Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Saturday, June 6, 2015

Read. Think. Learn. And most importantly...

...look at the blogs, bloggers, commentors, and others who interact as "Patriots", "2A Advocates" and "Liberty Fighters" and see if you can spot our very own cabal of Trolls, Provocateurs and general Fucktards.

It ain't hard to spot 'em, folks.  Extra points for identifying them by name and adding them to your 'List'.

Here's the piece.  And for the record, the piece itself is more than a bit of smoke and mirrors.

Kerodin
III

17 comments:

  1. I am out of the loop on the most recent hijinks. ....I can only imagine.

    Bill Nye

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same shit, different year, mostly the same players, with a few new ones.

      The provocateurs consistently reveal themselves - and the "Patriot Community" is just plain infested. But you already know that. ;)

      Delete
  2. Well, one this is certain. Putin does have it right that Obama is an idiot.;-)

    Bill, run, run far, far away, or come and help me work on my branding irons...;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. “I was told on the first day that we were working for the good of the motherland..."

    Damn, that rings a bell. "Fatherland," "Homeland," "Motherland"...gee, they all sound so similar. I wonder if maybe there's a concept that classifies them in their essential attribute.

    Why yes, there is..."nationalism." Or, for those of us with a more philosophical bent..."collectivism." See, the scam is believing that by going along to get along, or mobbing up with others who talk the same tripe, that maybe a person isn't deciding on his or her own. It's always the same ol', same ol'...pretending that the responsibility is outside of oneself.

    Only one thing stands in the way---reality. Everyone chooses, and everyone chooses alone. FACT. Once that's understood, then free people can work together and get the job done.

    Individual and Rightful Liberty WILL win in the end, absolutely positively guaranteed. How can it be so certain? Simple...the alternative is extinction.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, Jim, the alternative isn't "extinction". Its called "slavery". And its a very, very real possibility, in this very real world, where at least 50 percent of the people you encounter on a daily basis actually *want* to be told how to live their lives... by "someone they can trust", of course, but they want to be told, none the less. They want to trust people "smarter than they are" to handle all of the icky, confusing details for them.
    Never forget that you are different than that writhing mass of semi-human marketing fodder which progressivism thrives on.
    And before anyone squeals about me being an elitist... no I'm not. I'm just being honest. People who lack confidence naturally look for others to lead them. Does anyone think it was an accident that the communists embedded themselves first in the education system? They did it because they got two handles on our society for the price of one - indoctrination in the positive, and destruction of individual confidence in the negative sense. Chalk two wins for team red, there.
    Same thing with the agressive promotion of "feminism" and faggotry - creating weak but vocal minorities readily subject to propaganda, who are also wildly willing to attack men of honesty and dignity for the purpose of destroying their frank, confident defense of our legitimate culture and values.

    I tire of your "anarchy solves all problems" line of rhetoric sometimes. Like chewing gum, it looses its flavor on the bedpost...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget that by promoting "feminism" and faggotry" the commies also get a twofer, destroying a strong family and church centered society. One of the tenets of achieving communism.

      Delete
  5. >>> I tire of your "anarchy solves all problems"

    How could you tire of what you've never heard? Not even once. Sure, there's some bullshitter out there who SAYS I'm an anarchist, but it's been clarified repeatedly. Turns out the bullshitter is a "nationalist," we finally come to learn. Shocker, huh? Who could've guessed...a statist who lies, appeals to the mob, and threatens like a thug.

    Fresh one that, huh? But of all the toughness out there, and bravado, and nerve to get things done...WHO calls the truth on it? WHO stands up and points out the bullshit for what it is? Suddenly it's crickets and Mah Jong clubs and who's on the inside and who knows who. Cliques, teams, insinuations, false charges. I mean, really now.

    Seriously? You think you're gonna win a WAR against the toughest regime in history, behaving like it's a middle school play yard? Sounds like a brilliant strategy, not.

    Tens of thousands of posts and comments from me, pre-dating the Internet, and you won't find ONE that indicates I'm an anarchist. That's cuz I'm not. I don't even know what the damn word means. It's always looked oxymoronic to me..."absence of government." But we're all governed, and by exactly the same thing...our own volition, our free will.

    And if it means only politically, then it seems that we've already got anarchy. No law, right? Biggest gang rules, right? That's what we've got, isn't it? You can't have "laws" that are in violation of the supreme law...that would be another oxymoron.

    I'm an American and in foundational principle, I'm with the Founders. It is self-evident--that's their term, not mine--that a government can only derive its just power from the CONSENT of the governed. Their word again, my emphasis.

    How about you, LT? You down with that, or do you figure that with sufficient righteousness, it really doesn't matter whether or not the next guy consents? That's what our (self-declared) courageous nationalist believes. It's what every statist believes, commie-lib or fascist. Now our "courageous" nationalist won't 'fess up, but you seem a damn sight more honest. So which reigns HIGHEST for you...Individual Liberty or the Constitution? Just spit it out, that's all, and let's move on. Trainer finally made it clear and I give him credit for that...for him it's the Constitution first. I think it's a mistake beyond belief, but it's HIS choice.

    Meanwhile, you got it exactly right about the education system, and I was yapping about it decades ago. I said that after two full generations went through the monstrosity that was developed in the '70s, it would be game over. And here we are. I guess I'm prescient, but it wasn't that tough to figure out.

    So you tell me. If it was ideas that got us into this mess, don't you think maybe it'll be ideas that get us out of it...backed up with more than a few rifles, maybe?

    I'm always grateful for criticism--it's the main reason I write, to check my premises--but it would nice to get criticism for what I say, not for what some bullshitter says I say. Deal?

    ------------------------------

    Hey...if you can't come up with anything better than the Constitution--which WAS snookered in by the Eastern Establishment and which DID lead to all of this--then that's your problem. Yes, I'd gladly take nothing over that, but that just makes me an anti-statist, not an anarchist. And rational to boot.

    Using your wording in your reckless charge, LT, here's the whole of my political philosophy in a single sentence. NO government can solve ANY problem in YOUR life; only YOU can do that.

    To me, at least speaking in a social context, everything else is detail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two questions, JK. Treat them both rhetorically if you must.
      1. Where and when has your hypothetical "pure law, with no government authority, and with total personal consent" ever been applied? To what success? And how long did it last before morphing into something else (or failing)?

      2. Absent a stable (multi-generationally long lived) historical example in #1 above, what do YOU consider the three most pressing impediments to making such a scheme work, and WHY haven't those solutions been tried before?

      Show your work, please. I'm only being blunt because I've tried the exercise myself, and come up lacking. There is NO PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION of what you advocate. E.G. Try mandatory exile for those who repeatedly breach others consent - who will enforce it, and with what uniformity (because there is no Rule of law absent uniformity). Now try execution for same said offenders - now you are the breaching party for denying another his life to protect your liberty and property.
      It's unworkable, and therefore you proffer nothing but a distraction from the reality of what must be done. Period.

      Again, sorry to be blunt, but I've been down that road, and it proves to be a dead end, the minute you expect it to work as anything other than an academic exercise. (Sort of like other ideologies we all agree are repugnant)

      As such, I'm compelled to accept the reality of the situation that, until someone shows me something more workable than the DoI/Constitution/BoR as originally composed (not as presently corrupted), I'm going to personally prosecute towards restoration of those without hesitation.

      You're a smart guy. I'm not going to insult your intelligence with pat answers or slick words; that would cause me to resemble the people I most despise. What you do is up to you.

      Opera, Non Verba...
      Electiones Consequentias Faceret Tuam

      Delete
    2. "What you do is up to you."

      Lol...it's like Jeopardy! You answer your own questions with that, because it's in perfect denial of this...

      "There is NO PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION of what you advocate."

      One of those two MUST BE FALSE. I'll let you figure out which one it is.

      Delete
    3. Just let it go LT...Figured out a while back its a waste of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere than to talk with Jim about anything... Let him become as irrelevant as he seeks to be...Sad That...

      Delete
    4. Just let it go LT...Figured out a while back its a waste of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere than to talk with Jim about anything... Let him become as irrelevant as he seeks to be...Sad That...

      Delete
    5. I have presented my case for any who may have been on the fence about the workability of any such philosophy as what JK presents. His is an *ideal* not a workable system, but he refuses to admit it, just as the communists refuse to admit that their system is absolutely unworkable.

      Sure, we can all use the concept of Rightful Liberty as a star on the horizon to orient our actions, but demanding to live in such a perfect world is childish and irrational.
      Even worse, however, is the constantly griping about how adhering to anything 'less perfect' than a pure implementation of Rightful Liberty makes you a "statist" and "petty tyrant" is just a means of sowing dissent and derailing legitimate conversation.

      IOW, this is where and how JK crossed the line and outted himself as an enemy of liberty - not because of his philosophical views, but because he is a perennial stirrer of the shit pot, without respect to his impact upon the whole of the conversation.

      IMHO, K has been very charitable not to ban him. Then again, every rodeo needs a clown in a barrel...

      Delete
    6. I've come close to a ban - not for anything personal about JK or even his ideology - simply because this is not the place that we consider anarchy as a viable option. This blog and most of the people who come here want results, and are willing to work for those results. Anarchy is a result most of us agree would be bad, and thus should be avoided, even if that means heavy casualties.

      There are other sites far better suited to the philosophical whimsies. Here the question of Anarchy has been asked and answered - and continued attempts to recruit for that philosophy are not helpful to the goals we seek and the tasks needed to achieve those goals.

      The main reason I don't ban him (and several others) is the bar I have set for bans include people like Firestone & Folly, Vanderboegh, and other assorted genetic waste and walking arguments for retro-active abortion. JK just doesn't belong in that group.

      But JK - I would seriously appreciate leaving the philosophical Anarchy at the door when you enter, and instead focus on helping us identify ways to reach our goals, instead of arguing why our goals are bad/wrong.

      We've set our course, and intend to follow it.

      Delete
    7. [severely edited] K, I've no idea why you're yapping about banning. I told you at jump street, and repeatedly since, that a simple request stops me from writing on someone else's blog. I'll take this as that request.

      It would be nice if folk READ and UNDERSTAND what I write, but I learned long ago that often doesn't happen. I thought I fairly clearly dispensed with the "anarchy" charge, but I also know how much labels mean to the modern American. As I've said, if you simply MUST label me--not sure why, since I already have a name--then I'll take "Consensualist"...JUST LIKE THE FOUNDERS.

      "Self-evident"...remember?

      If you choose to introspect about any of this, I'd suggest considering that first---WHY DO YOU LEAVE THAT PART OUT OF IT? Now just look at yourselves...you're even along the road of abandoning Rightful Liberty already. It's something for "later," after you do what you imagine is best now. K, I told you what your biggest enemy is, "by far." How prescient am I?

      ----------------------

      You've been mostly kind to me K, so I'll give you a going-away tip...a very "workable" one, ha. When all the fluff is stripped away, the choice here is between (so-called) Rule of Law and Rightful Liberty. You are taking the fork that says, "Rule of Law." That's what "Restoration" is all about, right? Even I'll admit it's a very civil SOUNDING choice. I mean, who doesn't want objectively codified rules and overwhelming power in defense of individual liberty?

      OTOH if wishes were horseshit and horseshit were cookies, we'd all have plenty to eat. Gotta live in reality, duh.

      Now consider this. You go off on your "capers" and various missions to knock everyone (else!) out the box, and you're doing it with a mob that has EXPLICITLY chosen "Rule of Law" over "Rightful Liberty."

      Use your MIND, for crissakes...what do you think SOME of them are going to do? THINK about it. You can thank me later. I may not be a tactician, but I can figure out that simple shit.

      Forgive the bluntness, but you're now requesting--practically begging--that those who would be outright traitors to the cause of liberty, please join up with your mob. That's why you should be seeking more rational philosophy, and tons of it, rather than less.

      But like anyone else, your choice is yours, so less of it you shall have. For now, anyway.

      Delete
    8. JK: Not sure how I am '...on the road to abandoning Rightful Liberty..." - but I can't be concerned with nonsensical AND gratuitous assertions.

      Here's the key to what you just wrote: "It would be nice if folk READ and UNDERSTAND what I write, but I learned long ago that often doesn't happen."

      Here's a clue - if this is a recurring issue, the problem probably isn't with your audience...

      Delete
  6. " NO government can solve ANY problem in YOUR life; only YOU can do that."

    Agreed!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey, LT. As K is aware, I've got a reply to you three above, but it may not get posted--wherever it gets posted--for a few days owing to both formatting issues (too lengthy) and my time constraints. But THIS...

    "JK crossed the line and outted himself as an enemy of liberty"

    ...is really quite the classic. Do you think maybe I should be branded on my arm with that? That's already a tried and true "workable" action and you've been yapping a lot about "workability."

    I mean...if I'm an "enemy of liberty" in your judgment, what sort of "workable action" about that do you propose?

    My real question though is this---Just how stupid do you imagine the readers here are? Do you seriously think they may fall for that? It's terribly insulting, you know...not to me, but to them. Also, whether you realize it or not, you're working very much AGAINST what others here, including K I believe, are trying to accomplish. Maybe I am too in K's judgment, and that's his to make, but "enemy of liberty"?? I've written AND DONE more for the cause of liberty in the last 30 years than you have the slightest hope of accomplishing in the next 30. Every drop of the writing, at least since the Internet, is on the record. And no, what I DO is not on the record, for the most part. I'm bettin' it will be, though. You can't change my character, but you can sure 'nuff give clues about yours.

    So there is this followup question which will probably be of interest to many here, especially K---"Why?"

    ReplyDelete

Please post anonymously and include your recognized online handle in the body of the comment.