definition meme

Nicole thinks that if you take a woodsy picture and then add some made-up and borrowed definitions, what you say will be true. Add some silly hashtags and it’s even more true.

But words have meanings. That’s how we communicate. We agree what the meaning of a word is and then everyone knows what everyone else is talking about.

Obviously, some words have more than one meaning. For instance, a “school” (noun) is a building where children/people are taught stuff. But you can also “school” somebody (verb) in website design (synonym for “teach”). In addition, a whole bunch of fish constitute a “school” (another noun). However, no matter how hard you try, or how many memes you make, “school” does not mean “camel.”


The cute little guy is still a camel.

So keeping that in mind, let’s begin at the top.


According to Nicole, who as far as I can tell made up this definition, it’s “living without one or more public utilities.”  Only you have to do this in a “self-sufficient manner.”

Exactly what in the hell does that mean?

public utilities

So, according to Nicole, if you live without obtaining water, sewage disposal, electricity or gas from an “organization,”—any one of those—you are “off grid.”  Oh, yeah, but only if you are doing this in a “self-sufficient manner.”

Well, we live in the country. We get our water right out of the ground from our own well, that we own, using our own well pump. I would say that’s pretty damned “self-sufficient.” In fact, I would say that is way more “self-sufficient” than going around begging, stealing, and threatening the neighbors and finally just getting water from your business in town.

We have a septic tank, right on our property, which we own. I would say that our sewerage is “self-sufficient,” wouldn’t you?

We have a gas stove. We purchase our propane in tanks that we own. We haul them to our property ourselves. I’d say that’s pretty “self-sufficient,” unless Nicole is demanding that we put in a natural gas well in the back yard.

We do have electricity which we buy from the co-op.

But out of four public utilities, we are self-sufficient in three. So we are off-grid, according to Nicole.

I did not know this.

Neither did anyone else, because it’s bullshit.


You would think that somebody who carries on as much as Nicole does about school and how horrible it all is, and how superior it is just to do nothing at all, would know what plagiarism is.

She apparently does not.

unschooling Wikipedia
click image to link to Wikipedia, which is the source of this piece

plagiarism definition

Not only has she clearly plagiarized, but Wikipedia is a terrible source. It’s a great place to begin, but it’s not where you want to end up. The problem with it is that anyone can enter stuff there. You have no idea if the information is accurate or not.  And for some material, the articles just consist of opinions, sometimes at war with each other.


definition homestead

“Homestead” is the noun.

I know that in popular usage, the word has come to mean “living on a small hobby farm” or something similar, so let’s go to Nicole’s favorite source, Wikipedia, and see what they have to say.


Oopsy.  Oh dear.

Nicole plagiarized again. She just went to Wikipedia and copied the stuff in yellow.

She ignored all the stuff in pink, about how it’s “characterized by subsistence agriculture, home preservation of foodstuffs. . .”

That’s because the Nauglers don’t do any of that. They do not do “subsistence agriculture.”  What is that, anyway? Let’s see what Wikipedia says.

subsistence ag

Now seriously, you guys, no matter how you spin it, this is not “subsistence agriculture.”  It’s not even “beginner subsistence agriculture.”

handful veg


For this one, Nicole appears to have made up her own definition. Maybe that explains why, when I punched it into Google, Google was just convinced that what I wanted was articles about “intuition.” Nothing about “faith.”

Here’s the dictionary definition of “faith.”

faith definition

What Nicole is doing here is trying to make herself look all “spiritual” so she can appeal to the religious readers, while simultaneously not setting herself up for criticism because she is, in fact, not religious at all. She and Joe use religion. They do not practice it.

Maybe they could adopt Twain’s wonderful definition. It’s one of my favorite quotes and so apropos here.

Mark Twain

The camel?

He’s still just a camel.



Sacred or Profane


It is hard for me to reconcile the above post that Joe made on Nicole’s public page with the “faith driven”  Mormon family man he claims to be.

After all the Bible plays a “vital role” within the Church of Latter Day Saints.

The Nauglers craft the appearance of being Godly people.

Capture Joseph claims to be a saint and a radical rational hippie Mormon.

imageCaptureAt other times, the image projected is far less Godly.  The constant use of profanity we are told by Nicole is no big deal and does not make them less Godly, and anyway “who are we to judge?”.  I am not judging.  I am simply stating that I, personally, cannot reconcile the constant use of profanity with the faith driven image they would have me believe.  It impacts their credibility.

Perhaps he’s really making these “small, steady, incremental improvements“? The kind listed below in one of his G rated posts? I wonder what he’d really like to post. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s on that reverent path. Preparing to walk guiltless. Waving the “C word banner” and dropping “repentant F bombs”.
CaptureBecause . . . integrity? Seems we have different opinions.
CaptureI think hubris can often be seen to bleed over into his religious views and holdings.  He often calls for mercy on himself, while rarely giving it to others.
CaptureHe seems to have a few bones to pick with the members of the Church of Latter Day Saints and his perception that they are “statists”.  That they do not see as clearly as he does.
CaptureOf course, Joe’s vision has been “enhanced” with “herbal supplements” causing him to have “great revelations and insights”.
CaptureBut wait, Joe sees “Satan’s influence” on others who have “been called as seers and revelations”. Joe finds following “the prophet insidious”.  Maybe Joe just wants everyone to know, that although he himself claims revelations, he has a much better understanding and insight into God than they do.
CaptureAfter all it is all about the individual.  A statement which I feel sums up the entirety of Joe’s very self obsessed philosophy.
CaptureWhen the Nauglers first came to live in Kentucky they relied on the kindness and open hearts of the Church of Latter Day Saints.  While the below statement by Nicole may have been true by 2015 the Nauglers, after moving from ward to ward in different stakes, had long worn out their welcome.

The Nauglers are loathe to discuss it much, but this has not stopped them from publicly naming and shaming ward members on their public postings.  I will not share those here.  I will not be a party to the Naugler’s biting the hands that literally fed them for years.
CapturePerhaps, someone should ask Joe if their Temple Recommends were revoked.  All I can say, is – don’t expect a straight answer from either of them.image As I wrote earlier, Joe and Nicole often invoke mercy for themselves, but are far from willing to extend it to others.

The Naugler’s words and actions are far too often at odds with the image that they have carefully crafted.
CaptureCaptureCapturePerhaps instead of just publishing the good works and words of others, Joe could begin to practice what he preaches.  It is not enough to self-proclaim yourself a saint and a man of God.  It is not enough that Joe proclaims that the spirit has moved him to do the things he does (some of which are not good deeds in the slightest).   I think, for people to take you seriously, you need to walk the walk and talk the talk.
CaptureI believe that Joe thinks he is a faith driven man.  The problem I believe lies in Joe’s uniquely self absorbed and grandiose views of himself and his place in the world.  It would seem that Joe is consumed with a false impression of his own importance, that he knows best when it comes to just about everything, including his special relationship with God.

He may lightly lay the mantle of one religion or another over his shoulders, but he does not adhere to any teachings that he doesn’t feel like adhering to.  He does as his “spirit” tells him, often invoking this spirit to justify otherwise unjustifiable actions towards others.  It would appear that he does not believe that he serves God, but that his God serves him.  He may have been criminally convicted any number of times, lost parental rights to his child, bully and threaten those he deems weaker than himself, engage in behavior that demeans others both online and off, not provide for his family, or any number of heinous things, but it is all just dandy.  Joe tells us so over and over again, and if we don’t believe him, no worries his spirits have his back, and you’re just a cunt.

Hubris.  Pride.  To quote one of Joe’s favorites — Ezra Taft Benson
CaptureCherry picking right and wrong and who it applies to seems to be a subjective art here huh?

This installment brought to you by “The nefarious Please”



So, Nicole the Person Who Hates Government and Laws of Any Sort is telling us that “God” already told us who to elect to office.

And she tells us where “God” said all this.

What is in 1 Samuel 8?

Well, if you’re like me and you were raised in a fundagelical religious family and you were forced to memorize huge portions of the Bible and go to church three times a week for years and years, you already know what 1 Samuel 8 is about.

Remember? We named our son “Nathan.”  After the prophet.  You know, from the Bible.

Anyway, the chapter is the story of how the stupid Israelites decided that they wanted a king.  What had happened is that Samuel (who was the prophet at the time anointed by God) had some sons and he made them judges over various parts of the land, and they were corrupt.

So the people got sick of the whole damn thing and decided that they wanted a king instead.

And Samuel tried to tell them that a king would be worse than his corrupt sons and goes into verse after verse about what having a king would do.

Here’s a sample:

He [meaning the king] will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

So, the people say, “Fuck you, Samuel. We want the king anyway. Your sons suck.” [I am paraphrasing. The Bible actually doesn’t say “fuck,” but I bet the people did.]

And “God” tells Samuel, “Oh, well. Give them what they want.”

And “God” says something interesting as well.  He says to Samuel, “Don’t be upset about this. They have not rejected you, but they have rejected me.”

In other words, the people rejected theocracy (rule by “God” or religion).

Nicole, by referring to this chapter, is advocating theocracy.

Not voluntaryism, or libertarianism, or “freedom,” but theocracy.

You can just imagine how this goes over with people like me. Samuel, of course, was channeling the words of a non-existent, made-up deity because he was trying to keep his sons in power. (That is, if there really was any Samuel at all—much of the Bible, especially the Old Testment, includes characters that are entirely fictional.)

Anyway, of course, the end of the story is that they crowned David king and everything just slowly went all to hell from there. Because the only good ruler is “God” and of course, since “God” doesn’t actually exist, the only good ruler is “God’s” representative and you can see how well that works out if you visit, oh, say, Iran.

But most of Nicole’s little followers won’t bother to look up the reference and most of them will just think of her as so wise and well-read.

She is advocating a theocracy.