Monthly Archives: March 2010

>Coryell: Rattling The Second Amendment Saber

>Skip Coryell, organizer of the April 19th Second Amendment March in DC, posts this essay on Human Events today:

According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, the term “saber rattling” is defined as:

a threatening of war, or a menacing show of armed force.

Some people call it posturing. In the animal world it’s related to establishing “pecking order”. Some people would have us believe that a pecking order is a bad thing, that it’s barbaric, and should be reserved only for the animal world. I disagree. It’s a natural thing that will happen no matter how much people try to suppress it. Pecking order keeps the world in a state of organized cosmos. Every playground has one, every corporate board room, and even the halls of Congress. It’s the way the world works, and without it there would be chaos and unending strife. People have to know who is in charge and who must bend the knee and kiss the ring that rules.

I suppose that’s why firearms are so important. They are the equalizing force, available to all free people everywhere. They tell the 200-pound sexually aggressive male that he must not rape the 120-pound female, who is alone on the street at night with no one around to protect her. The firearm gives her the ability to kill the stronger male.

Firearms tell the sociopath that he must not break into your family’s home at night and kill your family as you sleep. There is always the chance that you will awaken, get your firearm and shoot him until he dies. Dead sociopaths and dead rapists. That’s a good thing, a necessary thing for society to function in an orderly fashion.

Without the right to keep and bear arms, we revert to humanity’s default state of “law of the jungle”, where only the strong survive, where the big rule the small, and where the weak die in a puddle of blood, flesh and urine. We need the firearm and the freedom to use it or our children will live in a binary world of masters and slaves, with no check on immorality, no governor to hold the strong accountable, and no way to protect the weak from the strong.

In a world without freedom and firearms, only the evil will have guns, and they will use them to the detriment and enslavement of good people everywhere. History has taught us that, and it’s a lesson we should forget only at our own peril.

So what does all this have to do with saber rattling, a threatening of war, or a menacing show of armed force?

Look at the present situation in America. Many say we are on the brink of economic collapse. Our elected officials exude an unprecedented arrogance, totally ignoring the will of the people, hell-bent on dragging us into a world we neither want for ourselves nor our children. In short, the pecking order has been established, and it’s 180 degrees out of phase. They are the ruling class and we are subservient to them.

Or are we?

I hear the clank of metal on metal in the distance.

All across the country, Americans are rising up and biting the hand that feeds them. In some cases, the hand is getting ripped clean off! In Virginia, in New Jersey, and even in Massachusetts. The chain is chafing their necks and they want it gone!

The politicians…they ignore us.

For the past year we’ve heard a lot about the TEA parties and the nine-twelvers. People like Glenn Beck (God bless him) continue to educate America on Freedom 101 and the original intent of our founding fathers. We the people have been exercising our First Amendment rights to the hilt. We’re screaming! We’re protesting! We’re faxing! We’re phoning and marching and yelling….

But still…they ignore us.

I hear the clank of metal on metal in the distance, but not so distant today as it was yesterday or the day before, or the day before, or the day before.

I have a feeling, just a feeling, that I’m not alone. There are a lot of people out there like me who will no longer tolerate the arrogance of politicians who ignore us. I’ve been told that there’s only one thing worse than being abused, and that’s being ignored. If you kick me, at least I know I exist. But if you ignore me, then I’m not even worth the trouble.

And here’s the million-dollar question: “What happens if the First Amendment fails?”

Our founding fathers answered that when the King of England ignored their pleas for fairness, for equal representation, and for basic human rights. The founders rattled their sabers for years, hoping above hope that they would never have to use them. But, in the end, the King acted like a King and tried to dominate and disarm his disloyal subjects.

Several years ago, I was teaching a husband and wife in a private firearms class. We were on the range behind their barn, shooting at targets up against an embankment. The woman was shooting a nice, 9mm Glock, and she honestly could not hit the broad side of a barn from the inside. I tried everything I knew to get her on target, but it was no use. I couldn’t find the problem. Her husband told me she was a good shot, and that she usually shot better than he did.

I questioned her some more, and she finally threw up her hands in frustration and said, “I don’t even know why I’m doing this! I could never shoot anyone anyways. My husband made me take this class!” At her remark, a light went off in my head, and I interjected. “What if someone was trying to kill you? Could you shoot someone then?” She said, “No! I couldn’t kill someone to save my own life. I’d just go ahead and die!”

I thought that was rather odd, but I could tell she was sincere, so I thought about it a second, and then I said.

“Okay, let’s use a little training technique called visualization.”

She nodded her head impatiently.

“Okay, here’s the scenario: You’re at the gas station filling your tank. A man drives up and parks next to your car. He gets out, walks over, reaches through the open window of your car, removes your daughter from her car seat and puts her in his own vehicle. He then starts to get into his car to drive away.”

There was a horrified look on the young mother’s face.

“At that moment in time, could you take another human life?”

Without hesitation, this proper Christian woman said, “I would kill that son of a bitch!”

I said, “Okay then, that target down there is the man who is stealing your daughter. Fire away.” She never missed the target again.

My question to everyone reading this article is this: “For you, as an individual, when do you draw your saber? When do you say “Yes, I am willing to rise up and overthrow an oppressive, totalitarian government?”

Is it when the government takes away your private business?
Is it when the government rigs elections?
Is it when the government imposes martial law?
Is it when the government takes away your firearms?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating the immediate use of force against the government. It isn’t time, and hopefully that time will never come.

But one thing is certain: “Now is the time to rattle your sabers.”

If not now, then when?

When the government ignores the First Amendment, it is time to rattle the Second Amendment sabers. It’s all about accountability. So long as our elected officials believe we will rise up and overthrow them under certain conditions, then they will not allow those conditions to occur. Their jobs and their very lives depend on it.

I understand that sounds harsh, but these are harsh times. Now is the time to rattle the saber. Now is the time to answer the very personal, very serious, very intimate question: “When do I remove the saber from its scabbard?”

I hear the clank of metal on metal getting closer, but that’s not enough. The politicians have to hear it too.

They have to hear it, and they have to believe it.

Come and support me at the Second Amendment March on April 19th on the Washington Monument grounds. Let’s rattle some sabers and show the government we’re still here.

We are here, and we are not silent!

Skip Coryell is the founder of the Second Amendment March, a former United States Marine, author and President of White Feather Press.


See you on the banks of the Potomac on April 19th — armed or unarmed.

>Cut My Throat If It Feeds Your Need

>Read this pungent piece of analysis from Jaded Heaven.

Remember: the fundamental issue is one of theft.

Does someone’s need justify theft, either directly by them or via delegation of that use of force via the ballot box to government actors?

And even more importantly, if you disagree, are you willing to fight against those who answer ‘yes’ to that first question?

By any means necessary.

>What Are We Fighting For?

>Please go to Restore The Constitution and read the latest there.

Hope to see you on the Potomac on April 19th — armed or unarmed.

>Vandam: Here’s The Future

>Malone Vandam looks into the crystal ball.

But November will make it all OK, won’t it, Mommy?

>Robb: Rage and Health Care

>Read John Robb’s latest Global Guerrillas essay, which begins:

Here’s some fun thinking about drivers of political fragmentation and the slow failure of America.

We expect the universe to make sense, to be consistent, and when the contingencies change, we get testy. Interestingly, this is not unique to humans. In one experiment, two pigeons were placed in a cage. One of them was tethered to the back of the cage while the other was free to run about as it wished. Every 30 seconds, a hopper would provide a small amount of food (a fixed interval schedule, as described earlier). The free pigeon could reach the food but the tethered one could not, and the free pigeon happily ate all the food every time. After an hour or so of this, the hopper stops providing food. The free pigeon continues to check the hopper every 30 seconds for a while, but when it’s clear that the food isn’t coming, it will go to the back of the cage and beat up the other pigeon. Now, the interesting thing is that the tethered pigeon has never eaten the food and the free pigeon has no reason to think the other is responsible for the food stopping.

The frustration is irrational, but real nonetheless.

John Hopson, a game researcher at Microsoft.

The above example illustrates the driver behind the furor over the passage of health care legislation in the US. The trigger, or the change in the game (the economic system) that prompted the confusion and anger we see today was the 2008 financial crisis. The inchoate anger this crisis caused is now being directed against the US government and the party in power. Here’s a fuller explanation for this.

We have collectively developed the belief that the capitalist system that we work in and our system of governance, although very messy at times and often harsh, is fundamentally fair. The financial collapse proved that these beliefs were completely unfounded and we (collectively) were fools for believing in such nonsense. Here’s how this realization rolled out, step by step.

First, the meager rewards of system (the status quo game) stopped coming:

•Easy, endless debt in lieu of gains in income (for increasingly productive hard work) was either made impossible to get or converted into usurious debt.
•Wealth, particularly in the form of home values/pensions/expected future earnings, evaporated.
•Incomes tumbled (cut backs in hours, permanent to temp status, outsourcing, or outright termination) while prices (education to health in particular) kept accelerating.

Second, in contrast to the game depicted above (where the pigeon was first given regular rewards and then suddenly and without explanation denied those rewards), it was now generally known why our rewards for participation in the system had at first dwindled and finally stopped: our capitalist system had become so corrupt that a relatively small group of people were able to perpetrate the greatest financial theft in the history of mankind.

The final and most damning step in this process was how that even after this theft had become public knowledge (on the front page of every newspaper from here to Timbuktu), the governmental system we expected to punish malfeasance didn’t work. Not only didn’t it work by failing to punish these traitors (as those who damage a nation in the worst possible way are termed) for their acts, it actually rewarded them. It made them rich with hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts and tens of trillions in public guarantees (to protect them against losses on their future thefts), in effect extending them a golden invitation to pillage our future again…

Read the rest.

And this is just the beginning….

>Denninger: That Didn’t Take Long

>From Karl Denninger:

From the forum:

So I just got a call from my health insurance provider. My family rates are going up $200/month … $2400/year per employee effective April 1st. Didn’t take long after signing to get this s**t going.

So much for the “my plan will save Americans” $2500/year in Healthcare premiums.

F***ing liar in chief.

Yes, this law will induce people to hire, it will improve health access, and it will be positive for the consumer, economy, stock market and spending.

The market rallies on for today, as I sit back and chuckle to myself… “I told you so.”

Please, buy more stocks to drive the DOW, S&P, Nasdaq and Russell higher on the mythical economic “recovery” and mythical job gains that will take hold as employers, right here and now, four full years before the “benefits” show up for adults in this bill (those very same workers) get whammied for $2,400 per year in additional costs per employee.

PS: One way or another the employees will be paying every single penny of that cost. Either directly through lower wages (which will do great things for consumer spending and the economy) or indirectly as people are either laid off or not hired in the first place.

I suggest that each reader who is employed and currently has health insurance check with your human resources department about the immediate/near-term impact of Obamacare on your benefits package.

At BigDumbCo, we were told in December by one of the big dogs that passage of either the House or the Senate bill would gravely imperil the company’s willingness to offer health insurance, due to the financial impact.

If that is true (and please check with your own management team), Team Freedom has a helluva recruiting opportunity coming up with the folks who didn’t think Obamacare really mattered to them.


>Baugh: Radio Interview by Free Talk Live At Liberty Forum 2010

Watch/listen to this interview with Starving the Monkeys author Tom Baugh at last weekend’s Liberty Forum 2010 event.

Best to be thinking about how to “fight back smarter”.

Order your copy of Starving the Monkeys today.

Tempus fugit.

>Beck: Rules of Engagement

>Please read Billy’s latest.

Don’t forget the embedded links, too.

The honorable thing for the Republican Party to do, literally or figuratively, is to commit seppuku.

Their seed, in the form of NCLB, Part D prescription benefits, DHS, TSA, TARP, and all of the other atrocities committed during the Bush ’43 years and before, is the sire to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, and the rest of the perpetrators of their coup d’etat.

Good riddance to the Dead Elephant party. The fate of collaborators throughout history awaits them.

UPDATE 0010 EDT 23 MARCH 2010: Vandam amens. Read it.

>Repost: Hoist The Colors!

>As submitted by a reader:

As Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End opens up, lines of people in shackles and chains are being led to executions. The herald of woe is reading out the list of rights that have been suspended and informing the condemned men, women, and children of the charges against them. Piracy, aiding pirates, associating with pirates, ad nauseum — anything having to do with pirates.

My imagination needs no invitation to wander. So I start substituting Obama lines in there. My kids holler at me to stop it. They’re trying to watch the movie.

In my own mind, I translated that scene to today’s world.

Lines and lines of otherwise free Americans are indicted as thieves for wanting to keep the sweat of their brow — turned into beggars thanks to government-owned industry. (In Pirates, the East India Trading Company; today, the bankers – what’s the difference?)

A crisis in which an unelected, unaccountable Czar Beckett is able to suspend rights, alter laws, issue judgment, and execute punishment without appeal. Failing to actually find and apprehend the pirates he’s been sent to find and destroy, he instead heartlessly goes after the softest targets: anyone who’s ever been associated with the pirates.


In the face of this shameless tyranny, a small voice raises a sad song of defiance:

The king and his men
Stole the queen from her bed
And bound her in her bones.
The seas be ours
And by the powers
Where we will, we’ll roam.

Yo, ho, haul together
Hoist the colors high.
Heave ho, thieves and beggars,
Never shall we die.

Some men have died
And some are alive
And others sail on the sea
With the keys to the cage…
And the Devil to pay
We lay to Fiddler’s Green!

The bell has been raised
from its watery grave…
Do you hear its sepulchral tone?
We are a call to all,
Pay heed the squall
And turn your sail toward home!

Yo, ho, haul together,
Hoist the colors high.
Heave ho, thieves and beggars,
Never shall we die.

I continued with this parallel. How we as a country chose security and prosperity over lady Liberty – whom we have bound in so many ways (just like Calypso was bound). America placed freedom herself into a cage – as if to protect an endangered species from poachers. So we visit freedom like we’d visit a caged, endangered animal at the zoo, and from the outside of the bars looking in, we think to ourselves, “We have freedom.”

Though stronger bars have been added since 2001, the cage and doors were built decades ago – before some of us were even born. Most of us have never known a time when Liberty was not bound. The song goes on.

There are some among us who have the keys to the cage. But to truly release Lady Liberty herself might mean our end as a consequence.

Finally, the call goes out for freedom. Does anyone hear?

The media ignore us. The White House demonizes us. The Speaker of the House equates us with Nazis. Some liberals call for simply letting all of us die – not being worthy of even life itself.

Does anyone recognize the call for what it is?

Do we dare answer?

Enslavement, security, and tyranny are already upon us. The shackles and chains have been forged and prepared. Freedom, our home, lies on the other side of the storm. Do we turn into that storm, or just avoid it? Do we risk all to reach for freedom, or meekly march in shackles and chains to the inevitable end prepared by every tyrant for those he hates?

Do we realize that we have already been condemned as outlaws – “domestic terrorists” is the preferred term these days – and as such, we can expect no protection from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the various state constitutions, and indeed, the majority of our alleged countrymen?

As we try to file away at the iron bars between today’s America and the country of the Founders, how many of us realize how late the hour truly is?

And most importantly – who among us will stand when that same trembling voice calls:



>Guerrilla Sniper

>From Gabe Suarez’ One Source Tactical:

GUERRILLA SNIPER is a totally different look at sniping. We examine it from the view of a private citizen and not any form of officially sanctioned operator. Rather than emulate the “official schools” we examine the subject from the historical perspective of the Partisan Sniper as may have been seen in Occupied Europe during WWII. I think this is more in line with what private citizens would want sniping to look like and what our operational parameters may actually be from a historical perspective.

Order yours today.

Guerrilla Sniper classes are being held by the Suarez team on the following dates:

April 30-May 2, 2010

October 1-3, 2010

See also this related course:

Spetznaz Sniper Course

>Quote From The Greatest Generation

>Overheard at a gun show this weekend:

This country was founded with violence, it has been maintained and preserved with violence, and it will be restored with violence. Anyone who tells you differently is full of sh*t.

— An anonymous veteran of the Pacific campaigns

>Fry The Brain: The Art of Urban Sniping and its Role in Modern Guerrilla Warfare

>Go and order yours now; highly recommended:

‘Fry The Brain’ is a detailed, original study of urban guerrilla sniping and its employment in modern unconventional warfare. ‘Fry The Brain’ strives to educate the interested reader in all aspects of modern urban guerrilla sniping. As such, ‘Fry The Brain’ is a unique, relevant work that is a must read for all students of contemporary guerrilla warfare.

Tempus fugit.


Watch the video clip above (caution: R-level frat boy language).

Now go watch the whole movie.

Then suck it up and turn that anger outward.


Ramming speed….


>A reader asked how to submit material for possible inclusion here at WRSA.

Pretty simple, actually.

Just send the manuscript to, we’ll review/edit as necessary, and likely publish after you approve the edited copy.

“Edit” is too strong a word, as the usual corrections are to typos, grammar, and format.

Editorial decisions are final on this side of the screen, and those editorial rules are:

1) Is it relevant to the WRSA audience?

2) Will publishing same get our door kicked down this morning at oh-dark-thirty?

One final note: we’re swimming pretty fast here, so if there is a delay in getting back to you, just send a gentle reminder.

Thanks for your continued patronage.

>Codrea Explains Chaos Theory


Predicated upon this videoed statement by impeached former Federal Judge and now Congresscritter Alcee Hastings, who is also the sponsor of this pending Federal legislation.

Think they understand what they’ve done?

Think they will eventually?

Audentes fortuna iuvat.

>Mayberry: My Declaration of Independence


(image created by Kent McManigal)
From Mayberry:

This was for tomorrow, but I just couldn’t wait. What amazes me is how little I had to change….

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one to dissolve the political bands which have connected one with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, one must withdraw consent to be governed, given that government has proved it’s self prone to usurpation and tyranny— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Individual to alter or to abolish it, and to institute self government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to myself shall seem most likely to effect my Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce one under absolute Despotism, it is one’s right, it is one’s duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide for their own future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of Americans; and such is now the necessity which constrains me to alter my former Systems of Government. The history of the last many Presidents and the CONgress is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over this Individual, and to all Individuals that make up this once great nation. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

They have forbidden their Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till their Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them.

They have refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

They have authored legislation which is unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Founding Principles of this nation, for the sole purpose of fatiguing us into compliance with their ideology.

They have dissolved Representative Government completely, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the rights of the people.

They have refused for a long time, after such dissolution, to understand that their place is to represent, not dictate. They have succumbed to bribery, thievery, and coercion, and trampled on the Constitution for which many hundreds of thousands have fought and died to protect.

They have endeavoured to overpopulate these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to constrain others, and encouraging their migrations hither, for the sole purpose of placating their corporate campaign donors, and enlarging the rolls of Democrat voters.

They have obstructed the Administration of Justice by stacking the courts with judicial nominees representing only one ideology.

They have made Judges dependent on their Will alone for the attainment of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

They are keeping among us, in times of domestic peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of the People, in direct violation of Posse Comitatus. They have constructed a mechanism to federalize the National Guard, under the vague pretense of an undefined emergency.

They have affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For giving away our sovereignty, colluding with the United Nations, and contemplating treaties which destroy Constitutionally guaranteed Liberty:

For protecting them, by considering Trial for punishment for any “transgressions” by the World Court on the Inhabitants of these States:

For destroying our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury via the “Patriot Act”:

For considering transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences via the World Court:

For abolishing the free System of American Laws, establishing an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these States

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Liberty, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

They have abdicated Representative Government here, by waging War against us.

They have plundered our savings, ravaged our earnings, burnt our livelihoods, and destroyed the lives of our people.

They are at this time contemplating large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Heads of a civilized nation.

They have constrained our fellow Citizens who’ve taken the Oath to defend the Constitution to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

They are exciting domestic insurrections amongst us, and endeavour to bring on Socialists/Communists/Marxists, the merciless Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our American brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. I must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces my Separation, and hold them, as I hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

I, therefore, the Representative of myself before God, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the God that gave me life, solemnly publish and declare, That I am a Sovereign Individual, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent, that I am Absolved from all Allegiance to the President and CONgress, and that all political connection between myself and the Federal Government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent Individual, I have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent People may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, I pledge to each Sovereign Individual my Life, my Fortune, and my sacred Honor.

>Repost: ‘The Revolution Was’

>First published in 1938, The Revolution Was is Garet Garrett‘s masterful deconstruction of the Roosevelt/New Deal myth, arguing that in fact FDR and his minions staged a coup d’etat by permanently eviscerated the limitations on Federal government found in the Constitution.

We commend it again today to all of the good little boys and girls caressing themselves furiously over fantasies of mid-term victories, judicial saviors, state legislative messiahs, miraculous conversions, and the righteousness of non-violent resistance.

Garrett begins:

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road.

But they are gazing in the wrong direction.

The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

There are those who have never ceased to say very earnestly, “Something is going to happen to the American form of government if we don’t watch out.” These were the innocent disarmers. Their trust was in words.

They had forgotten their Aristotle. More than 2,000 years ago he wrote of what can happen within the form, when “one thing takes the place of another, so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about revolution in the state.”

Worse outwitted were those who kept trying to make sense of the New Deal from the point of view of all that was implicit in the American scheme, charging it therefore with contradiction, fallacy, economic ignorance, and general incompetence to govern.

But it could not be so embarrassed, and all that line was wasted, because, in the first place, it never intended to make that kind of sense, and secondly, it took off from nothing that was implicit in the American scheme.

It took off from a revolutionary base. The design was European. Regarded from the point of view of revolutionary technique, it made perfect sense. Its meaning was revolutionary and it had no other. For what it meant to do, it was from the beginning consistent in principle, resourceful, intelligent, masterly in workmanship, and it made not one mistake.

The test came in the first one hundred days.

No matter how carefully a revolution may have been planned, there is bound to be a crucial time. That comes when the actual seizure of power is taking place. In this case certain steps were necessary. They were difficult and daring steps. But more than that, they had to be taken in a certain sequence, with forethought and precision of timing. One out of place might have been fatal. What happened was that one followed another in exactly the right order, not one out of time or out of place.

Having passed this crisis, the New Deal went on from one problem to another, taking them in the proper order, according to revolutionary technique; and if the handling of one was inconsistent with the handling of another, even to the point of nullity, that was blunder in reverse. The effect was to keep people excited about one thing at a time, and divided, while steadily through all the uproar of outrage and confusion a certain end, held constantly in view, was pursued by main intention.

The end held constantly in view was power.

In a revolutionary situation, mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding. Error is not repealed. It is compounded by a longer law, by more decrees and regulations, by further extensions of the administrative hand. As deLawd said in The Green Pastures, that when you have passed a miracle you have to pass another one to take care of it, so it was with the New Deal. Every miracle it passed, whether it went right or wrong, had one result. Executive power over the social and economic life of the nation was increased. Draw a curve to represent the rise of executive power and look there for the mistakes. You will not find them. The curve is consistent.

At the end of the first year, in his annual message to the Congress, January 4, 1934, President Roosevelt said, “It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendous readjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully.”

Peacefully if possible — of course.

But the revolutionary historian will go much further. Writing at some distance in time he will be much less impressed by the fact that it was peacefully accomplished than by the marvelous technique of bringing it to pass not only within the form but within the word, so that people were all the while fixed in the delusion that they were talking about the same things because they were using the same words. Opposite and violently hostile ideas were represented by the same word signs. This was the American people’s first experience with dialectic according to Marx and Lenin.

Until it was too late, few understood one like Julius C. Smith, of the American Bar Association, saying,

Is there any labor leader, any businessman, any lawyer or any other citizen of America so blind that he cannot see that this country is drifting at an accelerated pace into administrative absolutism similar to that which prevailed in the governments of antiquity, the governments of the Middle Ages, and in the great totalitarian governments of today? Make no mistake about it. Even as Mussolini and Hitler rose to absolute power under the forms of law … so may administrative absolutism be fastened upon this country within the Constitution and within the forms of law.

For a significant illustration of what has happened to words — of the double meaning that inhabits them — put in contrast what the New Deal means when it speaks of preserving the American system of free private enterprise and what American business means when it speaks of defending it. To the New Deal these words — the American system of free private enterprise — stand for a conquered province. To the businessman the same words stand for a world that is in danger and may have to be defended.

The New Deal is right.

Business is wrong.

You do not defend a world that is already lost. When was it lost? That you cannot say precisely. It is a point for the revolutionary historian to ponder. We know only that it was surrendered peacefully, without a struggle, almost unawares. There was no day, no hour, no celebration of the event — and yet definitely, the ultimate power of initiative did pass from the hands of private enterprise to government.

“In a revolutionary situation, mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding.”

There it is and there it will remain until, if ever, it shall be reconquered. Certainly government will never surrender it without a struggle.

To the revolutionary mind the American vista must have been almost as incredible as Genghis Khan’s first view of China — so rich, so soft, so unaware.

No politically adult people could ever have been so little conscious of revolution. There was here no revolutionary tradition, as in Europe, but in place of it the strongest tradition of subject government that had ever been evolved — that is, government subject to the will of the people, not its people but the people. Why should anyone fear government?

In the naive American mind the word “revolution” had never grown up. The meaning of it had not changed since horse-and-buggy days, when Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Revolutions are not made by men in spectacles.” It called up scenes from Carlyle and Victor Hugo, or it meant killing the Czar with a bomb, as he may have deserved for oppressing his people. Definitely, it meant the overthrow of government by force; and nothing like that could happen here. We had passed a law against it.

Well, certainly nothing like that was going to happen here. That it probably could not happen, and that everybody was so sure it couldn’t made everything easier for what did happen.

Revolution in the modern case is no longer an uncouth business. The ancient demagogic art, like every other art, has, as we say, advanced. It has become in fact a science — the science of political dynamics. And your scientific revolutionary in spectacles regards force in a cold, impartial manner. It may or may not be necessary. If not, so much the better; to employ it wantonly, or for the love of it, when it is not necessary, is vulgar, unintelligent, and wasteful. Destruction is not the aim. The more you destroy the less there is to take over. Always the single end in view is a transfer of power.

Outside of the Communist Party and its aurora of radical intellectuals, few Americans seemed to know that revolution had become a department of knowledge, with a philosophy and a doctorate of its own, a language, a great body of experimental data, schools of method, textbooks, and manuals — and this was revolution regarded not as an act of heroic redress in a particular situation, but revolution as a means to power in the abstract case.

There was a prodigious literature of revolutionary thought concealed only by the respectability of its dress.

Americans generally associated dangerous doctrine with bad printing, rude grammar, and stealthy distribution. Here was revolutionary doctrine in well-printed and well-written books, alongside of best sellers at your bookstore or in competition with detectives on your news-dealer’s counter. As such, it was all probably harmless, or it was about something that could happen in Europe, not here. A little Communism on the newsstand like that might be good for us, in fact, regarded as a twinge of pain in a robust, somewhat reckless social body. One ought to read it, perhaps, just to know. But one had tried, and what dreary stuff it had turned out to be!

To the revolutionary this same dreary stuff was the most exciting reading in the world. It was knowledge that gave him a sense of power. One who mastered the subject to the point of excellence could be fairly sure of a livelihood by teaching and writing, that is, by imparting it to others, and meanwhile dream of passing at a single leap from this mean obscurity to the prestige of one who assists in the manipulation of great happenings; while one who mastered it to the point of genius — that one might dream of becoming himself the next Lenin.

“People were all the while fixed in the delusion that they were talking about the same things because they were using the same words.”

A society so largely founded on material success and the rewards of individualism in a system of free competitive enterprise would be liable to underestimate both the intellectual content of the revolutionary thesis and the quality of the revolutionary mind that was evolving in a disaffected and envious academic world. At any rate, this society did, and from the revolutionary point of view that was one of the peculiar felicities of the American opportunity. The revolutionary mind that did at length evolve was one of really superior intelligence, clothed with academic dignity, always sure of itself, supercilious and at ease in all circumstances. To entertain it became fashionable. You might encounter it anywhere, and nowhere more amusingly than at a banker’s dinner table, discussing the banker’s trade in a manner sometimes very embarrassing to the banker. Which of these brilliant young men in spectacles was of the cult and which was of the cabal — if there was a cabal — one never knew. Indeed, it was possible that they were not sure of it among themselves, a time having come when some were only playing with the thought of extremes while others were in deadly earnest, all making the same sounds. This was the beginning of mask and guise.

The scientific study of revolution included, of course, analysis of opportunity. First and always, the master of revolutionary technique is an opportunist. He must know opportunity when he sees it in the becoming; he must know how to stalk it, how to let it ripen, how to adapt his means to the realities. The basic ingredients of opportunity are few; nearly always it is how they are mixed that matters. But the one indispensable ingredient is economic distress, and, if there is enough of that, the mixture will take care of itself.

The Great Depression as it developed here was such an opportunity as might have been made to order. The economic distress was relative, which is to say that at the worst of it living in this country was better than living almost anywhere else in the world. The pain, nevertheless, was very acute; and much worse than any actual hurt was a nameless fear, a kind of active despair, that assumed the proportions of a national psychosis.

Seizures of that kind were not unknown in American history. Indeed, they were characteristic of the American temperament. But never before had there been one so hard and never before had there been the danger that a revolutionary elite would be waiting to take advantage of it.

This revolutionary elite was nothing you could define as a party. It had no name, no habitat, no rigid line. The only party was the Communist Party, and it was included, but its attack was too obvious and its proletarianism too crude; and moreover, it was under the stigma of not belonging. Nobody could say that about the elite above. It did belong, it was eminently respectable, and it knew the American scene. What it represented was a quantity of bitter intellectual radicalism infiltrated from the top downward as a doctorhood of professors, writers, critics, analysts, advisers, administrators, directors of research, and so on — a prepared revolutionary intelligence in spectacles.

There was no plan to begin with. But there was a shibboleth that united them all: “Capitalism is finished.”

There was one idea in which all differences could be resolved, namely, the idea of a transfer of power. For that, a united front; after that, anything. And the wine of communion was a passion to play upon history with a scientific revolutionary technique.

The prestige of the elite was natural for many reasons, but it rested also upon one practical consideration. When the opportunity came a Gracchus would be needed. The elite could produce one. And that was something the Communist Party could not hope to do.

Now given —

the opportunity,
a country whose fabulous wealth was in the modern forms — dynamic, functional, nonportable,
a people so politically naïve as to have passed a law against any attempt to overthrow their government by force — and,
the intention to bring about what Aristotle called a revolution in the state, within the frame of existing law —
Then from the point of view of scientific revolutionary technique, what would the problems be?

“To the New Deal these words — the American system of free private enterprise — stand for a conquered province. To the businessman the same words stand for a world that is in danger and may have to be defended.”

They set themselves down in sequence as follows:

The first, naturally, would be to capture the seat of government.

The second would be to seize economic power.

The third would be to mobilize by propaganda the forces of hatred.

The fourth would be to reconcile and then attach to the revolution the two great classes whose adherence is indispensable but whose interests are economically antagonistic, namely, the industrial wage earners and the farmers, called in Europe workers and peasants.

The fifth would be what to do with business — whether to liquidate or shackle it.
(These five would have a certain imperative order in time and require immediate decisions because they belong to the program of conquest. That would not be the end. What would then ensue? A program of consolidation. Under that head the problems continue.)

The sixth, in Burckhardt’s devastating phrase, would be “the domestication of individuality” — by any means that would make the individual more dependent upon government.

The seventh would be the systematic reduction of all forms of rival authority.

The eighth would be to sustain popular faith in an unlimited public debt, for if that faith should break the government would be unable to borrow; if it could not borrow it could not spend; and the revolution must be able to borrow and spend the wealth of the rich or else it will be bankrupt.

The ninth would be to make the government itself the great capitalist and enterpriser, so that the ultimate power in initiative would pass from the hands of private enterprise to the all-powerful state.

Each one of these problems would have two sides, one the obverse and one the reverse, like a coin. One side only would represent the revolutionary intention. The other side in each case would represent Recovery — and that was the side the New Deal constantly held up to view. Nearly everything it did was in the name of Recovery. But in no case was it true that for the ends of economic recovery alone one solution or one course and one only was feasible. In each case there was an alternative and therefore a choice to make.

What we shall see is that in every case the choice was one that could not fail:

– to ramify the authority and power of executive government — its power, that is, to rule by decrees and rules and regulations of its own making;
– to strengthen its hold upon the economic life of the nation;
– to extend its power over the individual;
– to degrade the parliamentary principle;
– to impair the great American tradition of an independent, Constitutional judicial power;
– to weaken all other powers — the power of private enterprise, the power of private finance, the power of state and local government;
– to exalt the leader principle.

There was endless controversy as to whether the acts of the New Deal did actually move recovery or retard it, and nothing final could ever come of that bitter debate because it is forever impossible to prove what might have happened in place of what did. But a positive result is obtained if you ask, Where was the New Deal going?

The answer to that question is too obvious to be debated. Every choice it made, whether it was one that moved recovery or not, was a choice unerringly true to the essential design of totalitarian government, never of course called by that name either here or anywhere else.

How it worked, how the decisions were made, and how acts that were inconsistent from one point of view were consistent indeed from the other — that now is the matter to be explored, seriatim

Read the rest, please.

Try to understand that the Marxists and the Fabians have a much longer planning and execution horizon than do most Americans.

Try also to understand that these collectivists have learned much from their failings in the past and in other places.

Do not be a ‘good Jew’ any longer.

The Bad People are depending on you to do so.

Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

>’Principles of War’ by Carl von Clausewitz

>From the introduction to this translation of ‘Principles’:

…Before Clausewitz left Prussia in 1812 to join the Russian army and resist Napoleon, he prepared an essay on war to leave with the sixteen year-old Prussian Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm (later King Friedrich Wilhelm IV, r.1840-1858), whose military tutor he had become in 1810. This essay was called “The most important principles of the art of war to complete my course of instruction for his Royal Highness the Crown Prince” [“Die wichtigsten Grundsätze des Kriegführens zur Ergänzung meines Unterrichts bei Sr. Königlichen Hoheit dem Kronprinzen“]. This essay is usually referred to as the “Principles of War.” It represented Clausewitz’s theoretical development up to that point, translated into a form suitable for his young student. Unfortunately, it has often been treated as a summary of Clausewitz’s mature theory—which it most emphatically is not. Rather, it is only a primitive precursor to his later magnum opus—On War. Its subject matter is largely tactical. While some of the more important theoretical concepts of ‘On War’ are fairly well-developed (“friction,” for example), many are embryonic and others entirely absent. In particular, and in great contrast to the later work, “Principles of War” is not notably sophisticated in historical terms. It is based almost entirely on the experience of Frederick the Great and the wars with revolutionary France and Napoleon prior to 1812.

The translation reproduced here was done by Hans Gatzke in 1942. A German protestant, Gatzke (1915-87) emigrated to America in 1937. He graduated from Williams College in 1938 and got his master’s degree from Harvard the following year. He then taught at Harvard, ultimately receiving his doctorate there in 1947. From 1944 to 1946, however, he was a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army, serving with Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF). He taught at Johns Hopkins from 1947 to 1964 and then moved to Yale…

A little light reading for the first weekend of spring…

By the way, if you have nice weather where you are, it might be a good idea to go and confirm your zero.

Just a suggestion.

Tempus fugit.

>Think You’ll Get Revenge in November? Think Again.

>W.C. Varones dashes many Americans’ delusional fantasy about the continued utility of the ballot box.

Remember your Stockdale:

“I never lost faith in the end of the story,” he said, when I asked him. “I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade.”

I didn’t say anything for many minutes, and we continued the slow walk toward the faculty club, Stockdale limping and arc-swinging his stiff leg that had never fully recovered from repeated torture. Finally, after about a hundred meters of silence, I asked, “Who didn’t make it out?”

“Oh, that’s easy,” he said. “The optimists.”

“The optimists? I don’t understand,” I said, now completely confused, given what he’d said a hundred meters earlier.

“The optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.”

Another long pause, and more walking. Then he turned to me and said:

“This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end – which you can never afford to lose – with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

Do you understand yet?

Your study time is just about over.

And the tests are going to suck.

Get your head on straight now, while you can still change course and improve your odds.

Audentes fortuna iuvat.

>Vanderboegh: To All Modern Sons of Liberty – THIS Is Your Time

>Go now and read Mike’s latest.

Then pass it on.

And act.

Audentes fortuna iuvat.