Friday, October 16, 2009

An excellent comment upon the issues raised by the 2nd Holder letter.

AzcIII responds to Nick below, in part:

. . . For RoE, I would rather target the real perpetrators and spare as many useful idiots and innocents as possible. The "head of the snake" approach will work on them. Us, not so much, as we have no organized leadership and probably won't even communicate outside local groups. Call it 5G warfare, I guess. That's Mike's point: they will not be able to negotiate a cease fire once it starts because there will be no one to negotiate with. Even negotiating with some will likely not reach others, so it will have a life of its own and be unstoppable. Ugly scenario all the way around.

We don't want this fight at all, but just as it takes two to fight, it takes two for peace. Where is our common ground with these people? Where do we compromise? How do we peacefully coexist when we share opposite and incompatible worldviews? Peace requires a surrender of all we hold dear, or for them to surrender what they believe. It can't and won't happen. So what is the end result?

Even assuming we have another election, get control of the House and make substantial gains in the Senate, what then? Our new Congress could repeal all they can, and strengthen protections for liberty, but that doesn't mean the other side will accept it peacefully.


Understand, folks, once this is started for us by the aggression of the other side, it is victory or death. Either our descendants end up as a subject people, or the other side ends up leaving like the Tories in 1783. For us, there is no place else to go. If we lose here, we've lost everywhere, perhaps for a century or more.

Perhaps forever, in this world.

This IS about world views. Believe me when I tell you, I understand collectivism and collectivists having been one of them. They view "peace" as their vistory and our surrender (and if need be, the deaths of as many innocents to achieve their purpose -- see "Waco, 19 April 1993"). We view peace as the restoration of the Founder's Republic as a safeguard of our children's future liberty and, after that, the cessation of hostilities.

Remember one other thing. If they start a civil war, no matter who wins it, there will still be a war with the creditors after that. I hope against hope that we can avoid the first, which will divide and bleed the military, for we will need them -- we will need us all -- when the Chinese come knocking to collect what's owed them.

This is why, if they start it, we must be focused, disciplined and absolutely targeted on the Mandarin war-makers, the decision makers, the political Eichmanns. Break them. Break their will to resist quickly, absolutely, and we might preserve the country.

For here is their dirty little secret, and our strength. We do not mind if we die if by doing so we secure our children's future lives and liberties. We will resist to the death even if we fail, because for us it is better to die a free man than live as a slave. For them, however, the single most important thing is their cravenly lives, their continued existence. Their appetite for our liberty is only equal to the perceived safety of acquiring it. Convince them that they will die before they get to the main course and they will content themselves with finding another table, another meal.

There are currents of thought abroad in the land that some easy tactic, secession or military coup, will avail us in our struggle to recover our liberties. If maintaining the Founders' Republic is truly what we are about then either would doom us to failure and lead to a worse tyranny, even if the actors in either scenario began from the best of motives.

There is no facile, painless solution to the fix we've gotten ourselves into by our sloth and decadence. But, we can begin by being absolutely focused on the murderous willing actors of our intended subjugation. Defeat them quickly, even if it is only in the battlespace between their ears, and we may save ourselves, our posterity and the Republic.

In the end, it may avail us nothing. That is up to God. And certainly we deserve whatever judgment He has in mind for us.

But we must try. We must stand, and if forced, we must fight.

If they start the ball, we must resist in the best way we know how. But have no illusions. However many needless deaths they inflict upon us in an attempt to sate their arrogant appetites, and however many deaths we are forced to wreak upon them in return, this conflict, this civil war, will be to the practical political death of one world view or another.

I vote it be theirs.



Anonymous said...

"I vote it be theirs."

You got my vote.

toothy III

AvgJoe said...

when the Chinese come knocking to collect what's owed them.

The easy way to deal with that is simple. Give China the names of all the bankers who own both houses of congress and let them collect. You can bet these people will be living on breath taking islands living the perfect life. Which all the problems they caused by design are taking place. They have stashed trillions of property in many forms. Which will be more than the needed amount to pay back China and get a lot of loot back to the rest of us.
Frankly, if anyone does business with a liar and a cheat and they get cheated. I have one word for morons who fall into such a trap, "duh".

Snaggle-Tooth Jones said...

Mike, as an ardent secessionist, I'm curious about this statement:

"There are currents of thought abroad in the land that some easy tactic, secession . . . will avail us in our struggle to recover our liberties. If maintaining the Founders' Republic is truly what we are about then (secession) would doom us to failure and lead to a worse tyranny. . . ."

I pose the following statements and questions as a friend, not an adversary: First of all, I think I can speak for all modern secessionists when I say that none of us believes this will be an "easy tactic." Second, the whole point of secession being the undoing of the Federal Leviathan against which you rail, how could it not lead to the recovery of liberties all of us seek? And last, a related question, why do you think secession would lead to a "worse tyranny"? It was precisely an act of secession from Great Britain that led to the founding of our free republic in the first place.

Thanks in advance for your reply to these questions.

milkorder said...

General Washington is dead. Some man or group of men will take control. Will they also refuse to be king?

Anonymous said...

As Obongo said to the Nobel Piss Committee - Wow.
My only surprise is, with the stirring, motivating and inspiring manner of your writing, that some branch of the military has not hired you as a recruiter.

Take care of the feet, be well. And if you go tomorrow, then safe travel to you.

J / ParaPacem ( yeah the Blogger folks still won't let me post comments under my blog name.)

Snaggle-Tooth Jones said...


If they're the guys I know, yes they will refuse to be king. They're all very "Presbyterian" in their worldview, you see.

Of course, I don't speak for the secessionists on the greenie/left. But I can't imagine them going monarchical either.

Anonymous said...

The chasm between good and evil grows wider by the day. That is, Liberty vs Transgression. Those who have not made up their minds will soon be forced to choose or, find themselves on one side or the other by default of action (or lack thereof).

The table is nearly set and the invitees are gathering in the outer room. (we are real close boys and girls) I ask those that have yet to decide, where will your conscience be comfortable in sitting? There is no need to ask those without conscience as they are already reprobate and are destined for destruction, be it their own hand or the hand of Liberty.

Let them that dishonor Liberty make the first move(s) and we will finish it. It's ever closer to 'Patrick Henry' time.

Bob Katt

Mike III said...

My vote is locked and loaded. We will defend our Republic, we will not go quietly and we will take as many of them with us as God allows.

Mike III

Anonymous said...

"For here is their dirty little secret, and our strength. We do not mind if we die if by doing so we secure our children's future lives and liberties."

I rather DO mind if I die - I'd really rather not do so before I'm a very old man. I take General Patton's view of things: "Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb sonofabitch die for his."

However, I do generally agree that if the power-mad overlord-wannabees are put in fear of their lives, they'll let up a bit. Clearly, it is the purpose of this blog to instill that fear, and if I were Holder, et al, I'd be looking over my shoulder a bit. Of course, if I was Holder I'd have charged half of my employees with various crimes, and relocated what's left of the BATF to somewhere near Valdez, Alaska, but that's another story.

Johnny said...

Death comes with a crawl
Or comes with a pounce,
And whether he's slow or spry,
It's not the fact that you're dead that counts,
But only - how did you die?
-- Edmund Vance Cooke

Spitnyri said...

Finally.. an honest, concise and relative discussion on the only topic thats totally important.


Anonymous said...

Got my vote.

This response is a terrific summation for me of the practical challenge we face.

Re: snaggle tooth 7:29AM
If it's defeat, then the means by which we got there won't matter.

If it's victory, then the means by which we get there WILL matter.

I daily see the struggle at work, in church, in society around this idea of principles vs. practices, fruit vs. seeds. We want immediate results with no thought or care where they came from-or any effort of our own to make them happen. Just like changing the channel.

Do the ends justify the means? For tyrants, the answer is yes. What about for us? A true coup only replaces one wrong with another. Our founding fathers wrote letters to the King pleading their case, then grieving, then warning, then of open defiance. The ideals by which this country was built are not the result of the Revolutionary War (fruit), they are the reason for the Revolutionary War (seeds).

We must do this. But we must do this the right way. What seeds are we planting? What fruit will be borne? When will it bear fruit? How much fruit will it bear? Does the fruit produce seeds that are sterile or fertile?


Snaggle-Tooth Jones said...

Thanks, Eric.

I'm guessing I don't disagree, but I'm left puzzled as to whether or not your comment addresses the questions I posed to Mr. Vanderboegh.

And Mike, I know you're busy with other important things right now, but I would appreciate you getting back to me when you have the time.

Highest Regards,

S. Jones

Uncle Lar said...

Regarding secession, Harry Turtledove has an excellent series of alternate history books examining how a win by the South would have altered the history of North America.
On principle I am torn. The South had a valid even noble position. (States rights, not slavery, that was just the bone of contention at the time)
But on the other hand a fragmented United States would weaken our noble experiment, our attempt to build a nation based on the rather novel concept of free and equal citizens. And that beautiful and precious ideal is why everyone hates us so much, because their systems pale in comparison. Why follow Islam for the promise of reward in heaven when in America you can get that same lifestyle while still on earth? Why work hard in most any european country just to watch all your wealth be taken to support the less ambitious when you can go to America and enjoy the fruits of your labors?
Imperfect as we are, and the Lord knows we are, we are the embarrassing success story that all those less accomplished societies must pull down so that they might feel better of themselves. And secession would only dilute and weaken our nation to the point that our noble experiment would fail and fade into history. It may anyway, but breaking the nation apart would only hasten the process.

Snaggle-Tooth Jones said...

Thank you, Uncle Lar. Law of Unintended Consequences duly noted. But I don't believe the alternative reality you've set forth is the only possible one, or even the more likely one. Our nation began in an act of secession, the intellectual legedermain of the Jaffa school notwithstanding, and it briefly existed as a confederal entity. The Framers/Federalists thought this to be an unwieldy arrangement, of course, so they set us on the course to federalism and were successful, regardless of the protests and warnings of the Antifederalists, in persuading the states to go along.

Problem is, the Antifederalists were right:

and the history of federalism in this country has been marked by one centralist power grab after another. We're now in the throes of a new and particularly insidious federal power grab, resulting, inter alia, in the kind of natural reaction we see here in the Threeper Movement. How is what we're witnessing here any less dangerous and less threatening to the preservation of liberty than what we might experience in a confederacy?

Confederacy does not necessarily mean disunity and disorder. In fact, we Americans, who are no longer one people (if we ever were), might be able to achieve a GREATER unity if we weren't forced into a "one size fits all" union ruled from the District of Corruption. Confederacy and a return to localism just might reverse the pressurization that threatens to blow the nation apart.

Att's wut ol' Jones thanks anyhow.

done snoozin' said...

Great post!
I've always considered myself part of what I now know as the Threee Percenters, although I thought I was alone here in MA.
I may still be, but I suspect there are a few like-minded individuals somewhere behind the lines w/ me. I joined Oath Keepers, and it's a start, but I need to start networking and soon!
As far as secession goes, I don't imagine the messiah will allow secession to succeed. He and his can't, because as Uncle Lar said, they can't stand us for our freedom and individual control over our own lives. They couldn't let us prosper, thereby disproving their big lies. Seccession may, in one respect, be the best thing when you consider how much better off we'd be without states like Kalifornia and the Peoples Republic of MA and all the other states owned by the unions. The fed gov't is going to end up bailing out those pathetic states because, and I beleive this is part of an overall plan, too many people look to the fed or some central gov't (like in europe) to provide for everything at someone elses expense. Taxes are generally ok by me, I enjoy having a strong military, good highways, fire and police services, etc., but confiscatory tax policies with the purpose of spreading the wealth will only result in my kids working for some lazy Fuc@ who sold his vote and work ethic to a scumbag politician promising him more and more of our money! That just isn't gonna' fly!
As far as China goes, we'd have to honor our debts, although under re-negotiated terms. They don't have the ability to project that kind of power globally, because no matter what happens within our borders, The USN will still own the seas. My big concern is La Raza and an Intifada by the 2.5 m moslems. That's the bad news, because you know where they'd fall in. They'd join the statists to get rid of us, and then mohammed would turn on their erstwhile allies. They have to, it's in their book.
Yeah, this fight is gonna' get messy, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be fought. I think this is freedom's last gasp we're talkin' about, and we need to act accordingly. It will be total, complete, and barbaric. We can't afford to fight a gentleman's war. I'm not interested in harming innocents, I couldn't look my kids in the eye if I felt like a monster. Indeed, that would cause us to lose our humanity, but I'm all for retribution.
'Till then, I'll keep my powder dry, my hatchet scoured, and my eyes on the horizon.

Anonymous said...

It was rather interesting for me to read that post. Thanx for it. I like such themes and everything that is connected to this matter. I would like to read a bit more soon.
Cell phone blocker