Demolishing the Warren Report with two Images from CBS News

One of my entertainments, from time to time, has been the Kennedy assassination… John Kennedy’s, that is. I’m not particularly a fan of mysteries, but occasionally one of them intrigues me, as this one did.

What I’m going to show you today are two images from a CBS News special report from 1967, created because so many people failed to believe the Warren Commission Report. CBS’s images make the Warren Report ridiculous, though I’m quite sure they didn’t realize it. So, let’s take a look.

The View They Showed You

Most of us are familiar with the shots Oswald was supposed to have fired at Kennedy as he drove away from the School Book Depository on Elm Street. It was a difficult angle, the best parts of it through trees, requiring an especially difficult shooting posture… and with a bad rifle.

Here’s an image from the CBS report, showing a marksman attempting to hit a target representing Kennedy as it moved away from him. This was said to be a precise recreation of the scene. This image is from just before what would be “the fatal shot.”


Obviously these were difficult shots… and Oswald was not an expert marksman.

The View They Didn’t Show You…

Or at least the view they didn’t show you intentionally.

Here, also from the 1967 CBS report, is Dan Rather in Oswald’s spot at the School Book Depository. I’d like you to look at the left side of the photo, over Rather’s right hip. What you’re seeing is Houston Street, the street Kennedy’s motorcade came down literally seconds before he was shot and killed. It was a straight one-block run, headed directly into Oswald’s line of fire. The motorcade drove very slowly down Houston Street (they had to take a hard left turn onto Elm), and there were no obstructions whatsoever, providing a perfect downward angle at JFK. It would have been like shooting fish in a barrel.


Take a look at the two photos again. Forget about killing anyone; which of these two shooting angles would you choose? Which of those two choices would anyone pick?

I should add that Rather’s angle is much better for a right-handed shooter like Oswald.

What Does This Mean?

This means that if we want to believe the Warren Commission, we must say that Oswald consciously rejected the perfect angle for his shots – an angle that was literally staring him in the face – and instead chose a terrible angle, with a faster-moving car going away from him rather than toward him, with more obstructions, and from an uncomfortable position.

Again, please look at the photos and ask yourself, “Which angle would someone in that window pick?” I think the answer is obvious… painfully obvious. And if so, it’s the Warren Report that gets blown away.

What I’m Not Saying

Please notice that I’m not saying who the shooter or shooters were, who may or may not have put them up to it, or anything of the sort. I’m saying one thing only: that the Warren Commission’s story makes no sense. It utterly ignores the perfect shot that anyone in that sixth floor window would have taken.

There is no way Oswald would ignore the perfect angle for this deed – one that would have nearly guaranteed success – and instead choose an extremely difficult angle with a poor chance of success.

Whatever Lee Oswald was, he wasn’t a mental defective. Look at the footage of him talking to reporters after the assassination: In the midst of an utterly bizarre and existentially threatening situation, he speaks clearly and coherently.

I think it has been a serious error for people to jump to conclusions on this subject. It’s necessary first to deal with the facts we have at hand. Once we’re clear on those, we can begin to address the question of “Who did it?”

Along this line, I very much appreciated one of the very first books on the subject, Harold Weisberg’s Whitewash, written precisely because the Warren Report was so very bad, and sticking to that subject. First we need to establish that the Warren Commission’s Report is malarkey. Then we can have fun finding the villains.

And so, once more, please look at the two photos and ask yourself which angle a functional human being would choose.

* * * * *


A book that generates comments like these, from actual readers, might be worth your time:

  • I just finished reading The Breaking Dawn and found it to be one of the most thought-provoking, amazing books I have ever read… It will be hard to read another book now that I’ve read this book… I want everyone to read it.

  • Such a tour de force, so many ideas. And I am amazed at the courage to write such a book, that challenges so many people’s conceptions.

  • There were so many points where it was hard to read, I was so choked up.

  • Holy moly! I was familiar with most of the themes presented in A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the concepts you presented at the end of this one.

  • Get it at Amazon or on Kindle.

* * * * *

Paul Rosenberg

A New Day, a New Chance to Be Wonderful


Most people fail to appreciate the fresh opportunity that each day brings them. Their programming requires them to snort derisively at concepts like the one above. After all, the systems of this world are built upon the assumption that mankind is weak, stupid, and generally inadequate to a moral existence. As a result, most people have become addicted to bad news.

Nonetheless every day is a fresh start, a situation created by nature itself. So, please consider this:

What if, just once, you got out of bed and imagined that you were a fresh being in the universe? And more than that, a good, creative, potent being.

What if you imagined yourself free of obligations and intimidations, charting a fresh course? What if you looked at your life as if it were beginning anew?

Is it an intolerable thought that you should put aside your well-groomed fears, wake up to a blank slate, and hold that position for just one day? And if we can’t allow ourselves this one productive entertainment, what has happened to us?

You Don’t Actually Suck

Our opinions of ourselves are usually out of touch with reality. To prove that, you need only to slow down, clear your mind, and fill in a few blanks:

  • Can you remember a moment from your childhood when someone was notably kind or loving toward you? You have at least one, yes? So, in detail, what was it like and how did you feel?_______________________________________________

  • Can you remember a time you stood up for someone who was being unfairly insulted or abused? What exactly did you do, and how did it make you feel?_________________________________________________________

  • Can you remember a time when you did something because it was right, even though you knew you’d suffer for it? How did it feel to push through the fear and do it?_____________________________________________________

  • Have you ever done something out of nothing but simple, honest benevolence? How did that feel?_____________________________________________

Did you answer these questions? Did you relive the experiences a little?

You see, you don’t actually suck. You’ve merely been made to believe so… by people and systems who profited from your bad-news addiction.

What’s Life For?

You are alive, and this life you possess doesn’t have a preset direction; it’s you who choose where to direct it. Our lives have the meaning we give them, and we give them meaning through exercises of will.

You have immense capabilities, but only you can choose to use them. If you spend your entire life reacting to darkness and threat, you’ll never learn to be a potent being. Instead, you’ll stay in a tight little shell, talking about everything bad that happens in the world, seeking more and more bad news because it justifies your shell.

Does that sound like a good way to spend a life?

When? Ever?

So, when do we pull away from the carnival of bad news? When do we lift up our eyes and consider the radical possibility that we have good things in us too? When do we dare consider our virtues and abilities… and start using them as a first choice?

For most people the answer is “never.” Not once in a complete human lifetime. And that’s tragic. In fact, it’s premature death. Most people aren’t specifically choosing this of course – it’s a choice thrust upon them by authority – but it ends with them never living by their own light. Instead, they find a “doesn’t hurt too badly” groove and plod along until they tip into a grave.

But what if we picked a day and chose to live as if we were wonderful? If you’re so deeply terrified that that will lead to doom, make it your day off or a vacation day. Get up and spend that day as if you were a luminous being. Flatly pretend if you must, but do it for a day.

Is that really so evil a concept that you can’t consider it? Even a five-point Calvinist, committed to the “depravity of man,” has to admit that Jesus defended David for saying, “You are gods.” Is that not enough to justify a one-day experiment? And if not, doesn’t that void the gospel of John?

So, when is it that we choose to wake up and be wonderful, just for one day?

Pick One

Every tomorrow is a new day and a new chance to be wonderful. So pick a day and wake up to a blank slate.

Turn away from the knee-jerk objections that ram their way into your mind; they can have the other 364 days.

Try being wonderful. You might like it. Pull out your calendar, pick a month and day, circle it, and then do it.

* * * * *

A book that generates comments like these, from actual readers, might be worth your time:

  • I just finished reading The Breaking Dawn and found it to be one of the most thought-provoking, amazing books I have ever read… It will be hard to read another book now that I’ve read this book… I want everyone to read it.
  • Such a tour de force, so many ideas. And I am amazed at the courage to write such a book, that challenges so many people’s conceptions.
  • There were so many points where it was hard to read, I was so choked up.
  • Holy moly! I was familiar with most of the themes presented in A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the concepts you presented at the end of this one.

Get it at Amazon ($18.95) or on Kindle: ($5.99)


* * * * *

Paul Rosenberg

Google’s Mendacity: The Selfish Ledger Decyphered


Few things repulse me more than someone born with a genius brain who then uses it to befuddle others and turn them into tools.

A leaked video from Google showed up on my screen this morning. At first I was thrilled that we’d have evidence from the inside, showing what’s really happening at the home of “Don’t Be Evil.” But as I watched the video, my emotions changed dramatically.

This video, which was made for Google employees((I do not believe Google’s response that this was merely a tool for generating discussion. That ranks with “the dog ate my homework” for lame excuses after getting caught. I’m flatly ignoring it.)), was designed to confuse them into supporting their employer’s plans and to feel like they were smart for doing so. That pissed me off.

So, I’m going to decipher this video. Please read this brief explanation and then watch the video yourself. They’re admitting to precisely what Jonathan Logan and I wrote in The New Age of Intelligence, but the admission is wrapped in bullshit that makes people feel smart.

So, here’s what was said, all the quotes below are precisely from the video:

  1. The video begins with a lesson on biology. Then (1:20) they jump from epigenetic theory (interesting stuff, though not precisely understood) to data produced by a girl on a smart phone… data that Google sucks from her, mainly without her realizing it.

  2. They rightly say that the data taken from this girl (or anyone using such phones) “describes our actions, decisions, preferences, movement, and relationships,” then compares this data to a “ledger,” being “a constantly evolving representation of who we are.”

  3. Next, the video goes into more biology, saying that “the driving force behind evolution was not the individual but the gene.” It goes on (2:52) to say that “the individual organism is a transient carrier, a survival machine for the gene.”

  4. Now comes a big jump: While showing us the ledger book (and remember, that’s essentially you) they talk about making it “richer… by introducing more sources of information.” (3:12) Then they ask, “What if we thought of ourselves not as owners of our information… but as transient carriers?” So, you are a “transient carrier” of data, like a hard drive, and the ledger is, for lack of a better work, a precise copy of your soul (or psyche or whatever).

  5. They further say that this digitized soul should be given “more inputs.” (3:15) That means that they want to add things to your life and mind. They’re not explaining what or how yet, but they’ve got their foot in the door.

  6. Now (3:40) comes another leap: “Google would be responsible for offering suitable targets for a user’s ledger… topics would likely focus on health or environmental impact, to reflect Google’s values as an organization.” As the discourse continues, it says (4:01), “… if one of these options allows the ledger to move closer to the user’s goal, it is offered up to the user. Over time… the user’s behavior may be modified.”

  7. Then (4:40) the video jumps to what might happen when “the notion of a goal-driven ledger becomes more palatable….” Here they’re admitting that people would be repulsed to know what’s being done to them. And so, it will take time before this becomes “palatable.” This is an echo of a comment from Eric Schmidt (a top-level Google boss), who said he wanted to get Google’s policy “as close as possible to the creepy line.” Here, however, they expect us to get used to creepy, after which they can get what they really want.

  8. The video then describes what happens if you’re not sucking up the right information for Google’s goal. In that case (4:50), they’ll custom design a device for you, according to your “taste and aesthetic sensibility.” This results in “a custom object to trigger the user’s interest.”

  9. At 8:39 the video moves forward into “behavior sequencing,” a reference to sequencing DNA. What they’re talking about is identifying every single thing, internal or external, that drives your behavior. This sequencing ends (7:50) with a system, “which not only tracks our behavior but offers direction toward the desired result.”

  10. The video concludes with a Do it for the children narrative but with college-level vocabulary and sympathetic images.

So, let’s recap:

  • Google sees you as a “transient carrier.” (#3 above.) That is, the data you produce is the essential being, and you’re a mere “container.”

You, robot.

  • You shouldn’t really own your ledger (your most essential self), and they should insert information into your life. (#4, #6)

We’ll tell you what to think.

  • Google will choose what you should want and will modify your behavior accordingly (#5). How? By offering you new options or even designing custom devices that you won’t be able to resist (#8). They will make sure “your behavior” is “modified.”

Look at this shiny gadget you really need… and it’s free if you take a short quiz!

  • If this seems creepy to you, don’t worry; you’ll warm up to it over time. (#7)

It’s okay; you’ll come to love Big Brother.

  • Google will guide you to what’s best for you (#9). You can trust them; they love us and know what’s best for us all.

Look little girl; I have candy in the car.

This is how Google sees you, and whether you want to believe me or not, this has already begun. And please understand that Facebook does the same… and that the NSA sucks it all in.

But, hey, the accounts are free! Right?

* * * * *

A book that generates comments like these, from actual readers, might be worth your time:

  • I just finished reading The Breaking Dawn and found it to be one of the most thought-provoking, amazing books I have ever read… It will be hard to read another book now that I’ve read this book… I want everyone to read it.
  • Such a tour de force, so many ideas. And I am amazed at the courage to write such a book, that challenges so many people’s conceptions.
  • There were so many points where it was hard to read, I was so choked up.
  • Holy moly! I was familiar with most of the themes presented in A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the concepts you presented at the end of this one.

Get it at Amazon ($18.95) or on Kindle: ($5.99)


* * * * *

Paul Rosenberg

The Great Ephemera Machine


Ephemera: (plural of ephemeron)

  1. transitory things

  2. publications that are designed to be short lived

We in the modern West are living inside a giant ephemera machine. Every day we receive more than a thousand messages telling us what to fear, what to identify with, what to compare ourselves to, and of course, what we should buy.

Nearly all of this is ephemera – things that will matter nothing next year, much less in the long run.

I’m especially aware of this because I lived about as free from this ephemera as was possible in the modern West. (At least while still living and working in the larger world.) Beginning in 1977 and lasting into 1990, I chose not to own a television. I listened to just a little bit of radio and read newspapers only occasionally. I still don’t know who shot J.R., though I know it was a big deal to the people I worked with.

Those were the days before the internet and cell phones, of course. The ephemera storm was small, compared to what it is now. Escaping it was easier, though it was still thought to be very weird.

And I’ll tell you the truth about it: I missed almost nothing.

Consider the thousands of hours I didn’t waste on trivialities: which liar got elected to which office, which “leader” was caught doing what to some young person, which local potentate was insulted by which foreign potentate and wanted people to clamor for war.

Instead, I tended to my family and read books. Ignoring the ephemera was a great advantage to me. (And I avoid it pretty well to this day.)

The Great Misdirection

Avoiding the ephemera, however, is about more than wasted time, as massive as that may be. Rather, it’s about learning to appreciate ourselves and to use what’s inside of us.

Ephemera, as you no doubt understand, can consume nearly your entire life nowadays, and for many millions of people, it does consume their lives. TV to wake up with, Facebook during breakfast, Talk Radio on the way to work, Twitter at lunch time, more radio on the way home, Facebook again during dinner, and then TV to fall asleep to. These people seldom have a self-generated thought the whole day. All their thoughts are put there by someone else.

This massive waste has become epidemic in recent years, but even this isn’t the core problem. The deeper issue is this:

People consumed with ephemera never learn to use the magic that’s inside them.

And there is magic inside of us – all of us. Jesus was on to something when he taught that “the kingdom of God is within you.” Finding it and using it, however, takes time and work. Those whose lives are consumed with ephemera will never get there.

If you read about creative people, you’ll find that they all learned to draw beauty and innovation out of themselves. You simply cannot do that while consuming ephemera 24/7. As the great educator, John Taylor Gatto, said:

Growth and mastery come only to those who vigorously self-direct.

Self-direction is essential, and ephemera is its natural enemy.

Now, please consider this passage from Carl Jung’s Psychology and Alchemy:

People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own souls. They will practice Indian yoga and all its exercises, observe a strict regimen of diet… all because they cannot get on with themselves and have not the slightest faith that anything useful could ever come out of their souls.

Sadly, Jung was right. Millions of people have no confidence that a path forward could possibly lie inside themselves… and nearly all those who are plugged into the ephemera machine are that way.

We really are capable of drawing good and great things out of ourselves. And these are the truly satisfying things of life. Once you’ve done this a few times, you come to accept that you are an agent of progress upon Earth – that you are a net positive in the world.

Please believe me that this runs far deeper and is far more solid than any amount of money or fame. This is what we really want out of life, and the ephemera machine is stealing it from millions of us.

So, yes, we should all unplug from the ephemera machine. We need to walk away from the status quo and get busy building a better way of life.

* * * * *

A book that generates comments like these, from actual readers, might be worth your time:

  • I just finished reading The Breaking Dawn and found it to be one of the most thought-provoking, amazing books I have ever read… It will be hard to read another book now that I’ve read this book… I want everyone to read it.
  • Such a tour de force, so many ideas. And I am amazed at the courage to write such a book, that challenges so many people’s conceptions.
  • There were so many points where it was hard to read, I was so choked up.
  • Holy moly! I was familiar with most of the themes presented in A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the concepts you presented at the end of this one.

Get it at Amazon ($18.95) or on Kindle: ($5.99)


* * * * *

Paul Rosenberg

5 Reasons I Stopped Taking the News Seriously

newsBack in the early 90s, I felt a need to understand politics far better than I had, and I spent a lot of time and effort on it. Along the way – and partly by accident – I learned a few things that put me off broadcast news ever since.

Here are five of those stories.

#1: When a Decrease is Actually an Increase

At one point during this time, there was a furor raised over the funding of school lunches. So, I looked into it carefully.

After delving into the actual numbers, I was horrified to learn that what I heard from all the big-name news outlets was factually incorrect. Every single one of them got it wrong.

So, I called the newsroom of the biggest and most respected news radio station in Chicago (where I was living.) Amazingly, they put me right through. The conversation went like this:

Me: Listen, I have a problem on this school lunch thing. The numbers you guys are using are wrong.

News writer: What do you mean?

Me: You’re reporting a seven percent cut in school lunch funding, but I checked the real numbers – they are going up three percent. The democrats are saying “seven percent cut,” because they want a ten percent increase. This talk about a cut is false: it’s actually an increase, and you guys have to know that.

News writer: Yeah, well… the democrats gave us stuff to use and the republicans didn’t.

I was horrified, but it was, at least, an honest answer. What shocked me most was the fact that they simply didn’t care. This was the flagship news station in Chicago – the one people went to when they wanted to be sure – and they simply didn’t care about accuracy.

#2: To Make Their Voices Sound Better

Not long after this incident, I was listening to the other news station in Chicago (also an old and respected station) and in the credits at the bottom of the hour, I heard, “The news this hour is being written by Sandy ____.”

As it happened, Sandy was an old friend. A few weeks later I called her about it and asked if she enjoyed the work. The conversation went like this:

Sandy: Actually, Paul, I just quit.

Me: I’m sorry, Sandy. It sounded like a fun job. Why did you quit?

Sandy: Well, I was writing the news as accurately as I could, but they were changing it as they read it on the air.

Me: Some kind of political bias?

Sandy (laughing): No, they were changing it to make their voices sound better.

Me: What!?

Sandy: I kid you not, Paul. They thought their voices would sound better if they changed what I wrote, so they did.

Sandy is a person of integrity, so she quit. She was the only one.

#3: Editing Tricks

At one point, I was involved in a human interest story that ran on the big local TV station. I observed all of the filming and talked with the interviewer off-screen as well. (Seemed like a nice guy.)

But when the show finally aired, it had been edited so that people seemed to be saying things they never said or intended to say. The program didn’t present them saying anything horrible, but it was definitely not the truth. To the viewers, however, it looked 100% real.

#4: The “Real” Story

Another time, I had the insider’s view of a story that made the national news via quite a few major news outlets. The giant TV network that covered it (and their famous news anchor) simply got the facts wrong. So did smaller outlets. One newspaper got it right – The National Enquirer!

#5: The Short Term Weatherman

Granted, this one’s just for fun, but it still makes a good point.

Years ago, I was helping in the evenings at a radio station, in a regionally important Midwestern city. At one point the DJ started pushing buttons in an excited way, then turned to me:

DJ (urgently): Paul, stick your hand out the window!

Me: What??

DJ: We lost the satellite feed for the weather report. Stick your hand out the window!

I complied.

DJ: Now, is it warmer or colder than when you got here an hour ago?

Me: I don’t know, D… I think it’s a little warmer.

By the top of the next hour, we had the satellite feed back, and the solemnly reported temperatures for that evening ended up being:

Six o’clock: 66 degrees.

Seven o’clock: 69 degrees.

Eight o’clock: 62 degrees.


No Respect

The job of the news media is not to be accurate; their job is to be respected.

All of the expensive suits, the perfect hair, the conservative diction and bearing… it all serves the purpose of gaining respect. Accuracy and fairness would only become factors if they damaged that respect.

Have you ever noticed that there is no competition between news networks involving accuracy? There are no Fact Wars between networks. They spend millions to make people respect their chief news reader, but they don’t point out each other’s factual errors.

So, I don’t respect them or take them seriously. And now you know why.

Paul Rosenberg

Top 5 Reasons I Stopped Caring About Politics

stop caring about politicsWhen I was young, I felt a need to understand politics, and I spent time studying. But as time progressed, I received diminishing returns on that investment. And in the past few years, I have given it up altogether.

These days, my concern with politics is limited to things like these:

  • Who is making war, and where?
  • Where is the crime occurring in my area?
  • Are there laws that will force me to move my businesses offshore?

Beyond that, I’m really not interested. I see the headlines, but I seldom read the stories. And I’m very happy saying, “I haven’t looked into it,” when people ask my opinion on the day’s ‘news.’

Here’s why:

#5: It eats up a horrifying amount of time and energy

Seriously, start counting the number of hours you spend on this stuff. How many hours listening to political radio, watching political TV, and reading political newspapers?

Then start thinking about the intense energy you spend on it. We all have limited reserves of energy; do you really believe that politics is the highest and best use for yours? What about using your energy to build your business? Or to nurture your children? Or to help a neighbor? There must be a dozen things that are more important than obsessing over the votes of congressmen or Supreme Court judges.

#4: It’s an addiction

If imagining yourself dumping politics makes you feel bad, you probably should dump it.

Try it: Imagine your life, devoid of all politics. How does it make you feel? Empty? Forsaken?

The truth is that millions of us are addicted to politics. People can’t pull themselves away from it – it’s the script that runs in the back of their minds 24/7.

The political addiction is so bad that even strongly religious people spend more time on politics than they do on God. Politics is the obsession of the age.

#3: It doesn’t change anything

There was a popular bumper sticker in the 60s that read: If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.

Let’s be honest and admit that the bumper sticker was true. Even the best examples – such as Reagan on the right or Obama on the left – have failed to change much. Government is bigger than ever, the US government is involved in more wars than ever, and the Constitution is being trashed in more ways than ever before. This is progress?

And what of the vaunted elections that they always promote? Personally, I think Alvin Toffler was right when he called them “reassurance rituals.” But, that aside, it is certain that elections are tightly controlled. In the US, two parties firmly control who gets on a ballot and who doesn’t. Everything is scripted; everything requires approval of the party. (The situation is slightly less bad in Europe.)

And please understand that ‘the government’ is far more than 600 faces in DC – it is millions of people in thousands of offices, all pulling together to get more of your money and to spend it upon themselves and their departments.

But even while politics doesn’t actually change much, it does keep everyone locked inside the system and servicing it. To illustrate, here’s a quote I never could forget, and that I hope you’ll never forget either:

Let them march all they want, so long as they continue to pay their taxes.

– Alexander Haig, 1982

So long as everyone obeys the government, why should it care about their complaints? Americans are nearly 100% obedient, so why should the government bother changing anything at all? There is no need.

Politics doesn’t change anything, because its actual goal is to keep the populace reassured and compliant. And in this it has succeeded brilliantly.

#2: In the end, it’s about violence

Here’s a passage from my novel, A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, that expressed this idea:

Coercion is the sine qua non of politics; the thing, without which, politics would not be politics. Indeed, if you remove coercion, politics becomes something else – economics.

Politics cannot exist without force. In the end, it rests on violence. No matter how much they color everything red, white, and blue, violence or the threat of violence underpins it all. As Jim Rogers once wrote, “Somewhere in every process of taxation, a pistol is involved.

Politics – government – is based upon a single transaction: Taking money from people against their will. Everything else they do falls apart without that.

You may think me rude for pointing this out, or you may come up with justifications for it, but the statement stands: Governments take money that they didn’t earn, by one type of coercion or another. If not, taxation would be voluntary and government would be just another business.

I don’t like dealing with violent enterprises.

#1: Politics is a relic of a barbaric past

Being that I study the ancient past, I can trace men ruling over men back to about 6400 BC. I can trace a government that resembles ours back to about 5000 BC.

So, what else from two thousand years before the Pyramids still rules the lives of men?

If there is any example on Earth of humans failing to evolve, this has to be it.

Men no longer pull plows. They no longer start fires with flint. Nor do they pull sleds or wooden-wheeled carts or rely upon animals for power. We have learned to write, to invent, to navigate, to cover immense distances, to drive, to fly, to reach into the heavens…

And yet this one relic of a primitive past remains. And please don’t tell me that it remains because it is good – people complain about government more than they complain about cancer.

To illustrate government’s barbaric nature, consider this: Thousands of people like me would like to experiment with different ways of living, but we are forbidden. No one is permitted to leave the game. If you try, large armed men will assault you and lock you in a cage, or perhaps they will merely steal your money from the bank you entrusted it to. But in either case, government sycophants will solemnly inform the world that you are an evil-doer.

No exit is permitted and all escape attempts are met with violence. How is this not primitive barbarity?


So, there you have it. You’re big boys and girls and you can make your own decisions, but I have to tell you: I am ever so happy with mine. I am less stressed, more productive, and a clearer thinker.

Every so often, a friend asks me to examine a political issue. And, nearly always, I politely decline; it makes me feel the same as when my mother wanted me to eat liver.

Paul Rosenberg