A Catalyzing Moment?

As to the notion that we stand at a "catalyzing moment"in human history, I say that there is that potential, but as yet it has not been realized. The scent, however, seems very definitely on the air. What is clear, however, is that without follow-though to the bitter end, a so-called catalyzing moment becomes meaningless. Consider the catalyzing moment of 7 December, 1941. The failure of Japan to finish off America in Hawaii very literally lost them them the war, cost them their culture, as well as countless lives, and wild destruction on their home turf.

In this particular case, we are speaking of the reaction of the Dutch farmers to the globalist Tyrant in having been ordered to destroy huge percentages of their dairy and meat herds.  It was suggested in another forum that we, humanity that is, are witnessing a catalyzing moment.  While I agree that the protests of the Dutch farmers hold that potential for the entire human race, it remains only that until we the people follow through.  Thus far, nothing.

THAT is the problem with humans. For example, all the Dutch tyrants need do is back off just a wee bit from their aggressions, and chances are good that the Dutch farmers will go back to sleep. Same in all locations because that is the human proclivity. The usurper takes 100 units of whatever it is to which he is in no way entitled, you rage and arm up for war, he backs off 25 units, you go back to sleep, and the tyrant just got 75 units absolutely free of charge. You should have charged him and killed him and his entire clan, but failed to follow up because he backed off, and you misinterpreted that act as the cessation of the threat, and worse yet, as victory. Hooboy...

And for those of you who chafe at my idea (not really mine, but I am the only individual I know saying it aloud) of killing even the children of tyrants, of stamping from the earth an entire genetic line, you need to quit being so weak-minded and squeamish about such things. Using "unjust harm to innocents" as the excuse for dereliction of one's duty to the preservation of not only one's own liberty's, but those of his fellows, cannot be validly forwarded, much less sustained in reason. And be clear: I do not in any way relish such notions, but have come to realize that insane people understand very little, but they almost universally understand the threat of genetic extinction.

To be clear, the condition should be as follows: when you are choosing to assume the mantle of the public trust in service to that trust, you do so with the understanding that your entire family is brought within the circle of the responsibilities you assume when you give your oath. That is, your spouse and your children all become directly liable for your actions as a public servant. If those conditions are not acceptable, then do not step up. Otherwise, you place all the heads concerned into the noose along with your own when you raise you hand and give your solemn word of good faith and competent service.

It is only through the clear and present dangers of risk that your poor and felonious choices bring, do the free and sovereign men of the earth stand so much as even the least chance to hold the scoundrel tyrants at bay. When their genetic lines stand before the threat of immediate annihilation by rope and lead with every choice they make as agents of governance, only then will they have the clear incentive to keep things very real, upfront, and proper. No decent man would want to kill a child, but if that be the only threat that keeps the Maos and Stalins of the world on their properly foreshortened leashes, then I assert without equivocation that that is the price we must all pay to gain and keep our liberty, particularly in the face of the fact that we have indulged our individual corruptions to the extent that we so foolishly allow "government" to exist even to the least extent.

If you're not willing to accept such necessities, then I submit that you are not serious about liberty, but only like to talk as if you were.

Freedom ain't free, and there is ALWAYS some joker willing to commit the most heinous acts against the liberties of those over whom he presumes to lord. If the self-fashioned Warrior will not take whatever measures needed to ensure his liberty, regardless of how grim those may prove necessary, including the killing of a tyrant's entire genetic stock, then he is in fact not a Warrior at all, but a haughty-talking Weakman with mere pretensions that fold like cheap suits the moment his bluff is called. Thus far, we have all proven ourselves as the latter and shall not advance our statuses even a whit until such time as we alter our wills and begin harvesting those whose livings are made in shackling their fellow men.

In this way, most people who claim to love liberty are in principle no different from the Weakmen of the progressive left, in that they want all the perceived benefits of liberty without having to bear any of the burdens of being free. That dog don't fly and that plane don't hunt. This is FAIL^FAIL and anyone who says/thinks that they are liberty lovers need to come to terms with the truth of what it means to be a Freeman, who is a peaceable warrior ready to commit the most grim acts of physical violence when called upon to defend the Altar of Liberty of which the great Patrick Henry spoke with such poetic grace and eloquence.

Guard with jealousy, indeed.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.