It’s an historical fact that abuse of power has already occurred multiple times within American history. While even libertarian and classical liberal ideals were voted for and elected into power, the lights of liberty have still failed. It is the very “founding fathers” who have served as the progenitors of all the abuses of the executive branch today. The mechanism that perpetuates this widespread abuse, is voting.

Voting is consent. Consent to be governed by the State. Not voting is individual secession. 46.6% of Americans did not vote in the recent presidential election of 2016, thereby formally withdrawing membership of this ridiculous process.

Voting is playing the game. You do not withdraw your consent if your candidate loses. People who engage in the political process are people playing the game, and you thereby must accept the outcome. So if you play the game and lose, you must accept the fact that your opponent won the game. Wouldn’t you look a fool if you were to say your opponent’s win is not legitimate because you didn’t win? Now, if you refuse to play the game, and someone declares they have beat you… it would be clear to understand that as false because you had never played the game to begin with.

This is why voting is losing. It means you have consented to the results of the game no matter what those results are. You’ve already approved the outcome. Even if you cannot condone the actions taken by another candidate and have voted for your chosen candidate, you have still elected a trigger man. And the guns are big.

The game is democracy. The game is rigged. Who wants to play a rigged game? Apparently, 46.6% of Americans do not.

We can understand the perspective of wanting to vote often in order to gain incremental victories through the political process. I will not insult your intelligence by assuming you haven’t done at least the most superficial of learning to insinuate you do not know that the game has been rigged in their favor since the beginning. The statist system is designed to expand government powers, not limit them. This plays into the agenda of both “sides”. So while you may feel (whichever side you’re on) that you win some and lose some, the game is in the long run going to go to your real opponent. The left and right succeed because their agenda is the same on a fundamental level: coercion and state expansion, both profit from the political process which is how the left have been able to make incremental victories at all.

We all know the electoral college distorts the system, so I’ll save space in my essay for other considerations. The skinny is that: your vote doesn’t really matter much, and if your state does manage to get to the point where it might, it still doesn’t.

If voting implies that you consent to the outcome of the game, it means that voting is aggression even if it’s indirect. It’s the insidious political system of democracy that removes the initiation of violence back a few steps and conceals it behind the system of voting. Consenting legitimizes this system. Even while many who have voted have done so out of guilt and a sense of obligation because they know deep down, they are supplying ammo to the trigger man.

So if you feel it’s “in your power” to vote against violence, shouldn’t one do so? Consider the funds used to finance the horrors of government: they are taken from us against our will. If a thief robs you, what he does with that money after that is not your responsibility. There is an illusion here that it is with our tax dollars. They want you to play their game. So even if you do vote in opposition to violence, and lose, you’re still consenting to it. Only the sovereign that withdrew consent from the statist system is the one who can walk with a clear conscience that they did not condone the violence of the state.

Let’s bring the curtain back: Voting is the appearance of consent. All the state is based on is the appearance of consent. It’s where the “legitimacy” and “authority” of the state is derived. If anything, voting is an action taken to solidify the perception of the legitimacy of the state and only strengthens their oppression. Not voting, you are profoundly proclaiming for the state to leave you the fuck alone. You are demanding that no one be elected and legislate nothing.

Free men and women do not beg with ballot boxes. Freedom is taken.

Voting is a manifested action taken that legitimizes a political process known to be used by the state to violate the rights of others. If you vote, you sanction this and more horrors. You have facilitated the imposition of unjust power upon unconsenting others, especially non-voters.

The state aggresses everyone. Whether you voted for it, against it, or not at all. All are assumed to have consented to the states authority. The 46.6% of Americans who did not vote: are they relieved from taxation? No. Are they pardoned from the governments schemes, impositions, and courts of law? No. Are they free to live sovereign and independent of the statist system? Not quite. Does this not prove how profoundly this electoral game is rigged against any possibility of escape? That non-voters are still “bound” by electoral results?! (That’s a little dramatic, but you understand my meaning.)

In “The Right to Ignore the State”(1851), the classical liberal Herbert Spencer commented, “So, curiously enough, it seems that he [a voter] gave his consent in whatever way he acted – whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine, this. Here stands an unfortunate citizen who is asked if he will pay money for a certain proffered advantage; and whether he employs the only means of expressing his refusal or does not employ it, we are told that he practically agrees, if only the number of others who agree is greater than the number of those who dissent. And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that A’s consent to a thing is not determined by what A says, but by what B may happen to say!”


Impossible to say “no”. This political farce serves the state, not the voters. The entire process is the state legitimatizing itself by being “established” by “the will of the people”. As voting “for” or “against” does not diminish your role in sanctioning the result, it’s non-voting that can actually weaken the state.

My personal objections to voting:

– Moral. I cannot vote one way or another while the risk of sanctioning someone’s unjust quest for power and use of force against innocent third parties remains. It’s not that the wrong hand is at the helm, but that the helm is there at all. To me, as a prolific individualist, it is morally wrong to assist anyone into an unjust position of power over the rights and wealth of others. I have that much respect for you, dear reader.

– Psychological. To me, not voting is an act of self-respect. In the words of Henry David Thoreau in “On Civil Disobedience”: “How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. … What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.”

– Political. Fixing things through the government is a fools errand. Laws repealed today are reinstated tomorrow. What is banned by the FDA today was once approved by the FDA in the past. The states power doesn’t reside in laws, agencies, geographic area, or even it’s size. Power rests in social conditions, it resides in how many people respect the State’s authority. The State can lose it’s legitimacy, and we would then resist taxes and forfeit blind obedience. I cannot legitimize the farce of the political process by voting for it.

– Logical. I don’t know what one will do once one enters office. They get there with false promises, banking on the hopes of the masses. If there’s two things I hate in the world, it’s dirty liars and double-crossers. I don’t believe in campaign promises. The only logical and sure way to achieve political freedom is to eliminate and delegitimatize the positions of power being sought.

– Practical. I refuse to vote out of self-protection. Voting violates privacy with unpredictable and unfortunate consequences. Being called in for jury duty is normalized and seen as an inconvenience. I see it as being trapped in a state database and my free will being taken from me, where my time is now being demanded and corralled against my will… like a slave. I own myself. I resist.

– Financial. Taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, putting into government hands a sword which will be used against him/her, to extort more money, further robbery, enslavement, and keep them in subjection to its arbitrary will, not even mentioning all the other usurpations and tyrannies and violences of the government. I fucking hate that.

Here’s an idea:

In his essay “If We Quit Voting” (1945), Frank Chodorov put his finger on one of the main problems with casting a ballot: “when we oust the rascals, do we not, as a matter of course, invite a new crowd?” Non-voting reversed that problem. “All this would change if we quit voting. Such abstinence would be tantamount to this notice to politicians: since we as individuals have decided to look after our affairs, your services are no longer needed…. Would chaos result? No, there would be order, without law to disturb it.”

Chodorov concluded,

“To effectuate the suggested revolution all that is necessary is to stay away from the polls. Unlike other revolutions, it calls for no organization, no violence, no war fund, no leader to sell it out. In the quiet of his conscience each citizen pledges himself, to himself, not to give moral support to an unmoral institution, and on election day he remains at home. That’s all.”

I vote with my lifestyle engaging in direct democracy (DOING things instead of electing representatives to do them), fiscal activism, honoring the edicts of my will and ambitions, loving fiercely, creating new art every single day, and pledging with great respect to always protect and defend free will and breath-taking life on Earth.

I specifically waited until after the election to post this. Why? Because I wanted you to have a fresh reaction. The way you feel after having voted, or not, and reading this essay is important. It’s going to help shape what you do in the future. Perhaps this essay reaffirms your belief in the system, or drives you further from it, or gives a clear language to a feeling in the pit of your stomach you have about voting but could not define. Or maybe this is pure entertainment. Whatever the effect, you should pat yourself on the back for thoroughly exploring a different perspective and considering an independent idea. You’re creating a better quality of life by having done so.


To care or not to care, –is that even a question?

For some, “activist” is a naughty word. For others, it’s provocative. Yet still, for others, it is a hair-trigger sound that turns one off so readily and automatically that not another iota of attention, energy, or consideration is granted to she or he who utters it.

The implications are broad and decidedly negative: extremism, narrow-mindedness, hostility, political murkiness, high-risk, non-neutrality, and other unsavory ideas come to mind the moment when one identifies oneself in such a way. It goes against dinner-table manners and first-date talk. It’s frowned upon in business circles. It’s certainly provocative in nearly all aspects of modern life without due explanation and a detailed clarification of exactly what you mean when you refer to yourself as an “activist”.

So, let’s get back to basics. Let’s work under the New Oxford American Dictionary’s operating definition of activism as, “the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.”

That’s a little less scary, no?

So when I say I’m a “femme” activist, “animal rights” activist, or “pro-union” activist, I mean that I incorporate campaigning (through social media posting, in-the-streets protesting, letter-writing, senator-calling, vocal advocating, striking, boycotting, congregating, manifesto-penning, and maybe generating some healthy mayhem ;)) to bring about actual change in the world into my every day life. I’m “living” my ideals. I’m producing a physical expression of my beliefs and my convictions. Merely giving expression to something internal.

I’d like to shift the focus from me, however, to you. I’m one small example of one expression of an “activist”. What I am now challenging you to do, is live an expression that is your own.

What do you care about? What can you care less about?

If you’re a broke comedian living in the city, and your favorite wing-shack around the corner where you improv at has switched from supporting local farms for their organic free-range chicken to a cheaper, steroid-injected franken-chicken, — I hope to see you picketing outside and opposing the new management or whatever happened to have caused the switch.

If you’ve never voted in your entire life, and the upcoming election of 2016 depresses the hell out of you, I hope to see you writing letters to your representatives, peacefully protesting in the streets, and exploring every available option to express your opposition to the candidacies.

If you work a minimum wage job (maybe two) full time and still cannot afford to support yourself, let alone your family, I hope to see you protesting, striking, and linking up with the others across the country who are fighting for the $15 minimum wage and a union.

If your child is suffering and/or dying from something that cannabis oil treatment has been proven to reduce (or cure?) in clinical studies, —I hope to see you travel across whatever state lines you need to in order to treat your child and be a legitimate voice of advocation for that treatment.

If you believe that being a rude, mean, and spiteful human being is just plain tacky, —I hope to see you infusing every human interaction with graciousness, kindness, and tolerance as your personal advocacy of human gentleness.

I’ll clap for you. I’m an actor. It’s my job to understand every perspective of experience of the human condition while refraining from judgement. Do I judge those who do not passionately advocate what they believe in? No. I don’t.

What I know is, if you don’t take a responsible part — no matter how large or small — in creating or altering the world you live in, someone will do it for you.

And it might not be pretty. It might not be what you want. It might not be what you approve of. It could be downright despicable.

So, I encourage you, support you, and challenge you (whatever you respond to best!) to decide on ONE THING this week that you play “activist” for. Pretend you’re me, pretend you’re an actor. This week, you must research a role of an activist. So for an exercise, practice advocating one little thing you care about in your personal life, or opposing something you do not care for in your personal life. And take one small action for or against it.

Post a picture with a thoughtful or informative caption on Instagram.

Sign a petition online.

Write a letter to your state rep/alderman/etc.

Post your support or opposition to something going on in the world on your Facebook page.

All of the above things can be done from your phone. And you know what? It’s you campaigning to bring about change. Yes, it’s that simple. No, it’s not that scary.

Inspired? Try buying local and supporting local businesses. Try boycotting GMO’s. Check to see what people are protesting in your city this month and see if anything resonates.

Activism doesn’t have to mean extremism… It just means that you care.

NN E5: Age Doesn’t Matter Because Time Isn’t Real

“Time” is an agreed upon construct that we have measured as one of Earth’s rotations equalling one orbit of the sun, divided it into segments, then given those segments labels, power, and a reductive judgmental quality.

You don’t need to contribute to ageism and judge yourself by “age”. 

“Beauty”, is an agreed upon ideal that changes with cultures and various periods in the culture’s maturity and emotional trends.

You don’t need to feel shitty about not being considered attractive. You shouldn’t be a dick to people if you think you’re better than them because you’re something todays society considers “attractive.”

The “aging” process is 50% determined by your DNA, and 50% determined by your FREE WILL CHOICES, that will either prolong or accelerate the process of decay.

Take responsibility for your choices, your inner & outer beauty, your image. Use your free will wisely, and stand behind of and take pride in how you’ve designed yourself. 

Reject standard forms of beauty and value! Create your own and revel in your own individuality!


I’m hoping after you watch the video you’ll be able to chuckle to yourself at the silly notions of being self-conscious about how “old” you are. I hope you use this thought-provoking episode to give momentum to any positive changes you’re thinking about or already implementing in your life. I hope you buy the color lipstick you previously thought wasn’t “your age”; I hope you go vegan and shuck the previous self-consciousness at the immense shit you’ll get for doing it; I hope you fall in love with someone that lasts because they were instantly attracted to the uniquely and defiantly “you” package you present to the world; I hope you can feel happy for others without feeling shitty about yourself; I hope you design some cool shit when you think of who you really are and decide to represent that in how you look; I hope you improve the quality of your life; I hope you understand why you’re the most important person in your life; I hope you do whatever it is that you want to, and I support you completely. 

Design who you are, take responsibility for it, and derive confidence from your individuality.

Lots of love,


NN E:4 How to Support a Freedom Fighter

I hope you’ll enjoy and think deeply on this episode of Natalee’s Notions. It’s titled, ‘How to Support a Freedom Fighter’, but it’s really a way  for me to publicly support (and hopefully garner more support for) an old friend of mine, Jeremy. There was a bit of push and pull for me making this: I wanted to humanize him to anyone who cared to do some research on this “hacker”, but I also wanted to present him with enough information so as to be honest and thoughtfully equanimous. Not quite sure how I did… if it’s too personal or not nearly personal enough.

Either way, friend or not, he’s someone who is going through real pain, punishment that he walked into knowingly, in order for us to benefit from the (thanks to him) now exposed ‘secret’ information about our governments acting against us.

Join me in supporting Jeremy and others of his rank for acting on their convictions for the benefit of the masses.

Please consider donating to his defense team or reaching out with a letter telling him thank you and supporting him.

Earth Day 2016 | Earth Day Every Day

It’s a capitalists’ mistake not having fully incorporated nature as part of capital.

Until now, and in the worst way.

From 1970 to 2008, the earth system has lost 30 percent of its biodiversity. In tropical areas, the loss has even been as high as 60 percent. This is the result of an economic system that monetizes nature as a “thing”, objectified as this forever-flowing resource to be exploited, sold, transformed, and profited from.

So let’s take a closer look at “green economy”, which looks a little bit (I mean, a lot) like transnational corporations promoting more capitalism under the ambiguous moniker.

Back to biodiversity; We’re in a great struggle to preserve biodiversity, but how do we put a price on the free services that plants, animals, and ecosystems offer humanity? Back up a sec, what do you mean, “put a price on”?

Specific functions of ecosystems and biodiversity that can be priced and then put out into a global market are being identified as “Natural Capital”.

The following is an excerpt from a report by Ecosystem Marketplace of what motivates Green Economy advocates:

Given their enormous impact on our daily lives, it’s astounding that we don’t pay more atten¬tion, or dollars, to ecosystem services. Ecosystems provide trillions of dollars in clean water, flood protection, fertile lands, clean air, pollination, disease control – to mention just a few. These services are essential to maintaining livable conditions and are delivered by the world’s largest utilities. Far larger in value and scale than any electric, gas, or water utility could pos¬sibly dream of. And the infrastructure, or hard assets, that generate these services are simply: healthy ecosystems.

So how do we secure this enormously valuable infrastructure and its services? The same way we would electricity, potable water, or natural gas. We pay for it.

Next steps are privatizing functions and processes of nature and then labeling them “environmental services”, setting a price and putting it out on the market. The report also includes estimates of annual values of these “environmental services”.

REDD(Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation)’s purpose is to isolate one of the functions of the forest, like it’s ability to capture and store carbon, and then measure how much CO2 it can capture. Once the value of the potential carbon storage of the forest has been estimated, carbon credits are issued and sold to wealthy countries and behemoth corporations who buy/sell these credits as polluting permits in the carbon markets.

If Indonesia has a deforestation rate of 1,700,000 hectares per year  and only deforests 1,500,000 next year, it’ll be able to sell in the REDD market the carbon credits for teh amount of CO2 that’s stored by the remaining 200,000!

Corporations purchasing the credits still release CO2 into the atmosphere, as they’ve essentially bought polluting permits for the rich. (Kind of like how some religious organizations will sell “free passes” to commit wrongs under many guises and names, methinks)

Big deal: Only countries that REDUCE their deforestation will be able to put carbon credits in the REDD market. So if a place has always preserved its forest, they won’t be able to sell any carbon credits from reduction of deforestation. Results include countries that are cutting down trees with the purpose of increasing deforestation later, so that in the future the “reduction of deforestation” will be higher and they’ll be able to put more carbon credits onto the market.

That’s just the “green economy” for forests: the entire system is about monetizing nature and cheating everyone.

You can see where this will lead.

Lots of market-based solutions require monetizing nature and that just plalys into the paradigm of commercialization.

Dr. Vandana Shiva says in her book ‘Making Peace with the Earth’,

“Green economics needs to be an authentic green, it cannot be the brown of desertification and deforestation. It cannot be the red of violence against nature and people, or the unnecessary conflicts over natural resources”.

We need a new vision. We need a new economic paradigm. We need to make changes on the structural and foundational level.

The Veni Vidi Amavi Foundation considers these and more environmental concerns, and let me tell you, we are poised to make a massive difference for the planet and all geocentric life. Please join us in our commitment to planet Earth, and consider doing something in your life, big or small, that returns benefit to the nature around you.

I posted this exact post on the linked website, and guys, it sounds gloomy, I know. I know, but I’m really excited to roll up my sleeves and get in there to do my best to offset some of this damage. So, stay tuned for the great programs, initiatives, and all other sorts of kooky-creative ideas I’m cooking up to make a difference.

I hope you’ll consider joining me.