Opinions

I'm surrounded by morons.

It doesn't matter what you believe Reality is always there.

As far as I know Evil is prevailing.  

Evil people believe they're Good.

Authority doesn't come from force and fraud.

On Censorship

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.  Freedom Of Speech is ultimately the freedom to tell the Truth.  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

 

Question And Answer

How does Evil prevail?

Appeasement, Compromise, and Misidentification.

A case of Appeasement.

The rise the Third Reich (and the resulting problems) was in some respects due to Appeasement.

A case of Compromise.

The Republican Party has consistently compromised with the Democratic Party.  A fundamental result is the political and economic mess we're in.

A case of Misidentification.

In Reality HAMAS is clearly Evil.  The college and university students protesting in favor of HAMAS believe they're doing the right thing.  In Reality they're doing the wrong thing.  The college and university students backing HAMAS are simply wrong.

On Freedom Of Religion

When I took Basic Infantry Training at Fort Benning everyone was taught to not accept excuses.  A religious belief is NEVER an excuse for bad behavior. 

On Another Assasination Attempt

As I've said Political Assassination is essentially useless.  Under no circumstances a semiautomatic firearm that fires an intermediate round be used in such an attempt.

On Identifying Evil

Bad people (Evil people) often believe themselves to be the good guys.

On Personal History And Scientology

I attended a campaign rally during the 2008 campaign season held in a large hangar at the Anoka County Airport.  One could actually play Football in the hangar.  A TSA officer told that 13,000 people showed up.  450 people showed up for an Ideal Org opening.

On Vladimir Putin

The elimination of Vladimir Putin will be irrelevant.  Another Tyrant will replace him.

On Leftism

Leftists often demand that we adore them and obey them.  NO.  Reality is real, assholes.

On Censorship

The Left can't deal with reality because in reality they're the bad guys.  They're constantly trying to live off the work of others thus they have to control their subjects by force.  Leftists have to censor. 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

Morons In Action

Mary Fairchild, the building nurse has a standard statement, "Have a blessed day.  I've had multiple cursed days in a row.

Why I Won't Ever Vote For A Democrat. (And Shouldn't Vote Republican)

Here's two thousand words as to why I won't ever consciously vote for a Democrat.  (And shouldn't vote Republican)

For those who're victims of the public schools with the Mainstream Media, a group of Muslims managed to hijack four commercial airliners and crashed three of them into each of the main towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  We've yet to properly respond to this atrocity.  By a proper response I mean that we should've erased the abomination commonly known as the Kaaba from the face of the Earth with a high yield thermonuclear weapon.  And in doing so we would've demonstrated that the deity known as Allah was without question a false god and the doctrine known as Islam was an absolute load of nonsense.

Of course there will be those who would've point a finger at me and scream that I'm expressing hatred. So what?

If we would hang a traitor once in a while (pour encourager l'outres) they wouldn't be so annoying.

A lie is a lie regardless of how many people choose to believe it or are compelled to believe it.  But the truth is the truth, learn to live with it.

 

The false prophet Mohamed declared war on Mankind.

There are those who pose as Progressives that have declared that criticism of Islam is an expression of hatred.

Really?

No, this is hatred.

Nearly 3000 people were murdered as an act of hated against Humanity.

Why?

For Muslims there's no why.  There's only the will of the false god Allah as dropped from the mouth of the false Prophet Mohammad.  And it 's only in the Nineteenth Century that we'd see anyone who equaled that level of depravity such as Karl Marx.

What's the purpose of religious tolerance?

The individual is the sovereign authority in a civil society.  Because of this the government can't impose a belief, including a religious belief, upon the person.  Thus any religion that accepts the individual as sovereign authority in a civil society can and must be tolerated.  Under Islam man is the property of the deity.  A person has no rights, can't enact legislation, and can't establish and uphold a moral standard.  Compliance with Islam must be imposed by force.  Furthermore a Muslim is permitted to deceive or otherwise use nonbelievers for their own gain and even commit murder.  An underage girl who's protected under a rational code of law is seen, literally, as a usable object under the doctrine of Islam.

Such behavior, which denies the rights and sovereignty of the individual can't be tolerated in a civil society.  I will furthermore go further in saying that the existence of Islam can be seen as possible proof of the nonexistence of God.  A rational, caring, and observant God should have vaporized the false prophet Mohammad the moment he opened his mouth to claim divine blessing for such obviously evil acts as rape, robbery, murder, censorship, and participation in the slave trade.  Islam is absolutely toxic to Human life.  And those, including the enforcers of Islamic doctrine, who deny the Rights Of Man absolutely can"t claim those very same rights for themselves.  Those who act to enforce the doctrine of Islam are absolute Enemies of Mankind.  They're fit solely for extermination.

One of the signatories of this depraved document is now the governor of Minnesota another is the attorney general.  One of the signatories of this utterly depraved document is now the vice presidential candidate of the Democratic Party.  A belief in Islamophobia is pure and absolute nonsense.  Islamophobia is a false concept.  Phobia is a Latin word for an irrational fear of something.

The obvious question is how can someone be tricked into betraying any moral value when they absolutely lack one?  The false prophet Mohammad commanded his followers to commit the acts of rape, robbery, and murder.  The doctrine of Islam commands enslavement and the systematic violation of the rights of man and to act as predatory animals.  Without question the doctrine and practice of Islam is absolutely depraved.  Given that Human Life is the foundation of all valid moral values then Islam must be absolutely condemned.  But the signatories of this document condemn as immoral those who hold an actual moral standard.  I' m hard pressed to respond to this utterly depraved document without the use of barracks language.  But I'll say this, Vidkun Quisling was shot for his betrayal of the Norwegian people and we’re going to need an all night firing squad to deal with this bunch.

They're not un-Minnesotan, they're anti-Human.  Many of the signatories of the document have died naturally instead of properly at the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad.

 Is there such a thing as Islamophobia?

No.

It's perfectly natural to have a fear of being conquered by a bunch of ignorant and violent people.

Can a Muslim be a good person?  Is it possible for someone who's indoctrinated in the absolutely depraved ideology of Islam to act as a good person?  We saw examples of of a Muslim being good in during the terrorist actions in Paris.  The first being the police officer who's murdered by the Jihadists in the line of duty.  The other being the young man who led others to safety during the attack on the delicatessen.  It's possible for a Muslim to be a good person but this is a compromise.  As with all compromises it's untenable.  In the long run these people must renounce the doctrine of Islam and embrace Reason as the way of life.  Every Muslim, at least in theory, is Human.  A fundamental part of being Human is the capacity for reason, full perception and conscious thought.

The doctrine of Islam forbids rational thought.  Islam reduces all persons to the moral status of animals and thus to property.  In submitting to the alleged will of the false god Allah the Muslim renounces responsibility for their own actions.  All murders and other crimes committed by a Muslim are simply the will of the false god Allah.  In reality when a Muslim desires to commit an act of rape, robbery, or murder he simply declares that he is only following the orders of false god Allah.

The doctrine of Islam claims that the entire body of laws made by men, thousands of years of effort by mankind to create a just society, thousands of years of effort by of good men, who wrote legal charters and laws, including our original Constitution and our Bill Of Rights, are simply nullified by the mouth droppings of the false prophet Mohammad.

On what grounds can those who deny The Rights of Man can claim protection the under those very same rights?

None whatsoever.

But how one deals with another person determines how that person responds.  When the Muslim renounces responsibility for their own thoughts and actions they can no longer be rationally identified as being Human.  And we who remain rational humans can no longer identify and deal with a Muslim as a proper person who's responsible for their own life and actions.  We can only see them as toxic organisms to be removed as a hazard to our lives.  And worse the indoctrination of children in the doctrine of Islam condemns them to extinction as well.

Islam is a clearly false doctrine that serves only as an excuse for criminal actions that are beyond the toleration of civilized people.  Islam denies all of the Rights of Man and therefore no Muslim can claim any of those rights for himself.  We must accept as a fact of reality that Islam is outside of the protection of the First Amendment and take the actions necessary to protect the citizens and legal residents of the United States.  The rational people of Earth are left with no alternative but to kill them all.  On the day of the extinction of Islam, I'll feel no guilt about it, and neither should anyone else.  Islam, like all other anti-Human (you know, EVIL) ideologies, can only be opposed through the education of the general population of its actual doctrines and effects, and through the consistent exercise of retaliatory force upon those Muslims who cross the line into violence.  When we do this (and we have to) the problem of Koran disposal will take care of itself.

I’m usually loath to agree with any Marxist, but I now agree with one.  We imagine our divine authority to be a reflection of ourselves.  The false prophet Mohammad imagined a monster like himself.  But then what can one say about a false religion founded by an individual who combines and magnifies the worst attributes of Jeffery Epstein, Lafayette Ron Hubbard, and Charles Manson, then turns them up beyond eleven?

The basic goal of Rational Man is to live a human life.  The goal of the founder of Islam was to live as an animal without regard to the consequences.  Islam denies all of The Rights Of Man.  Muslims can't under any circumstances claim any of those rights for themselves.   In order to live in a Human society a Muslim must fully renounce Islam.  No exceptions can EVER be made.

We didn't start this war.  It began when the false prophet Mohammad took up the sword against those who refused to submit to his depraved will.  Those who choose to lay down the sword of Islam and join human civilization will be welcomed as friends.  Those who continue to wield the sword of Islam against Humanity are going to have that sword shoved up their terminal orifice.

Islam and the mass of contradictions that's claimed to be a system of law was the product of a thoroughly depraved individual.  Sharia law is a contradiction in terms.  Sharia is the codification of the nihilistic lust for power and plunder of the false prophet Mohammad whose moral values are essentially that of a predatory animal pretending to be a human being.  I could describe the false prophet Mohammad as a walking piece of excrement but that would be an insult to excrement.

Is there a solution to the problem of Islam short of a Final Solution?  The doctrine of Islam denies all of the Rights of Man including the Right of Life.  Given that Muslims are required to act as the mortal enemies of Mankind there are no middle grounds under which a peace can be negotiated with any of them.  In the end the practice of Islam must be removed from existence altogether.  Even if Muslims are not exterminated altogether they must be removed from rationally functioning human societies.  Those who deny the Rights of Man cannot live in a rational Human Society based on those rights.  Therefore Muslims have no place in a rational Human Society in and must be expelled from it.  Under no circumstances will any attempt be made to comply with any part of the Islamic code of law, including the dietary code.  If for example the least expensive food available to feed the Muslims in temporary detention before deportation is pork then it will be used.  If Muslims insist on complying with the false dietary laws and starve to death as a result then it’s their fault alone.

Clausewitz defined war as "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will"

In demanding absolute submission the false prophet Mohammad had essentially declared war on Mankind.  Therefore those who follow his command to make war on those who properly refuse to submit are in effect enemy combatants and should be identified and dealt with as such.  Under the customs of warfare and subsequent legislation assault on a civilian is a serious offense with murder and rape being treated as capital crimes.  Humanity is at war with Islam.  Let's treat it as such.

Have we learned the lessons of 9/11?

NO.

One of the things we should have learned through direct experience in the Twentieth Century is that cowardice isn't an option.  We're in a fight for our lives and WE ARE LOSING.  We're losing what is in fact the Third World War because our rulers refuse to identify it as such.   And that the cause of liberty is in fact a holy cause.  And the administration of our self proclaimed president, Joe Biden, has made life easier for our enemies.  We're in fact in a holy war.  One doesn't prevail in a holy war by pretending that the opposing faith is in fact valid.  We can only prevail if we correctly expose the falsehoods for which the enemy is fighting.  By treating their doctrine as false.  By systematically destroying their ideological infrastructure of indoctrination and enforcement.  Destroy their texts and temples, eliminate their enforcers with their indoctrinators.  But there's no excuse for cowardice when one's faced with actual evil.  We need to treat Islam as the toxic doctrine that it actually is.

If we accept the accounts written by Mohammad's earliest followers as the truth then it's very apparent that he committed serious crimes such as robbery, murder, and other acts that are not discussed outside of a lecture on the subject of the SS-Dirlewanger Brigade.  And Mohammad did so while claiming the sanction of the Magical Mystical Master in the sky.  A claim that any rational person must reject as total nonsense.

A quote:  "Spare a moment to remember the nearly 3,000 innocent victims of insane hate who died on this day in the year 2001.  And spare a thought for the loved-ones they left behind."

-- Dr. John Ray.

 

He also said:

 

"The first day of infamy was eventually avenged with nukes. The Islamic madmen seem to be pushing for a repeat."

 

We should nuke Mecca and demonstrate that Islam is pure nonsense.

Those who can believe absurdities will commit atrocities.  If the false prophet Mohammad were to appear in the United States today and behave as depicted in the Islamic records he'd either be locked in padded room and given a lifetime supply of happy pills, locked in a maximum security prison, or given the needle.  (Except in the state of Utah where he'd be taken out and shot.) 

I have a question for our self-appointed masters.

The Cold War is over, why do have relations with ANY Islamic country?

 

The origin of the doctrine of Islam is nothing more than the expression of the depravity of a predatory savage.  It's overt nihilism posturing as righteousness.  Islam is nothing less than a doctrine of Human annihilation.  But, say some defenders of Islam, it's a religion, we can't criticize it or even interfere in any degree in the practice.

Really?

The first thing I was taught when I entered infantry basic training at Fort Benning in the spring of 1982 was that "the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero."  We were taught in basic training to NOT accept excuses.

Acceptance of the facts is a fundamental necessity in the combat environment. Indulgence in a fantasy gets someone needlessly killed.

Innocent people are dying because the mainstream establishment won't understand and accept a fundamental truth.

Islam is Death.

And Islam is completely outside the bounds of civilized toleration.
 

And remember: