On Leftism

Once force is openly used against those who speak out against The Left then the gloves will come off and force WILL be openly used against The Left.   Once The Left openly repudiates the rules for living in a civil society then their victims will no longer see themselves as subject to those same rules.  Or to put it another way to The Left, break the rules of civil society and you'll leave us no choice but to break you.  It's called a civil war.  Cars with bumper stickers, tee-shirts, and other examples of open posturing will make target identification very easy.

What part of Liberty or Death does The Left persist in not understanding?

It's generally considered to be bad form (except to The Left) to advocate violence against someone simply because of their political views.  But if some Leftist thug finds him or her self staring at the muzzle of an assault rifle it's because the stupid Leftist put him or her self there.  The truth isn't a Leftist strong point. 

On Politics

The fact is that all forms of authority are based on knowledge and political authority is no exception.  But in the present system political authority is granted to any warm body without regard to their the actual state of knowledge.  As a result some warm bodies have traded their votes for a material object such as a thinket or a wad of cash.  Or worse they've traded their votes for the warm and fuzzy feeling of having been compassionate.  The result is the present state of our nation.  Those who lack knowledge or simple concern for consequences shouldn't have authority over another person, let alone the fate of a nation.

Opinions

I'm surrounded by idiots in the Parker Skyway Building. 

Joe Biden killed me.

 

Socialism In Action

As described by Leonard Peikoff (Ph.D) in The Ominous Parallels the vision of the American Left is essentially National Socialism without the Aryan frills.  Of course in the Socialist mentality ignorance is a fundamental strength.  When I attended the NRA convention held in Minneapolis decades ago an ignorant girl child in riding in a passing car screamed the word “Murderer” at me.  As I was in normal street clothes two blocks from the Convention Center the clearly ignorant girl child couldn't have reached a valid identification on sight alone.
 

Prediction

President Trump is in his mid seventies.  I'd expect him to drop dead soon.

On Gun Control

In my opinion the word NO is the most important word in the English language.  In my opinion the refusal of a citizen to submit to demand has to be backed by deadly force.  A firearm is an instrument of deadly force.  A firearm is a tool.  Nothing more or nothing less.  Those who seek to disarm American citizens and leave them helpless are essentially traitors. 

On Toleration

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

On Atheism

There's atheism and then there's Atheism.

Mere atheism is simply disbelief in the divine and as such isn't a holy cause to which all other actions are subordinated  Nor is it an affirmative virtue which cancels out all other personal faults.  Whereas Atheism with the big "A" takes what's otherwise a simple philosophical position and blows it up into an illusion of positive virtue.  Atheism with a big "A" allows dull and ordinary people to feel and pose as if they were somehow superior to the mass of humanity.  Atheism with a big "A" also provides reactionary garbage such as the Marxists a means to pose as some kind of progressive vanguard when in fact they're simply putting a philosophical polish on the neolithic practice of beating up and killing people and taking their stuff.

As a mere atheist all I have to say to the big "A" professional Atheists is, "go home, grow up, and get a life!"

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 then let's treat them as Racial Collectivists.  In the Nuremberg fashion, hang them from the neck until 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. 

 (Image by Mark Urbin)

 

Personal History

I've been betrayed numerous times.

Bureacracy Inaction

The bureaucracy of the United States Army wasn't as bad as the bureaucracy of the Social Security Administration.

The Unpunished Crime Of William Jefferson Clinton

We identify The Holocaust as the evil act it actually was.  But we're looking at The Holocaust objectively.  From the subjective viewpoint the perpetrators of The Holocaust believed they were the good people doing good things and that their victims were evil.  We, the advocates of Liberty take the objective position and identify The Waco Massacre as the act of state terror that it actually was.  But the common narrative has taken the subjective point of view and identifies the perpetrators of massacre as the good guys.

 What has happened is a clearly unpunished crime.

 Here's two thousand words why I will never vote for The Democratic Party.

There's a right way to with deal someone like Koresh and it wasn't followed.  An Objectivist has to oppose David Koresh and his followers, but was it necessary to kill them?  No.

Today is the anniversary of the event commonly known as the Waco Massacre.

What happened?

The local office of the BATF received a report of automatic weapons fire at the residence of Branch Davidians outside of Waco, Texas.  No inquiry was made with the local law enforcement agencies.  Nor did they as allowed under the current regulations send agents out to inspect the federally licensed firearms dealer residing on the site.  And they could've arrested Koresh as he made his morning run but didn't do so.   With his past history of cooperation with local law enforcement they could've simply asked him to come down to the local sheriff’s station.  Instead they attempted to stage a military style assault, code named Operation Showtime, in order to impart a positive impression of the agency upon the current administration in Washington.  Some Federal bureaucrats apparently wanted to feel important.  After the task force was driven off the Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI descended upon the Branch Davidians and laid siege to the residence.

On April 19th the HRT used armored vehicles to destroy the exits from the building and to allow the wind to blow through it and then injected CS gas, known to be inflammable and toxic to children and elderly persons, into the wooden structure.  The HRT fired CS rounds, which are incendiary devices into, the building.  A tactic to commit mass murder used by the SS-Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Russia was to confine civilians, especially women and children, in wooden buildings and set the structures on fire.  To this day the perpetrators remain at large or have been allowed to die in peace.

 

The U.S. Army rifle platoon I trained with in 1982 could have secured the structure without killing any of the children or the elderly adults.  Yes it was possible that some of us actual soldiers could have been wounded or killed in the action.  But that's part of the hazards of the job. 

The Waco Massacre was a demonstration on the part of Big Bubba of the existence of the means to carry out Marxist style state terror and the existence of the will to use it.

 

There are some who believe that because I don't believe in God or Jesus Christ I shouldn't object to the Waco Massacre.  But from an objective perspective an act of state terror, like the Waco Massacre, remains an act of state terror.

The other anniversary today is of the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.  Timothy McVeigh who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing was a white racial collectivist and was acting out the white racial warrior martyrdom fantasy depicted in The Turner Diaries.

The novel, if I recall reading it correctly, depicts the conquest and subjugation of the white population of the United States by a self appointed elite group that called itself "The Order."  All non-whites, including Jews, were exterminated.  Any white person who refused to obey The Order was executed as a race traitor.  The actions of The Order as depicted in the novel were very much like the practice of Islam without the claim of divine sanction.  Unlike today's political Right, but like all known collectivists, such as the National Socialists of Germany, The Order rejected all of the Rights of Man and killed anyone who served no place in their collective.  Fortunately, I read it on a website where the text was posted. So apart from the fee for Internet access, I didn't have to pay a cent to read it.  I would later describe the experience of reading it as being the intellectual equivalent of the act of swimming in raw sewage.  The website and text is gone now.  I think this is somewhat unfortunate because I believe that no rational person should have to pay a cent for the privilege of reading a book that calls for their own murder.

.
I reposted on THE NEW RESISTER an article about the Waco Massacre that was originally published on the Libernet Mailing List in 1993.

A Reminder

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

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

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

 

Just A Reminder

Thanks again to Mark Urbin.

 

Fact Of Reality

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

Thanks to Mark Urbin for the first image. 

 

 

Something I Learned

Something most folks don't realize is that the Grunge look that was popular was actually invented by the German Communist playwright Bertholt Brecht.  This comrade had a West German publisher, an Austrian passport, a Swiss bank account, and an East German theater company with hot and cold running actresses.

Nice work if you can get it.

The Concept Of Democracy

Some believers in Democracy are rioting and committing acts of Vandalism.  They're doing this out of their belief in Democracy.

Is there ANYTHING Democrats won't believe in? 

There is.  Democrats won't believe in Individual Liberty.

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

 

Peace Activism

Peace Activists have to imagine they're good people because in Reality they aren't.  The suffering of the conquered mean nothing to them.  They just want to feel positive about themselves.  They don't think rationally.  They're emotional.  The Soviets used to call them Useful Idiots.

This Is Really Sick

From an interview of L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. in Penthouse magazine:

Penthouse: And what about this Labor Party official?


Hubbard: He was a double agent for the KGB and for the British intelligence agency. He was also a raging homosexual. He wanted my father to use his black-magic, soul-cracking, brainwashing techniques on young boys. He wanted these boys as his own sexual slaves. He wanted to use my father's techniques to crack people's heads open because he was very influential in and around the British government --plus he was selling information to the Russians. And so was my father.


Penthouse: Your father was selling information to the Soviets?


Hubbard: Yes. That's where my father got the money to buy St. Hill Manor in East Grinstead, Sussex, which is the English headquarters of Scientology today.


Penthouse: What information did your father have to sell the Soviet government?

Hubbard: He didn't do any spying himself. What he normally did was allow these strange little people to go into the offices and into his home at odd hours of the night. He told me that he was allowing the KGB to go through our files, and that he was charging £40,000 for it. This was the money he used for the purchase of St. Hill Manor.


Penthouse: Do you know any specific information that the KGB got from your father that might have been harmful to security?


Hubbard: The plans for an infrared heat-seeking missile in the early fifties. They obtained the information by extensive auditing of the guy who was one of the head engineers. There were great infiltrations clear to this day. There has always been an inordinate interest on the part of Scientology in military and government personnel. There's no way for me to prove it sitting here, but I believe that the KGB trained East German agents who came via Denmark to London to the United States who were, supposedly, Scientologists. They made very good Scientologists. They were very well trained.


Penthouse: Did your father do this just for money?


Hubbard: Yes. The more he made, the more he wanted. He became greedy. He was really just interested in the use of money and power, wherever it was or whosoever's it was. Morality and politics made no difference to him at all.

As all you loyal readers know I also hate traitors.

Here's another excerpt from the LRH, Jr. Interview:

Penthouse: What was the first example you can remember of your father's espionage activity?


Hubbard: I remember one day in 1944 when he came home from the naval base where he was stationed in Oregon with a big, gray metal box under his arm. He put in our little attached garage and put a tarp over it. That weekend a couple of funny little guys came over to the house. I remember it was summer and they were wearing heavy woolen overcoats --dark brown overcoats. It stuck in my mind: what are they doing wearing overcoats when it's hotter than hell? I was only about ten at the time. Anyway, these big, sweating guys take the box and put in in their car and drive off. But before they'd come, I'd snuck a look in the box. It had this strange-looking object in it. I didn't know what the hell it was. Later on, in the fifties, I was walking through a war surplus store and I suddenly saw an object that was just like the one I'd seen in the box. It was the heart of the radar. During the war --when those men took it from our garage --it was super-secret, super-valuable, worth thousands of dollars. I remember that people were told to commit suicide if it ever got captured in order to blow it up.

Then, in 1955, I went to work in the Scientology office in London. I noticed a woman in the office doing strange things with strange people in the office, so I investigated her. I found out she was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. I got very angry at her and broke into her apartment, where I found dozens of little code pads. They looked like little milk pads with a whole mess of letters and numbers on them. I had people follow her to the Russian Embassy. I finally wrote a long report to my father about her. He was furious. He told me not to investigate anymore, not to write anymore, not to tell anyone what I had found out, to destroy all my evidence. I yelled at him, "The goddamn Russians are running around the office and doing God knows what." He yelled back. "I want'em there!" He told me that she was placed there by the KGB with his knowledge and consent. This really bothered me. My grandfather, who was a lieutenant commander in the navy, had impressed me with his red-white-and-blue honor and integrity. He was an officer of the old school. 180 degrees different from my father, in fact, I credit him a great deal with my ability to get rid of Scientology and get my head straightened out, because his patriotism had gotten through to me and made me sour on what my father was doing in dealing with the Russians.

 

 

 

A Concept

When someone says God can't speak for himself a limitation is being placed on God.  All self proclaimed prophets are saying God can't speak for himself.  In my opinion this is wrong.

Imagine

Imagine for a moment that President Trump has been assassinated.

Do you seriously believe that there would be NO political changes as a result?  There will be political change.  It'll be carried out over the dead bodies of everyone who wanted President Trump dead.  Including you if necessary.

Thought For The Day

I do have a disagreement with President 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. 

Murderer

 

Of course not!

Your president is someone who unleashes you to murder anyone you want!  President Trump won't allow that.  He wouldn't allow you to kill anyone you want.  You're just another murderer who wants to kill without a proper consequence.

 

On Totalitarianism

The doctrine of Totalitarianism holds Human life in absolute contempt and sees people as things to be used or destroyed.  Over the last decades Totalitarians have enslaved numerous nations and murdered tens of millions of people.  Surrender to such people, regardless of the circumstances is simply not an option.

On Marxism

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

On Racial Collectivism

Racial characteristics aren’t chosen and therefore should be irrelevant to human actions.  What’s subject to choice is a person’s beliefs and the actions derived from those beliefs.  For the record McVeigh himself was a Racial Collectivist who rejected human rights and human reason.  As a result he rejected human reality.  The actual Patriot Movement at that time fully rejected McVeigh, his beliefs, and his actions.  This rejection was based on the actual moral values that were actually chosen.

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 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.

 

On Statism

The Statist leader refuses to be subject to any legal restraints nor do they pay heed to any superior authority.  Their victims, those persons who're to be subjected to their whims must be silenced and disarmed. This is nothing new the military arm, be it a sword, a pike or a firearm, is the symbol and instrument of political authority.  The citizens of a free nation armed and ready to defend their lives and liberties have a commanding voice which a politician may ignore only at their peril.  Augustus Caesar understood this when he depoliticized the citizen body of the Roman Republic by replacing the citizen militia based army of the republic with a mercenary force loyal to himself. 

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?