I understand the appeal of pacifism. Refusing to do violence, as a matter of principle, to resolve your conflicts isn't that out of line. While violence--raw, naked force--is the universal solvent, that doesn't mean that it's the best tool for the job. That said, the reason that pacifism gets the bad reputation is that it takes the general good idea of restraint and irrationally pushes that restraint to the point of being maladaptive to the threat at hand.
In short, pacifism is for prey and it signals to predators great and small that here stands a meal for the taking- and that is exactly what becomes of any unit who so embraces pacifism that it ceases to know when to stop refraining from using force and start using it good and hard to best possible effect.
Empire is a predator. It sees pacifists as fools, fuckwits, and food- as prey. A thing to consume and crap out, not something at all worthy of respect or consideration. If someone or some group refuses to defend itself and its own, so much the better; feast on their flesh, rest easy on their bones, and move on to the next prey.
That's not how this world works. It has not been, is not now, nor shall it ever be how this world works. As the old saying goes, If you want peace, prepare for war.
The same goes for cultural warfare as for physical warfare. Predators will use whatever means work to sucker prey into lower their guard; predators, by their nature, are not interested in fair fights for anything and if they can sucker you into pacifism they'll do it- and then they'll eat you. Dead is dead- how you die is not relevant.
I've spent some time recently renewing my acquaintance with The Godfather and its sequels. The reason I did so was that a recurring theme came to mind, that of loyalty to the family (and Family), with the attendant duty to refrain from behavior that outsiders are not to witness. This behavior serves to undermine the Godfather--the patriarch--as he executes his supreme duty to safeguard and pursue the family's interests, making him seem other than capable and powerful- and thus not to be preyed upon (i.e. disrespected). It is also what drives Michael's sister, Connie, to push his son to supersede him in the third film.
These dynamics are not purely fictional. Change the context, and it becomes the story of a political dynasty navigating the treachery seas of dynastic politics. Change it again, and you get House of Cards. The reason that context merely changes the trappings without changing the behaviors is because of this: the family is the natural unit of Mankind, and all else that is lawful in Mankind's existence is an outgrowth of it.
We are now, globally, observing that this is true. We call this "identity politics", but it is really the reality of Mankind's existence in all of recorded history and most of the current world. The West's deviation is an aberration, and renewed exposure is going to put an end to this heresy--and it is a heresy--soon enough, because if it does not then the West shall cease to exist. The nations currently exploiting the West (with the help of traitors in the states of the West) have no qualms about putting the West to the sword for no other reason than that they are not Westerners and shall not preserve it.
Nations arise as outgrowths of families, through the mechanisms of extended kinship in clans and tribes, and kingdoms emerge when a single father-figure must emerge for the smooth execution of the duty to preserve the nation-family from predators without as well as fools within. (There is such a thing as too much talk at the wrong time.) The issue thereafter is the formalization and ossification of an emergent lawful hierarchy into artifice that does not reflect the shifting circumstances that life imposes; who is king must change when the circumstances shift too severely for the current crown to meet them, something ordinarily done with the simple passage of time and encounters with hostiles taking their toll.
The limit of an authority to respond effectively to predatory threats is the actual boundary condition for any authority, be it the lawful authority of a family (at any scale) or the artifice of a state (similarly, or subset thereof, such as a military). The question of legitimacy turns on this capacity, and people will accept many hardships and restrictions on individual agency so long as their father-figure is seen to effectively execute the duties put to him. It is no accident that political thought equates the people to children, for without the wisdom of the father too many too often are little more than children- and this very well-known phenomenon is proof of a fundamental quality of Mankind's nature, one that cannot be changed.
The answer to the matter of Empire is to acknowledge this as Natural Law, and to abandon everything that denies it in favor of reforming one's communities and societies into lawful reflections of this fact. Patriarchy is Natural Law.
I have reason to believe that all of life is a solved problem.
The reason I say so is that all of the issues Mankind faces today are problems faced before, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. The causes are the same, the phenomena through which these problems arise and proceed are the same, and therefore so are the solutions. We already know what to do to solve the problem. This is the definition of a solved problem.
So we are dealing with a lack of will coupled with a lack of clarity caused by deliberate deception. Those pushing the problem (for whatever reasons) are lying to the rest of us for their own benefit, which makes what they are doing fraud and thus inherently predatory. The problems are solved; all that needs be done is to apply the solution.
Ultimately, what this means is simple: to declare clearly what the problem is, who is responsible for it, and execute them all for their predatory behavior. Zombies, et. al., are not real: corpses cannot (and therefore do not) reoffend, so killing those who do you or yours harm is not wrong, not a crime, and not even offensive. It is laudable, necessary, and expected of anyone seeking to get and remain free from Empire.
Apply the solutions. Empire cannot withstand Natural Law, which is what that means. Empire must fall.
The thing that distinguishes the Law of Nature from the Law of Man is that the latter does not enforce itself. Even children grasp this fact, summarized so brilliantly in this playground retort: "Make me."
Government is about control. You can proclaim all the rules you want, but if you cannot compel compliance then your words are senseless blather and what respect you have soon drains away. When speaking of self-government, starting with the individual, we term this "discipline" and rightly regard a lack of it as a mark of poor character. Individuals do what they do not want to secure benefits or necessities they want or need. As it is for individuals, so it is for groups of any size.
The difference is that enforcement externalizes in groups. The rule-maker relies on enforcers to compel compliance. This is true when the rule is reasonable, right, and proper as when it is not; the reason it is so is because the power to compel compliance means removing the power to act from those one seeks compliance from.
This is why competent rule creation rests upon shaping the ability of those targeted to comply, instead of relying upon argument of any kind; if the capacity to disobey is crippled, depreciated, or eliminated then you need not rely on enforcers as often or as severely to gain compliance. Use technical means over other options whenever you can, because their opinion of the rules is irrelevant is they lack the means to defy it.
Go back to that retort: "Make me". That's what has to be kept in mind when you go about making rules; if you can't make them comply, then your rule will be defied. It is the same if the defiance is reasonable or not, because you lack the means to enforce your will. Control over others necessarily requires possessing the means to destroy what they value most, for otherwise you have nothing to negotiate with.
Make no mistake; enforcement is negotiation. You're using violence (actual or the threat thereof) to say "Compliance is your better option." If you are unable to do this, then your rules--for all intents and purposes--do not exist. Being unwilling is the same as being unable, with the sole difference being the speed of remedy.
This is the practical part of power being in the ability to act, and never in deliberation or judgement. There are plenty of people deliberating on anything and everything; they lack the ability to act, so their opinions can be (and often are) ignored as they can't act on them. Plenty of people make judgments, but also cannot act on them, and are just as impotent so they too get ignored. The open hand and the closed fist matter far more than tomes of law or the councils of the wise, as every man whose dealt with the unruly and predatory knows to his cost.
And it is because human predators exist that the rules must be enforced--and seen to be enforced; invisible enforcement is no enforcement--for them to have their desired effect. The unruly can be cowed; predators must be exterminated without mercy or hesitation, as they brook no other limit to their predation, and they regard non-resistance as weakness (and weakness as consent to their predations).
Fortunately, this is a solved problem. The issue now is the unwillingness to apply the solution.
I find it interesting that people still think that a spoken or written proclamation is identical to forcing compliance with one's will. If there is a fatal flaw in any system of control, it is in thinking that merely changing what those rules or regulations or proclamations are will itself be sufficient to remedy undesired results.
It's not. It never has. It never will. The real power is in enforcement--in action--and not in deliberation or judgement. This belief is naive and not to be found in the world's elites, or in their counterparts in the underworld. Just as the Rule of Law is not a suicide pact, neither is it (when it works) denying reality; its efficacy relies on possession of might superior to all that challenge it, same as any other governing regime.
John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!
The reason that the dividing line is between speech and action is because speech is nothing until you act on it. Words are meaningless without deeds, and don't lie and say otherwise because you know that's true. You can talk all the shit you want. You can pontificate on all the principles you like. You can stand forth and proclaim the Good News until the day you die. If no action comes of those words, then they were never spoken at all.
So let the black-robed priests of the Law Cult waive their papers and declare Black is White. They are voices without flesh, and rely on others to give their words substance. Let the deliberators consider this, that, the other thing, and stuff. Even their possession of the purse no longer holds the power it once did, and otherwise they too are without substance. Only he who acts has power; everyone else merely appropriates that power by fooling the actor otherwise. The mindful, aware actor is the most powerful man alive- and Empire fears him and him alone.
As I write this, President Trump (affectionately, "The God-Emperor") issued Executive Orders implementing a series of restrictions upon the travel of foreigners into the United States. The hoaxing media focuses on the restriction on visa from five Muslim countries, and the ACLU's crowing on obtaining an emergency stay on it (which I will talk about below), omits details inconvenient to their narrative.
Yep, that's right: this is the God-Emperor repurposing Obama's own policies--intended to foster the current Muslim invasion of the West on behalf of Empire--towards the end of protecting and reinforcing the sovereignty of the United States of America, and through it to that of the several States in this federal republic. As a political act, this is an act of civic patriotism and not nationalism per se; it will, in time, build the foundation for protecting the American nation once more. In short, this is necessary, but not sufficient work to put down Empire.
Every nation, if it is to survive and thrive must establish its boundaries and defend them against all comers. As individuals must do, so must the nations. Instead of homesteads, nations found countries, but the principles are the same and so is their execution. Therefore, the God-Emperor (acting as a metaphorical patriarch) has the duty (and therefore the right) to determine who can or cannot come into the country- and this fact is recognized in the U.S. Code:
Which means that the ACLU's crowing about that stay order means precisely jack and shit on two levels. Not only is the order illegal (as that quote shows, the POTUS has the power), but the courts have no enforcement power of their own and instead rely on the Executive to comply; the God-Emperor is within his rights to refuse, and only Congress (via their power over the purse) has any real ability to do anything about it- and they won't right now.
The freakout reaction is telling as to how deep the corruption of Empire is in the West, as the Thralls in the hoaxing media across the West got in on the act. What this means is very simple: the education and media establishments have flat-out lied not only to the American nation (and those of other nations holding citizenship), but to all the nations that they control via the governments and media institutions that they hold.
The freakouts are denying the right to self-defense by a country by their actions.
Aliens and foreigners do not have a right to be anywhere that they do not belong, and that especially includes countries belonging to other nations. We call the attempt to do so, rightly, "invasion" and the successful attempt "conquest"- and immigration always means invasion, as our past shows with vivid detail.
The Muslim invasion of Europe, and now into North America, Australia, and New Zealand--aided and abetted by the Thralls in government and the media betraying their own nations to serve Empire--is a real threat that must be dealt with if Empire is to fall. We must have our borders, our fences, our walls--literal and otherwise--for our own safety and prosperity. Insisting otherwise is abuse, recognized for individuals but not for nations, and that is Empire's tell: like any predator, it prefers easy prey, and gaslighting prey into not defending itself is to be expected.
I will not tolerate this. Build the wall, God-Emperor. Ban the predators seeking to come into our land, and get rid of all those already here- no exceptions, and ensure that they are permanently removed. The road is long, but the will is here- Empire will fall.
As I write this, Donald Trump just became the 45th President of the United States. I'd like to mock the freakout reactions of people whose egos are still bleeding profusing over this fact, but that's not appropriate because those freakouts are now going beyond merely destroying cars and trucks in the street while rioting (and attacking the police attempting to contain and disperse them) and moving to assaulting people with specific intent to main, cripple, or kill the target.
Two incidents in particular got my attention. The first was Richard Spenser getting sucker-punched by an Antifa zealot who, thanks to those glorious bastards at /pol/, got outed as a literal shit-eating cuckold. The second was the man who came to attend Milo Yiannopoulos's event at the University of Washington at Seattle, and his shooting by an Antifa protestor. The reason these two incidents got my attention is that this showed that the SJWs aren't merely on the losing side of an election contest, but that they're handling it worse than petulant toddlers.
While I am grateful that some of these people are being arrested, so far I have yet to see criminal charges being filed. As many of these riots happen in places where SJWs and their fellow travelers are already in government, and it is known that local police forces--however much they may dislike it--won't risk their jobs or pensions if said SJWs won't let them properly enforce criminal statues, it's not surprising that these incidents only occur where the rabbit warren remains intact.
These are the notable incidents. There are others, such as those assaulted--even injured--the night before at the Deploraball. Property stolen (however minor), people assaulted, people battered, property damaged or destroyed- all of this, coupled with the demonstrated incapacity of local governments to either arrest or prosecute offenders contributes to the mood of chaos that undermines civil order. This is not a good thing. This is not desirable.
Instead, what it means is that both continuation and escalation--remember, someone got shot--are on the table, and both of these are coming from the "love and tolerance" liars and hypocrites on the Left. By their deeds, they reveal that their "love" and "tolerance" is as false as everything they claim to believe but never practice when put to it- it's just more fraudulent virtue-signalling, meant to garner and wield power at the Moral Level, where culture matters most. Yet, under the justification of "NAZI!" they claim it proper to do violence to those who are not them.
This won't end well for them.
First, because it will not work on the ostensible target (President Trump and his Administration), and increasingly so to his supporters. Next, because if they won't disavow their violent allies more and more of the rest of us will accept that silence as agreement and react to them accordingly out of rational self-defense. Finally, if the government--local, state, and Federal--doesn't start doing their job and leave it to the people themselves the violence will escalate until it is past the point of no return and civil war is upon us once more.
The Left, quite frankly, needs to learn how to lose gracefully. It's not like they don't know what the long game is--the "March Through the Institutions" shows that--but rather that they keep pulling Starscream-like own-goals. This is "Megatron has gone to the bathroom. I AM NOW THE LEADER OF THE DECEPTICONS!" levels of stupid, and its making otherwise disinterested people take a second look and see how right Trump is to not give them an inch.
I sympathize with people such as the U.K.'s Sargon of Akkad, and his distaste for identity politics and extreme politics in favor of reasoned dialog and dialectical ends meant to resolve contradictions in positions so that all parties concerned get their needs met and concerns heeded. I think that this won't happen, and I have a long childhood of painful experience informing me, that it won't happen because the same SJWs now responsible for this violence DO NOT WANT reasoned dialog. They want power, dominance, and control- total and absolute. How they get it does not matter, and this desire's become an obsession that's deranged and unhinged their subculture utterly. Sanity has abandoned them, and I cannot help but feel pity for them accordingly. I'd rather talk honestly than the alternative, but better an honest war than a fraudulent peace.
So, I'm about done with this post. I can't say anything more at this time that I find useful or relevant, so I'm closing it out with a Stefan Molyneux video and a pity Tweet pic.
