For those of us on "The Right" the time has come for clear thinking.

[devil21]

Big centralized government elected by city dwellers curtailing the behavior and movement of city dwellers is not at all "what I'm wishing for", that's in the pike now.

My desire is to see the rural counties stop supporting the urban ones. It'd be a matter of weeks before the SHTF and less than 90 days until the urban hoards and their government could be brought to heel.

Blood would be shed but it's going to be shed anyway.

The question is who holds power when the dust settles.

So long as the country folk (like me) sit and watch big gov deal with the city troubles nothing will change and the city troubles will become bigger and do more damage to the nation. At some point the millions who don't ascribe to city life or city thinking are going to have to choose.

Right now the problems are geographical but the wealthy problem children are scuttling out of the cities they've ruined.....

The Hunger Games films ring a bell?

 

[BSWPaulsen]

I now dismiss, out of hand, anybody who rejects force and violence as means to defend or further our goals with no qualifications.

Anybody in these current times, who will not even accept the notion as a last resort, is full of $#@!, AFAIC.

I do the same thing. I also have limited tolerance for the people that make self-defense such a limited concept that it requires an overtly direct threat before they will do anything about it. I have been referring to those individuals as Eunuch Libertarians due to their complete inability to pose effective resistance to Machiavellians.

Far too many people are entirely unfamiliar with Machiavellians, and that is a much larger threat to liberty due to it working around the limitations of freedom's adherents before striking.

 

[devil21]

I do the same thing. I also have limited tolerance for the people that make self-defense such a limited concept that it requires an overtly direct threat before they will do anything about it. I have been referring to those individuals as Eunuch Libertarians due to their complete inability to pose effective resistance to Machiavellians.

Far too many people are entirely unfamiliar with Machiavellians, and that is a much larger threat to liberty due to it working around the limitations of freedom's adherents before striking.

Modern society in this country is far beyond guns-n-ammo type of warfare. It's now almost exclusively an information war. Psyop after psyop after psyop after psyop. Perhaps AF is correct that reverting to guns-n-ammo warfare is the last resort, his words not mine, has some merit but not all options have been exhausted. And further, since the information war/psyop is the weapon of choice these days, guns-n-ammo actions only serve to further their goals. Look at what the information psyop arm (media) was able to spin the Capitol nothingburger into. See my sig. Why do you think that they're pushing the masks and distancing and closures of social establishments and curfews? To limit information exchange. Because it's an information war.

eta: Why the overt censorship by social media? Why the scads of articles targeted to average folks devoted to "How To Handle 'Conspiracy Theorists' In Your Family"? Because it's an information war. And, so far at least, exchange of information is not illegal, is generally not an act of war and does not violate any laws in place. Information exchange does, however, throw major obstacles to their goals. Offing some random Congresspeople doesn't change anything, offing stupid neighbors doesn't change anything. They are easily replaceable martyrs and objects to be used to further the information war. The real controllers are hidden and sit behind 10ft walls and layers of armed security. Information is the best weapon and you best believe they are using it to its maximum potential.

eta: and literally as I was writing that post, here comes Fauci back onto the teevee again to push his psyop. Information war is the warfare of the modern age.

 

[tod evans]

The Hunger Games films ring a bell?

I haven't watched them.

 

[belian78]

I do the same thing. I also have limited tolerance for the people that make self-defense such a limited concept that it requires an overtly direct threat before they will do anything about it. I have been referring to those individuals as Eunuch Libertarians due to their complete inability to pose effective resistance to Machiavellians.

Far too many people are entirely unfamiliar with Machiavellians, and that is a much larger threat to liberty due to it working around the limitations of freedom's adherents before striking.

Are you the new SS around here in these new times then? You've come on strong with this rhetoric in the last few days. I hope most do not follow your lead into anger and hate. There are a plethora of ways humanity navigates these waters from a stance of reason and levelheadedness, but there are none that support the divisive system we have today and the violence it's historically brought and will assuredly bring soon.

 

[TheTexan]

I now dismiss, out of hand, anybody who rejects force and violence as means to defend or further our goals with no qualifications.

Anybody in these current times, who will not even accept the notion as a last resort, is full of shit, AFAIC.

Can't +rep this enough. Peace (and freedom) is only possible when the threat of defensive violence is real, and believed to be real.

Right now I don't think they believe us.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Are you the new SS around here in these new times then? You've come on strong with this rhetoric in the last few days. I hope most do not follow your lead into anger and hate. There are a plethora of ways humanity navigates these waters from a stance of reason and levelheadedness, but there are none that support the divisive system we have today and the violence it's historically brought and will assuredly bring soon.

My rhetoric has been unchanged from when I began posting again. Your outstanding personal weakness is what leads you to believe it has anything to do with anger or hate. In fact, it is completely dispassionate. If you can figure out why that is, then you may be able to overcome your myopia. If you need a hint, then this will suffice: if you understand that something functions a certain way, then getting emotional about it is a waste of energy.

Machiavellians are also logical, levelheaded men. Those traits are very useful for those men desiring to subjugate other men. You make the mistake of thinking it has something to do with a divisive system. No, divisiveness is endemic to the species so long as individuality and hierarchies exist. Similarly, violence is a reflection of the nature of the species and nothing more. Those that fail to come to terms with that reality are those that will be ruthlessly exploited by those that have.

 

[TheTexan]

It's a shame we don't have any secret billionaires.

With enough money we could buy a piece of land from an existing country. Part of the deal is they would have to recognize us as a country.

Maybe after the US collapses and there are more failed countries looking to financially recover, this will be possible.

 

[TheTexan]

Are you the new SS around here in these new times then? You've come on strong with this rhetoric in the last few days. I hope most do not follow your lead into anger and hate. There are a plethora of ways humanity navigates these waters from a stance of reason and levelheadedness, but there are none that support the divisive system we have today and the violence it's historically brought and will assuredly bring soon.

You can blame Abraham Lincoln for the current situation. He created this predicament, where violence is likely the only outcome.

His actions created the popular opinion that secession is unlawful, immoral, and punishable by violent retribution. An opinion that is widely shared even today.

Most politicians are afraid of even uttering the word, for it is political suicide to bring up the subject.

(And FYI as a brief history lesson for anyone unfamiliar with the subject; The North did not invade the South to free the slaves. The North's primary reason to invade the South was to keep the South in the union. Yet their aggression is celebrated, and anyone who suggests the idea of secession is automatically labelled racist.)

 

[devil21]

You can blame Abraham Lincoln for the current situation. He created this predicament, where violence is likely the only outcome.

His actions created the popular opinion that secession is unlawful, immoral, and punishable by violent retribution. An opinion that is widely shared even today.

Most politicians are afraid of even uttering the word, for it is political suicide to bring up the subject.

(And FYI as a brief history lesson for anyone unfamiliar with the subject; The North did not invade the South to free the slaves. The North's primary reason to invade the South was to keep the South in the union. Yet their aggression is celebrated, and anyone who suggests the idea of secession is automatically labelled racist.)

To keep the South under control and to be assimilated and "recolonized" under the planned DC federal corporation, which was created in the aftermath. All land and other legal records (including copies of the Constitution with the original 13th Amendment) were burned and the South taken over by the pirates as war spoils.

 

[wizardwatson]

Modern society in this country is far beyond guns-n-ammo type of warfare. It's now almost exclusively an information war. Psyop after psyop after psyop after psyop. Perhaps AF is correct that reverting to guns-n-ammo warfare is the last resort, his words not mine, has some merit but not all options have been exhausted. And further, since the information war/psyop is the weapon of choice these days, guns-n-ammo actions only serve to further their goals. Look at what the information psyop arm (media) was able to spin the Capitol nothingburger into. See my sig. Why do you think that they're pushing the masks and distancing and closures of social establishments and curfews? To limit information exchange. Because it's an information war.

eta: Why the overt censorship by social media? Why the scads of articles targeted to average folks devoted to "How To Handle 'Conspiracy Theorists' In Your Family"? Because it's an information war. And, so far at least, exchange of information is not illegal, is generally not an act of war and does not violate any laws in place. Information exchange does, however, throw major obstacles to their goals. Offing some random Congresspeople doesn't change anything, offing stupid neighbors doesn't change anything. They are easily replaceable martyrs and objects to be used to further the information war. The real controllers are hidden and sit behind 10ft walls and layers of armed security. Information is the best weapon and you best believe they are using it to its maximum potential.

eta: and literally as I was writing that post, here comes Fauci back onto the teevee again to push his psyop. Information war is the warfare of the modern age.

Yes, which is why transparency is so important.

Truth and light is all we have.

Right now we're still at the masquerade ball, drinking our wine, watching the show, and playing at the idea of being activists to others who are wearing the mask of activist.

Some of you I know, 90% of you could all be the same person or organization.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Was the Election Stolen or is that a radical Conspiracy Theory?

It doesn't actually matter. [1]

But the belief that it matters arises from the (false) hope that someone is going to save us, and that we just have to elect them first.

The sooner we disabuse ourselves of that pernicious and debilitating notion, the better. To paraphrase Michael Malice: "I hope [people] are starting to see that the [Bill of Rights and elections] are red herrings of little use. [Things like t]echnology and gun proliferation are the answer, not the Constitution."



[1] However, the perception that the election was "stolen" (or was otherwise invalid) might be of some use, in so far as that perception serves to undermine trust in elections as a means of achieving significant and substantive change. But this is the case regardless of whether any perception of electoral invalidity is "true" or not. (And I put "true" in quotation marks here because one's determination of "truth" in such matters is contingent upon the narrative frame one adopts.)

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

There needs to be a true study of power in the mold of Machiavelli, Pareto, Mosca, Burnham, and Yarvin/Moldbug.

The fundamental problem with the right is that they're myopically focused on what power should look like, instead of what it does look like. The irony here is that it's true about pretty much the entirety of the right, from the most terminally online Q believer, who is sure that the white hats will spring the plan any time now, to the moderate constitutionalist who thinks all you have to do to understand the US is read the document.

There's a love of construction on the right, and in a sense that's inevitable. There is on the left too, but the actually effective leftists are willing to jettison what were closely held values when it's necessary. Their constructions have shown a remarkable antifragility and ability to morph within the pseudo-Darwinian selection pressures of discourse. The right's constructions haven't.

In the long run, what's happened over the past couple of months might be a good thing for the right. Difficult, tremendously so, even, but good. At least, eventually.

 

[jmdrake]

Not at you specifically, I am talking more of talking heads, pundits, politicians and the like. People that like to grift "our" people.

I'll tell you who I'm specifically thinking of: Alex Jones and people like him.

I've listened to and donated to and defended Jones for decades. For decades he has been couching his message in violent revolutionary rhetoric. This is fine by me, as I agree, there is a place for the violent revolution. But the very second, the instant there might have been an "insurrection", he goes into overdrive to distance himself from it, to cry peace peace and throw people under the bus, for only one reason: to maintain the status quo that he has built a comfortable living from, selling supplements, survival goodies and dick pills. He furthers the footprint of outright hustlers and insane people like Steve Pzkichenik (sp?) while firing and then publicly attacking the only credible "journalist" he had at his show, David Knight.

I direct this at people like Rush Limbaugh who has done the same thing for over thirty years, and when the idea of secession pops up on his show, which is the only way this can be solved peacefully, rather than open a discussion about it, clamps down and doubles down on peace and "work within the system".

For individuals like yourself, I'm not really directing this at you, especially those of deep faith or Amish and Quakers and so on.



In self defense law, to ascertain that someone is a deadly threat they must display three things:

1 - Intent

2 - Means

3 - Imminence

Without being flowery, I submit to a candid world that this government and it's agents have done/are doing/are displaying all three and more, against me and my fellow citizens.

We have, and have long been able and had the justification, to defend ourselves with whatever force is needed to protect ourselves.

We simply lack the will to do so.

And one main reason why, is because of the obfuscation, FUD and propaganda thrown up by the people I just mentioned, and many more like them.

Well I agree with you about Alex Jones but for the opposite reason I'm afraid. If you're going to gin people up about children locked in a basement you better be damn sure there is actually a basement. And sorry but an insurrection on behalf of a swamp creature like Trump isn't a valid insurrection. I was with, in spirit, the Michigan folks who confronted their governor and state legislature over the lockdowns. But I'm more bothered by Trump and Jones giving people false hope about January 6th thinking Pence somehow could/would make Trump re-elected president than I am them not actually insurrection on January 6th. Peaceful separation through secession? When has that happened? Peaceful separation is done on an individual level and individuals can come together and support each other. Should violence come to a community that has peacefully separated itself then that bridge has to be crossed when you get there. The Bundy folks got the feds to back down without first having their state legislature vote for secession or without some violent takeover of the U.S. capitol or any state capital. Local folks in local counties should strive to elect sheriffs that won't enforce unconstitutional and/or unreasonable state and federal mandates. There are real solutions that don't revolve dying or going to prison for someone that doesn't even have the guts to pardon Assange and Snowden.

 

[69360]

Was the Election Stolen or is that a radical Conspiracy Theory?

Conspiracy theory. I'm sure some minor fraud was committed by both sides like always, but nothing that would change the result.

 

[jmdrake]

You can blame Abraham Lincoln for the current situation. He created this predicament, where violence is likely the only outcome.

His actions created the popular opinion that secession is unlawful, immoral, and punishable by violent retribution. An opinion that is widely shared even today.

Most politicians are afraid of even uttering the word, for it is political suicide to bring up the subject.

(And FYI as a brief history lesson for anyone unfamiliar with the subject; The North did not invade the South to free the slaves. The North's primary reason to invade the South was to keep the South in the union. Yet their aggression is celebrated, and anyone who suggests the idea of secession is automatically labelled racist.)

The South seceded and attacked Union Forts to protect slavery but you are correct that the North didn't fight back to end slavery. As for the president that destroyed the idea of peaceful secession, why that would be Lincoln's fellow Southerner and slave holder Andrew Jackson. He threatened to hang secessionists as traitors including his own vice president John C. Calhoun. Of course the only state serious about secession then was South Carolina. And the "nullification crisis" ended without bloodshed. Nullification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secession. State don't like a federal mandate? Don't enforce it. People are angry at the liberal cities and states creating "sanctuary cities." Well conservative cities and states could do the same thing for other issues like protecting the 2nd amendment. What would happen in state governments quit enforcing all federal gun laws at any level? Say if the feds weren't allowed to temporarily house federal criminal defendants and/or convicts in state facilities? States should stop cooperating with federal drug enforcement as well.

 

[TheTexan]

Conspiracy theory. I'm sure some minor fraud was committed by both sides like always, but nothing that would change the result.

 

[Invisible Man]

It doesn't actually matter.

That is a very good point.

Instead of saying that the regime lacks legitimacy on account of not winning a fair election, we should say that it lacks legitimacy whether it won a fair election or not. Winning elections doesn't confer legitimacy on governments that exercise powers that never rightfully belonged to the voters themselves in the first place so as to be able to delegate them to those they elect.

 

[TheTexan]

Union Forts

"Union" Forts? I don't recall the Confederate States of America signing any diplomacy agreements with the United States that would provide the Union with that land title.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Well I agree with you about Alex Jones but for the opposite reason I'm afraid. If you're going to gin people up about children locked in a basement you better be damn sure there is actually a basement. And sorry but an insurrection on behalf of a swamp creature like Trump isn't a valid insurrection.

Ok, fine...I'm not at all convinced that it was all about Trump, but OK, I'm not going to push that aspect of it.

The point is this:

I was with, in spirit, the Michigan folks who confronted their governor and state legislature over the lockdowns.

Exactly and so was I. And IIRC Jones ran them into the dirt as well.

But I'm more bothered by Trump and Jones giving people false hope about January 6th thinking Pence somehow could/would make Trump re-elected president than I am them not actually insurrection on January 6th. Peaceful separation is done on an individual level and individuals can come together and support each other. Should violence come to a community that has peacefully separated itself then that bridge has to be crossed when you get there. The Bundy folks got the feds to back down without first having their state legislature vote for secession or without some violent takeover of the U.S. capitol or any state capital. Local folks in local counties should strive to elect sheriffs that won't enforce unconstitutional and/or unreasonable state and federal mandates. There are real solutions that don't revolve dying or going to prison for someone that doesn't even have the guts to pardon Assange and Snowden.

And that shows that it works.

The left has shown us over the last year that it works.

If some of these folks want to charge the ramparts for Trump, OK fine, at least they are charging.

Which is more than we can say either one of us have done. I'm not suggesting we do so either, but whatever it tales to motivate people, even if only marginally correct, is good enough for me at this point.

Peaceful separation through secession? When has that happened?

The Soviet states separated with almost no gunfire at all.

The Newfoundland and Labrador separated from England peacefully.