Mind your business.

Sunday, July 29, 2018

"The Essence of Bitcoin" - Andreas Antonopoulos

"Is Bitcoin the greatest technological innovation since the internet or is it the greatest load of hype ever in the history of technology? What is the Essence of Bitcoin?"

Saturday, July 28, 2018

We Are Now Dead Men

"We are now dead men.

We who undergo this project.

And we will undergo this project.

And now we will have a kind of radicalization of our mentalities, already assuming that we are defeated.

And that we must proceed with a kind of suicidal abandon.

A kind of deadliness in our intentionality, which before was not necessary, but has now been made so.

So the way these projects will now direct themselves– because we all know that they won't stop, and people will not stop...

She has invited a deadlier, more suicidal element to the kind of code making, and the type of personality which would undertake this type of work.

Whereas beforehand, she had someone who was naive and idealistic, you know who actually believed that he could make a different world–

That stuff gets put in prison for double life.

That mentality is put in prison for double life.

You think they're going to let you be some kind of martyr for the drug war? No. They're going to make you a monster.

And because the rules of the game are so fierce and so deadly, you have to be fierce and deadly.

And so they will have made monsters of all those people who are to come, and they don't even know it.

And we will be monsters.

Right? They will have to be.

Because that's the stakes.

This is going to get much more interesting, much more deadly, and they've raised the stakes.

Right? This is the kind of escalation.

–because they punish the moral man.

It's supremely ethical. That's my argument.

The fact that he considered assassination of a government agent– at some pain– doesn't change the fact that he was trying to make an ethical decision. And indeed, was serious about trying to make that decision...

We are dealing with the vestiges of a Kantian morality, which says that only the supreme monopolization of authority can ultimately use violence, and only legitimately, justifiably use violence. Violence isn't something for you to be able to use.

Well this guy was faced with a decision. He was painted into a corner. Cornered like an animal. With a loss of either his freedom or the freedom of his suppliers.

And he had to make a decision. Do I snuff out this guy? And protect this thing? This thing that I've built?

And maybe he was selfish, maybe he wasn't. But he had to try to make an ethical decision.

Just because it was a matter of life and death doesn't overrule the fact that he was still trying to struggle with ethics, but they didn't allow him that.

They had to turn him into that.

Remember this was an invented problem.

They created this problem to make him into this person."

Thursday, July 26, 2018

"How Bitcoin Protocol Works" - Andreas Antonopoulos

EXCELLENT technical lecture by Andreas Antonopoulos on how Bitcoin protocol works and how consensus is reached by the blockchain network. UCL, London 2015.

Monday, July 23, 2018

Is Bitcoin the Future of Money? Peter Schiff vs. Erik Voorhees

On July 2, 2018, Reason and The Soho Forum hosted a debate between Erik Voorhees, the CEO of ShapeShift, and Peter Schiff, CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital.

The proposition: "Bitcoin, or a similar form of cryptocurrency, will eventually replace governments' fiat money as the preferred medium of exchange."

Friday, July 20, 2018

On the Trigger- Cody Wilson

On this week's episode of "YOUR WELCOME" we are joined by Cody Wilson. Cody is the founder/director of Defense Distributed, a non-profit organization that develops and publishes open source gun designs suitable for 3D printing and digital manufacturing. Listen as he talks to Michael Malice about first amendment rights, crypto-anarchy and the concept of the downloadable gun.

The Democrats Have Lost Their God Damned Minds


Now listen, if you're a Democrat, I'm not saying that you, in your every day life outside of what you think about politics, are insane– or at least I'm not saying you're any more insane than every other homo on this planet (genus, not orientation). But the voices of your party have lost their God damned minds.

They are having a terrible, slow motion meltdown live on everybody's phone, computer, and television screen, running furiously in vicious circles trying to find some way, any possible way, that you weren't all wrong about Hillary Clinton.

Couldn't be that she really lost. It just couldn't be! It must have been the Russians! The Russians, yes! They interfered in our election! And Donald Trump conspired with them!

America's future former newspaper of record.


It's not good when an entire political party responsible for governance in the United States is in July 2018 still hysterically channeling Rosie O'Donnell's Mar 2017 public meltdown very shortly after Donald Trump was inaugurated.

Rosie O'Donnell: "The Charge Is Treason."

But Rosie's meltdown was far more understandable. She was having a hard time accepting that Donald Trump– who's bullied her for years on Twitter, and publicly humiliated her for cheap laughs and elicited thunderous applause during a televised debate– had become the president of the United States.

For Rosie it really was personal. And it was about Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. And it was right after the inauguration.

But Democrats are still in deep, white hot denial, going on two years later, that Hillary Clinton could have actually lost to Donald Trump, and they're taking it insanely personal instead of being curious and well-meaning enough to open their eyes and try to understand what really happened in the 2016 election.

What Really Happened in 2016

Every. Four. Years.


For the good of your political party if not your own mental health and the stability of our society, you are going to have to stop this madness and just admit that Hillary Clinton was a crap sandwich, and that you and the establishment Democrats in the DNC and media who picked her for you were willfully blind to that.

And that you were wittingly naive and foolish enough to choose not to see that electing a uterus to steal more billions for thieving Wall Street banks, and continue over half a century of the U.S. raping and burning the Middle East and Africa to the ground is a seriously impoverished and decadent conception of progress.

That it's not because Russians stole the election from her that she lost, but because as deeply unpalatable as the television clown was, he still wasn't as bad as the deeply corrupt, influence-peddling, bloodthirsty, warmongering Hillary Clinton, and all her friends on Wall Street and the military industrial complex.


If Democrats can't bring themselves to do that, then at the very least just let it go and move on. Do like the Republicans did with George W. Bush and Iraq– just have mass amnesia!

They were so epicly embarrassed and mortified about that bloody nightmare of an administration, they spent the 2008, 2012, and 2016 campaigns pretending the Bush years never happened.

Look at it! Hillary Clinton voted for this.

Every Republican candidate on the primary debate stage for three presidential elections had to reach all the way back to 1984 and promise they would be the next Ronald Reagan, because no one dared suggest they might be the next George W. Bush.

The only way they could get a Republican in the Oval Office was by nominating an ex-Democrat from a liberal state (just like Reagan), television actor (just like Reagan), with the campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" (just like Reagan).

It'll be like Bush never happened :)


At least the Republicans had the good sense to have selective amnesia so we could move on as a society instead of twisting their minds and everybody else's to find some explanation, any reason, however tortured and specious, that they weren't actually wrong about George W. Bush and the Global War of Terror.

But the Democrats can't even muster that demented form of good grace for all our sakes and their own. We're nearly to the first midterms after Clinton's defeat, and they're still stuck in the Denial stage of the Kübler-Ross model of grief, and sliding into Anger, still trying to convince themselves that they were right.

The Anger is the Denial digging its heels in.

If you're frequently frustrated and angry, bitter and resentful– the kind of person who yells at your Twitter feed or rages at other drivers during rush hour– like very many of the people who vote and go to protests and get swept up in political movements, you might be in denial about something important and personal to you, something you're afraid to face because it's painful.


Swiss psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross developed her model based on her experiences working with terminally ill patients, but it seems to describe a mental process of resistance to any revelation or change in our lives that is painful and difficult to cope with, and the gradual, begrudging path we take to acceptance.

"1. Denial – The first reaction is denial. In this stage, individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality."

When we cling tightly to our denial, every aspect of reality that threatens to shatter it, that shines a light on it and proves that our denial is wrong and that what we are denying is true– enrages us. We drive ourselves mad shoring up our denial and our fantasy reality with "alternative facts" (lies). If we're especially desperate, we are driven to find refuge in elaborate conspiracy theories.

And our spinning minds spin faster, desperate to shut out the truth, more afraid now of what we've been avoiding than ever, willing to believe anything, however ridiculous, that shields us from what we're denying, and madly determined to live forever in the false reality we've split off from the world to hide in.

2. Anger – When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, they become frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; "Who is to blame?"; "Why would this happen?".

"How can this happen?" Sustained loud insistence on bizarre, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Russian interference in the 2016 election. "Who is to blame?" Nazis! Putin! Russia! Hackers! When we cannot bring ourselves to blame ourselves we desperately find someone else to take the blame for us.

If nothing else, I hope this understanding of a terrible propensity of the human psyche may be of personal benefit to you, and steer you away from the grave danger and suffering of this pitfall of the human soul. Or that should you fall, these words may come back to you during a time of darkness in your life.

Though it's not easy, the only way out is to face the dragon forthrightly, with courage and hope. If you won't swallow the bitter cup to the last drop, it will become an ocean and swallow you.


The more viciously and bitterly we cling to denial, the more frustrated we become at anything that threatens our denials, and the angrier we get at the scapegoat we've made to take on the blame that we fear we cannot bear.

Even more bitter and painful to see: Our actions in clinging to our denial reveal the falseness of our original intentions, which we believed were good. Truth, justice, the good of humanity– how could it have been about all of that if we are so willing to sacrifice the truth to avoid the pain of personal responsibility?

We are shocked and disgusted to find that we have become– that in fact there was always in us– that which we purported to hate! We have become cartoon caricatures of the very despotism we thought we had originally set out to defeat!

The Democrats who started out with a progressive humanitarian message of overturning despotic authority, have ended up by crying out in the same voice as the most iron-fisted, petulant, conservative, Old World monarch, whose feeble pride has been insulted by some slight: "Treason! Treeaason!"


Like all political rhetoric, all that talk about progress and female empowerment was just talk. Now we see what we would have gotten if Hillary Clinton had won. A mob of blood-thirsty tyrants, and maybe another God damned war– with nuclear Russia.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Joe Rogan Peter Schiff

Peter Schiff is an American businessman, investment broker, author and financial commentator. Schiff is CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc. He also hosts his own podcast, “The Peter Schiff Podcast” at

Why Can’t The Media See Independent Voters?

Nearing the two year mark since the shocking 2016 presidential election result devastated both the Democratic and Republican Party power structures, liberal mainstream media journalists are still stuck in the denial stage of the Kübler-Ross model of grief.

They were so certain Hillary Clinton would win, the election result they expected was so cemented into their minds as an immutable reality before the election had even taken place that they could not let go of the perfect world they had created in their imagination, even after the electorate knocked down their castle in the sky.

Because they were so sure she was going to win, Hillary Clinton couldn't have really lost. All too ironically, they turned for solace to the line Donald Trump was feeding to his followers to embrace in anticipation of defeat ahead of the November election:

The election must have been rigged!

So on and on the Democratic Party and its supporters in the media have gone about Russian interference in the 2016 election, an interpretation that it now appears will never abate for the fiercest of Democratic partisans.

Admitting the DNC rigged the election against itself by ignoring independent voters and aggressively quelling the nearly successful primary challenge by an independent candidate, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, is out of the question.

The #TreasonSummit!

The Helsinki summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has been styled "the Treason Summit" by hordes of liberal social media activists, following the lead of the New York Times, which ran an op-ed Sunday, entitled "Trump, Treasonous Traitor: The president fails to protect the country from an ongoing attack."

The article, by New York Times columnist, Charles M. Blow, begins by establishing the fact of Russian interference in the election as an indisputable conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community, and pointing out that, "it was not only the spreading of inflammatory fake news over social media," before referencing a May 2018 Senate Intelligence Committee report:

"In 2016, cyber actors affiliated with the Russian Government conducted an unprecedented, coordinated cyber campaign against state election infrastructure. Russian actors scanned databases for vulnerabilities, attempted intrusions, and in a small number of cases successfully penetrated a voter registration database. This activity was part of a larger campaign to prepare to undermine confidence in the voting process."

Blow is counting on his busy or lazy readers not to click the link to the report to read the very next line that he chose not to share:

"The Committee has not seen any evidence that vote tallies were manipulated or that voter registration information was deleted or modified."

That part doesn't play into his spin, so he chopped it off. At America's future former newspaper of record.

Misleading partisan journalism at its finest.

There's no doubt that Russian intelligence did their job by gathering as much intel on the U.S. election as they could, and probing digital infrastructure for weaknesses.

It's no newsflash that governments spy on each other. That's something every government's intelligence agencies do. That's something the United States' official allies like Israel (which perennially interferes in U.S. elections) and the U.K. do. The U.S. does it too. In 2013, leaked documents revealed the NSA had wiretapped German Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone and were spying on a number of German officials and journalists.

That doesn't stop these ostensible allies from engaging in diplomacy and international summits, and no one accuses the president or State Department of treason for meeting with them. This is a hysterically partisan attack, and it's not about America's national security, and it's not about Russia.

It's about the unwillingness or inability of American liberals in the press to admit that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump fair and square.

Russian Fake News

The hysteria over Russian fake news having an impact on the 2016 election is practically fake news itself. Last Fall CNN's Dylan Byers breathlessly reported that, "Facebook estimates 126 million people were served content from Russia-linked pages."

That's such a big number, that it appears as if Russia significantly interfered in the U.S. election with an information campaign on Facebook. But when you dig into the article, past the point where the average person stops reading, you discover how fake it is:

"Facebook does not know, however, how many of those 126 million people actually saw one of those posts, or how many may have scrolled past it or simply not logged in on the day that one of the posts was being served in their News Feed."

It gets even better:

"'This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content,' Stretch writes. 'Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you'd have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA.'"

Not nearly as alarming, is it?

Independent Voters

The truth is– notwithstanding partisan journalists everywhere twisting themselves and the truth into pretzels to blame Trump on Vladimir Putin– that Donald Trump did not win the election– Hillary Clinton lost it by failing to appeal to independent voters. If that's a lesson the DNC and its partisan acolytes in the press refuse to learn, the electorate will teach them again in 2018 and 2020.

Independent voters weren't swayed by Russian clickbait mills. They saw in Hillary Clinton everything they find disconcerting about the establishment and its partisan power structures.

They saw in Donald Trump, an independent, outside-the-beltway candidate, an opportunity to challenge both the Republican and Democratic establishments by electing someone the establishment didn't anoint.

That isn't my opinion. That is an absolute fact, borne out by the exit polls on that fateful November Tuesday. I recommend that journalists worth their salt go back and read IVN's report on the election results by party affiliation (or lack thereof) by Breton Peace and Shawn Griffiths the Wednesday after.

In all three critical swing states, partisan voters voted for their party, and independent voters swung toward Trump. These independent voters are patriots that care more about their country than they care about their party.

And I bet almost none of them speak a lick of Russian.


This article first appeared on the Independent Voter Network.

I'm the author and have reprinted it on The Humble Libertarian with permission from the publisher.

Click here for more of IVN's Independent Thought Alarm.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Cody Wilson's Back and 3D Printed Guns Just Guaranteed You The Second Amendment Forever

How's that national conversation going?

"We see liberty under threat. We see sovereignty under threat. We must respond." -Cody Wilson

"I don't believe in Romney versus Obama. I believe in real politics. That's a real political act, giving you a magazine, telling you that it will never be taken away... That's radical equality. That's what I believe in... I'm just resisting. What am I resisting? I don't know... But I can tell you one thing: this is a symbol of irreversibility. They can never eradicate the gun from the earth." -Cody Wilson

Cody Wilson is the University of Texas law student who invented the world's first 3D printed firearm, the Liberator, in 2013, and a 3D printed AR-15 lower receiver (capable of firing over 650 rounds), plus a number of magazines (including one for the AK-47)– and made the CAD files to 3D print them available for free to anyone with uncensored Internet on the website,

3d Printed Lower Receiver AR-15 Demo, 2013

Checkmate, gun control

Liberator Pistol: Downloadable and 3D Printable

Cody Wilson based the design for the physible (or 3D printable) single shot Liberator pistol on the WWII era FP-45 Liberator created for the U.S. Army Joint Psychological Warfare Committee by skilled American gunsmith, George Hyde.

The Army wanted a simple, single shot pistol that could be easily, quickly, and cheaply mass produced, then air dropped by the Office of Strategic Services (the OSS would later become the CIA) into Nazi-occupied Europe for resistance forces to use.

A crude and clumsy weapon with a short, unrifled barrel, and an effective range of no more than 25-feet, the original Liberator was never intended for front line use by regular soldiers, but as a tool of insurgency, and a psychological operation to demoralize occupying forces. When planning for civilian resistance, occupying forces would have to consider the untold thousands of Liberators airdropped into the hands of civilian insurgents.

The modern, physible Liberator looks quite like its WWII predecessor, and seems to perfectly emulate its design, both mechanical and strategic. It certainly had its intended effect as a bold statement of resistance to world governments and an effective demonstration of the futility of state control.

Upon the publication of the CAD files for the Liberator by Cody Wilson's non-profit Defense Distributed in May 2013, the files were downloaded 100,000 times in 48 hours before the U.S. government sent a letter demanding the files be taken down.

Cody Wilson complied, but by then the files were available on the Dark Web and through decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing indexes like The Pirate Bay. It would be impossible for any government to ever take them down again without censoring the entire Internet. God bless the Internet.

Click. Print. Gun.
(Just add a single metal nail for the firing pin.)

Cody Wilson's Lawsuit Against The U.S. Justice Department and U.S. Department of State

"Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." -Second Amendment Supporter, Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks

Within days of his opening salvo in a new digital war against gun control, the U.S. State Department closed in on Cody, threatening to prosecute him under federal arms export laws for making his 3D printable gun files available to people overseas by putting them online, ostensibly treating the matter as if he had shipped an actual gun to another country– like the U.S. does all the time.

(No hint of irony from the same people who sent 2,000 guns across the border into Mexico, in the bizarre, botched FBI gun-walking operation code-named "Fast and Furious," —including hundreds of AR-15 rifles, deliberately selling them to known weapons sources for the violent criminal Mexican drug cartel, many of which have been found at murder scenes of innocent civilians and a U.S. border patrol agent.)

And the U.S. federal government is responsible
for a lot more gun violence than this.

So Cody Wilson took DefCad offline, and assembled a legal team, and along with help from the Second Amendment Foundation, and amicus briefs from the Cato Institute, the Madison Society, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and even 15 Republican members of Congress– he took the Justice and State Departments to court.

He made a simple argument. He not only has the right to distribute 3D printable gun files under the 2nd Amendment, but also under the 1st Amendment. After five years of waging a legal battle over firearm freedom in America, the Justice Department quietly settled with Cody Wilson and his company, Defense Distributed, out of court, agreeing with Wilson's argument that his 3D gun files are protected free speech, and suprisingly offering to pay $40,000 of his legal fees, only a small fraction of the total costs of litigation, but still quite the cherry on top of what was essentially an unconditional surrender of the U.S. Department of Justice to the incontrovertible legal arguments of Cody Wilson's case.

Future 3D Printed Gun Laws Now On Shaky Ground– Not That It Matters Anyways :)

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -Mao Zedong

The settlement came a couple months ago, but the news first broke last week in a fascinating, if somewhat hostile feature article by Wired magazine, prompting Cody Wilson to tweet in characteristic laconic form: "Bad News Travels Fast."

As Reason magazine notes, the Justice Department relented as the case neared a ruling on Wilson's 1st Amendment argument, and the 5th Circuit Court judges showed no inclination to grant the government's merits in the case. God bless Texas.

Future attempts by legislators to censor, regulate, or otherwise make 3d printed gun designs illegal are now on shaky legal grounds, and there's no doubt that legislators and courts will remember what happened between the U.S. Justice Department and Cody Wilson in the 5th Circuit this year.

From the perspective of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, this is just the latest landmark case in a remarkable series of rulings– from the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision in 2008, to the McDonald case in 2010, to the Woolard ruling in 2012– that have affirmed and even extended the 2nd Amendment protections for American civilians, so they can remain armed and vigilant against imminent threats to their life, liberty, and property. It's a libertarian dream come true. I told you libertarians are winning.

Available Now In The
Humble Libertarian Merch Store

Come And Take It - 3D Printed Gun Plans Are Agorism, Counter Economics, and Cryptoanarchy in Action

"No matter how hard you try, you can't stop us now." -Afrika Bambaataa & SoulSonic Force, Renegades of Funk

Back in 2013 I was watching with avid regard as the 3d printed gun revolution began to unfold in Texas.

In his media interviews, Cody Wilson assumes a coy and shifty pose, giving short and often indirect answers to the many odd questions journalists ask based on unspoken and– for most people– unexamined premises, ideas that Cody sees straight through and refuses to accept. It's an appropriate and articulate pose. I think Cody does it because he knows his actions speak much louder than his words. His demeanor, which confounds so many of his interviewers, seems to say: I made 3D printed gun blueprints. What more could I possibly say?

"Raising the federal age of gun ownership and possession to the age of 21; banning all bump stocks; making sure that we have universal background checks; making sure that people that have committed acts of domestic violence are no longer able to get a gun, which in Florida, it's harder, it's just not impossible, fully, yet; and making sure that people with a criminal history and a history of mental illness are not able to obtain these weapons of mass destruction." -Parkland, Florida rampage shooting survivor, David Hogg's legislative proposals on CNN, Feb 28, 2018

This gun control activist is either naively unaware or willfully ignorant of the inherent limits of such gun control legislation in the era of the Internet and 3D printing technology. The government can ban bump stocks and bully companies that sell them:

But without censoring the entire Internet, it can't stop people from making and uploading plans for 3D printed bump stocks. And it can't stop people from downloading them and manufacturing them with ease at home using a personal 3D printer:

The Revolutionary 3D Printer - How It Works

The fact that you can now 3D print a real gun from downloadable 3D printed gun designs is just one facet of a revolutionary technology that will change the entire economy and society forever. 3D printing as a form of manufacturing is so revolutionary because it is so unlimited in its possibilities.

In many ways it does for the world of physical, manufactured objects, what the Internet has done for information. The term 3D printing is a very perceptive way to formulate and understand "additive manufacturing," the more technical and explicitly descriptive name for this exciting new manufacturing process.

Traditional manufacturing machines typically use a "subtractive manufacturing" process, e.g. punching a specified shape out of a sheet of metal. Such a machine can only produce one kind of object. But– enabled by the power and versatility of digital computation– a 3D printer can read a digital design file for virtually any shape, and by adding successive layers one at a time, can manufacture any object a designer can dream up and model with the help of computer aided design software.

Here's a time elapsed video of a 3D printer in action:

Here's a time elapsed video of a 3D printer in action printing an upgraded version of one of its own parts(!), most of which were intentionally designed to be 3D printable:

Exponential Advancement of 3D Printing

Imagine that. 3D printers printing 3d printers. Self-replication is the essential characteristic of life. So what we're unleashing with 3D printers is the beginning of self-replicating machine life.

While consumer grade 3D printers are rather basic now, mostly used to print replacement parts in plastic and interesting trinkets, novelties, and toys, 3D printers have already advanced a long way since their inception, and just like the concurrent exponential trends of development in the power, versatility, and cost-effectiveness of computing over the past few decades, 3D printers are rapidly becoming more complex, capable, and affordable.

3D printer prices have rapidly fallen over the last decade, even as the machines have become more precise and capable of printing at higher resolutions. 3D printers will become even more versatile over the next decade, able to print at even finer resolutions with a growing variety of materials. At a fine enough resolution with enough materials, 3D printers will be able to manufacture items as small and complex as microchips and entire computing devices like smartphones from files freely distributed online.

In the very near future these personal manufacturing devices will most certainly be able to 3D print entire, fully-functional, sophisticated firearms with durable materials, and manufacture 3D printed ammunition for them to shoot. In fact, just a few months after Defense Distributed uploaded the CAD files for plastic 3D printable gun parts, California-based Solid Concepts (since acquired by Stratasys) demonstrated a pistol 3D printed from aluminum alloy. (They didn't upload the files.)

Just like personal computers, the technology used to produce this firearm will soon be available in every home.

The Second Amendment Forever

Being able to download gun designs from other computers over the Internet and then 3D print a gun in your own home will render gun control impossible forever. There will be no need for the Second Amendment any longer. Americans will not have to lobby Congress and hope it keeps the promises the federal government made in the Bill of Rights. It will simply be impossible for the government to stop us from being free to be dangerous and possess firearms for our right to self defense. A ban on high-capacity magazines or bump stocks will be unenforceable when manufacturing them becomes decentralized, when millions of people can download and 3D print one of their own.

In his report on the Justice Department's capitulation to Defense Distributed, Wired journalist Andy Greenberg called Cody Wilson's project "the winning move in the battle over access to guns."

But the battle is likely far from over.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. A future of freedom is not inevitable. You have to do something to make it a reality.

On April 1, 2013, Defense Distributed and DefCad went down. Visitors saw a notice from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security announcing that the domain names had been seized pursuant to an order issued by a U.S. District Court. The next day, the websites were back online, and Defense Distributed posted a screenshot of the previous day's notice, captioned: "Real seizure? Fake seizure? It's a joke either way."

This April Fool's joke raised the specter of a threat to the free availability of 3D printable gun designs over the open Internet.

As William Grigg wrote that day at

"How will gun-grabbers carry out their confiscations if people can download 3-D printing applications and manufacture their own?

They will simply steal the websites."

If the feds can just seize websites, that's the real winning move in the fight for gun freedom, right? Wrong. The April Fool's Day joke was a challenge to free people everywhere. Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed have done their part. They've created the designs. They've made them available online. But there's nothing they can do if their website is seized again, perhaps under a future, less 2nd Amendment friendly White House administration. Now you must act to make the 3D printable gun revolution truly relevant, and download the gun designs from DefCad.

The Washington regime can shut down one domain, but it can't stop a million of us if we make millions of copies of these designs and share them in decentralized fashion on peer-to-peer networks to propagate them onto millions of computers across the world, onto as many computers as possible. If you want to engage in a real political act, if you want to make a real difference, if you want to send a loud and clear message to those who would take our guns that they'll never be able to, download the files.

Then install the uTorrent file-sharing app on your computer and seed the files so that others can download them from your computer. This way, even if DefCad is seized by a gun grabbing administration, sovereign individuals everywhere will be able to download the gun designs they want (and have a right to possess) from a million other computers, including yours. This is a radical political act that carries the 3D printed gun revolution to fruition!

"I barely put a million bucks into this and I got you the Second Amendment forever. What has the NRA done for you lately?" -Cody Wilson

Tombstone at DefDist HQ in Austin, TX.
Photo by Michelle Groskopf, WIRED

Researching and writing an article like this takes a lot of work, but it's what I live for. Please consider supporting me on Patreon or leaving a tip. Thank you! -Wes

My Patreon

My Tip Jars:


Saturday, July 14, 2018

Friday, July 13, 2018

Did Ozzy Osbourne Prophecy The Fall of Rep. Joseph Crowley to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

Mr. Crowley, what went on in your head?
Oh, Mr. Crowley, did you talk to the dead?
Your life style to me seemed so tragic
With the thrill of it all
You fooled all the people with magic
Yeah, you waited on Satan's call

Mr. Charming, did you think you were pure?
Mr. Alarming, in nocturnal rapport
Uncovering things that were sacred
Manifest on this Earth
Conceived in the eye of a secret
And they scattered the afterbirth

Mr. Crowley, won't you ride my white horse?
Mr. Crowley, it's symbolic, of course
Approaching a time that is classic
I hear that maidens call
Approaching a time that is drastic
Standing with their backs to the wall

Was it polemically sent
l want to know what you meant
I want to know, I want to know what you meant, yeah

Spooky, huh?

Happy Friday The 13th!

Thursday, July 12, 2018

The Supreme Court Is A Mirage


Nine people shouldn't have the final say over disputes among 300 million people. I don't care if they're the oldest lawyers in America. I also don't care that they work in a Greek temple replica in a swamp in Virginia, dressed in black wizard's robes like Hogwarts students. None of that impresses me. In the end they're just nine people like you and me. What gives them the right to order anyone around? Because they were picked by the winner of a nationwide popularity contest? Because they were confirmed by 51 winners of statewide popularity contests? Because the people who decide those winners are so informed and rational about politics?


What are you saying, Wes? You don't believe in the Constitution? I thought you were a libertarian for God's sake!

No I believe in the Constitution. Of course I believe in it. I've read the whole thing. And after I got to the end of the document, I realized something that seems like it might be relevant–

The only people who signed it were these guys (in 1787, on the inside of a sheep skin, with a feather dipped in ink):

Attest William Jackson Secretary

Go: Washington -Presidt. and deputy from Virginia Showing George Washington's signature.


Geo: Read
Gunning Bedford jun
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom


James McHenry
Dan of St Thos. Jenifer
Danl Carroll.


John Blair—
James Madison Jr.

North Carolina

Wm Blount
Richd. Dobbs Spaight.
Hu Williamson

South Carolina

J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler.


William Few
Abr Baldwin

New Hampshire

John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman


Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King


Wm. Saml. Johnson
Roger Sherman

New York

Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey

Wil. Livingston
David Brearley.
Wm. Paterson.
Jona: Dayton


B Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robt Morris
Geo. Clymer
Thos. FitzSimons
Jared Ingersoll
James Wilson.
Gouv Morris

Yep, nope. I don't see my signature anywhere in there. Do you see yours? Did you sign that? Did any of us? Nope!

No living person in America today ever signed that. It's the charter document of a corporation responsible for two centuries and a half of mass theft, murder, and mayhem, under the pretense of law and order. And none of us ever agreed in writing to any of it.

Frankly I do think it'd be a pretty damn good start just to go by what it says in there, but the truth is none of these politicians believe in the Constitution. It might as well be toilet paper to them. They're not even pretending to try to keep it anymore.

This isn't a nation governed by laws. It's just Game of Thrones writ large, an unsavory cast of ambitious psychopaths fighting each other to sit on the throne and pull the levers of power.


So what are you saying you prefer– anarchy?

No. I'm saying this is anarchy. You already have it now. There's just 300 million different individual people living within the borders of the U.S., living out their lives and pursuit-ing their happiness, and most of them know how to behave and treat others with respect and dignity; they're able to govern themselves.

But those who style themselves the rulers, the lawmakers, the keepers of order– are clearly grabbing as much money and power as they can by violating as much of the Constitution, the entire notion of law and order as they can possibly get away with.

At this point in U.S. history, how many blatantly unconstitutional things has our government done? Hmmm? How many billions of dollars of American wealth has been appropriated to be tied up in massive cabinet-level bureaucracies that wouldn't even exist if lawmakers were keeping to the Constitution?


That's why I say the Supreme Court is stupid.

Ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, their entire purpose is to make sure the damn U.S. isn't stepping outside the bounds of the Constitution, and if that's the measure of their success as an institution they are a failure of titanic proportions!

Actual picture of the Supreme Court
safeguarding your Constitutional rights.

(Trump Supporter:) That's why it's so important we keep electing good Republican presidents, so we can undo the damage all the liberals have done and start restraining government to its proper role within the Constitution!

So you think Republican appointees to this great nation's High (Out Of Its Mind) Court have been doing their best to keep the federal government in check, and that it's only been the Democratic appointees' fault that the U.S. has gotten so out of control violating the Constitution? Impossible! For the last fifty years there have been 19 Supreme Court appointments...

Democrats appointed five of them.

Republicans appointed fourteen.

If you look at the amount of years spent deciding cases by each "Justice" and break it down by party appointment, the ratio is about the same. So don't come in here with that partisan claptrap, and all your chants and slogans and hats.

Republicans are not libertarian. They are not constitutionalists or strict constructionists. They are not even conservative. They're just branded that way for the unwitting masses to consume, and are no more different from Democrats than Coke is from Pepsi.

Republican presidents and their Supreme Court appointees have been pouring fuel on the fire of the federal government's unconstitutional conflagration of unchecked, chaotic tyranny.


Don't believe me?

I'll give you an example.

Was ObamaCare constitutional?

Wait a second, back up a minute...

Is the entire cabinet level Department of Health and Human Services with its $1 trillion annual budget constitutional?


Amendment X (reserved powers):

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Article I, Section 8 (enumerated powers):

(spoiler alert– it's not in there)

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yeah, that would be a "No." There's nothing in the Constitution that says the United States has any role to play in the practice of medicine in America, and there's something in the Constitution that says if it doesn't specifically enumerate a power for the federal government, then the federal government's not allowed to do it.

So what gives?

The Supreme Court gives.

Like a cheeto for a deadbolt on a door.


Conservatives complain about judicial activism all the time, as in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, wherein these nine unelected wise ones jumped through the rim of their own butt crack holes to hallucinate a Constitutionally protected right to abortion.

As the Washington Examiner puts it:

'[The Supreme Court] found a “right to privacy” “emanating” from the Bill of Rights, and that emanation cast a “penumbra” in which the court spotted a fundamental right to abort an unborn baby up to the moment of birth. The ruling held that, in effect, states may not make laws to protect the unborn baby until the seventh month of pregnancy. Even in the final trimester, the court ordered states to grant a broad “health of the mother” exception to any restrictions on abortion.

Plenty of legal scholars who support abortion rights nevertheless admit that the ruling was garbage. “[B]ehind its own verbal smokescreen,” liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe wrote, “the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method,” pro-choice Harry Blackmun clerk Ed Lazarus wrote, “Roe borders on the indefensible.”

Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be,” wrote liberal constitutional law professor John Hart Ely of Yale, Harvard, and Stanford Law Schools.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote in the New Republic, “Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself.”

So, in 1992, when Kennedy and the High Court had a chance to review the opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it was reasonable to expect this deformed legal aberration would be discarded. It nearly was, as Kennedy is said to have been persuaded to change sides. In the end, he produced his unique and inventive brand of judicial mysticism.

“At the heart of liberty,” Kennedy wrote in Casey, “is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”'

And I'm with conservatives against judicial activism insofar as legislating from the bench is concerned, but wouldn't it be nice if the courts were less passive about enforcing the Constitution against the untrammeled, breakneck expansion of the federal government into every aspect of our lives, steamrolling over the constitutional guarantees of liberty every step of the way?


So back to the "Affordable Care Act," named as it is in the most astonishingly Orwellian fashion. There can be no getting around the fact that ObamaCare is unconstitutional because there is no enumerated power of the federal government in Article I or II of the Constitution allowing for it to compel its citizens to purchase insurance. That's even more of a mirage in the rightfully barren desert of constitutionally enumerated powers than the right to abort is a hallucination of guaranteed protections.

Okay now, MAGA hats: for the million dollar grand prize, the all expenses paid vacation to Ambergris Caye, and the neeeww car– which Supreme Court Justice was the swing vote that incredibly upheld ObamaCare as perfectly within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution? And the answer is....

Chief Justice John Roberts!
Appointed by REPUBLICAN President George W. Bush!

And the million dollar grand prize, all expenses paid vacation, and new car go to some big wig health insurance executive.

Doesn't matter what you answered– your prize is higher insurance premiums and higher deductibles. Thanks for playing!


But it gets even better. Come stand at the edge of the abyss with me and peer in. Do you remember what John Robert's legal argument was as to why ObamaCare was constitutional?

Oh it's bitterly absurd. If this shit doesn't redpill you into complete despairing disillusionment with the entire federal system and the farce of constitutional government there's nothing I can do for you. You are hopelessly, willfully lost in state-loving, bootlicking, partisan la la land. Okay ready for it?

Writing in an opinion for himself in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld ObamaCare's individual mandate (requiring Americans to purchase health insurance policies) on the basis that the fine imposed by Congress on anyone who doesn't buy an insurance product from a private financial corporation is constitutional because of Congress' power to tax:

" is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes.

The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

Only one problem with that.

And it's kind of a big problem.

The U.S. Senate passed ObamaCare in December 2009.

Then the U.S. House approved the bill in March 2010.

Problem is....

Article I Section 7. All Bills for raising...

...Revenue shall originate in the...

...House of Representatives[!!!]


Yes. This government in Washington is a mafia state that does as much as it can get away with to plunder, control, and destroy, not a constitutional government. Still think electing Republicans is going to help keep the federal government in check?

Then you're the reason why it's so out of control.

It's as apparent with the Supreme Court as it is with the White House and Congress, that it doesn't matter who you put in there. Fighting over that is a waste of time. The entire bloody edifice is structurally rotten. This Is The United States.

Democrats and Republicans Are Just Like These Four Things...

1. Democrats and Republicans are like Pepsi and Coke, slightly different flavors of the same thing.

Just like Pepsi and Coke, Democrats and Republicans are so similar that they have to spend millions of dollars every year to convince you that they're actually different.

So similar are Coke and Pepsi that even blind taste tests between the two haven't been able to settle which is better than the other, as different methodologies will yield different results.

In just the same way, the actual policies of the two parties are so similar that even if you didn't know which party was responsible for it, you couldn't tell the difference (Obama deported more immigrants than any president in U.S. history, and Bush presided over an unprecedented expansion of entitlement spending.)

And even though they're essentially the same thing, brand loyalists will swear by their brand and steadfastly refuse to give the other a chance. But in the end both Democrats and Republicans, just like Pepsi and Coke, only help you feel good for a moment even though they are ultimately bad for you.

2. Democrats and Republicans are like the ruling Communist Party in China, and the United States is really a one-party government.

Sure they're always struggling for power, and it flips back and forth between them every four to eight years, just like in China.

In China's one party government there are also constant internal struggles between warring factions within the Communist Party.

And the levers of power in China's government are also constantly flipping back and forth between factions after so many years.

But no one outside the Communist Party is ever allowed to challenge its dominance over the People's Republic of China.

Just like in America, where the political monopoly, disguised in the thin costume of duopoly, will suffer no outside challenges.

3. Democrats and Republicans are like professional wrestling. The fights, the trash talking, the body slams– are all for show.

(Well most of the time.)

When the cameras and lights are on, each side fights to keep you entertained, and give you a pleasant diversion.

But everybody's actually just reading their lines from a predetermined script optimized to keep you watching.

And behind the scenes when the cameras are off, all the fighters are high-fiving and laughing together, friends.

Just like professional wrestling, Democrats and Republicans are a lucrative entertainment business that keeps you watching for the ad revenue to their corporate sponsors.

But unlike professional wrestling, a lot of people still haven't figured out that the TV fighting is all for show. And they emulate what they see on TV, trading real blows and fighting words.

4. Democrats and Republicans are like a quarrelsome couple who fight constantly, and never let the other get a word in.

Just like the quarrelsome couple, they don't listen to what the other is saying, nor try to understand what they mean.

Neither side is willing to admit that they've ever done anything wrong. They speak in unfair absolutes about the other one.

"You always...! Why don't you ever...!?"

They talk over each other and interrupt each other constantly. They twist everything the other one says to "win" the fight.

The other one returns the favor. They both throw up their hands in desperation and yell: "Why can't you hear what I'm saying!?"

Just like these kinds of fights between lovers, no good can come from this perverse form of dialogue. It's not a conversation.

This article was commissioned by The Independent Voter Network and reprinted on my blog with permission from the publisher.

Sunday, July 8, 2018

Samaya - Fusion Alchemist (Tribal Trap / Global Bass / Psy-Dub / Eastern / Glitch-Hop Mixtape)

A fusion of styles drenched in exotic sounds, guided by rattling rhythms and pounding bass drums!

Friday, July 6, 2018

Thursday, July 5, 2018

The Best of Mozart

Monday, July 2, 2018

Sunday, July 1, 2018

The Epic of Gilgamesh - Tablet I, Part III: The Fall

(Part I Here)

On The
Third Day

They Came
To The

And The

And The

Sat Down
And Waited

They Sat
Opposite The
Watering Hole

For One Day,
Then Another

The Animals
Came And
Drank At The
Watering Hole

The Wild
Beasts Came
And Slaked
Their Thirst
With Water

Then He–

Offspring of
The Mountain

Who Eats
With The

Came To
Drink At The
Watering Hole
With The

With The
Wild Beasts
He Slaked
His Thirst
With Water

Then Shamhat
Saw Him,

The First
Kind of Man

A Wild One
From The
Wild Deep

"It Is He,

Open Your
Folded Arms!

Expose Your
Sex So He
Will Wish
For Your

Do Not Be
But Take
His Energy!

When He
Sees You
He Will
Draw Near
To You

Spread Out
Your Robe
So He Can
Lie Upon You

And Perform
For This
Wild Man
The Task Of

His Animals
Who Grew Up In
His Wilderness
Will Become
Alien To Him

And His Lust
Will Groan
Over You."

Loosened Her
Breasts And
Exposed Her
Sex And He
Wished For
Her Pleasure

She Was Not
But Took
His Energy

She Spread
Out Her Robe
So He Lay
Upon Her

She Performed
For Him
The Task of

His Lust
Over Her

For Six Days
And Seven Nights
Enkidu Stayed
Aroused And
Had Intercourse
With The Harlot

Until He Was
Satisfied By
Her Charms

But When He
Looked Again
At His Animals,
The Gazelles,
Seeing Enkidu,
Darted Away

The Wild Animals
Kept A Distance
From His Body

Enkidu Was
Utterly Spent

His Knees
Wanted To
Dart Away
With His
But Failed

Was Not
As Before

But Then
He Stood

For His
Had Increased

Turning Back
To The Harlot
He Sat Down
At Her Feet

Gazing Into
Her Face,
His Ears
Attended As
The Harlot
Spoke And
Said to

"You Are

You Are
Like A

Why Do You
Run Around
The Wilderness
With The
Wild Beasts?

Come And Let
Me Bring You
Into Uruk-Haven

To The
Holy Temple
of Anu
and Ishtar

The Place Of
Who Is Wise
To Perfection

But Who Struts
And Holds His
Power Over
The People Like
A Wild Bull."

What She
Kept Saying
Found Favor
With Him

Of Himself,
He Sought
A Friend

Enkidu Spoke
To The Harlot:

"Come, Shamhat,
Take Me Away
With You To
The Holy Temple

The House
Of Anu
And Ishtar

The Place Of
Who Is Wise
To Perfection

But Who Struts
And Holds His
Power Over
The People Like
A Wild Bull.

And I Will
The Man

Let Me
Shout Out
In Uruk:


Lead Me In
And I Will
Change The
Entire Order

He Whose
Strength Is
The Mightiest

Is The One
Born In The

Said To

"Come, Let Us
Go So He May
See Your Face

I Will Lead You
To Gilgamesh
I Know Where
He Will Be

Look About
Enkidu, Inside

Where The People
Show Off In
Skirted Finery

Where Every
Day Is A Day
For A Feast

Where The
Lyre and Drum
Ever Play

Where Harlots
Stand Around

Dripping With
Pleasure Full
of Laughter

And Where
The Sheets
Are Spread
Upon The
Couch of Night

You Who Do
Not Know
How To Live,

I Will
Show To

A Man Of

At Him

Gaze At
His Face

He Is A
Full Of

His Entire
Body Drips
With Pleasure

He Is Mightier
In Strength
Than You
Day Or

Enkidu, It Is
The Order Of
Your Twisted
Thoughts That
Must Change!

It Is

And Anu,
And La
His Mind

Even Before
You Came
From The

In Uruk
Had Dreams
Of You

Got Up
And Told Of
The Dream

Saying To
His Mother:

I Had
A Dream
Last Night

Stars Of
The Sky

And Some
Kind Of
Of Anu
Fell Next
To Me

I Tried
To Lift It

But It
Was Too
For Me

I Tried
To Turn
It Over

But I
Could Not
Move It

The Land
Of Uruk
Around It

The Whole
Land Had
Around It

The People
Were Crowding
Round About It

The Men
Around It

And Kissed
Its Feet
As If It
Were A
Little Baby!

I Loved It
And Embraced
It As A Wife

I Laid It Down
At Your Feet

And You
Made It
With Me.

The Mother
Of Gilgamesh

The Wise And

Said To
Her Lord,


The Wise And

Said To

As For
The Stars
Of The
Sky That

And The
Of Anu
That Fell
Down Next
To You

You Tried
To Lift It

But It
Was Too
For You

You Tried
To Turn
It Over

But You
Could Not
Move It

You Laid
It At
My Feet

And With
It I Made
You Compete

And You
Loved And
Embraced It
As A Wife:

There Will
Come To You
A Mighty Man

A Companion
Who Saves
His Friend

He Is The
In The Land
The Strongest

His Strength
Is Mighty
As The
Of Anu!

You Will
Love Him
And Embrace
Him As
A Wife

And It
Is He
Who Will
Save You
Again And

Your Dream
Is Good And

A Second

Said To
His Mother:

I Have Had

At The
Door Of My

There Lay
An Axe

And People
Had Gathered
About It

The Land
Of Uruk
Around It

The People
Were Crowding
Around It

I Laid It Down
At Your Feet

I Loved It
And Embraced
It As A Wife

And You
Made It
With Me

The Mother
Of Gilgamesh

The Wise And

Said To
Her Son,


The Wise And

Said To

The Axe
That You
Saw Is
A Man

You Will
Love Him

Him As
A Wife

But I Will
Make Him
With You

There Will
Come To You
A Mighty Man

A Companion
Who Saves
His Friend

He Is The
In The Land

He Is The

His Strength
Is Mighty As
The Meteorite
Of Anu!

Spoke To
His Mother

By The
Of Enlil

The Great

So May
It Come
To Pass!

May I Have
A Friend
And Adviser

A Friend
And Adviser
May I Have!

You Have
Made Clear
For Me
The Dreams
About Him!"

After The
Told Of
The Dreams
Of Gilgamesh
To Enkidu

The Two
Of Them
Made Love

My Channels:




My Tip Jars:





Ledger Nano S - The secure hardware wallet