Reason

Why is Scientology dying?

My explanation is that the policies of the founder, L. Ron Hubbard, are toxic.  Hubbard never accounted for his own demise in all of policy letters to Scientology.  On no account were any designated successor of Hubbard (David Miscavige WASN’T a designated successor) were to contradict Hubbard on any point of doctrine.  No one could promulgate any “research” that contradicted Hubbard on any point of doctrine.  The body of doctrines that come under heading of Fair Game are clearly toxic to victims of Scientology and thus to Scientology as an organization.

Actions always have consequences. 

 

Enemy Of Mankind

This is what a tweet from an Enemy Of Mankind looks like.

Opinions

If you want to know who's ruling you just identify who isn't prosecuted.

Name a Palestinian leader other than Yassir Arafat.  You can't because the state Palestine never actually existed.

On Censorship

Those who believe they're the victims and their opponents don't have a right to speak may in fact be the villains.  If a political opponent isn't allowed to speak then good people wont know how to counter the person.  Censorship is the negation of the human mind.  As rational thought is necessary to living a human life the censor, and those who demand it, are Enemies of Mankind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decision

 

National Holiday

On this day in 1620 some colonists celebrated the survival of their own stupidity.

The Pilgrims were Christian fanatics.  As a result they believed everything Jesus Christ preached, including the doctrine of Socialism.  As economic equality is actually impossible, the Pilgrims would have died off.  But the Native Americans intervened and fed the Pilgrims then taught them how to grow food.  Only a fool or fanatic could believe in the doctrine of Socialism.

Ayn Rand said that Thanksgiving was a celebration of successful production.  But was it actually necessary?

Opinion

If Massachusetts had a functioning state government Edward (Ted) Kennedy would have spent time in prison then as a convicted felon would be ineligible to hold an elected office for the rest of his life.

On Leftism

 The Left abhors the thought of being judged by their character because they have none.  What's present is the black hole of their lust for power.  A desire for control over every aspect of our lives that distorts or destroys everything that comes within their influence.  The positive side is that if we don't drop below their moral event horizon we can escape from their influence.  But we will be damaged as a result.  The problem with painting the streets with the blood of our enemies is that we have to clean up the mess later.  I still wonder how folks on The Left manage to get out of bed without seriously hurting themselves.

An election in a Constitutional Republic is a process of hiring someone to perform a Constitutionally defined task.  It's not a mystical Collectivist ritual for the anointment of a Neolithic God King.  We don't believe in The Leader Principle. We don't believe that the Neolithic God King that Democrats believe in is in any way the embodiment of a collective will.  And we certainly don't believe that we're in any way subject to what's in fact a Democrats personal whim.  We aren't and never will be a living prop in a ideological fantasy.  We won't bind ourselves with the chains that the Democrats offer us.  And we'll never embark on the path that always leads to the anonymous ditch outside of a town.   A Democrat is a believer in what the late Ayn Rand used to call the Primacy of Consciousness, a belief that reality isn't inherently real but is in some way alterable by a ruling consciousness.  The Collective, which in many versions of Socialist doctrine has a distinct consciousness of its own. Some Leftists have gone as far as to claim that the individual perception of actual reality, which invariably contradicts the doctrines of the collectivists, is a form of false consciousness.  This explains why The Left has made the effort to gain control of the Mainstream Media, and why they insist on "shaping opinion" instead of simply reporting the facts.  Democratic supporters in the media are through the deliberate issuance of falsehoods trying to alter reality.  But reality is inherently real.  Facts are facts.  Or to put it in the simplest terms: A is A.  If Adolf Hitler could gain political power through the Democratic process then maybe the Democratic process isn't so good after all.

The Democratic Party's nomenklatura, being essentially a bunch of parasites, feel that they're entitled to rule over us.  How else does one explain the utter contempt of the nomenklatura for "the Democratic process", and their ongoing desire to disarm us.  They feel threatened by the expression of the common citizen's rejection of the will of the nomenklatura and the presence of the citizen body's mean's of enforcing that rejection.  To a parasite, rejection is death.  The basic problem with the "know it all" mentality is the belief that they really do know everything. Thus any new information that contradicts their existing belief structure is often dismissed as being false.  The real results in the real world are a series of disasters that are too numerous to list.  Never underestimate the ability of the committed Leftist to willfully ignore the most obvious piece of verifiable evidence.  Just because someone else is holding the gun doesn't change the fact that someone is engaged in the act of robbery.  Peace is what happens when you run out of targets.  To deny free will is to deny personal responsibility for one's own actions.  In an age when one can kill more people with the stroke of a pen than with a lifetime's use of a personal weapon that's a pretty useful excuse.

The point of the First Amendment was to protect the right of the people, including what we now call the Mainstream Media, to speak and publish the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be to those in (or wishing to be in) government.  The problem isn't only is this right being openly abused but any attempt to deal with this abuse would only create a power that'll with absolute certainty be abused by the other party should it regain power over us.  Laws are enacted, both respectable and contemptible, because someone acts in a way that is harmful other persons.  The point of having a First Amendment was that the voters would be properly informed about their elected officials and those who were seeking public office.  Instead we have an Established Media whose members have on the basis of party affiliation, slandered a sitting president with very obviously forged documents and refused to report on the malignant behavior of a presidential candidate.  This is a gross and deliberate violation of the public trust.  And while this would not necessarily bring about a repeal of the First Amendment it may cause some to interpret it in a manner that is less tolerant of the present forms of Media malfeasance.  This could lead to further problems in the future.

 

Opinion

Communism should be taught from the victims point of view.

Opinion

What we have under The Democratic Party is National Socialism without the Aryan frills.

Oath Of Enlistment

The very first act that every individual performs upon enlisting in the Armed Forces of the United States is promise to uphold and defend The Constitution.

For the Army the oath of enlistment was this:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

All of us who served in the Armed Forces made this promise to the nation.  The time has come for us who served to keep the promise.

It's clear to every rational observer that the false president Joe Biden was absolutely unfit to hold any public office.  It's clear that he possessed no valid understanding of human life and of the government that protects it.  It's very clear that he'd been indoctrinated in the falsehoods of  the anti-human doctrine of Environmentalism.  And finally in office he has opened the way to the nuclear arming of the Islamic dictatorship in Iran.  As the false president, Joe Biden has acted as an adversary to the nation and a friend to our enemies and to Humanity as a whole.  There's no question that he is absolutely unfit to occupy the office of President and must be removed.  Although Congress has the authority to remove a President through the process of impeachment it will not happen.  The Republican Party, which actually represents the People of The United States, lacks the votes and the fortitude to carry out this task.  And the other party is simply too depraved to do it.

There is no question at this point that the Armed Forces must step up and remove Biden from office.  We need a military coup right now.

An Unpunished Crime

 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. 

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.  April 19, 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.

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

My Editorial Introduction.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

References.

We have to understand that a firearm is simply a tool.  A firearm is simply a means to a Human end.  The Human end is freedom, this is the opposition to tyranny.  Tyrants want and need to disarm their victims.  Tyrants need victims.  Victims don’t need tyrants.

 

Koresh, if he was alive, would clearly be an enemy of an Objectivist.  But someone has to speak for him.  The massacre of the Branch Davidians was a deliberate act of state terror which was carried straight out of the collectivist ruler handbook. The purpose was to demonstrate to all the consequences of disobeying the collectivists who then occupied the White House.  Comrade McVeigh and the current occupant of the White House, Comrade Biden, are firmly seated on the Collectivist side of the aisle.  If we have anything to thank subsequent Republican presidents for it's for doing nothing.  Our false president, Joe Biden, wanted to appoint a perpetrator of Waco Massacre to head the BATF.

 

And if you think that attitude and ideology is uniquely Clintonistic I'ill you disabuse you of that notion:

"Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty."

-- President Woodrow Wilson

Since then the name “Democrat” has become in my mind synonymous with the concept of “murderer.” If there's one complaint I have about President Bush or President Trump it's that they've done nothing to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.

Nothing. At. All.

We are still waiting for justice.

 

 

History Lesson

I was a member of the United States Army.  The only color in the Army was Green.

Opinion On Censorship

Those who believe they're the victims and their opponents don't have a right to speak may in fact be the villains.  Censorship is the negation of the human mind.  As rational thought is necessary to living a human life the censor, and those who demand it, are Enemies of Mankind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal History

When I was growing up Downtown Minneapolis had an interesting (not always nice) collection of shops, restaurants, and cinemas.  I had an after school job cleaning two Fanny Farmer candy shops.  I bought a large part of my early collection of Science Fiction novels, along with magazines such as ANALOG, STARLOG, CINEFANTASTIQUE, and CINEMAGIC at Shinder's on Seventh.  Thanks to Comrade Gruen and like minded drones in the city government all of the neat parts of Downtown Minneapolis have been replaced through the abuse of eminent domain by a collection of dull and souless structures whose primary function is to generate property tax revenues.

Feh!

War News

From what I'm reading the Ukrainians are doing right things and the Russians are doing wrong things.

Question And Answers

Why do people object to the doctrine of Scientology?

The doctrine of Scientology causes harm. The doctrine of Scientology causes harm to non believers. The doctrine of Scientology causes harm to believers. The doctrine of Scientology was lethal to a believer like Lisa McPherson.

What has to be understood is that doctrine of Scientology is harmful to Human Beings in general.

Question

Are you you in control of your life?

Opinion On Politics

What we have to understand is that The Democratic Party are Enemies Of Mankind as well as mortal opponents of the United States.

Opinions

 Many Millennials don't understand they're the people who're actually oppressive.

The Russians should just give up.

History Lesson

The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by former members of the Union Army to teach former slaves to shoot.

Who was being shot?

Members of the Ku Klux Klan.  Democrats one and all.  Needless to say the relationship between the NRA and the Democratic Party has remained toxic to this day.

On Rights

David Hogg is clearly an advocate of Tyranny.

Election Day

Today is Election Day.  Don't let the Democratic Party steal elections as they usually do.

UPDATE: The Democrats appear to be cheating as usual.:

On Racial Collectivism

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, 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.

Opinion

The Democratic Party isn't about governance.  It's about using people.

Opinions

Those who perform destructive acts, even for a "good" cause, should be put to death.

Actually decent people don't need to be kept on a leash.

Advocates of Tyranny routinely pose as advocates of Democracy.

The ancient Israelites did some awful things.  But the modern day Jews don't have to pay the price for them.  Old American Whites (especially in the South) did some awful things.  Modern day Whites don't have to pay the price.

I'm looking at is going on in The Ukraine, and I'm thinking: Damn, we were afraid of the Soviets.

What Does The Left Want?

In a word, everything.  As a consequence there are things that the Left won't tolerate.  The Left won't tolerate the independent exercise of force, especially when it's an act of self defense.  The Left seeks to disarm their subjects and will maliciously persecute those who dare raise a hand in their own defense. 
Nor will The Left tolerate the existence and operation of the independent rational mind, for any factual refutation of any of The Left's beliefs will inevitably puncture their collective delusion of infallibility. Anyone who thinks for himself, let alone actually speaks up against The Left is publicly maligned and, where it is possible, physically assaulted.  In Rouge Kampuchea under Pol Pot the fear and hatred of independent thought was so strong that anyone who was suspected of being able to read was immediately taken out and shot.  And as the Khmer Rouge ran up their bodycount leftist rags in America like the New York Times sat by and cheered them on.
 

 

Forshadowing

 

A 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 are 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 false president Joe Biden, along with members of Anti-Fa and BLM: what part of "Never Again" didn't you understand?

Why don't we assassinate the false president Joe Biden and/or the false vice president Kamala Harris?  Because their assassinations won't solve the problem.  The actual problem is a culture that holds the rights of individuals in contempt.  The assassination of the false president Joe Biden and/or the false vice president Kamala Harris won't solve that problem.