Opinion

If presented with a "take the money and run" deal a power addict would very likely refuse to accept.  I wouldn't be surprised if a power addict following the example of such statist trash as Adolf Hitler and Salvador Allende ultimately ends up taking the final exit while cowering in a final redoubt.  As much as each of us may prefer otherwise the Second American Civil War is certain to be a long and bloody fight to the death.

Tripwire

For the Armed Forces the oath of enlistment was this:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

All of us who served in the Armed Forces of the United States made this promise to the nation.  No order given by Joe Biden (whom I assume won’t last a single term) or Kamala Harris is valid for a member of the Armed Forces.  Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the leadership of the Democratic Party, are clearly domestic enemies.

A civil war in the United States is inevitable.

The death of a patriot at the heads of some someone following the orders of Joe Biden or Kamala Harris will be a crossing of the line.  But the line may have already been crossed.

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 

Opinion

One of the things I learned in Basic Infantry Training at Fort Benning was that some orders are NEVER followed.  An order to use nuclear weapons on the American people is practically an act of treason.  Those who give or follow such an order is effectively a traitor and should be put to death. 

The Unpunished Crime Of William Jeffson Clinton

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.

 What has happened is a clearly unpunished crime.

 Here's three thousand words why I will never vote for The Democratic Party.

 

There's a right way to with deal someone like Koresh and it wasn't followed.  An Objectivist has to oppose David Koresh and his followers, but was it necessary to kill them?  No.

April 19, is the anniversary of the event commonly known as the Waco Massacre.

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 licensed firearms dealer residing on the site.  And they could've arrested Koresh as he made his morning run but didn't do so.   With his past history of cooperation with local law enforcement they could've 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.  Some Federal bureaucrats apparently wanted to feel important.  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 April 19th 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.  The HRT fired CS rounds, which are incendiary devices into, the building.  A tactic to commit mass murder used by the SS-Einsatzgruppen 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 or have been allowed to die in peace.

 

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. 

The Waco Massacre was a demonstration on the part of Big Bubba of the existence of the means to carry out Marxist style state terror and the existence of the will to use it.

 

There are some who believe that because I don't believe in God or Jesus Christ I shouldn't object to the Waco Massacre.  But from an objective perspective an act of state terror, like the Waco Massacre, remains an act of state terror.

.
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.

We have to understand that a firearm is simply a tool.  A firearm is simply a means to a Human end.  The Human end is freedom, this is the opposition to tyranny.  Tyrants want and need to disarm their victims.  Tyrants need victims.  Victims don’t need tyrants.

 

Koresh, if he was alive, would clearly be an enemy of an Objectivist.  But someone has to speak for him.  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.  Comrade McVeigh and the current occupant of the White House, Comrade Biden, are firmly seated on the Collectivist side of the aisle.  If we have anything to thank subsequent Republican presidents for it's for doing nothing.  Our so-called president, Joe Biden, wants to appoint a perpetrator of Waco Massacre to head the BATF.

 

And if you think that attitude and ideology is uniquely Clintonistic I will you disabuse you of that notion:

"Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty."

-- President Woodrow Wilson

Since then the name “Democrat” has become in my mind synonymous with the concept of “murderer.” If there's one complaint I have about President Bush or President Trump it is that they've done nothing to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.

Nothing. At. All.

We are still waiting for justice.

Here's another six thousand words why I will never vote for The Democratic Party.

 

 

 

 

Thoughts For The Day

Auschwitz was built and operated by altruists.  It's the people with an ego, and thus a conscience, that defied the National Socialist agenda of racial extermination.  

Most members of Anti-Fa wouldn't know a Fascist if they saw one in the bathroom mirror.

It doesn't matter what anyone chooses to believe, Reality is always there.  "A is A," live with it.  There are those who state that the philosophy of Objectivism is immoral.  My response would require the use of obscene language.  I'm often accused of disparaging Democracy.  Hello?  Reality is real, and the facts aren't subject to a majority vote.  Might doesn't make Right, live with it.

We're now living in a dictatorship.  In ruling by executive order, Joe Biden has effectively become a dictator.  There's the censorship thing too.  Joe Biden's fate has already been decided, he needs to hang from neck until dead.  Why don't we assassinate Joe Biden and/or Kamala Harris?  Because their assassinations won't solve the problem.  The actual problem is a culture that holds the rights of indivduals in contempt.  The assassination of Biden and/or Harris won't solve that problem.

When a difference in opinion is criminalized a civil war is inevitable.

Admission of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.

I'm old enough to remember when Yoko Ono actually sang on an Apple Records album.

Thoughts For The Day

To us who aren't under the influence of Kant and in fact value our lives, a call for an act of murder has to be taken literally.  There's simply no other morally valid option.  Punishing a man for an act he didn't commit is unjust.   Imprisoning a man for speaking the truth is tyrannical.   Disarming the citizens, who're the sovereign authority of the nation, is treason.

Everyone ages and eventually dies.  Unfortunately I'm condemned to witness the beginning of the Second American Civil War.  What some people will call the Second American Civil War The Reformation.  In fact we're in the opening stages of the Second American Civil War.  Those who walk the path of power are destructive and have to be destroyed, there's simply no alternative.

George Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, not as an instruction manual. 

Antisemitism in politics is the practical equivalent of a dead canary in a coal mine, I can't say this often enough.  We have to see that Antisemitism is a symptom of a deeper philosophical problem.  We should treat Antisemites as the Enemies of Humanity they actually are.

Paulette Cooper and Shelly Miscavige were punished for simply doing their jobs, this is wrong.  Revolutions happen (real revolutions, not Marxist ones) because the state does something wrong.  Treating Scientology as a valid religion is clearly wrong.

The French used to have a positive military reputation before June of 1940, the Dien Bien Phu thing didn't help either.

Some people are complaining about the Communist Chinese treatment of some Muslims.  Uh, no.  When oppressors are fighting oppressors we should just stay out of way.

Some Liberals can't get a cup of coffee right.

Thoughts Of The Day

A number of people regardless of their political orientation, including myself, have warned of a coming civil war.  Leftists have done what they've always done, they ignored the warning.  What will Leftists do when their victims (with their fists raised in the air) march down the street shouting, "Hell no, we don't owe?"

Leftists believe they're the good guys with their victims and opponents being evil.  Leftists believe they're the oppressed the when in fact they're the oppressors.  Leftists don't believe the truth, that the presidential election of 2020 was clearly stolen and that a civil war will be the result.

Reality can't rewritten by the wish of anyone, no matter what their intentions or ideology.  Instead of objectively observing the real world and thus learning how to master it.  Leftists willfully ignore the facts of reality and stumble about in a surreal fog from error to error and to ultimately stumble about from disaster to disaster.  Leftists openly state their desire to rule over the whole of Humanity and then proceed to conclusively demonstrate that they're totally unfit to do so.

Your feelings don't matter.  You're not entitled to a damned thing.  Reality is always there.

I was invited to join the Michigan Militia when they were forming up, but I didn't want to quit my job and move to Michigan.

Antisemitism in politics is the practical equivalent of a dead canary in a coal mine, I can't say this often enough.  We have to see that Antisemitism is a symptom of a deeper philosophical problem.  We should treat Antisemites as the Enemies of Humanity they actually are.

If I've a complaint about The Right it's that we've shown infinite  and godlike patience with the behavior of Leftists.  Leftists can assault in public those who won't submit to them,destroy property, call for the mutilation of opponents, and the murder of elected officials who're carrying out their constitutionally mandated duties, we'll not lift one finger to hurt a single hair on the otherwise useless head of a Leftist.  I once told an editor that I worked for that we needn't rhetorically dehumanize our opponents, all we have to do is accurately describe their ideology and behavior because they've by their own choice dehumanized themselves.

Projection is when the self appointed deity, sitting on a throne of human skulls, points a finger of a blood stained hand at those who seek to stop his rampage and screams "murderers!"

Before labor there must be thought.  Anyone who doesn't know what they are doing is wasting their time.

 

If one were dealing with an honest pacifist then their fundamental error is that he or she treats the state of peace as an absolute value without regard to conditions or consequences. Values are in fact conditional.  Peace is only an affirmative value to those who live in the condition of liberty, that is being rightfully in charge of one's self and able to set the goals for one's own life.  Peace can't be a value to the subjects of a totalitarian socialist state.  To the victim of such a state, the ordinary worker who is bullied by a commissar, the inmate of a slave labor camp, or the occupant of a darkened cell awaiting murder at the hands of the local chekists, war, either an internal uprising against the socialist masters, or an invasion by an army of liberation, is in fact the positive value.  But if there is anything that I have noticed over the years, it's that most self-proclaimed pacifists are in fact also advocates of totalitarian socialism who have worked within our political system to prevent the overthrow of their Marxist brethren in other nations.  Isn't it about time that the self-styled peace movement be exposed and dealt with as such? 

They call themselves Democrats but in fact they're totalitarians, let's treat them as such, in the Nuremberg style.

 

Editorial

The presidential election of 2020 was openly stolen.  Establishment (i.e. Country Club) Republicans were sent to Washington to do a job and they haven't done it.  Decent people want cheaters removed from play.  The leadership of the Democratic Party aren't decent people.  We're being ruled by people who wouldn't pass a Turing Test if they cheated on it.  

When I enlisted in the United States Army on March 10, 1982, I promised to oppose "domestic enemies."  When we took the oath of enlistment all of us made a promise to the nation to uphold and defend The Constitution.  Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are clearly domestic enemies.  Biden and Harris believe they have won the election, but what they have actually done is make a civil war in the United States inevitable.  As part of my patriotism I joined the Special Forces Underground and contributed to their publication The Resister.  I recruited another Twin Cities Objectivist into the SFU and contribute to their publication.  Socialism, which the majority of the Democratic Party believes in, is essentially slavery.  Do masters need productive people?  Yes.  Do productive people need masters?  No.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are clearly Enemies of Mankind.  They need to be dealt with as such.  Orders issued by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are clearly invalid.  The United States of America is heading into another civil war.  The Second American Civil War wont be like the genteel affair conducted by President Lincoln, it'll be a knock drag out fight that makes the Spanish Civil War look like a schoolyard brawl in comparison.  Honest people want cheaters removed, The Democratic Party routinely steals elections.  The Democratic Party need to be identified and dealt with as the criminal gang it actually is.  Big name Democrats need to be identified and dealt with as the Enemies of Mankind they actually are.  For those persons who value political power no act is too vile.  Once differences in opinion are criminalized, the path to civil war is open.

There are executioners waiting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

 

The Second American Civil War

The next American Civil War will be nothing like the gentlemanly affair conducted by President Lincoln and that nice Mr. Davis.*   It will be a bloody knock down and drag out fight to the death.  And it will make the Spanish Civil War of the last century look like a schoolyard brawl in comparison.

The enemy values power and under no circumstance will they willfully surrender it.  And even if they do allow a partial succession it will only be a temporary respite as they prepare to take back full power over what they regard as rightful control of their slaves.  And in the areas under their control they will go fully collectivist.  Anyone seen as a traitor or insufficiently enthusiastic will be put to death.  And those they can't use will also be put down.  Little girls confined to wheelchairs won’t have their stuffed toys taken from them out of malice, they'll be put down to preserve the resources of the collective.  And the enemy will feel good about it too.

When we go into a civil war we will have to kill every last one of them without exception.

*Yes, I’m being sarcastic. 

Rant For The Day

A national election is being stolen before our very eyes.  It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes!  The United States of America is heading into another civil war.  The Second American Civil War wont be like the genteel affair conducted by President Lincoln, it'll be a knock drag out fight that makes the Spanish Civil War look like a schoolyard brawl in comparison.  Honest people want cheaters removed, The Democratic Party routinely steals elections.  The Democratic Party need to be identified and dealt with as the criminal gang it actually is.  Big name Democrats need to be identified and dealt with as the Enemies of Mankind they actually are.  For those persons who value political power no act is too vile.  Once differences in opinion are criminalized, the path to civil war is open.

If I've a complaint about The Republican Party it's that they've shown godlike patience with the behavior of The Democratic Party.  Democrats can assault in public those who won't submit to them, destroy property, call for the mutilation ("Lobotomies for Republicans") of opponents, the murder of elected officials who're carrying out their constitutionally mandated duties, and they'll not lift one finger to hurt a single hair on the otherwise useless head of a Democrat.  I once told an editor that I worked for that we needn't rhetorically dehumanize our opponents, all we have to do is accurately describe their ideology and behavior because they've by their own choice dehumanized themselves.

To Democrats the fundamental value is power.  Freedom is the negation of power and therefore must be opposed.  A Democrat wouldn't be caught dead standing up for an actual Human value.  Has anyone noticed that The Republicans are clearly once again the party of liberation while The Democrats have resumed their old role as the party of subjugation?

 

The worst enemy of any nation are it's politicians.  Having a Democrat whine about someone else engaged in the sexual abuse of others, being corrupt, or having a dictatorial lust for power is like Larry Flynt complaining about someone else being obscene.  If we're to have a future then governmental power has to be limited.  Those who demand unlimited power have to be treated as the Enemies of Mankind they actually are.  But the fact of the matter is that Democrats see people as something to be used. And if a person is unusable by The Democrats, why keep them alive?  The Democrats sent young men to die in the Vietnam War, a Republican administration stopped the Vietnam War.

I've proposed starting a new political party.  

If The Republican Party doesn't clean up its act then we as rational citizens will have no choice but to start a new party if we want to peacefully make changes and restore a rational system of government.  Revolutions (real revolutions, not Marxist ones) happen because the government fails to function.  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.

Some people want to behave as Totalitarians, let's treat them as such, in the Nuremberg style

Prediction

American Liberals won't let the rest of the Human Race live, as a result a second American Revolution will occur.

Prediction

 The United States will have another civil war.

The next civil war will be nothing like the gentlemanly affair conducted by President Lincoln and that nice Mr. Davis.*  It'll be a bloody knock-down and drag out fight to the death.  And it'll make the Spanish Civil War of the last century look like a schoolyard brawl in comparison.  The enemy values power and under no circumstance will they willfully surrender it.  And even if they do allow a partial succession it'll only be a temporary respite as they prepare to take back full power over what they regard as rightful control of their slaves.  And in the areas under their control they will go fully collectivist.  Anyone seen as a traitor or insufficiently enthusiastic will be put to death.   And those they can't use will also be put down.  Little girls confined to wheelchairs won’t have their stuffed toys taken from them out of malice, they'll be put down to preserve the resources of the collective.  And the enemy will feel good about it too.  When we go into a civil war we'll have to kill every last one of them without exception.

*Yes, I’m being sarcastic. There'll be another civil war in the United States.

A Quote

It is better to kill one hundred innocents than to let one guilty person go.

-- Dolores Ibarruri ("La Pasionaria"), Spanish Communist

We, the truly rational, tolerate the long and drawn out appeals process for death penalty cases, as frustrating as it is, because we want to be certain that we will not put an innocent person to death.  The self appointed masters, when they're in absolute power, simply don't care.  The fact of the matter is that the only crime to those who value power is simple disobedience. To perceive and think as a proper rational person is fundamentally toxic to the masters.  And reason must be suppressed by any means necessary.  We the living believe in justice.  The masters on the other hand, don't care how high the pile of human corpses is as long as they're firmly seated on top.

Suggestion

Those who deny the validity of our Constitution should hanged with piano wire.  Yes, I know the Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment."  But these assholes deny the validity of our Constitution.  So why not?

A Reminder

"To send men to the firing squad Judicial proof is unnecessary.  These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail.  This is a revolution and a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."

--Che Guevara, Marxist Murderer

Those who dehumanize them themselves cannot claim protection under a human right.  Killing a Marxist is no more an act of murder than putting down a rabid dog or eliminating any other hazard to Human Life.

If the Democratic Party wants a Civil War they'll get one, up the ass.

Question

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.

Questions

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.

A Truth

Once force is openly used against those who speak out against the Left then the gloves will come off and force WILL be openly used against the Left. Once the Left openly repudiates the rules for living in a civil society then their victims will no longer see themselves as subject to those same rules.  Or to put it another way to the Left, break the rules of civil society and you will leave us no choice but to break you.  It's called a civil war. And cars with bumper stickers, tee-shirts, and other examples of open posturing will make target identification very easy.

What part of "Liberty or Death" does the Left persist in not understanding?

It is generally considered to be bad form to advocate violence against someone simply because of their political views. But if some Leftist thug finds him or her self staring at the muzzle of an assault rifle it is because the stupid Leftist put him or her self there.  And the truth isn't a leftist strong point.

Thought For The Day

There will now be a second American Civil War.

Punishing a man for an act he did not commit is unjust. Imprisoning a man for speaking the truth is tyrannical. Disarming the citizens -- who are the sovereign authority of the nation -- is treason.  To say anything more would require the extensive use of barracks language.  There's no such thing as "common sense gun control" those who are in favor of banning firearms are enemies of Humanity and should be treated in the Nuremberg style, from the neck until dead.  And there's no limit to what a Statist can do to a disarmed victim.

A Message To Antifa

(Image by Mark Urbin.)

If you want a Civil War, you'll get one up the ass.

Punishing a man for an act he did not commit is unjust. Imprisoning a man for speaking the truth is tyrannical. Disarming the citizens -- who are the sovereign authority of the nation -- is treason.  To say anything more would require the extensive use of barracks language.  There's no such thing as "common sense gun control" those who are in favor of banning firearms are enemies of Humanity and should be treated in the Nuremberg style, from the neck until dead.  And there's no limit to what a Statist can do to a disarmed victim.