On Censorship

You can't argue with someone who sees truth as a falsehood. 

Censorship is practiced by those who have to silence their opponents.  Censorship is practiced by those who know they’re wrong.  Censorship is the negation of the Human mind.  Censorship reduces Human Beings to mere animals.  As rational thought is necessary to living a Human life the censor, and those who demand it, are Enemies of Mankind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition

From the New Devil's Dictionary:

Truther: Someone who will believe anything but the truth.  One born every minute. 

Opinions

No matter what you believe, the truth is the truth.

A democratically elected Tyrant is still a Tyrant.

Environmentalists, no matter how awful their actions are, always see themselves as good people. 

Those who don't remember the past are not only going to repeat it, but are also a highly valued group of followers.

Of course President Trump is guilty, it's a SHOW TRIAL after all. 

I'm still surrounded by idiots.

On Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin is clearly an Enemy Of Mankind.

On Patriotism

Racial characteristics aren't chosen and therefore irrelevant to Human actions.   What's subject to choice is a person’s beliefs and the actions derived from those beliefs.  And for the record McVeigh himself was a racial collectivist who rejected Human rights and Human reason.  As a result he rejected Human reality. The actual Patriot Movement at that time fully rejected McVeigh, his beliefs, and his actions.  This rejection was based on the actual moral values that were actually chosen.  And speaking of language the words Gun Nut is a pejorative term used to dehumanize a firearms owner and justify lethal acts of state violence against them.

Image

Suggestion

Go back to the college or university you attended and demand a refund of your tuition.  YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO.

On Tools

A tool is simply a means to an end.  The ultimate end is Human Life.  We must understand that a fear of tools is simply irrational.  An employee of the Healtheast Care System in St. Paul was afraid of an image of several firearms on a coffee cup used by one of the security guards.  A customer at a supermarket was afraid of the light of a bar code scanner touching her groceries.  A firearm and a bar code scanner are simply tools.  There is no reason to fear them.  Alcoholism wasn’t caused by a supply of alcohol, but by the alcoholics.  The Holocaust wasn’t caused by a supply of Zyklon-B, but by the beliefs of the perpetrators.  Zyklon-B was developed and marketed as an insecticide.  The Oklahoma City Bombing wasn’t caused by a supply of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, but by the beliefs of perpetrators.  9/11 wasn’t caused by airliners and box cutters, but by the beliefs of perpetrators.  Any horror wasn’t caused by the tools that were used but by the beliefs of the perpetrators.  There is simply no reason to fear a tool.

A firearm is simply a tool.

 

 

Atheist Quote

That than be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

-- Christopher Hitchens

Idiotcy In Action

Do I have to say it again?  I'm surrounded by idiots.

On Helicopters

The Huey was already an old system when I flew on one during basic training.  When I was in the regular Army the Huey was being replaced with the first generation of Blackhawk helicopters.

It should be no surprise that the president of Islamic state of Iran (cursed be thy name) was on a Huey when it crashed.

Opinion

The so-called pro-Palestinian protestors are idiots.  How many times do I have to say it?  Islam is EVIL.

Whereas the goal of the adherents of the Western Monotheist Tradition (if I understand it correctly) is permanent communion with God.  The most consistent followers of the false god Allah are apparently motivated by the promise of eternal gratification of their animalistic desires.  What can one say about a false religion founded by an individual who combines and magnifies the worst attributes of William Jefferson Clinton, Lafayette Ron Hubbard, and Charles Manson? (Along with a bit of Woody Allen, or Roman Polanski for those readers living on the other left coast.)  Remember what Orwell said about the function of political ideology?  The false theology of Islam serves this function to create the illusion of legitimacy for actions which were and continue to be morally intolerable in civilized societies.   Islam is a criminal conspiracy masquerading as a religion.

The self-styled prophet Mohammed (cursed be thy name) was a traitor, robber, murderer, rapist, and pedophile.   Those who refused to submit to his whims (which he declared to be the will of Allah) were routinely robbed and murdered with their wives and daughters raped.  Anyone who spoke out against this vile creature were brutally butchered along with their entire families.  The self-styled prophet’s last wife was only six years old (or nine, some accounts very) when he married her.  A case could also be made in the context of Arabian society at the time for the charges of blasphemy and sacrilege.

In every respect this vile creature has earned the title ENEMY OF MANKIND.

If you want divine sanction for rape, robbery, and murder, along with tyranny, Islam is the religion for you.
 

Opinions

Why do I somehow feel that getting a college education these days must in some way involve being lobotomized? 

Civilized society can't tolerate predatory and destructive behavior by groups and individuals within it.  There can't be any possible excuse for robbery, murder, or any other form of predatory behavior.

Opinions

We must recognize the fact that those who deny the Human Right of Life are nothing less than Enemies of Mankind.

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

Someone Else's Opinion

James Felix over at Michelle Malkin's blog had this to say:

An athiest’s perspective:

On theoretical grounds I think all religions have exactly the same standard of proof underpinning them. Everyone thinks their holy writings are the holy writings and believes with equal passion that their god is the god.

But we don’t live on theoretically grounds, we live in reality. And in reality anyone who insists all religions are equally dangerous or blameworthy is, if I may be so blunt, out of their freaking mind.

Christians don’t marry children. Jews don’t blow up mosques. Buddhists don’t declare jihad. There is one religion widely practiced today that is uniquely unable to coexist peacefully with other religions (or even with other strains of the same religion).

For any of my fellow atheists stopping by to read this… get with the program. All religions are not created equal, and a Judeo-Christian nation makes me a hell of a lot less nervous than an Islamic one.

 

On Pacifism

I would argue that disarming is not an action resulting from a good intention, but from a bad one.  Because an individual, or a group, can choose to obtain their survival and well being through the use of force against the productive persons or groups it's necessary for the potential victims of such violence to be armed and mentally prepared to to respond with force.  Peace is simply the absence of enemies.  It's the state of being where one isn't subject to the will of a hostile power, be it an individual, a group, or a nation.  In practice peace can only be obtained through the forcible suppression or outright destruction of the aggressors.  To obtain peace an individual or a nation must have superior firepower and the will to use it.  In order to avoid being subject to the will of aggressors those persons or nations which disarm themselves must enter into a dependent relationship with those are remain armed.  Disarmament is therefore not an act resulting from a good intention.  At best a pacifist is a parasite.  In present practice most pacifists morally condemn the act of self-defense and therefore become accessories to acts of violence carried out by aggressive individuals, groups, or nations.  In effect, they've become part of the problem.  And as a rule I favor including pacifists in the solution to the problem of aggressive violence. 

On Responsibility

You are responsible for what you've done.  Some Scientologists deny this fact.

 

Observation

One thing I notice on the Left side of the political isle is the denial of Reality.

Complaint

I'm surrounded by idiots.  I have brain damage and can't speak but are still more intelligent than the people who surround me.

On Politics

A One Party State is ALWAYS a failed state.

Opinion

Do I have to say it again?  Those who commit horrors believe they're doing the right thing.

On Gun Control

The people who imposed Prohibition on this nation truly believed that outlawing the possession and consumption of alcohol would bring about the end of drunkenness and no evidence to the contrary would ever change their beliefs.  They were absolutely wrong and good people died for their beliefs.  The intellectual and moral successors to the Prohibitionists ignore the facts about criminal and terrorist actions and now insist on imposing their fantasies on us by force without regard to the actual deaths and other negative effects that will be inflicted on us.  In practical effect innocent people will die so they can enjoy a positive feeling about themselves.  If this isn't willful depravity then what what is?

 

On Democracy

Democracy is the form of state that claims unlimited power from a mandate from an unlimited mass.  For those who desire absolute power Democracy is an ideal form of the state.  But in reality authority in any area is based on actual knowledge in that field.  Thus political authority must be based on knowledge in the field of politics.   But in the democratic form of the state the voter isn't required to know anything on the subject of ethics or politics or in the case of Chicago to actually exist.  So why should we as Americans be subject to the will of Democrats?

WE SHOULD NOT.

Democrats in general have shown that they are not at all concerned about the actual facts of reality.  Nor are they concerned about the consequences of their actions.  That we will suffer and die as a result of their actions means absolutely nothing to them.  So why should we submit to them, let alone allow them to exist?

WE SHOULD NOT AT ALL.

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.

 

Opinion

Antisemitism in politics is the practical equivalent of a dead canary in a coal mine.  I can't say this often enough.  Antisemitism is a subset of Racial Collectivism.  We (Humanity) have to condemn all forms of Racial Collectivism.  We have to identify Black Lives Matter as the Racial Collectivist group that it actually is.  We have to see that Antisemitism is a symptom of a deeper philosophical problem.  So when someone attacks Jews they're attacking all of us.  Rejection of Racial Collectivism shouldn't be a radical idea.  I’ve been called a “bigot” numerous times because I didn’t believe in a person’s orthodoxy.

Opinions

There are always collaborators.

I thought about typing in a long winded rant about how the Greenies hate Human life so much that they don't care how much Human death and suffering results from their feel-good posturing.  The vermin hate us.  The worst of them wish to see us dead.  The simple fact of Reality in my own personal view is that Environmentalists are nothing less than Enemies of Mankind and it's about [expletive] time that they're dealt with as such which is as vermin fit solely for extermination. 

A state that practices Gun Control is always dysfunctional. 

On Leftism

Leftists tend to be insane.  Leftists usually enact legislation that tends to be wrong.

Definition

From The New Devil's Dictionary:

Pacifist: A person or group that willfully refuses to see a fundamental moral distinction between those persons, groups, or political entities that behave as predatory animals, and those persons, groups, and political communities who are compelled to raise a hand in their own defense. Any act of self defense or preparation for same is loudly condemned, and punishment for such acts are called for, by the pacifist. Example: "Outside the convention hall where the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association was held in Minneapolis the Women Against Military Madness, a pacifist group, carried signs that read, "BAN THE NRA." 

On Reputations

Reputations have to be earned.  Scientology has earned a negative reputation.  That reputation will eventually catch up to them.

 

So Anyway

Les notices that many lefties still hate Trump, and says:

(Roll 1d6)

1-6. So what else is new?

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. 

*In my opinion the Democratic Party didn't get a decent fraction of the thumping it deserved at the end of the American Civil War.

 

Stuff

Today is the anniversary of the day the Science Fiction role playing game Traveller was published in 1977.

Once again we come to May First.  This is also Mass Murder Day.

This is the day on which Leftists traditionally shout out their claim to be morally superior beings who're entitled to rule over us mere humans and take the product of our thought and labor to use as they see fit for the betterment of mankind.  And if you really believe their claims then obviously you won't notice the pile of the one hundred million-plus human bodies that the self styled agents of progress have left in their wake as they have made their way to power and willfully abused that power over us mere humans.  When we see through the ideology and other claims of The Left it's very readily apparent that their doctrine is nothing more than a modernistic facade placed over the neolithic practice of beating up or killing people and taking their stuff.  It's time that we see The Left for what they truly are, not as the vanguard of moral progress but only a gang of thieves and murderers.

Given the open antisemitism of the Democratic Party I wouldn't be surprised some Jews are leaving the party.  Is it necessary for them to join the Republican Party?

No.

Perhaps it's time to start a new political party.  Is a new political party possible?  The answer is that I don’t know.  The opponents of chattel slavery proceeded even with public opposition.  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.

In my opinion there should be a Victims Of Communism Day Vigil on May First.

Happy Mass Murder day.

Karl Marx didn't work.  Neither does Marxism.  Marxism should be taught as the actual disaster it was. 

Marxism doesn't work.  But that doesn't stop Marxists from trying.

Marx was racist as shit even for the time.  He hated black and Jewish people with a passion.  His views on Jews were very similar to those of the Nazis.  People who knew him said he mocked and despised his followers as much as the “bourgeoisie” and felt superior to pretty much everyone.  Gustav Techow said “personal domination is the end-all of his every activity”

Marx was the L. Ron Hubbard of his day.  A useless, evil piece of shit who managed to amass a following among other useless and evil pieces of shit and others who were too dim to know better.

 

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.

This is the day on which Leftists traditionally shout out their claim to be morally superior beings who are entitled to rule over us mere humans and take the product of our thought and labor to use as they they see fit for the betterment of mankind.  And if you really believe their claims then obviously you won't notice the pile of the one hundred million-plus human bodies that the self styled agents of progress have left in their wake as they've made their way to power and willfully abused that power over us mere humans.  When we see through the ideology and other claims of The Left it's very readily apparent that their doctrine is nothing more than a modernistic facade placed over the old stone age practice of beating up or killing people and taking their stuff.  It's time that we see The Left for what they truly are not as the vanguard of moral progress but only a gang of thieves and murderers.

It's simply isn't possible to reason with, negotiate with, or otherwise peacefully coexist with any person, any group, or any nation that believes that it has the right to control you or to take things from you by force.  Such persons or entities can only be physically isolated from you or ultimately destroyed.  There's a way to deal with Marxists and it's not nice.  Peace is the absence of enemies but it isn't, as some wish to believe, priceless.  As long as there's one Communist who lives there will be no peace.
 
One of things I usually do on May Day is to re post the Affirmations for the Inner Communist.  Ayn Rand once said that it was morally acceptable mock evil as long as it was recognized as evil. So once again I present:

Stuart Smalley's Daily Affirmations for the Inner Communist

Monday:

"I'm going to execute and expropriate today just for the heck of it because, gosh darn it, I deserve to have a good time."

Tuesday:

"I am not a fraud, a Marxist yes, but not a fraud."

Wednesday:

"I deserve all the mass adulation from the people I can get without feeling ashamed or being grandiose."

Thursday:

"I will express my feelings today. I will not hide them behind my mustache. My mustache is not a mask for my feelings, but rather a small patch of facial hair that covers my inadequacies."

Friday:

"When I rob a bank for the cause, I will not be playing those parent tapes in my head: "You wield a revolver like a girl" . . . "Why can't you be more like Stalin?" . . . "Philosophy? What kind of major is that? It's useless!"

Saturday:

"Just because I execute Christians and counter-revolutionaries does not mean I'm an mass-murdering psychopath like my father."

Sunday:

"If I must violently put down a counter-revolution today, it is not because I am a bad person or that I am not worthy of love; it is because my people are a bunch of religion-addicted capitalist sons-of-bitches--and I am mean enough, ruthless enough, and dog gone it, people fear me."

The theory of Communism was invented by a group of professional parasites in order to give the appearance of modernity and moral legitimacy to the stone-age practice of beating-up and killing productive people and taking their stuff. Of course that is about the nicest description I could give to it. Normally I think of the practice of Communism as being the behavior of those who chose to act as sub-human predatory animals. And as with any other predatory animal that attacks human beings I believe that they should be hunted down and killed. Parasite mentalities as a general rule see themselves as superior beings and other people, the productive population, exist solely as either tools that they can use to pursue their goals or as trash to be disposed of. Killing those who rightfully refuse to be the slaves of the self-appointed superior beings is not an act of murder, in their minds it's simply the disposal of hominid garbage. In practical terms a Communist is a mortal enemy of human kind and killing a Communist can be no more wrongful than putting down a rabid animal or destroying any other active hazard to human life.

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.  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.

A Democratic Socialist is still a Socialist, still an Enemy of Mankind, and still a Murderer.

 How many people have Marxists murdered?

Over 3200 a day on average a day during the Cold War.

A basic premise of Collectivism is that all people need a leader to think for them and to collectively direct their lives. In the Collectivist view the Russians needed a big brother or father figure such as Stalin or Lenin, the Chinese needed a Mao, the Koreans (not just in the north) needed the Kim Dynasty.  And we in the United States absolutely require the guidance of the self styled opponents of Fascism.

(Of course any sympathies the Left ever had for fellow Collectivists like the Austrian Corporal or the Loud Mouthed Italian fellow have been quietly dropped down the memory hole.)

This is, of course, is a total fantasy.  The Shepherd Fantasy appears to be a psychological device that Collectivists use to evade knowledge of, or to mentally blank out, the fact that they're not really useful members of a human society but are truly nothing more than a bunch of parasites and outright predators who're feeding off their betters.

As Ayn Rand once pointed out, they need us. We on the other hand, have absolutely no use for them.

So why won’t the Collectivists get out of the way of those of us who live in the Real World?

Because they know that sooner or later, we'll properly identify them for what they are, and that we'll eventually turn our guns upon them.  Which is why they favor Gun Control.  How many people have died escaping from capitalism?

 "Better see the Reds dead!"

--Ayn Rand

"To send men to the firing squad Judicial proof is unnecessary.  These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail.  This is a revolution and a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."

--Che Guevara, Marxist Murderer

Those who dehumanize themselves can't claim protection under a human right.  Killing a Marxist is no more an act of murder than putting down a rabid dog or eliminating any other hazard to Human Life.

Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot died peacefully instead of properly at the end of a rope.  Socialism and Communism were the most toxic ideologies promoted in the previous century, there's no excuse to promote them.

If The Democrats want to behave like Socialists, fine.  Let's treat them like Socialists and like other Collectivists, in the Nuremberg style, hang them from the neck until dead.  Many people on The Left scream about selfishness but are the most self centered people out there.  Many people on The Left use other people to feel good about themselves.

From the absolute origin the doctrine of Communism was the result of the rejection of Reason.  In fact the doctrine of Communism is essentially an excuse to behave as predatory animals.  Thus all conceptions of a moral law, including virtually all laws based on the doctrine of a religion must be rejected outright.  As God is held to be the author of moral law in the Western Monotheist Tradition his existence must be denied by the practicing Communist.  This leads to the posture of Communists of being Atheists.  The fact is that power over productive people is fundamental goal of the practicing Communist and therefore they'll use any excuse or body of excuses such as Liberation Theology to obtain it.  

 (Image from Mark Urbin.)

Another Image.

 

A good Communist. 

 

 

 

We need to understand that Anti-Fa is a Collectivist group along with needing it to be identified as and dealt with as such.  We need to understand that Black Lives Matter is a Racial Collectivist group along with it needing to be identified as and dealt with as such.