Removal Of A Problem

When I was stationed at Fort Benning I had a dermoid cyst under the right eyebrow.  The cyst caused pain and my right eye to malfunction.  The cyst was a problem.  The cyst was removed.  

The Scientology organization believes they’re important.  In fact the Scientology organization is a problem.  The Scientology organization will eventually be removed.

Why?

A phenomena I encountered multiple times when reading history is that the perpetrators of atrocities believe they’re the good guys doing something good.

Those who don’t remember history are condemned to repeat it.

– George Santayana

History is being repeated.

A Rant On Gun Control

There’re the moral parasites who're mainly moral narcissists who don't care about or flat out deny the actual effects of the enforcement of their whims as long as they can strut about as superior beings and feel good about themselves.  A favorite, and thoroughly reprehensible, tactic of the Gun Control Mafia is the exploitation of surviving relatives of the victims of violent crimes.  For example John Crozier of Dunblane, Scotland who publicly said:

    My daughter's right to live is more important than anybody's right to shoot a gun.

There's a reason people like this are called peasants or serfs.  Let’s consider the inherent contradiction in this particular mouth dropping.

A firearm is a tool.  Properly used it’s an instrument of the Human will.  It’s an instrumental means of sustaining and protecting the life of a Human Being. To say that a Human Being doesn’t have a right to own and properly operate a firearm is in practical effect to say that a Human Being doesn't have the right to live.  Because a right is a concept that's universally applicable to all persons Goodman Crozier has just denied his own daughter's right to live.

What can I say?  What an (expletive) idiot!

What the parasites and moral narcissists who push gun control refuse to see is that to totally disarm the citizens of a Free Nation requires the deliberate exercise of deadly force against individuals who rightfully refuse to surrender their arms and who in no way have violated the life, liberty, or property of any other person.  The end of civil disarmament can’t be brought about without the murder of people who in objective reality are innocent of any wrongful act.  Those who would disarm us are nothing less than mortal enemies of all rational human beings.  As far as I am concerned such depraved persons should be dealt with as wolves are.  It would take a Progressive mentality to believe that the total confiscation of arms which requires lethal force against the innocent will somehow prevent further bloodshed.  In fact an attempt to carry out a program of total confiscation will create a bloody mess and will be a just cause for a civil war that'll be far more costly in human lives than our first American Civil War.

On Environmentalism

Because rational persons who naturally refuse to believe the nonsense emitted by Environmentalists won’t voluntarily limit the number of children they have so that a bunch of moral parasites can feel good about themselves there’ll be open calls for limitation of Breeders by force.  This will be followed by those true believers in power by the actual exercise of force to control breeding through forced abortions and sterilization.  Which in turn will be followed by the elimination of those Breathers who’re deemed by Environmentalist Elites (the Elect of Gaia, as it were) to be useless or "counter-environmental."

The nice words for this are subjugation and murder.

We shouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised that the Environmentalists will join the ranks of the mass murderers because they like the Socialists that they evolved from basically see productive humans as livestock to controlled and used.  They see us creatures without a right to live.  There's a proper term for those who deny your Right of Life.  They’re properly called Mortal Enemies.

Democracy: The Politics of Tyranny

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 false president Joe Biden foisted upon us by the mob of Depraved-Americans, Corrupt-Americans, Stupid-Americans, Ignorant-Americans, Deceased-Americans, and Imaginary-Americans.

EDITORIALS
----------

Democracy: The Politics of Tyranny


Rights are a moral principle, and each man has inalienable rights over himself, his faculties and his possessions. This moral principle, this objective reality, means that a man has a right to his own person, his mind and body, and therefore his own labor. Furthermore, a man has a right to the productive use of his labor and faculties. Because a man has these rights he must respect these rights in all others. Since each man is sovereign over himself, each individual must consent to any activity which directly affects his person or property before such activity can assume moral legitimacy.

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

 

Opinions

You are NOT as important as you believe.

The United States of America was established as a Constitutional Republic.  This was an actual form of government that was limited to the exercise of explicitly specified powers.  A Democracy is an unlimited state which claims the authority to act on the popular will.  The murder of Socrates by a majority vote in the city state of Athens is a clear case in point.  Various Communist states that are currently claiming to be Democracies in order to exercise unrestrained power over their subjects.

Commerce has been part of Human life since someone discovered that anyone could trade their better quality stone knives for some decently processed bear skins.  Commerce is one of the things that separate us from the lower animals.  An attack on commerce by the green creeps (or Socialists in general) is an attack on Human life in general.

Opinions

Anyone who believes that Human Life is in any way evil is an Enemy of the Human Race.  Anyone who believes that Human Life is evil is capable of doing anything including mass murder.  They're in practical terms vermin fit only for extermination.  I personally favor one round in the back of the head in the old Soviet style. 

When The State are the only ones legally armed one only lives at the mercy of The State.  The criminals will never be disarmed.  There will always be a black market for firearms.  One will always live at the (nonexistent) mercy of the criminals.

Notional Debt

Should the victims be held liable for the debts run up by the criminals?

The correct answer is no.  But try telling that to the Democrats and the Vichy Republicans.

The Democrats and the Vichy Republicans, who're in effect now a single ruling party, are exercising powers which weren't granted to the Federal Government as well as powers which are specifically prohibited.   And in doing so they've run up a debt that is both insane and beyond the capacity to redeem.

In short they're committing crimes against the people of the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Section states:

The Validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned, but neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligation and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Let's step back and examine the situation objectively.  The Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government are in clear violation of the Constitution and the Judicial branch is along for the ride.  Not only are they exercising specifically prohibited powers but they are actively working to disarm the citizens of the nation.  Which is in practical effect an act of insurrection.

To govern is to exercise control. But this mob which calls themselves the government is out of control. They refuse to comply with the laws to which they're subject. And they're now subjecting us to their will.

They aren't the government. They're the insurrection.

Are we liable for their debts?  Absolutely not.

Rant On Assassination

The fact is that the assassination of a significant political figure is essentially a suicide mission.  The term assassin is derived from the Islamic cult of the Assassins.  A group whose members were induced into performing suicide missions through the use of hashish.   

Even though more than sufficient grounds have been provided for a seizure of the Federal Government by force it will not happen because those who can do so understand that the false president Joe Biden isn't the cause of the problem, he is merely the symptom.  The actual problem is the subculture holds the rights of individuals in contempt and is willing to use force to reach their goals.  A single assassination will not solve this problem.  

Though there is no shortage of trained individuals who are able to carry out the mission it will not happen because we who have the necessary skills understand that it would be futile.  If the false president Joe Biden were assassinated it will be the result of someone who identified him as insufficiently Marxist in action.  If it did happen it would be from a former supporter or an inside job.

The fact of the matter is that I openly stated that His Imperial Majesty the false president Joe Biden isn't worth the effort and hazard of removing by lethal force.  He's not worth the bullet. 

 

Rant

Those who call themselves Progressives believe themselves to be more advanced than the rest of us.

They aren’t.

The process of Civilization has been the process of removing coercive force from the social order.  The American Civil War was essentially an armed struggle between a consensual social order and a coercive social order.

Unfortunately, the struggle isn’t over.

Marxism as an economic doctrine appears to be a last version of a primitive doctrine.  As acquittal has to be possible under The Rule Of Law.  Under The Rule Of The Mob acquittal is impossible.  What Officer Derek Chavin received was essentially a show trial where acquittal wasn’t possible.  Officer Derek Chavin is unfortunately in the hands of primitives.

I once attended a concert at a former single screen movie theater called the Cedar Cultural Center.  The concession stand there was proudly serving Nicaraguan coffee.  The nation of Nicaragua was then under the rule of the Sandinista regime.  The Sandinistas were a Marxist group.  The coffee served at the Cedar Cultural Center was produced with coercive force.

The only way advanced people have to deal with primitive people is with deadly force.  We have no choice but use deadly force on The Marxists.
 

Quote Of Day

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

-- President George Washington

The Unpunished Crime Of William Jefferson Clinton

 

We identify The Holocaust as the evil act it actually was.  But we're looking at The Holocaust objectively.  From the subjective viewpoint the perpetrators of The Holocaust believed they were the good people doing good things and that their victims were evil.  We, the advocates of Liberty take the objective position and identify The Waco Massacre as the act of state terror that it actually was.  But the common narrative has taken the subjective point of view and identifies the perpetrators of massacre as the good guys.

 What has happened is a clearly unpunished crime.

 Here's two thousand words why I will never vote for The Democratic Party.

There's a right way to with deal someone like Koresh and it wasn't followed.  An Objectivist has to oppose David Koresh and his followers, but was it necessary to kill them?  No.

Today is the anniversary of the event commonly known as the Waco Massacre.

What happened?

The local office of the BATF received a report of automatic weapons fire at the residence of Branch Davidians outside of Waco, Texas.  No inquiry was made with the local law enforcement agencies.  Nor did they as allowed under the current regulations send agents out to inspect the federally licensed firearms dealer residing on the site.  And they could've arrested Koresh as he made his morning run but didn't do so.   With his past history of cooperation with local law enforcement they could've simply asked him to come down to the local sheriff’s station.  Instead they attempted to stage a military style assault, code named Operation Showtime, in order to impart a positive impression of the agency upon the current administration in Washington.  Some Federal bureaucrats apparently wanted to feel important.  After the task force was driven off the Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI descended upon the Branch Davidians and laid siege to the residence.

On April 19th the HRT used armored vehicles to destroy the exits from the building and to allow the wind to blow through it and then injected CS gas, known to be inflammable and toxic to children and elderly persons, into the wooden structure.  The HRT fired CS rounds, which are incendiary devices into, the building.  A tactic to commit mass murder used by the SS-Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Russia was to confine civilians, especially women and children, in wooden buildings and set the structures on fire.  To this day the perpetrators remain at large or have been allowed to die in peace.

 

The U.S. Army rifle platoon I trained with in 1982 could have secured the structure without killing any of the children or the elderly adults.  Yes it was possible that some of us actual soldiers could have been wounded or killed in the action.  But that's part of the hazards of the job. 

The Waco Massacre was a demonstration on the part of Big Bubba of the existence of the means to carry out Marxist style state terror and the existence of the will to use it.

 

There are some who believe that because I don't believe in God or Jesus Christ I shouldn't object to the Waco Massacre.  But from an objective perspective an act of state terror, like the Waco Massacre, remains an act of state terror.

The other anniversary today is of the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.  Timothy McVeigh who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing was a white racial collectivist and was acting out the white racial warrior martyrdom fantasy depicted in The Turner Diaries.

The novel, if I recall reading it correctly, depicts the conquest and subjugation of the white population of the United States by a self appointed elite group that called itself "The Order."  All non-whites, including Jews, were exterminated.  Any white person who refused to obey The Order was executed as a race traitor.  The actions of The Order as depicted in the novel were very much like the practice of Islam without the claim of divine sanction.  Unlike today's political Right, but like all known collectivists, such as the National Socialists of Germany, The Order rejected all of the Rights of Man and killed anyone who served no place in their collective.  Fortunately, I read it on a website where the text was posted. So apart from the fee for Internet access, I didn't have to pay a cent to read it.  I would later describe the experience of reading it as being the intellectual equivalent of the act of swimming in raw sewage.  The website and text is gone now.  I think this is somewhat unfortunate because I believe that no rational person should have to pay a cent for the privilege of reading a book that calls for their own murder.

.
I reposted on THE NEW RESISTER an article about the Waco Massacre that was originally published on the Libernet Mailing List in 1993.

My Editorial Introduction.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

References.

We have to understand that a firearm is simply a tool.  A firearm is simply a means to a Human end.  The Human end is freedom, this is the opposition to tyranny.  Tyrants want and need to disarm their victims.  Tyrants need victims.  Victims don’t need tyrants.

 

Koresh, if he was alive, would clearly be an enemy of an Objectivist.  But someone has to speak for him.  The massacre of the Branch Davidians was a deliberate act of state terror which was carried straight out of the collectivist ruler handbook. The purpose was to demonstrate to all the consequences of disobeying the collectivists who then occupied the White House.  Comrade McVeigh and the current occupant of the White House, Comrade Biden, are firmly seated on the Collectivist side of the aisle.  If we have anything to thank subsequent Republican presidents for it's for doing nothing.  Our so-called president, Joe Biden, wants to appoint a perpetrator of Waco Massacre to head the BATF.

 

And if you think that attitude and ideology is uniquely Clintonistic I will you disabuse you of that notion:

"Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty."

-- President Woodrow Wilson

Since then the name “Democrat” has become in my mind synonymous with the concept of “murderer.” If there's one complaint I have about President Bush or President Trump it is that they've done nothing to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.

Nothing. At. All.

We are still waiting for justice.

Here's another six thousand words why I will never vote for The Democratic Party.

 

 

 

On Censorship

Since no man is to be trusted to run his own life, the all-knowing state will run his life for him.  In order to save man from "Information Disease" it will be necessary to institute a program of censorship.  The act of censoring prevents men from obtaining the knowledge they require to exercise rational judgment in the course their lives often being reduced to acting on emotional impulse.  Censorship reduces man to a less than human mode of existence.  In such a state a man is driven as livestock is along a course he would never have rationally chosen.

In short, censorship is an act of enslavement.  My favorite Science Fiction author, Robert A. Heinlein had this to say about the practitioners of slavery:

If the human animal has any value at all, he is too valuable to be property. If he has any inner dignity, he is much too proud to own other men. I don't give a damn how well scrubbed and perfumed he may be, a slaveowner is subhuman.

In my personal view, slave owners and those who seek to act as such are subhuman creatures fit only for extermination.  The practitioners of censorship have chosen to behave as slave owners.  I seek only to treat them as such.

The Tripwire
by
D. van Oort & J.F.A. Davidson
From The Resister

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?"-- Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago

What would be the tripwire resulting in open rebellion? Examining the Bill of Rights, and considering EXISTING laws only, and not failed attempts, you will find that every clause has been violated to one degree or another.

Documenting those violations would fill volumes, and it is important to remember that only government can violate the exercise of unalienable individual rights and claim immunity from retribution. We omit martial law or public suspension of the Constitution as a tripwire. The overnight installation of dictatorship obviously would qualify as "the tripwire," but is not likely to occur. What has occurred, what is occurring, is the implementation of every aspect of such dictatorship without an overt declaration. The Constitution is being killed by attrition. The Communist Manifesto is being installed by accretion. Any suggestion that martial law is the tripwire leads us to the question: what aspect of martial law justifies the first shot?

For much the same reason, we will leave out mass executions of the Waco variety. For one thing, they are composite abuses of numerous individual rights. Yet, among those abuses, the real tripwire may exist. For another, those events are shrouded in a fog of obfuscation and outright lies. Any rebellion must be based on extremely hard and known facts. Similarly, no rebellion will succeed if its fundamental reasons for occurring are not explicitly identified. Those reasons cannot be explicitly identified if, in place of their identification, we simply point to a composite such as Waco and say, "See, that's why; figure it out." Any suggestion that more Wacos, in and of themselves, would be the tripwire, simply leads us back again to the question: what aspect of them justifies rebellion?

For the same reasons, we leave out a detailed account of Ayn Rand's identification of the four essential characteristics of tyranny. She identified them quite correctly, but together they are just another composite from which we must choose precipitating causes. These characteristics are: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalisation of private property, and "above all," censorship.

With regard to the first characteristic of tyranny, what is the real difference between the Fabian socialist Republican Party and the overtly [Bolshevik] socialist Democratic Party? Nothing but time. Regarding the second we have the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and the ATF's enforcement branch. In action they simply avoid the embarrassment of a trial. Regarding the third, we have asset forfeiture "laws," the IRS, the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, and a myriad of other executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions whose sole function is to regulate business and the economy. Regulating business for the common good (fascism) is no different in principle than outright nationalisation (communism).

However, the fourth characteristic of tyranny, censorship, is the obvious primary tripwire. When ideology and the reporting of facts and how-to instructions are forbidden, there is nothing remaining but to fight. Freedom of speech and persuasion -- the freedom to attempt to rationally convince willing listeners -- is so fundamental an individual right that without it no other rights, not even the existence of rights, can be enforced, claimed, debated, or even queried.

Does this censorship include the regulation of the "public" airwaves by the FCC, as in the censorship which prohibits tobacco companies from advertising -- in their own defense -- on the same medium which is commanded by government decree to carry "public service" propaganda against them? Does it include federal compulsion of broadcasters to air politically-correct twaddle for "The Children"? Does it include the Orwellian "Communications Decency Act"? Does it include any irrationalist "sexual harassment" or tribalist "hate speech" laws which prohibit certain spoken words among co-workers? The answer: unequivocally yes.

Although the above do not pertain to ideological or political speech, yet they are censorship and are designed to intimidate people into the acceptance of de facto censorship. We say that any abrogation of free speech, and any form of censorship, which cannot be rectified by the soap box, the ballot box, or the jury box, must be rectified by the cartridge box -- or lost forever.

Americans have been stumbling over tripwires justifying overt resistance for well over 130 years. On one hand, we submit that gun confiscation is a secondary tripwire only. It is second to censorship because if speech is illegal we cannot even discuss the repeal of gun control, or any other population controls. If only guns are illegal, we may still convince people to repeal those laws. On the other hand, gun confiscation may be a sufficient tripwire because the primary one, censorship, can be fully implemented only after the citizenry has been disarmed.

Resistance, in the context of this article, means those legitimate acts by individuals which compel government to restrict its activities and authority to those powers delegated to the Congress by the people in the Constitution.

The distinction to be drawn here is that the objective of patriotic resistance is to restore original Constitutional government, not change the form of government. To this end we believe: The enforcement of any laws -- local, state, or federal -- that through the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.

The operative terms of the above statement are the parameters that must be defined and understood if resistance to tyranny and despotism is to be honourable, and for the cause of individual liberty, rather than anarchy resulting from a new gang of tyrants. Rebellion can never be justified so long as objective means of redress are available, which are themselves not subverted or rendered impotent by further or parallel subjective legislation.

The goal of patriots throughout the country must be the restoration of objective constitutional law and order. The failure to enforce a subjective law (i.e. the Communications Decency Act) does not justify that law existing, but it also does not justify resistance. This is because non-enforcement leaves avenues of redress, including the forbidden activity itself, still available. Should a lower court uphold or ignore a case that challenges subjective law, peaceable means of redress are still open by higher or lateral courts in another jurisdiction.

However, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold subjective laws, or refuse to hear the cases challenging them, then the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have all failed to guarantee individual liberty, from the widest principles to the smallest details. A single refusal by the highest court in the land to overturn a whim-based subjective law, or to refuse to hear the case, is sufficient to justify resistance to that law because there is simply nowhere left to turn for further attempts at redress. At such time nobody is morally bound by that law. Tyranny gets one chance per branch.
America is either a constitutional republic or it is not. If we can restore our republic it will ultimately occur through reason, and reason will then lead our representatives to make unconstitutional those laws which, by any objective standard of justice, should have never been considered in the first place. However, we cannot assert our claim to restore our liberty if we but accede to a single socialist construct. Freedom and serfdom cannot coexist. We cannot have it both ways.

Life, and the means to preserve it, cannot coexist with disarmament. Liberty, and its rational exercise, cannot coexist with subjective constraints. Property, and its acquisition, use, and disposal cannot coexist with expropriation. The federal government's first task is to obey the Constitution. It has refused. Our first task as free men is to force the government to obey it again. The Constitution of the United States of America is a constraint on the federal government, not on the individual.
Likewise, the constitutions of the various states are constraints on the state governments, not on the individual. The Constitution contains many provisions allowing the violation of our natural rights as free men by immoral and unethical men in government. The true heroes of the ratification debates were the Anti-federalists, who secured Federalist guarantees that the Bill of Rights would amend the Constitution.

To their undying credit, the Federalists lived up to their promise. Nevertheless, only after constitutional limitations on government have been restored in their original form can we consider amending the Constitution to redress its very few remaining defects (for example, the absence of a separation of state and the economy clause).

Laws that make nugatory the means of resisting tyranny and despotism determine the tripwire. The creeping legislative erosion of the 2nd Amendment is not the only tripwire that justifies resistance. We submit that any gun control is a secondary tripwire. Not only because it can be effortlessly evaded, but also because it strengthens our cause. It is second only to censorship. If speech is illegal we can discuss neither repeal of gun control, or the repeal of any other unconstitutional "law."

Censorship is not a tripwire, it is THE tripwire. Thus, by default, censorship morally justifies rebellion.

Under censorship, no other rights, including the right to be free from censorship, can be advocated, discussed, or queried. It is incorrect to say that after censorship comes utter subjugation. Censorship is utter subjugation. There is no greater usurpation of liberty while remaining alive. After censorship come the death camps, and they are not a prerequisite of censorship, they are merely a symptom of it. Censorship qua censorship is sufficient in itself to justify open rebellion against any government that legislates, enforces, or upholds it.

However, that is not the half of it. Censorship is alone in being the only violation of individual rights that does not require actual enforcement or challenges in court, before rebellion is justified. When the government forbids you to speak or write, or use your own or a supporter's property to address willing listeners or readers, that government has openly and forcibly declared that the art of peaceful persuasion is dead and will not be tolerated. Upon that very instant, all peaceful avenues of redress have been closed and the only possible method of regaining that liberty is force. Whenever we give up that force, we are not only ruined, we deserve to be ruined.

Censorship is already being "legally" imposed through accretion by compromisers, appeasers, and pragmatists within government at all levels. Note the demands by "progressive" organisations and self-appointed "civil rights" groups to ban so-called "hate" speech (they mean thought and debate), or "extreme" language (they mean principled dissent), or "paramilitary" books (they mean the knowledge of how to resist). When our government imposes censorship, it will be because our ability to use force to resist censorship no longer exists. Buying copies of The Resister is not yet prohibited; buying machine guns already is. Unwarranted search for unlicensed books has not yet occurred; unwarranted search for unlicensed weapons has already begun. As your unalienable right of peaceable discussion and dissent is being daily abridged, your right to peaceably assemble and associate in advocacy of your own self-defence, according to your own free will, has already been outlawed (courtesy of ADL's "model" anti-militia legislation).

Unconstitutional federal agencies now arm themselves with weapons that you may not own, and train in tactics that you are prohibited from mastering. Before a government is sure you won't resist, it will make sure you can't resist.

The most irrational, contradictory, short-range, whimsical notion possible to men who claim the unalienable right to resist tyrannical government is the notion that they must first let their ability to resist be stripped from them before they have the right to use it. This is the argument of so-called conservatives who pish-tosh the notion of legislative "slippery-slopes," and sycophantic adherents of a supreme Court that has no constitutionally delegated authority to interpret the Constitution in the first place. We reject the notion of mindless compliance with subjective "laws." Subjective laws must be resisted on metaphysical and epistemological principles, moral and ethical grounds, and on constitutional and historical precedence.

No rational man desires ends without means. No rational man can be faced with his own imminent subjugation and truly believe that, once things are as bad as they can get, "sometime" "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. Any man who counsels another to appeal to those mystical equivalents of "divine intervention" for "deliverance" from tyranny is our enemy by all principles conceivable within the scope of rational human intelligence.

The time to organise resistance is not after censorship, but before it. The time to prepare resistance is when our ability to resist is being threatened. The time to begin resistance is when that threat has been upheld or ignored by the courts. The unalienable rights that safeguard our ability to resist are limited to those which, if not violated, allow us to plan and use all materials necessary for resistance. We submit that only the following meet that criteria: freedom of speech and of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble--so that we may advocate ideas, report and discuss news, and instruct others how to carry out resistance activities (1st Amendment); the right to keep and bear arms -- so that we may have appropriate force in our hands should we need it, and be trained to use such force as necessary (2nd Amendment); the right to be let alone -- so that we may be free of government intrusion in our lives, liberty, and property (3rd Amendment)); the right to be secure in our persons, dwellings, papers, and property from unwarranted, unaffirmed searches and seizures -- so that our records, ideological materials, and weapons will remain in our hands (4th Amendment).

For the purpose of this discussion, we believe that no other rights are relevant because if every individual right other than those four were violated -- although it would be an unspeakably evil act on the part of the government, justifying immediate and unforgiving resistance -- their abridgement would not effect our ability to resist. If any of the first four amendments are infringed by legislation, enforced by executive power, and their abrogation is upheld or ignored by the courts, unremitting, forcible resistance, and aid and comfort to its citizen-soldiers, is a moral imperative for every single person who believes that life, liberty, and property are unalienable and self-existing, and not grants of government privilege.

"The United States should get rid of its militias." -- Josef Stalin, 1933

"The foundation of a free government begins to be undermined when freedom of speech on political subjects is restrained; it is destroyed when freedom of speech is wholly denied." -- William Rawle, LL.D. Philadelphia, 1825

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson (1764) -- Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment

On Democracy

I've disparaged Democracy numerous times on this blog.

Why?

Democratic government is a contradiction in terms.  To govern is to politically restrain.  Democracy allows or excuses unrestrained political action.  Everyone who attended infantry basic training at Fort Benning (a.k.a. the Benning School For Boys) was taught that there's no such thing as an effective excuse.

The claim of Joe Biden to be democratically elected as President of the United States is complete nonsense.  The legal removal of the false president Joe Biden from office or his assassination won't solve the problem.  The actual problem is a culture that holds the rights of individuals in contempt.  A single removal or assassination won't solve that.  The fencing around the national capitol building and the deployment of soldiers during the "inauguration" of Joe Biden was completely unnecessary.

The legal murder of Socrates by a Democratic vote is clear evidence that the Democratic process is wrong.  The gain of political power of Adolf Hitler by a Democratic process is clear evidence that the Democratic process is wrong.

Question And Answer

What is a Human Being?  Ultimately it comes down to the exercise of moral judgment.

Those who don't exercise moral judgment can do anything.

"Judge, and prepare to be judged."

 -- Ayn Rand

"Judge not, lest you be judged."

-- Attributed to Jesus Christ 

When I was stationed at Fort Benning there were some things that were NEVER done.

Condemnation

Those who don’t remember history are condemned to repeat it.

– George Santayana

History is being repeated with the indictment of President Trump.

The United States is now condemned to a second Civil War.  The ultimate result will be the extermination of the Democratic Party.

To put this in a historic context I’ll give three examples.

1. In the final days of the Roman Republic there were two political parties.  The Optimates and The Populares.  The Optimates indicted Gaius Julius Caesar, a Populare, for several capital crimes.  The result was a civil war where the Optimates were exterminated.

2. The actions of General Loan during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam.  The situation on this day in Saigon was pure chaos and no one could have been sure that there would be a functioning government on the next day.  Into this situation a Viet Cong terrorist had been captured after he murdered the family of a National Police officer. General Loan as the commander of the National Police had no idea if the terrorist could ever be properly prosecuted and punished for his actions.  So in the absence of a clearly functional authority he personally carried out the judgment and execution of the murderer.

3. In Skidmore, Missouri the career criminal Ken Rex McElroy abused the legal system to cover his reign of terror.  In the absence of a functional government some citizens took matters into their own hands.  McElroy was killed in broad daylight.  None of the shooters have spoken to this day.

Expectation

I wouldn't be a bit surprised that some Americans go Skidmore on Scientology.

Fact Of Reality

Scientologists have a low opinion of Law Enforcement.  This shouldn't be a surprise.  Hubbard was a career criminal.  Hubbard spent the last nineteen years of hiding from Law Enforcement because of multiple crimes he committed.

Pediction

 How will Scientology succumb?

Eventually David Miscavidge will drop dead or be imprisoned.  The true believers will search for the funds that were raised and they'll find none.  Scientology will shrink to storefront orgs manned by ageing true believers.

Opinion

Scientology has to deny Reality.  Because in Reality Hubbard was wrong A LOT.

Fact Of Reality

The fact of the matter is that Joe Biden, with his arrogance, ignorance of ethics, economics, and science, and his effectively unlimited desire for adulation and power, is the living and breathing embodiment of everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party in particular and most of the Washington Establishment in general.  The fact of the matter is that the election of Donald Trump was an act of rebellion against the Washington Establishment.

Because a rational individual can't be expected to willfully consent to having a parasite living continually at their expense, the parasite must resort to force and fraud in order to sustain its own life.  Thus the parasite must by necessity favor the establishment and maintenance of a state of dictatorship, with a fully functional apparatus of censorship and repression, and must oppose a free society with a government that is accountable to the citizen body.  The Democratic Party doesn't care how big a pile of human skulls is as long as they're firmly seated on top of it.

 

Opinions

The idea that one should be able to live one's own life in accordance to one's own judgement is such an alien idea to a liberal that is may as well come from the planet Mars.  Liberals are nothing more than a bunch of parasites themselves.  Without the capacity to force their will upon us through the police agencies they would shrivel up and die.  So in order to live at our expense they have to teach their victims to accept the state of submission regardless of the consequences.

The National Socialists believed they were the good guys too.

Those who believe themselves to be superior people AREN'T.
 

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.

To Democrats the fundamental value is power.  Freedom is the negation of power and therefore must be opposed.  A Democrat wouldn't be caught dead standing up for an actual Human value.  Has anyone noticed that The Republicans are clearly once again the party of liberation while The Democrats have resumed their old role as the party of subjugation?

 

The worst enemy of any nation are it's politicians.  Having a Democrat whine about someone else engaged in the sexual abuse of others, being corrupt, or having a dictatorial lust for power is like Larry Flynt complaining about someone else being obscene.  If we're to have a future then governmental power has to be limited.  Those who demand unlimited power have to be treated as the Enemies of Mankind they actually are.  But the fact of the matter is that Democrats see people as something to be used. And if a person is unusable by The Democrats, why keep them alive?  The Democrats sent young men to die in the Vietnam War, a Republican administration stopped the Vietnam War.

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.

It's Happening Again

Why did The Holocaust happen?

The actual author of the Book of Genesis actually had a point: Evil often presents itself as Good.  Evil people often present themselves as good people.

The Holocaust wasn't a unique event.  The Holocaust (and other horrors) were the result of normal people acting normally.  Why did a particular horror happen?  There's an answer but you may not like it.  A horror happened because the perpetrators believed they were good people with their victims and opponents being evil.  We've seen this before with numerous horrors (such as The Holocaust) and it will happen again.  What we're dealing with are people who believe they're good people.  We have to deal with them as such no matter how horrible the things they actually do.  Many of the people who’re loudly proclaiming “never again” at the top of their lungs are going to do it again.  The National Socialists and Soviets believed themselves to be good people, we're seeing the same phenomena with Anti-Fa.  Anti-Fa claims to be opposed to Fascism no matter what they actually do.  Anti-Fa does the things that Fascists actually do.  Members of Anti-Fa (as well as common Democrats) will believe the lies they're told regardless of the consequences.  Members of Anti-Fa claim to oppose Fascism.  In fact they're what Fascists are.  Most members of Anti-Fa don't know that they're following the dictators handbook.  Most self proclaimed proponents of tyranny, such as members of Anti-Fa (National Socialists, Soviet Communists, etc.) believe they're good people and that their opponents are evil.  If a dogma requires the commission of a vile act then that act WILL be committed.  When someone denies their own Humanity then they WILL commit crimes against Humanity.  It's very easy to predict what a self appointed opponent of Fascism will say.  Just take a mouth dropping of a National Socialist and replace the word Jew with the word Fascist.

Those who don't remember history are a highly sought after group of followers.  We identify The Holocaust as the horrible act it actually was.  We should be horrified.  But we're seeing The Holocaust from an objective perspective.  From the subjective perspective the perpetrators of The Holocaust saw themselves (apart from some psychopaths) as being good people doing good things with their victims and opponents as being evil.  We're seeing this again with the Marxists who make up the membership of Anti-fa.  They see themselves as being good and their victims as being evil.  I've said this before: Killing a Marxist isn't an act of murder, it's an act of self defense.  I have a warning for members of Anti-Fa, when you Brownshirt someone, don't be surprised that you're identified and treated as a Brownshirt.  I've found through direct experience that the opposition really believe they're the good guys.  If a member of Anti-fa wants to see a Totalitarian all they have to do is look in a mirror.  Totalitarians are never hiding under the bed, they're in plain view.  For those who value power no act is too vile.  Killing a member of Anti-Fa isn't an act of murder, it's an act of self defense.  Members of Anti-fa should be engaged with aircraft like the AC-130 and A-10.  A Fascist isn't who the self styled opponents of the doctrine believe they are.  WE HAVE THE DUTY to see the self described antifascist as they truly are, a Totalitarian piece of shit who should be hanged from the neck until dead.  And WE HAVE THE DUTY to identify the Mainstream Media as a bunch of liars.  Once a difference in opinion is criminalized a civil war is inevitable.

Voltaire said it: Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.

I have a question for the false president Joe Biden, along with members of Anti-Fa and BLM: what part of "Never Again" didn't you understand?

Why don't we assassinate the false president Joe Biden and/or the false vice president Kamala Harris?  Because their assassinations won't solve the problem.  The actual problem is a culture that holds the rights of individuals in contempt.  The assassination of the false president Joe Biden and/or the false vice president Kamala Harris won't solve that problem.

Someone Else's Thought For The Day

Democrats seem to be drifting toward the concept of prosecution of former office holders by criminalizing policy differences. That's a certain formula for civil war; perhaps not immediate, but inevitable. The absolute minimum requirement for democratic government is that the loser be willing to lose the election: that losing an election is not the loss of everything that matters. As soon as that assurance is gone, playing by the rules makes no sense at all.

-- Jerry Pournelle

Opinions

Anyone with ANY intelligence wouldn't be a Marxist.  I know they have a high opinion of themselves but we're dealing with primitive and violent savages here.

I'm not a Christian, but I do believe that those who live by the sword, should as Christ says, die by the sword.  I believe that those who benefit from the exercise of coercive force should be put down by force.

Opinion

The false president Joe Biden was already stupid before became senile.

Issues

A fundamental problem I have with being stuck in the Parker Skyview building is having to deal with Democrats.  A Democrat just gleamed to me that President Trump was guilty of the crimes he was accused of.

She may as well have said "Der Juden ist shisse" to a Jewish guy.

She doesn't understand that History is repeating and that she and the other Democrats are repeating it.

Opinion

Scientology has to deny Reality because in Reality Hubbard was wrong most of the time.

Opinion

 The "Progressive" identification of themselves is false.

THEY ARE NOT.

Behind their ideology is the Neolithic concept of taking the products of rational and productive people by force.  How such behavior is dealt with will always be violent.

Opinion

The last Soviet to leave Afganistan was the general in charge of Soviet forces.

The first American to leave Afganistan was the general in charge of American forces.

I'm not a fan of the Soviets but a difference of character does matter.

Opinion

 What needs to understood is that there will always be a conflict between primitives and advanced people.

  Our opponents believe they are advanced people.

THEY ARE NOT.

They are essentially primitives.

We have to identify and deal with Collectivist groups such as Anti-Fa and Black Lives Matter as the violent primitives they actually are.  That treatment will not be nice.