Sunday, December 30, 2012

So On And So Forth

At World Net Daily, a notoriously Christian news site, they are asking the question:
Are today's baby names abandoning Bible?
Let's ask the real question: Are more Americans accepting the fact that reality is real?

The fact of the matter is that all religions are false. No amount of whining or coercion will change this. In order to ascend to the height of civilization that we have reached we had to culturally compartmentalize our religion to Sunday Morning. Some people, myself included, are now taking the next logical step and dropping religion altogether. In all aspects of their lives.

But, as some Christians are whining, without obeying God everything will descend into chaos and destruction.


Because God is an invalid concept we have no alternative but to accept responsibility for our own lives and actions. We will have to see things as they are and live according to the actual requirement of human life.

And the clergy will have to find real jobs.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

A Letter To The Mayor Of Minneapolis

Your Honor,

Since I moved into the Parker Skyview building in early November I have been subjected to overwhelming noise emitted from the adjacent apartment. I have repeatedly called the police to intervene to no practical effect. As of Christmas Eve I was notified by the watch commander at the Second Precinct that they will no longer respond to my complaints about the noise issue.

Are we now living in a state of anarchy?

Yours respectfully,

Leslie Bates
Philosophical questions. More fun than a baseball bat to the head. (EVIL GRIN)

And some people still wonder why I still vote straight Republican.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Thought For The day

If you want to predict what will be said by the democratic Party and their media prostitutes, all you have to do is take any statement by an old school Nation Socialist, cross out the word "Jew" and write in the words "Gun Owner."

That's how depraved and predictable they have become.

Friday, December 21, 2012

An Answer

During a discussion on gun control Harry Binswanger raised the following question:

If the majority wants a certain government, how is the minority going to defeat them with guns? The majority will have more guns.

That's a good and necessary question.

If all it took to construct a building was to stack stones upon each other there would be no science of architecture and no point in writing The Fountainhead.

If all it took to fight a war was to use brute force without rational input there would be no science of warfare or any such thing as a military organization.

If all factors were equal in warfare then a simple majority of combatants would win every time. But in reality all factors are never equal. Thus the purpose of military science is to identify the factors that favor one side or the other and use or negate those factors to one’s advantage.

A book that covers this process is The Myth Of The Great War by John Mosier. In this work the author explains how the Central Powers managed to avoid defeat until the American entry into the WW1 even though they were outnumbered by the Allies.

Mosier also covers the role of the active mind in warfare:

Over at Pershing's headquarters, young ex-cotton dealer turned intelligence officer, Samuel Hubbard, looked at all the available information and concluded that the Germans were going to turn south, and launch an offensive across the Chemin des Dames at the end of May. Despite the fact that the Allied intelligence estimates had been continuously wrong for the last forty-five months of the war, Hubbard's analysis was disregarded. How could the Americans, who had just arrived on the scene, be better then the French and the British, who had been doing for it for years?

Mosier, who up to this point had been cataloging the effects of the unconscious approach to war as practiced by the Allied powers, says this:

On 27 May 1918, The Germans, to the consternation and surprise of everyone except Captain Hubbard, smashed across the ridge.

In order to succeed in business one has to possess valid knowledge and use an active mind. The same in true in the practice of warfare as demonstrated by Captain Hubbard. In warfare the active mind with valid knowledge as a general rule will prevail over those who practice blind obedience.

Now I must also point out that as long as one free to communicate then one is free to persuade members of a political majority that they have made an error.

And of course not everyone who votes for a state of tyranny, particularly if they've been bribed into it, is going to put their lives on the line for it. Right?

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Another Nihilist Touches A Keyboard

If there was such a work as Introduction To Kantian Epistemology the complete text could be boiled down to three words: Reality is unreal.

For example, William A. Jacobson, a professor at the Cornell University Law School, reported the following on one of his blogs:

Erik Loomis is an assistant professor of American history at the University of Rhode Island. He also blogs at “Lawyers Guns and Money” blog.

In reaction to the murders in Connecticut, Loomis tweeted that he had never been so angry except maybe for the invasion of Iraq (I guess 9/11 was chopped liver to him), and that he wanted the NRA chief’s “head on a stick”:

Now to the non-Kantian mind this constitutes a literal call for an act of murder. Having been outed as a would be murderer Loomis then attempts to rhetorically cover his backside:

Dear right-wing morons, saying you "want someone's head on a stick" is a metaphor. I know metaphor is hard for you to understand.

Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don't want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life.

Well why didn't he just say so? Would it be too clear?

Those of us who treat reality as being real learned a hard lesson back in the Twentieth Century. It was believed by many the when Hitler spoke of clearing the Jews from Europe that he was speaking metaphorically. It was when the Allied armies liberated the death camps that we discovered that Hitler was speaking literally.

To us who are not under the influence of Kant and in fact value our lives, a call for an act of murder has to be taken literally. There is simply no other morally valid option.

Having been outed as a would be murderer Loomis then backtracks and says he would settle for an act of tyranny. That he would settle for Wayne LaPierre to be imprisoned for life.

Punishing a man for an act he did not commit is unjust. Imprisoning a man for speaking the truth is tyrannical. Disarming the citizens -- who are the sovereign authority of the nation -- is treason.

To say anything more would require the extensive use of barracks language.


A nihilist calling himself the Rude Pundit posted the following on Twitter:

First [expletive] to say the solution is for elementary school teachers to carry guns needs to get beaten to death.

In other words someone, such as myself, who suggests the obviously rational solution to irrational behavior is to be crudely murdered.

My name is Leslie Bates, I live at 1815 Central Avenue, Apartment 2313, in North East Minneapolis. I was trained by the United Sates Army to kill Marxist trash with my bare hands at the Benning School For Boys.

I routinely patronize the Diamonds Coffee Shop just down the street. Try to murder me and see what happens. If you insist on behaving like a Brownshirt, I will identify and treat you as one.

Have a nice day.


Erik Loomis has just deleted his own Twitter account.

Poor baby. WAAAH!

Oy Vay!

After I posted an article on my blog explaining why a citizen needs to armed someone named Stephen Paul sent a very long and complete waste of text into my e-mail box via Google Plus.

In his waste of text -- I won't dignify it by calling it a rant or a keyboard dropping, nor will I quote any part of it even with the obscenities along with the racial and sexual preference slurs deleted -- he declared that I was a non-sentient animal who had no political authority as a citizen and no right to be armed.

I managed to boil down his message to the essential point in about one percent of the verbiage.

So what of it? If I am a mindless animal who is under the control of a master, why send me a message? If I'm not thinking for myself I certainly won't examine my own beliefs based on the mass of unnecessary verbiage and expletives that was transmitted.
Nor will I be impressed by his command of obscenities.

Instead of being positively impressed by this display of mental posturing I would have to come to the conclusion that Stephen Paul is an idiot.

I in turn reported his message to Google Plus as an example for hate speech.

What else could I do?

Monday, December 17, 2012

A Photo And A Question

Pamela Geller shows us how school children are protected in Israel.

Yes, that's a teacher protecting her students with a firearm.

What we have here is a solution to the problem that is simple and obvious. Except of course to those who are mentally stuck in the Kantian reality-is-unreal paradigm. But the Founders of the American Republic were not anticipating the presence of lunatics and Muslims running around and slaughtering children.

Why did they write in a right to bear arms in the Constitution?

My answer to the question is simply this: WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereign authority of the United States of America.

There are several natural consequences of the political primacy of the citizen. I'll just cover the first two here:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First, the citizen as the sovereign authority must be free to examine the facts for himself and communicate his conclusions to his fellow citizens. He cannot be compelled to believe a falsehood and therefore act on it.

Second, the citizen as the sovereign authority must possess the physical instrument of political authority and be prepared to use it. The ballot that is cast by the citizen, like the paper currency in common use, must be backed by a physical value.

The government must be subordinate to the sovereign authority, the citizens of the nation. And citizens must have the knowledge and the means to enforce their authority.

Contrary to what the practicing Kantians want us to believe, the first four words of the Second Amendment does not constitute a license to disarm the citizens and render them helpless in the face of a supreme state. It means that the citizens must be armed, trained, and organized to enforce their authority upon the government.

Now no rational person wants a civil war in our nation, but if the government would simply comply with the Constitution it wouldn't be necessary.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Sunday, December 16, 2012

A Larger Problem

On Friday I posted a response on my blog to the religious ravings of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. The link to the initial response is here.

At the time I was focused on Huckabee's commitment to theism. I missed the larger problem. This problem is simply contempt for the rights of the individual.

Life is the fundamental moral value. But to live in human mode of life does not mean mere physical existence. The human way of life requires conscious rational control of it. Freedom is the next step in the hierarchy of moral values. Because violence against men can only be stopped by force it becomes necessary to establish the institution of government to place the use of force under rational control.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People," not God, or Der Volk, et cetera, are the sovereign authority on whose behalf the government is established. With those three words the primacy of the citizen over the government is established.

The primacy of the citizen over the government required the right to speak and publish the facts and the right of the citizen to bear arms. As a result we also gained freedom from a religion being imposed on us, and a rational system of justice.

So far, so good. But from the very first day others, out of a desire for material or spiritual benefit, sought to overturn the primacy of the citizen in favor of the dominance of the state.

The desire for material benefit led to the Dred Scott decision, in which the citizens of the free states of the union were stripped of their authority to ban the practice of slavery in their own home states. This set the stage for the Civil War.

The desire for spiritual benefit (or the warm fuzzy feeling of the same) led to Prohibition. In this case the citizens were stripped of their right to decide to consume or not consume alcohol and were effectively reduced to the status of cattle under state control. Defiance and contempt for the rule of law became the order of the day and another result was the vast growth of organized crime.

But the worst was yet to come.

Combining both a desire for both material gain and spiritual dominance came the self-styled Progressives. Although there was some lining of the pockets on the part of the Progressives their primary goal was political control. Political looting was simply a means of buying the votes of the corrupted voters.1

Even before the onset of Prohibition the Progressives had gained control of the public schools and had replaced education for citizenship as the sovereign authority with John Dewey's plan for programming children to morally devalue themselves and to be drones in the Progressive collective.2

Huckabee, in calling for the return of religious indoctrination to the public schools is not advocating an valid alternative to the inherent nihilism of Progressive programming. But simply wishes to replace blind obedience to the collective with blind obedience to God.3 In doing so he has accepted the fundamental Progressive premise and is facilitating their program. He is not upholding life as a moral value but is instead taking part in the destruction of the rational way of life.

And if Huckabee is going to claim that we as humans must obey God regardless of the consequences he may as well go all the way and convert to Islam.

But then Huckabee isn't the religious conservative idiot to facilitate the goals of the Left.4

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

1. What can I say? It apparently works for them.

2. When I was a contributor to THE RESISTER we referred to the public schools as Dewey Camps.

3. Here's my rant of the year on the subject of God.

4. There was William F. Buckley, Jr.

Furthermore I was kicked off the Baen's Bar forum for rudely responding to something said by one of their published authors. A religious conservative.

Quote Of The Day

Post Of The Day

For the record, Tom Kratman wrote a piece of Neo-Nazi war porn.

Here's a review.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Brain Death Case Of The Day.

A conservative is being disgusting as usual:

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee attributed the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in part to restrictions on school prayer and religious materials in the classroom.

"We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools," Huckabee said on Fox News, discussing the murder spree that took the lives of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown, CT that morning. "Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?"

Law enforcement has released few details on the alleged gunman, but Huckabee suggested that the separation of church and state may have spurred his rampage.

"[W]e've made it a place where we don't want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability -- that we're not just going to have be accountable to the police if they catch us, but one day we stand before, you know, a holy God in judgment," Huckabee said. "If we don't believe that, then we don't fear that."

He said those suffering from a crisis from faith should look to God in the community's response to the violence. But he added that "Maybe we ought to let [God] in on the front end and we wouldn't have to call him to show up when it's all said and done at the back end."
Where do I start?

Better yet, I'll let an ancient Greek philosopher start for me:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

– Epicurus
In short, if there was a God, then why did this act of mass murder happen?

Why did ANY act of mass murder happen?


"Why God, did you allow all this to happen?"

In reply to these questions there is only silence.

There is no reply because there is no God.

Earlier this year I went on a long rant on the subject of God:

At no time in the fifty one years of my life have I ever come into physical or visual contact with God. I have never EVER received a message from God. No phone calls. No letters or other junk mail through the U.S. Postal Service. Not even an e-mail from god@god.god, even though he should be able to get something through the spam filter.

Nothing. At. All.

I simply have no reason to believe in the existence of God.

In the Collectivist dogma presently taught in the public schools a person had no rights because that person belonged to the collective. One could actually see a mob of looters and be seduced by the promise of real loot.

According to religious dogma you are the property of God and must obey him. You are not allowed to make moral decisions on your own. Regardless of the actual facts of reality.

But what do religious conservatives offer as a reward for obedience?


Nothing. At. All.

In fact religion does not teach us anything about reality and how to live in it. Religion is pure nonsense.

That's all that I will say today.

Sunday, December 09, 2012

Friday, December 07, 2012

Thought For The day

If today's editorial staff of the New York Times were in charge seventy one years ago the headline would read:


And the U.S. Navy and Army would be editorially denounced for racist violence against them.

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

An Icon For Altruism

While going through some old stuff after I moved into another apartment I found a hard copy of a draft of my obituary for Diana Spencer, The Princess of Wales. This was intended for publication in THE RESISTER, but the editor Sergeant First Class Steven Barry of the Third Special Forces Group, rewrote it and in doing so completely dropped the basic premise and even got her maiden name wrong.

Needless to say after this I stopped writing for THE RESISTER.

DIANA: A Wasted Life [The revision so far]

By Leslie Bates

One of the things I do for my own selfish pleasure is to take a sketchbook and a drafting pencil and draw. For the last fifteen years the second favorite subject of my work was the late Princess of Wales. So when Andrew Morton’s biography of Diana was originally published I purchased a copy. It took me four months to work up the nerve to finish the first chapter. I did not (and no rational egoist would) enjoy the spectacle of seeing a soul being crushed by a band of witch doctors. (When I first read this my thought was. “If this is how the ruling class educates their children then it’s no wonder that England is rapidly becoming a third world country.”)

To properly become an adult, a child must gain moral knowledge, to know what human life is and how to live it. What Diana received as a child was close to pure poison. Her parents sent her to a boarding school. The Church of England’s version of a Dewey Camp. Here she was pounded with the doctrines that selflessness was the moral ideal. That sacrifice and obedience were virtues. That independent judgement was evil. And that her mind was impotent to deal with material existence. Her mind thus mangled , it should have been no surprise that her life was mangled as well.

Diana became a Second Hander, someone who avoids moral judgement and is dependent on others for guidance. To avoid judgement is to suspend consciousness. It is to effectively shut down the mind and enter the mental equivalent of a state of death. It should not be a surprise that Diana would shortly become physically dead.

Diana was told that the royal family was the pinnacle of civilized existence. A rational person would have seen the royals as a useless remnant of a barbaric tradition, and that the monarch had become nothing more than ta hand puppet for the ruling party. No sane woman would condemn her children to such a fate.

During her engagement Diana discovered that her fiancee was a pragmatist who had an active sexual affair with an already married woman and who had no intention of breaking off the affair. A rational woman would have dumped the sniveling piece of hominid garbage on the spot. Diana asked her sisters for advice and was told to go through with the marriage out of duty.

[Insert paragraph on being an icon for altruism]
[Insert paragraph on third world savages]

All a rational woman had to avoid the aforementioned horrors was simply to say: “No. This is wrong. I won’t do it.” To do so requires a valid knowledge of moral standards, and for her to know that she was right to exercise moral judgement. It is not enough to know that there is an alternative to a particular course of action. One must know that the alternative is correct.

SFC Barry radically cut down the text to basically call her a drunken slut. As I said, I stopped writing for his publication.

Question Of The Day

Why does the Left openly support Islam?

Both Islam and Marxism were concocted by the uberparasites of their times, Karl the First Trustifarian and the Big Moh'. Both doctrines must deny the Right to Life -- and thus the subsidiary Rights of Liberty, Property, Free Speech, Et Cetera -- of all persons. Both ideologies must do so in order to establish and maintain the reign of terror and death, in order to control and exploit the productive population, that their parasitic adherents need to sustain their otherwise useless lives. To accept the concept of the Right to Life that underlies the society of consent is for the Marxist and the Mullah the first step in an act of suicide.

So it should be no surprise that the Left is coming out in favor of silencing the critics of Islam. They feel that the enemy of their enemy is something they can use.