Tyranny exists only where it's tolerated. Our problem isn't the tyrants, but those who are too willing to tolerate them. In a democracy, the majority gets to decide what's tolerable. The last election was close, and gave the tyrants a sufficient majority that they get to decide our level of tyranny. If the minority resists, they'll probably lose. We need to convince a few more to join the current minority to regain the majority. It looks like we will in November. Then we need to focus on retaining and extending the majority.
There are tactics available to help convince the supporters of the majority to flip sides. They're probably not needed for November. I saw Steve Deace recently describing a meeting with Newt Gingrich years ago, where Newt said we're not polarized, which is where the sides disagree on opposite views. Newt says we are Balkanized, where the sides are fundamentally, irreconcilably opposed. We'll find out next year if he's right. The Twitter anguish indicates some of them are Balkanized, so we'll probably need some aggressive responses for at least some of them.
Not clear what you mean, but, no, voting is approximately useless. Do the math. The win comes from those who participate before the vote. One person, or small groups, influences millions of votes.
Voting is approximately useless - UNLESS: The rational majority can be large enough that the 'margin of cheat' is too large to pass without being explicit and obvious as to what happened. What will be telling then is: Do we just stand by as they slow-roll the attempts to use the system to 'right the wrong', until it's 'too late'? (i.e. - the s'elected are already installed into office). Moving the POTUS inauguration date to 1/20 from the original date of about a month later made it easier to 'rush' the acceptance of a nominally cheat-win candidate into office, and thereby making questioning of the results taboo and nearly an 'insurrection' level offence. We saw this in the most recent election. Unfortunately - there isn't a prescribed process for 'What to do when an official was installed illegitimately due to cheating', I believe because our founders didn't believe it was likely enough to have to address. This in itself is proof that our Constitution is only fit for a moral and religious populous - and that we've fallen too far away from that ideal for it to work as it should. Is a course correction possible at this late date, or do we have to 'start over'? I believe the next few election cycles. and the fallout therefrom will be telling.
Perhaps something as simple as a Constitutional Amendment that explicitly outlines the process and procedures for removing from office and selection/method of installing their replacement - in the event of the discovery of a 'disqualifying event' (Cheating, proof of ineligibility for office, and the like) AFTER the official was installed into office - would be sufficient to 'fix' this for future elections, removing the necessity of an attempt at using the Impeachment/Trial process.
I'd like to think so - but I'd also like to think that people wouldn't cheat to achieve their goals. Obviously, human nature proves this to be an incorrect belief.
Unfortunately, in today's world - Patrick Henry would be happily accommodated by the authorities regarding his position of:
"Give me Liberty, or give me death.".
It appears that now we need to be a little more explicit - and restate that as:
"Try to take my liberty, and I'll give you death."
Why? Because freedom isn't something that a tyrant will ever 'grant', it's something that if you want it - must be taken. How? Via the well stated and seldom followed through on sequence of: Non-Compliance, Soap Box, Ballot Box, Cartridge Box.
Over the last few generations, we've been slowly ceeding our freedoms to the State, presumably (but not actually) in exchange for 'safety' or other perceived intangible benefit - and the rate this is occuring has been greatly increasing of late. The large portion of our population that suffers normalcy bias must be awakened to this truth. Soon.
I will die a free man, no matter the circumstance. But given a choice - I'd rather that I and my progeny live in freedom, even if I have to give my life to achieve it.
So far, we seem willing to stand by and take it. Maybe that will change. I have begun preparing for the worst, but continue to hope for, and work for, the best. Im finishing up a note now for my substack discussing how I'm preparing.
They can only cheat when it's close. We need to convince enough people that the next ones won't be close.
The frequent claim that constitution works for moral people seems to be based on quotes from Franklin and Washington saying we need virtuous people. That probably implies more than religion. Some religions seem to be immoral a lot of times. Virtue probably includes competence as well as morality, but both have been undermined in recent decades by the failed education system.
And what sort of "civil disobedience" will not lead you straight to the legal or financial gulag today? Exactly how will we build any sort of organization - legal or otherwise - under a blanket of universal surveillance and .fed informants? The first mistake in our wargaming of this conflict is the allowance that "they" - and the list is deep and wide - should exist when all is said and done. Internalize that strategic outcome and the tactical course is self-evident.
I would say that first, it's important to recognize that nothing can be done as a group, not in this environment, but no nation can survive a nation of individual and motivated sappers disrupting the commies everywhere they go. Not necessarily with signs, but with making the air conditioning not work, or turning off the water main. It doesn't have to be destructive. And, this won't win any great battle, but it gets people more in the frame of mind of actually doing something. The bigger tasks can come later, but if they are not willing or brave enough to take on the little tasks, I wouldn't count on them when the big ones come.
Read the above reply. I'm not counting on someone to pull a trigger, if they can't be counted on to throw a switch, or shut a valve. Let's start doing something, anything. I would like to use this space to brag about the actions of my readers rather than convince them to action.
You or I can’t “convince anyone to action” since we know that arson, bombing, and shooting is peaceful protest for them but legal insurrection for us.
Any organizing for any kind of action is hamstrung because of the concern that associates might be informants. So we are effectively incapable of mounting organized resistance.
Gone are the days when a group or a single oligarch would pay for a paramilitary strike led by seriously well trained men...in the name of liberty, aimed at the head of the snake. Is it out there? If it is out there, the failure to strike by now has allowed the anti democratic anti Constitution despots time to grow more powerful.
I’ve lived long enough and enjoyed security and prosperity, something that my grandchildren won’t see unless we go down fighting. Yeah, some second amendment when we’re too frightened to use it for what it was designed for.
I know that I will be right after the next round of elections but with divine intervention I might be wrong.
And so while we must ceaselessly pray for divine intervention, we must also sharpen our tools (especially the knowledge part, and proficiency in our use of freedom tools).
Tyranny exists only where it's tolerated. Our problem isn't the tyrants, but those who are too willing to tolerate them. In a democracy, the majority gets to decide what's tolerable. The last election was close, and gave the tyrants a sufficient majority that they get to decide our level of tyranny. If the minority resists, they'll probably lose. We need to convince a few more to join the current minority to regain the majority. It looks like we will in November. Then we need to focus on retaining and extending the majority.
There are tactics available to help convince the supporters of the majority to flip sides. They're probably not needed for November. I saw Steve Deace recently describing a meeting with Newt Gingrich years ago, where Newt said we're not polarized, which is where the sides disagree on opposite views. Newt says we are Balkanized, where the sides are fundamentally, irreconcilably opposed. We'll find out next year if he's right. The Twitter anguish indicates some of them are Balkanized, so we'll probably need some aggressive responses for at least some of them.
Oh, you mean, “Vote Harder.” OK, civnat.
Not clear what you mean, but, no, voting is approximately useless. Do the math. The win comes from those who participate before the vote. One person, or small groups, influences millions of votes.
Voting is approximately useless - UNLESS: The rational majority can be large enough that the 'margin of cheat' is too large to pass without being explicit and obvious as to what happened. What will be telling then is: Do we just stand by as they slow-roll the attempts to use the system to 'right the wrong', until it's 'too late'? (i.e. - the s'elected are already installed into office). Moving the POTUS inauguration date to 1/20 from the original date of about a month later made it easier to 'rush' the acceptance of a nominally cheat-win candidate into office, and thereby making questioning of the results taboo and nearly an 'insurrection' level offence. We saw this in the most recent election. Unfortunately - there isn't a prescribed process for 'What to do when an official was installed illegitimately due to cheating', I believe because our founders didn't believe it was likely enough to have to address. This in itself is proof that our Constitution is only fit for a moral and religious populous - and that we've fallen too far away from that ideal for it to work as it should. Is a course correction possible at this late date, or do we have to 'start over'? I believe the next few election cycles. and the fallout therefrom will be telling.
Perhaps something as simple as a Constitutional Amendment that explicitly outlines the process and procedures for removing from office and selection/method of installing their replacement - in the event of the discovery of a 'disqualifying event' (Cheating, proof of ineligibility for office, and the like) AFTER the official was installed into office - would be sufficient to 'fix' this for future elections, removing the necessity of an attempt at using the Impeachment/Trial process.
I'd like to think so - but I'd also like to think that people wouldn't cheat to achieve their goals. Obviously, human nature proves this to be an incorrect belief.
Unfortunately, in today's world - Patrick Henry would be happily accommodated by the authorities regarding his position of:
"Give me Liberty, or give me death.".
It appears that now we need to be a little more explicit - and restate that as:
"Try to take my liberty, and I'll give you death."
Why? Because freedom isn't something that a tyrant will ever 'grant', it's something that if you want it - must be taken. How? Via the well stated and seldom followed through on sequence of: Non-Compliance, Soap Box, Ballot Box, Cartridge Box.
Over the last few generations, we've been slowly ceeding our freedoms to the State, presumably (but not actually) in exchange for 'safety' or other perceived intangible benefit - and the rate this is occuring has been greatly increasing of late. The large portion of our population that suffers normalcy bias must be awakened to this truth. Soon.
I will die a free man, no matter the circumstance. But given a choice - I'd rather that I and my progeny live in freedom, even if I have to give my life to achieve it.
So far, we seem willing to stand by and take it. Maybe that will change. I have begun preparing for the worst, but continue to hope for, and work for, the best. Im finishing up a note now for my substack discussing how I'm preparing.
They can only cheat when it's close. We need to convince enough people that the next ones won't be close.
The frequent claim that constitution works for moral people seems to be based on quotes from Franklin and Washington saying we need virtuous people. That probably implies more than religion. Some religions seem to be immoral a lot of times. Virtue probably includes competence as well as morality, but both have been undermined in recent decades by the failed education system.
And what sort of "civil disobedience" will not lead you straight to the legal or financial gulag today? Exactly how will we build any sort of organization - legal or otherwise - under a blanket of universal surveillance and .fed informants? The first mistake in our wargaming of this conflict is the allowance that "they" - and the list is deep and wide - should exist when all is said and done. Internalize that strategic outcome and the tactical course is self-evident.
I would say that first, it's important to recognize that nothing can be done as a group, not in this environment, but no nation can survive a nation of individual and motivated sappers disrupting the commies everywhere they go. Not necessarily with signs, but with making the air conditioning not work, or turning off the water main. It doesn't have to be destructive. And, this won't win any great battle, but it gets people more in the frame of mind of actually doing something. The bigger tasks can come later, but if they are not willing or brave enough to take on the little tasks, I wouldn't count on them when the big ones come.
TL, nothing short of armed rebellion is going to suffice.
Read the above reply. I'm not counting on someone to pull a trigger, if they can't be counted on to throw a switch, or shut a valve. Let's start doing something, anything. I would like to use this space to brag about the actions of my readers rather than convince them to action.
You or I can’t “convince anyone to action” since we know that arson, bombing, and shooting is peaceful protest for them but legal insurrection for us.
Any organizing for any kind of action is hamstrung because of the concern that associates might be informants. So we are effectively incapable of mounting organized resistance.
Gone are the days when a group or a single oligarch would pay for a paramilitary strike led by seriously well trained men...in the name of liberty, aimed at the head of the snake. Is it out there? If it is out there, the failure to strike by now has allowed the anti democratic anti Constitution despots time to grow more powerful.
I’ve lived long enough and enjoyed security and prosperity, something that my grandchildren won’t see unless we go down fighting. Yeah, some second amendment when we’re too frightened to use it for what it was designed for.
I know that I will be right after the next round of elections but with divine intervention I might be wrong.
And so while we must ceaselessly pray for divine intervention, we must also sharpen our tools (especially the knowledge part, and proficiency in our use of freedom tools).