Thursday, February 20, 2014

The Second Age Of Kings

The second age of kings appears to be dawning.

What does this mean?  A look at the first age may provide some clues.

I know of nobody who is certain when and how the first age of kings began.  It is not even always clear how the first kings comported themselves with respect to their relationships with those over whom they ruled.  However, given what is known of human proclivity, it may be safe to say that the first kings may have been something different from those who came later.

If we are to accept that lands such as Sumer were the first examples of human civilization as we now come to think of it, one must ask why they were founded and how.  The question of why requires no great talent for imagination in order to come up with some reasonable speculations.  Areas conducive to trade were probably prone to marauders since the earliest days.  Therefore, the advantages of a walled city may have proven highly appealing for people who had been living a comparatively exposed life in the open.  Getting the first such city built, however, must have been quite a feat.  Could a leader have been able to force others to toil at the task of building?  Possibly, but it seems unlikely in a time when individualism was strong, division of labor less refined, and the average man very much more capable of surviving on his own or in small bands or tribes than we find today.

This being a likely case, it seems unlikely that the earliest men in charge, to whom I refer to as kings for convenience's sake, would have been able to get away with an authoritarian approach to leadership.  We will not go into any details about this here as they are not relevant and speculative at best. Suffice that perhaps the leader of the first walled city lead by consensus.  This seems likely.

For how many iterations this mode of leadership may have prevailed appears to be anyone's guess, assuming it ever existed at all in the comparatively large societies of these walled cities.  What we do know, however, is that at some point in history, kings were no longer just leaders and chiefs, but bosses.  Their word had become law across the face of the so-called "civilized" world to the degree that they enjoyed what appears to have been effectively unlimited prerogative to acquire, keep, and dispose of other human beings as their whim and designs saw fit.

The pharaohs of Egypt are perhaps the earliest examples of this transformation from leader to absolute authority.  This was the pattern for several thousands of years until the Greeks appear to have partly mucked up the works with their forms of governance, which were still seemingly despotic in many respects, but not to the same degree seen in the rest.

It is fair to say that some kings were "better" than others in how they treated their subjects, but this is a strictly a relative measure and at the end of the day the king was still the law.  The Torah gives several examples of this relative difference in character of kings, but to my knowledge it nowhere questions the validity of the notion of "king".

Until the advent of the Christian era, the kings of the world appear to have in the main enjoyed more or less unlimited authority over their subjects.  They collected taxes and lived lavishly in many cases; conscripted men for soldiering duties, and so on mostly without challenge.  In fact, many of the people may well have welcomed the presence of the king as a fatherly figure who would protect them from the harms that would otherwise have befallen them at the hands of marauding bands of dangerous men.

In olden times, the better of the kings must be given credit for their bravery as often they were at the heads of battle charges and many were slain.  It was not until in later times that they remained at the rear in comparative safety.  This willingness to put themselves in harm's way in defense of their people was expected of kings at one time.  But as the ages passed, kings became less and less servants of their people and more and more servants of themselves.

The one constant, however, was the nearly absolute nature of their authority.  This is a key element in understanding the creature and it should be well apprehended.  What counts mostly in the psychology of a king is not so much whether they will be good to their subjects, but that the choice is theirs alone and having been made, is unchallengeable.  It is the challenge to the absolute quality of their authority that would get a king worked up most.  An otherwise "good" king could turn to utter barbarity if the limits of his authority were ever to be questioned, especially openly before others.

By this simple formula did the kingdoms come and go for millennia.  But when the Christian ethic surfaced, a revolution of thought had been launched, the concepts therein impossible to stuff back into Pandora's box.  With the notion that the Almighty was like you and loved you and made you in his image and that all men were equal in his eyes became the elements by which the unquestionable would first be questioned by an ever growing contingent.  In time the questions became more boldly framed and openly expressed, and often the kings responded with the sword in their attempts to maintain the status quo.

The seed, however, had taken root.  People cottoned to the notion that their lives were not worthless and pointless and that the king was nothing but a man in God's eyes.  And as king's grew more desperate to keep the cork in the bottle with violence, and as people's acceptance of their basic self worth grew, conflicting with the king's claims of absolute authority by right, some of the world came to greater unease.  Magna Carta was at least in part a response to this uneasiness that was growing in parts of the world and became a nexus point in the first age of kings, a document which furthered the Christian ethic by legally formalizing its precepts such that for the first time in a long time the king's authority was openly circumscribed.  Kings still held enormous power, just not as much as they previously had.  A new trend was in its infancy.

Then came the renaissance and while kings retained great power, this was soon to change.  As time marched its march, the notions of equality and of the limits of kings developed and for the first time such men were on the wane in terms of what were allowed to do, the operative term here now being "allowed", which implies a limiting agent.  With the institution of the British Parliament, for example, the powers of the English king were significantly limited.

It was with the Age of Englightenment that the first age of kings went into its death throes.  With the rise of science and reason as the new authorities over which kings held no credible power, kings became largely impotent in relative terms and many thrones disappeared outright.  With the dawn of the modern era, the king had become an endangered species and the rights of man were at least outwardly touted by a vast plurality in the western world and for a while it appeared that the human race might well be evolving into something different; something better than it had been.

But then some funny things began happening, one of them in Russia in 1917 when a mob of peasants and factory workers managed to overthrow one of the few remaining traditional monarchies of Europe in the name of equality and justice, much as had the French about 130 years earlier.   But as was the case in France, the elimination of a more or less traditional despot resulted with his replacement by one of a new sort; a despot who had no material reality of which to speak, though it had a name: the state.

The modern state of the past 150 years, of course, has turned out to be far more powerful, muderous, destructive, and generous in doling out human misery than all the kings of the previous six thousand years put together.  But even so, the notions of human rights nevertheless made advances in a slow but steady fashion and at least the overt talk was that of limited governance and human rights.  It was upon this basis that the United States was established and took the notions brought to us first by the early Christians and Magna Carta to the next level. With its establishment and progression into its first half century, the first age of kings received another blow, perhaps the greatest ever, as Europeans fled their homelands in favor of the far freer air of America.

Sadly, this was not to last, for kings are not fond of having their authority put to flight.  As the traditional form of the kingdom faded into obscurity in favor of so-called "democracy", those who retained some considerable measures of power and who sought more were obliged by practicality to alter their appearances and modes of behavior.

As the traditional king became extinct along with the aristocracy, a new form of tyrant emerged with the so-called "state" and a new aristocracy arose in the form of the bureaucrat.  At the beginning, those people had to work quietly behind closed doors because the concepts of liberty and equality had caught on like wildfire in America and to a lesser extent and different form in Europe.  And it was quietly that they went to the task of reclaiming the throne, so to speak.  The period from just prior to the American Civil War (War of Northern Aggression) until about 1980 was the time where those behind the scenes were by practical reality obliged to work in the shadows and affect change in small increments with little bites here, a small push there, always backing off when the wrong nerves were hit and the people complained.

But in time, the small increments of change toward their favor began to add up and in the era sometime during or shortly after 1980 the United States began experiencing a quantum shift toward ever larger incursions and trespasses into the rightful territories of the individual, the great masses having been on the one hand successfully lulled into the belief that "it can't happen here" and on the other the fear of nuclear annihilation in and exchange with the Soviet Union kept their minds occupied.

As the 80s yielded to the 90s, the increments became ever more obvious, until finally on 11 September, 2001 the pretenses were essentially dispatched when the World Trade Center was destroyed along with about 3000 American lives.

Root causes can be endlessly argued along many lines, but what cannot be argued are the results.

Now, as we progress from one day to the next, so-called "government" encroaches further upon us not by nibbles and tentatively tiny steps, but by leaps and bounds.  The freedoms for which so many have sacrificed their lives now fall under the very real threat of extinction by those in power.  The "state" now responds to non-criminal issues with deadly force in the form of police entry teams.  The sword is making a comeback as the solution of first resort in cases where an absence of immediate and utter compliance by what is now effectively a serf meets with the displeasure of agents of the "state".  With each passing day the authority of the "state" takes another, larger steps toward the absolute.

This new era that threatens to come to life and fall upon us as a ravening beast I call the Second Age Of Kings, for even though there may be no man sitting upon a throne obvious and holding the title "king", there are councils of men whose decision making powers are approaching absolute status.  The effective result of being ruled by such councils is indistinguishable from those of the despots of yore.  Therefore, their rise to primacy is in effect the second coming of the kings, only I fear that these men lack even the smallest sliver of the moral character that even the worst of the kings of old possessed.  It is my suspicion that these men, once they have cemented their power to the point they can no longer be materially challenged, will make the bloodiest and most wicked rulers of ages past appear as eunuched choir boys.

Today's rulers have at their disposal not only a vast and rapidly growing array of technologies by which to control, manipulate, and destroy huge populations, but an absence of any discernible moral compunction to act in whichever ways they see fit to achieve goals that are the products of some very unsound and eminently questionable ideas about people, the world, and everyone's place therein.  They appear ready and willing to do whatever they feel the must to get what they want regardless of the outrage.

Unless these people are stopped by some means and without equivocation, bloody or miraculous, the world into which our posterity is to soon be delivered shall not be a pretty one, but rather one where individual freedom has been wiped away from list of human possibilities.

Is this the world you wish for yourself; for your children and others whom you love?  If not, it is high time you got to thinking about what it is you plan on doing about it.  Working "within the system" is unlikely to be sufficient to bring success because it is structured in such a way as to naturally result in failure to produce the results other than that which has been pre-scripted by those in power.

Therefore, the only possible paths to salvation must almost by necessity lie beyond the status quo. Onus rests with each of us wishing to remain as free men to find those paths and work them, rather than wasting time in the naive belief that mere voting and the sort are going to dislodge the new kings from their thrones.  Such men never hold political office and their names are rarely, if ever, known to the public.

I believe that massive, peaceful civil disobedience is one of those paths.

Consider what you really want in life because the time may be soon upon us where you will no longer be allowed such choices.  Please consider this carefully.

Until next time, please accept mybest wishes.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

The Four Necessities

Since ancient times there have been those among us who have strived to gain, maintain, and grow power over their fellows.  There may have been a time when such men served practically justifiable roles in a world that may have been in some ways more dangerous.  Civilization as we have come to know it, began with the walled cities of places such as Sumer and Akkad.  Such walls do not build themselves, and so it may have been that people at that time worked in voluntary cooperation pursuant to the goal of their common defense.  The historical record is not quite clear as to how many such cities were built through voluntary cooperation vis-a-vis forced servitude or even outright slavery, nor it is particularly relevant in the context of this work because we know that many such cities were built at the point of the sword.  The tyrant is fact.  The presence of despot kings and the like are well documented in the annals of human history, constituting one of the truly reprehensible constants of our lives as free-born beings.

But other factors in our lives have changed.  With the advent of ideas such as those of Christian ethics and those enshrined in the Magna Carta, the minds of men have changed, albeit by small increments.  There was the time, representing most of human civilization's temporal existence, where the king's word was law.  By this virtue and backed by the sword, people were trained in their thinking to accept royal fiat as their obligation almost no matter how outrageous the resulting injuries to themselves.  The king's tyranny was accepted as a fact of life.  His right to play the tyrant was commonly unquestioned and universally unquestionable.  Those who did question most often met with grizzly fates.

But as the mindset of blind acceptance by the common man slowly changed to one of questioning and eventually rejecting the king and priest as absolute authorities, those seeking to retain their positions and status as powers among their fellows were faced with the challenge of how to do so against the rising opposition to the olden style of openly capricious and viciously cruel domination.

It became increasingly the case that such men were ever less able to brazenly declare themselves the absolute and unchallengeable rulers of the rest, for the hazards of the old approach to dominion had increased significantly.  Therefore, such men had to discover and employ new means whereby the sword became an issue of n-th resort, if not yet the last.  Being the clever fellows that such men tend to be, the once distasteful prospect of lying became the tyrant's new best friend, for through lies was he able to gain the consent of those over whom he presumed to rule.

In time and for a while the sword took a less prominent role on the front lines of one's daily tyrannies, demurring to the greater efficacy of the word, which when artfully misused tended to gain the consent of the people to all manner of abuse.  Naturally, the sword was still commonly applied when the timbre of the king's tyrannies went past the limits of tolerance.  But as time progressed, such tactics were viewed with ever greater criticism as the concepts of human rights developed among the larger mass of civilized humanity.

Therefore, it behooved the smarter cultivators of political power to use that which worked best: words.  But there had to be some principled or at least empirical basis upon which to frame such words.  There had to be a way to know which arrangements would work best and which not to use.

As it turned out, there was indeed such a basis and it has become the foundation upon which all modern tyrants function.  I call it the "Four Necessities", which are the fundamental human weaknesses which, when properly exploited, allow one to wield nearly universal and unlimited power over a population.  As men evolved away from the acceptance of kings-as-gods and toward the realization that no man stood so far above them, the tyrants came to realize something new was needed and they very rapidly zeroed-in on the Four Necessities.  After all, any military leader will tell you that one does not act against the strengths of his enemies, but rather his weaknesses.

To act directly against the strengths of an increasingly doubting and potentially angered mob would have been dangerously foolish.  What, then, were the weaknesses of those over whom they sought to gain and/or maintain their power?  The Four Necessities comprise the body of those most reliable of vulnerabilities in which the tyrant may place his deepest trust to aid him in achieving his ends with but the least prudence in their application.

The Four Necessities lists those failings of the human creature of which the tyrant must take sufficiently clever and ruthless advantage in order to capture and keep the consent of those over whom he would rule.  Failure to maintain sufficient control over any single Necessity would place the tyrant at some jeopardy.  History endows us with abundant examples of those who fell to the awakened wrath of those over whom kings failed to maintain heed of one or more of the Four.  The good news for the tyrant, however, is that with the least care in how one goes about employing the leverage afforded by the Four, one is virtually guaranteed long term success.  Only the most inexcusably inept manipulations threaten his position and objectives.

The Four Necessities, without which the modern tyrant cannot maintain control over a population, are:
  1. Fear
  2. Avarice
  3. Ignorance
  4. Lassitude
Fear has always been an obvious weakness of humans of which the kings of yore have taken great advantage.  But even fear has its limits.  Beat a man too much and he loses his fear and will fight back.  Therefore, fear is not sufficient in itself to the aspirations of power, particularly in the face of certain common belief systems.  It is, however, necessary in its ability to enhance the other Necessities.  Therefore, the wise tyrant cultivates the quality of cowardice in the great majority of his subjects such that they live in a state of constant, low-level, gnawing fear.  This may be manipulated in many ways and degrees in order to serve both shorter and longer terms goals.

Avarice is the second human weakness.  When tightly coupled with fear, such as that of not getting what one wants or losing that which one has, the power over men grows mightily over the case where fear alone is the motivator.  Mind is nearly everything in the game of politics and once you have them convinced that hey have something they greatly wish to keep, more than half the battle of the tyrant is won.  The other side of that coin is to cultivate a burning, itching desire for things they as yet do not have but may one day be able to acquire, and a seething sense of envy for those they deem beyond the reach of their lives.

Ignorance can take many forms and its effects great, despite being at times very subtle.  Small divergences from truth can result in yawning chasms between what an individual believes and what is in fact true. When closely combined with fear and avarice, ignorance brings the strength of the tyrant's powers to within but a few percentage points of being complete.  How can one rebel against tyranny if he is unable to identify it as such?    The unrecognized enemy is a safe enemy.

Propaganda has been raised to new heights of art, craft, and science in this age of electronic media.  During the twentieth century the despots of the time were quick to recognize the power of these new technologies and those very instruments made clear to them just how vulnerable the common man was to their powers of persuasion through the artfully misleading use of words and now images, combined to form a new language of such vast power that the average man has great difficulty navigating the clever waters of the adept propagandist.  To this we bear witness every day as the news broadcaster spews and regurgitates the cleverly contrived expressions of the masters, laced with half-truths designed to lead the audience to a specific conclusion.  And it works like a charm.

Lassitude takes up the remaining slack.  To be lazy is a common and very fundamental human characteristic, just as it is among a great many other species, lions being a good example.  There is nothing wrong with being lazy - to a point.  But when laziness is overly encouraged by word and reward, it becomes a disease condition in men.

When the Four Necessities are properly cultivated in a population, the result is a man whose morbid greed and fear reinforce each other.  Having been lead astray into sufficient ignorance, his fear and avarice are further fortified by leaving him unaware of the truer nature of his circumstances.  Taking advantage of these three, lassitude is cultivated in the man such that by the synergistic force of his fear, his sickly greed, and his woeful ignorance, he finds himself devoid of any desire to alter his condition.

Once a threshold has been crossed, each of the Necessities aids the others in a mutually reinforcing death spiral that can be overcome only by the wildest fluke or through some unimaginably gross mismanagement by those in power.  Or a miracle.

The effectiveness of this combination would be difficult to argue against as witnessed by our current state of political affairs.  Of interest, however, is the fact that as the state of the population to unconditionally accept the tyrant's whim nears perfection, the sword is once more slowly working its way up the ranks toward primacy.  Having fallen in status as a means of last resort, it is rapidly returning to its former glory as that of the first.  The evidence for this may be witnessed in the ever growing use of paramilitary tactics by police where they shoot first and ask questions later and for "offenses" of ever diminishing significance.  

Just recently a man named Octavius Johnson was savagely beaten by police with a horde of perhaps twenty or more officers showing up at his home, guns drawn and entering without warrant.  His offense?  Having expired tags on his truck!

The real telltale of such events is that these brands of barbarity are meekly accepted by the vast majority of people because they are afraid of what police may do - of what they may lose.  Or they believe that what has been done is right, their ignorance working its magic in their lives.  In all cases, there is insufficient motive to bring it to an end.  Fear.  Avarice. Ignorance. Lassitude.  All there in alarming and dangerous abundance, intimately intertwined, the whole being vastly greater than the sum of the constituent parts.  

While it is true that a growing number of us are standing against such behavior, the question remains open as to whether it is too little, too late.  It is my sincere hope that it is not, but I cannot claim to have found any basis for great optimism there.

Be that as it may, it is my genuine wish that people will take what is written here and give it some careful consideration.  Try to understand what this all means and see how it is in fact the case with the people around you and perhaps even with yourself.  Do not take my word for any of this, but accept it on a provisionally skeptical basis. Question everything and be observant of yourself and those around you and see whether you can identify where and how the Four Necessities are at work.  Pay close attention to what politicians say, what they neglect to say, and try to see where they pander and play to fear, avarice, ignorance, and lassitude.  I am confident that if you do this with some care and diligence, you will come to see what I see and that will be the beginning of your transformation.  But be patient with it because these things can be difficult to identify, especially if you have been heavily conditioned.

Unless we are willing to overcome those weaknesses that the rulers exploit to their various ends, which usually do not coincide with our best interests, we shall remain their wantonly helpless pawns as we jump with every twitch of a string.  Is this the brand of existence you wish to call your "life"?  For your sake, I sincerely hope not.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Taking The Fight To Themme

What I am about to propose here will seem pretty wild to some, and perhaps it is. But wild does not necessarily mean wrong. Some will stop somewhere in mid-sentence and think "this one's gone 'round the bend" and want to read no further.

Since I have been posting here I believe that on the whole I have endeavored with some success to maintain a well measured head in the ideas I have espoused. It is with this in mind that I will ask those of you who choose to read much further than this sentence to continue to the end so that you will understand that the more extreme sounding things I am to suggest are not in fact crazy, but the results of one of the only two places that we as a population can now go in this good land of ours. I've not been drinking and I am not a user of drugs. My mind is in a state of rational clarity and I alone am responsible for that which I am about to write on this page.

What I will address is a possible course of action I feel is one of our only remaining effective avenues for putting to an end a major facet of our current political problems: crimes perpetrated by so-called "law enforcement" agents and the failure of their respective departments and the courts to hold them properly accountable. In this I am holding no bars and pulling no punches. What I intend here is a bare knuckles address of what needs to be done in order to wrest control back where it belongs: our hands. What I will suggest may seem like madness to some, but I assure you that I have given this careful consideration and make such observations only with the greatest reticence and the regret that conditions are such that I feel them to be reasonable and necessary if anything is to remain of our lives, liberty, and any prosperity of which to speak that we might yet pursue.

We are living in what may be the end times. I do not mean this in the more common religious sense, but as it relates to the qualities of our lives. It now appears that we are daily treated to some new assault upon our freedoms and the rights to which we all hold equal claim. There are several facets - lines along which those in power mount assaults upon us in order to violate those rights in Theire attempts to show us who is really boss. It is my intent to address one of those facets that poses a clear and present danger: criminal behavior by law enforcement personnel. We are daily baraged with accounts of the criminal misconduct of various law enforcement agents and the consequent crimes of their respective agencies and the courts wherein the original perpetrators have been exonerated or otherwise excused for their felonious acts against the people and even actively protected from accountability.

How shall we regard this degeneration that daily progresses to every deeper states of rot? Shall we continue to sit idly as the law enforcement juggernaut continues to steamroll us into the ground, often literally? How well has this worked out for us, as we peek at the entry team breaking down our neighbors' doors from behind the blinds, grateful that it wasn't us? Consider how many of those entries, some resulting in the fatal shooting of the occupants, were executed on the wrong houses due to errors in the warrants. Consider that in every case to my knowledge, not a single actor has been called to account for his actions.

Law enforcement is wildly out of control in the United States in these early decades of the twenty-first century as we find our freedom and indeed our very lives under mortal threat as a consequence. Agencies of all stripes murder and pillage the good people of this land on a daily basis. It has even been shown in some cases that such agencies actually planned with criminal intent to rob people of their property, murdering them in the process.

If you find this incredible, consider the case of the Los Angeles county sheriffs who entered and murdered a 72 year old man who had recently undergone open heart surgery when he dared defend his panicked wife as the unidentified, black-garbed thugs broke through the front door of their 5-acre Malibu estate. It was later discovered IN WRITING, the department's secret plan to seize the property through civil forfeiture laws by cobbling a false drug case against the owners. I happened to be in Los Angeles some time after this sordid affair ended murderously. The plan had been discovered by an investigator and the LA prosecutor's office REFUSED to bring charges against the murderers who comprised the entry team, as well as those from the same office who planned the heist. I stood before the television at my friend's house and witnessed the report myself, or I would not have believed that anything so outrageous could have been possible even in that county, notorious for their criminal law enforcement agencies and endlessly corrupt government.

Let that soak in for a moment. A SHERIFF'S department held in its possession a tax book in which they made notes of which properties they were to seize simply because they liked them and wanted them. They then breached and murdered the owners of at least one of those properties. This is FIRST DEGREE murder. Premeditated. Were you or I to make such plans and execute a cop in order to seize his home, is there any doubt in your mind that if apprehended we would face exactly those charges?

That was ca. 1997 and things have gotten far and away worse since then. We are now faced with a choice none of us should have to make: lay down or stand tall. For those not in the mood for bed at this point in their lives, it is time to start an earnest discussion of what it is we must do to stop this tide of aggression against the good people of this nation. To that end I believe it behooves us to start taking an account of who the government participants are, at least at the local level. Start collecting information on names and addresses of police, sheriff's deputies, prosecutors, and so forth. Knowing who they are allows us to track their whereabouts to some extent in the event they are foolish enough to commit crimes while on duty.

Next, we must be willing to hold these people materially accountable for their actions in the absence of same on the part of those in whom our trust has been vested, which includes the agencies for which the criminals work, the prosecutors who routinely fail to file the correct charges against such criminals or pursue them in such lackluster fashion that acquittals are all but guaranteed, and the courts who fail to adequately punish them for their crimes in the rare cases where convictions are attained. Yes, I said "punishment".

Because we can in no reasonable way rely upon those whose jobs it is to see that criminal acts by law enforcement personnel are punished properly, onus falls to us to take up the reins they have willfully dropped and see to it that these most heinous of all criminals are held to account for their deeds.

Knowing who they are and where they live is the first step in holding them responsible. To that end I believe it serves the cause of justice for people to collect lists of such information by any means necessary, even if it means following such criminals around town and staking them out until such time as the location of their residence becomes known, as well as their other habits so that they may be located with relative ease in the event it becomes necessary to apprehend them as matters of citizens' arrest.

I suggest that as a matter of procedure we at least give the criminal justice system the opportunity to do its job, regardless of the monumental failures to which we have all been witness.

Having tabs on police and other similar characters is central to the cause of justice and the preservation of our liberty. Equally important is the will and means to act. Theye must come to experience the first hand knowledge that there are people who WILL hold them personally and very directly accountable for their felonies. There are those who, for example, will burn their houses down in the event they were to act treasonously against their otherwise good and peaceable neighbors. In time, this should give them some very serious pause and reason to take stock of the precariously dangerous positions in which they place themselves when they choose to act criminally in the course of their duties as agents of the public trust.  But this, of course, is the last resort extreme.  There are other avenues that may in fact prove equally effective.

Imagine developing compartmentalized local organizations that would collect and keep such information, plan for contingencies, and serve notice upon local agencies that they stand at risk if they were to engage in unwise action against said peaceable neighbors. I call this "taking the fight to Themme". No action should ever be taken, save in response to criminal action by officials. We do not want to become that which we loathe, yet must be willing to act with decision when we have been violated, for no transgression of Theires should be allowed to pass without full and unequivocal address.

The other approach, one which has actually worked very effectively throughout history, is the shun.  Were such criminals to be shunned by all among whom they live, their lives would become as living hells.  Imagine no local business allowing such persons upon their premises, forcing the criminal to travel out of town for the most basic necessities.  Imagine what their lives would be like were they unable to partake of any social interactions in the ways that everyone else could.  It might take a while to sink in, but in time the effect would be definite and very unpleasant.

Imagine shunning all prosecutors and others who fail to pursue the proper remedies against criminal police.  They and their families would be unable to live normal lives because of the choices actively made by them.

Some may be tempted to assess this as daft thinking, but I would have to counter by pointing out that these people are murdering us, and rates at which they are doing so are increasing dramatically. If you are not alarmed at the rate at which police, etc., are murdering mundanes, then I would have to submit that YOU are mentally unsound in the extreme. One of the problems here, of course, is the perceptive callouses so many of us have developed whereby what was once unthinkable is now met with yawns and, "oh... that."

Imagine if every time a cop behaved criminally against a mundane his life suddenly became severely boxed in to the point he was unable to do much else other than go to work and return home, or in more extreme cases face the direct material wrath of those whom they have violated. Unless these men and women are going to take on the gay lifestyle and live in a hardened bunker for 25 years, they will always be vulnerable to those who would hold them unequivocally accountable. One may argue against such tactics citing that it is too much work or Theye will just post guards around the homes of such officials. Not a problem because time is on OUR side. We can wait years. The cost to defend a single home per year by placing 24 hour guard would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. How long would any community be able to sustain such exhaustive expense? Not even Beverly Hills could do it for very long. Besides, anyone defending a criminal becomes accomplice and now they would be subject to the shun or even their homes would require protection, leading Themme into a very tight corner.

We outnumber Themme hundreds to one, at the very least. We have the advantages of anonymity, of being able to pick and choose the time to strike, the circumstance, and the method. They are at fixed locations - we are fluid. We blend in - they stick out as sore thumbs.

Continue with me a bit now. Imagine we began doing this. Cop murders someone. A team burns down his house. What would be the initial response? Hornets in a wild frenzy, especially after the note stating clearly that the fire was the first step in meting justice to the criminal. The local police department would be in a fury over it - endless money spent investigating and threatening. This would likely go on for months or until a suitable suspect was identified and apprehended, but for now let us assume nobody is "caught". They would harm themselves mightily in monetary terms chasing the ghosts who reduced the guilty cop's home to ash. Said cop might find trouble acquiring a new insurance policy, as well. Also consider that if he rebuilds, that house would also be burned. Keep destroying his property until he is brought before a jury on the correct charges and properly punished.  I do not disregard the possibility of  meting justice directly.  We hold the right to do this, particularly in the face of the failure of those in whom we placed our trust to do so.

Imagine a second incident occurs. Cops proactively put officer under protection. Lots of $ on that, and as I mentioned, the advantage of time lives with the agents of accountability. Will the protection remain for 6 months? A year? At some point, the PD will begin feeling the pinch. What then? Raise taxes? That should go over as well as a lead balloon in a community damaged by such creeps, the same ones who almost undoubtedly have turned the wick up on the mundanes over whom they now dominate. Either way the cops lose - they go broke or just serve to anger people even more, ever poisoning the well against themselves by extorting more money from the proles.

As tensions rise, cops are most likely to continue to commit ever worse errors against those who pay their salaries. History is rife with examples of how tyrants almost always react unwisely in such cases.  Beyond a point there are not enough police to provide all the protective services. Someone, somewhere, is going to be left exposed. That is where and when they are hit. Another house burned or car or ??? burned or otherwise destroyed. Or the cop is simply removed from the roles of the living. If the cop's offense was murder, I have no problem with simply dispatching him where opportunity presents itself.

You may think this is REALLY crazy, yes? I might otherwise agree, save for one thing: this is wartime, not peace. Theye have declared WAR on drugs, for example. Theye murder us on whim, citing officer safety as the excuse. Theye apprehend, beat, and imprison us for all manner of non-crimes. Arbitrarily labeling X a "crime" does not make it so - something most Americans have either forgotten or about which they have become lazy or just apathetic. We have been SO heavily conditioned to meekly accept the capricious abuse of "government" that acts of self defense and of holding accountable those who criminally damage us are viewed as crimes in themselves. THAT is where the crazy lives. When you believe that you hold no right to defend your life against state aggression, YOU are the one who has gone mad. When you believe that holding accountable those who have damaged you, especially when those who have been entrusted to do so refuse, is impossible or somehow immoral, then YOU are the one who is mentally deranged.

Make no mistake about this one fact: we are at war - right here, right now. Just because you do not see uniformed troops storming your neighborhoods; just because artillery and gun fire and aerial bombs are not raining down upon your community, it does not follow that a state of guerrilla warfare does not in fact exist in the place where you live and work. Government has taken its warfare to your community in guerrilla fashion. That it has not landed on your doorstep is as much the result of sheer chance as anything else. What else do you call an entry-team, armed to the teeth and eager to shoot, busting in your door, wrecking in minutes what may have taken you a lifetime to put together, perhaps shooting your dog or even YOU - maybe taking your children away, and then retreating, either with you in handcuffed tow or simply standing there with a load in your pants and your jaw on the floor as they rapidly disappear into the black night? Is hit and run not the very definition of guerrilla warfare?

We are in the midst of a nationwide guerrilla war between the mostly peaceable and decent people of this land and the "law enforcement complex". Consider that their skills such as breaching etc., are highly perishable. These must be exercised constantly or they go to pot in no time. Consider that exercise on a dummy course provides no proof-of-the-pudding. The real test comes with actual application in the world. Therefore, police departments are highly motivated to seek out as many opportunities for real-world practice as possible. This motive does NOT have to root in some evil intention. Very much the opposite, and THAT is where we find the greatest danger. Theye don't see the hazard because in their narrowly channeled and hopelessly distorted thinking they are doing God's work. If you are against them, then you become part of the problem, a person of interest, and all of a sudden you are viewed very differently and you'd better watch your back... or move.

Given the demonstrable fact that we are in a true state of war with those who may think they are defending... well, what exactly I cannot really say anymore, every shred of sense God put into a boiled turnip should be telling you that taking well organized measures to defend yourself against these people gone mad is not only right and proper, but that nature itself obliges you to the act. Failure to see this may be evidence of how complete has been your conditioning to accept the master's command such that you surrender your life on his capricious demand. If anything is insane, it is that.

So really, we each of us have a choice to make. Bow in tribute to the cult of state-mandated self-destruction, or stand tall. The latter does not mean painting a target on yourself like a fool, but rather that you seek out like-minded people and start forming action groups who will work to hold the Mob accountable for their crimes. The choice is yours entirely. Nobody is going to twist your arm to take action. Theye, in fact, want you to remain as impassive as possible so that they may harvest you if and when the time seems appropriate, whether by intent or by "oopsie". You have Theire thanks for remaining the willing candidate for their caprice and the slaughter that too often ensues when one's number is drawn.

But if you have no desire to be a willing throat for the master's knife, onus rest with you and your like-minded fellows alone to hold him accountable in the most stark terms for the crimes he commits. Relying on the "courts" is an act of willful error taken by those too cowardly or stupid or lazy or otherwise unwilling to see the truth that it is with ever growing rarity that such agents of the "state" are held to account for their perfidies. Cops and so forth literally get away with murder and are in fact now praised for their felonious deeds as witnessed by the standing ovation received by such men from Congress after having gunned down an innocent woman with a child in the automobile with her in Washington DC. How is it that we allow this?

Government tyranny CAN be fought successfully, IMO. The reason is has not succeeded is because nobody is DOING it. But let the first several dozens of bodies be found with the right notes on them, left by good and otherwise peaceful people who refuse to be destroyed and abused and we would see movement. After the first few hundreds of cop houses burned to the ground, perhaps with the criminals yet inside, there would be movement. I cannot guarantee it would be Theire wise retreat for which we would hope, but if not then Theye would be drawing clear the battle lines between us, and if that is what we the people need to get their heads our of their backsides, then so be it. Theye either retreat or escalate. Either way, Theye lose. But maintaining the status quo is the single condition that virtually guarantees Themme the long victory.

Make no mistake, in a very real sense it is us or Themme. Thus far, the score card is weighing heavily in Theire favor and if our freedom is ultimately reduced to rubble, make ye sure to know that it became so but as the result of our choices and not for the absence thereof.

Time is here.

Choice is ours.

We can stop this any time we want.

So far, we don't want to - at least not enough to make it happen.

Think about that awhile.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.