Sunday, March 22, 2009

What's Wrong With This Statement?

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

From an interview with Comrade Kerry in Time magazine:

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

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


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

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

What the hell is wrong with these people?

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

Well I certainly don’t think so.

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

But they didn’t, did they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kerry and his political comrades call this compassion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Thought for the Day



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

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

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

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

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Thought for the Day

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

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

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

Perhaps its time to revise the First Amendment.
_

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Book Review: Unintended Consequences

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

-------------------------------------

The Author Speaks Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Motivation for the Day



An alternative if you're into Latin should be:

"ULTIMA RATIO CIVITUM"

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