Rational Declarationist

In the North Country of NH, the seasons go more like this: Summer Fall Winter Spring Winter Spring Winter Spring Winter Spring But summer is pretty good. Last year it was on a Tuesday.

The Communist Manifesto was published in early 1848. Donuts were invented in 1847. This means that there was a small sweet spot in human history in which we had donuts and no communism. Late 1848 was the best time to live.

“Kill your local commie” only works if you’re talking about actual communists, intelligent but immoral people who are actively doing things in government settings or are influencing the masses to ruin your district with communism. Brainwashed libs who are otherwise kindhearted people but misguided by propaganda are fine. Commie villains are not.

The Dems are turning Kamikaze against ICE agents now. Imagine trying to literally run over a police officer after refusing orders and interfering with their job and expecting nothing bad to happen to you. Absolute madness.

Feminism destroyed America. And I’m not only talking about this modern-day leftist “woman empowerment” garbage. A lot of people think that in its original early days, back in the 20s and 30s, that feminism wasn’t so bad, even righteous. But I disagree. Even when it started, it was bad and heavily contributed to the downfall of America’s golden age. Men and women have two separate, distinct roles in society. One is not more important than the other. The woman’s job is to primarily raise the future generation, and the man’s is to build a society for that generation to live in. The woman’s job is not to build a society. That’s not what they were made for. Being emotional beings (which is good for raising children), they’re not good at running a country. Men and Women are equal in importance of roles, but unequal in what the roles themselves are.

This is the single best summary of the argument for repealing the 19th I’ve ever seen. I highly recommend watching this, it’s only two minutes.

Taxation is theft, period. Taxes are not the price we pay to live in a civilized society. The Declaration of Independence asks and answers to very simple, important questions: What is the purpose of government, and from where does it derive its just powers? The answer to the first is to protect the rights and liberties of the people it governs, and the answer to the second is from the consent of those governed peoples. Therefore, since its power comes from the people, it cannot do anything the people cannot. And since its purpose is to protect the rights and liberties of the people, it can’t directly trample over them. Taxation does both. The government tramples over your rights to what you own by doing something you cannot. Imagine your neighbor comes to your door and demands, let’s say, 5% of your paycheck. If you don’t give, he’ll throw you in his basement and take away your stuff. Illegal, and rightfully so. Now imagine that that neighbor is an IRS agent, the basement is jail, and to enforce this he has a police squad. That’s not illegal anymore, that’s just taxes. In every single case where something is funded by taxes, a better alternative can always be found. Whether that is privatization, donations, fundraisers, decentralization, or eliminating the thing to be funded as it is a useless waste of money. The answer for funding something can never ethically be to steal from the general populace. “Taxes are the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society.” -Mark Skousen

Women should not be legally allowed to vote. Am I misogynistic? I don’t think so, and here’s why. Women are built to be caregivers. Whether you think a greater power designed them to be that way or they evolved to be so, it is evident by simple observation. They are naturally more emotional, caring, and nurturing, because they are made to be that way as a primary parent. In contrast, men are built to be strong and logical. The woman’s job in a self-sufficient ideal society is to raise the future generation. The man’s job is to build a society for the future generation to live in, as well as the rest of the necessary grunt work so the woman can focus on raising the children. Both of these roles are equally important. However, as emotionally-driven beings, compared to men, on average, they are less swayed by logic, and more easily manipulated. This is an unfortunate side-effect to being good with kids. Not necessarily a bad thing, unless they can vote. Nobody has a “right” to vote, this is no democracy. To claim the right to make legislature over others is to declare yourself their master. In a Constitutional Republic, we have to choose what demographic is best suited for, on average, making the best decisions for preserving our liberties and freedom. And women do not fit that demographic. Possessing the great gift of being able to raise children the best makes them terrible at voting well. The 19th Amendment was a failed experiment. We let women vote, then we found out their number one issue was being able to murder their children. I don’t think this is misogynistic because I don’t dislike women. It’s just that voting is not their place, because it heavily compromises the safety and freedom of everyone else. Repeal the 19th. Get women out of voting booths.

It’s incredible how hard people fight for the “right” to murder their own children. Of course, we can all agree no one has a right to murder. Quite the contradiction. “But it isn’t murder! A fetus isn’t alive!” I’m sure the second they find a single-cell organism on Mars too small to see, they’ll call that a life, while still denying that a living human isn’t. A fetus has a heartbeat, can breathe, kick, and hiccup, is humanoid, and if you tested the DNA, the results would show it’s a human. On top of that, it has its own unique stand of DNA, making it a completely new and separate person. Also, it has brain waves. It can literally think and you’re denying it’s alive. “A woman has a right to her own body!” And the fetus doesn’t? The fetus is inside and attached to the woman, but it’s still a separate entity. Why shouldn’t the fetus have a right to its own body? “We should kill it if the woman can’t financially support it! You don’t want it to grow up in poverty and suffering!” So it’s ok to kill homeless people? They’re living in the same situation. What’s the moral difference between a living adult human in poverty and a living baby human in poverty? It’s ok to kill one but not the other because it’s smaller than you? Also, orphanages exist. You could also see if you can find a couple that your friends with who’d like to adopt directly. On top of that, if you weren’t in a financially ok enough situation for a child, why would you create one? Rape only accounts for less than 1% of abortion cases, so that’s not a viable excuse. Even in the case of rape, why should the child be punished for the crimes of the rapist? What ever happened to “two wrongs don’t make a right”? Women possess one of the greatest powers. They have the God-like ability to create new life, to generate entirely unique whole beings inside of them. They shouldn’t abuse that ability then slaughter that life, their very own offspring. And to those who think abortion is bad but don’t think we should have a federal ban, or that it should be up to the states, I ask you this: How come the legality of regular murder was federally restricted, as opposed to being left up to the states? Why should the murder of smaller beings be any different? Also here’s a meme I “stole” from the internet

The Covid “vaccine” was a lie that never worked. And also made Pfizer $80 billion. They claimed if you got the vaccine, then it was impossible for you to get Covid and to spread Covid. When that was proven false, they claimed they never said it in the first place, and that it still lowers the chance of you dying from it. When in reality, unless you’re elderly or super obese, the chance of dying from Covid normally is incredibly low. The mortality rate is lowest for teenagers, about 0.0003%. It increases with age, but never past 0.01%, until you get very old and your body starts falling apart anyway. So what does the vaccine do? Nothing, until you get 40 boosters, of course! Even then, it still does nothing unless everyone around you also has 40 boosters! But seriously, it doesn’t reduce the chance of you getting or spreading it, and hardly affects the mortality rate. The only thing it actually does is give you heart problems and turbo-cancer. Remember the endless cases of teenage sports players passing out in the court/field, and how all of them recently had the vaccine? I’ve never met a single person who died from Covid. I have, however, met people who got the jab then “mysteriously” developed turbo-cancer soon thereafter, whilst being otherwise healthy people. If you were a company that stood to make $80 billion off of a panicked world, and had ties and influence with the government to reduce the odds of a lawsuit, would it really matter if your product worked to you?

The truth is often counterintuitive, so you have to actually think to arrive at a correct conclusion. Unfortunately, people don’t like thinking, so they latch onto the first thing that makes sense only until you give it the slightest depth of thought. Take the proposal of banning guns, for example. No guns means no gun crime, right? Makes sense. But wait, banning them doesn’t automatically remove every single gun in America from existence. People who commit crimes with them will get them anyway since they’re already planning on doing something illegal, and people who don’t commit crimes have just been stripped of their defense. The UK is an amazing example of what happens when you ban something that’s already massively in circulation. They banned knives. Per 100,000 people, their knife crime is actually higher than America’s gun crime, and we haven’t even banned guns! Yes, if zero guns existed in America, outlawing them might work. But that’s not the case. Even if it was, the government has no power or right to take away the citizen’s right to bear arms. If you don’t actually use your brain, then banning guns makes sense at a surface level. It’s intuitive. But it’s also stupid. People don’t want to think.

“White people bad because slavery!” Slavery is bad. We can all agree on this. I don’t think it useful to point fingers at any one given race when it comes to slavery, but stances like these must be addressed, so here it is. White people were not the only race to practice slavery. White people did not invent slavery. White people did not practice slavery to the cruelest degree. White people did not own slaves in the highest proportion. White people were, however, the first to end slavery. And the first to fight a war to end it. White people were also the first to forcefully stop others from doing it elsewhere. It’s also important to note that during the Atlantic Slave Trade, the Africans were selling each other into slavery. Captives they conquered or had no use for. Also, the first slave owner in America was a black man. And if you take a more lenient stance on the definition of slavery, there are still many slaves owned today. And White people make up the smallest percentage of those slave owners compared to other races. In 1860, when slavery was at its peak in America, about 1.4% of White American men owned slaves. If you want to play the game of what race was the worst when it comes to slavery, it’s definitely not White people. Slavery is bad, so you can’t really call anyone good by today’s metric, but if we’re looking for the least worst when it comes to slavery, that would be White people. But slavery was hardly about race to begin with. It was whoever was just conquered, or who was most suited for certain work.

Somalians have an average IQ of 68. That is impressively stupid. For reference, what is considered to be clinically retarded in America is an IQ of 70. It used to be higher, around 85, but they had to lower it when too many people of color met the criteria. The average Somalian is literally clinically retarded. And half of them are dumber than that. Why should we let these people into our country? Why should we owe anything to these people who would destroy our country? How is this “cultural enrichment” doing any good for society? It isn’t. We don’t owe anything to anybody else simply because we exist. To claim so is to declare yourself a slave to them. Deport them back to Somalia.

This moronic bot thinks there are no differences between a democracy and a republic. Because as well all know, the popular and electoral vote are basically the same thing. Three branches of government made of representatives? That totally fits the meaning of democracy. The literal concrete differences you find in the definitions by doing two simple google searches? No worries, majority rule and representative government are TOTALLY the same. The second I make valid counterpoints to their ridiculousness, they post the same Thomas Jefferson quote that I already addressed and is irrelevant to the main point, because they don’t even know their own position well enough to defend it.

I stand corrected on Jefferson’s take on the matter. However, I still stand by mine. The Merriam-Webster definition of Democracy is this: “Government by the people: rule of the majority” And the Merriam-Webster definition of a Republic is this: “A form of government in which the power belongs to a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by the leaders and representatives elected by those citizens to govern according to law” A democracy does not equal a republic. Also notice how the definition of a republic is very reminiscent of articles like the Declaration. Under democracy, whatever the majority says goes. Rule of the majority. 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. If over half the people vote that they want to steal your bike, they can do that. Under a republic, there’s a middle set of people. The power belongs to citizens who can vote (which, at the time of the founding fathers, was land-owning white men), and the power is used by the leaders and representatives, who are restricted by law. What sounds more like America today? Recall that in 2016 Hillary won the popular vote, so if we lived under a democracy she would’ve won, but she didn’t, because she lost the electoral vote. If we look at the definitions, what these words actually mean, then the very existence of just the electoral college alone proves we don’t have a democracy. To quote Jefferson again, with something he indisputably wrote, “Governments are instituted among men, deriving it’s just powers from the consent of the governed” The entire American population is governed. Consent does not mean 51% of those. That’s not how consent works. Instead, we set up a constitution, a set of basic laws for the government, passed unanimously, restricting the government to what the public consented to. We don’t vote for president. We vote for representatives who vote for president. We don’t vote for laws. We vote for representatives who vote for laws. We don’t vote when there’s a legal dispute. The people who do (judges and the jury) are either appointed by leaders or voted in. If a democracy is equal to a republic, then how come we don’t vote for all those things directly? Every single branch of the U.S. government is made of representatives and leaders who vote for things, and we vote for them. It is fundamentally mathematically different than if we voted for those things directly, and on top of that what they can do is still limited by laws as such to make sure they don’t overreach with their power. What we have in America today, and what was outlined in the Constitution, is a Republic. It meets every single of the several criteria for being a Republic. It does not meet the single sole criterion for a Democracy, however. A Republic is a refined version of Democracy that is different in many ways because it fixed most of Democracy’s problems. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the cherry on top.

@AmIMisogynistic x.com/dan85895877/st… your meme is a lie

“We need to save our democracy!” Unfortunately, this is a lie you hear no matter what side of the political spectrum you’re on. We are not a democracy. In America, we have a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is tyranny. The inventors of democracy hated and feared it. Ancient philosophers hated and feared it. Our Founding Fathers hated and feared it. Why? And what’s the difference? In democracy, if slightly more than half the populace want something, that thing happens, and it affects everyone, with no system to filter out bad people and ideas. In a Constitutional Republic, the public votes for the people who vote for things, and there are rules to make sure it doesn’t get out of hand. Democracy is one of the most Un-American political ideologies. “We in America do not have government by the majority—we have government by the majority who participate… All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” -Thomas Jefferson

As a homeschooled kid, this is something I often hear from non-homeschoolers: “Homeschooling is fine and all, I just don’t like it when the kids do nothing but play video games and the parents don’t teach them anything” This is such a terrible argument. Of course it’s bad when kids use homeschooling as an excuse to do nothing and they don’t learn. But that is such a rare outlier case. 99% of homeschooled kids can read proficiently by age 18. For public school kids, that number is 35%. In a room of 20 random homeschooled 18 year-olds and 20 random public schooled 18 year-olds, you can expect that every single homeschooler can read, but only 7 of the 20 public school kids can. Yes, I agree that it’s bad when kids don’t learn anything and become sub-functional adults. But don’t randomly assign that to somewhere it doesn’t apply, because in reality, that case happens *insanely* more frequently in public schools. I have met many homeschoolers, and not a single one was illiterate. I have, however, met public school juniors and seniors who can’t even quickly solve 9x3 in their head.