Memorial Day: Thanks For Being Dead, Soldier

A rather twisted religious ritual takes place today. Adherents to the statist faith will take to the streets in parades to worship the many dead who have given up their lives for their deity, the State. Military hardware will roll down traditionally civilian roads, and the people this hardware oppresses will call it freedom. They call this ceremony “Memorial Day”.

Memorial Day

Memorial Day

It is one of the more bizarre sacraments this religion practices, in that is a direct celebration of death. Most of their observances tend to gloss over the fact that they are a death cult, speaking instead of ill-defined notions of freedom, democracy, equality, or superiority over other such cults. Memorial day instead celebrates the deaths of all American war dead, a number which exceeds 1.32 million people.

To those not under the influence of the cult’s leaders, surely this seems rather morbid. Few of us can imagine the rationale behind a national holiday celebrating over a million deaths. Celebrating the holocaust for example would cause one to be run out of town, and rightfully so. For them however, this all seems perfectly normal, even noble. In fact it is a necessary act if the cult is to maintain its army of slaves.

The celebration serves to instill in the impressionable minds of the young, a sense of honor in being killed by a stranger half way across the world. Without that, it would be difficult if not impossible to keep future generations adding themselves to the pile of bodies created by the war machine. Since, in theory, there is no monetary compensation that can accommodate the loss of one’s own life, superstition, paranoia, and a complex system of irrational beliefs are necessary to keep the scheme going.

So the annual celebration is promoted by the propagandists of the televisions and newspapers. Each end of the political spectrum takes to the streets and airwaves to proclaim proudly and loudly that they are more supportive of the killing than the other. There will be parties, barbecues, picnics, and parades. People take the day off of work. Even competing religions will offer their support, by telling their flock to pray for the statist dead. Anyone who dares challenge the beliefs will be labeled a heretic and even threatened with violence.

Memorial day, put simply, is war propaganda. Propaganda to support the lies of wars past, and to pave the way for the lies of wars future. It is a testament to the effectiveness of the cult of the omnipotent State’s propaganda machine, that so many otherwise good people would turn out in such numbers to celebrate wholesale slaughter. Be fearful when you see them proudly marching down your street with their banners, as they care not for your well being. Anyone who would celebrate such morbidity is every bit as deranged as any serial killer could ever hope to be. If their masters today ordered you into battle against your will, they would cheer loudly. If you so abhorred killing that you would rather flee than serve in their horde, they would label you the worst of all criminals and celebrate your imprisonment.

It is no measure of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society, and it is a profoundly sick society that you live in today. Militarism is not a job, it’s a welfare program for sociopaths, yet its recipients are hailed as the saviors of mankind. Go ahead, turn on your television, head to your city’s central square, watch in horror as the people who surround you celebrate over a million deaths, and know that you are immersed in the most depraved zoo of savagery that mankind has ever known. The fact that it is decorated with colorful banners, and flowers, and their finest dress clothes, should only serve to further putrefy the stench.

 

If you appreciate the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]

  • Not liberal

    True story

  • Tony_Voluntary

    Cop Block shared this. Lots of butt hurt. Even, as you stated, threats of violence. Good to have people like you around who are not afraid to speak their mind.

    • Karl Schipul

      Not sure how Cop Block sharing AND approving a post by Cantwell is butthurt. Sounds more like the opposite to me.

      • Tony_Voluntary

        The comments people left on the link were full of butthurt.

        • Karl Schipul

          I see. I think if you said “Cop Block shared this. Lots of butt hurt on the resulting comment page.” that it would have been more clear.

          • kubel

            I had no problem interpreting it as he suggested.

  • Waldetto

    “There is nothing that will make people love you more, and hate you more, than telling the truth!” – Stefan Molyneux

  • mick

    I applaud your courage to write and share this essay, you are absolutely correct mad respect

    • Johnathon Favors

      “Courage”? To write a stupid article in a country where free speech is guaranteed by the constitution? You’re an idiot.

      • John Coleman

        It’s abusive bullies like you that critics are braving. As for the constitution, what a joke.

        • mobetta

          You crying dude? Free speach is a full contact sport. If youre afraid of “bullies,” youre what, 12? Grow up. If you cant stand criticism i think youre in for a victimhood complex.

          • John Coleman

            You are projecting. Yours is the behaviour that is straight out of the playground. Criticism would be pointing out flaws you see in the arguments or behaviours of others which is what Mr Cantwell is engaged in above. Calling people names and demeaning them isn’t “criticism”, it’s emotional abuse.

            Whereas a grown man would be able to own such puerile behaviour and change it, you are clearly incapable of this, you prefer to excuse yourself. These are the acts of a true coward.

          • mobetta

            Cute. Id say you just proved my point. Your comment drips of naivety. Emotional abuse? If you are “emotionally abused” by some comment from the internet id say you have the mentality of a child. You are weak and find your only recourse for “bullies” (aka. Critics) is to pretend you can wish them away. Short of threat s of violence what you call bullying, has long be described as “debate” in this country. Maybe instead of being a bitch,(emotional abuse?) you could consider wearing pants or pee standing up?

          • Samuel Blantz

            Mentality of a child? I don’t know man, some kids out there got thicker skin than a drunk redneck. Also who gets bullies confused with critics? He/she can’t be that sheltered. At least I hope not.

      • Rezist2Exist

        The Constitution guarantees NOTHING, that’s why the NSA is storing your emails in their servers, that’s why the police are pulling you into checkpoints “for your safety”, that’s why the U.S hasn’t made a formal declaration of war since WW2.

        • mobetta

          Youre right. We the people have that duty

      • kubel

        Courage because it results in oatracism from statist friends and family who are deep in the cult.

  • David Phillips

    Round of applause. Bravo.

  • mobetta

    You live with the freedoms that those men died for. Your site and your immature ideas about the human condition would not be possible without those men. A brain dead chimp could understand that, sadly you cant. Anarchy is fun until someone with a big gun shoots you in the face. It seems totally lost on you that your attempts to disparage this nation fallen, on Memorial day, is only further proof that their sacrifice was not in vain. In what other nation could you so brazenly attack its sacred cow and be premitted to do so unfettered by the “state?”i get it, you need the attention for your HUGE ego which i have a sneaking suspicion is so inflated due to your physical short comings…Its cool. Maybe if you had the testicular fortitude you could have served and altered that sociopath ratio you claim to know is through the roof!

    • Ray

      Quack Quack Doubleplusgood Duckspeaker.

      • David Phillips

        I’d very much like to know what these “freedoms” are that these guys talk of. The United States does not even rank in the top 10 to those who are capable of reading.

        • Samuel Blantz

          Because most people are too fucking lazy to pick up a book and learn. Because schools would rather teach about god instead of science. Because parents wan’t their kids to be good little mini-me’s. Because our society is free to learn but not free to certify.

    • David Phillips

      What Freedoms? Freedom to choose a Democrat or a Republican? Freedom to choose paper or plastic? You can’t even choose plastic in parts of California anymore.

      Freedom is an illusion.

      • mobetta

        Well maybe if you got off you ass and did something you wouldnt have all this free time to stew about your self described Freedom less exsistence. You sound like a spoiled little child. Nobody gives anybody freedom. You take it and what you make of it is up to you. Id say from your comments you arent doing much but bitch about others while providing no solution. Dont worry bro, when shit get real bad and they start putting people in camps, youll still JUST BE BITCHING.

        • Samuel Blantz

          Mobetta, you’re asking the impossible. People are too lazy to stand up for anything. They think a little sign, or sitting down, or praying about it will fix anything. I tried working with Occupy before. It’s pointless because they do nothing but bitch and draw crap.

          I myself am a Veteran and I agree that the country leadership is fucked up, there are more important things that need to be done. Everyone has the ability to either lead or to follow, if people want change then they need to make it happen by being active not just in the streets or behind a screen, but by working in the institution to help change it from the inside out and by not being afraid to voice your opinion and by being willing to put on the boots and experience what you’re against first hand.

          Also David Phillips I am glad that some parts of Cali are getting rid of plastic bags. Since people are too retarded to properly dispose of them.

          I support other veterans, I support select military members, and I would gladly work in the military again in a time of major war or martial law. While my leaders seem to have their heads in a fuzz, I know where my loyalties lay. For my people. I’ve taken beatings for civilian protesters, and people still call me a baby killer(Even though I never shot a child.). I deal with disrespect every day, but I won’t let it change me. I will still be a social enemy to all sides of society and humanity.

          Also anyone who thinks there could ever be true freedom or pure peace is a moron. You have to have balance. Hell the reason we are here is due to violent design billions of years ago in the mix of the peaceful voids that surround us. Why should we as just another organism be so special?

          • Kitties nRainbows

            Maybe we just don’t need “leaders”, period.

          • mobetta

            Cause everyone doing their own thing always works out great.

          • Samuel Blantz

            Leaders, educators, role models are all a very important part of progressing.

            Some people want a good leader who will show them the right path to walk, learn, protect, and stand for.

            If every single human being right now and went out to go do their own thing the entire human species would go insane far beyond what it is right now.

            Also in a world of “Pure Anarchy” you will still have leaders. People will look up to the strongest and the smartest to guide them into survival. Leadership is just a natural part of being for most humans.

            Leadership also don’t have to be about “I’m the alpha you bitch”. Some leaders (Like my old Squad Leader) treat their followers as equals and more like offspring than anything else. They can guide with a gentle and caring hand while still showing the ways of proper protection and education.

            I wish you luck in your quest to make the world become a worse hell hole. <3

          • Nick James

            this is basically me too. well said

        • Adam

          Military confiscated guns at Katrina, they perform policing actions that violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, they regularly train in the United States for scenarios that place the civilians as the enemies of the state. I bet Nazi soldiers claimed they were securing freedom for their countrymen, too. I don’t pay homage to “yes men” that don’t follow their oaths to the law of the land.

          • mobetta

            I will be the 1st guy to shoot a soldier in the face if he tries to quarter in my home or confiscate my means of self defense. Sorry to burst your bubble but our govenors are given the authority to request federal troops. 100% legal. There are extreme situations that require it. George Washington led troops against his onw citizens. Katrina,Whiskey rebellion, SHIT HAPPENS. Have we had a military dictatorship? Are we under marshall law? If those are you biggest complaints id say the sacrifice of ALL those who gave their lives deserve recognition. You dont have to suck some WWII vet off behind the VFW but let the cynicism go for one day. There has to be one war and its dead that would be worthy of recognition. There are so many to pick.

          • Samuel Blantz

            And Mobetta I won’t blame you if you do. I will shoot the first civilian who dares light a Molotov or brandish a weapon at me or my fellows, or other civilians.

            The sad thing is however that there will be military types who will act like assholes and kick in doors for no good reason and assault/abuse civilians who are innocent. On the other side of the coin you’ll have civilians who will take it out on military people who had nothing to do with the situation.

            My sights are open to not only civilians but to my own if need be. I will quickly put a fellow uniform bearer to sleep if he or she dares defy the people we took an oath to protect. I remember my oath very well and I keep it in my heart day and night, even though I am no longer in service. Harm a civilian and you’re a terrorist in my eyes. Harm anyone who has done nothing to you, you’re a terrorist as well. Those are my rules uniform or not.

            For those who are probably about to call me a treasonous asshole. No, killing unarmed civilians is treason because it desecrates us all as a whole in the military. Most of you don’t even remember your Oath which is pathetic. Even in a state of martial law our jobs will be to protect our civilians, especially from each other. Our jobs will mean for us to help rebuild, steady, and reup structural integrity of our society and our environments. We have a job to do, and anyone who would willing open fire without due cause or abuse civilians or attack military personnel for no reason is a terrorist.

          • Nick

            You’re an idiot

    • Rezist2Exist

      Emotional appeals and ad hominems. (yawn)

      “War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as
      something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a
      small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the
      benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.”

      – Two time Medal of Honor recipient USMC Major General Smedley Butler

      • David Phillips

        He thinks that American Militarism and Imperialism is what makes Freedom.

        • mobetta

          The American military is what it is, a world class killing machine. Did i call it the great Freedom maker? No. I have no illusions about what militaries do but to dscount the deaths of REVOLUTIONARY war vets is sophmoric and not worthy of any further discussion.

          • Adam

            Revolutionary war veterans were not the only people fighting for freedom. Every surgeon, nurse, smuggler, privateer, militiaman, scout, spy, saboteur, and supplier of goods/armaments toward the war effort were all fighting for freedom. You pat the guy on the back who was given a rifle and the uniform, and who marched and drilled; but did you even stop to think about everyone else that was responsible for the freedoms we all enjoy? That would include everyone standing up and fighting for our freedoms today – and, sadly, the military are not high on that list (many returning veterans are, but most of them never refused an unconstitutional order – say, like going to war without Congressional declaration – unconstitutional = illegal). Besides, civilian militias and guerrilla warfare are much more cost-effective, and much harder to manipulate into unconstitutional actions.

          • mobetta

            The war of 1812 says otherwise. After making your same mis calculation the US disbanded its standing army following the revolution. White House 2.0 isnt that bad I guess?

          • Ray Cote

            They died to replace one tyranny with another.

      • mobetta

        War is an extension of politics by other means. The military is a tool for politicans. Disparagement towards the military is like getting mad at the bullet that killed you instead of the guy behind the trigger.

        • Tony_Voluntary

          Just following orders is always a great defense, right?

          • Samuel Blantz

            During my service time I was harsh on my fellow troopers. I did not allow anyone I thought who would harm innocent civilians out of the wire with me. We kept out oaths and our morals. But I guess you think all military people are the same don’t you? We are not all cowards who pull the “Just following orders” routine. Some of us refused orders, some of us took the person who gave us a bogus order to high command to have their asses handed to them via UCMJ.

        • paendragon

          Incorrect. Soldiers are taught they have a duty to disobey unjust orders.

          • Ray Cote

            It’s nice that they’re taught to do it but they never do.

          • paendragon

            “Never” is an unjust generalization; many principled servicemen and women resign, go to jail, &/or get dishonorably discharged for disobeying bad orders. It just rarely makes the papers.

          • mobetta

            Have you served? How do you know. I personally refused two orders while i was deployed. I believed in one instance it negligently risked the lives of me and my team another that put civilians in danger. I wont go into detail but suffice to say i refused a superior who wanted to take shortcuts. Id do it again even after the BS it caused me personally. I am not a robot and i never met one in Afghanistan. I do not rely on others to make my moral distinctions.

            It might be hard for you to understand but for those who have served dying is not the worst outcome.

          • Samuel Blantz

            Same here. Most people don’t know it but we are allowed to refuse orders that are unjust. Most of these civvies have no idea how complex being a soldier actually is. It’s more than slapping on a uniform and kicking in doors. There is a lot of humanitarian work, a lot of paperwork, medical checkups, training, legalities, and questioning of each other and our leaders. All these people think we do is bomb children, rape women, and execute innocent men in front of their families. These ignorant kids have no idea what the reality is.

            I served as 12B10(Combat Engineer.) Which most people think is all about blowing stuff up. IN reality we do more rebuilding and more road clearing than anything else. Out job is to make roads and paths safer for everyone, especially civilians. Very rare will an engineer be called up to blow a bridge, take out a wall, or tactically demo a building, most of the time they have SF or EOD handle special case work like that because 99% of the time you’re not even there to blow anything up.

            Most soldiers, even infantry don’t see live combat, even fewer are actually in firefights lasting more than 30 minutes. No they are not sociopaths, they are also free thinking human beings who have the right to say “Fuck you, Sir” if given a bogus order. Don’t blame the grunts and lowbies and kiddies. Blame the leadership that fails to lead by good example. Some leaders are damn good, others are scumbags who just want recommendations and medals.

          • mobetta

            Youre a POG dude. Sry but youre full of shit.

          • Samuel Blantz

            Never said I was or wasn’t a POG, nor did I ever claim to be in combat or outside the wire. I simply stated what the reality of things are. More soldiers are left on base than those who actually go out of the wire, you would know that.. Nice anger management there buddy. I guess you didn’t read it fully. It’s okay, it’s expected from most American people. As you could notice if you had half a brain I did not say anything referring to combat or non-combative. I simply stated that I refused to follow an order. Order’s do not have to be combat based if that is what you’re focusing on. If you’re only focus is combat then please go to the VA and get mental help, there is more to life than combat.

            Anyone who brags about being outside the wire is lying. Anyone who brags about kills is either a sociopath or a liar. Anyone who throws up the POG card randomly for no reason is most likely a POG. Also there is nothing wrong with being a POG. Everyone was one just like everyone was a FNG. If you was actually in the military you would know that now wouldn’t you? Can you recite your oath? What was your MOS/Unit/ETS? Who did you get deployed with? You would also know how to read and not get prissy like a line cook.

            Also just some corrections.
            You’re*
            Sorry*
            You’re*

          • mobetta

            You said you werent Infantry so by definition, POG. Nobody is demeaning you by stating what youve already said. I have seen combat and you havent. I have served on the line in a PIR, you havent. My point was very specific to your claims about what combat is or isnt like.

            “You’re a POG dude. Sry but youre full of shit.”

            Anger seething from that statement? You have a very large issue with inferiority. Did i call out your man hood? No. Yet you see fit to call me a sociopath…Interesting. Stay in your lane dude. That was my point but you went on some tangent and showed your true colors.

          • Samuel Blantz

            Well actually I have no need for manhood since the reason most of society is fucked is because of that form of egotistical madness. The only reason I assumed you was angry when typing that statement was because of the typos. Your other comments seem to be well done, that one seemed half assed, which in most cases shows the person is distraught. If I was wrong then I apologize. Also you don’t have to be infantry to see combat. Engineers get ambushed on route clearance all the time. Also I never said you didn’t see combat. Some people will see it every day, they are the unlucky few, most won’t see it once. That’s all I was saying dear.

            You clearly was one of those few by the way you’re so judgmental. It’s fine. I still would like to note that if you was one of those few please go to a VA and get some help. It’s a hard thing to do but the VA can help you if you’re patient.

          • mobetta

            Being ambushed during route clearance is not combat. Im sorry but youre just wrong.

          • Samuel Blantz

            Please look up the definition of “combat”. Also get off your high horse and go get help at the VA. You think bad shit only happens to infantry then you clearly are either lying or need serious medical evaluation. I wish you luck in your life and will hope that you can learn that we are all in this together as equals.

          • mobetta

            Lol. Im just correcting your errors. I am here to help.

          • Samuel Blantz

            Well I appreciate you pointing out those errors. I just felt you was trying to say that I as a person was trying to say something I wasn’t. Either way the discussion is pointless. Back on the main topic however, why do so many people think that us military types are all bad guys? I personally don’t understand it.

          • Ray Cote

            So you were off murdering people in Afghanistan.

          • mobetta

            Pretty much.

          • John Coleman

            And if they get that judgement wrong they can be shot on the spot or face court martial? Remind me again of these freedoms they fight for.

          • paendragon

            Our only true freedom comes from our right to self-defense. Occasionally, when another large gang, also occasionally called a foreign nation’s “Army,” wants to take your life and freedom away, a bunch of people will sign on to defend everyone, by joining our “Army,” and so far, it’s worked (see WWI, WWII).

          • John Coleman

            What happens if I want to defend myself against the large gang who claim a right to deny me my freedom in my own country? Why is it legitimate to take up arms against foreign states and not the local one?

          • paendragon

            Is that supposed to be a counter-argument?! In no way does your question contradict my statements.

          • John Coleman

            The concept of country is purely abstract, if it is acceptable to form defensive groups to attack people who deny freedoms, this is true irrespective of the “country” the oppressors come from. Sometimes armies do this, but rarely.

            All governments back their decrees by deadly force, if you attempt to resist their law enforcement, they will ultimately kill you.

            The application of a consistent set of principles that remove abstractions, completely undermines the the nationalistic behaviour of the typical soldiers.

            The political and economic complexities WWI and WWII simply cannot be reduced to such simplicity. But again, once the irrational abstraction of nations is off the table these wars make no sense.

          • mobetta

            There have been wars from the begining of time. Call it a tribe, clan, city-state, or NATION, nobody has a monopoly on war.

          • John Coleman

            There have been peaceful societies as well.

          • paendragon

            If the concept of “country” is purely abstract, then so are the concepts of “private property” and all other geographically limited borders, such as all the basic property rights to defensively secure one’s own home.

          • John Coleman

            I pretty much agree with what you say above, my point was badly made. Aggressive wars are contraventions of private property rights and should be viewed as criminal. However, the existence of a foreign group of aggressive thieves cannot be legitimately used to rob from the local population, that’s inherently contradictory.

            There’s a huge difference between a governments claim that a given territory (and usually its inhabitants) are their property and a claim to private property. One can present evidence that one acquired private property through legitimate means such as a purchase receipt, evidence of homesteading and so forth.

            I have no problems with there being voluntary private militias to protect property. I don’t accept the legitimacy of a tax funded army to protect a “country”.

          • paendragon

            Government, (best conceived of by Albert Einstein as the largest collectively-owned insurance company) is a great idea if and when it doesn’t compete with (much less pre-empt) private enterprise; it’s OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. Same goes for defending every other need: government can defend the country, but not restrict the citizens’ rights to also own and bear their own arms to defend them selves; government can and should enhance private defense, but never replace it!

            Still, if any one or more of the ‘owners’ who wants to can opt out of defending the ‘company’ (country) whenever they want to, pretty-much by definition everyone will selfishly do so, and so none of it will be defended at all ever anyway.

            Same goes for the most basic rule of law, the Golden Rule (most simply put as “Do Not Attack First!”). Whenver anyone says “Well, what if I refuse to agree to that rule?” they are thereby also implicitly making a death-threat against everyone else, by pretending they are entitled to reserve their false right to attack (thereby innocent) other people first. See how that works?

            Ditto for Cantwell’s own officially stated criminal prreference for drunk driving: He wants the right to at least threaten to endanger everyone else and their children, simply to satisfy his own addiciton to pleasure by turning off his brain. And he probably wants the ‘right’ to force insurance companies to grant him crime insurance so he can do it, which of course only enslaves others by forcing the sale on them: “I Chris Cantwell hereby propose to murder by car you or your children, but the good news is, I’ll pay you or your other surviving relatives for my privileges, OK?! Well, obviously, being forced to Submit like a muslim to a forced sale, and to be enslaved, is NOT OK. Ever.

            Same with being forced to endure being invaded by criminal gangs because those who are in the same geographical area as you are, want to indulge in criminal negligence by not paying the minimum insurance necessary for Defense. CAPISCE?

            Like liberals, they want the right to not-defend them selves to apply, even though doing so endangers others’ lives, too.

          • John Coleman

            So following you logic, a government should not be able to both make law and enforce law? It could enforce law, but then if it doesn’t make law it is not a government.

          • paendragon

            This “government” you pretend has to follow certain attributes, in order to qualify as being a valid one, is nothing more than the people we hire to collect the insurance dues, to project the infrastructure needs and divide by the projected number of citizens, and, when dealing with any/all inter-citizenry conflicts, to determine who started it, and that’s it. There is only one real law, and all since any others are just some circumstantial situational permutations of it, so NO, those same people don’t ever get to “make ” laws.

          • John Coleman

            Your philosophy seems to be based on the fallacy of false equivalence. Government isn’t hired and is not an insurer or protector. You use the verbage of the free market to describe whit is essentially a Mafia style operation. It’s like saying rape = love making.

            Ultimately the government don’t make laws, other than in the sense that they agree and write them down. It is a willing enforcing class who make such “laws” happen.

          • paendragon

            No, it’s your presumption that forcing insurance on people who choose to use your territory is somehow wrong, which is wrong.

            When I and my neighbors own property, and get together to agree that no one can use our roads without paying an insurance premium, called a “tax,” we’re only exercising our natural property rights.

            Your problem is you don’t like the pre-existing arrangements your own ancestors devised, and want the false right to remain there without paying into them, simply because you were born into it and weren’t consulted before birth – like any petulant child saying “Well, I didn’t ask to be born!”

            😉

          • John Coleman

            An insurance company cannot throw me in prison for owning the wrong type of vegetation or having the wrong kind of sex.

            An insurer can optionally not contract with me, they can disassociate or claim damages if I defraud them. A government claims it can legitimately do way more than that.

          • paendragon

            Let’s think of the purpose of “government” in the most basic insurance terms: car insurance. Why do people have to pay for it? Because they can and will endanger others, simply by driving in their neighborhoods.

            Cars are inherently dangerous, and people are occasionally inattentively fallible. Failing to pay for car insurance is an act of criminal negligence; one is asserting a false right to endanger others at will; one is thereby issuing a threat to everyone else, by avoiding one’s concommitant corollary responsibilities to be at least prepared in advance, and in good faith, to pay others for one’s potentially dangerous mistakes.

            And I’m talking about the most basic principles for the existence of governments; you’re adding in all the symptoms of “bad laws” (which, as I’ve discussed before, ARE crimes in themselves, because they attack first).

            SO -Re: “A government claims it can legitimately do way more than that” – NO, “it” doesn’t!

            Certain real lilve individual human persons, known as criminals because of their choices, may and of course indeed do make such assertions and declarations, but “governments” don’t do anything, ever – “they” are really only always nothing more than groups of people.

            The only reason growing (and of course consuming) certain types of plants is banned is that they “can” be used to impair one’s driving ability, for instance. Same goes for alcohol – putting absolute restrictions on them is nonsensical, because they are only tools.

            If someone like Cantwell wants to drive drunk, he’s perfectly entitled to it – but ONLY IF AND WHEN he agrees to make some kind of sober arrangements in advance, to NOT endanger others; for instance if he were to build or rent a secure, walled and car-proof compound, where he could indulge his misanthropic tendencies by setting up a track with a maze of civilian cutouts or mannikin targets, where he could run them over to his little black heart’s content, without thereby endangering any other real live citizens.

            Same with driving stoned or on acid or cocaine.

            As for having the wrong types of sex – say you mean “with children” well pal, that’ll always be forbidden under the Golden Rule, because they are by definition non compus mentis, and so are unable to consent to it. If you mean homosexual sex, sure you might be able to indulge in it, but it’s inherently dangerous, so you wouldn’t be allowed to legally if you had any pre-existing arrangements with, say, a wife and children to support, because you’d be endangering their lives and secure livelihoods thereby, too (like if you were the breadwinner and died because of it). Rights only come with responsibilties, and only criminals try their hardest to get away from that FACT.

          • John Coleman

            Governments didn’t arise to deliver a social good, they arose at least in my part of the world, as the result of conquest. Foreign invaders arrived, killed those who resisted and enslaved the rest. That is the state, a parasitic hoard of administrators backed by violence arising from historical crimes.

            Social insurance existed prior to the state, your keep using this as an excuse just reflects your lack of knowledge of history.

            Without insurance, under common law, one is still liable to pay recompense for harms caused. Either by forfeiting property or income to repay victims. The purpose of insurance is protect assets in case of a claim. Forcing people to take insurance they do not want is no different in principle to a mafia protection racket. As I have said, if the roads were privatised, operators would insist on sobriety and probably insurance as well, and I would have no problem with this.

            The state has forbid all manner of sexual acts, in some states vibrators are illegal, in others oral sex and anal intercourse. Vaginal intercourse has also spread plenty of disease. If someone is dependant on a person who they fear may engage in dangerous activities, they should get a private contract with them, but really if you don’t trust someone you should not be dependant on them. There’s no reason to invoke the state.

          • paendragon

            What’s your part of the world? Because the American Indians weren’t conquered except by the plagues they got from the Spanish. If you think otherwise then you must be a liberal victimologist who has himself a complete lack of historical knowledge.

            Social insurance didn’t exist prior to the state, it only existed in SMALLER states before the families became clans, tribes, nations, states and empires.

            Forcing people to take out insurance bonds as advance collateral in my territory, on my property, is NOT the same as the Mafia.

            Your problem is you’re an infantile delinquent who has forgotten that others got here before you, SO they built up their own properties and made up their own rules.

            But since you were born into and onto their property, you’re acting butthurt because you didn’t get a prior say in building THEIR property, so you want to tear it all down.

            The roads were all originally built up by private individuals, who later voted to amalgamate into ever-larger groups, and to defer maintenance to every-larger insurance collectives over time.

            Their roads, their choices. Private roads still exist.

          • John Coleman

            Under Celtic law in stateless ancient Ireland men paid sureties into a collective pool that paid out if any of its members where found at fault. This is an altogether different business than that of a government extorting people to provide a legal monopoly and bogus protection racket like the mafia.

            There are many old social institutions that have been discarded because they were found to be unjust. I contend that the state should be amongst them.

            Your ad hominems, appeals to tradition and false equivalence fallacies aren’t arguments at all.

          • paendragon

            Migratory tribes WERE the “state” even back then.
            Ireland always had tribal seat areas, where the kings would lay down the law. They sure didn’t have no-fault laws, either. Just like with the Arabs, murder could be considered a “civil” matter, where were-gild had to be paid, but if you warred against the chieftains and kings, you’d get blood-eagled.

            Noticing that you only rail against the states others have set up for their property isn’t an ad-hominem.

            I don’t appeal to tradition, I appeal to individual property rights, while, since you don’t have any and won’t work for them, you declare you’re an “anarchist,” which really only proclaims your own infantile delinquent criminal negligence to everyone.

          • John Coleman

            Rothbard writes about the “kings” of Ireland:

            “But what of the elected “king”? Did he constitute a form of State ruler? Chiefly, the king functioned as a religious high priest, presiding over the worship rites of the tuath, which functioned as a voluntary religious, as well as a social and political, organization. As in pagan, pre-Christian, priesthoods, the kingly function was hereditary, this prac­tice carrying over to Christian times. The king was elected by thetuath from within a royal kin-group (the derbfine), which carried the hereditary priestly function. Politically, however, the king had strictly limited functions: he was the military leader of the tuath, and he presided over the tuath assemblies. But he could only conduct war or peace negotiations as agent of the assemblies; and he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of administering justice over tuath members. He could not legislate, and when he himself was party to a lawsuit, he had to submit his case to an independent judicial arbiter.”

            The Somalis also have no state preferring a system of customary law – this was common practice before the criminal racket of government arose.

            Calling people infantile delinquents is ad hominem, at least to any reasonable person.

          • paendragon

            I read through your whole original first post; you dared compare the Somalis?! Your ignorant infantile delinquency shows through again:

            “The Somalis also have no state preferring a system of customary law – this was common practice before the criminal racket of government arose.”

            The “Somalis” as you put it as if they were a nation, (while simultaneously pretending they have no state!) are MUSLIMS. They used to be Christians like their kin and neighbors, the Ethiopians, but were subverted into joining islam through Muhammad’s minions’ lies.

            So the only reason they have no “state” is simply because the global extortion-racket and crime-syndicate of islam always pushes for a totalitarian one-world government to be eventually ruled by their theocratic Caliphate.

            You anarchists are infantile delinquents because you imagine you can have an area of personal property undefended from others forming gangs, and that you also somehow have a right and responsibility to destroy all the groups or gangs any and all other people have ever agreed to join, under your slanderously criminal presumptions that everyone else’s choices were wrong and/or were only made under coercive duress, and so are all invalid anyway. Infantile delinquency.

            You may as well be little children whining that you “Never asked to be born anyway!”

          • John Coleman

            The Somalis had and still have no central government with an unbounded legislature, the same holds true in ancient Ireland.

            Islam arrived after customary law was developed by the Somalis, just as Roman Catholicism arrived after the development of customary law in ancient Ireland. These events certainly affected law, but they did not change the legal system.

            The fact is that a central government is not required for a civic society that protects property rights.

          • paendragon

            You may be entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Islam did indeed change the Somali legal system by supplanting it entirely, as it has always done and always will. Without central leadership, no “civic society” (whatever that even is) can do anything, much less protect property rights.

          • John Coleman

            The Somalis still have a kritarchy (no government), same for the ancient Irish – ergo, it does not require a government to protect property rights.

            A private militia can protect property rights.

          • paendragon

            The Somalis only currently have no government because they are criminal muslims and so have destroyed their government, for now, at least until a warlord stronger than the others attains temporary domination.

            Is that the sort of anarchy you embrace?!

          • John Coleman

            And by civic society I mean one where people have made permanent settlements in a place and whose members have distinct social functions.

          • John Coleman

            As for drunk driving I would expect road owners to not permit this behaviour on their property, it would inflate their insurance bills and repair bills and otherwise lower profitability.

          • paendragon

            Allowing a drunk driver to threaten the lives of others with his drunk driving wouldn’t be insured, because you can’t have self-made crime-insurance. You can insure your self against OTHER’s random criminal actions, but you can’t go to an insurer and say “Hey there, I’m a criminal and even though I’m pretty careful to not get caught, it’s always a possibility, so please insure me!”

          • John Coleman

            I agree, but I didn’t say anything about drivers being able to insure themselves against negligent driving. I was talking about road owners in a system of private road ownership. It would be in their financial interests to not allow drunk drivers to use their property.

          • paendragon

            So, in hypothetical your no-government world, where people don’t want to form into collectively defensive insurance arrangements, would each person charge everyone else for a stretch of road extending a few yards or miles from his driveway, or what LOL?! Would everyone own their own paving machine, or charge different maintenance rates, depending on if it’s ashphalt, tarred gravel, cobblestones, granite, or what? Who sets the rates?

            😉

            You DO realize that all existing governments have already developed over time from exactly those sorts of collective arrangements, where your own ancestors (asusming they lived where your family still does now) HAD at one time all laid down their own laws and agreements, and then bound their descendants to them too, right?

          • John Coleman

            When I say abstract I mean in the sense that you can show someone lots of trees, but not a forest.

            I can show someone my private property whether it be a home, a car, a phone or my garden. I’m not sure someone can show me their country?

          • paendragon

            Are you really that obtuse?! How would you show anyone your property, without being able to show them the geographical limits of same (property lines)?! All countries have property lines (borders).

          • John Coleman

            My garden has a fence that you can see, you can also see my garden because it is cultivated and not wilderness.

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Why do you believe such lies?

    • Matthew Reece

      The only true freedom is freedom from falsehood. My wish is that you may find it.

    • Johnathon Favors

      Nice

    • Karl Schipul

      “You live with the freedoms that those men died for.”

      We are more free now because soldiers mass murdered Vietnamese villagers and drone bombed Pakistani schools, got it.

    • aubergine10

      If they died for our freedom, does that mean that if more of them die we get more freedom? So we should just kill them all to get maximum freedom, is that what you’re saying?

      • mobetta

        Yes. Thats what I am saying. Grind up the corpses of fallen and feed the citizens…..We will call it, SOLDIER-GREEN!

  • Ray

    I also think you’re an arsehole, but you’re my kinda arsehole. Good job.

  • paendragon

    Today you sound like a liberal pacifist, Chris.

    “Memorial day, put simply, is war propaganda. Propaganda to support the lies of wars past,” … were they all lies, then? None were truly defensive?

    You also said (above): “Celebrating the holocaust for example would cause one to be run out of town, and rightfully so.”

    Please try to reconcile these two points: if the Holocaust was bad, was not at least trying to stop it (or trying to stop the madmen who caused it) good?

    Because right now you sound like any self-hating liberal masochist, who’d whine that we shouldn’t have wasted so many innocent German and other lives trying to stop Hitler, who after all wasn’t really all that bad, and who also probably would have stopped and been satisfied by killing a few Jews, not us!

    • Lysander Spooner

    • Guest

      Hey shit-for-brains, liberals do not have a monopoly on anti-war ideology. In fact, quite often, their anti-war ideology is fake.

      The website antiwar.com has a high Alexa rank, and it was started by anarcho-capitalists, who are anything but liberal.

      If you associate anti-war views with liberalism, when one of the top anti-war sites on the Internet (if not the top site) is libertarian, then you are a drooling moron.

    • state hater

      Hey shit-for-brains, liberals do not have a monopoly on anti-war
      ideology. In fact, quite often, their anti-war ideology is fake.

      The website antiwar . com has a high Alexa rank, and it was started by anarcho-capitalists, who are anything but liberal.

      If
      you associate anti-war views with liberalism, when one of the top
      anti-war sites on the Internet (if not the top site) is libertarian,
      then you are a drooling moron.

      • paendragon

        I’m not anti-war, nor should anyone be.

        “War” is only an idealized word, ‘abstracted’ away from it’s circumstantial, situational context.

        Not only are defensive wars perfectly just, but even retaliatory ones are necessary for basic justice.

        The only crime, as even the UN’s own founding charter notes, is “to be the aggressor in war.”

        Saying you’re anti-war (as you seem to be doing here, MORON) is like saying you’re anti-violence, and so that, like any given liberal, you’re really only talking about self-fulfilling prophecies, but then that’s what all liberal masochists do all the time, anyway, in order to pretend to have “control” over their fears of their projected “inevitable” worst-case scenarios, by actually causing them.

        There’s no perversion or crime a liberal won’t Submit to or at least try to “compromise” with first. They seem to believe that it’s prudent, shrewd, realistic ‘realpolitik’ to rush in first, before some other fools beat them to it!

        It’s pretty funny that you and Chris whine here about how conservatives are the only ones causing wars, when in reality it’s liberal gangsters (like Hitler) who are behind most of them.

        We all have a basic human right to self-defense, and if that means a lot of us must defend our selves and innocent others by responding with “war” to a lot of criminal gangster aggressors’ extortion attempts, then so be it.

        • state hater

          Shithead, “war” has a specific, state-centric meaning in this context.

          • paendragon

            Oh, so you feel entitled to make up your own language, and then expect others to go along with it. Nice way to try to make your entirely fact-free opinions into facts.

            But back in reality, “war” is large gangs of humans trying to kill other large gangs of humans (or even just trying to kill any/all humans who aren’t in their gangs).

          • state hater

            This entire discussion is taking place in the context that Cantwell set up.

          • paendragon

            Pretending a sub-category or mere symptom trumps the uber-category is only irrational, liberal-like idolatry.

        • Karl Schipul

          “Not only are defensive wars perfectly just, but even retaliatory ones are necessary for basic justice.”

          This argument might make sense if the USA had any of those in the past 200 years. No, Pearl Harbor does not count, as FDR deliberately provoked Japan to get into World War 2.

          • paendragon

            People also have a right, (but not a responsibility) to defend innocent others from predatory criminal aggressors, for instance if they KNOW who’s who in any given conflict.

            But how on earth did FDR “Provoke” expansionist, racist, colonialist. Imperialist Japan?!

            I’ve heard he knew about the immanent PH attack in advance, and covered it up because he wanted it to happen so he’d have the perfect excuse to enter the war, but really – how does one ‘provoke’ a bloody-minded criminal gang already hell-bent on world domination?!

          • Karl Schipul

            The Japanese embargo

          • paendragon

            According to all the articles I’ve read on it, FDR only embargoed all US trade with Japan. How does refusing to do business make people attack you?!

  • by

    We all have our own beliefs there is nothing wrong with that

  • Sam Cru

    Well. Fucking. Said.

  • Kitties nRainbows

    War is the ritualistic slaughter of human beings carried out by psychopathic “leaders” of the cult Chris describes. Anyone who does not see this needs to keep thinking until everything he wrote in this article makes perfect sense.

    There is nothing noble about war. There is nothing useful about the concept of “national interest” to human beings; it only serves to obscure the domination games of the anti-social monsters that control what they call “society”. Nations are a perversion of the human social bonding instinct.

    “Government is the enemy of man.”

  • Looks like some conservative military-jock sniffers can’t handle the truth about one of their sacred cows. War is nothing but the health of the state and only benefits the filth that are politicians and their well connected cronies. For the rest of us, war is another excuse the state uses in order to deny us our liberty. As for being anti-war being a “liberal” ideal, its pretty obvious that those who are criticizing Chris haven’t been paying attention during the Obama error. Most of the anti-war left (save for people like Glenn Greenwald for example) were just anti-Bush and went back to state bootlicking when their thug came in power.

    • paendragon

      War IS a liberal ideal; Hitler was a liberal.

  • Johnathon Favors

    What do we have here..? A bunch of self-righteous jackasses who think they are being “bold” and” poignant” by spewing hateful garbage like this article. You don’t have to agree with the way our govt has handled the recent wars. I sure don’t. But disrespecting soldiers who fought to protect others is just sad.

    War will always be with us. Be glad there are men out there who are willing to face the barbarians at the gate so that your pansy soft ass doesn’t have to.

    • state hater

      What do we have here? A shithead who advocates murder and who has the audacity to insult the manhood of sane men who oppose murder.

      The soldiers protected no one except the ruling class and their corporate cronies.

  • John Coleman

    welfare program for sociopaths – that’s it exactly!

  • denied03

    If you are not happy with this country or what it represents, or even the people who ensure this inevitable war does not come to your doorstep. Feel free to leave, maybe your views would be better served elsewhere. Why would you choose to stay in a country you do not seem to appreciate? In fact you are FREE to leave when you please! Now isn’t that some shit! !??

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Maybe you should leave so we can have a turn at running things.

      • denied03

        Oh you’re so witty!!! Maybe you should get off your back and try to make a difference. You don’t like the way things are going? Stop being a mattress and do something about it. Instead you lay there and bitch about things you do nothing to change.

        • Kitties nRainbows

          We are doing something about it. You just don’t notice. =)

          • denied03

            Oh yea. Bc you are so stealthy. What a disgrace. Mattress.

          • Kitties nRainbows

            Are you one of those trolls that work in India, or did you get hired off of ELance?

          • denied03

            Disgrace. You’re a poor excuse for an American

          • Kitties nRainbows

            What would you know about being an American? All you know is how to be a Nazi. =)

          • denied03

            Says the mattress.

  • Dustin Vaughan

    So edgy I got a paper cut.

  • Jullian Chua

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My only problem is calling the military a “welfare machine for sociopaths”. We have our beliefs and you have yours. I don’t see how that would make us sociopaths and we work longer and harder than you ever have for minimal amounts of money.

    • Kitties nRainbows

      What is the ultimate purpose of your work?

    • Max Sand

      So you don’t work for the purpose of killing people? Despite whether you call them enemies or not, you are still killing human beings. Despite on how you justify it, it should bother you if you have any sense of empathy. If it doesn’t then, you have none and are a sociopath. Pretty simple concept.

  • Tom Tan

    To honor Memorial day, and to commemorate the deceased heroic defenders of our glorious fatherland, who bravely sacrificed their lives to protect our freedoms, here’s a speech by Major, a character from the anime Hellsing.

    “My friends, it has often been said that I like war.

    Friends, I like war.

    No, friends, I love war!

    I love holocausts. I love blitzkriegs. I love defensive lines. I love sieges, charges, I love mop-up operations, and retreats.

    Wars across prairies, in streets, in trenches, in grasslands, in frozen
    tundras, through deserts, on the sea, in the air, I love every act of
    war that can occur upon this earth.

    I love blasting the enemy to smithereens with artillery salvos that thunder across the lines of battle.

    My heart leaps with joy whenever a soldier is tossed into the air and cut to pieces by well placed sniper rounds.

    And there is nothing like a tank operator using a Tiger 88 to destroy
    enemy tanks. And the feeling that comes when a soldier runs screaming
    from his blazing tank only to be mowed down by heavy machine gun fire,
    is such an exquisite feeling.

    Like when ranks of infantry brandish their bayonets rushing into the
    enemy line. It moves me deep within my heart to watch a fresh recruit
    stabbing over and over into the bloated chest of a long-dead enemy.

    The sight of deserters being strung up from a street lamp is an
    irresistible pleasure. And there is nothing more arousing, than the
    sounds made by prisoners of war dropping like flies, screaming in agony
    as they’re mowed down by ear piercing schmeissers!

    When a band of pitiful resistance fighters makes their final stand with
    nothing but small arms, only to have their city smashed to atoms block
    by block by 4.8 ton bombshells, I’m in ecstasy.

    I love it when my forces are ravaged by a Russian armored division. It’s
    so sad to see towns and villages that were supposed to be defended at
    all costs, being laid to waste, their women and children being raped,
    and killed.

    I love to be squashed under the heel of the British and American war
    machines. The humiliation, as my men crawl around like vermin, ducking
    the yark bombers flying overhead.

    Gentlemen… All I ask for is war, a war so grand as to make Hell itself
    tremble. Gentlemen, I ask you as fellow brothers in arms, what is it
    you really want? Do you wish for further war as I do? Do you wish for a
    merciless, bloody war? A war whose fury is built with iron, and
    lightning, and fire? Do you ask for war to sweep in like a tempest,
    leaving not even ravens to scavenge, from this Earth!? “

  • aubergine10

    Superb article, great to see more people speaking openly about the death cult and how wrong it is. Here in the UK we are always told the “support our troops” which really just means “support our wars” which in turn means “support our state-sanctioned organised mass murder, for profit”.

  • ez

    Never knew I was a sociopath. Another uninformed, worthless opinion from a non-peer.

  • kubel

    I keep hearing the local news say the words “sacrifice” whenever they mention dead soldiers. It sounds so creepy now that I view the state as a death cult. They really are sacrifices.

  • Max Sand

    I see the cultists found there way here.

  • TimeTravel

    Its good to see so many statists reading Cantwells blog. THANKS A BUNCH. Maybe some of them will learn the difference between right and wrong.
    Tho I’m Not holding my breath.

  • Renato F. Palhano

    Congrats for speak the truth. I’m still waiting for the mass destruction weapons in Iraq or the real thret of a bunch of farmers from Vietnan, Afghanistan, Congo, etc. The last resonable war that US (and most of western nations) were, was WW II