‘We Are Preparing For Massive Civil War’ Says DHS Informant

Why would you want to scare anyone away? :confused: Sounds like a type of initiation of force. And "f*ck em"? If they've been living there much longer than you just "f*ck em"? Would Ron Paul have such a sorry attitude?

Scare them not through force, but through freedom. Most people are averse to freedom, so by enacting liberty legislation they move out of the area naturally, on their own. I'd prefer that the people who brought us to this point today weren't voting on the laws I'd have to live under. As for "fuck em", well there is not a free place in the world to live, outside of remote locations in desert & cold. The people who like tyranny, they have the entire planet to choose from. I don't think it unfair to stake out just a small area where we can live free.


Your saying that repeatedly doesn't make it true. Nullification is nullification. Secession is secession. Nullification isn't saying "I'm not part of country X anymore". It's saying "I'm going to ignore law Y".

I think you missed the point. Or you're just playing semantics.

I doubt Ron Paul would want to live in a country run by people with a "f*ck em" attitude. So why are you here?

Freedom.

And I see you didn't even bother addressing my question. I'll pose it again. What's your answer to the "locked in by liberty" problem where someone could buy up all of the roads around you and say "You're free to travel as long as you don't cross my private property"?

I didn't answer it because I thought it was just an example. I didn't think you expected an answer. There are plenty of answers to your private property question in the philosophical forum. And no, unless you're a rapist/murderer/etc, people are not going to bar you from entering their private property for purposes of peaceful travel.

Many people who want "liberty" show by their actions that they would enforce their own brand of tyranny given the chance.

You clearly don't understand freedom. This ignorance surely isn't from a lack of exposure, you have 18,000 posts. Maybe my idea of freedom is simply different from yours, and I accept that. Agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Let me get this straight though.

The government lobbyists would rather have civil war just to cling onto power, in order for people like Ben Bernanke to get a blow job from a Japanese Stripper in his jacuzzi? They can't just quit while they're ahead, because that extra $1,000,000 dollars is so important for them?

What people have to realize is that for the evil psychopaths at the top of the pyramid there is never enough wealth or power or control to satisfy them, they honestly think they are gods and entitled to rule over us lesser beings.

So yes, that extra trillion dollars is that important to them and the power it represents.

When asked how much is enough there only answer is more more more.

 
I'd prefer that the people who brought us to this point today weren't voting on the laws I'd have to live under. As for "fuck em", well there is not a free place in the world to live, outside of remote locations in desert & cold. The people who like tyranny, they have the entire planet to choose from. I don't think it unfair to stake out just a small area where we can live free.

So the people who would still like to be able to travel across the state without permission from the new "road barrons" just don't like freedom? Okay.

I think you missed the point. Or you're just playing semantics.

Or maybe your point isn't as good as you think it is? Is that possibility beyond your ability to fathom?


And freedom requires a "f*ck em" attitude? Ron Paul seems to embrace freedom fine without the tude. Why can't you?


I didn't answer it because I thought it was just an example. I didn't think you expected an answer. There are plenty of answers to your private property question in the philosophical forum. And no, unless you're a rapist/murderer/etc, people are not going to bar you from entering their private property for purposes of peaceful travel.

Someone could just be a prick. Unless your new "freedom" doesn't allow for jerks.

You clearly don't understand freedom. This ignorance surely isn't from a lack of exposure, you have 18,000 posts. Maybe my idea of freedom is simply different from yours, and I accept that. Agree to disagree.

LOL. So in the same paragraph you throughout insults about how I must be "ignorant" and "clearly not understand freedom" and then you try to clean it up at the end with an "agree to disagree" and "I accept that" statement? The sad part is you probably don't understand how inconsistent that is. Oh well. Maybe after 18,000 you'll come to realize that you don't know as much as you think you do. Until you can ask the hard questions of your own philosophy, and not just blindly attack those who disagree with you, you aren't ready to be a "freedom ambassador". Of course that's just my opinion.
 
So the people who would still like to be able to travel across the state without permission from the new "road barrons" just don't like freedom? Okay.

There are easy answers to the roads question on the philosophical forum if you're truly interested.

Or maybe your point isn't as good as you think it is? Is that possibility beyond your ability to fathom?

Or maybe your reading comprehension sucks. If you nullify everything, but one thing at a time, what happens at the end? Secession. Nullification is an incremental form of secession.

And freedom requires a "f*ck em" attitude? Ron Paul seems to embrace freedom fine without the tude. Why can't you?

Shrug. Forgive me if I'm my concerns lie not with their desire for taxes, wars, and 130,000 laws.

Someone could just be a prick. Unless your new "freedom" doesn't allow for jerks.

There's always going to be jerks. Except, in a free society, those jerks don't have badges. There are free ways to deal with jerks, but when the jerks have the might & force & full authority of the United States justice system & military behind them.... no, you cannot deal with those jerks.

LOL. So in the same paragraph you throughout insults about how I must be "ignorant" and "clearly not understand freedom" and then you try to clean it up at the end with an "agree to disagree" and "I accept that" statement? The sad part is you probably don't understand how inconsistent that is.

You're hung up on non-issues of freedom. You seem to be inventing tyranny where there is none. I don't know you well enough to say for sure, but you exhibit signs of being afraid of freedom. For now, I'm throwing you in the "tyranny lover" category. I could be wrong, but if that's the case, there is no reason in arguing with you. People who don't want freedom... just don't want freedom, and no amount of intellectual discourse can change that. Thus, the agree to disagree part.
 
Last edited:
Pfft !!

If SHTF, all I see are targets and potential enemies ... Let them find their own Liberty, or not.

I'll not be carrying the water for those who created/supported the mess, but I will defend till my death, those who hold the principles of FREEDOM above the common good.

Exactly. I've explained the message of liberty to people plenty of times. And I'm so tired of saying the same thing over and over again. I know I'm right. But it's depressing talking to people who obviously don't want to hear it. So I won't waste my time or theirs. I won't stop talking about liberty and freedom with other like minds, and I'll try a few times on people I think are worth it, other than that. No, I'm going to enjoy my life.
 
What people have to realize is that for the evil psychopaths at the top of the pyramid there is never enough wealth or power or control to satisfy them, they honestly think they are gods and entitled to rule over us lesser beings.

So yes, that extra trillion dollars is that important to them and the power it represents.

When asked how much is enough there only answer is more more more.



So in other words, people like Dick Cheney have time get their cocks sucked and write a million non-fiction books I see at chapters, but they can't do shit to clean up the mess they've created?

You know what? EXCUUUSE ME!

How DARE I speak out against the almighty Dick Cheney's blowjob!?!?

This is an INJUSTICE!

DICK CHENEY DESERVES ANOTHER BLOWJOB FROM A CHEAP ASS HOE WHILE CHEATING ON HIS WIFE!

SHUT!

UP!

HIS BLOW JOB IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU!!!
 
Last edited:
I suppose a collapse would really suck. I'm not overly concerned however because I have several fishing poles and live in the woodland zone of the United States where deer and bluegill are abundant. I also have several rifles.

That's really all one needs isn't it? A fishing pole, a rifle with a few 28 rnd magazines and a pocket bible. I'm good. Could use some warm boots though. Oh and a hat with ear flaps, those are good.
 
So in other words, people like Dick Cheney have time get their cocks sucked and write a million non-fiction books I see at chapters, but they can't do shit to clean up the mess they've created?

You know what? EXCUUUSE ME!

How DARE I speak out against the almighty Dick Cheney's blowjob!?!?

This is an INJUSTICE!

DICK CHENEY DESERVES ANOTHER BLOWJOB!

That's sort of exactly the point of the video except perhaps I could not have stated it quite so vivaciously. Interesting.

I would like to see all people regardless of rank or station held to the same standard of justice, so if Cheney and his ilk have committed documented crimes for which there is legal evidence I would like to see them charged, arrested, prosecuted and, if found guilty jailed or worse.

That is the ultimate outcome of any revolution, the overthrow of the empowered establishment by a new coalition of interests who have seized enough control to actually carry through on the Rule of Law. Of course in some Countries with less institutionalized or engrained traditions of Liberty than we have in the United States there is much more concern for violence in the course of a Revolution, but the Constitutional framework of our Federal Government gives us a revolution every two years with the election of the entire House of Representatives, every 4 years with the election of a President, and every six years with the election of State Senators. So we have a long tradition of handling even profound transformations of our Government without the need to resort to violence.

That's what we are seeing today with the Ron Paul Revolution. This is a Jeffersonian Revolution, a blood-less coup, a popular uprising backed by a reaffirmation of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Rule of Law, not a Robespierrian Revolution based on mob rule and anarchy and violence run rampant. Leave those sorts of ideas to our opponents, make sure they are the ones who go there if anyone is insane enough to actually do so. Let them be the one's who attack without provocation and give themselves up to evil to attempt to accomplish their goals.

Let us be the ones who defeat them just as our Founding Fathers defeated the tyrants of their time, but with the insignificant price of some small number of us having to turn off our televisions, get up off of our couches, leave our homes and go to some boring and possibly contentious meetings and show up in large enough numbers to simply take control of the very reigns of power that allow the current leadership to manipulate the system. That's far less of a sacrifice that so many others have made before us.

Just make damn sure though that if you do find yourself in a position of authority over your fellow citizen you follow this one simple creed to keep you from becoming part of the problem you are claiming to be trying to solve. That is the motto of the Army's West Point Cadets with regards to their actions as students and officers and guardians of the Weapons of our Republic and the penultimate force that secures our freedoms.

I will not lie, cheat or steal nor will I tolerate those that do.

Find your own role models in America's history. Read about these individuals, the sacrifices they made in their own personal lives, the incredible adversities they faced and terrible prices they paid for their convictions and our freedoms, then model your selves after them. Personally I'm needing to read more of Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Robert E. Lee. Each seems to embody a certain aspect of the American psyche, Thomas Paine the paramount importance of the sovereign individual over both God and Government, Benjamin Franklin the intellectual curiosity and skepticism that allowed him and thousand like him to see through the folly of monarchy and the deluded worldviews that dominated European thinking, and Robert E. Lee for being the living example of integrity and indefatigable devotion to duty and honor. I can only hope to learn something from them that will help me to both better myself and better serve my fellow man.

And if certain former public officials find themselves in Federal Prisons getting sexual 'favors' from fellow inmates, why that actually wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
Barrel_of_a_gun.jpg
DAMN STRAIGHT IT"S LOADED

Not that it matters all that much, but that's one fugly crown. Youch is that fugly...
 
There are easy answers to the roads question on the philosophical forum if you're truly interested.

Then you should be able to answer it in a single sentence instead of referring me to thousands of posts in a forum.

Or maybe your reading comprehension sucks. If you nullify everything, but one thing at a time, what happens at the end? Secession. Nullification is an incremental form of secession.

Or maybe your understanding of the word "nullify" sucks. Question, what happens when you try to travel to another country once you've "nullified" your passport? To nullify something is passive resistance. Secession requires active resistance. If federal troops come across your border at will then you haven't successfully seceded.

Shrug. Forgive me if I'm my concerns lie not with their desire for taxes, wars, and 130,000 laws.

Who said anything about a desire for taxes or wars or 130,000 laws? I'd love to see Ron Paul elected president. I assume when that happens taxes will go down (preferably to zero), needless wars will end and senseless laws will be repealed. There will probably still be war (Ron Paul said he would fight over the Panama Canal with an act of congress for instance) some laws (Ron Paul's desire to overturn Roe v. Wade would mean more state laws restricting abortion) and some forms of revenue.

There's always going to be jerks. Except, in a free society, those jerks don't have badges. There are free ways to deal with jerks, but when the jerks have the might & force & full authority of the United States justice system & military behind them.... no, you cannot deal with those jerks.

Oh, but they have the "force" of "property rights". And those "rights" have to be enforced somehow. It's easy for blowhards like yourself to act like petulant little children and verbally attack others on an internet forum when you haven't thought everything through. Actually building a society is another matter altogether. I see your lack of maturity (yes you personally) and think "Would I really want to live in a society run by someone like that? Probably not". Ron Paul I respect. You I don't.

You're hung up on non-issues of freedom. You seem to be inventing tyranny where there is none. I don't know you well enough to say for sure, but you exhibit signs of being afraid of freedom. For now, I'm throwing you in the "tyranny lover" category. I could be wrong, but if that's the case, there is no reason in arguing with you. People who don't want freedom... just don't want freedom, and no amount of intellectual discourse can change that. Thus, the agree to disagree part.

LOL. Whatever dude. I don't want freedom so I'm voting for Dr. Paul, donating money to his campaign, volunteering to help he and other candidates who actually understand freedom and responsibility and general dignity etc. I see insolent little brats like you getting mad because I don't think you're mature enough to run a lemonade stand let alone a state and that means I "don't love freedom". Okay. I hope when you grow up you can be like Dr. Paul.

Edit: Honestly I don't even understand the point of your stupid tirade. All I said from jump is that I have no interest in the free state project. Your unreasonableness underscores that my initial thoughts on that were correct. But hey, you wanna do it don't let me stop you. If it turns out great I'll be pleasantly surprised.
 
Last edited:
There are easy answers to the roads question on the philosophical forum if you're truly interested.

Oh yes, the philosophical forum, home of intelligent debate and thoughtful, insightful ideas on freedom and the future of nations.
 
What people have to realize is that for the evil psychopaths at the top of the pyramid there is never enough wealth or power or control to satisfy them, they honestly think they are gods and entitled to rule over us lesser beings.

So yes, that extra trillion dollars is that important to them and the power it represents.

When asked how much is enough there only answer is more more more.




Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.C. S. Lewis
 
"Nation" is a construct.

Of course. So are property rights. Initially people just roamed around looking for stuff to eat. Yeah they had "possessions" which were things they made or traded for that they carried around with them. But they didn't consider owning the land they walked on. Not that land ownership is a bad idea. I own land. But the idea that I can own something that I didn't make but merely "staked out" or bought from someone else who "staked it out" is as much a construct as anything else.
 
I disagree... but that's a discussion for another thread. Another sub-forum, actually. :)

+rep for disagreeing in an agreeable manner. ;) Though I'm curious as to what you're disagreeing with? My assertion that early man was nomadic and had no concept of land as property (seems pretty self-evident to me) or the idea that flows from that which is property rights (owning something you aren't possessing) is a construct?
 
+rep for disagreeing in an agreeable manner. ;) Though I'm curious as to what you're disagreeing with? My assertion that early man was nomadic and had no concept of land as property (seems pretty self-evident to me) or the idea that flows from that which is property rights (owning something you aren't possessing) is a construct?

Reciprocated. ;) :thumbs:

I disagree that property rights are a construct - I say that they are a natural consequence of our individual sovereignty, which is objective and observable.
 
Reciprocated. ;) :thumbs:

I disagree that property rights are a construct - I say that they are a natural consequence of our individual sovereignty, which is objective and observable.

Fair enough. But sovereignty over what exactly? Everyplace you happened to put your foot? Everyplace you happened to put your foot first? Everyplace your ancestor happened to put his foot first? I'm all for enjoying the fruits of my labor. Am I really naturally entitled to the fruits of some ancestors labor who didn't know about me and might have disinherited me if he had the chance? Don't get me wrong. I believe in inheritance rights[1]. But I think that's a construct.

[1] Edit: It's actually a right to devise (dispose of) property rather than a right to inherit it. Technically there are no inheritance "rights" because anyone can be written out of someone's will.
 
Last edited:
Then you should be able to answer it in a single sentence instead of referring me to thousands of posts in a forum.

The way I see it, is with your 18,000 posts there is a high probability you've already seen those answers and rejected them. I don't plan on running down that pointless road with you.

Or maybe your understanding of the word "nullify" sucks. Question, what happens when you try to travel to another country once you've "nullified" your passport? To nullify something is passive resistance. Secession requires active resistance. If federal troops come across your border at will then you haven't successfully seceded.

If federal troops come across your border to enforce the 16th amendment, you haven't successfully nullified the 16th amendment, either. Neither is passive.

Who said anything about a desire for taxes or wars or 130,000 laws? I'd love to see Ron Paul elected president.

I was talking about their desires, not yours.

I assume when that happens taxes will go down (preferably to zero), needless wars will end and senseless laws will be repealed. There will probably still be war (Ron Paul said he would fight over the Panama Canal with an act of congress for instance) some laws (Ron Paul's desire to overturn Roe v. Wade would mean more state laws restricting abortion) and some forms of revenue.

Needless wars will end because that's directly in his power. As for taxes, or meaningful cuts... he may be able to pull off his trillion cut plan, but I don't see him doing much more than that without fierce resistance.

If Ron Paul wins it will be through political maneuvering and not ideological education. What he can achieve will be limited, and temporary. The natural forces of tyranny are greater than this movement unfortunately. As long as we try to fight it instead of separate from it, we cannot win.

Oh, but they have the "force" of "property rights". And those "rights" have to be enforced somehow. It's easy for blowhards like yourself to act like petulant little children and verbally attack others on an internet forum when you haven't thought everything through. Actually building a society is another matter altogether. I see your lack of maturity (yes you personally) and think "Would I really want to live in a society run by someone like that? Probably not". Ron Paul I respect. You I don't.

LOL. Whatever dude. I don't want freedom so I'm voting for Dr. Paul, donating money to his campaign, volunteering to help he and other candidates who actually understand freedom and responsibility and general dignity etc. I see insolent little brats like you getting mad because I don't think you're mature enough to run a lemonade stand let alone a state and that means I "don't love freedom". Okay. I hope when you grow up you can be like Dr. Paul.

Edit: Honestly I don't even understand the point of your stupid tirade. All I said from jump is that I have no interest in the free state project. Your unreasonableness underscores that my initial thoughts on that were correct. But hey, you wanna do it don't let me stop you. If it turns out great I'll be pleasantly surprised.

You mad bro? No reason for name calling. Let's keep this civil.

What was interesting about your response to the FSP is not your disagreements with anarchy per se, but moreso that you immediately jumped to the conclusion that a country ran by Ron Paul supporters would be anarchist, and that country would inherently be worse than the one we have today.
 
Back
Top