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?

Rant Of The Day

This may actually be my rant of the year.

To make a reply to this individual would be a useless gesture.

Right-wingers have long been fascinated by Ayn Rand, the mid-century pop philosopher who defined moral behavior as doing whatever will make you, the individual, happy, and opposed any government intervention in the economy or charitable giving. Based on her economic beliefs, you can understand why, for example, Rep. Paul Ryan makes each of his staff members read her most famous novel Atlas Shrugged. But shouldn't it bother some of these right-wingers that she was, to use their own language, a "radical atheist," too?

Ryan, a Catholic, was confronted on this rather obvious friction last Friday, as he was leaving notorious GOP grifter Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Conference in Washington D.C. A young man supposedly representing a religious organization concerned with promoting economic justice — just like in the old days! — caught up with Ryan as he made his way through the hallway. He introduced himself as a Catholic and began hurling questions to Ryan about why he supports the economically immoral cult of atheist Ayn Rand. He offers Ryan a Bible and suggests he pay more attention to Luke!

This comes less than a month after 75 Catholic professors sent a scolding letter to Speaker John Boehner, a Catholic, for pushing a harsh budgetary agenda which they see as violating their religious principles.

All we're trying to do is give a "heads up" to those policymakers who run their mouths about being devout Catholics while simultaneously promoting Randian economics: Get your canned responses ready, because people are starting to notice.

One cannot rationally argue with someone on a matter of faith. To do so is clearly an act of futility. One may as well attempt to practice medicine on the dead,

What I can do is to explain, to other rational people, why I cannot submit to this load of mental excrement.

Let's begin with the basics.

A IS A.

On the epistemological level this means that regardless of what someone wishes to believe that THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH.

This means that the TRUTH cannot be changed or otherwise negated. No matter how many times a lie is repeated or how many guns are shoved into into a person’s face or even how many people are actually murdered in order to enforce a lie.

But any smug Catholic such as the one I quoted above would claim that he is only following the commands of God when he is unleashing force upon us to comply with the will of God.

Whose commands?

At no time in the fifty one years of my life have I ever come into physical or visual contact with God. I have never EVER received a message from God. No phone calls. No letters or other junk mail through the U.S. Postal Service. Not even an e-mail from god@god.god, even though he should be able to get something through the spam filter.

Nothing. At. All.

I simply have no reason to believe in the existence of God.

As a consequence I have to treat any demand that I obey God as so much nonsensical noise.

But does not stop numerous individuals from claiming to speak for God and demanding obedience to his will on his behalf. Nor does it stop these individuals from writing numerous books outlining those claims and their demands for obedience.

The issue is, again, that there is no objectively verifiable evidence for the existence of this being.

But, say the Theists, God created Heaven and the Earth, therefore he must exist and therefore we (meaning YOU) must obey him.

Really?

(I regret to say that I do not have access to my personal library and it has been some time since I have read the relevant works. My answer to the aforementioned nonsense may be the reverse of Rand’s answer to it. And I will not be able to place the correct citations in this article. Please bear with me on this.)

It is claimed by Theists that God, as his first miracle, created the Earth, and by implication the rest of the Universe, Ex Nihilo. Literally out of nothing. And that there was nothing in existence before the Universe was created by God.

Nothing at all?

Theists often claim that God was the original conscious being. But in order to be conscious one must be conscious of something.

A consciousness that is conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms.

Therefore there must always be something in existence.¹

Existence has to exist.

But some theists also claim that God is omnipotent. That he can do anything and is not limited by the laws of nature.

Really?

Existence is identity. To be is to be something in particular.

An omnipotent being is NOTHING in particular. Which is to say, it is nothing at all.

But let’s look at the practical effects of omnipotence.

An omnipotent being should not have ANY unfulfilled needs or desires. An omnipotent being should not be bored in any way. Furthermore, an omnipotent being should not any uncorrected physical or psychological flaws.

An omnipotent being should not have to create the Universe or to create Man to serve him.

If God exists, then we should not exist.

And by we I mean a physical and conscious being who carries out his own action by his own decisions.

If God, the omnipotent being exists, then Man cannot direct his own actions by his own free will. A man cannot even decide to
submit or not submit to the will of someone who claims to speak on behalf of God.²

But all of the above does not prevent theists from making their most absurd claim yet.

That each of us has an immortal soul. If we obey God then the soul will be eternally rewarded by being allowed to enter Heaven.³ And if we do not obey God then we will eternally punished by being sent to Hell.⁴

Never mind that there is no evidence that the mind can be separated from the body and preserved in some fashion.

Theists are not simply doing this to be sadistic.

As a class the clergy are not productive members of a society. In order to exist they need the material support of those in their domain. They also need to feel that they can continue to rely on the support their victims.

In short they need wealth and power.

The history of organized religion is the history of robbery by fraud and the murder of those who rightfully refuse to obey and materially support the self appointed speakers for God.

And if the Judeo-Christian version wasn’t bad enough, the perpetrator of Islam took the most evil aspects of Western Monotheism and turned them up to eleven.

In a novel that I’m writing I have a character who is thinking of what so say to the convert to Islam who was responsible for the murder of his wife and daughter:

But in Islam,‭ ‬those who submit to the obviously false god Allah,‭ ‬and obey the obviously false prophet Big Mo,‭ ‬and who in their supposedly holy names go out and conquer and abuse the unbelievers,‭ ‬will get to eternally rape a bunch of eternal victims as if they were a bunch of eternal animals in Allah’s eternal whorehouse.

Okay. I’m not nice.

The fundamental part of the scam of organized religion is the notion that God owns Man. That Man has no rights that those who enforce the will of God need to respect. And that those who refuse to obey God, as represented by the clergy, will not only be subjected to spiritual punishment but must also be subject to temporal punishment. The Founders of the American Republic understood that this would lead to sectarian violence and in the first article of amendment of The Constitution prohibited the enforcement of sectarian doctrines.

The smug Catholic such as the one I quoted above apparently does not understand this or does not care. What matters is the warm and fuzzy feeling that he receives from abusing the power of government to enforce the will of God.

And if some unbelievers have to die? Well that because they disobeyed God.

Speaking only for myself I fully believe that those who deny the Rights of Man cannot claim those same rights for themselves.

I cannot believe in the concept of God. I will not submit to those claim they are enforcing the will of God.

I will live my life by my own rational judgement. And I do not care how many priests and obedient followers I have to kill, how many places of worship I have to demolish, and how sacred texts that I have to burn to do it.

I will judge. And I will prepare to be judged.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?



1. Of course there will be those who will claim that the theory of the Big Bang constitutes proof of the existence of God. But there had to be something to go BANG. Therefore I must conclude that there was always something. No ifs, ands, or buts.

2. This is taken to extremes in the areas occupied by the adherents of Islam. (I won’t call them nations.) Some Muslims if they witness the commission of a felony or even a murder will not interfere or even call the police because it would interfere with the will of Allah.

3. Where the Muzak system plays syrupy sweet songs that constantly praise God and Jesus Christ. This may actually qualify as punishment. Seriously, Jennifer Knapp can write and perform spiritual songs that do not mention God or Christ at all. But Miss Knapp is also a lesbian. Nobody is perfect.

4. Where the condemned are subjected to the noise generated by Yoko Ono.

Okay. The last two points were a bit silly.

Statement Of Policy

For the second time someone tried to post a reply to the previous article on my Live Journal page.

This so-called reply was a link to a You Tube video. In both cases I deleted the reply without viewing the video.

Here are the house rules for replying on my blogs.

1. Use text in Standard English. English is now the world standard for international communication. If you cannot make a statement in English you may as well give up and take a suicide pill.

2. If you post a link to video it is very likely that I will not bother to watch it and I will proceed to delete it. If the video is not in English I will automatically delete the post.

3. As far as I'm concerned there is no valid argument for evil. I will not waste any time on such noise. All posts that attempt to argue in favor of a toxic ideology, such as Islam, National Socialism, Communism, or Obamatology, will be automatically deleted.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
.

HAPPY MASS MURDER DAY!

Once again we come to May First.

This is the day on which Leftists traditionally shout out their claim to be morally superior beings who are entitled to rule over us mere humans and take the product of our thought and labor to use as they they see fit for the betterment of mankind. And if you really believe their claims then obviously you won't notice the pile of the one hundred million-plus human bodies that the self styled agents of progress have left in their wake as they have made their way to power, and willfully abused that power over us mere humans.

When we see through the ideology and other claims of the Left it is very readily apparent that their doctrine is nothing more than a modernistic facade placed over the old stone age practice of beating up or killing people and taking their stuff.

It is time that we see the Left for what they truly are, not as the vanguard of moral progress, but only a gang of thieves and murderers.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?
.

Falsehood And Factual Response Of The Day

Good afternoon dear readers.

Let me ask, how through the act of objective observation, is someone able to discover that a Democrat is lying? The answer is very simple, one observes that the Democrat's lips are moving or the fingers are in contact with the keyboard.

Today's falsehood is brought to us by the chairman of the Democratic Party in the state of Oklahoma.

“I certainly stand by my remarks, because it's widely known that McVeigh was anti-government. I think that he was a right-winger, and I think the current tea party people, while I'm not saying that they're proposing violence, they're anti-government,”

-- Oklahoma Democratic Party Chairman Wallace Collins*

I'm not really sure where or how I should begin to reply to this bit of nonsense. This statement is just so wrong on so many levels.

But let's begin with the fact that McVeigh was a white racial collectivist. This is nothing new in the American political scene as President Woodrow Wilson was himself a white racial collectivist. Amongst his first actions in office as president was to fire every African-American employee of the federal government. President Wilson also voiced his approval of the white racial propaganda film The Birth Of A Nation.

President Wilson also practiced one of the other annoying habits of collectivist political leaders, the conscription of male citizens in order to intervene in a foreign war. In this case the slaughter festival that was going on in Europe at the time.

Let me put it this way, if he were alive today, I believe that President Woodrow Wilson would not be a member of the Tea Party.

Comrade Collins also claims that the Tea Party movement is against the government. To any rational observer this appears to be incorrect.

The Tea Party Movement, which includes members of all races, is acting through legal means to bring the apparatus of the federal government into full compliance with the United States Constitution. McVeigh, on the other hand, was openly advocating the overthrow of the federal government as part of the white warrior martyrdom fantasy that he was living out.

And what can I say about the inspiration of that white warrior martyrdom fantasy, that piece of ideological and literary excrement known as The Turner Diaries?

The novel, if I recall reading it correctly, depicts the conquest and subjugation of the white population of the United States by a self appointed elite group that called itself "The Order." All non-whites, including Jews, were exterminated. Any white person who refused to obey The Order was executed as a race traitor. The actions of The Order as depicted in the novel were very much like the practice of Islam without the claim of divine sanction. Unlike today's political Right, but like all known collectivists, such as the National Socialists of Germany, The Order rejected all of the Rights of Man and killed anyone who served no place in their collective.

Fortunately, I read it on a website where the text was posted.** So apart from the fee for Internet access, I didn't have to pay a cent to read it. I would later describe the experience of reading it as being the intellectual equivalent of the act of swimming in raw sewage.

Before he committed his collectivist atrocity, McVeigh was also ejected from a meeting of the Michigan Militia.

Before I began my association with The Resister, I was actively corresponding with the founder of the Michigan Militia, the Reverend Norm Olson, and had accepted an invitation to attend a militia meeting.***

Like the members of the Tea Party a generation later, the members of the militia wanted to the see the federal government return to compliance with the Constitution. But the members of the militia were also preparing to defend themselves and their families from further acts of state terror after the Waco Massacre.

The fact of matter was that the Massacre of the Branch Davidians outside of Waco was completely unnecessary.

The U.S. Army rifle platoon I trained with in 1982 could have secured the structure without killing any of the children or the elderly adults. Yes it was possible that some of us actual soldiers could have been wounded or killed in the action. But that's part of the hazards of the job.

What the so called Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI did to was to inject into the building several tear gas cannisters. These cannisters emitted a gas that was both toxic to unprotected children and elderly adults, and which served as an accelerant for a larger fire in the structure. The tear gas cannisters also served as the source of the fire which ultimately consumed the structure and those living in it. The HRT also used the armored engineer vehicles they were issued to destroy the exits to the structure, thus effectively preventing the escape of the inhabitants.

The massacre of the Branch Davidians was a deliberate act of state terror which was carried straight out of the collectivist ruler handbook. The purpose was to demonstrate to all the consequences of disobeying the collectivists who then occupied the White House.

Whereas the members of the Tea Party are clearly on the Libertarian side of the political aisle, Comrade Mcveigh, as well as Comrade Collins and the current occupant of the White House are firmly seated on the Collectivist side of the aisle.


* Quite frankly, I find it difficult to believe that the Democrats in the state of Oklahoma are anything more than a bunch of raving loonies meeting in the back room of a leather bar, given the history of that state.

** The website and text is gone now. I think this is somewhat unfortunate because I believe that no rational person should have to pay a cent for the privilege of reading a book that calls for their own murder.

*** I was actually the best equipped person to show up at that meeting.

Remember Waco

Once again we come to an anniversary.

Nineteen years ago an agency of the Federal Government carried out an act of state terror.

In plain view of the very compliant mainstream media the so-called Hostage Rescue Team carried out a deliberate lethal force assault on the residence of the Branch Davidians outside of Waco, Texas.

Having left the task of sorting out the innocent and helpless women and children to God, the HRT executed an assault plan that would effectively wipe the Branch Davidians off the face of the Earth. The few adults who did survive were subsequently prosecuted and imprisoned by the Federal judicial apparatus as directed by attorney general Janet Reno.

The deliberate massacre of the Branch Davidians served as a demonstration of what the Marxist leadership of the Democratic Party was willing to do to those who opposed it.

To this day the "intellectual" partisans of the Democratic Party continue to deny responsibility for the deliberate act of mass murder perpetrated by their own leadership. Much as the fellow travellers of the Communist movement denied the crimes of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

One such person writing in a forum on the Huffington Post, an intellectual cesspit akin to the propaganda agencies of the former Soviet State, having read a previous posting on this subject on this site, declared the author of the post to be "doofus" and that the Branch Davidians were solely responsible for their own destruction.

The fact that a Federal agency initiated the sequence of events. And the fact that the HRT declined to carry out the type of rescue operation, for which they were allegedly established and trained to carry out, in favor of a total lethal force action, were simply blanked out of the alleged mind of the commenter.

The Democratic Party continues to treat this atrocity as a valid act of government and thus continue to act as accessories after the fact to the crime.

I will have more to say concerning the epistemological cause of this pattern of behavior at a future date.

No effort has been made by the subsequent Republican administration to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice. This constitutes valid grounds for being properly ashamed of being a supporter of the Republican Party.

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


Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

References.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

_

A Message

The novels 1984 and Atlas Shrugged were written as warnings to Humanity. Not as instruction manuals for enemies of Mankind.

'Atlas Shrugged': A How To Manual for the Obama Administration?

Abomination Of The Day

Chicago Cop to Reporters: 'Your First Amendment Right Can Be Terminated'

If there is one thing I hate more than Illinois Nazis it's Illinois Democrats.
.