Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Rant of the Day

Charles Johnson, the master of Little Green Footballs, is apparently appalled that Rush Limbaugh made the suggestion that a professional Enemy of Human Kind should commit suicide.

Part of what Mr. Limbaugh said was:

The environmentalist wackos are the same way. This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?

Comrade Revkin has suggested that us mere mortals should voluntarily limit our reproduction in order to limit the emission of carbon dioxide by human beings. (Never mind the fact that carbon dioxide is a natural component of the terrestrial atmosphere whose quantity has been discernibly decreasing over the course of geological time.)

But because rational persons, who naturally refuse to believe the nonsense emitted by environmentalists, will not voluntarily limit the number of children they have -- so that a bunch of moral parasites can feel good about themselves -- there will be open calls for limitation of "breeders" by force. This will be followed, by those true believers in power, by the actual exercise of force to control breeding, through forced abortions and sterilization. Which in turn will be followed by the elimination of those "breathers" who are deemed by Environmentalist Elites (the Elect of Gaia, as it were) to be useless or "counter-environmental."

The nice words for this are subjugation and murder.

We should not be the slightest bit surprised that the Environmentalists will join the ranks of the mass-murderers because they, like the socialists that they evolved from, basically see productive humans as livestock to controlled and used. They see us creatures without a right to live.

There's a proper term for those who deny your Right of Life, they are properly called mortal enemies.

Charles Johnson has decided to hang with the Enemies of Mankind. He shouldn't be the slightest bit surprised when he is hanged with them.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Update at 1715 CDT:

Apparently I beat Mr. Limbaugh to the thought two years earlier:

Actually there's one more thing this depraved bitch could do to reduce her impact on her beloved Gaia. Kill herself. It's not like she has a real conscience and therefore a functional soul. She's already Darwined herself.

Any questions?

Friday, October 2, 2009

Horror Quote

Recently, before I was blocked from posting at Little Green Footballs, I made a humorous comment. It went like this:

The difference between a Fascist and a Leftist is that one of them has a clean uniform.

In reality both the Fascisti (and their ideological kin the National Socialists) and the self-styled Progressives of all eras share the same fundamental central idea, a belief in the Primacy of the Parasite. A belief that treats the ordinary person as a tool to be used, with the product of their labor treated as the property of the collective which in turn is distributed in accordance to those needs which are identified by the leaders of the collective. And as a rule the needs of the leadership, which is in reality a wish list, take precedence over the actual needs of the productive class. (Or perhaps we should describe the productive class as a caste.)

Because willful parasitism is distinctly different as a mode of existence from that of being a rational and productive man, this leads to distinct differences in how parasites answer moral and political questions.

Where rational men prefer to deal with each other through explicit consent the parasite must take what it needs through coercion, either by fraud or by open force. (And the admitted crimes of Roman Polanski weren't even in mind when I started writing this particular rant.)

Because the parasite must control the productive population it must claim, always fraudulently, a superior status over their victims (Oops! There's Roman Polanski (and his defenders) again!) and must possess complete control over them. This means that the parasites conception of law and justice (when they bother to think at all) is essentially the opposite of that of rational men.

Justice to a parasite is simply getting away with the parasitic mode of existence. Crime is simply any resistance, regardless of intent or degree, to the actions of the parasite. And laws are simply an excuse to carry out punitive violence against the producers.

The parasites in their delusion of superior status are tempted to feel that the ordinary productive person is nothing more than an animal. And because they usually succumb to this temptation they usually seek to control the external stimuli that ordinary humans experience and thus control the behavior of those they have deemed to be livestock. Thus the establishment of the Reichsministry of Culture by the German state under the NSDAP. And also recent effort of American Progressives to censor talk radio and the internet in order to reestablish the primacy of the Progressive ideological clique that effectively controls the mainstream media.

Of course the control of external stimuli doesn't work with rational men.

When the attempt to control by fraud doesn't work the parasites have no alternative but to use open force.

To the parasites the active consciousness of the rational man is not a normal state but is instead a sign that there is something wrong. Those who do not obey the self-appointed shepherds are looked upon as diseased animals. Something that must be destroyed before they infect the entire herd. The systematic murder of whole populations is looked upon not as a mass crime but as a moral necessity in the parasite's view.

So it is not a surprise to me to find that some believers in the Primacy of the Parasite who presently reside here in the United States (I won't call them Americans) are now calling for the murder of those who refuse to submit to the rule of the parasite master caste.

A case in point is that uberparasit from Minnesota, Garrison Keillor. Were it not for that tax-fed pig-sty known as "public radio" this walking waste of mass and energy would not exist at all. It would actually be reasonable to identify him as a talentless and tedious bore. And being not a typical parasite, but a full-blown archparasite, he of course has the usual parasite view of those who rationally refuse to support his mode of existence. He calls them evil.

And now he is calling for their murder through the apparatus of the state:

...one starts to wonder if the country wouldn't be better off without them and if Republicans should be cut out of the health-care system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.

In other words, why waste resources on diseased animals?

Steve Barry, the editor and publisher of The Resister once told me that we as political writers have to dehumanize our opponents. I disagreed. My reply was that as a result of what our opponents choose to believe and how they choose to act they have dehumanized themselves.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Morons of the Day

While I'm at it I should also mention that a previously mentioned group of morons is still at it.

Here's their website, I won't bother to quote the site this time. Just read it yourself.

A rational study of the real world would show that a real state of Peace is effectively indistinguishable from a state of Liberty and a state of Security. Peace, Liberty, and Security are simply three words that a rational person uses to describe the same condition, the rightful ability to live one's own life without coercive interference by others.

A rational study of actual history would show that the state of peace for the citizens of a free nation is the result of the violent elimination of the would be conquerors and their pet quislings.

If we rationally examine those who constitute the membership of the so-called Peace Movement we find that virtually every one of them is an open advocate of the coercive subjugation of the productive members of the Human Race. The occasional exception being a self-blinded fool who isn't paying attention to what they're ideologically in bed with.

In short, a "peace activist" and the "peace movement" are in fact enemies of Peace.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Down The Memory Hole?

Yesterday I posted a link to news story to the RWING mailing list and the first paragraph of the story about a detail of Die Grosse Null's plan for destroying the health of Americans.

"Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul."

Are we now on a plantation? Or is the Chicago Democrat setting up a protection racket?

This morning when I clicked on the link I found that the story had been changed. The subject of the original first paragraph had been moved down the page and rewritten.

"One provision would fine families up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance, essentially requiring that everyone have medical coverage, much like the case with car insurance. Obama rejected a mandate, and fines, during his presidential campaign."

Oh, they were only thinking about it, but they decided not to do it. (Or have they?)

They should not have been thinking about it at all.

What do they, both in our so-called government and in the mainstream media, think we are? A bunch of mindless animals?

I'll update this story as circumstances require.


Thursday, August 13, 2009

On Euthanasia

In the collectivist version of a social-political order founded on the Primacy of the Parasite the ordinary person is looked upon as a tool to be used, the product of their labor is treated as the property of the collective which is distributed in accordance to those needs which are identified by the leaders of the collective.

An individual who is retired from the workforce requires food, housing, and medical care, all of which is taken from the collective pool of assets without any input to the resource pool from the retiree in return. From the point of view of the collective leadership a retiree is a liability to the collective. The good of the collective requires the reduction of such liabilities as early as possible. Thus it is in the best interest of the collective to encourage self-termination by the elderly and the seriously or terminally ill. And it is also in the best interest of the collective to abort those fetuses that will not grow up to be productive workers in the collective.

And if you think that what I just wrote is outrageous, then think again. One group of collectivists, the National Socialists of Germany, actually carried out a program of euthanasia on developmentally challenged individuals of all ages.

Anyone who believes that an individual has no inherent Right to Life is capable of believing anything and, as history has demonstrated, capable of doing anything.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Sunday, August 2, 2009


I have a question for all of the folks out there who are obsessed about the birth certificate:

Even if Barack Obama was found ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States as a result of the circumstances of his birth, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD STEP DOWN FROM THAT OFFICE OR THAT THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS (WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY HIS PARTY) WOULD IN ANY WAY COMPEL HIM TO LEAVE?

I have to very seriously doubt that.

To the parasites, like the Democratic Party, power over the productive citizens of this nation is necessary for their very existence.

In short, and I simply cannot emphasize this enough: POWER IS LIFE.

Any restraint on that power -- be it the freedom of speech and press, the rights to self defense and to bear arms, or the free election of public officials (and laws regulating who may hold a specific office) -- is a danger to the parasite's continued existence.

I would expect the Democratic Party to band together and claim that the "will of the people" in some way trumps the Constitution, the terms under which the Federal Government was established.

Barack Obama and his closest supporters apparently believe that are on the "Progressive" version of a holy mission. To quit is to negate the self-concept that they have adopted for themselves. I absolutely believe that the act of surrendering power is literally unthinkable for them.

Quite frankly I really think that he would rather die than surrender power.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Definition of the Day

From the New Devil's Dictionary (One of my other projects):

Gun Control: The theory that the solution to the problem of firearms usage by violent criminals is to attack, imprison, and kill innocent people who own firearms.

While hardly a word has been heard from the present gang of elected looters, given their basic beliefs they will, sooner or later, have to disarm us, their victims.

There are, of course, several motivations (I won't say reasons) for the effort to disarm the lawful citizens of a nation. For those who believe in the Primacy of the Parasite, the private ownership of firearms is an obstacle to the attainment of the power that they need to live as parasites on the productive population.

Then there are the moral parasites, who are mainly moral narcissists who don't care about, or flat out deny, the actual effects of the enforcement of their whims as long as they can strut about as superior beings and feel good about themselves.

A favorite, and thoroughly reprehensible, tactic of the Gun Control Mafia is the exploitation of surviving relatives of the victims of violent crimes. For example, John Crozier of Dunblane, Scotland, who publicly said:

My daughter's right to live is more important than anybody's right to shoot a gun.

There's a reason people like this are called peasants.

Let us consider the inherent contradiction in this particular mouth dropping.

A firearm is a tool. Properly used it is a instrument of the human will. It is an instrumental means of sustaining and protecting the life of a human being. To say that a human being does not have a right to own and properly operate a firearm is in practical effect to say that a human being does not have the right to live. And because a right is a concept that is universally applicable to all persons, Goodman Crozier has just denied his own daughter's right to live.

What can I say? What an (expletive redacted) idiot!

The above quoted mouth dropping was brought to my attention about ten years ago by that stalwart partisan of the Progressive cause, Derrick Z. Jackson, a columnist for the Boston Globe. (Seriously, I would really hate to be the poor clerk-typist who has to translate Comrade Jackson's crayon scrawls into usable text.)(And no, I won't apologize to evil, so don't ask.)

What the parasites and moral narcissists who push gun control refuse to see is that to totally disarm the citizens of a free nation requires the deliberate exercise of deadly force against individuals who rightfully refuse to surrender their arms and who in no way have violated the life, liberty, or property of any other person. The end of civil disarmament cannot be brought about without the murder of people who in objective reality are innocent of any wrongful act.

Those who would disarm us are nothing less than mortal enemies of all rational human beings. As far as I am concerned such depraved persons should be dealt with as wolves are.

It would take a Progressive mentality like Comrade Jackson to believe that the total confiscation of arms, which requires lethal force against the innocent, will somehow prevent further bloodshed. In fact an attempt to carry out a program of total confiscation will create a bloody mess, and will be just cause for a civil war that will be far more costly in human lives than our first American Civil War.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Friday, July 17, 2009

So Anyway

I do a lot of posting over at Little Green Footballs as The Other Les.

Charles Johnson, the owner of the site, exercising his rightful control of the contents of his site, has just deleted a comment I made concerning the nature of Islam and the false prophet who created it.

Charles went as far as to make a suggestion:

I suggest you give yourself a timeout before I do.

If he doesn't want me to make a statement of fact on his site then I won't.

But reality is what it is and I will simply repost what I said right here.

I was responding to an adherent of Islam, who like most self appointed superior beings wrote a load of falsehoods and outright antihuman nonsense.

The last sentence of that vile rant was:

Insh'allah one day there will be no more kufr.

"Kufr", meaning "bugs" is one of their terms for those who refuse to submit to the depraved whims of the False Prophet Mohammad and those who persist in enforcing the doctrine of Islam.

I replied:

On that day the Human Race will be for all practical purposes, extinct.

All that will be left are the hominid livestock of a false god.

Humanity is not merely a physical condition, it is a state of mind. To be human is to be essentially rational and productive. The human mentality (or soul) looks upon the world, the land, the animals and plants, the natural forces, as things to be mastered for the benefit of himself and his posterity. On the other hand, the False Prophet Mohammad did not seek to master the world, but to be the master of men. The False Prophet Mohammad sought not to sustain himself by his own effort, but to seize and consume the lives and property of others for material and spiritual sustenance. To False Prophet Mohammad, justice consisted of "getting away with it" --
those who rightfully tried to resist the False Prophet Mohammad were enslaved or murdered.

I happen to completely agree with Robert A. Heinlein when he wrote that those who make slaves of other men were less than human. I also agree with Ayn Rand when she said that those who make slaves of other men should be extinct.

There is simply no excuse for such behavior.

And then I quoted Ayn Rand from Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged:

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites: morality ends where the gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason--as no advocates of contradictions can claim it. There can be no "right" to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind."

-- Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged

Now I'm not going to speculate as to why Mr. Johnson does not want a statement of fact on his website. I would suggest, here and now, that he perform what Ayn Rand used to call a Premise Check. Or what my drill sergeants at Fort Benning used to describe as the removal of his head from his fifth point of contact.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Sunday, July 12, 2009


I probably should have gathered more material to do a proper Horror Quote article, but I felt compelled to do an immediate refutation of this particular piece of nonsense:

Pinochet’s regime went on to become one of the most oppressive and brutal organizations of the 20th Century.

-- "Gringo Joe", 10 Cases of American Intervention in Latin America, The List Universe

The first thing that immediately came to mind was the fact that the Administration of General Pinochet killed fewer than 3000 Marxists in the sixteen years of its existence. Whereas the minimum estimated death toll of Marxist regimes since Lenin's coup d'etat in November of 1917 is 110 million.* That runs to a bit over 3200 deaths a day on average. Do the math.

One may argue that the Pinochet administration didn't kill enough Marxists. One may also argue that killing a Marxist is not an inherently brutal act, but is an action which has the practical effect of preventing brutality.

(Of course one may also ask if it could EVER be possible to kill "enough" Marxists.)

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

* "In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987."


Friday, July 10, 2009

Rant of the Day

David Kahane on National Review Online wrote:

In other words, stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party, because it’s much more than that. We’re not just the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition. Not just the party of Aaron Burr, Boss Tweed, Richard J. Croker, Bull Connor, Chris Dodd, Richard Daley, Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II. Not just the party of Kendall “Agent 202” Myers, the State Department official recruited as a Cuban spy along with his wife during the Carter administration. Rather, think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.

Let me repeat with emphasis on the fundamental point:

...stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party... think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.

I've been saying this for years, and for my trouble I've been called all sorts of names and subjected to calls for violence against my own person by the apologists and outright adherents of statism.

The first violent crime was committed before the recording of history when some now nameless thug turned his spear, a tool created to feed and protect human beings, against another human being to take by violence something from that now nameless victim.

The fundamental crime of the Democratic Party is to turn the apparatus of government -- at all levels, local, state, and federal -- against the people that governments were created to protect, the productive citizens of a free and civilized nation.

The Democrats have rejected the principle of consent as the basis of the social and political order and have sought to materially and spiritually benefit from the coercion of the productive population. Their preferred method of obtaining power, the simple majority vote (or the claim of same) with no constitutional restraints on power obtained, is simply the exercise of brute force given a happy face.

They have appointed themselves a class of masters and condemned us, the citizens of the United States, to servitude to them. This is morally intolerable.

If our families and our nation is to have a future then the Democratic Party, and their bipartisan country club collaborators, must be permanently removed from office and rendered permanently impotent in the political sphere of action. And if this means that some of their dead bodies have to be dropped into the nearest convenient landfill with the rest of the garbage, then let us do it.

Yes, I know that cancer surgery and chemotherapy is rough, but the alternative is simply unacceptable. I believe that we should be no less ruthless in the effort to destroy the tyranny of the looters and to create a new rational political order for ourselves and our own children.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Blast From The Past

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites: morality ends where the gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason--as no advocates of contradictions can claim it. There can be no "right" to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind."

-- Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged

Of course when I advocate literally returning fire at the practitioners of force I get called all sorts of names, like "the embodiment of all evil on Earth."

Friday, July 3, 2009

A Short Rant

Back when I was writing for the original edition of The Resister I used to have a lot of fun through the process of morally kicking a number of token African columnists for various newspapers. A case in point is Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe. My lack of God! What an idiot!

In fact, given the origin of the term idiot, as a Greek term for someone who doesn’t participate in public life, Mr. Jackson would actually have to work his way up to qualify as one.

According to Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer at the Not Evil Just Wrong website Mr. Jackson has a problem with saving human lives. Specifically the lives of children in Africa.

"The use of DDT makes me shudder," Mr. Jackson said as he traveled through Uganda.

Now why would he have a problem with a substance that is known to harm only the disease carrying insects that kill his fellow Africans?

Because once upon a time ago a morally sick woman by the name of Rachel Carson told a lie. She said that DDT was killing the cute little birdies before they were hatched from their eggs.

This assertion has never been verified. But so what? Politicians who posture as "environmentally conscious" chose to ban the use of DDT as a pesticide anyway. The result is a bodycount through malaria that apparently rivals that run up by the followers of Hitler or Stalin.

If there were in fact a Dark Lord of Hell, he would have to pat the shade of Rachel Carson on the head and say, in the tone of voice used by the teachers of mentally retarded children, “GOOD JOB!”

In reality the life of a human being must have a superior moral value in any valid moral system. Even if a bunch of cute little birdies have to die so a child can live, we should not have a ethical problem with that. And anyone who does have a problem with that should not be allowed to hold any position of political authority.

But Derrick Z. Jackson is also a Socialist. Which means that the idea that a mere human being is more than an animal, and thus has a superior right to live, is shall we say, double-plus ungood to him.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

A Prediction.

President Barack Obama will send American forces to Honduras to restore former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by force, or will use American civil and military resources to support a third party invasion (by the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua) to do the same.

(For a short explanation of what's going on down there I will refer you to Neil Boortz's article on the situation.)

Some people may object to this prediction. They insist on believing that we are now living in a new age of peace, love, and happy chocolates. And that under the rule of our new political messiah a military intervention in the internal affairs of another nation is now a thing of the past. I wouldn't be surprised if those same people still believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and Barbara Streisand.

My answer to such infantile objections is this, to the those who uphold the moral and legal primacy of the parasite, POWER IS LIFE. Thus any obstacle to absolute power is essentially seen as toxic to would-be absolute ruler.

The President of Honduras attempted to violate the Honduran Constitution and refused to obey an order of the Honduran Supreme Court. As a result he was removed from office in accordance to Honduran law. What the armed forces of Honduras did is in no way, morally or legally, distinguishable from that of a police officer or sheriff enforcing an order issued by a local judge.

Think of it as a constitutional republic in action.

But to the neolithic god-kings and their mobs of worshipers the exercise of the actual rule of law is an abomination. It sets an example to the people of other nations (and I'm looking at YOU my fellow Americans) for how to properly deal with would be dictators. (Of course I also favor the application of one round to the head in the old Soviet style, just to be damned sure.) To the tyrannophiles this is a crime that must be punished.

So don't be surprised if we hear that American troops are being sent to Honduras in order to "restore" democracy.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Horror Quotes

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."

-- DNC Chairman Howard Dean

Obviously he is not referring to the disgusting habit on the part of the Grand Old Party of bipartisanship, the compromising with and appeasing the anti-human nihilist trash, such as Comrade Dean, that make up the Democratic Party.

What Comrade Dean is likely referring to are the inconsistent occasions when the Republicans have upheld the basic rights of Man, such as Right of Life, followed by the subsidiary rights of Liberty and Property.

A right of the individual is a restraint upon the powers of government and society as a whole. Which is perfectly all right for those of us who are rational and productive. But to those who irrationally choose parasitism as their mode of existence an individual right is like staring at the muzzle of a shotgun that is aimed at their own heads.

Because a rational individual cannot be expected to willfully consent to having a parasite living continually at their expense, the parasite must resort to force and fraud in order to sustain its own life.

Thus the parasite must by necessity favor the establishment and maintenance of a state of dictatorship, with a fully functional apparatus of censorship and repression, and must oppose a free society with a government that is accountable to the citizen body.

He who has steel, has bread

– Benito Mussolini

To the parasites, power over the productive is necessary for their very existence.

In short, and I simply cannot emphasize this enough: POWER IS LIFE.

Any restraint on that power -- be it the freedom of speech and press, the rights to self defense and to bear arms, or the free election of public officials -- is a danger to the parasite's continued existence.

On the issue of violent crime it appears that the sympathies of parasites are not with the victims but are with the criminals, they will publicly object to the execution of a quadruple murderer but care nothing about his victims.

But then a parasite has a radically different conception of crime and punishment.

It is better to kill one hundred innocents than to let one guilty person go.

-- Dolores Ibarruri ("La Pasionaria"), Spanish Communist

A criminal act in a rationally governed society is a violation of an individual’s rights. In a rational society it is also understood that because human beings are not omniscient or always honest, it is therefore possible that an innocent person may be prosecuted for a crime by mistake or as a result of an act of malice. It is this fact that leads to the creation of the Due Process of Law that is practiced by a rational government. (And which is all too often twisted around by criminals and their legal supporters to their advantage.)

But a parasite is dependent on the violation of individual rights for his sustenance. Thus the parasite’s conception of crime and justice must be opposed to that of a rational society. Justice to a parasite is simply getting away with the parasitic mode of existence. Crime is simply any resistance, regardless of intent or degree, to the actions of the parasite.

My wealth is spear and sword, the stout shield which protects my flesh; with this I plough, with this I reap, with this I tread the sweet wine of the grape, with this I am the entitled master of the serfs.

-- Cretan Warrior (Quoted by John Keegan in A HISTORY OF WARFARE, page 242)

The parasite basically views the productive population as a form of livestock. Therefore anyone who objects to this status or otherwise resists the moral and legal primacy of the parasite is identified as a diseased animal and is dealt with as such. Sometimes the whole herd is subjected to culling, as the Ukrainians were under Stalin. Lenin’s command to kill the Kulaks and Ibarruri’s open contempt for the lives of others were not aberrations, they are simply instances of the normal behavior of parasites in power.

Rational people will tolerate the long and drawn out appeals process for death penalty cases, as frustrating as it is, because they want to be certain that an innocent person will not be put to death. The parasites, when they are in absolute power, simply don't care.

Rational people believe in liberty and justice. Parasites on the other hand, don't care how high the pile of human corpses is as long as they are firmly seated on top.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Just A Reminder

Humanity is not merely a physical condition, it is a state of mind. To be human is to be essentially rational and productive. The human mentality (or soul) looks upon the world, the land, the animals and plants, the natural forces, as things to be mastered for the benefit of himself and his posterity. On the other hand, the predator, or savage mentality does not seek to to master the world, but to be the master of men. The savage prefers not to sustain himself by his own effort, but to seize and consume the lives and property of others for material and spiritual sustenance. To the predator, justice consists of "getting away with it" -- those who rightfully resist the predator are to be punished or destroyed.

-- Leslie Bates, The Resister, Vol VI, N. 1, Page 42

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Friday, June 19, 2009

What Is Civil Order

Another old text file that I found which I shall post verbatim:

Subj: Enemies of Civil Order.
From: Leslie Bates #105
To : All
Date: Sun, Nov 27, 1994 7:59:17 AM

I found the following item on the talk.politics.guns newsgroup:

> From: Terry Liberty-Parker
>> Date: 18 Nov 94 12:20:07
> The New Enemy
> "Parameters", the journal of the Army War College, has
>published an article by a Maj. Ralph Peters which identifies
>the next "enemy" of the "Politicized" Bill/Hillary Clinton
>military as U.S. Patriots, defined as the "Warrior Class".
>Patriots are described as "Erratic Primitives of Shifting
>Allegiances, Habitated to Violence with no stake in Civil Order".

And I posted the following reponse:

Civil Order as understood by adherents of the Platonic/Hegelian/Marxist/Nazi collectivist ("progressive," "caring," etc.) philosophical tradition is a social state in which we, the hominid livestock, live as directed by our self appointed masters.

The bipedal cattle who do not obey are visited by the "Guardians"/SS/ATF or other such creatures.

Civil Order in the real world as described by Aristotle and Ayn Rand is the societal condition in which we, the humans, are free to live by our own judgement of the facts of reality for our own purposes, without being put upon by thugs and tyrants.

The enemies of true civil order will always try as Orwell warned us, "...to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable," as had happened at Waco. When we accept the defintions given by our enemies, we lose. For the Clintons and their collaborators to call us "Erratic Primitives," is nothing less than a Nazi style smear.

In the real world we must define or be defined.

The Clintons and the other self styled "progressives" have tried, through their so called "health reform" and other such actions, to force us into a state of dependency and servitude. To turn the United States of America, the greatest nation on this planet into a vast slave labor camp. These are not the actions of the defenders of "civil order." These are attacks on civilization and Mankind as such.

We must see reality for what it is, things for what they are, and people for who they are. We, the defenders of American Civilization, must show our families, friends, and neighbors that we are who we are, and that our enemies are what they are.

Socialism is slavery and socialists are slavers. And as far as I am concerned, all slavers, regardless of what auditory garbage they put forth as an excuse, are enemies of Mankind fit only for extermination.


Something I Wrote In 1995

Last summer I was a witness to a drive-by-shouting.

I was attending the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association in Minneapolis. It was early in the morning, I had just picked up my name tag and was going to spend some time at a downtown newsstand. As I left the convention center a white Honda sped past and an emaciated college-age girl stuck her head out the window and shouted "KILLERS!"

I took this as an instance of the kind of mindless posturing that is indulged in by the walking brain-death cases that one finds on university campuses. At the time it was amusing. Had such an incident occurred in the days following the bombing of Oklahoma City, I would have found such an incident to be frightening.

In the wake of the bombing there has been in electronic and print media a major campaign to smear gun-owners and to blame the patriot militias for the bombing. In one case, "Day One," a televised "news magazine" attempted to link The RESISTER with such sub-sapient garbage as the so-called Aryan Nations. No assertion was too absurd in the effort to dehumanize any citizen who thought for himself, and accepted personal responsibility for the safety of himself, his family and his country.

Those citizens or groups such as the NRA who ask that the United States be governed in a constitutional and civilized manner are demonized as hatemongers. Accurate descriptions of the character and conduct of the president and of certain anti-constitutional federal agencies are dismissed as paranoid, weird and outrageous. Objections to the further repressive measures demanded by the attorney general and the FBI are denounced as hysteric. Calls for justice for the scores of American citizens murdered at the hands of federal officers are simply blanked-out.

The Star-Tribune of Minneapolis on its Sunday editorial page of 30 April, 1995, has scapegoated the NRA for the bombing of Oklahoma City. In total defiance of reason it declares:

[T]he Oklahoma City bombing is a bloody shirt that the NRA and lots of others are going to have to wear for a long time.

This is beyond appalling, this is beyond outrageous, to anyone who understands the lessons of history it is absolutely frightening.

The Star-Tribune (and the media establishment in general) continues to show it's long standing hatred of the intellectually and morally independent, and of the men and women who accept the full responsibilities of American citizenship. In imputing guilt to the innocent it shows it's continued contempt for justice.

I am afraid that in scapegoating patriots and in endorsing the expansion of federal power, the Star-Tribune and others in the electronic and print media have taken more steps toward the construction of a American Auschwitz.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Some More Old Stuff.

Something I found on an old 3.5 inch floppy disk. I think I submitted this somewhere... I did polish it a bit before posting it here.

Once upon a time ago the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (a.k.a. the Star-Pravda, or as my former landlady (Years before "she" had "the operation") simply called it: "the Hammer and Sickle") ran on page F14 on the January 7, 1996, Sunday edition, a review of the second edition of "Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change" by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman. (Stillpoint Press, $14.95 SC)

I don't know if the review accurately portrays the content of the work, but the StarTribune did have (and still has) a statist agenda and this review does appear to promote it.

I'll try to summarize the review and throw in some comments.


The reviewer "Tom Di Nanni," (whom I am quoting) claims that the book "offers some credible and chilling possibilities," in answer to the question of how such events as the tragedy of Waco and bombings of the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City.

The authors believed that they a common element in the behavior of cult members. "Former members consistently talked about a moment when their minds seemed to 'snap'."

"Snapping" was the term the authors used to describe the sudden, drastic alteration in personality that was fast becoming an American epidemic.

The authors believe that snapping was not the result of "classic mental illnesses such as paranoia or schizophrenia," but of something they named "Information Disease," in which the communication techniques used by "cults ... and so-called 'Christian' survivalist militia ... can alter the way the brain processes and assimilates information."

"Information Disease" is a fundamental alteration of a person's information-processing capacities, the fundamental way a person thinks, feels, remembers and makes choices. Simply put, if the human mind is subjected repeatedly and persistently to information that contradicts what it previously "knew," the new information will replace the old. In order to accommodate the new and contradictory information, the mind will alter how and what a person remembers and how that person perceives his or her environment.

The "new" information can be packaged in hours of Krishna chants or in hour after hour of David Koresh's "Bible studies." It can enter and alter the mind in the apocalyptic sermons of religious fundamentalist preachers or in the incessant claims of militia leaders that "the government is out to get us."

Furthermore the authors:

... describe a predictable "death spiral" that ran wild in Jonestown and Waco as believers became fanatic zealots. The spiral is evident in the message and tactics of "Christian Patriots" whose cult-like recruitment methods and ritualized indoctrination could have contributed to, and may have even spawned, the events in Oklahoma City.

If the authors are right:

... "snapping" is a threat to all of us. we are inundated with masses of information and mountains of technology. Many of us feel overwhelmed and overloaded as our minds try to turn that information into something meaningful. In that state of confusion, we become susceptible to information manipulation -- by advertisers, political "spin doctors," idealogues, and religious extremists.


The distinction between reason and faith is completely blanked out.

With the exception of the philosopher kings, represented here by Tom the Nanny, man is merely an automaton that responds to stimuli. Any actual evidence that the government is acting in a consistently criminal manner is dismissed as invalid. Everyone who attempts to resist the forces of treason and tyranny is identified as being insane and should be dealt with as such.

The between the lines message is damned obvious.

Since no man is to be trusted to run his own life, the all-knowing state, so beloved by the Star-Tribune, will run his life for him. In order to save man from "Information Disease" it will be necessary to institute a program of censorship.

The act of censoring prevents men from obtaining the knowledge they require to exercise rational judgment in the course their lives, often being reduced to acting on emotional impulse. Censorship reduces man to a less than human mode of existence. In such a state a man is driven, as livestock is, along a course he would never have rationally chosen.

In short, censorship is an act of enslavement. My favorite Science Fiction author, Robert A. Heinlein had this to say about the practitioners of slavery:

If the human animal has any value at all, he is too valuable to be property. If he has any inner dignity, he is much too proud to own other men. I don't give a damn how well scrubbed and perfumed he may be, a slaveowner is subhuman.

In my personal view, slave owners and those who seek to act as such are subhuman creatures fit only for extermination.

The practitioners of censorship have chosen to behave as slave owners, I seek only to treat them as such.

[I must admit that during the earlier media hysteria campaign about cults in the late '70's, I was once literally in fear of being grabbed off the street by cultists and "programmed". This fear was certainly unfounded. On the one and only time I was approached my a member of the Unification Church, I simply told him that I was an atheist and he simply went away.]

Now, what are your questions on this block of instruction?

Monday, May 25, 2009

Someone Else's Thought For The Day

From cartoonist John Cox:

Now there are some folks, who regard themselves as morally superior beings, who question why the other bastard has to die. The answer of course is that the other bastard is attempting to impose his will, or the will of his leader, upon you by force. It is the act of coercion by force that makes what General Patton called the other bastard an enemy.

Peace is simply the absence of enemies.

But there are some folks, who pretend to be morally superior beings, who would have us believe that "peace" could be achieved by submission to the will of the other bastard. In reality this is not peace, it is slavery.

There are some well meaning people, some of whom that I respect, who believe that there are times that one cannot have both peace and freedom at the same time.

I have to disagree.

Liberty is simply the condition of existence in which the person is free to live his own life in accordance with his own rational judgment. This does of course require the absence of some other bastard who is attempting to impose his will upon the person by force.

In practical terms real peace and real freedom are inseparable. I will go further is saying that to a civilized person, peace, freedom, and security, are simply three words that can be used to describe the identical condition, the absence of another bastard imposing his will upon the civilized person.

Contrary to what those who describe themselves as peace activists would have us believe, and as General Patton has ably demonstrated, the path to real peace invariably takes us over the real dead bodies of those other bastards who insist on violently imposing their will upon us.

Unfortunately this process is by no means a safe one.

Let us take this day to remember those who died on the path to real peace.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

John Bergstrom Doesn't Play Well With Others

John (aka Varmint) wrote a comment:

So far Obama has waffled on Guantanamo, rendition and tribunals. during the campaign he even pretended to respect gun rights. But abortion is something he has never compromised on. it is very important to him for some reason. strip everything else away and he still believes in it.

Here's my theory:

If we believe that the Right to Life (and the causally subsequent Rights of Liberty, etc.) begins at conception, then at what point (short of a conviction for a capital offense) can that right be denied to a person? Voluntary Socialism has been repeatedly proven (The Plymouth Colony, Jonestown,etc.) to not work. Thus in order for Socialism to "work" it has to be made compulsory, through the credible threat of violence against productive persons. Which means that any social concept that restrains the power of the state, such as the Rights of Life and Liberty, has to be rendered invalid. Preferably by the victims themselves. What Ayn Rand used to call the Sanction of the Victim.

The term "pro-choice" is a typical socialist inversion of meaning. To deny the Right to Life of a fetus would be in moral effect to deny the Right of Life to that person for the entire span of his or her life. Thus it would open the door to the Coercive Socialism through the credible threat of deadly force against productive persons.

But as the history of the Soviet Union has shown, that doesn't work either.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

(Yes, I know what Rand's position on abortion is.)

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Blast From The Past

This one is directed to the Washington Establishment in general and both houses of Congress in particular:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice. Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do. I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out!

Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

-- Oliver Cromwell, Speech to the Rump Parliament, April 20, 1653

Hat tip to Dr. John Ray.


Sunday, May 3, 2009

Blast From The Past

"There was once, O men of Athens, something in the minds of the people that is no longer there --something that defeated the might and wealth of Persia, that vindicated the liberty of Greece, the was never conquered on land or sea, and that is now gone, leaving all Greece in turmoil and dismay.

"And what was that? Nothing elaborate or abstruse, but the simple fact all men hated those who took bribes from the seekers of power and the agents of subversion. That was accounted the greatest of crimes, so that he who was convicted of having been corrupted of bribes or by favors was condemned to the ultimate penalty, with no room for excuse and no hope for pardon.

... But now everything is for sale ... For what are now the consequences of treason? Envy, for those who have profited; laughter for those who confess; pardon for those who are convicted; and hatred--hatred is now reserved for the man who speaks harshly of treason."

-- Demosthenes, 341 B.C. (written three years before Athens lost her independence)


Sunday, April 19, 2009

Anniversary of the Waco Massacre

Sixteen years ago a small community in Texas was destroyed by two packs of predatory animals.

The first pack was a federal agency whose functions were in part a deliberate and explicit violation of the charter and supreme law under which the Federal Government was established.

Even under regulations in effect at the time, the BATF could have sent a couple of agents in coats and ties in a plain government issue sedan to the Branch Davidian residence and asked the federally licensed firearms dealer living there to open his place of business and records to examination. Or if they needed to place the leader of the congregation under arrest they could have taken him into custody while he was out on his morning run. Given Mr. Koresh’s past history of cooperation with local law enforcement they could have simply asked him to come down to the local sheriff’s station.

The BATF did none of the above.

Instead the BATF attempted to stage a military-style assault, code-named Operation Showtime, in order to impart a positive impression of the agency upon the socialist filth that had just moved into the White House. Never mind all the innocent women and children who could have been maimed or killed during the raid.

After the BATF goons were driven off another pack of predators, the so-called Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI, descended upon the Branch Davidians.

If it had been necessary to take the Branch Davidian residence by force a trainee platoon from the Benning School for Boys could, in accordance to their training, have entered the building and taken down any armed individuals without deliberately harming the non-combatants. Instead, the HRT, the alleged experts in hostage rescue, proceeded to terrorize the people within the residence. And when the Branch Davidians refused to surrender, they were exterminated by the HRT.

The HRT used some armored vehicles to destroy the exits from the building and to allow the ambient wind to blow through the structure while other armored vehicles injected CS gas, known to be inflammable and toxic to children and elderly persons, into the wooden structure.

And then the HRT fired incendiary devices into the building.

While the Branch Davidian residence burned to the ground on live television, HRT gunmen stationed behind the building out of sight of the TV cameras shot anyone who attempted to escape the fire from the rear of the building.

The Democrat majority in both houses of Congress were not the slightest bit appalled by the atrocity, instead of condemning the president for his actions and initiating the process of impeaching and removing President Clinton, they chose instead to condemn the victims and those who dared to speak up for them.

Given the choice of obeying the supreme law or violating the law, they chose to violate the law.

Given the choice of preserving innocent life or destroying it, they chose to destroy innocent life.

President Clinton and the Democratic Party could have obeyed the Constitution, the Supreme Law to which the President, the Congress, and the Federal Government in general were subject and stopped the terrorization and murder of the Branch Davidians, but instead chose to violate the Supreme Law.

And like a number of illiterate barbarian chieftains before him, President Clinton and his party used the murder of the Branch Davidians to demonstrate to the rest of us what would happen to anyone who refused to submit to their will. Instead of standing up for the rights and lives of Americans they chose instead to terrorize and murder Americans.

Since then the words “democrat”, and "progressive" have become in my mind synonymous with the concept “murderer.” If there is one complaint I have about President George W. Bush it is that he has done nothing during his two full terms in office to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.

Nothing. At. All.

Thank you President Bush, for nothing.

Now that the Party of Death has been given control of both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government by a coalition of Depraved-Americans, Stupid-Americans, Ignorant-Americans, Deceased-Americans, and Imaginary-Americans we should not be surprised to see yet another demonstration of the depravity and destructive power of the new rulers and those in government and the established media who willingly serve them.

And we will have no choice but to respond in kind.

The following article was electronically published on the LIBERNET Mailing List in 1993. I'm republishing it here for the benefit of those readers who aren't read in as to why I morally condemn the Democratic Party and those who willingly support them.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.


Thursday, April 16, 2009

A Response To Falsehoods Of The Day

With a tip of the hat to Glenn Reynolds I shall now quote the full text of short article from The Hill:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) blasted "tea party" protests yesterday, labeling the activities "despicable" and shameful."

"The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs," Schakowsky said in a statement.

"It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”

This is the strongest language to date opposing the protesters, which, according to some estimates, topped 250,000 across the country.

As usual one can tell that a Democrat is telling a lie by observing the movement of the lips. If the lips are moving (or the fingers are in contact with the keyboard) the Democrat is lying.

In the first place taking money from the more productive working people and giving it to those who don't make enough (if they work at all) to pay federal income taxes is not a tax cut. It's a bribe.

Furthermore, any attempt to increase the tax burden on corporations will only be shifted to the consumers of the goods and services sold by the corporations. In fact it is the poor, the people who have to spend their earnings right away, who bear the greatest burden of higher corporate taxes.

But there's more.

This Illinois Looter claims that the Federal Government under Die Grosse Null (The Big Zero) will somehow create millions of jobs. There is a word for that belief that I simply cannot use in polite discourse. Its a word for something usually found lying on the ground in pastures and feedlots.

The money to pay for those so-called jobs doesn't appear like loaves and fishes in a messianic miracle, it is money that is forcibly removed from real people working in the real economy that would otherwise pay for goods and services created by real workers. If the program ran at one-hundred percent efficiency, "creating" three and a half million positions in the Federal sector at the cost of three and half million jobs in the real economy, it would be wrong enough. But in reality the Federal Government has historically run at twenty-five percent efficiency, with one tax dollar in four actually reaching its intended destination. This means that for every position in the Federal apparatus that gets penciled in there will be four real workers will either lose their jobs or not be hired.

If enacted, the Obama program will result in the unemployment of about fourteen million real workers. Not only here in America, but also in other parts of the world where American taxpayers buy goods and services.

The Illinois Looter*, is also whining about how the raising of objections by the actual living and breathing citizens of our Republic is somehow detracting from the significance and honor of the actions of Die Grosse Null.

While the adoption of the Primacy of the Parasite as the fundamental moral and legal paradigm of our nation is significant. It is in no fashion honorable. In fact I am hard pressed to politely describe how utterly vile and loathsome I find the actions of President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and the Washington establishment in general, are in bringing about this appalling state of our national affairs**.

The Illinois Looter, who would never utter a word about the corporate and financial interests who pay off her party for favors and protection or the validity of the voter rolls in Cook County, denounces as false the concerns and anger of the actual living and breathing citizens of the American Republic.

In fact the Tea Parties are not only protesting the depraved actions of Die Grosse Null and the Federal socialist apparatus, they are also denouncing the appalling level of appeasement that was practiced by the Republican Party under the polite label of "bipartisanship." They are protesting the peonization of America that is being brought about by both factions of the Washington Establishment.

The fact of the matter is that President Barack Obama, with his arrogance, ignorance of ethics, economics, and science, and his effectively unlimited desire for adulation and power, is the living and breathing embodiment of everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party in particular and most of the Washington establishment in general.

What the Illinois Looter is in effect demanding from us actual living and breathing citizens is that we simply shut up and obey. Such behavior is typical of those who believe in the Primacy of the Parasite. The fact of the matter is that Karl Marx's magic phrase*** is nothing more than an attempt to put a happy moral face on what is the literal description of a slave labor system.

To those who willfully embrace the parasite mode of existence, power over the productive members of a population is a moral necessity. This causes the parasites to invert their moral standards and deny to others the Right of Life. It causes them to demand silence and obedience from those truly good people who are condemned to servitude, and to unleash deadly violence upon those who rightfully refuse to comply.

If we are unsuccessful in blocking the machinations of Die Grosse Null and the bipartisan Washington establishment then our children and grandchildren will be loaded down with the burden of a national debt that they simply cannot bear. We should not be surprised to see our sons and daughters marching down a street chanting, "Hell no, we don't owe!"

Nor should we be surprised when the parasites of the Washington establishment respond with violence.

I already know how I'm going to respond to their actions. How are you going to respond?****

* There's another word that I shall refrain from using today to describe the character of this female. It is a word that I usually use in reference to the wife of Benedict Arnold, who I usually refer to as, "that Tory ****." It rhymes with runt.

** Don't even get me started on foreign and defense policies.

*** You know the one: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

**** If this rant doesn't put me on the big arrest list then some affirmative action diversity hire isn't doing her job.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

What's Wrong With This Statement?

The following piece was originally published March 9, 2004 on my primary blog:

From an interview with Comrade Kerry in Time magazine:

TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?

KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.

Ayn Rand once said that because dictatorships in general, and Soviet Union in particular, did not recognize and respect the rights of its subjects they could have no sovereign rights that would be recognized and respected by any free nation such as the United States. In her view, if I understood it correctly, the hunting season on dictatorships was always open.

But to those like John Kerry, who claim to be caring, compassionate, and progressive, it is somehow wrong to depose a despot who uses his political apparatus to subjugate, plunder, and murder his subjects. Kerry and his fellow party members claim to be “democrats” but are presently screaming bloody murder at the top of their lungs when a tyrant is toppled and replaced with a democratic government that answers to the citizen body of that nation.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Even though they don’t care about the citizens of Iraq they do care about their own constituents, right?

Well I certainly don’t think so.

Remember the Strategic Defense Initiative? Kerry and his comrades in the Congress opposed it even though their party’s primary base of support lived in close proximity to the industrial, transportation and military sites that were targeted by the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Soviet Army. The logically and morally correct course of action for Kerry and his political comrades was to implement the full SDI program as soon as possible for the benefit of their constituents.

But they didn’t, did they?

In fact, not only did Kerry and fellow party members oppose SDI they also fought to stop other programs to upgrade the American armed forces. Many members of Kerry’s party, such as Ron Dellums of California, were also a party membership card short of being proper Communists and were reasonably expected to have welcomed the Soviet Army not as the band of barbarians that they historically were, but as “liberators of the proletariat,” etcetera, etcetera.

But at least Kerry and his party would put the money stripped from the defense budget to a compassionate use, right?

Oh really? Well I certainly don’t think so.

Establishing a common defense against barbarian states such as National Socialist Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as those despotic states that still exist, is a moral necessity. Anyone who refused to financially contribute to the common defense was a parasite and deserved to be dealt with as such. (As to active opponents of national defense, apart from those creatures who sexually molest children, I think there is no one more depraved or despicable than a politically active pacifist. But that’s a rant for another time.)

But Kerry and his political comrades not only attempted to loot the defense budget but they sought to levy progressively higher taxes on the more productive citizens in order to buy the votes of less productive and the outright non-producers. (I could go on about the ongoing corruption of the electorate but I want to keep this rant short.) Those, like Kerry and his political comrades, who rob Peter in order to pay off Paul, can usually count on the votes of Paul. However, this also has the effect of reducing Peter and his fellow productive citizens to the political status of cattle. Hominid livestock who are compelled to live in an enforced state of poverty but are expected to work as hard as before in order to support an ever growing class of parasites.

An example of the parasites that Kerry and his political comrades are funding with the tax monies taken from productive and rational citizens are the social agencies that actively and punitively interfere with the efforts of those citizens who try to raise their own children to be rational and productive adults. And if this wasn’t injury enough, at the same time tax monies are also being used to create the equivalent of an ecological niche for an irrational and destructive underclass that preys upon each other and on their social and moral betters.

Kerry and his political comrades call this compassion.

Well, if this is compassion, then I’d rather be an indifferent son-of-a-bitch.

But Kerry and his political comrades are using their legislative power to move society in a progressive direction, right?

No. Not only do I not think so, I truly believe that anyone who did think so would probably place a winning bid on a certain well-used suspension bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan Island on ebay.

An intelligent reader should have noticed by now that I do not use the term “democrat” to describe John Kerry and his political comrades. I do not believe that they deserve to be called such.

The Democratic Political Tradition in Western Civilization began in the ancient Polis of Athens. In Athens the citizen body, the adult male members of the founding tribes, not made the laws of the polis but were also armed and were expected to enforce the laws of the polis and defend it against external aggressors. In adopting a more inclusive definition of the concept of citizen we could say that the American Republic has made verifiable progress.

But to John Kerry and his political comrades, progress consists of disarming the citizen body, of denying the rights of free citizens, and instead treating those rights as state granted privileges while imposing increasing restrictions on the acts of speech, peaceful assembly, association, commerce, and worship. The political state toward which Kerry and his political comrades, in both the Congress and the Courts, are propelling America is a form of despotism similar to that found in Communist states such as Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam.

(And if you really want to have fun, try comparing the platform of Kerry’s party to the twenty-five point program of the National Socialist German Workers Party sans the aggressive military and race planks.)

Instead of being the party of democracy, Kerry and his political comrades are in fact the party of despotism. When they object to the overthrow of a foreign dictatorship, such as that of Saddam Hussein’s, they are simply showing that they care for and have compassion for their ideological kindred. If anything, the foundation of their political philosophy has not progressed beyond the moment when for the first time a wandering band of nomads came upon a community of farmers, and instead of learning to farm and settling down themselves, chose to subjugate the farmers and live off their labors.

Although the methods of predatory subjugation have improved over the millennia, John Kerry and his political comrades are in my view no more than stone age savages. They are hazards to us, our families, and our nation. And it's about time that they are dealt with as such.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Thought for the Day

I get the distinct impression that Die Grosse Null (The Big Zero) has fouled up more times in his first two months in office than the average Republican president fouls up in two terms. What's worse, Die Grosse Null's errors tend to be those which should be easily avoidable.

Back during the 2000 presidential election, Steven Michael Barry, the editor and publisher of THE RESISTER told everyone to vote for Al Gore. The theory behind this "endorsement" was that he expected the Gore Administration to become so incompetent, corrupt, and just plain evil, that it would provoke a Pinochet-style coup d'etat and the commencement of a campaign to shut down the Left in general.

No, I didn't vote for Gore. But I have the horrible feeling that SMB may have made a valid prediction.

This isn't advocacy. I'm just waiting for the other combat boot to drop.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Thought for the Day

Journalism has become the practical equivalent of perjury carried out on a national scale.

Perjury in a capital murder case may lead to the wrongful execution of an innocent individual or the wrongful release of an actual murderer and the subsequent murder of additional victims.

The consequences of perjury in the field of national politics may require an accountant to keep track of the bodies.

Perhaps its time to revise the First Amendment.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Book Review: Unintended Consequences

The following book review was originally published in the Spring 1996 issue of The Resister.

I purchased an additional copy for my friend, at the time, Doug Graen. Doug refused to read it citing some alleged adverse physiological effect. Mr Graen later got himself surgically mutilated and changed "her" name to Dana Wolfe. "Ms. Wolfe" supported and voted for Die Grosse Null on the grounds that the aforementioned Chicago Marxist will restore the true Constitution and Bill of Rights. I shouldn't have to say that the former Doug has serious problems with the concept of reality.

Unintended Consequences. John Ross. Accurate Press, 7188 Manchester Road, St. Louis, MO 63143. ISBN 1-888188-04-0. Hardback. 863 pp. 1996. $28.95.

By now, almost everybody even peripherally connected with the so-called gun culture has at least heard about John Ross' novel Unintended Consequences. This novel chronicles the federal government's war on the gun culture, with an ultimate conclusion that has been called "uplifting" by some and "horrifying" by others. Make no mistake, this is one book that does not provoke halfhearted responses from those who read it.

One of the earliest reviewers, Dr. Edgar Suter of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research said it was "the most important work of fiction I have read in over a decade." Syndicated columnist Vin Suprynwicz terms it "a masterwork," and "the first modern novel of liberty since Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged." Aaron Zelman of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership agrees, but uses another comparison. "If civil war breaks out in present-day America, it will most likely be for the reasons Ross describes in this riveting thriller. What Harriet Beecher Stowe did in the 1850's to promote individual freedom John Ross has done for the current struggle for individual freedom in the 1990s."

In the opposite camp, some readers have been both shocked and mightily offended by the book's subject. One appeaser at NRA dismisses it as "that sick book." Others have accused Mr. Ross of attempting to incite violence with his plot. This is ludicrous, given that Ross is running for U.S. Congress as a pre-Roosevelt Democrat and is currently favored to win that party's Missouri primary in August. Nonetheless, one senator involved with the Ruby Ridge hearings has read Ross' book and remarked "I now get cold chills up my spine every time I walk out the front door of my house in the morning." Maybe he should.

We at The Resister are of the firm opinion that Unintended Consequences is required reading for anyone with any interest in this country's future, and we were pleased when Mr. Ross agreed to tell us why he wrote it. This book has created a firestorm of controversy, not because there is some violence in it (which we think is rather restrained), but because the plot is plausible, and based on existing facts and historic precedent. Ross has succeeded in writing that rarest of thrillers: a dynamic story with overwhelming national significance, yet one which requires no leap of faith or suspension of disbelief. We predict you will not be able to put it down.


The Author Speaks Out

Many people have speculated on why I wrote Unintended Consequences. Most of their theories are wrong. "Gun guys," as they are often called, comprise a distinct cultural group in America. This fact is uniformly ignored by almost everyone, despite the fact the gun culture now numbers in the millions.

In the 1920s, members of the gun culture sat in the cold on their bunks at Camp Perry, Oho, meticulously caring for the handmade Springfield .22 target rifles they would fire in competition the next day. When the President proudly announces that, today (seventy years later), he is ordering those same guns thrown into a blast furnace, we in the gun culture experience powerful emotions. They are the same emotions that a Native American would feel upon being told that the President was proudly ordering the destruction of war clubs and other valued tribal artifacts. They are the same emotions that Jews the world over felt while viewing footage of Sturmtroopen gleefully burning intricate copies of the Torah.

In addition to being a member of this culture, I have been politically involved in gun issues for many years. While giving lectures and presentations, I am constantly amazed by the number of people who are unaware of major historic events involving individual rights. The Government's treatment of the Bonus Marchers, the particulars of the Miller case, the Warsaw ghetto resistance in 1943, and other watershed events, are completely unknown to a startling number of Americans. Understanding this history is vitally important to our future.

The author of an entertaining thriller can reach an audience untouched by the average historian. Tom Clancy, and now others, have brought knowledge of military operations to millions of readers who previously had no familiarity or interest in this area. Now, millions of people have a basic understanding of our military hardware, and the decisions our leaders have to make before it is used.

In my generation no one, who I am aware of, has applied the technique of the blockbuster novel to the subject of individual liberty. It has definitely never been done from the viewpoint of the gun culture, and that is why I wrote the story that I did. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, written four decades ago (and reviewed in this publication's last issue), deals with the subject of liberty, but that author invented some assumptions which strained credulity in addition to violating the laws of physics. In writing my novel, I felt obligated to invent nothing which had not already happened in history. Several reviewers have mentioned this fact as one of the book's greatest strengths. It is also why the critics find it so terrifying.

Aaron Zelman at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has likened my book to Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, written in 1853. Although I was not consciously thinking of this work specifically when I wrote Unintended Consequences, the parallel is right on target.

In 1850, most northerners had no personal knowledge of slavery and could not understand what all the fuss was about. Slaves got three square meals a day and guaranteed housing in a climate where you could comfortably go barefoot in the middle of January. Slaves cost upwards of a thousand dollars each -- a tremendous sum 145 years ago. What businessman would abuse or damage such a valuable investment? To someone in Chicago or New York, who had to feed and support himself in the middle of winter, speech-making abolitionists were a bunch of eccentrics who needed to get a life.

That attitude changed almost overnight with Stowe's phenomenally successful novel. The real-life horrors of slavery were shown to appalled Americans with a power that no soap-box orator could hope to match, and Uncle Tom's Cabin soon became the largest-selling work of fiction ever produced in America.

History is repeating itself. Today, Americans who don't own guns cannot fathom what all the fuss is about. They can't understand what the big deal is about magazine capacity, or muzzle threads, or a few day's wait. These people need to be shown, in the clearest possible terms, that our government is shooting nursing mothers in the head and fourteen-year-old boys in the back because a piece of wood was 3/8" too short. Our government is burning citizens alive over suspected $200 tax disputes, and throwing people in prison over one-dollar bottle couplings.

The gun culture has been under ever-increasing assault for six decades. Honest, successful, talented, productive, motivated people are being stripped of their freedom and dignity. The conflict has been building for over half a century, and the warning flags are frantically waving while the instigators rush towards the abyss, and their doom.

If Unintended Consequences can bring about a fraction of the enlightenment that Harriet Beecher Stowe's work accomplished more than a century ago, I will consider it an overwhelming success.


Saturday, January 17, 2009

Motivation for the Day

An alternative if you're into Latin should be:


If you think I got that wrong just drop a comment here.