Kill The Tyrant

 How do we effectively neuter the Tyrant without resorting to open war as the party to fire the first shot?

How do we reduce the Tyrant to irrelevancy?

In a word, we starve him out. 

It is quite that simple, if not quite that easy. 

To wit, we:

1. Pay him no heed or tribute, effectively ostracizing him by simply turning our backs to him
2. Resist him at every turn through non-compliance with his command; make him sweat and toil maximally for his every violation, giving no quarter such that his wretched existence becomes a misery of toil with every breath and twitch of his rotted mind.
3. Defy him openly, head high so he knows he is flouted, which tends to enrage him.  Feed that rage until either he quits in frustration, or looses his dogs.  Either way, he loses.
4. Show him naught but utter, cold, scientific indifference, for that is one of the greatest weapons one has over an enemy. In so doing, the Tyrant is diminished by his own hand, as we cause his sick mind to act against his own interests.  We become as a great black hole, giving him nothing whatsoever in return for his foot-stamping edicts and tantrums.  He destroys himself, the beauty in it being that it all transpires in his own mind, the bad place being the only one where such people ever go because it is the only place they can go.  That inevitability leads him to consume himself.

Make the Tyrant sweat blood for every trespass he commits against you and your fellows. Defend the rights of all men, even those who curse and disparage you. Always be the better man.  Always be better than the Tyrant and his rotten lackeys.

Make the price of playing his cheap game so high, the Tyrant comes to hate his days for the anguish of his interminable frustrations and outlays. Leave him unable to enjoy the ill-gotten fruits of his felonious labors.  Become obstreperous and intractable to all who forget themselves and so foolishly choose the path of the Despot and his oppressions.

Never forget that the Tyrant cannot succeed without the willing cooperation of those upon whom he directs his crimes. When enough of us stop obeying, turning our backs upon him and his petty tantrums, he will become an embarrassment to himself before the world, forcing him to that nexus where he must choose to step aside, tail tucked, or escalate to physical violence. Either way, we win. 

Either the Tyrant recedes into ignominy as he diminishes and disparages himself in the effective admission of his status as a self-mocking disgrace to Existence itself, or makes his ultimate error in escalating to open, physical violence. In the latter case, we then strike the life from the Felon and his lackeys, relegating them to the dustbin of history as just another coterie of anonymous scoundrels who met their condign ends at the hands of Freemen who would not be abused.

The only way we lose is by aiding and abetting the Tyrant's crimes against us, thereby defeating ourselves through our continued obedience.

That these artlessly ham-fisted examples of feckless humanity have succeeded so wildly, stands as glaring testament to what utter failures we have all of us been.  We should all burn with shame, that those boobs have managed such domnation over us, for without our effective cooperation, it never would have been possible.

All we see transpiring worldwide should give us cause to reflect and consider with great care that which we have become and to further consider and decide what it is that we wish to become, both individually (most important), and as societies.  Do you really want to be slave to a raft of petty, third-rate, vicious buffoons?  It is one thing to be subjugated by an indomitable adversary worthy of some respect for his capabilities, but to willingly place your head into the noose of an all-thumbs, blithering incompetent to your own destruction... that's just cause for endless, searing shame and embarrassment.

We should all endeavor to do better.  If we fail, Theye will have us for good before much longer.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

SCOTUS Offers Little Basis For Optimism In Second Amendment Case

I'm not seeing why anyone would be particularly impressed with the intermediate results in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case. Cautious optimism is about all I can muster, and only with supreme effort. I heard the oral arguments and can only say that I was singularly unimpressed with the performances of most of the justices. Roberts, for example, either fails to understand rights, the Constitution, or both. The Constitution does NOT "grant" rights, yet he asserted that it was so. The Constitution RECOGNIZES and PROTECTS them. Roberts showed himself insufficient to the task of hearing these arguments by that virtue alone, even if he appears to otherwise lean in favor of the 2A. I am tempted to put money on his not understanding that which constitutes (defines) a right, were I in a betting mood. Furthermore, I would almost bet money I do not have that Roberts, and perhaps several other members of the bench are unaware of the different sorts of rights that exist, much less that they would be able to describe them in a show of understanding.

Furthermore, the justices' tone bordered on the wishy-washy in several instances as they posed questions and responses to Underwood, counsel for the state of New York. I would have let her know in no uncertain terms that she was absolutely mistaken on her points of logic, which were embarrassingly failed. They did point out the failures, but I do not believe they did so with sufficient force, as they indulged in the brands of equivocation for which SCOTUS is so notorious.. Perhaps they feel clarity and sufficiency is not important. Regardless, where questions of fundamental rights are concerned, clarity, correctness, and completeness on one's knowledge, deliberations, and responses to flawed argument are absolutely paramount.

Another problem readily apparent is that the arguments made by plaintiff's counsel is based on a reliance on "text and tradition", which is a non-principled basis for justification of the right.  It is perhaps necessary to argue so weakly because the system only recognizes such things, but if this is the case, so much more damning is it of the train wreck that is American jurisprudence.

Rights are non-negotiable and may not be circumscribed in the ways that the Court has so erroneously asserted for many decades. Rights are absolute, but with those rights come the obligations of each man not to trespass upon the equally valid claims of his fellows. The assumption that rights may be regulated and through regulation, effectively attenuated is cancer to all freedom, immediately reducing a man to some degree of servitude, thereby rendering him as no longer properly free.

The correct view on this is as follows. Rights are absolute, PERIOD. So, too, are the obligations to bring no unjust harm to others. Therefore, exercise your rights as you may wish, bearing in mind that you will be held accountable for any unjust results of your choices. Carry your gun where, when, and how you deem fitting for yourself, but if your comportment brings another to unjust harm, be prepared to pay the price. The notion of prior restraint pursuant to the assumption that a right is not absolute and may therefore me circumscribed and thereby effectively circumvented for ostensibly noble reasons is yet another cancer upon free societies. It is a perfect case of ends justifying means, which is a principle that courts routinely reject with much hissing and stamping of feet for right and proper reasons. And yet, they hypocritically accept it in the cases of rights, doubtlessly because it suits the agenda of governmental power to do so. No doubt deciding that this case is one of those instances of "but this is different...", we get treated to the egregiously abusive vagaries of equivocation and the evasion of the most basic truths as embodied in the principles of human freedom and the rights that evolve therefrom. Such behavior is, at best, gross incompetence, but because they presume to wield the authority and men with guns will kill you if you protest too effectively, they get to dictate and we get to kowtow.

I will be glad if they strike down the NY permitting system, but feel inclined to bet money I don't have that they will leave doors wide open for disingenuous circumvention through the language of exceptions, much as Scalia did in Heller, which effectively nullified the decision in great measure.

There appears much left to be desired in this challenge to NY state's phony baloney restrictions on the sovereign rights of free men of that land. The fact that the justices are not quite right about rights and their nature leaves me with threadbare reasons for optimism here. I fully expect them to ruin this opportunity to make a clean, clear, and perfectly non-equivocating statement on the relevant issues by muddying the waters with the language of half-measures that will allow the corrupt governments of NYS to effectively continue as they have, at least in great majority, moving forward.