Freedom: An International Illusion

“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”
― Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

Most people like watching magicians. A good magician can pull off tricks that appear to be as real as the day is long through a series of methods involving subterfuge, sleigh of hand, and outright psychological manipulation that targets the propensity people have to not really pay attention when they think they are. I’d suspect that everyone has seen the classic trick of cutting someone in half. But I suspect fewer people know how it works and even fewer watch the crowds viewing such a thing with more curiosity than the act being carried out. If the crowd is watched, you’ll see three general reactions to such a sight: laughter and clapping from those that enjoy the trick, confusion from those that wonder how in the world the magician did it, and horror from those that actually think it’s real. The illusion of ‘freedom’ is one to which most people laugh and clap. But to ‘freedom’ they clap because they think it’s real. On the other hand, those that shake their head in horror at a show of ‘freedom’ are those that can see how the tricks are being manipulated. It’s the exact opposite of how people react to a magician’s tricks.

I could explain how the US has more people incarcerated than any other country, which means we aren’t ‘free’. I could explain how the US politics are corrupted by a bully attitude that makes them think they’re really in control, which would mean we aren’t free. I could explain how the existence of courts indicates we’re not free. I could explain how the political domination of only two major parties shows we’re not free. I could read the Pledge of Allegiance and point out that ‘Republic’ is mentioned, but not ‘Democracy’. But the actual reasons that we aren’t, and by extension no one else, is even more fundamental. It’s so fundamental that people don’t even think about it, because they accept it at face value like those that recoil in horror at a magician’s trick are accepting it at face value. And when you accept something at face value, you tend not to think about it, as the majority of people don’t think about the illusion of the word ‘freedom’.

Alliances- The United States has a long history of entering into alliances. The longest running alliance is NATO, or The North American Treaty Organization, which the US has been a part of for 70 years. This treaty specifically states that an attack on one is an attack on all, as most military alliances state in one way or another. The problem is that there are a total of 29 countries part of that alliance. That means that there are 28 other countries that have direct influence on the United States through that single treaty. A prime example of this influence is the conflict surrounding the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. We tell Germany, don’t do that, they responded with what amounts to ‘bugger off, we’re done causing trouble’. Then the EU and other countries get involved, why? Because Germany is in the EU, an alliance itself, along with NATO, and those countries are worried about ‘Russian influence’. The alliance system means Germany isn’t free of other countries influence. People like to forget that an alliance is a rule structure that ties two or more countries together and therefore pushes influence both ways. There is nothing ‘free’ about any alliance nor can any nation who’s in an alliance claim to be ‘free’. It would be like a state in the US claiming to be ‘free’ or like a county in a state making the same claim. They’re subject to a rule structure that precludes any notion of ‘freedom’.

Trade deals- The US has free trade agreements with a total of 20 countries, not counting other trade deals with many others. Having a ‘free trade agreement’ subjects the agreeing nations to rules that are laid out by the World Trade Organization. All countries in the agreement have to follow those rules if they want to remain in the agreement. This puts their economies at the influence of each other. This puts their trade at the influence of each other. This puts their money systems at the influence of each other. This means that their economies are fundamentally ‘unfree’ and subject to other nation’s interest. Calling a nation free that is part of a free trade agreement is like saying a US nickle is free without taking into account all the rules and regulations that surrounds that nickle in the larger currency system.

Geneva Conventions- Not only is the US and other nations subject to the rule structures of multiple military alliances and trade agreements, but they’re also subject to the Geneva Conventions that has been ratified by every nation on the planet. This means in short that no country is even ‘free’ when it comes to how they make war upon another nation. Everyone is tied to everyone else in having influence over them to keep their war making in check.

The idea of ‘freedom’ is an illusion like that created by a good magician. The purpose of the illusion of ‘freedom’ is to keep people docile and controlled, because the easiest way to keep people under control is to present to them an illusion of freedom. I’m not saying this is fundamentally wrong. Few people can handle truths on this level, they get unruly when they realize their domesticated world isn’t real, which is why the illusion of freedom exists in the first place. I’m just saying that before you start tearing your nation up for ‘freedom’, you really want to examine what that actually means. Chances are it doesn’t mean what you think it means, but rather what you want to think it means. This also why the ‘woke’ culture is so annoying to others without the ‘woke’ understanding it: what they say is based on illusions that most people don’t buy. You have to be able to sell your illusion for people to buy it and some are more easily sold than others while some people are more easily sold to than others. However, that doesn’t mean everyone will always buy them, because some people think about things rather than regurgitating words and phrases some magician sold to them and they evaluate their lives based on the rule structures around them rather than the illusions being sold to the masses.

Additional info:

History of United States and Its Alliances:

Nord Stream 2: Go-ahead for Russian gas pipeline angers Ukraine:

Free Trade Agreements:

What are Rules of Origin and how do they apply to Free Trade Agreements and tariffs?:

Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols:

Freedom: A Great Lie

“But the Hebrew word, the word timshel—‘Thou mayest’— that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.”
― John Steinbeck, East of Eden

I can’t say for sure where the notion of ‘freedom’ originated, I can only see that it’s pure propaganda. It’s the type of propaganda lots of people prefer to believe since it dulls the pain of their existence in a world that is fundamentally unfree. A world that is fundamentally oppressive and orthodox. A world that doesn’t care if you’re free as long as you think you are, so you don’t tear up the society you live within that makes the rules that ensure you’re never ‘free’. Freedom of action has never existed. Freedom of expression has never existed. Freedom of thought only exists until it’s spoke to the wrong people. The closest anyone ever gets to ‘freedom’ is willfully choosing the path they follow, whether that path is contained within the rules outlined by their society and is deemed ‘acceptable’ or not contained within those rules and considered ‘unacceptable’, which leads to them being punished in some way. This is an idea I’ve had for quite some time, far longer than the riots in Hong Kong have been taking place, but those riots and the circle talk presented by those defending them convinced me that this idea should be spoken.

Basically, ‘freedom’ doesn’t exist, what exists are ‘rule structures’, and even the people with their circle talk defending the HK riots know that is the truth (regardless of their ability to comprehend what they’re saying). Their arguments always circle back to ‘a new constitution’, seemingly without proper realization that a ‘new constitution’ is just a different rule structure, probably only slightly different, than what they have now. Their very argument for ‘freedom’ is an argument for freedom not existing while trying to claim it does. The irony in their words is as palpable as the fists they beat a woman with and the Molotovs they threw at cleanup crews.

One of the earliest mentions in history that I am aware of in which ‘freedom’ was used as propaganda is the conflict between the Greeks and Persians. The Greeks went to war to defend their ‘freedom’. But what type of ‘freedom’ did the Greeks have? Not much. The Spartans had a strict rule system based around their military that killed any child that wasn’t deemed strong enough or that had any deformities while laying out concrete guidelines on the place of men and women in society, all of which was supported on slave labor. Athens, the birthplace of ‘Democracy’, limited voting to male citizens only and only then after completing their military training. Some of the other Greek city-states also formed ‘democratic governments’ upon the same lines as Athens, but tended towards local kings, perhaps the most famous of which is Philip II of Macedon who fathered one of the greatest military leaders in history: Alexander the Great, who tried to make his subjects worship him as a god. As such, the ‘freedom’ they were fighting for wasn’t ‘freedom’, it was the right to their own rule structures. They had systems of punishment that were the predecessors of modern court systems, further proof that citizens of Greek city-states weren’t free to do as they wished.

In short, ‘freedom’ for one person means ‘oppression’ for another. To say you have the right to make the rules means that you’re saying someone else doesn’t. There’s nothing ‘free’ about a fight for ‘freedom’. It’s a form of oppression. Modern examples of this include the concept of ‘freedom of religion’, which isn’t ‘freedom’, it’s a concept that oppresses those that don’t agree that someone else can worship who/what they want. The gender pronoun laws are an even more modern example, since saying someone has the right to be called what they want means that someone’s thoughts to the opposite are being oppressed. Same thing with the Politically Correct culture that tries to limit words people can use, which oppresses those that have no issue with them. All of these things are examples of human being’s desire to control others while trying to make it appear they aren’t, as they attempt to explain away their own control freakishness so they don’t have to face what they’re really doing.

Some oppression is good. We oppress peoples’ will to rape and murder. We oppress peoples’ desire to cause mayhem against those they disagree with. We oppress peoples’ urge to keep certain members of society disenfranchised. But to call any of those things ‘freedom’ for anyone is an exercise in naivety: they’re targeted oppression for the good of society. Oppression as people think of as ‘oppression’ is best described as ‘oppression that doesn’t better society’. Show me a country with a constitution that bans any form of punishment no matter the offense, and I’ll show you a ‘free’ country. Until then, make the best of your rule structure and know you’re not free, and never will be regardless of the propaganda around you, unless you and your neighbor have the right to beat each other over the head with a stick without any form of social retribution.

Further info:

China slams Hong Kong judges after mask ruling, raising pressure on city’s freedoms:

Woman attacked by protesters in Mong Kok, Hong Kong:

HK rioters throw firebombs at residents cleaning streets:

Potential Sources of the Poisoned Mentality in US Politics

“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.” ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

I like to watch people. People are interesting, even people that don’t agree with me. And twenty years of customer service experience has given me a lot of practice at it. As a CNA you learn to recognize when people feel good or bad or are drugged up. Doing construction, you learn how people react to strangers entering their homes to do work and how they react to a good or bad job. From food service, you learn how to recognize when someone is looking down on you and the subtle signs of being hungry. You learn how people react over money, both when receiving and when forced to pay it back, when doing check advances. When doing delivery work, you learn how to recognize the minute body language that could signify a threat and when competitive co-workers are edgy and looking for an advantage or are up to no good. While taking phone calls in service centers, you learn to operate without the vast well of information that body language provides about a person and to pay attention to phrasing and tone. As I tell people, and most people jump when told this to their face which creates an even larger reaction to read, I can read muscle twitches you don’t even know you’ve made. But as well as I can read people, which has allowed me to disarm many bad situations while in the infant stage, I’m unable to properly isolate the source of the mentality that has been projected into the US political environment starting just before the ’16 presidential election, which is the mentality the compels people to resort to personal attacks such as Hillary’s now infamous ‘deplorable’ brain fart that lost her the election and the accusations of ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, and ‘extremist’ that are regular fodder in any dialog in which those part of the far Left doesn’t agree with which has led to a likewise response from people in the middle and on the Right. This isn’t to suggest that insults haven’t always been thrown back and forth between groups of people, but the rhetoric picked up serious steam after Hillary decided to label anyone that disagreed with her as ‘deplorables’ and pushed the idea that anyone disagreeing with her were ‘deserving strong condemnation’ per the definition of ‘deplorable’. Of course, some people just shout insults in return, but others write stories and essays, using the poison thrown back and forth (and at themselves) as social fodder to put the dysfunction of the political and social climate on display. It’s been a lot of fodder for people watchers and interesting fodder in a horror show kind of way.

Before getting into the possible sources of the poison that has bubbled up, I’m going to state where it didn’t come from. It’s not from the country being more divided than before, because the voter party affiliation has remained relatively constant between the major two political parties for some time. It’s not because Hillary was attacked first, because she was winning the ’16 Presidential election when the ‘deplorables’ comment was made that resulted in her losing. It’s not from the general conflict between Liberals and Conservatives, because that conflict is ages old. And it’s not because some group was suddenly downtrodden, because the overall US society has remained reasonably stable since the civil rights movements in the 60’s other than some riots caused by police violence. The source is nothing so simple. But what is the source? I have a few ideas, but since the truth is messy, I think it’s a bit of all of them in various degrees, plus more I’ve not considered.

The first suspect is social media. For the first time in history, people are able to easily hide behind fake accounts and mask their identity. This allows people to say stuff they wouldn’t otherwise say due to no consequences being attached to those words. Don’t like a politician but don’t want your name known? Make a fake account. Want to support odious ideological concepts but don’t want your name known? Make a fake account. Blocked or banned? Make a fake account. Want to harass a person or group? Make a fake account. The worst in people comes out when they can hide behind a fake name. No matter how harsh you can be when your name is attached to the words, you can be a million times worse when knowing the real you isn’t on display to be criticized. This emboldens people that would never say what they do otherwise. Mob mentality also seems to be part of what happens on social media. Causing a ruckus and getting someone banned from some platform is no different than a group of people with torches and pitchforks forcing someone out of a neighborhood.

Identity politics is the second suspect. Identity politics seems to have caused a great number of people to forget something important: you’re a citizen of the country you’re in first and foremost. Man? Woman? Teenager? Student? Gay? Poor? Rich? Christian? Liberal? Conservative? Libertarian? Irrelevant. Meaningless. To anyone but you the individual, that is. You’re not a citizen of any of that, you’re a citizen of the country and of the state you reside in. Your ideological group does not look after your social security. It does not attend to your civil rights. It does not pass laws. It does not declare disaster relief. It does not deposit your disability payments. It does not provide you with Medicaid. The country does as a cooperative collective of states that has agreed to work together to do so. Identity politics puts emphasis on individuals and appears to create a mental state in which people stare intently at a single tree without seeing the forest around them, and, in some cases, deny the forest even exists. It’s a compartmentalized state of being in which the box the person is locked inside is their ideological group that they perceive to be an entire world.

The third suspect is drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. Everyone knows about the opiate epidemic unless they live under a rock in the middle of the desert 500 miles from anyone else. Fewer people realize that nearly every mass shooter in the last two decades has been on some sort of anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, or anti-psychotic medication. Sometimes multiple ones. Nearly all of these types of drugs have suicidal thoughts and personality changes as side effects mixed with other things like anxiety, agitation, depression, and insomnia, causing a corresponding increase in mental illness as their use increases. Some have side effects associated with compulsive gambling, sleep suicide, and sleep driving. Some even have ‘sudden death’ as side effects. (But don’t expect your doctor to tell you about them since the over prescription of opiates that caused the opiate epidemic is evidence they’re in pharm company pockets and are willing to push a poisoned product.) And these things are being handed out like candy. Commonly used medications, including widely used anti-psychotic medication Seroquel, have been discovered to cause dementia like symptoms when used in conjunction with each other. Meanwhile, the average number of prescriptions used by people in the US was an average of 12.3 per person in 2013, with the lowest age group of 0-18 having an average of 4.2, and has only risen since, which doesn’t include OTC drugs like Zantac, which is currently being recalled due to cancer risk. The number of prescriptions per individual is far higher since these are averages and a lot of people like me and most people I know take a grand total of zero. That’s a lot of drug interactions that can cause all matter of physical and mental issues in the people taking them, and since those people are on the inside looking out, it’s highly unlikely they’ll be the ones to notice themselves acting odd since it merges with their reality. As someone that’s essentially ‘gone nuts’ twice in my life, once from an out of control thyroid and the second due to inhaling unknown chemicals in a workplace for months, I’ve personally seen that no matter how much you’re aware of yourself, you can’t properly examine what happened in your head until emerging from the darkness that type of thing creates. It’s like being in a tunnel but not knowing you’re in a tunnel until you stumble out one end and can look back on things.

The fourth suspect is that we’re growing into a nation of bullies. That wouldn’t be too surprising, considering our international diplomacy has been on the level of a school ground bully for decades now by threatening war and sanctions on those that disagree. But which is a consequence of the other is open to debate. It’s a chicken and egg argument. What is less of a debate is that no bully only tells someone to hand over their money or to step off a cliff. They don’t simply say do ‘X’. That just doesn’t work on a psychological level, and depending on the person, it doesn’t even work then and can have the opposite effect. Some people like to oppose bullies just because they’re bullies, no matter who they’re defending. What bullies say is do ‘X’ or I’ll do ‘Y’. This isn’t limited to physical violence. The mental version of it is do ‘X’ or you’re ‘Y’. But the psychology behind both is the same since they can be reduced to ‘to treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner’ which is the definition of ‘bullying’. This suspect in particular could be related to drug use and environmental contamination since bullying is something that originates in the mind, making it susceptible to external chemical manipulation.

The fifth suspect is environmental contamination. Pharmaceuticals, illegal drugs, industrial chemicals, and plastics have entered the ecosystem at every level. Research showed long ago that hormonal changes caused by chemicals can cause tadpoles to turn into hermaphrodites. To think that these things don’t enter human bodies and have some effect would be nearsighted, however, this issue hasn’t been taken seriously except when certain pockets of chemicals cause serious health issues in an area and the government is forced to examine the problem. These chemicals have been linked to lower testosterone levels in men in some studies, making what they do to everyone else open to a debate that few want to have since the majority may figure out something they don’t want to know, so little of the research has been followed up on.

The sixth suspect is the growing economic gap. People have the common view that the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 that killed ~1 million people was purely ethnic violence because that is the story presented. The Tutsi, ethnic minority, ruled the country and were overthrown in 1959 by the ethnic majority Hutus. Many Tutsi escaped to Uganda and formed a rebel army that then invaded Rwanda and fought a civil war from 1990-93 before a peace deal was brokered. On April 6th, 1994, the Presidential plane was downed, killing the Hutu President, Juvenal Habyarimana, initiating the methodical slaughter of Tutsi with machetes in which husbands killed wives, neighbor killed neighbor, and students killed their teachers. Calling it ethnic violence is the obvious option and the one most observers took. However, Jared Diamond presents a different outlook in his book ‘Collapse’. His research reveals a country that was massively overpopulated for available farmland and had a huge economic gap. Adult children were unable to make their way into the world and stayed in the household, which caused friction by breaking down the traditional ways the people had followed due to lack of income and available land. The poor farmers got poorer and possessed less land as the richer farmers were able to better their positions by buying land from the others and securing additional jobs for more income. The situation right before violence erupted in 1994 was one in which a great number of people were starving and desperate for something to give. As a surviving Tutsi school teacher said when interviewed, ‘The people whose children had to walk barefoot to school killed the people who could buy shoes for theirs’. Currently, the situation isn’t so that the majority of the US is starving, but the relative economic gap is widening. The fact that many of those complaining they don’t have enough money because they spend the money they have on expensive cell phones they ‘need’ along with other trinkets pushed by corporations and are weighed down by $1.6 trillion in student loans for useless degrees they never should have been loaned money for is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that the economic gap between the haves and have nots is growing and that produces resentment in people that feel they got the short end of the stick.. Resentment breeds discontent and violence over the long run within any group of people it takes hold of, and dialog about ‘universal income’ boils down to resentment and wanting more, which is a symptom of the economic gap.

Anyone that tries to claim that any single cause is leading to what we see in the US as a whole hasn’t thought the problem through. Anyone that claims the solution is simple hasn’t thought the problem through. Even if looked at in a conservative manner, we’re a minimum of two decades into the darkness, and probably closer to three or four. Due to the scope of the issues and the number of people in the country, it would take just as long to fix these issues in a civil manner. Politicians have to be removed from office that are paid off by large corporations. Lobbyists need banned. Stringent laws need put in place that say when and how doctors can prescribe certain scripts since powerful, mind altering drugs are being handed out for simple things such as weight control and sleep aids that they were never meant to be used for. The ‘education’ system and its corresponding student loan system needs a total revamp so they can’t prey on naive people and lock them into lifelong servitude for degrees that are the economic equivalent of underwater basket weaving. The environment needs cleaned up. The toxicity that is hate speech being masqueraded as ‘free speech’ needs addressed on social media. It’s not normal for people to be confused about their gender. It’s not normal for people to wish death on others simply because of an opinion that differs from their own, no matter how heated. It’s not normal for personal attacks to dominate the political landscape. It’s not normal to throw human life away for a buck. It’s not normal to tie people down in lifelong debt. Even though these things show up in societies all the time, they are always aberrant, caused by external stimuli, and get pushed aside once people come to their senses. Sometimes it happens because of a single work by a single person, such as when ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ultimately led to the fall of far Left Socialism in Russia. The political spectrum is a circle, with both ends terminating at a form of totalitarianism, which is why all far Left and far Right ideologies have failed until people had to relearn forgotten, harsh lessons by reinvigorating them or by reawakening them.

Further reading:

These are Americans’ favorite insults, by political affiliation:

Party Affiliation:

Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ remark sums up a deplorable election season:

Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals, and Progressives:

Conservatives, Moderates, Liberals, and Progressives

6 Ways Social Media Affects Our Mental Health:

The Positive and Negative Effects of Identity Politics and the Privilege Lens on Academic Discourse: The Positive and Negative Effects of Identity Politics and the “Privilege” Lens on Academic Discourse

National Survey on Drug Use and Health:

2018 Prescription Drug Abuse Statistics You Need To Know:

2018 Prescription Drug Abuse Statistics You Need To Know

Zantac Is Voluntarily Recalled After Cancer-Causing Chemical Detected:

Common Medications Can Masquerade as Dementia in Seniors:

Common Medications Can Masquerade as Dementia in Seniors

Prescription per capita in the United States by age group 2013:

The Psychology of Bullying:

The Psychology of Bullying

US: History of U.S. sanctions shows most haven’t worked:

US’s history of sanctions worldwide and how Zimbabwe is affected:

US’s history of sanctions worldwide and how Zimbabwe is affected

Pesticide ’causes frogs to change sex’:

Environmental exposure to metals and male reproductive hormones: Circulating testosterone is inversely associated with blood molybdenum:

PFOA and PFOS Cause Lower Sperm Counts and Smaller Penises, Study Finds:

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed:

The Widening Gap Between the Super-Rich and Other Americans:

The Widening Gap Between the Super-Rich and Other Americans

Rwanda genocide: 100 days of slaughter:

Paying Back Student Loans? It’s Hardest for People in These 8 Industries:

The Gulag Archipelago and The Wisdom of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

The Gulag Archipelago and The Wisdom of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The Rise of the Far Right

The Rise of the Far Right

Social Media: Time Waster and Mental Health Destroyer

I never had a Myspace account because I recognized that long ago that there were inherent issues with anything like this. That’s because it’s social engineering masquerading as ‘social media’. Perhaps it even started off as something innocent, but it’s became a time and sanity vampire. Yeah, it’s great because you meet people you’d never have met before, but it’s also terrible because at least half those people are so toxic they leave holes in the floor behind them as they walk. It’s also a massive time waste and distraction.

A smart, curious person on a site like this is like walking a dog into a vet without a leash: they’re going to sniff someone’s ass and possibly start a fight and there’s nothing you or the dog can do about it because it’s the nature of the beast. Do you smack the dog for doing it? yourself for not stopping it? or do you recognize that the less the dog is there the less of a problem it is? I like to get to the bare basics and fix things from the ground up. The bare basics are that Facebook serves no useful purpose to me except as a messaging service and distracts the hell out of me. And there’s no reason for the distraction because there’s a dozen other ways to contact me. It’s also nearly useless for advertisement.

Yeah, you can get likes. All kinds of likes. But do you think they translate into profit? No. Why, I don’t know, but I have some suspicions: 1. A great number of FB accounts are fake. 2. FB is clearly bias against conservatives and anyone else not on the sinking Liberal boat, and I expect that would extend to ads also. 3. Conservatives and non-Liberals have been jumping ship from FB and a cross section of a FB crowd no longer represents the same cross section you’d get by pulling a group of the same number off the street and therefore doesn’t have the same buying power. 4. Too many have been affected by the political wrangling inflicted by pathetic politicians that don’t know enough psychology to know how bad they’re fucking people up, which knocks people off their game, changing their behaviors.

As of now, FB is essentially on probation. 90% of the feeds that made it through the last purge have been cut, and the last purge cut 90% of the feeds at that time. That is why the majority of my political posts stopped months ago: there’s nothing to comment on if you don’t see it and that rule can be applied to anything and anyone. So basically, FB is now knocked down to only those people I like, which means only to people, and we’ll see if that changes things enough so that I don’t ditch it completely at the turn of the new year.

I won’t get into other issues I believe social media causes, such as neurosis, anxiety, depression, political dissidence, normalization of evil such as pedophilia, normalization of fantastical delusions of being things people aren’t and can never be, and the normalization and promotion of victim mentality just to name a few of the worst, except to say I’ve barely touched the tip of the iceberg.

Equality: Liberalism’s El Dorado

New essay on Authorsden.

‘People are better off when they play to their strengths and develop the skills they have the most innate ability and desire to do, not the things they’re worst at and have to force themselves to do. You are not special, I am not special. You are not equal, I am not equal. You can do stuff I can’t, I can do stuff you can’t, and Jimbo down the road can kick both our butts at something. That’s a basic fact of life that everyone on the losing end of a competition finds out real fast. (I won’t digress into how the retardation of sports by giving participation awards has possibly led to people thinking equality exists, because after all, they all got trophies so must be equal, right?) ‘

On Authorsden:

3rd Anniversary of first Death Derby playtest


Today marks three years since the first Death Derby playtest with Aric and Summer. Summer won and asked to renamed the vehicle she won with The Wombat. I don’t remember what that vehicle was originally called.

Death Derby on The Game Crafter:

Buy it or download the rules PDF on The Game Crafter:
Buy it on Amazon: