Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jan 21, 2017

Posted on January 22nd, 2017 by Calvin

Show Notes:

  • Apologies for the missed broadcasts on Jan 14 & Jan 18 as we return to our regularly scheduled programming.
  • Addressing the keyboard-only critics that desperately want to pretend Marc is completely ignorant of the prison system (critics: see Scott Bales video for proof that he is well aware of the prison industrial complex).
  • We get no respect (from the critics) despite the mountain of evidence cataloged on the Success Stories section here on the website.
  • Denouncing the deplorable mass hero/savior worship that took place yesterday.
  • Responding to someskeptic’sarrogantnatured comments on Marc’s article “Debunking Territorial/Personal Jurisdiction – Why it Doesn’t Exist” who want to criticize positions he is not taking, while ignoring the actual position, and falsely claiming they debunked and defeated the actual position (a.k.a.: straw-man).
  • What skepticism actually is by definition.
  • Skeptics that are crypto-religious zealots.
  • Making inferences based upon the best available evidence.
  • Politicians and bureaucrats are always reaching for more power by “never letting a crisis go to waste,” real or manufactured.
  • Walking through the ethics of veganism (notice the long pauses followed by avoiding directly answering the simple “yes-or-no” question, therefore making it necessary to return to the initial question to get a responsive answer).
  • Selective concern of animal abuse, some animal awareness organizations will focus on certain types of animal abuse while turning a blind eye to others.
  • Clever ways to answer their questions without admitting to or affirming their assertions.
  • Getting involved in local politics that you can actually have a tangible effect on.
  • Watching for, and objecting to, weasel-words used by lawyers in court when they try to divert and deceive with their non-responsive jargon.
  • Using direct follow-up questions after filing the Brady request, “does your witness have such personal, firsthand knowledge of this evidence?” If yes, then “exactly what evidence are you talking about?”
  • A prosecutor responded to a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct, while ignoring the original motion to dismiss, only to (non-)respond by citing the code and never any evidence.
  • Positively advocating and arguing your motion to dismiss in court when the judge asks you if you “have anything to add.”
  • Responding to Darryl Perry’s mischaracterization of Marc’s positions and results on a nationally syndicated radio show.
  • The threat of contempt is constantly looming over anybody for the most petty of circumstances, like Pete Eyre not taking his hat off in court.
  • A caller’s recent success story completely disproving Darryl Perry’s erroneous assessment of the fruits of Marc’s work!
  • Meating your nutritional needs without causing any unnecessary suffering.
  • A few people getting hung-up on statist terminology in the Skype group-chat.
  • Replacing your taxpayer funded job with its free-market equivalent.
  • Following moral accountability.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Chris from OK: verifying evidence to prove an assertion <> basing your reality on sound, objective evidence <> evolutionists superimposing their “evolutionary interpretations” <> you can accept the scientific method and reject evolutionary theory at the same time <> man-made carbon dioxide pollution should be absorbed by plants <> and a disagreement with veganism: There Are No Vegans.
  • Gene from TX: recently received a summons for federal jury duty; “how could I defend myself from their theft of my time?”
  • Casey from WA: charged with a D.U.I. for failing a field test because of trauma induced from a prior police encounter <> filed the motion to dismiss paperwork the next day <> the prosecution asserted the cop witnessing the victimless defendant within the “STATE OF WASHINGTON” is the grounds for them to acquire personum jurisdiction <> avoiding the use of the term “the constitution” and replacing it with “the code” and making them first bring up the word to avoid them stating that you are the one making constitutional arguments <> cross-examining the witness on what personal, firsthand knowledge they have to base their legal conclusions upon <> successfully utilizing the unsigned plea to guilty <> positive review of both books “Adventures in Legal Land” and “Government: Indicted” <> learning from sustained legal attacks spanning over years <> the citing officer was very (relatively) polite and respectful <> and both the prosecutor and the judge (co-prosecutor) are making objections against the victimless defendant.
  • Gadsen Viper from WV: long-fought success story: the judge granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice on a trial de novo <> tracking the ever-growing instances of appealable errors of misconduct: the judge did most of the prosecuting during the hearings and denied the defendant effective cross-examination <> and role-playing makes the difference in achieving successful results in exercising effective damage-control.
  • Joey from VA: argument against veganism: animals are not on an equal level with humans and therefore the same morality and ethics do not apply to them <> unnecessary suffering would only happen if you were killing an animal for no reason <> the necessity/market-demand for a military force, even in a voluntary society <> exercising effective problem-solving techniques and reasoning skills <> not complying with orders to directly force someone to do something <> and focusing on the real problem: people who actually use the force continuum to enforce a psychopath’s opinion(s).



15 Comments For This Post

  1. NonEntity Says:

    “Meating your nutritional needs without…” !!! Love it, Calvin. 🙂

  2. NonEntity Says:

    So according to Chris direct observation cannot compete with circular fantasies running around in his head. Cool. Got it. He requires evidence, but direct observation appears not to qualify as evidence. Got it? Good!

  3. NonEntity Says:

    Marc, if I have a very rare genetic condition and you happen to have the same condition, and my life depends upon getting your liver, does that make it moral for me to take your liver, thus ending YOUR life so as to maintain MY health and life?

  4. NickAussie Says:

    A tasty Vegan lady I know asked the fund a mental question
    “Do Vegan Girls Swallow”?

  5. Wise One Says:

    Non E, I think you’ve crossed that line from genius into madness.

  6. NonEntity Says:

    I’m cool with that, but I’d prefer if you pointed out what you think I’ve said that is insane and why. Would you be willing to enter into that dialog?

  7. Wise One Says:

    Non E, I was just joking. I thought that your example of the liver situation was so outlandish that you meant it as a joke; I mean, how likely is something like that to happen? Yes, I know that you were trying to make a point but I found your method of doing so amusing (although I’m sure if you tried to take Marc’s liver he wouldn’t find it so funny)

  8. NonEntity Says:

    What I think I’ve heard as Marc’s position is that killing another sentient animal is unethical UNLESS it benefits your health. Is that a fair interpretation? If so, it logically follows that it IS ethical to kill another sentient being to benefit one’s health. Is this a fair assessment of the argument? This leads directly into Donner Party territory here, doesn’t it? Fortunately for Marc I hate the taste of liver.

  9. NonEntity Says:

    A little light bulb glows – a core belief: I deserve, I’m entitled. I disagree. – No one is entitled. The same belief system that causes people to demand that “the government” do something because they deserve it, food, school,”health care,” etcetera, that is exactly the same issue as the idea that “my health requires the death of another living being therefore it’s fine, it’s dandy, it’s ethical and I need not feel any concern over the loss or pain or suffering of that creature who’s being was sacrificed to me.” Consider the difference between a common thief and a voter; the common thief is honest – he wants what is yours and doesn’t care that it is not his to take, he’s taking it and that’s all there is to it. Mmmm… hamburger. Yum.

    The very least you can do when taking some portion, or all, of the life of another is to be honest and recognise that you’ve chosen to violate that life for your own gain. Victor Hugo’s Les Miseables and Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment are profoundly prescient on the issue. (to Boxer)

    It is in the nature of life that almost all living beings survive by taking the living force of other living beings. If “being human and superior to lesser beasts” means anything it should mean that we recognise and acknowledge our predation, not pretend we don’t understand the hurt we cause others.

  10. NonEntity Says:

    To those who claim that the lives of others “were put here for our use,” I hope you get that logic used on you someday, and good and hard.

  11. spooky2th Says:

    “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.

    Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created.”

    (Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, head of Shas Council of Torah Sages during a sermon delivered Oct. 2010 in Jerusalem)

  12. Jake Witmer Says:

    There are a lot of problems with conflating animals with sentient beings that have rights(valid legal claims). It makes no sense to fight that battle, if it divides the freedom movement by one single person: and that’s all it actually does. Every division within our ranks diminishes our potential influence and impact. If you devolve human thought to Jeremy Bentham’s emotional liberalism, you’ll wind up cheering those who bomb tanneries and not being able to tell the difference between those who build defenses against our vastly more tyrannical and illegitimate government oppressors. Ray Kurzweil, Temple Grandin, and Ayn Rand have the best conceptions of this framework: Animals have no rights above humans.

    Maybe one day, meat will be lab-grown. Until then, I will welcome any meat eater who wants to help rid me of this wretched case of police parasites we’ve all contracted.

    There is “observes rules of civilization and is worthy of rights-protection” and there is “the law of the jungle” AKA “might makes right.” Never conflate the two, if you don’t want to live in a future that amounts to “a boot stomping on a human face forever.”

    Cybernetic systems are conventional pyramidal hierarchies that rise out of disorder. We are cybernetic systems, and are members of cybernetic systems.

  13. NonEntity Says:

    Jake, whence come “rights?” Evidence please.

  14. NonEntity Says:

    Great quote Spookytrooth! 🙂

  15. Les Says:


    This is not a personal attack but an observation.

    If I understand correctly here…. evidence is something used to “prove” something else… and without “evidence” there is no “proof”… right?

    Big bang theory… evolution theory, there’s a clue there in those names as to what they are.

    So please provide your evidence to support, how digging up bones “prove” that the creature that those bones belonged to ever took part in reproduction and thus contributed to the “evolution” of that species? One can go as far as to say that, not a single bone ever discovered has or is any intrinsic or empirical “evidence”, being a required element to argue without it being just an opinion (words and nothing else one could say), that that creature ever procreated.

    To support evolution presupposes that the bones discovered belonged to creatures that had procreated… that would be a failure in logic would it not? A massive double standard there Marc.

    “Science” (just other men and women so to break the appeal to authority) cannot determine if a discovered human skeleton be male or female with 100% accuracy. However, you or an evolutionist will have us believe (being faith, without evidence) that a creature allegedly 100 million years old had procreated. To argue that obviously there was procreation can only go as far as to say that the bones of the creature dug up must have had a parent and not that the dug up creature was a parent. The claim that creature A procreated over time and lead to creature B fails as there is no evidence creature A ever procreated… only assumption.

    You conflate microevolution and macroevolution with your reference to bacteria in the same way you argue people conflate issues of fact with issues of law.

    There is no “observable evidence” to support macroevolution, being from one species to another. Microevolution is observable throughout nature… consider humans who become resistant to antibiotics for example… are they another specie to human?

    Evolution is just another faith based religion grounded on all of the same arguments you do such a fantastic job of discrediting with governments etc.

    I’m surprised you do not see the obvious similarities or recognize that to support the evolutionary theory one needs to consistently apply special pleadings to overcome logical questioning. To say “obviously they procreated” I would refer anyone to your video on Trite Law.

    Though I support your work and respect your knowledge I am disappointed that you started the show by accurately discrediting the logic used by a skeptic/critic of yours but then employ the same tactics of that critic to support the evolutionary theory with Chris the first caller. You ignore your own obvious failure in logic in order to support your predetermined position. You can’t admit there is a God as that would require “evidence to prove”.

    It is not against the principals of your show or verbalized claims to admit there is a God. I believe in God and that I’m a created being rather than something evolved from a rock. I do not believe however that I need other humans to tell me how to live or impose their “laws” on me…. I have God for that.

    You choose to believe that as there is no evidence the Constitution and Laws apply to you just because you’re physically in Arizona “their” laws don’t apply to you, I believe that as there is no evidence to support macroevolution my belief in creation remains unchallenged. You may state that you don’t “believe” their laws don’t apply rather that there is no evidence they do, likewise I have been presented with no evidence that evolution is true and thus applies to me.

    Other people may believe they evolved from a monkey in the context of their religion (evolution theory) and that’s OK for them. I however have not been presented with any evidence that I evolved from a monkey and thus reject such assertions and those who assert I did. My position stands well within the principals and application of logic does it not?

    I do take exception to your label of “religious zealot” based on nothing more than I do not share the same religion as you. From my position you would be a religious zealot from your expressions of your faith in evolution. Until you provide proof evolution theory is true (and “Science has not done so as yet) it is just faith by your own standards. You contradict yourself logically in this subject as you did regarding eating meat and leading to your veganism. I hope this leads you to Christ.

    Should I be wrong on any of the above, your evidence please to support your counter position.

    NonEntity Says:
    January 22nd, 2017 at 6:18 pm

    So according to Chris direct observation cannot compete with circular fantasies running around in his head. Cool. Got it. He requires evidence, but direct observation appears not to qualify as evidence. Got it? Good!

    “Direct observation” of what exactly? If this is in reference to macroevolution, then please direct us all to your evidence of this directly observable evidence. “Science” claims evolution happens over millions of years, but you would be claiming this is directly observable. So again, your evidence please that evolution over millennia is observable in a human lifespan.

    Again, so that I understand correctly here…. evidence is something used that “proves” something else… and without “evidence” there is no “proof”… other than that it’s just “words and nothing else” right? Got it? Good!

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and he can add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here