VFS: Enablers

JJ on a particular episode in Greek mythology, and its lessons for the so-called “freedom movement”.

There is not going to be a national solution in North America.

Unless it is the formation of new nations, based on polities of like minds and values.

28 responses to “VFS: Enablers

  1. in pencil vania dodge will relish a poop LICE state run by him and the rest of thugs down at the station.

    fucking criminal murdering child raping bully.

    may he burn in hell forever and ever. along with the rest of the badged swill he calls buddies.

    • You’re babbling again.
      Less alcohol, more psych meds.

      • don’t you ever stop rolling?

        what’s the point?

        nobody bothers you at you garbage dump of a site.

        why come here and push your retarded opinion on just about every comment made?

        nobody cvares what you think and it’s fucking dumb to keep interjecting your fucking piss into others views.

        you’re not going to change mine or anyone else’s minds.

        again. what’s the point?

        you really are a fucking MORON.

        you don’t even see it.

        do you?

        Pete, get rid of this turd.

        • Pete, get rid of this turd.

          Ohhhh, and I thought this was a “FREESTYLE COMMENT AREA.”

          Sauce, goose, gander.

          Pete, pleeeeease………………………

    • Really, CA? He has a plan? You met with him in person? And you approve?

      • Lot of censors in these parts who get hooked by the apparent madman and forget that the purpose of comments is to share useful info with each other, not slapfight with one another.

        Might his purpose to illustrate how few can ignore all of the screaming and booming and keep focused on the task.

        Standing offer of immediate refund of full subscription price to all takers.

        • kay_de_leon

          lol, no doubt!

        • and what a dull place this would be w/o tfA-t and his detractors. His barbs produce some of Aesop’s and LF’s best writing.

        • Sad it had to be spelled out.
          See, the words in the comment section of WRSA can’t hurt me or you. Really, they can’t.
          I have learned much from the commenters here and I can gain something from all of you. Every one of you.

        • “… that the purpose of comments is to share useful info with each other,”

          In this case, examples please???????????????????????????????????

          You’re kidding, right?

          “Oh just go ahead and die already, old fart.”

          “Suck my balls, you broke dick queer bait.”

          “you actually work for a living? I’m a complete parasite living high on the dole!!!!”

          “You fucking slaveboy, bedpan cabin boy… get a real job, working for MEEEE!!! Like all the mestizos and .gov I fleeced for my zillions debt bucs!”

          “I get more ass than a toilet seat!!!!!!!”

          “I got mien, so fuck all y’all! Islands in Freedumbia, boat(s), fawning natives, nubile underage tweaker concubines aplenty, bought off possum cops, more money than God, leisure infinitum, state of the art “training facilities,” and more juvenile insults than any other middle school bully, ever!!!!!!!!!!11!”

          “Yer just a Gurl…”

          Yep. That’s a plan… for the destruction of this blog and, by extension, any and all positive efforts for what the fuck ever.

          And THAT has been the PLAN… of SATAN since The Fall.

          Gratefully, Praise Be to God, Satan is allowed his due to expose the nature of Man as flawed and unable to succeed absent God.

          In the end Satan (petty ego), and all who serve him, are cast into the Bottomless Pit/Lake of Fire/Eternal Separation from God.

          Y’gotta serve somebody…

          Choose wisely

        • If I may, your missing tfats message, your stuck in his delivery. You are foolish to underestimate this guy.

          Besides the banter amuses the shit out of me. Some truly classic one liners, being tossed.


  2. At the start of the year I dedicated 2017 to the topic of complicity, so this was mighty relevant. ‘Course to really understand enabling and what brings it about, it’s necessary to understand co-dependency. Turns out that the worst enablers enable the worst ne’er-do-wells because they need it just as much.

  3. There is not going to be a national solution in North America.
    That’s confirmation bias, and a result that’s neither inevitable nor even necessary.
    You find what you want to find. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not.
    Is it possible you’re ignoring what you don’t want to find?

    One guy sees a flat tire, and concludes that a tracked drive would be better.
    But most people just fix the flat, and continue on their way.

    Old medical axiom: When you hear hoofbeats, think horses. Not zebras.

    • you fucking TROLL

      when are you going to learn no one gives a fuck about your shit?

      NO ONE

      is it because you have a need to smear feces wherever you go?

      do it at your website- you know, the retard report.

      here’s an idea asshole

      keep your opinions in your own bubble and quit polluting others posts.

      your parents should have aborted you after they first fucked.

      shame on your whore of a mother.

      fuck her to hell for birthing such an ignorarant pile of human waste.

    • “That’s confirmation bias…”

      Finally, a new contender for the Champion Hypocrite belt here. AFAIK you haven’t written a comment in months that wasn’t built almost exclusively of confirmation bias. Most fiction writers do.

      • Of course, you don’t accept that anyone, much less anyone who disagrees with you, has a thing to say that you can’t categorize negatively in a way so brief and dismissive as to defy analysis by… anyone but you.

        Must be nice to be 100% correct, 100% of the time.


        ‘Zat you?

        No where close.

        See, Little Jimmy, the Grandest Hypocrite of All, isn’t the one whose disagreement you hate the most…. It’s the one who thinks only his opinion counts, and is infallible.

        That would be you.

        Gold Medal Hypocrite, Jim Klein.

  4. “He is a king who fears nothing, he is a king who desires nothing!”
    Seneca (4 BC-65) Roman philosopher and playwright.

  5. I’m paraphrasing here, (and adding my personal observations), by cherry picking some critical primal rights aspects from the fantastic essay “The History of The Second Amendment”

    I believe the English Theorists had a lot of things right. History proves them out again and again.

    Blackstone described the right to keep arms as absolute or belonging to the individual. A first requisite of a polity, (along with owning other property. after all, slaves don’t own property, they are property), of like minds and hearts who want to remain free.
    As we see repeatedly through history, including our own.
    Think where we are now, and as much of a pickle we are in as dirt people, where we would be if we weren’t an armed polity of people?

    Another English theory stems from the same theory: American political thought was strongly linked to “republican” thought in England. The essence of republican thought was that a citizenry could rule itself without the paternal guiding hand of a monarch.
    In other words, leave us the fuck alone or we will shoot your fucking arse’s,
    MYOB! & I Won’t!

    One of the leading republican theorists was James Harrington. Harrington’s beliefs were simple and direct. He believed that ownership of land gave people independence. This independence would cultivate rights now considered fundamental, including the right of self-government.
    Harrington also believed that the actual independence attained would be a function of the citizen’s ability to bear arms and use them to defend his rights. He sought support from the works of Machiavelli, who proclaimed that there was a direct relationship between good arms and good laws.

    As Delmar put it in the movie Brother Where Art Thou:
    “You ain’t a man unless you own land”

    A central thesis of Harrington’s republican theory is that an armed population is a popular government’s best protection against its “enemies, both foreign and domestic.” (Thank you Matt Bracken)

    While Harrington and subsequent republicans argued the virtue of armed citizenry, they warned that standing armies were to be avoided at almost all cost because such armies become the government’s instrument to retain power. Rather, a populace that possessed the land and arms inevitably would retain political power as well as serving as the best defense against the popular government’s enemies. (See “law enforcement”, it is a standing army, dressed up as a system in blue, “that protects us”, not the power of the state. I think where we went wrong was with that instrument of administrative tyranny called the USC. It gave, as Patrick Henry visiviously argued, against ratification, and maintained through his life, “power given today was power impossible to take back later.” Yeah, look where we are today, right?)

    The English republican views on the relationship between arms and democracy profoundly influenced the views of the founding fathers.
    Both the Federalists, those promoting a strong central government, and the Antifederalists, those believing that liberties including the right of self-rule would be protected best by preservation of local autonomy, agreed that arms and liberty were inextricably linked.(It was called the Compact Theory and it was working. Why was it so necessary to create a central government? WTF. We just fought tooth and nail to get rid of the fucking thing.
    That is why the Fabian’s called their sworn agenda to destroy America through economic and cultural war, “The Long March.” No guns needed to overthrow the sovereign American polity, just peck away, bit by bit, from the top down, inside out. Think Piven Clovin and their introduction welfare system warfare of the 60’s, and FDR’s New Deal along with keeping the great depression going for 10 years. Confiscation of private held gold, etc. Sound familiar?)

    Now, ever wonder why the Clinton regime despised men like Mike Vanderboegh and the resurgence of citizen Militia’s in the 80’s-90’s? And went to inordinate lengths to portray them as white nationalistic supremacists? Why they shot Vicku Weaver on Ruby Ridge? Why Oklahoma City? Why Waco? Why Operation Fast & Furious? Why LeVoy Finnicum was executed? Even why the fetal genocide called wimmin’s rights? Why the psychopath in a pants suit is rabidly anti gun? Why she was supposed to “win”?
    Whilst today, “Militia’s” are reviled and impugned with “domestic terrorist” connotations?, (Think Jade Helm and “Pineland”). But islamic jihad camps and the HIJRAH made possible by organs of the deep state infest our states? Read William S. Lind’s “VICTORIA!”, or Max Velocity’s “Patriot Rising” instructional, citizen small unit infantry tactics action semi fiction series)

    Another Antifederalist, George Mason, spoke on the relationship between arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason suggested that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly including the right to defend one’s political liberty within that term.
    Patrick Henry argued against ratification of the Constitution by Virginia, in part because the Constitution permitted a standing army and gave the federal government some control over the militia. Henry objected to the lack of any clause forbidding disarmament of individual citizens; “the great object is that every man be armed …. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” The Antifederalists believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Antifederalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.

    Now, those “Rights” in the Bill of Rights, are only as good as the people who they belong to.
    And thats the real pickle here.
    (But remember, those of us who do have guns, well most of us are pretty well aware who we are as free men, what our guns represent, and deep down in some primal spear chucking, sword wielding endgrams imprinted in our primal brains. This is all very critical to that “Polity of Like Minds” and “New Nations”)

    In Pennsylvania, James Wilson argued against adding a bill of rights on grounds already offered by Madison, that such an enumeration was unnecessary and indeed dangerous since no person could enumerate all the rights of men. (Or, any man made law that can be made can be unmade, leaving us vulnerable to revisionists and cultural marxism as we have witnessed daily by the minute. Or as John Mosby said, “I don’t give a lick about the 2nd, it means nothing to me”, as he went on to state owning property is the most primal thing, your gun is your property, its the first thing. That all “laws” and “contracts” can be broken, but not the primal freedoms. You can only kill those who hold them and their property)

    So we get to the crux of the matter, and that is “government”. There’s a lot in between arms and the centralism called our government in our history, and the reason DuJor why we waged the most successful revolution in human history, and won, thank you very much. And can win again, thank you very much again.

    This next is copied and pasted verbatim from History of The Second Amendment. As you can well see, it predicted exactly what has happened, and the answer to the problem
    Or as Bill Buppert would put it, Secession, Freedom From Slavery of The State:

    The Antifederalists relied extensively on the works of Baron de (p.1033)Montesquieu to support the proposition that the geographic size of an area strongly influenced its form of government.[190] Montesquieu had written democracy could survive only in a small-sized state, small enough to permit the actual participation of the people in government and small enough so that each citizen understands that promoting the public good directly promotes the individual.[191] A middle-sized territory, as Montesquieu terms it, would inevitably become a monarchy; to an extensive territory, a despotic form of government was best adapted. In large republics, the public good is sacrificed to a multiplicity of views and the citizens do not perceive the nexus between promoting the public good and their individual welfare.
    According to Montesquieu, a middle-sized territory would tend to become a monarchy because ambitious persons who do not perceive the public good as beneficial to them seek grandeur by imposing their will on others. One person eventually prevails and assumes the role as prince. The monarchy then exists through a system of honor established by giving perks and titles. If the territory is too large, one person cannot command sufficient allegiance on honor of enough of the populace to control the territory. Ruling a large territory requires more than a system of titles and perks. Order can be maintained only by immediate, passive obedience to the rules; passive obedience can be achieved only by an instilling fear. The multiplicity of views, the dissents, are stifled by fear. According to Montesquieu, rule by fear, despotism, was a logical incident of the government of a large territory. Montesquieu’s theory continued that while a small republic could internally maintain its republican character, it would be destroyed by foreign forces.[192] The dilemma could be resolved only by a confederate republic, a form of government in which small states become individual members of an association which is able to provide security for the whole body.[193]
    The Antifederalists used Montesquieu’s well-known works to argue for a less powerful central government and more autonomy for the individual states, a government which would more closely resemble the Articles of Confederation model and Montesquieu’s confederate republic rather than that proposed by the Constitution. Antifederalist publications confirm that preserving the autonomy of the states was a means to the end of protecting the people’s rights, not an end (p.1034)in itself. In arguing against the new Constitution, the Pennsylvania Minority framed the question–“Is it probable that the dissolution of the state governments, and the establishment of one consolidated empire would be eligible in its nature, and satisfactory to the people in its administration?”[194]
    The answer– “I think not, as … so extensive a territory could not be governed, connected and preserved, but by the supremacy of despotic power.”[195]
    The reason– Being “satiated with the blessings of liberty” after “asserting their inalienable rights against foreign despots at the expense of so much blood and treasure,” the people will spurn the shackles prepared for them under the new Constitution and confirm their liberties.[196]
    Although the complaint was the dissolution of state governments, the problem was viewed as a loss of the people’s rights.
    In another publication, an unidentified Pennsylvania Antifederalist, writing under the pen name Montezuma, purported to be an advocate of the Constitution and to give the “inside story” of the dark designs of the proponents. Montezuma suggested:
    We have taken pains to leave the legislatures of each free and independent state, as they now call themselves, in such a situation that they will eventually be absorbed by our grand continental vortex, or dwindle into petty corporations, and have power over little else than yoaking logs, of determining the width of cart wheels.[197]
    Montezuma continued that state legislatures would be powerless when the national government exercised exclusive control over commerce and the power to wage war, make peace, coin money, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to crush insurrections.[198] By eliminating the powers of the states, the clouds of popular insurrection would likewise be broken.[199]
    Another Antifederalist writer, using the name John DeWitt, posed similar arguments to the people of Massachusetts to influence the ratification convention (p.1035)in that state. The writer, whose true identity is unknown, argued that the strong national government would swallow up the state governments in a hasty stride to a Universal Empire in the Western World. The predicted result was a loss of the people’s liberty.[200] Again, the Antifederalist argument was that retention of power by the states was necessary to secure the rights of the people.[201]

    But the solution isn’t what these guys figured out, it’s obvious to any of us honest and brave enough to accept our history, good & bad, then and now.
    The answer lies, as it has since 1862, what is in our hearts and minds.
    Because no matter how evil our government, no matter the whining and crying of resistance is futile, the defeatists, the cowards and mental slaves who place the chains of tyranny upon their own wrists, we always have the open choice of defying, of resisting, and of winning Liberty. It is our responsibility. The double edge of being an American is that we are measured by what our government does, and ultimately we are accountable, all of us. there is no excuses on this. We are all in this together and it all begins with each of us. Good and bad.

    Choice, it is what living Liberty is, choosing to live it. Freedom begins in the mind. It is that simple and common sense. For without choosing, making that choice, nothing else matters, not guns, not polities, not liberty.

  6. The US of A needs a renaissance, a rediscovery of the spirit that fostered the Declaration of Independence. Our forefathers were men of faith, men of courage and men of war. It’s apparent that today’s men are men of great patience, they wait for someone else to lead, to start the battle. It is quite possible that given today’s social media, our forefathers may have just sat by and made comments on one another blogs, but I doubt that. Faced with all I see, Hope is no longer part of our vocabulary.
    May GOD have mercy on our souls.

  7. Bubba White

    I was hoping this would be the queue for C.A. to reign in T-Fat’s sophomoric, derogatory, and profane-laced rants and perhaps, at least occasionally make a comment that had some bearing on topic or (yes, I am idealistic) maybe even a useful comment. But then I got to the ‘comments’, and the first one is from T-Fat in the usual vein-a sociopathic rant.

    • awe.. tfA-t said bad words…

      that’s not very nice.

      how can i sleep tonight knowing bad words from bad people are floating around in cyberspace?

      the horror…

      the horror…

      here’s an idea bubbaboy, go over to the retard report and stay there.

      you’ll get a little lonely though…

    • here’s what to do: whenever you see tfA-T’s byline, just skip right over it. I generally do this with Klein-o-matic and, believe me, it works!

    • Bubba.We live in a world of extremes. The content here exposes you to it so you won’t be incapacitated if the bullshit becomes reality.Convoluted, fucked up,illogical rants and statements are a reflection of our society. I read Daily Kos,Huffington,Al-jezeera and other commie rags so I can attempt to decipher some of the horseshit.I don’t know if it helps or not. Mind games.Fast forward.

    • Don’t feed the trolls.
      All you need is to ignore him.
      Let him argue with himself. Its pretty funny.
      He tends to have a valid point once and a while if he is ignored.

  8. Their are zero finite solutions, ever. Well except for a bullet, ot two to the head.


    • Jimmy the Saint

      One or two bullets in the head? That ain’t shit.
      – Non-zombie John Veasey

  9. R.William Orians

    I do appreciate those higher thinkers that expand and clarify the articles and I have learned to ignore the gubmint agitprops that try to invade the decorum of liberty minded men . My thanks to those whom He has blessed with that most valuable of gifts . Wisdom .