Interview 1741 – Keith Knight Presents The Voluntaryist Handbook

by | Aug 8, 2022 | Interviews, Videos | 60 comments

Keith Knight of Don’t Tread on Anyone joins us to discuss The Voluntaryist Handbook (available for free on Odysee but support the work by buying a copy)

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee or Download the mp4

Keith Knight Don’t Tread on Anyone

The Voluntaryist Handbook (buy the book)

The Voluntaryist Handbook (free pdf)



  1. i’ll leave keith a donation as apparently the eye of sauron has focused in on me and i can’t get books in the mail now. hardly terrifying.


    • Not sure about the definition of socialism in the collection! I’m not a statist and i’m apolitical, but I thought that true socialism was the sharing of a countries inherent resources to the people, like chavez and his bolivarianist socialism. Obviously not perfect, but the myth of taking from the rich to benefit the poor is not true.

      take care all.

      • keith and james-thought provoking! thanks!

      • ‘on paper’ socialism is the people owning an equal amount of resources evenly divided. In practise it always leads to shortages, corruption and tyranny: As I am sure you know.

        In short there’s
        – tyranny (socialism)
        – chaos (democracy)
        – freedom (Libertarianism).

        As a Libertarian I am surprised by this article/interview on JC-rep. bc I thought James was not a Libertarian?

        Anyway, labels aside: I ‘buy’ the PDF if that’s ok; so support it but in a digital form, that’s my preference. Thanks James and Keith!

  2. He makes a good point about the constantly shifting narrative of who we are supposed to hate on any given day. Perhaps the authorities could streamline this down to two minutes collectively, for the public, on any given day:)

    • I’m sure this sounds familiar… 😀

  3. Got me curious, lets take a dive into critical thinking, Thank you James, Keith and the rest who made this book possible.
    P.S. Isn’t it strange how I hated having to learn anything when I was a youngster to where now in my 50’s I hunger for knowledge, it’s like ass backwards to growing up as a human.

  4. I am just a little way in but it strikes me that it is clearly NOT true that “no one has a claim on my time unless I want to give it”

    If i have a child then that child DOES have a claim on my time and property and I AM bound to feed and care for it

    If my parents needs care in old age then I AM morally bound to take care of them.

    Only an amoral sicko would suggest that its OK to dump your spouse and leave them without support because you have ‘gotten tired’ of them.

    My Family DOES generally have a valid claim on my time and effort…. unless people think its moral to become a drug addled bum and refuse to aid your infirm parents, your wife and your kids?

    I did not choose to be born…. and few would say its moral for a man to tell a women she MUST abort a baby so he wont have to pay child support so having children is, for some folks, an unintended accident rather then a choice.

    From these bonds you can create community… good luck trying to form community or cooperate without non soluble bonds between people

    • But caring for kin is a natural law. It’s observed in the animal kingdom too, how mother lions teach her cubs how to hunt. In other animals there is a pair of parents who care for their offspring.

      I don’t think he was referring to children, but adults. I haven’t even looked at it, but it seems logical he was referring to adults.

      And many adults want to care for their children and do provide for them until they are adults. Some even go overboard with this and do a bit too much that can lead to fragility and dependency.

      Glad you mention this though, good to clarify. Also parents are the “leaders” of their children and are guides. This is a natural duty.

      Speaking of drug addled bums, my father was one of those, which was odd because my grandfather was completely opposite and tried to raise his kids with his values. I think the moving around because my grandpa was in the military was traumatic to my dad and my dad had a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism. I do think there are genetic links to this issue. My grandparents were quintessential conservative parents leave it to beaver types and yet my dad had some serious issues. Although my grandma did work after the kids were a bit older, which allowed for more wealth building and my grandma enjoyed her career.

      He did get into drugs in the 1960s and rebelled against the dominant culture and he took this to an extreme. He was a wreck and died early because of alcohol abuse. I never understood how that happened to him in the kind of home he came from unless there was also a problem with extreme strictness and control.

      • cu,h.j

        “…But caring for kin is a natural law. …”

        A) Then clearly the 1st statement that “no one has a right to your Time/Property that you dont CHOOSE to give is NOT IN ACCORD with Natural Law

        “…I don’t think he was referring to children, but adults….” If thats what he ment then it shows that what is said at A (above) is true

        ButIF that is what he means it shows that he must believe NOT ONLY in non-voluntary “Duty” BUT ALSO in Hierarchy, (parent child) and the in some kind of “Legitimate Authority” of parents over those kids.

        “…He did get into drugs in the 1960s and rebelled against the dominant culture and he took this to an extreme. …”

        So his “freedom” led him into ‘slavery’ to drugs….?

        Thinking of the meme of a fat dude eating MSG laced chicken, drinking coke, wearing a PornHub T-shirt and Twitter and social media logo’s all around him and the caption “Religion…? Nah.. its just a way to control people”

        cant find it so i’ll grab this from SecretSun blog

        • I think his genetics kept him in a trap, drugs can alter brain chemistry to such an extent that the choice part becomes less and less of an option for some. It’s not a black and white issue, IMO.

          Religion can be a way to control people, IMO. And if people are supplanting their basic personality with dogma, that is similar to supplanting it with drugs or any other pre-determined identity.

          Some of the born again Christians I have known were former druggies who have found god. There is something lacking there that I notice, an inflexibility, the basic thing that makes them their own person not there. Maybe the drugs did this to them, not saying all born again Christians are like this, but many of the ones I’ve met are. They regurgitate biblical passages, rather than their own thoughts. It’s weird.

          And people have a right to chose how they express spiritual connection, there is no one right way. But this strays into beliefs which are not objective. People have a right express religious beliefs so long as they don’t hurt others, and some of these beliefs may conflict with the beliefs of others.

        • are you talking about rights or responsibilities / obligations here? I don’t think most would deem it reasonable for ones child to use force to take what is yours if you refuse to give it. This would be the expectation in an anarchist society if a stranger took your stuff. You are obliged by your own moral standards. This seems a way removed from your kin having a right to your resources. Im pretty novice in this also, but Larken Rose is a great resource. One of his laws is the don’t be a dick law. This is where the example above would come in 🙂

          • Nick

            “…You are obliged by your own moral standards….”

            OK… so If I deem it moral to watch MY child starve to death that’s OK as long as I did not deliberately give it life????

            Would you call a person who deliberatly watched his kid starve to death “moral”??

            What about if a woman was raped then gave birth to the baby and let it die while she watched?
            Is she moral??

            There are either OBJECTIVE morals and standards or there is no such thing as BINDING morality…. in which case why should I care about the NAP? Is it only Force or is it Morals that decide what is right??

            “… I don’t think most would deem it reasonable for ones child to use force to take what is yours if you refuse to give it…..”

            The primary question I am asking you is:

            If I do not think the child I made by accident while having (‘safe’) sex is worth any of my time, money, or effort AM I A MORAL PERSON IF I LET IT DIE FROM HUNGER?

            Do I have an Obligation even if I did not Contract for the child to be alive? And… contrawise, do I have an obligation to feed my aged parents even though they birthed me without my permission?

            “….are you talking about rights or responsibilities / obligations here?…”

            No sure what you are saying here.

            I will say that many modern people imagine they have ‘rights’ (to welfare, medical care, food) where there is NO PERSON WITH WITH AN OBLIGATION.

            But I can NOT imagine an Obligation WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING RIGHT…. If I have a Duty there would be someone/something that has a right to ‘receive’ whatever service I owed.

          • Nick

            “… You are obliged by your own moral standards….”

            If I am obliged to provide for family by ‘my moral standards’ it follows that they have a Moral claim on my resources.

            My Parents has such a claim JUST BECAUSE I WAS BORN and my children even if I did not CHOOSE to give them life

            Their claim would be my duty… if I evade it I am NOT MORAL

            So…. Others may have a claim on me even if I do not CHOOSE to give it…. thus the statement “No one has a claim on your time/resources/ect that you do not give them” = WRONG

            The only alternates I see are bad ones

            1)”My Morals” are whatever I ‘feel like doing’ (and thus are not really ‘morals’) I = Amoral person
            2)”My Morals” are what I can get away with doing, and I = Immoral person

            • I find it hard to reply to a post with so much statements in it: but here is my 2 cents:

              1. confusing anarchist with lawlessness is not correct: The Libertarian view goes with a NAP, a Non-Agression- Pinciple. A rule to live by. And if you hurt or steal or worse you have the court of law and you will go to jail: Freedom does not mean lawlessness or a lack of responsibility: It is actually the opposite.
              So your aboservation is correct: Being morally ‘right’ is offcourse important and being in accordance with Natural laws (don’t kill people or steal, the basic stuff)

              2. You can do whatever you want: A society set of morals do not apply: This is the ‘way to behave is’ with ‘taboos’ etc. This is not applicable in a free society: You can do what you want. But as long as you don’t hurt anybody.

              So yes: consenting and voluntarism is a crucial part of a free world.
              Does that make sens or did I just pick a fight 🙂 Hope I didn’t

    • If you don’t want to give time to your children then you can choose not have them in the first place. That’s where the voluntary part comes in. Likewise with agreements, promises and contracts, you would be obliged to give your time after the agreement, but only if the agreement was voluntary in the first place.

      • Octium

        What about the duty to parents?

        Do you think its moral to let your old mom starve because “I didnt CONTRACT to have you birth me woman!” ?? 🙂

        “…If you don’t want to give time to your children then you can choose not have them in the first place. That’s where the voluntary part comes in…..”

        Thats only true if people flat out DO NOT HAVE SEX until they want kids….so just having sex would lay a claim on you for any kids being born- EVEN IF they were an accident or a malicious woman deliberately tried to get pregnant

        1) Should the man in that situation be able to FORCE the woman to abort?

        2) Do you think its OK for him to ignore his children in that situation even if they then starve (lets be hyperbolic and say “To DEATH!!!” 😉 ) ???

        3) Do you think that the act of sex lays an OBLIGATION on him to care for any kids that result, even if he did not WANT those kids to be alive?

        “…. Likewise with agreements, promises and contracts, you would be obliged to give your time after the agreement, but only if the agreement was voluntary in the first place….”

        4) OK, so are you saying that it should be illegal to divorce UNLESS THEY AGREE TO DISSOLVE THE CONTRACT?

        If you demand that the person doing divorce pays “reparations” or “child support” or “Alimony” or whatever your laying a Claim upon their time/money/effort that they did not want and (in the case of surprise pregnancy) DID NOT AGREE TO.

        I’m sorry, but either way its pretty clear that humans DO have duties and obligations that they do not choose… I THINK the issues behind this idea that they dont are

        a)Gov encouraged people to shirk their responsibilities to family so the state can take over that role and get bigger (See how well that worked out for American blacks 🙁 )

        b)We’re all so wealthy and atomized that people don’t have much family bond anymore, nor do many feel the fear loosing support that once generated

        c)Autistic thinking trying to reduce everything to Economics/Trade

      • Octium

        Also, a thought that occurs to me is what you think anyone ‘Owes’ Orphan kids who are left alone in the world after their mom and dad (who contracted to have them) die in an accident.

        I know it sounds like I’m arguing a leftish emotional position, but, seriously, do you think that if no one thinks an Orphan is cute enough to feed its Moral to let them just die? (though I guess babies would evolve to look cuter if that were the case… 😉 )

        Or do you think the people in a ‘community’ have a duty to ‘stray’ children from within it?

        I really do think that we have obligations to out family, obligations made by the mere accident of our birth, since humans are mammals rather then reptiles or amphibians. We can ONLY live if others take care of us, which surely puts an obligation of some kind upon us to repay?

  5. cu,h.j
    “… to such an extent that the choice part becomes less and less of an option for some…”

    If you choose to become a slave then why be surprised if your master wont let you go???
    Your choice is a choice until it hardens into no longer being a choice… as the Bible says you are given what you ask for…. even if its a delusion. (2nd Thessalonians 2:10-12)

    as Augstine said

    “Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.”

    Man is a reasonable animal… when you give up reason you just become an animal which is why reason is not what the ruling class like us to have…thats why as Dr Jones (at Culture wars mag) says correctly that sexual and moral license always runs with LESS political freedom.

    “….And people have a right to chose how they express spiritual connection, _____there is no one right way____….”

    Saying there is “no one right way” is saying that there is NO TRUTH…. and thus all spiritual practices would be equally valueless and meaningless.

    For example I CAN ‘express myself spiritually’ by worshiping Obama or Trump as ‘god come down’ but who would actually say that its ‘RIGHT’… as in true? Who would think I get a spiritual betterment from such worship?

  6. Keith comes from a place of truth-seeking, knowledge, and above all, kindness. I’ve seen other videos and his demeanor is on par with someone you can hangout and have a beer and have a friendly talk. The book seems to be that way, that’s why I bought my copy.

    • HyperSimian says:
      “…on par with someone you can hangout and have a beer and have a friendly talk.”

      I’m with ya on that kind of perspective.

  7. “Imagine if a Dentist was putting this in their waiting room.”

    35 minute mark

    • Once I am done with the book, I will leave it at my dentist’s office.

  8. Interesting for me to see an anarchist with a tie.

    I became an anarchist-punk that wanted to tear down the walls of the establishment because we had a revolution in my lifetime. That revolution was American stooge Margaret Thatcher and her CIA handler Rupert Murdoch. How wrong can you be ?

    David Bowie ‘All the Young Dudes’

    And my brother’s back at home with his Beatles and his Stones
    We never got it off on that revolution stuff
    What a drag, too many snags
    Now I’ve drunk a lot of wine and I’m feeling fine
    Got to race some cat to bed
    Oh is that concrete all around
    Or is it in my head?

  9. Voluntarism does indeed sound like an ideal society, the opposite of the Great Reset. When that self destructs and we all become self employed creators then life can really begin.

    Thanks for the insight.

    • There is no ideal Society….if there is a social collapse then people will be free of central power but they will not be free of coercion unless they live in the ass of the world and have nothing anyone else wants to steal.

      You may become a self employed creator but you will need the help of others to get the things you need and stop others killing you and taking your stuff.

      At some point a voluntarily group will either be destroyed or absorbed forcibly into a better organized structure or will itself organize and coerce members to provide duties they would rather not.

      You can only maintain voluntary only interactions with a tiny population that’s isolated from others….even then AFAIK even places like Easter island were structured with social coercion

  10. Great interview James.

    I like Keith because he’s very well-read and well-spoken.
    I might take issue for his quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson
    to ask James questions about the scamdemic, but that’s another matter. 🙂

    Also James didn’t probe Keith too deeply on the idea for his book.        
    Could it be possible that the seeds for it came with his interview of you in Aug 2018
    “James Corbett on Voluntaryism and Conspiracies”?         
    Where he asks you: “James what is voluntaryism and why are you a voluntaryist?”

    Is there some kind of tie-in between voluntaryism and PMA’s (private members associations)?
    I ask because PMA’s are getting all kinds of attention and promotion right now.

    And last but not least, I’m not quite sure that Keith gets what happened on 9/11 given his
    statements about his red pill moment in 2012 when he learned that the U.S. sided with Al-Qaida !!! (from another interview).
    It suggests he doesn’t understand that Al-Qiada had nothing to do with 9/11.

  11. I believe in supporting the work of those who make efforts to inform people of the reality we really live in.

    I found myself disappointed that Amazon was used in order to purchase the hard copy.

    We need to be mindful of the roles that we play in transferring wealth to those who already have far more than they will ever need.

    I ended up purchasing through Barnes and Noble, which is still a large corporation, but certainly far better than Amazon.

    Time to rethink of how we “vote” every time we purchase something.

  12. I received the book yesterday and WOW. This book has a flow that makes you not want to put it down. Keith asserts that left-right or liberal-conservative or centralist-decentralist paradigms are muddled and gray at best and a more precise paradigm to use/identify by would be coercivist-voluntarist. Voluntaryist view meaning two parties that agree and no one is coerced.

    Silly question?

    Would a duel without consequences be permitted in a voluntaryist society?

    • Hypersimmian

      “..Would a duel without consequences be permitted in a voluntaryist society?..”

      A duel WOULD have consequences otherwise it’s just a training drill or sparing match.

      There would be injuries/death or loss of status thru loosing…..but more important then that is that the point of a duel is to SETTLE an issue, thus its always “consequential”.

      However…. if you are big and strong and I am weak and cowardly then I would tend to give way rather then duel-you could even say I was coerced by your physical power so maybe duels are not possible in a true voluntarist society ??

      • @Duck

        Both parties have agreed to the duel and there are no consequences after the duel. No law is broken because each party agrees to the action and confirms no repercussions.

        I say yes to duels.

        • A duel is how two people sort out a matter of honor or a property dispute that they feel is serious enough to fight over…. the loser will thus suffer consequences.

          It’s not a duel if the matter has no consequences… just sport combat, even if someone dies it’s still sportl

          Dueling was a LEGAL instrument to settle disputes, even between men and women as the recreation of a “Talhofer” instructional shows

          It’s interesting how they even’ed the odds of man vs. woman with the pit…but it was equality when it came to brutal death….those guys have some pretty good vids BTW

          The Talhofer manual is on internet archive (I have a real copy) as “medieval combat” I think….they have some other judicial duels in it…the rich dudes with armour have their coffins by the side of the octagon 😉

          us plebs just get dressed in pigskin rather then armor…but there are recreations of the spike dueling shields on YT , pretty cool looking

  13. Just as counter argument to voluntarism i would suggest listening to the latest Pete Quinones show where he has a guy from Imperium press talking about a book by a french dude.

    Its about the origins of all social systems in the ancestor cult where the extended family was a religious, economic and social building block of everything that came afterwards….. they veer off into identitian politics and transhumanism at the end….not read the book itself but the ideas make sense in respect of what I know of history

    • Sorry Duck, no offense, respect to you,
      I dry heaved/face palmed through the whole hour 15 plus….

      Quasi-intellectual patriarchal ceremonial babble. (Ghostly Great-Grandpa needs a plate at dinner table to “eat” for me to be able to be a good person).

      HuMaNs UsE tO bE sPiRiTuAL.

      You don’t need to be spiritual to be a good person.

      A single person with no family (Only child with dead parents per se) can be a good person. Family doesn’t equal society. Thousands of non related persons can make a fully functional society.

      But this presumes that only clans (with polygamy) and probably incest makes a more tight nit moral society.

      If you were born and experienced life as a woman you’d hate this podcast.

      If you have an ego that big you need your offspring to remember and revere you everyday regardless of daily productivity and impact on future kind, get over yourself. No ancestor cult!

      Be nice if not atone once in a while.

      Good listen about patriarchal history and how not to live.

      With no masters people live free, society will follow.

  14. “…single person with no family (Only child with dead parents per se) can be a good person…..”

    No one said they could not “good”…but a single person with no family is a Bug Man who will live in globalist coom pods and live in the metaverse.

    Single person with no family has zero interest in anything but their own self…. they are easy to control.

    “…..Family doesn’t equal society. Thousands of non related persons can make a fully functional society…”

    Family is THE LEGO BRICK of Society…. no family, no Society and pretty soon no people.

    Brave New world wanted Society without Family…. GloboHomo wants Society without family because people without family are easy to farm like chickens in a chicken barn.

    “….But this presumes that only clans (with polygamy) and probably incest makes a more tight nit moral society….”

    Moral I don’t know… but do you think some guy you know will fight by your side like your blood related Clan member??? Your brother will fight for your life more then some buddy

    “….If you were born and experienced life as a woman you’d hate this podcast….”

    Does that make the history less true?

    Who cares what women think anyway? Listening to women is a dumb idea promoted by globalists who know women are easier to control thru social pressures.

    “…ith no masters people live free, society will follow….”

    A Society without leaders has 1 person in it….when you add more people leaders appear.
    The lie of no leaders is so globo homo can rule you without you having a family, church or tribe to fight back

    • You must hate this book and more importantly freedom

      • Freedom will not be gained by holding the wrong idea of how to get it.

        You have zero chance of freedom unless you have strong families and good social structures.

        Because in the real world without those things you can not resist the powerful few.

        I don’t even need to say anything about “hating freedom” since that’s what George Bush said….its hyperbolic and childish

        • “Who cares what women think anyway? Listening to women is a dumb idea promoted by globalists who know women are easier to control thru social pressures”

          Hyperbolic or not…you said it

          Women are second class citizens to you.

          You hate freedom

          • No… but it is pretty obvious that women are easily controlled by social pressures.

            Thus giving women the vote has ALWAYS resulted in bigger government and more state control.

            That is a fact…my emotion does not matter.

            Just as my emotions don’t matter to the fact that you can not be free if you have no family or tribe to help and protect you….

            the people who push “liberty” from the family give you the tyranny of the state….like American blacks who had their families attacked by the government and became dependent on free gov stuff

            • “Men have bigger brains than women. . . It’s science”
              -Ron Burgundy

              Good luck.

              • Is that an argument?

                There are basic biological differences between men and women

                Because of those physical differences they act and think differently

                They have different biological life cycles and reproductive strategy.

                Women are more social and they vote for more government….

                Do you say that’s not so?

                Whatever….. now tell me how you can resist the power of the state if you have no family or tribe or other social structure.

            • I think qualifiers might be helpful here “some women, or women from x,y,z…” Not just because of how it sounds, but because it’s factually incorrect.

              These generalities don’t apply to everyone. When people start to imply that women belong “in the kitchen, or in the home” or that equal rights are bad, I thank God (whatever that force is) that I have guns.

              Women have the right to engage in society and if people don’t like this maybe they can form their own, but I won’t be made subservient to any man and if I can perform a task as good as he can, then there’s no reason I should be excluded from that job.

              And thought there may be some general differences in intelligence, due to whatever hormonal or physical difference may exist, this is not always. I’ve out thought many men I’ve known.

              There’s no going back to the past where women couldn’t engage in society outside of the home, sorry. Whatever you may think of it, you can’t un-ring a bell. And especially in anarchist societies, I would certainly hope people would be a bit more open minded.

              I don’t need a man or the government to defend me. And a lot of the “voting” has to do with political affiliation, irrespective sex.

              • Cu.h.j

                I have zero interest in forcing you or anyone else into the kitchen.

                I really do not care overmuch what other people do with their lives, however you posted some things I want to respond to

                “…voting” has to do with political affiliation, irrespective sex…”


                You can dig up a ton of articles on the female/left-wing thing if you are interested. There is no shortage of data showing the left wing bent to women

                “…don’t need a man or the government to defend me…”

                Funny… I DO.
                I really do want to call upon a big strong fireman or Policeman If I need help…. When you work in the hospital and a crazy kicks off do you wrestle him down yourself or let a burly dude from security do it for you?

                Guns and knives are nice equalizers for wimpy folks like me but at the end of the day it takes a certain mindset to use such things and I think you will agree that for every ten men who will there is maybe one woman?

                Do YOU wrestle the crazy in hospital down or let a security dude get him?

                “…you can’t un-ring a bell…”

                That presupposes that history is a straight line of progressrather then a cycle of waves.

                However the idea that any normal person would want to force submission is weird to me. Humans who behave naturally will probably survive and pass their genes into the future while those who don’t probably wont.

                Everyone must do as they think best 🙂

              • Duck,

                To generalize “who cares what women say…” is a bit offensive and I’m sure you have listed to women, like Whitney Web for example and other journalists and brilliant minds. There have been lots and lots of contributions women have made in addition to reproductive capacity. Some women’s contribution has nothing to do with reproductive capacity at all. Some men’s only contribution is that way, producing a good kid who thinks better than they do.

                I read the study on social pressure and it might be true women can feel more uncomfortable to reject someone or be more agreeable in certain situations and opt out of said situation. But in the study they were talking about the “opt out” or marginal percentage. So, there are outliers.

                For me personally, I’d opt out because I would not want to waste my time or theirs. I would feel guilty if I listened to their pitch and feel maybe a bit pressured to make a donation if an only if it was a good cause, if an only if I could afford it. I would consider the persons time making the pitch. My husband might feel a bit inclined to do this too.

                You mention the example of a big burly wacko in the emergency room, threatening with physical violence. It happens. We call the police and even the big guys don’t want to engage unless they have back up. This happened, crazy guy on meth destroying stuff in the ER, smaller people and men afraid to get injured (rightfully so, the guy was huge on drugs and psychotic) even the big security guys were afraid.

                The tiny female ER doctor wanted to go into the room and talk to the guy, I told her that was a bad idea because he’s psychotic. She wanted staff to try to restrain him and give him psychiatric drugs via injection. I refused, so did male colleagues even the bigger guys. The police had to zap him with a taser gun a few times. There were 8 police officers in the ER that day. It was nuts.

                Size matters and men tend to be bigger, very true. But tools allow women to protect themselves better. I could probably escape an attack from a large man with a knife and self defense and run. It would probably be good for a smaller man to use this technique too. Men have some areas that are sensitive that you can disable them with a massive blow to said area.

              • Also, being able to act courageously in the face of bodily harm can be learned. From my understanding men have less natural fear response in general, maybe more testosterone. But fit women increase their testosterone, building muscle and athleticism and learning how to fight and use tools of protection can make women fully capable of handling most situations.

                Though you may have no desire to force people to do things they don’t want to, there are plenty of men who do. Some of them consider this ethical behavior that women should be forced to have a slave like role in society. Just look at some of the vulgar comments some of the “alt-right” monarchy types make online about women. I almost puked. If one of those types of people tried to enslave me they would find out they messed with the wrong person. I have enough skill with some tools to be a formidable opponent, including my mind. I will protect my bodily freedom with lethal force if required, as many people here would do the same.

                My point is that many women do not want to be in that traditional role, or they want other roles that they are good at because they are unique people, not just incubators for progeny.

              • Cu.u.j
                Sorry if you find what I said offensive, but I maintain that it’s a fact that giving women political power has moved western society into bigger government.

                Thus I think giving women the right to vote has been a net negative for freedom, while moving women into the workforce enmass (creating the two income trap and outsourcing child rearing to strangers) has been a negative for society AND for women’s happiness in general.

                I know smart women, but as “a general rule” they tend to have different priorities and a different outlook to men.

                The mismatch between the way people are ment to live and the way they do live is why people are so much less happy and more prone to mental illness and why gen z kids are both the gayest and the most mentally ill people to ever walk to earth.

                “…physical violence. It happens. We call the police…”

                So, as I said you outsource that need to big strong guys…. Which is why women psychopath a tend to outsource their violence to a male partner or engage in emotional abuse more then going all stabby

                Not the best refreace but no8


                Better article

                “…and even the big guys don’t want to engage unless they have back up…”

                That is because restraining a person is hugly more difficult then killing or injuring them.

                I saw a body can of a female cop who lacked interpersonal skills and was about a hundred pounds getting all grabby and shrill on a disturbed dude until he started throwing her around and she accidentally shot his mom…huge male cop finished the matter with a swift kick to the guys head.

              • Cu.h.j

                I realized I did not post aonk on 2 income trap….

                As it says a stay at home mom was the most important safety measure…and demanded that living wages be paid to one working parent

              • Oh… Here is a crude source on women’s happiness decling as they become more integrated into the workforce and such… You can Google women’s happiness by year yourself if you want more… As it says women’s lib has MORE BENEFITS FOR MEN then women….after all thanks to sexual liberation you can get sex anywhere why marry and care for a woman when she gets wrinkles? Horrible true 🙁

                Women are worth less socially now then they were in 1950…trans guys couldn’t wave penises at them in the locker room if that were not so 🙁


              • Duck,

                Your words were “who cares what women say…” That’s a bit rude to female readers here and offensive. To your other point:

                “Sorry if you find what I said offensive, but I maintain that it’s a fact that giving women political power has moved western society into bigger government.

                Thus I think giving women the right to vote has been a net negative for freedom, while moving women into the workforce enmass (creating the two income trap and outsourcing child rearing to strangers) has been a negative for society AND for women’s happiness in general.”

                Voting is a scam and as far as I know women took their “right to vote” even though they didn’t know it was a scam. So both fell for the scam.

                Men do not “give” women rights. That is a misunderstanding. Women take their rights, they assert their natural rights. Men may chose to try and oppose them and they will fail if they get in the way. Why would men want to fight with women?

                Men can have whatever opinion they want as offensive as it is and say it openly as long as they keep their hands off me, I have no problem. Try to steal or hurt me or my family, big mistake.

                Outsourcing big strong guys in order to make sure we were legally responsible with this guy in order to treat him made sense. I could have stabbed him with a sharp object or hit him on the head or sprayed him. But we needed to restrain him to help him because he was psychotic and also turned out was having a minor heart attack. We were not there to hurt him, but subdue him in a way as to not injure ourselves or him in the process.

                And the big police officers outsourced to their taser guns rather than getting injured by this guy. So they used a tool. Makes sense.

                Had this man showed up at my door or tried to break into my house, entirely different context different rules. He might not be alive unfortunately.

              • Oh… Just to show I know men don’t always have the physical advantage you could look this story up
                Her husband made the mistake of hiring a scraggly meth head and his wife choked the guy to death.
                Lol… Can’t find the article I read but this is the case

              • On mentally health for gen z here is a random article

                You will also find that they are gayer, and are less sexually active then prior generation s because they are reaching the end of the process….Calhoons ‘Ratt Utopia’ style

              • I think you raise good points about how cultural changes have not necessarily lead to greater levels of happiness, for women and men. I think that these changes had more to do with the greed and manipulation of central banking and wealthy interests who wanted to manipulate society. They corrupted movements, that I think in their own right, would have been beneficial to “society (members of a community)” as a whole. Who wants to have a completely segregated work place?

                I think people should be able to pursue interests that they enjoy and develop a variety of skills irrespective of sex. There may be some things men can do better due to biological difference and some things women do better than men. As far as leadership goes, I believe women can be good leaders because it is based on traits that are not uniquely held by men. In a natural society, if a woman can lead the tribe because she is smarter and more charismatic and can communicate better to inspire tribe members, they will follow her.

                I have found that men have been pretty welcoming to me in general in male spaces like martial arts studios and stuff. So I think that most of the men I’ve interacted with have actually been pretty common sense with showing me how to do things that I can learn. Glad that rigid exclusions are not a thing anymore.

                Look at Marie Currie the chemist. Women can be just as smart as men.

              • Cu.h.j

                You should look into the Womans Suffrage movement (UK version) and the kind of rich Fabian Society types involved in that… think of all the weird agendas going on now and you see an earlier version there.

                You will find the CIA and Rockefeller money funded Feminism in the 60s and then ask what kind of liberation THOSE kind of people want to give you 😉

                I will point out that
                “….In a natural society, if a woman can lead the tribe because she is smarter and more charismatic and can communicate better to inspire tribe members, they will follow her….”

                There are zero Societies I know of where women lead the tribe into battle.

                While in an advanced society women do get to have political power I know of no primitive society that does that so I think it must rather be Unnatural… in fact as Sir John Glubb says in his “fate of empires” women getting lost of political power is usually what happens at The END of a civilization just before it’s over run.
                This guy reads the essay and the other one ‘ search for survival’ which are both pretty interesting .. dude has a good reading voice too.


  15. Thanks for doing the interview. Ordered the physical book. Looking forward to reading it, and sharing quotes and content with those I know will never read a book like this.

  16. I got this free on Kindle Unlimited – not sure if Keith benefits from this or not?

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member