A Message

I have a message for Americans who don’t believe in God.  Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Democratic Party clearly cheated during the presidential election.  The evidence for cheating is so clear that only a literally blind person couldn’t see it.  The declaration that Joe Biden won by the Mainstream Media is so false that a Soviet or National Socialist propagandist could emit it.  The name of atheism was initially befouled by Karl Marx when he declared his own disbelief.  The name of atheism became fouler still when Madelyn Murray O’Hair supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War.  Issac Asimov had sense enough to say he wasn’t an atheist when he stopped believing.  The name of atheist will continue to be fouled by those who support Biden, Harris, and the Democratic Party, in their effort to gain power over the United States of America.  If a nonbeliever outside of the Objectivist camp finds themselves in a hole they only have themselves to blame for their situation.

Thought Experiment

Let's perform a thought experiment.

Let's suppose for a moment that you're the bombardier aboard the Enola Gay on August 6, 1945, you know there're children in the city below you, would still drop The Bomb?

My answer is yes, Binswanger's answer is apparently no.

Harry Binswanger has apparently proclaimed that I have advocated the murder of children.  From the objective point view this assertion is apparently false.

Who's responsible for the deaths brought about by a doctrine?  Those who proclaim the doctrine, or those who oppose the doctrine?  My answer is those who proclaim the doctrine, Binswanger's answer is apparently those who oppose the doctrine.

If the Cold War had gone hot during the Reagan Administration as a trained combat rifleman in the United States Army I would've been on the front line.  Who's responsible for the deaths brought about by Soviet Communism?  Those who support Soviet Communism, like the so-called Peace Movement, or those who oppose Soviet Communism?  

It doesn't matter what age a proponent is, killing them is NEVER murder.
 

Another Rant

A national election is being stolen before our very eyes.  Honest people want cheaters removed.  The Democratic Party routinely steals elections.  Al Franken gained a United States Senate seat for Minnesota through electoral theft.   For those persons who value political power no act is too vile.

Rant

I usually this post rant at the time I post on my primary blog.

I have nothing but contempt for the Republican Party.  This is what the decades of compromise have resulted in.  If the United States had a real government the Democratic Party would have been identified and dealt with as the criminal gang it actually is.  Big name Democrats would have been identified and dealt with as the Enemies of Mankind they actually are.  At least one cruise missile would have been projected though the front door of every home George Soros owned.  (Why is that SOB still alive?)

Citicism And Democracy

I normally criticize Republicans.  Criticism is necessary before correction.  But today I'll criticize Democrats.  What I see on the other side of the isle is a dumpster fire.  The presidential candidate for the 2016 election made Richard Nixon look like a decent and honest guy in comparison and the candidate for 2020 is a senile old man who needs to told where he is

 I've written a lot on the subject of The Left, live with it.

An election in a constitutional republic is a process of hiring someone to perform a constitutionally defined task.  It's not a mystical collectivist ritual for the anointment of a stone age god king.  We don't believe in The Leader Principle.  We don't believe that the stone age god king that The Democrat's believe in is in any way the embodiment of a collective will.  And we certainly don't believe that we're in any way subject to what's in fact the personal whim of The Democrat's. We aren't and never will be a living prop in any ideological fantasy.  We won't bind ourselves with the chains that The Democrat's offer us.  And we will never embark on the path that always leads to the anonymous ditch outside of a town.

What The Democrat's are is believers in what Ayn Rand used to call the Primacy of Consciousness, a belief that reality isn't inherently real but is in some way alterable by a ruling consciousness.  In their case, the Collective, which in many versions of Socialist doctrine has a distinct consciousness of its own. Some Leftists have gone as far as to claim that the individual perception of actual reality, which invariably contradicts the doctrines of the collectivists, is a form of false consciousness.  The 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's aimed at their own heads.

Because a rational individual can't 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 can't 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 aren't with the victims but are with the criminals, they'll 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.

This explains why The Left has made the effort to gain control of the Mainstream Media, and why they insist on "shaping opinion" instead of simply reporting the facts.  Their supporters in the media are through the deliberate issuance of falsehoods trying to alter reality.  But reality is inherently real.  Facts are facts. Or to put it in the simplest terms: A is A.

 

This editorial was originally published in the Winter 1995 issue (Volume I, Number 3) of THE RESISTER.

EDITORIALS
----------

Democracy: The Politics of Tyranny


Rights are a moral principle, and each man has inalienable rights over himself, his faculties and his possessions. This moral principle, this objective reality, means that a man has a right to his own person, his mind and body, and therefore his own labor. Furthermore, a man has a right to the productive use of his labor and faculties. Because a man has these rights he must respect these rights in all others. Since each man is sovereign over himself, each individual must consent to any activity which directly affects his person or property before such activity can assume moral legitimacy.

In a rational society founded of the moral principle of rights there can be no force or fraud in the relationship between sovereign individuals. When rights are properly exercised they take nothing from anyone, nor do they compel anyone to act in a manner detrimental to their own self-interest. Notice that the rational exercise of each right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution by an individual takes nothing from, or compels, other individuals in their rational exercise of these rights.

Only individuals possess rights. Groups, being nothing more than a number of individuals can, in themselves, possess no rights other than those which are possessed and exercised individually by each member. Hence, a faction has no rights; nor does a gang, a mob, a tribe, a state or a nation. A group may hove interests but those interests do not assume the moral legitimacy of rights. To assert otherwise is to descend into abstract subjectivism, an evasion of reality, where a society is ruled by the-range-of-the-moment whims of its members, the majority gang of the moment, the current demagogue or dictator.

Government is force. No matter how benign or dictatorial, behind every law or regulation or act there is a gun. The authors of the United States Constitution were fully aware of this fact. They recognized that government in a rational society must derive its delegated powers by the consent of the governed and that these powers must be specifically defined by law--the Constitution; delimited by a law higher than government--the inalienable rights of man; and dispersed by permanent separation of powers. For these reasons they specifically and intentionally REJECTED democracy as a system of government. The system of government created by the Founding Fathers, men devoted to the primacy of the source of all rights, man's faculties (which means; reason), was the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

Democracy is the antithesis of the natural rights of man. The philosophical premise of democracy is egalitarianism; not political egalitarianism which holds all men equal before the law (justice), but METAPHYSICAL egalitarianism, the belief that all men are equal in all things. This last construct is such an obvious falsehood that it can carry only one meaning: the hatred of reason. Democracy, by its very definition - rule by majority - is the notion that" might makes right." The exercise of democracy reduces men to mere numbers, and the faction or gang which gathers the greater number of men to its fleeting cause wields the government gun against the minority.

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will in almost every case, be felt by the majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

--Publius (James Madison), The Federalist X, 1787

Indeed, specific safeguards were designed into the Constitution to prevent the subversion of the constitutional republic and the natural rights of man by political party gang warfare and special interest factionalism inherent in a democracy: the Electoral College (Article II, Section 1) and the election of senators by State Legislatures (Article I, Section 3).

In the case of the former it was specifically intended that the head of the Executive branch of the federal government be elected by Electors chosen by each state legislature in equal proportion to its representation in Congress; NOT by popular vote. This ensured : "No faction or combination can bring about the election. It is probable, that the choice will always fall upon a man of experienced abilities and fidelity. In all human probability, no better method of election could have been devised." (James Iredell, North Carolina Ratification Cttee., 1788)

The latter provision ensured the logical effect of popular election of members to the House of Representatives (whim based legislation) was offset by representatives elected by state legislature to the Senate to guard against Executive and House encroachment on state sovereignty: "The election of one branch of the Federal, by the State Legislatures, secures an absolute dependence of the former on the latter. The biennial exclusion of one-third, will lesson the faculty of combination and may put a stop to intrigues." (James Madison, Virginia Ratification Cttee., June, 1788)

The United States has been descending into the sewer of democracy since the ratification of the 17th Amendment on May 31, 1913. Before every presidential election there are demands by special interest groups to void the Electoral College and resort to popular election of the President. This headlong rush into democracy is evident by the "value" placed on public opinion polls by politicians of both parties (a practice begun by the crypto-communist Franklin D. Roosevelt); as if the opinions and "feelings" of factions, gangs and tribes were a counterweight to the inalienable rights of a single rational man.

The irrationality of democracy was stated most eloquently by Auberon Herbert in his London address on March 9, 1880, before a meeting of the Vigilance Association for the Defense of Personal Rights, entitled; CHOICES BETWEEN FREEDOM AND PROTECTION: "How should it happen that the individual should be without rights, but the combination of individuals should possess unlimited rights?"

--Alexander Davidson

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

Democracy Is No Excuse

by

D. van Oort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

JFA Davidson.

 

They're about to learn in the worst way that reality isn't subject to a majority vote.

On Gun Control

Gun control is a bad idea and never works.  Obviously, as an Objectivist I can't advocate a God given right to own a firearm, but I could explain why gun control is a bad idea.

Firstly, criminals will always have firearms.  That's why the worst gun crimes are committed in the most legally disarmed regions.

Secondly, wooden chop sticks are the least lethal eating utensils that could be allowed.  Wooden chop sticks can be used to inflict a lethal injury only with great difficulty.  Asians are stuck with wooden chop sticks while Europeans could use metal eating utensils.  Metal eating utensils (knives, forks, and spoons) can be used as weapons and inflict lethal injuries with less difficulty.  When one legally disarms the citizens, one has to go all the way.

Thirdly, the great martial arts were developed in legally disarmed regions as Asia.  Unarmed combat was taught during Infantry basic training at Fort Benning.  The oath of enlistment includes the promise to uphold and defend The Constitution.  That's why Barack Obama (I won't call him president) had military personel legally disarmed when he was present.  One of the results of legally disarming American citizens will be the development of a distinctly American form of martial art.

Fourthly, the great mass murders of the Twentieth Century occurred in legally disarmed regions.  The great mass murderers (Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, etc) had to disarm their victims before murdering them.  That's why statists (The Democratic Party is a case in point) always advocate and enforce gun control.

The advocates and enforcers of gun control see themselves as good people doing good things with their victims, armed citizens with the NRA, as being evil.  The advocates and enforcers of gun control need to be identified and dealt with as the opponents of Humanity they actually are.

On Assassination

The fact is that the assassination of a significant political figure is essentially a suicide mission.  The term assassin is derived from the Islamic cult of the Assassins.  A group whose members were induced into performing suicide missions through the use of hashish.  Donald Trump isn't the cause of the problem of Democrats, he's merely the symptom.  The actual problem is the subculture holds the rights of individuals in high regard and is willing to use force to reach their goals.  A single assassination won't solve this problem.

Proposal

We in the United States are stuck with two political parties.  The leadership of one party is insane and the leadership of the other party simply doesn't care.  Rank and file members now call establishment members a bunch of Vichy Republicans.

Perhaps its time to start a new political party.  Is a new political party possible?

The answer is, I don’t know.  The opponents of chattel slavery proceeded, even with public opposition.  We, as opponents of political power, have to.  We need to treat exercises of political power, such as censorship, as crimes against Humanity.  We need to treat bans on firearms and free speech as the anti-Human acts that they actually are.  Our political elites have apparently forgotten the lesson taught by our original civil war, that banning freedom doesn’t work.  Our political elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of alcohol, it didn’t work.  Our political elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of hard drugs, it doesn’t work.  Our political elites will try to ban the voluntary ownership of firearms and freedom of speech, it will never work.  Our politicians are supposed to do a specific job and they aren't doing it.  We have to start a new political party to go around them.  We don't have a choice.

Let's call our new party the Freedom Party.

Will the Freedom Party replace the Democratic Party?

I don't think so.  What's more likely is that the Freedom Party will replace the Republican Party just like the Republicans replaced the Whigs.

Another Two Thousand Reasons I Won't Vote For A Democrat

Here's two thousand words as to why I won't ever consciously vote for a Democrat.

For those who're victims of the public schools with the Mainstream Media, a group of Muslims managed to hijack four commercial airliners and crashed three of them into each of the main towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  We've yet to properly respond to this atrocity.  By a proper response I mean that we should've erased the abomination commonly known as the Kaaba from the face of the Earth with a high yield thermonuclear weapon.  And in doing so we would've demonstrated that the deity known as Allah was without question a false god and the doctrine known as Islam was an absolute load of nonsense.

Of course there will be those who would've point a finger at me and scream that I'm expressing hatred. So what?

If we would hang a traitor once in a while (pour encourager l'outres) they wouldn't be so annoying.

 A lie is a lie regardless of how many people choose to believe it or are compelled to believe it.  But the truth is the truth, learn to live with it.

There are those who pose as Progressives that have declared that criticism of Islam is an expression of hatred.

Really?

No, this is hatred.

Nearly 3000 people were murdered as an act of hated against Humanity.

Why?

For Muslims there's no why.  There's only the will of the false god Allah as dropped from the mouth of the false Prophet Mohammad.  And it 's only in the Nineteenth Century that we'd see anyone who equaled that level of depravity, such as Karl Marx.

What's the purpose of religious tolerance?

The individual is the sovereign authority in a civil society.  Because of this the government can't impose a belief, including a religious belief, upon the person.  Thus any religion that accepts the individual as sovereign authority in a civil society can and must be tolerated.  Under Islam man is the property of the deity.  A person has no rights, can't enact legislation, and can't establish and uphold a moral standard.  Compliance with Islam must be imposed by force.  Furthermore a Muslim is permitted to deceive or otherwise use nonbelievers for their own gain and even commit murder.  An underage girl who's protected under a rational code of law is seen, literally, as a usable object under the doctrine of Islam.

Such behavior, which denies the rights and sovereignty of the individual, can't be tolerated in a civil society.  I will furthermore go further in saying that the existence of Islam can be seen as possible proof of the nonexistence of God.  A rational, caring, and observant God should have vaporized the false prophet Mohammad the moment he opened his mouth to claim divine blessing for such obviously evil acts as rape, robbery, murder, censorship, and participation in the slave trade.  Islam is absolutely toxic to Human life.  And those, including the enforcers of Islamic doctrine, who deny the Rights Of Man absolutely cannot claim those very same rights for themselves.  Those who act to enforce the doctrine of Islam are absolute Enemies of Mankind.  They're fit solely for extermination.

A belief in Islamophobia is pure and absolute nonsense.  Islamophobia is a false concept.  Phobia is a Latin word for an irrational fear of something.

The obvious question is how can someone be tricked into betraying any moral value when they absolutely lack one?  The false prophet Mohammad commanded his followers to commit the acts of rape, robbery, and murder.  The doctrine of Islam commands enslavement and the systematic violation of the rights of man and to act as predatory animals.  Without question the doctrine and practice of Islam is absolutely depraved.  Given that Human Life is the foundation of all valid moral values then Islam must be absolutely condemned.  But the signatories of this document condemn as immoral those who hold an actual moral standard.  I' m hard pressed to respond to this utterly depraved document without the use of barracks language.  But I'll say this, Vidkun Quisling was shot for his betrayal of the Norwegian people and we’re going to need an all night firing squad to deal with this bunch.

They're not un-Minnesotan, they're anti-human.

 Is there such a thing as Islamophobia?

No.

It's perfectly natural to have a fear of being conquered by a bunch of ignorant and violent people.

Can a Muslim be a good person?  Is it possible for someone who's indoctrinated in the absolutely depraved ideology of Islam to act as a good person?  We saw examples of of a Muslim being good in during the terrorist actions in Paris.  The first being the police officer who's murdered by the Jihadists in the line of duty.  The other being the young man who led others to safety during the attack on the delicatessen.  It's possible for a Muslim to be a good person but this is a compromise.  As with all compromises it's untenable.  In the long run these people must renounce the doctrine of Islam and embrace Reason as the way of life.  Every Muslim, at least in theory, is Human.  A fundamental part of being Human is the capacity for reason, full perception and conscious thought.

The doctrine of Islam forbids rational thought.  Islam reduces all persons to the moral status of animals and thus to property.  In submitting to the alleged will of the false god Allah the Muslim renounces responsibility for their own actions.  All murders and other crimes committed by a Muslim are simply the will of the false god Allah.  In reality when a Muslim desires to commit an act of rape, robbery, or murder he simply declares that he is only following the orders of false god Allah.

The doctrine of Islam claims that the entire body of laws made by men, thousands of years of effort by mankind to create a just society, thousands of years of effort by of good men, who wrote legal charters and laws, including our original Constitution and our Bill Of Rights, are simply nullified by the mouth droppings of the false prophet Mohammad.

On what grounds can those who deny The Rights of Man can claim protection the under those very same rights?

None whatsoever.

But how one deals with another person determines how that person responds.  When the Muslim renounces responsibility for their own thoughts and actions they can no longer be rationally identified as being Human.  And we who remain rational humans can no longer identify and deal with a Muslim as a proper person who's responsible for their own life and actions.  We can only see them as toxic organisms to be removed as a hazard to our lives.  And worse the indoctrination of children in the doctrine of Islam condemns them to extinction as well.

Islam is a clearly false doctrine that serves only as an excuse for criminal actions that are beyond the toleration of civilized people.  Islam denies all of the Rights of Man and therefore no Muslim can claim any of those rights for himself.  We must accept as a fact of reality that Islam is outside of the protection of the First Amendment and take the actions necessary to protect the citizens and legal residents of the United States.  The rational people of Earth are left with no alternative but to kill them all.  On the day of the extinction of Islam, I'll feel no guilt about it, and neither should anyone else.  Islam, like all other anti-Human (you know, EVIL) ideologies, can only be opposed through the education of the general population of its actual doctrines and effects, and through the consistent exercise of retaliatory force upon those Muslims who cross the line into violence.  When we do this (and we have to) the problem of Koran disposal will take care of itself.

I’m usually loath to agree with any Marxist, but I now agree with one.  We imagine our divine authority to be a reflection of ourselves.  The false prophet Mohammad imagined a monster like himself.  But then what can one say about a false religion founded by an individual who combines and magnifies the worst attributes of William Jefferson Clinton, Lafayette Ron Hubbard, and Charles Manson?

The basic goal of Rational Man is to live a human life.  The goal of the founder of Islam was to live as an animal without regard to the consequences.  Islam denies all of The Rights Of Man.  Muslims can't under any circumstances claim any of those rights for themselves.   In order to live in a Human society a Muslim must fully renounce Islam.  No exceptions can EVER be made.

We didn't start this war.  It began when the false prophet Mohammad took up the sword against those who refused to submit to his depraved will.  Those who choose to lay down the sword of Islam and join human civilization will be welcomed as friends.  Those who continue to wield the sword of Islam against Humanity are going to have that sword shoved up their terminal orifice.

Islam and the mass of contradictions that's claimed to be a system of law was the product of a thoroughly depraved individual.  Sharia law is a contradiction in terms.  Sharia is the codification of the nihilistic lust for power and plunder of the false prophet Mohammad whose moral values are essentially that of a predatory animal pretending to be a human being.  I could describe the false prophet Mohammad as a walking piece of excrement but that would be an insult to excrement.

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.

Clausewitz defined war as "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will"

In demanding absolute submission the false prophet Mohammad had essentially declared war on Mankind.  Therefore those who follow his command to make war on those who properly refuse to submit are in effect enemy combatants and should be identified and dealt with as such.  Under the customs of warfare and subsequent legislation assault on a civilian is a serious offense with murder and rape being treated as capital crimes.  Humanity is at war with Islam.  Let's treat it as such.

Have we learned the lessons of 9/11?

NO.

One of the things we should have learned through direct experience in the Twentieth Century is that cowardice isn't an option.  We're in a fight for our lives and WE ARE LOSING.  We're losing what is in fact the Third World War because our rulers refuse to identify it as such.   And that the cause of liberty is in fact a holy cause.  We're in fact in a holy war.  One doesn't prevail in a holy war by pretending that the opposing faith is in fact valid.  We can only prevail if we correctly expose the falsehoods for which the enemy is fighting.  By treating their doctrine as false.  By systematically destroying their ideological infrastructure of indoctrination and enforcement.  Destroy their texts and temples, eliminate their enforcers with their indoctrinators.  But there's no excuse for cowardice when one's faced with actual evil.  We need to treat Islam as the toxic doctrine that it actually is.

A quote:  "Spare a moment to remember the nearly 3,000 innocent victims of insane hate who died on this day in the year 2001.  And spare a thought for the loved-ones they left behind."

-- Dr. John Ray.

Those who can believe absurdities will commit atrocities.  If the false prophet Mohammad were to appear in the United States today and behave as depicted in the Islamic records he'd either be locked in padded room and given a lifetime supply of happy pills, locked in a maximum security prison, or given the needle.  (Except in the state of Utah where he'd be taken out and shot.) 

I have a question for our self-appointed masters.

The Cold War is over, why do have relations with ANY Islamic country?

 

Remembering Waco

We identify The Holocaust as the evil act it actually was.  But we're looking at The Holocaust objectively.  From the subjective viewpoint the perpetrators of The Holocaust believed they were the good people doing good things and that their victims were evil.  We, the advocates of Liberty, take the objective position and identify The Waco Massacre as the act of state terror that it actually was.  But the common narrative has taken the subjective point of view and identifies the perpetrators of massacre as the good guys.

There's a right way to with deal someone like Koresh and it wasn't followed.

What happened?

The local office of the BATF received a report of automatic weapons fire at the residence of Branch Davidians outside of Waco, Texas.  No inquiry was made with the local law enforcement agencies.  Nor did they as allowed under the current regulations send agents out to inspect the federally licenced firearms dealer residing on the site.  And they could have arrested Koresh as he made his morning run but did not do so.   With his past history of cooperation with local law enforcement they could have simply asked him to come down to the local sheriff’s station.  Instead they attempted to stage a military style assault, code named Operation Showtime, in order to impart a positive impression of the agency upon the current administration in Washington.  After the task force was driven off the Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI, descended upon the Branch Davidians and laid siege to the residence.

On this day The HRT used armored vehicles to destroy the exits from the building and to allow the wind to blow through it and then injected CS gas, known to be inflammable and toxic to children and elderly persons, into the wooden structure.  HRT fired CS rounds, which are incendiary devices into, the building.  A tactic to commit mass murder used by the Nazis in Poland and Russia was to confine civilians, especially women and children, in wooden buildings and set the structures on fire.  To this day the perpetrators remain at large.

.
I reposted on THE NEW RESISTER an article about the Waco Massacre that was originally published on the Libernet Mailing List in 1993.

My Editorial Introduction.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

References.

Koresh, if he was alive today would clearly be an enemy of an Objectivist, but someone has to speak for him.

Something I Once Wrote

I have seen the conservative and liberal nomenklatura of this country ignore and violate the Constitution that I once swore to uphold and defend.

The government -- that the best and most rational men of this country fought, bled and died to establish and protect -- is being perverted into another system of plunder and oppression.

The legacy of the Founders is being spat upon, forsaken and abused.

There are millions of people in this country who repudiate responsibility for living their own lives and beg for a Big Brother to take of them.  And of course, a bunch of what Plato euphemistically called "philosopher kings," are all too happy to step forth and grant their dearest wishes.  And never mind the cost -- that's what the rest of us are for.

The poets, philosophers, priests and politicians loudly proclaim that it is our duty to sacrifice our own lives, liberties, properties and whatever purpose we have in our lives so that overgrown crybabies can feel snugly warm and secure in the bosom of Big Mommy.  And if any of us -- the people who are adult human beings -- raises any objection to being so used, the squads of stormtroopers (Plato would say "guardians") that our police are being perverted into will "take care of us."

Our self-proclaimed erstatz-parents don't know what they're doing nor do they want to know.  When we the true adults complain about their actions and try to explain why they are wrong, they will emit excuses for ignoring us.  They refuse to mentally focus on objects in reality including us, but their subconscious is still receiving signals from their senses, they get emotional signals, that is, they have feelings as things move in and out of the range of their perception.  When they perceive the man who
doesn't need them -- the man who is rational and independent -- they feel fear and hatred.  They feel the need to destroy by any means the intellectually and morally autonomous person.

When I mentally focus on them are and what they are doing -- my subconscious sends signals of hate, fear and contempt --and why shouldn't it?

Why shouldn't I feel the need to see our oppressors stood against a wall and shot -- I want to see bullets rip into their bodies and see their blood and utterly corrupted brains splattered all over.  Why should I not want to see the bullet shredded corpses of Bill and Hillary, and other such creatures with delusions of parenthood dumped into any garbage landfill site that happens to be convenient?

(BTW, where did they dump President and Mrs. Ceausescu?)

On The Left

The Left abhors the thought of being judged by their character because they have none.  What's present is the black hole of their lust for power.  A desire for control over every aspect of our lives that distorts or destroys everything that comes within their influence.  The positive side is that if we don't drop below their moral event horizon we can escape from their influence.  But we will be damaged as a result.  The problem with painting the streets with the blood of our enemies is that we have to clean up the mess later.  I still wonder how folks on The Left manage to get out of bed without seriously hurting themselves.

An election in a constitutional republic is a process of hiring someone to perform a constitutionally defined task.  It's not a mystical collectivist ritual for the anointment of a stone age god-king.  We don't believe in The Leader Principle. We don't believe that the stone age god-king that Democrats believe in is in any way the embodiment of a collective will.  And we certainly don't believe that we're in any way subject to what's in fact a Democrats personal whim.  We aren't and never will be a living prop in a ideological fantasy.  We won't bind ourselves with the chains that a Democrat offers us.  And we will never embark on the path that always leads to the anonymous ditch outside of a town.   A Democrat is a believer in what Ayn Rand used to call the Primacy of Consciousness, a belief that reality isn't inherently real but is in some way alterable by a ruling consciousness.  The Collective, which in many versions of Socialist doctrine has a distinct consciousness of its own. Some Leftists have gone as far as to claim that the individual perception of actual reality, which invariably contradicts the doctrines of the collectivists, is a form of false consciousness.  This explains why the Left has made the effort to gain control of the Mainstream Media, and why they insist on "shaping opinion" instead of simply reporting the facts.  Democratic supporters in the media are through the deliberate issuance of falsehoods trying to alter reality.  But reality is inherently real.  Facts are facts.  Or to put it in the simplest terms: A is A.  If Hitler could be Democratically elected, then maybe the Democratic process isn't so good after all.

The Democratic Party's nomenklatura, being essentially a bunch of parasites, feel that they are entitled to rule over us.  How else does one explain the utter contempt of the nomenklatura for "the democratic process", and their ongoing desire to disarm us.  They feel threatened by the expression of the common citizen's rejection of the will of the nomenklatura and the presence of the citizen body's mean's of enforcing that rejection.  To a parasite, rejection is death.

The basic problem with the "know it all" mentality is the belief that they really do know everything. Thus any new information that contradicts their existing belief structure is often dismissed as being false.  The real results in the real world are a series of disasters that are too numerous to list.  Never underestimate the ability of the committed Leftist to willfully ignore the most obvious piece of verifiable evidence.  Just because someone else is holding the gun doesn't change the fact that someone is engaged in the act of robbery.  Peace is what happens when you run out of targets.  To deny free will is to deny personal responsibility for one's own actions.  In an age when one can kill more people with the stroke of a pen than with a lifetime's use of a personal weapon that's a pretty useful excuse.

The point of the First Amendment was to protect the right of the people, including what we now call the Media, to speak and publish the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be to those in (or wishing to be in) government.  The problem isn't only is this right being openly abused but any attempt to deal with this abuse would only create a power that'll with absolute certainty be abused by the other party should it regain power over us.  Laws are enacted, both respectable and contemptible, because someone acts in a way that is harmful other persons.  The point of having a First Amendment was that the voters would be properly informed about their elected officials and those who were seeking public office.  Instead we have an Established Media whose members have, on the basis of party affiliation, slandered a sitting president with very obviously forged documents and refused to report on the malignant behavior of a presidential candidate.  This is a gross and deliberate violation of the public trust.  And while this would not necessarily bring about a repeal of the First Amendment it may cause some to interpret it in a manner that is less tolerant of the present forms of media malfeasance.  This could lead to further problems in the future.

H. Beam Piper once wrote that political revolutions occur in a nation because the politicians become discredited.  The Republican Party has to a large degree discredited itself by their continued insistence on practicing politics as usual and their continued practice of making deals with the other side.  I still remember Waco.  We've reached the end of the era of politics as usual.  In the other party we're no longer confronted with fellow citizens with legitimate concerns but with a barbarian horde screaming for absolute power over all aspects of human life, demanding blind submission to doctrines that have no basis in reality, and the enforcement of policies that have been proven destructive to human life and civilized society.  And when we raise rational objections to their dogmas and actions we're commanded to be silent and are subjected to punishment for disobedience. In every problem we face as a civilized nation the other party is either the primary cause or the primary aggravating factor of that problem.  The fact of the matter is that those who make up the membership of the other party are no longer our fellow citizens, they're our enemies.  Enemies of our Republic and Enemies of Human Kind in General.  We need to face up to the fact that our laws and customs have been corrupted by our enemies and now form a virtual Gordian Knot which binds us on a path that leads to our destruction.  We need to cut the knot and we need to do it now.

Questions And Answers

Do Democrats cheat?

Yes.

Why?

To Democrats the fundamental value is power.  Freedom is the negation of power and therefore must be opposed.  Or at least in public Freedom must not be supported lest the victims come to understand their actual position within the socialist order.  A Democrat wouldn't be caught dead standing up for an actual Human value.  Cheaters, like The Democratic Party, need to be taken off the political playing field.

On Racial Collectivism

Antisemitism in politics is the practical equivalent of a dead canary in a coal mine, I can't say this often enough.  Antisemitism is a subset of Racial Collectivism.  We (Humanity) have to condemn all forms of Racial Collectivism.  We have to identify Black Lives Matter as the Racial Collectivist group that it actually is.  We have to see that Antisemitism is a symptom of a deeper philosophical problem.  Rejection of Racial Collectivism shouldn't be a radical idea.

If a member of Black Lives Matter insists on behaving like an old school National Socialist then a member of Black Lives Matter will be treated as an old school National Socialist, from the neck until dead.

Racial characteristics aren't chosen and therefore irrelevant to human actions.  What's subject to choice is a person’s beliefs and the actions derived from those beliefs.  And for the record McVeigh himself was a Racial Collectivist who rejected human rights and human reason.  As a result he rejected human reality.  The actual Patriot Movement at that time fully rejected McVeigh, his beliefs, and his actions.  This rejection was based on the actual moral values that were actually chosen.

Of all ideologies Racial Collectivism stands with the ugliest and most irrational of doctrines.  It denies the minds and rights of all individuals and reduces all people to mere things.  The content of character and the moral choices made by a person mean nothing.  The race of person, something completely outside of choice is all that matters to the Racial Collectivist.  In this case the Blacks are raised to the status of a Master Race and Whites are condemned to inferior status and death.  We've seen this before.  The Racial Collectivist mentally raises himself to a separate and superior status over Humans in general.  To him the Rights of Man are rendered meaningless and he may rob and murder people at will and an with a posture of righteousness. We're deemed to be things that are used and disposed of.  And for them murder is not a wrong but a moral duty.  In fact a Racial Collectivist is an Enemy of Mankind in General.  In a more rational day Enemies of Mankind were hunted down and killed.  Let's return to reason.





I've been called a racist online by a Progressive, never mind the actual facts of reality.  This person insists on believing absurdities, this person WILL commit atrocities.  As a rule Progressives see the subjects of their whim as mindless morons.  When their victims speak up the Progressives don't respond rationally but are the first to actively silence the voice of dissent.  Hypocrisy is the pretense of governing in the name of The People while ruling in ignorance of their actual will.  In other words Totalitarianism as usual.  While on a morning walk I saw two yard signs for Black Lives Matter on 29th Avenue here in Northeast Minneapolis.  But because I oppose racial collectivism I will be denounced as a racist.

It's happening again.  Many people loudly proclaim "never again," but they're the people who are going to do it again.  The Holocaust was the result of believing in Racial Collectivism. 

All forms of Collectivism must be seen as the vile doctrines they actually are.  The next great horror will be committed by people who believe they are good people doing good things.  Those people are not in the habit of mentally stepping back and examining their own beliefs along with the actions derived from those beliefs.

In Objective Reality one has to mentally step back and look at one's thoughts and actions.  One may not like what they find, but one has to do so.  One thought common in Racial Collectivism is the belief that one is a victim.  When we look at the doctrine of the NSDAP we see that the "Aryans" are the victims of the "Jews."  We're seeing this idea again in BLM with the idea that the "Blacks" are the victims of the "Whites."  (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the members of BLM dismiss The Holocaust as a White on White action.)

Dehumanization of a specific population is historically a necessary step preceding the act of mass murder.  Atrocities (The Holocaust, 9/11, The Killing Fields, etc) are committed by those who believed they were good people doing good things.  Those who believe absurdities, such as Racial Collectivism, will commit atrocities.  We saw this before with National Socialists, we're seeing this again with Black Lives Matter.

On Mass Murder

We think of The Holocaust and The Killing Fields as unique events, but they weren't.  The perpetrators of The Holocaust and The Killing Fields thought of themselves as good people and their victims as evil people.  We think of Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot as as evil people, and they were, but they were just individuals, it was their followers that gave them the power to commit atrocities.  I went over to the Underground Bunker and found those who would commit the next great atrocity were already posting in the forum.  The monsters who would commit the next great atrocity are never under the bed, they're staring at us in the bathroom mirror.

Those who refuse to think about the beliefs and actions of their victims can never be your friend.  I've learned this fact though direct experience.  Someone I thought of as a friend tried to steal some firearms I owned while I was confined in a hospital.  This person didn't understand that I would attempt to solve the alleged problem independently instead of simply turning the firearms over to him.  I tried to post my actual experiences as a pizza delivery driver on a forum on the Underground Bunker and was called a liar for my trouble.

On Collectivism

It's happening again. 

Many people loudly proclaim "never again," but they are the people who are going to do it again.

The Holocaust was the result of believing in Racial Collectivism.  The Gulags and The Killing Fields were the result of believing in Class Collectivism, or Marxism as we politely put it . 

All forms of Collectivism must be seen as the vile doctrines they actually are.  The next great horror wil be committed by people who believe they are good people doing good things.  Those people are not in the habit of mentally stepping back and examining their own beliefs along with the actions derived from those beliefs.

On Conservatism

American Conservatives are clearly different from European Conservatives.  Good people will die and decent people will suffer as a result of the lies that are being told about American Conservatives.

On Bad Ideas

On Bad Ideas.

When I was pizza driver I saw a Kerry photo pasted in a car window as it were a sacred icon.  I also saw a yard sign placed on the wall of a union hall as it were a sacred icon.  In fact they weren't sacred icons, they were simply objects.  In fact they were tools for human use.

In Objective Reality one has to mentally step back and look at one's thoughts and actions.  One may not like what they find, but one has to do so.

One thought common in Racial Collectivism is the belief that one is a victim.  When we look at the doctrine of the NSDAP we see that the "Aryans" are the victims of the "Jews."  We're seeing this idea again in BLM with the idea that the "Blacks" are the victims of the "Whites."  (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the members of BLM dismiss The Holocaust as a White on White action.)

On Racial Collectivism

Those who believe absurdities, such as Racial Collectivism, will commit atrocities.  We saw this before with National Socialists, we're seeing this again with Black Lives Matter.  Why did many horrors (such as The Holocaust, the Killing Fields, and 9/11, etc.) happen?  Because the people who did them were told (or believed) they were good people and doing good things.  We're seeing this again with the members of Anti-Fa and Black Lives Matter. I wouldn't be surprised if members of Black Lives Matter dismiss The Holocaust as a White on White action.  We need to understand that Black Lives Matter is a Racial Collectivist group.  The membership of  Black Lives Matter apparently never understood Dr. King's message, skin color is irrelevant, actions and beliefs (i.e. the content of character) are.  Evil actions will happen because those who do them believe themselves to be good people, this includes members of Anti-fa and Black Lives Matters.  Whenever I see a Black Lives Matter yard sign I feel like a Jew seeing a swastika on an armband or a flag.

Actions

Atrocities (The Holocaust, 9/11, The Killing Fields, etc) are committed by those who believed they were good people doing good things.

On Politicians

Those who can't remember the past are a highly sought after voting bloc for those who value political power.

Qverheard

I overhead a social worker speaking, she was clearly wrong and being taken advantage of.

No act is too vile for those who value Power.  Those who value Power will take advantage of a anyone’s distress.  We have to recall that Karl Marx was one of the most vile men who ever lived.  We also have to recall that Anti-fa and Black Lives Matter are Collectivist organizations.  As we leaned the hard way during the Twentieth Century ( a.k. a., The Century Of Death) Collectivism is clearly a evil ideology.

I'm Repeating Myself

Here's a repost of a very important book review originally published in THE RESISTER.  If you haven't read it, you should.

BOOK REVIEW
-----------

The Ominous Parallels--The End of Freedom in America. Leonard Peikoff. New York: NAL Penguin, Inc., 1982. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 83-60247. ix + 316 pages plus references and index.. Soft cover $10.00.


Reviewed by Red Barchetta

This book asks: "What caused Nazi Germany?" Unlike lesser attempts to explain that blood bath, The Ominous Parallels answers: "The same philosophies that are prevalent in the United States of America." Dr. Peikoff argues convincingly that in both countries the intellectual, educational and political leadership share, explicitly or implicitly, the same core ideologies. These ideologies submit that reality is subjective--a malleable illusion; emotions are the proper guide to human action--especially the emotions of race and the tribe, which cannot be understood by outsiders; self-sacrifice for the sake of others should usurp a man's own desires--and the state must take any necessary action to ensure that sacrifice. These ideologies demand that "individual selfishness" does not obstruct the path of "the public interest."

From Part One, Chapter One: " 'To be a socialist,' says Goebbels, 'is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.' By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals."

The underlying theme in The Ominous Parallels is how philosophy shapes cultures, and reading this book, it is difficult to escape a feeling of hopeless dread; of being caught in racing floodwaters and swept madly toward a destruction you are helpless to prevent. Given the theme of this nation's descent into fascism, and Dr. Peikoff's uncompromising method of proving it, that is the proper effect.

The conclusion of The Ominous Parallels is not that we are helplessly destined to go to the same lengths down the same road as Germany. The conclusion is that it is time for us to choose whether or not we will; that if we fail to consciously decide, the decision will be made for us. Contrary to the bleating of irrationalists then or now, it is only a coherent philosophy of reason and individual rights which will give us the means to choose not to become our own slaughterhouse.

Dr. Peikoff shows that such a philosophy is not prevalent in the United States because, although this nation was unique in being founded on philosophic ideals (rather than arbitrary land-grabs and tribal warfare), it was ultimately lacking a coherent detailed formulation of those ideals, as well as the Aristotelian philosophers to create one. Independence from Europe was only won physically--not ideologically. "The land of poets and philosophers was brought down by its poets and philosophers," says Peikoff. The resulting bowel movement of docile Nazi sheep who obeyed their Fuhrer because they obeyed their philosophers could indeed be us, for their philosophers--their pragmatists and Kants, their Hegels and Marxes--are ours
by adoption.

We do have one trump card, "...the philosophical breach between the American people and the intellectuals." In Germany, the intellectuals and the people were united in ideology, feeling at home in their country and with each other. This, says Peikoff, is not yet the case in America. Peikoff's book will help to keep it that way.

A  shorter version of the book, titled The Cause Of Hitler's Germany is now in print,

Top Story

The top story this weekend is arrest of Ghislane Maxwell.  It’s impossible for an inmate of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City to commit suicide.  With the failure of the surveillance system and the sleeping of the guards the obvious conclusion to a rational person was that Jeffery Epstein was murdered, but the death was reported by Main Stream Media as a suicide.

Will the death Ghislane Maxwell in custody be reported by the Main Stream Media as a suicide?

Who needs a Joseph Goebbels and his Reichministry when the Main Stream Media will voluntarily lie?

Complaint

Advocates of Liberty are often left on The Right side of the political line.

Why?

Why?

The advocating of an end can't be separated from the means it was brought about.

The people who committed The Holocaust (apart from the psychopaths) seriously belied they were good people doing good things.  But in history and Objective Reality they were evil people doing evil things.

Whenever I listen to an advocate of Gun Control I feel like a Jew hearing National Socialist propaganda.

To those who value Power no act to obtain political power is too vile.  The private ownership of firearms is a limitation of political power.  I don't believe in any God, so I can't believe in any God given right to own a firearm.  I can only explain why disarming the citizens is an evil idea.

Radical Idea

Skin color is unchosen and should be politically irrelevant, what does matter is a persons beliefs.

Question And Answer

Should Marxism be taught?

Marxism should be taught as the actual disaster it was.

Proposal

Is a new political party possible?

The answer is I don’t know.

The opponents of chattel slavery proceeded, even with public opposition.  We, as opponents of political power, have to.

We need to treat exercises of political power, such as censorship, as crimes against Humanity.  We need to treat bans on firearms and free speech as the anti-Human acts that they actually are.  Our political elites have apparently forgotten the lesson taught by our original civil war, that banning freedom doesn’t work.  Our political elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of alcohol, it didn’t work.  Our political elites tried to ban the voluntary consumption of hard drugs, it doesn’t work.  Our political elites will try to ban the voluntary ownership of firearms and freedom of speech, it will never work.

Our politicians are supposed to do a specific job, and they aren't doing it.

We have to start a new political party to go around them.  We don't have a choice.

Revolution

The Biden gun tax may qualify as valid grounds for a Second American Revolution.

On Islam

We're fighting for our lives, and we are losing.

Belief

The content of character does actually matter.  What I have to say about the content of character of the Minneapolis rioters requires the use of obscene language.

Thought For The Day

The Holocaust was clearly a bad idea, but some people don't get it.

Blast From The Past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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