On COVID 19

You know, back when this all started and I naively believed the "experts" couldn't be completely full of (expletive), I was concerned. I encouraged people to take precautions, but remain vigilant, because leftists would exploit the pandemic. Who can forget Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's comment, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste?" Well, they certainly didn't waste this one. As I said in July.

"Watch as the next election draws closer. Among Democrats it will be as if China had nothing to do with COVID and they'll be blaming Trump for it." - Me, July, 2020.

And that's what happened. Listening to the left today you'd never know COVID-19 came from China, spread around the globe as a result of Communist incompetence and subterfuge, or that China even had anything to do with it. Instead Communist rags like Time disseminate wildly misleading rhetoric that's nigh indistinguishable from that of the CCP itself.

Anyone familiar with this blog know it's replete with harsh criticism of Trump. I didn't vote for him in the last election. But I'm witnessing a level of abject stupidity, hatred, and deceit from the Communist "Democrat" left that surpasses anything I've seen before. We've got the same people whose mantra for years and years, has been keep your laws "off my body" and "out of my bedroom" in support of infanticide and sodomy, telling people to wear masks at all times, even while eating, even during sex; i.e., using the pandemic as a pretext to regulate every facet of human life and interaction.

We saw the nation's foremost expert, Fauci, flagrantly equivocate when asked if Marxist protests (which ostentatiously flout his recommendations) should be limited. (Because apparently the virus is instantly obliterated by the sheer fervor of proletarian angst.) In an exchange which should have caused Fauci to lose all credibility to any thinking person. Because it clearly conveyed his position is influenced (if not dictated), not by "science," but by a political agenda.

These people (leftists), with their penchant for spying on and reporting their neighbors, and yearning for every aspect of life to be directed by a centralized bureaucracy, are the sort of useful idiots Stasi operatives dreamed about at night. People that literally want to regulate everything that goes into (food and drink) and out of your body (breath and farts).

And all because they "listen to the doctors and scientists." You know, the same people that were just decades ago lobotomizing people over abject frivolities. Like Dr. Walter Freeman, graduate of prestigious Yale University, who discovered that when you shoved a metal spike into people's craniums and blindly wiggled it around, it resulted in behavioral changes. (Who knew?) This was the solution of some learned men for everything from severe and incurable mental illness, to depression, to rambunctious children who wouldn't listen to their parents. And again this wasn't millennia ago. It wasn't the dark ages. It was just several decades ago.

Freeman, who went around on lobotomy tours showing off his technique and teaching others how to perform it, even medically untrained psychiatrists (because who needs a medical degree to shove an ice pick into someone's head and wiggle it around, right?), personally performed thousands of lobotomies, once lobotomizing 25 women in a single day, and a 12 year old who's step mother complained he day dreamed too much.

So now I see people walking around with underwear on their faces every day; because they "listen to the doctors and the scientists." Never mind that surgical masks aren't a closed, filtered system, and just redirect your breath out the sides of the mask (as opposed to straight ahead). As anyone who's ever worn one can attest, when you exhale you get warm moist breath flowing directly into your eyeballs (why glasses fog), out the sides of the mask, bottom, etc. Never mind that essentially all of the commonly used respirators are only filtered one way. While it protects you from others (filtered inhalation), if you are infected, you're still spewing plague out of the (unfiltered) exhalation valve onto everyone else nearby. You would need a closed system, with dual directional filtration, ideally incorporated into a pressurized suit to really be protected. And I can scarcely think of anything less practical for ordinary daily life. Imagine being a roofer working in a full body suit in July.  

Am I saying you should never wear a mask? No. Am I saying you should abstain from wearing a mask in close proximity to people that are ill? No. But I am saying if you believe that underwear on your face is going to save you from a deadly airborne virus, you might as well write "magic virus shield" on a sheet of paper, and tape it to the front of your face. Because it likewise will prevent you from sneezing on people, and being sneezed upon, while offering minimal if any actual protection from airborne contagions. And I say people that are ill, because according to "the doctors and the scientists," those are the only people about which you really need to worry.

That is unless "the doctors and the scientists" are wrong. But that's just crazy. That article clearly contains the word "science." So it must be true. Right?

Anyway, now Democrats are acting like they weren't opposed to lockdowns, before they were for them. You know, like back when Nancy Pelosi went walking through China Town in a crowd, arm in arm, and face hugging people in the street unmasked. At the annual height of Chinese travel abroad mind you. Basically, when Chinese people were leaving virus stricken China in their greatest numbers to go visit relatives abroad, Nancy Pelosi was out hugging Chinese people in crowded streets and encouraging others to do the same.

But this, like so much else, has been forgotten, revised, erased from the collective psyche by months of assiduous Marxist propaganda and misinformation. Like the fact the WHO was initially claiming there was no evidence of human to human transmission and was advising against travel bans. 

Trump was one of the first in the western world to push for travel bans. The Democrats opposed it and accused him of fear mongering and racism. 

Trump's "racist" travel ban would eventually include Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

While the WHO was downplaying the virus to the rest of the world, China had already implemented domestic lockdowns and was preventing travel within its borders, yet was allowing travel abroad. In what can only be deemed an initiative to intentionally inflict the same circumstances on the rest of the world, people weren't allowed by the CCP to leave Wuhan to go somewhere else in China, but were allowed to leave China to go to places like the United States. (And places like San Francisco, where they might ultimately be face hugged by a moronic Democratic congresswoman, who then transmits the virus who knows where.) According to a Chinese aviation company by mid January 4,000 people had already entered the United States directly from Wuhan. Thanks to the WHO and the Democrat Party (proxies of the CCP) it was too late.

COVID-19 is the Democrat Party's virus in the United States. They not only opposed measures to mitigate the pandemic's spread in the beginning but directly facilitated it. Attacking efforts at suppressing its spread with identical rhetoric to the Chinese Communist Party; accusations of racism. The ensuing deaths are a result of Democrat ineptitude, obstruction, and malfeasance. And now they do what they always do when their Socialist policies end in disaster. Blame their opponents for everything they did, and employ a subverted complicit media apparatus to assiduously disseminate misinformation, that molds public opinion to their benefit. And as usual, it's been highly successful, on the millions of Marxist ignoramuses that call themselves "Democrats."

On the spirit of freedom

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - Psalm 14:1.

I meant to write something about this months ago, but life just kept getting in the way. Much of what I originally intended to say has been forgotten since then. But the seed remains, inspired by an interview given by a Chinese businessman and activist, named Jimmy Lai.

Basically what Jimmy's saying is that a life without liberty isn't worth living. And this was not a new concept to me. I've heard, or at least read, these sentiments before. Dispensed by the Founders of my own country.

Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Second Virginian Convention, March 23, 1775.

Members of groups like Antifa have repeatedly compared themselves and their cause to the Founders of this country and their cause. But as I've stated in the past, the protestors of Hong Kong (as conveyed by the remarks of Jimmy Lai) far more resemble the pious theistic Founders of this country, than Antifa. The disparities are manifest in numerous ways. Like the fact the Hong Kong protestors support Trump and wave the banner of the United States, while conversely the Antifa/BLM rioters hate Trump and wave the banner of Communism.

Another example is the extradition law that lies at the heart of the Hong Kong protests; devised to facilitate the extradition of Hong Kong political dissidents to mainland China (which has violated its agreement to respect HK autonomy) to be prosecuted for fallacious treason charges.

This very thing was one of the grievances cited by the Founders, as a cause for their separation from Britain, which had likewise been encroaching upon the autonomy established by their colonial charters and abridging their fundamental English liberties.

"For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences." - Declaration of Independence.

The Hong Kong dissidents are being stripped of basic liberties like freedom of speech. Frivolities like words of support for the HK protests, written on Post It Notes, were potentially treasonable ("pretended") offences punishable with life in prison under a new "national security law" imposed by the CCP. (In response HK protestors began putting up blank Post It notes.)

Conversely Antifa and BLM, not only aren't being denied freedom of speech, but have been rioting for months with nigh impunity, being openly endorsed and facilitated by Democrat government officials at every level, with every Democrat rag and talk show in the country openly supporting them and assiduously regurgitating their Marxist rhetoric by rote. The HK dissidents are being jailed for imaginary crimes by a Communist state. Antifa and BLM are Communists being jailed for the real crimes of vandalism, theft, arson, assault, and even murder, in an effort to overthrow our government and establish a Communist state. The HK protestors were using Post It Notes to avoid damaging property. Something for which the Communists of Antifa and BLM have consistently shown no compunction whatsoever. Frankly, anyone who can't discern the fundamental differences is a vegetable.

As for Mr. Lai, he (along with his two sons) would eventually be arrested, as a result of the very national security law previously mentioned. His crime? Operating a free (non-Communist controlled) press.

But back to the main premise of this contribution. Few seem to recognize what induces the moral and civic apathy to which Jimmy Lai alludes. Secularism. Jimmy Lai's struggle isn't just against the CCP, but the atheism that ideologically drives it. It is godlessness that creates a populace so attached to this life (as they believe there is no other), that it perpetually vests ever more power in the state for the ostensible purpose of improving and preserving it. This is why theists are on average much more willing to risk their lives, and lose them, than their secular counterparts. Death isn't the end, or even the worst of circumstances, for the theist. Secularism conversely often induces a hyper-aversion to risk and death. There is no "after life" for the atheist, thus all incentive lies in making the most of this one, and preserving it from danger at all costs.

This is why the far more secular left is so terrified of COVID-19, for example, and so inclined to accept the complete regimentation of their lives by government to be saved from it. It's why you'll consistently see leftists saying idiotic things like it's worth abridging, or even abolishing certain fundamental American freedoms, if it "saves only one life." There is no ethereal estate to which they will ascend when this life ends. There is only here and now, and thus preserving here and now at any cost, becomes the highest moral and intellectual imperative. Indeed, in such a frame of mind trading freedom for security becomes the obvious, easy, and only solution to existential threats. And thus it's better to disarm the entire civilian populace, rather than risk a single person being relegated to the oblivion of non-existence, by someone that doesn't really "need" a gun.

Government tyrannical? Oh well. It could be worse. You could be dead. And it's better to grovel in deference than to die (oblivion) resisting. As long as you're alive you can engage in the amoral hedonism that secularism invariably produces, which (as Jimmy Lai likewise intimates) becomes the sole reason for living under secular Socialism; consumption subsistence. I hate to reference films, for obvious reasons, but the pod people in The Matrix come to mind. They don't really live, so much as merely exist, to perpetuate the inhuman bureaucracy that subsists on their warmth like the Socialist state does the production of its proletarian thralls. One character (Cypher), after being liberated, asks to be put back into the Matrix and bestowed a life of untrammeled carnality as a reward. A scene reminiscent of the hedonistic solipsism of the apostatic French Revolution. Alphonse de Lamartine, treating upon that failed secular revolt, and the imperialism that resulted observes.

"Liberty lives by morality. What is morality without a God? What is a law without a lawgiver? [...] I know well, and I mourn to think of it, that, even up to the present time, the French People have been the least religious People in Europe. [....] If we look at the comparative character, in matters of religious sentiment, of the great nations of Europe, America, and even Asia, the advantage is not on our side. While the great men of other nations live and die upon the scene of history, looking towards heaven, our great men seem to live and die in entire forgetfulness of the only idea for which life or death is worth anything; they live and die looking at the spectators, or, at most, towards posterity. [...] 

Open the history of America, the history of England, and the history of France; read the great lives, the great deaths, the great martyrdoms, the great words at the hour when the ruling thought of life reveals itself in the last words of the dying, — and compare them! Washington and Franklin fought, spoke, suffered; rose and fell, in their political life, from popularity to ingratitude, from glory to bitter scorn of their citizens, — always in the name of God, for whom they acted; and the liberator of America died, committing to the Divine protection, first, the liberty of his People, — and, afterwards, his own soul to His indulgent judgment. [....] 

But recross the Atlantic, traverse the Channel, approach our own time, open our annals; and listen to the great political actors in the drama of our liberty. It would seem as if God was hidden from the souls of men; as if his name had never been written in the language. History will have the air of being atheistic, while recounting to posterity these annihilations, rather than deaths, of the celebrated men of the greatest years of France. [....]

Listen to Danton, upon the platform of the scaffold, one step from God and immortality: — "I have enjoyed much; let me go to sleep," he says; — then, to the executioner, "You will show my head to the people; it is worth while!" Annihilation for a confession of faith; vanity for his last sigh: such is the Frenchman of these latter days! [....]

Thus the Republic, — which had no future, — reared by these men, and mere parties, was quickly overthrown in blood. Liberty, achieved by so much heroism and genius, did not find in France a conscience to shelter it, a God to avenge it, a People to defend it, against that other Atheism called Glory! All was finished by a soldier, and by the apostacy of republicans travestied into courtiers! And what could you expect? Republican Atheism has no reason to be heroic. If it is terrified, it yields. Would one buy it, it sells itself; it would be most foolish to sacrifice itself. Who would mourn for it? — the People are ungrateful, and God does not exist. Thus end atheistic revolutions! - Atheism Among the People, 1850.

Some in America mistook the nascent French Revolution as being duplicative of the American revolution. But others did not. Adams, who spent time in France prior to its Revolution, denounced it as an atheistic endeavor very different in spirit than that of the United States.

"If the object of France, in her revolution, ever was liberty, it was a liberty very ill defined and never understood. She now aims at dominion such as never has before prevailed in Europe. If with the principles, maxims, and systems of her present leaders she is to become the model and arbiter of nations, the liberties of the world will be in danger." - John Adams to Samuel Phillips, June 15, 1798.

There's far too much of substance in Lamartine's sentiments than could ever be addressed in a contribution of this length. But suffice it to say his lament is a protracted, and much more eloquent, way of saying that secularism destroys freedom. The French under atheism cared only for the temporal, and the breadth of their vision was so narrowed by it they saw nothing beyond mere personal, or at best party interests. Ultimately as I have long observed, as any student of history would, in the absence of God the state became God.

"In the absence of one God, man always has, and always will, fashion new ones for himself. In the absence of religion, mans tendency is to simply vest those rights and powers attributed to a deity, within another entity. For the atheist that entity has invariably been the pinnacle of human power and authority; i.e., the state. To the state they ultimately grant dominion over all things, over themselves, their children, and everything they own. O for folly, as the state without God becomes but an extension of mans' corruption and caprice. Indeed it becomes the purest, and greatest, manifestation of such in existence; honing the profligacy of its constituent parts through power and accretion. And this abomination, unencumbered by those trammels inculcated by religion, has wrought the most egregious corruption and atrocity in human history." - Me, September 9, 2013.

Years later my observation would be vindicated when Communist officials inspected a church in Dongcun village. Upon seeing a list of the Ten Commandments, an inspector pointed to the one that says "You shall have no other gods before me," and stated it must be removed

And when they're not outright effacing religion, they're subverting it through the supplantation of religious precepts with Socialist precepts. Something all Socialists do, whether it be the CCP or the Democratic Party.

Anyway I found many of my own long standing observations, as well as Mr. Lai's above, affirmed by the works of men like Lamartine and Tocqueville. I've always discerned the real reason Marxists seek a "secular government." The Judeo-Christian ethos is antithetical to Marxist principles; e.g., the abolition of private property. The Biblical God is unequivocally in favor of private property, He commands it, being listed in the Decalogue. Children in Christian societies are taught (or at least were taught), not only that stealing is a sin, but that merely wanting something that belongs to someone else is a sin. ("Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.") This sort of thinking is anathema to an ideology of theft masquerading as altruism (Marxism). As long as the preponderance of people subscribe to these religious principles Marxism could never take root. Thus, a prerequisite to establishing Marxism among Occidental society is de-Christianizing the populace. The proponents of secularism construe this as "progress," and about transitioning from religious mysticism to pragmatism. In reality de-Christianizing the populace results in the people abandoning the laws of God, e.g., the inviolability of private property, without which establishing a tyrannical Socialist state would be impossible. That's the real objective. It's why leftists attack religion so ardently in burgeoning Socialist states, and it's why already established Socialist states so ardently suppress religion.

Bibles contain ideas extremely dangerous to Socialist states it does not want spreading, like the notion there is a something greater than the state and its leader(s) to serve and worship, private property, etc. 

And naturally, as secular Socialism has ascended in the west, the average person has increasingly looked to the state and politicians to solve every problem in life, and adopted a conspicuously more communal disposition and antipathy toward the property of others in proportion. As faith dies in the west its liberty dies in proportion, lending credence to Webster's observation.

"Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion." - Noah Webster, History of the United States, 1832.

Another dreadful product of secularism, as described above and affirmed by Lamartine, is the facilitation of tyranny. The pernicious combination of amoral states that do not value human life, and timorous amoral hedonists too afraid of being separated from it (and its pleasures) to resist, have consistently not only produced oppression and genocide, but the greatest spectacles of such in human history. The godless turn only to corporeal tools (the state) for their preservation. There is no divine providence upon which to rely. Their salvation is had only through empowering the state, which increasingly becomes the sole arbiter of the propriety of its conduct, to insulate ("protect") them from any such dangers (real or imagined). Civilization smothers to death in its own proliferating excrement, as the incentive to be virtuous or heroic dissipates. Genuine virtue is everywhere supplanted with specious quasi-virtue. Things like being a loyal wife and good mother, for example, are replaced with "sexual liberation" (whoredom) and "reproductive rights" (infanticide). There is no Heaven to reward your virtue and no Hell to punish your transgressions. All the incentive as such, lies in exploiting your fellow man to whatever extent you're able, to achieve maximum pleasure and personal benefit before oblivion takes you. All the incentive as such, lies in living as long as possible, in whatever condition possible. Because a life in servitude is still living, and some pleasures of the flesh are better than none.

It must be acknowledged that atheism has its advantages. Being devoted purely to corporeality yields corporeal benefits. Atheists tend to be highly politically motivated, devoting all their energy and genius to advancing their political agenda (the empowerment of the state), because this life is all they've got. Whereas modern theists, conversely, have a predilection and propensity for apathy and indifference in political matters, believing that God will do that which they will not; that He will reform wicked rulers for them; that He will reform bad governments (even of their own making) for them, etc. There has been little more pernicious to American liberty, and which has facilitated the Marxist agenda more, than the propensity for sequestration among theists. But I digress.

As I've observed for many years the mentality of the average American has become the opposite of that of the Framers. In the Founding era death was preferable to slavery. In the modern era slavery is preferable to death. We have become a godless people, and being a godless people, we have elevated the corporeal over the ethereal in virtually every way. We are a people with faces buried in the football game while the nation burns. We are a people that can tell you the pass completion percentage of a quarterback, but cannot tell you what form of government we have. Which is a real problem in a nation in which the people are supposed to be the check upon government. An ignorant electorate cannot maintain a Constitutional Republic, anymore than a random person off the street can perform heart surgery. Both require a high degree of familiarity with the form and function of the constituent parts and systems involved. The voter must know the anatomy and physiology of government, no less than the physician the anatomy and physiology of the human body. Instead we have a populace (on average) roused from abject lassitude every few years by elections, that chooses its representatives based on an aggregated few hours (if that) of coverage by a subverted, partisan media apparatus, before sliding back into abject apathy and indifference. There is no hope for reform under such a paradigm. And the only thing that can fix it, is a return to the ethos that created the prosperity, from which the current model has degraded.

Technology changes. Borders change. The names of nations change. But human nature and the transcendent principles on which our liberty relies do not. Genuine liberty, despite what we're now taught, is not merely an intellectual concept. It is a spiritual condition (hence the title), which waxes and wanes, in proportion to a people's faith and piety. The hubris of "modern" secularists induces them to believe they've "progressed" beyond such quaint notions. Yet we see that things like the subversion of religion (which occurred under European Monarchs), and extradition laws, are at the heart of the conflict between liberty and tyranny today just as they were two hundred years ago. And that God and His laws, as such, are as necessary to the world today as they were then.

Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are merely different names for the same thing

The manipulation and corruption of language is an integral component of modern Marxism. Leftists always claim "good" titles for themselves and apply "bad" titles to their opposition to obfuscate their real agenda and induce moral inversion. What is the argument being used by all Antifa members/supporters, as illustrated above, when one observes their beliefs and behavior are fascistic? We can't be Fascists because our name is anti-fascists. Basically, we're the good guys club. How can you not think we're the good guys? It's literally our name. If you're not with us, you are by default a bad guy, and must be in the bad guy's club.

It's common for Marxists to call themselves something other than, or the opposite of, what they actually are. (See Fabian Socialism.) This is why Antifa, calls themselves "Antifa," despite behaving more like the Fascists of Germany than any right-wing opposition they denigrate as Fascists. On the Kristallnacht for example, "Crystal Night," so called for "the shards of broken glass that littered the streets after the windows of Jewish-owned stores, buildings and synagogues were smashed," Nazi rioters vandalized, looted, and destroyed thousands of Jewish businesses and other property. 

The Nazis burned synagogues.

Antifa burns Bibles.

Communist Democrat mobs have been congregating outside of the homes of political opponents to harass and intimate them, just like the Klan (a Democrat organization) used to do to black people, for months. 

Same old conduct and tactics. New labels.

Antifa, BLM, the Portland protesters, etc., are openly racist Socialist movements that support an all powerful national government. (They're only opposed to federal law enforcement currently due to circumstance; i.e., because they don't control it and it is therefore not in service to their agenda. This opposition will evaporate as soon as the Marxist Democrats regain control of it.) They're the ones violently clashing with police like the nascent National Socialist Party in Germany. I mean, how clueless does one have to be, to think a group of people that have been supporting the augmentation of federal power in virtually every way for generations, are "anti-government" because they suddenly purport to be against it the one time it's not serving their interests? Such abject naivete is indicative of a society that is hopelessly incapable of discernment and self-determination (morons).

As stated in a prior contribution Communists have gone on to kill vastly more people than the Nazis. They are the true heirs of Fascism. There have been numerous genocidal Communist states since World War 2. And the only "Fascist" states that have existed since, or exist now, are Communist states. Such as the CCP, that employed ostentatiously racist policies in the nascent stages of the COVID-19 outbreak, and keeps millions in concentration camps as organ harvesting stock. The notion that Communists (Antifa) are against tyranny, racism, or genocide is utterly laughable to anyone that actually knows history.

It must be understood that the difference between Socialists, Communists, Fascists, etc., is purely semantical. Besides the labels there is little disparity of substance. The only people who don't understand this, are the abject ignoramuses that comprise the Occidental left.

"The banner of Socialism with Chinese characteristics is now flying high and proud. It offers Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach to solving the problems facing mankind." - Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, October 2017.

Classical Communism is state control of the means of production. Classical Socialism is the people controlling the means of prediction. The pursuit of the latter always has resulted, and always will result, in the former. As illustrated in a previous contribution the Founders predicted as much. Although Marx had not yet been born, and the "Communist" movement we know today did not yet exist, the sins on which it is based, e.g., envy, covetousness, bearing false witness, et al., are innate to man and have existed as long as he has. 

"Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. [...] If all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them." - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.

If this sounds familiar it's only because it's something pretty much every Democrat now openly advocates.

Socialism is a fantasy Communists peddle to the ignorant and dimwitted, to manipulate them into facilitating the establishment of Communism. Tell people you want to take all of their property and enslave them and they won't support you. Tell them you want to give them other people's property (that they'll own the means of production) and, as seen above, they'll obliviously empower the state in the pursuit of that fantasy in perpetuity.

There exists a pervasive delusion among the ignorant that Socialists, Communists, Fascists, etc., can't be the same thing because they disagree on things and even kill one another. This is false. Socialists have disagreed, and violently, repeatedly throughout Socialism's brief history. (Stalin's purges, the Night of the Long Knives, etc.) Not unlike the different sects of Christianity, whose disparate interpretations of Scripture resulted in not only disagreement, but brutal conflict and repression (escape from which is the reason the United States exists), Socialists have likewise killed one another over differing interpretations of Socialist theory (each believing their own the true/superior interpretation). Much like the Christian sects who killed each other were all Christian, or the Sunni and Shiite are both Muslim, Socialists, Communists, and Fascists, though they may hate each other, all reside under the same umbrella of Socialism. They are competing Socialist sects.

Antifa and BLM are Communist organizations

I wish I could say things have gotten better since I originally posted on these matters. But the number of "Libertarians," insufferable cretins that they are, openly supporting Communist terrorist organizations, and posting the shamelessly duplicitous rhetoric of leftists, has only seemed to increase. As stated previously, there's a reason I have never supported Antifa/BLM and their "movement," and never will.

Notice anything? The same cretin concerned about "martial law" today, was less than a year ago supporting mass gun confiscation. (In a post that has since been deleted.) These people are snakes. They don't care about freedom. They're not for smaller government. They're not pro-gun. They're not anti-authoritarianism. They're not even really anti-cop. They are, like all Marxists, whatever they need to be, and will say whatever they need to say, to get what they want. As I've said for many years, Marxism is a relativistic ideology. Leftists, as such, do not believe in absolutes or have indelible principles. "Right" is whatever benefits them at the time. "Wrong" is whatever doesn't benefit them at the time. That's all the morality they practice. And that's why they routinely fundamentally contradict themselves like this guy. Yesterday they were against guns. But today they need them, and don't have any (because they elected officials who disarmed them), so they want you to use yours to advance their cause.

And they're not just this way in regard to guns, they're this way with everything.

Again, notice anything? David went from opposing a "national security threat" to supporting it. Why? Because David is a leftist, leftists have no concrete principles, and David is anti-Trump. Yesterday defending Tik Tok didn't serve his anti-Trump agenda. Today it does. So now he defends what he once rebuked. It cannot be emphasized enough that all leftists do this, and as such are utterly unreliable, and can never be trusted. There are countless other examples (not always from Democrats), but I think I've made my point. If you're wondering how David can be a Marxist, when he rebuked "spyware" utilized by a Marxist state in a post, then you haven't been paying attention. But there will be more on that in a future contribution.

But back to Nathan. As I said when he first posted this nonsense, if we follow Nathan's reasoning (first post), the Underground Railroad should not have existed. Anyone involved in it was a "criminal" in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act passed by Congress. 

"Any person who shall knowingly and willingly [...] harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months." - Fugitive Slave Act, 1850.

According to Nathan, you couldn't call yourself a "law abiding" American, if your response to mandatory slave recovery laws was harboring, concealing, or helping escaped slaves evade capture. "Either you'd follow the law and turn in" that escaped slave, or you'd be "an irresponsible criminal."

See, concepts like malum in se and malum prohibitum, are clearly beyond the comprehension of pseudo-intellectual hacks like Nathan, who don't understand that people rendered "criminals" through the latter by a tyrannical state, aren't any more genuine criminals than those who refused to swear the Oath of Supremacy under King Henry VIII. There's a difference between being a criminal as a result of doing something wrong, and being made a criminal purely by edict for refusing to submit to violations of your rights. The crime is not committing gun violence, as even those who haven't done so are "criminals," in Nathan's eyes. So the kind of "criminal" to which he's referring (first post) is clearly the latter (by edict). The real "crime" for Nathan is refusing to submit and pledge fealty to the state; at least when his party controls it. So, less than year ago Nathan was proclaiming that gun owners should submit to the state or be branded "criminals." Today? They're arguing the complete opposite. Now they claim to be victims of the very thing they supported just a few months ago. Now it's your civic duty to resist the state, with guns, because when it's a law they don't like being enforced it's "fascism," "martial law," etc.

And notice (second post) how he defends "cancel culture?" Basically, you shouldn't be worried about us doxing you, getting you fired, and wanting to throw you in jail for disagreeing with us; that's not a problem. You should be worried about us being arrested and jailed for vandalism, assault, arson, blinding people with lasers, using IEDs, etc. That's "fascism" guys!

Moving on, I have had numerous Democrats and "Libertarians," - which, let's be honest, is just a word that means pro-gun Democrat at this point - denying that Antifa and BLM are Communist organizations. 

Even after I point out to them that one of the founders of BLM, openly states that both her and co-founder Alicia are Communists, and that the organization operates upon a Marxist ideological framework. And that it's openly promoted and supported by Communist entities in general.

One sees the Communist fist being displayed in the last photo, which is the logo of BLM, and which has also been displayed by David Hogg.

It seems many "Libertarians" would prefer to go around absurdly claiming that Communists, openly parading their Communism, aren't Communists rather than admit they're the ostentatiously ignorant pawns they are. 

The Communist roots of Antifa, or "Antifaschistische Aktion" as it was known in Germany, are well known. Founded by members of the Communist Party of Germany, to oppose their political rivals, The National Socialist German Workers Party. I use the word "rival," as opposed to enemy, because both were Socialists, vying for power within the same country, rather than ideologically antithetically opposed factions. The Nazis eventually prevailed, and merely did to the Communists what the Communists would have done to the Nazis, had the Communists prevailed. Communists went on to kill exponentially more people than the Nazis, however, and are objectively far worse than the Nazis. 

I've said it before and will say it again. Compared to the tyranny and genocide of Communists, the Nazis were rank amateurs.

Communists have been highly successful at obfuscating this fact, by simply not teaching and refusing to ever acknowledge it. They interminably vilify "fascists," a term (in the modern parlance) used by leftists to conceal that the Nazis were Socialists (leftists), while omitting and revising their own history of unparalleled dystopian oppression and genocide. Communists calling people "fascists" is farcical, and akin to a professional bank robber calling a pick pocket a "thief." The point being the people who identify as "Antifa," are openly proclaiming their association with a far more genocidal ideology than "fascism," but are consistently too stupid to know it. But more on this in a future post.

In closing. Antifa and BLM are Communist revolutionary terrorist organizations, and anyone who associates with or supports them in any way is a collaborator.

Siding with the fed, in this instance, is the pro-liberty choice

So, "Libertarians" who've asserted federal supremacy on the issue of gun rights, for my entire life, are now siding with Communist revolutionaries against the federal government. Despite the fact the state/local governments where these riots are taking place, are Democrat run Socialist enclaves that have systematically disarmed their citizens, and which support far worse gun control than the fed under the current administration.

The Democrats in the state/local governments have disarmed the people, leaving them unable to defend themselves from the Communist terrorists roaming the streets, destroying property at will. The Democrats in the state/local governments, which by disarming them have necessarily assumed the responsibility of their defense, are refusing to defend them because those Communist terrorists are operating under the auspices of the Democrat Party. And despite all this droves of self-professed "Libertarians" and pro-2A activists, are imbibing the specious Marxist rhetoric and siding with the Communists against the Fed; the only branch of government currently doing anything to protect these people's property rights.

The notion that "the militia" would side with the commies is farcical. The militia, if it existed in these cities in any form comparable to that which existed at the Founding, would be assisting the Fed against the Communists. Because it would almost certainly be "employed in the Service of the United States," given the dereliction of the state/local governments and the ostentatious Communist insurrection that's transpiring, to "suppress Insurrections." And because its members would be motivated in no small part to take that side by personal interest, as Communist revolutionaries would be destroying the property of the very people, e.g., local citizens and business owners, that comprised the militia.

Is it supposed to mean something to me when a "veteran" sides with Communists? As if veterans never get it wrong? As if the most notorious traitors in human history, e.g., Caeser, Napoleon, Benedict Arnold, Hitler, et al., didn't wear the uniforms of their country. As if the nascent Nazi Party in Germany wasn't thronged with World War 1 veterans? As if Bowe Bergdahl didn't side with Al Qaeda? As if you're a "good" commie, cause you wore the uniform of your country, unlike that "bad" commie Stalin?

Since when have leftists cared about soldiers or veterans? Am I the only one who remembers the left calling them evil, colonial, baby-killers fighting "racist" wars for oil just a couple of decades ago? Am I the only one who remembers them portraying soldiers as "racist" monsters for taking pictures of terrorists with bags on their heads? Vietnam anyone? There's simply no excuse for this level of amnesiac stupidity.

"The Bush administration strips the people of the Middle East of their humanity and removes the ground for diplomacy, negotiation, and peaceful resolution of outstanding conflicts. It also gives itself a cover to pursue its policy of unrivaled world domination, and gives the green light to its strategic allies, like Israel, to recklessly wield their own military might in the Middle East not to mention reinforces to the extreme racist stereotypes and racial profiling and the curtailment of democracy in our land. Given the awesome power of new military technologies and weapons conventional and nuclear humankind must reject this invented and false vision of the world and impose a new logic of peace, justice, and respect for national sovereignty on the Bush administration and, for that matter, all states and movements in the world." - Communist Party, The Middle East in Crisis, July 28, 2006.

They vilified soldiers then, to advance their agenda, and vilify cops now to the same end. They used every specious argument imaginable to handicap our troops against foreign enemies then, and they use every specious argument imaginable to handicap our police against domestic enemies now. The left cares about soldiers, or cops, or babies to the extent they're useful as propaganda fodder or bullet fodder. (Mother doesn't want you? You're not a person, and your death is celebrated. Killed in a "school shooting?" Your death as bullet fodder is now useful for banning guns, so they pretend to mourn you for weeks on end.) To any soldier willing to serve in either capacity, I say you are no patriot or friend of my liberties. Serving your country yesterday doesn't excuse selling it out today. That mentality is why the perennially treacherous John McCain was reelected for years and years before dying in office with an F rating. 

Do I have concerns? Yes. But an uncertain future under a president who's not openly endorsing Communist terrorist organizations on Twitter, is preferable to serving the interests of a (Democrat) party willing to burn cities to win an election, and the certain tyranny that will result from helping Communists overthrow our current government.

On Antifa, BLM, and Portland

So recently I've begun seeing this sentiment dispensed by Democrats and Libertarians all over the internet.

I'm not sure how they're "secret," exactly, when half of the articles and memes I see on the internet are about them. But for the record I'm not going to help Communists overthrow my government and establish a totalitarian Communist state. I'm not going to supplant a lesser tyranny with a greater one. And make no mistake, that's what this nonsense is. A laughably transparent attempt by Communists to manipulate those on the right into defending them, and aiding and abetting their Communist "revolution." 

I wish I could say these specious appeals were immediately recognized and dismissed as such. But to the contrary they've been highly effective, not only on Democrats, but also the ignoramuses that call themselves "Libertarians." I see them parroting this drivel all over the internet. The Marxist left knows Libertarians are largely comprised of mindless, drug using, and therefore cop-hating reprobates. And all it took for them to exploit that prejudice, and manipulate droves of them into defending an unequivocally tyrannical movement, was expressing superficial opposition to government/tyranny and aversion to law enforcement. Many of them never questioned it and immediately flocked to the defense of leftists feigning a shared antipathy.

Anyone can peruse this blog and see my numerous and protracted critiques of President Trump. But I've also defended him when I think he's right. And in this instance, he's right, or the least wrong anyway. Why? Because everything we see is being orchestrated by the Democratic left to affect the outcome of the next election. Democrats are intentionally allowing and outright fomenting lawlessness at the state and local level, so they can portray Trump as a tyrant for intervening in response to their dereliction. (Likewise, the reason Democrats want another lock down is to cripple the economy, so Trump can't campaign on it in his reelection bid. They had zero chance of beating him with the economy booming. But I digress.) 

The purpose of American governance, at every level, is to protect liberty. State and local governments run by Democrats are refusing to do that, and allowing Communist revolutionaries with no regard for property rights, to run amok with impunity. When the state/local government refuse to enforce the law and protect the rights of their citizens that responsibility necessarily falls to the Fed. In fact, the inability of the federal government to do this under the previous compact, is specifically cited as one of its flaws.

"Without a guaranty the assistance to be derived from the Union in repelling those domestic dangers which may sometimes threaten the existence of the State constitutions, must be renounced. Usurpation may rear its crest in each State, and trample upon the liberties of the people, while the national government could legally do nothing more than behold its encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction may erect a tyranny on the ruins of order and law, while no succor could constitutionally be afforded by the Union to the friends and supporters of the government. The tempestuous situation from which Massachusetts has scarcely emerged (Shays' Rebellion), evinces that dangers of this kind are not merely speculative. Who can determine what might have been the issue of her late convulsions, if the malcontents had been headed by a Caesar or by a Cromwell? Who can predict what effect a despotism, established in Massachusetts, would have upon the liberties of New Hampshire or Rhode Island, of Connecticut or New York?" - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #21. (Parenthesis mine.)

"If any of the States were to be at liberty to adopt any other form of Government, than a republican form, it would necessarily endanger, and might destroy, the safety of the Union. Suppose, for instance, a great State, like New York, should adopt a monarchical form of government, it might, under an enterprising and ambitious king, become formidable to, if not destructive of, the Constitution. And the people of each state have a right to protection against the tyranny of a domestic faction, and to have a firm guarantee, that their political liberties shall not be overturned by a successful demagogue, who shall arrive at power by corrupt arts, and then plan a scheme for permanent possession of it. [....] They shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions." - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Guarantee of Republican Government, 1840.

Story's admonition regarding monarchy is equally applicable to "Democratic Socialism," "Socialism," "Communism," or any other form of government. And what are Antifa and BLM, if not "tyrannical domestic factions" who seek to "arrive at power by corrupt arts," e.g., demagoguery, and who's unambiguous objective is to "exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions" in order to retain "permanent possession" of their racial and ideological oligarchies? Antifa and BLM are openly Communist organizations. You'd think that would be obvious, even if BLM's logo wasn't the Communist fist, and Antifa weren't spray painting the sickle and hammer on things.

Obvious, because anyone not completely estranged to our political reality would immediately recognize that the two memes shared at the beginning of this contribution, are nigh verbatim regurgitation of Communist rhetoric being dispensed by Communists.

What these Communist Revolutionaries are receiving is mild compared to what they'll do to all of us if they're successful in their efforts to overthrow our government. These people are actively seeking out confrontation with and goading police, so they can posture themselves as victims and virtue signal all over the internet, and basically serve as Communist propaganda fodder in general. What they're doing is the opposite of legitimate police brutality. In fact they've openly adopted the tactics of Islamic terrorists by using women and children as human shields.

As I said previously this is all being orchestrated for the purpose of procuring a Democrat victory in the next presidential election. Hence Sharon's statement, "We can't wait for Nov(ember) to drive secret police from Pdx?" What happens in November, folks? 

They're not even really anti-cop. These are the same people that ardently vote for Democrat politicians, openly stating their intention to send federal agents, like the ATF, door to door disarming gun owners just a few months ago.

Their newfound aversion to federal law enforcement is ephemeral and purely a product of circumstance; i.e., because they don't currently control it and it is therefore not in service to their agenda. This opposition will evaporate as soon as Democrats regain the White House. The notion that people that have been supporting the augmentation of federal power in virtually every way for generations, are now "anti-government" because they purport to be against it the one time it's not serving their interests is farcical, and a spectacle of abject naivete.

As I've said previously we are unofficially in a civil war right now, the average American simply doesn't know it because the leftist media refers to these violent insurrections as "protests," and glorifies the Communist revolutionaries that it calls "protesters."

It isn't showing what these people are actually doing in places like Portland, where events more resemble third world war zones, than anything the average American would recognize. Where the federal courthouse has been defaced by "peaceful protesters" who are supposedly fighting "racism," with all manner of Marxist rhetoric.

"FUCK YOUR PEACE"  

"EAT THE RITCH" 

"ACAB"

"PIG" 

"THE ONLY GOOD COP IS A DEAD ONE"

"MAKE PIGS GO INSANE" 

"BLM" 

"Be gay" 

"Do crime" 

"CRIME PAYS"

As a Constitutional Conservative I have nothing in common with these people. They're not patriots, they're not for smaller government, and they're not freedom fighters. They're Communists. And only Communists or collaborators, as such, would have anything to do with this Fascist/Communist movement and the groups (Antifa, BLM, etc.) that serve as its spearhead.

The Democrat Party is the face of Communism in the U.S., and Antifa, BLM, the Portland protesters, etc., are its fist. Obtuse, mindless cattle, who stampede on the Democratic Party's command, and trample anyone not moving in the same direction as the Communist collective they serve and of which they are a part. They are weaponized morons, that exist to terrorize political opponents of the Democratic Party, not unlike the Ku Klux Klan. And now apparently the Libertarian Party too, has been subsumed by it, and is espousing its specious credo.

Communist revolutionaries with no respect for property, empowered by deliberate Democrat apathy, are rampaging through U.S. cities and terrorizing anyone who fails to submit (and even some that do). And what's the Libertarian response? To side with the Communists, against a Fed trying to preserve law and order, because "ACAB."

Once again we have Democrat terrorist organizations operating with impunity under Democrat controlled state and local governments. Once again the Democrats portray the Fed as the tyrants for obstructing the systematic violation of the rights of those they deem political/racial enemies. Once again Democrats are laying siege to federal facilities just as they did in 1861. We all know how this turned out the last time. But they don't. Democrats, and leftists in general, know nothing about history. (Because, as seen above, they erase any acknowledgment of history they deem unpleasant.) So one can't help marvel at the abject stupidity of Democrats, and Libertarians, operating under the delusional belief that giving Republicans a justification to put down an insurrection will result in less government. The last Democrat insurrection is how we got the unconstitutional federal monster we have today.