Personal History

I once told the fellow who hired me at FLS-DCI (they did telephone fundraising for the GOP) that I'd "eat my gun" before I'd do anything to help the Democratic Party.  The fellow at FLS-DCI thought I was a bit over the top at the time. 

Question And Answer

What is The Rule Of Law?  

The Rule Of Law is a radical idea.  Prior to The American Revolution America was ruled by the whim of a British monarch*.  The Democratic Party (and their goon squads such as Anti-Fa and BLM) want to replace The Rule Of Law with the whim of a mob.  Collectivist States such as The Third Reich, The Soviet Union, The Peoples Republic of China, etc, were installed by a mob.  We need in treat the advocates of mob rule (and the advocates of rule of whim in general) as the Enemies Of Mankind they actually are.
                       
* I have serious difficulty in believing the we dumped the British monarchy to be ruled by a bunch of morons.

Thought For The Day

There's atheism and then there's Atheism.  Mere atheism is simply disbelief in the divine and as such is not a holy cause to which all other actions are subordinated nor is it an affirmative virtue which cancels out all other personal faults.  Whereas Atheism with the big "A" takes what's an otherwise simple philosophical position and blows it up into an illusion of positive virtue.   Atheism with a big "A" allows dull and ordinary people to feel and pose as if they're somehow superior to the mass of humanity.  Atheism with a big "A" also provides reactionary garbage such as the Marxists a means to pose as some kind of progressive vanguard when in fact they're simply putting a philosophical polish on the neolithic practice of beating up and killing people then taking their stuff.  As a mere atheist all I have to say to the big "A" professional Atheists is: go home, grow up, and get a life!

History Lesson

Someone once stated that he wanted Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of NRA, to be murdered.  I responded.  The advocates of Gun Control believe they're good people.  In fact they're Evil.

Opinion

To be Politically Correct is to be wrong.

Opinion

If presented with a "take the money and run" deal a power addict would very likely refuse to accept.  I wouldn't be surprised if a power addict following the example of such statist trash as Adolf Hitler and Salvador Allende ultimately ends up taking the final exit while cowering in a final redoubt.  As much as each of us may prefer otherwise the Second American Civil War is certain to be a long and bloody fight to the death.

Dealing With Messes And Idiots

Sub-Saharan Africa is a mess.  It's inhabited by mystic ridden people.  (This also goes for the Environmentalist Movement.)

Imagine for a moment what the state of Humanity would be if the ancestors of the Europeans, Asians, and the Native Americans couldn't leave Africa until the inhabitants of that miserable continent were organized into a single continental civilization.  Humans in general didn't wait until they were organized as a single continental civilization before going out to explore and settle the rest of the world.

Another point to consider is that people who were happy with life in their homelands didn't seek new lives for themselves and their families here in the New World.  The supposedly “happy” (read brainwashed) inhabitants of a so-called “type one” planetary civilization aren't going to pack up and leave to settle another planet, such as Mars, let alone embark on a multi-generational voyage across interstellar space.

The Universe as a whole is ours if we want it.  We only have to shove the power tripping vermin out of the way.

Belief

If the United States Constitution has to enforced over the literal dead body of David Miscavige, so be it.

Stupidity In Action

I once delivered pizza.

I had a large pizza order from a group having a meeting at the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul.  The male person that I talked to was unable to tell me which specific building on campus they were in.  I asked him several times and all he would tell me was that he was on the campus.  I pointed out that all buildings on the campus have the name of the building on a sign at the building entrance and that the delivery had to made to a specific building.  I strongly suspect that the individual may have been a Peace Activist.

Another Rant

Those who want to disarm Americans believe they're doing the right thing.  So did the National Socialists.

 

A Rant

I would of course be remiss if I didn't point out that hate is an emotional response to the recognition of the fact that one is in some way in the presence of evil. And in this case I mean willful, deliberate, evil.  I shouldn't be surprised that a willing servant (such as Peace Activists) of Tyrants, Terrorists, and the Enemies of Mankind in General would claim that hatred of Evil is Evil.  This is simply another contradiction given voice by a willfully depraved creature whose only claim to the title of Human is its physical form.  I could say that a Peace Activist is the political equivalent of the depraved bystander who tells a women who is being raped that she should "lay back and enjoy it", but that would be an undeserved compliment.  I could say that killing a Peace Activist is no more an act of murder than putting down a rabid animal, but that would be an insult to rabid animals.  I will say that killing a Peace Activist is an act of defense, of one's self, of one's family, of one's nation, and of Humanity in General.

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 Cheating

The Democratic Party routinely cheats in elections.  Something has to be done about this.

On Lefrtism

We mock and prosecute Klansmen for their stupid and destructive behavior.  But the fact of the matter is that Klansmen act the way they do because they believe that they are superior beings destined to rule over those they have deemed to be inferiors.

Guess who else believe themselves to be superior beings?

The Left.

Who else preached hatred and murder of inferiors?

The Left.

One would be hard pressed to find a greater example of homicidal hatred (other than the NSDAP) preached and commanded at the political level than Lenin screaming for the mass murder of the Kulaks.  Which is to say the extermination of those who refused to obey him and worship him as their God and Savior in the place of Jesus Christ.  As stupid and destructive as the Klan was they couldn't in a million years match the insanity and deadliness of The Left in absolute power. The Klan simply couldn't lynch enough Africans to match the 100 million person worldwide bodycount that Leftist regimes have run up since November of 1917.  But if Lefties in America want to behave like Klansmen then let's start treating them like Klansmen.
 

Opinions

The alternative to civilized political discourse is political violence.

Do I have to say this?  Idiots exist. 

Civilized society can't tolerate predatory and destructive behavior by groups and individuals within it.  The ranting and raving of ideologists notwithstanding there can't be a possible excuse for robbery, murder, or any other form of predatory behavior.

A point to consider is that people who were happy with life in their homelands didn't seek new lives for themselves and their families here in the New World.  And the supposedly “happy” (read brainwashed) inhabitants of a so-called “type one” planetary civilization aren't going to pack up and leave to settle another planet, such as Mars, let alone embark on a multi-generational voyage across interstellar space.  The Universe as a whole is ours if we want it.  We only have to shove the power tripping vermin out of the way. 

Collaboration with Evil is evil.

Opinion

Peace is what happens when you run out of targets.

Opinion

Anyone who believes that there's no difference between Right and Wrong is wrong.

Opinion

Just because someone else is holding the gun doesn't change the fact that someone is engaged in the act of robbery. 

Opinion

O.J. Simpson recently died.  

If O.J. Simpson had stayed home on that horrible night he'd still have a career, real friends, the annoying former wife, a reputation as a stand up guy, and most importantly no one outside of the Los Angeles area would've ever heard the name Kardashian.

Opinion

The term "Woke" means the opposition to Reality.

Opinion

Even though I have brain damage and can't speak I'm still smarter than most of the people around here.

Opinion

Some LAPD officers are just following orders.  They should be Nurenburged.  Hanged from neck until dead.

Letter To The Editor

I'm an opponent to pacifism. 

I was rearranging items when I came across a letter to the editor of the Star-Tribune, the Marxist rag of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.  The paper originated and is still published in Minneapolis but the owners have a long standing streak of the pretense of superiority.  I'd clipped out the letter and taped it to back of the cover of a notebook but didn't record the date of the letter.  I'd have to guess that it originated during the administration of the Elder President Bush.  Placing it roughly twenty-five years ago or a bit more.  But this is only a guess on my part.

To quote the emission of non-sentience:

One child dies

Regarding Jim Klobuchar’s March 8 column, “8-year old boy died with grace and courage, but without an answer”: Michael Blake’s mother came into WAMM last April for information on the relationship of health-care cuts and military increases.  Her visit was motivated by son Michael’s deep understanding that research on disease saves lives while research on Star Wars ends lives.

Sometimes it’s so simple. One child dies.  One hundred thousand children live in poverty.  We spend almost $300 billion on defense.  Yet our children are left defenseless against poverty and disease.

Michael understood this.  Why can’t we? 

– Nikki LaSorella, co-director, Women Against Military Madness, Minneapolis.

If consciousness is the process of identification then this keyboard dropping is the clear evidence of brain death.  I have and continue to seriously wonder how any of these people manage to wake up and remove themselves from their own beds without killing or seriously injuring themselves.

Here the child-like condition of ignorance is held to be superior to clear knowledge.  An eight year old child isn't normally educated in the theory of individual rights and the history of relations with foreign nations.  Nor would that child be aware of the mass graves and other monuments to the ideologies of totalitarian  power across Europe and Asia.  As well as the similar but yet undiscovered and unnamed horrors across Cuba, China, and North Korea.    

A child can be forgiven for his lack of knowledge.  But an adult has absolutely no excuse.  That specific adult has absolutely no excuse for the facilitation of criminal predation within Our Republic and the assistance given to foreign aggressors by the so-called peace movement.

The condition of Peace in fact can't be identified as a moral value apart from the fundamental value of Human Life in the state of Freedom. But LaSorella isn't just a pacifist.  She's clearly a Communist as well.  She's most clearly one of the enemies of mankind against whom an actual government must stand.  Her target audience in writing this letter was those alleged adults who're ignorant of moral philosophy and political history and wish to remain so.

The illusion of social justice that LaSorella promotes denies the fact that the American Federal Government protects a society of free people against domestic criminals and foreign conquerors.  Her vision is of an entire nation converted at gunpoint to a vast slave labor system.

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

This is the exact description of the system of slavery.  And the needs of those who impose and enforce the system have no absolute limits.  The fact is that those who call themselves pacifists are vilest and most violent Enemies of Mankind of all time.

 

Opinion

There are some people I ignore.  Live with it.  The automatic corollary of freedom of your religion is freedom from your religion.  L. Ron Hubbard didn't understand this.  The doctrine of Scientology doesn't allow ANYONE to be free from Scientology.

Opinion

The more I learn about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, the more disgusted I become.

Opinion

Socialists are inherently parasitic and thus can’t take NO for an answer to their demands for obedience and the material goods they need to exist.  If they did so they would wither away and die.  A dictator, on the other hand, doesn’t have to take NO for answer.  Thus Socialists are by necessity inclined to favor dictatorships over citizen ruled Republics.  When they see a dictator in the dock they see their own hopes and desires go with him.  When they see a dictator doing a dance at the end of a rope they see themselves perishing with him.

 

Opinion

One of the points that Ayn Rand made when she wrote Atlas Shrugged was that when a threat is made against one's job (or other form of material support) it's in effect a threat against one's life.  The parasite can't live in a society where social and economic relationships are based on consent.  Liberty IS death to them.  The parasite needs to compel the productive to support them.  For them Power is Life.  So when someone knocks off a dictatorship and hangs the dictator they're bound to respond as if they're to be the next to be hanged.

Belief

I believe that the most important word in the English language is NO.

On Democracy

What is 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.

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 is 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.

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 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.