American theocracy - 2

  In my writing, I am often more critical of Christianity than of the hundreds of other religions practiced every day in these United States. America is not a Christian nation, nor is it Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or Taoist. This nation was not founded upon the principles of any one belief system. Therefore, we as a nation cannot allow one religious group, under any circumstance, to incorporate their beliefs into the laws of our land; we can ill afford to take sitting down the intractable religious rhetoric spewing from the orifices of our public figures.

  Someone asked me recently: "Why are you so critical of Christianity? No one will defend Christianity, so you are better off taking Islam to task – that will drum up more controversy, boosting readership numbers on your blog in the process."

  I am loathe to attack Muslims because: they are not attempting to define legally the parameters of marriage according to their own religious texts; they are not attempting to restrict legally, again according to their religious texts, a woman's inalienable right to do to her property, her body, whatever she pleases (such as aborting a fetus), a right granted to all women under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; they are not attempting to claim for their own the reference in the Declaration of Independence to Nature's God, a moniker broad enough to encompass, in the spirit of true egalitarianism, the deities of all systems of belief, not a direct reference to one god in particular. (If, instead of Nature's God the Declaration read Yahweh, I would concede the field to the Christians, but it does not, so I will stand my ground.)

  In comparison, Christians are laboring to define marriage according to the books they consider holy (see here); they are trying to take from the women of this land the right to their bodies, their property, by making abortions illegal (see here); they claim that Nature's God refers to Yahweh, the god of the Christians, the father of Jesus (see here), when Nature's God could refer to anything from the Universe, to Chaos, to the Great Spirit once known to the Indian tribes.

  We hear in the news about the dangers of an Islamic caliphate arising in the Middle East. (For one example of this, see here.) Here in America, we face the dangers of an impending Christianity-based theocracy. Any system of government that rules according to the code of a specific religion will, invariably, subjugate those people living under it to its own laws; it will stifle freedom of expression by striking fear in the hearts of honest but non-believing citizens; it will, when challenged, resort to barbaric and unreasonable action to silence dissent; and, most crucially, it will render unattainable to ourselves and to our Posterity the Blessings of Liberty by coercing us into recognizing and worshiping a suicidal zombie who, being “one with god,” as the “holy spirit” impregnated his own mother.

  For an example of the horrors inherent to religious rule, look into life in Afghanistan under the Taliban. We, as a nation, must fight the efforts currently under way to further codify into law one religious doctrine in particular, no matter how long that religion has been practiced here or what percentage of the population holds it to be true. We cannot allow our fundamental principles to be made subservient to the beliefs of one specific religion: our republic, our rights, our liberty, and our lives are at risk. American flexibility and inventiveness will suffer under religious rule – these characteristics that we hold so highly will wither and die if confined in a closed and unchanging framework based on the writings of a desert people who lived in the Iron Age many thousands of years ago. To do any of these things would be to shatter fully our frail democracy, our tenuous republic.

  Future generations will cheer our efforts at maintaining a republic dedicated to the principles upon which it was founded, those being the general Welfare, a more perfect Union, the establishment of Justice, the domestic Tranquility, the common defence, and the Blessings of Liberty. If our nation were to fall under the sway of the religious zealot, even a supposedly pious zealot possessing of convincing fear-mongery, these founding principles would fall prey to the demands of righteous necessity.

  The Christians of America have not been subjected to a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations – thus, they have no Right, no Duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future Security: their communities are not under siege, their places of worship are being built regardless of location, they are not being attacked in taxi cabs, or in the streets. I believe in freedom of religion. I envy the faithful for their unfaltering belief. I support fully the right to pray to the god of your choosing in public or in private. I will not, however, stand idly by as born-again, my-way-or-the-highway, ultra-conservative types vie for this country's highest office with dreams of dominionism dancing in their eyes.

Fight theocracy in the U.S.A. Act now, for the forces of oppression seldom rest.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

American theocracy - 1

  A dangerous effort is under way in these United States of America – the effort to define the concept of marriage, and its societal and legal ramifications, according to the code of a specific religion. If allowed to progress unopposed, this effort will abolish the concept of the separation of church and state as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. This effort is an assault on the liberty of the American people, and we can ill afford to further bind our nation to the tenets of one religion among the many that here persist. Just as we would not incorporate into our most hallowed documents the parameters of Shari'a law, or the teachings of Lord Krishna, we must not shackle ourselves to the strictures of the Christian religion, even though that religion is practiced by a relatively large portion of the U.S. population.

  For if these efforts were to succeed in binding the concept of marriage to the code of one specific religion, we would be forced to abide by all of Yahweh's clearly-stated mandates, including the one regarding the murder, in front of the father's house, of new wives found deflowered (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB), mandates that would result in the abolition of Justice, the loss of the domestic Tranquility, and the nullification of the Blessings of Liberty – our code of laws would become subject to the whims of a blood-thirsty and destructive god with a long and well-documented history of genocide and mass murder (see the Midianites, and the denizens of Jericho, Sodom, and Gomorrah).

  George Washington and John Adams said, and the contemporary Congress agreed unanimously, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” (see the Treaty of Tripoli). These were more than idle words spoken in private, more than a backroom speech made to moneyed sycophants: these words were part of an official declaration made to a foreign government in hope of a future free of strife; they were written to placate the heated ire of another people by stating that we as a nation will not, under any circumstance, abandon rationality or assume to pass legislation based on the ethical code put forth by a god that demands loyalty above all, a god that ignores the balance of our needs and our desires, a god that seeks to rid us of the knowledge of a unifying and perpetual energy that lurks among the passions of our lives, a god that demands strict adherence to the myriad rules contained within the Christian bible, but one religious book among many.

  We are not a nation established on the concepts of one particular religion. We are a nation founded to establish Justice and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. We do this by guiding our country, through legislative act, executive lunge, and judicial rule, via rational and lively debate, toward the emancipation of Happiness and Security among the People, not through rule of fear or codex, but through the application of our vast collective potential in service to all peoples of this land, not simply to a diminishing minority of the fabulously rich.

  Fight this impending American theocracy. If your governor prays to Jesus for an end to the woes facing your state, vote him out of office as soon as you can. If your Congresswoman claims to be guided by voices in her head that she thinks are her god, if she boasts of blind fealty to god and husband, write to her and demand she relinquish her post. There is room for faith in the hearts of the American people, but it must remain there and not pollute the halls of government – in those halls is room only for rational and measured debate focused on securing to ourselves and our Posterity the Blessings of Liberty.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on dating & economics

  The intricate dance within a romantic relationship can be compared to the efforts of economists struggling to contain erratic market fluctuations. In either situation, the party that responds to the sweeping changes taking place in his counterpart will find himself on the losing side, forever racing to keep up, forever implementing new methods to bring to heel the unfathomable maelstrom he thinks he has the capacity to control. Whether this unfathomable maelstrom be the mind of a woman or the global crude-oil market, the economist, an outside observer inherently blind to the vast and incalculable influences that shape the mood of his counterpart, will enact measures he hopes will soothe the fury of that which he holds dear, often sacrificing long-term stability for the brief elation of short-term gain.
  I have learned one thing about relationships, one truth I have had to relearn time and again: the less you try to control your counterpart, the better off you both will be. When done with patient persistence, attempts to fathom your lover and to steer him in a direction you think best can indeed effect change; the nature of this change, however, will likely range from intensive introspection, over increased volatility, culminating in full-blown systemic meltdown. It is impossible to predict accurately how your counterpart will react to the pressures you have applied – any action will have an appropriate and equal reaction, but its full scope will forever remain known only to the reactive party.
  Imagine for a moment your closest friend, the innumerable events and countless little decisions that helped to mold him into the person you (think you) know today, the environmental and gentic forces that influence continuously the shaping of his being. Now imagine hundreds, thousands, millions of individuals of similar complexity who by going about their daily rounds become what we call markets, with every act shifting the fortunes of various businesses, with each transaction affecting the cycles of supply and demand, their every decision impacting and being impacted upon by unique and innumerable forces. It is all but impossible to know the mind of your closest friend – how could anyone claim to know the minds of thousands of strangers in thousands of different locations across the globe?
  Controlling your lover is a Sisyphean struggle full of complications that subside one day only to reappear the next, a cruel practice that will gut your lover's soul, leaving behind a mindless and docile golem content to do your bidding, within her no room for independent thought, no capacity for abiding Happiness, the dark promise of future abuse her only constant. The controlling lover exhibits deep insecurity and persistent self-loathing every time he endeavors to bend another to his will; the controlling economist exhibits appalling arrogance and damnable small-mindedness every time she endeavors to shape the course of markets influenced by forces far beyond her ability to reckon.
  Just as in dating, attempts to control the market are bound to cause unforeseen complications, new trials that slither forth from the stumps of those just severed, new issues that reduce the economist to the point of mindless docility, her energies sapped by the despair that comes with the realization that, as a single piece of an enormous, shifting puzzle, her actions are unlikely to have the desired affect. In a romantic relationship, the supposedly dominant party can achieve an approximation of control, whereas in the economic arena, a market will defy all attempts at subjugation, the sheer number of influencing factors contributing to its enduring volatility.
  Every economic theory, be it that of John Keynes or Adam Smith, Milton Friedman or Joan Robinson, has proven incapable of condensing the markets into manageable and predictable entities – invariably, each falls short of stabilizing that which cannot be stabilized, causing long term damage greater than the short term benefits with which it is credited. In the romantic as well as in the economic relationship, the method that promises the greatest liberty to the individual is that which disposes of all restrictions on thought and deed, the one that allows for the unfettered fluctuation of markets, the one preferred by humanity since we stood upright and learned to use our thumbs: anarcho-capitalism.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on siding with liberty

  In Monday night's CNN/Tea Party Republican debate, Governor Rick Perry of Texas claimed that he "is always going to err on the side of life." Mr. Perry, you have frequently failed to err on the side of life, sending two hundred and thirty four men to their deaths as governor of your state. Mr. Perry, you may keep pretending to err on the side of life when it suits your political agenda: the American people will err on the side of liberty, always and forever.
  At the same debate, Michelle Bachmann bemoaned attempts to force insurance companies to offer the Morning After Pill free of charge (which would grant the women of this country the liberty to abort unwanted fetuses) immediately after she had complained about mandatory vaccinations against HPV, claiming that such vaccinations violated the liberty of the young girls they aim to protect.
  Which will it be, Rick - liberty unfettered by morality or religion, or the gleeful execution of your fellow man? You do not always errs on the side of life, governor - rather, you have exhibited a ready acceptance of, and a proven zeal for, death.
  Which will it be, Michelle? You advocate for one group's liberty at the same time that you decry the liberty of women seeking to rid their bodies of unwanted growths (ask a doctor: fetuses are not babies, and therefore not people, until they are born); you cannot have both, so do you prefer complete liberty, or liberty restricted on moralistic or religious grounds? Would you pass laws as president to expand the role of your chosen religion in American society? If so, for the sake of the enduring Liberty of the American people, you should drop out of the race, now.
Life is worthless without liberty, so give me liberty, or give me death.

on nine eleven

  On this day we mark a decade since the events surrounding the 11th of September, 2001. Many changes have taken place in our nation since that bright summer day, some that restrict us in our liberty, others that inconvenience to little noticeable advantage. Absent clear and defining purpose, we have foundered collectively among the shoals of short-sightedness and greed, bruised badly by the false promise of unlimited consumer credit, our public figures beating the drums of nationalism and xenophobia in tones ever more vituperative and religious, the cultural diversity of our peoples muted by creeping corporate homogenization, our inventiveness forgotten in the face of gadgets that rarely prove convenient to the economics of time, our artistic creativity lost in the mirror-maze of sequels, mash-ups, and gimmickry, our citizens willfully abusing the national flag in misguided attempts to prove to others their patriotism, that deep and pure sense of pride that shines most brightly when it is cultivated within the confines of the heart, a sense that shrinks when displayed too prominently.
  I was in Manhattan that day; I volunteered three days later in the dust and wreckage blanketing the North Cove; I lost a fraternity brother who had just started work high up in the North Tower. But, then as now, I will never succumb to fear, never believe in America-über-alles, never discriminate against someone because of their choice of religion, never accept torture as a means necessary to the common defense, never disgrace the Stars and Stripes to prove to another my love for country, and never cease in my attempts to secure the Blessings of Liberty to myself, my brothers and sisters, and our Posterity.
  My the people who died on that September day not so long ago continue to rest in peace.


Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on our current dictatorship

  Michelle Bachmann, on Monday 05 September 2011 (see here), warned that the federal government would become “a dictator over our lives” if it were to make the purchasing of health insurance conditional to citizenship. In support of the point she is trying to make, and to illuminate the majestic, abiding truth behind her words, let us review some of the other conditions that state and federal governments have forced upon the American people, conditions that violate our liberty and that Design to reduce us under absolute Despotism:
  The motor vehicle operators of this nation are being forced to insure themselves and their conveyances;
  The parents of this nation are being forced to educate their children;
  The users of this nation are being forced to choose between alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine, all other drugs having been declared illegal;
  The heterosexual couples of this nation are being exposed to the threat of prosecution if found living together while not married (in Florida);
  The homosexual couples of this nation are being restricted in their right to marry;
  The women of this nation are being besieged by forces seeking to restrict their right to terminate unwanted pregnancies;
  The property-owners of this nation are being forced to pay school taxes, even if they are childless;
  The sick patients of this nation are being forced to suffer needlessly, the cures and remedies potential to stem-cell research unexplored and otherwise retarded by the staunch efforts of moralistic and religious extremists;
  The non-believers of this nation are being forced to abide by the tenets of a religion not of their choosing (Pennsylvania's blue laws, laws defining marriage according to the Christian bible), and they have little choice but to handle currency which bears the religious statement, “In God We Trust;”
  The workers of this nation are being forced to live in poverty, their jobs having been sold to the lowest foreign bidder by native corporations seeking to maximize dividends at any cost;
  The peace-loving people of this nation have been forced to accept torture as a means essential to the common defense of their homeland;
  The gullible inhabitants of this nation have been forced to live in constant fear of the specter of terrorism, their fists balling at the mere mention of Islam, their anxiety fueled by the vague warnings and hysterical rhetoric emanating from TV personalities and politicians alike;
  The minority populations of this nation have been forced to live as second-class citizens, their communities neglected, their schools under-funded, their young people incarcerated disproportionately, and their adults abandoned to the ravages of disease and addiction;
  The tranquil people of this nation are being forced to defend constantly the sanctity of their persons and other such property from unscrupulous local police officers, who, in blatant disregard of any pledge they might have made to defend and uphold the Constitution, too often resort to tricking the
people into relinquishing the protections granted them in the Bill of Rights;
  The millions of registered voters of this nation are being forced to select from candidates of but two political parties, political parties that because of their size, complexity, and ossification cannot possibly endeavor to represent the myriad opinions of a people as diverse as our own;
  The once-proud citizens of this nation have been forced to give up their inalienable rights, their elected officials passing legislation (Patriot Act) to this effect soon after 11 September 2001, legislation that has left the citizenry exposed to willful and unwarranted intrusions into its private affairs.

  Americans do not fear the threat of dictatorship: we have already engaged the existing dictatorship. I call on Michelle Bachmann to expand her efforts, and to join in the struggle to right the wrongs listed above, if not to satisfy her base, then to prove to the rest of the voters that she is prepared to battle oppression regardless of form or frequency.
  It matters little our color, conviction, or creed – we must never forget that our republic is a fragile and fleeting affair, an unusual configuration too easily corrupted by those with much to gain, too readily abandoned by those with nothing to lose. Only through vigilant and persistent action can we rekindle the Torch of Progress, and regain for ourselves and our Posterity those Blessings of Liberty that for generations have been denied us.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on acting like a bitch

The mentality of the average American voter bears certain resemblance to that of a skittish dog rescued from the pound. No matter her physical size or how well she is treated by her adoptive family, the canine will likely never shake the Fear put into her by her abusive former master(s). If when out walking she is spooked, she at times will shake off her leash and bound away at high speed, her face seeming to express an exuberant anxiety. Gracefully eluding all attempts at capture, one of the few options for bringing her back under control is to trick her into entering a vehicle (an action that normally means a trip to the park or some such thing). Once inside the vehicle, she forgets the potential for freedom unbound that lies but a quick tug of the head away, and allows the leash to be bound around her neck once again.
  So it is often with voters in this nation, especially with those who were so scared by the events whose ten year anniversary we will soon mark that they sat quietly by, cowed by Fear-driven propaganda into allowing the Patriot Act to pass unopposed, believing of the lies spewing forth from the suck-holes of power-hungry politicians desperate to expand their base, cheering as we joined the short-list of nations guilty of initiating a war of aggression, re-electing a president who forever tarnished America's long and honorable traditions by valuing the paltry benefits of enhanced interrogation over the unalienable and immutable Rights of the individual.
  A dog raised to fear is unlikely to shake its burden; an individual provided the opportunity to fear will settle gratefully into the welcoming cocoon that fear provides, forever ignorant of the beautiful savagery inherent to mankind, never doubting the actions or the rhetoric of persons claiming to have all the answers, forever trusting any individual who stokes the fires of that fear and who makes skin-deep promises that evaporate immediately upon re-election.
  When the conditions seem right, the voter is likely to break free and to dash about wildly, demanding changes in the status quo through the implementation of untested strategies championed as the solutions to our economic and societal woes, believing with exuberant anxiety in the clever deceptions of the heads shouting on TV, scrambling madly for the first door that promises even the faintest hint of Happiness only to succumb instantly, wild-eyed and out-of-breath, to fear's soothing grip as the shackles of ignorance and repression are calmly reapplied to the cardinal points of the soul.
  It is without question easier for the People to accept the oppressions to which they have become accustomed than for us to venture forth, without a backward glance or the slightest hesitation, in search of new Guards for our future Security. Unlike a tortured and skittish bitch, however, once we have broken free of the chains that have held us in check, we have the capacity to maintain that newfound freedom by consuming news from various unrelated sources, by being wary always of the power of propaganda, and by not forgetting for an instant that, as Frank Herbert said best in his book Dune, “Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.”
  Fear in itself is a sufferable Evil, but fear employed by the highest powers as a tool for controlling the hearts and minds of the People is an Evil that has ceased to be sufferable. Freed from constriction, the mind is capable of feats far-reaching and grand, while a mind hobbled by perpetual paranoia functions similar to that of a broken, groveling beast who understands only the bite of the lash.

Speak freely. Stay vigilant. Spread liberty.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

religious oppression in PA

  I have recently been the victim of religious oppression. An inhabitant of the state of Pennsylvania, I was a few days ago in the market for buying alcohol, which I could not do because of the religious laws that have been adopted by this Commonwealth. On Sundays, upstanding citizens of legal age cannot purchase alcohol because it is forbidden in this state to sell booze on that day, not due to laws based on rationality or on efforts to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, but laws based on the codex of one specific religion (even though the Sabbath, which occurs on Saturday, is the day that in the Christian bible Yahweh says to keep holy, not Sunday, a day not specifically mentioned as holy in that text).

  I am not a Christian, but I am being forced to follow its (purported) teachings. I am being oppressed by the rules of one specific religion, rules that have been incorporated into the laws of the state, making Christianity the official religion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This state of affairs violates the constitutional right of all Pennsylvanians to liberty by taking away our ability to decide for ourselves on which days we should wish to purchase alcohol for private consumption. Just as women would be incensed if they were forced by the state to cover their heads or to hide their faces out of some sort of religious observation (as the Taliban did in Afghanistan), I am incensed that I am being forced by the politicians and lawmakers of the state of Pennsylvania to follow the rules of a religion not my own.

  For some strange reason not rooted in the teachings of Jesus (who himself supposedly performed a divine act at the wedding of Canna just to keep the booze flowing) but located solely in the Old Testament of the Christian bible, religious zealots in this state have found a way to codify their beliefs into law, thus restraining me in my liberty and forcing me to live under the rules of a religion not of my choosing. Additionally, these religious laws force the individual to cross state lines on Sunday to purchase booze for private consumption back in PA, an action that, as bootlegging, is illegal at the federal level because it violates the Interstate Commerce Clause.

  In order for liberty to once again reign in this state, all laws based on religious codices must be nullified and struck from its constitution. This must be done in an effort to maintain the separation of church and state, and to forestall the implementation of additional Old Testament directives, the worst of which are found in Leviticus, where Yahweh demands the murder of homosexuals, adulterers, the incestuous, and girls who are discovered, on their wedding night, not to be virgins. The right to buy booze is just one front in the national war against Liberty that is being waged by religious conservatives: laws that prohibit abortion based on the rules of the Christian religion violate the individual's constitutional right to property by restricting her ability to decide to have unwanted growths removed from within her body.

  To be the shining example to the world to which we so often aspire, America must return to rationality by putting a stop to this oppression. If one state in the Union is oppressing its people religiously, by extension all states are being oppressive, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by passing laws that establish religion. If these laws are not struck from the books, and Americans do not regain the right to decide for themselves how best to lead their lives, our system, weakened as it has been by the actions of the greedy and the dishonest, will surely crumble under the continuing onslaught from one specific religion in a nation of thousands of different systems of belief.

  To end religious oppression in America, we must obey the constitutional mandate by securing for ourselves and our Posterity the Blessings of Liberty, a mandate that can only be fulfilled when the individual is allowed, unfettered and unhindered, to do those things she deems are best for herself and her body, so long as she is not infringing upon the right of any other person to life, liberty, or property.

  End this tyranny. Reinstate liberty among the American people. We will not stand to be ruled by one religion among many. Freedom will ring when the Blessings of Liberty are prosecuted as aggressively as certain religious observances. In the words of George Washington and John Adams, “[t]he government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” (Treaty of Tripoli); let us honor these founding fathers by making sure America remains a safe haven for all peoples, regardless of creed or color, and by fighting to the last against those who would see us dancing to the tune of whichever god they have chosen for themselves.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on cutting grass

  Over the past few months, I have been cutting an acre of grass on my family's estate that must be regularly trimmed (to avoid fines) with an eighty year old push-mower I had found in the barn. A regular spinning-wheel-of-death number, this thirty pound cast iron beast (which after a good oiling now operates much more smoothly) with a fourteen inch wide cutting surface cuts best when the blades are running at full speed. Momentum captured by gears within the wheel hubs rotates the spinning cylinder of blades as the wheel o' death moves forward.

  Cutting with the ancient system requires skill, physical acuity, planning, and determination; it best resembles a cross-training workout in which a person sprints while pushing or pulling a heavy object (necessary in this case to keep the blades moving at cutting speed), but it is more demanding, because she is constantly altering the course of the machine as it bumps and lurches across roots in an effort to make the cut even and to thus spare herself the hassle of going back over everything every time, all the while applying significant force on the wooden t-bar connecting her to the cutting deck to keep it mowing efficiently. Two of the more demanding sections to cut on this land are a steep and lumpy hill as well as a shallow, sloping incline rutted by a sunken septic tank.

  One reason I do this is because my powered mowing machines broke or were getting too expensive to maintain and run. Another reason is that it is such a good physical workout that, if parceled out among the days of the week, I will be performing an hour a day of intense physical labor with much good sweating and working out of the entire body (especially if done barefoot). A third reason I do this is because of the increase (in my observation) in the biodiversity of the mowed area since starting to hand-mow, an abundance of tiny insects and myriad spiders, praying mantises and crawling bugs, food for a robust food chain with avian predators (Barred owl, hawks, buzzards) at the top and smaller mammals, birds, and reptiles making up the middle class. The final reason I do this is because I believe that it is my patriotic duty, that as a Son of the American Revolution and as one seeking to carry on the spirit of self-sufficiency and -reliance that resonates yet today among the peoples of this land, even such a small contribution to the national necessity of weening ourselves off foreign oil supports the cause of American energy independence and reduces the need for our troopers to go and spill blood in distant and alien places.

  It takes me six hours to cut my lawn, but even if you have a smaller lawn, one that would take only an hour to mow by hand rather than twenty minutes on a ride-along, cut it up into two or three parcels and you've got your workout for those days of the week (20-30 min of honest sweating). It might seem less expensive time-wise to do it with a mechanized machine, but consider the time spent going to the pump, buying gas, filling up the riding mower and maintaining it regularly, spending time and money waiting for it to be maintained or driving it to the shop, the blades dulling down and needing sharpening, whereas a push mower sharpens itself while spinning.

  The wheel o' death cuts down on emissions because it runs on cheeseburgers. It strengthens communal ties because it puts you out there upright and strong, the proof of your efforts dampening your shirt, not on a clanking go-cart from which conversation with your neighbor is impossible, but right out there with your feet on the ground, a fine example for those in the neighborhood who might not know how best to show their love for country. It fills you with a deep appreciation for your land and the things that live on it, hastens the grasp of blessed rest, strengthens the muscles, toughens the bones, and fortifies the position of America in the world.

  So consider mowing by hand: the benefits over mechanized mowing keep stacking up. Do it for yourself; do it for the Earth; do it for your country. Few other forms of patriotism are healthier.

場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on necessity of immigration

  In the founding document of the United States, that unanimous declaration of the Second Continental Congress, is found a list of the Injuries and Usurpations which compelled the founders to the Separation. While it is often argued (see here, here) that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and it is for this reason that we do not celebrate July 4th as the founding of our nation but as a pleasant time to watch the sky explode, we should occasionally return to this most fundamental and important of American documents to make sure we are not repeating the mistakes of an oppressive tyrant.
  One of the Facts submitted to a candid World as proof of the Tyranny and Despotism of the English king was that: "He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migration hither[.]" This endeavor was so loathed by our revolutionaries that they included it in their declaration to the world, a declaration that started our process to statehood and that proclaimed, immutably and eternally, the right of the People to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
  Today, we again face a threat to the emigration of individuals hither, which is a threat to our economy, our collective notion of self-worth, and our continued existence as a place in which dreams can become reality. This threat comes in the form of American citizens, themselves descendant of immigrants, who think that the United States of America has an official national language (it does not), who consider this country theirs and theirs alone (it is not), who see anyone with dark skin and dark hair as a threat to their personal safety (also not true). Just as in the past, immigrants today perform those jobs (in agriculture, food service, waste-removal, landscaping, etc.) that few native-born citizens seem willing to perform. But now, instead of openly shuffling the newly arrived into crappy and low-paying workshops and letting them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, we are building continent-long fences and criminalizing large groups of aliens who come here because they cannot make enough to support their families by working in the countries in which they were born.
  Loud are the voices that call for the booting of immigrants back over our borders, voices emanating from bodies that consume lettuce in the spring and cheap apples by the bushel, bodies that eat in restaurants priced reasonably because of the illegals working in the kitchen, bodies that perambulate happily in well-manicured gardens. Incensed they are, pounding their chests and saying, This is my country, and no brown person is going to sneak in and steal my job.
  These xenophobic and confused people among us do not understand that our greatest national symbol stands atop a stone base on which is engraved an open plea for immigrants, no matter how poor or tired, to come to this nation. They do not understand that, since our nation's founding, we have been a haven for base and penniless people seeking to better themselves and to make for themselves new and happier lives. They do not understand that the founders of the United States of America took up arms against the most powerful military nation at the time because the leader of that nation was obstructing the emigration and naturalization of peoples wishing to settle here.
  We are a nation of immigrants, and of people descendant of immigrants. Immigration has allowed our country to grow even while the populations of most other industrialized nations are shrinking. Immigration allows us to consume cheap produce and to do many things that would be prohibitively expensive if not for illegal aliens working for starvation wages just to make those things possible.
  We need cheap labor in America, and cheap labor comes from unskilled immigrants. Give these people who believe so much in the potency of the American dream that they will undergo unimaginable hardships a pathway to citizenship, or at least provide them with some method by which they might more easily gain temporary employment status. Let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without having to live in perpetual fear of being ground down under the boots of club-wielding police officers.

  I am a Son of the American Revolution, a descendant of the ur-immigrants who came ashore at Plymouth Rock, a lover of Lady Liberty and of the principles for (and on) which she stands, and I welcome any and all persons who would like to pursue their Happiness in the country for which my ancestors fought and died.

  Bienvenidos a los Estados Unidos. Andale – mucho trabajo aqui.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

counterweight Constitution

  Citizens of America: the Constitution of these States is a covenant we all share equally. Simply by being citizens of this land, we give our tacit consent to the opening declaration of this covenant, wherein it is declared that we are one People, a People with the common goal of making for ourselves a more perfect government. Among the established parameters of this goal are Union, Justice, Domestic Tranquility, Common Defense, general Welfare, and Blessings of Liberty, goals that must, by any reckoning, be the counterweight against which all legislation and other national decisions are measured.

  The XIV Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the People life, liberty, and property until they shall be taken from them under due process of law. Blanket prohibitions that restrict individuals in their liberty, foremost among them laws that prohibit the People from possessing and consuming Mood Altering Substances, restrict the individual in her liberty by prohibiting her from utilizing methods by which to pursue her Happiness; they violate her right to dispose of her ultimate property, her body, as she as a consenting and capable adult should decides is in her best interest. Therefore, the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional, as it infringes upon the individual's constitutional rights to her liberty and to her body even when she has in no way indicated a desire or willingness to do harm to the property of bodies of other people. It is already permitted for the People to dispose of their property in most any other way, by tattoo or surgery or haircut, by consuming of certain Mood Altering Substances (MAS) such as coffee and sugar and alcohol and tobacco, by entertaining in the mind any number of opinions on religion or morality or social equality, all activities or states of mind that are universally recognized as components of liberty. It would be unthinkable for the government of the United States to pass laws specifying by which methods the People would be able to wash or mend property such as socks; it is just as unthinkable that our government specifies the methods by which we affect our only true property, our bodies, by its enforcement of blanket prohibitions on the consumption of specific MAS other than those socially-accepted ones listed above.

  Laws banning the possession and consumption of specific MAS do not insure the Domestic Tranquility requirement set forth in our Constitution, as they do not outlaw the use of alcohol, a substance that in its use is responsible for countless acts of insurrection and aggression, a substance that in its use degrades the general Welfare by enraging its user and reducing his ability to make reasonable judgments, a substance that in its use violates the individual's liberty by often ensnaring her in its addiction and all but forcing her to feed the sickness she has unwittingly brought into her life. Overuse of substances, addictions to substances, especially substances such as tobacco that in its use degrades the general Welfare by ruining the health of the People and leading to their premature demise, addictions are conditions that must be addressed with a logical and compassionate eye, so that the individual can regain the capacity to use those MAS that he decides he needs to facilitate or enhance his pursuit of Happiness instead of being relegated to a prison cell and treated as a criminal for his inability to control his appetites.

  Punishments for consumption of illicit MAS cannot be applied to great swaths of the population for infractions that in no way cause direct and measurable offense to the life, liberty, or property of any other person. Just as a lengthy process is required to deprive a person of Life and to condemn her to death, the removal of liberty can be meted out only on an individual basis by an august panel that shall decide that the person in question should no longer deserve specific and enumerated liberties (the penalty for the continued execution of these liberties being tailored so as to maintain the parameters of the Constitution), thus ensuring that her constitutional right to freedom of action and thought is not taken from her without profound and rational deliberation.

  A person is not sentenced to death for anything less than infringing upon or extinguishing the Life of another person. Therefore, a person cannot have his Liberty revoked unless he has infringed demonstrably upon the right of other people to their Lives, Liberty, or Property, or if he has clearly violated the parameters of the constitution. The incarceration of non-violent drug offenders whose sole purported violation was to consume or possess MAS degrades the general Welfare and the Domestic Tranquility by removing those individuals from their long-established familial and community ties, by restricting them in their ability to work and to be productive, by holding them in close proximity to violent and dangerous criminals.

  A woman seeking to abort an unwanted fetus has the constitutional right to do so. Under the XIV Amendment, she has the right to decide for herself what to do with her body, her only true property, so she may pierce or tattoo it as she sees fit, cut its hair in whatever fashion she desires, eat and let it become fat or exercise and keep it in shape, have her stomach stapled and her organs and cancerous tumors removed, and abort any fetus growing within her female parts. Furthermore, as the Blessings of Liberty have been bestowed upon her, she may decide for herself how best to lead her life; she is allowed to do anything to herself so long as she is not infringing upon the constitutional rights of any other persons (a fetus is a part of a woman's body until it is born, at which point it becomes a baby, or a tiny little person with constitutional rights).

  The requirements of a more perfect Union and the provision for the general Welfare are not being met under our current system of top-few capitalism, under which a minority of the People is compensated in the form of great wealth for the labors of the majority of the People. Allowing the wealthiest few Americans to amass such great wealth gives them the power of the purse strings, which breeds corruption and makes these few rich folks so essential to the reelection of political figures that they become the masters of said political figures, dictating, formulating, and influencing legislation to their own benefit at the expense of the vast majority of the population. To provide for our future Prosperity and to redirect the wealth of this nation toward realizing the Welfare of the People generally, it behooves us to alter the fabric of our corporatized and corrupted society, and to seek new methods by which to assure that all Americans might benefit equally of the bounty inherent to this land that is daily brought forth by the People of this nation.

  Great bodies of men and women have joined the U. S. armed forces to provide for the Common Defense, and vast stockpiles of personal weapons and other mechanical contrivances stand at the ready to assist them in this task. To provide for the Common Defense, however, we must keep these forces at home, on true American soil, so that, if needed, they can defend the American People from threats here at home; we cannot continue to launch wars of aggression, as we did in Iraq in 2003, to protect or to promote the business interests of a tiny fraction of the population that has a corporate or otherwise monetary interest in the oil fields located in that Middle Eastern nation. There is a role for American armed forces to play beyond our shores (humanitarian aide, protecting innocents, punishing those who seek to destroy us), but it cannot ever again be a war of aggression against another sovereign nation. Many good Americans have died, and much of our nation's wealth has been wasted by intervening in conflicts not our own, in nations not our own, against people who just want to see us leave. Let the chips fall where they may, unless they are huge chip-shaped bombs raining down onto our cities.

  Until it comes to pass that all political and government efforts are focused solely on meeting the requirements set forth in the Constitution, and until such time as the rights enumerated in the Constitution are granted to all People fully and without prejudice, the fundamental American documents are protecting only those people who are rich in monetary wealth and political connections; they have ceased to be documents that serve for the elevation of the People generally, and have been high-jacked by an oligarchy that has lost sight of the deep and enduring essence of the American Dream, i.e. Safety, Happiness, and the Blessings of Liberty.

p.s. This is a general appeal to all police officers in America: If you have ever even attempted to trick or browbeat someone into forfeiting their Constitutional rights, or if you operate in a fashion that in any way even attempts to sidestep said rights, and if you have ever sworn an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, take a good look in the mirror, and consider that you very well may have violated your oath. If so, relinquish your post immediately, and pursue a different career.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on the animal within - pain

It is important to understand the extent of the beast that lives within our minds. Too often do people fall before the power of their impulsive selves, and they resort to assault or murder, completely consumed by the knee-jerk rage of the monster that lurks within, tearing their own lives and the lives of others apart for the all too short bliss of the jerking, cold-sweating moments that follow explosive bouts of violence. Without a proper harmony between the high mind and the animal mind, between the thinking self and the self that simply is, it is impossible to lead a successful life, as there will always be a part of you that is screaming for attention, or screaming for you to act when you are thinking, or flying off the handle in an unbridled act of rage when faced with a complex or frightening situation.
But, you say, it is going to take a fortune for me to reach harmony, for me to be able to control my impulses while still allowing them to guide me in the direction that is most right for me, a path that I am likely to follow that will make me happy while keeping me in good health. To this, I say: exercise, read the Tao Teh Ching, and meditate, every day. These are activities that do not have to cost you anything, or at the least not very much, activities that are guaranteed to have a positive affect on your day to day.
So check it out. Check it out.

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

all equal under reason

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on mixing races

  When discussing the procreative mixing of the races of humankind among themselves, I have often heard said that the children of such unions are somehow inferior. Additionally, the following phrase is often used in context: "If god wanted the races to mix, he wouldn't have made them different," or something similarly absurd. (If you think that some specifically male god is tinkering with every aspect of your life, or that the Force That Cannot Be Conceivably Named only prefers people with a specific lack of melanin content in their skin, I suggest you read The Way Of Myth, by Joseph Campbell, and switch your places and methods of worship.)

  Firstly, there are no distinct races among the many cultures of humankind, for we might all mate with one another and, so long as the mating is between a male and a female, produce viable and healthy offspring. (Nothing against homosexual mating – it simply produces no offspring. In fact, we find homosexuality in various species of animal, such as seagulls, porpoises, and certain primates [see here], which means that homosexuality is a natural condition of certain animals, humans among them.)

  Secondly, there is no scientific proof whatsoever that mixed-race children are in any sense inferior to their supposedly less-mixed counterparts. (Mainland Europe was invaded numerous times by strange and foreign tribes who passed along their genes to those exact people who now consider themselves, by some insane form of reasoning, somehow more pure than others.) American children of mixed race can in fact more easily find their place in our overly race-conscious society (see here), which, if anything, would indicate that they are more flexible and adaptable than individuals who are supposedly (but who only superficially appear to be) less mixed.

  Thirdly, recent scientific research into the genetic codes of various far-flung peoples suggests (see here) that the ancestors of all peoples, besides those residing in or otherwise stemming directly from sub-Saharan Africa, mixed with that supposedly separate race we know today as the Neanderthalers. Hence, indigenous sub-Saharan Africans are the only truly pure humans left on Earth – all others are descendent from troglodytes with thick foreheads, myself included. (Perhaps that is why I have such strong bones, pronounced eyebrows, and shifting tempers.)

  The human body is remarkably adept at shutting down and aborting the growth of invalid fetuses. Invalid fetuses are sometimes (see here) the result of too little genetic diversity between the genomes of the parents, not of too much genetic diversity. (If you want to bear valid offspring, find a person as far removed from yourself as is genetically possible and take them out to a nice dinner.)

  We can look at a number of populations throughout the world that show signs of significant genetic diversity (at least based on physical appearance). People in the Republic of Georgia, Afghanistan, and the other 'Stans (see here for a list, for pictures here and here) tend to exhibit the genetic telltales of the numerous invading armies that have over time passed through their lands. In these countries, you find individuals who have lighter skin and lighter hair related to individuals with darker hair and slanting eyes related to individuals with dark skin and significantly slanting eyes (I am not trying to be racist by using the term “significantly slanting eyes”). If there were something biologically wrong with the mixing of the races, the populations of the aforementioned countries would have either long ago died out, or we would be able to detect major and chronic diseases attributable solely to the (inherently racist) theory of genetic fouling through genetic mixing. (The infant mortality rates in these countries [see here, here] tend to be somewhat higher than those in the West due to insufficient medical care during and beyond pregnancy [no data – that one is deductive reasoning].) Based solely on the continued existence of the Afghan and Georgian peoples, we can now put to rest the idea that mixing among the races is in any way biologically unsound.

  If you do hear anyone implying that mixing the races is bad, kindly remind them that it is bad only in their own minds, that they are making assumptions based on ignorance and Fear of The Unknown, that by mixing with one another we are in fact broadening the strenght inherent to the genetic diversity of our children, and that Nature, in all her ingenuity, continues to prove them wrong.

Never rest. Always doubt. Demand liberty.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

WTFWJD - driving

  I was behind a driver recently who was weaving all over the road, crossing over the double yellow line into oncoming traffic to avoid parked cars he was no way threatening to hit, with his entire arm out the window and generally not paying attention. When I snugged up behind him at a stoplight, I noticed he had a medallion of a Christian fish wherein was written the acronym, WWJD.

To answer this sage and perpetual question, I said to myself, what Jesus would do would be to: retain all limbs within the vehicle (as any limb located outside the vehicle is a limb that is likely to be ripped violently off the body); follow the rules of the road; drive like a gentleman; stay within the lines; wash his windows to maintain visibility; and generally respect the great responsibility and always-present dangers inherent to operating a motor vehicle.

Instead of gluing a piece of plastic to the back of your car and expecting it to eliminate the need to be kind, courteous, and self-respecting, I call upon the WWJD set to apply the guidelines set forth in their holiest of books to their everyday lives. It is not enough to browbeat or otherwise fear-monger people into worshiping the gods you worship; acting like good and upstanding citizens and operating according to the highest principles of your religion is far more likely to spread the word about your chosen god and to display the honor, self-respect, and virtuousness you can glean from your chosen teachings.

Remember: America was not founded as a Christian nation (see article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted by George Washington and released under John Adams), and its recognition as such would invalidate the essence of liberty by forcing her citizens to worship a god not necessarily of their choosing. Worship your gods as you see fit, but don't be too hard on those who don't share your sentiments, and don't try to tell them they are wrong in their beliefs. This is a nation of a million religions and a million points of view, where the liberty to decide for oneself how to live one's own life and what thoughts to entertain is a constitutionally-protected right.

So, what would Jesus do? For one, he probably wouldn't drive like a complete moron.  

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

revenue through regulation

  On Saturday last, on NPR, the topic of discussion revolved around allowing hunters in Pennsylvania (PA) to hunt on Sundays. Individuals representing the PA game commission and hunters' groups were in attendance, giving their opinions on the merits of Sunday hunting and debating the various statistics for and against this suggestion. One of the main arguments for Sunday hunting was that the increased activity and travel within and to the state would bring upwards of six hundred million dollars in revenues to the state coffers. During a segment in which the announcer read listener emails aloud, a commenter wisely stated that, since the state is currently facing bankruptcy, any revenue streams that could generate money for the state that did not in any demonstrable way cause harm to large segments of the population and that did not infringe upon the People's constitutional right to life, liberty, and property (their bodies), any such revenues are needed to keep the state afloat during these times of economic hardship.

  This is a solid argument based on the idea that, by licensing individuals to perform and engage in activities that bring them joy or satisfaction, and by said licensing to ensure that the People remain safe and secure in their person while not negatively affecting or otherwise infringing upon the rights of others, the People should be granted the ability to act in liberty and to enjoy those activities they wish to do while contributing to the economic well-being of the state as a whole.

  This argument also remains solid when applied to the concept of granting licenses to individuals who desire to cultivate and consume Mood Altering Substances in the privacy of their own homes. The legalization of the cultivation and consumption of marijuana, for example, by fully emancipated adults in the privacy of their homes who are not demonstrating a willingness or desire to harm others in any way, would: provide steady and reliable revenues to the state coffers through licensing and cultivation fees; reduce overall crime by limiting the power of organized criminal enterprise; decrease state expenditures on prisoner housing by eliminating roughly twenty percent of state prison populations that are made up of non-violent drug offenders (see here); lower the instances of gateway or crossover consumption by reducing the average, upstanding drug consumer's need to visit drug dealers to obtain the means by which he should decide to pursue his Happiness; and reinstate liberty to the American citizen by granting her that right that is enumerated in the constitution, and thus allowing her to take responsibility for her actions and to lead her life as she sees best fit so long as she is not infringing demonstrably upon the enumerated rights of others.

  Additional revenues can also be generated by placing a usage and manufacturing tax on individuals brewing, distilling, or consuming alcohol, a Mood Altering Substance that in its use is responsible for widespread physical harm and for various societal suffering, most notably assault, battery, rape, and otherwise violent and aggressive acts. We would do well to tax those who so brazenly tax our society with their consumption of alcohol.

  The commenter rightly stated that activities that do not threaten the well-being of others and that are well-managed and well-structured can provide revenue to the state, through licensing and fees, thus allowing the People to live their lives in liberty by the methods that to them shall seem most likely to affect their economic, spiritual, or bodily Happiness. Marijuana consumption in the United States has remained constant throughout the so-called War On Drugs (see here) over the last forty years, billions of dollars have been spent to restrict the People in their liberty, billions of dollars that could have been funneled into state and federal coffers through the legalized, taxed, and structured manufacture and distribution of the drugs Americans want to consume. Just as there are laws in place to assure that Mood Altering Substances (MAS) such as alcohol, tobacco, and coffee products are manufactured in ways that will not harm the consumer, the manufacturing processes of all other MAS must be regulated to ensure that the American citizen can access and consume whichever MAS he or she decides are best while being fully confident that those MAS are not contaminated with toxic or otherwise dangerous fillers.

  According to the Declaration of Independence (see here for the document you should read once a week), the purpose of government is to bring about the Safety and Happiness of the People. We already allow for the safe manufacture of certain MAS; let us now allow for the safe manufacture of all MAS, so as to satisfy the constitutional right of the People to be safe in the property (their bodies) while they are operating rationally under the liberty of thought and deed.

  If a person can be entrusted with the responsibility of handling and operating a weapon in areas where other people are present, that person should be entrusted with the responsibility of handling and consuming, in the privacy of their own home, whichever MAS they decide would serve them best.

  Give the people liberty, and they will prove that they are worthy of rational thought and virtuous action.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

everything you read

  On two separate occasions in the past few weeks, individuals responded to links I posted or blogposts I wrote with the phrase, “Don't believe everything you read on the internet.” This seems to be a phrase used frequently in sloppy attempts to disqualify or to otherwise call into doubt the veracity of the posted material, as I have seen it used to this purpose on other sites throughout the interwebs.

  While it is true that one should use caution when accessing the Terrestrial Interconnectivity Matrix, and that one should be critical of anything found thereon, I would like to ammend the aforementioned phrase to read thus: “Don't believe everything you read.” Just because something is printed on a physical medium does not mean it is true, unbiased, or based on solid and irrefutable evidence. Having studied statistics in college, I know that numbers can be skewed in most any direction to support most any sort of point. Having argued often with religious and social conservatives, I know that opinions are shaped by a myriad of influences from all types of media, and that opinions based on Fear Of The Unknown are more dangerous to the wellbeing of society than those based on rational and open-minded contemplation.

  The most effective way to foster open-mindedness and rational thinking is to read a breadth of differing opinions about a given subject, doubt the veracity of all those differing opinions, and then form one's own conclusions about the subject at hand based on the subtle truths that the mind inherently gleans from exposure to the differing viewpoints. No subject is completely black-or-white, and anyone attempting to portray it as such is likely trying to obfuscate certain aspects of that subject with which he or she agrees by damning those aspects with which he or she does not agree, so as to gain power or advantage.

  Throughout the millenia, strategists from unconnected regions and different time-periods have all pointed to one fundamental truth of warfare, or struggle: “Know your opponent” (see here, here). Refusing to read a book written by a presidential candidate because one cannot stomach that candidate's viewpoints, or dismissing an argument off-hand because one does not understand the argument, violates the fundamental rule of Knowing One's Opponent. To underestimate another person's viewpoints or opinions is to set oneself up for disaster, as one's personal biases will invariably fog up the mind and prohibit the effective application of one's own forces.

  Read everything avaiable, but doubt it all. No person and no organization is infallible, and nothing is set in stone.

  Open the mind. Defend liberty. Fight injustice.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on spamming

  As the writer of this blog, I have been trying to increase readership by using social media sites to improve traffic to my site. On the social media site facebook, I regularly post links to my blog so as to indicate to my friends that I have written something new that I feel they might enjoy reading, or that I think would make for an interesting conversation. Additionally, I sometimes post updates to my status telling people what I am doing or posting an idea or a saying I might have just developed.

  Thinking this type of behavior was acceptable, and not having been informed that the aforementioned activities (posting links to my own material, calling attention to my own actions or thoughts) was in any way frowned upon, I set up an account on reddit.com, where I proceeded to post links to my own material while also reading and voting on the links posted by others. Not long after starting with this self-promotion, however, did I receive a message from the staff at reddit.com telling me that, by posting links to my own material only, I was committing violations in spamming, and that the continued performance of these actions would lead to my account being closed and me being disqualified for membership with reddit.com.

I would like this blogpost to serve as a warning to all people who post links to their own material and to people who are not posting links to random or varied other material, even if they are also voting up or down or "liking" the posts of others: you might are likely guilty of spamming, even if your links receive positive feedback from the community and readers seem to be enjoying or at the least reading the material to which you link. If you do not regularly promote the work or content of others, you will likely be shut down for spamming, and attempts to self-promote or to promote your material in ways other than paid-for-advertising will likely result in you being asked to stop.

  The reason I acted the way I did on reddit was because it was exactly the same way I for years have been acting on facebook - drawing people's attention to things I enjoy, to things I make or create, to things I find funny - never even thinking that I was committing an offense or forcing people to consume my spam until a friendly administrator told me what I was doing. So educate yourself about the exact and often arbitrary parameters of the social sites to which you are submitting, readers, for if you do not pepper in the occasional link to someone else's page, you will be likely scolded for spamming on one site when the same activity is the order of the day on another.

  If doing things and then informing other people that you have done something constitutes spamming, then I am a spammer, and I will remain one.

場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

my hope lies in reason

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on nationalized religion

  In recent times, loud voices (here, here) have claimed that the creators of the American nation were influenced by Christianity, saying that because our founders were somehow influenced by that religion, that religion should enjoy a higher standing in society. Why these people cry so loudly is unclear (although they seem to be following a historical precedent – see here – by turning to religious hyperbole, xenophobia, and downright Fear), but I suspect that they are making so much noise to obfuscate the reality of the world they so dearly desire, a future fantasy of Dystopian proportions in which all religions but one are outlawed in America, all who fail to fall to their knees before the new national god or gods are beaten and incarcerated, and the liberty we hold so highly, the liberty guaranteed in our Constitution to all equally, shall be replaced by oppression generally and by intolerance for dissenting thought specifically. What other purpose could these people have for pushing for some form of recognition of Christianity as the official state religion than: to destroy the liberty of their fellow citizens; to favor one religious doctrine to the exclusion of all others; to punish non-believers for their lack of belief in one god among many gods; and to relegate those non-believers to the status of second- or third-class citizens for failing to follow one out of the many religions practiced by those flexible and profound individuals who founded these United States of America.

  Many times in its history has mankind attempted to make one religion the mandatory religion of all people. In each of these cases (England Reformation, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Afghanistan under the Taliban), the initial religious prohibitions were soon followed by widespread murder, looting, and other acts of Domestic Chaos as members of the newly-empowered religious class fanned out across the land to punish those unlucky people who did not meet the newly-established and painstakingly exacting standards of that specific religious teaching. (This potential threat to the Domestic Tranquility requirement set forth in the Constitution therefore makes any attempts to establish religious rule in America unjust and unconstitutional.) The leaders of America have shown a lack of respect for, and a lack of an even rudimentary knowledge of history in recent years by deciding to invade Afghanistan, a country that had previously withstood invasion by the Macedonians, the Persians, the British, and the Soviets; we hope that they will do some research into the realities of specific religious rule before passing any legislation based on religious texts, and we trust that they will be inclined to preserve the Contitution and to shield it from attacks by the intellectually stagnant and theocracy-minded quasi-patriotic forces active in society today. (We also hope our leaders will strike down existing laws such as those that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays in Pennsylvania, or the laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman, laws based not on a rational foundation but on writings from the biblical Old Testament, laws that violate the declared Rights of the individual to Liberty and to pursue whichever Happiness he or she decides is best.)

  To justify the claims that the founders of our nation were influenced by the Bible, our current religious extremists ( "No religion is free from extremism," declares Abdelfattah Amor, the UN's Special Rapporteur n Religious Intolerance; for examples see here and here) point to correspondences and other writings created by the founders of this nation that mention the teachings of Christianity (for examples of these writings, see here). Furthermore, they point to the establishment of the Mayflower Compact (here) as proof that this our nation was in some way founded on the Christian faith. In light of the first argument it follows logically that any religious teachings mentioned by the founders of this nation in their writings should be declared as the official state religion, which would make Hellenistic polytheim (or the belief in gods such as Zeus, Athena, and Poseidon) one of the official religions of these United States, as it was mentioned by Thomas Jefferson (here) and John Adams (here), among others. As to the second argument, the Mayflower Compact did not legally establish this Union; it therefore cannot be used as justification for the establishment of an official religion over this Union.

  In the document that did establish this nation, in the Declaration of Independence, there is made mention of the Creator and of the Supreme Judge of the world, but these terms could apply to any of a number of forces, including the Universe, the forces of Chaos, or Raven of the First Peoples (that god who stole the Sun, made the world, and spread knowledge and learning among the scattered races); to assume that by Creator our founders meant Jesus, or Yahweh, or any other deity not specifically named in our founding texts, is: to make assumptions founded on narrow-mindedness and on a penchant for exclusionary practices; to violate the constitutional mandate of securing the Blessings of Liberty (for a definition of liberty, see here) to ourselves and to our Posterity by restricting the ability of the American citizen to operate according to his or her free will (by forcing him or her to genuflect before a god not necessarily of his or her choosing).

  America does not have an official national language, and it will never have an official national religion. The establishment of an official national religion would signal: the ending of our republic; the ending of the rule of rationality and of Justice; and the violation of the constitutional parameters of Domestic Tranquility and the Blessings of Liberty.
  Join me in fighting this threat to our fine nation, so that we together might safeguard our most precious documents and maintain Liberty here and abroad. Let us give in neither to irrational fear nor to irrational judgement; rather, let us maintain the principle of Reason and practice it in all our daily affairs. There is no time to spare, but time is short.

  Stand up. Speak out. Spread liberty.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

Violations In Grooming

30JUN2011
Westminster, MD
  Timothy Blastac, an unemployed auto-mechanic from this bucolic town near the Mason-Dixon line, was taken into custody today by the federal government on charges of violating interstate commerce laws. Blastac, who since losing his job has been seen cutting his own hair, declined to comment for this story. Agent Brown, the lead FBI investigator on the case, said at the scene, "Mr. Blastac was witnessed cutting his own hair in his back yard using a hand-held mirror and a pair of cheap clippers. As his actions violate the potential for a discount hairdresser in Pennsylvania, which lies but a few miles away, to perform these grooming services for him, we apprehended him on suspicion of violating interstate markets. Pending further investigation."
  Dalton Lambert, Mr. Blastac's neighbor, said, "I saw Tim out back trimming his mullet, and I joked about it to some of the guys down at the shop. Someone must have contacted the authorities." Under the interstate commerce clause found in the Constitution, the federal government routinely punishes individuals for growing marijuana that those individuals could potentially transport across state lines, thus potentially affecting potential markets in other states, even if those markets are neither legitimized nor regulated under legislation of any type. Mr. Blastac, by allegedly performing grooming services on himself that could have been performed by an individual in a neighboring state, allegedly compromised the potential for an individual in a market in another state to potentially profit from potentially performing these services. "We will not tolerate violations to potential markets," chief inspector Ryan Henneman, of the ATF, said. "Just as growing vegetables in your own garden violates the potential profits to be made by vegetable growers in other states, we cannot allow individuals to perform services on themselves that could potentially be performed by individuals in other potential markets, in other states."
  The federal government has issued blanket warnings to individuals who mow their own lawns, raise livestock such as chickens or rabbits, or maintain and service their own vehicles, as well as any activities that smack of self-sufficiency or self-reliance, saying that individuals performing these tasks, which all stand to violate potential markets in potentially different states, will be brought to justice. "We have for too long allowed these violations of potential commerce among the states to go on unpunished," Agent Brown said. "Soon the general public will understand that the potential rights of potential markets to make potential profits far exceedes the fourteenth Amendment right of the individual to his or her liberty, or to decide for his or herself when and how to cut his or her own hair or what it is he or she should grow or consume on his or her private property." The ACLU declined to comment for this story.

James J. Jameson, reporting for Bronco 8 news

(This non-news article is satirical. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. None of the statements attributed to the various federal agencies or other groups are intended to be taken as factual statements. This is a joke.)