Kerodin
III
Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..
Thursday, December 13, 2012
A question for the anti-Kill 'em all crowd
Kerodin
III
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kerodin
III
Buy in bulk.
ReplyDeleteYou can't share the ballot box with people with whom you have fundamental disagreements. Or as St. Augustine says, "A commonwealth is a community of people who agree on the object of their love." What we have now is a situation where people disagree (freedom vs. socialism) and accept being ruled by people with whom they disagree for as long as they have a majority. That is a strange way to live. The constitution was written to limit the scope of what people you disagree with can do to you, but without it we have the pure tyranny of numbers.
ReplyDeleteSo there has to be secession/expulsion so that would be tyrants and freedom-lovers do not occupy the same territory or share the same ballot box.
That's what the ballot box is FOR....settling fundamental disagreements without bloodshed.
DeleteHowever, if we return to using the ballot box as it was intended, that is, the majority that wins must still respect and observe the rights of the minority (those who 'lost' the election), and those selected to represent do so from a strictly constitutional perspective, we should be ok so long as apathy is not allowed to fester and grow.
The definition offered by St. Augustine would easily be satisfied in that a restored Constitutional goverment and life, free to live under the Constitution, would be the 'object of their love'.
Nobody's ever going to agree on everything regarding a particular subject.....just take a gander at the 'patriot movement' as an example. ;-)
Trainer: The Ballot Box was never intended for republican to coexist with Marxist, and you know it.
DeleteOur Constitution, as has been said, can only work for a moral and rightful people, and we are no longer such a people. So, do we abandon the Constitution for a more well-suited paradigm, or get rid of everyone who takes us away from that group of "moral" people for whom our Constitution will work, as this land deserves?
K
If you look at the statement," if we return to using the ballot box as it was intended..." and take into account the original requirements for being selected to exercise the duty/consequence of citizenship we know as voting, you'd see that those who demonstrated a vested interest in how government works would be the voters. Marxists don't have a vested interest in how a Constitutional Republic operates save to learn how to destroy it, and then, when they might run or vote, constitutionally literate citizens would basically overwhelm their initiatives, because they are/would be so far off the constitutional mark it wouldn't be funny.
DeleteWe're talking about the future, right? Not today. If it was today, I'd agree that constitutional principles would not be used.
I would also ask you a couple questions: "Who determines who the 'everyone who takes us away from that group of "moral" people is?"
How does the 'regular' American trust that extremely subjective judgment without an objective standard to guide the 'watchers'?
My perspective is truly about the system and restoration of that system. Restoration, by definition, will ensure that those who wish to destroy it are defeated.
I see the question is flawed because it's based upon assumptions(either implied or stated) that follow and also employes the fallacies of Hasty Generalization(AKA 'Leaping to Conclusions') and the False Dilemma (AKA 'Black and White Thinking').
ReplyDeleteAssumption: Not killing all 'enemies' in a hot war would invite future disaster politically, economically, and culturally.
Some will surrender; some will not. Those who surrender will have some in their number who have a genuine conversion to Liberty and become the absolute best champion of liberty in their circles. Others, not so much. In any case, lacking evidence of war crimes or other reasons for constitutionally compliant trials, those who choose to remain steadfastly Marxist/Globalist should be given a one-way ticket to a Marxist/Globalist country of their choosing (see More Tales of a New American, Installment 5 as an example: http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2012/12/tales-of-new-america-9.html )
Assumption: That the country is now overwhelmingly populated with 'blue' voters and would remain so after CWII.
The country is controlled by 'blue' representatives and unelected bureaucrats. Many voters stayed away from the polls and do on every issue for many reasons. When looking at a 'red v. blue' county map from the last general election, most counties across the nation were 'red' counties (sparsely populated, to be sure, but neverthess the point remains). It was the large metropolitan areas with large populations of government dependent types which carried the states which carried the electoral college. Therefore, to assume that following CWII that the country would have overwhelming numbers 'blue' voters electing more 'blue leaders' is not an objectively arrived at conclusion, in my opinion.
Assumption : That the remaining electorate would choose Marxist/Globalists to be their representatives and attempt to confiscate the personal wealth of the victors through future legislation.
If CWII were to actually happen, and FREEFOR were to win, would it not be reasonable to say that prior to any election following, there would be some sort of constitutional review on voter eligibility, presentation of credentials (ID and an understanding of how government works according to the Constitution) for voting, selection of candidates, and so forth? If CWII were fought and won, restoration of Constitutional government would mean that certain original intent methods would, by necessity, have to be reinstated. Example: Voting is not a 'right'; it is a duty and consequence of citizenship. Therefore, to perform one's duty, one must demonstrate they have the requisite knowledge and skill to do so, correct? I would also add, just because, the 17th Amendment would, by necessity, have to be challenged so that the several States would each, again, have their interests represented by the Senate.
Lots of things would have to occur, and by no means would it be easy....but the fact would remain that the overal objective would be to restore Constitutional government including the BoR.
Bottom line: If/when CWII occurs, and at the end, FREEFOR wins, then the Constitution limitations on government will be restored (part of which will be the hard and fast education of candidates that they represent their constituencies constitutional interests, not their 'personal beliefs').
That's how I see it...
Trainer - that's pretty weak to first attack the question and claim it is flawed, then youself the far-from-certain-"fact" that the following would happen: Voting is not a 'right'; it is a duty and consequence of citizenship. Therefore, to perform one's duty, one must demonstrate they have the requisite knowledge and skill to do so, correct? I would also add, just because, the 17th Amendment would, by necessity, have to be challenged so that the several States would each, again, have their interests represented by the Senate.
DeleteFreeFor "can not" "Win" in any sense tht leaves Blue Voters/clerks/citizens in place. That is exactly why we have the problems we have today - our Founders left too many Loyalists here.
K
No personal attack intended; strictly taking the question as posed and attempting (however poorly) to objectively evaluate and provide meaningful input....
DeleteWhile I agree that the Constituiton is not a suicide pact, I also hold that if we claim the Constitution and other founding documents as a source authority for removing our consent as the governed, and that we wish to restore our consent to be governed under that same document, we must abide by the principles (as much as humanly possible) within those documents.
If we don't, and we kill 'em all....one, gender, race, age notwithstanding...will we not have made a mockery of those same principles?
I don't see individual people or any particular group of individual people as the problem; I see those who enable the 'legislation' and bastardize the letter and intent of the Constitution as the problem.
I hope that makes sense...
May I turn the question around? "Considering where we are and how we got here, why would you want any aspect of your life dependent on a vote?"
ReplyDeleteMaybe there's a principle here: The more you consider what assholes are doing, the more you're agreeing that assholes ought to consider what you are doing.
Are you sure you want that?
When they are saying things like this, it makes it pretty hard to think that if they survive that the rest of us will be left alone.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/belafonte-advice-to-obama-imprison-opposition-like-a-third-world-dictator-video/
WIII
"FreeFor 'can not' 'Win' in any sense tht leaves Blue Voters/clerks/citizens in place."
ReplyDeleteI guess that depends on what "in place" means, eh?
"That is exactly why we have the problems we have today - our Founders left too many Loyalists here."
Your sentence here is well off the deep end IMO. I mean, the sentiment is understandable enough, but words mean things. Plus, it's just false as a matter of fact; that's not even close to what the problem is or was.
Meanwhile for Trainer, I've got this..."and they call ME an idealist!"
Jim: Sorry, but in a real-world, Total War context you are wrong regarding RevWarI (Loyalists became Federalists for the most part, into the Judiciary, and here we are...) and also in RevWarII had the North truly eradicated the South, there'd be no rising wave of seething hatred south of the Mason Dixon.
DeleteYes, words have meanings, and I know exactly what I am saying.
You want Liberty, or not? There is no in-between.
K
Also, I'm a bit of dullard today, but it occurs to me that we have a couple of models for how to handle the post-war disposition of the enemy.
ReplyDelete1) Revolutionary war - they fled elsewhere, such as Canada for the most part, if I remember correctly. Canada would later be a bulwark for Britain during the War of 1812.
2) Civil War - opposition was brutally crushed (note that I am no fan of Lincoln, I'm just interested in the model here) but not slaughtered to a man. It's been a thorn in the side of the elites for some time as a result, and probably moreso because of the brutality of the tactics used.
3) WWI - The opposition was crushed and reprisal measures implemented that bankrupted the country and split it into pieces. This gave a few years of peace, followed by economic collapse, a war of existential severity and genocide.
4) WWII - We crushed resistance, then worked forcefully to kill the ideas that led to the conflict. It was a long road, but in general, Germans and Japanese today are not militaristic.
I don't know that any of the above options is all that hot. But I thought it might be useful to bring historical examples in. As a last example, I also note that Carthage mysteriously ceased giving Rome trouble. I would think Freefor might be limited post-war in what can be done, simply because by the time something can be done, we'll be beyond tired of the conflict and not up for getting into it with half the planet, who will of course, insist on human rights for those who insist on communism for others. I suspect like most things that this will not come down to what should be done, but rather to what people will still have the will to do. That's apt to be a good bit less, for good or ill.
WIII
WIII: Ad you can bet the Enemies of Liberty have learned these same lessons. They will not spare a single man, woman or child on our side.
DeleteKerodin
III
Of course not. They can't exist if they forget that lesson, nor do they have good odds of existing if we learn it. That said, we really are a different core personality type than the statists. We just want to be left alone. They mean to rule. In aggregate, this means they will be incredibly brutal at removing opposition if they win, whereas we'll have a tendency towards mercy unless things have been bad enough for long enough to convince us (in aggregate) otherwise. That's why these people are still around; they are prey without a predator.
Delete"You want Liberty, or not? There is no in-between."
ReplyDeleteWell, let it be noted that this is what I've been saying all along, about non-contradiction and all that.
I've no idea what "eradicating the South" might mean, and I don't even know if you're advocating it or not. As far as seething hatred, there seems to be no shortage of that anywhere, from all sorts of causes. Me, I gave it up a while ago; very unhealthy.
As to the Loyalists/Federalists, I don't know that much about it; I'm more familiar with the Anti-Federalist position. Indeed, I find it odd that you offer this, since you seem to generally defend a very strong Federalist position. Maybe I misunderstand, but I get the impression your "Restoration" isn't about the Articles. Am I mistaken?
Generally though, I'd say liberty isn't necessarily about ridding the world of those who are anti-liberty. It's more about making them moot in our own lives. But I admit that's a tricky position, since the essence of the anti-liberty position is that they be anything but moot in other people's lives.
Jim: You do know what "...eradicating the South..." means. Technically speaking, from a Warrior's perspective, the North fucked up by leaving Southerners alive. Period.
DeleteNow there is seething hatred of the "Yankee" from Florida to Maryland to far, far west - all because the Yanks left too many alive to seethe and breed.
Caeser didn't really have the same problem in Gaul. The ones still alive hated him, but there were too few to do a damned thing about it - still are.
Yes, let's make our current anti-Liberty idiots moot - How? I propose forced marches over the borders, anly slightly tongue in cheek.
K
In your opinion, how does one do what needs to be done, and at the same time, avoid becoming exactly what we are fighting against?
ReplyDeleteHow can we preserve and restore the Constitution, if we are willing to effectively violate it?
Every man, even traitors, are guaranteed by the Constitution a just trial by a jury of their peers. There's no provision for walking up to the Socialist in the town square and blowing his brains all over the plaza. Whether it solves the problem or not, it's still murder. It's the unsanctioned taking of life outside the provisions of the Constitution. There is no declared war. No Letter of Marque and Reprisal.
Murder is murder no matter how you dress it up. That's why we have a Constitution. If someone is guilty of treason or of working against the Constitution in some way, shape, or form, he can't just be strung up in the street by vigilante posse, or flat out executed by some random Patriot passing by. He must have a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution.
There's a line from The Dark Knight where Batman says: “You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain”
The good guys, throughout history, always eventually become the bad guys. And they do this by walking an ever increasing slippery slope, until they ultimately use the same tactics as their enemies, and effectively BECOME the enemy.
I'm curious how would ye resolve these kind of discrepancies and still maintain that you are following and restoring the Constitution? Serious question.
Janos: I can't even begin to answer your question, because it is based on a wholly flawed premise - essentially that we live under Constitutional Governance now, that we have since 1861 or even Marbury v. Madisonm or that our original Liberty was won by "Constitutional Means".
DeleteFinally, 2A IS CONSTITUTIONAL REDRESS by We the People installed by design by our Framers.
I've written far too many times on this topic to go backwards. My questions are to find out how many people draw the line somewhere other than their own doorstep.
K
Question of the decade!
Delete"How can we preserve and restore the Constitution, if we are willing to effectively violate it?"
Principled statement of the decade!
"Every man, even traitors, are guaranteed by the Constitution a just trial by a jury of their peers. There's no provision for walking up to the Socialist in the town square and blowing his brains all over the plaza. Whether it solves the problem or not, it's still murder. It's the unsanctioned taking of life outside the provisions of the Constitution. There is no declared war. No Letter of Marque and Reprisal.
Murder is murder no matter how you dress it up. That's why we have a Constitution. If someone is guilty of treason or of working against the Constitution in some way, shape, or form, he can't just be strung up in the street by vigilante posse, or flat out executed by some random Patriot passing by. He must have a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution."
Bravo! A sincere salute to you, Wild Cookery!
Jim,
DeleteYes, I'd say that holding onto our ideals (DoI, Constituion, BoR, Magna Carta, Common Law, Liberty) is what makes us different than say.....oh...a bloodthirsty band of marauders. So...I probably tend to laser-focus on them rather than the more immediate gratificaiton of classifying enemies for 'nullification' with a broad brush.
But hey, that's me. ;-)
And for anyone I frustrate; I do not wish to do anything but restore the Constitution without too many of us losing our souls and becoming that which we abhor.
In my time, I was given some real-life lessons about adrenal overreaction from some very wise mentors,I also learned that it is imperative to keep your troops on an even keel with ideals or they will, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out", (including non-combatants) which is expedient, but definitely unjust and damning to boot.
I feel intellectually disarmed around some of you guys.
ReplyDeleteA while back there was a politician or judge who said that he couldn't tell you what pornography was but he knew it when he saw it. Or something to that effect.
I can't tell you what the Founders intended. I know it when I see it.
Everything else needs to be killed. Figuratively if appropriate. Literally if necessary.
"I know it when I see it."
DeleteNo doubt, but the important question (at least to me) is this. Do you know it because they said it, or do you know it because you believe it?
There's no need to answer, Alan; I already know the answer. But one day, I'm gonna get you to admit it!
"intellectually disarmed"
DeleteBTW there are lots of bowling (and golf!) leagues around here, that look for sandbaggers like you.
Alan, any intellectual deficiency you feel is VASTLY mis-guided. And in terms of Common Sense. you've got the top 1% firmly locked up. ;)
DeleteK
Jim, I believe what I believe. But who are "they"?
DeleteI only meant the Founders, Alan. The reality of it is that you believe what you believe and that's the end of it. I happen to believe you're right in your relevant (to me) beliefs and that means we can move forward. What anyone else has to say about it, now or 220 years ago, just doesn't matter.
DeleteIt's a lovely thought to try and codify it all and establish a civil society based on rational legal principles. But as we see, it just doesn't work that way. Solar powered cars are a lovely thought too.
Uh, Jim, I hate to break this to you pal. But solar powered cars are entirely possible. It just takes the the will, capital, and incentive to bring it about.
DeleteThat's America son in a nutshell.
You don't have codify, regulate, enforce anything
Freedom. America.
I understand it. Do you?
Sorry, I used a poor choice Alan. I should've written, "Solar powered cars next week are a lovely thought too," or maybe, "Flying to Alpha Centauri next year is a lovely thought too."
DeleteIn the human realm, all things non-contradictory are possible. But never mind all that; you wrote something far more important...
"You don't have codify, regulate, enforce anything"
Oh. That's what I thought.
Open to all, but especially Jim & Trainer: When the world gets ugly in America, they will get really ugly. There will be those who do whatever needs to be done (not deliberate killing women & children, but if the blue target is home at the time - sucks to be them - I know Trainer knows what I mean).
ReplyDeleteI think without people "willing to do what needs to be done" Liberty has no chance.
Here's my question to you guys: If guys step up and do what needs to be done, and FreeFor wins, even if it is along the Robespierre/Grant model (less the deliberate targeting of innocents) it is safe to assume that the guys who made victory happen will then be hung or shot for "War Crimes"?
Without us sonsabitches, victory won't happen. But once victory is in hand, we'll be too dangerous to keep around.
Do you think my assessment is correct?
K
For the record, as I have said many, many times: The Marxists in EVERY flavor (from self-identified Communists to Blue Voters) must leave CONUS. They may buy a plane ticket or book a ship cabin. They may drive over our northern or southern borders. Or, they may be marched at bayonet point across those same borders or onto outbound ships/planes.
DeleteFinally, those who insist on remaining and attempting to overthrow the republic shall face trial for Treason (Yes, voting Blue is Treason, as I have argued a thousand times, including in my first book) by a jury of their peers (since no Court in our corrupt land will convict).
End of disclaimer.
K
Yes, you are correct in your "assessment". This is he biggest fear keeping us all on the porch, IMHO.
Delete"If guys step up and do what needs to be done, and FreeFor wins, even if it is along the Robespierre/Grant model (less the deliberate targeting of innocents) it is safe to assume that the guys who made victory happen will then be hung or shot for "War Crimes"?
DeleteShort answer: No - it's never safe to assume.
Long answer: Provided there is no deliberate targeting of innocents (murder) through direct or indirect action (for example, scorched earth policies so as to cause the inhabitants die of starvation or exposure under the guise of denying OPFOR resupply) and that FREEFOR makes 'good faith' attempts in action to minimize risks and/or casualities of and to innocents 'in the wrong place at the wrong time' ("Just War" Doctrine), I don't see how, under a formal review of actions in the field that there could be any sanction toward the commander or troops in question.
However, if a commander, through his orders to his troops or by his actions said, "F-'em" and decided to emulate a butcher, killing non-combatants, children, other innocents, and killing the opposition with cruel and/or torturous methods (tires and gasoline come to mind as an example) word would spread (it always does); there would be survivors (just as in those from the "Death Camps" in Nazi Germany), and there would be, here and there, someone would surface to accuse the war criminal, maybe even years after restoration occured, and if so, I truly hope and pray, an objective, lawful trial would be conducted with a verdict supported by the evidence, and if convicted, swift punishment that the jury (not the judge) would decide.
As a matter of legality, I think Trainer has answered the question, top to bottom, throughout this comment thread.
DeleteAs a matter of morality, I've tried to make my position clear since the very beginning---"I see nothing but individuals out there." To me, that's a matter of FACT, not personal opinion.
Now that doesn't make me stupid. Individuals can and do work together, and in a battle there are "sides" to be sure. Further, a guy's got to do what he's got to do, so I don't deny the ugliness of such a context or that such issues present themselves from time to time. Those just ARE NOT what motivate me and I don't spend my time trying to figure out what I'd do in an ever-collapsing situation where life itself--both for me and those I care about--is at constant challenge.
Plus, IMO it doesn't matter too much what a person SAYS he'll do, but rather what he actually does. The Internet is full of tri-testicular tough guys; I don't see much point in being another one of those.
It's all math to me: 1 > 0 > -1. The point of human life is to MOVE FORWARD and so that's where I focus my mind. Obviously I can't move forward if someone's trying to stop me from moving at all, so I'm not saying your question has no relevance. I'm saying it's framed improperly, and it's why I keep telling you that you're looking the wrong way---outward instead of inward.
I haven't the foggiest idea of how others will judge whatever I decide to do, and frankly I don't really care. All I know is that I have power over exactly one person and that I intend to control THAT person as best as I am able, and hopefully live and deal with others who believe that THEIR lives are worth it too, and that they wish to deal with men like me. If they don't, then they don't. If they do, then maybe we can build a world--or at least a community--where people can get what they deserve, what they earn and what they seek.
I suppose you'll consider that a dodge of the question, and I can't help you with that. I'm just oh-so-tired of hearing that the essence of me is whatever side I'm on, or whatever group I belong to, or whatever label I wear. Or worse...whatever label others choose to put on me.
I'm just me, man, and that's all there is to it. The way I see it, until others understand that this is exactly the case for them too, it's just going to be more of the same ol', same ol'. The battle has ALWAYS been individualism versus collectivism.
If the Marxists make it clear that they expect to have to re-educate or kill 50 million Americans to achieve their goals after they take power, but don't physically harm anyone before the come to power where does that leave us? If we declare we will not initiate violence, then under those circumstances we are consenting to our deaths. Once they have their hands on the levers of power the chance of successful resistance is slim. What chance did anyone have under Stalin or Mao? Submit or die isn't a reasonable set of choices.
ReplyDelete