Barnhardt: The First American Republic Is Taking The Long Dirt Nap

From Ann Barnhardt:


Am I surprised at this morning’s news?

No. The only thing that is the least bit surprising is that it was Roberts, who was heretofore considered a “constructionist”, and not Kennedy, who finally put the last nail in the coffin of the First American Republic. The corpse inside said coffin has been dead for years.

Let’s call GWB’s administration the terminal illness, Obama’s usurpation in November of 2008 as the actual moment of death of the First American Republic, the last 3.5 years as one long funeral dirge, and today as the final graveside interment service. The First American Republic done got low, and now is taking the long dirt nap. It’s all over except for the rotten, rotten descendents sniping over the estate like buzzards.

Bottom line: since I fully understand and accept that the Republic is dead and the Constitution is no longer in force, and that the Rule of Law is dead, nothing surprises me.

Mark Levin said this morning that the SCOTUS decision was “lawless.” Well, no kidding, Mark. The Republic is dead, and has been for quite some time now.

What do you expect?

What is it going to take for people to acknowledge objective reality?

Now to Romney and all of you rah-rah Tea Party people. If you think for ONE SECOND that Romney will ever, ever repeal any of this, then you are truly dumber than the people who voted for Obama in the first place, and I’m not being facetious.

Romney wrote ObamaCare’s template in Massachusetts, including a mandate, including state-funded abortion. Romney has said over and over and over again while running for POTUS that he is 100% in favor of a mandate. Here’s that proof:

Romney is lying to all of you people, swearing that he will repeal ObamaCare, and repeal any mandate. He will do no such thing, and if you think he will, you are absolutely delusional.

You HAVE to wake up and acknowledge that Romney is a sociopathic liar who is simply bullshitting, and that is the word for it – bullshitting you people in order to raise money. He will say ANYTHING in order to raise money and maybe “get elected.” You are being conned just as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and if you aren’t smart enough or mature enough to see when you are being blatantly conned, then you deserve what you get.

Here is how this will play out, assuming a Romney “win” in the fake November elections, which is thoroughly unlikely in my estimation, considering that the whole thing is fixed anyway. But let’s just walk through it.

All of these “Republicans”, which are just the theatrical foils to the Communists, in place to do nothing more than give the appearance of a two-party, functioning representative republic, will start referencing the fact that ObamaCare is SCOTUS-approved, and approved by Chief Justice Roberts, no less. They will also start to argue that it would cause “chaos” to repeal it.

Day by day, this rhetoric will increase. It will begin on the news channels, then spill over into the faux-conservative blogs like I wait with bated breath for Ed Morrissey or Allahpundit’s piece on how “sensible folk understand that ObamaCare simply cannot be repealed.”

Oh, just you wait. It is coming.

I promise you that.

And you know what the result will be?

Not an iota of ObamaCare will be touched, much less repealed. The republicans want it every bit as much as the democrats. They’re all gunning for that power. They will NEVER turn loose of that power voluntarily.

We are now to the point where the only way we get rid of these people and re-establish a lawful government is through involuntary removal.

In short, we are either going to have to have a junta, or an all-out hot civil war. I strongly, strongly advocate a junta at this point. A junta would be, by far, the least bloody solution. Sadly, there are no men of integrity left in the flag officer corps to do it – the U.S. military is populated by vile, power-hungry, money-grubbing Marxist degenerates just as much as the three branches.

Which circles us back to the root problem of personal integrity in this nation. We are a nation of godless cowards and self-worshiping trash, and we will have the government we deserve as such.

Why do I bother saying anything at all? Because I want there to be some sort of digital record showing that not every single person in this godforsaken country was a coward and an imbecile. I don’t want the people who are living on this continent ten or twenty years from now to be able to whine and deflect responsibility for their sorry, sorry state by claiming that “no one ever told us” or “no one ever explained anything to us.”

No, you were told.

You were warned.

And it wasn’t just me doing the warning and explaining.

You will accept your suffering in SILENCE. You will blame nothing and no one except YOURSELVES. You will own the tyranny that you live under, because you begged for it.

You bought it with your own stupidity, and you nurtured it with your own squealing cowardice.

62 responses to “Barnhardt: The First American Republic Is Taking The Long Dirt Nap

  1. Well , Barnhardt, get the ball rolling, show the world that you aren’t one of the stupid cowards who begged for this result yourself. I sure wasn’t one of them. I have said the very same things for longer than you have.

    • Jimmy the Saint

      I fully expect to hear that she’s whacked out everyone in Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive by tomorrow morning.

  2. “We are a nation of godless cowards and self-worshiping trash, and we will have the government we deserve as such.”

    *groan* God is not a necessary or sufficient condition for individual liberty. That analysis is very shallow. I have noticed that a LOT of my 3 percenters allies are very religious, so I’m not going to antagonize with agnostic arguments. But it would be nice if we could focus on the vast store of compelling secular/”humanist” axioms/arguments for individual liberty. For example the NAP. Or should liberty be reserved for Christians/theists?

    • The Trainer

      Why should people focus on ‘secular humanism’ (itself classified as a religion, per se)?

      If one were to become aware of the unvarnished history of Liberty, from Magna Carta onward, one would see that where Christianity flourishes, so does liberty. As it wanes, tyranny rises.

      And that’s the really interesting thing about Christianity: Nobody forces anyone to be a Christian. You can enjoy the Liberty given without accepting the Tenets.

      For a more thorough understanding, try reading M.Stanton Evans, “The Theme is Freedom.” In it he hisotrically proves, without attempting to convience anyone to actually become a Christian, the relationship between Christianity and Liberty. He also puts to bed many of the “facts” (so-called) regarding the Founders’ personal beliefs with references.

      Ms. Barnhardt might do herself a favor and read it as well; she then might not be so quick to knee-jerk.

      • Nobody forces anyone to be a Christian.

        This is a false statement. The New England puritan states had their official government churches and legally obligatory tithes. The Mormons were chased because they weren’t the right flavor of Christian. The American Indians were “Christianized”. The American public school movement was designed to change the immigrating Catholics to Protestant. England had a Church of England. Spain had an inquisition. Etc.

        Historically, we, as Americans, have always had the goal of the greatest amount of individual liberty possible that does not bring harm to others and does not place the institutions of limited government in jeopardy.

        In this statement, who is “we”? Does that list of people include Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and their voters who knew what anti-liberty policies they would enforce? Oh, wait, the FDR voters weren’t anti-liberty, because American government is the defender of liberty, and bigger government is pro-liberty.

        • The Trainer

          Read Stanton and then the discussion can begin. Thanks, and have a great Independence Day celebration!

          • Josey Montana

            Why do you assume as a default position that non-Christians are *entitled* to live in a Christian community?

            This is a thoroughly modern conceit, the result of the forced imposition of the “huddled masses” onto America, the sole reason being they were a cheap labor source for the Robber Barons and it was necessary to prevent them from slaughtering themselves and the natives.

            In other words, the Puritans didn’t want that kind living amongst them — was is their right as owners of the land.

            As for the poor constantly pushed around Indians … well they didn’t mind the rather large real estate bubble they started, not to mention spending all that easy White Man cash. Oh that’s also a characature. So let’s get it straight right now: Many Indians thought the arrival of the White Man was the best thing since sliced bread. They allied with and assimilated as Americans after a full course of time.

            Those that didn’t … well they picked the wrong side. They picked the wrong side in the French-Indian Wars; the War for Independence; innumerable Indian Wars, and they are fortunate to be alive as many of their own race would simply have enslaved and/or slaughtered the survivors according to their own practice.

            I realize it’s trendy to hate on the Yankee but fact is, whatever the US of A is today it got its start in Puritan Yankee New England. Everything else was merely imitation “new boss same as the old boss”. If you don’t like it, well, don’t live in the Northeast. After all, it is still a free country and malcontents are welcome to leave. No one has built a fence tying you to the land. At least not in Yankeeland they didn’t.

            Josey Montana

            • “In other words, the Puritans didn’t want that kind living amongst them — was is their right as owners of the land. ”
              It was the right of Puritans to force a mandatory tax/tithe on non-Puritan property owners because they were the majority in that area?
              Don’t worry, I won’t indict other Christians based on your singular stupidity, since I’m not a collectivist.

              • Yikes.

                I don’t think anyone definition of “liberty” means “I get to move where I’m not wanted and dictate to the locals how they will accept me”.

                This idea that we are free to wander where we like, however we like, whenever we like. “Vagabond” does not begin to describe it but traveling through is one thing — this is something quite different.

                • Are you ignoring those who owned property in the area before the Puritan majority instituted their tithe-tax?

                  • To you Godless heathens out there, something to consider:

                    While you fancy yourselves very fine “patriots”, lovers of “America” and excellent armchair defenders of “Liberty”…


                    Of course you don’t.

                    If you did, you wouldn’t be regurgitating Soviet Communist propaganda from a hundred years ago.

                    You will live to regret your foolishness.

            • I apologize for the name-calling, but your justification of violence deeply offends my libertarian sensibilities.

              • Did I justify something?

                Or did I explain to the best of my ability under the circumstances an historical situation?

                Some of you people are very, very, very short on “understanding”. This might have something to do with the “Hatfields and the McCoys” nature of the “Patriot” movement, whatever it is.

                And I will say this: I only see this attitude when I travel west of the Susquehanna River, at least from the perspective of my native Philadelphia. YMMV.

            • The Trainer

              Read the book…then we can talk.

            • Trainer,
              My most sincere apology. The above comments should have been directed at “Anonymous”.

              Again, I am deeply sorry.
              Josey Montana

              • The Trainer

                Not a problem…these blog replies can be confusing, even to the most perceptive!

            • Why do you assume as a default position that non-Christians are entitled to live in a Christian community?

              You don’t mean a community, you mean a nation with borders and an immigration policy, where somebody makes rules that are enforced even on Christians who would voluntarily choose to trade with non-Christians. You’re assuming a bunch of collectivism, which is anti-liberty.

          • M Stanton Evans assertions are spot on and I agree. “Liberty” as Americans understand it is inseparable from Christianity and the history of the Church *in* England (and Scotland and Wales and yes, pax Ireland).

            The British peoples carry something akin to a “Liberty Gene” that is recessive and ordinarily dominated by the Peasant Gene. But, thanks to the splendid isolation that comes from having your butt kicked all the way to some podunk island over a few thousand years’ time, it flourished and took the course we know today as the Anglo-American history of liberty, virtue and independence.

            It is what attracted the Huddled Masses and Wretched Refuse in the first place and I, whose own heritage in part owes to Ellis Island de facto if not spiritually, have nothing but contempt for alien foreigners that waltz in here, to my family’s home of 400 years, and start dictating terms to me.

            But “The Peasant Theory of Politics” is a subject for another place and time.


          • Nobody forces anyone to be a Christian. You can enjoy the Liberty given without accepting the Tenets.

            Now I realize you’re correct. Compliance with blue laws, forced on unwilling Americans at gunpoint, does not make those victims Christians. Similarly, the religious fanatics in the Middle East don’t force their victims to be a Muslim, and the Soviet Union at the height of its power didn’t force residents to be Communist. You can enjoy the Liberty given by Communism without accepting the Tenets.

    • Why don’t you set the example for us, Mouse?

      Please start with non-Christian civilizations that were good for anyone other than the ruling junta and its courtesans.

      Then you might detail a typical life path for the unlucky peasants and slaves. How long did they live? Were they property or free? Educated or ignorant? Treated with compassion and dignity or exploited for their labor to support the junta?

      Following that, tell us about life for the ruling junta. How did they manage succession? Internal division? Was there continuity between regimes or were they each tabula rasa according to the whim of the strongman?

      Finally explain the organizational and economic structure of pagan life. Tribal? Clan? Geography? Accidental? Vassal? Private property? Personal profit allowed?

      I ask because, according to my place in the scheme of things, life in a Christian society is pretty tolerable — pleasant most of the time and bearable easily when it is not.

      (Heads up: I don’t know if you indulge in such infantalia, but in the event you are so inclined, please don’t bother blabbering about state corruption as though the Medici negate all Christendom. Or the Bolshevik canards about the Crusades or the poor loser Indians. Comintern propaganda does not count as it is as far from factual (let alone truthful) as possible while maintaining any value as propaganda. If you are not so inclined, then I respect you to that extent and am pleased to deal with you honestly.)

      • Of course many Christians have contributed thoughts and actions that promoted individual liberty. Many Christians have done the opposite, as well. And you can say the same for people of any religion (deists/agnostics/atheists/budhists/etc). And of course the Crusades does not negate all Christiandom. And the Constitution does not affirm all Christiandom. It is merely another belief system that can be used to justify or rationalize actions, good or bad.

        I think the most significant contribution to individual liberty in the Christian tradition is the concept of natural rights. But I find it specious at best that natural rights (negative liberties) are given to us from God. It seems much more realistic that negative liberties are asserted and protected by the individual him/herself. We’ve seen how much “negative liberties” pacifists really have, when actually put to the test. If someone tries to rape my defenseless wife, God is not protecting her negative liberties. If she has a handgun and uses it, she is directly enforcing her natural rights.

        Anyways my main point is that Christianity is not a necessary/sufficient condition for individual liberty. Even for those who say that a Christian Constitution enables individual liberty, they expose themselves as contradictory. Because any compulsory government NECESSARILY infringes on individual liberty (taxation is theft, monopoly on violence, etc…)

        I reserve my respect for those voluntaryist Christians who are at least internally consistent, saying that there should be no King before God.

        • Okay, I’ll grant some of your contention. But let’s examine natural rights. Before Christian formulations, there were none. Even the Hebrew tribes, who reserved them for themselves (somewhat) withheld them from all others.

          Take Pagan Greece for example. Athens might somewhat approximate our present politico-ethical system but rights were utterly inherent in caste membership and standing, meaning of course that women, slaves and foreigners held no rights except as granted by the controlling authority. I might even concede this is not necessarily a bad idea — but it was arbitrary and no Athenian was compelled to respect “natural” rights as the concept did not exist. Aristotle, whom I admire and studied in some depth not being a philosophy major, also clearly delineated between the aristocracy and the masses who were expected to behave according to distinct rules deriving from their distinct status in society, gained mainly by virtue of a family’s power.

          And so I think you are confusing natural rights with power — the power to enforce a claim on natural rights. A slave might insist he holds the natural and unalienable rights of a Greek but that is of little recourse if he lacks to power to prevent his arbitrary execution.

          In Christendom, natural rights were held to be just that as a matter of voluntary restraint in service to the Lord. Ergo, everyone is secure to a guaranteed minimum level at least.

          I am unfamiliar with such arrangement in pagan societies, even Iceland which was fair and equitable … but also brutal as demanded by the facts of life in the absence of Christian conceptualizations to feed the poor and clothe the naked etc.

          Finally, I do wish to point out something frequently glossed over by critics: Christ clearly said on multiple occasions that he brought nothing new to man. To the contrary, he repeatedly told us that he came to remember the way to those that had forgotten and he spoke to those for whom the law was already written on their hearts. The implication is that German higher Criticism that attempts to discredit Christian teaching by locating precedent in Zoroastrianism etc etc miss the point that, according to any theology prior to Universalism, those pagan societies were not exactly pagan but rather corrupted Godly civilizations in need of instruction and correction.

      • “Finally explain the organizational and economic structure of pagan life. Tribal? Clan? Geography? Accidental? Vassal? Private property? Personal profit allowed?”

        Sure thing. Look to medieval Iceland (pagan), and its relative “absence of government”.

  3. If wasn’t clear, I’m merely advocating for big tent liberty.

    • Battlefield USA

      NO ONE EXCLUDED YOU! Gawd… some of you atheists are such whiny pussies. “Oh my! She said the God word!”

    • Jimmy the Saint

      Yeah, that big tent thing worked so well with the GOP. Any group/society founded on liberty will have to be fairly limited in scope. Otherwise, it will very quickly get a little bit pregnant with statism/socialism.

      • Grenadier1

        If you are founded on LIBERTY how do you limit in scope?
        Liberty by definition is not limited in scope.

        • The Trainer

          Liberty, in the American perspective, should not be confused with the French Revolutionary version of “anything goes until “the People’s assembly” says “No, now you must die….”

          Historically, we, as Americans, have always had the goal of the greatest amount of individual liberty possible that does not bring harm to others and does not place the institutions of limited government in jeopardy.

        • Well for starters, the Pilgrims and Puritans that invented what became known as “America” (the phenomenon, not the nerdy geographical definition), were about as exclusive as you can get outside of old-school Harvard and Yale.
          * no proletariat
          * no aristocracy
          * no bachelors without a family to chaperone them
          * no “open borders” (death penalty for violations)
          * two-year probationary term before residency was permanently granted
          * no work, no eat
          * Banksters and exploitative capitalists need not apply

          (read Fischer to learn about their very agreeable rules for businesses — it is everything everyone from TEA to OWS wants today)

          Then, after one jumped through all those hoops, New England’s “liberty” was the liberty of stringent self-control. Recall Hester Prynne, our very first celebutante, was free to leave at any time. She chose to remain out of respect for the moral code.

          Point is there will be control. It is either exercised by the Self or by the State but there will be control. Civilization is impossible without it.

          Liberty = self-control. Period.

          License is the ticket to tyranny.

          (Aside: seriously, if you were one of Our Royal Masters gazing out your castle window upon the Thundering Herds of Sheople … Would you not feel the exact same contempt they feel? Hell I agree with them in large measure but I would rather not be lumped in with “those people”. Admit it: you feel the same way but since we’re not NWO robots, here we are. So pick one. Self control or JBTs to do it for you.)

        • Grenadier1

          Self control is not the same thing as “limited in scope”.
          I uphold the addage “Freedom to do as you want with your life , liberty or property provided it does not infringe on the life liberty or property of another through force or fraud”. Self control or respect for others is the vehicle for that addage. If thats what you were implying then I got that. It just sounded like you were going in the opposite direction with that.

        • Jimmy the Saint

          So “Liberty” includes statism, socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarian control, authoritarian control, sharia, etc.? We’ve got that now – we can all stand down.

          If you don’t exclude the statists and their ilk, liberty is nothing more than a pipe dream.

  4. Welcome to the New Dark Age…..

  5. I love that girl!

  6. Pingback: But, but, but… | Battlefield USA

  7. John Cooper

    I’d totally wear it out… just kidding.

  8. Ann needs to come out of her shell and tell us how she really feels.

    Don’t be shy, Ann.

  9. Ann is like the backside of sandpaper, once she turns she takes the skin off down to the bone. You go girl and watch out for the fires.

  10. No wonder to me why people are walking out on her presentations; with the Chinese/Russian/islamic invasion looming shouldn’t we be digging bunkers at Ann’s house?

  11. Glad to see a few of you rookies delve into a religious argument. When I was a kid, I heard my parents close the noisy argument with, “Nobody ever WON an argument about politics or religion”. What exactly are any of you trying to “win” here? Give it a frigging rest. Want to know the score? Some of us are “religious”. Some of us aren’t. And from there, you will be able, if you dare look, into the whole of us, and see that we are made up of a lot of different people, with every kind of difference you can imagine. United, oddly enough, by one damned thing. We love liberty. Which means, in old guy speak, can the bugle oil, and let’s get down to how we’re going to achieve our little ambition, to be free. If you guys can’t leave the bullshit aside, and stop taking offense at every living thing that’s said or happens, how in the wide world of sports do you ever think we will achieve that, with everyone at each others throats? Know why the Scots couldn’t shake the English, but for a while? They couldn’t stop fighting each other. April, 1865, Lee has got about 23,000 effectives. At the same time, there are 180,000 men in Northern POW camps, being ill treated, to say the least. And there are over 200,000 men military trained and deserted running around the South, avoiding the local sheriffs. There are nearly 100,000 good uniforms,sitting in Georgia warehouses while Lees’ men wear rags. Think they might have benefited from a little cooperation and unity? 400,000 men deserted during the “Good War”,(aye, what a term) and over 10,000 were never caught. Point is, We don’t have close to that number, and like AP says, the circular firing squad is working overtime. The so-called Liberty movement is going to be still-born, and just a foot note, if we don’t manage to get it together.

    • Josey Montana

      Sean, I cannot over recommend “Albion’s Seed” to you and most everyone else that posts on these blogs.

      That circular firing squad is almost completely thanks to unalloyed solipsism that confuses one’s contemporary understanding of liberty with the historical understanding of liberty by the colonial rootstock ethnicities.

      What you describe is the hillbilly/”Mac-ocracy” concept of liberty which is pretty much do as you want to do until someone stops you from doing it, then fight about it and enjoy the ruckus.

      Southerns outside of the mountains thought liberty was the right to decide among themselves who is free and who is slave. No nosey outsiders welcome.

      Quakers considered liberty the chance to make a quick buck without offending anyone.

      Puritans thought liberty was the ability to worship God as all Puritans sought to worship him and that they were free to create their own state to organize it all (oh no! New England was a (shhhhhh!!) thee-ock-rah-see — don’t say it out loud!)

      Funny thing is, the hillbilly definition was adopted by the Libertarians, the quaker definition by the liberals (and it is the default US ethic today, in its full sense not the bumpersticker version I made up), The Southern sense of “I got the power and you will feel it” is our fed-gov while old-school Puritanism — a community founded, organized and conducted as a full-time church has been run out of the nation they created.

      How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have an ungrateful child. Or something very close to that.


      • So much of what you think you know, just isn’t so.
        Seems you like telling others what they think.

        Question is, how do you define Liberty?

        • Josey is telling us what he thinks.

          You are free to disagree without the assumptions.

          That’s one small way to “define Liberty.”

          • Appreciate the cover oughtsix. FYI, I’m quoting David Hackett-Fischer’s summaries as presented in Albion’s Seed. It also happens to square with my experience living in a good number of the united states. I oculd have quoted any number of scholarly papers on the subject but Fischer’s is the most approachable. I think their own misdemeanor speaks for itself, and why I think they are nothing but commie provocateurs, but amateur provocateurs who simply ape the college educated kind from the 1960s.

            (And yes, I know a few of them personally, as my own professors, one of whom turned on the Soviets and came clean, spilling the beans about their methods and successes — find Radical Son and read about these useful idiots in rather nauseating detail. Horowitz tells us how absurdly simple it was for him and his cadre of the New Left to manipulate the hayseeds into abandoning their families, churches, parental value systems, etc. No wonder the Left has no respect for “us” and, after enduring this thread and others like it, I agree with their assessment: the fools of the US are, in large measure, incapable of self-rule.)

            Furthermore, the distractors have no real interest in learning anything, nor do they have any particular argument with the present US government, except of course, that it’s easier and less strenuous to shoot off their mouths on line than it is to do something worthwhile in life. “Old crank” comes to mind.

            I’ve spent my life in the communication business, somehow or another.

            The one thing I have learned beyond all doubt is that the Internet is the proverbial blessing and curse. For it to work well, good will and a generous disposition are required. For it to be effectively sabotaged, as a few of this thread’s posters have nicely done, all you need is malicious a spirit. This is true in life, of course, but everything’s faster and easier on line, right?

    • Well said, Sean. I would generally agree that arguing about religion, etc. is a distraction. I’m probably a little on edge about this topic because of recent invocations of Biblical precedent for wiping out “bad blood” (in the non-combatants discussion).

      So my contention is not with those who are religious, or believe in traditional family values, or discuss the intersection of public policy and multiculturalism. It is the numerous ultra-simplications of why individual liberty is taking a beating (it’s because we’re Godless! “Faggotry” is to blame! Hang the negros!, etc. ALL of which I’ve seen NUMEROUS times in the 3 percenter community…….)

      I may not have conveyed my intent properly, but what I mean to say is: let’s focus on the common themes of liberty that unite us all! And where we differ, let’s focus on the positives rather than myopic finger-pointing that will alienate potential allies. Are there atheists, buddhists, gays, and blacks, asians, etc. who would fight alongside us? Most certainly!

      • How can you focus on “liberty” when you reject its very definition, let alone historical antecedents?

        What you demand is license not liberty. Do you not understand the difference?

        Furthermore, you sound like a 1960s hippy with your cliches and soundbites about the church, US history and so on.

        What is your gripe with the US government, anyway?

        Big Brother lets you do any damned thing you please, except complain about them.

        So what’s up with that? Why are you hanging around a Patriot site that is, by definition, traditionalist while you reject the very traditions of the patriot concept?

        Far out man. I may have been way too young for “The Sixties” but I knew a lot of its burnouts at university. Learned a lot from them. But man were they whacked and confused and frankly, a lot like what I read from you.

        So are you a Boomer or the son of one? Grandson of an immigrant perhaps? Either way, you have a lot to learn about American history and Pravda and Isvestya are lousy places to look for it.

        Gratitude for those that made you possible is in order, too.

  12. Laurels, Josey. Very fine indeed.

  13. The Apple Islander

    Would have loved to have read the whole thread but I’m in my thirties and I don’t think I’ll live long enough to get to the end of it.
    I’ve thrown out the odd kneejerk reaction to the “G” word, and I understand now that it’s not in anyone’s best interest. It doesn’t serve liberty either.
    Considering that the vast majority of Americans who have brought about this ubergov problem identify themselves as Christians (92 percent of all Americans at last count?) it bears remembering that the term Christian is just about meaningless (demographically speaking).

    I mean, show your average Amish woman that picture of Barnhardt up there with her shamefully low cut top and she’d probably go home and pray for Ann’s mortal soul.

    It’s all relative in the end.

  14. I’m thinking the Aryan Nation’s church must be Protestant. They sound just like Josey.

    • So what, exactly, is your problem with the United States?

      “I want what I want, when I want it” may be childish but it is the present American Way.

      You should be working the Obama reelection campaign, so why are you here, an openly “American Patriot” hang-out, stirring up trouble with some SAR/Mayflower Society type?


      I smell a rat. Maybe more than one.

      Oh and by the way, “patriot” derives from “fathers” as in “land where my fathers died” as in, “I am my father’s son” as in, “a chip off the old block” that “carries on the family name” and tradition.

      Obviously, your families haven’t been here very long. What’s your name in the original Russian, anyway?

  15. Correction: that was supposed to be “Puritan”, not Protestant. Although he doth protest too much, Josey does indeed sound Puritan. You must be pure to be Aryan, don’t you know.

    • I am a direct descendant of William Brewster and Roger Conant so you bet your bippy I’m a Puritan. Well actually I’m a low-church Episcopalian right out of an Anglo-Catholic parish but I really can’t expect you to understand church history or politics since even theology is against your religion.

      What exactly do you know about us, anyway?

    • And that statement shows about as much relation to intelligent perspective and historical knowledge as “Aryan” does to “Puritan.”


  16. I’ve read all of the thread comments, and here’s my take.

    Why don’t we all find a nice, quiet place and kill each other to settle these Culture War issues, a la The Thirty Years’ War.

    Then, the one or two lucky survivors can face Leviathan alone, comforted by the knowledge that while Liberty will be flushed down the historical toilet, ideological purity will be paramount.

    You know, my admiration for the Founding Fathers grows exponentially each day. They had sufficient character, humility, and dedication to haul their heads out of their asses long enough to fire in the same direction.


    • alan w. mullenax

      Finally, an intelligent man. You’re not anywhere near south Florida are you? I could use the help.

      • So, according to this line of reasoning, none of this is worht even discussing, let alone argumentation, disharmony, disaffiliation or war.

        It is so unimportant, we should just STFU and treat it as our preference for ice cream flavor.

        And yet, speaking as the present generation of the very families that INVENTED the United States and BUILT America from the wilderness, whose successful sacrifices attracted the peons of the world in their millions, you expect me to jettison my heritage as a Protestant, a Puritan, a Pilgrim, a Huguenot, and more, back in the Old World where my ancestors ran things for a few centuries, fighting off Mohammedan invaders and such (you might have heard of one of my grandfathers, the religious fanatic Charlemage, let alone his extremist grandfather “The Hammer” ) …

        Just to make the offspring of immigrants and indentured servants happy?

        While I could quote Nancy Pelosi, I’ll just say this instead:

        Get real.

        Those of us who have a heritage and know what bloody price was paid for it are not going to yield it so that malcontents and ignoramuses can feel morally superior.

        As to the notion that a Patriot can be Godless, even not a Christian, would be enough for my flesh-and-blood SAR/DAR certified ancestors to deal with you in kind.

        So while it is one thing to privately disagree with the values and norms of your hosts it is quite another to “bite the hand that feeds you”. Without my extremely Christian forefathers, all you heathens would still be stomping out mud bricks or wine grapes in whatever fiefdom it was that claimed your progenitors as sovereign property.

        You’ll get no apology from me. I have nothing to envy in others nor do I begrudge those who grant succor and mercy to souls in need — unlike many in the so-called Patriot movement, let alone its kissing cousins. Instead I look to my heritage — America and all Christendom before it — and stand in awe and gratitude, humbled that they did it.

        Found any nations, lately? Repel murderous invaders? Build a civilization with your bare hands??

        I didn’t think so. Dregs from sour grapes make a heluva hangover. You may have it all.

  17. My ancestors arrived on the shores of Virginia about the middle of the 17th century. I completely understand and agree with you, Josey.

    This is my country.

    No one is getting it, subverting it, destroying it without a fight. And no one is going to undermine the effort to preserve the legacy of Liberty, however clever and sophisticated their arguments, however dire their protestations of helplessness and doom…… without a fight.

    Lead, follow or shut the fuck up.

    • alan w. mullenax

      Ready to lead or follow. What’s you’re plan?

      • I know of no definitive “plan” that could possibly predict and prepare for what’s coming. Too many variables/possibilities, not enough unity, see below.

        What I do know is that the incessant doomsaying, and “philosophical” and political debate that goes around here not only does little to help the cause of Liberty, it destroys what little will and unity we might otherwise have. We are spread thin, far and wide. Many of us will have to act alone or in very small groups, dealing with local events as we find them and as we are able. It will not matter if you believe in the Constitution or are a confirmed agorist. We will not be examining each other for idealistic purity at that time.

        There are too many writers here, and throughout the Liberty sphere who more feel the need to protect their ego investment in some pet theory or other than in trying to prepare to do the unthinkable. I mean that literally… the unthinkable. No one, nor any number of us, can possibly predict the hour or the manner of events, let alone prescribe some “plan” or political system for “fixing” it all.

        I believe that much of this relentless partisanship comes from the need to avoid actually jumping off… maybe it isn’t time yet and the frustration is vented in “debate” and advocacy for the pet theory. It seems also that there is a lot of ego involved in trying to be the most radical, the hardest, most steely eyed realist in describing and accepting the maximum horror foreseen. It all may be just that awful and we certainly have to prepare for the worst cases… but to constantly dwell on that which we believe will likely occur is self defeating, enervating and an impediment to clear thought and right action. I do not mean that we shouldn’t keep up or examine the trends and possibilities… I have no problem with posts in these and other pages wherein we continue to be informed. I have a real problem with commenters who insist on the hopelessness and stark terror of it all. If you are resigned to destruction and without hope, keep it to yourself. Why bother reading and commenting at all? I hate to say it, but some of these folks are ferrets and agitprop agents.

        We are going to need each and every one of us who genuinely believes in Liberty in the general sense. What we need most right now is esprit, confidence, determination and unity of purpose, not a continuing, bitter, acrimonious “debate”. All such nags have been flogged to death. Let us not suffer the same fate.

        We are not about to build another society until we have disposed of the current one… and survived.

    • Booyah oughtsix. You might find the discussion over at one of my blog posts congenial to this thread, and I’m sure WRSA is sick of this line anyway:

      It’s centered around this theme of compromise as a way to attract allies, and I bring in some current experience with the Epsicopal church that tried as much — and ruined everything.