On Climate Change

Let's look at the concept of climate change.  The Terrestrial biosphere is a dynamic environment within a dynamic universe.  Changes of climate happened naturally and will continue to happen naturally.  There's simply no way around it.  The idea that Human action's the single cause of climate change is absolute nonsense.  It's nothing more than an excuse for the enlargement of political power and adversarial political actions against the productive people of this nation.  It's nothing more than an excuse for Tyranny.  All of us who attended the Benning School for Boys have learned there's no such thing as a valid excuse.

Assholes

It's always a power tripping asshole who helps the barbarians.

Opinions

I forgot: When I was stationed at Fort Benning the United States Army made the transition from canned c-rations to MRE's.

Ignorance is a weakness. 

What someone believes isn't necessarily the truth.

What you believe may not be right. 

The NSDAP believed they were in the right.  The Democratic Party believed they were in the right.

We on The Right believe in justice.  The Left on the other hand believes in power. 

Don't weaponize the Justice Department.

Some Democrats don't understand that they legitimately lost the election.  

Punishing a man for an act he didn't commit is unjust.  Imprisoning a man for speaking the truth is tyrannical.  Disarming the citizens who're the sovereign authority of the nation is Treason.

On Socialism

The taxpayer only exists to benefit the State.  In Collectivism a person only exists for the benefit of the Collective.  The Left being dependent upon others for their sustenance must stand in opposition to the society of rational consent and openly support systems of compulsion because to do otherwise is to condemn themselves to death.  We’re now one step closer to Revolution.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

--Karl Marx

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

--Ayn Rand

Quote Of The Day

The engine of tyranny is a blind, indifferent juggernaut, insensible to reason, justice and equity, and so necessarily inimical to them. It matters not the good intentions of the hand that launches it into the affairs of men. Once started, it moves almost of its own volition, corrupting, consuming and destroying everything in its path. It is a fundamentally nihilistic phenomenon. Its power is both centripetal and centrifugal, on one hand drawing its potency from that which it can corrupt; on the other, crushing or flinging aside the incorruptible.

--Edward Cline

Why?

We keep asking ourselves why The Holocaust happened. 

Why?

A Quote

Judge and prepare to be judged.

-- Ayn Rand 

On Peace Activism

The fact of the matter is that the self described Peace Activist doesn't act out of conscience but out of a fraudulent desire to pose as a morally superior being without any regard for the millions of innocents that they condemn to death and servitude.  A Peace Activist is a willing accessory to the acts of mass slavery and mass murders committed by the various adherents of toxic ideologies such as Socialism and Islam.  And killing a Peace Activist isn't an act of murder, it's in effect the putting down of a diseased animal which is a demonstrated hazard to innocent Human Life.  Being raped in prison and contracting HIV as a result may serve as a reasonable substitute for a proper death sentence.

Grocery Run

The Superior Person was deliberately blocking the side entrance of the Parker Skyview building.  I had to use the main entrance and walk around to the loading area to avoid a confrontation.   

An Old Review

This book review was originally published in Volume 2, Number 3 of THE RESISTER. Price and book service contact information should no longer be accurate.




Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand. Penguin Group, Penguin Books USA, Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014, USA. ISBN 0-451-17192-6 Paperback. vii + 1084 pages. 1957. $7.99.

Reviewed by
D. van Oort


Atlas Shrugged is the opus magnum of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, and is the first work of fiction to be reviewed in these pages. Its theme is the role of the mind in the affairs of man. Atlas Shrugged illustrates this dramatically and memorably by showing just why, for the first time in history, the men of ability should go on strike against the advocates of incompetence and the purveyors of envy, and what will happen when they do.

"Who is John Galt?" Throughout Ayn Rand's brilliant expose of the decline of the industrialized west disguised as a novel, this is the question that pervades every page. "Who is John Galt?" is not a question, it is a smear spit out by every incompetent, every altruist, every hater of intellect who demands to know how competent men dare to be competent, how selfish men dare to despise altruism, and how intelligent men dare hold the willfully ignorant in contempt. "Who is John Galt?" is the unspoken demand by the mob that men of competence, ability and intelligence serve them as slaves. "Who is John Galt?" is the sneer muttered by stock-yard animals who cringe before the individual who denies the collectivist-altruist premise, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

The heroes of Atlas Shrugged answer the altruist-collectivist demand for their servitude by refusing them the one thing the altruist-collectivists cannot shackle--their minds. This resistance is beautifully stated by the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, when the collectivists demand that he return to "do something" to save a world they are willfully destroying:

"We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality--the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind."

Atlas Shrugged is set in a despicable near future, one much nearer today than when the book was first published in 1957. From the beginning, Atlas Shrugged was denounced and slandered by critics from both the socialist liberal appeaser and conservative Buckley-ite compromiser schools. Precisely because its theme is the role of the mind; because its scenario is a world increasingly of, by, and for the mindless; because it illustrates so beautifully the types of ideologies that lead to power blackouts in New York City and the creativity that leads to the discovery of new types of energy; because it predicted events and policies that have occurred since, and because it is the story of the most intractable of resisters on strike against those very ideologies, events and policies that are choking the life out of us today--this book is not dated. Indeed, it is prophetic. Atlas Shrugged is coming of age with a vengeance.

Throughout the novel, John Galt, defying every disgusting premise of altruism and collectivism travels the country on a mission of sedition to recruit true capitalists to his strike. In response to demands that he return with "the men of the mind" he defiantly states:

"All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind."

As with any legitimate work of fiction, Atlas Shrugged projects an ideal. So why would the ideal productive genius, Francisco d'Anconia, destroy his copper mines and become a useless playboy? Why would a brilliant young philosopher, Ragnar Danneskjold, sail the high seas as a pirate, waylaying ships transporting looted capital to various "People's States"? Why would the most brilliant of them all, John Galt, whose greatest invention is looted by the unworthy heirs to the once-great company he worked for, wage a clandestine war against the world by removing the men most hated by it? Why would the heroine, Dagny Taggart, after struggling against the combined efforts of the world to destroy her transcontinental railroad, vow to kill this man, and upon breaching the strikers' security, meet him and fall in love with him?

And what kind of new ideology would they forge from the ashes of two thousand years of mysticism, altruism and collectivism? What will be the greatest gift they give to the world, they, the ideal who are only concerned with themselves? This is their gift:

"We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. WE DO NOT NEED YOU."

Atlas Shrugged is a long book, a great read for a long winter. But be warned; Atlas Shrugged is much like these pages it is reviewed on, because not everyone can handle it, and not everyone would like for you to read it. In spite of that, it is proper that Atlas Shrugged repeatedly tops the Book of the Month Club's bestseller list, because the type of person who reads this book is the type who makes his decisions on his own, for his own reasons, and for his own benefit.

If you have reason to seek a real literary masterpiece, and if you think you can benefit from a genuine ideological challenge, follow the tale of a few great men and women in a mindless world of "People's States" and cringing appeasers, as they launch the ultimate resistance movement for the ultimate reason, and stop the motor of the world.

Atlas Shrugged will reward you like no other book known to this reviewer. It will do so with entertainment, suspense, one hell of a premise, and a few years worth of things to think about.

But don't take my word for it. Judge for yourself.

Atlas Shrugged may be ordered from: Second Renaissance Books, 143 West St/PO Box 1988, New Milford, CT 06776. 1-800-729-6149 (orders only).

 

On Dealing With Evil

Roland Friesler, Hitler's blood judge didn't survive World War Two.  If he had he would've been one of the defendants at Nuremberg. 

The film Fury shows us the proper way to deal with a National Socialist or just a ubermensch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xREH8hYAip4

Anniversary

Today is the anniversary of the end of the First World War.

On A Final Solution

Always attack, never defend.

Destroy by any means necessary.

-- L. Ron Hubbard

Members of the Cult of Scientology claim they're persecuted.  In fact the members of the Cult of Scientology are the persecutors.  The only way to resolve the problems brought about by the Third Reich was to destroy it.  It appears that the only way to resolve the problems brought about by the Cult of Scientology is to destroy it.

On The Democratic Party

POWER IS LIFE for the Democratic Party.  The Democrats and their supporters are dependent on us for their survival and well being.  Like all parasites they need to know that they will have a full belly and a roof over their heads so they're constantly micromanaging and oppressing us so that they can feel secure in their chosen mode of existence.  Parasites have a constant need to feel secure so they continually impose tasks and rituals of obedience on their victims in order to maintain that feeling.  This is why the false prophet Mohammad commanded his followers to pray five times a day. He needed the constant reassurance that his followers would continue to obey him.  As parasites the Democrats feel no less insecure.  Thus their need to constantly impose their will on us.

On Leftism

In my view the basic function of liberal (and specifically Marxist) doctrine is to deny Reality.  The specific fact of reality that absolutely must be denied under all circumstances is that each of us as human beings has right to say No.  No to the demand for obedience.   No to the demand for material support.  And No to the demand for absolute power over our lives.  Liberals and The Left in general are parasites on human society.  Without the power to compel others to materially support them the members of The left would be compelled either to become rational and productive people or to literally die off.  And it's not enough for The Left, especially their leaders, to be materially supported.  They must also feel secure in their status as the masters of the productive.  They must stage spectacular rituals of mass obedience to create and reinforce their feelings of security.  The parades on May Day and anniversary of the local ruling party's ascent to power.  The hours long speeches that must be listened to with total attention and applauded with the greatest of enthusiasm.  And don't be the first to stop applauding when the leader speaks, that's disloyal!  To The Left, every word of dissent or refusal is in practical effect a sentence of death for each of them.   It's no surprise that they're hostile to actual thought based on actual facts.

Real Peace

Peace in the real world is simply the absence of those who seek to deprive you, I, and our fellow citizens of our own Life, Liberty, and Property.  Real peace can only be achieved by the physical isolation or outright elimination of those who seek to subjugate, plunder and murder us.  This can only be done through the use of physical force.   In short, true peace can only be achieved only through the possession of superior firepower and the moral will to use it.

Comment

Until President Trump properly takes office we're still in danger.

Reminder

It is better to kill one hundred innocents than to let one guilty person go.

-- Dolores Ibarruri ("La Pasionaria"), Spanish Communist

We on The Right tolerate the long and drawn out appeals process for death penalty cases, as frustrating as it is, because in we want to be certain that we won't put an innocent person to death.  The Left when it's in absolute power simply doesn't care.  We on The Right believe in justice.  The Left on the other hand believes in power.  The Left doesn't care how high the pile of human corpses is as long as they're firmly seated on top.

 

Personal History

I was once a member of the Libertarian Party.

Changing the subject's a standard tactic that's taught at Toastmasters.  For those of you who aren't familiar with Toastmasters International it's a group that teaches the techniques of public speaking which in practice means teaching dull and boring people to be even more tedious, dull, and boring.  How do I know this?  Well, my participation in Toastmasters was strongly recommended by the Chairman and the Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota during my brief involvement with them.  To make a long story short (too late) I was called upon to speak for two minutes on a subject that I knew nothing about.  The usual technique for dealing with this situation was to either change the subject or make up something to say.  This to me was the height of rudeness Instead I stood up and said this:

Mr. President, fellow Toastmasters, and honored guest, I have absolutely nothing to say on this subject.  Thank you.

And then I sat down.  The Chairman and the Treasurer of the LP-MN continued to pester me about attending Toastmasters until I found and ran off copies of a short story in STARLOG magazine of all places that mocked the organization.  I never heard a word from either of them on the subject after that.

 

Opinions

Some people don't think.  These people just believe what they're told.  Then they're mystified why they're held in contempt by rational people.   

The solution to a falsehood is to shine the light of truth on it.

There's never a shortage of idiots. 

To be a Born Again Christian is to deny Reality.  Born Again Christians have nothing on Common Leftists on denying Reality.

The Elites need America.  America doesn't need the Elites.

Social problems caused by the exercise of force and fraud won't be solved by the exercise of more force and fraud.

Evil people often believe that what they're doing is right.

There are people who believe they're superior.  They aren't.

Never apologize to Evil.

I'm having to rely on unreliable people.

Idiots exist.  I have to constantly deal with idiots.

Executions should be as prolonged and painful as possible.

The sacrifice of justice always results in injustice.

Quote Of The Day

“Life is tough, but it is tougher when you’re stupid.”

--John Wayne

Quotes

“A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.” – Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1) “Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”

I am by this definition a Suppressive Person.

The Oath Of Enlistment of the United States armed forces includes a promise to uphold and defend the Constitution Of The United States:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

All of us who served the United States in the armed forces took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The doctrine of Scientology denies the validity of the Constitution Of The United States.   This makes all active and former members of the armed forces, including myself, automatic opponents of Scientology.  And thus Suppressive Persons.  All of us who served the United States in the armed forces took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  The time has come to keep that promise.  L. Ron Hubbard is clearly an Enemy Of Mankind and the United States Of America.  Current Scientologists are clearly Enemies Of Mankind and the United States Of America.

On Democracy

What's the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy?  In a Constitutional Republic you have rights.  In a Democracy you don't.  Socrates was murdered by the order of a Democratic State.  Democracy is the Authoritarianism Of The Mob.  Democracy is about using other people.  

The State like Fire can be useful.  The State like Fire can also be destructive.  An uncontrolled fire can burn down entire structures such as homes and businesses.  It can also burn down entire city blocks or entire cities.  An uncontrolled State can destroy entire nations.  Democracy is an uncontrolled form of the State.  A Constitutional Republic is a controlled form of the State.  Democracy is the political manifestation of the idea that Might Makes Right.

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

The following was originally published in the eighth (Spring 1996) issue of THE RESISTER and posted online as an ASCII text.

Democracy Is No Excuse

by

D. van Oort

Democracy is the unlimited rule of the majority; nothing more, nothing less. There is no escaping that such a rule is as unlimited in its scope as it is unmitigated in its severity. In our past, when people did not try so desperately to escape the inescapable, democracy was referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." Men within government did not advocate such a tyranny if they expected to be admired and re-elected. Today, as looters and destroyers, they do.

When you hear the claim, "America is a democracy," it is invariably a response to the reporting or predicting of some inexcusable piece of tyranny, and it usually emanates from the would-be tyrant or from his chorus. Of the many lies concealed within their claim, the first one we need to catch them in is the one that says that they believe that America is a democracy.

Every time one of them uses democracy as an excuse for something tyrannical, that some alleged majority supports, there is another time when he uses a different excuse for the same kind of tyranny while admitting that no one supports it at all. For example; the same President who wanted to "restore democracy" in Haiti, sent American soldiers to Bosnia under foreign command while openly admitting that the majority of Americans opposed it. The same Congress that brought us the assault weapon ban on the belief that a majority of Americans wanted it, brought us NAFTA on the belief that what the majority of Americans want is of no consequence.

Those examples reveal that democracy is not a consistent standard by which political actions are taken; rather, it is simply an occasionally convenient excuse for taking those actions in the first place. The moral code those actions are intended to enforce is altruism, the evil doctrine that one has the right to exist only if he serves others. The intended result of consistent altruism is fascism[1], an omnipotent state to enforce complete servitude. Since evil policies in a constitutional republic require a pseudo-legal cover story to excuse them, fascists have found it more convenient to keep on hand a grab-bag of rationalizations, rather than principled reasoning with which they might have to remain consistent. Our war of attrition against their cover stories brings us to the grab-item called "democracy." We will show that there is no excuse for fascism (or socialism or communism), and democracy is no excuse for an excuse.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, can the word "democracy" be found. Neither can one find references to democracy in the works of the Framers in other than disparaging terms. Democracy is a form of dictatorship. Consider that the Declaration of Independence is a statement of American principle, and that while socialism, communism and theocracy deny the correctness and extent of those principles, unlimited majority rule denies statements of principle altogether. Consider that the Constitution limits how the government makes and enforces laws, and that the Bill of Rights limits the specific content of those laws. Socialism, ommunism and theocracy reject those limitations in favor of their own limiting ideologies and precepts, but only democracy rejects all limitations, and quite literally uses that as its selling point.

Democracy is neither legally nor theoretically possible in any country that possesses even a single over-riding legal document. The two simply cannot coexist. When a system such as democracy is touted as beneficial, but is clearly and historically detrimental, the ideas alleged to excuse it obviously fail to do so.

A case in point is democracy's proclaimed moral justification. None has ever been presented. The notion of unlimited majority rule is two thousand years old. In all this time, no one has offered a clear and coherent moral excuse for it. (Consider the excuses you have heard or read.) The closest excuse for this excuse is: "majority rule is right because it benefits the majority." Circular illogic based on the false premise that tyranny is beneficial does not justify anything, nor does it even attempt to explain how it could be right if three voted to send two to a gas chamber. The next step down is: "majority rule is right because it works for the common good." Note that the only change is the addition of a second false premise: that the common good includes the minority of two sent to the gas chamber.

Throughout history and in the present day, advocates of unlimited majority rule have never admitted to anyone what their true justification is. Since democracy sanctions only the group with the greatest numbers, then it ultimately sanctions only the strength of that group. This means: how many votes it can cast, how many picket signs it can carry, how many fists it can swing, or how many bullets it can fire. For two thousand years, the sole moral justification of democracy--the skeleton in the closet--is that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Beginning with Socrates' yammering, in acceptance of his death sentence, through Ross Perot's referendums about "taking it to the people," and all the statistics about percentages of idiots favoring gun control, "might makes right" is the sole justification. Nothing else is stated, nothing else is possible, nothing else has occurred in any democracy, and nothing else was ever intended to.

As an alleged moral code, "might makes right" is ageless. It is not an ideology or even part of one. It is not unique to man or to human history. The perceptual-level consciousness of a hyena pack on the Ngorongoro Crater understands and lives by "might makes right." The earliest theropod dinosaurs in the Triassic jungles of Pangaea learned as babies that "might" applied to a nest-mate "makes" a result that was as "right" as they could conceive it. The sensate-level consciousness of the first organism in the universe lived by "might makes right." (It is worth noting that advocates of democracy usually refer to their agenda as "progressive.")

"Might makes right" is the proper code of animals because, to live as an animal, a mind is not required. The human mind is what separates us from animals, and to live as a human, a mind is required. Democracy denies this. "Might makes right" claims that there is nothing that separates us from animals, and that to live as a human-animal, a mind is not required at all.

Advocates of democracy demonstrate very clearly that they believe that. Consider their intellectual excuse for might making right. If force is the determining factor, then principle and fact are not. The most idiotic idea is just as good as the most brilliant. If a group wants one and one to equal three, and can beat up the group that does not, then one and one equal three.

Democracy is pure subjectivism. Advocates of democracy believe that no idea is better than any other (and that that idea is better than any other). They believe that man cannot determine the facts of reality (and that is a fact of reality they have determined). Advocates of democracy contend there exists nothing but subjective whims (but their whims are not subjective). They conclude that there are no facts at all (and that's a fact).

Their excuse for might making right is that all excuses are equally valid. That ugly little confession is the intellectual equivalent of suddenly blurting out a sexual perversion, but while the pervert might notice that he has done this, advocates of democracy remain oblivious. They rarely notice the staggering amount of doublethink in their claims, and are never bothered by it. (If they are philosophy students, doublethink is "profound.") They expect man to renounce his mind just because they have thoroughly renounced their own. They say that a mind is not required to live as a human, and they prove it by showing that a mind is not required to advocate democracy.

One would be right to ask at this point, "Just what color is the sky in their world, anyway?" Now we have entered the most basic branch of philosophy, "metaphysics," which seeks to answer the question of what kind of creature we are and what kind of universe we live in.

Democracy demands that they put the color of their sky to a vote if official answers are to be made concerning it. They must do this because they believe that there are no facts, therefore, they don't know because they can't know.

Their most fundamental belief is that reality is unknowable. The universe is either chaotic mush, one big illusion, or both. To an advocate of unlimited majority rule, man has no objective nature that requires specific rules of conduct because reality itself has no objective nature that can be determined.

The metaphysic of democracy explains the psychology of its advocates. If men can know nothing, but still have desires, then there is no way of knowing how to suppress those desires, or fulfill them. We would be incapable of anything but misery, and unsuited for anything but death. Our universe would not just be unknowable, but evil as well, and would not consist of facts we can build on, but only of a long torturous obstacle course we can bleed in.

If the universe can help us, we have no way of knowing about it until after we have been helped. Thus, we shun self-reliance and promote the welfare state. If the universe can hurt us, we have no way of knowing about it until after we have been hurt. Thus, we fear the black magic inherent in guns. In essence--and you can ask them about this--democracy's advocates say: "We're all just cripples in an evil universe, we can't help it, we can't know any better, we're just animals, so we get to beat you up!" That is their excuse for democracy.

As with all political systems, the results of unlimited majority rule are unavoidably linked to its ideology. If a system is based on good premises, it will produce good results, and will therefore attract good people. If it is based on evil, it will produce evil, and will attract only evil.

Knowledge of reality is easy and begins with any statement such as "existence exists" or "what is, is." Thus, the basis of democracy is a falsehood. Man cannot live by falsehoods, whether personally or socially enshrined. Ignorance means death, and any belief set preaching ignorance will only produce death. Only men who seek destruction will be attracted to democracy.

Advocates of democracy admit with every revealed contradiction that they do, in fact, believe that reality is knowable. Thus, the basis of democracy is an intentional falsehood. Man cannot live by lies, and any ideology preaching lies is designed to produce death, and will attract only fools, liars and killers.

Democracy does not recognize the individual, and thus attracts collectivists. It has no principles to offer, and thus attracts the unprincipled. Its only appeal is to evil because that is its nature, over which even the best man with the purest motives has no control. Those who are evil know very well the nature of the systems they design or support, and the nature of unlimited majority rule will be the same whether it is an excuse for fascism or for anything else. At the very instant democracy is enforced on a population, it begins to destroy that population psychologically.

Ayn Rand once said, "[T]he smallest minority on earth is the individual." This means that every man is always in the minority, and that all other men are, or might be, members of some majority that can murder him at its pleasure. Any man who proclaims that, "it's a dog-eat-dog world," or that, "you gotta get them before they get you," is a man already suffering the psychoses of democracy.

He cannot heal them by joining a group, where democracy begins destroying populations physically. If he joins a minority, the forces of the majority can be unleashed against him today. If he joins a temporary majority, the forces of the next majority can be unleashed against him tomorrow. If he spends his fearful life desperately joining only majority groups -- seeking his "safety" every minute in the no-rules obstacle course of keeping up with one or the other obedient herd -- damning his individuality which sets him apart from them, then the forces of his own mind are already unleashed against him, and he begins to destroy himself mentally and physically.

The forces of the majority have already been unleashed against minority groups of "separatists" (self-sufficient), "cultists" (strong believers) and "extremists" (non-compromisers). Those forces are now being unleashed against ex-majority groups such as the middle-class employees of K-mart. Men spending their lives in pursuit of permanent majority status, who fear to stand out by so much as waving at a policeman, smoking a cigarette, or reading The Resister[2], are becoming used to unleashing the forces of their own minds against themselves.

Man cannot find peace when set up as enemy of all other men; he cannot live by being slaughtered with his group today, he cannot build a future by being slaughtered with his group tomorrow, and he cannot save his soul by slaughtering it himself. Democracy is not a system under which men choose their manner of living, it is a system under which they choose only their manner of death. Such destruction is not an abuse of the system--it IS the system. Democracy is not a system for man; it is a system against him.

On the whole Democracy is an inexcusable excuse to excuse the inexcusable. Fascism is no excuse for lying about believing in American democracy. There's no excuse for believing in democracy in a constitutional republic. There is no excuse for democracy and democracy is no excuse for fascism.


1 Do not confuse The Resister's use of the word "fascist" with its ordinary use by liberals, communists, and minority pressure groups. Liberals, communists, and minority pressure groups call anybody who opposes their social democratic, statist or tribalist agendas "fascists." Fascism and communism are merely variant forms of statism, which is the collectivist premise that individuals are rightless slaves, and that the state is omnipotent. Both fascism and communism are socialist. Communism is the public (read government) ownership of the means of production, thus abolishing private property. Fascism permits the pretense of property ownership, but without the right to use property for personal advantage -- property must be used for "the public good." (Does the phrase "good corporate citizen" ring a bell? Does the current systematic destruction of the tobacco industry -- to name but the most recent industry -- strike a chord?) JFA Davidson

2 The author is referring to those who read mooched copies of The Resister, but will not subscribe to it because they don't want their name on "a list." This is a craven admission that they want to think for themselves, but they don't want anyone to know about it. Who says democracy doesn't work? 

JFA Davidson.

They're about to learn though direct experience that Reality isn't subject to a majority vote.  Oppression by a majority is still oppression.  When idiots like Gavin Newsom are elected.  There will be idiocy in government.

 

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 Tyranny.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.  Democrats ARE the Enemies Of Mankind.  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 and the leading members a bunch of Vichy Republicans.

Perhaps it's 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

It's Happening Again

Why did ANY act of mass murder happen?

WHY DID THE NIGHTMARE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, WITH NEARLY TWO HUNDRED MILLION DEAD, HAPPEN?

Susan Huck (Ph.D) told me directly that monsters are never hiding under the bed they’re right out in the open.

Why did The Holocaust happen?

The actual author of the Book of Genesis actually had a point: Evil often presents itself as Good.  The Third Reich is a lesson from history that we're ignoring.  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 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” 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 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 proponents of tyranny, such as members of Anti-Fa (National Socialists, Soviet Communists, etc.) believe they're good people and that their victims and 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.  And 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 and opponents 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 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 Collectivist piece of shit who should be hanged from the neck until dead.  And WE HAVE THE DUTY to identify the Mainstream Media are 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 members of Anti-Fa and BLM: what part of "Never Again" didn't you understand?

Collectivists will behave as Collectivists.  Totalitarians will always behave as Totalitarians.  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 Biden and/or Harris won't solve that problem.

 

Opinions

I'm surrounded by morons.

When you allow force and fraud to be used anywhere, you'll get more force and fraud. 

Those who believe they're superior people are actually inferior.

Stuff

Negative actions will always have negative consequences.  The negative actions of the Democrats will have the requisite negative consequences.  If we look at the Democratic Party and their relationship to the problems we face at the social or political level one thing becomes very obvious.  They're either the primary cause of the problem, the primary aggravating factor of the problem, or the primary obstacle to a rational solution to a problem.  Humanity isn't merely a physical condition, it's a state of mind.  To be human is to be essentially rational and productive.  The human mentality looks upon the world, the land, the animals and plants, the natural forces, as things to be mastered for the benefit of himself and his posterity.  On the other hand the predator, or savage mentality doesn't seek to to master the world but to be the master of men.  The savage prefers not to sustain themselves by their own effort but to seize and consume the lives and property of others for material and spiritual sustenance.  To the predator, justice consists of getting away with it.  Those who rightfully resist the predator are to be punished or destroyed.  Without the sword they'll take away your pen.  Without guns they'll take away your butter.  This isn't an either/or choice.  Those who state I don't have a right to speak or publish are mortal enemies.  Karl Marx didn't invent Socialism or Atheism.  Atheists must separate themselves from Marxism. 

When I was stationed at Fort Benning I came down with a dermoid cyst under my right eyebrow.  The cyst was causing me pain and the malfunction of the right eye.  The only way to solve the problems caused by the cyst was to have it surgically removed and disposed of.  Unfortunately, the only to solve the problems caused by the Cult Of Scientology is to remove it from existence.

 

On Gun Control

I'm sometimes asked why I oppose Gun Control.  For a political reason.  The armed citizen has a commanding voice.  The disarmed subject can be ignored.  The first Roman Emperor understood this when he replaced the citizen based army of the Roman Republic with a mercenary force loyal to himself.

 

Mocking Evil

I know it’s not original but I had to do it, so here’s the Dead Prophet Sketch.


The cast:  Tom Cruise, a short guy.  David Miscavige, a really short guy.


Tom Cruise enters the shop pushing a large leather chair with dead old man on it.

TC: Hello, I want to complain.

(Miscavige doesn’t respond.)

TC: Hello, Miss?

DM: What do you mean "miss"?

TC: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

DM: We're closing for lunch.

TC: Never mind that! I’m here to complain about this prophet that I purchased about half an hour ago from this shop.

DM: Oh yes, the, uh, the Nebraska Red. What's, uh...What's wrong with him?

TC: He's dead, that's what's wrong with him!

DM: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

TC: Look, I know a dead prophet when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

DM: No, no, he's not dead, he's, he's resting! Remarkable prophet, isn't, it? Beautiful haircut!

TC: But he's stone dead.

DM: Nononono, no, no! He's resting!

TC: All right then, if he's resting, I'll wake him up! (shouting at the chair) 'Hello, Ronnie! I've got some lovely cash for you to grab if you show...

(Miscavige hits the chair)

DM: There, he moved!

TC: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the chair!

DM: I never!!

TC: Yes, you did!

Owner: I never, never did anything...

TC: (yelling and hitting the chair repeatedly) HELLO RONNIE!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes Hubbard out of the chair and thumps his head on the counter. Stands him up and watches him fall to the floor.)

TC: Now that's what I call a dead prophet.

DM: No, no.....No, he's stunned!

TC: STUNNED?!?

DM: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was waking up! Nebraska Reds stun easily, sir.

TC: Now look... I've definitely had enough of this. That prophet clearly deceased, and when I bought him not half an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out following a prolonged lecture.

DM: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the wheat fields.

TC: PINING for the WHEAT FIELDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?  And why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got him home?

DM: Nebraska Reds prefer to lay on the back! Remarkable prophet, isn’t he? Lovely haircut!

TC: Look, I took the liberty of examining that senator when I got him home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting in his chair in the first place was that he had been NAILED there.

(pause)

DM: Well, of course he was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed him down, he would have stood up and gone VOOM!

TC: "VOOM"?!? Sir, this man wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through him! He's totally demised!

DM: No, no! He's pining!

TC: He's not pining! He’s passed on! This prophet is no more! He has ceased to be! He’s expired and gone to meet his maker! He’s a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the chair he'd be pushing up the daisies! His metabolic processes are now history! He’s off the twig! He’s kicked the bucket, He’s shuffled off his mortal coil and moved on to Target Two!! THIS IS AN EX-PROPHET!!

(pause)

DM: Well, I'd better replace him, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry sir, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop we're out of prophets.

TC: I see. I see, I get the picture.

DM: I got a slug.

(pause)

TC: Does it talk?

DM: Nnnnot really.

TC: WELL IT'S NOT A REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

DM: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

TC: Well?

DM: It leaves a trail of slime.

TC: All right.