[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Sometimes, You Have To Fight We are at war. Just because there are not fire fights in the streets does not mean that a war is not raging all around us. This is a cultural war, a globalist vs nationalist conflict, but the resistance to that depiction does not change a single thing. Many do not want to be labeled "nationalist" and they don't believe "globalist" is the right term either. But, like any math problem, the terms need to be defined down to their essence and then the problem can be worked. It is this lack of distillation that has kept everyone in their respective corners for so long. I would describe myself as an individualist. I claim the territory of myself and willingly suffer the consequences of my actions, enough to turn myself in, even. I believe in personal responsibility. I undertake nothing that I have not figured the consequences into the equation. Now, I suspect that speaks for a lot of us, but it is not an ideology; principled perhaps, but not actionable. The whole idea is to be left alone and for that sort of society to work, the vast majority of the people would have to subscribe to it and no greater crime could be committed than to evade capture or lie to avoid the punishment for one's actions. But, in this war, that makes me a sucker, a victim, a fool, because the enemy believes in none of this. This is what makes it a war, because one culture cannot survive in the presence of the other, like matter and anti-matter. Oceans are good for keeping them separate. A lot of attention is now given to the threat from Islam and many European nations are suffering from the lack of ocean separateness, but that is not the primary threat to our culture, that is coming from the Marxists in our institutions. It is the long war that has now co-opted Islam and globalism into the fight. The foe remains totalitarianism, but labeling it globalism is easier to identify, especially when placed in proximity to nationalism. So, neither definition is accurate, but it never is. It is the weakness of the individualist that they are often intransigent and will not fight until their boar is gored. Sometimes, you just have to fight the evil for whatever reason you can devise. The challenge is to overcome decency to defend decency. The Constitution worked for about six weeks, until everyone started trying to get what they thought they were going to get out of it. The Supreme Court took upon itself the right to "define" it. No one had claimed that territory and so they did, to give them purpose. Now, there is no need for a Constitutional Amendment when the courts can rule what is and is not permissible. It undermines the entire Constitution. It allows for the government to make rules for itself, thereby destroying the whole concept of the Constitution as written. The government, what people call "the deep state," the bureaucracy, the government service level, who do not leave when a new president is elected, or a new congress seated, or a new Supreme Court seated, are actively working against any control the people might have to limit its power or protect their rights. They are on the side of the globalists, whether they consider themselves as such, or not. This is the danger of a large federal government and why the Constitution was written to leave most powers with the states, excepting international powers to make treaties with other nations, which is why dealing with the Indian nations were included in their power and not the states. This is a declaration of war and it started the minute an unruly, uncompromised man was elected president, before the inauguration, when it became apparent that he might restrain government power and relinquish some of it to the people. Now, who knows how long this illusion will last? How long before they find a way to co-opt him? But, this is a war, they have moved against their enemy and all that is left is for the nationalists, or whatever, to decide to fight back. Maybe a few more boars will have to get gored, first, but that does not change the fact that the war has begun, it only determines when it will be engaged. Barack Obama and his shadow government might attempt a coup, nothing would be better than that, because the danger is that there is no unified understanding of when to respond and so all of the individualists wander about waiting for their moment, when they understand the conflict and know who to engage to counter it. The one thing that is not generally discussed however is: what comes next? The Constitution has been a failure and maybe it took a while to recognize that fact, but there it is. The question actually comes down to what would one fight for, recognizing that putting the genie back in the bottle is not going to happen. Any Constitutional convention now would not look anything like the one in 1787. It would be a rabble, a mob, with protests in the streets and SJW's flocking the corridors. It would start the next revolution. In that sense, I might encourage it. That might make one think that I want a war, with all of the horrors turned to glory, but I assure you that is not the case. The undeniable fact is that war has begun. That will not change if I sit home on my couch, it will just make it that much easier for my enemies to win. So, yes, it is time to engage the enemy, because they have been engaging us for a hundred years. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#3. To: X-15 (#0)
The American people are on their own on this one. The people will have to save themselves, no one will be there. The military and law enforcement will protect the elected ass wipes,
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||