Disturbance

This is a disturbing thought.  Has anyone else noticed that Charles Schumer is the literal embodiment of the subject of anti Semitic propaganda?  That POS has deceived and used the Jewish voters of New York to gain power and those same voters will be left holding the bag when it's time to hold him accountable for his crimes.   We know that Schumer is fully responsible for his acts but not everyone will be properly enlightened and innocent (or at least ignorant) people will be wrongly punished.  This is clearly wrong. 

On Islam

The followers of an obviously false prophet and deity can't do this:

 

What's A Fascist?

The term Fascist is used as a pejorative by those who actually believe in the Primacy of the State such as the idiots that we commonly call Liberals.  A proper Fascist believes in absolute central governmental control of all facets of human life.  As that shithead Mussolini put it, everything must be within the state and nothing can be ever be outside of it.

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.  There's no such thing as "common sense gun control." those who are in favor of banning firearms are enemies of Humanity and should be treated in the Nuremberg style, from the neck until dead.

 

Motivation

 

Question And Answer

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.

The citizen as the sovereign authority must be free to examine the facts for himself and communicate his conclusions to his fellow citizens.  He can't be compelled to believe a falsehood and therefore act on it.  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.  The 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 doesn't 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. 

 

 

My Theory

The Left can't deal with reality because in reality they're the bad guys.  They're constantly trying to live off the work of others thus they have to control their livestock by force.  Since reason tells us that such behavior is morally intolerable they're left with emotional whining as their means of justifying their actions and allowing themselves to feel good about it.  Any refusal to accept the emotional bullshit and obey the self appointed masters is automatically translated on the emotional level as something to the effect of die motherfucker!

That's my theory anyway.

Opinion

If the United States had a proper government Hillary Clinton would have been executed for her numerous crimes against our nation. 

 

Tripwire

The line may have already been crossed.  - LB

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

 

Opinion

If a Leftist could be wrong he or she will be. 

Opinion

Monsters don't believe they're monsters.

Religion In Action

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

Why did ANY act of mass murder happen?

WHY DID THE NIGHTMARE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, WITH NEARLY TWO HUNDRED MILLION DEAD, HAPPEN?

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

In reply to these questions there's only silence.

There's no reply because there's no God.

 

In Stock

Once upon a time ago, about the time I was posting the ASCII text versions of The Resister on Usenet, I bought an AK-47 chambered in 5.56 NATO.  It had the thumb hole stock mandated at the time by our masters in Washington.  As a former combat rifleman I took it upon myself to properly zero in the sights on the weapon.  As I was doing this at the Moon Valley range down in Eden Prairie I was rudely interrupted.  It appeared that a scraggly young man wanted to sell me a folding stock for the AK-47.  I said no.  He repeated his offer.  I repeated my refusal.  Eventually he got the point.  First, I actually had no interest in a folding stock for the rifle.  The folding stock for the AK-47 series rifle is copied from the MP-38/MP-40 series machine pistols issued by the Wehrmacht.  They're inherently unstable and were used both by the Wehrmacht and the Soviets to shorten the weapon for carriage within an aircraft or armored vehicle.  An acceptable trade off for them but not for me.  Second. folding stocks at the time were illegal.  I was not about to ruin a weapon by installing an inferior stock simply for the sake of disobeying our self appointed masters.  The proper way to deal with a master is to air out his head.  By his demeanor and his insistence on selling the stock to my unwilling self I concluded that this fellow was a stooge for the BATF.  I refused to fall into the trap.  A simple bit of common sense can go a long way.

Punishing a man for an act he didn't commit is unjust.  Imprisoning a man for speaking the truth is tyrannical.  Disarming the citizens who're the sovereign authority of the nation is Treason.  To say anything more would require the extensive use of barracks language.  There's no such thing as common sense gun control.  Those who're in favor of banning firearms are Enemies of Humanity and should be treated in the Nuremberg style.  Hanged from the neck until dead.  There's no limit to what a Statist can do to a disarmed victim.

 

Thought For The Day

 Linda Hamilton with an AK 47.

Quote

Leftists believe only what they want to believe. So presenting evidence contradicting their beliefs simply enrages them. They do not learn from it.

-- John Ray PhD

Thought For The Day

 

On Newspeak

Newspeak has become the dominant dialect of the academic and media establishment.  In Newspeak those who uphold, defend and spread economic and political liberty are called Conservatives while those who seek to lock humanity down under their total control are called Progressives.  In the political context the practical meanings of the political labels are reversed.  A function of language is to serve as the operating system of human thought.  The function of Newspeak is to prevent correct identification of the facts of reality.  Thus blood soaked tyrants are called liberators and actual liberators are called oppressors.  Since clarity of thought which is the correct identification of the facts of reality is necessary for humans to survive and prosper a language form that obscures facts and disconnects thought from reality has the effect of being toxic to human life.  Each subsequent revision of Newspeak, with its increasing disconnection from reality, is increasingly toxic to human life.  An ultimate version of Newspeak in which any thought is impossible would be completely lethal.  Thus if we're to survive and prosper as individuals and as a society we must remove the practitioners of Newspeak from the educational and media establishments and if necessary isolate them from society altogether.

Reality

 

Facts

 Objectivism Versus Scientology:

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

 

Excuses

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.

Comparisons

While I'm an atheist I'll comment on something I've noticed about the founders of three present day religions.

Jesus was a working guy.

Mohammad and Karl Marx married for money.

When it comes to who you choose to follow character does matter.

Definition

Stimulus: When the Federal Government takes money from those who have earned it and gives it to those who didn't.

A Request

I want to hear a lesbian sing a cover version of Pretty Woman.  Is that too much to ask?

Thought For The Day

If it weren't for the capitalist system most of the professional opponents of capitalism would not have made it out of the uterus at birth.

This thought is brought to you by the NATO phonetic letters Foxtrot and Uniform.

Thought For The Day

Never try to be clever.  It never works and only annoys the people who're actually smarter than you are.  You don't want to do this.

Opinion

I have to rely on unreliable people.

On Tyranicide

Socialists are inherently parasitic and thus can't take no for an answer to their demands for obedience and the material goods they need to exist.  If they did so they would wither away and die.  A dictator on the other hand doesn't have to take no for answer.   Thus Socialists are by necessity inclined to favor dictatorships over citizen ruled republics.  When they see a dictator in the dock they see their own hopes and desires go with him.  When they see a dictator doing a dance at the end of a rope they see themselves perishing with him.

Why do Leftists have such a problem with tyrannicide?  We must take into account the fact that The Left's ideal of society is one where the State controls all aspects of human life and where the refusal to submit to the will of the State is a punishable offense.  Punishments which include the penalty of death.  In short The Left seeks to establish a state of tyranny.

Leftism In Action

We must remember that Socialism is essentially a Master/Slave ideology.  If you'll pardon me for quoting the First Trustifarian: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.  For the Socialist, as with the antebellum slaveholders, the needs of the masters will always be much greater than the needs of the slaves.  Now the Socialist master class, both here in the United States and abroad, now see themselves being dispossessed of what according to their ideology is rightfully theirs.  Control of their slaves and the products of slave labor.  What shouldn't be a surprise to us is that the response of the Socialist master class and their supporters is in many ways similar to the actions of the antebellum slaveholder class and their supporters.  Those who reject the chains of The Left are subjected to public ridicule and slander by the self styled intellectuals and subject to physical violence by the goon squad, with the ski-mask replacing the white sheet as the attire of choice.

Excuse For Tyrrany

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? 

Also:

There are those who still seek to establish a Communist state in America (with themselves holding the whip of course) even though Communism has been proven to be toxic to human life.  Let's remember the victims of Communism and work to prevent any further destruction of lives and civilization. 

Stuart Smalley's Daily Affirmations for the Inner Communist

Monday:

"I'm going to execute and expropriate today just for the heck of it because, gosh darn it, I deserve to have a good time."

Tuesday:

"I am not a fraud, a Marxist yes, but not a fraud."

Wednesday:

"I deserve all the mass adulation from the people I can get without feeling ashamed or being grandiose."

Thursday:

"I will express my feelings today. I will not hide them behind my mustache. My mustache is not a mask for my feelings, but rather a small patch of facial hair that covers my inadequacies."

Friday:

"When I rob a bank for the cause, I will not be playing those parent tapes in my head: "You wield a revolver like a girl" . . . "Why can't you be more like Stalin?" . . . "Philosophy? What kind of major is that? It's useless!"

Saturday:

"Just because I execute Christians and counter-revolutionaries does not mean I'm an mass-murdering psychopath like my father."

Sunday:

"If I must violently put down a counter-revolution today, it is not because I am a bad person or that I am not worthy of love; it is because my people are a bunch of religion-addicted capitalist sons-of-bitches--and I am mean enough, ruthless enough, and dog gone it, people fear me."
__

 

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.