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.