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."
__