Buppert: Communication Breakdown


Bill’s latest.

There will be a whole bunch of bitter, angry, armed-to-the-teeth folks who will need to be convinced of the Magic Parchment’s utility after the war.

After all, it begat this:


20 responses to “Buppert: Communication Breakdown

  1. “There will be a whole bunch of bitter, angry, armed-to-the-teeth folks who will need to be convinced of the Magic Parchment’s utility after the war.”

    Yes. But I would offer that you are going to have to convince those same folks BEFORE the war that the effort will lead to some restoration of that self same Magic Parchment.

    • The idea is to move back to the principles behind the document – that is, the ones that are keeping.

      • We are in agreement on principle. But if III% need to engage, their success will depend on population support. That support has to be solidified before the curtain goes up.

        • No disagreement.

          My suggestion/strongly-held belief is that by going back to core principles (e.g., only I control my person [individual God-given rights], my people ([amily rights re children as under sole control of parents, not the state], and my property [my property of all types is almost exclusively outside of the reach, let alone control of the state]), we will do better that by ref to the document that many believe authorizes the abortion ‘right’, gun control, and a whole host of evils.

          • outlawpatriot

            Cool. I’m hep. Now, what does it look like? Just for giggles, let’s focus on just the Second Amendment. Pretty obvious at this point in time that the majority of Americans do not understand the intent and historical meaning of those few words. How do ya fixit? Gotta do a thorough job too. How would the fix be protected from encroachment and/or outright perversion?🙂

            • Very limited national government; acts as coordinating body for national defense; all other functions explicitly barred upon pain of WKYA rule

              New armed citizen rule is simple: No citizen shall be prohibited from possession or use of any weapon; WKYA applies to any attempt to change

              But, as you always correctly observe, there’s a little fracas to be decided first.

              WKYA = “we’ll kill your ass” – colloquial for the assassination clause – pronounced “wuh-KEE-ya”

              • outlawpatriot

                Hmm. Salient point here I think. “New armed citizen rule is…” Would I be correct in my assumption that you’re saying a complete abandonment of the present document? See, that’s what causes me a little consternation. How does that new armed citizen rule come in to being. Not saying I gotta beef with it, but how?

                You know me. You know I have more than a few problems with the present document as written. Not because I believe there was some conspiracy, but that it was written by men that had a common understanding and didn’t allow for the possibility of someone without that understanding coming into power.

                So, I have two problems. Not real keen on abandoning the present document to free ball into some other gig. In my mind, just stupid dangerous. Then, how to insure continuity and a shield against future usurpation on whatever may be transitioned to.

                But what the fuck do I know?🙂

                • The existing document has already been abandoned in all but name and no one has the combat or political power to restore it.

                  Most likely outcome is foreign-imposed tyranny across FUSA. There is at least one outfit that has the will and power to do that.

                  Best possible outcome is a bunch of ‘stans in the no-mans-lands between the enemy-controlled coasts. Those ‘stans will need to have a rational ruleset. Hence my efforts.

                  • outlawpatriot

                    Not sure I agree that the present doc has been abandoned except for name only. The form still certainly exists and I would submit that the 2nd while badly battered still causes enough pause to prevent complete usurpation.

                    But, no matter. So how does a new gig come into being in a particular no man’s land assuming your scenario is correct? Where does the entity or entities that set up said gig derive their authority to do so?

                    And you know I applaud your efforts. Just tryin’ to work though the problem you understand.🙂

                    • By winning.

                      By any means necessary.

                      I believe there is a formula in the Canon for the objectives of combat power.

                      And not a soul should be mistaken – implicit in the TINVOWOOT statement is the statement that future governance will be – can only be – decided by the application of combat power or the threat thereof.

                      We all are in DEEP shit.

                      And there will be many who will not be able to adapt to the new reality.

            • Dr. Mullenax,

              I’m going to offer a challenge, Reword the 2A to mean what you say. Post it here and we’ll critique it.

              Good luck putting that in a document and having the rule of law (a fiction for the most gullible and naive) interpret in a way that STOPS consolidation of power. The 2A could have used a reversal of its clauses as a simple solution but even that would not have prevented the 1934 NFA, 1938 FFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA, Nics, AWB and all the other weapons prohibition nonsense emanating from DC and its regional satraps.

              Exhibit A: The Commerce Clause and Wickard v. Filburn (1943)

              Exhibit B: Abrams v. US (1919) per 1A

              Show me one historical instance where paper has prevented a “limited” government from growing. Just one.

              There is a fix: break it up, dissolve the fiction of Mordor, decentralize, secede and establish independent entities of every stripe and persuasion. You want a Constitutional republic in FL. There you go. The Marxist coastlines can then establish their own totalitarian polities and everything in between in the great flyover country.

              I suspect that you and I may agree that unfettered access to small arms goes a long way toward securing individual liberty.


              Bill Buppert

  2. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on ETC., ETC., & ETC..

  3. “The Parchment”, like a weapon, is a tool. It doesn’t function by itself, and when neglected by it’s Owners; Who is to blame?

    • Badly drafted with no meaningful penalty clause for violation.

      Flawed from the beginning.

      What are its goals?

      How to achieve those goals that are relevant today?

      • Pretty much true. The document only provides impeachment which limits it to only those individuals that that go thru a Congressional vetting. Only about 2000 people fall under that umbrella.

        * States ought to have the right of recall for their respective representatives.
        * Rip up the 16th.
        * Redefine the meaning of the commerce clause back to what the original intent was.

        Just off the top of my head.

      • CA,

        “….with no meaningful penalty clause for violation.”

        When discussing the document, I’ve cited that deficiency for years. Hard to believe the FF never saw fit to incorporate a penalty(ies) for violations.

  4. Bravo Bill. Very well written with a fine grasp of U.S. history. Though I would say that Lincoln’s regime was infected with the marxist virus. So 150 years ago instead of 99 years. But that is a mere quibbling since the end result is the same.

    Outstanding advice re books. IF it’s worth saving, make sure it’s hard copy. Most of my library was wiped out in Katrina but I’ve done a fair job replacing what I believe may be needed on the other side. And yes MOST of it’s hard copy, though some is pdf. When the coming endarkment “arrives” even your Kindle Fire won’t work, so get the PAPER version now if you think it a worthy subject.

    Bill, with all due respect you need to drop this “abolitionist” facade. I understand WHY you do it, though at this point in history I must say I think it’s just not needed. I say this because not too many years ago Libertarians were all regarded as “crazies”. Now, not as much, as some/most of their “principles” have been incorporated into the “right”, though probably not with CONseratives. At any rate, if we are ever to move the overton window further “right” towards Liberty then you need to say what you really are politically… “ethical anarchist” or whatever you deem appropriate, but this continued farce of claiming to be an “abolitionist” is, IMHO, not doing you nor anyone else moving in your direction a favor, as I believe it was the abolitionist movement of 150 years ago, that for the most part, drove a permanent unwarranted wedge between the people of this country. Further, to get people to unite under this “political philosophy” will not happen especially when using the DIVISIVE “title” of abolitionist. JMO. All the best.

    Grey Ghost

  5. GG,

    Thanks for the kind words and you are right on Lincoln as a proto-Marxian.

    Per the abolitionist label, I must stick to it for it more clearly defines my plea. No man may own another under any guise or circumstance whether chattel, taxation or regulation. The anarchist label has been severely compromised semantically to mean anything folks wish it to be, even communists. The abolitionists of yore asked the right questions and didn’t take the answers far enough.

    It wasn’t the abolitionists who drove the wedge, it was the desire of the statists to enslave everything they touched. They put us all on a plantation under Old Glory.

    Come on over to the site and visit and we’ll have a civil discussion on the virtual porch. Make your case. Don’t let the fact that abolitionists sought to extinguish slavery sour the future. Lincoln was anti-slavery for psychotic political convenience, it was his pretense to set brother against brother and had others do their worst for his twisted vision of a totalitarian Union. And mind you, I am no fan of what Davis turned the Southron nation into. He wrought the very thing he fought.

    Deo Vindice,

    Bill Buppert

    • MichiganderJim

      I always took “abolition” in this usage as a means to an end. Too other-oriented for an important personal goal IMO. OTOH if “abolition” is taken to mean, “I promise the NAP…,” then cool. But more usually it’s used to mean that others have to be stopped…which they do, unless they amazingly choose to cease and desist themselves.

  6. Right now; today, would you tell Old Dixie she can get a divorce? And be willing to accept the consequences. Now that the slavery issue is forever settled I don’t think Dixie would vote for a divorce but like the people here just want a readjustment to the incorporation document to fix the bugs that 200+ years of experience have revealed and then reboot the system.