My name is Marc Hanson: freelance writer, Anarchist, INTP
Las Vegas, NV
Joined May 2011
- Tweets10.2K
- Following3K
- Followers499
- Likes42.2K
Metally Challenged retweeted
Every new regulation is written in the language of safety. But you should read it in the language of control…
Kratom saved my life, you literal psycho.
I’m less than thrilled that all of the pro-opiate/ drug legalization trolls have jumped in on my prior thread without even noting my work and compassion lies with psych and addictions patients, and NOT with unregulated, dangerous OTC herbal remedies. I will say it again: the pain won’t kill you, but drug mismanagement sure will : IE OTC Kratom is lethal. Poly-pharm is lethal. Self-management dangerous and unfair. Standard, RX pain management with physician oversight is important, necessary, good medicine. This includes supporting medicalized MJ use by terminally ill patients and the use of pain clinics and specialists for intractable pain that does not respond to evidence-based CAM and pharma methods . Patients needs matter— and I will always protect that beneficence. However, Kratom is maleficence; the absolute antithesis to compassionate, informed care.
Here's something that's helping millions of people but a few dozen people can't control themselves so it must be banned for everyone. Gfy, tyrant.
Metally Challenged retweeted
Most political arguments are simply negotiations over who gets to wear the boot.
The irony is that almost nobody doing the arguing ever actually wears it.
They imagine they do because they endorse its use. They cheer when it is pointed at their enemies. But this is only a comforting fiction.
They have no real say over how the machinery moves once it is built. They do not decide its targets. They do not control its incentives. They cannot pull it back when it turns, and it always turns.
The deeper irony is that the people who actually wear the boot do not care what the crowd thinks it is doing. They are not animated by your moral narrative or your sense of justice. They will use whatever justification is available, left, right, moral, technical, emergency, to keep their grip. Your argument is disposable. The boot is not.
And the final irony of it all, the more damage the boot does, the worse off everyone becomes. Centralized planning and force degrade information, incentives, and trust. It creates errors that compound, backlash that hardens, and control that grows cruder as it grows larger.
Tyranny often arrives to applause. Over time the applause inevitably fades, but the permissions remain, embedded in procedure, policy, budgets, and authority.
Unfortunately, the endpoint is always the same. Liberty dies.
Metally Challenged retweeted
We are living through a moment where a group of people do not just disagree, they do not even acknowledge a shared fundamental reality.
There is no common frame of reference, no mutual set of facts from which discourse can even begin. They can watch the same video, from multiple angles, and walk away convinced they saw a completely different event.
They exist inside a narrative so deeply entrenched that to question it, to even acknowledge a contradiction, is to commit some sort of ideological treason.
This is a deliberate, conditioned immunity to contradiction. It is a cultivated resistance to evidence. They have developed a mind so thoroughly welded to its chosen reality that it will alter, discard, or fabricate whatever it must to maintain coherence.
They can be shown, in real time, the unraveling of their worldview, and they will patch over the holes with fantasy rather than face any doubt whatsoever.
Politics has turned knowledge itself into a partisan weapon. The expectation is no longer to seek truth, but to defend your team at all costs.
There is a lingering obligation to have an opinion on everything, to be informed at all times, to adopt the correct stance. And so, they improvise. They adopt prefabricated opinions handed down by their faction. They fill in the gaps with instinctive loyalty rather than demonstrating any semblance of independent thought.
The game is rigged, and they know it. Two parties, two choices, two sides that everyone is herded into, and neither is worth the loyalty demanded of them.
But to acknowledge this would be to admit powerlessness, to admit that they are trapped in an illusion of choice. So they cope. They retroactively justify their allegiance by turning their side into something righteous, infallible, and necessary. The alternative is too terrifying.
It is a coping mechanism turned mass psychosis. And it is escalating. When reality itself is dictated by allegiance, when loyalty outranks reason, when every fact must be bent into submission to fit the tribe’s chosen narrative, the outcome is inevitable: war.
When factions exist in separate realities, they cannot coexist. They cannot negotiate, they cannot reason, they cannot even comprehend the other side as anything but a threat.
This is irreconcilable. We cannot function like this. A society cannot sustain itself when its people are no longer individuals but ideological husks, possessed by abstractions, fighting battles for masters who do not even know their names.
You are not your faction. You are not your party. You are not an extension of a collective mind.
The moment you outsource your thinking, the moment you allow yourself to believe that your side must be right because the alternative is unbearable, you have ceased to be an individual. You have become another interchangeable pawn in a game that does not need you to think, only to obey.
Wake up. This war for reality is not one you want to be drafted into.
Metally Challenged retweeted
I too have felt this tension and I'm glad it is being highlighted here.
Libertarianism is coordination technology. A protocol. A legal framework.
It gives strangers a map for living side by side without needing shared metaphysics, shared gods, shared values, shared anything beyond a baseline respect for self-ownership and consent.
That is already a miracle, if you’ve watched politics for more than ten minutes.
People keep trying to convert that legal framework into a total moral cosmology, then they act surprised when it feels thin. Of course it feels thin. Law is supposed to be thin.
The thicker it gets, the more it starts to moralize, catechize, and finally criminalize. Liberty survives when the legal layer stays narrow and sharp and aimed at aggression, not at manufacturing virtue.
Evil does not yield to a rights schema. It also does not require one in order to exist. A person can respect the boundaries of property and still be petty, vindictive, manipulative, parasitic.
Libertarianism has no business being the yardstick for evil. It was never designed for that job. Treating it as such confuses categories and then blames the framework for not doing theology.
A lot of libertarians stumble right there. They want their politics to be their ethics, their psychology, their spiritual hygiene. They want one master key. You can see why. One key feels tidy. Reality is not tidy.
The hunger for an all-in-one worldview is the oldest addiction on the planet. It is also the root of most intellectual dishonesty, because it pressures you to jam messy human life into a single machine.
Expecting salvation from a legal framework sets you up for disappointment, then the disappointment becomes propaganda for authoritarianism. “Freedom fails to make people good, therefore we need shepherds.” That argument has built a lot of cages.
Libertarianism never promised to make people good. It promised to reduce sanctioned aggression and give people room to pursue their own ends. That room includes saints and monsters, artists and sociopaths, your best friend and your worst enemy. Freedom is high variance.
Evil exists. It always will. The only serious response begins when you stop begging systems to digest it for you and start treating your own agency as non-delegable.
Liberty holds the perimeter. You handle what lives inside it.
Metally Challenged retweeted
Our Founding Fathers designed the American experiment as a deliberate break from the world's history of centralized power and collectivism. They built a system around core principles that celebrate the individual over the state. It was brilliant, and carried with it four major components:
-Rugged individualism and self-reliance was the idea that free people should stand on their own, pursue their own paths, and bear the fruits (or failures) of their own efforts, without leaning on government as a crutch.
-Limited government was power restrained by design, because Americans knew from experience that unchecked authority leads to oppression. As Thomas Jefferson put it, a wise government leaves men "free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement" and doesn't take "from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."
-Personal responsibility encouraged each citizen to be accountable for their own choices, with liberty tied to moral self-government and virtue, not state handouts or coercion.
-and Skepticism of centralized authority was essential, as the Founders saw government as a necessary, but a dangerous servant, created solely to secure unalienable rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to manage lives or redistribute outcomes.
Red-blooded Americans seem to be almost naturally instilled with these traits, making them resistant to expansive welfare states or authoritarian overreach. The American Experiment runs counter to dependency cultures elsewhere and captures just why the Founders' vision was so revolutionary: they envisioned a republic where power flows from permission, not top-down control. It’s what made America exceptional, and what keeps it worth defending.
However, people who showed up here illegally, largely came from collectivist societies where people are accustomed to relying on government, foreign aid, or communal structures to support them. They're more likely to accept, or even demand, generous social programs, handouts, and subsidies. Many feel entitled to them.
Once large numbers of these anti-Americans arrive and integrate into welfare systems, the overall electorate shifts toward supporting bigger government to sustain those programs and serve these people.
Additionally, higher rates of crime or violence associated with some of these groups create fear and disorder. This pushes even formerly independent-minded Western citizens to demand stronger policing, surveillance, and even restrictions on freedoms, in a misguided effort to restore safety and order. Sadly, the end result is a more dependent, less individualistic population that is easier to control, and less resistant to globalist agendas, and overwhelmingly demoralized by Marxism.
Globalists and powerful elites import the third world, not out of humanitarianism, but to integrate people who are culturally predisposed to government dependence and crime, and whose presence generates social chaos. This manufactured destabilization ultimately causes Western populations to beg for more state intervention, which thereby dismantles the rugged individualism instilled in us by our founding, that resists big government, and places Marxists in power forever.
Metally Challenged retweeted
This post is economic illiteracy on full display.
It confuses valuation with cash, wealth with money, and production with redistribution, which is the basic economic error behind almost every grievance like this.
Musk’s “money” exists as ownership stakes in capital goods that coordinate labor, technology, risk, and time across millions of voluntary exchanges.
You cannot “pay Social Security” with factories, code, satellites, or future expectations without liquidating them, collapsing the very structures that generate income and wages in the first place.
Even if you could vaporize that equity into spendable dollars, you would fund a fraction of an actuarially bankrupt program for a brief moment while destroying the productive engine that sustains it.
Wealth is created through entrepreneurial coordination under uncertainty, not hoarded as a static pile waiting to be reassigned. Social Security’s problem is not a shortage of billionaires to harvest but a political design that ignores time preference, demographics, and capital accumulation.
Calling this “taken” is a refusal to understand value creation, price signals, and economic calculation.
The claim sounds moral because it avoids thinking, and it persists because it treats prosperity as loot rather than as a fragile process that collapses the moment you start eating the machinery.
No one is poor because someone else is rich. That framing assumes a fixed pie that never grows, which is the opposite of how markets work. If Musk were actually sitting on a giant pile of idle cash, which he is not, that would signal enormous voluntary demand for what he produces and it would be deflationary.
Idle money lowers prices because it is not competing for resources. You cannot eat money or build with it. You can only exchange it, and exchange happens when value is offered and accepted.
The federal government spends in a single year an amount in the same range as the combined net worth of all US billionaires. Confiscate every dollar, pretend you could convert equity into cash without market collapse, and the state is funded for one year. Just one.
The next year there is nothing left to tax and far less productive capacity to draw from. This is why the state is the worst possible steward of capital. It faces no profit and loss discipline, operates on political incentives, rewards compliance over competence, spends other people’s money, and optimizes for short electoral horizons rather than long-term coordination.
People default to this zero-sum thinking because it feels intuitive and morally satisfying. It offers a villain, absolves personal responsibility, and replaces economic reasoning with resentment dressed up as justice.
It persists because it flatters the believer while demanding no understanding of how value is actually created. It is a huge problem and they should be rebuked accordingly.
Metally Challenged retweeted
if you'd like to understand why the generations above you have so little respect (and increasingly so little tolerance) for your cohort, it's simple:
everything we made was optional and opt in.
Interesting people did interesting things and if you liked them, you got on board. and that was cool. and if you didn't, you didn't. and that was cool too.
but you took the awesome stuff we built for you and you politicized it all.
you turned it from the ask of "accept me?" upon which our culture was based to an institutionalized demand of "accept me!" backed by the force and institutions of the state and indoctrinated into curriculums and cancel culture.
bowie just did things and offered them up for people to like or ignore or criticize as they saw fit.
you passed laws that if we didn't like you it was a hate crime.
you were neither inclusive nor interesting.
you did not make offers, you made demands.
you became performative crybully assault artists wielding absurdist identity like a mace against anyone you did not like or sought to dominate.
you made it into a post-modern kafka trap and force-fed it to a nation who was not allowed to say "no."
you hated the cool kids so much that you made the worlds they built into joyless bataan death marches of avolitional aggrievement worship by incredibly marginal people.
you mistook the surface and seeming of a thing for the substance of it and a self-serving cargo cult of theater kid histrionics for identity and worse, for meaning.
and you dragged the rest of us into it against our will and tried to demand a respect and acceptance you were unable to earn.
it's been one big "everyone gets a trophy day" cum pity party, invitation by gunpoint, thrown by a group of hyper-demanding, entitled brats.
and the fact that you "do not understand" how we "ended up here" or see why the distinction of choice vs force matters is exactly why everyone is so terribly sick of you and does not want you around.
i grew up in the very cultures you describe.
and you wrecked them because you were too lame to handle freedom.
unavailable
Metally Challenged retweeted
Politics is performance art for people who crave permission to think.
You can watch it live, a follower parrots a line with total certainty, the leader pivots, certainty pivots with him, and the mind behind the eyes stays blank.
That surrender comes from fear of standing alone, hunger for status, relief from ambiguity, and the sweet narcotic of moral theater that lets them feel righteous without doing the hard work of building a coherent worldview themselves.
The influencer sells them a prefab identity, a bundle of slogans, enemies, and approved emotions, and they pay with their agency.
What’s disgusting is how casually they erase themselves, how proudly they outsource judgment, and how quickly replace truth with loyalty.
Metally Challenged retweeted
Claims that one's political opponents get whatever they want are more a confession of powerlessness than a statement of truth
Metally Challenged retweeted
I think in some very real ways we need to unyoke ourselves from the political machine. Make it mean less in our everyday lives. It’s not right vs left. It’s the state vs you.
Metally Challenged retweeted
The free market doesn’t need government to operate.
You’ve been convinced by murderers and thieves that without them, you’d be threatened by murderers and thieves.
Metally Challenged retweeted
Declarations of coercion have become so normalized, so woven into the fabric of everyday speech, that people treat them as casual opinion.
People say things like “this should be banned” or “that should be free” without even flinching, without ever pausing to recognize what those words actually mean.
To say “this should be banned” is not some neutral statement of preference. It is a demand that the state mobilize its machinery, that men with guns, prisons, and courts be summoned to enforce your wish.
To say “this should be free” is an endorsement of confiscation and bureaucratic redistribution carried out by the same apparatus that botches every task it touches.
The language is so light, so glib, but the reality behind it is heavy with violence and failure.
This seems to be a form of deep conditioning. The state has become such a permanent backdrop that people confuse it with reality itself. They do not imagine an alternative because the parasite has fused itself to the body.
What used to be extraordinary, commanding millions to bend to a decree, now feels like the same sort of statement as a personal preference for dinner.
This is the infection of statism in thought. It is the internalized obedience that transforms ordinary people into unwitting advocates for their own subjugation.
Prediction: Chaney Crabb of Entheos will be the new singer of Arch Enemy.
I could be wrong.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Whoah!
🚨 URGENT
Two days ago I was contacted by a high-ranking employee of the French Government. After determining this person’s position and proximity to the French couple, I have deemed the information they gave me to be credible enough to share publicly in the event that something happens.
In short, this person claims that the Macrons have executed upon and paid for my assassination. Yes, you read that correctly. More specifically, that the green light was given to a small team in National Gendamarie Intervention Group. I am told there is one Israeli that is on this assasination squad and the plans were formalized.
Again, this person provided concrete proof that they are well placed within the French government apparatus.
Further to this point, this person claims that Charlie Kirk’s assassin trained with the French legion 13th brigade with multi-state involvement.
Journalist Xavier Poussard’s life is also at risk. This is deadly serious. The head of state of France apparently wants us both dead and has authorized professional units to carry this out.
I ask that every person RETWEET and share this.
I do not know who in the American government can be trusted, since this source claims our leaders are aware. But I have more specific information which is definitively verifiable, should they care to reach out to me.
To the brave official in France who did this because they were so moved by the evil of Charlie’s public execution to risk their own life— May God bless you. Truly.
Let all be revealed.
Metally Challenged retweeted
We live under the biggest most powerful government in human history. In fact, the US federal government is the biggest organization of human beings in the history of mankind. We’re $38 Trillion in debt because we can’t possibly afford it. And people still blame the free market.
Metally Challenged retweeted
Yesterday after 5 ridiculous months of fighting the WH and the Speaker to get Congress to finally vote to release the Epstein files, a deal was made to stop the censure of Stacey Plaskett, a Democrat delegate from the territory of US Virgin Islands, which would have also kicked her off the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that oversees US intelligence activities, for texting with Epstein during an Oversight Committee hearing in 2019.
Plaskett texted with Epstein as he advised her questions during the Michael Cohen hearing, knowing his convictions and record of rape and trafficking girls and women. This was the reason for last night’s censure resolution vote.
What was the deal that was made?
3 Republicans crossed the aisle and voted with Democrats to stop the Plaskett censure resolution in a swap so that Democrats would not bring up the Cory Mills (R) censure resolution for alleged physical assaults and threatening to release pornography on an ex-girlfriend and ethics violations and questionable military record.
You, the American people, should be outraged by this against both parties.
And you should be asking many questions.
For example, why does Plaskett who is a non voting delegate from a U.S. territory serve on the House Intelligence Committee, Ways and Means, and Budget Committee? Those are very powerful influential committees and she can’t even vote on the House floor.
And Cory Mills serves on the House Armed Services Committee, Foreign Affairs, and subcommittees on Intelligence.
So why did both sides work together to stop both Plaskett and Mills censure resolutions last night in order to protect both Plaskett and Mills?
Members of Congress like me never ever receive such protection and never will.
Instead of working to pass legislation that supports policies you voted for, passing our appropriation bills, and solving real crisis issues like healthcare, Congress is trapped in the quicksand of the Swamp with no intention of getting out.
Metally Challenged retweeted
I think most Americans want the government to keep them safe from invisible enemies and give them money.
And sadly, they’re willing to trade liberty for those perks.
