Follow by Email


Saturday, March 26, 2016

Why arrange links the way I do, don't link to Infowars/PrisonPlanet or Veteran's Today, & debunking the belief that places with high gun ownership are socially unfriendly.

Though no one has asked this question yet, in my freetime, I decided to have a quick talk about why the links that you see on this blog, particulary the ones to your right hand side, just in case anyone is curious.

When it comes to the top links to important funds and petitions, "Generally important information", "A few truth & alternate media sites to look at & support", and "Social-issue (plus philosophy) must reads", it's quite simple; they are ordered from what I want people to see first and what's the most important to the least important and what I feel is least necessary to see (though somewhat roughly).

For example, becuase of the information provided by websites such as ANC reportThe archived Bilzerian Report, and StormCloudsGathering gets higher priority than Alternative Media NetworkMark Dice, or David Icke becuase I feel that the information provided by the former is often more important, more accurate, and/or even less often read than the information from the latter.

However, as for the "International civilian arms rights organizations", along with "U.S. based civilian arms rights + other groups", it gets slightly more complicated. As hinted by the way websites are ordered, the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights, and Firearms United - Worldwide confederation of gun owners get top priority becuase they are trying to help firearm owners on the international scale, just like my currently unsuccessful World's people against Democide group on Google+. 
I am not too concerned about weapon owners in the mainland United States of America (except for overseas territories, such as the U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa), as that I feel that we are pretty secure compared to our counterparts is many other countries (with the exception of outright lawless countries or countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, or 3rd world countries with few, if any laws regarding civilian arms and armor ownership). And the 2nd amendment acts like a legal buffer that slows down anti civilian gun ownership legislation. I'll get to the situation of the United States of America later.

 As for National Association for Gun Rights IndiaIndians for gunsPROGUN PhilippinesNational Arms Association of SpainGun Owners of South AfricaForum WaffenrechtGerman rifle association, and so on and so forth, they get high priority becuase of the lack of a strong civilian arms rights movement and/or gun culture in those areas.

As for the National Rifle Association United KingdomFirearms UKThe Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting ShootersBritish Association for shooting and conservation, and Sportsman's association United Kingdom, they get a higher priority than the Firearms Owners Association of AustraliaSporting Shooters Association of AustraliaOutdoor Recreation Party Australia, and Shooters and Fishers party becuase, in the United Kingdom, from what I've read, their licensing system is stricter than Australia's, especially with Firearm Certificates, which are "May issue", as opposed to Shotgun certificates, which are "Shall issue", and I think all common Australian firearm licenses, which is category A, B, and H are "shall issue" (category C and D have occupational requirements if they're functioning, while collector's category D and R weapons can not be functional, and category M weapons have so many rules on them that I recommend checking out Australian state police websites to figure out how they're regulated), and that Australia has a much higher firearm ownership rate than the United Kingdom.

However, for both the United Kingdom and Australia, things are currently not getting much better for weapon owners, and the same is true for Switzerland, which is why PROTELL also gets some priority.

As for Viva BrazilNational Rifle Association New ZealandNew Zealand Shooting Federation, and Outdoor Recreation New Zealand, they get medium priority becuase the issue of civilian arms ownership is kind've a stalemate in Brazil and New Zealand, and the latter has some of the loosest gun laws in the world (albeit with a strict licensing system), only behind the Czech Republic (though Austria has a more permissive licensing system), and the United States of America.

As for the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights and National Firearms Association, they get the lowest priority outside the United States of America becuase, from what I can tell, even though the anti-gun movement seems to have more sway and power in Canada, for firearm owners, slowly but surely, it's actually getting a little better. 

Personally, I am less enthusiastic about supporting sporting or outdoor recreation based groups, simply becuase they operate on sport or recreation, rather than principle. To give you a clue about how important principle is to me, especially when it comes to civilian arms and armor rights, go read my Ultimate argument for the right to self-defense & to keep & bear arms & armor.
I'm also reluctant to support political parties, even Libertarian parties. Lookup Jesse Ventura's stance on the elimination of political parties, which I agree with.

Now, let's move on to the United States of America.

As for the U.S.A., we are, for the most part, pretty well off.

The American Civil Liberties Union gets top priority becuase, while it's not exclusively an civilian arms rights group, I also support it for its stance on many other issues, and Oath Keepers gets high priority becuase it addresses the enforcement arm of the powers that be, military and law enforcement (the other main real enforcement arm we'll have to worry about are foreign troops). The Liberal Gun ClubPink Pistols, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership also get very high support priority becuase, as explained on Massad Ayoob on the "against guns" issue, CCW but not carrying, and why women should carry, many people get their views from what Massad Ayoob calls "pigeonhole politics", which is probably similar to "identity politics", in which is a party's or common political alignments views on issue X will be stance Y, and whoever is following them often would viewing issue X ends up as stance Y.
If this paradigm dies out, this would be an enormous victory for us. 

You can read about how this is already happening, especially with the rise of famous, high-profile stereotype breakers such as Chris Cheng and TheYankeeMarshal (I agree with the latter on almost everything except for his stance on libertarianism, immigration is a gray area, and last, and definitely least,  abortion. I also consider him a "Porcupine", rather than a true "Sheepdog", as that he'll mainly defend himself and his loved ones, and will only protect others under limited circumstances).

Continued, groups such as Gun owners of CaliforniaThe Calguns Foundation, and New York state rifle and pistol association get higher priority than even national arms rights organizations becuase states such as California and New York are hold-out spots for civilian arms control. 

The NRA gets unenthusiastic support for me mainly for reasons explained on, but it gets my support nonetheless.
As of right now, pretty much the absolute best that states can do is to adopt the firearm laws of Texas and implement Alaska carry. There are what I call "Bird poop spots", which are states that have small amounts of weapon laws that aren't particulary problematic (such as tighter regulation of NFA weapons, registration of certain non-NFA firearms or tight or lengthy requirements to get a carry permit) but still shouldn't really be there, which is why the Gun owner's action leagueGrass Roots North CarolinaFirearm Owners Against CrimeVirginia Citizens Defense League, and Florida Carry, inc are listed directly on my blog. The rest are listed in my ultimate argument.

Also watch: Winning The Gun Rights War (There is good news out there), and Winning The Gun Rights War.

Wrapping the 1st part of the article up, the main reason why I don't link to Infowars/Prisonplanet on the blog too much is becuase pretty much everyone looks at them now, and I just decided to not use up space or clutter up link lists to link to them. However, you still can see videos from the Infowars channels on a lot of my channel's playlists, especially older playlists.

Debunking the belief that places with high gun ownership are socially unfriendly.

As you can see on my sarcastically named playlist, "All gun owners are racist Christian Conservatives", there is a collectivistic stereotype that civilian arms owners tend to be unfriendly people. Now, I'm going to show some places with relatively a high number of firearms per capita but are overall relatively friendly.
And note that all large societies are going to have its bad apples, so I'm speaking relatively and nothing is really set in stone.

Note: this list also includes countries that previously ranked higher.

Czech Republic, 37th in gun ownership rate: while its firearm ownership rate is strikingly low considering how it is rivaled with Austria is terms of firearm owner friendliness and, besides Estonia is the only European Union member that I'm aware of that has "shall-issue" concealed carry permits (though in Estonia you're not supposed to have a round in the chamber unless you're carrying a revolver, according to, however, shooting is the 3rd most popular sport, and non-firearm weapons (such as batons, irritant/inflammatory sprays, stun guns, knifes, etc) are seemingly unregulated. But, the people also seem to be friendly, and, believe it or not, also tend to be rather open to LGBT people. No wonder why the mainstream media doesn't talk about the Czech Republic; they don't fit the stereotype of typical gun owners (by the way, a fair chunk of the population is atheist from what I've read, so there goes another part of the stereotype).
Some of the reasons are why the Czech Republic got a very honorable mention on Why is the Czech Republic, New Zealand or Chandler, AZ rarely mentioned in the gun debate?.

Uruguay, 8th highest in gun ownership rate: perhaps my favorite developing country, has the highest firearm ownership rate in Central and South america, and while many of the firearms are illegally owned or possessed, from what I've read, many people are on the friendly side. Plus, it has an very open immigration policy.

Sweden, 9th highest in gun ownership rate: people are known to be quite friendly with both each other and outsiders, and has a seemingly open immigration policy (too much, perhaps, as that I wish that they would kick out troublemakers and keep troublemakers out for the betterment of everyone, and to cut back on welfare).

Finland, 16th in gun ownership rate: my favorite Nordic country, and one of my favorite countries in Europe, particulary eastern Europe, has people who are often socially on the open side, and considered one of the most "libertarian" countries in Europe (

Canada, 12th in gun ownership rate: just north of gun nut central of the 1st world, has mostly friendly people, there is some patriotism but, from what I can tell, not much uncontrolled nationalism.

New Zealand, 22nd in gun ownership rate: my favorite country in Oceania, and has some of the loosest firearm laws in the world (albeit with a rather strict licensing system) behind the Czech Republic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of unregistered long guns in circulation, along with tens of thousands, if not, hundreds of thousands of legally owned handguns, assault weapons and even machine guns (in New Zealand, civilians can own fully operational machine guns, but they can't fire live ammunition, and can't be fired at all except for film production or reenacting).

Belgium, 35th in gun ownership rate; while it has an overall low gun ownership rate and rather restrictive firearm laws (except maybe for airguns), however, it is home to Fabrique Nationale, aka, FN, plus FN's subsidies (such as Browning), which is one of the largest firearms manufacturers in world history. From what I've read, Belgian people seem to be socially on the open side, and are rather open to immigrants (particulary at the time that the book, "Letters from Rifka", which I once read when I was younger, takes place).
Don't you think it's interesting to see people trying to paint a stereotype of gun owners being unfriendly or even hostile and violent people while, in actuality, there is a country that both has socially open people and one of the most important firearm manufacturers in world history?

Italy, 53rd in gun ownership rate; while the overall firearm ownership rate is, again, low, Italy also has "Shall-issue" firearm ownership licenses with self-defense being a legitimate reason, and is home to the oldest still existent gun manufacturer on mother Earth: Beretta. Again, Italy has a reputation for having friendly people, and while the Catholic church holds some sway, LGBT people aren't badly discriminated against.
So explain to me how most gun owners are far-right wing ultra conservative "Christians" who are hostile to those who are too different from them, and the country that holds the world's oldest firearm manufacturer and has "shall-issue" firearm ownership licenses actually has many friendly people?

United States of America, 1st in gun ownership rate: the friendliness of the people in the U.S.A. varies a whole lot, and there are quite a few extremes. However, from what I've read, many Americans are outwardly friendly, and besides, overall, the U.S.A. is the #1 destination for immigrants around the world. Why would people immigrate to some overzealous xenophobic battlefield?
Now, here's a few places with a significant number of weapons in civilian hands per capita, and are still pretty friendly.

Alabama: though known to be quite religious, from what I've heard and read, people in Alabama have been at least perceived to be some of the friendliest people in the U.S.A..

Texas: even though there are, like everywhere else, bad apples, still is considered to have many friendly people. And Plano, Texas, has been reported to be rather gun crazy, but at the time the linked video has been created, had a murder AND nonnegligent manslaughter rate of only 0.4 (now it's 1.4), and now with the same statistic for Chandler, Arizona (,

By the way, California has some of the strictest weapon laws in the United States (other than overseas territories such as American Samoa or the Northern Marina Islands, which you probably have not heard of before), yet the people get a reputation for not being the most friendly, or at least rather arrogant or condescending (not that I have an issue with most Californians).

Perhaps my most ambitious project so far, why I'm going to start to make accounts on gun forums, plus my "threat level"

For awhile, I've thought about turning my Ultimate argument for the right to self defense & to keep & bear arms & armor into a video to get more views, convert more people and more attention on my YouTube channel and this blog. 

But, I've wondered how would I do this, since I have virtually no experience in creating videos on my own. I don't even really have a camera yet (except for a Samsung touchscreen that won't even upload videos), and I really want to make an impact in the gun debate for legal civilian arms and armor owners worldwide.

Now, here's my plan: create a Google docs slide, film it sliding through with a screen recording program, add some free music, and release it as a video for the world to see. I've started to create the document on March the 24th.

Right now, I am working on it. Here's the link to it: PLEASE comment on it, and make suggestions. The weekends the the coming spring break should give me an opportunity to do this.

By the way, I am seriously planning on creating accounts on gun forums because I am so sick and tired of large gun channels and popular gun people on the internet ignoring me when I present my ultimate argument and try to get them to share it. Perhaps the most well known allies I have are Counter Tyranny Ops and ProfessorDoom1. I will try to contact them to get them to at least look at my ultimate argument in hopes that they would share it.

Wrapping this up, as explained in the video below, software is at least being developed to determine people's threat level. My comment said "I think my threat score just might be off the charts.". To know why, just look at my internet network.

Thank you for reading.

Monday, March 21, 2016

Repost: Should we support Israel? If so, why or why not? And the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict exposed.

NOTE: BEFORE YOU REPLY, READ THE ENTIRE DOGGONE ARTICLE. I DO NOT ENDORSE ALL OF THE POLITICAL OPINIONS OR BACKGROUNDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO I USE AS SOURCES, AND I DO NOT SUPPORT HIM OUTSIDE OF THE SPREADING OF INFORMATION (in fact, QUESTION everything they say, especially when it comes to things such as immigration). ANY STUPID COMMENTS (OR EVEN COMMENTS WITH POOR GRAMMAR) WILL BE DELETED. POST ENOUGH DUMB COMMENTS AND I WILL SHUT DOWN THE COMMENTS SECTION. ALSO, I DO NOT HATE ALL JEWISH PEOPLE, FOR REASONS EXPLAINED ON , , ,, , & . And NO, I am NOT an Arab, or Muslim, & I don't call myself liberal). I also am not against Israel's existence, just their CURRENT GOVERNMENT. For more info, look up terms like “Palestinian Christians”, “Anti-Zionist Jews” & “Zionist Muslims”. Posting anti-Jewish comments (or racist comments for that matter) will get you blocked.
Heck, I even support certain Jewish groups, such as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (, Orthodox Jews united against Zionism (, True Torah Jews (, Jews against Islamophobia (, & even Jews against circumcision ( 

If you can't see the videos, look at the 1st 25 videos in this playlist (the 2nd one is not required): .

Why should you pull your support for the Israeli government? As explained in the videos below
(also be sure to watch the next 2 after the one above),

This is before you factor in how people in Israel treat people who are not BOTH Jewish AND Zionist ( ), & seem to actually ENJOY the killing of Palestinians ( Before you make the argument that, to the Israelis,  it would've been a “relief” to get revenge on people that they have been fighting with for a long time, just remember that 2 wrongs (particularly with collective punishment) does not make a right.

Before you self proclaimed Christians out there say that the Jews are the “chosen people” (again, I am NOT attacking them), you better think again. This is the same book that allows cutting open pregnant women's stomachs plus bashing babies on rocks (Isaiah 13:15-18 I believe), ALLOWS slavery (Leviticus 25:44), KILLING KIDS for cursing at their parents (Leviticus 20:9), doesn't let women to teach or have authority over a man (2:12) just to get started. Also, if you really follow the Bible, you better forget about wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), getting tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), eating pork (Leviticus 19:27), eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10-12), trimming hair on temples or beards (Leviticus 19:27), or having fortune tellers, fortune cookies or horoscopes (Leviticus 19:31). For some extra proof, watch a video called "Why there's no bible on my bookshelf". Besides, books such as the Bible is ultra hard to understand, & I guarantee you that god would've made the Bible a lot easier to understand if he really wrote it.

Also, look at Torah verses Deuteronomy 20 :16-18 , & Deuteronomy 20:10-15 to get started. And go read read , ,
Also, look at the playlist below.

Do you agree with this message? Spread it! Please #spamshare & #friendbomb for #palestine ! Share it with every supporter of Israel you know. Share this on Christian, Conservative & Israel-supporting websites, posts, forums & online communities. And don't forget to copy and save this via things like YouTube playlists, clouds (such as Google drive), & save this on your computer for safekeeping & passing the message to the rest of humanity. And support websites such as,,,,,,, & And be definitely be sure to donate to Ryan Dawson's anti-AIPAC trip (finish it by May the 7th);

I have a question for religious supporters of Israel: So if whoever governs the land does something bad you'll still support them? I have a quick question which I like to call the "Crazy, extreme 2 candidates dilemma" type of question. Here's the situation: everyone is forced to vote. People who don't vote would be caught & taken by the secret thought police to be forced to vote at gunpoint, with NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER.

Candidate A, Jesus of Nazareth Christ, premises to end the New world Order, the spying on average people (particularly acts like the NDAA, SOPA, CISPA & the "Patriot" act just to name a few), take chemicals (like fluoride) out of the water supply, repeal all weapon laws (on civilians without violent felonies) & more just to name a few. 

But, to fight the New World Order, the current Israeli government would get demolished and Israel may get a new one (but it would take time). 
Candidate B, Satan Devil, openly supports the New World Order, weapon laws on law abiding civilians, & threatens to send ANYONE AND EVERYONE who even gives the slightest clue of of questioning Candidate B would be sent to an indoctrination camp for re-brainwashing. Those who can't be brainwashed will be sent to a top secret concentration camp (actually, more like slaughterhouse) & never be heard from again. Candidate B fully supports Israeli government, to the extent that it will receive literally ALL the money it can possibly want, with free military support (as in the military would do everything for the Israeli government, including doing things from deporting Palestinians to antarctica to waging a crusade against those goatf***ing rag headed satanic-pedophile worshiping sand monkeys). When you're at the booth, who would you check? Candidate A or B? You can guess who I'll vote for. Who would you vote for? And you can't skip the vote. If you do, the Secret Thought Police would get you & force to to vote at gunpoint.

Thank you for reading this article. Please subscribe to my YouTube channel ( and support the channels I support, follow me on Pinterest (, Google+ (, support me and Ryan Dawson on Tsu (

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Opening a can of bloodworms: In case you're making assumptions about me, read this before debating me on social media, plus my political identity & religious views. An open message to liberals & conservatives

Be sure to watch the entire playlist through. When you're done reading this article, summarize what you read in this post plus the videos shown (except for the videos of "Beyond Scared Straight", "Elmo shirt guy" or "Gunnery sergeant Hartman", which you don't need to watch) to me either by P.M. or on the post we're talking on.
(You only need to watch the 1st video up to 12:03.)

This post is made becuase I'm so sick and tired of people (mainly on Pinterest) making assumptions and accusations about me and/or my source people. Thus, I made this purely to deal with those types. I'll be specifically addressing typical liberals and typical conservatives later in the article.

Let's open up the can of worms, shall we (not literally, of course)? And these aren't just any worms; they're bloodworms, specifically the types that can bite (I think the genus depicted below of "Glycera").

Before you debate with me, you should agree to the following terms:

4: you will not make false accusations of me and/or my source people, nor will you use ad-hominem attacks against me and/or my source people. 

3: Subjective labels (ie zealot) are not welcome, nor are they mature. When you use objective labels, make sure you get them right. You can do this by listening to the actual person, instead of what the media says about them. I have aspergers, and you should be doing better than me.

2: you will stay and debate with me no matter what. You will not block or ignore me. The only excuse is time constraints. Failure to do this will have me take screenshots of our messages for a "woodshed" compare and contrast of the statements between me and you, which will be released to the public with or without your consent.
1: by reading this message, if you intend to debate with me, you waive your rights to remain silent; you do, however, have the right to debate. I retain all rights to take screenshots of the messages you send me and share them with the public. There's no turning back. Since I am NOT a law enforcement agent, this is perfectly legal.

If you identify as being a white nationalist, white supremacist, Neo-Nazi, fascist, if you like Hitler, or anything like that, read these: 
U.S. Garrison Militarism: BS "Peking Order", Blind Social Conformity is evil,
Securing the future of caucasians, reducing xenophobia & critiquing fear of Islamic takeover
A few questions to (race & idealogical) supremacists; the feasibility & practicality of race supremacy
Open message to fascists, neo-Nazis & white supremacists; how does your solution work?, 
Why are white nationalists/supremacists, Neo-Nazis & fascists in the comments so often, some theories, a personal story & how to solve the problem.

If you identify as libertarian, socially liberal AND fiscally conservative, paleoconservative, classical liberal, or cosmotarian, then you're not required to read this.

If you identify as voluntarist or anarchist, you only need to watch the video below.

If you identify as an anarcho-capitalist, you only need to watch the video below and the video that comes after it.

Before we move on, visit the links provided to gain  a better understanding as to why I'm talking to people like this.

To self-proclaimed liberals:
Watch this to get your motivation up:

Before we really get started, I am NOT advocating a violent overthrow of the current government, for reasons explained in So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government? and the next 10 videos in the playlist.

Mandatory watch for liberals (optional for conservatives): 
. Also, be sure to summarize what's said in the video. Watch it to gain a better understanding of the following. 

I know how much you value being "anti-racist". I know that hate (and collectivism) is a serious problem around the world, but you should not be fixated on that.

Let's take war, for instance. Are you serious about being anti-war? Or, are you just using it as a catchphrase when it's trendy? Quit trying to defend the leader of your herd (Sanders, or worse, Obama, Clinton, etc). People such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and even Bernie Sanders are ALL pro-war. Why are you defending them, and not REAL anti-war people, such as Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or maybe Bob Barr, or while not quite as good, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich or Jill Stein (there goes the "lesser of 2 evils" argument)? 
If you can call my source people "racist" for maybe something the media said about them or even hold social views that I explicitly say that I don't agree with, then is it fair for me to call you a "war hawk" becuase you supported people who were actually pro-war?

When it comes to views on external issues (ie someone who is good as an information supplier but is not endorsed by me on social issue opinions), does it really matter? If so, then do you just accept literally ALL the words of a news anchor, or news writer WITHOUT question?

Along with this, what do you value more; loyalty to government, or true moral-ethical principles?

Would you trust a corporate and foreign lobby controlled government that not only, at best, negligently, or at worst, intentionally, murdered (remember Waco and Ruby Ridge) AND did involuntary experiments on its OWN people (Suspected Biological Weapon Test on Small-Town America (bacteria, not virus)Nazi style human experimentation by U.S. GovernmentProject MK-ULTRA: CIA Mind Control) (NOTHING you just saw was a conspiracy theory. Everything shown is backed up.), not counting the tens, if not, HUNDREDS of millions of people (many of them civilian non-combatants) killed from poorly done (or unnecessary) conflict interventions to poorly or unjustified (and illegal) wars of aggression? 

Also, what do you think is worse; treason, or the #1 killer in human history, democide, or death by government? According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, an estimated 262 MILLION civilians were slaughtered by governments in the 20th century alone, about 6 times the amount of military personnel in all pre-21st century combined? What is your line in the sand regarding unjustified or poorly justified treason and legitimate, moral and ethical defensive action?
Government is a double-bladed sword; on one side, it can protect our rights, provide basic necessary services and, to an extent, help protect our safety. On the other side, it can also cause an incomprehensible amount of damage.

Sometimes, we have to use unorthodox tactics to achieve the greater good (lookup the term "Chaotic good"). I'm willing to risk getting threatened, intimidated, killed, kidnapped, tortured or otherwise harmed if it means I am doing something good for the human species. Heck, it's practically one of my few true life motivations (to make planet Earth a better place & the human species happier and have animals and nature being treated much better before I leave this place). What matters to me, an individual, doesn't matter quite as much as my species or planet. 

Remember great historical figures such as Ghandi? What if he was so intimidated by the British government and social standards that he got little to no progress done? Chances are, the British would rule over India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and so on and so forth to this day at worst, or, at best, held on longer. What if Malala Yousafzai shut up when the Taliban attacked her, and what would've happened to education opportunities for females? 
Plus, what if the troops fighting the Axis during World War 2 were too scared to fight? And the Axis got access to highly advanced technology, such as atomic weapons? Chances are, planet Earth would be a very different place to live. 

I know that everyone has their fears, and fear has kept us and our ancestors, and probably will keep our descendents alive. But, we should not be paralyzed or affected by it so badly that we can't do what is necessary. It is exactly why I want people to watch the video before reading for several reasons. The reasons are that, not only are many Americans aren't up to speed on this (especially those who identify themselves as "liberal" or "progressive", not that I intend to attack all of them), but also, perhaps by human nature & probably made worse by our culture, many are too lazy or even scared to use unorthodox tactics, even when THEIR lives & the lives of loved ones would directly depend on it. 

I definitely do NOT want "Wolves", which are those who prey on others. I don't really want sheep, the average who don't do much good. I want more than porcupines, those who will defend themselves and maybe a few others but will only defend others under rather strict condition. What I want, and believe we need, are sheepdogs, those who will protect others, and willing to put themselves at risk if necessary.

Doesn't this seem a bit ironic, since many of you advocate disarming civilians, but leave one of the most violent institutions in the entire world's history still armed past the teeth? Does that seem like putting the cart before the horse?

Back to how much you value being "anti-racist", don't trust the SPLC or ADL. Look at the 1st 16 videos in the playlist below. You do not need to summarize or even watch these, but you do need to watch these if you have the slightest grain of trust for either the SPLC or ADL.

And get your emotions under control. You don't like it when conservatives are egoistic, and most people don't like it when you're emotional. I have lots of experience debating people on the internet, and I know how to manipulate emotions. But, I often end up getting emotional responses without even trying to manipulate emotions!

Gee whiz. Talk about double standards!

None of these are rhetorical questions; they're real questions that I not only demand to be answered, but also, for you to ask yourself.

To self-proclaimed conservatives (mostly an edited excerpt of The broken/convoluted uses & definitions of "racist". You should also read Philosophy & social issues rant: Savage vs Civilized dichotomy, oversimplification, gray areas, collectivism, hypocrisy & double standards. You do not have to summarize either one of them, but it is a good idea to read them for the purpose of understanding this part of the article).

Also, if you're pro war in any way, shape, or form, watch the video below.

Before you say "I'm not pro war, I'm anti-terrorism", remember that that's like anti-gunners trying to say "Let's stop calling it gun control and start calling it massacre prevention". Just as strict weapon laws can actually cause massacres, believe it or not, it it the U.S. government's occupation of other countries and improperly getting involved in foreign affairs that is the cause of terrorism, which is supported by NATO, Israel and Saudi Arabia (look this up for yourself). Many of you are only anti-terrorism for white Christians, and many of you care less for non-Christians and/or people who are ethnically Arab.

If you do not directly hate all Muslims, you do not need to read this. If you hate Islam and/or disagree with the belifs and/or behaviors of Muslims without hating them directly, you also do not need to read this.

I know that a good amount of you who are reading this are not racists to the point that you would turn someone down or otherwise discriminate against them simply for their race. But, how about what their wearing, rather it be a Kufi or hijab (believe it or not, some Orthodox Christians wear hijabs, and there are Jewish sects who wear burqas, NOT that I advocate hijab or want people to wear face coverings in public)? 

Many of you dislike Muslims to the point where they would discriminate against them when they have not committed a crime yet. But, this does not end here; there are conservatives who ABSOLUTELY hate the guts of Muslims and Arabs (ESPECIALLY Palestinians), and treat Islam, Muslims, Palestine, Palestinian people and the Hamas government (and maybe ISIS) as one element. For some proof, go on the internet and look in the comments section of any political Israel-related content, like this for example. Many of these people have no clue that Arabs and Muslims who support Israel (and that there are Muslims who acted good to Jews and Christians, and are not Islamists like what ISIS or the Taliban has or whatever is in that case. Plus, not all Muslims share that many beliefs or have a similar mentality. I've addressed similar issues hereand StormCloudsGathering has touched upon a similar, related problem here), and that Jews are not perfect.
I know that a lot of stereotypical Christian-conservatives are going to say "How dare you love and support goatf***ing rag headed satanic-pedophile worshiping sand monkeys over god's chosen people!? (whew)".
I never said that I liked Jews any more or any less than Muslims; I am just saying that they are human, and I view them as that. Rather or not you agree with that, one thing is for sure; Jewish people can be just as loving, caring, and kind as Muslims or Arabs can be, but at the same time, can be every bit as hateful, heartless and cruel as Arabs or Muslims can be. Just becuase a particular group of people does not seem innocent to me and/or I disagree with the way they do things does not mean that I'll directly hate all of them.
Jews are humans, and thus, every bit as capable to steal without proper justification (ie survival/emergency), damage things when not necessary, rape, kill outside of defense of self and/or others and so on as any other group in the human species can. This is a fact of life; they are like everyone else, and like the rest of the human species, lack genes that create perfect humans. I have nothing against the entire Jewish people, even though i disagree with some of the things they often do, their beliefs, and even if I hate individuals, I do not hate entire groups. I even have at least 1 Jewish friend/ally on Pinterest, and support Jewish groups such as the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (, Orthodox Jews united against Zionism (, True Torah Jews (, Jews against Islamophobia (, and even Jews against circumcision ( 

(To understand the following, read this.)
By your own logic, if you collectively hate all Muslims for a few things they have done, then you should be out hunting down Jews (including unarmed child and elder civilians), flamethrowing and machine gunning those you can't capture on sight, and taking those whom you do capture and gut them with chainsaws, all WITHOUT trial and in violation of the Declaration of Natural Rights.
But I know that you won't do that, becuase Jews are the "chosen" people according to the same book that allows cutting open pregnant women's stomachs plus bashing babies on rocks (Isaiah 13:15-18 I believe), ALLOWS slavery (Leviticus 25:44), KILLING KIDS for cursing at their parents (Leviticus 20:9), doesn't let women to teach or have authority over a man (2:12) just to get started. Also, if you really follow the Bible, you better forget about wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), getting tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), eating pork (Leviticus 19:27), eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10-12), trimming hair on temples or beards (Leviticus 19:27), or having fortune tellers, fortune cookies or horoscopes (Leviticus 19:31). For some extra proof, watch a video called "Why there's no bible on my bookshelf" (below). Besides, books such as the Bible is ultra hard to understand, & I guarantee you that god would've made the Bible a lot easier to understand if he really wrote it.

You probably want to prohibit the practicing of Islam regardless of how respectful or not individuals are to the rights of others, yet many of you hypocritically demand that your beliefs are forced upon others, and as I said before, you may be about as bad as your enemy, and perhaps worse than your enemy's predecessors.
(I got this from

I'd like to add that it is a violation of natural rights to force prayer or religious study or to limit speech except in extreme cases (ie non-educational videos depicting real abuse). Anyone who has done real research about internet pornography doesn't have such one-sided views on the issue, and would probably see the way its presented on the site as bogus.

(None of these images belong to me. All belong to their original creators. The sites that they came from are linked above.)

Not to mention how you get P.O.'d over people from developing countries coming over to European Christian majority countries, yet don't talk about the actual root of the problem.

Again, talk about double standards!

While you're at it, get your ego under control. You don't like it when liberals are emotional, and most people don't like it when you're egoistic. Don't be like angry in-your-face Casey from Beyond Scared Straight.

(Watch this from 3:38 onward.)

Now, what IF I caught you committing violence against civilians (ie shooting up a Mosque)? Here's what I'll do to you assuming I'm able to do this;

1st, advise you of your Miranda rights, like this:

"Sir/mam, you have the right to remain silent. Anything this you say from now on CAN/MAY be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to privately talk to a legal team before questioning, and have them present with you during questioning. If you can't afford one on your own, I'll help you get one if you wish. You can decide at any time to exercise any of these rights and to not answer any question and to not make any statements. Do you have any questions, concerns, or other comments?"

2nd, While you're in the holding cell, I'll make sure that you have good food to eat and clean, safe water to drink (you may end up getting nutraloaf, but only if you act violently enough).

And 3rd, after your trial, I'll make sure that the punishment you receive does not exceed the crime you commit by a significant margin, nor is it cruel or unusual, particulary relative of the crime(s) you've been convicted of.

How many of these rights will you give to Muslims, Arabs, or those other people you hate? For the most part, I can only assume that you won't give them all of these rights.

To everybody; what you just read is just with me, and I'm actually quite nice when those interacting with me are being reasonable and practice good self-control. There are plenty of people out there who have the mentality of, if you disagree with them, they'll flip you off with both fingers and shout "**** U AND KISS MY ****". I am not one of them, which explains why I haven't really name called in this article.

(Got this from

By now, many liberals would be crying their eyes out, screaming their vocal cords out and tearing their scalp from their skull, and conservatives are crashing their keyboard after getting their ego hurt worse than a violent gang member getting locked up in a pink cell.

And, liberal OR conservative, you're lucky that I didn't get someone like Deputy John Lyle to communicate with you. 
Or even worse, Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. Warning: harsh language in the video below.

(The video below is a bonus to represent typical liberals/conservatives coming into a debate against someone like me thinking that they're going to win using regular tactics, and coming out find out otherwise, just like misbehaving brats coming into a youth intervention program thinking that they're tough, and coming out finding out that they aren't quite as tough as they once thought. And no, I am not like the inmates or criminals, nor is this a threat or intended to be one.)

I wonder how many people will react like the Elmo shirt guy.
In his defense...
Or be like Triggly Puff...

Now, onto my political affiliation: I consider myself to be a socially mid left and fiscally right libertarian. If you disagree with libertarians, go watch Is Libertarianism really corporatism?, and Capitalism (the video below and the video that comes after it).

As for my religious belifs, I consider myself to be a weak-agnostic-atheist. Simply put, I personally lean towards not believing in god, yet won't say that others can't make contact with god.

Don't like me and/or this article? Please, go ahead and drop all of your thoughts in the comments section below. Let all of your emotion, hate, resentment, bitterness, ego, and so on and so forth flow into your comment. I would like to see how liberals and conservatives would react.

Do you like my "Read if you're making assumptions about me" post?

Google+ Badge