The World Rests on a Symbiosis of Fiat Currency, Oil and War

Freedom on the Seas

Shout it from the rooftops

Jimmy Carr is morally right

Read this or give all your property to the extortionists

Jimmy Carr is morally right

Real Feminism

Feminism is about women taking control of their own destinies. Your body, your sexuality and your orgasm are the fundamental elements of that control. I don’t see how anyone can deny sex. Making people feel ashamed of their bodies and intercourse have been elements of institutional sexism that’s been in place by men who want to keep women insecure. By taking back our bodies, showing them on our own terms and enjoying porn, we make our physical needs and desires as important as the physical needs and desires of men

Bobbi Starr interviewed by Scarlett Stone

Why Marx was wrong

http://iambinarymind.tumblr.com/post/21436905421

Communism as freedom from natural market forces.

Marx and engels thought (collective) 'Man' could and should control these natural forces that had historically controlled him. They foresaw no problems of coordination, calculation or information. Contemporaries such as bakunin predicted the monstrous totalitarian tyranny this impossible dream would necessitate and enable. Futhermore this economic ignorance spread fast, wide and deep into the worlds intellectuals precisely because of this new quest for total power. Hegelian Marxism and in particular leninism called for a strong state to be created by and operated by these same intellectuals. An ideology that promised total power to those who worked in the dissemination of ideas was bound to infect every 'thinker'. Marxism was created in the 'modern' period and Marx reflected this with his revolutionary 'scientific' doctrine. His was an ideology of man's conquest over the vagaries of nature - if we built structures to harness and avoid the elements then we should also control the natural forces of human action that Marx felt to be degrading. A fundamental misunderstanding, whether through ignorance or deception, of these natural forces led Marx to believe they were not only undesirable but could be controlled. This misunderstanding is due to both religion and the states of his time. Religion because that is the source of Adam Smith's just price theory of labour taken by Ricardo and then Marx. And the state because anti capitalist Marxism was concerned with a particular type of dominant landlords and industrialists only made possible by the collective state itself. Like todays 'geo-libertarians' whose ideology is based on 19th century conceptions of landowners, similarly Marx would not recognise the more widely and naturally dispersed economy of today. What would he make of the self employed capitalist plumber? Who is exploiting him? The world of economic power that both Marx and George reacted against was not a world of natural property. The despotic capitalists and land lords these two influential thinkers so despised were only made possible by the vestiges of the old monarchical near feudal system that capitalism itself was soon to brush aside completely. When George spoke of extortionate land owners he referred to individuals who owned whole counties. Such arrangements were entirely dependent upon state granted privilege. todays 'geo-libertarians' take his words without any consideration for this historical context and use them to advocate coercion against property owners on todays scale of a small suburban semi. Likewise when Marx referred to the evil capitalist exploiting the workers he was speaking of individuals granted similar monopoly privileges to those of the aristocratic landlord. It was only through state granted privileges that 19th century capitalists were able to amass the economic dominance that Marx reviled. It is state interference as justified by Marxist socialism that continues to tilt freedom away from his masses and toward those capitalists he so maligned.

back when i was foolish enough to be registered in facebook I caught an exchange between a friend's girlfirend and her mates. they were reacting to the video below (warning contains nudity etc not safe for work etc)


Pants prank - Watch MoreFunny Videos

One of the girls commented that as a result of viewing such assaults she wanted to get a pistol. Which is the whole point of weaponry - defensive advantage. The women cannot Chase their male attackers as they are physiologically too slow and you can see the moment that each of them realise they are incapable of doing anything even if they could catch their assailants.
Even stateless legal systems, private streets and private security forces will not be perfectly able to prevent or deter 100% of such problems. (obviously they would be many times more effective than statist attempts).
This is where the final resort is the autonomy of the individual. You can always outsource duties such as food and security but no matter how good your local takeaway it would be irresponsible not to be able to cook just incase the taj Mahal was shut. Equally it would be irresponsible to be completely reliant on 3rd party protection. Freedom and responsibility - two sides of the same coin. A free individual should have at least some small degree of defensive autonomy.
As with the food example, it would be irrational to expect one to prepare food without the necessary tools or to take advantage of the most developed means available if they wished to do so. Who cooks with nothing but their bare hands? One can laboriously chop vegetables the same way humans have done for thousands of years or you could make a much finer salsa or sofrito with much less time and effort by using a blender.
This logic can, should and must be applied to self defense.
Rights are nothing if they cannot be acted upon. The right to self defense is nothing if one cannot act upon it and do so with the tools for the job.
I am talking of course about guns. Simply tools for the job of defense and nothing more. Like a chainsaw, a chisel or a cheese knife they can be abused as offensive weapons - this is no justification for coercively limiting their use, manufacture, sale, distribution or possession. If it were then logically such coercions should be applied to cutlery.
If we return to the video how would such situations be different if the victims had not been disarmed? Would such acts of aggression even be likely to occur? The opportunity costs for these pranksters/criminals are next to nothing under the state. Zero police presence and coercively disarmed victims. The opportunity costs of assault in an armed society rocket to the value the assailant places on his own life. Much less attractive odds.
Women should be the keenest advocates for effective defensive equipment (guns not aerosols of close range seasoning!). Power tools remove crude physical advantage. A tractor driver no longer must suffer the ardour of his scythe wielding forebears. Likewise a diminutive female with an effective mechanised range weapon is on an equal footing with a male cage fighter.
Watch the awesome libertarian film 'The Blindside'. In it you can see tiny Sandra bullock scare a whole gang of aggressive males into submission with the mere suggestion she is armed. I cannot find a clip of the scene anywhere but there follows a transcript of. the gang leader is threatening Bullock's newly adopted son and she doesnt take any shit:

Gangster - Tell him, sleep with one eye open. You hear me, bitch?


Bullock - No, you hear me, bitch! You threaten my son you threaten me. You so much as cross downtown you will be sorry. I'm in a prayer group with the D.A.,
I'm a member of the NRA and I'm always packing.


Gangster - What you got in there, a .22? A Saturday Night Special?


Bullock - And it shoots just fine
all the other days, too!



Now that is fucking feminism!