Free Literature

I was wring a science fiction novel. At a bit past 42,000 words I decided that two aspects, the extinction event on Earth and the villains where a bit too absurd, So I'm starting over again.

If anyone wants to read the existing MS send me an e-mail.

lesbates_traveller at yahoo dot com

A Photo And A Question

Pamela Geller shows us how school children are protected in Israel.

Yes, that's a teacher protecting her students with a firearm.

What we have here is a solution to the problem that is simple and obvious. Except of course to those who are mentally stuck in the Kantian reality-is-unreal paradigm. But the Founders of the American Republic were not anticipating the presence of lunatics and Muslims running around and slaughtering children.

Why did they write in a right to bear arms in the Constitution?

My answer to the question is simply this: WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereign authority of the United States of America.

There are several natural consequences of the political primacy of the citizen. I'll just cover the first two here:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First, the citizen as the sovereign authority must be free to examine the facts for himself and communicate his conclusions to his fellow citizens. He cannot be compelled to believe a falsehood and therefore act on it.

Second, the citizen as the sovereign authority must possess the physical instrument of political authority and be prepared to use it. The ballot that is cast by the citizen, like the paper currency in common use, must be backed by a physical value.

The government must be subordinate to the sovereign authority, the citizens of the nation. And citizens must have the knowledge and the means to enforce their authority.

Contrary to what the practicing Kantians want us to believe, the first four words of the Second Amendment does not constitute a license to disarm the citizens and render them helpless in the face of a supreme state. It means that the citizens must be armed, trained, and organized to enforce their authority upon the government.

Now no rational person wants a civil war in our nation, but if the government would simply comply with the Constitution it wouldn't be necessary.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Announcement

I finally gave in to temptation and tried to lurk on the Baen's Bar forums.

I've been banned.

Gosh, what a surprise.

Announcement

Baen Books can shove it.

I will not do business with Baen Books. Ever.

A moderator on their forums posted this:

Regarding this block of instruction, had you bothered to read the appropriate documentation available for this station, you would have noted the sections regarding appropriate and inappropriate postings. You are a no-go at this station for initiating personal attacks and continued failure will result in your removal from this station.

James Cochrane
Bar Moderator

I responded:

Let's see.

A rational person is viciously attacked by someone who has clearly fallen for the longest running destructive and deadly scams in history in a clearly depraved manner..

You ignore it.

And when I respond to this attack you threaten to remove me from this forum?

Go ahead.

You can take this bar and your publishing house and shove it.

I will not buy another book from them nor will I submit a manuscript.

They want to behave as garbage then I will identify and treat them as garbage.

Quote Of The Day

While I was reading a discussion thread at Baen's Bar I ran across this keyboard dropping:

Ayn Rand was a arrogant, soulless, unethical, vicious, evil, and ultimately stupid monster.

-- LTC Tom Kratman, US Army Retired

This means that I won't bother to read any novels he wrote or make friends with this irrational walking piece of excrement.

Regardless of what one feels, THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH. I don't worship her at her (figurative) feet. But I have found her nonfiction work to be closest to my own experience of the real world. That is why I am an Objectivist. So that when someone denounces Rand in such appalling terms, they are denouncing me.

And it's been my experience that arguing with such individuals is as practical as providing medical treatment to the dead.

Given that his novels are published by Baen Books I am now wondering if my own literary output will ever pass muster with them.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Update 1705 CDT:

Apparently Comrade Podpolkovnik Kratman has read my denunciation:

You're really not worth any more effort than this. Get the fuck out.

No Problem. Bye.

WHoaaa.....

Update 1912 CDT:

Comrade Podpolkovnik Kratman wrote to another member of the forum:

That's okay, BT, I categorically forbid the animate piece of dog shit from reading my books. He, like other members of the cult that goes by the name of objectivism, is just too dogmatically stupid for the lessons to take.

Well, that will relieve me of any accusations of plagiarism on the part of Comrade Kratman.

Seriously, I tried to read an opening chapter of one of his novels on the free section of the Baen site. I found it unreadable. My worst fan fiction is better than his output. (I won't insult those who scribble out their novels in crayon by suggesting that he does so himself.)

But then I never really had any interest in Neo-Nazi war porn.

Update 2100 CDT:

Oh my! He's still at it. Talk about a serious premise check failure.

Obersturmbannführer Kratman said:

By the way, if you can't see the difference between a conservative and a communist, as your silly little comment suggests, then you really _do_ belong with Objectivism; an idiot philosophy for an idiot. It's a perfect match.

Dipshit.

Regardless of what they call themselves, a statist is a statist.

I could also say that it doesn't matter what color wig she is wearing, a whore is still a whore.

In monotheism (which according William F. Buckley, Jr. is the foundation of conservatism) man is the property of God and therefore must obey him.

But in reality God is a figment of the imagination who is spoken for by a self appointed spokesman.

In collectivism, man is the property of the the collective and must obey it.

But in reality the collective is a figment of the imagination who is spoken for by a self appointed spokesman.

So what is the difference?

Regardless of the exterior differences, a statist is still a statist. And a whore is still a whore.

I'm looking forward to seeing how deep this idiot digs himself in tomorrow.

Quote Of The Day

“The Government is the only thing we all belong to.”

-- The Democratic National Committee, 2012 AD

The notion that the person is the property of the state, and may be used as a slave or killed as a diseased animal for disobedience, is the central social premise of totalitarianism.

The fundamental value of the parasites who create and make up the membership of the totalitarian movements is power over the productive. They must have power over the people who do real thought and real labor because without it they would die. The users must exercise force on the productive of else they will die off.

Because a human right is a restraint on the power of the state, all the Rights of Man, starting with the Right to Life, must be treated as null and void.

And we all know where this is going.

All over the world, especially in Europe and Asia, there are monuments to the depravity of the totalitarians. The remains of slave labor camps and extermination centers. Our planet is dotted with the mass graves of those who would not or could not be used by the users.

Even in the United States, along the Trail Of Tears, there are the graves of those Natives whose land was stolen and given to the slave owning elites by the Democrat Andrew Jackson. The Democrats continued to support the slave owning elites and to protect the practice of slavery. Even after the Civil War they created a terrorist arm, the Ku Klux Klan, to suppress and murder former slaves.

And then there is the still unpunished crime of Democrat William Clinton.

In my mind the title of Democrat has become synonymous with the term Murderer.

The Democratic Party in the United States has in effect become a totalitarian party, and like the National Socialists and Soviet Communists they must be identified and dealt with as such.

By nothing less than complete annihilation.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

Isn't It Nice?

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_21391226/st-paul-those-are-actually-special-ops-training

This sounds like those black helicopter stories that went around during the reign of Big Bubba.

So who's the theoretical opponent? Certainly not the inhabitants of certain "ethnic" neighborhoods who could start a riot when The Big Zero is not reelected. That would be racist.

Isn't it nice that everyone who enlists in the armed forces of the United States takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution?