Lies of Omission

Lies of Omission
An Amazing Documentary

Andrea Shea King

Media Appearance

Saturday, October 31, 2015

A Functional Resistance

There is a post at Western Rifle Shooters Assn. called the Big Delusion that asks the question: What is to be done after the collapse? This is a question that has long vexed those in the liberty/patriot community. We know how to survive. We know how to fight. We know how to make it rough on those who would enslave us. But, do we know how to win? Are we even concerned about winning?


There are those focused solely on survival, but I have always wondered what was the point of survival if one emerges from the bunker with no allies and no one left to understand the purpose of one's survival. To survive only to exist in a state of slavery to a totalitarian regime, is survival, but is it worth it? For me, the answer has always been no. I would rather go out in the first wave if liberty is not to be found at the end.


The fact is, those who are either focused on liberty or see themselves as a patriot to the Constitution, have no plan to reestablish the principles of liberty in the post-collapse America. Probably the best idea out there is to establish redoubts, or zones of liberty mutually defended during the collapse that at least for themselves ensures liberty in small enclaves. But, then what?


These redoubts exist as small, defensible zones of liberty for those who have defended them and while the inhabitants remain within these zones, they will enjoy a degree of liberty unknown in the rest of the altered US, but as such they will become the focus of those who come to power in the post-collapse America. To the new masters, these liberty-minded nuts must be stomped out wherever they exist as they will always be a threat to their power. So, another round of survival is needed, but this time against an empowered and unapologetic foe.


To me, there has always been a need for a strong voice to emanate from those redoubts in the congealing stage of the new power base that threatens to emerge. To allow that reorganization to take place in the absence of a strident voice for the cause of liberty is to accept an endless state of survival and conflict. The problem is, one must defend the redoubt and in doing so is unable to exert influence beyond it.


The issue is one of mindset. A defensive mindset is needed to survive the bad times, but being unable to toggle to an offensive mindset is to ensure a dwindling resistance with ever fewer supplies and ever fewer allies. That is not a winning strategy. So knowing when to switch mindsets is critical. Will we know when and will we be able to launch an offensive at the crucial moment?


The Constitution has always relied on people of integrity. Since integrity does not exist in government today, the Constitution does not exist. We live under some sort of Anti-American America. There is a self-loathing that has been created among the populace that has resulted in a desire to self-destruct. Illegal immigration is a method of self-destruction. Importing Islamic Jihadists is another form. A government that does not respect or even recognize the very document that gives it power is another form of self-destruction. A nation so dedicated to its own annihilation cannot long be deterred.


The US is in debt, it is politically and morally bankrupt. It is considering all manner of actions against its citizens and their cash in order to reform itself into a dictatorship (perhaps this has already taken place, though it seeks more recognition of this fact). A few more corrupt elections and it will be able to step out from under the veil of deceit and move openly and deliberately as a dictatorship.


I would like to say there would be initial resistance to this open acknowledgement of what it has become, but I have seen no sign that such resistance will arise from the cowed and timid population of the US. The one thing I do know is that the US is weak, because it does not have the support of the people and it knows it. Half of the population want to devolve into some sort of socialist paradise, destroy the military and live in harmony with nature. The other half want to watch TV until they die. There is no stomach for a fight for liberty.


Now, when we think of the situation we are in, we must recognize that other nations are taking note and also seek that post-collapse turmoil that would provide them with their opportunity to finally conquer the West. We don't even know against whom we should rebel. Would it be against the dictatorship? The Russians? The ISIS Caliphate? A rising leftist movement, the mirror image of the patriot movement?


The point is, without being able to assemble ourselves into a counter-movement capable of rising in that moment as a force to be accommodated or annihilated, liberty does not stand a chance. Without liberty, Christianity does not stand a chance. Without liberty our posterity does not stand a chance. The closer we come to the collapse, the more we will need to overcome our own internal divisions and coalesce as a functional resistance.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

The Irrational Mr. Roberts

Bill Roberts has submitted another address to militias from his point of view over at Western Rifle Shooters Assn. entitled Current Militia Movement Ver. 2.0. Go there and read and you will see that my refutation derives from his actual text, not made up paraphrasing on my own.


To begin with, I do not agree with Mr. Roberts' assertions, however I do applaud his willingness to engage in the discourse. As he has refrained from the condescension he feels for militias, or anyone who would act to retain their liberty, I, likewise, will refrain, as much as possible, from belittling his point of view.


Roberts gives the etymology of "militia" as miles meaning soldier and itia as the state, or soldier of the state. Government forces.


He goes on to describe the First Continental Congress as taking place on September of 1774, sort of brushing off the fact that, by his reasoning, the governors and/or representatives of the colonies attending the First Continental Congress, along with the militias they controlled, were the first traitors to British rule.


Roberts' take is and has been since the beginning of his dispatches to the militias that they have no business forming into groups or making preparations to resist government aggression on the grounds that they operate under no governmental authority, without recognizing the irony of his legitimizing the First Continental Congress.


It was a more amenable political structure at that time, there were governors of the colonies who did not agree with the Crown. There were militias available to those governors for mutual protection that were closely associated with those colonies and consisted somewhat of citizens of those colonies, but they were, as Roberts so eloquently points out, illegally operating as militias since they were not sanctioned by the British government in that role.


I am the first to agree that one epoch in history cannot be on a level with another. There is no way to compare exactly what the militia movement and the patriot/liberty community of today would equate to in the 18th Century, but it is easy to know the principles upon which the forefathers of this nation decided that their condition was intolerable.


Yes, their political organizations were more solidly established against a foreign nation, with a foreign army as an extension of that political reality. It was much easier to make the distinction between friend and foe, but the issues were largely the same, the violations similar to what we endure from our own government. It is not hard to imagine a person raised under British rule to feel that they were being attacked by their own government for little else than protesting against taxes.


I do not want to go too far into Roberts' instructive dissertation, because I find the very basis for it rationally flawed. Just as it would be useless to quote our forefathers to him about the dangers of a standing army, it is useless for him to describe exactly why the people are not allowed to arm themselves and prepare for the aggression of our government forces against its citizens.


What Roberts has missed is the proper discourse, which must include: What level of oppression is to be tolerated before armed resistance is acceptable to government authority? (there would never be that point, would there?)


There are no laws that allow us to engage in resistance at a certain point of suffering, so using the Constitution as legitimacy for oppression is ridiculous. Using the Constitution to prove that we have no right to oppose those who have rejected it is likewise irrational.


I do agree with Roberts on one issue: there are a lot of societies who suffer under much more aggressive and complete oppression than the citizens of the United States. To expect us to suffer that much and more in order receive his (and others of his ilk) blessing for resistance is very telling indeed. We are jealous of our liberty, entitled to our rights and fully within the blessings of our founders to resist the oppression we now feel.


That sort of statement is laughable to Roberts, a person standing on the other side of the line, dispensing oppression, enforcing tyranny. I would expect no less.


About Me

My photo
I am a published and produced writer, a novelist, a freelance writer, a playwright and blogger.