Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Notes on National Anarchism

     Ethnic nationalism has its place; it should not be forced upon anyone, but nations have the right to determine themselves. Anyone who sides with Ukrainians against U.S., E.U., and Russian economic and military imperialism should see that.
     I would not associate with any group whose primary requirement for membership is race or ethnicity, but if things like black men's business alliances and the Congressional Black Caucus can and should exist, then you've got to admit that exclusion on the basis of race is valuable, but discrimination by whites against non-whites in a white-dominated culture (or replace "white" with "majority" in all cases), not so much.

     I don't support natives kicking out the descendants of colonizers. Colonizers themselves, yes, especially if they've broken treaties. I don't think it's necessary for Palestinians to kick out all Jews, nor Native Americans and Mexicans to kick out all non-native inhabitants of the United States, but I think there's little reason why some communities should be required to be open to outsiders.
     Local autonomy with nationality as a factor is a viable solution for native peoples, especially those who have fought and died for the land they live on. And I think they should have the right to determine who can become a member or not, whether that's based on someone's blood quantum, or their adherence to the local culture, or both.
     I think that, insofar as Native Americans and Mexicans are peoples who are native to the U.S. - and insofar as African-Americans are a displaced people - they have shared a common struggle. Their development and success is conditioned and potentially limited by that common struggle, so I think they should retain the right to discriminate.
     But we should also realize that young Israelis and young Americans who did not immigrate but were born in their home nation-States, are also "displaced peoples" in that they might otherwise wish to live somewhere else. However, that entitles them neither to the land itself, nor the right to discriminate against other displaced and/or native peoples as they please. That right comes from somewhere else.
     Not long ago, businesses has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Considering some New York blacks' (including Muslims') perception that Jewish merchants are trying to destroy their communities with liquor, that African-Americans in Portland, Oregon risk getting displaced by white yuppies' Whole Foods, and that Koreans feared black criminals robbing them during the L.A. riots, it would make sense that native and displaced minorities should have the right to protect themselves, whether against the majority culture (i.e., whites) or against one another.
     Consider the possibility of a Klansman or a neo-Nazi going to a supermarket and asking a Jew or a black person to decorate a pro-Klan or pro-Nazi birthday cake for them. If you think that's only unacceptable because the Klansman or neo-Nazi is white, then take for example a Jewish Nazi, or a Catholic Klansman. They've existed. Do you see now how "freedom from discrimination" only forces us to serve one another involuntarily?
     Does an all-white business have the right to exist in a predominantly black neighborhood? If not, then suppose that the business has only one employee, whom is white. What now?
     Does a family-owned "all-Chinese business" have the right to hire a security guard and keep people out based on their ethnicity? If not, then what if the business is situated in an area with extraordinarily high violent racial and ethnic hate-crime rates, and there are many ethnicity-based gangs that hate Chinese people?
     Most importantly, how is hiring a security guard anything but "discrimination"? I was told in college that discrimination no longer exists in the private sector. How can that be true if there are security guards and bouncers who are allowed to refuse service to people without having to explain why?
     If a security guard keeps a Japanese person out of a Chinese business because of Japanese gang activity in the area, are we to automatically assume that a "hate crime" has occurred? Or should we simply respect the right of all businesses to discriminate on the basis of any criteria they please, because then we wouldn't potentially force a business owner to put his whole family at risk simply because someone who might be racist and violent demands "freedom from discrimination" and asks to be served?

     "Being able to live a free life without facing discrimination" is not how I view nor define freedom. None of us has the right not to face discrimination, nor can we avoid discriminating in our everyday choices. We discriminate when we decide who to date, have sex with, and marry, and we discriminate when we choose our friends.
     If I believed that I have the right not to be discriminated against, then I'd believe that I have no right not to be denied requests for sex and dating from women, and I'd be like the guy in L.A. who shot three women because he was angry that no woman would have sex with him. The freedom from discrimination is the right to order people to serve you by assenting to associate with you.

     Lastly, national autonomy and communal autonomy require neither territorial integrity, nor well-defined international borders, nor the prevention of immigration. In the view of the panarchists, legal communities can exist side-by-side, within one another, and even on the same territory.
     Imagine two people, each in his own apartment, one living above the other. Imagine that each one subscribes to, pays for, and receives goods and services from some company providing justice, security, and protection. Such a company could have ethnicity, race, culture - or things like hobbies, interests, personality type, etc. - as the determining factor, or as one of many determining factors (regarding membership, or rates, or conditions of membership, etc.).
     We should keep in mind that what is desired by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and 100 Black Businessmen of Madison - as well as by proponents of affirmative action - is precisely the kind of practice which is embraced by the national-anarchists; namely, the practice of using race or ethnicity as a condition influencing membership, whether in the public or private sector, and whether heritage is the sole criterion or but one of several criteria.
     One of the arguments made by members of the Congressional Black Caucus in favor of the group is that it does not discriminate on solely one basis but rather on two bases. They do not allow non-blacks to become members, but they also do not allow non-congressmen to become members. This fact and their de facto exclusion of Republican blacks beg the following question: How does the act of tacking additional reasons to discriminate onto currently existing discrimination make that discrimination less discriminatory?
     It is not that discrimination is universally harmful to minorities; it can be beneficial, but this is a controversial viewpoint. It's not difficult to understand why the topic of discrimination and segregation on the part of non-whites in the U.S. has not been fully explored nor discussed.
    Ethnic, racial, religious, etc., separatism (and, more broadly, the freedom from association and from involuntary servitude) are valuable and acceptable as long as they are not forced. Understanding this - and that discrimination is all around us - could allow ethnic, cultural, racial, religious nationalism to exist in independent, autonomous, self-determining manners; without bringing territorial integrity into the mix, and without building border fences and checkpoints in order to prevent the flow of immigrants into an area.
     I agree with everyone who points out that no "national anarchism" should occur if it actually depends on a State (i.e., local/territorial monopoly on violence, implying territorial integrity) to prop-up forced segregation, discrimination, or separatism based on ethnicity, race, culture, religion or any other characteristic or attribute (especially along the lines of borders drawn without respect to the rights of native peoples or the boundaries of local watersheds).

Monday, May 26, 2014

My Self-Chosen Most Important Blog Entries


Gun Control and the Draft:

The Social Contract, the Constitution, and Elections:


Perfect and Complete Markets:

Non-Territorial Government:



Labor and Entrepreneurial Theory

Distribution of Wealth

The Path to Anarchy

Homelessness and Poverty

Union Collective Bargaining

Rivalry and Excludability of Goods

Anarchist Property Rights


Oregon Politics and the Third Sector

Industrial Relations

Geo-Panarchism, Nonapartism, Mutualism


Progressive Taxation

Henry George




Judaism and Zionism

Libertarianism and Racism

National Anarchism



Intellectual Property

Criminal Justice

The Bush Bailouts / Obama Restructuring:

Millennial Generation Politics

Summary of My Political Views

Economic Philosophy: Geo-Panarchism, Nonapartism, and Mutualism

I would like to see all anarchists and partisans - whether collectivist, communist, socialist, cooperativist, mutualist, voluntaryist, individualist anarchist, left-wing market-anarchist, or Agorist - support the perfection of competition and the completion of the system of markets, and engage in amicable trade with one another, and with their customers, and in amicable competition to provide better services to their customers; free to buy, sell, gift, trade, barter, and share as they all assent to, and within perfected, completed, and freed markets."

I would like to develop a form of synthesis-anarchism which requires all anarchists to embrace Geo-Panarchism as a condition of a fair market for personal and property protection and social and civil justice and law. That is; all anarchist firms protecting the landed property of people and firms must agree to allow all members of the economic/industrial and civic/legal community (whether territorial or not) to participate in the assessment of the unimproved value of land, as a condition for permission of anarchist landed property protection firms to participate in the market freely.

I am interested in finding common ground between the political and economic philosophies of Henry George, David Ricardo, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Karl Marx, the Agorists, the Austrians, the neo-classical economists, the New Institutional economists, the Panarchists, and the synthesis-anarchists.

I want to combine the ideas of mixed government and mixed economy under a collaborative participation in governance by many sectors of the economy and of industrial relations, which I call Nonapartism or Unincorporatism (a development upon Tripartism, which I regard as inadequate because the range of agencies it represents lacks diversity).

"all resources [should] be allocated to the people by freely, fairly, and amicably competing anarchist individuals, Agorists, freelancers, entrepreneurs [including social purpose enterprises], mutuals, co-operatives, communes, autonomous unions and guilds, and cooperative corporations [and egalitarian labor-managed and employee-owned firms] which would be encouraged to stay autonomous but join confederations."

"... consumers [should] voluntary cooperate (direct action; boycott; counter-economics; radical redistribution, homesteading, and reclamation) in their purchase habits – pooling their money, productive assets, and force of consumer demand – in order to lower prices on goods through the establishment of price-ceilings (or cartels) on the markets." [this idea comes from my reading of David Ricardo and cooperative wholesale societies]

The contents of the below article have the potential to be used in governmental structure design and/or anarchist organization based on association with economic theories.

As Rudolf Rocker put it, the various anarchist schools of thought are "only different methods of economy".
In the aftermath of Occupy Wall Street and the movement to get away from private multinational banking and privatization, I desire to wake people up to mutualization (the opposite of privatization) and the mutuals all around them;
whether it's mutual and cooperative and credit union banking, consumer-driven health care cooperatives, social-purpose enterprises, employee-owned and labor-managed firms that use customer feedback, consumer-cooperative corporations, freelancers' unions and New Mutualist organizations, or independent horizontally-organized workspaces and meetups.

Now, more than ever, we need new modes of organizing firms, new types of companies to fund political campaigns, bureaucracies, welfare programs, charities, and the distribution of goods, whether for-profit or not.

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Tax Cuts

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.

20. Indicate the tax cuts you are willing to vote for:
- Across-the-Board Income Tax Cut
- Capital Gains Tax Cut
- Business Tax Cut
- Estate Tax Cut

     I will vote for all of the above mentioned tax cuts.
     Given the fact that this year we are between 2/3 and ¾ of the way closer to reducing the gap between the 2009 deficit and a balanced budget, it is no longer anywhere near as unreasonable to consider cutting taxes as it seemed five years ago; nor unreasonable to refrain from increasing spending, borrowing, Quantitative Easing, the debt, the deficit, and establishing realistic, permanent limits on debt, spending-to-GDP ratios, and debt-to-GDP ratios.
     A budget that cuts commerce, military, and intelligence first - before carefully cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and the Departments of H.U.D. and Education, and other departments and programs - will make the prospects of decreased taxes and balanced budgets even more realistic. Therefore, I will vote for legislation providing for across-the-board income tax cuts, following cuts in spending and the adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment.
     I will vote to lower all federal income taxes to 15% - and then, as soon as possible, to 12.5% - for all income earners living above the poverty line. I will also vote for capital gains, business dividends, and estate and gift tax cuts, because they are all duplicative taxes; taxes on the savings of and transactions in wealth which has already been taxed generally as personal income.
     In principle, I am as open to reducing and abolishing general taxes on personal income as I will on reducing and abolishing the four duplicative taxes. This is because these taxes could not rightfully be considered duplicative taxes if the initial income taxation never occurred in the first place. But it is for that reason that I will be more open to abolishing general taxes on personal income.
     I will support abolishing general income taxes gradually (but not before enacting a temporary negative income tax) while keeping the capital gains, business dividends, estate, and gift taxes; for as long as are necessary to balance the budget and pay off the nation's debt. I will sponsor a constitutional amendment which would repeal the 16th Amendment and provide for the federal government to tax capital gains, business dividends, and estate and gifts, but not personal income in a general manner.
     I take this position because to enact taxation on the income of all earners (i.e.,capitation) - instead of earners in special categories – would only serve to perpetuate an unfair balance of the tax burden, risk increasing the costs and bureaucracy of tax collection, and risk that a surveillance state and the militarization of bureaucrats and police officers could be depicted as necessary to enforce it.
     While supporting the reduction of spending and the transition to a temporary negative income tax, I will vote to support legislation providing for the 10% to 15% range of rates now paid on capital gains to be assimilated to 15%, followed by a decrease of that rate to 12.5% as soon as the 15% spending-to-G.D.P. ratio limit – and a provision for swift transition to the 12.5% mark - have been met in a Balanced Budget Amendment.
     I would additionally vote to support removing the second-lowest tax bracket's exemption from the capital gains tax, and I would vote to remove subsidies to businesses which pay less than zero in their taxes due to those subsidies, increasing the rates on all taxes they and their employees pay to the aforementioned 15% to 12.5% range.
     While supporting spending reductions and the negative income tax, I will also vote to support lowering taxes on business dividends from the 15% to 35% rates range to 15% for all, with only the lowest income bracket being exempted. I will also support lowering the estate tax rate from 40% down to 12.5% as soon as possible.
     After spending cuts have been achieved, the negative income tax has been enacted, debt has been reduced, and the negative income tax has been abolished, I will vote to support legislation authorizing the taxation of income and sales only upon condition of such legislation's constitutionality, and of such taxes being apportioned according to either the population of each state, the value of the land in each state, or some reconciliation thereof. I will sponsor a constitutional amendment to that affect, which would amend Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.
     I will additionally sponsor legislation to authorize use of the federal government's power to collect duties, imposts, and excises, which Congress has the constitutionally enumerated power to levy. I will support levying such tariffs in a manner which imposes the highest fees on nations which have the greatest disparity of wealth, and standards on human rights, pollution, and labor safety and health, while imposing the lowest tariffs on nations which have the least of these problems. I believe that this would help avoid the risks of war associated with economic sanctions, as well as encourage the alignment of profitable trade with human rights and a decent standard of living.

     Finally, I would urge most states to double or triple their total revenues coming from the unimproved value of land, while phasing out general taxes on income and sales.

For more entries on taxation, please visit:

Tax Increases

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.

19. Will you oppose all tax increases?

     Yes, I will oppose all proposed all federal legislation which provides for tax increases.
     For government to control 40% of the spending in the nation – and for the federal government to control over 25% of the GDP (as was the case just several years ago) – is unsustainable. I believe that 15% is a more appropriate goal in the short term, and that 12.5% (one-eighth of G.D.P.; in today's terms $2.1 trillion out of a $16.8 trillion G.D.P.) is an appropriate long-term goal.
     I will introduce legislation that views this 12.5%-15% range as a base rate for taxation of any and all behaviors which are taxed by the federal government (in a manner which is constitutional), and the closing of loopholes based on this notion, as well as the notion that taxes should exempt anyone but people living below the poverty line.
     Reduction of taxes below the 12.5% rate should only follow additional reductions of federal spending to below that rate. Additionally, such cuts should follow the reduction of the deficit to zero (for which such spending reductions would provide), and the payment of all foreign and public debts.

For more entries on taxation, please visit:

Government Control of the Internet

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.

18. Will you support keeping our Internet free from government control and intrusion, including opposing power grabs like SOPA, CISPA, or any bill that mandates more government intervention in the internet?

     Yes, I will support keeping the Internet free from federal government intrusion, including opposing power grabs like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, and any bill that mandates more government intervention in the internet.
     I do not support giving the federal government the authority to police the internet. Senator Joe Lieberman's claim that the government needs to do this because China has a similar authority borders on absurdity, as does the idea that we should be reassured that the federal government will only use such a power to shut down particular websites instead of the entire internet.
     I believe that the federal government cannot be trusted to wield such a power because of the potential for that power to be utilized in order to spy on Americans, as well as to shut down websites which may host information that could expose crimes committed by public officials. Given the recently publicized revelation of the National Security Agency's Presidential Surveillance Program, this should evoke concerns about federal homeland security apparati encroaching upon civil liberties which states and local governments would rather continue to protect.
     While it is important to balance the federal government's power regarding internet policy, we should not necessarily automatically trust the states or the industries (in the case of intellectual property violations) to do so.
     While it would not violate the Constitution for state and local governments and their police departments to respectively regulate and police the internet, the surveillance and civil liberties problems would likely still be present. It might suit some states to urge citizens to report crimes and even suspicious behavior which they witness on the internet, and to use warrants and proper investigation instead of roving, warrantless internet monitoring by police.
     Additionally, it would not be appropriate to allow private industry to regulate the internet at any level of government. For industries to prosecute all alleged intellectual property violations as the law now stands would put tens of millions of Americans in prison. Peer-to-peer file-sharing is an act of copying and sharing an item following the legal purchase thereof; not an action which results in any diminished ability of the party possessing the copied good to continue to derive utility from owning it.
     I will vote to oppose all federal legislation concerning the regulation and policing of the internet, including proposed national taxes on internet sales, and regulation to deter online piracy (on the grounds that it is a victimless crime and that stronger limitations are needed on grants of intellectual property rights).

For more entries on intellectual property and the internet, please visit:

Taxpayer-Funded Benefits for Undocumented Immigrants

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.

17. Will you vote to oppose all taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants?

     Yes, I will vote to oppose all taxpayer-funded federal benefits for undocumented immigrants.
     Although race discrimination in employment practices and the eVerify program are, undeniably, obstacles to undocumented immigrants obtaining the means of survival and a decent standard of living, there are additional obstacles; namely, the increasing monopolization of the public sector over the distribution of welfare services.
     Government departments and bureaus which prohibit the private sector and the non-profit voluntary sector from competing to provide welfare services deny people who entered this country through illegal methods the ability to obtain their needs through earning money and paying for those goods and services with cash or credit, and through receiving voluntary mutual aid given interpersonally and via charitable organizations.
     Such individuals have already been denied the legal right to work, and so – with no remaining legal alternatives - they often find themselves in need of goods and services which the government has limited the ability of non-governmental actors to provide. They cannot attempt to make use of many of such services, because they would risk revealing their immigration status to the government in order to do so, thereby risking deportation.
     When undocumented immigrants cannot either work to obtain, or receive for free, services which are typically provided by governmentgovernment overreach is to blame. If ever a government requires its citizens to present sufficient documentation of their identity whenever they needed food or water, then we would be asking whether undocumented immigrants even have the right to eat and drink - hence survive – and survival will be considered a right granted by government, to an even greater degree than it is already. But when welfare provision is not exclusively done by government, it cannot be cut by legislators who cut services in order to satisfy taxpayers.
     If the public sector continues to monopolize the provision of welfare, then when State-run markets collapse - and/or when governments become unable to sufficiently provide welfare - people's basic needs will not be met. That is, unless a thriving underground market featuring gift-giving, bartering, sharing, and trade between voluntarily cooperating individuals is permitted to function; absent price controls, purchase mandates, citizenship requirements, and barriers to participation and competition in markets.
     The federal government should neither require states to provide taxpayer-funded benefits to undocumented immigrants, nor prohibit them from doing so. I will urge states to allow such individuals to freely access and/or purchase any and all ordinary consumer goods and services – whether health services, education, or items which require minimum age for purchase – without presenting documentation or registering with a government administration.
     Additionally, I will vote to repeal the D.R.E.A.M. (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act because of the manner in which it was implemented; President Obama implemented it via an executive order after the bill had been rejected by Congress. But I also support repealing the Act because of the choices it offered undocumented immigrants as a condition of staying; to study in college or serve in the military. Most of such individuals come to the United States to work, not to study or to fight the federal government's enemies; without the option of apprenticeship in one's field as an alternative, such legislation amounts to little more than a threat to temporarily derail the kind of life desired by the immigrant.
     I will urge states to implement generous guest worker programs for undocumented immigrants, allow people to work while on welfare and transition from one to the other with a smooth transition by enacting negative income taxes, pass state-level D.R.E.A.M.-Act-type legislation that includes apprenticeship as a condition for citizenship, and consider having separate licenses for driving and car insurance versus for travel and security purposes.

For more entries on borders, immigration, and territorial integrity, please visit:

For more entries on social services, public planning, and welfare, please visit:

For more entries on taxation, please visit:

Identification and Travel Documents

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.

16. Will you oppose any legislation that requires states and citizens to participate in a National Identification Card program?

     Yes, I will oppose any legislation that requires states and citizens to participate in a National Identification Card program.
     I will vote to repeal the portion of the REAL ID Act of 2005 which established and implemented regulations for the security standards of driver's licenses and identification documents.
     I do not believe that anyone who is born in the United States or becomes a citizen should be required or expected to carry identification or travel documents on them at all times. I will not vote to support any proposed federal laws – nor urge states to adopt laws - that requires businesses to scan individuals' driver's licenses when checking their age to confirm alcohol and tobacco purchases, nor will I support laws providing for requiring travel or identification documents to contain either bar codes, computer chips, or tracking devices. If holograms and embedded ink are good enough for our money, they should be good enough for our identification documents.
     I believe that Americans would be appalled if they discovered that Native Americans are required to carry blood quantum cards due to federal law (the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934). Although tribes accepted this requirement 80 years ago, and the law allows them autonomy over determining quantum laws so as to limit benefits for descendants of Native Americans with low blood quantum, there is no reason that anyone born in the United States should be expected to carry such a document. It is the relic of a regrettable, racist era in American history, and it was not voluntary because it was one of few choices offered to a conquered and besieged people.
     I will oppose federal legislation requiring employers to participate in the e-Verify program - under the Department of Homeland Security's Basic Pilot Program – because such legislation only serves to turn businesses into police departments.
     Additionally, I will oppose federal legislation to require presentation of proof of residency and identification documents in order to vote; these effectively amount to Reconstruction-era poll taxes. I will sponsor federal legislation to abolish such legislation enacted by the states as serious civil rights violations which diminish the freedom of not only members of racial and ethnic minorities but poor and homeless people of all races.
     I believe that any and all federal mandates to purchase and/or carry identification and travel documents should only follow appropriate constitutional amendment (although in that case I will vote against my own amendment) or else invoke a financial obligation on the part of the party making the command, i.e., the pockets of members of Congress themselves.

For more entries on homeland security and terrorism, please visit:

For more entries on the interior and tribal relations please visit:

Wiretaps, Searches, and the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.

15. Will you oppose federal power grabs like roving wiretaps and warrantless searches, and oppose PATRIOT Act renewal that includes such items?

     Yes, I will oppose roving wiretaps and warrantless searches by the federal government; and vote to repeal the PATRIOT Act, to oppose its renewal and similar legislation.
     I will criticize the PATRIOT Act on the basis of its lacking both constitutionality and transparency. Given the short duration of time which members of Congress were given to read and consider the bill, the stipulation that only those members who voted for the bill would be permitted to participate in its subsequent amendment, and the fragmented manner in which the bill was constructed – as well as the content of the bill itself - I see no reason to support the act or its renewal.
     I believe that unless danger is imminent and reasonable suspicion of violent crime is present, a wiretap or search is not permissible unless and until a judge has signed a warrant issuing authorization for such an action. Federal agents must not write their own search warrants and enter and occupy people's homes without either permission of the homeowner or a warrant signed by a judge, as did the agents of King George III during the American Revolutionary War.
     Contrary to the attitudes of supporters of the PATRIOT Act, the need to protect our 5th Amendment liberties should never be superseded by the need of law enforcement agencies to gather information quickly and efficiently, nor by the need of judges who sign such warrants to get a full eight hours of sleep at night.
     I will sponsor legislation to augment the protection of the civil liberties enumerated in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, strictly prohibiting government surveillance without cause, as well as all illegal activities of the National Security Agency's programs, in particular the PRISM data collection program.
     I will also urge states and local governments to legalize the filming of police officers and all elected and appointed public officials, and I will support increased congressional oversight of the Continuity of Operations Plan, in order to prevent the suspension of the Constitution and basic civil liberties in the event of a State of National Emergency. Additionally, I will support review and revision of which agencies the U.S. considers terrorist groups hostile to our country, in order to ensure sufficient domestic homeland security absent the politicizing effects of our military and trade policies towards other nations.

For more entries on homeland security and terrorism, please visit:

For more entries on high-profile corruption and conspiracy theories, please visit: