Monday, March 30, 2015

A Response To A Nameless Coward

A couple of weeks ago I downloaded the following image from No Moss Here the Tumbr site of Mark Urbin:

Quite frankly I would have to hold this individual (I was tempted to deliberately misspell the word) who wrote the note in absolute contempt.

Would this nameless coward actually be bothered to leave a similar note for an open National Socialist, a Soviet Communist, or a member of the Islamic State?  There is no question that these organizations and their ideologies are deadly to Human Life and have no place in a Human Society.  But this (I was tempted to say moron, but that’s an insult to actual morons) has to whine about a Life Member of the National Rifle Association.  The NRA are in fact are the absolutely the last people on Earth with the desire to cause harm to another Human life.

Of course not.

The fact is that in a free nation such as the United States of America the ownership and safe usage of the personal firearm is a moral and political obligation.  The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 for the very purpose of transmitting this knowledge to the newly liberated slaves and their children in the former states of The Confederacy.  The purpose of the individual ownership of firearms in a free society is to uphold and defend the Individual Rights of Life and Liberty.  In no way can such actions be rationally identified as insane.

The nameless coward also claims to be speaking for God and the Children.



An attribute of God is that he can speak for himself so anyone who claims to be speaking for him is simply generating noise.  Furthermore the Christians I do know are proper citizens of this nation are properly armed as such.   And the claim that this individual is acting to protect the children is pure nonsense.  A Life Member of the NRA is in fact setting a positive example for all children.

The nameless coward is nothing but a source of noise.

Monday, March 16, 2015

A Suggestion

This was a piece submitted the the original dead tree version of The Resister.


After months (or more likely years) of fighting, the beltway brigands declare that they are seeking a negotiated settlement to the Second Civil War.  After they make the usual noises about "power sharing" arrangements, etc., etc., the head of our delegation answers thus:

What we want from you Bill is this; You and your underlings will formally resign from office , you will surrender all claims of authority over the citizens and territory of the United States,   you will go into exile, and under no circumstances will you establish or support the establishment of a quote, government in exile, close quote.
You and your followers will take your offshore bank ATM cards and go. And please take the First Bitch with you.

In effect, the enemy is offered conditional amnesty.

The point in favor of such a deal is that we cut our own losses in blood
and treasure.

 The points against are, firstly, while the deal is expedient, it is fundamentally unjust. The individuals responsible for the subjugation and slaughter of American citizens (the Waco massacre, etc.) are basically getting away scot-free.

The second point against it is that it is contrary to the nature of the beast we are facing. Although the deal allows the enemy to take their loot with them, plunder (on the part of the leadership) was not their primary goal, unrestrained power over us is. The apparent governing principle of (to name an example) Clinton's behavior in public office is L'Etat cest Moi, literally; "The State, that's Me". The leader is held to be synonymous with the state, opposition to malfeasance on the part of the leader is treated as anti-government hatred, in effect as nothing less than treason. Clinton's consistent answer to criticism of his actions has been to defame his victim's and his critics, and to demand silence and obedience regardless of the consequences to his subjects.  

The statist leader refuses to be subject to any legal restraints, nor does he pay heed to any superior authority. His victims, those persons who are to be subjected to his whims must be silenced and disarmed. This is nothing new, the military arm, be it a sword, a pike or a firearm, is the symbol and instrument of political authority. The citizens of a free nation, armed and
ready to defend their lives and liberties, have a commanding voice, which a politician may ignore only at his peril. Augustus Caesar understood this when he depoliticized the citizen body of the Roman Republic by replacing the citizen militia based army of the republic with a mercenary force loyal to himself.

 If presented with a "take the money and run" deal, a power addict would very likely refuse to accept. I would not be surprised if Bill Clinton, following the example of such statist trash as Adolf Hitler and Salvador Allende, ultimately ends up taking the final exit while cowering in a final redoubt.

 As much as each of us may prefer otherwise, the coming struggle is certain to be a long, bloody, fight to the death.

R. Hemmerding

This still applies to the current occupant of the White House.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Thought For The Day

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.
For example in Newspeak the belief that all lives matter regardless of race is held as being racist.

A function of language is to serve as the operating system of human thought. But 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 are 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.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

A Poem

This was posted on the Traveller Mailing List by Jeffery Schwartz under the title Apologies To Papa Heinlein:
Like barb wire ties around me
tightening and cutting all my girth
are all the stupid laws
Of the nanny state of Earth.

The arching sky is calling
Spacemen  to their trade.
But the call is allowed to fade

A third or more of what I made
goes to EBT and things
that insure that I'll never fly
near Saturn's rainbow rings

We're denied each spinning space mote
As they steal all that's worth:
Taken from us the homes of men
and locked us to the Earth.

No longer ride the sons of Terra,
silent the thundering jet,
a shackled race of Earthmen,
whipped dogs, once the lone wolf's get.

We rot in the molds of Vegas,
We retch at New York's tainted breath.
Foul are her urban jungles,
Crawling with unclean death

My heart breaks in longing
As I stare at the voids between
To out along the spaceways
Until what my soul hears is seen

Across the seas of darkness
looking up from Earth's blight
wishing another Star was my homeland
Praying it shine down on me tonight.

Cursed with life in prison
since the moment of my birth
Damned to ever hear the lies
of the morons that rule the Earth

I pray for just one launching
On the globe that gave us birth
to escape to the fleecy skies
And from the cold dark streets of Earth.

Monday, July 21, 2014

The Problem of Islam

Is there a solution to the problem of Islam short of a Final Solution?

The doctrine of Islam denies all of the Rights of Man including the Right of Life.  Given that Muslims are required to act as the mortal enemies of Mankind there are no middle grounds under which a peace can be negotiated with any of them.  In the end the practice of Islam must be removed from existence altogether.

Even if Muslims are not exterminated altogether they must be removed from rationally functioning human societies.  Those who deny the Rights of Man cannot live in a rational Human Society based on those rights.  Therefore Muslims have no place in a rational Human Society in and must be expelled from it.

Under no circumstances will any attempt be made to comply with any part of the Islamic code of law, including the dietary code.  If for example the least expensive food available to feed the Muslims in temporary detention before deportation is pork then it will be used.  If Muslims insist on complying with the false dietary laws and starve to death as a result then it’s their fault alone.

Can any of the children be saved?

Good question.  Certainly those children who haven’t experienced full indoctrination to Islam could be separated and assigned to voluntary foster parents.  As to other children who have been indoctrinated I have no information to come up with a sound theory of action.

Monday, June 23, 2014

The Myth Of Gay Rights

This was previously posted on my primary blog.

What is a right?

In Objectivism a right is a moral principle that defines and sanctions an individual’s freedom of action in a social context.  There’s only one basic right, a person’s right to their own life.[1]

So what is a Gay Right?

The so-called Gay Right is a political privilege, a law enacted for the private benefit of homosexuals, which negates the freedom of non-homosexuals.  In most of the cases on record it’s the freedom to not associate with homosexuals.

Why disassociate from homosexuals?

In the cases that have come up for judicial action individuals are being punished for complying with the Christian moral code.  In Christianity homosexuality is identified as a sin and as a result they are to be shunned.  In reality the act of shunning a homosexual does not violate his real rights because in a free society all personal interactions are voluntary.

In a case that came up for judicial action a homosexual couple entering into a pretend marriage sought to buy a wedding cake for their ceremony.  When they were refused on Christian moral grounds they sued the baker for the act of discrimination.  Instead of choosing a different baker to voluntarily provide the cake as is proper in a free society they chose to reject the principle of freedom and to judicially inflict their will upon the baker.[2]

Are there grounds to disassociate from homosexuals and thus a rational basis to do so?

In reality homosexuality is a mental dysfunction.  The homosexual act runs counter to the normal biological functions of human life.  And homosexuals have been disruptive to the normal interactions in civil and military groups. [3]  

Given that there are both religious and rational grounds for disassociating from homosexuals it’s no surprise that the adherents of tyranny, those that seek to establish the Primacy of the State with themselves fully in control, have quickly and firmly moved to exploit the homosexual voting block.  In exchange for the privilege of negating the rights of non-homosexuals this collective is consistently supporting the complete effort of the tyrants to impose their rule upon our nation.  This should result in a negative outcome for the homosexual collective.  When the present cold civil struggle becomes an open war the victims of the homosexual collective will seek an end to their problem.

A permanent end.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?   


1.  Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

2.  In finding for the homosexual couple the judge acted in the opposite manner of a judicial officer in a free society.  For this he should be taken out and shot.

3.  The ancient Greek city state of Thebes had a dedicated all homosexual military formation.  It was wiped out in action.

Saturday, April 19, 2014


Twenty one years ago today an atrocity was carried out.  The so-called hostage rescue team of the FBI murdered most of the people in the Branch Davidian residence outside of Waco, Texas.  To this day none of the actual perpetrators have been held accountable in any way for this crime.

As is my habit I will once again repost the links to an independent report published on the Libernet mailing list after the incident.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.


At this time another massacre may have been avoided out in Nevada.  But Senator Harry Reid of the party of death has dehumanized the potential victims as being domestic terrorists.  But the fact is that he is the terrorist and murderer.