And you are not permitted to obstruct it:
I admire Paul Joseph Watson immensely. God alone knows how many people in the British Establishment would love to see him dead. The video above is the briefest taste of his oeuvre. All of it is worth watching.
While he usually writes (and videographs) about matters in Britain, much of his subject matter is equally relevant to us here in the Land of the Formerly Free. It’s certainly relevant here. The huge influx of illegal aliens we’ve observed these past two years is deliberate on the part of the political Establishments of both Britain and America. The point is to render real Americans defenseless against the Establishment politically. That, after all, would be the result of all those illegal aliens voting in our elections – and you may be very sure that the Powers that Be will do their damnedest to get ballots from their noncitizen hands to the nearest ballot box.
The coordination of this population-dilution process with the disarming of American citizens and the slow but steady criminalization-by-lawfare of self-defense is not a coincidence. The very people whose sacrament is killing unborn babies — a “right” they would defend to your death – shriek with horror at the idea that law-abiding Americans should have firearms. You’ve heard all their mantras: “Weapons of war don’t belong on our streets!” “People have a right to feel safe!” “All we want is common-sense regulations!” “If it saves just one life, it’s worth it!” “Why do you need a gun when you have the police!” (Of course, if you ask what good the police were in Newtown, Connecticut, Parkland, Florida, or Uvalde, Texas, they have the perfect riposte: “Racist!”)
What even the minimally aware among the Usurpers fail to realize is that they’ve created a boiler without a safety valve. Pace Herbert Stein, this cannot continue indefinitely. Therefore…? All that remains to be seen are the timing and manner of its termination: how much blood will be spilled and how many innocent lives will be ruined. I cannot doubt that there will be substantial quantities of each. The sacrifices we’ve already suffered might prove to be drops in the ocean.
Estimates of the armed power of the private American citizenry range from 200 to 400 million firearms and trillions of rounds of ammunition. When — not “if” – the forbearance of decent Americans is exhausted, those weapons will be used. The mind of a decent man recoils from contemplating what will follow. Mine does, at any rate…but that won’t keep the nightmare from coming true.
“But they’re victims!” (“Of whom?” is seldom asked and never answered.) This is usually followed by the claim that the illegals have a “right” to do whatever they can “to improve their lot.” And of course, We the Put-Upon must cede any and all of our rights that might get in their way.
These simultaneous exercises of victimist BS and shrieking Safety-Nazism have me near to foaming at the mouth. As I dislike to do so on a perfectly clean shirt, allow me to quote a previous mouth-foaming at length:
“My friends, you have a right to nothing…except what you can earn in a free market, or what others are voluntarily willing to give you. — Robert Ringer, How You Can Find Happiness During The Collapse Of Western Civilization
“Rights.” Got any? What are they? Enumerate them. Justify them as best you can. And be prepared to defend them – against me. Because if I decide you don’t have such rights, I’ll ignore your demands while I’m able, and fight back viciously should ignoring you or your political patrons fail to suffice.
I’ve often spoken and written about natural law. The laws of nature aren’t artifacts of legislation; they’re consequences of the structure of the universe. To the extent that we have natural rights. they must be implied and upheld by those laws. The “rights” everyone and his halfwit Uncle Elbert have been demanding of us have nothing to do with them. They use the word rights to characterize their demands because it has a special power in American thought.
In point of fact, there is exactly one natural right. But let’s think oh-so-briefly about what we might do to verify or falsify the claim that this or that demand constitutes a “right.” Can we come up with criteria by which to assess such claims? I think so:
Can everyone alive exercise the claimed “right” simultaneously, without giving rise to conflicts that can only be settled by force? No imaginable conception of “rights” dependent upon enforcement can be made consistent with that standard. Natural law guarantees that once force is made the arbiter, force, whether exercised or withheld, will determine everything. In microcosm, this is easily grasped: your “rights” have no power against a mugger with a gun to your chest. For us who have been steeped in statist notions, the implications are the tough part:
“Rights are an archist concept. Rights have no meaning except when confronted with superior power. They are what is left to the people after the government has taken all it wants. Your country’s Bill of Rights defines your most cherished freedoms how? By limiting the legal power of government to encroach upon them.” [Eric L. Harry, via fictional anarchist theorist Valentin Kartsev in Harry’s blockbuster Protect and Defend.]
Governments cannot define rights in any morally defensible sense; they can only wield force and intimidation. Eric Harry saw that clearly. So do the victimists.
[…]
Robert Ringer’s declamation quoted above should be at the forefront of the mind of any man determined to be free. However, the proper focus can make all the difference. It would be insufficient to delegitimize politics as practiced in America’s capitals. We must first resolve to ignore those claiming absurd, wholly unjustified “rights” and striving to bend us with the quasi-political tools of unearned guilt, intimidation, screaming, and harassment. That’s where the effort must start.
They have a right to exactly nothing.
Grant them that and nothing more.
We do not need their approval.
We do not need them to welcome us.
We certainly don’t need their respect.
The tale has at least a bit longer to run. I might not be around to write the final chapter. Verbum sat sapienti.
3 comments
“Estimates of the armed power of the private American citizenry range from 200 to 400 million firearms and trillions of rounds of ammunition. When — not “if” – the forbearance of decent Americans is exhausted, those weapons will be used. The mind of a decent man recoils from contemplating what will follow. Mine does, at any rate…but that won’t keep the nightmare from coming true.”
————————–
Maybe. I have heard variations of the same thing over and over again. I used to believe it myself, even as it makes one think of black helicopters dropping heavily armed men into quiet neighborhoods at 2AM who storm the homes of armed citizens to confiscate their guns. The homeowner goes out in a blaze of glory and hot lead, thinking that by killing more of them than they of us, the entire confiscation fiasco collapses and then [insert undefined actions here] peace and justice prevail from the sacrifices of those who perished.
I don’t mean to belittle those who say, no doubt in earnest, that this hill is the one they will die upon. We all may yet have to see that dark day. But maybe not. There are other ways now to use the way we live against us.
What has changed my mind is the lesson learnt just a few months ago, from Mr. Justin Trudeau. Gun opponents will keep working at it as events pile up and sooner or later some national crisis will result in a US President asking for and getting what amounts to dictatorial powers — the Constitution and the Supreme Court be dammed — and a public need to control “gun violence” in these critical times.
Now, cue the black helicopters at 2 AM? Nope, not even close.
Just make possession of prohibited firearms a civil (not criminal!) violation with the penalty of freezing your bank account and forfeiting your, your spouse’s and even your own children’s financial assets. You don’t even have to turn in your guns and ammo since you don’t get your money back once it’s gone. Un-named and distant bureaucrats do it all with a few mouse clicks. Have that happen a few times to a tiny number of gun owners and their families selected at random in your community to be permanently financially ruined and you will come around. Now, who do you shoot?
Author
Shooting the banksters who collaborated in that action would make for a good start. Shooting state and local poiticians who didn’t do a thing to obstruct such jackbooted tactics would be good, too. But of course, one must be ready to act. One must have provisions for the siege, including specie of the sort that no longer stands behind the fiat dollar, but which everyone still values. And I have no doubt that at least 2% of our people are both locked, loaded, and waiting for the “trigger.”
By “banksters” I’m assuming you mean the top level execs.
I’m not about to go down to the local branch of my bank and shoot the pleasant young tellers and the middle aged lady branch manager. Violence at that level would simply be used as an example of why such emergency measures are needed because of these “gun nuts”.
Politicians supporting the decrees are another story. Heads on pikes make for a convincing argument. You haven’t seen that sort of stuff lately. May be a practice that should come back into vouge.
Let’s pray we don’t have to find out what level of violence is going to be needed. I think it is high, very high.