery, where they were reported to have eaten a hearty breakfast.

Gettysburgians appear to be so accustomed to driving everywhere, so used to seeing only dirty and unwashed vagrants physically walking on the sides of roads, that the actions of these three apparently confused, seemingly car​-less individuals shattered the locals' views of the universe itself, a universe which runs on fossil fuels pumped from the ground by terrorism-supporting Arabs living on the other side of the globe. “We could see the restaurant from our hotel-room window, up on the third floor,” said one of the pedestrians, who asked to remain anonymous. “And we did consider driving, but, as we all agreed, we needed to work off some of the residual booze from the previous nights and to kick-start our metabolisms, which were struggling after a long weekend of drinking.”

Each of the three individuals stands over six foot and two-inches tall, and each is muscular and physically imposing, which, when viewed side by side, may have made them appear freakishly tall; and while two of the three are Americans of African Descent (AOAD), the third is an American of European Descent (AOED), which compelled the men – who while perambulating discussed the locals' strange behavior – to rule out blatant, uncalled-for racism, for which the area is, however, known. “As with many strange things that happen in life, having people flash their brights at us, honk at us, and yell out their cars' windows at us, for no reason other than that we were walking along the side of a road, is something that we must simply accept in our hearts as inevitable,” said another of the individuals, who is expecting his second child. “I went to college here for four years, and we just dropped fifty bones on breakfast. Just because we decided to get some exercise before eating does not mean that we are worth less than people who decided to drive around, being fat. Fucking small towns, man – most times, they suck.”

場黑麥 mentiri factorem fecit

on the necessity of union

  When the Declaration of Independence was written, and its sister document, the Constitution, the need for Union among the States was great. Joined in Union, the States proved better able to effect their independence, and to stand strong collectively, a dozen-odd entities working together against the many pressures that faced our young nation as it fought to make a place for itself in the world, and to prove that its shockingly progressive ideals had staying-power.

  Then, halfway through the 19^th century, divergent forces and interests among the States compelled them to split apart into two separate nations, one seeking to maintain a slave-based economy, the other seeking, officially, to maintain the Union. Whole populations that no longer felt that they should be following the same path rose up in conflict, two seemingly foreign peoples that understood that they had grown simply too far apart in thought and in method to be able to stay together. In those times of relative national weakness and persistent internal turmoil, the Union held; it has held through two world wars, scores of other police-actions (including Vietnam, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003), and rapid and widespread cultural and societal transformations both here and abroad.

  Today, however, we have witnessed the ascendancy of a federal supremacy over the states, and within that supremacy the elevation of the executive branch (in clear violation of the checks and balances built into the Constitution), as well as growing divergences between the citizens who live in roughly the same areas as those that split asunder in the 1860s. Two loose but still recognizable camps have formed in this nation, with millions of voters hovering at varying degrees around the edges of each, one camp calling for more punitive and dogmatic responses to our problems, a camp that relies on the gullibility of the masses for the propagation of its conservative views on religion and society, the other camp one that strives at least superficially for rational debate, the reinstatement of the constitutional right to liberty, and a more compassionate and socialistic view of the role that government and society must play in the elevation of the American People and in the bringing about of our Safety and Happiness. (It would be convenient to suppose that I am here referring to Republicans and Democrats respectively, but as these parties have become the necessary repositories of most anyone seeking political office, their ranks are as varied in their opinions as is the greater population, which is split roughly between liberals and conservatives, i.e. between those who seek to propagate liberty through rational debate and those who seek to maintain the status quo through Fear Of The Unknown and an inflexible mind-set. In my opinion, open debate and rational thinking are essential to the propagation of liberty, for the concept of liberty presupposes that the individual is capable of deciding for himself how best to lead his life: it demands of him that he understands the consequences of his actions while allowing him to live a virtuous life devoid of willful violations of the life, liberty, or property of his fellow persons.)

  Perhaps it would be best, then, in this time of America's military supremacy around the world (when no danger is clear and present enough to enact our total destruction), in this era of seemingly irreconcilable rhetoric and clear societal, moral, and religious divergence, to conclude with this chapter of our experiment and, as the Union of all States is no longer absolutely necessary for the basic preservation of our nation, to allow those portions that wish to pursue their own course to secede.

  Since our country's inception, we have added a good number of states, in locations sometimes far-flung from our original borders, states that by their isolation are seen even now as distant lands and foreign peoples whose primary binding characteristic is the feeble, cancer-like presence of the homogenized corporate retail location. In the interest of DomesticTranquility, it would be better to allow those who wished to establish a socially conservative nation based on a particular religion where they might better keep the ignorant in Fear, a place where the individual might not have the right to decide for herself how to affect her body (by tattoo, weight-loss, or abortion), where the benefits of the joining of individuals in marriage or civil union would be bestowed only according to the writings of a specific religious text (and not to homosexuals or to couples of different hues), where a specific language might be declared (the USA haveno official language), and where a specific system of beliefs might be recognized by all, unanimously, as the state religion.

  Perhaps the citizens of America should be asked directly if they feel that these two clearly divergent populations should become separate nations, an official poll to gauge the possibility of such a split, even an outright vote for their fragmentation and reintegration as separate nations according to the wishes of the respective majorities. (These new nations would have to be well-established, sovereign states with clearly demarcated borders, their constitutions well-written, with provisions in place for the unobstructed movement of goods and people between them, especially people who decide, within a set amount of time, that they had made a mistake and would like to switch nations.)

  The essence of liberty that flowered in America and in the world during the 1960s was stamped out in this country for a number of reasons, among them conservatism, Fear of the Unknown, war-mongering, and racism. Chief among these reasons, however, was the passage of legislation prohibiting the use, possession, and distribution of mood altering substances such as marijuana, legislation that to this day continues to violate the liberty of the American People by restricting their ability to obtain and use legally those substances that they deem would best assist them in their pursuit of Happiness.

  Until such time as the citizens of America are granted their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property; until such time as their right to abort unwanted fetuses and to use whichever substance they decide are best and to marry whomever they please; until such time as the citizens are entrusted fully with their unalienable right to choose for themselves how best to lead their lives and they regain the right to pursue their Happiness as they decide is best; until that time, liberty does not abide in these United States, and the rights enumerated in the Constitution are null and void. (If any one portion of the Constitution becomes null and void, the entire Constitution must be considered null and void.)

  Certain constitutional protections (against unwarranted searches and seizures) continue to be violated courtesy of the Patriot Act. Similarly, enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act violates the individual's fifth and fourteenth Amendment right to property, because her body is her only true property, and she can do with her property whatever she wants, so long as she is not harming anyone else's property. Since some of the most fundamental rights and protections our Constitution was supposed to have provided continue to be withheld from the American people, we must assume that our Constitution is no longer functioning as intended, that is has been so abused and mocked that it more resembles a nice thing to read on a sunny afternoon than a bedrock legal document. With this our finest document already torn, tattered, and violated, with our most basic rights and protections reduced to the theoretical, we would do well to allow those seeking liberty to break off from those seeking to cling fearfully to the mistakes of the past, that a new Union based solidly on the principles set forth by our nation's forefathers might be formed, a new nation that would not rest until the Blessings of Liberty were guaranteed to ourselves and our Posterity, equally and without undue restriction.

  Let the religious zealots thump their holy books and legislate according to their morality, in their own nation, while they funnel the wealth of their people into the pockets of the richest one percent. We rational, progressive, compassionate few, we who yearn for liberty, we who would like to affect our bodies and to pursue our Happiness as we see fit, our Safety protected by the might of the Declaration, our rights as enumerated in the Constitution immutable and unalienable now, and forever.

  Only through constant vigilance and rational foresight can we ensure Liberty and Justice for all. Stand up. Speak out. Demand your constitutional rights. While this struggle may seem nearly over, we have not yet begun to fight.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on the necessity of Union

  When the Declaration of Independence was written, and its sister document, the Constitution, the need for Union among the States was great. Joined in Union, the States proved better able to effect their independence, and to stand strong collectively, a dozen-odd entities working together against the many pressures that faced our young nation as it fought to make a place for itself in the world and to prove that its shockingly progressive ideals had merit.

  Then, halfway through the 19^th century, divergent forces and interests among the States compelled them to split apart in the attempt to form two separate nations, one seeking to maintain large numbers of slaves, the other seeking to maintain the Union. Whole populations that no longer felt that they should be following the same path rose up in conflict, two seemingly foreign peoples that understood that they had grown simply too far apart in thought and in method to be able to stay together. In those times of relative national weakness and persistent internal turmoil, the Union held; it has held through two world wars, scores of other undeclared wars, and rapid and widespread cultural and societal transformations both here and abroad.

  Today, however, we have witnessed the ascendancy of a federal supremacy over the states, and within that supremacy the elevation of the executive branch (in clear violation of the checks and balances built into the Constitution), as well as growing divergences between the citizens who live in roughly the same areas as those that split asunder in the 1860s. Two loose but still recognizable camps have formed in this nation, with millions of voters hovering at varying degrees around the edges of each, one camp calling for more punitive and dogmatic responses to our problems, a camp that relies on the gullibility of the masses for the propagation of its conservative views on religion and society, the other camp one that strives at least superficially for rational debate, the reinstatement of the constitutional right to liberty, and a more compassionate and socialistic view of the role that government and society must play in the elevation of the American People and the bringing about of Their Safety and Happiness. (It would be convenient to suppose that I am here referring to Republicans and Democrats respectively, but as these parties have become the necessary repositories of most anyone seeking political office, their ranks are as varied in their opinions as is the greater population, which is split roughly between liberals and conservatives, i.e. between those who seek to propagate liberty through rational debate and those who seek to maintain the status quo through Fear Of The Unknown and an inflexible mind-set. In my opinion, debate and rational thinking are essential to the propagation of liberty, as the concept of liberty presupposes that the individual is capable of deciding for himself how best to lead his life; it demands of him that he understands the consequences of his actions and allows him to decide to live a virtuous life devoid of privations against the life, liberty, or property of his fellow persons.)

  Perhaps it would be best, then, in this time of America's military supremacy around the world (when no danger is clear and present enough to enact its total destruction), in this era of seemingly irreconcilable rhetoric and clear societal, moral, and religious divergence, to conclude with this chapter of our experiment and, as the Union of all States is no longer absolutely necessary for the basic preservation of our nation, to allow those portions that wish to pursue their own course to secede.

  Since our country's inception, we have added a good number of states, in locations sometimes far-flung from our original borders, that by their isolation are seen even now as foreign and distant lands and peoples whose primary binding characteristic is the feeble footprint of the homogenized corporate retail location. In the interest of Domestic Tranquility, it would be better to allow those who wished to establish a religious and socially conservative nation where they might better keep the ignorant in Fear, a place where the individual would not have the right to decide for herself how to affect her body (by tattoo, weight-loss, or abortion), where the benefits of the joining of individuals in marriage or civil union would be bestowed only according to the writings of a specific religious text, where a specific language were declared officially and a specific system of beliefs were recognized by all, unanimously, as the state religion.

  Perhaps the citizens of America should be asked directly if they feel that these two clearly divergent populations should become separate nations, an official poll to gauge the possibility of such a move, even an outright vote for their fragmentation and reintegration as separate nations according to the wishes of the respective majorities. (These new nations would have to be well-established, sovereign states with clearly demarcated borders, their constitutions well-written, with provisions in place for the unobstructed movement of goods and people between them, especially people who decide, within a set amount of time, that they had made a mistake and would like to switch nations.)

  The essence of liberty that flowered in America and in the world during the 1960s was stamped out here for a number of reasons, among them conservatism, Fear of the Unknown, war-mongering, and racism. Chief among these reasons, however, was the passage of legislation prohibiting the use, possession, and distribution of mood altering substances such as marijuana, legislation that to this day continues to violate the liberty of the American People by restricting their ability to obtain legally those substances that they deem would best assist them in their pursuit of Happiness.

  Until such time as the citizens of America are granted their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property; until such time as their right to abort unwanted fetuses and to use whichever substance they decide are best and to marry whomever they please; until such time as the citizens are entrusted fully with their unalienable right to choose for themselves how best to lead their lives and they regain the right to pursue their Happiness as they decide is best; until that time, liberty does not abide in these United States, and the rights enumerated in the Constitution are null and void.

  Certain constitutional protections (against unwarranted searches and seizures) continue to be violated courtesy of the Patriot Act. Similarly, enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act violates the individual's right to property (her body is her only true property). Since some of the most fundamental rights and protections our Constitution was supposed to provide continue to be withheld from the American people, we must assume that our Constitution is no longer functioning as intended, that is has morphed from a bedrock legal document into a nice thing to read on a sunny afternoon. With this our finest document already torn, tattered, and violated, with our most basic rights and protections reduced to the theoretical, we would do well to allow those seeking liberty to break off from those seeking to cling fearfully to the mistakes of the past, that a new Union based solidly on the principles set forth by our nation's forefathers might be formed, a new nation that would not rest until the Blessings of Liberty were guaranteed to all equally.

  Let the religious zealots thump their holy books and legislate according to their morality in their own nation while they funnel the wealth of their people into the pockets of the richest one percent. We rational, progressive, compassionate few, we who yearn for liberty, would like to treat our bodies and to pursue our Happiness as we see fit, our Safety protected by the might of the Declaration, our rights as enumerated in the Constitution immutable and unalienable now, and forever.

  Only through constant vigilance and rational foresight can we ensure Liberty and Justice for all. Stand up. Speak out. Demand your constitutional rights. We have not yet begun to fight.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on political correctness

  Sometime in the 1990s, the practice of political correctness gained widespread traction in American society. According to the theory of political correctness, nothing should be said publicly that might offend someone who may be listening. Additionally, anyone who feels offended after hearing something someone else said has the right to complain about what was said, forcing the utterer of the offending remark to apologize publicly for her (perceived) transgressions and to make grand pronouncements regarding her steadfast and perpetual love and respect for the person or group that has decided to consider itself maligned. Political correctness at best forces people to be conscious of the feelings of others; at worst, it drives inherently racist and discriminatory opinions (which all but the most disciplined and enlightened among us have) below the surface, where they invariably fester, and grow. Allowing the free expression of racist and discriminatory opinions does two things: it makes racists easier to spot, and to thus avoid; and it grants the individual who harbors discriminatory opinions the ability to vent his or her feelings of hatred verbally, before the venting process turns physical.
  In my opinion, political correctness has hamstrung life in America. Instead of confronting our true feelings and voicing those feelings in public where they can be challenged and counter-acted, we now play nice, pretending to be best friends while making no progress on our stated mission (found on the back of every single dollar bill in circulation) of crafting One out of Many.
  Political correctness is counter-productive also because it implies that, as a speaker in public, I am somehow responsible for the emotional well-being of my audience. If I say something offensive, it is the choice of the listener to be offended by what I have said. The offended party can just as easily decide not to be offended by what I have said, and go on with her day. Too often, however, that person calls for my censorship because she has decided to be offended by what I have said. The theory of political correctness demands that a person complain if they have decided to be offended by someone else's comment; it reduces the likelihood that the offender will voice his true and honest opinion, thus encouraging him to lie, to practice deceit. (I consider the replacement of our desire for truthfulness with socially-acceptable deceitfulness a symptom of the greed and individualistic self-aggrandizement inherent to capitalism.)
  So, next time you are offended by what someone else has said or done, remember: you can always look away, leave the offender's vicinity, or simply consider, in your own mind, their opinion silly, false, or just plain stupid. No one is forcing you to be offended by the actions of another - your bruised feelings are your choice alone, your burden to bear. So please, keep your feelings honest, voice your discriminatory feelings loudly and proudly, and help stamp out the scourge of political correctness.
  Honesty will again prevail in this country, but only if we can first be honest with ourselves, voicing our feelings and opinions freely and in the knowledge that they will be greeted by those seeking, not their own self-satisfaction, but, through open and lively discourse, the betterment of those among us who have been blinded to the equality of all persons (as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence).

(For a perfect example of the doctrine of political non-correctness, watch Clint Eastwood's movie, Gran Torino.)

Stand up. Speak out. Spread freedom.
JPR