That Hoary Old Colloquial Definition Of Insanity

     I haven’t been writing nearly as much as previously for Liberty’s Torch these past few weeks. The reason can be found in the title of this piece. In essence, I feel that I’ve been repeating myself, and that to go on doing so would be pointless. Have I been saying things most other commentators are unwilling to say? Perhaps. But that doesn’t matter if the audience is lacking, or unwilling to listen.

     The Republic has fallen. Our “public institutions” are corrupt from top to bottom. The officeholders in whom we’ve reposed our hopes are cowards, almost without exception. “The law” is a farce used to subjugate honest, decent Americans while thugs, grifters, the political class, and the connected get away with anything, up to and including murder. (Cf. Sam Francis, “anarcho-tyranny.”) Those we have trusted to preserve America as it was founded have abdicated the responsibility.

     Do you really expect the Supreme Court to invalidate the electoral college votes of several states – on any grounds? I suppose it’s possible, but how likely is it? Supreme Court Justices have lives, homes, and loved ones just like you and me. Were they to take decisive action, the Left would target them personally. Why do we expect them not to be deterred by fear of the consequences?

     The Left is winning because its leaders know that violence trumps speech – and that we in the Right are unwilling to counter its violence with still greater violence. As in Weimar Germany, a violent minority is being permitted free rein to terrorize the nation into submission.

     Yet there are still persons who claim that the pressing need is to speak out, nothing more than that. Willful blindness knows no more blatant manifestation.

---

     I am indebted to Co-Conspirator Colonel Bunny for linking to this piece. While Gregory Hood’s essay is somewhat discursive, he says several things that must be said. However, he fails to recognize the implications of his own arguments. Here’s what I mean:

     We need only a small number of people who can speak out without being socially and financially ruined....The movement in-fighting will fade, because it is easier to unite in opposition and there will be no more tactical debates about whether to defend Donald Trump.

     Who would seriously claim that persons in the Right have not been “speaking out” up to now? The volume of our voices has been stupendous. What has it achieved? Why expect that it would achieve anything more once we’re “in opposition?”

     Violence trumps speech. The Left has embraced violence. If our “opposition” remains resolved to proceed solely with “speech,” the Left will roll roughshod over us. As we mathematical types like to say, quod erat demonstrandum.

     As I commented to Hood’s essay:

     “Social and financial” ruination are only the beginning. Just about everyone is vulnerable physically: in his business, his home, his loved ones, and his person. The Left, energized by the lack of a forcible response to its assaults and vandalisms of commercial properties, will not refrain from assaulting private citizens and their personal properties. Only a couple of days ago, a Michigan Trump supporter's house was literally bombed. Police response? None. They're afraid of being targeted too.

     If we are to be free, we must go to war -- war to the knife -- and it will be terrible. The alternative is enslavement.

     Having said that puts me in a category I hate to occupy: one who exhorts others to do what he cannot do himself.

---

     Because of the above, I haven’t been writing much, and what I’ve written has almost completely avoided the stolen election and what’s likely to follow. I am personally incapable of doing anything materially constructive. To sit here and blather endlessly about what others should do is ludicrous. At this point, any American with an IQ above room temperature knows the battle line has been drawn, and on which side of it he stands. My prattling on about it will add nothing to the affair.

     That having been said, I’ll say it one last time: You want the Republic back? You want the freedom your forebears enjoyed? You can’t have it unless you’re willing to go to war:

• Lock, load, and march on your state capital;
• Remove every officeholder from his position – forcibly, not by “voting him out;”
• Decorate lampposts with the ones who won’t go quietly;
• Reload your magazines and do the same to Washington, D.C.

     It would have to be a clean sweep, Democrats and Republicans alike. None of them can be trusted. They are all beneficiaries of an Establishmentarian system that protects and rewards those who “go along to get along.” The demonstrations have been innumerable.

     Then the really hard work would begin. But that’s a subject for another time.

---

     One final observation before I close. Here’s the latest on the Supreme Court cases about the election:

     The Democrat leaders who promoted massive mail-in ballots and due dates up to three days after the election responded to Justice Alito per Law and Crime:

     As Joe Hoft puts it, “Basically what the brilliant minds from the left claimed is that – no one has ever stopped us before so don’t be the first.” And I must tell you, Gentle Reader: That argument has a fair chance of prevailing. In law as nowhere else, precedent has stunning, often overwhelming power. As Alan Dershowitz put it semi-comically in his book The Best Defense:

     ...there are no Nobel Prizes in law, because law is the only profession in which you lose points for originality and gain points for demonstrating that somebody else thought of your idea first. Lawyers are prone to look to the “authorities”—to past lawyers and judges—for their ideas. Creativity in the law consists largely of analyzing past cases so as to get around a barrier or move the law incrementally. Rarely do lawyers indulge in bold leaps of faith, in grand conceptual breakthroughs. (I recall my high school Talmud teacher once putting me down with the following “Catch-22” response for claiming that an idea I had was original: “If what you’re saying is such a good idea, then obviously the old rabbis, who were much smarter than you, must have thought of it first. And if the old rabbis, who were much smarter than you, didn’t think of it first, then it can’t be such a good idea.”)

     Have a nice day.