If it weren't for the capitalist system most of the professional
opponents of capitalism would not have made it out of the uterus at
birth.
This thought is brought to you by the NATO phonetic letters Foxtrot and Uniform.
Living In The Surreal World
The Blog Of Leslie Bates
Thursday, May 08, 2025
Thought For The Day
Wednesday, May 07, 2025
Thought For The Day
Never try to be clever. It never works and only annoys the people who're
actually smarter than you are. You don't want to do this.
Tuesday, May 06, 2025
Monday, May 05, 2025
On Tyranicide
Socialists are inherently parasitic and thus can't take no for an answer to their demands for obedience and the material goods they need to exist. If they did so they would wither away and die. A dictator on the other hand doesn't have to take no for answer. Thus Socialists are by necessity inclined to favor dictatorships over citizen ruled republics. When they see a dictator in the dock they see their own hopes and desires go with him. When they see a dictator doing a dance at the end of a rope they see themselves perishing with him.
Why do Leftists have such a problem with tyrannicide? We
must take into account the fact that The Left's ideal of society is one
where the State controls all aspects of human life and where the
refusal to submit to the will of the State is a punishable offense. Punishments which include the penalty of death. In short The Left seeks to establish a state of tyranny.
Sunday, May 04, 2025
Leftism In Action
We must remember that Socialism is essentially a Master/Slave ideology. If you'll pardon me for quoting the First Trustifarian: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. For the Socialist, as with the antebellum slaveholders, the needs
of the masters will always be much greater than the needs of the slaves. Now the Socialist master class, both here in the United States and
abroad, now see themselves being dispossessed of what according to their
ideology is rightfully theirs. Control of their slaves and the products
of slave labor. What shouldn't be a surprise to us is that the
response of the Socialist master class and their supporters is in many
ways similar to the actions of the antebellum slaveholder class and
their supporters. Those who reject the chains of The Left are
subjected to public ridicule and slander by the self styled
intellectuals and subject to physical violence by the goon squad, with
the ski-mask replacing the white sheet as the attire of choice.
Saturday, May 03, 2025
Excuse For Tyrrany
Democracy is the form of state that claims unlimited power from a
mandate from an unlimited mass.
For those who desire absolute power Democracy is an ideal form of the
state. But in Reality authority in any area is based on actual
knowledge in
that field. Thus political authority must be based on knowledge in the
field of politics. But in the democratic form of the state the voter
isn't required to know anything on the subject of ethics, or politics, or
in the case of Chicago to actually exist.
So why should we as Americans be subject to the will of Democrats?
WE SHOULD NOT.
Democrats in general have shown that they aren't at all concerned about
the actual facts of Reality. Nor are they concerned about the
consequences of their actions. That we'll suffer and die as a result
of their actions means absolutely nothing to them.
So why should we submit to them let alone allow them to exist?
WE SHOULD NOT AT ALL.
There's no such thing as a valid excuse.
This editorial was originally published in the Winter 1995 issue (Volume I, Number 3) of THE RESISTER.
This
editorial explains why I and a number of other rational citizens of the
American Republic will not quietly submit to the whims of the God-Kings foisted upon us by the mob of Depraved-Americans,
Corrupt-Americans, Stupid-Americans, Ignorant-Americans,
Deceased-Americans, and Imaginary-Americans.
----------
Democracy: The Politics of Tyranny
In a rational society founded of the moral principle of rights there can be no force or fraud in the relationship between sovereign individuals. When rights are properly exercised they take nothing from anyone, nor do they compel anyone to act in a manner detrimental to their own self-interest. Notice that the rational exercise of each right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution by an individual takes nothing from, or compels, other individuals in their rational exercise of these rights.
Only individuals possess rights. Groups, being nothing more than a number of individuals can, in themselves, possess no rights other than those which are possessed and exercised individually by each member. Hence, a faction has no rights; nor does a gang, a mob, a tribe, a state or a nation. A group may hove interests but those interests do not assume the moral legitimacy of rights. To assert otherwise is to descend into abstract subjectivism, an evasion of reality, where a society is ruled by the-range-of-the-moment whims of its members, the majority gang of the moment, the current demagogue or dictator.
Government is force. No matter how benign or dictatorial, behind every law or regulation or act there is a gun. The authors of the United States Constitution were fully aware of this fact. They recognized that government in a rational society must derive its delegated powers by the consent of the governed and that these powers must be specifically defined by law--the Constitution; delimited by a law higher than government--the inalienable rights of man; and dispersed by permanent separation of powers. For these reasons they specifically and intentionally REJECTED democracy as a system of government. The system of government created by the Founding Fathers, men devoted to the primacy of the source of all rights, man's faculties (which means; reason), was the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
Democracy is the antithesis of the natural rights of man. The philosophical premise of democracy is egalitarianism; not political egalitarianism which holds all men equal before the law (justice), but METAPHYSICAL egalitarianism, the belief that all men are equal in all things. This last construct is such an obvious falsehood that it can carry only one meaning: the hatred of reason. Democracy, by its very definition - rule by majority - is the notion that" might makes right." The exercise of democracy reduces men to mere numbers, and the faction or gang which gathers the greater number of men to its fleeting cause wields the government gun against the minority.
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will in almost every case, be felt by the majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
--Publius (James Madison), The Federalist X, 1787
Indeed, specific safeguards were designed into the Constitution to prevent the subversion of the constitutional republic and the natural rights of man by political party gang warfare and special interest factionalism inherent in a democracy: the Electoral College (Article II, Section 1) and the election of senators by State Legislatures (Article I, Section 3).
In the case of the former it was specifically intended that the head of the Executive branch of the federal government be elected by Electors chosen by each state legislature in equal proportion to its representation in Congress; NOT by popular vote. This ensured : "No faction or combination can bring about the election. It is probable, that the choice will always fall upon a man of experienced abilities and fidelity. In all human probability, no better method of election could have been devised." (James Iredell, North Carolina Ratification Cttee., 1788)
The latter provision ensured the logical effect of popular election of members to the House of Representatives (whim based legislation) was offset by representatives elected by state legislature to the Senate to guard against Executive and House encroachment on state sovereignty: "The election of one branch of the Federal, by the State Legislatures, secures an absolute dependence of the former on the latter. The biennial exclusion of one-third, will lesson the faculty of combination and may put a stop to intrigues." (James Madison, Virginia Ratification Cttee., June, 1788)
The United States has been descending into the sewer of democracy since the ratification of the 17th Amendment on May 31, 1913. Before every presidential election there are demands by special interest groups to void the Electoral College and resort to popular election of the President. This headlong rush into democracy is evident by the "value" placed on public opinion polls by politicians of both parties (a practice begun by the crypto-communist Franklin D. Roosevelt); as if the opinions and "feelings" of factions, gangs and tribes were a counterweight to the inalienable rights of a single rational man.
The irrationality of democracy was stated most eloquently by Auberon Herbert in his London address on March 9, 1880, before a meeting of the Vigilance Association for the Defense of Personal Rights, entitled; CHOICES BETWEEN FREEDOM AND PROTECTION: "How should it happen that the individual should be without rights, but the combination of individuals should possess unlimited rights?"
--Alexander Davidson
Friday, May 02, 2025
Proposal
If I've a complaint about The Republican Party it's that they've shown godlike patience with the behavior of The Democratic Party. Democrats can assault in public those who won't submit to them, destroy property, call for the mutilation ("Lobotomies for Republicans") of opponents, the murder of elected officials who're carrying out their constitutionally mandated duties, and they'll not lift one finger to hurt a single hair on the otherwise useless head of a Democrat. I once told an editor that I worked for that we needn't rhetorically dehumanize our opponents all we have to do is accurately describe their ideology and behavior because they've by their own choice dehumanized themselves.
I've proposed starting a new political party.
If The Republican Party doesn't clean up its act then we as rational citizens will
have no choice but to start a new party if we want to peacefully make
changes and restore a rational system of government. Revolutions (real
revolutions, not Marxist ones) happen because the government fails to
function. We in the United States are stuck with two political parties. The leadership of
one party is insane and the leadership of the other party simply doesn't
care. Rank and file members now call establishment members a bunch of Vichy Republicans.
Perhaps its time to start a new political party. Is a new political party possible?
The answer is, I don’t know.
The opponents of chattel slavery proceeded even with public opposition. We, as opponents of political power, have to. We
need to treat exercises of political power, such as censorship, as
crimes against Humanity. We need to treat bans on firearms and free
speech as the anti-Human acts that they actually are. Our political
elites have apparently forgotten the lesson taught by our original civil
war, that banning freedom doesn’t work. Our political elites tried to
ban the voluntary consumption of alcohol, it didn’t work. Our political
elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of hard drugs, it doesn’t
work. Our political elites will try to ban the voluntary ownership of
firearms and freedom of speech, it will never work. Our politicians are supposed to do a specific job and they aren't doing
it. We have to start a new political party to go around them. We
don't have a choice.
Let's call our new party the Freedom Party.
Will the Freedom Party replace the Democratic Party?
I don't think so. What's more likely is that the Freedom Party will replace the Republican Party just like the Republicans replaced the Whigs.