Archives for category: Death Race 2020

The current blather about the dying wishes of RBG, and of the lack of consideration for Merrick Garland, and of norms and traditions, etc., appears little more than the partisan bickerings of people who lust for power.

Popular discussion of constitutional law and politics is in a pretty sorry state.

Pull out your pocket constitutions, Americans!

If they did, what would they learn relevant to the current brouhaha regarding filling a newly opened seat on the Supreme Court?

“The President . . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court. . . .”

The Constitution of the United States, from Article II, Section 2.

Note that the President of These United States does not have an obligation to appoint judges at any given time, or labor under any prohibition as to any period in which such appointments might be made. The Senate, also, lacks constitutional obligation to advise or consent. These are Powers. Powers are not obligations. Powers may be optionally applied.

Elementary stuff, no?

There is also no specification for the number of judges to sit on the “supreme Court.” Nine has become traditional. There could be more, there could be less. There is no requirement for maintaining an odd number on such courts, the odd (as opposed to even) number being merely convenient for deciding split votes.

Paul Jacob (see Common Sense with Paul Jacob) has argued the case for reducing the number of Supreme Court justices to seven. I concur. That might be a good idea. How would we get rid of one? I would go for the frank racist on the court, Sotomayor. But Paul also wants term limits for the justices of the Supreme Court. I suggest establishing terms first. At present Supreme Court justices serve for life. Establishing terms of duration, requiring reappointment, makes sense to me. As with limits on the number of terms in office, establishing mere terms would require a constitutional amendment.

But current debate is a far cry from this level of deliberation. The Democrats have a lot to work through. Not getting what they want — something I have always had to deal with! — may be an elementary burden of democracy, but not, apparently, of the current culture of The Democracy.


The inconsequential specter of Merrick Garland.
My choice of a lit match as a logo for the podcast may seem eerie now.

“most if not all of the fires appear to have been human-caused”

I smell the smoke. My dog does, too, and he goes outside on barking fits more often, and longer, these last few days.

Yes, I live amid the trees of the Pacific Northwest. And all around me, even by the Pacific Ocean, there are fires. Multiple fires. A sister of mine has been forced to abandon her house in Oregon. Refugees for fires are filling up hotels and motels in many, many counties. Whole communities have been destroyed.

It’s like the California hellscape.

Meanwhile, the reporting is predictable:

What was already a historic, horrifying start to the 2020 fire season out West is continuing to get worse. Amid unprecedented weather conditions linked to climate change, numerous fast-moving heat and wind-fueled wildfires in multiple western states have in recent days burned hundreds of thousands of acres, besieged countless communities, blanketed the region with hazardous smoke, and in the case of one fire in California, necessitated multiple dramatic helicopter rescues of groups of fire-encircled campers.

Chas Danner and Matt Stieb, “The West Coast Wildfire Season Is Getting Worse,” New York Magazine Intelligencer, September 9, 2020.

“Unprecedented” is — by the Law of the Precedented Unprecedent — a misnomer. There are plenty of precedents, in terms of the weather and in terms of the fires. More ominously, more malign forces are at work, as can be seen by this sentence about my state, The Evergreen State:

Unfortunately, most if not all of the fires appear to have been human-caused. More acres burned in 24 hours than the state had seen in 12 fire seasons combined, according to Governor Jay Inslee.

Ibid., emphasis added.

Notice how human causation is mentioned, but terrorism by persons suspected but specifically unknown gets no mention.

I posted about the possibility of terroristic arson on Facebook tonight. In lieu of a long essay here, I’ll just present my posts as images. Especially since there’s a high likelihood that I will be de-platformed soon.

And so begins my campaign on Facebook to alert my friends to a major event.
I may have started here on, a Facebook (hereinafter Fb) page James Gill and I run. Why Fb says Mr. Gill posted this I don’t know, for I definitely wrote that!
Carrying on the conversation, with James Gill and our friend Daniel joining.

And then I wrapped up the night with a general essay on the nature of how to not be fooled by the psy-ops of our Archons:

Whether Fb will de-platform me soon, or by Fb at some planned future deluge of de-platformings, as specified by Daniel, above, I do not know, of course. This is the reason I post these conjectures and musings here. Part of what we are dealing with is a vast left-wing conspiracy. And Hillary Clinton, who dubbed the campaigns against her and her husband a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” is part of it. But maybe not a very big part.

What is relevant is the freak-out over Trump’s election in 2016, and the absolute panic that the insiders are in that someone who is as outsider as he could have risen to the top.

I still often muse that this may have happened in a large, secret war between Deep State factions, with a Pentagon faction having chosen Trump and the intelligence wing choosing the pedophile faction (Democrats). But that sounds so QAnon that I hate even to broach it.

But my sniffer tells me that is the case.

We may soon see. Or civilization may fall. Either way, it will be interesting.


Why was Libertarian presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen’s tweet, “It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist” so controversial amongst libertarians?

…as answered on Quora….

I just read a number of libertarian answers, and I saw not one mention of the riots associated with Black Lives Matter.

Liberty is not just an opposition to the State — contra Rothbard, who I think was wrong on this. Very wrong. Liberty is the freedom we all can possess; those who initiate force from government, from criminal gangs, or individually, or from mobs all abridge freedom. And libertarians oppose them all. Including mobs. The riots are mob action of an unconscionable kind, and indeed constitute the insurrection of cowards and fools — and they are intimately associated with Black Lives Matter.

One of my goals as a libertarian writer has been to de-mystify gobbledygook and debunk confidence games. Much of statism along with much of ochlocracy (mobocracy) gains support from unrealistic fantasy, regrettable but repeatable error, strategic evasion, and outright lies. So I have no truck with folks who spread untruth combined with vitriol. Black Lives Matter spews lies/error about police killings of ‘unarmed black men.’ Not that this never happens, but that the numbers are simply not that special. The stats do not support the claim. I have a great many complaints about policing in our state-ridden society, but racism does not seem a warranted fixation, at least as regards shootings by the police.* And not irrelevant to this is the fact that nearly every one of the victims BLM lifts up to honor and defend has been a violent criminal killed in the process of resisting arrest** — from Michael Brown on. So, no thank you.

I believe it is the job of libertarians to offer truth as the avenue to peace and justice, not bigotry and error and paranoid fantasy. BLM is all spin and lies and violence, and libertarians supporting it strike me as gullible at best.

There is another reason I found the Jo Jo tweet eye-roll-worthy: if you define racism in a very specific way — a way that most people do not use the term — then it makes at least a modicum of sense. But otherwise, it is an immoral command.

For the essence of liberty isn’t your feelings about people of this race or that, or any race, for that matter. Nor even about discriminating for or against anyone. (Discrimination is a key concept in most folks’ definitions of racism.) Libertarians support freedom of association, and we are against racist discrimination only as it pertains to abridging freedom of association and perverting the unbiased working of the rule of law. Liberty, you see, is for everybody, racist or not. You may hate anyone you like. You just may not initiate force: rob, murder, defraud, etc.

I go further: Liberty is for the racists of all races. We want black anti-white racists as well as white anti-black racists all to co-exist in their separate or interpenetrating spheres (their choice), unmolested.

And the thing about racism? It is just another vice. Like greed or sloth or envy or intemperance. No decent libertarian as libertarian would spout nonsense like “it is not enough to be passively not greedy; we must be actively anti-greed.” And I say this despite thinking that greed, along with envy and a few other vices, is a major driver of both statism and ochlocracy. I think these vices are bigger problems than racism — which is indeed a problem. But being publicly anti-greed is not going to usher in liberty any more than being publicly anti-racist. Libertarians have an answer to a whole bevy of social problems caused by all the vices. It is the idea of justice as equal freedom — in a word, liberty.

Jo Jo and Spike have both proven themselves witless moralists just like conservatives in the days of my youth or the virtue-signaling lily-white progressives who live all around me.

A major disappointment. I probably will not vote for them. Further, I have adopted my old stance regarding the Libertarian Party: liquidationism. That was Murray Rothbard’s term, from the 1980’s, of the position I pushed later, in the 1990’s. Jo Jo and Spike have convinced me that reviving the liquidationist program could be the very best first step forward for a freer society. The Libertarian Party must be destroyed — liquidated — and replaced with one or more organizations far more effective and far less crazy.

* I actually suspect that systemic racism may be a problem, but because it is an invisible hand (unintended) and institutionally tacit process, the subject has to be dealt with very carefully and without a revolutionary mindset. The hatred and fury the concept elicits in leftists and the well-programed young suggest that they cannot think very carefully.

** A key problem in police-black relations is the ubiquity of the illicit drug trade, broken homes caused by a corrupting welfare state, horrendous public schools and insidious business-employment regulation that most people have no clue how they work or why they are bad. Libertarians have of course called attention and opposed these horrific state programs (the War on Drugs; state aid; government schools; the minimum wage, etc.) that have devastated inner-city African-American communities, and are well under way to destroy “white” communities. Further, libertarians have been consistent in opposing the qualified immunity doctrine that protects bad-apple police and corrupts the whole state apple-cart. But among those preventing reform in these areas are the race hustlers, such as the “Reverend” Al Sharpton, who have a confidence game going that requires that blacks not make progress. They gain at their “community’s” expense.


Had heroism and not cowardice been pushed with the pandemic, the young and healthy would have gone about their lives as usual, valiantly doing their part to develop herd immunity, while the aged and the at-risk would have sequestered themselves, or otherwise courted extreme caution.

But a culture of courage does not benefit the State.

Much better a flock of bleating ruminants — and those kept separate, against their nature, allowed to congregate only for media-approved “protests.”


Photo by Karolina Grabowska on

We have long known that our politics has made our nations and states worse than they could otherwise be. 2020’s great revelation is that our politics has made us worse as individual persons.


The recent online “convention” of the Democratic Party was the event to miss last week.

According to some observers, it was worse than a mere train wreck: it was a racist train wreck.

Racism was the main theme. Only nominee Joe Biden made a pitch for inclusion and bringing Americans together. Everyone else harped on how racist America is.

And what those speakers really mean is how racist non-Democratic white people are. “The Democrats have become such a virulently racist party that skin color is the only thing they run on,” David Marcus summarized at The Federalist. “It’s disgusting, it’s horrible, and it is tearing this country apart.” 

But Dilbert creator Scott Adams didn’t harp on Michelle Obama’s speech, or her husband’s, or Bill Clinton’s, or his wife’s — Mr. Adams attacked candidate Biden. Directly.

You see, Biden said he had decided to run in the wake of the Charlottesville debacle of 2016, when Trump said there were “good people on both sides.”

Adams takes this personally, for Adams was one of the first to show that the charge that Trump had defended the neo-Nazis at the march as “good people” was, in Adams’s words, “fake news.” Trump had said, seconds from his original “good people” utterance, that he was not referring to the neo-Nazis as good people. He was referring to some of the people at the protest who defended the statuary that was the main bone of contention at the event.

“If the Democratic Party plans to run,” Mr. Marcus predicted, “on the cynically baseless charges that America is a horrible nation made up of mostly horrible people, they will lose.” 

He may be right. It doesn’t exactly pay to insult voters whom you must entice.


Were remote voting handed over to the NSA, we know the agency would have the required tech. We would just have to accept the results: President Baphomet.


I advise all non-Democrats to form emergency email lists of friends and neighbors and interesting/interested strangers. At some point before the election, many of us will be removed from major social media. The purge is ongoing. Who knows how far it will extend before the election?

Democrats, of course, do not need to do this. A few may be purged for show, to fool the masses into thinking these purges are not about electing the Democrat to replace Trump. But we know it is. Major figures at Alphabet and Twitter have confessed to it already, though not specifically tying it to the purge program. Because the purges go on slowly enough, we who remain on social media are mere boiling frogs. Or, to switch metaphors: “first they came for the Jews.” But it’s not Jews, it has been Alex Jones, followed by scads of folks; now it is QAnon; tomorrow, who knows?

I write long enough sentences and use big enough words that I might be safe. It’s easy to dismiss me, to look away. And I believe so few pieties it’s easy to dismiss me as a perhaps-harmless crank.

But many, many influential nodes in political freethought shall be suppressed.

And my Democrat friends will say it is all worth it, because “orange man bad.”

Anyway, 20 years ago email listserves revolutionized communications and ushered in a brief and glorious period of free communication and connected ideas. That they have fallen by the wayside with the popularity of social media (itself in no small part funded and influenced by, shall we say, certain extremely interrested parties) does not mean they cannot be taken up again. Remember, email was designed to resist nuclear attack.

The current controlling efforts of social media outfits like Tw, Fb and Yt (Alphabet) are bad, but they are not, surely, WORSE than nuclear war.


When, last year, I guessed that Kamala Harris would be the next Democratic Party nominee for the presidency, it was not because I detected a groundswell of support for her amongst Democrats. I did think Democrats would go for her, I guess — and boy, was I wrong, back then — but that wasn’t really what led me to pick her. Something about her stands out — and it is not her personability.

She obviously has what it takes to do the bidding of the plutocracy — the big banks, the globalist political groups, Silicon Valley billionaires, Bill Gates and George Soros et al. — while mouthing the pathetic fantasies of leftists who still think the Democratic Party is ‘for the common person.’

She has all the charm of Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton . . . tho not added together, make that subtracted or divided. She is a genuinely unpleasant human being. Her history of playing her advantage is, however, not in any way in doubt. Which is why the plutocracy loves her.

So, her selection as VP to Joe Biden’s P is what the DNC and Democratic leaders (and, presumably, Biden himself) think of core Democratic voters: they will vote for any toady of the plutocracy as long as she speaks socialist platitudes out of one side of her mouth.

Seems about right. She is being accepted.

But not by MARGINAL Democrats, I bet.

Nevertheless, we will see. Perhaps she will assume the presidency within the year, as Biden is rolled off into a Home for the Forever Bewildered.


Last year, a friend asked me who I thought Democrats would pick out of their sorry line-up. I chose Kamala Harris because she had the icy inhumanity that the DNC understands, and which can be pitched as Tough.

The fact that she proved wildly unpopular with rank-and-file Democrats made me look a little too out-of-touch cynical, but hey: Biden has pulled the string!

Or, should I say, Biden’s String Masters have pulled the string and selected Harris as his running mate . . . probably for the reasons I indicated: she is ruthless and unscrupulous and a woman “of color“!

Ah, Democrats, you had better still hope TDS can win an election, for putting up a doddering, ultra-corrupt crony along with a scary POC player is going to require quite a lot of hate, for little love can be milked either from or for this bizarre, strange-bedfellows power couple.

But at least my prediction was on track, and my prophecy of an end to the American republic nicely made more likely by this ratcheting up of crazy and evil.