Russell Brand and Jeremy Paxman: Oh Myyy!

I must have received 2 dozen emails yesterday or day before making sure I saw this interview of Russell Brand by Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman.

Let me make this quick: Not Impressed; What a Mess. Brand is basically just spouting reformulated commie drivel regurgitate…with the added spice of not doing another Chernobyl or any of the other many Soviet era environmental rapes—by magic aparently, i.e., falling to grasp that commie-style egalitarian impoverishment—such that nobody has much more than anyone else—because everyone hasn’t shit—is the root cause of environmental degradation in an industrialized setting.

Just take a look at 3rd world by-their-own-bootstraps industrial development and the disgraceful, rich-1st-world NIMBY reaction to it…because ‘I have mine; and fuck you!’ The cause? The same sort of business, economic, marketing, production, distribution and profit motivation that Brand exposes his utter ignorance of in this video—or, he just doesn’t care because he’s a rich left-wing magazine editor elite now, and fuck you just the same.

I suppose people wanted me to see it because I liked Brand’s dealing with the Morning Joe media sock puppets on MSNBC. That was about Entertainment, basic respect and how to handle a guest in your house in The English Way. And yep, though with quibbles, I got what he was mocking in that Hugo Boss Nazi Fashion Designer dustup and thought he explained himself rather well.

Or, perhaps, some thought I’d say “oh, he doesn’t vote and never has, so he must be right because I agree.”

So, if any of the foregoing is about right in how you may have thought I’d react to this, then let me gently disabuse you of your ignorance.

If what Brand says in this interview represents his true thinking, he’s about as bad as you can get as a true thinker, rather than just the next Jane or Joe-someone playing to envy because others have more than you do.

He doesn’t vote out of apathy and ineffectiveness. In other words, if you actually listen closely, voting is not working to: outlaw profit, massively tax companies, effect a social revolution whereby profit is a dirty word—thus insulting every family over 250 years that risked everything just get to the former “Land of the Free”—or basically outlaw any use of planet Earth resources, such that billions die.

Let me explicate an important distinction. I don’t vote. But it’s not because ‘it doesn’t work to dominate and limit you and your pursuit of life, happiness and prosperity better or more effectively’, as the eminently prosperous elite Brand seems to lament. I don’t vote because I don’t have a right to even a 1 in 300 millionth say in your own affairs!

Or, more simply stated: I wouldn’t do that to you! I may call you a cunt in comments, but I’m an avowed “sticks & stones” kinda guy, and my mommy taught me well. 

Now, I’ve written those same words on this blog hundreds of times in some parts of something over 3,500 posts going back 10 years this November. Amazing how so many still, simply don’t get my message as intended. This is, evidently, hard work.

I’m not a left anarchist. I’m not an anarcho-syndicalist. I’m not a commie (and there is a rich history of so-called left anarchists essentially being commies). I’m not a right-anarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist; not even a libertarian anarchist, or even a market anarchist.

My anarchism is more Swannian, to coin a phrase. That is, it’s egoist and inward looking, as opposed to being outward looking, forever worrying about others, their actions, values, motivations, and how society generally orders. The latter is really still all about domination and imposition, all geared around various market schemes of exclusion…or you get fucked. Get fucked? Oh, there’s no voting, but you do get to pay your private defense agency and take your offender to court, then pay your defenders to execute on your judgment…in opposition to your opponent’s defense force he pays to protect and execute for him.

Took me a long time to realize that this is not a lot different than the fascism (government-big corporate alliance) in which we already live. The important similarities are far greater than the insignificant differences.

My formulation is perhaps a bit different than Greg Swann’s, but I think the important similarities are far greater than insignificant differences. Anarchy begins at home. And, you already do this and operate like this in great measure. You don’t really need to learn any new tricks. You just keep focussing on yourself (guiltlessly); which includes your passions; which includes everyone you love: family, friends, colleagues, associates, those you contract with to mutual benefit.

What you stop doing is worrying about others as though something abhorrent they do really affects you, because you saw it on TEEVEE, on the NEWZEZ.

This will take you 18 minutes, but it might change your perspective. My AHS12 presentation, Paleo Epistemology and Sociology, alternatively titled Anarchy Begins at Home.

Richard Nikoley—Paleo Epistemology and Sociology from Ancestral Health Society on Vimeo.

After giving an hour version of the same talk at The 21 Convention, I did up a 9-Part Series than begins here.

…Thanks to everyone who sent me that Brand video, even if it perhaps didn’t come out as you expected. I understand that disappointment; and so please don’t take this as rebuke. Take it as something you inspired me to blog about and hopefully get to meaningful dialog where everyone benefits.

You may have noticed that this blog isn’t like so very many of the other “Paleo-ish” blogs now, those with a daily Baked paleo Sweets Treat crafted by pathetic whores so you’ll buy and keep buying.

…But that’s a subject for another day.

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. Gary on October 25, 2013 at 11:47

    doesn’t matter what policies he is spouting, he admits in the vid he doesn’t have the answers, he’s connecting to people with passion, he’s calling for a revolution, anything that wakes people from there slumber and start thinking has gotta be good right?

    you focus inward and ignore the world? …I suppose you have an exit plan for when the ‘real world’ makes an intrusion!

  2. Karen on October 25, 2013 at 11:47

    I found it interesting because he partially ‘gets it’. It will be interesting to see if he continues to figure it out or if he just settles for being a pinko! :)

  3. Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2013 at 11:52


    If you got it right, don’t you think I wouldn’t have even written this post?

    Thanks, at least, for being just about what I expect.

  4. Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2013 at 11:54


    I suspect he’s red already, but we’ll see.

    I have never insulted his core intelligence. That’s what I see.

  5. Gary on October 25, 2013 at 12:10

    “Thanks, at least, for being just about what I expect.”

    ha ha, I don’t think you get me at all, humanity affects me, …therefore I care about about humanity ( ..or least what it gets up to)

  6. Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2013 at 12:13

    “humanity affects me”

    Name them.

  7. daniel on October 25, 2013 at 12:20

    Well put, Richard.

    It took me a long time to get past pseudo-anarchism too, but I did it.

    Your bluntness is a useful tool and this was a nice head dunk in the ice water.

    All the busybodies with their paranoid and control freak thoughts….. hahaha

    I have my own Brand (see that, words are funny) of anarchism too…. not too far off from some others but at least I came to the realizations on my own instead of parroting morons.

    And for what its worth, I don’t care how wrong someone is if they came to whatever asinine conclusion on their own. Freethinkers are as rare as a unicorn that shits gold and platinum nuggets.

  8. Gary on October 25, 2013 at 12:24

    well there was what grok did for a start, hope that was his name, past events affect me too, …culture is passed on, the 50 odd people i work with, some of who’s names escape me, ..but they still affect me!

  9. Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2013 at 12:45

    Tell you what, Gary. Let’s keep this short.

    You go on worrying about people who will never touch you, that you’ll likely never come in contact with in your life, but nonetheless cause you alarm for some reason such that you feel a need to dominate them proactively so they don’t.

    I on the other hand, realizing I have only one life to live and live well, will largely ignore all that and just take my chances.

  10. Alex on October 25, 2013 at 15:17

    Your comment above, Richard, I think puts a better name to your politics than any hyphenated isms could: I’d call it living, and contrast it rather starkly with merely existing, which is no great gift, in and of itself, unless it is imbued with real life. And this, to be clear, is our greatest right and responsibility, to live. Which is to say, living for you, and for those that matter to you. Because they enrich your life. Not because they happened to be born within the same lines on a map as you were. I think this is what everyone, on some level, aspires to, if they’ve not outright given up yet, or had it beaten out of them. But they’ve either been told that they can’t or that they shouldn’t so often that they back away, eager to appease their ethereal or sociopolitical deity of choice. Well, fuck that.

  11. Ron on October 25, 2013 at 15:47

    “daily Baked Paleo Sweets Treat” – I believe it discredits “paleo,” especially when it’s glamorized or given any prominence. It’s essentially feminizing (or, pussifying) the brand. I’m not going to disparage dessert, but if you’re eating right most days, you probably won’t feel like eating any kind of dessert.

  12. Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2013 at 16:01


    If you could see me, you could see a solemn nod in your general direction.

  13. St. George's Dragon on October 25, 2013 at 18:17

    For a moment, I thought the reference was to Evan Brand of Not Just Paleo. I thought, wow, Evan hit Big Time, he’s a major Brand now.

  14. Woodchuck Pirate on October 25, 2013 at 18:22

    A conscious person realizes anarchy is not a campaign.

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

  15. Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2013 at 21:01

    No, it’s not. It’s the natural state of all animals, including human social animals. Just keep the social within your reach and observation.

  16. Ataraxia on October 25, 2013 at 22:17

    Richard, puzzling over this social definition aspect.
    Not over the natural ethics/force aspect, on that of course I continue to agree and to me that is the driver for peaceful anarchy.

    However, how is your social within your reach and observation?
    You write this blog, posts such as this and the series and the talks, you try to alert/educate both widely and ‘one mind at a time’ and bring guests here who also educate others – why?

    Like you imply in some response above, it means, at the least, that you don’t Not care about others.

    Yet, you don’t know these others. Your ‘social’ is beyond the family-friends-colleagues/partners/customers group, and it’s also beyond your ‘observation’ other than the small number of actual commenters (compared to the anonymous many readers).

    So does it come down to how widely you Choose your social? Then what’s the determining factor for that definition? Someone else’s is a different definition, wider, they also don’t personally know all the people they care about but they have some common characteristics, common interests, common goal – their common culture.

    You know I agree with you entirely on the peaceful anarchy practice – but as a consequence of natural ethics (according to which, for example, it’s ‘game-over’ when you try to Force another, directly or indirectly).

    However I don’t see the same coherence in the logical reasoning that surrounds Social reach or caring for which group of others than one’s self. I must have missed a connection or two somewhere because I know you’ve been thinking this through for a very long time and in a very informed way, so help me out with my perception of incoherence?
    What defines your group and why is that o.k. and not, for example, the members of an ethnic or even historical culture?

  17. Jon Danzig on October 26, 2013 at 03:42

    Russell Brand says he never votes and urges others to do the same. Wrong advice!

    The fewer people who vote, the more governments know they have more control over us to do as they want and not as we want. The message of the non-voter to them is: ‘we don’t care; do as you please; you choose how you want to run my life.’

    When people don’t vote who can vote, governments know they have less eyes watching them. They realise they can get away with passing laws that many voters will not protest or care about or even bother to find out about.

    Read my blog in response to Russell Brand, ‘Can’t vote or don’t vote?’

  18. Geoff on October 26, 2013 at 22:50

    Hey Richard,

    Thanks so much for posting this video. I think that you and Brand actually had quite a lot in common with regard to your reasons for not voting, and while clearly you are on very different sides of the political spectrum, you also seem to have a lot of common ground.

    I have my own bend to all of this as well, but your writings on the subject of voting and anarchy beginning at home have been very influential in helping shape my thinking, so keep doing what you’re doing!

    I do think that a bottom up revolution is coming, and it’s starting with bitcoin. I’m not sure if you have bitcoin on your radar yet, but it is going to change everything by decentralizing wealth transfer, prying economic control away from governments and banksters and placing it firmly in the hands of the decentralized masses.

  19. doogiehowsermd on October 26, 2013 at 18:07

    A man with a mind that is truly free is only bound by the laws of physics. Every other constraint you face is imposed by someone else or perhaps even yourself.

  20. kayumochi on October 27, 2013 at 07:05

    All this Free The Animal attention has done is give the bloggers and their publishers more page views which is all they are after ….

  21. Gary on October 27, 2013 at 09:28

    “A conscious person realizes anarchy is not a campaign.”

    Woodchuck Pirate

    agreed, a concious person also knows the world in which he lives.

  22. Richard Nikoley on October 27, 2013 at 14:17


    The best way I can describe it is that a year or so ago, I reduced my personal Facebook to about 30, the people I actually know. It actually made FB valuable. I have the FTA page, Twitter and G+ for my proselytizing social presence. Since I don’t typically have personal contact with them, it’s quite different than my life with those I do.


    Bitcoin is on my radar, but so was digicash and digigold way back when. I’m waiting to see if it really has legs before I give it more than the cursory look I’ve given it so far.


    I have zero interest in your admonitions to vote in order to impose your values on others.

  23. Jon Danzig on October 27, 2013 at 14:46

    @Richard Nikoley You wrote that I am imposing my values on others. How is expressing my opinion imposing anything? The only power I have, or want, is the power of persuasion. If you are not persuaded by my point of view, that’s fine, but I have not imposed my view on you.

    Democracy is about persuading people. It’s very hard work, but that’s democracy.

  24. Richard Nikoley on October 27, 2013 at 15:09

    I don’t think you understand. Politicians are selling something, which is to impose some mix of values on everyone via force, and under pein of fines, jail or even death for non-complaince.

    You’re buying, so you vote.

    I don’t even go to the market.

  25. Jon Danzig on October 27, 2013 at 15:15

    I am not a politician, I am a journalist expressing a poit of view. Why is that imposing something? You are welcome not to agree with me, without any threat of force, fines, prison or death.

    This is just debating. Isn’t an exchange of ideas how we form and change opinions?

  26. Richard Nikoley on October 27, 2013 at 15:30

    Journalism is expressing a point of view. Blogging is expressing a point of view.

    Voting is for the express purpose of imposing the will (set of values) of a majority upon a minority and I will never have any part of that.

    Democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what’s for dinner.

    I want no part of it. Your persuasion doubtlessly focusses on what ideas and values people ought to hold so they can then go and pick the candidate closest to those most important.

    By contrast, my persuasion focusses on how people ought better act with those they love and cherish so they truly feel good about themselves egoistically. I don’t try to fix bad people or sociopaths. I count on the fact that most want to do good. You sell the lie that such is to be found in imposition via voting and I sell the truth that it’s do it yourself. Just be good.

    You want people to lead by force of elected politicians and I want them to lead by example.

  27. Jon Danzig on October 27, 2013 at 15:35

    Are you prepared to change your mind?

  28. Richard Nikoley on October 27, 2013 at 15:50

    Ah, truth comes out.

    You actually know nothing about me. This blog has over 70,000 accumulated comments and a fair percentage of those congratulating me for doing just that, publicly.

    So, go right ahead and give me a good argument for changing my mind and trying to impose my will on others via a voting booth or any other way (I don’t indulge in meaningless distinctions).

  29. Jon Danzig on October 27, 2013 at 16:00

    No, I wasn’t being arrogant enough to suggest I could change your mind. I was only asking if your mind was open to change.

    You don’t know me either. I enjoy a good exchange of ideas and I like to think my mind is open to change, on receipt of superior evidence or arguments.

  30. Gary on October 27, 2013 at 16:06

    Richard, how in your model, 230 million+ cliques(30) of the planet’s 7 billion population are going to interact with no compelling rules in competition for resources *without strife*? ..or is strife a given?

  31. Gordon Shannon on October 27, 2013 at 16:50

    @Gary. You are equivocating between spontaneous (decentralized) rules and imposed (centralized) rules, i.e. laws. The former proceed from the mutual consent (choice) of all parties, the latter from the enforced will of a minority. The former have the potential to be moral, i.e. to be compatible with the rational requirements of human life; the latter are immoral by definition.

  32. Richard Nikoley on October 27, 2013 at 16:59

    Thank you Gordon. I was just about to post about Gary’s implicit question begging. But no matter.

    “the latter from the enforced will of a minority.”

    You may have meant to write majority, but when you factor in non-voters, all democratic impositions by force, such for example that The Land of the Free has more people per capita behind bars than any other country, all elections are won by minorities.

    I’ve never made too much hay about that, because numbers in support is not what morality makes.

  33. Woodchuck Pirate on October 27, 2013 at 17:09

    I especially appreciate a blog environment per the intrinsic superiority of the written word. It enhances an individual’s observation of the intrusion of ego upon their personal communications. Glaring evidence of entitlement mentality emerges foremost when the ego speaks. In contrast true self never speaks.

    “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.” – Lao Tzu

    I have a note on the front door of my village home that reads:

    No Jehovah Witnessing
    No Scientology
    Satan by appointment only.

    I find these three exclusions announced at my door, encompasses every self-professed altruist.

    The pathology displayed by altruists is an entitlement mentality that civilization is sustainable. Civilization is not sustainable and is largely insane.

    Every self-professed altruist embraces the fallacy of the ever expanding consumptive economy as the only scenario to sustain civilization. The altruist embrace of the fallacy is rarely observed by the altruist, as the faith invested in ego-misidentification defaults their introspection to avoid pain. They choose instead to practice pragmatism, the aversion of principle. So begins the zombie walk of contradiction. 99.99% never accept accountability for the force they are culpable for. The cowardice of collectivism bears the stench of never ending genocide.

    As civilizations are erased by the law of exponents, mankind devolves and clings to the same age old archetypes of witchdoctor/tyrant alliance. Altruists do not want freedom, they demand socialism. The posture of entitlement is characterized by demands to be delivered to truth externally, instead of accepting what every individual has always known within.

    True self emerges as ego dies. True self never initiates force against others. There is no separation. Unconscious behavior has real consequences in the real world. Love does not imply pacifism. Enlightenment can not be withheld, or given away. There are no victims.

    The baby-boomer generation is as vile as any collective to have walked the earth. Misanthropy remains rational. When the law of exponents has erased the baby-boomer generation, I would prefer not to waste another dollar, or calorie, removing their bodies from the streets. Let wild dogs consume them. Wild dogs never sent the government to initiate force against me, why should they go hungry?

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

    May we live in interesting times.

  34. Gordon Shannon on October 27, 2013 at 17:10

    I meant minority in the sense that rules within statist systems (whether democratic or otherwise) are conceived, implemented, and enforced by a minority. The masses never led anything within democracy, and that they think they did is one of the great lies perpetrated upon humanity by the minority (we have Locke and Rousseau to think for that). One can perhaps speak of “majority” in the sense that the willing participation through ignorance and evasion of the majority provides opportunity for the enforcement. But my post focused on the causal source of the rules, not the conditions for their implementation and authoritativeness.

  35. Gordon Shannon on October 27, 2013 at 17:20

    @Woodchuck. Some of what you say has some truth, but some of it is nonsensical. I refer you to Chapter 5 of the Tao te ching, a couple of pages on from the line you quote: “The talkative reach their wits’ end/again and again/that is not as good as keeping centered.”

  36. Woodchuck Pirate on October 27, 2013 at 17:31


    I do not embrace taoism. I’m inclined to kill my ego whenever I recognize it. No gods no masters.

    Thank you for your conversation. As I am not an altruist I do not seek the conversion of others. Nor am I vulnerable to conversion. I am not motivated by fear or greed. I am only motivated toward truth. Have a very nice evening.

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr

  37. Gary on October 27, 2013 at 17:51

    @ Gordon no, by compelling rules i meant ‘laws’, to reframe my question, how are large populations going to live *without* strife by spontaneous rules? … there is no evidence of this occuring from history.

    @woodchuck hope it wasn’t my ego you’re referring to, besides how do you know i wasn’t *faking* it to get my point across

  38. Woodchuck Pirate on October 27, 2013 at 18:22


    I have never written anything, anywhere, where I haven’t found myself speaking to myself. Egos collect, but ego is always dysfunctional. The biological geography of ego-speak may be physically discerned as arising within one body or another, but the phenomenon is unremarkable. Ego isn’t real. No amount of faith can make ego real. In contrast form appears to be the art of living (existing). Your words are welcome in my ears as long as I kill my ego and my true self arises. Emotions are simple byproducts of thought processes, and therefore every individual owns their emotions 100%. If an individual wants to change the way they feel then they may change their thought processes that manifest those emotions. I don’t know why you would feel hopeful that I wasn’t referring to your ego (which isn’t real and is always dysfunctional). And of course because true self never speaks, anything I say will fall short of infinite truth. Therefore the answer you seek, like all answers, is found only within. This also answers your question, reframed and put back to Gordon in same reply. Civilization has never been sustainable, and has always been insane. If the entire history of mankind were examined as if it were one individual, the diagnosis would be clinical insanity with brief periods of lucidity. And yet you appear to commit to continuing the devolution and act insanely in expecting continued collectivism to yield different results. Pragmatism begets the zombie walk of contradiction. I’m inclined to respect your decision to suffer, and in that same respect reject your underlying assumption that the answer is external and collective. I am for the living, let the dying bury the dead. No gods, no masters. A majority of one is still a majority.

  39. Gordon Shannon on October 27, 2013 at 19:41

    @Woodchuck. OK…

    @Gary. You just proved the very point I made, like, to the LETTER. And as for evidence, let me give you two examples, one pedestrian and the other fun. First, economic order. (In fact, just for the hell of it, a few more: evolution, natural equilibrium, the formation of star systems, and racial self-segregation within communities). Second, pirate communities (they were remarkably strife free *within* the communities).

    But you see, you’ll hopefully note two things. First, that I have chosen to cite examples that are not universally “strife free”. Second, that your alternative – a legal system of imposed laws – is hardly strife free, historically, is it? Regarding the first point, good luck finding any system, imposed or spontaneous, that is “strife free.” Regarding the second, insofar as a legal system is a system of force, and therefore a system predicated on strife, isn’t it analytically impossible for a system of laws to be “strife free”?

  40. Gary on October 27, 2013 at 20:00

    Woodchuck Pirate, thanks, i think I see my mistake, i thought Richard’s outline was for global change to this civilisation, i don’t really have any inclinations, aside from looking for a truth, however I see the potential through *any* revolution for humanity to find itself again, I respect yours and Richard’s apparent decision to live in peace, I might join you.

  41. Gary on October 27, 2013 at 20:37

    Gordon, that’s just semantics, sorry for the confusion. I meant war *strife*, humanity and war looks like it’s hitting a dead-end, to devolve to a system of strife with this technology I think would be worse than what we’ve got.

  42. Woodchuck Pirate on October 27, 2013 at 20:39


    I don’t think I did anything gratuitous as I’m always exercising my virtue of selfishness. You are most deservedly welcome to any element of reality you may discover. I understand that recognition of interconnectedness always arises from consciousness, but I reject faith in all forms. That means I do not have faith that a mass awakening is at hand. All evidence points to the opposite, which leads me to curiosity in why the human life-form has always revealed itself as futile and unnecessary. The scenario speaks to a definition of hell.

    I don’t know how many years your body has aged, but mine is nearly 55 years old and I do not hope to live to be 100. Living amongst humans for an entire century seems cruel and unusual, as the base mode of civilized living is needless suffering.

    There seems a great deal of truth in the song “I hate people” by the Anti-Nowhere League. Humanity remains locked in a revolution against truth. I have long since ceased to seek membership. The only answer to the hateful collectivism of mankind is forgiveness as it is purely unconscious behavior. If they were conscious they could not initiate force against others.

    A conscious person recognizes interconnectedness (may even feel genuine love for his enemies) and by invoking reason turns and walks away from civilization toward infinite truth. It is irrational to seek out the conversion of others, as the transformation can only be accepted from within.

    Consciousness could reveal the earth a lonely planet if it weren’t for the never ending attacks of statism upon freedom. I bought 36 acres off the grid in Arizona where I plan to write and observe the madness from a distance. However I would likely be better served if my body dropped dead tonight. I’ve considered having t-shirts printed that read “I wanna be cremated (as soon as possible)” . One can only amuse themselves so many days at the human zoo. At some point silence fills the void. Better to be listening to whispers on the wind in solitude, moving deeper into the present moment.

    I hope you find the peace you are looking for. I have, but it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the human life-form(s). I am not my body. I simply “am”.

    Enjoy your evening.

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

  43. Gordon Shannon on October 27, 2013 at 21:31


    You’ve got a very optimistic outlook if you think war is coming to an end.

  44. Richard Nikoley on October 28, 2013 at 06:57


    See the slide in my 9-part presentation or perhaps around 15 minutes into my video where I answer the question of what happens in anarchy. Moreover, note that the earth itself is anarchic. There is no one world super state.

    Everything happens. Create a social circle with people and service providers that don’t cause much strife in your life. It doesn’t have to be 30, it could be 200. But it’s sure not going to be 300 million. The point about smaller groups and why we evolved that way is because everyone can reasonably account for everyone else and has some measure of being able to influence and persuade everyone else peacefully.

  45. Todd on October 28, 2013 at 08:56

    I think individualistic anarchy confuses people to no end because they think you don’t care about humanity at all, but in fact you care about humanity a great deal–your own and those in which you choose to engage with in meaningful interaction. It seems exceedingly sefish, it certainly is on many levels, but to try and engage humanity on a larger scale begs for a person to do more harm than good. Keeping your attention affixed to your own affairs will largely alleviate much of the unnecessary burden and strife that is placed upon us as inhabitants of the same planet. Giving your attention to others that simply have no bearing on your own life creates unnecessary complications for you and others. It’s an entire waste of what could be a perfectly good life that could/would otherwise be characterized by meaningful production. A real value. When you focus on yourself and those you care for deeply, you are freed form all the nonessential bullshit that used to saturate your life, and your life will be enriched exponentially.

  46. Richard Nikoley on October 28, 2013 at 11:35

    Bye Joe.

    I certainly don’t need you in my own circle. Enough, aye? Go get your jollies elsewhere (Beck, perhaps?). (His comment deleted, just to piss him off.)



  47. Richard Nikoley on October 28, 2013 at 12:29

    Bye “Jack.”

    I have to wonder why you read a “Douche’s” blog and even take time to comment on it.

    Methinks you have a lot more self-reflection to do than I.

  48. LeonRover on October 29, 2013 at 08:11

    If a WoodChucker would chuck wood,
    How many chucks would a WoodChucker chuck
    If a WoodChucker would chuck wood.

    ( Just don’ fuckin’ Chuck mah Wood – else you got a Tiger on yo’ tail.)


  49. Woodchuck Pirate on October 29, 2013 at 08:32


    Sweet Pain


    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

  50. Woodchuck Pirate on October 29, 2013 at 08:58

    I don’t need no gubment, just one little Fishcamp Womern.

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

    May we live in interesting times.

  51. NIK on November 17, 2013 at 13:17

    ffs idiots like you make a living out of spouting shit
    if you lived to be a hundred you never get it

  52. Richard Nikoley on November 17, 2013 at 13:56

    I know, Nik.

    “Well, if you can’t understand, then I certainly can’t explain it.”

  53. Richard Nikoley on November 17, 2013 at 13:57

    Perhaps you’ll be able to explain yourself by the time you’re 100, Nik. There may be hope.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.