Excuse For Tyranny

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 aren't at all concerned about the actual facts of Reality.   Nor are they concerned about the consequences of their actions.  That we'll 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.

There's no such thing as a valid excuse. 

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 God-Kings 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 TyrannyRights 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

 

Proposal

If I've a complaint about The Republican Party it's that they've shown godlike patience with the behavior of The Democratic Party.  Democrats can assault in public those who won't submit to them, destroy property, call for the mutilation ("Lobotomies for Republicans") of opponents, the murder of elected officials who're carrying out their constitutionally mandated duties, and they'll not lift one finger to hurt a single hair on the otherwise useless head of a Democrat.  I once told an editor that I worked for that we needn't rhetorically dehumanize our opponents all we have to do is accurately describe their ideology and behavior because they've by their own choice dehumanized themselves.

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

 

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

I've proposed starting a new political party.  

If The Republican Party doesn't clean up its act then we as rational citizens will have no choice but to start a new party if we want to peacefully make changes and restore a rational system of government.  Revolutions (real revolutions, not Marxist ones) happen because the government fails to function.  We in the United States are stuck with two political parties.  The leadership of one party is insane and the leadership of the other party simply doesn't care.  Rank and file members now call establishment members a bunch of Vichy Republicans.

Perhaps its time to start a new political party.  Is a new political party possible?

The answer is, I don’t know.  The opponents of chattel slavery proceeded even with public opposition.  We, as opponents of political power, have to.  We need to treat exercises of political power, such as censorship, as crimes against Humanity.  We need to treat bans on firearms and free speech as the anti-Human acts that they actually are.  Our political elites have apparently forgotten the lesson taught by our original civil war, that banning freedom doesn’t work.  Our political elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of alcohol, it didn’t work.  Our political elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of hard drugs, it doesn’t work.  Our political elites will try to ban the voluntary ownership of firearms and freedom of speech, it will never work.  Our politicians are supposed to do a specific job and they aren't doing it.  We have to start a new political party to go around them.  We don't have a choice.

Let's call our new party the Freedom Party.

Will the Freedom Party replace the Democratic Party?

I don't think so.  What's more likely is that the Freedom Party will replace the Republican Party just like the Republicans replaced the Whigs.

It's Happening Again

Why did The Holocaust happen?

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

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

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

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

I have a question for the members of Anti-Fa and BLM: what part of "Never Again" didn't you understand? 

 

On Peace Activism

The unavoidable fact of reality is that the self-styled Peace Activist isn't a morally superior being, he or she is a willing accomplice to conquest, slavery, and mass murder.  They're an active hazard to human life. Or in an ancient tongue: hostis humani generis, an enemy of mankind in general.  In my view killing a so-called peace activist isn't an act of murder.  It's a morally necessary homicide carried out in defense of self, of one's family, of one's nation, and of Humanity in General.

Whining

 A Brownshirt in Tampa had this to say:

“The police just silence us, the Republicans just silence us. We are just getting silenced everywhere we go. It’s like no one wants to even hear what we have to say.”

What's wrong with the noise emitted by this Brownshirt?

First, if the occupiers behave like a bunch of thugs then the police will treat them like a bunch of thugs. That's what they're paid for in a capitalist nation.  Second, the occupiers really and truly have have nothing to say to anyone with a functioning mind.  All the occupiers are really doing is to robotically repeat the same exact noise that tenured totalitarians have been emitting for the last century.  We're fully well aware of they've been emitting.  While a Piled Higher And Deeper degree in political science may not actually be necessary to obtain a significant rank and command in the political goon unit, along with a career of rape, robbery, and mass murder, it does help.

History Lesson

Evil consumes itself.  Unfortunately, it'll consume decent people beforehand.  The Third Reich was going to fall.  But millions of decent people were going to be destroyed beforehand. 

On Polical Assassination

The fact's that the assassination of a significant political figure is essentially a suicide mission.  The term assassin is derived from the Islamic cult of the Assassins.  A group whose members were induced into performing suicide missions through the use of hashish.  Even though more than sufficient grounds have been provided for a seizure of the Federal Government by force it won't happen because those who can do so understand that a false president isn't the cause of the problem.  He or she's merely the symptom.  The actual problem is the subculture holds the rights of individuals in contempt and is willing to use force to reach their goals.  A single assassination won't solve this problem.  Though there's no shortage of trained individuals who're able to carry out the mission it won't happen because those who have the necessary skills understand that it'd be futile.

Let's examine the JFK assassination.

The M38 Carcano rifle was the worst weapon available.  Italy was the poorest nation in Europe.  The Carcano rifle used a rounded round.  Even the Russians used a spitzer round.  When NATO converted to the 7.62 x 51 cartridge Italy sent the Garand rifles that were given to them by the American government to a local firm to be converted to BM-59 rifles.  No one who knew Oswald's background would've hired him for a normal job.  The assassin would've been permanently disposed of.  A realistic conclusion would be that Oswald was a very fortunate shooter.

Personal History

During a Science Fiction convention I wore a button that read GODLESS CAPITALIST.  A woman made up like a Next Generation Klingon declared I was a Ferengi.  I replied that I was an Objectivist and that I read the works of Ayn Rand.  She was confused.  Some people REALLY need to think outside their box.

Opinion

The Biden state was essentially a failed state.

Another History Lesson

Eugenics was a great process until the allied armies entered the Third Reich. 

History Lesson

The Holocaust was a gradual process.  Hitler didn't go into the genocide mode right away.  The process began with the demonization of a specific population.

Complaint

I have to constantly deal with REALLY stupid people in the Parker Skyview Building.

Complaint

Normal Minnesotans can't be stopped by a blizzard.  Members of Volunteers Of America can.

On Pacifism

A mere pacifist, one who disdains violence without engaging in political action is simply a moral parasite in a free nation.  On the other hand a politically active pacifist, one who uses their vote or an elective office to interfere with the prosecution of violent criminals and the defense of a free nation.  Is a traitor who cloaks their actions in the shroud of righteousness.  To those value power above all no act in the pursuit of power is too depraved.  Anyone who feels that they're automatically right is automatically wrong.  Those who carried out The Holocaust believed they were victims fighting evil.  Those who'll carry out the next great mass murder will believe themselves to be victims fighting evil.  Thus power must be dispersed, diminished, destroyed, or simply deleted altogether.  If it weren't for the capitalist system most of the professional opponents of capitalism wouldn't have made it out of the uterus at birth.  There's a proper term for those who deny your Right of Life, they're properly called mortal enemies. 

On Sovereign Authority

The citizens ARE the sovereign authority of a nation.  All attempts to disarm or restrict the arms of the citizens should be treated as nothing less than an act of Treason.  An armed citizen CAN'T be ignored.  A disarmed subject can be ignored.  Gun Control is a sign of Tyranny.  All ATF agents should be lined up against a wall and shot.

 

Suggestion

The Soviet Union has fallen.  The Cold War is over.  Why not disband NATO and replace it with a common European Union military.  An European Defense Force as it were.

Prediction

President Trump is doing everything he can to prevent the onset of a Second Civil War here in the United States of America.  But it may still happen.

It breaks my heart to witness my nation descend into chaos.

Anniversary

On this day in 709 ab urbe condita the original perpetual dictator was disposed of.  A well known Roman politician had a run in with some pissed off members of the Senate.  Assassination sucks, doesn't it JC?  What some people don't understand is that The State Julius Caesar overthrew was actually worse.

Opinion

Justice consists of getting what you deserve, not receiving what you want.  The absolute last thing the other side wants is justice. Because that would result in their extinction.

Birthday

Evil entered the world.  

L. Ron Hubbard was born on this day in 1911.  L. Ron Hubbard actually conned a rocket scientist.  L. Ron Hubbard helped the Soviets during the Cold War.  L. Ron Hubbard will eventually be remembered as the vile man he actually was.  I'm on public record as calling L. Ron Hubbard a completely useless waste of mass and energy.  When L. Ron Hubbard was receiving a penny a word writing for the pulps Ayn Rand was a world class author who had her work published in hardcover and adapted for motion pictures.  All of Ayn Rand's work is still in print by the New American Library.  Some of L. Ron Hubbard's later literary work is printed by Bridge Publications.  Who owns the New American Library?  The stockholders.  Who owns Bridge Publications?  Bridge Publications is a department of Scientology. 

If you want to see a realm run by Scientologists all one has to do is look at The Third Reich. Scientology has to deny Reality because in reality Hubbard was wrong on many points.

In Objectivism an axiom is a statement that defines the base of knowledge and is a self evident truth. The three axioms of Objectivism are that Existence Exists, that Existence is Identity, and that Consciousness is Identification.  The axioms of Objectivism flatly contradict Scientology in holding that the Universe existed prior to the evolution of consciousness.  That things are what they are regardless of what one chooses to believe.  And that to be conscious is to see things are they truly are without regard to the claims by an self-proclaimed authority figure.   An Objectivist would clearly see that L. Ron Hubbard was putting out complete nonsense and therefore would be classed as a Suppressive Person in the doctrine of Scientology.  Because it's a deliberate body of falsehoods created by a con artist Scientology must hold that the act of identification, which is to see things as they truly are as something that must be forbidden and punished.  And in a world ruled by Scientologists the truly conscious must be be put down with lethal effect. 

We must understand that Scientology isn't a religion.  We must understand that Scientology is a con game invented by L. Ron Hubbard.  We must understand that outside of the Collectivist movement L. Ron Hubbard was one of most vile men who ever lived.  Bad people often believe they're good people.  We saw this with the harassment of Paulette Cooper.  If the United States had a real government Scientology would be treated as the criminal organization it actually is. 

Scientology will eventually become extinct.  L. Ron Hubbard didn't design Scientology to outlast him.  L. Ron Hubbard was wrong about a lot of things.  My first paying job in the private sector was a part time janitorial position at two candy shops in downtown Minneapolis.  Both candy shops had picture windows, Hubbard's method of cleaning windows was NEVER used.

The false prophet L. Ron Hubbard was a piece of excrement (yes, I know I'm insulting excrement) that took advantage of the First Amendment of our Constitution.

I made a proposal on this blog to amend The Constitution:

All religions which deny the validity of the Constitution shall not claim protection under it.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The obvious question that's been raised in the past is why I don't call for a ban on Scientology by name?  A name is only a mental label for the concept.  Even though it appears to be internally forbidden to change the doctrines of Scientology, the doctrines also commands the believer to deceive the victims where necessary.   Thus deception, such as a name change, by a Scientologist will occur.  It's by identifying a specific toxic attribute of Scientology that we can properly exclude it from protection under the First Amendment.  A fundamental attribute of the doctrine of Scientology is the denial of real laws.  The real acts of legislation by real governments that protect the real rights of the people.  In declaring actual laws to be invalid Hubbard opened the door to the commission of a multitude of crimes that would be carried out by Hubbard and other Scientologists for their own personal benefit.  This action's absolutely intolerable in a civil society, in reality the people are the sovereign authority and the sole source of legislation.  In reality Scientology has to go.  In order for us to live a properly Human life we must allow our government to take a proactive role in defending our rights.

Although Scientology is a vexatious litigant and won many civil suits.  Scientology will eventually lose in the court of public opinion.  

 

 

Suggestion

If a Leftist wants to see a potential Totalitarian all that person has to do is look in a mirror.

Opinions

I'm surrounded by people who constantly make mistakes. 

Evil people always posture as good.

There are evil people in my building.  I don't want to live in Parker Skyview anymore.

Anniversary

On March 10, 1982 I enlisted in the United States Army.  The recruiting station was a former service station on the corner of 22th St. and Central Ave.  It was snowing that day.  When anyone at Fort Benning inquired where I was from my usual answer was, "the Soviet Socialist Republic of Minnesota."  The Cold War was on at the time.

Conscience is the expression of the ego in the moral realm.  To make a moral judgment and to act on it are basically selfish acts.  It's the self that sees through its own eyes and acts on its own knowledge of right and wrong.  You couldn't be selfish if you can't live with yourself.  Rational Selfishness as defined and advocated by Ayn Rand was limited to acts which benefited one's self but caused no harm or inflicted a cost on another person.  The narcissist, especially in the political realm, isn't concerned with the injuries and burdens inflicted on other people.  In fact, the more destructive the consequences of obedience to those who obey the narcissist, the better.  Human sacrifice with beating hearts cut out and victims flayed alive, that's great.  Millions worked to death in slave labor camps in Siberia, as far as the narcissist is concerned that's better.  In order for me to say, "I, Leslie Bates, do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America..." I have to say "I". That was my ego speaking when I took the oath of enlistment.

As a combat riflemen (MOS 11 B) I opposed conscription.  I did so in 1982 and I'm doing so now.  Some people have a problem with persons acting on their conscience.  I don't.  When I was enlisted in the United States Army the Army was going though several transitions.  The Army was transitioning from the M1 steel pot to the first generation of the K-pot helmet.  The Army was transitioning from the M60A3 tank to the first generation of the M1 Abrams tank with the 105mm rifled gun.  The Army was transitioning from the M113A1 APC to the first generation of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.  The Army was transitioning from the Huey helicopter to the first generation of the Blackhawk helicopter.

 

More On Leftism

A sudden loss of status and influence is a profound shock to most people who have spent their lives aimed at the acquisition and enjoyment of socio-political standing. Relieved of the ability to shape the consciousness and behavior of others, a certain number unburden themselves of the inner restraints which kept them from openly voicing the condescension and scorn they have for those whom they regard as their social, intellectual, and moral inferiors.

-- Thomas Lifson

Leftists as a general rule are material and/or spiritual parasites.  Because of this they need to feel that they're in control of the hosts that they feed from.  For Leftists, control is life.   Without the apparent certainty that they're in control of the productive population the Left's fear of their own perishing kicks in.

Not that there's anything wrong about that... (Evil Grin)
 

Quote Of The Day

I knew I'd been living in Berkeley too long when I saw a sign that said 'Free firewood" and my first thought was "Who was Firewood and what did he do?'

-- John Berger 

On Leftism

Leftists often deny Reality.

Reform Proposal

Fiscal discipline ended in the Federal Government with the establishment of the Federal Reserve system and the income tax.  The first necessary step in restoring fiscal discipline is to shut down the Federal Reserve System, return to the issuance of a fully gold backed Dollar, and repeal the income tax.  In short the return to the Gold Standard and clearly limited taxation.  This will in turn will halt the inflation of prices for goods and services paid by the both the private sector and all levels of government.  Through this the inevitable increases in the Federal budget can be brought to a halt.

In addition to the practical issues that I've just addressed there is the moral issue.  A promise was made to young men and women to put their lives at mortal risk during the healthiest and most productive years of their lives.  We as a nation have an unbreakable obligation to keep that promise.

There's simply no excuse to violate this promise made in our name.

Now one may ask if the solution to the problems of inflation and the budget deficit is so simple why wont it be implemented?

Because the Federal Reserve System and the income tax were established to facilitate the transfer of wealth from the rightful owners to the politically favored.  The program of the so called Progressive Era is essentially a sophisticated system of subjugation and plunder.  The barbarian mode of life. 

The legalized process of plunder is used to enrich the political class and their close supports and to buy the votes needed to empower them.  They need us to be under their control.  If we as a people are to restore command over our own lives then we must begin by fully separating ourselves from the bipartisan ruling class.

Complaint

The Quarry Bus that I rely on to buy groceries didn't run this week.  I have to rely on unreliable people.

Disagreement

I do have a disagreement with Presiden Trump.  (Yes, Lefties won't believe it, but it's the truth.)  Hillary Clinton must held accountable for her actions in public office.  There's no way around it. 

Opinions

Religion is the denial of Reality. 

Faith and Force always go together.

Marxism is actually a form of faith.

Pro-Hamas people are pro-murder.  Pro-Hamas people are accessories to murder.  

Excuse For Tyranny

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 aren't at all concerned about the actual facts of Reality.   Nor are they concerned about the consequences of their actions.  That we'll 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.

There's no such thing as a valid excuse. 

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 God-Kings 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 TyrannyRights 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

 

Proposal

If I've a complaint about The Republican Party it's that they've shown godlike patience with the behavior of The Democratic Party.  Democrats can assault in public those who won't submit to them, destroy property, call for the mutilation ("Lobotomies for Republicans") of opponents, the murder of elected officials who're carrying out their constitutionally mandated duties, and they'll not lift one finger to hurt a single hair on the otherwise useless head of a Democrat.  I once told an editor that I worked for that we needn't rhetorically dehumanize our opponents all we have to do is accurately describe their ideology and behavior because they've by their own choice dehumanized themselves.

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

 

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

I've proposed starting a new political party.  

If The Republican Party doesn't clean up its act then we as rational citizens will have no choice but to start a new party if we want to peacefully make changes and restore a rational system of government.  Revolutions (real revolutions, not Marxist ones) happen because the government fails to function.  We in the United States are stuck with two political parties.  The leadership of one party is insane and the leadership of the other party simply doesn't care.  Rank and file members now call establishment members a bunch of Vichy Republicans.

Perhaps its time to start a new political party.  Is a new political party possible?

The answer is, I don’t know.  The opponents of chattel slavery proceeded even with public opposition.  We, as opponents of political power, have to.  We need to treat exercises of political power, such as censorship, as crimes against Humanity.  We need to treat bans on firearms and free speech as the anti-Human acts that they actually are.  Our political elites have apparently forgotten the lesson taught by our original civil war, that banning freedom doesn’t work.  Our political elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of alcohol, it didn’t work.  Our political elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of hard drugs, it doesn’t work.  Our political elites will try to ban the voluntary ownership of firearms and freedom of speech, it will never work.  Our politicians are supposed to do a specific job and they aren't doing it.  We have to start a new political party to go around them.  We don't have a choice.

Let's call our new party the Freedom Party.

Will the Freedom Party replace the Democratic Party?

I don't think so.  What's more likely is that the Freedom Party will replace the Republican Party just like the Republicans replaced the Whigs.

It's Happening Again

Why did The Holocaust happen?

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

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

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

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

I have a question for the members of Anti-Fa and BLM: what part of "Never Again" didn't you understand? 

A Repost

I'm reposting this rant.

The Left, and the self styled intelligentsia in particular, stands by and cheers as every new manifestation of barbarism rises and slaughters good people and innocent children. The chattering classes willingly support and serve the enemies of mankind and viciously slander and condemn those who dare to raise a hand in defense of the defenseless. They sit on their fat asses in avant-garde¹ coffee² houses cooking up paranoid conspiracy theories about how Christian Conservatives are planning to exterminate their own particular and pathetic social fringe group.³

But if the stupid conspiracy theories of the Left were true they would all be dead.

Let's see...if we on the Right were to treat the Left the way that Great Comrade Stalin treated anyone he suspected of being an opponent, let alone someone who was an actual opponent, would any of these pathetic lunatics still be breathing, let alone continuing to rant like a mob of mentally disconnected lunatics who are off their meds?

I wouldn't think so.

If Conservatives dealt with the adherents of Libéralisme Moderne the way the Left has dealt with humans in general whenever the Left has obtained unrestrained power, there wouldn't be any Liberals left standing. Of the universities and the urban centers of Liberalism there would be nothing left but smoking ruins, and there would mass graves from coast to coast.

We need to face the fact that the present day Left, like the unschooled barbarians who plagued civilization before them, are essentially parasites. If the Huns or the Mongols were to take "no" for an answer to their demands for food and other material goods they would die very quickly. Control of the productive population is essential for their survival and well being. Compulsion, taking things and persons by force, is inherently necessary to the parasite manner of existence. Those who resisted had to be killed as an object lesson for others.

The Left, our present-day literate post-Marxist barbarians, not only need material support they also need spiritual support as well. They need to feel that their victims are not only submitting to them today but will do so tomorrow as well.

Barbarian chieftains and tribal witch-doctors demanded degrading and often dangerous acts of worship from their subjects, up to and including human sacrifice, in order to assure themselves that they would still have a roof (or a tent) over their heads and food to eat the next day. Those refused to obey were worked over by the goon squad or simply killed.

In the classrooms, editorial offices, and coffee shops of the Left the demand is for unquestioned agreement without regard to the actual facts of reality. The self-styled intellectuals of the Left are the first to demand “speech codes” and other forms of censorship lest they be identified as frauds and poseurs and subsequently bounced out of their comfortable ivory towers, no longer insulated from a real world that demands real thought and real labor.

The Left, being dependent upon others for their sustenance, must stand in opposition to the society of rational consent and openly support systems of compulsion, be it various species of Socialism or the witch-doctor rule of Islam, because to do otherwise is to condemn themselves to death.

Of course, in my view, if the Left would just die it would be nice.


Footnotes:

1. French for advance guard. A military term applied to a the work of Pablo Picasso by a French General.

2. Back during the Cold War some Lefties posed as being morally superior because they were drinking Nicaraguan coffee. Which in reality was grown by forced labor on collective farms. I strongly suspect that there's something equally as sleazy about the current fetish of consuming "fair trade" coffee. Or perhaps they are merely being stupid.

3. For the record, I'm an atheist. 

On Revolution

It's damn good thing the would be assassins missed.  We'd be the middle of a Second American Revolution now.

Phenomena

I keep seeing the same phenomena over and over again.  Those who proclaim themselves to be the good guys are actually the perpetrators of the greatest evils.

 

On Authority

Always question authority WITHOUT exception.

Opposition

Objectivism Versus Scientology:

In Objectivism an axiom is a statement that defines the base of knowledge and is a self evident truth.  The three axioms of Objectivism are that Existence Exists, that Existence is Identity, and that Consciousness is Identification.   The axioms of Objectivism flatly contradict Scientology in holding that the Universe existed prior to the evolution of consciousness.  That things are what they are regardless of what one chooses to believe. And that to be conscious is to see things are they truly are without regard to the claims by an self proclaimed authority figure.  An Objectivist would clearly see that L. Ron Hubbard was putting out complete nonsense and therefore would be classed as a Suppressive Person in the doctrine of Scientology.  Because it's a deliberate body of falsehoods created by a con artist Scientology must hold that the act of identification--which is to see things as they truly are--as something that must be forbidden and punished.  And in a world ruled by Scientologists the truly conscious must be be put down with lethal effect.  

Rant

I have to constantly interact with incompetent people.

History

Why are there no black samurai?

Japan was isolated for several centuries and imported no Africans as slaves.

Another Rant On Islam

If the Big Mo (the false prophet Mohammed) showed up in the United States he would be confined to a mental hospital with a lifetime supply of happy pills.  Given a life sentence.  Or in states with a death penalty given a death sentence.

 

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

I propose a Constitutional amendment:

The People of the United States, being the sovereign authority, shall not be disarmed.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

Another Rant On Gun Control

Some advocates of  Gun Control believe that the American nation would be better off if American citizens were disarmed.  There was a national leader who believed his nation was better off when the citizens were disarmed.  His name was Adolf Hitler.

 

On Marxism

The process of civilization is the removal of force from social relations.  To advocate Marxism is to advocate slavery.  Marxists want to be masters.  That's why Marxists won't emigrate to already Marxist states.  They won't be masters if they do so.

There's only one to deal with a Marxist.  Execute them. 

On Government

Parliamentary Government doesn't work.

An Article

On Extremism
by J.F.A. Davidson


In the wake of publicity surrounding The RESISTER after the Oklahoma City bombing, Togo West, Secretary of the Army, and GEN Sullivan, former Army Chief of Staff, sent official message traffic to all Army activities warning of the dangers of service members participating in or belonging to "extremist" organizations. Their messages were little more than reinterations of AR 600-20, Army Command Policy, Paragraph 4-12, Extremist Organizations. While never mentioning The RESISTER by name, everyone understood the underlying intent. Their motive was clearly designed to smear The RESISTER with the same sloppy rhetoric used by the media to smear patriots and constitutionalists.

The term "extremism" defines exactly nothing. It is a term used to connote an issue no one dare denote. It is a term used by devotees of the cult of moral greyness to 'define' that which they fear the most--principled adherence to truth, morality, and ethics. It is a term used by political moderates to discredit constitutionalists who believe in unalienable individual rights exercised in rational self-interest, the liberty to exercise those rights, and capitalism, which makes possible the acquisition of property--the source of all unalienable rights.

Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1947) defines the word extreme thus: "Ex-treme adj. 1. Being of the highest degree, at best, worst, greatest, etc...." Extreme, then, is a measure of degree. When the word "extreme" is used by political and media smear artists, it is intended to mean an extreme of any degree regardless of its nature. This implication is inherently evil. It means that extreme morality and immorality are equally undesirable; extreme honesty and dishonesty are equally immoral, and extreme virtue and extreme depravity are equally evil.

Defining oneself as a moderate is an admission of being a compromiser and an appeaser. Philosophically, what, then, is the implication of compromise between the truth and a lie? What is the implication of compromise between morality and immorality? What is the ethical implication of compromise between principled action and unprincipled action? The implications are advocacy of lies, immorality, and unprincipled action.

Politically, what is the implication of compromise between unalienable individual rights and collectivism? What is the implication of compromise between liberty and slavery? What is the implication of compromise between capitalism and socialism? The answer is, the same result as the compromise between food and poison--death: the death of unalienable individual rights, the death of liberty, and the death of property. The implications are the advocacy of collectivism, slavery, and socialism.

The term "extremism" is nothing other than a smear; a smear used by self-proclaimed moderates, who have no principles, to defile those who adhere to principled thought and action. It is a terror phrase intended to instill a sense of guilt and uncertainty in the irrational mob by reference to undefined and constantly fluctuating ideological package-deals.

One such package-deal is so-called "white-supremacy." Although racism is implied, the true target of this smear is western culture, (meaning specifically, of course, Anglo-Saxon culture). The deprecation of western culture by moderates notwithstanding, the simple fact they attempt to deny is that if the cumulative impact of minority contributions to western culture were suddenly eliminated from the whole, the advance of western culture would have not been delayed one single day.

Minorities who recognize this fact, those whose rational actions logically embrace the principle of reasoned individual effort as the source of success do, in fact, succeed. Note well that self-appointed minority spokesmen immediately attack those minorities who succeed as traitors to their race! Here, the principle under attack by moderates using the smear "white-supremacy," is reasoned action.

We maintain that race is irrelevant. Rational men are rational men--their skin color is trivia. Irrational men end up exactly where they deserve to be--on the trash-heap.

Another deprecating package-deal term is "isolationism." It is a term used by United Nations one-world socialists, and altruists, to connote lack of selfless concern for the rest of the world. Although no isolationist ever maintained that the rest of the world is of no concern, the smear term "isolationist" is nothing more than a straw man used to misrepresent the principle of patriotism and national self-interest.

The connotation of those who smear others as "isolationists" is that patriotism and national self-interest are evil. Their altruistic goal is to loot the wealth and capital of America and redistribute it to peasants and savages across the world. Their persistent shrieks demanding acceptance of multiculturalism denote nothing less than a demand that a mud hut be viewed as the technological equal of a Skyscraper, a Voodoo priest be given equal status to that of a neurosurgeon, and a story teller be given the same recognition as a literary genius.

We maintain that the premises of one-world socialists, altruists and multiculturalists are unspeakably evil. Productive genius is productive genius--its origin is trivia. Incompetent men deserve exactly what happens to them--failure.

The connotation of those who smear others as "cultists" is that the voluntary freedom of association by individuals is evil. This filthy smear is a direct attack on individual choice, whether that individual choice is rational or irrational.

Philosophically, this smear deliberately sets up the notion that only collective associations are acceptable. All collective associations are, by definition, coercive. They necessarily involve the use of force; either force by fraud, or force at the point of a gun. Politically, this smear is the rationalization of unlimited democracy; the belief that might makes right. This smear is a deliberate assault on the philosophical framework of the First Amendment--uncoerced, voluntary individual choice. The uncoerced voluntary choices of individuals are their own individual responsibility. Collectivists deserve exactly what they advocate--slavery.

Pleas for "moderation" are nothing less than pleas for compromise and appeasement; in other words, the primacy of untruth, immorality, and unethical action. "Moderation" is the abrogation of rights, liberty, and property. "Compromise" is the war cry of evil.

The RESISTER has been smeared by moderates, compromisers and appeasers within the chain of command as an extremist publication. We agree with their assessment-- but not their underlying smear. We admire truth, morality, ethical action, unalienable individual rights, liberty to exercise those rights, and acquisition of the origin of rights and liberty-- -property; meaning, capitalism. In today's political climate our admiration of these philosophical and political values means we hold extreme views. There is no alternative.

There is only one reasonable answer to the question invariably posed by smear artists: "Surely, you don't believe in good and bad, and think in terms of black and white?" The answer is: "You're damn right I do!"

 

On Culture

Reason is replacing irrationality in our culture.

Purpose

The purpose of Republican Party when it was founded in 1854 was to oppose slavery.  When slavery was outlawed with the end of the Civil War the Republican Party ceased to have a purpose.

Quote

"Do not use foreign words in narrative to show your erudition. Phonies like to stud their conversation with foreign words. If you do that in narrative, you, the author, will sound like a phony."

-- Ayn Rand, The Art of Fiction.

On Political Correctness

Political Correctness isn't correct.  "Get Woke, Go Broke," isn't just a slogan, it's a fact of reality.  Political Correctness is easy to correct.  Some people (like myself) call it the Saigon Special.  

On Falling

It was once estimated that nations and empires last about 260 years.  By this standard the United States Of America would expected to fall at about 2036 AD.

Opinions

There's no excuse for bad behavior. 

The simple unevadable fact of reality in my own personal view is that Environmentalists are nothing less than Enemies of Mankind.  And it's about time that they're dealt with as such,

Tyrants ALWAYS have popular support.

When I was in the Army I used to tell other people that I was from the Soviet Socialist Republic of Minnesota.

Voting Republican is at best a rear guard action.  

Atheists must separate themselves from Karl Marx and the doctrine of Marxism.
 

Gun Control And History

There was once an attempt to prohibit the consumption of alcohol.  Prohibition didn't work and had to be repealed.  Gun Control will NEVER work.  Unfortunately many Americans will die in the attempt.

Understanding

All Scientology offers are chains.

 

On Authority

Authority is an intellectual shortcut.  The Donner Party followed a path that an authority claimed was shorter than the standard path.  The path they followed was in fact longer.  The Donner Party was caught by a snowfall and had resort to cannibalism.  Questioning Authority can save your life. 

Rant On Islam

Did I say that Islam sucks? 

Islam has to be denounced as the absolute nonsense that it is.

Quotes Of The Day

"Nature abhors a moron."

 

— H. L. Mencken, 1949 

 

"In the end, the difference between a mugger and a Nazi concentration camp commander is the scale, not the mindset."

 

-- Oleg Volk, 2011 

 

 

On Racial Collectivism

Compromising with Racial Collectivist groups such as Black Lives Matter or the National Socialist German Workers Party is NEVER an option. 

Members of Black Lives Matter believe they're victims and practice Racial Collectivism.  Gee, Gosh, Wow, where have we've seen this belief before?  If Black Lives Matter wants to practice Racial Collectivism, let's treat them as Racial Collectivists.  In the Nuremberg fashion, hang them from the neck until they're dead.  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.  Antisemitism is a clear sign that all of Humanity is being attacked.  Rejection of Racial Collectivism shouldn't be a radical idea.

 

Excuse For Tyranny

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 aren't at all concerned about the actual facts of Reality.   Nor are they concerned about the consequences of their actions.  That we'll 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.

There's no such thing as a valid excuse. 

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 God-Kings 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 TyrannyRights 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

 

Proposal

f I've a complaint about The Republican Party it's that they've shown godlike patience with the behavior of The Democratic Party.  Democrats can assault in public those who won't submit to them, destroy property, call for the mutilation ("Lobotomies for Republicans") of opponents, the murder of elected officials who're carrying out their constitutionally mandated duties, and they'll not lift one finger to hurt a single hair on the otherwise useless head of a Democrat.  I once told an editor that I worked for that we needn't rhetorically dehumanize our opponents all we have to do is accurately describe their ideology and behavior because they've by their own choice dehumanized themselves.

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

 

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

I've proposed starting a new political party.  

If The Republican Party doesn't clean up its act then we as rational citizens will have no choice but to start a new party if we want to peacefully make changes and restore a rational system of government.  Revolutions (real revolutions, not Marxist ones) happen because the government fails to function.  We in the United States are stuck with two political parties.  The leadership of one party is insane and the leadership of the other party simply doesn't care.  Rank and file members now call establishment members a bunch of Vichy Republicans.

Perhaps its time to start a new political party.  Is a new political party possible?

The answer is, I don’t know.  The opponents of chattel slavery proceeded even with public opposition.  We, as opponents of political power, have to.  We need to treat exercises of political power, such as censorship, as crimes against Humanity.  We need to treat bans on firearms and free speech as the anti-Human acts that they actually are.  Our political elites have apparently forgotten the lesson taught by our original civil war, that banning freedom doesn’t work.  Our political elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of alcohol, it didn’t work.  Our political elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of hard drugs, it doesn’t work.  Our political elites will try to ban the voluntary ownership of firearms and freedom of speech, it will never work.  Our politicians are supposed to do a specific job and they aren't doing it.  We have to start a new political party to go around them.  We don't have a choice.

Let's call our new party the Freedom Party.

Will the Freedom Party replace the Democratic Party?

I don't think so.  What's more likely is that the Freedom Party will replace the Republican Party just like the Republicans replaced the Whigs.