On Democracy

What is the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy?  in a Constitutional Republic you have rights.  In a Democracy you don't.  Socrates was murdered by the order of a Democratic State.  Democracy is the Authoritarianism Of The Mob.

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 false president Joe Biden 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 Tyranny


Rights 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

The following was originally published in the eighth (Spring 1996) issue of THE RESISTER and posted online as an ASCII text.

Democracy Is No Excuse

by

D. van Oort

Democracy is the unlimited rule of the majority; nothing more, nothing less. There is no escaping that such a rule is as unlimited in its scope as it is unmitigated in its severity. In our past, when people did not try so desperately to escape the inescapable, democracy was referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." Men within government did not advocate such a tyranny if they expected to be admired and re-elected. Today, as looters and destroyers, they do.

When you hear the claim, "America is a democracy," it is invariably a response to the reporting or predicting of some inexcusable piece of tyranny, and it usually emanates from the would-be tyrant or from his chorus. Of the many lies concealed within their claim, the first one we need to catch them in is the one that says that they believe that America is a democracy.

Every time one of them uses democracy as an excuse for something tyrannical, that some alleged majority supports, there is another time when he uses a different excuse for the same kind of tyranny while admitting that no one supports it at all. For example; the same President who wanted to "restore democracy" in Haiti, sent American soldiers to Bosnia under foreign command while openly admitting that the majority of Americans opposed it. The same Congress that brought us the assault weapon ban on the belief that a majority of Americans wanted it, brought us NAFTA on the belief that what the majority of Americans want is of no consequence.

Those examples reveal that democracy is not a consistent standard by which political actions are taken; rather, it is simply an occasionally convenient excuse for taking those actions in the first place. The moral code those actions are intended to enforce is altruism, the evil doctrine that one has the right to exist only if he serves others. The intended result of consistent altruism is fascism[1], an omnipotent state to enforce complete servitude. Since evil policies in a constitutional republic require a pseudo-legal cover story to excuse them, fascists have found it more convenient to keep on hand a grab-bag of rationalizations, rather than principled reasoning with which they might have to remain consistent. Our war of attrition against their cover stories brings us to the grab-item called "democracy." We will show that there is no excuse for fascism (or socialism or communism), and democracy is no excuse for an excuse.

Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, can the word "democracy" be found. Neither can one find references to democracy in the works of the Framers in other than disparaging terms. Democracy is a form of dictatorship. Consider that the Declaration of Independence is a statement of American principle, and that while socialism, communism and theocracy deny the correctness and extent of those principles, unlimited majority rule denies statements of principle altogether. Consider that the Constitution limits how the government makes and enforces laws, and that the Bill of Rights limits the specific content of those laws. Socialism, ommunism and theocracy reject those limitations in favor of their own limiting ideologies and precepts, but only democracy rejects all limitations, and quite literally uses that as its selling point.

Democracy is neither legally nor theoretically possible in any country that possesses even a single over-riding legal document. The two simply cannot coexist. When a system such as democracy is touted as beneficial, but is clearly and historically detrimental, the ideas alleged to excuse it obviously fail to do so.

A case in point is democracy's proclaimed moral justification. None has ever been presented. The notion of unlimited majority rule is two thousand years old. In all this time, no one has offered a clear and coherent moral excuse for it. (Consider the excuses you have heard or read.) The closest excuse for this excuse is: "majority rule is right because it benefits the majority." Circular illogic based on the false premise that tyranny is beneficial does not justify anything, nor does it even attempt to explain how it could be right if three voted to send two to a gas chamber. The next step down is: "majority rule is right because it works for the common good." Note that the only change is the addition of a second false premise: that the common good includes the minority of two sent to the gas chamber.

Throughout history and in the present day, advocates of unlimited majority rule have never admitted to anyone what their true justification is. Since democracy sanctions only the group with the greatest numbers, then it ultimately sanctions only the strength of that group. This means: how many votes it can cast, how many picket signs it can carry, how many fists it can swing, or how many bullets it can fire. For two thousand years, the sole moral justification of democracy--the skeleton in the closet--is that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Beginning with Socrates' yammering, in acceptance of his death sentence, through Ross Perot's referendums about "taking it to the people," and all the statistics about percentages of idiots favoring gun control, "might makes right" is the sole justification. Nothing else is stated, nothing else is possible, nothing else has occurred in any democracy, and nothing else was ever intended to.

As an alleged moral code, "might makes right" is ageless. It is not an ideology or even part of one. It is not unique to man or to human history. The perceptual-level consciousness of a hyena pack on the Ngorongoro Crater understands and lives by "might makes right." The earliest theropod dinosaurs in the Triassic jungles of Pangaea learned as babies that "might" applied to a nest-mate "makes" a result that was as "right" as they could conceive it. The sensate-level consciousness of the first organism in the universe lived by "might makes right." (It is worth noting that advocates of democracy usually refer to their agenda as "progressive.")

"Might makes right" is the proper code of animals because, to live as an animal, a mind is not required. The human mind is what separates us from animals, and to live as a human, a mind is required. Democracy denies this. "Might makes right" claims that there is nothing that separates us from animals, and that to live as a human-animal, a mind is not required at all.

Advocates of democracy demonstrate very clearly that they believe that. Consider their intellectual excuse for might making right. If force is the determining factor, then principle and fact are not. The most idiotic idea is just as good as the most brilliant. If a group wants one and one to equal three, and can beat up the group that does not, then one and one equal three.

Democracy is pure subjectivism. Advocates of democracy believe that no idea is better than any other (and that that idea is better than any other). They believe that man cannot determine the facts of reality (and that is a fact of reality they have determined). Advocates of democracy contend there exists nothing but subjective whims (but their whims are not subjective). They conclude that there are no facts at all (and that's a fact).

Their excuse for might making right is that all excuses are equally valid. That ugly little confession is the intellectual equivalent of suddenly blurting out a sexual perversion, but while the pervert might notice that he has done this, advocates of democracy remain oblivious. They rarely notice the staggering amount of doublethink in their claims, and are never bothered by it. (If they are philosophy students, doublethink is "profound.") They expect man to renounce his mind just because they have thoroughly renounced their own. They say that a mind is not required to live as a human, and they prove it by showing that a mind is not required to advocate democracy.

One would be right to ask at this point, "Just what color is the sky in their world, anyway?" Now we have entered the most basic branch of philosophy, "metaphysics," which seeks to answer the question of what kind of creature we are and what kind of universe we live in.

Democracy demands that they put the color of their sky to a vote if official answers are to be made concerning it. They must do this because they believe that there are no facts, therefore, they don't know because they can't know.

Their most fundamental belief is that reality is unknowable. The universe is either chaotic mush, one big illusion, or both. To an advocate of unlimited majority rule, man has no objective nature that requires specific rules of conduct because reality itself has no objective nature that can be determined.

The metaphysic of democracy explains the psychology of its advocates. If men can know nothing, but still have desires, then there is no way of knowing how to suppress those desires, or fulfill them. We would be incapable of anything but misery, and unsuited for anything but death. Our universe would not just be unknowable, but evil as well, and would not consist of facts we can build on, but only of a long torturous obstacle course we can bleed in.

If the universe can help us, we have no way of knowing about it until after we have been helped. Thus, we shun self-reliance and promote the welfare state. If the universe can hurt us, we have no way of knowing about it until after we have been hurt. Thus, we fear the black magic inherent in guns. In essence--and you can ask them about this--democracy's advocates say: "We're all just cripples in an evil universe, we can't help it, we can't know any better, we're just animals, so we get to beat you up!" That is their excuse for democracy.

As with all political systems, the results of unlimited majority rule are unavoidably linked to its ideology. If a system is based on good premises, it will produce good results, and will therefore attract good people. If it is based on evil, it will produce evil, and will attract only evil.

Knowledge of reality is easy and begins with any statement such as "existence exists" or "what is, is." Thus, the basis of democracy is a falsehood. Man cannot live by falsehoods, whether personally or socially enshrined. Ignorance means death, and any belief set preaching ignorance will only produce death. Only men who seek destruction will be attracted to democracy.

Advocates of democracy admit with every revealed contradiction that they do, in fact, believe that reality is knowable. Thus, the basis of democracy is an intentional falsehood. Man cannot live by lies, and any ideology preaching lies is designed to produce death, and will attract only fools, liars and killers.

Democracy does not recognize the individual, and thus attracts collectivists. It has no principles to offer, and thus attracts the unprincipled. Its only appeal is to evil because that is its nature, over which even the best man with the purest motives has no control. Those who are evil know very well the nature of the systems they design or support, and the nature of unlimited majority rule will be the same whether it is an excuse for fascism or for anything else. At the very instant democracy is enforced on a population, it begins to destroy that population psychologically.

Ayn Rand once said, "[T]he smallest minority on earth is the individual." This means that every man is always in the minority, and that all other men are, or might be, members of some majority that can murder him at its pleasure. Any man who proclaims that, "it's a dog-eat-dog world," or that, "you gotta get them before they get you," is a man already suffering the psychoses of democracy.

He cannot heal them by joining a group, where democracy begins destroying populations physically. If he joins a minority, the forces of the majority can be unleashed against him today. If he joins a temporary majority, the forces of the next majority can be unleashed against him tomorrow. If he spends his fearful life desperately joining only majority groups -- seeking his "safety" every minute in the no-rules obstacle course of keeping up with one or the other obedient herd -- damning his individuality which sets him apart from them, then the forces of his own mind are already unleashed against him, and he begins to destroy himself mentally and physically.

The forces of the majority have already been unleashed against minority groups of "separatists" (self-sufficient), "cultists" (strong believers) and "extremists" (non-compromisers). Those forces are now being unleashed against ex-majority groups such as the middle-class employees of K-mart. Men spending their lives in pursuit of permanent majority status, who fear to stand out by so much as waving at a policeman, smoking a cigarette, or reading The Resister[2], are becoming used to unleashing the forces of their own minds against themselves.

Man cannot find peace when set up as enemy of all other men; he cannot live by being slaughtered with his group today, he cannot build a future by being slaughtered with his group tomorrow, and he cannot save his soul by slaughtering it himself. Democracy is not a system under which men choose their manner of living, it is a system under which they choose only their manner of death. Such destruction is not an abuse of the system--it IS the system. Democracy is not a system for man; it is a system against him.

On the whole, democracy is an inexcusable excuse to excuse the inexcusable. Fascism is no excuse for lying about believing in American democracy. There is no excuse for believing in democracy in a constitutional republic. There is no excuse for democracy, and democracy is no excuse for fascism.


1 Do not confuse The Resister's use of the word "fascist" with its ordinary use by liberals, communists, and minority pressure groups. Liberals, communists, and minority pressure groups call anybody who opposes their social democratic, statist or tribalist agendas "fascists." Fascism and communism are merely variant forms of statism, which is the collectivist premise that individuals are rightless slaves, and that the state is omnipotent. Both fascism and communism are socialist. Communism is the public (read government) ownership of the means of production, thus abolishing private property. Fascism permits the pretense of property ownership, but without the right to use property for personal advantage -- property must be used for "the public good." (Does the phrase "good corporate citizen" ring a bell? Does the current systematic destruction of the tobacco industry -- to name but the most recent industry -- strike a chord?) JFA Davidson

2 The author is referring to those who read mooched copies of The Resister, but will not subscribe to it because they don't want their name on "a list." This is a craven admission that they want to think for themselves, but they don't want anyone to know about it. Who says democracy doesn't work? 

JFA Davidson.

They're about to learn though direct experience that Reality isn't subject to a majority vote.

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 Tyranny.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.  Democrats ARE the Enemies Of Mankind. 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 leading members a bunch of Vichy Republicans.

Perhaps it's 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 ANY act of mass murder happen?

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

Susan Huck (Ph.D) told me directly that monsters are never hiding under the bed, they’re right out in the open.

Why did The Holocaust happen?

The actual author of the Book of Genesis actually had a point: Evil often presents itself as Good.

The Third Reich is a lesson from history that we're ignoring.  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 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” 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 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 proponents of tyranny, such as members of Anti-Fa (National Socialists, Soviet Communists, etc.) believe they're good people and that their victims and 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.  And 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 and opponents 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 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 Collectivist piece of shit who should be hanged from the neck until dead.  And WE HAVE THE DUTY to identify the Mainstream Media are a bunch of liars.  Once a difference in opinion is criminalized a civil war is inevitable.

Voltaire said it: Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.

I have a question for members of Anti-Fa and BLM: what part of "Never Again" didn't you understand?

Collectivists will behave as Collectivists.  Totalitarians will behave as Totalitarians.

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

 

Thought For The Day

Reality as such is not a safe space.  Reality is a place of unlimited wonders but only if you're willing to face them as an adult.

 

On Peace

Peace in the real world is simply the absence of those -- such as the socialists -- who seek to deprive you, I, and our fellow citizens of our own Life, Liberty, and Property.  Real peace can only be achieved by the physical isolation or outright elimination of those who seek to subjugate, plunder and murder us.  This can only be done through the use of physical force.  In short, true peace can only be achieved only through the possession of superior firepower and the moral will to use it. 

Opinion

Money is simply a tool.  The ultimate end of all tools is Human life.  So anyone who says money is evil is also saying that Human life is evil.

History Lesson

In 1977 at Camp Scott in Oklahoma three girls were murdered by Gene Hart.  Gene Hart was eventually arrested and prosecuted.  Gene Hart was acquitted.  Cherokee medicine men intervened on behalf of Gene Hart. Carthaginians placed their children into sacrificial fires.  Carthaginians relied on divine intervention.  Carthaginians lost the Punic Wars.  It was the thought that counted.

Gripes

Idiot's exist.

I live next door to someone who's constantly playing loud music.  A private landlord would've evicted him after the second complaint.

"Vote blue, no matter who" means vote for a candidate of the Democratic Party regardless of whether the candidate is a monster or a moron.  Some people wonder why I despise Democracy. 

Question Of The Day

What is Reality?

Crazy Relatives

Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Worker's Party are the crazy relatives that the present day Left goes to great effort to avoid talking about.  The pragmatic brand of socialist (as opposed to the doctrinaire Marxist) will strike the pose that will have the most appeal in the target audience's minds. Thus in Germany, where the army was traditionally held in the highest esteem, the NSDAP assumed in public the form of a substitute army (ersatzarmee) with a mass of clean-cut men in spiffy uniforms marching about in disciplined formations. In the United States, where the standing military was traditionally looked upon with suspicion if not ridicule, the Left rejected the militarist paradigm. Unfortunately they assumed the form of what decent people came to call dirty-stinking hippies, a mob of unwashed savages attired in cast-off or otherwise ridiculous clothing who moved about in a sloppy mass.  The American Left in its manifestation as the Anti-war Movement had in effect taken on the modern form of a barbarian horde. But given that Socialism is essentially barbarian brigandage in modernistic makeup, why should we be surprised?
 

No Surprise

The present administration in Washington holds the citizens in contempt and would resort to fraud to promote its programs isn't a surprise.

My theory is that many self styled authorities defend their doctrines, often more deliberate than erroneous, as if they were defending their lives because they are defending their lives.

The false authority is dependent on the work of other people for their survival and well being. Without the blind obedience of productive people the false authority would wither away and die. To the parasite power over the productive is life.

These self appointed intellectuals, whom Ayn Rand had labeled as Witch Doctors, claim the position of authority in a division of labor economy through the claim of being in possession of superior knowledge. Such so called superior knowledge must by necessity contradict the knowledge gained by direct perception of objective (commonly perceived) reality.

Against the entirely valid charge of fraud the intellectual con artist will claim that his perception of reality differs from that of the common man.

One practice, which began with the original aboriginal witch doctors, is to claim that self appointed authority is perceiving or is otherwise in contact with a higher or spiritual level of reality. This practice continues to this day in the scam religions of Islam and Scientology.

The materialist version of the false authority con operates on the practice of polylogism, the claim that members of different groups perceive differently. What is true for one group is false for another group. Thus what is true for Jews is claimed to be false for Aryans. The practice of polylogism is not confined to issues of race (such as Africans versus "Crackers"), it can be applied to conflicts of class (Proletarians versus the Bourgeoisie), gender ("Womyn" versus "Sperm Donors"), and national culture (The French versus everyone else*).

But since Man is an entity of both spirit and body the most effective, and thus destructive, version of the different knowledge con will combine both the claim of spiritual wisdom and material polylogism. This occurs in the notion that a group has a distinct consciousness whose will is embodied in a leader. Thus the claim that Adolf Hitler embodied the will of the Volk, Josef Stalin embodied the will of the Proletariat, Hillary Clinton embodied the will of all Womyn, and that Joe Biden embodies the will of the functionally dumb.

And if this wasn't bad enough there are now false authorities who claim to represent something other than a human population such as Gaianist witch doctors.

It is essential for the survival of human society that false authorities be identified and rendered unable to cause further harm to us.

Of course if they are also buried that would be fine with me.


* I'm really serious here. The French as a nation have a long history of insisting on being different and claiming it's a superior practice. A case in point is that at the beginning of the First World War is that while all other nations had adopted earth toned uniforms for their soldiers the French politicians INSISTED that their soldiers go into combat with the traditional dark blue coats and bright red trousers. As you can imagine this didn't work out well for the French Army. The French also had the best bayonets mounted on the worst rifle, but that's another story.

 

Photo Of The Day

 

A good Communist.

 

On Our False President

If history has taught us anything it is that those who imagine themselves to be infallible will fail.  And those who imagine themselves incapable of evil will do evil.  But try to tell that to a supporter of false president Joe Biden and they will call you a liar.  

On Peace Activists

I could say that a peace activist is the political equivalent of the depraved bystander who tells a women who is being raped that she should "lay back and enjoy it", but that would be an undeserved compliment.  I could say that killing a peace activist is no more an act of murder than putting down a rabid animal, but that would be an insult to rabid animals.  I will say that killing a peace activist is an act of defense, of one's self, of one's family, of one's nation, and of Humanity in General.

News

Mark Bunker lost his bid to be re-elected to the third seat on the Clearwater, Florida city council.  Mark Bunker was a member of the Lisa McPherson Trust.  Lisa McPherson was murdered by the Cult of Scientology.  The Cult of Scientology spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get off on the murder charge.

Why did Mark Bunker lose his bid to be re-elected to the third seat on the Clearwater, Florida city council?

In my opinion Mark Bunker ran as a member of the Democratic Party.    

Mark Bunker not only had to deal with the toxic influence of the Cult of Scientology he also had to deal with the toxic influence of the Cult of the Democratic Party.

On Leftism

 Reality is unreal to a Leftist.

At Cause

Scientology may be part the cause of the next American Revolution.

 

Truth

Freedom Of Speech is freedom to tell the truth.  Scientology doesn't want the truth told about it or the founder of it.

Quotes

"OK, how many of us think Dark Star is the ultimate Traveller movie? A bunch of nut cases in a scout ship with a bomb only a Referee could love."

 -- Douglas E. Berry  

If we are to continue to live a proper human life then the hunting season on tyrants and those who willingly support them must always be open.

-- Some Former Cab Driver 

I've ceased to be surprised at how stupid Lefties are.

-- Some former pizza delivery guy.

A liar will eventually be caught lying.

-- Some former security officer. 

Those who deny Reality can do awful things.

-- Les Bates 

"Plastic shredders? We used to dream of 'aving plastic shredders. When I were a lad, we 'ad to get oop at three o'clock in t'morning and work 27-hour day at secret police headquarters, rending dissidents with ordinary garden rake. But tell that to yer yoong war protestors today, and they won't believe you."

-- reader Paul Zrimsek reacts to news that Uday Hussein has a Yorkshire accent

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 are 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.

Assassination

On this day in 709 ab urbe condita the original perpetual dictator was disposed of.  A well known Roman politician had a run in with some pissed off members of the Senate.  Assassination sucks, doesn't it JC?  What some people don't understand is that The State Julius Caesar overthrew was actually worse.

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

Point

Why do intelligent people oppose Socialism?

Because Socialism never works.  There were warnings for over a century and every warning was ignored.  Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it.  Socialism never worked but that never stops idiots from trying.

 

Birthday

 

Evil entered the world.  

L. Ron Hubbard was born on this day in 1911.  L. Ron Hubbard actually conned a rocket scientist.  L. Ron Hubbard helped the Soviets during the Cold War.  L. Ron Hubbard will eventually be remembered as the vile man he actually was.  I'm on public record as calling L. Ron Hubbard a completely useless waste of mass and energy.  When L. Ron Hubbard was receiving a penny a word writing for the pulps Ayn Rand was a world class author who had her work published in hardcover and adapted for motion pictures.  All of Ayn Rand's work is still in print by the New American Library.  Some of L. Ron Hubbard's later literary work is printed by Bridge Publications.  Who owns the New American Library?  The stockholders.  Who owns Bridge Publications?  Bridge Publications is a department of Scientology. 

If you want to see a realm run by Scientologists all one has to do is look at The Third Reich. Scientology has to deny Reality because in reality Hubbard was wrong on many points.

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.  And 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.  And in a world ruled by Scientologists the truly conscious must be be put down with lethal effect. 

We must understand that Scientology isn't a religion.  We must understand that Scientology is a con game invented by L. Ron Hubbard.  We must understand that outside of the Collectivist movement L. Ron Hubbard was one of most vile men who ever lived.  Bad people often believe they're good people.  We saw this with the harassment of Paulette Cooper.  If the United States had a real government Scientology would be treated as the criminal organization it actually is. 

Scientology will eventually become extinct.  L. Ron Hubbard didn't design Scientology to outlast him.  L. Ron Hubbard was wrong about a lot of things.  My first paying job in the private sector was a part time janitorial position at two candy shops in downtown Minneapolis.  Both candy shops had picture windows, Hubbard's method of cleaning windows was NEVER used.

The false prophet L. Ron Hubbard was a piece of excrement (yes, I know I'm insulting excrement) that took advantage of the First Amendment of our Constitution.

I made a proposal on this blog to amend The Constitution:

All religions which deny the validity of the Constitution shall not claim protection under it.  The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The obvious question that's been raised in the past is why I don't call for a ban on Scientology by name?  A name is only a mental label for the concept.  Even though it appears to be internally forbidden to change the doctrines of Scientology, the doctrines also commands the believer to deceive the victims where necessary.   Thus deception, such as a name change, by a Scientologist will occur.  It's by identifying a specific toxic attribute of Scientology that we can properly exclude it from protection under the First Amendment.  A fundamental attribute of the doctrine of Scientology is the denial of real laws.  The real acts of legislation by real governments that protect the real rights of the people.  In declaring actual laws to be invalid Hubbard opened the door to the commission of a multitude of crimes that would be carried out by Hubbard and other Scientologists for their own personal benefit.  This action's absolutely intolerable in a civil society, in reality the people are the sovereign authority and the sole source of legislation.  In reality Scientology has to go.  In order for us to live a properly Human life we must allow our government to take a proactive role in defending our rights.

Although Scientology is a vexatious litigant and won many civil suits.  Scientology will eventually lose in the court of public opinion. 

Quote Of The Day

Evil NEVER identifies itself as being evil.

 

-- Leslie Bates

Quote Of The Day

I could go on about what I really think of peace activists but I'll keep it short by paraphrasing Keith Richards: I don't have a problem with shooting peace activists, I only have a problem with the police.

-- Leslie Bates

Anniversary

On March 10, 1982 I enlisted in the United States Army.  The recruiting station was a former service station on the corner of 22th St. and Central Ave.  It was snowing that day.  When anyone at Fort Benning inquired where I was from my usual answer was, "the Soviet Socialist Republic of Minnesota."  The Cold War was on at the time.

Conscience is the expression of the ego in the moral realm.  To make a moral judgment and to act on it are basically selfish acts.  It's the self that sees through its own eyes and acts on its own knowledge of right and wrong.  You couldn't be selfish if you can't live with yourself.  Rational Selfishness as defined and advocated by Ayn Rand was limited to acts which benefited one's self but caused no harm or inflicted a cost on another person.  The narcissist, especially in the political realm, isn't concerned with the injuries and burdens inflicted on other people.  In fact, the more destructive the consequences of obedience to those who obey the narcissist, the better.  Human sacrifice with beating hearts cut out and victims flayed alive, that's great.  Millions worked to death in slave labor camps in Siberia, as far as the narcissist is concerned that's better.  In order for me to say, "I, Leslie Bates, do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America..." I have to say "I". That was my ego speaking when I took the oath of enlistment.

As a combat riflemen (MOS 11 B) I opposed conscription.  I did so in 1982 and I'm doing so now.  Some people have a problem with persons acting on their conscience.  I don't.  When I was enlisted in the United States Army the Army was going though several transitions.  The Army was transitioning from the M1 steel pot to the first generation of the K-pot helmet.  The Army was transitioning from the M60A3 tank to the first generation of the M1 Abrams tank with the 105mm rifled gun.  The Army was transitioning from the M113A1 APC to the first generation of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.  The Army was transitioning from the Huey helicopter to the first generation of the Blackhawk helicopter.

 

Proposal

Let's have a bumper sticker: Health Matters!

 

Quote Of The Day

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Issac Asimov, 1980

Misuse

Tools with other useful objects are misused many times.  Properly used Ammonium Nitrate is a fertilizer.  Fuel Oil is a fuel.  A rented moving van is a moving van.  Timothy McVeigh with co-conspirator Terry Nicolls misused those items to make a truck bomb.  The actual cause of horrors isn't the tools to commit the horrors but the beliefs of the perpetrators. 

 

On Censorship

 

Expecting the Mainstream Media to lie is like expecting water to be wet.

Under the Primacy of the State the function of law is to control the productive population for the benefit of the ruling parasites.  The rulers and their immediate servants aren't subject to those laws themselves.  The actual interest of the actual citizens is irrelevant.  What matters is the whims of the rulers and those who willfully serve them.  Under the Rule of Law all real laws must be applied to all citizens equally such as the laws prohibiting homicide and theft.  As our Socialist rulers and their willing servants regard themselves as exempt from compliance with the laws on what grounds can they claim to be protected under them?

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 will leave us no choice but to break you.

Censorship is practiced by those who have to silence their opponents.  Censorship is practiced by those who know they’re wrong.  Censorship is the negation of the human mind.  As rational thought is necessary to living a human life the censor, and those who demand it, are Enemies of Mankind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Mass Murder

We think of The Holocaust and The Killing Fields as unique events, but they weren't.  The perpetrators of The Holocaust and The Killing Fields thought of themselves as good people and their victims as evil people.  We think of Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot as as evil people, and they were, but they were just individuals, it was their followers that gave them the power to commit atrocities.  I went over to the Underground Bunker and found those who would commit the next great atrocity were already posting in the forum.  The monsters who would commit the next great atrocity are never under the bed, they're staring at themselves in the bathroom mirror.  Those who refuse to think about the beliefs and actions of their victims can never be your friend.  I've learned this fact though direct experience.  Someone I thought of as a friend tried to steal some firearms I owned while I was confined in a hospital.  This person didn't understand that I would attempt to solve the alleged problem independently instead of simply turning the firearms over to him.

 

Problem

I was once a cab driver.  

The initial trip to Micro Center to purchase a new PC was alright.  I was ripped off on the return trip.  As a cab driver I always took credit cards.  The driver on the return trip the driver insisted on only taking cash.  I gave the driver forty dollars from a cash machine.  I received no change from the driver.  I should have received at least ten dollars.  Ripping off an Infidel may right for a Muslim.  Ripping off a customer is clearly wrong for a cab driver.  If I was in charge of Blue And White Taxi I'd fire the driver.

Stuff

 I'm having a problem with my PC.