constitutional issues

Why Civil War?

Mark Noonan37 Comments

Apropos the obvious decline of our nation and increasing polarization, the Civil War has been on a lot of people’s minds of late. But the current spasm of talk about it was generated by Nikki Haley giving an unacceptable answer about the cause of the Civil War. No matter what you might know, the “correct” answer is: slavery. Only slavery. Nothing but slavery. If you are a politician and you are asked what caused the Civil War, you are only permitted to answer, slavery.

Which is true as far as it goes. But it is more true to say that if there hadn’t been slavery, there would have been no Civil War. That is, if the slave system hadn’t produced a class of people running things there would not have been a class of people fearful of losing their position as slavery was shown to be grossly inefficient in addition to being morally wrong. What existed in America prior to, say, the 1840’s was a Ruling Class which was based in the South and had its wealth in land and slaves. Because they had the wealth, they had the power and though Northerners did get into office, the South dominated the Republic. Just take a look at the first 15 Presidents – all Southerners (with a fair number of slave owners) or Northerners dependent upon Southern influence. The reason Lincoln was such a watershed is because he came to power entirely without the South. While Lincoln got just under 40% of the total vote in 1860, his total in the North was a majority and in the upper North, a landslide win.

And therein lies the real reason for secession and Civil War. No matter how you sliced it, the American Republic was going to become ever more Northern in character as time went on. Mass immigration and natural increase was increasing Northern population at a phenomenal rate. But, more than that, the rise of an industrial North was leaving the South economically in the dust. The slave labor economy of the South simply could not compete with the North. There was no way for the Southern Ruling Class to remain in charge in the USA as a Southern Ruling Class. That class, or at least a substantial part of it, would have to make a deal with the rising North and become a subordinate part of a coalition which would ultimately be based on Northern money and political power (votes, eg). And any such deal with the North would mean an eventual extirpation of slavery. The Southern Ruling Class looked upon this and decided: we’re out.

Only in a Southern Confederacy could the Southern Ruling Class remain in charge. Only in such a Confederacy could a slave economy be maintained long term. Only in such a Confederacy could poor whites be kept out of power and wealth and thus dependent upon the Ruling Class. If you take a look at the early proponents of “State’s Rights” and secession what you won’t find is lots of poor, white farmers leading the way. It was an upper class thing marketed to the lower class – mostly by playing on racial fears. The Abolition Hordes were going to force your daughter to marry a black man! Even then, it didn’t really work too well with the poorest whites. Most Confederate soldiers were upper class, middle class or dependents of upper class people. There were large parts of the Confederacy where Confederate officials didn’t dare show their faces (mostly back country areas and especially from 1863 forward).

It is my view that all wars – every last one of them – is the result of someone wanting to steal something. You can look to economic factors, political factors, dynastic factors, etc, etc but what it really comes down to, when you really look at what started the fracas, it was always someone thinking they could steal on the cheap. A bit of fighting, get some loot, live in power and wealth. Nobody enters a conflict thinking its going to be a long, bloody slog with victory bought so dear as to be indistinguishable from defeat. They’re always certain it’ll be short and easy. And, sometimes, it is. Our war with Mexico did entail some hard fighting but in return for about 13,000 dead from all causes (and only about 2,500 battle deaths) the United States obtained 529,000 square miles of territory – and territory which has proven itself exceptionally valuable over time. You can look at this or that reason for the war but the bottom line is that we wanted Mexico’s land. We had our excuses for why it should come to us (most of the land we took only had a theoretical connection to Mexico based on previous Spanish colonial claims, themselves tenuous) but what we did not have was clear title to it. So, we just took it.

That is just how wars are. What the Confederate leaders wanted to do was steal power they couldn’t obtain by legal means – and, of course, to continue to steal the labor of black Americans. The only legal path to national power in the USA was via compromise with Northern interests increasingly hostile to slavery. But, if you could form a Confederacy – sort of steal half of America from itself – you could retain your dominance without any need for compromise. And that is what they did – the ground prepared by a decade of anti-Northern polemics and enacted so fast that Unionist sentiment had no real chance to coalesce in the South before the deed was done.

The crucial lesson here is to learn about people of power and position. Ruling Classes are always most keen about maintaining themselves. The British Ruling Class is probably the most successful – through all changes, it has kept itself in wealth and still exercises a great deal of power officially and unofficially. There will never be another hereditary Lord as Prime Minister (the last was Salisbury early in the 20th century), but they control large swaths of power. The Duke of Westminster is descended from a man who got himself knighted by James I in 1617…and he and his descendants just parlayed that into more and more until the current Duke is worth $9 billion. Think of all the changes over 400 years…and here’s this guy sitting pretty because an ancestor did a service for James Stuart. That’s a first rate self-perpetuating Ruling Class! Most Ruling Classes aren’t that clever. In fact, most of them are very stupid and pigheaded about things and end up destroyed.

This is important to realize because we also have a Ruling Class which cannot sustain itself legally in power any more than the Southern planters could in 1860. The only way out for the Ruling Class is to compromise with the rising power – in this case, the populist Right currently represented by Trump. And like that Southern Ruling class of 1860, the modern Ruling Class is more than willing to go outside the law if it means they remain in power and wealth. This makes for a very dangerous time for our Republic. But keep of good heart: Ruling Classes who don’t give way are always pushed away. Their time is up, and their days are numbered. The only question is how much destruction they’ll cause on their way down.

There is Always Censorship

Mark Noonan1 Comment

I have said many times in the past that all education is indoctrination and all law is the imposition of morality: it is just a debate over what dogmas and morality will be imposed. The Left and the Libertarians reject this with scorn and even most on the Right would be uncomfortable in saying it, but it is nevertheless true. Something will always be imparted to the rising generation. We can see this right before our eyes when we see polls showing something like 25% of youngsters say they are something other than straight. The idea that a fourth of humanity would not be biologically geared towards reproduction is both theologically and biologically absurd, but the kids say they are. And they say this because they’ve been told to say this. Like all young people, they want to know what to say and do in order to be accepted into society and the sure-fire pathway to acceptance these days is to be a weirdo…and so weirdo they are.

But there is a follow-on to both my assertions that I’ve only tangentially brought up before: and that is there is always censorship to defend the reigning dogma. I’ve hinted as this before when I’ve discussed things like the Inquisition and pointed out that it wasn’t set up to prevent thought and development, but to ensure that thought and development went in the right direction. Most people these days would condemn such an idea but such it was, and something like it is necessary in any society. These days the reigning orthodoxy is not defended by learned men backed up by the rack but, instead, is defended by ideological gatekeepers backed up by social ostracism. But it all works out the same: heresy is rooted out and those who transgress are punished. With today, in my view, being worse than the Inquisition because our current gatekeepers are not only determined to prevent thought and development but, indeed, to ensure that various obvious falsehoods are asserted by society. At least Torquemada was trying to defend something true; the modern Inquisitors are determined to defend something false. But the main point here is that there is always a mechanism in society to hound those who don’t conform to the reigning orthodoxy.

This is why when I see current debates about free speech I do believe that a lot of people are missing a crucial aspect of it. This is especially true on the Right which almost universally adheres to Voltaire’s “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Perhaps Voltaire really would have (he was never put to the test), but most people won’t really. It is philosophical boilerplate. But the attitude underlying it has been used to push our civilization to the brink of extinction. Thinking it wise, we’ve allowed all manner of false, evil and downright anti-human speech to be made. And made by people who are bound and determined to exterminate everyone who disagrees with them. Most importantly, those who have imposed the current reigning orthodoxy don’t hold to Voltaire’s dictum for a minute – and they are now busily enforcing their speech codes on us.

There are, after all, things we already can’t say in public. Things we’ll only say in private, quietly and only around people we trust absolutely. And year by year the things we won’t say in public grow – because the new Inquisitors are always listening, always ready to destroy the next person who states a heresy. Don’t be too harsh with them on it. When our views dominated, to even say “damn” in a movie was a shock. Our civilization at its peak had a very strict set of rules of behavior and speech and they were enforced by a mixture of law and custom. We were told (or, actually, mostly told ourselves) that we could dispense, one by one, with these laws and customs and that we would somehow still retain our civilization. We have now found out how false that notion was…and our backs are against the wall as the ideas we let lose are getting ready to destroy us.

To be sure, those who wrote the First Amendment lived during the peak of our civilization. When they wrote those words “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” they weren’t stupid or naive. They just didn’t realize – couldn’t realize – that later generations would assume that the words meant there were no rules. These were educated, responsible men; they were sure that the First Amendment would only secure the right to say things within the rules. De Sade lived when the Constitution was being written and he was writing his vile works…I am absolutely confident that Madison would have led the charge against anyone advocating de Sade’s ideology. In the end, we allowed de Sade and his heirs free reign. How is that working out for us?

There are certain things which must be in order for a civilization to survive. For instance, the Albigensians of the 13th century held that physical reality is evil. This in stark contrast to the orthodox Christian view which asserts that God called His creation good and, of course, became incarnate. In our modern mind we would allow the Albigensians to propagate their ideas freely on grounds of who are we to say who is truly right? Those back in the 13th century didn’t and this is held as a sin against them. But the reason they exterminated the Albigensians wasn’t to stop people from thinking, but to prevent a monster from growing all powerful. A society based on the belief that matter is evil is a very different society than the Christian. It despises life and seeks only the end of all things. On balance, the people then preferred an explicable world ruled by God and eventually to be redeemed by Him.

Were they right? Well, lets take another case: Islam. Suppose it had totally triumphed instead of being fought tooth and nail for centuries. What then? Well, just take a look at the Muslim world in, say, 1823: no real advancement since it had emerged in the 7th century. Ancient nations of once-great prosperity reduced to poverty. A completely stagnant society; once the scourge of Christendom and now the plaything of European buccaneers. The Muslim worldview is different from the Christian. It is much more gloomy; deterministic and, because of this, greedily materialistic…but it is a greed only of taking and hoarding…not the materialistic greed of the Calvinists who at least asserted that one had to build.

The point here is that if you want what you have, you must defend it. If you don’t defend it, then it will be replaced by something else which will then exterminate what you have. It can’t freely compete with other world views; it must triumph, or die. As much freedom as you want, as much as you, personally, want to think and say what you want, there must be a limit. And an enforced limit. Some things that are just outside the pale and may not be openly advocated for in the public square. In short, no matter how much freedom you want, you’re going to need some censorship…just as you’ll have to use law and custom to ensure your dogmas are transmitted in the schools.

Do keep in mind that there is no correct answer. No Euclidean certainty. You’re dealing with human beings so things don’t work like that. What you will determine tolerable is a prudential judgement and may vary over time. But what must be is the hard and fast rules: what you cannot do, no matter what. To give an example: we know that Nazi ideology is evil and has no merit whatsoever. It should, then, be illegal to propagate it. If not in law, then in custom. And, of course, overt adherence to Nazism is banned in our society – you can almost ensure your social ostracism if you proclaim your adherence to Nazism. You might still have some Nazi friends, but forget a career in most avenues and be prepared for routine harassment. Do you see what I’m saying?

Just as the Nazis would arrest us all if they were given power so, too, will what we currently call the Left. The rising reigning orthodoxy. The thing which is already causing us to self-censor and now increasingly demands we overtly proclaim our support for. They don’t have any truck with the idea that speech should really be free. They believe you should only be free to say what they find acceptable. Spoiler: you aren’t acceptable. Eventually you will be squashed.

Unless you squash them, first.

This is what I mean when I talk of us using power to destroy the Left. It is an effort to place their ideas beyond the pale. When I say things like “confiscate their money” that is just a means to an end – a way to get them to stop saying things which undermine civilization. But do note that I go on to say things like, “use their money to educate the rising generation in our views.” I’m not just trying to switch my power for theirs – I’m really in the business of stamping out heresy. Of getting rid of those who assert things which are at defiance of what I consider basic, human decency.

As we brace ourselves for this battle for our civilization it is important that we start to think about things. To really determine who we are, what we believe and what we want at the end of the fight. Just opposing the Left isn’t good enough. It needs to be replaced. What will we replace it with? What will we do to prevent a repeat? What ideas will have a social and legal ban imposed?

And we must do this; because it is the only way we survive.

It’s the Socialism, Stupid

Mark Noonan27 Comments

We’ve all been rather wrapped up in domestic issues and with the Gaza War dominating the international headlines it is easy to let other things slip. One of the things not in the American mind is Spain.

On the 23rd of July Spain had an election and the Populist-Conservative People’s Party came in first, though as often happens in parliamentary systems without scoring an outright majority. Still, the usual course of events is that the biggest party in parliament is given the opportunity to form a government – either an outright minority government or a coalition with one or more smaller parties necessary to secure a majority. It isn’t happening like that.

It still hasn’t been all worked out yet, but the leader of Spain’s Socialist party is working out deals with various Spanish separatist parties (most notably the Catalan separatists) which, in return for Separatist support for a socialist government, various charges of corruption will be dropped against Separatist leaders as well as various bald-faced ripoffs from the Spanish treasury will be turned over to Separatist control. As I said, not a fully done deal but it does look like it is happening. This has provoked outrage in the Spanish center and right leading to massive protests at Socialist party headquarters…and a very violent police response (the same police which, like in all Western nations, always goes easy on Leftists and foreigners who are causing a ruckus).

And you think about it: this was once Franco’s Spain. These modern Socialists are the heirs of those Franco defeated in the 1930s. They’re in power, now, and they are busily erasing Franco, erasing the crimes of the Socialist Spanish government in the 1930s and building up a Spain which is overtly anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic. And they don’t care how they retain power…because for a Socialist the only thing that matters is imposing Socialism. Doesn’t matter that less than 1 in 3 Spaniards wants a Socialist system, the Socialists will force it on all Spaniards by any means available. The Socialists never quit. Defeated they just wait and wait and wait knowing that eventually people will be bamboozled into voting for them and then once they get in power they act as if they have a mandate. Nobody in Spain ever voted to dig up Franco’s body and move it out of what amounts to Spain’s Arlington…but the Socialists did it; because they still hate Franco. He beat them, you see: the one unforgivable sin.

And they are like this everywhere they go: explicitly hating the nations they arise in and diligently working to eliminate everything which made their nation good. Here in the USA they are BLM and Antifa…and very lately the rabidly anti-Semitic pro-Hamas cretins we’ve seen itching for a pogrom. It does amaze that Marx’ drivel continues to inspire but then you think about it: Socialists have largely always been privileged people who think they’re smarter than everyone else. Socialism gives these people their mental justification for taking over…and thus it’s continued appeal. That is, as long as we have idle, wealthy youth filled with resentment – and made increasingly ignorant by the education system – we’re going to have Socialists trying to destroy everything.

So, what is our solution?

Simple, really: eliminate Socialism.

Just stop right there: no, the First Amendment does not secure a right to believe Socialism. We’ve been conditioned to think it does, mostly by Socialists working with Libertarians (ie, really dumb people, on both sides of that equation). But no entity defends its own destruction. Wherever Socialism becomes prevalent, all free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of worship comes under attack and eventual destruction. It is invariable. And it has to be: Socialism can’t compete in a free society. Take a look at Spain – just like here, the whole Establishment – especially the media – was on their side and even with all that positive coverage, they still only eked out 31.7% of the vote. They are just strong enough in parliament at the moment to work crooked deals to secure power…but in anything like a truly fair system, they probably wouldn’t get above 10% of the vote and just wouldn’t be in a position to make crooked deals. But our main concern here is that we know – for an absolute fact – that Socialism continually attacks all manner of free expression. It simply cannot be that our Constitution secures the right of people to destroy the Constitution. Socialism – Marx and all variations of his nonsense – simply can’t be held to have First Amendment protections. It would be just downright asinine to think they do. And remember: they are not trying to change the Constitution via law – they are trying to eliminate the Constitution as an impediment to a Socialist future. Whatever is written in that document about your rights will be – heck, already is being ignored – by any sort of Socialist, whatever words they use to describe themselves. The only reason you still retain any First Amendment protections is not because the Socialists respect the law, but because they simply lack the physical force to lock you up. As soon as they get that force, they will lock you up.

And we have to prevent the Socialists from obtaining that force – and that means their ideology has to be proscribed. Point blank: our eventual necessity here is to make it illegal for anyone holding Socialist views to hold any sort of political power in the USA. Additionally, in our public schools and universities the teaching of Socialist ideology must cease. The books must not be available. It should be illegal to sell or give a Marxist book to a minor. On and on like that – just a complete exclusion of all Marxists of whatever label.

Or, you can sit back and let it happen. It was, of course, illegal to be Socialist under Franco but once he died, those laws were repealed or ignored…and now the Socialists are dismantling Spain just as they were dismantling it in the 1930s. Franco saved Spain, his successors lost it – not by turning Spain into a Constitutional Monarchy (in many ways an ideal system of government) but by allowing Socialist ideology to return. No matter how many elections you win, no matter how many reforms you implement if you do not remove Socialism from your society, you’ll eventually get Socialism again. It is like a cancer that can only be cured by cutting it out.

It is a choice between Socialism and Civilization. I choose Civilization and not some sentimental idea that I’m made stronger by protecting those who hate Civilization.

The United States of America: 1776 – 2043 (or so)

Mark Noonan22 Comments

Guys, I’m really down on our long term prospects right now.

It isn’t so much the indictment of Trump though that is bad. What is bad is the number of people on the Right who are all, “Trump did this to himself” and/or “we have to let the process play out.”

I did do some checking and while I’m no lawyer nor am I able to search all possible sources, I’m pretty confident at this point that there is no US law which requires a President to submit his declassifications to anyone. No forms to fill out. No person to check with. Doesn’t even have to mention it to anyone. As far as I can tell, the person in office can pretty much take our deepest secrets and pass them out to winos behind 7/11 and he wouldn’t be breaking any law. Now, anyone other than the President or those designated by the President would be in deep, deep trouble doing that. But the President to the best of my knowledge has plenary authority here. Anyone find a statute which specifically enjoins the President to follow certain procedures in declassification, I’m all ears.

But when you think about it, how can it be otherwise? Who other than the President would the President clear such a thing with? Fill out a form and send it to himself? You think some fourth level bureaucrat in the EOB is going to be able to say, “sorry Mr President, can’t declassify that – you didn’t fill out the forms correctly”? Of course the President’s authority here is absolute. Can’t work any other way.

I bring this up because it shows that there was no basis for the investigation to start, let alone for an indictment to come down. Given this, it is clearly entirely political in its intent; the Democrats are using the DoJ to stir up political issues which will affect the votes of the American people. If this seems like something ok to you…well, then you’re dumb as a box of rocks.

“But he’s not President any more!” is one objection and, on the face of it, not quite as stupid as the rest. But it is is easily disposed of: he was President when he obtained the documents and as such he could declassify at will without telling anyone. So, if he has them, they’re declassified.

But more than just the particulars of the case is what it foretells: if this works (and it looks like it will, thanks in large part to the Never-Trump Right) then it will be used again. What is to stop them? They had no reason to start this investigation. They had no reason to start the Trump-Russia investigation. They had no reason to start the campaign finance investigation in NYC. They don’t need a fact – they just need people willing to do it and an MSM willing to play along. Of course they will now proceed to serially indict anyone they view as a threat. They are going to take a GOP which is only now learning how to fight back and gut it. Anyone who is a fighter will find themselves under increasing judicial pressure…and all people who aren’t fighters will quickly learn to back down.

And I don’t see how we stop it. People who won’t stand up to abuse of power won’t actually start a physical fight over it. We simply lack enough people with guts. This is just the start of the process whereby the USA will be converted into a de-facto one-party State. And then, piece by piece, all liberty and property will be taken.

Hate to see it. Wish I were wrong. I pray I am wrong. But where’s the upside? Should take about 20 years to get us to the level of Canada where they froze the bank accounts of demonstrators. Maybe 30 years to China-like tyranny, but even Canadian or European level of tyranny is a huge fall for a nation conceived in liberty.

Just disgusted with the whole thing – and especially our supposed allies who are so incredibly stupid over it. I think this is because they are only instinctively on the Right. They never really thought it through. Could also be very mercenary…they just wanted low taxes. That is all they ever wanted and they don’t give a damn about social disintegration as long as their investments remain fat.

True Conservatism Has Never Been Tried

Mark Noonan41 Comments

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

Mark Noonan97 Comments

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

Mark Noonan11 Comments

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

Mark Noonan53 Comments

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

Mark Noonan99 Comments

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

Mark Noonan4 Comments

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.