Chatting & Chalking with Keene Police

Yesterday was “Chalk The Police Day” an event put on by my friends at Activists from around the country went out to write and draw various messages relating to police accountability with chalk. The event dates back to 2011, where the “Chalking 8” were arrested in Manchester, New Hampshire on graffiti and criminal mischief charges. Since then, it has spawned an annual and national event that has become quite popular.

Kelly Patterson of Nevada Cop Block has an excellent post about chalking in general, and the event itself.

See more chalk activism under the hashtag #ChalkThePolice.

Here in Keene, activists went to Central Square, a local public gathering space with a gazebo, the State Police Barracks, and the Keene Police department, where I joined in the festivities with Ian Freeman and JP Freeman.

As you can see in the video below, before we began chalking, we invited the Keene Police to join us. The woman at the desk said she would ask if anybody felt like it, and we went outside to begin.

Reductions in Supply Do Not Reduce Demand, They Increase Prices

Reductions in Supply Do Not Reduce Demand, They Increase Prices

In a reference a piece I wrote a few months back about a heroin bust here in Keene, I wrote “Reductions in supply do not reduce demand, they increase prices. Study economics”.

If that reference isn’t obvious to you, it pertains to the war on drugs. There exists this pervasive myth in society that by taking drugs off the streets, crime will be reduced. Aside from the empirical evidence to the contrary, simple economic reasoning should tell you that this isn’t true.

Indeed, then Keene Police Chief Ken Meola had said of a major heroin bust here in town that he hoped it would reduce property crime. I pointed out, that when supply dries up but demand remains high, prices increase. This incentivises new players to get into the drug trade, and compels addicts to find even more money to pay for their fix, which will actually lead to an increase in crime. The opposite of the purportedly desired effect of the war on drugs.

Drugs Don't Wage Wars. This is a War on People

Drugs Don’t Wage Wars. This is a War on People

I wrote on another piece of the sidewalk outside the police station, “Drugs don’t wage wars, this is a war on people”.

I find it so disturbing how comfortable people are with the war on drugs. I’m not even into drugs myself, but this phenomenon really bothers me. People hear “war on drugs” and they think “Well, none of my friends are drugs, you can kill all the drugs you want”.

Obviously however, it is people who wage wars. It is people who go to prison. It is people who suffer when a government decides to violently intervene in the voluntary and peaceful activities of individuals.

I'm not afraid of ISIS, I'm afraid of the government.

I’m not afraid of ISIS, I’m afraid of the government.

In a third message I began to write “I’m not afraid of ISIS. I’m afraid of the government”. That was when the Keene Police Department’s College Liaison Officer, Kyle Macie, came out to join us.

One of the things that really has surprised me about living in New Hampshire, and Keene in particular, is how easy it is to talk to government agents. The Keene Police are entirely too familiar with some of the things I’ve said on the pages of this blog about cops. Despite that, they have all been very good in their dealings with me. I’ve had conversations with Chief Costa, Lieutenant Tenney, Officer Baca, and Sergeant Kopcha, and they have all been very civil and personable. I hadn’t gotten video of any of those conversations though.

Since Kyle Macie came out during an activist activity which we were filming though, we did get video of the conversation. I hope you’ll take the time to watch it. We had a very frank discussion about the nature of government power, alternatives to State monopolies, and our own personal preferences and life stories.

While their actions which involve violently victimizing peaceful people are obviously inexcusable, I gotta say… These guys make it very difficult to hate them.

 Video courtesy of FreeKeene’s Ian Freeman.


This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • paendragon

    Chris – Re: “I’m not afraid of ISIS. I’m afraid of the government”.

    You should be very afraid of the government bringing murderous ISIS zealots here to murder you, just to prove how morally superior they are to you “racists.”


    • Broward

      Steyn supported the Iraq War that created ISIS he’s a piece of shit. A chickenhawk piece of shit willing to bloviate about the projection of western power when neither he nor his kids will be the ones in caskets. He’s a cunt. I can’t emphasize enough, how seriously I hope he dies from painful brain cancer, and becomes demented and insane in his final months of dying from cancer, and his family go through hell watching it, that is how much I hate that cunt.

    • Don Duncan

      We could eliminate all Muslim enemies, not just restrict their movements, if we nuked ’em. Of course we would include a lot of innocent ones, but that shouldn’t bother you because you’re not concerned about restricting all to catch a few.

      • paendragon

        With group rights come group responsibilities.


        “Terrorism” is really only the simple crime of “extortion” writ large! Extortion is “threats!”

        ALL muslims are criminals, simply by being members of the world’s largest and most ancient yet ongoing crime-gang. Being a member of a crime-gang is a crime, even if the member hasn’t committed any specific crime beyond that of their general membership, because they represent the inherent public threat the crime-gang presents. It’s the LAW. Everything muslims pretend to believe is “holy” is already a crime!

        …Unless you’re trying to pretend we only have to worry about the radical nazis, and that the moderate nazis are perfectly fine?


        • Don Duncan

          Group rights do not exist. Only individuals have rights.

          How does one “pretend to believe”? What does that mean?

          Is a statement of belief sometimes a criminal act? Can a person be punished for that alone?

          • paendragon

            Idolatrous group rights DO exist – at least, “legally” on paper. “Identifiable Minority” groups enjoy “protected” statuses – i.e: more rights than non-members, which means all lesser real live individual human citizens enjoy less or no rights.

            Religious people pretend to believe their gods exist – to such an extent that they insist on committing fraud by putting forth their fact-free opinions AS fact.

            By positing their false “Faith!” (mere hope) AS a factual “belief” they pretend to believe it; and thus, they lie.

            Lying is the most basic form of theft: it’s the (at least, attempted) theft of the Truth.

            Since all crimes are forms of theft, lying (“fraud”) is a crime.

            It would be perfectly acceptable if such people were to say “In my opinion – since I have no factual proof – my god said this, did that, and said he or she will do this, in these situations” – but they don’t, and so they are all criminal liars.

            Furthermore, since muslims declare it’s their holy right and duty to their god to extort, enslave, and murder all the non-muslims in the world, simply for our “crime” of not being muslims, their statements of belief (that they have a right and duty to commit these crimes against us) IS A THREAT in itself – a psychological attack, and as such, a crime.

            Death-threats are illegal (presuming they are not in defensive response to some others’ criminal threats or other, more tangible actions first).

          • Richard Chiu

            I think that you cross the line into asserting the authority to dictate the validity and sincerity of other people’s beliefs.

            You would have that authority if you created their minds, perceptual organs, and the entire pattern of that subset of reality which impinges on their senses.

            But I hope you are not making the claim to have created the Earth and all things on the face thereof, including humanity. That would be a very bold claim.

          • paendragon

            I have, can and will define the validity of everyone’s beliefs, yes – it’s only a simple process of scientific deduction… you know, objective facts as opposed to the factual invalidity of merely subjective opinions.

            It’s a simple process of not lying; the sorting of symptoms, not selling them as facts. We have a responsibility to become right (as in, factually correct) not a false right to remain irresponsibly wrong. I know exactly how all ‘creation’ works. I know what ‘gravity’ really is. I know exactly what we’re all made of.

          • Richard Chiu

            Yeah, okay. So you know exactly how all ‘creation’ works, the real nature of the fundamental physical forces which underlie the structure of the universe, the exact composition of all beings, and have full authority to dictate all correct beliefs about reality.

            And that’s definitely not a lie or even an exaggeration.

            If you’re joking, then perhaps you could just explain the point you’re making. If there is one.

            If you’re not joking…well, I guess you better appoint a prophet to declare your most holy and incontestable word, oh All-seeing Master of the Universe. Just for the record, I’m not really available or interested in the job.

          • paendragon

            Strange to see an anarchist express such a solid belief that the Universe has or even needs an ultimate master to define simple basic universal scientific principles LOL!

          • Richard Chiu

            I was actually expressing the idea that the universe didn’t need YOU to be its master. But I suppose that concept is impossible for you to grasp.

          • paendragon

            Nah – when I see you infants rolling around in your own intellectual vomit, my parental instincts kick in, is all.

            I’m trying to show you both how and why the universe needs NO master, and also why you shouldn’t choose to have one, to justify your own choice to use masochism as an excuse to do nothing for your selves.

            You know that old quote about how, with great power comes great responsibility?

            Most people prefer “With no power, comes no responsibility! Whee!”

            Or, “If I (CHOOSE TO PRETEND TO) believe you when you say you’re better than me, then whatever happens is all your fault – and, since it is all your fault, none of it’s my fault, so I’m still better than you! Whee!”


          • Richard Chiu

            That might be more convincing if you didn’t go hostile on us for refusing to pretend to believe that you’re better than us.

          • paendragon

            I’m certainly better read than you are.
            The problem is how you want everyone else to remain equally as ignorant as you are, because it’s “unfair” when other people know more than you do.


          • Richard Chiu

            Well, then, oh all-knowing one. Please explain the structure of the fundamental forces of the universe. Start with gravity, if you like. Feel free to explicate on the true composition of intelligent life forms.

          • paendragon

            Sure. Like I said, I’m better read: go to your local library, and try to get ahold of a recent book which has actually managed to solve that pesky “unified fields (of science) theory: “The Final Theory (of Everything) by Mark McCutcheon. He starts with Gravity, and takes it from there, going through each of Einstein’s famous thought experiments in order. A theory so simple, a 3-yr-old can understand it.

          • Richard Chiu

            Um…Google is your friend?

            Or should I say, “you’re kidding, right?”

          • paendragon

            LOL! I made a bet with myself, that even with it all handed to you on a silver platter, you’d still reject it without a read because of your proud masochism. And I was right.

          • Richard Chiu

            Given that the guy thinks that the fact that physicists don’t consider lying perfectly still in a water bed “work” somehow means that basically all physics is badly flawed would seem to indicate a fundamental problem with his thought process.

            Except that your understanding of physics is probably too limited to realize the implications of what he’s asserting. I may not have spent as much time looking at the pages as you, but I certainly understood more of them.

          • paendragon

            Nothing you just said made any objective sense – is English not your native language, or were you simply hallucinating and typing to your self there?!

          • Richard Chiu

            Whatever my native language may be, physics certainly doesn’t translate into yours.

          • paendragon

            Re: “your understanding of physics is probably too limited” … “I certainly understood more of them.”

            From “Probably!” to “Certainly!”? in one post?

            Slander. You’re a snivelling masochist and a small-minded, cowardly criminal fraud, unable to learn because he’s too afraid to ask questions.

          • Richard Chiu

            Very well, how an inert body lying in a waterbed doing physical work?

          • paendragon

            I have no idea what you’re asking – but I think you may have me confused with someone else? We have never discussed waterbeds, inert or not etc.

            However, when I (as someone you do not personally know) suggested you get a book out of the library to enlighten yourself, in stead of simply checking its Amazon reviews, (by engineers and physicists, which are 99% favorable) you in stead went off to Google and found one or two unfavorable reviews (also by people who you don’t personally know) and decided that was a good enough reason for you to not have to read it.

            In other words, you deliberately went out looking for a reason to remain ignorant.

          • Richard Chiu

            I read the first chapter posted online, duh. Which you evidently didn’t read or couldn’t understand.

            If you had read it, and had any significant understanding of physics, then you would know to what I am referring. The fact that you don’t means that you are relying entirely on the Amazon reviews (which are obviously rigged) to judge the validity of the theory in question, since you haven’t the slightest ability to evaluate it independently.

            I don’t know where masochism enters into this, I would guess you’re just throwing it out as a term of irrelevant opprobrium.

            As someone who understands basic physics, I know how to get work out of an inert body lying on a waterbed…but I also know that, once I do that, it will not remain inert, it will move.

            You, on the other hand, cannot even understand the question. You simply appeal to a combination of the bandwagon and authority fallacies to assert a set of propositions you can’t even pretend to understand.

          • paendragon

            Tard: We have never discussed waterbeds. Never.

          • Richard Chiu

            Hey, you’re the one that brought up “The Final Theory”.

  • BannedByCantwell

    I guess public chalking is *slightly* less passive-aggressive and antagonistic than public bullhorning, but I think both are kinda juvenile and douchey, and both are likely counter-productive to spreading any kind of a message.

    The unwashed masses take home how you say it, not what you say.

    At least you seemed to have mothball your bullhorns.

    • Broward

      In anyone’s language men in their thirties playing with chalk is utterly juvenile. It needs to be phased out. Nobody reads that shit.

    • Richard Chiu

      There are limits to what I’ll regard as a valid form protest simply because police state thugs are willing to harass, assault, abduct, and murder you over it.

      But until the cops convince me that they never have and never will resort to physical aggression against chalkers, chalking is still automatically a valid form of protest against the police state.

      Heck, it’s a pretty good form of protest even when nobody is arresting anyone for it, as long as it is tasteful (which, admittedly, is a subjective bar, and one which Cantwell’s use of color and capitalization fails to clear).

  • Richard Chiu

    I find it hard to hate humans in general, and usually counterproductive. I’ve never understood the appeal to hate as a motivation for effective action. In my experience, hating anything only gives it more power over you, and effectively reduces your ability to meaningfully exert influence.

    • paendragon

      Well in reality, violence solves every problem … always has, always will. Ignoring others’ threats of violence means you end up extinct and they write the histories.

      • Richard Chiu

        That depends greatly on how broadly you define “violence”. And how narrowly you define “problem”.

        But speaking in specific terms of the effective application of martial force, it is more vitiating to hate an opponent than to feel any other emotion, even fear is less debilitating in a serious fight.

        • paendragon

          Not so – fear is in-raged, but anger is out-raged fear. So in a fight, anger is what keeps one focused on smacking down one’s opponent.

          “One cannot defend one’s way to victory.”

          -Herb Borkland-


          • Richard Chiu

            Leaving aside what cannot be understood, I suppose you are saying that anger is preferable to fear or hate. If only it precluded either, that might be relevant.

            Of the last quote, I can only presume it rejects the NAP as entirely nonsensical or uses the terms ‘defend’ and ‘victory’ in some specialist sense with which I am not familiar.

          • paendragon

            Perhaps someone once told you that an attack can be successfully countered by a single defensive act of blocking it – giving a rather unrealistic, mechanical slant to the whole affair.

            But where real live humans are involved, simply blocking the attacker’s first attack attempt might not be enough to discourage them from initiating a second, third, fourth, etc., attack.

            Attempting to achieve victory, even in defense of one’s self and/or of innocent others, means dissuading one’s attacker from ever attacking one again.

          • Richard Chiu

            I see. You’re using an impossibly narrow definition of “defense”, and a very broad definition of “hate”. That explains a lot about this conversation.

            I actually can (and have) halt a potentially maiming attack with a single defensive act. The consequences of this are…well. Let’s just say that I would have preferred to halt it with a longer engagement involving more, less individually defensive, acts. But still entirely with defensive actions, in the working sense of actions taken with the primary intention of averting further injury rather than any other motive.

            As for emotions, I’ve never been a proponent of any very simplistic view of them, especially anything which might be termed ‘binary’. Whether or not any simplistic theory of emotion is adequate to express the range of human experience of the subject, it would seem unlikely that whatever definition of ‘hate’ you’re adopting here is widely accepted.

            I was not intending to speak in any particularly abstruse or technical sense. I simply meant the emotion commonly understood to be “hate” (rather than the political ‘crime-think’ accusation) is not usually conducive to effective mental or physical efforts. Of course I understand that ‘thoughtcrime’ is entirely necessary to a reasoned outlook, but I wouldn’t use that term absent scare quotes (indicating the Orwellian implications), and I’d never use “hate” to mean a variety of ‘thoughtcrime’ without making the irony absolutely clear.

            I doubt Chris was using it in the sense of ‘thoughtcrime’ either, simply because police in fact make it extremely difficult for a reasoned discussion of the role of force in a civil society to avoid committing “hate” against them. Indeed, he committed “hate” against the police with the first part of the very same sentence.

          • paendragon

            Strange – I haven’t even mentioned “hate” yet, at least not on this thread.

            You want my definition of hate? It’s very simple, in the context of “thought-crimes” as you have put it:

            First, let’s just ask:

            “Is there anything which ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?”

            To which, my answer would be:

            NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.

            Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed, that’s just the packaging, but because it’s fraudulent slander.

            Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!

            Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats… and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!


          • Richard Chiu

            You may have lost track, but this entire thread is entirely about whether hate (in the sense which Cantwell used it above, which is clearly NOT the ‘thoughtcrime’ sense) is necessary or desirable. Whether or not you personally have used the term previously, you never had any reason to post here other than in response to what I wrote on that subject.

            Statists try to term ‘thoughtcrime’ as “hate” because most people associate the term “hate” with the emotion, and most reasonable people throughout history have always deemed the emotion unhelpful. This does not of itself constitute a logical argument for or against hate, it is merely a pertinent fact to understanding why statists now call ‘thoughtcrime’ “hate” (since they must call it something, and they have never liked to simply call it ‘thoughtcrime’).

            I merely brought that specialist meaning of the term up to exclude it from consideration as reflecting my meaning, i.e. to disambiguate the term. Like it or not (and I do not), it is a widespread usage at the present time.

            To your assertion of the human right to hate, I will merely add the human right to drive nails into your own feet. I have no wish to deprive you of either right, but simply exercise my own right (human or not) to advise against doing either.

            More broadly speaking, I think that if hatred of a crime is our only possible reason for seeking to prevent it, then it must, perforce, be a victimless crime, or else love of the potential victims of the crime would necessarily be a possible alternative.

            Unless you are incapable of feeling love.

          • paendragon

            No crime is victimless, by definition.

            As for “most reasonable people throughout history have always deemed the emotion (of hate) unhelpful.”

            Who sold you that nonsense – your kindergarten teacher?!

            As for love – everyone can feel it, because it is also a simple, binary ’emotion.’

            You would seem to have never yet bothered to try to analyze and define it, either.


          • Richard Chiu

            Because I don’t subscribe to the notion that love is “only a simple, binary ’emotion'” that everyone can feel, it seems to you that I’ve never bothered to try and analyze and define it, eh?

            Well, I suppose that speaks to your level of critical faculty. But while you may be correct that the most popular etymologies of “crime” imply a victim, modern popular definitions discard the notion of the necessity of any actual victim aside from the fictive entity known as “the state” or “society”. If you reject the notion that “the state” or “society” can be regarded as genuine victims, then logically, by the ordinary definition of crime, very many crimes are indeed victimless.

            Of course, while you have occasionally suggested that you don’t love the state or hate those who trespass against it, I find less and less reason to believe your assertions at face value the longer we discuss this.

          • paendragon

            “The State” is an idolatrous false construct which does not exist outside it’s real live individual human citizen components.

            And individuals have a right to freely associate with others, a right to own private property, and to set physical boundaries around their properties.

            They also have a right to demand others who want to use their properties, (to be collectively known as neighborhoods,) say, to drive large heavy steel plated potential death-machines called “automobiles,” subscribe to an insurance scheme where they become assessed and qualified to safely do so, and to pay into a pool of funds (called “insurance”) to help reimburse any victims their choice to drive in said areas might accidentally create. Oh, and to submit to the group when their choice to lower their ability to drive by deliberate self-impairment voids the insurance contract. This scheme is called “laws.”

            Oh, and once all the available land has been taken up by such voluntary and mutually agreed-on by diverse individuals’ insurance collectives, it is to be recognized by the children of those who originated them, that if they want to change the rules or replace the representatives, they should do so peacefully by voting, and not by puerile violent revolution. (i.e: No “anarchists!”)


            Beyond that, in principle, what we call “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!

          • Richard Chiu

            Well, that was off-topic. It’s apparently a conceptual construct that you take a great deal of pride in, though, so I suppose I understand why you’d rather talk about it than anything else.

            That said, I believe that you sidestep the issue of enforcement as such. Regardless of the desirability of the outline of society you suggest (and I think it might seem stifling and conformist to some, and would certainly be boring to almost anyone), you don’t really clarify what it means for the ‘government’ to defend the country or the citizens to defend themselves.

            Let me put it this way, does such defense include killing people who merely suggest that the arrangement of such a society ought to be altered?

          • paendragon

            Please explain how my direct and specific reply to your original puerile contention (that I was somehow “pro-state,” by giving you my entire assessment of the State, and my position concerning it,) was somehow “off-topic!”?

            And, instead of trying to slander me with what you choose to perceive to be a deliberate lack in my post – cf: how I somehow “sidestap” and “don’t really clarify what it means” etc, why not just find the guts to ask me?!

            I’m not writing an entire dissertation here in the comments section – and your slanderous tone of miffed entitlement only makes you look bad, while you pretend to be putting me on the defensive.

            EITHER you choose to collaborate to work together to solve mutual problems, OR you can pretend I’m out to get everyone, in order to justify YOUR criminal choice to pretend to be a butthurt victim while attacking everyone else first, PMSing as a Paranoid Masochistic Slanderer.

            Anyway, to answer that last bit, which you had finally phrased as a question:

            If said insurance company is based on the Golden Rule of Law (wherein everyone simply agrees to not attack thereby innocent others first) and everyone gets an equal vote for their chosen representative, with no false elite “party” idols to get between them and said representatives, and where, after everyone votes for their local reps, and then everyone votes to appoint ALL these chosen reps from the overall workers’ pool of candidates, directly to their cabinet positions, then the system of democracy it perfect (first past the post and proportional, in equal measures) SO to vote against it would be to endorse a reservation of the false right to attack innocent others first, and as such would be a threat aka sedition – for which one could conceivably earn the right to be killed for one’s criminal choice to be an extortive public terrorist.

          • Richard Chiu


            I honestly thought you’d at least try to deny that’s where you were going. Or at least thought a little harder about your implicit assumptions that you are personally qualified to unilaterally decide what counts as “cooperation”.

      • Don Duncan

        Ideas solve problems. Initiated violence is a confession of a cognitive deficit.

        War is a mass murder/suicide pact. It is a lose-lose. Both sides are less free and less wealthy. A few benefit, TPTB.

        • paendragon

          Here’s an idea: Psycho-paths are literally “thought-killers” (which is what that ancient Greek term actually means) and as such, they prefer to pretend to see fear AS pain, and so seek to avoid painful thinking by attacking everything and everyone else first. Such paranoids are also thereby all masochists and slanderers.

          There can be no collaborative universal use of objective facts to solve problems with such people, because they fear and hate thinking.

          Because we Makers, by our very natures, CAN NOT RESIST such EVIL MEN, simply because we’re trying to hope to collaborate to objectively solve universal problems, while the Takers – the PC (Psychopathic Criminal) negligent, delinquent libertine “liberals” are all focused on their fears, and obsessively “PMS“ing about it all the time – since they don’t believe in winning, they spend all their time trying to not-lose, to prove “I’m better than you!” all the time, by attacking innocent others first.

          They are Paranoids (“They’re all out to get me!”) Masochists (“I’d better focus on my fears AS pain, lest I forget to defend myself, since hope is a trick!”) and Slanderers (“Since they’re all out to get me, I’d better get all of them, first!”).

          SO, when you are physically attacked by such a literal psycho-path, one CAN ONLY use violence to counter-attack them.

          “One cannot defend one’s way to victory.”

          -Herb Borkland-

          • Don Duncan

            I can cease collaboration when I detect pathology, e.g., deception or threat of violence. I do not feel, nor am I defenseless against it. Psychopaths can be defeated merely by disassociation. They are completely dependent on your cooperation. Government, the home of psychopaths and their power source, can be starved to death by mass disassociation. No armed rebellion is necessary or desirable. In fact, that’s the only way it can be made extinct.

            Sometimes the best defense is waking up and realizing you have been your own worst enemy. The masses have been acting as their own destroyers.

          • paendragon

            One cannot defeat an attacker by turning one’s back on the attack or by walking away.

          • Don Duncan

            No one is fooled by a physical attack. No one sees the aggressor as the victim. You advocated violence as the solution to “every” problem. The problem under discussion was the police, the police state, the police mentality. It started with the creation of government. I propose we examine the reason government is tolerated. Everyone complains about it, but few want to abolish it. Government gets its strength from mass acceptance. Government is excused from moral condemnation for actions no individual would get approval. Why? What idea excuses It? Is that idea true?
            Should government be judged by standard ethics? What is government? If it’s not needed what should be done?

            Can you answer all these questions with violence?

          • paendragon

            Criminals must be met with violence – even ‘only’ the violence of passive restraint (i.e: imprisonment).

            You have dissociated or ‘abstracted’ a false, idolatrous mental construct which you call “government” from it’s real live individual human citizen component parts. “Government” does not exist.

          • Don Duncan

            When the criminals are LEOs, violent resistance is suicide.
            Government, the ideal, is an illusion. When the masses act as if the illusion is real, their actions have concrete results. One result could be a “real live…citizen” becomes dead.

            Who will protect you from that illusion? Can you kill the illusion with your violence?

          • paendragon

            “LEO’s” are also real, live citizens too.


          • Don Duncan

            So what? Being a civilian I am not equal to them. I am not as credible in court, not allowed to open carry freely,
            (without fear of being stopped and harassed ) not allowed to question, search, arrest anyone I want. The list of special privileges is long. They are minor deities.

  • Rothbardian Slip

    I watched some of the video but listening to someone try to explain to cops why they are garbage is a bit tedious to say the least. I have no problem hating every cop I see though. I really don’t care how personable they may seem. I know they’re evil little prices of shit.