There have been a lot of conflicting stories in the news, online, and in rumor, about the fires that have afflicted Washington and Oregon (as well as California) this month. So I talked to someone who was in the thick of it — not burning anything down, but trying to prevent that.

Watch on YouTube, Bitchute and Brighteon:

LocoFoco Netcast #22 . . . talking to “Palmer Road Defender.”

It is also available via podcatcher and at SoundCloud:

I wrote about the fires on September 10, and speculated on the possibility of terroristic arson.

twv

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.

twv

The inconsequential specter of Merrick Garland.
As Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s demise leads to the brain death and moral implosion of the left, I am reminded of a question I answered, two years ago, on the Net’s premiere Q&A site. Here is what I wrote on Friday when I heard the news: “RBG RIP — and sayonara to the last shred of sense in American politics. Not because she was that sense, but because her life held her admirers’ utter desperation in abeyance.”

Why aren’t Supreme Court justices assassinated often, given their political importance and their low number?

…as answered on Quora….

What inspires the anger, hatred, rage, or vendetta to nurture a hankering to kill a powerful person? I think it is the kind of authority that the powerful person represents.

The American Presidency focuses executive power, and is usually accompanied by charismatic and traditional modes of authority. Additionally, the single office-holder in the position has a lot of discretion in favoring or disfavoring a person or group, and is seen — not without reason — to hold a great deal of personal power. And this combination of modes of authority and efficacy for change makes presidents good targets for the aggrieved. A number of American presidents have been shot at, but have failed to succumb to the bullet — Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan come quickly to mind — and the successful assassinations are infamous, numbering precisely four:

  • Abraham Lincoln
  • James Garfield
  • William McKinley
  • John Fitzgerald Kennedy

They were killed, historians tell us, by

  • an actor out for revenge (and perhaps working on a bizarre plot to help the South rise again);
  • a disgruntled job seeker (who felt personally and professionally betrayed);
  • a crazed anarchist; and
  • a Communist ex-Marine.

Can you imagine the kinds of men that these four were . . . actually setting their minds against a Supreme Court Justice, to see someone so “impersonal” as worth killing? The kind of authority wielded by the Nine is rational-legal. People tend to have a hard time wrapping their heads around that kind of authority, which is why they keep voting for charismatic men to fill the Presidency role. We understand charisma. Viscerally. And we grok traditional hierarchy, too. (Both are related to sexual selection, so these forms of authority get at us deep.) But rational-legal authority? That does not grab us either by the gut or the groin.

And to kill a man, especially at the likely cost of one’s own life, requires, surely, some deep appeal to the innards.


Well, that was what I wrote on Quora in August 2018. But times have changed. Now we see Democratic luminaries openly threatening insurrection and a deliberately destructive holocaust if the president goes ahead and . . . does his constitutional duty. Would these luminaries actually light the fires, set off the bombs and shoot the guns? Not likely. But their words sure look like incitements to riot. To me. What else would they be?

And they also go some way to feed my deep suspicion that the fires set throughout my state, and the two states directly south, were set, in numerous instances, by antifa/Black Bloc “protesters.”

If this becomes a shooting war, on the streets, between anarchists and antifa and Democrats manqué, on the one side, and those of us who prefer a rule of law to tyranny, on the other, then shouldn’t the breakdown of law and order be directed, in part, at the twits like Reza Aslan who tweet evil threats?

Or Twitter could apply its own rules against these maniacs and de-platform them. That would go some way to reëstablishing a moral order. And show that the apparently partisan microblogging site takes actual threats seriously.

But it is interesting how a Supreme Court position has become so vital to the left. Is this really all about keeping abortion and protecting that bizarre decision, Roe v. Wade?

Democrats sure do like their child sacrifice rights.

Why do libertarians focus so much on taxation?

…as answered on Quora….

Libertarians pride themselves — not unreasonably — on their principles, which they say make sense from root to leaf of society. Whereas most of politics is argument over fruits and twigs, libertarians aim to go much deeper, down the trunk to the structure in the soil.

Politics is the art of influencing the behavior of the State, and taxation is the most basic state activity. Organizations without the power to tax do not qualify as States. Libertarians extol voluntary (reciprocal; multilateral) interaction, and correctly point out that taxation is hegemonic . . . based, ultimately, on initiated violence and the threat of it. So libertarians look at taxation suspiciously — at best.

Classical liberal theorists were of a similar mind. French economist J.-B. Say, for example, argued that “A tax can never be favorable to the public welfare, except by the good use that is made of its proceeds.” The idea here is that taxation itself is the worst way of going about building a civilization, but if there is no other way to protect the public, then tax, and expend the conscript resources only on projects (rule of law, national defense, say) that truly benefit everybody.

Libertarians often argue that most government spending, these days, does not fill the old liberal standard of benefiting everybody. Instead, most spending of taxed resources aids some at the expense of others, and amounts not to serving a plausible public interest, but, instead, serving private, or factional interests.

Therefore libertarians argue against all variants of statism on grounds that would have been familiar to the old liberals, often making arguments like this: government funds built on taxes must inevitably present a “tragedy of the commons” where individuals and factions fight each other to exploit the common resource each for maximum advantage, gaining more than the other — or at least not gaining too little to become a net taxpayer. This endangers the common resource — just as overgrazing of a common field, or over-fishing of a commonly owned lake, river, or stream — and can have the effect of favoring the greedy and powerful over the masses, and eventually leading to the degradation of the commons.

Classical liberal economists, individualist social theorists, and libertarian political philosophers have been elaborating variations on this theme for centuries. These arguments have demoralized statists, over and over, to the point that they turn to obscurantism (Marxian fancies or Keynesian farragoes) or mere name-calling, in response. (Statism is the idea that the public good can be served by massive state regulation and spending, all dependent upon taxation.)

But this is mostly conflict over branches. Down at the root libertarians emphasize what the old liberals usually just “understood”: taxation is expropriation by force, and is an intrinsically bad way to run a civilized enterprise.

And, on this level, we see many to the far left taking the opposite approach. It is not uncommon, these days, for “progressives” and socialists and other statist politicians to look upon taxation as a good thing in and of itself. It is good to take most of the wealth of some people, and some of the wealth of most people, and not only to “do good” with that wealth. People should not have that wealth. They do not deserve it. They cannot properly use it. Marshaling the State to confiscate this wealth is a virtuous and indeed noble activity!

President Barack Obama took that tack when he argued that the capital gains tax rate should be kept high or even raised even if lower rates would yield more revenue. He flouted J.-B. Say’s rule; he flaunted the thief’s ethos, right in our faces. And when he and Senator Elizabeth Warren floated the “you didn’t build that” meme, they were carrying on that fundamentally illiberal program. It is an attack on voluntary society and an upgrading of the State to a kind of super-paternalistic (and maternalistic) Authority.

Libertarians focus on taxation to counter these fiends. Taxation is the key to the whole super-state mania. Libertarians see in the statist defense of the intrinsic righteousness of taxation an assault on civilization’s liberatory principle: the growth of reciprocity, voluntary cooperation, and peaceful relations. And libertarians see in the lip-smacking lust to ply the State to take other people’s money as the grossest corrupter of morals: the celebration of greed and envy and malice under cover of bogus “social justice” and pharisaic “caring.”

Libertarians oppose the demagoguery behind super-state transfers of wealth, hoping that humanity can avoid the cementing of tyranny by means of the greatest long con in history.

There has been a hiatus in the publication of LocoFoco Netcast. I have two almost ready to go, and others in dev. But as America continues its rendezvous with the Crazytown Train, I have been a tad distracted.

That being said, I did put the last podcast up in video form:

But it is really just the audio version with some video filler.

Meanwhile, two of my friends featured on the LocoFoco Netcast have developed their own vlogcast/podcast projects. Here is the first of Kevin Rollins’ videos:

And here is Emile Phaneuf’s first audio podcast:

Anthony Comegna has twice appeared on LocoFoco, so I would be remiss not to link to his work at the Institute for Humane Studies. I love his podcast, Ideas in Progress; it is always worth a listen. And I found this one with an anarchist academic extremely interesting:

And don’t forget to subscribe to Stephan Kinsella’s Kinsella on Liberty podcast. Here is his mirror of the audio podcast from my effort, “My Peeps.”

We train our enemies.

This seems to me the most important lesson of conflict.

So if you see your enemy going berserk, you should wonder if you drove your enemy to extremity. And your enemy, likewise, drove you to the place where you drove him bonkers.

The Law of Nemesis may seem mysterious, but its working have been noticed since ancient times.

We should study this, carefully. It is in all of our interest to do so.

But the first step is to consiser the possibility that you are almost certainly at least partially in the wrong.

As is your enemy.

This truth, however, isn’t nearly as shocking as its inverse: that your enemy is likely at least partially in the right.

Where can we learn of this? Sun Tzu; von Clausewitz?

One might turn from conflict theory to metaphysics:

We too often forget that not only is there “a soul of goodness in things evil,” but very generally also, a soul of truth in things erroneous. While many admit the abstract probability that a falsity has usually a nucleus of reality, few bear this abstract probability in mind, when passing judgment on the opinions of others. A belief that is finally proved to be grossly at variance with fact, is cast aside with indignation or contempt; and in the heat of antagonism scarcely any one inquires what there was in this belief which commended it to men’s minds. Yet there must have been something. And there is reason to suspect that this something was its correspondence with certain of their experiences: an extremely limited or vague correspondence perhaps; but still, a correspondence. Even the absurdest report may in nearly every instance be traced to an actual occurrence; and had there been no such actual occurrence, this preposterous misrepresentation of it would never have existed. Though the distorted or magnified image transmitted to us through the refracting medium of rumour, is utterly unlike the reality; yet in the absence of the reality there would have been no distorted or magnified image. And thus it is with human beliefs in general. Entirely wrong as they may appear, the implication is that they germinated out of actual experiences—originally contained, and perhaps still contain, some small amount of verity.

More especially may we safely assume this, in the case of beliefs that have long existed and are widely diffused; and most of all so, in the case of beliefs that are perennial and nearly or quite universal.

Herbert Spencer, First Principles (1862; 1867), opening argument.
Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903)
The Masks Do Not Work; Lockdowns Are “Medieval”

You can stop freaking out now. Watch this video by Ivor Cummins and come to the understanding: THIS WAS ALWAYS KNOWN.

The alarmism was pushed mainly by people who did not know much epidemiology. But there were “scientists” who pushed alarm — including geniuses like Taleb — because they, well, I won’t speculate.

Not being a scientist myself, it took me a while to remember what I had once known. But the shape of those curves: that was known.

So the pandemic panic was perpetrated — pushed onto the population — by people with politics in mind: propagandists. Folks who still pretend we need to change the way civilization works because of this new variant of a virus have embraced error and propound social poison.

Give it up. Those who now understand a bit of the science must resist EVERY political-governmental “lesson” promoted by the alarmists. It is a power grab by the power mad.

No more madness, please. Reason is the answer. A “casetemic” does not a viral pandemic make. But it does make for the madness of crowds, the formation of mobs, and general memetic contagion.

Nevertheless, you can still find “studies” puled in the press purporting that SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 are grave transformative dangers. But what is actually transformative? Ignorance, error, misunderstanding, and lies.


Ivor Cummins considers something I’ve been saying for a few months now, and he considers it a reaonable hypothesis: to the minor extent masks and social distancing have an effect, they may very well be negative. Stay through to the end of the video. 

It’s a bit of a puzzler, though, since one would think masks and other mitigation efforts would alter the curves if effective, and since they did not, how can they alter summertime normal acquisition of immunity?

I’m very curious how this will play out.

But remember: there appears to be scant evidence that mitigation really “flattened the curve.” For we have the data. This doesn’t need to be argued over in white heat. Just look at the data, folks.


And by the way? Cummins calls this latter effect of summertime mitigation in the form of an increased wintertime death toll as “unintended consequences.” I’m iffy about that. I think there are indeed people in government who know this very well and have been pushing it for this reason. They want more deaths in the winter, to call a “second wave” and therefore increase your political demand for mandatory vaccinations, complete with Bill Gates’s nanotechnology to track you.

Normal Americans have lost an important political skepticism, and become bleating ruminants.

I always think that life is like a fairytale. What should I do to come out from this assumption?

…as answered on Quora….

You could do worse. Fairy tales are folk horror stories so concisely told that usually their morals are fairly easy to discern. In fairy tales dangers abound. Magic is not the power of wish, but potency at great cost. Sometimes good triumphs, but only after a huge setback. Sometimes fairy stories are very sad. Even frightening.

Read the Grimms, Hans Christian Andersen, and Italo Calvino’s collection of Italian Folktales. I do not think you will come away from them with a need to purge them from your imagination, but with some wisdom you can apply their lessons to your life.

You will notice differences between them and your life. The dangers in the woods in the old European fairy tales can at best serve as metaphors for today’s dangers, and the malign and delusive magics in those stories need to be translated to somewhat more mundane if still quite potent dangers, such as fraud, ideology, and so much else of word work and imaging.

My favorite American writer is James Branch Cabell. In his The Rivet in Grandfather’s Neck: A Comedy of Limitations (1915), Cabell synopsizes a sad little Hans Christian Andersen story and then tells a romance set in Virginia (or “Sil.”) in the early 20th century. There you will see a master take a fairy story and apply it to life. After reading that book, I trust you will see a way to transcend superficial “fairy tale” mentality, and grow beyond naïvety. And in “The Music from Behind the Moon: An Epitome” (it can be found in The Witch-Woman: A Trilogy about Her [1948] and elsewhere) you may conclude that a fairy-tale vision is in no way enviable, but also, perhaps, not evitable. The themes in fairy tales are the stuff of life.

If you “always think of life as a fairy tale,” my suggestion is: study fairy tales.

For what I think you really mean is that you tend to think of life as offering up temptations as the magic in fairy tales tempts those that encounter it. If you look at the literature of fairy tales, you will see that in story as in life the magic is not what it seems.


https://guides.library.vcu.edu/cabell/cabell_bibliography

Hans Christian Andersen
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 LocoFoco.us, 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.

twv

As someone who, when young, developed ideas that were not present in my family, church, or school environments, the idea that people are expected to conform to ideas merely associated with some in-group they cannot help but belong to (and as a kid, there were few opt-outs for me, practically, to family, church, or school) is bizarre. And possibly insulting.

Yet the woke folk insist that the African-American descendants of slaves are only authentic to their true selves when they adopt wokist race theory and some variant of socialism. When a white woke neighbor recently accused non-woke whites of being racist for their skepticism about Black Lives Matter, I mentioned that many blacks hated BLM. One lackwit retiree was incredulous, wanting proof. It is probably one of my many character faults that leads me rarely to provide such evidence. The examples are many and varied, so if you have not seen them, you know you have bubbled yourself in a tightly sealed ideologically secure media container, I typed back. When my white woke interlocutor restated his demand, I responded, Do your own homework.

It had apparently not crossed the mind of this white woke joke of a fool that his very expectation of black uniformity of opinion based merely on a name is the acme of condescension.

I like to joke that White Privilege consists in ONE THING ONLY: the expectation that no opinion inheres to us by reason of race.

But that is a problematic thing to joke about, seeing that we are told incessantly that white privilege does not include the privilege of not being racist.

twv