The Crown Really Appreciates Your Apathy

It’s as simple as this. Everything that we have been told about ‘Ireland’ (26 Counties) being somehow a sovereign entity is a lie.
It’s existence is from and under the Crown. This upsets a lot of folks. Personally I just wanted to know the Truth of the matter.
I needed to understand how it all happened. I never gave a jot about Politics (And still don’t).

The methods used on Ireland to control and manipulate it’s population into thinking it was a Free and Sovereign entity are exactly the same as those used by the Crown on many other Countries to do the exact same thing.

Do you think that the crown just gave up on trying to control the world?
Do you think that the crown just gave up on trying to control the world?

India, Australia, Canada, America etc. If you do some simple research and have a logical mind you will clearly see how they match. Look at Sheriffs globally for example. You will be told that each area that has Sheriffs have them under different situations, but in reality they couldn’t possibly. it’s pretty simple to deduce that the Crown empire simply made it ‘look’ like they have receded from all of these areas when in fact they had not. They still maintain control.

Does anybody really think that the Crown simply decided to ‘Give’ Ireland back to the Irish ? even though it had control. Even though it took the time effort and energy to violently suppress a sovereign government and it’s people. Are we to think the Crown simply tired of Ireland and decided that the strategically placed island on the doorstep to the Atlantic was fine to let go after all … Sure there’d be no hard feelings from the way the Crown treated the Irish people…. Right?
What’s a little Rape Murder and pillage after all between friends.

The Crown realized that the only way to ‘Feel’ safe from all of it’s global conquest was to convince all they had abused that somehow they are now ‘Free’ …. It’s nothing but a despicable lie.

If you don’t see this I’m okay with that … I’m happy that finally I see through all the bullshite.

Kind regards



The Gun Is Civilization.


The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun... is a good guy with a gun.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun… is a good guy with a gun.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

"I'm afraid of the recoil."
“I’m afraid of the recoil.”

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat— it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

Alison's first gun. It's pink.
Alison’s first gun. It’s pink.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.