UPDATE 1040EST 6DEC2015: Larry Correia pinpoints the divide.
UPDATE 1020EST 6DEC2015: Rawles replies as well.
From a reader:
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocent Americans in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question to which any rational, thinking human being already knows the answer: Were Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik Muslim jihadists committing acts of holy war on American soil?
But motives do not matter to dead individuals, in California, Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut, and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to protect individual freedom but who place a higher premium on the money and political power gained by using each tragic incident as an excuse to further disarm the victims of the day, stripping away options by which they could have defended themselves before their bodies have even been laid to rest, yet who encourage and personally profit from the unfettered spread of the ideologies that motivated the actions of the murderers.
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that not one of Syed Farook’s coworkers would have been allowed by the same politicians now expressing outrage at inanimate pieces of metal, to carry a weapon that could have saved over a dozen lives that day. This ideology is an ideology of war against the rights of the individual, thinly veiled behind righteous indignation. What good will be accomplished by removing the ability of an individual to defend ones self against those with murderous intent? The American people have not yet begun to defend themselves in this war, but when they do, the weapons which offer their ability to protect themselves and their families will inevitably be turned against anyone who commits the aggressive act of claiming that they ought not have that ability. Let’s be clear: there is no difference between a murderer and one who enables the murderer by removing a man’s right to protect himself. We have the right to defend ourselves against both.
Opponents of the right of self-defense are crying, as they do during every attempt to leave the citizenry unarmed to protect itself, that passing new laws will effectively forestall future attacks. That is untrue. An attacker motivated by religious or political ideology does not pause to read the laws when deciding to kill. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the weapons used in these incidents. Those weapons exist. They fail to point out that something in the hearts and minds of the people holding those weapons motivates them to kill. Every murder committed in human history was done in blatant disregard of the law. Every murderer determined to kill can find a weapon.
Make no mistake. The leaders of this country want nothing more than to disarm its citizens. Don’t be fooled. Private ownership of the means of self defense is a threat to the power they so deeply covet. The threat of armed insurrection against a government so committed to furthering its own power is closer than it has been since 1775. Government’s attempts to drastically reduce the number and effectiveness of firearms owned by private citizens are nothing more than attempts to consolidate power to its ranks and protect itself from paying the consequences of its actions.
All weapons, including fully automatic rifles and explosives, must be unregulated and allowed for private ownership. There is no rational reason to prevent a human being from having the ability to protect himself with the same level of firepower employed by those who threaten him. Any restriction shows nothing less than government’s desperation to remove the ability of its citizens to revolt against its power.
Certain kinds of politicians, and the media members who spread their message, like those on the editorial board of the New York Times, must be held to account for their attempts to leave individual citizens helpless to protect themselves against government tyranny and individuals with murderous intent. It is possible to identify all such individuals in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require them being removed as a threat to individual liberty and freedom, for the good of their fellow citizens.
What better time than now to show, at long last, that in America, freedom will never submit to tyranny.
no, the Zionist Occupation government is not looking to disarm the “citizens”. The globalist ZOG is well aware that urban Black thugs, Latino gangs, and invasive Muslims are not going to disarm. The ZOG is attempting to disarm Whites. So they can be killed more easily. By the aforementioned
New York Times=Jew York Times. Nuff said.
“I reckon a lot of folks are gonna need killin.” “I suppose so.” Got rope? Got ammo? As I recall the fascists of Italy at the end of the last WW ended up swinging in the breeze. The NYT editorial board is nothing but a cabal of fascists and if they continue on this course of action, I predict they will end up like their fascist friends in Italy midway through the last century.
Grey Ghost
Just stay away from NYC, it will self destruct all on it’s own, no outside help needed. And if you hear a cry for help from there, ignore it. They will feed on themselves, their exceptionalism and arrogance should make for good eating.
Oy vey motherfuckers.
Having lived and worked in NYC for ten years, I can tell you that there is a lot of everything in New York. There is good and evil, rich and poor, black and white. When this giant swirly nears the bottom, the cannibalizing will occur. The good people(unarmed) will be devoured. It will not matter what color you are, your political persuasion, gay or straight, jew or christian, young or old, man or woman.The carnage will be horrendous. Remember how quickly things went to shit after Katrina. Multiply that times ten. There are predators and prey. Make your choices wisely.The lives of you and your family depend upon it. The center of a large US city is the last place you want to be. As the culling takes place: it will be refugee time. How far can the average, out of shape, spoiled- rotten hive dweller get? The elements and lack of food and water ,combined with the predators will be extremely deadly. Like Mr T said.”Pity the fool!”
Excellent commentary. Have you started your enemies list yet? It is a necessary prelude to taking back our nation.
We call it a target folder… Learn to figure eight your enemies. Take your closest friends and learn to work as a real team.
No…….it’s a Christmas card list. Think of holiday cheer as you write their names and addresses. And all the wonderful gifts you can send their way. 🙂
Enemies list?
Hell no, it would be way too long!
I have a friendly list, much easier to keep track of.
Remember, the first 90 days, 80 million gone. Poof!
Summer, 2017.
Read “Circle of Intrigue” a good start to an enemies list is in the back of the book.
Reblogged this on The zombie apocalypse survival homestead and commented:
I’ll leave it to those that reserve the right to become more intelligent to identify the author.
WHAT would be the tripwire resulting in open rebellion? Examining the Bill of Rights, and considering EXISTING laws only, and not failed attempts, you will find that every clause has been violated to one degree or another. Documenting those violations would fill volumes; and it is important to remember that only government can violate the exercise of unalienable individual rights and claim immunity from retribution. We omit martial law or public suspension of the Constitution as a tripwire. The overnight installation of dictatorship obviously would qualify as “the tripwire,” but is not likely to occur. What has occurred, what is occurring, is the implementation of every aspect of such dictatorship without an overt declaration. The Constitution is being killed by attrition. The Communist Manifesto is being installed by accretion. Any suggestion that martial law is the tripwire leads us to the question: what aspect of martial law justifies the first shot?
For much the same reason, we will leave out mass executions of the Waco variety. For one thing, they are composite abuses of numerous individual rights. Yet, among those abuses, the real tripwire may exist. For another, those events are shrouded in a fog of obfuscation and outright lies. Any rebellion must be based on extremely hard and known facts. Similarly, no rebellion will succeed if its fundamental reasons for occurring are not explicitly identified. Those reasons cannot be explicitly identified if, in place of their identification, we simply point to a composite such as Waco and say, “See, that’s why; figure it out.” Any suggestion that more Waco’s, in and of themselves, would be the tripwire, simply leads us back again to the question: what aspect of them justifies rebellion? For the same reasons, we leave out a detailed account of Ayn Rand’s identification of the four essential characteristics of tyranny. She identified them quite correctly, but together they are just another composite from which we must choose precipitating causes. These characteristics are: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and “above all,” censorship.
With regard to the first characteristic of tyranny, what is the real difference be¬tween the Fabian socialist Republican Party and the overtly socialist Democrat party? Nothing but time. Regarding the second we have the FBI’s Hostage Res¬cue Team and the ATF’s enforcement branch. In action they simply avoid the embarrassment of a trial. Regarding the third we have asset forfeiture “laws,” the IRS, the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and a myriad of other executive branch agencies, departments and commissions whose sole function is to regulate business and the economy. Regulating business for the “public good” (fascism) is no different in principle than outright nationalization (Communism.)
However, the fourth characteristic of tyranny, censorship, is the obvious primary tripwire. When ideology and the reporting of facts and how-to instructions are forbidden, there is nothing remaining but to fight. Freedom of speech and persuasion— the freedom to attempt to rationally convince willing listeners— is so fundamental an individual right that without it no other rights, not even the existence of rights, can be enforced, claimed, debated or even queried. Does this censorship include the regulation of the “public” airwaves by the FCC, as in the censorship which prohibits tobacco companies from advertising— in their own defense— on the same medium which is commanded by government decree to carry “public service” propaganda against them? Does it include federal compulsion of broadcasters to air politically correct liberal twaddle for “The Children?” Does it include the Orwellian “Communications Decency Act”? Does it include any irrationalist “sexual harassment” or tribalist “hate speech” laws which prohibit certain spoken words among co-workers? The answer: unequivocally yes.
Although the above do not pertain to ideological or political speech, yet they are censorship and tactically they are designed to intimidate people into the acceptance of de facto censorship. We say that any abrogation of free speech, and any form of censorship, which cannot be rectified by the soap box, the ballot box, or the jury box, must be rectified by the cartridge box— or lost forever.
Americans have been stumbling over tripwires justifying overt resistance for well over 130 years. On one hand, we submit that gun confiscation is a secondary tripwire only. It is second to censorship because if speech is illegal we cannot even discuss the repeal of gun control, or of any other population controls. If only guns are illegal we may still convince people to repeal those laws. On the other hand, gun confiscation may be a sufficient tripwire because the primary one, censorship, can be fully implemented only after the citizenry is completely disarmed.
Resistance, in the context of this article, means those legitimate acts by individuals which compel government to restrict its activities and authority to those powers delegated to it, by the people, in the Constitution. The distinction to be drawn here is that the objective of patriotic resistance is to restore original constitutional government, not change the form of government.
To this end we believe:
The enforcement of any laws— local, state, or federal— that through the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.
THE operative terms of the above statement are the parameters that must be defined and understood if resistance to tyranny and despotism is to be honorable, and for the cause of individual liberty, rather than anarchy resulting in a new gang of tyrants. Rebellion can never be justified so long as objective means of redress are available, which are themselves not subverted or rendered impotent by further or parallel subjective legislation. The goal of patriots through¬out the country must be the restoration of objective constitutional law and order. The failure to enforce a subjective law (i.e., the Communications Decency Act) does not justify that law existing, but it also does not justify resistance. This is because non-enforcement leaves avenues of redress, including the forbidden activity itself, still available. Should a lower court uphold or ignore a case that challenges a subjective law, peaceable means of redress are still open by higher or lateral courts in another jurisdiction.
However, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold subjective laws, or refuse to hear the cases challenging them, then the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have all failed to guarantee individual liberty, from the widest principles to the smallest details. A single refusal by the highest court in the land to overturn a whim based subjective law, or to refuse to hear the case, is sufficient to justify resistance to that law because there is simply nowhere left to turn for further attempts at redress. At such time nobody is morally bound by that law. Tyranny gets one chance per branch.
America is either a constitutional republic or it is not. If we can restore our republic it will ultimately occur through reason, and reason will then lead our representatives to make unconstitutional those laws which, by any objective standard of justice, should have never been considered in the first place. However, we can¬not assert our claim to restore our liberty if we but accede to a single socialist construct. Freedom and serfdom cannot coexist. We cannot have it both ways. Life, and the means to preserve it, cannot coexist with disarmament. Liberty, and its rational exercise, cannot coexist with subjective constraints. Property, and its acquisition, use and disposal, cannot coexist with expropriation. The federal government’s first task is to obey the Constitution. It has refused. Our first task as free men is to force the federal government to obey it again. The Constitution of the United States of America is a constraint on the federal government, not on the individual. Likewise, the constitutions of the various states are constraints on the state governments, not on the individual.
The Constitution contains many provisions allowing the violation of our natural rights as free men by immoral and unethical men in government. The true heroes of the ratification debates were the Antifederalists, who secured Federalist guarantees that the Bill of Rights would amend the Constitution. To their undying credit, the Federalists lived up to their promise. Nevertheless, only after constitutional limitations on government have been restored in their original form can we consider amending the Constitution to redress its very few remaining defects (for example; the absence of a separation of state and economy clause.) Laws that make nugatory the means of resisting tyranny and despotism determine the tripwire. The creeping legislative erosion of the 2nd Amendment is not the only tripwire that justifies resistance. We submit that any gun control is a secondary tripwire. Not only because it can be effortlessly evaded, but also because it strengthens our cause. It is second only to censorship. If speech is illegal we can discuss neither repeal of gun control, or the repeal of any other unconstitutional “law.”
Censorship is not a tripwire, it is THE tripwire. Thus by default, censorship morally justifies rebellion.
Under censorship, no other rights, including the right to be free from censorship, can be advocated, discussed or queried. It is incorrect to say that after censorship comes utter subjugation. Censorship is utter subjugation. There is no greater usurpation of liberty while remaining alive. After censorship come the death camps, and they are not a prerequisite to complete subjugation, they are merely a symptom of it. Censorship qua censorship is sufficient in itself to justify open rebellion against any government that legislates, enforces or upholds it. However, that is not the half of it. Censorship is alone in being the only violation of individual rights that does not require actual enforcement, or challenges in court, before rebellion is justified. When the government forbids you to speak or write, or use your own or a supporter’s property to address willing listeners or readers, that government has openly and forcibly decreed that the art of peaceful persuasion is dead and will not be tolerated. Upon that very instant, all peaceable avenues of redress have been closed and the only possible method of regaining individual liberty is force. Whenever we give up that force we are not only ruined, we deserve to be ruined.
Censorship is already being “legally” imposed through accretion by compromisers, appeasers and pragmatists with¬in government at all levels. Note the demands by “progressive” organizations and self-appointed “civil rights” groups to ban so called “hate” speech (they mean thought and debate), or “extreme” language (they mean principled dissent), or “paramilitary books” (they mean the knowledge of how to resist.) When our government imposes censor-ship it will be because our ability to use force to resist censorship no longer exists. Buying copies of The Resister is not yet prohibited; buying machine guns already is. Unwarranted search for unlicensed books has not yet occurred; unwarranted search for unlicensed weapons has already begun. As your unalienable right of peaceable discussion and dissent is being daily abridged, your right to peaceably assemble and associate in advocacy of your self-defense, according to your own free will, has already been outlawed (courtesy of ADL’s “model” anti-militia legislation.) Unconstitutional federal agencies now arm themselves with weapons that you may not own, and train in tactics that you are prohibited from mastering. Before a government is sure you won’t resist, they will make sure you can’t resist. The most irrational, contradictory, short-range, whimsical notion possible to men who claim the unalienable right to resist tyrannical government, is the notion that they must first let their ability to resist be stripped from them before they have the right to use it. This is the argument of so-called conservatives who pish-tosh the notion of legislative “slippery-slopes,” and sycophantic adherents of a Supreme Court that has no constitutionally delegated authority to interpret the Constitution in the first place. We reject the notion of mindless compliance with subjective “laws.” Subjective laws must be resisted on metaphysical and epistemological principles, moral and ethical grounds, and on constitutional and historical precedence.
NO RATIONAL man desires ends without means. No rational man can be faced with his own imminent subjugation and truly believe that once things are as bad as they can get, that “sometime,” “someone,” will do “something” “somehow,” to counteract that trend.
The time to organize resistance is not after censorship, but before it. The time to prepare resistance is when our ability to resist is being threatened. The time to begin resistance is when that threat has been upheld or ignored by the courts. The unalienable rights that safeguard our ability to resist are limited to those which, if not violated, allow us the ability to plan and use all the materials necessary for resistance.
We submit that only the following meet that criteria:
*freedom of speech and of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble— so that we may advocate ideas, report and discuss news, and instruct others how to carry out resistance activities (1st Amendment);
*the right to keep and bear arms— so that we may have appropriate force in our hands should we need it and be trained to use such force as necessary (2nd Amendment);
*the right to be let alone— so that we may be free of government intrusion in our lives, liberty and property (3rd Amendment):
*the right to be secure in our persons, dwellings, papers and property from unwarranted, unaffirmed searches and seizures— so that our records, ideological materials and weapons will remain in our hands (4th Amendment).
For the purpose of this discussion we believe that no others rights are relevant because if every individual right other than those four were violated— although it would be an unspeakably evil act on the part of the government, justifying immediate and unforgiving resistance— their abridgment would not affect our ability to resist. If any of the first four amendments are infringed by legislation, enforced by executive power, and their abrogation is
upheld or ignored by the courts, unremitting forcible resistance, and aid and comfort to its citizen-soldiers, is a moral imperative for every single person who believes that life, liberty and property are unalienable, self-existing, and not grants of government privilege.
The United States should get rid of its militias.
Joseph Stalin, 1933
When the ‘credible’ SF guys like yourself and others say GO! I think most here will. When it comes right down to it, we who are prior service look up to you guys. Comms will play an essential role that day. But it really sucks when a couple of fuckheads muddy up the waters – they know who they are.
Roger that.
Right on. It has already happened. We are all afraid, even commenting “anonymously” on a blog, because of tracing of IP addresses, and not even coming close to expressing a direct threat of violence, of getting disappeared to Siberia, so to speak. It is happening. We all know what needs to be done. In the meantime, every good white man is already a father, with a job, with mouths to feed and shelter.
What next?
There is no freedom of speech for white men. I cannot even “edge toward” suggesting anything about challenging the government, even though THOSE IN POWER are the traitors who are enemies or “the state”, not us.
When fighting any snake, one has to cut the head off. Gas chambers for Eskimos is not right or helpful. Key heads who are doing this in Hollywood, D.C. and New York, and London, Paris, and Zurich, need to be encouraged to kill themselves. Just to be clear, I would never advocate the killing of another human. I just think these evil men should re-evaluate themselves and choose suicide.
What’s the trigger? Perhaps if one of the four Jews who control the Supreme Court decided to hang themselves. I mean, they think this country is so bad because of evil white men, I’m surprised they have not done so already.
Frank, does he know you are republishing without attribution? (grin)
“I’ll leave it to those that reserve the right to become more intelligent to identify the author.”
If it’s your old comrade Sgt Barry, writing in “the Resistor” many yeasrs ago, he’s sure changed his tune since then, and not for the better.
Thanks for posting that… it could scarcely be said any better.
As to needing a manifesto to explain our resistance and what we want to replace tyranny?
That’s plenty good… perhaps a revision edited for brevity to get past the education and attention deficits…?
That was the sheriff in Owsley Co. KY to Ed Bradley about the high murder rate associated with the marijuana trade. “Sheriff, there’s a lot of people around here getting killed.”
“Well sir, guess there’s just a lot of people round here need killing.”
That’s good old rough justice for ya. God bless ’em.
“There is no rational reason to prevent a human being from having the ability to protect himself with the same level of firepower employed by those who threaten him.”
===============================
The 2nd half is bullshit.
It matters not to me what the other guy has.
I will own what I want and nobody EVER gets to say anything about it.
Nor will I pay ransom for permission to use what I own.
When people start to understand that even the tiniest part of tyranny is too much, then you will know what true freedom is and not one second sooner.
It starts with you.
Onward.
I couldn’t agree more and I’d support a physical movement to back up my beliefs.
CA,
Thank you for using cowboy picture. We will keep the light on for you.
This is, of course, true, and Justice Scalia agrees with you. In other words, it is quite literally “the law of the land” that one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment is so the people can protect themselves against government tyranny and revolt when necessary.
Any government agents who start trying to make blogs and bloggers (and commenters) like this “disappear”, may you burn and rot in hell.
How about exposing the names of the loons on the NYT editorial Board?
Let’s make it hurt for these individuals to show their faces among rational humans.
Exactly toto2! I wonder how many NYT rats associated with that editorial actually own a gun, live in a “gated” community, or have some other form of a security service which does use guns to protect them. I truly hope the author or authors of that seditious rhetoric are exposed,
Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_employees
Excellent PP.
Now add this to your data mining routine.
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml
Helps considerably to get right to the source.
“Private ownership of the means of self defense is a threat to the power they so deeply covet. ”
That is the sum. There is no other motivation. It ain’t crime, nor criminals, nor crime rates, nor some silly notion of safety.
The choice is self determination or subjugation.
Reblogged this on The Right Site and commented:
Aim Small, Miss Small…
The corollary to that:
Never aim for a Rove Republican’s balls. They are WAY too small a target.“
Reblogged this on outlawpatriotnews and commented:
From Western Rifle Shooters on WordPress…
“The cops you hate? Most of them are just people, and they’re the ones that shot the terrorists in San Bernardino. Crooked corrupt cops? We don’t like them either, because they’re assholes. Now congratulations, you should go buy guns and get your concealed weapons permits too,..”
Fuck the cops. They are the very ones who will be kicking in doors and taking firearms- they’ve been doing it since they first pinned on their evil tarnished badges. Millions and millions of americans understand they cannot be trusted. The old saying is true – “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch”. Well, there are countless “bad apples” riding around in shiny new cars stealing the common mans hard-earned money, and destroying lives for their sick sadistic pleasure. If you “don’t like crooked cops either”, then why do you put up with them and protect their scumbag asses? And why do I need a fucking “permit” to exercise my right to carry a weapon for self-defense? FUCK YOU PIG. Yeah, I hate you. I pray you and yours get whats coming to you. GO. TO. HELL.
@ ^^^Larry Correia pinpoints the divide.^^^
Reblogged this on The Lynler Report.
Islam and Liberalism are a kin. The liberal will not kill you to make you submit to their whim but they will be happy to have the police kill you for them. Just like a moderate muslim won’t kill you but will be happy to have a radical muslim kill you if you don’t submit to their whim. Both for the same reason. They both lack the balls to do the dirty work themselves.
But lets consider the workplace violence angle of San Bernardino just for kicks.
Living in California I can say that most public employees are liberal democrats and they hang together. If you don’t buy into their political narrative you are outcast and bullied by the group. There is no hostile work environment because that would mean they are hostile and that just doesn’t bode well. They can’t be the hostile ones since they are all the victims, no matter what they did. You can not talk openly among them on social or political issues because they will secretly collude against you at the barbecue or the bar and will organize the destruction of your career while snickering among themselves at the lunchroom. This goes on everywhere public employees work. They have total dominance of government and schools. So if Jihad Johnny just had enough of their petty bullshit then they got what they deserved. Just like these college brats now attacking the hierarchy of the institutions with the tools they learned at the institution.
Irony knows no bounds.
These “victims” were all county employees. So it’s a good start. It disgusts me that these liberal commies and foreigners are sucking the gravy tax-funded payroll jobs of .gov, while decent american citizens have been relegated to hamburger flippers and wal*fart greeters to make ends meet.
San Bernardino is a hive. As is LA. As is San Fran Nan’s Dicks Co. As is the Windy Shitty. As is the Big Craphole. As is the District of Corruption.
Hive-dwellers live there because they LUVS them some Big Government. And they want that government to take care of their every need AND WANT. They will not tolerate a return to Constitutional government, much less whatever flavor of anarchy you may prefer.
Why are you concerned that some hive-dwellers are no longer among the living? Instead, look at it as 14 less who will want you murdered if you DARE try to change the evil in this country from its current trajectory.
Celebrate, celebrate, dance to the music!