Anarchist Alcohol: Ginger Ale!

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Alcohol, Anarchism / Voluntaryism | Posted on 18-05-2014

Tags:

PREFACE: This is a crappy incomplete draft that is poorly thrown together, but… meh… Clicking “Publish” anyways. Enjoy!

Holy mind-blowing wow! This batch of ginger ale has turned out simply spectacular!

But what does ginger ale have to do with alcohol? Or anarchism? Well, one question at a time…

Alcoholic Ginger Ale

Scroll down for the tl;dr that explains it in less than 5 seconds.

Making alcoholic ginger ale is much easier than you’d probably guess. There are a lot of recipes around, but I’ll sum it up quickly here. (Amounts are approximate – check recipes online, but consider going heavy on their recommendations as the results seem better that way.)

  • Lots of ginger.
    Aim for around 50 g per liter of water for a nice strong ale.
  • Lots of sugar.
    Yeast eats sugar to produce C2H5OH – ethanol – alcohol – BOOZE!
    Aim for around 50-75 g per liter of water.
  • Yeast.
    Yeast ferments the drink.
    Aim for around 1/2 a tablespoon per liter of water.
  • Filtered water.
    Use good water. Toxins in the water (fluoride, chlorine) can retard the fermentation process.

For the sugar, use better quality sugar, e.g. raw sugar, organic sugar, light brown sugar, but not pure shite, err… white sugar. You can use white sugar, but why? You might want to add in a tablespoon of molasses if you use white sugar to give it some more colour, but don’t use too much as it will heavily flavour your ginger ale. Do not try using an artificial sweetener. You can use caster sugar (icing sugar). I make my own caster sugar from normal sugar, and I do that for each batch of ginger ale.

While any decent brewing site will tell you to use “proper” yeast, you don’t need to. You can get perfectly acceptable results with baker’s yeast that you may very well have in your pantry already. Try that first. Let the specialty stuff come later as you experiment more.

Now, with the ginger, mince or grind or grate or pulverize the bejeez out of it. Really. Get that ginger as fine as you can. You don’t have to, but you’ll get a much higher surface area and get more flavour out of it if you do.

Mix the sugar and ginger with some water and get that all dissolved, slowly adding in more water. You don’t need to add in all the water you’ll be using at this point. While you’re mixing, add in the yeast. You can do this all in a blender.

When you’re done mixing it together, let it sit in a warm room for 2 days. After 2 days, take a funnel and some cheese cloth or muslin or something to filter the ginger pulp out, and pour the liquid into a bottle between 1/4 and 1/3rd full, but not more than 1/2 full. Put in a teaspoon of sugar – don’t miss this (this is for secondary fermentation that gives you carbonation). Top up the bottle with water to around 75-85% full. You MUST leave room for some air in there or the bottle will EXPLODE!

tl;dr for alcoholic ginger ale

Mix ginger, sugar, yeast and water. Let sit for 2 days. Put in a bottle with some sugar and air room at the top. Let sit for a day. Put in fridge. Let cool. Drink!

Now, making ginger ale is pretty easy, but WTF does that have to do with anarchy?

Anarchist Alcohol

Defund the state. Defund corporations that cooperate with the state.

Every penny you give to the state in taxes goes towards violence against you and others. By refusing to let the state have any more of your money than they forcefully steal from you, you are helping to defund them. With alcohol being heavily taxed, if you brew your own drinks, you are withholding money that otherwise would have been wasted.

Poison in Alternative Media: The Real News and Reason TV

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Cynicism, Idiotic Statements, Logic, Philosophy, Rant | Posted on 02-05-2014

The alternative media delivers a far more accurate and better picture about what is going on in the world, but there are times when they have catastrophic failures and present the same talking points that you would expect from the bobble heads on MSNBC. No matter the source, one must always be vigilant to think critically about what is being said and not blindly trust a source simply because they’ve been correct in the past.

I recently saw 2 extreme failures (or perhaps lapses in judgement). One failure led me to abandon a particular source, while another caused me to lose a lot of respect for a journalist who I would otherwise consider near impeccable.

THE REAL NEWS

In what can only be considered a bubonic nuclear train wreck, Jaisal Noor of The Real News interviewed Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC is a leftist hate organisation that targets pretty much anyone that isn’t a neo-liberal communist. While they may “get it right” about some organisations, they group together people like Judge Andrew Napolitano and Ron Paul with organisations such as Stormfront.

Jaisal’s interview stopped short of being completely obsequious, but was never-the-less simply pandering to the extreme agenda of the SPLC. Listening to Mark Potok spew his venom and hatred either makes you vomit uncontrollably, or laugh hysterically at his lunacy.

This is that interview:

The lies and deceit out of Mark’s mouth start quick and never stop; he doesn’t waste much time before getting to “racist and anti-semitic”.

But do watch for yourself. If you wonder about any of the points Mark makes, you can easily do a tiny bit of digging to discover that he is lying or twisting the situation.

The comments below the video are filled with people unsubscribing from The Real News.

I got into a mini-discussion on Twitter with Jaisal, condemning his choice to give a platform to a hate group.

https://twitter.com/jaisalnoor/status/457520668914245632

Of course the land issue became “HE’S A RACIST”:

https://twitter.com/jaisalnoor/statuses/459354921746583553

your nut job rancher hero is a raging racist

Which should come as no surprise. The left invariably resorts to name-calling as it loses the debate due to a lack of logic, reason, and supporting facts/evidence.

But whether or not someone is or isn’t a racist has no bearing on their property rights. Though you wouldn’t know this if you’d ever heard any of the rhetoric from the left. For the left, it seems that natural rights are contingent upon your agreement with them.

Had Jaisal taken the time to actually look into what Cliven Bundy said, he would be hard pressed to accuse him of being racist. You can find Cliven Bundy’s remarks here:

And here with a full transcript of what he said, which you can compare against the convenient snippets found in the left-wing media:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/04/24/cliven-bundy-controversial-remarks-full-context-video-with-transcript/

For the full video, which is over an hour long, check here:

http://bambuser.com/v/4549915

One of the problems with the left is that leftist rarely ever give anything a charitable read. Their goal is to root out anything that could possibly be (mis)construed as other than what it is so that they can exploit it for political purposes. No big surprise there.

But, all the evidence is readily available and out in the open for anyone to verify.

REASON.TV

I was pretty shocked to hear Nick Gillespie in this video:

Reason.TV and Nick Gillespie are generally pretty darn good. They’re still pretty statist, but minarchism is a good deal closer to sanity than the authoritarianism preached by the left-wing communists and the right-wing fascists. (Is there a difference between them?)

The article for the video is here:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/29/3-policies-that-are-more-racist-than-don

From the video:

“Racist rants by federal land moocher Cliven Bundy…”

Seriously Nick? Really? At that point I figured that I’d stepped into the twilight zone. I lost a lot of respect for Reason and Nick there.

Speaking about Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling:

They can go fuck themselves.

Apparently Nick got his news about Bundy from Salon and MSNBC.

NOTE: I don’t watch professional sports. I have zero interest in the athletes, coaches, or team owners. I’ve not read anything significant about Donald Sterling or the accusations against him, and have nothing to say on that topic. So, maybe Nick is right about Donald going off and fucking himself. I don’t know.

Nick is way off base in his comments about Cliven Bundy. But aside from Nick accusing Bundy of being racist, perhaps more concerning are his accusation that Bundy is a “moocher” and assertion that the land belongs to the federal government. Nick’s accusation there is eerily reminiscent of what one would expect to hear out of the SPLC, while his assertion is flat-out statist.

The rest of the article is actually quite good. He nails 3 good points with good support and arguments. The “meat” of the article isn’t objectionable – it is his use of racism and Bundy as a “launch pad” for the article that is off-base.

POISON

While the first case with The Real News is more akin to a drinking glass full of poison on a generously prepared banquet table, the second case is far more subtle/insidious. Nick slips in a poison pill into what otherwise would have been a wonderful, tall glass of freshly squeezed juice. i.e. Where The Real News had an entire episode full of poison, Reason.TV merely poisoned a portion of the episode.

SCRUTINY & VIGILANCE

I won’t be watching any of The Real News anymore. The magnitude of the lack of judgement in giving the SPLC a platform is simply far too much to continue to attribute any credibility to them. i.e. There is no point in watching complete garbage and trying to make sense of it.

On the other hand, I’ll still continue to watch Reason.TV and read Reason. However, I will certainly be much more suspicious about what they report from now on.

Everyone has a lapse of judgement or makes an error every now and then. Expecting otherwise would be foolish.

I suppose the take-away lesson from the above is that even from sources that you would normally trust, it is still best to listen and read with a critical mind and not simply accept what is being presented to you. (This blog post included.)

At the end of the day, we are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. Very often we are deceived into believing horrible things. But it is not the “being deceived” that is the fault – it is the refusal to see through a deception that is a fault. This requires that we question our beliefs with the same or greater vigilance that we would apply to the messages we receive through others and the media, be that mainstream media or the alternative media.

Cheers,

Ryan

Jesus Is an Anarchist (Mirrored essay)

1

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Philosophy, Religion, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 26-04-2014

Tags:

There is an excellent essay called “Jesus Is an Anarchist” at http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html.

But it seems like Anti-state.com is no longer maintained, and the essay may disappear at some point. I’m mirroring it here to ensure that it is available in at least 1 other place. When the “anti-state.com” graphic logo is gone, then you’ll know that it’s disappeared.

This essay is an excellent read for anyone looking to learn a bit more about Jesus, Christianity, or anarchism. You don’t need to be religious to get a lot out of this essay, and you don’t need to be an anarchist to get a lot out of it.

As a side note, anyone interested in the occult will get some pretty deep insight here. I should also note that those with a superficial understanding of the occult will likely not understand that last sentence in the least. (“Occult” means “hidden”, and Redford strips away some superficial occult layers in this essay.)

Those who are more serious about reading and understanding might do well to read along with a KJV at the ready. Please note that there is a reference in the essay that appears to be a typo.

The complete essay is available at the bottom of this page as a zipped download.

 


Jesus Is an Anarchist

(A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is–otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)

by James Redford

The above title may seem like strong words, for surely that can’t be correct? Jesus an anarchist? One must be joking, right?

Read the rest of this entry »

What Nobody Noticed About the Bundy Ranch Protests…

1

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Police, Police State, Politics, Sovereignty | Posted on 21-04-2014

Tags:

BLM is already there. Protesters show up. People get tased, assaulted, and arrested.

More protesters show up. A lot more. Some have guns. Nobody gets tased, assaulted, or arrested. Nobody gets hurt.

Something to think about.

Why Putin Answered Snowden Truthfully

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Police State | Posted on 19-04-2014

Tags: , ,

Because the Russians aren’t that stupid to throw all that money away on surveillance that is useless. 😛

No. I don’t really believe Putin, but it’s good for a laugh.

Why Rich People Should Do Less Time in Prison Than Poor People

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Logic, Philosophy, Stupid Questions | Posted on 18-04-2014

Tags: , ,

V is for VoluntaryRich people should do less prison time for the same crimes compared to poor people. Here’s why.

In the modern world, you must pay taxes or you go to prison.

If tax is not theft, then the government owns a percentage of the results/rewards/consequences of your labour/time.

In other words, you are not solely responsible for the consequences of your actions. The government assumes a percentage of the rewards/consequences of your actions through tax. (If they could take your smiles and laughs, I’m sure they would.)

However, different people pay different rates of tax, depending on how much they earn.

For example, someone making a little may pay 25% of the fruits of their labour to the government as tax, whereas someone who earns much more may pay 75% of what they earn to the government.

In both cases the government steps in to assume ownership or responsibility for a percentage.

Now, if two people in different tax brackets commit the same crime, would it not make sense for the government to be consistent in its role of assuming the consequences of people’s actions, e.g. the rewards of the fruits of people’s labours (consequences of their actions), should they not equally assume that same responsibility for negative consequences?

On a 10 year prison sentence, it would then be just for the poor person in the 25% tax bracket to only do 7.5 years in prison (25% belongs to the state), whereas it would be most just for the wealthy person in the 75% tax bracket to do a maximum of 2.5 years in prison (75% belongs to the state).

Rich people should be less accountable than poor people under the law because the law works by percentages, and everyone must be treated equally under the law according to the rule of law. Of percentages. Because logic. Errr… science… err…

Ahem…

Or maybe tax is just slavery by a percentage, and that’s the problem that should be dealt with, and the only way for the rule of law to be upheld is for NOBODY to take what doesn’t belong to them whether it be a percentage or an entirety.

The Pledge of Resistance – Saul Williams – Anarchast Intro

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Bitcoin, Philosophy | Posted on 04-04-2014

I remember walking down the street in downtown Gangnam many years ago and someone trying to give me a pamphelt with “The Pledge of Resistance” and “Not in Our Names” on it. I took the pamphlet, glanced at it, and figured it was some nonsense socialist garbage. I wasn’t interested in yet another “save the children” bit of nonsense that was “probably” the exact opposite of what it purported to be. I already “knew” that whatever cause was being pimped out was 99% likely to be doing the exact opposite.

After all, aren’t all the “activists” socialist assholes? I don’t know what I did with it. I probably threw it out.

But I was wrong and I missed out then.

Jeff Berwick used that as the intro to his Anarchast show on Youtube. It’s powerful.

Pure, power.

SAUL WILLIAMS PLEDGE OF RESISTANCE

We believe that it is our
responsibility to resist the injustices
done by our government,
in our names.

Not in our name
will you wage endless war
there can be no more deaths
no more transfusions
of blood for oil.

Not in our name
will you invade countries
bomb civilians, kill more children
letting history take its course
over the graves of the nameless.

Not in our name
will you erode the very freedoms
you have claimed to fight for.

Not by our hands
will we supply weapons and funding
for the annihilation of families
on foreign soil.

Not by our mouths
will we let fear silence us.

Not by our hearts
will we allow whole peoples
or countries to be deemed evil.

Not by our will
and Not in our name.

We pledge resistance.

We pledge alliance with those
who have come under attack
for voicing opposition to the war
or for their religion or ethnicity.

We pledge to make common cause
with the people of the world
to bring about justice,
freedom and peace.

Another world is possible
and we pledge to make it real.

The music in the Anarchast intro really adds a lot to that. It’s really well done.

I recently won the AllCrypt t-shirt slogan contest. I put forth 43 different slogans with several of them being variations of quotes from that poem by Saul Williams. I’m very happy to say that AllCrypt has chosen several of the entries I submitted, and one of them was based on that poem by Saul Williams:

Another world is possible, and we pledge to make it real.
– Saul Williams, The Pledge of Resistance

That’s some pretty powerful stuff.

The winner blog post is here:

https://www.allcrypt.com/blog/2014/04/winner-of-the-t-shirt-slogan-contest/

They’ve chosen 4 of my entries (some edited):

Silly: Mega Doge Sex Nuts. Yeah, we have those.

Drugs: Wanna legally buy some POT and METH with Bitcoin? (Tweaking wording before it goes to print. We’ve gone through 8 revisions. We’re indecisive)

Political: Another world is possible, and we pledge to make it real. – Saul Williams, The Pledge of Resistance

Suggestive: We do it DOGE style.

Now, I really like all of those. And they’re going to send me a t-shirt, so I have to choose one… That’s a tough call. I want to promote crypto. I want to promote so many things, but to choose just one… I have to go with #3 there. Saul Williams has such a beautiful piece of spoken poetry there.

I don’t want to just make people laugh; I want to make them think.

As Jeff Berwick would say…

Peace, love, and anarchy.

Huntercoin is HOT!!!

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Bitcoin, Games, Money | Posted on 04-02-2014

If you want to see the future of gaming, check out Huntercoin.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=435170.0

This will be a revolution in video games. You can make money while you play. The better you play, the more you make.

It’s simply incredible.

Cheers,

Ryan

 

Killing Cops is OK. Sometimes.

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Cynicism, Philosophy, Police, Police State, Politics, States | Posted on 08-09-2013

Tags: , ,

V is for VoluntaryThe topic of violence really sets a lot of people off. Those that love it, get upset when you point out that they participate and endorse it. Those that abhor violence, get testy when the topic of defense comes up.

The first of those is easily seen in any discussion of tax with a statist. Lots of those out there, and not hard to find.

The other case, where people advocate violence for defense (outside of the state), isn’t so common. But there are 2 good examples out there.

The first, and best known, is Larken Rose’s “When should you shoot a cop?” (Video at CopBlock)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cElTyqJkMEw

He raises some good questions.

A more recent phrasing of the question is by Chris Cantwell in his article, “Concord Police, Go and Get Your Bearcat“.

Chris says the obvious when it comes to defending yourself:

So what to do? It’s a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill government agents. The government agents know that, and that’s why they want a tank.

There really isn’t anything very controversial about what they’ve said, i.e. If the state initiates violence (aggresses) against you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself or resist that violence with violence.

If someone is trying to kill you, or attacking you and could kill you, you’re a complete moron if you refuse to use lethal force to save your own life (or that of another person).

Rudolph Rummel is a political scientist that has done a great deal of research on democide (governments murdering people).

He estimates that in the 20th century alone, about 262,000,000 people were murdered by various states/governments.

Those 262,000,000 people stand as a testament to the moral validity and moral imperative of defending yourself and/or other people with violence, and with deadly violence if necessary.

To put that somewhat into perspective, the Nazi murder of Jews represents about 2% of the total number of civilians murdered by government. About 50x more people were murdered that people never talk about.

Ignoring the topic of using violence against the state because violence is detestable, is simply irresponsible. Those that say, “it can’t happen here,” are most likely the ones that most need to discuss the topic. Larken Rose goes over the topic in detail in his video, “It Can’t Happen Here“.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ebudnWlh4

The debate on the topic needs to happen. People need to think about defensive violence against the police and the state.

Nobody is saying, “Run out and kill the first cop you see.” Nobody is saying, “Kill every cop you can.” Nobody want to run around killing people. Well, that’s not really true – it appears that our governments love killing people and really get off on it, but let’s assume we’re talking about sane people – you know – voluntarists and anarchists. 😉

“Legalize Gay Marriage” is the Wrong Question

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Philosophy, States | Posted on 06-09-2013

Tags: , , ,

V is for VoluntaryI often wonder why people ask such idiotic questions or debate such moronic issues, like legalizing gay marriage.

The state has no business telling you who you can love or who you can marry. (Let’s assume consenting adults here and not go off on the retarded statist tangent. That actually needs to be said for some people… sigh…)

I actually had to get PERMISSION from the government of Canada to marry my wife. Similarly, she needed permission as well. Huh? No. Not joking. Really.

Nobody should ever have to ask the state for permission to love anyone.

Nobody should ever have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.

The state should play no part in the equation at all. It’s perverse and sick when it does.

The maximum role that any state should play is to passively accept information from people who do get married. That is, if you want to tell them, then fine. If not, then they have no business in your love life.

To allow the state to participate in basic human emotions is a gross over-step of any imaginable legitimate role. (Not that the state is legitimate, but let’s just pretend for a moment.) Even entering the debate on “gay marriage” is perverse. It lends credibility to the authority of the state to dictate who can love/marry who, which is surrendering fundamental natural rights that are so much a deep part of being human, that it is essentially surrendering your humanity to the state.

Whether or not anyone believes that it is right or wrong is entirely up to them. If you don’t want a gay marriage, hey… don’t have one. But leave other people alone to live their lives as they see fit. And don’t try to use the state to force people to conform to your whims.

Governments have no business meddling in love.

The question people should be asking is “why do we let government meddle in love?”