True Conservatism Has Never Been Tried

A Twitter friend (@KenGardner11) asserts that “traditional conservatism” has been largely abandoned by the GOP – especially by the MAGA crowd. And what is traditional conservatism? Here’s how Ken describes it:

Traditional conservatism — limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, free markets, free trade, a strong military, a proactive force for freedom in the world — might today be the minority position even within the GOP, much less the country at large.

I think that most of us here are ok with that sort of definition. It is what we by and large considered Conservatism to be. But were we correct? That is, for those of us, say, 45 and older, is what we called Conservatism for our adult lives really Conservatism?

Limited constitutional government is a great ideal. Love it! But is it something we can have while we also have a strong military and are being a proactive force for freedom in the world? If we have that strong military and we are being proactive out there, that means we’re under permanent threat of counter-attack from the pro-active forces of tyranny. This means we need a national security apparatus to protect ourselves from a Pearl Harbor. A national security apparatus will necessarily have to spy to some extent on Americans because we can’t be sure if any of us won’t turn traitor. And so our rights are curtailed by the government in order to maintain the strong military so we can be a proactive force for freedom in the world. See how it goes?

I’m pretty sure readers here know my opinions on free markets and free trade (so called): it is a blind. A false ideal. You can’t have a totally free market and you can’t engage in free trade. Human nature prohibits either thing. Because some people will try to cheat and grind the faces of the poor, there must be some controls on the market. Because some nations will cheat and seek to destroy economic competitors, you must have some controls on trade. But in addition to these concerns, there is the fact that free markets and free trade are not Conservative. They are Liberal. Traditional, 19th century Manchester School Liberalism. Even if an argument can be made that they are, on balance, better ideas than their alternatives, the fact remains they are Liberal ideals…if we Conserve them, then all we’ve done is Conserve Liberalism.

I’ve come to the conclusion that we’ve never tried Conservatism. Even someone like the great Ronald Reagan wasn’t so much trying to Conserve Conservative things but was, instead, trying to restore a Liberal status quo from, say, 1925. No fault to Reagan! He did great things and we can never repay the debt we owe him. But if we want to be Conservatives Conserving things, I think we’re going to have to rethink things a bit.

In my view, what needs to be done is to first define our ideal and then go about obtaining it. And while this ideal is Conservative, we will have to accept the fact that given what we live under now – a Liberal oligarchy – some revolution may be necessary to achieve the ideal. My ideal is a society of faith, family and property. I believe that such a society meets an actual definition of Conservatism because all experience shows that only a society of faith, family and property is sane, stable and free. In other words, whatever you might say you have, you have nothing good if the primary purpose of your society isn’t the fostering of faith, family and property.

Faith because while we can all argue endlessly about the nature of God and what our duties to Him are, we Conservatives know from human experience that a moral code which is not handed down from God cannot work. We also know that without hope of ultimate justice and peace the human species loses sanity and becomes narcissistic, greedy and slothful.

Family because the primary unit of society is the family. We know from human experience that the purpose of the family is the creation and rearing of children and that if this task is not properly carried out absolute disaster results. Such as we have now when we can see videos showing packs of feral young people looting stores and engaging in street brawls over nothing.

Property because, call it what you will, humanity only works to benefit itself. All of us wish others well, but our primary concern is that we and our families are taken care of. I very much want that family down the block to prosper in love and peace…but my main concern in life is to ensure my granddaughter prospers in love and peace. My best means of doing this is to build up sufficient property to ensure that she can have her material needs met…that she can strive and thrive without having to work for someone else just to obtain her daily bread.

All three of my ideals have been ruthlessly and maliciously destroyed by the Liberal oligarchy which has come to govern the whole planet to one degree or another. This oligarchy hates faith because it believes it can create heaven on Earth. It hates family because it believes that the primary human loyalty must be given to the group, led by the oligarchs. It hates property because property makes people independent of the ministrations of the oligarchy. To get them back – to even start to get my ideals back – I must overthrow the Liberal oligarchy. I cannot content myself with just trying to stop the Latest Thing…I must proactively overthrow what has been imposed.

Do keep in mind that such an effort does not preclude working within the current American system. Our Founders did create a very clever system which even now gives me leverage. I pray earnestly that I can effect the necessary changes by using the system. But at the end of the day, if I want what I believe in to survive, I must accept that I’ll have to do it by any means necessary. And if this means I’ll have to abolish corporations on one hand and confiscate oligarchic wealth on the other, then that is what will have to happen…and by so doing I will not be doing other than Conservatism.

It is time, the first time, to try Conservatism. To actually honor our knowledge and traditions by seeking to implement them on society. In my view, it is this way, or death. If all we ever try to do is support what Liberals imposed 40, 80 or 100 years ago, then we’re just helping cement a social order which we can see is leading us to total destruction. Perhaps most on the Right cannot see the line going from, say, Wilsonian Progressives and San Francisco Maoists…but I see it. The latter is the direct descendant of the former. And if we’re still trying to make the world safe for Democracy, I think we’ll find that all we’ve done is make the world safe for more Maoists. I’ll go back to Wilson and discard it; I’ll pick up the mantle of McKinley and Cleveland and reject the Liberal project. I’ll be Conservative…even if I’m burning the system to the ground.

We Will Win

There is a heavy amount of gloom and doom on the Right this day on social media. It is all over. We’re done. Doomed!

Why?

Well, we lost the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

To be sure, we lost it very badly – absolutely destroyed in a landslide loss. We were especially crushed in the suburbs where white women came out in droves to elect a Commie to the Supreme Court because she is pledged to invent a right to an abortion in the Wisconsin Constitution. Looking at this, the Right now sees nothing but Death and Despair.

But that’s because the Right, by and large, is kinda stupid. Its why the GOP has long been known as the Stupid Party. Stupid in, stupid out, dear people.

It is past time we stop being stupid.

While the loss at the WI SC is bad, less noticed is that we won a special election to the Wisconsin Senate and now have a super majority in it. We’re two shy of a super majority in the WI House but what happened last night means the Wisconsin legislature can pretty much impeach any State official they want and have them removed. Some are already talking of impeaching the Democrat governor but the smarter people are talking about impeaching the lower Court Democrat judges who have been soft on crime…you know, the judges who let Antifa and BLM skate all through 2020. That’s the place to start – get Evers (the Dem governor) if you can but much better to get rid of the lower level officials…the people who make policy happen.

We also obtained in North Carolina a super majority in the State legislature via a Democrat party switcher. The GOP Legislature there can now override the Democrat governor at will. That is a pretty cool power, guys. And altogether it means in two battleground States which will play a key role in 2024, the GOP is popular enough to secure legislative super majorities. Perhaps – and I’m just spitballin’ here – the GOP isn’t as toxic as MSM and Never Trump wants us to believe? That they may be – and I know this is shocking to even consider – lying about us because they are so desperate to get rid of Trump and MAGA that they’ll say anything even if 180 from reality?

Don’t get me wrong here: we’re very far away from the days of wine and roses. We’re in a really bad position. We suck at politics and are heavily divided. Democrats are good and politics and are firmly united. I do expect us to lose the White House next year no matter who we nominate. Be pleased as punch if we win, but I’m not expecting it. But what has happened in WI, NC and other State and local campaigns does give us cause for hope. Nobody is really looking into it – because it doesn’t support the Narrative – but my bet is that on the State and local level, the GOP is more powerful than its ever been…even in the aftermath of the Civil War. Last night while Chicago was electing a Commie lunatic as mayor, Springfield’s mayoralty went GOP for the first time since 1967…and the lady who won is pretty darned Trumpy. That is a bit of a watershed, guys. A thing that isn’t supposed to happen. But it did.

We do need some tactical changes. Clearly, middle and upper class white women are fanatics in favor of abortion. This is weird because, overall, such women hardly have abortions. But, it is what it is: you make a campaign about whether abortion should be legal or not, and these ladies will turn out for Democrats in huge numbers. I am, as you know, a raving, pro-life fanatic and I can’t moderate my views on it because I’m not a lunatic who thinks human beings are disposable…but the pragmatic facts of life are that abortion is, right now, a toxic issue for the GOP. It doesn’t do me the least bit of good to lose while insisting on the pro-life maximum position: that just means that the pro-death fanatics of the Democrat party get in. So, we have to carefully re-think our tactics…certainly do not go for any ban after 15 weeks. When we get into the fight, relentlessly point out that the Democrats position is abortion to birth (I’m serious: “so, GOP candidate, what do you think of your opponents tax plan?” “Well, Fred, first I’d like to point out that he wants the taxes to pay for abortion to birth”: like that). We have to start backing big, expensive programs for pre- and post-natal care. We trust in God’s time the American people will come to the Pro-Life position and we’ll be able to ban the hideous, anti-human practice…but, meanwhile, lets take what we can get and at least neutralize the issue against us.

We also need a make-over on how we present ourselves overall. In a sense, it is time to ditch the label “conservative”. We’re not conserving anything: everything we wanted to conserve is gone. What we’re trying to do is reform everything…to take power away from insane, corrupt, anti-human Progressives and rebuild our nation. We’re in a very real sense revolutionaries. And we should start acting like it – but like all revolutionaries, you start at the bottom. Sure, try to win Congress and the White House. Maybe you will. At least you’ll keep your finger in the pie there. But the real action for us is, as I’ve said a lot lately, down at the State and especially the local level. Just 12 years after we take over a school board we have a crop of 18 year olds who are literate, sane, healthy patriots. If, meanwhile, we’ve also taken over high education, then they won’t be turned into Commies on us. These kids will then step out into the larger world, laugh at their illiterate, blue-haired peers from Democrat areas, and proceed to take over the country.

What I’m ultimately saying here is nil desperandum – get a grip! Sure, it sucks. It will probably suck worse. In fact, it probably has a to suck a lot more worse before we have a real shot at national power. So be it. This is the Progressive’s world. It is very stupid, a lot more gay than we expected and it is failing. They don’t know what to do. They are incapable of thinking. They are just bloody-minded pressing forward with their stupid ideas because, being quite mindless, they don’t know what else to do. It will all come crashing down. We will pick up the pieces. It is just a matter of time…and if we’ve laid the groundwork, then when the time comes the Revolution will be quick and complete.

Civilization Requires Force

Some years back, I wrote about Bill Buckley and National Review’s successful efforts to purge the Birchers from the Conservative movement. The problem Buckley and others perceived what the JBS’ penchant for conspiracy theories – the kooky idea that there was a genuine global Communist conspiracy to undermine America and that this conspiracy had agents all through the US government and other institutions. The breaking point came when Welch – the founder of JBS – implied that Eisenhower might be some sort of Communist agent. That was, of course, ridiculous and Welch, himself, later distanced himself from it. But the crucial thing was that the Communists, at the time entirely subservient to Moscow and now just operating on their own, really were trying to undermine the USA any way they could. There really were Communist agents all through the government and other American institutions. And the primary failure of Conservatism was in not rooting these elements out – which, in my mind, was really Welch’s primary complaint about Ike. Part of the reason Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952 was because the penetration of the US Government by Communists had been exposed and it was a horrible scandal especially as American troops were fighting Communist forces in Korea.

Ike could have cleared out the infiltrators. He didn’t; for normal GOPe reasons, he let them go…some to retire, others to be transferred to some other agency. For all the Progressive talk of a anti-Communist witch hunt in the 1950’s, the reality is that there wasn’t a witch hunt. Had there been one, we’d be a lot better off today. Had we gone on a truly forceful anti-Communist crusade in the USA, purging them from all positions and jailing those who were de-facto Soviet agents (very many of the leaders were), think of all the societal decay which wouldn’t have occurred…a huge amount of our social and economic disintegration over the past 50-60 years was caused by people who hate us being left in positions of power and influence.

So, why bring this up? Water over the dam, right? Can’t undo the past. Nope; we can’t. But we can work on the future. And over at National Review they are informing us that we Conservatives had better not like Nayib Bukele.

I know: your first question is, who the heck is that?

I, too, had never heard of him before NRO told me he’s bad. Turns out, he’s the President of El Salvador and he’s gotten a bit infamous of late for his massive crackdown on the horrifically violent gang MS-13. It had gotten really bad in El Salvador, guys; with some sources claiming the murder rate a few years back was 40 for every 100,000 people (most recent stat for us is 7 per 100,000…which, BTW, is a huge spike from just a few years ago). The gangs pretty much did whatever they wanted in El Salvador (as they do in so many Latin American countries) and, remember, these gangs aren’t like the US Mafia or even things like the Crips and the Bloods…for whatever reasons, Latin American gangs are simply inhuman brutes in their violence. Not just killing (via unbelievably savage means) rivals and witnesses (the normal run of gangland killings) but seeming to go out of their way to cruelly kill people who pose little or no threat, just to keep people terrified of the gangs, as such. Bukele did mass arrests and the murder rate in El Salvador has dropped precipitously.

Naturally, the Ruling Class is upset with this. You know the real reason why: a lot of them are owned by the criminals via bribery. But they are officially upset that, to put it mildly, Bukele didn’t ensure that the legal i’s were dotted and t’s crossed on the arrests…and it looks like arrested gangsters who were defiant…didn’t end so well.

Cry me a river.

Bukele is fighting for his country. He’s a bit of an odd duck having risen out of the Marxist FLMN and then dumping them for a more populist/nationalist ideology (which is another likely reason the Ruling Class hates him: can’t abandon the Commies!). He’s also clearly an opportunist (as a young, ambitious pol often is); there are claims he made some side deals with elements of MS-13 from time to time (which is logical to do; hold off one band while dealing with another of more immediate concern). But the thing is you can’t have a civilized nation if crime is running rampant. Your right to free speech and to vote is worthless if at any time you can be robbed or murdered by criminals acting with near-impunity (especially while your Ruling Class is safe and dry behind well-guarded walls and secret deals with the criminals). Before anything else, we must be secure in our lives and property. It isn’t just the bedrock of civilization, it is the bedrock of any functioning society no matter how primitive or advanced. Bukele is simply reacting to reality – unless his people are safe, they can’t build anything.

In a civilization we have carefully constructed rules, written and unwritten, about how things work. And when everything is functioning, these rules are sufficient. Most of the time, we simply obey the unwritten rules: going to work, paying our bills, keeping our houses tidy, being polite to others. In those rare instances where something slipped, we then refer to the written rules and, being civilized people, we go to court and let lawyers, judges and the law figure out the best possible result. But at the back of it all, the thing which made it and ultimately must sustain it, is force. Brutal force. A force which can kill everyone who won’t obey the written and unwritten rules. Bukele is just demonstrating this – and it is causing some alarm among those who are continuing to live well as the current system globally collapses into lawlessness.

It is coming here, folks. When you see those videos of people looting stores and beating others and such, that shows you the problem – a complete rejection of the unwritten rules and utter contempt for the written. And that contempt is well-earned as those in charge of enforcing the written rules have simply allowed crime to slide almost entirely for ideological reasons. But people can’t live like that. We can’t live forever in a society where people can rob and kill with impunity. The robbers and killers must be stopped by any means necessary.

We may already be past the point where the normal system are capable of handling this – that is, our system may be so weak and corrupted that even if it tried to address the issue, it can’t. If we are past the time of working with the rules, then we will find that the people will turn to an American version of Bukele. Someone who says they’ll get rid of the criminals and then just does so – and law be damned. Just get rid of them will be the cry and nobody is going to care what a Court which couldn’t stop the cime is going to say.

Bukele is further accused of using the emergency to gather power to himself which Constitutionally the President doesn’t have. And that is likely true, at least to some degree. He pretty much feels he has to: his people want to be saved from crime and he’s going to save them from it. This does bear the risk of the end of freedom in El Salvador – strongmen who save nations have historically been unwilling to surrender power after the rescue is complete. They come to see themselves as indispensable. They are fearful if they surrender power, their successors will come after them. Ego! We’ll see how El Salvador works this out – but however it comes out, Bukele is saving civilization. And if we let crime get out of hand here – and we are – then the American people will also turn to someone like Bukele…some who will just bust heads until the criminal element is gone. And then we’ll see if that person gives up the power.

It all stems from the fact that civilization is thin: it is a veneer over the human savage. In just a generation or two it can be lost – and if lost, that is when you’ll start seeing a disintegration among the people. I think we can already see that disintegration. We wait now to see if those committed to civilization will step up and save it…or if they’ll weakly allow the collapse to accelerate until the people forth a Caesar.

What the J6 Videos Tell Us

To get the easy part out first: they tell us the DNC/MSM Narrative about J6 is false. But, we already knew that.

If you wish to put the worst possible spin on it, what you come away with is a riot. Certainly not something you want to happen and certainly something worth pursuing judicial action against the worst offenders. But it was not an insurrection. They were not trying to overthrow the government nor prevent the normal functions of government. They were just there to express their anger over a vote they felt was tainted and demand that Congress examine the vote before certifying the Presidential winner. Perhaps a forlorn hope. Perhaps even a silly hope. But it is what they wanted – not to end the American system of government, but to ensure that the American system of government functioned as designed.

That is what is really causing the fracture: the sense on the Right – and especially among normal, everyday people – that the system isn’t functioning as it is supposed to. Our Senators are supposed to represent our States. Our Congresspeople are supposed to represent us. The Executive Branch is supposed to see to it that the laws are faithfully enforced. The Judiciary is supposed to smack down with finality any attempt by government to act outside the Constitution. That’s all the protestors wanted – and maybe they did get far more rowdy than they should have, but the demand was for justice and transparency.

What they got was arrested and called domestic terrorists. People who are the very backbone of our nation – the people who do the actual work. Who serve in the military. Who pay their bills, pay their taxes, never steal…they were called domestic terrorists.

Not, it must be said, the people who looted the stores of small businesses. Not the people who burned down buildings. Not the people who set up “autonomous zones” where crime ran rampant. Not the people who attacked the White House. They aren’t the domestic terrorists. The people who live off the workers, who are mostly rich and privileged or welfare bums…they can commit horrific acts of violence and they are barely even arrested…but regular folks go to their government to demand redress of grievances…domestic terrorists.

So, even if you want to puff up J6 as a riot, there is still the massive disparity in treatment – one side gets the book thrown at them, the other side gets barely a slap on the wrist. The shaman guy was apparently escorted at least part of the way in by the police. Plenty of officers had opportunities to quietly arrest the loon, or at least escort him off the premises. They didn’t. And now this harmless kook gets four years…for nothing.

And that brings us to the more difficult aspect of this. Ever since the videos were released last night a growing chorus of voices on the Right have called for them to be ignored, to be denigrated. They demand we accept the Official Narrative (McConnell specifically urged this today) rather than what we can see with our own eyes. They are slandering Tucker Carlson every chance they get (you know I have no love for Carlson: to me, he’s just another MSMer…maybe better than most, but still not my ally). They are still insisting it was an insurrection and that the book needed to be thrown at the J6 protestors. I have never been more angry and disgusted in all my life. Rely on it, a part of me wants the Left to win now, just so I can see these cretins hauled before a tribunal they can’t defend themselves against.

And the GOP politicians and Conservative pundits did this on their own. It wasn’t Democrats or MSMers making their rote demands that the GOP condemn whatever the DNC has targeted for opprobrium…these people did it on their own. They volunteered to be water carriers for the Ruling Class. They are absolutely committed to the DNC Narrative.

And, so, the last fig leaf is off. We know. We can’t ignore it any longer: these people are not on our side. They weren’t fooled. They weren’t uncertain. They weren’t just misinterpreting the data: all along they were maliciously lying, just as the Democrats were. Oh, to be sure, they dressed it up a bit…making this or that complaint about the process and maybe making a barbed remark or two about this or that Democrat involved…but from the start they signed on for the cruise. The story agreed upon by the DNC after January 6th was that Trump incited an attempted coup: and plenty of our own GOPers and fellow Conservatives bought it and committed themselves to it. And they are sticking with it: and that can only mean they’re being paid to do it. No way anyone with a shred of decency sticks to the Narrative after the videos were released. Even if Carlson edited them to be as unfair as possible to the Narrative, the bottom line is that you can see, with your own eyes, that the cops didn’t act to stop people from coming in and, indeed, showed them around.

As of right now, I’m re-committed to Trump in 2024. I can’t vote for anyone else: he’s the only person who has demonstrated by word and deed that he’s on my side. Maybe DeSantis can still do it. We’ll see. But absent DeSantis or some other candidate conclusively proving that they are on my side, I have to stick with Trump. One thing is certain, we can’t go on like this – we must get a political party which is on our side. If we can’t force the GOP to do that, then we’ll have to start from scratch. We must bring an end to this corrupt, lying, murderous Ruling Class.

Secession is Still the Answer

Surprised that nearly ten years have passed since I first wrote on this subject. I stand by it. I bring it up now because Marjorie Taylor Greene Tweeted about a national divorce and it has caused people – Right and Left – to lose their minds. But such things do need to be discussed – and acted upon after discussion.

The word “secession” has a bad connotation in American usage because of the Civil War. And, in truth, the secessionists of 1861 were entirely unjustified in their action. As we state in our Declaration of Independence, it can at times become necessary for a people to dissolve the bands which have connected them to another people. But as the Declaration also says, this is only justified if the other people have by a series of usurpations and and injustices proven that their aim is subjugation. The South had no such cause in 1861 – and, in fact, the incoming Lincoln Administration (used at the proximate cause for secession) had repeatedly pledged to take no action against Southern institutions. And any action that might be taken in the future would follow the Constitutional order which would take into consideration Southern demands. You can’t rebel because of what someone might do to you at some future date – you can only justly rebel over past, ongoing or obviously imminent injustices.

But secession is not an inherently bad thing. After all, the Founders were secessionists. They had determined that the British government was determined to treat the American colonies as a cash cow with no reference to the needs or desires of the colonists – to reduce the colonies to subjugation. And, so, they seceded. And they weren’t the only people to ever do this. Norway is a secession from Sweden. Slovakia a secession from Czechoslovakia. It happens. Some times people just can’t live together and it is better that they live apart. And it might be time for us to consider that.

Back in 2013 I only meant secession in the sense of breaking up the States. My prime example then was California which is, in reality, four States with three of them subjected to the State running from Long Beach to San Francisco. The people of North, South and East California are fully justified in seeking secession from California – if they want it – because the actions of that part of California running along the coast clearly seek to subject the rest of California to their dictates without the people in the subjected areas having any real power to affect policy. Other States which are clearly more than the one legal entity currently existing are Nevada, New York, Illinois, Washington and Oregon…and cases can be made for Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania. In order to really have self government, the States will eventually have to be broken up – we cannot forever allow a few high population areas within a State to dictate to the rest of the State. People have rights – and their primary political right is to live under the laws they wish, not under the laws someone else wishes for them.

But now I am starting to wonder if the United States can remain together. I’m wondering whether secession is not just the answer partially, but totally?

Of course, it isn’t a simple split – not State by State. In fact, the part of the country which is moving me to think of separation is about 20 cities. They just happen to be very large population cities and they control the political destiny of half the Country (at least). If we are to separate, it won’t really be so much, say, 30 States going one way and 20 going the other…it’ll be about 100 counties going one way and all the rest going another. Essentially, the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, New York and Chicago need to be dealt with. But I don’t mean dealt with as they wish to deal with us – I wish in no way to dictate to San Francisco how the people there live. I just want to make sure the people of San Francisco can’t dictate how I live. We need to figure out if there is a way to retain San Francisco in a union which includes Provo, Utah and where both San Francisco and Provo mind their own business.

Can we do that? I’m not sure. The trouble is that these cities by their inordinate political power control the government, the media and most of the education and corporate establishments. They don’t want to leave us alone. They feel a duty to force us to live by their rules, even if their rules are downright insane. It might prove impossible to reconcile the differences…and the biggest stumbling block is going to be that the other side consider it immoral to mind their own business.

But, meanwhile, if we can save the Union, our best shot is to break up the States – and maybe make the large cities into City-States. But one way or the other, secession is the answer…either in unity or disunity.

Never Tolerate the Intolerant

Alexander Kerensky could have had Lenin shot.

In the history books, there is a certain inevitability about Lenin but when the situation on the ground is examined closely, it is clear that right up until Lenin’s coup he could easily had been disposed of. The Bolsheviks were, indeed, gaining support in Russia after Lenin’s return from exile but that support was concentrated in St Petersburg and Moscow and even in those two power centers their power didn’t amount to majority power. Lenin was not some all-powerful person.

And Kerensky, last head of Russia’s Provisional Government knew what Lenin was up to and, indeed, was urged by people from Right to Left to move against Lenin. But Kerensky was not a ruthless man. His politics, in spite of his later association with the Conservative Hoover Institute, were Left. And he was a true believer! While not himself a Marxist he, like most Left people, had bought the Marxist notion that the ills of society are due to the leadership of the society – that the bad isn’t just part of human nature but is created and fostered by wicked people in power. Kerensky was absolutely convinced that once Tsarism was swept away the natural goodness of the people would shine forth and a just social order would emerge.

And, so, he was simply not a man who believed that he could or should shoot someone. All glory to him for standing by his convictions – but his failure to shoot one, single man, Lenin, ensured the overthrow of Kerensky’s government and the start of a system in Russia which eventually murdered tens of millions. The October Revolution wasn’t a revolution – it was a coup where Lenin and a small number of his followers shoved Kerensky and his people out of their offices in St Petersburg and started to govern. It succeeded because Kerensky’s lack of ruthlessness against the Bolsheviks convinced everyone from Left to Right and he wasn’t the man to stand against the Bolsheviks when they made their move. A bullet in September, a hero’s funeral for Lenin, and the Bolsheviks then fade into history as they squabble endlessly over what to do.

It really is a pity that it came out that way.

And I bring this up because it shows that while tolerance is a good thing – a necessary thing in any free society – as in all things human there are limits. Specifically, one must not tolerate the intolerant.

Lenin was saying from the get-go that his goal was total power for himself and his Bolsheviks and that once they got power they were going to smash everyone else. Hitler said the same sort of things. Mao as well. It has been dogma on the Right that we must extend tolerance to people expressing any idea because if we want to be free we must tolerate everything. This, as it turns out, has been incorrect – and it is wrong on both moral and practical grounds.

On the practical side of it, tolerance of the intolerant merely allowed people like Lenin and Hitler to plot and plan their takeover. It is like allowing an enemy army to arm and train itself in plain sight while you make no effort to hinder it. Just amazingly stupid and I’m rather surprised that we all bought it to one degree or another. But on the moral side of it, it is also wrong to tolerate the intolerant. Look at the mountains of corpses which resulted from people not killing Lenin, Hitler and Mao. Sure, we saved three bullets, but we lost more than a hundred million lives. That book doesn’t balance out.

To be part of a pluralist society the first requirement must be that you pledge to never end pluralism. That there is no individual, race or class which you say is a problem that needs to be destroyed. The assertion must be that everyone who is willing to tolerate is tolerated – but anyone who says that a person, class or race is evil, that person has to go. The Communist saying the Capitalists are evil must be destroyed. The Nazis saying the Jews. The Klansman saying the blacks…the CRT professor saying that white people are inherently racist.

“But Mark (you may say), aren’t you, by saying we must destroy the intolerant, becoming a person who says that an individual, class or race must be destroyed?”

No, I am not. I am not Hitler brooding in his Vienna flophouse about how the Jews kept him out of art school. I am not Lenin raving in Switzerland that he, and he alone, knows what to do and so everyone else must obey or be destroyed. I don’t care what anyone believes – but when a mad dog makes a dash for my trousers, I shoot it.

If we allow these people to live in our society then we are continually at risk of their gaining power and starting to kill their targets. To me, it is not worth the risk. I do believe that the bullet for Lenin is justified. And all anyone has to do to avoid the bullet is say, “hey, I don’t like that group, but as long as they leave me alone, I’ll leave them alone”. We’re not talking a very high bar here for participation in our society – you just can’t be a bloodthirsty maniac raving that if just this one group is destroyed, everything will be great.

It is very important that we learn philosophy and thus develop our theories about why things should be and what we should do. This sort of thing is invaluable in making certain that our actions are based upon thought as far as possible. But we must remember that outside the hard sciences, what we theorize isn’t always a hard and fast rule. In general I as a male will never hit a woman – this is because even though I’m not a particularly large man, I am still a lot stronger physically than almost all women and so it would be simply unfair and cruel for me to hit someone who can’t effectively hit back. On the other hand, if a girl is coming at me with a baseball bat, I’m clocking her.

Our philosophy of freedom places a premium on not censoring thought and speech. We have learned over time that in order to possibly get a good result, people must be able to think and say what they wish because in the free exchange of ideas and facts, we are more likely to find the correct solution – or at least the less bad solution – than when we carefully control thought and speech with a mind towards obtaining a pre-determined choice. That is our theory and, most of the time, it is applicable. But our theory must not interfere with our practical choices. Our theory that the police should try to de-escalate a situation falls flat on its face when there’s a knife-wielding maniac loose.

So, too, with our politics. Broadly tolerant – right up to the time when we find someone who is saying that some person, class or race must be restricted or destroyed in order for good things to happen. That person should be shot at the earliest opportunity…and without even a twinge of guilt that we in some way violated our principal of tolerance. We didn’t – we enforced it in the most efficient manner possible.

As we all know, we’re rather backs to the wall at the moment in politics – mostly because we tolerated the intolerant and, as per usual, now that these intolerant people have gained power, they are seeking to destroy their enemies. But as we seek to gain the power we need to reform our nation back to a sane Republic, we must not lose sight of the necessity of intolerance of the intolerant. We must, that is, do the things necessary to ensure that those who hate individuals, classes and races, are removed permanently from any ability to influence our society.

Turning Citizens into Serfs

You might recall back in the late 1990’s a quasi-religious movement in China called Falun Gong. It was, at least to a Westerner, a pretty conventional Asian set of practices regarding meditation and exercise to grow spiritually – but the Chinese government hated it. And, so, it was (and remains) heavily persecuted in China and is now actually headquartered in New Jersey. As to why the Chinese government hated it: Falun Gong held itself to be outside of Chinese government control. It wasn’t a movement of rebellion, but it appears to have rejected the the PRC’s totalitarian control over the minds of the Chinese. As far as that goes, just par for the course in China. But I was reminded of it yesterday.

What my mind went back to was some news reports when it was a big thing in China back in the 1990’s where one enterprising reporter decided to ask regular Chinese people what they thought about it. Naturally, given what was going on, you had to take anything said to a foreigner with a grain of salt but one bit of opinion stood out starkly: several Chinese asked about it came up with an opinion that religious faith should be free, but it was the responsibility of the government to protect the people from “bad” religion.

I put that answer down at the time to PRC propaganda combined with the basic Asian social structure which is tightly disciplined and hierarchical. I never imagined that any such thing could come to America. I was wrong.

As Musk has taken the lid off of what Twitter was doing what we’re seeing – aside from all the illegal censorship – is that plenty of people sincerely believe that the government has a role to play in “protecting Democracy”. That is, protecting it from people who put out dis- or mis-information. That the government must protect us from “bad” ideas. How very Chinese, huh?

This is, of course, an entire reversal of the very idea of the United States. It must be remembered that it was us, we Americans, who proposed and first implemented the idea that sovereignty resides with the people, not with the government. Under the European monarchies, the Monarch was sovereign. All power flowed out and down from the King. You were assigned your station and granted that power which the King thought best for you to exercise. We turned that around and said that we, the people, were sovereign and we lent the government such of our power as we thought necessary to promote the general welfare. Even in the Republics of modern Europe is it still the State holding the ultimate power as those States hold themselves the inheritors of Royal authority. We are pretty unique. But now we have very many of our own people saying that the government should assign our opinions and make sure that no bad opinions make it into the public square.

This is a gigantic problem and it may prove fatal to liberty. It has already de-facto killed off liberty in Europe, Canada and Australia: in the UK, if you question why biological males are in the female hospital ward they will kick you out of the hospital. Meanwhile, in Norway people are facing three years in jail for saying that men can’t be lesbians. Scores of examples like that are out there – if you have the “wrong” opinion then you will be punished. And the reason you’ll be punished is because your “wrong” opinion puts Democracy at risk. It is all very Orwellian. Kafkaesque, too.

And I’m not at all sure how we fix this – how, that is, do we turn people who have developed the mentality of a serf back into citizens? They are so far gone now that they positively crave someone to take charge and “protect” them…something, of course, our corrupt Ruling Class is all too willing to do. And they have a wide variety of reasons to “protect” – not just Democracy but also The Climate Emergency and Covid…we’ve all gotta be protected from that, too. And if there is some aspect of life not covered by Democracy, Climate and Covid, rely on it on that they’ll find some other thing they need to “protect” us from.

We will have to figure it out, though. Because if we don’t, then we’ll find ourselves all doing 20 years in the Happy Fun Re-education Camp because we once said “boys will be boys” or some such.

Trump’s Opponents Miss the Point. Again.

Over on Truth Social, Trump made a statement asking if we should overturn the 2020 result. This has made lot of people very angry – with many saying it is disqualifying for any future office.

To be sure, it is an amazing thing for a former President to say. But I cannot see how it is a morally wrong thing to say.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that there was no voter fraud in 2020. Let us further stipulate that the laptop story would not have altered the result. In other words, lets pretend that it still would have all come out the same, laptop or no laptop. You are still left with the fact that elements of the Department of Justice conspired with Big Tech and the MSM to hide a story which would have been devastating to the Democrat candidate. This is election interference writ as large as you can write it. What it is saying is that if the people want the “wrong” candidate, then the top echelons of the American Ruling Class will conspire together to do whatever they think necessary to thwart the will of the people. As a side note, please remember that the DOJ had the laptop in 2019; this means they also interfered with the 2020 Democrat primary. The Democrats were not able to properly assess their candidates because the DOJ withheld crucial information from them.

Hate to break it to you, but a Republic cannot survive with that sort of thing going on. Even assuming that this time it didn’t work, the mere fact that such entities would make the attempt proves that the Constitution – the rule of law, itself – is a dead letter in the United States

There is no mechanism in American law for a do-over on elections. Once the result is entered into the books, it is what it is. So, Trump’s call for a re-vote or what have you is going nowhere even if the overwhelming majority would like it. But what we cannot do – what we dare not allow – is for this to go unanswered. Even if you’re willing to move on from Trump, you have no assurance that the same and worse won’t be done to the next candidate. We already know that people in high positions in Congress, the bureaucracy and the MSM are willing to assert the most fabulous lies about their opponents – now we know that those in charge of law enforcement are willing to ignore the law and help the liars make the lies stick. If they get away with this, they will do it again. Anyone running for office who doesn’t meet Ruling Class approval will simply be destroyed. So, while Trump’s call for a re-vote can’t happen, something must be done. People must go to jail. People must lose money. The victim must be compensated.

This is the turning point. There is no going back from this. If this sort of thing is allowed to happen unchallenged, then our votes will become worthless…our candidates will be destroyed, or will merely be tools of the Ruling Class from the get-go. What we, the people, may want, will no longer matter…we’ll get what the Ruling Class wants.

But it won’t just end with our corrupt and stupid Ruling Class living forever. That is what the Roman Ruling Class thought once they had disposed of the Gracchi. The people’s champion was destroyed and the people to all appearances knuckled under…and then once fine day Octavian, Antony and Lepidus issues proscriptions of hundreds of members of the Ruling Class and the people were entirely indifferent. What I’m saying is that if the people cannot elect their champions, then they will passively support the person who kills the people who destroyed their champions. If the law is dead and its just a competition to see who can hold power, then the winner of that power struggle is invariably the person most willing to kill those the people hate.

Just a cautionary word. I hope people figure this out fast – because it is either some DOJ people doing 20 years, or it is eventual civil war followed by a tyrant.

The Last, Best Hope

I consider the central idea pervading this struggle is the necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. – Abraham Lincoln

That, boiled down, was all the Civil War was about. Lincoln’s view was that regardless of any complaints the South had about the result of the 1860 election or the structure and function of American government, they could not legitimately break up the country because they didn’t get their way. Popular government requires that the losers accept the loss and set their minds to reversing the result at a future election. But there was more to Lincoln’s statement than the immediate problem of the Civil War – the assertion is rather universal: is popular government something wise, or nothing but folly? The jury is still out. Spoiler: the jury will always be out. It is an endless effort.

Popular government has two requirements: the aforementioned acceptance of the election results and that the government never seeks to thwart the popular will. People have to get out there and campaign and vote, accept the results and then the government has to do what it was elected to do within the restrictions of the Constitution. Obviously, we’ve settled whether or not secession is something to do when you lose, but we haven’t settled whether or not popular government can maintain a system where the popular will prevails. The popular will is whatever the people want done now via Constitutional means and the unrepealed Constitutional things they did in the past: the government, to be truly popular, must do both to the best of it’s ability – honor what exists, and implement what is desired under law.

Voting is, of course, only a mechanism for assessing the popular will. It tells us who convinced the most people to go along with a party or candidate. This is a very important thing, but it isn’t the end of it. Voting is only an aspect of how things work. Far more important is what the government does once it is in power. First and foremost, does it do what it said it would do? Secondly, does it obey the law as it does things? A government which doesn’t do what was proposed – or, even worse, does the opposite – is deliberately thwarting the popular will. A government that doesn’t obey the law is attacking the very concept of popular government.

And as I said, our experiment is still on-going – and we’re rather up against it. For a short while there, the example of America started to spread liberty around the world. But even at its peak in, say, the 1950’s, the freedoms being established weren’t American freedoms. They were conditional. How so? Well, let’s take a look.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law. That is a very vigorous statement. Doesn’t matter how bad you want it. Doesn’t matter how justified you think you are or even if 90% of the people agree with you…Congress shall make no law. Boom, as the hip people say. Done. Now, to be sure, you can break the law and so make laws against free speech and so forth, but if you are obeying the law – as is required for popular government to work – then you have no recourse other than changing the Constitution, a very difficult process and even here in 2022 you’d never get close to an Amending majority to change so much as a word of that. Now, how about this for a contrast:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Canadian Charter goes on for quite a bit after that detailing this, that and the other thing but it is all moot: Everything after the word “it” negates what was said before and makes nonsense of what comes after. What are “reasonable limits”? The Charter doesn’t define them so what a “reasonable limit” is will be whatever the government of the day decrees…and as that government, via the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, essentially controls the terms of the political debate, it isn’t like the people have a real shot at changing who will be decreeing what is reasonable. The current government of Canada got 32.6% of the vote last election – and just today it announced that it is freezing handgun purchases…because, to the government, that is a reasonable limit. And as we saw with the trucker protests, the government will also decide what are the reasonable limits to popular opposition to government decrees.

Neat, huh? Voting all over the place…and your freedoms are non-existent; entirely depending on the government deciding whether they meet reasonable limits.

And it is like that all over the world. Either there is no specific assertion of the rights of the people (France’s Constitution, for instance, only asserts that it honors the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man – but it doesn’t make them obligatory under French law), or such assertions are hemmed in with weasel words allowing the government to do whatever it wants. Only in the United States do you get things like Congress shall make no law or shall not be infringed. And, let me tell you, this just irritates the heck out of our Ruling Class.

And don’t act all surprised about this – what government ever really wants to limit itself? Well, we know of one, and just one: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. For the very first and only time in history, a group of people came together to craft a government which would have built in provisions to limit the power of government. Most people – even most historically literate people – don’t realize how astonishing this is. People who are drawn to government are, after all, mostly drawn to power. Such people are inherently unlikely to enact anything that would actually stop them from doing something. But in 1787, a whole bunch of people drawn to power did just that. It was a miracle – and as I said many years before, I think that God moved them to do as they did. Can’t prove it, but what emerged out of Philadelphia in 1787 was so unique and so sublime that I can only credit God for it. But, that aside, the main thing is that it was done.

And ever since then, people far less worthy than the Founders have tried to work their way around it. You can just look at a Pelosi or a Clinton and see them burning with envy at Justin Trudeau just deciding, all on his own, that you can’t buy a pistol in Canada any longer. They hate the fact that here in America there are clear, easy to understand laws which say the government can’t do that. And of course they still circumvent the law as often as they can. But even that probably bothers them – they have to dress it up, slip it into a must-pass bill, make sure the MSM gets the right Narrative…and all the while they have the fear that our genuinely independent judiciary will strike it down, with the added complication that dozens of States are likely to resist and by non-cooperation and lawsuits cause all manner of trouble. So, soooo much easier if you could just get Pudding Brain to sign a decree between Matlock and Nap Time.

And they also very much prefer that our ability to speak, worship, own property, be armed and so forth were subject to their arbitrary interpretation of what the law says. They really want some “reasonable limits”!

They’re trying to get those “reasonable limits”. Been trying for decades and they’ll never quit. Dressed up as “gun safety”, “reproductive rights”, “equity” and such, they are very much trying to impose some “reasonable limits” on us. And we have to fight them off – as preparation for utterly destroying them as a political force. We must do this because we must continue to obey Lincoln – we must, that is, continue to prove that popular government isn’t an absurdity. It is either win this fight, or throw up the sponge and look for the first likely dictator who at least promises to leave us alone in our personal beliefs. We’d get the choice between the Left’s Lenin, or our Caesar. I don’t want that – I’d rather we kept freedom. But, in the end, there might not be enough of us to do that. But I’m sure going to try.

This is still the world’s last, best hope. Has been since 1776 and will be until such time as the rest of the world starts writing into its laws the things government isn’t allowed to do. And in this, you’ll now pardon me if I don’t give a damn about the world and it’s problems. This is a big reason why I’m indifferent to things like Ukraine: I’ve got bigger fish to fry right now. Namely, making sure America as founded continues to exist. All else comes a very distant second to that. We are, thank God, not involved in a hot Civil War, but we’re just as much in a Civil War as ever…because as was said regarding the last one, the House must become all one thing or all the other. Either we restore an America where government is restricted, or we become an America where the people are.

Shall Not Be Infringed

As per usual in the aftermath of a shooting, the debate is over what restrictions should be placed on gun ownership. And even gun rights advocates essentially concede the point that there should be restrictions – the only thing being debated is what sort of restrictions there will be. We have to get away from that. We must, that is, start insisting that words mean what they mean and that written law is obligatory. Because we’ve allowed words to be twisted and permitted the written law to be optional we’re in the mess we have today. Time to take that stand: draw that line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Our liberal friends like to concentrate on the first four words: asserting that firearms ownership is tied to militia, with the National Guard, essentially the Army reserve, being now the only legitimate place to bear arms. But that is just obvious drivel – anyone reading the sentence can see that the author was merely explaining the reasoning behind the amendment…and the militia is not the National Guard: it is, essentially, all adult citizens capable of bearing arms. It most emphatically is not the military – that is why it says “militia”. The Military is a permanent force raised and armed by the State. The militia is an ad hoc organization of self-armed civilians called into service in an emergency. Very different species! But even if you want to assert that the Militia is now the Military, you can’t get around the last fourteen words – the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Even if the author meant to write that you have to be in the Militia to bear arms, the sentence doesn’t assert anything like that – but it does clearly state that the right to bear arms is something that government can’t infringe upon.

Infringe is an important word here – because it means to transgress, to violate, to invalidate, to encroach upon. The author could have used all sorts of words here, but he choose “infringe” because he wanted to make clear that there were no circumstances where you could deny the people the right to keep and bear arms. The government, per the Second Amendment, can do nothing to prevent or even so much as hamper the ability of the people to keep and bear arms.

No exceptions! It doesn’t say “shall not be infringed, once you pass a background check” or “shall not be infringed, except in a gun-free zone” no “shall not be infringed except for reasonable safety regulations”. It says shall not be infringed and then, literally, period. End of sentence. Nothing to add, retract or modify. We’re done here: the government cannot infringe upon the people keeping and bearing arms.

Now, lets move on to the next very important word in the sentence: arms. What is an “arm”? Well, it is anything you choose to arm yourself with. It doesn’t say the right to keep and bear muskets. Nor the right to keep and bear swords. Or keep and bear arms as long as they aren’t too lethal. No, it says “keep and bear arms.” It secures our right to keep and bear anything you wish to use as an arm – as a weapon. The author could have been specific but he wasn’t – he merely wrote the word arms. Even if in the author’s mind something else was meant, the word “arms” means what it means: it means weapons in general. Anything from a Swiss army knife to a thermonuclear device.

Hey, Mark – you’re not saying that the people can keep and bear nukes, are you?

I’ll bite: yes. Technically, you have a right to keep and bear nuclear weapons. Now, in practical terms, the chances that any person will obtain the necessary materials, skills and funding to build a nuclear device is nil. But the way the Second Amendment was written does not provide any exclusions. You might want exclusions in there. The author might have thought there was still exclusions in there. But the words of the law – which is what we must adhere to – makes no exclusions. It says “arms” and that people can keep and bear them.

In practical terms, what we’re really dealing with in keeping and bearing arms is arms that one person or, at most, a small crew of people can maintain, deploy and operate. And to drill down further, 99.99% of the time we’re going to be talking about small arms. But small arms does include things like automatic weapons, grenade launchers, anti-air and anti-tank missiles. And it must include those things because the clear intent of the author was to ensure that the population, without exception, was able to be armed sufficient to shoot back at an oppressor. It isn’t like no exceptions are placed into the Constitution. There’s lots of them in there – heck, even habeas corpus, the primary legal defense of free people, has exceptions. Arms do not. And the people who enacted and ratified it could read. They knew what they were doing. They were members of government who were ensuring that their fellow citizens could shoot them if they got out of hand. They were, of course, a much braver bunch than our current Ruling Class…and I’m pretty sure they had our current Ruling Class in mind as they wrote and ratified.

But aside from the crucial need to shoot oppressors, there is a larger issue at stake here: the rule of law. For many decades now, we have allowed the Ruling Class to say the law says something it doesn’t say and/or ignore what the law clearly says. The whole mess we have right now was allowed to happen because of this practice of law becoming really just whatever the bosses wanted it to be at the moment. It can’t be that way. Well, it can’t be that way in a Republic. You want that sort of thing, get yourself a monarchy where the King can decree suddenly that the law now says this or that. For us, the law says what it says and it won’t say anything different until we change it via Constitutional means. No short cuts. if you don’t like what the Second Amendment says then you can’t just ignore it and start infringing on keeping and bearing arms. If you want to place restrictions on keeping and bearing arms the only path you have is via Amendment: you’d have to change the law.

And that is the way it should be and must be because we must get back to Rule of Law. If we want to live in a Republic then the law, even when its stupid, must be enforced. After all, we made the law and must be bound by our own actions. It is the only way to safety. We’d be safer under the most draconian but strictly enforced laws we made than we can be under the most liberal legal regime that has people ignoring the law when it suits them. If I know I’ll have my head chopped off for doing A, I won’t do A…but what am I supposed to do when whether or not I’ll get my head chopped off for anything depends on the whim of an official? Because for a free people, in the law lies our only safety.