Mon Jun 10 02:39:30 UTC 2019
hello again
well, old man, there's no good way to tell you. you
already know most of it. how much time i have left
at this point i don't know. guess i'll make the best
of it, as long as i remain lucid and physically able
to get out of bed and write. i put a lot of things
off for too long, but maybe i can get this done. i'll
see that you get all my papers, in case you don't
get up here to see me before. seeing my folks go,
and your own experience with that, i know it can be
harder for the ones left behind. but we go way back,
and you're at least as tough as me. come see me if
you can, but if you don't make it while i'm still
around, you know jessica and kelli will be happy to
see you. look after them for me.
anyway, i won't be around to see how this all turns
you, but it isn't hard to see it's likely to be bad.
probably wouldn't want to be a young person today.
no particular order to these things - working from a
lot of old notes and making some of it up as i go.
happy days.
i won't even try to write this with a pen. just can't
do that much any more. i can still type, and my
penmanship was never like yours, or your father.
his papers looked like they were written by george
washington or one of those guys. don't know when
people stopped writing. but i digress. i'll do the
best i can with this, one-finger typing, and try to
make it somewhat coherent. i'm taking as little pain
medication as i can get by with - drugs always make
it hard to think clearly (they do that at everyone,
sadly a lot of people don't seem to notice)
it's just a collection of thoughts, much of it stuff
we've talked about plenty of times before, but maybe
you'll want to organize it and maybe add your own
ideas, maybe someone wil be interested and able to do
something with it.
i've attached the first one, to get us started.
if i don't see you again,
frank
(Following is the content of our emails from mid-to-late 2019)
Frank
think about it for a second. like me, you've read
books and seen films, about a man on death
row, time is running out, and pretty soon he's
going to die. only problem is, he isn't guilty of
the crime he is there for, or any crime at
all. happens in the real world more than
anyone wants to think about, and most people
just don't think about it at all.
so you're sitting here, watching the clock running
down. no more appeals, no more delays, all used up,
and soon they're gonna kill you. most of us don't
want to even think about how that would feel.
but, something happens, you get a chance to escape,
and you go for it.
so, for the purpose of this discussion, you are free
of your cell but still inside the prison. you have
to get by guards (a lot of them once they notice you're
not where you are supposed to be)
at first though, not so bad. you encounter a guard,
armed. you take him by surprise and disable and
disarm him. at this point, you're not in too deep in
the moral choices that await - you have rendered him
unconscious and have his weapon and a couple of spare
magazines. you continue to make your way to freedom...
there's another guard. he sees you, identifies you
as a prisoner with a weapon, or soon will, and will
draw his own weapon and either kill you or at least
order you to drop our own weapon and surrender. you
have a couple of seconds to decide...
are you going to shoot the guard, likely killing him,
and continue your escape? or meekly surrender and go
back to a now certain death?
you know nothing about the guard. he may be a
perfectly decent human being, wife and kids, all that.
he is also trying to kill you. just keeping you
inside the prison will result in your death, and you
have a right to live.
do you have a right to live at his expense?
is there that much difference in being an innocent
man about to be ground up in the gears of injustice
(and you and i both know how corrupt everything about
this society is, from the local city and county
government all the way to the top, and the higher you
go the worse it is), or being, let us say, a
political prisoner or an ethnic minority or other
oppressed person in a concentration camp, waiting to
be taken to the gallows or gas chamber or whatever
they use there? if you were escaping the latter
situation, is it reasonable to kill a guard or a
soldier attempting to stop you or recapture you?
i suggest that it is not. it is likely that in my
case, that guard is dead. however, that is a
decision each person must make. there have been man
cases of people giving up their lives for others with
even less obligation that that the guy trying to kill
you (the guard) might not be a bad person. the fact
that the guard doesn't know you are not guilty doesn't
matter - when he took the job he agreed to help the
state imprison (and in some cases kill) whomever they
sent to be imprisoned or killed. he isn't interested
in your guilt, or the absence thereof.
as you make your way to freedom you perhaps encounter
other guards. in for a penny, as they say - they're
history. now outside, you manage to blend in to the
scenery, perhaps acquire some new clothing to replace
your prison uniform, but not much else to alter your
appearance.
so once the public, and the 'law enforcement'
apparatus is alerted, every cop you meet is also an
enemy. if he recognizes you, he will attempt to
apprehend you, or failing at that, kill you.
does this present a new moral dilemma?
why should it? anyone who attempts to stop you is
trying to kill you, and you have done nothing to
deserve death. the fact that they don't know is
irrelevant, and they (particularly cops) are
condemned by their own policy. ignorance of the law,
they will tell you, is no excuse. so be it. goodbye
officer.
what if the cop is a woman?
does that really make any difference? remember, they
all volunteered for this duty - you didn't.
of course, you are free to give it up at any time.
do you shoot a civilian? or in the vicinity of bystanders,
like a young mother with her children?
ok, at some point, the justification for lethal
violence being sufficiently dubious, you might have
to give it up. either surrender and go meekly to
your death, or take the matter out the the state's
hands entirely, and end your earthly existence on
your terms.
of course, the foregoing is not about the small (in
the grand scheme, as some are wont to say) matter of
what an individual may do (morally, ethically - the
law is irrelevant when it conflicts with justice) to
preserve his existence when he has done nothing to
forfeit same. the question we have before us is much
more serious.
our nation, our society (what remains of it that is
of any value), is in effect on death row, and the
executioner is coming. soon.
the nation many great men gave so much to build and
preserve, from the founders who pledged their lives,
fortunes and sacred honor (and many of them lost
their lives and fortunes) to our ancestors - my
father and yours in the second world war, my uncle in
korea, your cousin (who was a good friend to me and
like a big brother to you) died in vietnam, where we
both got scars, some that can't be seen, but came
home alive - is in danger of being lost. sorry for
the long sentence, but it's a big thing.
we are clearly near, if not at, the point at which a
political solution to the problem will no longer be
possible. you told me after the 2012 election that
the parasites now outnumber the hosts. maybe not
quite then, possibly even now, but we are very close.
once the nominally decent people are a minority, it's
over. discussing the reasons, as you and i and our
friends and family have done for years, is no longer
useful. the only question now is whether something
changes very soon and reaching far into both society
and government, in which case we may have a chance,
or whether we continue into the darkness, possibly
never to return. someone suggested a while back,
before the 2016 election, that if this country falls
it will mean a thousand years of darkness for the
entire world. without divine intervention, i suspect
that is likely to be true.
unlike the unjustly condemned man, who might give up
his live rather than take the life of another person,
however justified he may be, we do not have the right
to sacrifice the lives of millions of our countrymen,
to say nothing of millions, indeed billions more
elsewhere in the world, who will suffer with us if
this country falls. that fact that others have been
complacent, lazy, apathetic, and selfish does not
give us the right to do nothing.
what, then, can be done?
i certainly won't be around to see the eventual
destination of this society, and you may not either.
perhaps if i live long enough to finish this, you can
discuss it with someone who has an idea or two.
Ishmael
As Paul said after expressing an important point
"What shall we say then?"
You seem to have covered it. We discussed the
concept of the unjustly condemned man more than
once, and completely agree. In the example we
used, of a single human being being ground up in
the gears of injustice, the answer isn't
difficult. I found, as you did, that discussing
it with most people yielded rather interesting
results.
Of course, you used a parable which, as you no
doubt know, was not exact. Innocent men have
been imprisoned and killed for as long as
mankind has been practicing its artificial
justice. Partly because human beings are
imperfect and make mistakes (accounting for, I
suspect, a very small percentage of unjust
punishments), and in part because people are
corrupt and wicked. All of us are, a little.
Most of us control it to some degree (fortunately,
most of us control it a lot) while others do not,
although they conceal it rather well. These are
the people who eventually infest all the
institutions a society. The famous quotation by
Lord Acton was close to being right, yet he
missed it completely because, as the old proverb
has it, a miss is a good as a mile. The
remainder of the quotation is interesting as well,
as he suggests that 'great men are almost always
bad men'. That is self-contradictory. A bad
man may be wealthy, powerful, or famous - but
those things do not make a man great.
One would think that a man of his supposed
learning and wisdom would have understood that
the desire for power exists in people who are
already corrupt. They just don't have an
opportunity to demonstrate their true character
until they have power over other people.
That sort of not quite understanding how things
work may contribute to our present situation,
but it is not close to being the only thing. We
only have to get out of bed in the morning and
go outside and into public places, or watch 'news'
and entertainment being consumed by the public,
the behavior of people in general, to see that
our society has become thoroughly rotten. The
selfish, lazy, apathetic nature of too many
people has planted a cancer that is now out of
control.
As I told you once, beyond the smallest of
societal units, a small tribe or village, a few
hundred or at most a few thousand (which is
stretching it) persons, it is not possible for
people to govern themselves responsibly. As the
population increases, there will be more people
who wish to indulge their personal desires
(usually deviant in nature) no matter what the
consequences for others are. If no one stops
them, they will increase in number and
eventually destroy the society.
I once read an account (which may or may be true
in its specifics but certainly has been
practiced before) of a primitive people in Africa,
who live a very simple hunter-gatherer existence
in small tribes such as I mentioned. They have
a very peaceful existence without the apparatus
of law enforcement and administration of justice
most people have. No jails, no police, no courts.
They maintain this orderly society by ensuring
no disruptive person lives long enough to cause
serious problems. As children grow up and
become adults, they are observed by the other
members of the tribe, and if they act in an anti-
social way they are counseled and corrected.
An individual who proves intractable into
adulthood will one day simply disappear without
a trace, and all is well with those who are
normal and behave properly.
Larger, more advanced societies try to deal with
these problems, but inevitably fail because many
are unwilling to do the hard work, and the
depraved members take advantage of this. The
elders of the aforementioned aboriginal tribe
certainly do not want to take a young man out in
the wilderness and kill him. It must be a
terrible thing to even contemplate, yet the
alternative is the destruction of a way of life
for an entire people. People who wish to
criticize godly people point to the rather harsh
laws given to Moses for the governance of the
people of Israel (similar in some cases to the
aborigines - evildoers were killed by the
community, in some cases with their own kin
casting the first stone) but abandoning the law
led to their eventual destruction.
To answer the larger question - what can be done?
I am guessing that is a rhetorical question. In
terms of saving our country, we have already lost.
We may hold back the darkness for a while, but
the rot is too deep, and the demographic bomb
designed to ensure that the Enemy prevails is
exploding, if I may use that term for something
happening in slow motion.
Benjamin Franklin is said to have replied
someone who asked, at the close of the
Constitutional Convention, what sort of
government they had created, "A republic, if you
can keep it". John Adams said the the
Constitution was devised for a moral and
religious people, and was inadequate for any
other kind.
Clearly, we have failed to keep the Republic.
It hasn't yet completely disintegrated, but
little is left. And as for being moral and
religious (read obedient to God there) too many
of us are not, and of those who are, few are
doing anything to halt the spread of evil. In
other words, the good men are doing nothing.
Whether they will, before it is too late, I have
no idea.
Having already read all your notes (I know you'
re not here to read this, my friend, but you
will always be with me, and for me you are never
gone. I'll likely see you soon enough anyway) I
know some of this is covered later. For now I
can only say that I believe there is a solution,
but only if the right men can be found, and they
act before it is too late.
And so, on to the next part.
Frank
what can be done to save this country? i believe we agree on the
preferred solution. that depends on the will of our creator, but
that in turn relies, i believe, on our own actions. if we, as a
society (or at least a large part of it) are willing to turn away
from our lives of apathy, laziness, and selfishness, we might be
saved. the promise has always been there - punishment for
disobedience and forgiveness for repentance.
solomon was told this after the dedication of the temple
(2 chronicles, chapter 7).
when elijah suggested israel in the depths or depravity (during the
reign of ahab) was not worth saving, he was told there were still a
few who had remained faithful (1 kings, chapter 19)
but you know all this. we've talked about it often enough.
i don't know how large a part of the population of israel the seven
thousand was, but israel probably had a fairly large population by
then (likely several millions), yet a relatively small number would
allow the nation to be spared.
abraham was told the wicked cities of sodom and gomorrah would be
spared if ten righteous men (likely from a population of thousands)
could be found there.
so making america godly again is not an insurmountable task, if we
are to be allowed the opportunity.
how that might be done, i can only speculate.
i think, perhaps a modern prophet (an elijah for our time, or a
billy graham), someone who can receive and carry the message to the
people, and persuade enough of us to repent that we might be given
another chance.
there is a temptation to try to make that happen - find a likely
candidate and create a support organization and raise funds to
carry out the mission?
but i'm not sure trying to make it happen like that is the right
way. if that is to happen, i suspect the prophet will be called in
the same was as before, and we should pray for that to happen, and
hope to recognize him and help in any way we can.
what other ways are there?
if we wait long enough (and something extraordinary does not happen
before) we will most likely find ourselves at the diverging paths -
one leading to recovery and redemption, the other to (possibly
permanent) darkness. the trap was set long ago, and with each year
of decline we come closer to the point at which a peaceful solution
(other than surrender) is no longer available.
how close to that point should be before taking the most desperate
measures?
certainly, when we are being hauled off to the gulags and gas
chambers, it will probably be too late. the most radical solution
(destruction of the enemy by ruthless assault without regard for
either conscience of personal survival) should certainly be put off
as long as possible, but i will discuss it first, before moving on
to some perhaps less severe actions.
some of those, indeed most of them, can be implemented now, without
being noticed or at least recognized for what they are. the only
missing elements are organization and money.
i believe that if some of the less drastic solutions are put in
place in the near future, the more unfortunate choice (between a
bloody campaign of extermination of the enemy and surrendering our
own existence) can be avoided.
Ishmael
Well, old man, we certainly talked about this enough, even
quite a few years back, before it became apparent how
quickly things were going south. I suspect the thing
we agree most about is that we don't know. We haven'
t talked often in recent months, but it is something
I have continued to think about. If possible, I will
address it in more depth in a separate paper later.
Whether it is turning the populace back to repentance
and prayer for deliverance (certainly that should be
the primary objective) or preparing for something else,
organization and money are, as you said, necessary.
Not that divine intervention needs help, still we
should support those doing the work in any way we can.
The problem, of course, is that we don't know. If we
are going down and don't intend to go quietly, we
still need resources. I often wonder if a latter-day
group of founding fathers could come to exist, and if
they could do what needs to be done. Even though we
know that the founders confronted, with meager
resources, one of the most powerful (and ruthless)
empires in existence, it is difficult to completely
appreciate the magnitude of their actions. If they
had lost they would have, as Benjamin Franklin said,
been hanged (at best, as the British continued to
practice some thoroughly evil methods of killing
people well into the 19th century).
As for resistance, and the question of when to begin,
that is the really big question. The problem with
being one of the 'good guys' is that a part of your
nature is to not do bad things, and killing people is
one of the worst things you can imagine doing, and
will be reluctant to do it no matter how justified or
necessary it is.
The Enemy has no such inhibitions, which is why the
sort of regimes we seem to be destined for always
have massive amounts of killing, not only during
establishment but as a necessity of continuing.
Certainly, when the trains are running to the
concentration camps and people are disappearing in
the middle of the night (and you are expecting your
turn to come soon), it is time to do something. Of
course, by the it is almost certainly too late to do
much more than take a few of them with you.
Someone observed, quite a few years back, that it was
unfortunately too late to fix things politically but
to soon to start killing people. I would suggest
that it is past time to be killing people (after all,
they are killing us, if only in a random and
occasional manner), but who wants to do it. And
without a support system (including means for
discouraging the retribution against the assassins)
not much can be accomplished.
I do have some solutions in mind, some of which might
be successfully implemented even at this late date.
I will tentatively call that Appendix A.
Unfortunately my days are never long enough. Until
later.
Frank
we have sometimes discussed the strategy employed by michael
collins in what is generally called the irish war of
independence. unable to effect a military campaign
of any consequence, much less one that could actually
prevail against the still powerful (and still utterly
ruthless to the point of using tactics that were by
any reasonable assessment, pure unadulterated evil)
british empire, collins did what was possible rather
than attempting the impossible.
by eliminating the british operatives and attacking
the ric (collaborators oppressing their own people)
he rendered the country ungovernable without
imposition of complete and likely permanent martial
law, something the british could not afford
politically or, given the stakes, financially.
obviously, this is not ireland, which is both good
and bad. the country and its population are much
larger, and the problem is more complex.
the large area is much more difficult to control,
even under the most severe conditions (nationwide
martial law). hiding a small group of guerilla
fighters and facilitating their attacks would be
much easier.
the problem of surgically removing the cancerous
tumors would be much more complex. this would
involve not just dealing with those in law enforcement,
the 'justice system', and others who signed up for a
dangerous job. the rot is much deeper and varied -
there would likely have to be targets in political
positions (mainly at the federal level), as well as
prosecutors and judges. even the generic police
personnel, at the state and local levels, would by
now be guilty (assuming we waited until the gulags
were up and running and our people vanishing into
secret prison and unmarked graves). this would be a
really ugly task, one no sane man would want or wish
on anyone else. michael collins was said to be a
devout roman catholic - how did he manage to order
the (sometimes rather brutal) assassinations of his
enemies?
it was a war. in his case a war for the freedom of
his homeland, and to end the evil mistreatment of his
people
of course, several elements would have to be brought
together - timing, money, organization and leadership.
to be successful, not only in restoring the
constitutional rule of law but avoiding the chaos
which would likely prove fatal, the organization
would have to have men much like the founders, with
the temperament to carry it out.
were it possible to convent such a formidable
assemblage of patriots, it might be prudent, even
today, to plan for such an eventuality.
raising money would not be so difficult - some of the
men would themselves be wealthy and have connections
with wealthy men sympathetic to the cause, and with
the proper approach to the patriot population at large,
much more could be acquired (consider the 60 million
people who voted for the right side in the last
election - one million contributions of a thousand
dollars is a billion. most people on that side are
productive working people who could likely find that
much for the right cause, and out of sixty million
one must suspect that more than a mere million would
contribute.)
with just a few billion in the bank (figuratively
speaking), an effective organization could be set up,
with secure communications, members stationed outside
the country, and other needs of a force ready to
strike if necessary.
while the thought of having to actually do it is
unpleasant, as a contingency (and most of what i
write is about contingency plans or preventive
measures) it deserves consideration.
Ishmael
As for the question of when to start killing people, I have no
answer. Certainly, once power is firmly in the hands of the
enemy, it is likely to be too late.
Some tipping points to consider:
* An unequivocal abolition of any part or parts of the Bill of
Rights, whether by 'law' or arbitrary action (conceivably
things might be so bad that a majority of states would approve
doing away with one of the amendments contained therein - we
might be closer than I care to think about).
* Large numbers of arrests and/or killings, particularly based
on political attitudes.
* Confiscation of weapons, with or without abolishing the
Second Amendment
* Enforcement by the central government of the various evil
policies already in force at state levels (post-birth killing
of babies, requirement of churches to accommodate sexual
deviants (e.g. performing homosexual marriages), complete
control of children (no private schools or home schooling).
The easier question is when to prepare. The answer is now, or
if it were possible, about twenty years ago. Organizations set
up by the right type of men, carefully organized and controlled,
should be created and most importantly, funded. Fund-raising
should be underway at once, and some of the more innocuous
could begin. These would include creating the higher positions
(leaders and planners), defining policies and goals, creating
communications networks and techniques (emphasis on secrecy and
of course, effective encryption). Safe houses can be
designated early, as can installations outside the country.
As for how (given that money is a necessity for any war), two
simultaneous approaches come to mind:
* Considering that (as mentioned elsewhere in your notes) one
thousand contributions of a thousand dollars is a million, and
a million thousands is a billion. Given the sixty million or
more voter for the (nominally) right side in presidential
elections, there is sixty billion dollars. Probably only a few
(five to ten) billion would be needed to wage an effective
campaign. And of course, not all those sixty million are going
to help, but a good many will if they can be persuaded.
Don't forget that these are real people (unlike the dead, non-
existent, or otherwise fraudulent 'voters' who make up the
other side of the electorate. And these real people in large
part, actually have money, unlike many of those on the other side.
* There a quite a few wealthy individuals, many of them retired
or sufficiently wealthy they don't have to go to work, and can
contribute without fear of ostracization. Some of them are
wealthy businessmen (founding fathers?), others have had
successful careers in show business and have considerable
fortunes. These men could contribute considerably to the
financial needs, and could serve as creative elements (set up a
think tank).
With financial means secured, preparation can begin, and some
preemptive actions could begin, e.g. legal and political combat
to slow the progress of the disease.
Frank
as both of us have been readers of science fiction for many
years (actual sf, not the stuff of film and television) we
have often discussed scenarios from various works and
their possible place in our own dystopian future (our
present, actually - we are there, just not over the edge
yet)
since speculative fiction writers have for many years
often been quite accurate in depictions of the future
where not only technology but societal evolution, some of
their ideas about how unpleasant situations might be dealt
with by those who don't want to go quietly into whatever
ugly future is being offered.
there are many examples (after all, your library has what -
thousands of volumes just in this genre) but there are
two we have sometimes discussed in this context. the
first is the fremen society of the dune universe, the
other is a.e. van vogt's weapons shops.
to deal with the weapons makers first - van vogt's writing
(like much sf is rather vague in many areas (so is herbert's)
and also relies on technology that doesn't exist in our
time, and isn't likely to any time soon. two aspects,
however, have some merit.
the first is the idea of providing weapons the a subdued
population that never had much fight in it to begin with.
the ability to put weapons in the hands of those willing
to use them, as long as such people exist, could prove
useful in slowing the cancer of tyranny. considering that
the persons charged with maintaining order are generally
not of high quality themselves, many of them are likely to
be intimidated by any resistance. and as observed in the
irish situation, killing a few of them would go a long way
towards making the others less enthusiastic about doing
their jobs.
the other idea, that of a powerful organization able to
impose penalties on misbehaving governmental (or other)
entities, in whatever form may be appropriate (the weapons
makers) would be a useful tool, combined with others
in both cases, much would depend on the cunning and
courage of the resistance, since the technology to make it
easier isn't likely to be available.
a somewhat more feasible solution would likely be to
implement the sietch concept of the fremen in frank
herbert's dune. i'll expand on that in the next part,
but briefly, i believe it should be possible to create,
say, autonomous enclaves which have the ability to defend
their territory as well as protecting their members when
they are outside, by various means.
of course, herbert's fremen had the advantage of being
able to retreat to areas of the planet inaccessible to
those without their organization, knowledge, and survival
skills. we can't do that here - but the sietch concept,
at least in its early form, could take the form of no-go
zones.these already exist (denials by those in authority
notwithstanding) whether in the form of muslim zones in
europe, or in areas of this country (mostly in large cities)
where there is so much risk (due to criminal activity and
hostility to authority) that the police simply don't dare
go in except in the most extreme cases. add in the
ability and willingness to make invaders pay a high price
(dead burnt bodies) if they attack, and it might be
possible, at least for a while, to arrive at a truce (don't
bother us and we won't bother you)
we're both fans of niven and pournelle. they had a lot of
interesting ideas, coming from a couple of intelligent and
thoughtful writers. heinlein, many others, especially
before the current (what? 90's onward, probably before
that) crop of garbage producers rendered the genre rather
irrelevant in its present form.
if i had a few million to convene a think tank to figure
out how to save the world, or at least our part of it, sf
certainly should not be ignored. lot of good ideas
there.
Ishmael
Yeah, we talked about those two subjects a lot. How likely
it is you could pull off either scenario. The Weapons Makers
setup would most likely look like some very sophisticated
ninja-like types in our world - secrecy, near-magical
combat techniques, the most effective utilization of
available technology, and of course a level of fearless
commitment to the cause. Unpleasant as it might seem, both
ruthless killing of enemies and willingness to commit
suicide to maintain secrecy or deny the enemy the propaganda
victory of capturing resisters. Ultimately, this would have
to be more of a development over time of a basic guerilla
resistance.
The sietch concept is much more interesting and probably somewhat
easier to initiate, if only because it can begin before
there is an urgent need for it (i.e. now). It is one of
my three preferred strategies, and thus will be addressed in
more depth later.
Basically, though, the idea is to have a number of
independent but allied social units, probably numbering in
the hundreds, certainly not over a thousand (as I
discussed earlier, only relatively small groups of people
can effectively govern themselves). Having a large number
of them (one hopes, eventually) which are practically
impossible to attack without sustaining massive casualties
and possibly damage to non-combatant areas of society.
Think about how effective this can be, looking at the
results of relatively unorganized amateurs. The Oklahoma
City affair caused at least some caution on later actions
by federal authorities. There have in fact not been any
massacres of the Waco variety, and most killing is being
done by local and state police forces. The Bundy Ranch
affair probably ended with minimal violence due to the
presence of civilian counter-snipers who were believed to
be quite willing to take out any government agents who
committed a killing. (They did murder a few cows, which
should tell you something about the nature of the enemy
even at this stage - most likely it will only get
worse)
Actually, if the killers of Randy Weaver's wife and son
had been held accountable, it is likely that Oklahoma City
would not have happened, but the government has made it
clear that they have every intention of doing what they
please when it comes to killing citizens, and brutal
retaliation is the only thing that will impede this behavior.
The foregoing assumes, of course, that a guy named Timothy
McVeigh actually did the Oklahoma City deed. You and I
and a handful of others have seen rather convincing proof
that he was at most peripherally involved, and it was
mostly an event put on by Deep State operatives (the
observant reader may notice, in view of recent news, that
Deep State operatives who have been denying for the past
several years are now admitting that it exists and
asserting that this is a good thing because it ensures
that the current state of affairs is preserved and
continues towards its ultimate goal) to facilitate the
creation of new laws and the curtailment of liberty, in
the same way the events of 11 September 2001 were used, to
an even greater degree.
It looks like your next notes concern the sietch concept,
so let us move on to that.
Frank
title this part 'sietch mentality'
so, how do you implement the sietch concept in this world?
well, as i observed earlier, the analogy isn't precise.
obviously there is not a distant, inaccessible (except to
the initiated) desert fastness to hide in, and the
societal order isn't possible (or probably even desirable)
for our purposes. we can't have disputes settled by duels
to the death (or leadership succession, for that matter).
i'm more interested in how groups of people with a similar
mindset and goals (preservation of the republic,
restoration of the rule of law, removing bad stuff and
preventing it from coming back) can make a secure
environment for themselves and those who will come after
them. secure, in this case, means safety from the
tyrannical overlords and the ability to maintain their way
of life while working to restore order. these communities
would have to be self-sufficient (though not necessarily
on an individual basis and in all matters - more on that
later)
so the first and probably most important matter is - where?
and without any readily available unassailable defense - how?
ok, let's think about that for a minute. in the modern
age (2019 as i write this) the closest thing is the no-go
zone as it exists in various parts of the world. mostly
in europe, where muslim enclaves have become (denials of
the ineffectual governments notwithstanding) practically
impenetrable. not only do the authorities refuse to
enforce the law there, but various private services (e.g.
delivery companies) will not service those areas because
of the danger to their employees and property.
these exist to some degree in this country as well, as
areas in large cities where crime (and probably health
hazards as well) make authorities unwilling to go in
except in the most extreme circumstances.
to be sure, these areas certainly could be invaded and
cleaned out with sufficient resources, but even today the
loss of life (on both sides - but the state is unwilling
to experience those kinds of losses) and destruction would
be considerable. add to that the consequences of
attacking a group of people willing to fight to the last
man, woman and child, and it would be unacceptable under
almost any circumstances.
of course, a demonstration would be required. which is to
say, they would have to try it at least once and find out
it wasn't a good idea, but after that the new order would
be established.
i would suggest that this has been demonstrated to some
degree. after the waco massacre in 1993 and the lesser-
known (to most of the sheeple) ruby ridge incident led to
the oklahoma city bombing, the government has been more
circumspect in the way it handles such situations.
of course, this does not apply to state and municipal
police forces, which continue to murder citizens through
corruption and ineptitude (no-knock raids on the wrong
house, warrants against innocent people obtained by
perjury by police), and these go almost completely
unpunished. i rather suspect that if some of these
victims (or their next of kin if the victims are dead) had
the money and connections to have these corrupt cops done
away with in such a way that the reason is well known, it
would happen less. not that you or i would do such a thing,
or advocate it. but it is an interesting concept.
in any case, the federal government (and this is almost
certainly true of state and local authorities) will avoid
the kind of carnage experienced at oklahoma city, whether
it is retaliation or resistance. probably if the hapless
souls at waco had inflicted greater casualties, either in
the initial contact or the final assault, it would have
had a beneficial effect.
so, having established our sietch(es), well supplied and
armed, defended against infiltration or any surveillance
penetration, the main idea is to make it as near
unassailable as is possible. of course, the bad guys can
use nukes (i recently a read that a congressman suggested
exactly that), or use a massive amount of hardware and
personnel, but if every person in the sietch fights to the
death and takes out as many enemies as possible (possibly
aided by some doomsday devices to go off either during the
fight or during the cleanup), it isn't likely to happen
more than once or twice.
one hopes, of course, that no large-scale violence would
ever occur, but with the direction the country is going
and with the probable outcome if nothing is done, a bloody
fight or two will be small of little consequence compared
to what will befall the population.
of course, if in the end everything fails and we end up
with a tyrannical government with sufficient resources and
the willingness to use them, the sietches are unlikely to
survive for long. but making them pay a price is better
than not. as you once said about the proverb about dying
on your feet rather than live on your knees, those who
choose to kneel will still die eventually.
it's getting late and i'm not feeling too good - will get
some sleep and try to work some more tomorrow.
ok. so we have a general idea of relatively impregnable
enclaves (at least in the short term, before things get
real bad) which may also be to some degree invisible, as
we shall see.
lacking the protection of an impassable desert or other
barrier, where do we put them? pretty much anywhere.
a quick note - obviously this has been tried before. by
amateurs. the hapless denizens of the waco enclave and
some others, tried to set up closed communities of like-
minded (or maybe indoctrinated) people. they failed for
several reasons:
1. their motives were a fanatical attachment to a
religious or political concept, and this clouds judgment.
also, they are often led by a person or persons using the
organization for their own purposes (not to mention the
fact that the leaders are often insane or evil, or both,
as in the jim jones affair)
2. the political establishment does not like people
doing this, no matter how innocent their motives may be or
how harmless their activity is, and will find an excuse to
persecute them and shut them down. additionally, the
neighbors (of wherever they are located) will be
suspicious and at best will not help them if they are
attacked and will likely view their destruction as a good
thing.
3. they are usually underfunded. often the members
are not well off to begin with, and even the leaders often
have no assets (and are sometimes there to plunder the
flock). a certain amount of financial assets is essential.
there are probably any number of other factors, but let's
deal with these. we fix the first problem with a
disciplined approach to recruiting (and retaining)
membership. as i said before, we can't be having duels to
winnow the unsuitable, but the structure of the
organization can be used to make it possible to evict
unsuitable persons with minimal problems. the second
problem is dealt with by a combination of low visibility
and the knowledge that the sietch cannot be attacked with
impunity, as discussed earlier. finally, funding must be
handled before work begins, and this may require some
creativity, but it can be done. again, a later discussion.
ok, that wasn't really quick, but now on to the question
of where. well, given that we don't have to remodel caves
to live in, we have a lot of options.
1. sizeable tracts of land can be purchased (rather
cheaply in some areas) forty acres, in the form of a square,
is a quarter mile wide and deep. that's larger than a
some small towns. you can put a lot of people and stuff
there. move up to a quarter-section (160 acres) and it's
a half mile on each side (in a square). a section is a
square mile (i don't have to tell a farm kid that) these
areas often come with some natural boundaries (roads,
ditches, etc.) which are the beginning of a barrier, and
can be improved upon. the larger the area is, the more
difficult to search, if the authorities do manage to get in,
legally or otherwise.
2. a large apartment complex (probably in smaller
cities), of several hundred units and a good bit of open
ground, could be converted into a small stronghold. it
may come with some gates and fencing, or they can be added.
rundown properties needing repair would be good candidates.
3. old ships (cruise ships, cargo ships, whatever) can
be used. a fleet of them would hold quite a few people,
and of course can be placed outside any national
jurisdiction. consider this in light of sietches working
together - if a member needed to escape his own country or
if something needed to be concealed, taking it offshore
would be useful.
4. there are many other possibilities, but i'll stop
with this one. consider taking over small towns in
lightly populated areas. there are towns with only a few
hundred residents which have a city government - mayor,
city council, police department, etc. with perhaps only a
couple hundred voters, moving in and assimilating the
community would be possible. in some places there may be
prospective members among the community to help. again,
not being obnoxious is useful here - a lot of people would
never notice what was going on. it might even be possible
to take over several communities and run the entire
county - with local law enforcement under the control of
the sietch, this could prove to be quite useful. if done
with sufficient subtlety these could be literally hidden
in plain sight.
so, what do we do in these places? besides be protected
from the bad stuff going on outside? well, that's the
primary objective - a secure place to live according to
principle. however, if the situation outside continues to
deteriorate (complete tyranny, dissenters imprisoned/killed
/reeducated, whatever, widespread starvation and sickness,
with the elites insulated and the army (now converted to a
police force) protecting them and maintaining order in
return for a little more food and basic needs - the
sietches will be attacked at some point. as i said before,
there will likely be probes before, but making the
attackers pay will deter that, but only for a while.
so there is obviously a need to produce weapons and other
tools of defense, and train the members in their use.
this includes women and children, even the elderly and
infirm to whatever degree they are able (a not perfect
physical specimen, due to age or other causes, can man a
sniper position or operate artillery, children can carry
ammunition and assist with medical care, and even, in the
worst case, take out as many enemies as possible before
being killed. that's something we hope would never happen)
of course, speaking of children, they would be educated
within the sietch. that will keep them free of
indoctrination and the degenerate condition of the outside
world.
assuming a number of sietches are eventually formed, in a
variety of locations both in and out of the country,
assets can be pooled to allow them to interact and assist
each other. sietches with aircraft and pilots can provide
transportation not subject to surveillance and interference.
some might have more advanced medical facilities - any
sietch should have some capacity (have you noticed how
many doctors are 'preppers'?) - but those with the
infrastructure could have hospitals for needs beyond the
basics. automobiles would be another need - mechanics
able to repair and recondition older vehicles would reduce
the need to buy new ones (at high cost, not to mention the
built-in surveillance tools).
these are just a few of the many ways to maintain secure,
free communities. as the process continues and needs arise,
others will be dealt with. after all, we're looking for
adaptable and innovative types.
speaking of recruitment, there are usually some crazies
attached to the dissident/prepper communities. preventing
the bad ones from getting in is preferable to weeding them
out later. definitely an important part of the process.
Ishmael
This may be the most important element of survival. Certainly
it is one of the top three, and one of those is rather tenuous
at best somewhat problematic, if only due to the required
resources. The other has an interesting relationship with the
sietch concept.
If this were to be put into execution, finding a different name
might be advisable (assuming it had any significant public
exposure) to avoid legal issues with the Herbert estate.
In case I pass this on to someone, let me first suggest a
reading of Dune (just the first book will do) to understand its
relevance here. Briefly, though, the indigenous people of
Arrakis (Dune) lived somewhat primitive lives in the most in
hospitable areas of the vast deserts covering the planet. The
planet was ruled by off-worlders appointed by the emperor of
the universe, and they did not venture far outside their
fortified cities. While the Fremen (the aforementioned
indigenous people) lived a rather simple life in a nearly
aboriginal, or at least barbarian, tribal order, they were
quite capable of using advanced technology to the extent it was
useful to them (e.g. weapons). They were also, largely of
necessity, extremely hardy in physical makeup, and unbelievably
(to those who had the misfortune of encountering them) skilled
and ferocious fighters. Just what we need.
Think about what would happen if, when a force of federal 'law
enforcement' types, perhaps augmented by military force (legal
prohibitions notwithstanding - and such details would never
even be considered in the kind of future we may be looking at)
surrounded the dwelling place of a peaceful, if somewhat
eccentric, religious cult and began killed a few of them, and
they settled into a siege to either starve the remainder into
submission or eventually go in and kill them...
...but while they were waiting (the Waco siege lasted 51 days)
some from other communes around the country sent some fighters
to help. The attackers find themselves surrounded by enemies (
snipers, operators of improvised artillery, perhaps even
equally improvised air attack, or ninja types sneaking into
their camp to perform acts of sabotage or assassination).
Not expecting them, or even able to find them if they to things
right, such operatives could wreak havoc on the operation and
probably make such operations impractical if not impossible.
After all, it's all very find to work for the FBI or the state
police or whatever when you aren't all that likely to get shot
at (firefighters are more likely to get killed on the job than
cops, and they don't even get to kill people). No, the law
enforcement types are not going to be eager to do jobs like
this when they don't just fear, but can be almost certain of
having their targets return fire. As I observed earlier, the
threat of civilian counter-snipers at the Bundy affair had
considerable effect on the desire of the Feds to start killing
people.
Hence the sietch, or at least a more appropriate implementation.
Having a number of enclaves (hidden or not) around the country
ready to unleash hordes of fighters upon attackers of any of
their comrades would have to create some degree of deterrence.
Of course, in the worst case, when the last shreds of the
constitution have been swept away, these would be very violent
affairs indeed, which is why I believe such organization should
be taking place now. Even if, by some chance, the nation does
return in some measure to its past nature (unlikely, but one
can always hope) these organizations could be useful. The best
governments can do the wrong thing occasionally, and we have
never had the best - only the least bad.
I like the ideas you have, and will discuss them at greater
length and perhaps add some of my own shortly. I believe that
if this society is to be preserved it must change in some ways
that may be unthinkable to some, and the sietch concept as it
is developed here will be an important element.
Frank
just a quick note before going on to the next part. what i
think of the situation for the patriot/reformer/whatever, is
this. you and i watched a lot of auto races back in the day,
before that last remaining real sport went to pot. often,
there were a handful of cars fast enough to win, maybe at
times only one, and there would be one that wasn't quite good
enough, but he managed to stay close to the leaders, and at
the end, a mechanical failure or crash would eliminate the
really fast one(s), and the guy who didn't quite have what it
took to win, won anyway.
i suspect that whatever measures might be employed to fix our
problems, they won't be enough (absent some unexpected factor,
and never rule out a miracle) however, having something in place
(sufficiently well developed) to exploit the breakdown could a
good way to ensure that what follows isn't the chaos and darkness
that so often is the result
that's why the preceding thoughts on the sietches, and the next
part, on autonomous states, are important. the two are not
incompatible, by the way, so one should not be dismissed in favor
of the other. multiple survival strategies are generally a good
idea. careful and constant observation and readiness, combined
with the ability to act effectively (manpower, money, organization,
etc.) could make it possible to turn disaster into rebirth.
Ishmael
Certainly, being prepared to take advantage of a situation
created by others (mostly likely enemies) is important. For
that reason plans should be underway even now (or better yet,
some years ago)
I would like to think that somewhere, a number of great men who
have the ability to understand the need and to find solutions,
along with the means (financial and other) to actualize them. I
just don't have that much faith in humanity, even the best of us.
So many things - fear of being wrong, acting too soon, or the
unwillingness to effect harsh measures ever for the most
important and righteous cause - cause fatal hesitation.
Even if I were a young man and in good health, doing what may in
the end need to be done frightens me. As Mr. Bishop reminded
overeager apprentice - 'Dead sure, or just sure'
Of course, when the need can no longer be denied - the trains
are running to the (reeducation, extermination or whatever) camps,
people are being slaughtered in the streets, and there is no
possibility of peaceful reform, these doubts should no longer exist,
and being prepared to do what must be done is a good thing.
Frank
really, i'm not optimistic about this ever happening. the
idea of a modern- day fremen culture building a
distributed resistance is more likely, but here goes...
really, it would just be returning to the original
form of the nation. the states were supposed to hold
all power except national defense and a handful of
things that had to be standardized, such as minting
coin and currency, border control, etc. the reason we
are in that state is that just about everything the
federal government does these days is completely
contrary to the constitution.
of course, the last time some of the states tried to
resist, it didn't work out well for them. or for
anyone, really. the result was complete power being
consolidated in the federal government, and the states
were no more than lines on a map.
in recent years, there have been discussions of
secession, in some cases from the enemy itself (
secession has more commonly been an interest of the
constitutionalists who want to restore and preserve
the original form of government) - in any case, the
subject is hardly worth discussing. secession is not
practical in any case, and would be unlikely to
achieve the desired results. while there would
probably not be an armed invasion as in the past case,
the secessionist state or states would not be likely
to achieve the objective.
i suspect there might be a more subtle way to
incrementally (slowly, to be sure, at least at first)
produce progress.
autonomous states or regions exist in many parts of
the world (the u.s. has some nominally autonomous
territories such as puerto rico). the form varies,
but essentially they have some degree of sovereignty
relative to their parent countries.
given the right conditions (similar to those needed
for secession: control of governorship. legislature
and courts) a state might chip away at federal control,
first in small ways and, having established precedent,
go on to bigger and better attacks on external control.
how? i would suggest working on some small matters
first. the larger issues (prohibiting abortion,
homosexual 'marriage', etc.) are not the best ones to
attack at first (never mind that they are the more
wicked and destructive ones) - they are just too
important to the enemy and would draw the most
forceful response. it has been recommended by some
that we should choose fights small enough to win, but
big enough to matter. this is actually a specialty of
the enemy, and they are rather good at it. those on
the right side, not so much, if only because we often
wait until the small battles are over and we must
fight the big ones.
what, then, is a small but important battle? i would
look at some of the innumerable (and unconstitutional)
regulations inflicted on the country by the federal
government. (never mind for how the innumerable
afflictions of the state and local governments - if
you can take over the state you can fix those internally).
suppose, as an example, federal regulations require
schools to serve less than two ounces of dead animal
matter in lunches. or, a federal court requires
'transgender' students to use facilities (dressing
rooms, etc.) for the opposite actual sex. since this
is already happening.
so, refuse to comply. is the federal government going
to send in the army to make it happen? they already
don't enforce the laws against harboring illegal
aliens in the 'sanctuary cities', or allowing the use
of illegal (under federal law) drugs.
and how can they enforce it. well, they can sue, and
get massive judgments, which they can not collect
except by some type of coercion. if they try to
arrest state officials, have the state police, and
perhaps a citizen militia raised in preparation for
such an eventuality, to prevent it. they can withhold
federal funds (that can be challenged in court for a
long time, especially by using the sort of judge-
shopping the enemy does). and are the schools going
to miss less than ten percent of their funds? if
highway maintenance funds are withheld, set up toll
booths on roads crossing the state. just some ideas -
mainly you do whatever can be done and gets results.
there are many possibilities, and may possible ways
the action can go. i believe this is one of the best
chances for slowing our passage into the darkness.
of course, as i said, you would have to concentrate a
large population of patriots in a state in order to
control it. while the idea of taking a state like
texas 'private' is attractive, a small state, possibly
a coastal state like south carolina (kind of large
compared to maine or alaska, but warmer) the idea of
taking over alaska is rather amusing.
of course, this requires a lot of organization and work,
like the sietch concept, but on a much larger scale.
however, i believe sietches and autonomous states are
two of the best ideas to concentrate resources on.
autonomy is obviously much more difficult, but that
doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted - it will just
take longer and cost more.
Ishmael
The biggest problem would be creating the first state. The
only way, in the present situation, would be to take over
a state. It would require an enormous number of people to
(very likely) give up their lives for a while (leaving jobs,
family, and other things behind) to move to the target area.
Using South Carolina as an example, it looks like there
are just over three million registered voters there (out
of slightly over 5 million - looks a bit suspicious, but
then fraud is a problem everywhere, and has been for some
time, and South Carolina is probably above average in that
department. The population has grown considerably in the
the past several decades, and not in a good way. Taking
over one of the small northeastern states (Delaware, Rhode
Island, or Maine) would be interesting.
No matter how it is done, it will certainly be difficult.
Moving enough people into one of the states with under a
million could probably be accomplished, even with people
who had to give up a means of living for several years (
election cycles). Of course, there are probably a lot of
retired patriots with money, pension and social security
income, and no ties to a particular location. Those could
be an important factor. While Maine or Vermont might work,
probably one of the Dakotas or Wyoming would be easier,
although a place with a seacoast would be desirable. So,
perhaps Alaska would be a good bet. There are probably a
lot of people there already who would go along. Alaska
also eliminates some of the problems of the lower 48 (
transportation corridors running across them), has ocean
access, and might be more difficult to invade (an unlikely
event but worth considering)
Certainly, challenging the central government on rather
less consequential matters like school lunches, prison
conditions, or something similar. The enemy's strategy
has always been to choose battles battles big enough to
matter but small enough to win. Incrementalism is an
important strategy.
Frank
this one goes the same way as any other attempt to right the
ship. needs money and organization. and time. probably
more time than we have. still, there seems no reason not
to try.
essentially, much of the damage has been done through the
entertainment business and the 'educational' system.
to deal with education first, there is little that can be
done to the government-controlled (whether federal, state
or local - they are all corrupt in a serious way) schools.
the only thing to do in the beginning is get as many
children out of them as can be managed.
certainly there are a lot of home-schooled kids, but not
near enough to make a big difference. there are some
private schools, but there too, not nearly enough.
if private schools could be made more affordable it would
help a lot. since any substantial progress will require
money, this is something that should be considered in
recruiting financiers for the project. how do you create
a lot of private schools that average citizens can afford
to send their children to.
the other part is cultural conversion. the society has
been corrupted in a big way by television and film, music,
and other entertainment media. (the 'news' media also, but
there is some resistance on that front, and it is actually
successful (i.e. surviving and profitable), what there is of it.
the other part would require a lot of money and
recruitment of artists, to produce books, films, music,
etc. with a healthy message, while making it attractive,
especially to young people.
if i haven't gotten to it yet: whether through cultural,
political, or in the worst case armed insurrection - a
successful effort would require both the financial
resources and wisdom of a group of great men much like the
founders. if they can be found.
Ishmael
Certainly,a cultural restoration would be the most desirable
solution, if time permitted. Unfortunately it does not.
Cultural decay, deliberately and incrementally induced, is
how we arrived at this state. Socialism was being
introduced in the early nineteenth century (I have often
thought that, despite the best intentions and endeavors of
our founders, the destruction of their experiment began
almost as soon as it was established).
As for the other diseases, notably greed and sexual
immorality, those have always been present in every
society in every place and in every time. The only
variation is the degree to which they are tolerated, and
how long it takes for increasing tolerance to allow them
to destroy the society.
We are tempted to look at the ancient nation of Israel,
given the best deal any people ever got. To keep it all
they had to do was obey some simple and reasonable rules
such as not killing, stealing, engaging in sexual
perversion and a few other things no reasonable person
would want to do anyway. Yet they did, going so far as to
adopt the most vile pagan religions of their neighbors,
including ritual sex orgies and human sacrifice (of
children). Why? We both know why (I say as if you were
still here) but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
The point is, it is unavoidable and can only be cured by
an occasional realignment, and that is rarely voluntary on
the part of the decayed society - it must be imposed from
outside.
Thus, the prospect of restoring the culture is not likely
to be viable in terms of a solution, but rather something
to be done after the most urgent problems are solved.
Thus I address it in the final appendix.
Frank
the old proverb, 'who watches the watchmen?', is most likely
older than anyone knows. when people are given power over
other people, even by the consent of the people giving it, it
always ends badly. anyone who seeks power is corrupt. just as
the love of money is the root of all evil (not money itself -
the lust for it) so the lust for power corrupts. so those who
are able to acquire it are corrupt right out of the box.
when the people of israel asked the aging prophet samuel to
give them a king, he warned them that the king would abuse them,
conscripting their sons to serve in the army, their daughters
to adorn his court (perhaps in ways less innocent that being
cooks and hairdressers, human nature being what it is) and
would tax them until they regretted their desire for a king.
so it is always.
the best ruler would be one appointed against his desire,
performing the task as a duty rather than ambition. there have
been a couple of presidents in recent memory (reagan and trump)
who probably fit that description. both gave up a comfortable
life in which they could have watched the world fall apart with
little concern, yet took the job and with it, the unbelievably
virulent hatred from the dark side of our society.
but of course, the one would appoint a perfect ruler is the
perfect ruler, and has been rejected in one way or another (
through evil desires or apathy) by most of the people. just as
the israelites did, and likely with similar results if things
don't change.
so what happens after the present problems are dealt with? do
we just go back to the original plan of the founders? two
things are clear - it was a good plan, but obviously has failed,
and while it can serve as the basis for a new system, it must
be modified. so...
oddly enough, one of these founders, john adams, said that the
constitution was made for a 'moral and religious people', and
would be unsuitable for any other sort. not so odd, really.
similarly, a story of benjamin franklin being asked by a
citizen what the constitutional convention had produced. he
replied, 'a republic, if you can keep it' they knew what could
happen if the state of the people deteriorated to the degree
that it has.
clearly, we have failed to keep the republic. not you and me,
not millions of people who are trying to work and pay their way
through life and thus are too busy to become the derelicts and
rabble who try to tear it down. sadly, the majority of
nominally decent people are paralyzed by fear and the belief
that there is nothing they can do. they have seen the republic
fail, and most are resigned to their fate.
so, what would do if you were made king tomorrow and told to
clean up the mess. let's say you are jehu, so you know you are
accountable to the one who appointed you, so you can't just do
as you please. you have to do what is right, and what works.
i confess i would be tempted to try to leave things much as
they are, while applying a few fixes. it might be possible -
some things like clearly defining the constitution for the
truly stupid or those who deliberately misinterpret it, then
make it act of treason to attempt in any way (by legislative,
judicial, or executive branch) to subvert it. if you could
prosecute a judge for an unconstitutional ruling or a member of
congress for introducing an unconstitutional bill, it probably
wouldn't happen very often.
making it unlawful for a person to subsist at the expense of
others without their consent (there goes the welfare state)
would eliminate those who vote for such politicians.
possible? perhaps. you might even buy another century or two
in that way.
but...
a few things - one is interesting for not at all certain, the
other two are probably not negotiable.
first, many people on the leading edge of, let us say,
revolutionary reform, believe that self-government is just not
viable in the long term. i know you have some ideas in that
direction - that it only works for small groups of people with
limited needs, say a tribe or village, maybe a very, very small
country. i'm inclined to agree. some who do not believe it
can work, are in favor of a monarchy of some sort. certainly,
with the right checks and balances (the king's power limited by
a constitution and the power of a peerage wielding power -
political, economic, and even military - to overcome the king,
if necessary). i would say that making that work would also be
a neat trick.
as for the others, a patriarchal ethnostate is probably
essential. not to say that racial and ethnic variety is
intolerable, but there has to be some sort of standard, and
those not of the ruling class must assimilate to the degree
necessary for a harmonious society.
and finally, citizenship should be earned, and not easily.
being born in the country, even to parents who are citizens,
should not be enough. that should convey the right to live here,
work, and participate all activities except politics. only
those who seek and earn citizenship should be allowed to
determine the destiny of the nation. this, more than anything,
would provide a chance for long-term survival.
Ishmael
Well, I don't see any possibility of a political solution.
The The massive influx of foreigners, which continues unabated,
along with the rot already present in the population, assures
that the representative republic will before long be nothing
more than a meaningless concept. The charges have been set and
the fuse is burning. Even if we have another four or eight
years before the enemy assumes complete control again, it only
delays the inevitable.
So, one way or another, the republic is finished. If it could
be reformed, substantial modifications would be needed. To
begin, allowing all citizens to vote and hold office could no
longer be practiced. That might work if the population (or
even a substantial part of it) became intelligent and
responsible. That is not going to happen in any case.
Thus, control of the nation would have to be placed in the
hands of those who are capable of governing and willing to do
so properly. I would suggest in that case, a multi-tiered
citizenship, with the right to govern, through voting and
occupying elected or appointed office, limited to a class of
well qualified citizens.
Others would have all the other rights (equal opportunity,
justice, etc.) but would have no ability to participate in
governing. Citizenship would be available to all who are born
to parents who already citizens of some sort (let us classify
them as citizens, residents, and aliens). They could earn
citizenship through a prescribed process, for example:
=> Education, including an understanding of the constitution,
history, and other useful subjects.
=> Military service for men (since a return to a
substantially patriarchal society is necessary, another sort of
service would be available for women. It is possible they
could fill some pseudo- or para-military role for this
purpose)
=> Possibly some additional indoctrination to ensure an
understanding of the responsibilities of being a citizen.
=> An oath of allegiance to the nation.
Assuming this could be set up, maintaining it would not be easy.
Since the constitution would have to be revised in any case, it
might be prudent to write into it some degree of self-
preservation, namely that attempted subversion by any means,
including and especially attempts by legislators to change it
by law, or by judges to redefine it, would punished as severely
as any other act of treason.
A new government should be minimalist in scope - only the
functions originally intended (military defense, some level of
federal law enforcement directed primarily at external threats,
border control, and a few essential things that can not be done
at the state level) would be performed by the central government.
Education, health care, and other services that have been
ruined by government interference would be left to the states,
as originally intended.
Essentially, then, this would return the nation to it
originally intended state, while removing, or at least greatly
reducing, the opportunities for corruption which have brought
us to this state.
As we both seem to agree, a patriarchal monoculture is essential.
While no person should be deprived of human rights because of
race, sex, religion or anything else, a harmonious society is
necessary for survival, and a philosophical assimilation is
possible without concern for what people look like or what they
think about anything other than their responsibilities as a
citizen and respecting their fellow human beings.
As for other forms of government, it has been said that
republics are the worst type of government except for all the
others. They are unfortunately difficult to maintain in good
working order.
It has also been suggested that the best government would be
that of a benevolent dictator. Sadly, those are also rather
difficult to come by. A constitutional monarchy of the right
type might be a good second choice, particularly with a king
held in check by a group of powerful vassals who can prevent
tyranny from occurring, but those who can prevent such a thing
could also become a party to it. I rather suspect that would
be quite difficult to implement and make it work.
Ishmael
Tue 09 Nov 2021 08:04:29 PM CST
Jessica just called. Frank had gone to see the doctor about
a week ago, and she said he never came home. He passed away
last night. I suspect I envy him. I'm going up for the
funeral if I can find someone to make the trip with me. I
don't feel comfortable driving any great distance alone
Here are a few notes I had been working on. I guess I'll
carry on. Not that I'm fooling anyone, even myself. Our
Creator will decide all things, and that is that. The
reason we discuss these things among ourselves is that we
do not know what those decisions will be. It may be that
we have some part to play in reversing the decline of our
nation, and that it is destined to continue for a time in
some form. If that is the case, we are obliged to do what
we can, and pray for the wisdom to know if, when, and how
to act.
NOTES
========================================
Cultural Realignment
There are certainly solutions to the problems humanity faces,
but if we were inclined to implement them we most likely would
not be in this situation. However, given sufficient
resources and time, here are some possible ameliorations.
1. A cultural realignment which restores the healthy
societal attitudes of past times. It should be noted that
this does not assume that either humanity as a whole, or
American society (with which we are most concerned here) has
ever been perfect. It has, however, been much better in the
past and any return to the values of earlier times would be
a good thing.
It has been observed by some people I consider reasonably
wise that the evils of our time (abortion, sexual deviancy,
drug use, and many other bad behaviors) will not be remedied
by laws, but by changes in the way people think about them.
A healthy society will not do these things (to any
significant degree) whether they are legal or not. And
indeed, changes (for the worse) in how people perceive them
is how we got here. And those changes did not happen by
accident. Campaigns by those interested in effecting these
changes infected all of the institutions (educational,
government, entertainment, and government at all levels)
which determine the course of societal evolution. And that
work was paid for, sometimes by wealthy people (individually
or in groups) and by foreign governments who wished to
weaken this country.
So, it should be possible to reverse the damage in the same
way. A great deal of money would be needed, and some
coherent strategy would be required, with capable leadership
and vision. Appendix D contains some ideas about this.
2. A solution which begins the healing process without
breaking up the country (e.g. secession, which would never
happen in any case) and would not be a good thing if it did.
However, as noted previously, autonomous states which
controlled certain aspects of societal behavior within their
own borders, could provide some relief from the decay, while
providing a refuge for those in other states which will not
reform.
While I believe this might be possible to some degree, it
would be very difficult and probably messy at times.
Nevertheless, it is a worthy objective as, even in a perfect
world, it restores the original intent of the republic. The
reformed states would be more successful while those which
forgo reform would fail, without burdening the other states
(by extracting financial resources from them as can be done now).
3. A solution which might be the most feasible, and
ultimately effective, would be based loosely on a concept
often present in dystopian tales. This posits the idea of a
group (or multiple groups) of people who refuse to be part
of the failing society, and find safe places to live outside
(usually depicted as living a primitive existence rural
locations while the oppressed live in cities) They give up
some of the comforts of being part of 'the system', such as
readily available food and shelter, but are free to live as
they see fit.
Because of their small size and the ability to build them in
an incremental and stealthy manner (i.e., they are not
noticed until it is too late to do anything about them) they
are also the easiest to implement.
There are many instances of this in science fiction, but for
our purposes the best example is the Fremen society of Frank
Herbert's Dune novels. I will discuss these in more depth
in Appendix D.
cultural restoration
========================================
autonomous states
========================================
sietches
========================================
Essay 1 - external threats (islam, china)
Essay 2 - morality and killing in a just cause
| |
